"Were Spartans homosexual?" Topic

"Seriously, who'd want to boink some guy who never bathed and wore the same ratty clothes until they fell apart."

(Waiting for the bug to cross post THAT line into the gamer funk thread….)

No
Never
Ack!

Mike B

I knew a guy who used to buy dirty socks and shorts on Ebay. Perhaps he would appreciate such filth?

While they don't differ from us in every way it's safest to assume in any given respect the ancients were not like us unless it can be conclusively demonstrated they were.

I think the "onus" is on those who insist on great differences. Show the differences. Human nature being demonstrably constant through time and in differing cultures, it is "safest" to assume that our virtues are the same, unless differences can be "conclusively demonstrated."

If we have the Greco-Roman philosophers surviving and dominating today, isn't that evidence that they were hardly as esoteric as rocket scientists to the masses? Plato, et al, were radical in their extremist political views, not their virtues.

And just because Romans had different naming protocols doesn't indicate that they viewed morality differently: honor, integrity, self sacrifice, duty, loyalty: these are what defined a man's worthiness. If his sexual mores differed from another's, these were viewed as vices only if they predominated and resulted in the vitiating of those social virtues.

"Human nature being demonstrably constant"

I think you will have to define ‘human nature' in an objectively meaningful way to even begin to make this a sensible statement. Then of course you will have to demonstrate it's constancy in time and place.

"it is "safest" to assume that our virtues are the same"

Even ‘virtue' does not have a constant meaning between cultures and over time. Our notion of virtue is wrapped up with a host of ideas such as individuality and free will which the Roman idea of virtue did not have. Even talking about Roman ‘virtus' as though it meant the same as English ‘virtue' leads to a host of misconceptions.

"If we have the Greco-Roman philosophers surviving and dominating today"

They do not dominate except perhaps in higher academic circles, there main influence in the general population is through Christianity and on to Romanticism, which is the dominant world view in the West.

"And just because Romans had different naming protocols doesn't indicate that they viewed morality differently"

Along with other points it shows they viewed marriage differently. How can the word ‘marriage' mean the same thing when on the one hand it is a partnership between near equals (with women having an edge in child custody because of certain cultural assumptions) and on the other it is analogous to a man using a field to plant a crop which is then his entirely. These two models are clearly different in more ways than they are similar.

I think suggesting the Roman View of mariage was similar to 'ours' is a bit unwise, when you consider that for a wife to to seem to be enjoying the sex-act was enough to send her husband screaming from the room.

Pat

The idea of marriage as having the purpose of personal fulfillment through a stable relationship of ‘love' with a member of the opposite sex, even if you could explain such a bizarre notion to an ancient Greek or Roman would strike him as weird and perverse. The common modern secular idea of marriage is part of a romantic value system where emotional satisfaction is the ultimate goal. Until recently this was the ordinary notion of sexual attraction as well and it was considered depraved to engage in sexual activity simply for pleasure.

By contrast the ancient Romans and Greeks considered fulfillment to be largely social. Marriage was part of a man's social duty, his arete, what Mazlow would call self-actualization which the ancients assumed would not only be best for the individual but also the society in which he lived. Taking pleasure in sex was neither here nor there nor was having relations other than marriage unless they disrupted society or interfered with arete. The view of what exactly was arete and what interfered with it changed over time and place. Aristotle and Plato associated arete with knowledge, in Plato's case he meant something closer to contemplation. The Romans would have identified the idea with something closer to valor and duty.

So to a Roman marriage was something to help him fill his duty to his ancestors and society, a happy, harmonious and affectionate marriage was a bonus, not the point.

By contrast the ancient Romans and Greeks considered fulfillment to be largely social.

Yes. And you keep bringing up differing views on what marriage meant, and rights of women and children and husbands. The social "duty" to marry and beget is all that I was addressing. It was not to be set aside in favor of some same-sex love relationship. The fact that marriage was not tied to love per se has nothing to do with it as a social duty. Today, there IS an unspoken attitude that adults have a duty to society to continue the race, and do their part to see that the rising generation is fit to take over adult responsibilities. In that sense, the concern that parents "suck" at their "job" is legitimate; and can be compared to a Greco-Roman detest for the homosexual who refuses to marry and beget children. Today, it is arguable which is the greater problem: people refusing to marry to begin with, or doing a hack job on raising their kids. Either condition would be condemned by the ancients. And I don't think that is alien thinking at all, i.e. the virtues being considered make sense to them and to us.

The attitude you describe has some points in common with the ancient view, though in their case it would be purely the man's responsibility and charge, which makes it quite different in many ways.

I'd make two observations; you are focusing on points of similarity and disregarding differences apparently because you see the similar points as essential and the differences as less consequential, to sustain this argument you will have to establish this as objectively the case.

Also your assertion that today people are motivated to marriage by an unspoken duty is not established. I'd have to say in my experience this is a minority view. Many more people see children as part of the promise of emotional fulfillment which is why they raise them the way they do. Look to what people actually do when they have choices. The insanity of the way children are typically raised in the West is largely because parents treat them as pets, that is, creatures the primary function of which is to give and receive affection rather than as offspring where the primary consideration is to best prepare them for their own lives. Children are indulged to buy their love the way you feed a lapdog tidbits rather than trained as you would a working dog.

The odd thing is, lapdogs are notoriously temperamental, whereas the devotion of working dogs is legendary.

While trying not to drag this thread off topic.

Children until modern times, weren't bought up 'to best prepare them for their own lives', but were more often bought up to look after there parents in old age, specially in peasant societies.

The attitude you describe has some points in common with the ancient view, though in their case it would be purely the man's responsibility and charge, which makes it quite different in many ways.

So men have been "forced" by women to consider them? That's (perhaps) only a good thing, and would raise some ancient eyebrows, but that's about all. Today men and women share an equal responsibility. Women COUNT as much as men (some women would say they count for more than men, but no matter).

And the notion that the father / husband / man, is the ONE responsible to protect and provide for his family, is still the predominant social attitude in the West (so I believe, hope, at any rate): the ancients would agree completely with that moral duty of the men.

So again, in the main, our views on marriage, and the responsibility of husbands, is the same: Greco-Roman in origin. Other cultures have modified it, resulting in the confusion and moral shift in ultimate responsibility today, but this is all very recently perceivable stuff. The world I was born into had begun to accept the idea that mothers should be working too: this change was less than ten years old (thanks to WW2). It is accurate to say, that before the second half of the 20th century, family life in the high 90th percentile, was relatively unaltered from that in the West going back right through the middle ages: a father who worked to provide for and protect his family, a mother who nurtured and stayed close to the hearth (but had no real rights as an equal to her husband), children who could be treated as the father's property in effect. But for centuries the notions of love between spouses had been growing to be expected. However, even today, "dynasties" of the filthy rich and powerful STILL arrange marriages for the children to augment the family's strength, regardless of the feelings of the children (look at JFK and Jackie, an arranged marriage if there ever was one).

None of this is germane to understanding "virtue" as it pertained to marriage: and the raw stuff of that virtue is and was: man and woman marrying, having children, and training them to take over society when they are grown. Nothing about that has changed on iotta.

And the original post that started this thread is talking about MEN only; the duty of Spartan MEN, which was to marry and have children, and to raise the boys to do likewise. As long as homosexuals did their duty, nobody complained.

The odd thing is, lapdogs are notoriously temperamental, whereas the devotion of working dogs is legendary.

If the new age family is adults raising "pets", then our civilization is doomed.

What precisely caused the Greco-Roman world to collapse is arguable. But something vitiated the nuclear family on a wide scale, and that ruined any chances for society to "pass the baton" to enough responsible adults, who knew what their duty was, and therefore civilization as it was known, collapsed, and the barbarians filled the void with virtuous living standards, i.e. the ability to raise children and not "pets".

For pre-industrial society it would perhaps be more accurate to say they were brought into the world to add to the family labor pool, an addition which increased the workforce and therefore viability of the family. Most people didn't live to an incapable old age and would be cared for in any case, I don't know of a pre-industrial agricultural society which didn't have social customs which included charity to the aged. Children to care for you in your old age is something which only became necessary when the rise of industry and industrial cities fragmented the social bonds of the older agricultural society.

In any case I was talking about now and the difference between what we hold as ideal (treating children as offspring) and what many, if not most Westerners do (treat them as pets).

"If the new age family is adults raising "pets","

It's not the new age, it's Romanticism, it's been around for a while but only began to work it's way into the majority view in the last century or so. Not to worry it's being displaced by pure hedonism or in many cases sybaritism and so people aren't even having those beastly, selfish smelly, annoying and expensive things called children at all.

I think of it as evolution.

There was a programme broadcast on the BBC featuring some very attractive young female presenter (whose name now escapes me) which made the case that the seperation of the young males from the general population as part of their military training did indeed cause a rise in the rate of homosexuality in Sparta to such an extent that there was a drop in the birth rate and hence led to a decline in the power of the state and drastic measures such as allowing slaves to serve in the military to "earn" their freedom.

Anyone remember more about it?

But no one can possibly prove this speculation based on evidence that we actually have (which is very little) -- not even Paul Cartledge! But presumably the presenter's charm might outweigh the lack of evidence for the argument….

Also the Lacedaemonian politeia was defined by the ability to contribute to the syssitia and hence the progressive impoverishment of a number of full Spartiates would be a better explanation (one that Aristotle resorted to at any rate) for the decline. Note however is no indication that the total population of the Lacedaemonian state, of which the Spartiates were only a small part, declined at all in this period…

Oh, back on topic, at best Lacedaemonians were *bisexual* -- the idea of homosexuality carries with it some rather modern notions about exclusive choice that we should not expect to be fully applicable in this case.

The idea that Pederasty reduced the Spartan Birthrate is untestable.

However the law that made it _virtually_ impossible to be a Spartan Equal unless both your parents were Spartan combined with losses in war and the segragation of males from Females for the bulk of the time has always struck me as a better reason for the fall. By the time (I CANNOT REMEMBER HIS NAME BUT I KNOW IT) attempted to reform the system and re-distribute the Citizenry it was too late.

Pat

If I recall correctly the pederasty that Sane Max mentioned was known as the "erastis / erasmus(?)" relationship. I remember being shown a vase at 'varsity which was thought to depict an 'erastis' (mature lover) presenting a hare or rabbit as a gift to the 'erasmus' or 'pre-pubescent lover.' I'm not sure if I've got the spelling right there for erastis, and erasmus may just be plain wrong. It was a long time ago…

Anyway, whatever it was called the relationship was all fine and dandy until the young chap found himself with a beard, and then it had to be terminated.

It served a useful social purpose, with the older man looking out for the younger one, inspiring him, and educating him in many ways, not just those of the flesh.

Anyway, generally speaking, women were for babies while boys were for fun, we were told.

I can't remember where the vase was from, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Sparta.

Cheers,
Aaron

The excellent book FISHCAKES & COURTESANS deals with greek pederasty, in addition to a lot of other interesting stuff… but its all about classical athens

It's a good book – though wasn't it 'Courtesans and Fishcakes'

Pat

Don't think so, try googling it. Was written by a young (and gay) academic from Warwick Uni. Read a library copy though, some years ago.