This paper aims to offer an explanation for the fact that "homosexuality" as we would label it today, the sexual intercourse between two individuals of the male sex, was condoned – at least in a polis such as Athens – and even developed into some kind of social institution that carried adolescent boys over to manhood.
The most difficult thing about conducting an analysis about the ancient Greek world it that is has been interpreted differently and in contradictory ways by different scholars. It is therefore easy to lose one’s way as the evidence in the form of literary works and visual art (usually vases) is contradictory in itself and does not inform straightforward analysis.
It will be argued that male-male sexual intercourse is a manifestation of Greek polis’ societies’ rigid division into a "domestic" sphere, in which the leading female figure seems to be the dominant figure and a ‘public’ sphere that was almost exclusively reserved for males. In other words, male-male intercourse is the public domain’s equivalent of male-female intercourse in the the domestic sphere.
In a second step, the idea of male-male sexual acts as an in-between stage of boyhood and manhood will be reviewed. This idea has to be accepted as long as there is no strong scientific evidence that contradicts the hypothesis. At least, some objects of visual art are likely to be proof of such a custom.
Lastly, article by Lin Foxhall is analyzed and interpreted that although being less recent, offers an alternative to depicting women as generally inferior to their husband. Rather it suggests the opposite, at least with regard to the "domestic" sphere. This perspective is able to show that the two different spheres can offer an explanation of sexual activity between male and female individuals, that is husband and wife, in the "domestic"sphere, and two males in the "public" sphere.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
2. The Limits of ‘Power’: Historical Evidence of Male-Male Sexual Activity
3. Slave, Sex Slave, and Suddenly Free? – The Way of Becoming a Man
4. Powerful Women
5. Conclusion
6. Bibliography
Objectives and Topics
This paper aims to challenge traditional, often Victorian-influenced interpretations of ancient Greek sexuality, specifically regarding the assumed power imbalances in male-male sexual relationships. The author proposes a structural explanation based on the rigid division between the 'domestic' and 'public' spheres, arguing that both male-female and male-male sexual activities were manifestations of this societal organization rather than solely expressions of dominance.
- The construction of sexual identity in the ancient Greek polis.
- Deconstruction of the "active/passive" hierarchy in male-male relationships.
- The role of the household and the status of women in ancient Greek society.
- The intersection of slavery, childhood, and the transition to adult citizenship.
- Re-evaluating primary evidence, including vase paintings and economic roles.
Excerpt from the Book
2. The Limits of ‘Power’: Historical Evidence of Male-Male Sexual Activity
Kenneth Dover’s research on sexuality in the ancient world with the idea that homosexuality at Athens was a relationship that “did not involve equals” influenced most scholars’ further investigation into this field. In this chapter, I try to suggest that this claim is not true, as the evidence, that is the vases that have been found, suggest rather the opposite. A closer examination of the vases that are thought to give evidence of how the same sex relationship can be characterised, seems to suggest, however, that the younger person of the two people depicted is usually in a role that people today would characterize as passive, i.e. ‘non-penetrative.’
The question is whether this fact is actually enough to make a claim and to say that the younger person is subordinate, only because of the ‘role’ during the sexual act. Further observations, on the other hand, are contradicting that argument. It is shown that the “[p]assive males, however, regularly face their partners.” This gesture is probably stronger than the penetrative role, as I might not be wrong in saying, again, that this would be a Victorian view, namely that of the aggressive male. Let us consider one quite famous vase painting showing Erastes and Eromenes, which dates back to around 470 or 480 BC. The painting obviously shows the two men just before a sexual act. The positions they are in naturally suggest that the older of the two will be in a ‘penetrative’ position. What is remarkable, however, is the fact that Eromenos turns his head to look Erastes in the eyes. This is revealing in two respects: firstly, there seems to be no strong hierarchy between the two, although the younger of the two has to look up, which, in my opinion is due to his (necessary) position sitting on Erastes’ lap. Looking the partner in the eyes is an act of creating equality.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: The author outlines the challenges of interpreting ancient Greek sexual norms and sets the stage for a re-evaluation of current scholarship, introducing the concept of the 'domestic' and 'public' spheres.
2. The Limits of ‘Power’: Historical Evidence of Male-Male Sexual Activity: This chapter analyzes vase paintings to challenge the theory of inherent power imbalances in male-male relationships, arguing for a more egalitarian interpretation of these acts.
3. Slave, Sex Slave, and Suddenly Free? – The Way of Becoming a Man: The author investigates the role of 'initiation rites' in the transition from boyhood to manhood, exploring connections between status, slavery, and citizenship.
4. Powerful Women: This chapter shifts focus to the role of women, arguing that they held significant power within the 'domestic' sphere, contrary to traditional views of their inferiority.
5. Conclusion: The paper summarizes the findings, asserting that male-male sexual relationships were a 'public' counterpart to domestic relationships, both operating within their respective societal spheres.
6. Bibliography: A list of academic sources and literature used to support the analysis.
Keywords
Ancient Greece, Sexuality, Homosexuality, Pederasty, Domestic Sphere, Public Sphere, Power Dynamics, Vase Paintings, Citizenship, Household, Gender Roles, Slavery, Initiation Rites, Equality, History.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this research paper?
The paper examines how ancient Greek sexual practices, specifically male-male relationships, have been misinterpreted by modern scholars through a biased 'Victorian' lens, and proposes an alternative model based on the division of social spheres.
What are the primary themes explored in the work?
The core themes include the social construction of sexual identity, the economic and social importance of the household, the status of women, and the societal transition of boys into citizens.
What is the author's primary research argument?
The author argues that male-male sexual intercourse was not inherently a demonstration of power or subordination, but rather a manifestation of the 'public' sphere in the Greek polis, mirroring the role of male-female relations in the 'domestic' sphere.
What scientific methods does the author utilize?
The author employs a critical analysis of secondary literature (such as the works of Dover, Golden, and Foxhall) and interprets primary visual evidence, specifically imagery found on ancient Greek vases.
What is covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body investigates the historical interpretations of sexual power, the function of initiation rites in transitioning boys to manhood, and the overlooked economic and social power held by women within the domestic sphere.
Which keywords best characterize this study?
Key terms include Ancient Greece, Sexuality, Domestic Sphere, Public Sphere, Gender Roles, Power Dynamics, and Household.
Why does the author argue that the concept of 'power' in ancient Greek sexuality is a modern invention?
The author contends that current scholarly emphasis on 'active' and 'passive' roles is heavily influenced by Victorian values that prioritize hierarchical dominance, which does not accurately reflect the social structures or sexual fluidity of the ancient world.
How does the author characterize the role of the 'domestic' sphere for women?
The author rejects the idea that the domestic sphere was one of mere female submission; instead, it is presented as a vital center of power where women exercised financial and administrative influence, functioning as essential partners in the household unit.
- Quote paper
- Sven Klees (Author), 2017, Strong Women, Strong Men. Greek "Homosexuality"and its Context, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/470997
