History questions not worth their own thread V

[Cheezy the Wiz]

More importantly, the concept of homosexual as an orientation did not exist. It was understood that men or women might fornicate with the same sex, and even be attracted to them, but the concept of sexual orientation, that someone might be exclusively and naturally attracted to the same sex, was unknown.

Also, something Flying Pig did not mention, was that the male lover in Greece was not so much of a stigma as perhaps it was in Rome. It was the prevailing attitude among the well-to-do of society that, while a man might marry, live with, and raise a family with a wife, he would also have a (sometimes) secret male lover, with whom he got personal and mental fulfillment, because women were just too damn stupid (and probably crazy, too, depending on where their uterus was at that moment) to actually relate with. They were for making babies and keeping the house, and to inherit a family's property through. That's it.

 

[History_Buff]

And cementing alliances. Can't forget the old marriage alliance.

 

[Louis XXIV]

More importantly, the concept of homosexual as an orientation did not exist. It was understood that men or women might fornicate with the same sex, and even be attracted to them, but the concept of sexual orientation, that someone might be exclusively and naturally attracted to the same sex, was unknown.

Tell that to Aristophanes (well, Plato's version of him).

Random question that might not possibly be answerable based on the sources. Plato's Symposium (in particularly Aristophanes) speaks of three groups. Heterosexuals (I suppose, I can't recall if there was a name for this group), Lesbians, and Pedophiles. I understand it's clear (both from the Symposium and elsewhere) that Greek men would find a younger male as a partner. Their relationship was supposed to be both sexual and as a mentor. However, was the same true with Lesbian relationships?

I should also ask if my translation of the Symposium was accurate. Is the uses of the words Lesbian and Pedophile accurate to the original text?

 

[Dachs]

This one I would like to have everybody leave alone so Dachs can tackle it. Specifically, I was hoping for some insight on how the Monroe Doctrine was viewed by the world community pre and post the Venezuela Crisis of 1895. Thank you

i imagine john chinaman didn't know or care

Don't stop there! I'm particularly interested in how the British accounted for German foreign policy/influence in their calculations during and after the 1895 crisis leading into the 1902 crisis (where the Germans were playing a much more active role).

they didn't

Yes, good. Also, just to add some color to the information, personal anecdotes of the people involved if it isn't too much trouble? Scruggs, for example. Did he like swimming with bow legged women?

only if they weren't latinas

 

[Plotinus]

Tell that to Aristophanes (well, Plato's version of him).

Random question that might not possibly be answerable based on the sources. Plato's Symposium (in particularly Aristophanes) speaks of three groups. Heterosexuals (I suppose, I can't recall if there was a name for this group), Lesbians, and Pedophiles. I understand it's clear (both from the Symposium and elsewhere) that Greek men would find a younger male as a partner. Their relationship was supposed to be both sexual and as a mentor. However, was the same true with Lesbian relationships?

I should also ask if my translation of the Symposium was accurate. Is the uses of the words Lesbian and Pedophile accurate to the original text?

Where on earth does the translator get the idea of paedophilia from? Aristophanes' speech is an "explanation" of why there are men who love men, women who love women, and men who love women and women who love men. In other words it "explains" male homosexuality, female homosexuality, and heterosexuality in both sexes. I entirely agree with you that this text is a counter-example to the usual assumption that in antiquity people had no concept of sexual orientation. But it's got nothing to do with paedophilia.

Of course when Plato talks about relationships between men he's usually thinking of relationships between older and younger men, and he has Aristophanes describe male-male relationships in these terms. But it's a big stretch to equate that with "paedophilia". For Plato it's a matter of loving masculinity, not immaturity. They are called φιλοῦσι τοὺς ἄνδρας, that is, loving the male.

 

[Louis XXIV]

OK. The translation I had was by Seth Bernadete (with commentary by Allen Bloom). I'm guessing that was just a poor translation. Even if male relations were often older with younger, it's best not to editorialize by translating it as pedophile (especially since the connotation is quite strong in modern contexts).

I guess it's still worth asking my original question, though. Does anyone know if Lesbian relationships had the same age disparity? Were there actually any documented lesbian relationships in the sources? I know male relationships were represented in Amphora in addition to being described in the Symposium (and presumably elsewhere, I don't know).

 

[Plotinus]

I don't know the answer to that. I think the evidence is very sparse if it exists at all. After all, the most famous lesbian of antiquity is Sappho - but even the evidence that she was one at all is almost non-existent (it's based on a probably wrong interpretation of one poem).

 

[Flying Pig]

The problem is that if it existed at all, it hasn't really been preserved in literature. Certainly, in Classical Athens, the women of a household were lodged together, separate from the men, so it's hard to imagine that nothing at all went on given that about a tenth of them would have been homosexual. There are artistic depictions - made by men, of course - of women in intimate situations with other women, but it's difficult to tell how far, at all, these reflected reality. You need only look at the general character of most depictions of that sort in our own society to realise why. I think the fact of the word 'lesbian', based on only one individual who was hardly remarkable except that she happened to be reasonably ordinarily homosexual, is telling - it can't have been that common if merely being of that orientation was enough to get the thing named after you. That said, the term is a 19th-century one, and I'm not even sure that there is a word to describe it in Latin, although there are a huge number to describe men who sleep with other men. Furthermore, given the social pressure to marry among practically all classes, I can't imagine that there were many women who were able to live as lesbians for long, as marriage was more often a matter of familial politics (among the upper classes) or of economics than a question of love or the lack thereof.

Certainly, though, men viewed lesbianism negatively, certainly more so than they did male homosexuality. The very idea of a woman being able to provide pleasure for another woman undermines the power structure by which women are dependent on men - in Athens, for example, every female was legally incompetent and had to be under the protection and guidance of a κύριος, meaning 'master' - the word is exactly the same as the one used in the liturgy 'kyrie eleison', 'lord, have mercy'. So the idea that a woman might be better off living with another woman outside the institution of the male-dominated family put the whole system of the state in danger: indeed, we have a rather overwrought courtroom speech in which a chap on trial for killing a man who slept with his wife claims that the sanctity of the family is the foundation of all the laws. That said, lesbianism was never as heavily condemned by the Catholic Church or indeed secular authorities in the Middle Ages as male homosexuality, which leads me to question whether it was simply too uncommon - or too invisible - to attract any meaningful attention.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Thanks for the info. I appreciate it. I suspected the state of the sources would be something like that, but that was still very informative.

 

[Tahuti]

That said, lesbianism was never as heavily condemned by the Catholic Church or indeed secular authorities in the Middle Ages as male homosexuality, which leads me to question whether it was simply too uncommon - or too invisible - to attract any meaningful attention.

A wild guess: Since men were the dominant sex, they could compel lesbians into male-female relations, but a man could not compel himself?

 

[Tee Kay]

Ironically, it might have just been too attractive.

 

[Imrahil91]

AFAIK the Old Testament says that the Isrealites/Jews are God's chosen people, and many Christians and Jews today believe it in varying degrees.
Since Islam also is based on the same book, why don't the Jews have a special place in the Quran and Islam?

 

[JohannaK]

If I remember correctly, Muslims descend from Ismael while Jews descend from Israel. That is, each from one of the two sons of Abraham. In the eyes of each, the favoured son is the one they descend from.

 

[Imrahil91]

If I remember correctly, Muslims descend from Ismael while Jews descend from Israel. That is, each from one of the two sons of Abraham. In the eyes of each, the favoured son is the one they descend from.

Aha. Now that you say it, I remember having heard something like that.
Thanks.

 

[JohannaK]

It's probably the first time I've helped someone here. I feel complete now.

 

[Domen]

All Muslims, or just Arabs?

 

[JohannaK]

In theory it's Arabs, I suppose.

 

[Tee Kay]

In theory it's Arabs, I suppose.

But of course the umma, or Islamic community, trumps all ethnic and tribal ties, in theory anyway.

 

[JohannaK]

Yeah. I mean, it's supposed to apply to Arabs, since they were the first Muslims, but it goes with being a Muslim, so all Muslims.

 

[Masada]

It was pretty common for Muslin dynasties in Southeast Asia to claim an Arab as a progenitor so they could make that claim.