Did a "gay" sensibility help Alexander the Great conquer the world?

[bradINblue]

It would seem that the ancient Greeks also felt the need to fend off their version of the notion of “gayness”. For example, the ancient Greek term malakia meant “spinelessness, softness, lack of perseverance, and moral weakness” which was associated with effeminacy in men. An effeminate man might also be called  kinaidos. People who consented to live under tyranny were also given this appellation. Another term gunnis meant girlish.

Apparently for the ancient Greeks manliness was something you had to constantly struggle to maintain by avoiding any backsliding into pleasure seeking or other self indulgence and thereby become like us women. (It seems we have always been a foil for men to measure themselves against - becoming anything like us causes an instant loss of status lol.)

It may be true that in a general sense, loving men was something the ancients did rather than something that defined their identity. However IMO, when it comes down to the individual expression of love, the situation changes.

Was loving Hephaistion something Alexander just did? Remember his most famous statement about the man: “He too is Alexander.” Having sex with someone is something that you do - but loving them involves one’s very self.

Jo, if I wasn't so drunk, I might respond to this post. A whole bunch of stuff bubbles up, but my typin' fingers ain't coordinatin' nothin' with my thoughts, so I'll let it be until the mornin'. Still, though, you're uncanny.

Brad

[MagicM]

Jo, if I wasn't so drunk, I might respond to this post. A whole bunch of stuff bubbles up, but my typin' fingers ain't coordinatin' nothin' with my thoughts, so I'll let it be until the mornin'. Still, though, you're uncanny.

Brad

"Does sober agree with drunk?" (Quote from The Persian Boy, p. 106)

[injest]

"Does sober agree with drunk?" (Quote from The Persian Boy, p. 106)

 

[Arcadianmemories]

It would seem that the ancient Greeks also felt the need to fend off their version of the notion of “gayness”. For example, the ancient Greek term malakia meant “spinelessness, softness, lack of perseverance, and moral weakness” which was associated with effeminacy in men. An effeminate man might also be called  kinaidos. People who consented to live under tyranny were also given this appellation. Another term gunnis meant girlish.

Apparently for the ancient Greeks manliness was something you had to constantly struggle to maintain by avoiding any backsliding into pleasure seeking or other self indulgence and thereby become like us women. (It seems we have always been a foil for men to measure themselves against - becoming anything like us causes an instant loss of status lol.)

It may be true that in a general sense, loving men was something the ancients did rather than something that defined their identity. However IMO, when it comes down to the individual expression of love, the situation changes.

Was loving Hephaistion something Alexander just did? Remember his most famous statement about the man: “He too is Alexander.” Having sex with someone is something that you do - but loving them involves one’s very self.

MM in your post it would appear to me that you are assuming that Greek culture equated effiminacy with homosexuality / homoeroticism (n.b. it is so far beyond the pale to use the 20th century word "gay" within the context of a discussion of the ancient world that I will not use that term). The equation of effeminacy with homosexuality is a modern convention, and esp in the time of the Greco-Roman world homosexuality was generally thought to just be one of the outlets for sexuality / affection available to men. This is distinguished from the use of catamite prostitutes, which was often made parodied by the ancients, but never suffered the types of condemnation that homosexuality in all its forms has endured in the modern world.

I reject the notion that the Greco-Roman world from the time of the Hellenes, thru the Hellenistic period, up to including the Roman world and its successor state the Byzantines made the connection between effeminacy and homosexuality. Yes, effeminacy was rejected by elements within all of those societies, but never as an indicator of homosexuality, but as an indicator of femaleness. Additionally the Greeks and esp the Romans equated effeminacy in men with a dissolute and hedonistic life carried to excess - see the Augustan reforms of the 1st century BC.

Frankly, I think that you are on far safer ground making the connection between Greco-Roman misogyny and the loathing of effiminacy in men than in attempting to link it to a distaste for homosexuals. Things female were viewed by many in the Greco-Roman cultures as contaminating to men, and effeminacy in men would then be viewed as degrading to a male ideal, hence loathesome in it own right.

[injest]

I would have to agree....one of the reasons I think that males formed such close relationships with each other was because women were considered second class...they were for having children and were discouraged from learning. If you wanted a conversation in those days, you turned to men.

[Arcadianmemories]

I would have to agree....one of the reasons I think that males formed such close relationships with each other was because women were considered second class...they were for having children and were discouraged from learning. If you wanted a conversation in those days, you turned to men.

You are correct, not that there weren't powerful intelligent women in the Greco-Roman world - Messalina, Livia, Hypatia, etc. But interestingly the ancient historians ALWAYS portrayed these powerful women in a very bad light, and the men in their orbits as their victims.

[injest]

You are correct, not that there weren't powerful intelligent women in the Greco-Roman world - Messalina, Livia, Hypatia, etc. But interestingly the ancient historians ALWAYS portrayed these powerful women in a very bad light, and the men in their orbits as their victims.

I dont' know these women...were they Greek or Roman?

and yes all powerful women were protrayed very badly....those ancient men were very afraid of women.

[Arcadianmemories]

I dont' know these women...were they Greek or Roman?

and yes all powerful women were protrayed very badly....those ancient men were very afraid of women.

Messalina was the wife of the 1st century AD Julio-Claudian emperor Claudius, it seems likely that she poisoned Claudius's soup.

Livia was the wife of the f1st century BC founder of the J-C dynasty Augustus, it seems likely that she killed Augustus by painting poison on the figs he ate for breakfast

Hypatia was a 4th AD century scholar who lived in Alexandria, she was murdered by a mob of monks who objected to her parodies of Christianity.

[injest]

I thought Livia sounded familiar but the others I admit to being clueless on.

the only powerful women I know of from Greece are the courtesans...didn't Pericles have one that was pretty outspoken for the time?

Thalia??

[MagicM]

MM in your post it would appear to me that you are assuming that Greek culture equated effiminacy with homosexuality / homoeroticism (n.b. it is so far beyond the pale to use the 20th century word "gay" within the context of a discussion of the ancient world that I will not use that term). The equation of effeminacy with homosexuality is a modern convention, and esp in the time of the Greco-Roman world homosexuality was generally thought to just be one of the outlets for sexuality / affection available to men. This is distinguished from the use of catamite prostitutes, which was often made parodied by the ancients, but never suffered the types of condemnation that homosexuality in all its forms has endured in the modern world.

I reject the notion that the Greco-Roman world from the time of the Hellenes, thru the Hellenistic period, up to including the Roman world and its successor state the Byzantines made the connection between effeminacy and homosexuality. Yes, effeminacy was rejected by elements within all of those societies, but never as an indicator of homosexuality, but as an indicator of femaleness. Additionally the Greeks and esp the Romans equated effeminacy in men with a dissolute and hedonistic life carried to excess - see the Augustan reforms of the 1st century BC.

Frankly, I think that you are on far safer ground making the connection between Greco-Roman misogyny and the loathing of effiminacy in men than in attempting to link it to a distaste for homosexuals. Things female were viewed by many in the Greco-Roman cultures as contaminating to men, and effeminacy in men would then be viewed as degrading to a male ideal, hence loathesome in it own right.

Bill I used the term "gayness" because Milo, Brad and others regard this as a term redolent of everything they reject about the modern homosexual stereotype – a swishing, womanishness. (Straight metrosexuals may also take on some of these characteristics). I was simply pointing out that in the ancient world there was similarly a concept of effeminacy (which might or might not be associated with homosexuality) that masculine men also strove to avoid - hence their very approximate version of "gayness".  While in the ancient world effeminacy was not exclusively associated with homosexuality, the term kinaidos did refer to an effeminate man who engaged in receptive sex.

[injest]

I read a phrase once (please forgive me)

"a man that was known to engage in oral sex as the receptive partner was not offered the common cup...but it was worth noting he WAS invited to the party"

[Milo]

It may be true that in a general sense, loving men was something the ancients did rather than something that defined their identity. However IMO, when it comes down to the individual expression of love, the situation changes.

Was loving Hephaistion something Alexander just did? Remember his most famous statement about the man: “He too is Alexander.” Having sex with someone is something that you do - but loving them involves one’s very self.

I agree with you that love changes the dynamics. But that isn't what I've been talking about. What I'm talking about is the idea that one's sexual orientation puts one in a separate class. The idea that sexual orientation has anything beyond sex attached to it.

As usual, I'll use blackness as an example. It is not the color of my skin that makes me different from white people, its the culture into which I was born. As we become more successful socio-economically, there is an increasing number of African-Americans who being born and raised suburbia. These folks look just like urban blacks, but they think and behave more like their white peers. Their value systems and sense of self centered around the same things as their white, suburban counterparts. They don't do things, or not do things differently that their white peers because their skin is black. By contrast, urban blacks frequently refuse to engage in activities or careers that they consider too "white." When I was a kid, I used to get harassed by the black kids for a whole host of reasons. Being in the school play was a problem. Playing tennis instead of basketball was a problem. Eating lunch at a "white" table instead of the corner of the cafeteria where the black kids ate was a serious problem for the black kids when I got to high school. During my freshman year, the black kids ganged up on me to tell me how wrong that was. The argument got so heated I was afraid they were going to kick my ass that day.

Now don't get me wrong. My African and African-American heritage definitely is a part of my identity...or sense of self. But I consider myself an American before I think of myself as an African-American.

Now let me turn this towards gays. As young homosexuals discover their sexual orientation in this current atmosphere of relative tolerance, they find themselves less and less needy of the gay community. They do all the same things as other kids do, and grow into adults that have a much wider view of themselves than "older" gays, who avoid certain people, places, activities and things based on traditional patterns. As an adult, I continue to catch hell from gays who think that I'm doing something that is too "straight." When I on tour in England in 2005, all but 2 of men in the cast were gay. Some of the small towns we played did not have a gay bar. These cast members would stay in the hotel on those nights rather than go out and drink at a straight pub or bar, and then tease me for doing so.

Now don't get me wrong, my love for David is definitely a part of who I am. In part, I define myself to other people as being partnered to him. But that is different from a general sexual identity. I think of myself as a man before I think of myself as a homosexual man.

[MagicM]

Thanks very much Milo for providing a window into your formative experiences and your thinking.

From what you write it seems you've always had a good sense of who you are in the face of a difficult and even coercive environment plus being part of a minority within a minority. Yet you let none of that define you.

I suspect that many people need validation through identifying with a group of like people. That often leads to one aspect of themselves taking over their identity instead of integrating all their parts into a whole.

It's tough standing up to the herd instinct and groupthink not to mention cultural and peer pressure. And no doubt it can often be lonely. Let's face it, humans are very tribal - look at Bettermost!

And talking of Alexander - I think he operated as an individual rather than reflected the thinking of his peers. He stood against the xenophobia of the Greeks and Macedonians who considered foreigners to be not only barbarians but less than human. Even Aristotle told him they should be treated like plants. But he actually liked and admired the Persians and their culture, took on some of their dress and court protocol and incorporated them into his army in the face of the open disgust and anger of his own men. Eating lunch at the Persian table was considered a serious problem for him too.

[Milo]

the term kinaidos did refer to an effeminate man who engaged in receptive sex.

Right. But I have always wondered how everyone knew which partner was the bottom?? I mean did homosexuals go around discussing the play-by-play of their lovemaking? Did they have sex in public places? Did they just assume that the ffeminate guys were bottoms, and the masculine guys were tops? How would anybody know?

[injest]

Right. But I have always wondered how everyone knew which partner was the bottom?? I mean did homosexuals go around discussing the play-by-play of their lovemaking? Did they have sex in public places? Did they just assume that the ffeminate guys were bottoms, and the masculine guys were tops? How would anybody know?

well... aren't most homosexuals a little flexible in that department?

I mean if one did all the doing, wouldn't the other get a little....frustrated?

so that IS a good question, Milo..

unless there was a cultural standard that lovers would always be a pair where one is older (top) and younger (bottom) and expect them to give up sex when they got to a certain age...