Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt.

My sole point was that rumours are not a sound basis for an historical discussion. Also, I thought your allegation in the OP that "[v]ery often homosexuality is seen as a quite recent phenomenon, that the ancients would be absolutely baffled or even disgusted by" was ridiculous, seeing as how even primary school children know that the Greeks and Romans practiced homosexuality quite regularly..

The rumours were based on the fact that homosexuality in Ancient Rome was common. And the discussion was on Ancient Egypt, i simply tried to use other parts of the ancient world as context. So i am not founding my historical discussion on rumours. And my allegation of homosexuality being seen as a recent phenomenon is not nearly as ridiculous as you imagine. This is the paradox of human history and society. Every generation sees the past as something more pure, more perfect than their current generation. Even if it is well known that homosexuality was common in Greece and Rome, we still have people today (christian conservatives for instance) who see homosexuality as a result of the good old values of the past being lost or abandoned. Even in Ancient Rome more than 1500 years ago as you mention allegations of homosexuality were used to slander or attack prominent officials. How else would that be possible, unless we imagine that the Romans like some christian conservatives also saw their past as something more pure or more innocent than the generation in which they lived?

I refrained from specifically discussing Egypt because I do not personally know much about the subject, but since you yourself mentioned homosexuality in Rome, specifically in regards to Julius Caesar and Octavian, you made a discussion of such matters fair game. It would be rather like starting a discussion on German actions in WWI, mentioning the Russian Front, then complaing when others brought it up because you wanted to discuss only the Western Front. If you don't wish to discuss a topic, don't discuss it. Don't talk crap when other people also talk about a subject you yourself mentioned in your OP! .

I have no objection to questions being raised about homosexuality in Ancient Rome or any of the historic cultures i mentioned in the OP. But you seem to be missing the point. As you yourself admit every school child knows homosexuality was common in Ancient Rome, I simply used two famous names from Ancient Rome to point that out. It does not matter if the rumours concerning the expoitative relationship between Julius and his nephew Octavius were based on the truth; the point is homosexuality in Ancient Rome was a common thing, which you cooly point out, even if only in an attempt to show my idea as ridiculous.


Considering the fact that you started the pissing contest with your comment "And my you sound like a defender of Caesar's manhood. What is so unlikely about a Roman being gay--are you serious?" you don't really have the right to complain when I ask you to be a little more respectful in your demeanour. I certainly said nothing to disrespect you prior. And I also posted something very meaningful to the topic, as I already stated above. If you don't want to discuss homosexuality in Rome, maybe you shouldn't bloody mention it in your OP, then repeatedly through the thread. If you only wish to discuss homosexuality in Egypt, with no discussion of surrounding or contemporary cultures, then by all means, don't discuss the surrounding or contemporary cultures. But if you mention them, then others in your threads must be free to discuss them.

Also, you've (unfortunately) proven my original opinion of you correct by acting like a dick when I attempted to laugh off your disrespectful behaviour. In case you didn't notice, I used the 'mischief' :)mischief:) smilie specifically to make light of your previous, dickish behaviour, in the hope that you would recognise a mild reprove. Your response is a return to dickishness. You should note that people on these boards are far less likely to discuss things with you seriously if you behave like a tool on the boards.

I've given you a chance to respond reasonably, but if you continue to not do so and attempt to elevate the pissing contest you yourself began, I'll kindly bow out of wasting my time discussing things with. As, I warn you, will the majority of respondents in the history forum. You'll note that LightSpectra, and NovaKart, whom you seem interested in speaking with, have not returned since you began acting this way, and that Plotinus himself has backed me up in pointing out that the discussion of topics you yourself mentioned in the OP is perfectly legitimate. Feel free to either discuss them or not, but don't behave foolishly in doing so. I admit my use of the 'rolleyes' :)rolleyes:) smilie in my original post may have been misconstrued as sarcastic - I was using it in response to your failure to provide any sort of source for your claims, which you have now partially remedied - but that in no way excuses your subsequent behaviour.

Well am not sure if reference to male genitilia is warranted, here (even if the discussion is homosexuality).But nonetheless i will admit humbly that I may have to appreciate that vigorous disagreement is not always a challenge to mortal combat or even a challenge to a vulgar wrestling match. And out of respect i will refrain from making any explicit freudian connection between you having so much dick on your mind and at the same time being so defensive about Julius Caesar's heterosexuality:mischief:.
 
Let's calm down people. I didn't stay away from this thread because of anyone's behavior, I just didn't have much more to say on the matter. BTW I'm male but I can see the confusion because of my previous avatar.

Julius Caesar wasn't gay but he might have been bi or he might not have. Sure there's not much evidence for it, only rumors but I don't think anyone was saying he was for sure bi. From what I've heard the Romans didn't have any problem with homosexuality exactly but with a free adult Roman male being the passive partner.
 
And out of respect i will refrain from making any explicit freudian connection between you having so much dick on your mind and at the same time being so defensive about Julius Caesar's heterosexuality:mischief:.

I'd hope you'd also do that because Freud's theories have been debunked or thoroughly modified for several decades, so you'd look rather unintelligent by doing so.

Also, I don't think it's heterosexuality than Lord Baal is defending, but rather consistent good methodology for deriving historical facts.
 
My sole point was that rumours are not a sound basis for an historical discussion. Also, I thought your allegation in the OP that "[v]ery often homosexuality is seen as a quite recent phenomenon, that the ancients would be absolutely baffled or even disgusted by" was ridiculous, seeing as how even primary school children know that the Greeks and Romans practiced homosexuality quite regularly. I refrained from specifically discussing Egypt because I do not personally know much about the subject, but since you yourself mentioned homosexuality in Rome, specifically in regards to Julius Caesar and Octavian, you made a discussion of such matters fair game. It would be rather like starting a discussion on German actions in WWI, mentioning the Russian Front, then complaing when others brought it up because you wanted to discuss only the Western Front. If you don't wish to discuss a topic, don't discuss it. Don't talk crap when other people also talk about a subject you yourself mentioned in your OP!


Considering the fact that you started the pissing contest with your comment "And my you sound like a defender of Caesar's manhood. What is so unlikely about a Roman being gay--are you serious?" you don't really have the right to complain when I ask you to be a little more respectful in your demeanour. I certainly said nothing to disrespect you prior. And I also posted something very meaningful to the topic, as I already stated above. If you don't want to discuss homosexuality in Rome, maybe you shouldn't bloody mention it in your OP, then repeatedly through the thread. If you only wish to discuss homosexuality in Egypt, with no discussion of surrounding or contemporary cultures, then by all means, don't discuss the surrounding or contemporary cultures. But if you mention them, then others in your threads must be free to discuss them.

Also, you've (unfortunately) proven my original opinion of you correct by acting like a dick when I attempted to laugh off your disrespectful behaviour. In case you didn't notice, I used the 'mischief' :)mischief:) smilie specifically to make light of your previous, dickish behaviour, in the hope that you would recognise a mild reprove. Your response is a return to dickishness. You should note that people on these boards are far less likely to discuss things with you seriously if you behave like a tool on the boards.

I've given you a chance to respond reasonably, but if you continue to not do so and attempt to elevate the pissing contest you yourself began, I'll kindly bow out of wasting my time discussing things with. As, I warn you, will the majority of respondents in the history forum. You'll note that LightSpectra, and NovaKart, whom you seem interested in speaking with, have not returned since you began acting this way, and that Plotinus himself has backed me up in pointing out that the discussion of topics you yourself mentioned in the OP is perfectly legitimate. Feel free to either discuss them or not, but don't behave foolishly in doing so. I admit my use of the 'rolleyes' :)rolleyes:) smilie in my original post may have been misconstrued as sarcastic - I was using it in response to your failure to provide any sort of source for your claims, which you have now partially remedied - but that in no way excuses your subsequent behaviour.

"homosexuality" is new, gay sex not so much, nor is same sex attraction. There was a lot of gay sex in the Roman Empire however men were still expected to marry. OTOH you had Medieval Europe in which same sex love was okay (sworn brotherhood anyone?), but gay sex was most definitely bad.
 
I'd hope you'd also do that because Freud's theories have been debunked or thoroughly modified for several decades, so you'd look rather unintelligent by doing so.

Also, I don't think it's heterosexuality than Lord Baal is defending, but rather consistent good methodology for deriving historical facts.
This would be it. I could care less if Julius Caesar was gay or not - it certainly doesn't affect my opinion of Hadrian, Alexander the Great, Henry IV of France, etc. - but you need more than vague innuendoes sources from an anonymous internet site to make the claim that a person is gay, or even that such a claim illustrates that homosexuality was common in the society. I could similarly charge that Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky is proof that US Presidents dig fat chicks, but it wouldn't be satifactory on its own.

Didn't Hadrian have a wife, though? How do they know he was gay?
He commissioned statues of himself sodomising his boyfriend, dude. Maybe by modern standards he'd be considered more bisexual than gay, but he certainly had a very close, erotic homosexual relationship.

"homosexuality" is new, gay sex not so much, nor is same sex attraction. There was a lot of gay sex in the Roman Empire however men were still expected to marry. OTOH you had Medieval Europe in which same sex love was okay (sworn brotherhood anyone?), but gay sex was most definitely bad.
Homosexuality isn't really new, more our current perception of homosexuality. The idea that a person can only be straight, gay, or at a push bisexual has been demonstrably false for all of human history.
 
Also, I don't think it's heterosexuality than Lord Baal is defending, but rather consistent good methodology for deriving historical facts.

I never said he was defending heterosexuality. Only said he was missing the point being made about homosexuality being common in Ancient Rome which he ironically agrees with. And in what way has my methodology been inconsistent?


I'd hope you'd also do that because Freud's theories have been debunked or thoroughly modified for several decades, so you'd look rather unintelligent by doing so.

Am well aware that many of Freud's theories have been debunked. But again you miss the point just like Lord Baal. Freud and his theories are so well known by the general public, most of who are unaware like you that his theories are debunked, that they have been reduced to cliches or figures of speech. Any layman would be able to get the point being made with my reference to Freud, but apparently you dont. Hey just think about the phrase your head buried in the sand, like an ostrich. There is no scientific or zoological evidence to prove that Ostriches bury their head in the sand, yet am sure you know what that phrase means, inspite of its scientific inaccuracy. As with ostriches so with Freud.
 
Odd that you tell me I was missing the point about homosexuality being common in Ancient Rome - something that even right-wing Christian fundamentalists agree with, rendering your argument in the OP that some (weasel words as well, my-my) people see homosexuality as a recent phenomenon nothing but a strawman - yet you still have nothing to say about both LightSpectra's and my own comments concerning the absolutely awful methodology you're bringing to this discussion.
 
This would be it. I could care less if Julius Caesar was gay or not - it certainly doesn't affect my opinion of Hadrian, Alexander the Great, Henry IV of France, etc. - but you need more than vague innuendoes sources from an anonymous internet site to make the claim that a person is gay, or even that such a claim illustrates that homosexuality was common in the society. I could similarly charge that Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky is proof that US Presidents dig fat chicks, but it wouldn't be satifactory on its own.


He commissioned statues of himself sodomising his boyfriend, dude. Maybe by modern standards he'd be considered more bisexual than gay, but he certainly had a very close, erotic homosexual relationship.


Homosexuality isn't really new, more our current perception of homosexuality. The idea that a person can only be straight, gay, or at a push bisexual has been demonstrably false for all of human history.

Considering that he very well might have had a wife for the purpose of having kids he could have been gay.

Some people are zoophiles, but I don't personally consider that an orientation. Now if you meant that it's not a trichotomy since there are more places on the line then those yeah I agree.
 
Considering that he very well might have had a wife for the purpose of having kids he could have been gay.

Some people are zoophiles, but I don't personally consider that an orientation. Now if you meant that it's not a trichotomy since there are more places on the line then those yeah I agree.
There's far more than just the four sexual orientations mentioned (I'd include zoophilia as an orientation, albeit a rather bizarre one) but even if one counts all of them, I agree with you entirely with the opinion that there are more than just a few places on the line. I once knew a guy who was happiy married for four years, before suddenly falling in love with a man. He still doesn't consider himself gay, and after he and the guy broke up he resumed dating chicks.

Sexuality is a very strange thing, and we are fortunate that the internet provides many opportunities for us to watch people engaging in it for our entertainment. Preferably in a depraved, twisted fashion.

Bring on the hentai!
 
Hey just think about the phrase your head buried in the sand, like an ostrich. There is no scientific or zoological evidence to prove that Ostriches bury their head in the sand, yet am sure you know what that phrase means, inspite of its scientific inaccuracy. As with ostriches so with Freud.

Freudian ideas are infrequently used as colloquial idioms, but I don't want to drag this line of conversation any further.
 
Odd that you tell me I was missing the point about homosexuality being common in Ancient Rome - something that even right-wing Christian fundamentalists agree with, rendering your argument in the OP that some (weasel words as well, my-my) people see homosexuality as a recent phenomenon nothing but a strawman - yet you still have nothing to say about both LightSpectra's and my own comments concerning the absolutely awful methodology you're bringing to this discussion.

What are you talking about i have already responded to this point about homosexuality being seen as a recent phenomenon. But unsurprisingly again you miss it. here it is again.

And my allegation of homosexuality being seen as a recent phenomenon is not nearly as ridiculous as you imagine. This is the paradox of human history and society. Every generation sees the past as something more pure, more perfect than their current generation. Even if it is well known that homosexuality was common in Greece and Rome, we still have people today (christian conservatives for instance) who see homosexuality as a result of the good old values of the past being lost or abandoned. Even in Ancient Rome more than 1500 years ago as you mention allegations of homosexuality were used to slander or attack prominent officials. How else would that be possible, unless we imagine that the Romans like some christian conservatives also saw their past as something more pure or more innocent than the generation in which they lived?

What awful methodology. The only thing awful here (and how do i say this without offending?) are your reading comprehension skills!


Freudian ideas are infrequently used as colloquial idioms,...

Sweet Christ! Here you go missing the point Again. Is my English really so unintelligible or does the fault lie elsewhere?


...but I don't want to drag this line of conversation any further.


and for good reason!
 
why is there no option for dleting post? Moderator's help please. Delete this post.
 
What are you talking about i have already responded to this point about homosexuality being seen as a recent phenomenon. But unsurprisingly again you miss it. here it is again.


What awful methodology. The only thing awful here (and how do i say this without offending?) are your reading comprehension skills!
Yes, your methodology is indeed awful. Thank you for making your frank admission. Merely reposting a previous statement is inadequate for addressing an argument when the previous statement is itself incorrect. In more than one aspect, I might add.

Firstly, the Romans did not actually see anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Their problem was, as civ_king stated and as the Ancient Greeks also believed, that they did not feel that a free Roman male should be the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. To put it bluntly: you're not gay if you give it, only if you take it.

Secondly, your previous comment, in addition to being wrong, did nothing to actually address the argument made by myself and LightSpectra; that being that your methodology is terrible. You cannot make any sort of claim based on rumour and innuendo. There were rumours during WWII that Reinhard Heydrich's grandmother was Jewish. These rumours were common and widespread. This in no way indicates that having Jewish ancestry was common among high-ranking Nazi officials.

Thirdly, the Romans didn't see the past as something better than the time in which they now lived. If you had studied Roman history at all, you'd see that the Romans generally believed that, with a few short-lived exceptions, their history had been horrible and brutal. This worked as part of their creation myth because they saw their brutal upbringing as making them better than their neighbours. Similar to the Fremen and Sardaukar in the Dune series (my second Dune reference on the boards this week).

The rumours of Caesar's and Octavian's homosexual dalliances were intended to damage them politically by painting them as the 'female' in a male-male relationship. Nothing more and nothing less. There's no sub-text to those rumours, which I've never even heard prior to this thread and lend no credence to. Certainly not until you provide a halfway-reliable source.

Sweet Christ! Here you go missing the point Again. Is my English really so unintelligible or does the fault lie elsewhere?
It's not your English that's the problem, but rather the contents of your posts. LightSpectra was merely pointing out that Freud is seldom used as a colloquial idiom. That's it. Why you have to take umbrage at this minor point is beyond me.

and for good reason!
Yet again, you oddly continue to bring up something you state you don't wish to discuss.
 
Yes, your methodology is indeed awful. Thank you for making your frank admission. Merely reposting a previous statement is inadequate for addressing an argument when the previous statement is itself incorrect. In more than one aspect, I might add.

Firstly, the Romans did not actually see anything wrong with homosexual relationships. Their problem was, as civ_king stated and as the Ancient Greeks also believed, that they did not feel that a free Roman male should be the passive partner in a homosexual relationship. To put it bluntly: you're not gay if you give it, only if you take it.

Juvenal condemned many forms of homoerotic relationships. And the same thing is true of many public speeches in his time. After the adoption of Christianity homoerotic relationships were punishable by death, at least legally.

Secondly, your previous comment, in addition to being wrong, did nothing to actually address the argument made by myself and LightSpectra; that being that your methodology is terrible. You cannot make any sort of claim based on rumour and innuendo. There were rumours during WWII that Reinhard Heydrich's grandmother was Jewish. These rumours were common and widespread. This in no way indicates that having Jewish ancestry was common among high-ranking Nazi officials.

Do you deny that that homoerotic relationships in Rome were common? Do you deny that this was especially common among the noble classes to which Octavius and Julius Caesar belonged to? If not then i really don't get your insistence of my methodology being wrong. The first paragraph of my OP simply establishes that Homosexuality in ancient Rome was common as in other historic cultures ; and i used allegations against two famous Romans to make that point. I hardly saw the need to press the point or go into more scientifically verifiable data, considering as you suggested every school boy knows that homo-erotic relationships in Rome were common; and also considering the OP was about homosexuality in AE, not Ancient Rome. But i suppose, for some, nitpicking is an ailment for which there is no cure.

Thirdly, the Romans didn't see the past as something better than the time in which they now lived. If you had studied Roman history at all, you'd see that the Romans generally believed that, with a few short-lived exceptions, their history had been horrible and brutal. This worked as part of their creation myth because they saw their brutal upbringing as making them better than their neighbours. Similar to the Fremen and Sardaukar in the Dune series (my second Dune reference on the boards this week)..

What--- am I suppose to take your word for it, especially considering your high standards for evidence. In the absence of any historical evidence or sources to prove your point i would rather choose to believe that Romans just like modern socities had the tendency to see their past as something more pure, more innocent, and less corrupt than their current generation. Who do you trhink you are? Do you have the ability to open your mouth and say something, and just because you do this makes it true? Evidence, sources please!

The rumours of Caesar's and Octavian's homosexual dalliances were intended to damage them politically by painting them as the 'female' in a male-male relationship. Nothing more and nothing less. There's no sub-text to those rumours, which I've never even heard prior to this thread and lend no credence to. Certainly not until you provide a halfway-reliable source.

The subtext is obvious--homoerotic relationships were common in Ancient Rome. And some had the tendency to see it as immoral, to the point that at one time it was punishable by death!


It's not your English that's the problem, but rather the contents of your posts. LightSpectra was merely pointing out that Freud is seldom used as a colloquial idiom. That's it. Why you have to take umbrage at this minor point is beyond me.


Yet again, you oddly continue to bring up something you state you don't wish to discuss.

Maybe i should have broken it down to LightSpectra and yourself. I meant to say inspite of Freud being proven not always scientifically correct, the gist of his theories are so widely accepted and understood by the general public. So much so that references to Freud.... ah never mind. Go back and read my original explanation. It is intelligible enough. I have confidence in your intelligence. Nothing needs to be broken down for you, as if you were a 12year old.
 
There's far more than just the four sexual orientations mentioned (I'd include zoophilia as an orientation, albeit a rather bizarre one) but even if one counts all of them, I agree with you entirely with the opinion that there are more than just a few places on the line. I once knew a guy who was happiy married for four years, before suddenly falling in love with a man. He still doesn't consider himself gay, and after he and the guy broke up he resumed dating chicks.

Sexuality is a very strange thing, and we are fortunate that the internet provides many opportunities for us to watch people engaging in it for our entertainment. Preferably in a depraved, twisted fashion.

Bring on the hentai!
I'm going to assume you aren't suggesting that paedophilia and necrophilia are also orientations. Ah, the notorious "I'm not gay I just love this one guy".

It is indeed very peculiar. The depraved twisted stuff is a major turn off for me, of course I'm also the one guy who passed on watching 2girls1cup and looking at the "blue waffles" thing.
Juvenal condemned many forms of homoerotic relationships. And the same thing is true of many public speeches in his time. After the adoption of Christianity homoerotic relationships were punishable by death, at least legally.

Do you deny that that homoerotic relationships in Rome were common? Do you deny that this was especially common among the noble classes to which Octavius and Julius Caesar belonged to? If not then i really don't get your insistence of my methodology being wrong. The first paragraph of my OP simply establishes that Homosexuality in ancient Rome was common as in other historic cultures ; and i used allegations against two famous Romans to make that point. I hardly saw the need to press the point or go into more scientifically verifiable data, considering as you suggested every school boy knows that homo-erotic relationships in Rome were common; and also considering the OP was about homosexuality in AE, not Ancient Rome. But i suppose, for some, nitpicking is an ailment for which there is no cure.

What--- am I suppose to take your word for it, especially considering your high standards for evidence. In the absence of any historical evidence or sources to prove your point i would rather choose to believe that Romans just like modern socities had the tendency to see their past as something more pure, more innocent, and less corrupt than their current generation. Who do you trhink you are? Do you have the ability to open your mouth and say something, and just because you do this makes it true? Evidence, sources please!

The subtext is obvious--homoerotic relationships were common in Ancient Rome. And some had the tendency to see it as immoral, to the point that at one time it was punishable by death!

Maybe i should have broken it down to LightSpectra and yourself. I meant to say inspite of Freud being proven not always scientifically correct, the gist of his theories are so widely accepted and understood by the general public. So much so that references to Freud.... ah never mind. Go back and read my original explanation. It is intelligible enough. I have confidence in your intelligence. Nothing needs to be broken down for you, as if you were a 12year old.

Eh? sez who?

No, but homoerotic relationships≠homosexual. While homosexuality is very frequently expressed through homoerotic relationships, not all homoerotic relationships are gay. Nor do homoerotic relationships necessarily involve sex (such was the complex and nuanced place of relationships in Catholic Europe).
 
Since you put that, I had to go and check out that wiki for myself. I came up with "biromantic grey-asexual", which seems to be an enormously complicated way of talking about something about which I care very little! :)
 
Top Bottom