Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece

Timeframe problem

How is "776 BC - 480 BC"... "One thousand years of homosexuality" ?! Haiduc 04:54, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not finished yet. It will include a partner article on the Hellenistic age. Apollomelos 08:13, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

objection

Not really sure what the proper process is to post a comment so I hope I don't screw up anything.

There is actually a whole different approach none of you have actually looked into.

Walter Pater (1890's a poet and tutor) he and his band of homos originally began this fiasco theory in Oxford. We find them introducing a totally new "theory" that Platonic love has nothing to do with "phyche" but is totally based on phisical attraction. Later we find a list of wanna-be "historians" of Hellinic sexuality, see: Michel Foucault, John Boswell, John Winkler and David Halperin that were or are all HOMOS striving to make some connection between homos and Hellinism.

The reason, of course, is simple. The Hellines have always been viewed as a model of civilisation. So what better way to justify their "sick nature" than by connecting it to the greatness of the Hellinic civilization and thus legitimise same-sex? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phallanx (talk • contribs) .

I agree completely with the last two paragraphs. This article is biased and rediculous. This is not Greek history. Greek history is the invention of democracy and philosophy, the great architecture, the 300 spartans who stood at Thermopylae and saved western civilization. Greek troops won the first allied victories of both world wars. This is how Greeks get repaid-by having their history erased! Greeks were not gay! This article should just be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cretanpride (talk • contribs) .

I noticed the reference to texts. If we are to see the meaning of "eromenos" we find that once again has nothing to do with any kind of sexual intercourse : Just some examples

Plato, Euthydemus 282b there is no disgrace, Cleinias, or reprobation in making this a reason for serving and being a slave to either one's lover or any man, and being ready to perform any service that is honorable in one's eagerness to become wise.

Platos Symposium,

it is our rule that, just as in the case of the lovers it was counted no flattery or scandal for them to be willingly and utterly enslaved to their favorites, so there is left one sort of voluntary thraldom which is not scandalous; I mean, in the cause of virtue. It is our settled tradition that when a man freely devotes his service to another in the belief that his friend will make him better in point of wisdom, it may be, or in any of the other parts of virtue, this willing bondage also is no sort of baseness or flattery. Let us compare the two rules 184b

Xenophon Symposium 8.8 [8]Now, I have always felt an admiration for your character, but at the present time I feel a much keener one, for I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character.

If we continue: Xenophon Symposium [26] Furthermore, the favourite who realizes that he who lavishes physical charms will be the lover's sovereign will in all likelihood be loose in his general conduct; but the one who feels that he cannot keep his lover faithful without nobility of character will more probably give heed to virtue. [27] But the greatest blessing that befalls the man who yearns to render his favourite a good friend is the necessity of himself making virtue his habitual practice. For one cannot produce goodness in his companion while his own conduct is evil, nor can he himself exhibit shamelessness and incontinence and at the same time render his beloved self-controlled and reverent"

Plato's Republic 403b "may not come nigh, nor may lover and beloved who rightly love and are loved have anything to do with it? No, by heaven, Socrates, he said, it must not come nigh them. Thus, then, as it seems, you will lay down the law in the city that we are founding, that the lover may kiss1 and pass the time with and touch the beloved as a father would a son, for honorable ends, if he persuade him."

All of these texts give a meaning of obtaining knowledge and virtue, none of them refer to anything sexual as you can see.

There is much more to be said but I would like to hear some opinions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phallanx (talk • contribs) .

I completely agree with what was just said above. Can anyone argue against this? I highly doubt it.66.53.98.122 21:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for merger

It seems that there are two separate articles covering almost the same subject: Homosexuality in ancient Greece and Homosexuality in the militaries of ancient Greece. Given that expansion and war were quite important in the social life of Ancient Greek city-states, I consider repetition of same information two times unnecessary. Both articles are talking about great warriors, and it seems that information for non-warriors is not that much.

Do you consider merger of two articles a better approach (though it might need some rework of existing texts)? I am going to post this question on both talk pages as parts of the discussion is also going in parallel. -- Goldie (tell me) 10:16, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I removed the merge tag since the article on military aspects does not belong here but rather in the Pederasty in ancient Greece article. It will not fit there as that article is already at 33K, but that is another matter. So it looks like it may be best left on its own after all. Haiduc 12:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Ancient Greeks had small separate military units for homosexuals only, to separate them from the regular army. Links to homosexual discussion pages from serious articles on Greek History are misleading and irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

Neddyseagoon modifications

Removed paragraph:

In the Roman period, homosexuality was only seen as acceptable should a similar age difference be in place. It was acceptable for an adult and masculine Roman to assume the dominant, penetrating role, but not the penetrated, 'female' role - the latter was only acceptable for pre-adolescent slaves or women. An example of this is Hadrian and Antinous - one theory as to why Antinous died was that he had grown a beard (ie reached adulthood) and so it would no longer be acceptable for Hadrian to continue the relationship.

There are a couple of problems with this contribution that hopefully can be resolved. The age difference was a requirement much earlier, Aristophanes mocks the Trojan heroes for being europroktoi (wideassed) and thus unmanly. Also, subsuming all relationships under the rubric of "penetration" is increasingly being questioned as a Doverian conceit, so if we introduce the construct - which we should - it needs to be qualified and the discussion expanded. The interesting theory about Antinous needs to be sourced. And why delete the sentence on the institutionalization of pederasty? Haiduc 11:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The Iliad

This statement is totally false and fabricated:

"Many believe the first recorded appearance of such desire was in the Iliad (800 BC)."

Anyone who has read Homer's original work would know that he never ONCE wrote in the Iliad that Achilles and Patroclus were homosexuals. BONK 13 June 2006

I would agree with BONK. Perhaps the point should be made that Homer described a love relationship but not a sexual relationship. Haiduc 01:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If such a theory is proposed, it should be supported by a secondary source.--Aldux 10:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The following from Skinner's "Sexuality in Greek and Roman Culture":

After giving Patroclus permission to wear his armor into battle as a ruse to assist the Greeks, Achilles expresses a wish that both armies, Trojans and Greeks alike, would perish, so that the two of them by themselves might capture Troy (Il. 16.97–100). The apparent callousness and egotism of the remark shocked ancient scholars, who excised it on the grounds that it was a later insertion by someone who thought the pair were lovers (W. M. Clarke 1978: 384–5). Yet the grim fancy suits Achilles’ aggrieved mood, for he is still seething over Agamemnon’s insult. Although it would hardly be reflective of his ordinary state of mind, it shows that at this critical juncture, when he is so caught up in bitter resentment, Patroclus is the only other person who still exists for him. The hero’s subsequent hysterical reaction to the news of his friend’s death, his fanatical thirst for revenge, and his persistent grief and sleeplessness even after Patroclus is buried seemed no less excessive to ancient critics. Modern readers are also struck by his constant embracing and touching of the corpse, his self-confessed longing (pothos, 19.320–21, a word often found in erotic contexts) for the dead man, his stubborn refusal of food and drink, and his mother Thetis’ consoling advice “it is good even to mingle with a woman in love” (24.130–31), where the phraseology might mean either that “even having sex,” along with eating and sleeping, or that “having sex even with a woman,” as opposed to a man, is a good thing. At the very least, the intensity of Achilles’ passion goes far beyond the emotional attachments other males in the epics feel not just for their fellow soldiers but even for their blood kin. In classical Athens, numerous persons familiar with Homer had no doubts about the nature of the friendship. In his lost play Myrmidons, the tragedian Aeschylus represented the distraught Achilles speaking of Patroclus’ thighs (mêrôn) and of their many kisses (frr. 135 and 136 Nauck2); Phaedrus in Plato’s Symposium praises Achilles for being a devoted erômenos who avenges his lover’s death (179e–180b); and in a forensic speech before a jury the orator Aeschines cites the pair as models of temperate and noble love, as opposed to the unrestrained and violent lusts of men like his opponent (1.141–50). However, the Socrates of Xenophon’s Symposium vigorously attacks the presumption of pederasty, saying that Achilles avenges “not a boyfriend but a companion” (hetairos, 8.31). We should also note a real confusion over who was the erastês and who the erômenos among those who inferred such a relationship. Nestor recalls Patroclus’ father advising him to give Achilles good counsel, since he, Patroclus, was the older (11.786); Plato’s Phaedrus therefore chastises Aeschylus for portraying Achilles as the lover. Yet Achilles is clearly the dominant figure in Homer, a fact that absolutely contradicts the protocols of the mentor–protégé relationship on which pederasty was conceptually grounded.9 Halperin (1990: 86–7) points out that classical Athenians were obviously attempting, with great difficulty, to impose a notional framework of man–boy relations familiar to them upon the alien patterns of emotion and behavior displayed by the Homeric heroes. In a sense, their grasp of what is going on between Achilles and Patroclus was as incomplete as ours.

Haiduc 10:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on, It's quite obvious from reading the Iliad that Achilleus has it for Hector because he had his wife killed. The one thing that is possibly unusual is that, in all likelihood, Patroclus was the older man, yet he was the eromenos. --Svartalf 17:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on! Where does it say in the Illiad that they were gay? Nowhere! You guys are just wrong!Cretanpride 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Order

Quite aside from some misstatements which I will attempt to rectify, I am concerned with the order of the sections in this article. It seems to stand to reason that they should be ranged in order of historical importance. I am sure there will be no disagreement if pederasty is placed first in that sequence. I would suggest that lesbian love comes next, particularly in its Sapphic and Spartan forms, which are also pederastic. That leaves egalitarian relations for last in order of significance, and in the suggested new article order. Comments? Haiduc 01:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality?

How the heck can you have "homosexuality" as part of this article when first of the modern ideology of the term did not exist in acient Greece; second of, you call an ancient Greek a "homosexual" and he'll have no clue what your talking about; third of all you try to explain it to them and it wouldn't be the same. Pedeastry I agree with but "homosexuality"? Please. Quest23 19 July 2006 (UTC)

While 'homosexuality' may refer to a 19th century construct, it is also, sometimes uncomfortably, used by historians to describe same-sex sexualities more generally. -Smahoney 14:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence of homosexuality in ancient Greece. Someone has to argue against this rediculous article. I can't believe that after inventing democracy, astronomy, philosophy, science, art, and math, the ancient Greeks would be portrayed like this. All the evidence that is used to show homosexuality in ancient Greece is misinterpreted to support this absurd theory. ~~66.233.19.170 5 August 2006

It would be much more accurate to say there was no heterosexuality in ancient Greece. Haiduc 03:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Show me your evidence then. People who support this theory misinterpret works from Greek literature such as the Illiad which has no mention of homosexuality. People say that Achilles and Patroclus were homosexuals when there is absolutely no evidence to support it. If homosexuality occurred in Greece than show me some proof. Oh and if there was no such thing as heterosexuality than how did the Greeks reproduce. ~~66.233.19.170 6 August 2006

Erm, have you read Plato's Republic? Or Meno? -Smahoney 06:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing in those works that brings up homosexuality. It is either misinterpreted or translated in a wrong way. There was not even talk about homosexuality in Ancient Greece until recent years. The reason for this is because homosexuals today are trying to show to the world that being gay is okay so they turn to Ancient Greece to justify it. I mean if the Ancient Greeks did so many great thing and if you can prove they were gay, then being gay must be okay. Face the facts! Homosexuality was not commonplace in Ancient Greece. Stop being ignorant and spreading lies. Pretty soon you will say Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were gay. You won't stop there, you will probably go on to say Winston churchill and FDR were gay. It will never stop! ~~66.53.98.122

Clearly, the following guideline is appropriate regarding this conversation: Will continuing it make the article any better? If no, then don't engage any further. -Smahoney 07:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I am just saying that there needs to be more evidence in the article. This is all based on misinterpretations and is not very credible.

I'll give you that the article needs citations, but the "misinterpretation" "theory" is not credible. -Smahoney 08:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If it is not misinterpreted than can you find several sources that make it very clear they are talking about homosexuality? I have found that all the sources so far are quite ambiguous and can have several meanings. ~~66.53.98.122

This article seems completely biased in favor of those who beleive that homosexuality was common in ancient Greece. We need to hear the other side of the argument. ~~Creteanpride

I understand that the idea that homosexuality existed in ancient Greece makes many modern Greeks uncomfortable, but this is not a new idea. Here is a brief quote from a book, from the middle of a paragraph about marriage and relationships: "Indeed, the romantic attachments that we do hear of are with boys and young men, and of these we hear very frequently: homosexual love was regarded as a normal thing and treated as frankly as heterosexual love. (Like the other sort, it had its higher and its lower aspect.) Plato has some fine passages describing the beauty and the modesty of young lads, and the tenderness and respect with which the men treated them. [footnote: Those who find this topic interesting or important are referred to Hans Licht, Sexual Life in Ancient Greece.]" This quote is from H. D. F. Kitto's The Greeks (p. 220 in my Pelican paperback edition), revised in 1957, first published in 1951, and still in print as a standard work on ancient Greek culture. Licht's book was published in 1952. My point is, this is a very mainstream view of ancient Greek culture, and has been held in academic circles for a long time. (And, not that it matters, Prof. Kitto had a wife and two children.) --Brianyoumans 08:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did Kitto get his information? What he just said is unproven. None of Plato's works talk about homosexuality. There wasn't even a word for it in ancient Greek. I have read republic and the main theme in that book is obtaining knowledge and virtue. 66.53.98.122 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not taught this way in Greece and the idea did not come into effect until the 1900's. Did it take that long to figure it out. Greek literature has always been there to read. There have been books published to support the argument against it. Take a look at this book. The review is not very informative of what the book contains, but it's contents show just how unsupported the claim that Greeks practiced same sex relationship are. [1] Cretanpride 02:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Ancient Greek Arts

To make the article more clearly grounded in extant sources does anyone know the treatment of homosexuality in ancient Greek comedy, oratory or philosophy? Ember 2199 22:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources

The sources listed on the article are not credible. One source is a book review. A book review is not a source. ~~Cretanpride

• There are few topics as well documented as homosexual practices in ancient Greece, and in ancient Crete, for that matter. Please address specifics of the article if you find them wanting. Haiduc 01:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I personaly feel the article should just be deleted. If Ancient Greeks were gay then what's next? George Bush, Winston Churchill, Christ. I am Greek and I have read Greek literature and there is nothing homosexual in it. You guys twist it in such a way to make it seem like there is. For example, the Illiad has absolutely nothing to do with same sex love but you guys say it does. You guys are probably gay and just want to show that being gay is okay and this is the wrong way to do it. ~~Cretanpride

I do not think that ancient Greeks were gay. That being said, neither do I think they were heterosexual. The title of this article is simply a handle, perhaps a slightly misleading one, to discuss practices that do not lend themselves to ready description in 20th century vocabulary. As for the Iliad, please go to Iliad for a discussion of what the ancient Greeks thought of it. Haiduc 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions to talk pages by adding -~~~~ at the end.

Making random accusations against the editors of an article isn't the same as finding sources and making arguments (see ad hominem and Wikipedia:Assume good faith). Nonetheless, if you want you can nominate the article for deletion at WP:VFD. -Smahoney 01:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Cretanpride, the book review that you (I think) tried to add is for a vanity-published book and is filled with hateful invective ("putrescent pap", "dissembling dimwits", "invidious absurdities", "boob-tube-mesmerized consumer-drones", etc. etc.) that has no place in scholarship. I will be glad to remove it if you or anyone reinserts it. Gazpacho 16:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How could you know all that if you have never read the book?--66.53.98.122 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say anything about the content of the book? Self-published sources are generally not acceptable on Wikipedia. Gazpacho 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My Recent Edits which have been omitted

It is not proven that those ancients were among those who say homosexuality was prevalent in Ancient Greece. The whole theory was not introduced until 1907! False material should be taken out. Sac222 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry -Smahoney 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you guys for once argue against what is said instead of attacking the editors. An argument against a person is a fallacy.Sac222 22:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

An argument that an editor is violating Wikipedia policy is hardly a fallacy. At any rate, your recent edits don't observe WP:V or WP:NPOV. If you'd like to include Georgiadis' argument, you need to provide a citation, and rephrase the section so that it is neutrally worded. You will also need to establish that Georgiadis is a notable scholar, which I doubt you'll be able to do. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

While correcting the deletion I stomped on your edit...my mistake.I already forgot 23:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Adonis Georgiadis has a Ph.d and was a candidate for the Greek parliament. Seems like a better source than any of yours.Sac222 23:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Any admins around to block User:Sac222 for WP:3RR? (I already warned him on his talk page.) -Smahoney 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Georgiadis and removed "controversy" text

Can anyone argue that Adonis Georgiadis is not a scholar? He has written several books, has his own show in Greece, and was a candidate for Greek parliament. Seems like it be alright if I added his argument.

You need to provide citations to show that he's a notable scholar, and to show which work(s) the argument that there was no homosexuality in classical Greece is drawn from. Until then, I'm removing the following text from the article: "Some historians, such as Adonis Georgiadis, argue against the theory that homosexuality was a common practice in Ancient Greece. The topic has sparked controversy, especially in Greece." --Akhilleus (talk) 23:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

If I provide the book which he wrote, would that be good enough? He is clearly a qualified scholar. His book should be a good source.Cretanpride 23:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Editors should refrain from using terms like "some historians" or "some experts", since they are weasel words. One man's opinion does not speak for all of the critics. --Madchester 23:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Greek wikipedia page for Adonis Georgiadis. Don't see anything there that indicates he's a "qualified scholar." Just about anyone can write and publish a book. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is he not a qualified scholar? He has published other works, has his own tv show, and has run for parliament. How are the sources on the footnotes better? They are not.Cretanpride 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, Cretanpride, are you Sac222, that is, using multiple accounts?--Aldux 00:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to read WP:V. It's WP policy to use reliable sources; for this topic, that means we should stick with mainstream scholarship. A notable scholar should have an advanced degree (Ph.D. or similiar) in classical philology, ancient history, or a similar field, have a record of peer-reviewed publications, and should be cited by other scholars. Marilyn Skinner and H.D.F. Kitto, quoted above on this page, meet these criteria. As far as I can tell, Georgiadis doesn't. In fact, he seems like either a poorly-educated crackpot or someone who willfully misreads classical texts to avoid conclusions he doesn't like.

As for the footnotes in the article, they're from Herodotus, Plato, Xenophon, and Athenaeus. These writers are probably good authorities on ancient Greek culture. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Those writers never said anything about homosexuality. Their quotes have been misinterpreted more than you can imagine. The whole theory did not start until 1907! Did it take thousands of years to discover it? A thousand years from now what are people going to say about our culture? Are football and soccer players gay because they take showers naked together? Are we a gay society because we have tv shows which show a gay lifestyle? Are catholics pedaphiles because catholic priests have molested children? The answer is no. Greeks just don't like having their history altered. There is no proof to say that the Ancient Greeks had homosexuality in their daily life.Cretanpride 02:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Xenophon, Symposium 8 (Socrates is speaking):

I see that you are in love with a person who is not marked by dainty elegance nor wanton effeminacy, but shows to the world physical strength and stamina, virile courage and sobriety. Setting one's heart on such traits gives an insight into the lover's character. [9] Now, whether there is one Aphrodite or two, ‘Heavenly’ and ‘Vulgar,’ I do not know; for even Zeus, though considered one and the same, yet has many by-names. I do know, however, that in the case of Aphrodite there are separate altars and temples for the two, and also rituals, those of the ‘Vulgar’ Aphrodite excelling in looseness, those of the ‘Heavenly’ in chastity. [10] One might conjecture, also, that different types of love come from the different sources, carnal love from the ‘Vulgar' Aphrodite, and from the ‘Heavenly’ spiritual love, love of friendship and of noble conduct. That is the sort of love, Callias, that seems to have you in its grip. [11] I infer this from the noble nature of the one you love and because I see that you include his father in your meetings with him. For the virtuous lover does not make any of these matters a secret from the father of his beloved.”

Now what did all of this have to do with Georgiadis' qualifications again? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that quote implying same sex love? Did it take thousands of years to interpret it that way? As for Georgiadis' qualifications, he has written several books, has his own tv show, and was a candidate for Greek parliament.Cretanpride 02:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I might add that this is a mistranslation and that Callius got married to a woman and had a child.Cretanpride 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true of a number of people, none of which are classics scholars. -Smahoney 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Its definitely a stretch to say that Plato, of all people, never said anything about homosexuality (unless you're making a distinction between homosexuality and pederasty). -Smahoney 02:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have Republic right next to me as well as a large book which has the dialogues of Plato. Where does he say anything about same sex love?Cretanpride 02:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read any of them? -Smahoney 02:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I have read Republic. I got the other book from the library today. The main theme of Republic is to obtain knowledge and virtue. Perhaps I missed something that you didn't. Maybe you would like to point it out to me.Cretanpride 02:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Try the Symposium, especially the speeches of Aristophanes, Socrates, and Alcibiades; the beginning of the Charmides; the Lysis; and the Phaedrus, especially Socrates' first speech on love (look at 237b especially). Bear in mind, though, that our personal opinions of what Plato means doesn't matter; WP needs to be based on what reliable, verifiable sources say, and the vast majority of scholarly sources tell us that same-sex relationships were a common feature of ancient Greek culture. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, your allegation that the Xenophon passage is mistranslated is silly. The passage clearly indicates that several older men are in love with younger men, a phenomenon found in many ancient Greek texts. And yes, we know that many ancient Greek men were married to women, had children, and also had sexual relationships with males. I don't think you even understand what is mean by "homosexuality in ancient Greece", and you might do yourself well to go read K.J. Dover, or any of the scholars who have written about this issue, so you can see what the evidence is and how it's interpreted. Start by reading the Platonic dialogues I mention above. Then perhaps we could stop wasting all this time. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How is it silly. In ancient Greek "his" or "her" can be used for both genders. For example if you said "his responsibility" you would use the same word for a female as well. In other words, if you used a greek to english translater "his" in greek may come out as "her" in English. I can't explain it better than that. If it is that clear to you that homosexuality was so prevalent than why did it take thousands of years to discover it? My friends in Greece do not learn of it like that. One goes to the University of Crete and the other in Athens and they have not heard of this until I showed it to them. That means that there are other points of you but you are all not allowing them to be displayed on this page.Cretanpride 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but you don't seem to realize that in ancient Greek pronouns, nouns, and adjectives show distinctions in gender. So, if I said in ancient Greek "I'm in love with him", it would be different than saying "I'm in love with her." If I said "I'm in love with a man", it would be very clear that I was not saying "I'm in love with a woman." Moreover, when Xenophon (Symposium 8) has Socrates say, "I know that Charmides here has gained many lovers" (Χαρμίδην δὲ τόνδε οἶδα πολλοὺς μὲν ἐραστὰς κτησάμενον), we can see from the gender of πολλοὺς μὲν ἐραστὰς that Charmides has male lovers, not female lovers. I can't help it if your friends at university aren't taught about Greek pederasty, but I'm pretty sure they at least know how to decline adjectives properly.

So let's be clear about this: the classical Greeks talked openly about pederasty, it's not at all an invention of the modern era. Here's a Roman-era source that discusses same-sex love: Athenaeus 13.601a-b (I suppose you'll say this is also mistranslated): "Stesichorus, another man of strong passions, composed the particular kind of lyrics that were called "boy songs" and "boy love." No one used to despise those who had a passionate nature: love affairs were such an open and everyday matter that the great poet Aeschylus, and Sophocles too, put sexual themes on the stage in their tragedies, Aeschylus showing Achilles’ love for Patroclus, Sophocles love of the boys in Niobe (which is why some people call this play Paiderastria) –- and their audiences enjoyed such themes. . . And many men, overall, prefer love with boys to love with females. In the very cities of Greece that have the best laws by comparison with others, this is the mode of behavior that is fashionable. The Cretans, as I told you, and the Chalcidians of Euboea, are both especially fond of love with boys." --Akhilleus (talk) 04:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

What do I care what some Roman thinks? There is also an article on homosexuality in ancient Rome which I don't beleive is historical either but I bet you do. Regarding the mistranslation, they have happened before and who are you to quickly deny that this one is. I will respond with the paragraph below. Of course this cannot mean anything? Right?

From the time of Homer, in whose epic poetry there cannot be found one iota of a hint of homosexual behavior, to the time of Alexander the Great, such practices as sodomy between adults -- or between an adult and a boy -- were considered abominations, and were strictly forbidden and severely punished. As for Alexander, according to Plutarch in On The Fortune of Alexander, when the Macedonian conqueror was asked by the lickspittle governor of one of the conquered provinces in Asia Minor, if he would like him to send Alexander "...a youth, the like of whom for bloom and beauty did not exist." he received the following reply: "Why you vilest of men, what deed of mine have you witnessed in the past that would make you think I would be interested in such pleasures?" And speaking of Homer, the friendship between Achilles and Patroclus has been the subject of much snide innuendo. This malicious and self-serving commentary always seems to ignore the fact that the whole theme of the Iliad -- Homer's great epic account of the Trojan War, and Achilles' heroic exploits in it -- was the "Wrath of Achilles." And what was Achilles so worked up (wrathful) about? Why, it was that Agamemnon, had taken Achilles' slave girl away from him. When Achilles and Patroclus came back to their tent after a hard day on the field of battle, their two captured slave girls -- taken as booty -- were waiting for them. When they went to sleep, they slept with these girls. The idea that the glorification of friendship that the Greeks so admired could have been nothing more than an excuse for sodomy, is as ridiculous as it is despicable and unhistorical.Cretanpride 06:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh and by the way "Pollous men Erastas" I don't quite speak ancient greek but I don't see how that he is implying to male lovers. Furthermore, my friends in Greece are taught that Eromenos and Erasteis are quite different than what is mentioned in this article. That means that there are professors with Ph.ds who beleive otherwise and something should be included in the article.66.53.98.122 06:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

---

As an aside, I believe that User:Sac222, User:66.233.24.105, User:66.53.98.122 and User:Cretanpride are the same editor. Apologies if I'm wrong, but the interests, contributions, and tone of these users are quite similar. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppets?

I share your speculation regarding those users (actually, I think there are a couple more who showed up on the VfD page and made identical arguments). -Smahoney 00:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, it won't be speculation for long.--Aldux 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a checkuser utility or something for situations like this? -Smahoney 00:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You guys can't even argue against me so you are making accusations and deriding my sources. Cretanpride 02:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Same users. The IPs are from the same ISP, and the other user only popped up after I pointed that fact out. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Phallanx: Another sockpuppet to add to the list? -Smahoney 05:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. I was going through the talk page history to track down all the unsigned posts, to see if we had more sockpuppets, but User:Phallanx only made one post, back on 4 September 2005. Probably someone else, but I don't know how to do IP checks and stuff like that. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend going here: Wikipedia:Checkuser. I'm an admin, but only those with Checkuser privileges have the ability to run IP traces on actual screennames. --Madchester 05:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

In light of the recent guerilla edits and possible sockpuppetry, this article has been semi-protected until editors can work towards consensus. Thanks. --Madchester 23:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)