Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. To participate, improve this article or visit the project page for more information.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid This article is on a subject of Mid-importance within classical antiquity.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion in the past. The result of the discussion was keep.

Older discussion:

Contents

[edit] Scholarly consensus and "controversies" section

The article starts off by claiming that ancient Greek society was divided between "actives" and "passives", and near the end it goes on to say that "Although this perspective is the scholarly consensus in North America and Northern Europe, some scholars believe that homosexual relationships, especially pederasty, were common only among the aristocracy, and that such relationships were not widely practiced by the common people (demos). One such scholar is Bruce Thornton, who argues that insults directed at passive homosexuals in the comedies of Aristophanes show the common people's dislike for male homosexuality". Is this the NPOV policy? Basing an article on one single view and writing all the "controversies" at the end? Have you personally read everything there to this subject to conclude that Thornton is a minority view? Miskin 09:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You might find an answer to your question in the archives; Dover's work is a classic. Even Bruce Thornton says so! The Oxford Classical Dictionary, which is a major source for the article, is a standard reference work in the field and represents accepted, mainstream views.
Thornton's views aren't that much different from other scholars who write about sex & love in the ancient world; his discussion of pederasty doesn't differ all that much from Dover's. If we were to rewrite the article on the basis of a honest reading of Thornton, it wouldn't change very much. The bit that Miskin quotes, however, is about one point in which Thornton is in the minority: a few scholars, among them Thornton and (maybe) David Cohen, believe that pederasty was limited to the elite. Most scholars who write about this topic think that pederasty was more widespread (e.g Victoria Wohl and Nick Fisher). So on this particular point Thornton is the minority view, and it's appropriate to have that in the "controversies" section. There might be better ways to present this information, but for some reason I seem to be spending most of my time in disputes on the talk page rather than improving the articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And why was my last edit reverted? Miskin 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Point taken Akhilleus. I'm not generally questioning the article's content but its wording. All those expressions of the type "love this" and "love that" are simply ludicrous. Can you imagine a Britannica article saying anything similar? The "non-constructive" sarcasm I made in Talk:Alexander the Great aimed to emphasize what's happening. This has nothing to do with homophobia, I don't even believe in such a silly term. It has to do with people adding undue weight in wikipedia because of their own personal issues. Just because something is important in your personal life, it doesn't mean that you have the right to "rub it in the face" of wikipedia's readers. Okay there's an article on the homosexuality of ancient Greece, is it really important enough so that every ancient Greece-related article should have a "homosexuality" category, a separate homosexuality section, and links to a bunch of other homosexuality-related articles? If this is not undue weight then what is? In my eyes, a minority of editors is trying to "spoon-feed" wikipedia's readers with their direct or indirect implications about how a great or perhaps the greatest of ancient civilisations was involved in homosexuality. In your eyes, I'm just a "homophobe". Isn't that too easy? Miskin 01:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, this isn't just about people's personal lives. There is extensive scholarship on the subject of the sexual views and practices of the ancient Greeks. If you feel that other articles have problems with undue weight, please take it up on those articles. Meanwhile, let's keep this article's talk page focussed on this article, shall we?
I don't feel that it is inappropriate for an article on sexuality to talk about love. For what it's worth, many scholarly works on this subject use the term "love" to describe various relationships between men; this article follows that usage.
Nobody is trying to rub anything in anyone's face. The only goal is to have an article that is accurate, and reflects the latest scholarship. If the scholarly consensus makes you uncomfortable, then perhaps you should examine your own attitudes towards homosexuality. Meanwhile, I think it's more productive to focus on specifics rather than making generalizations. OK? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Miskin that the article was using the word "love" in a problematic way, and that it contributed to an unencyclopedic tone. Personally, I'd like to avoid the word, since it has such a broad range in English, which may or may not reflect what's going on in Greek. For eros I usually prefer words like "desire" or "passion", but it's pretty dependent on context.
As far as Miskin's other points, I think all I can say is that we should make sure the article is as well-sourced as possible, and if anyone feels that the article doesn't reflect what the primary and secondary sources say, it needs to be pointed out and fixed. But I'd ask everyone to remember that this article was barely started before Cretanpride started his sockpuppetry campaign, and the effort of fighting that has taken away from actually writing the thing. It's still a work in progress, just like the rest of Wikipedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Achilles and Patroclus, Orestes and Pylades

I've tried to form a compromise wording in the Achilles and Patroclus section. However, I realized that I don't know what our source is for saying that Orestes and Pylades were portrayed as lovers, sexual or non-sexual. It's been a while since I read the Oresteia, but I don't recall any romantic overtones there. Does anyone know where this came from? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Frankly I don't think that anything has changed from before my edits. This is actually my only content-dispute, the misinterpretation of the Iliad and the relevant implications. From what I've read it is highly supported that homosexuality was brought to Greece by the Dorians, therefore it doesn't generalise to Mycenaean times. I know of scholars who interpret Homer's account on Achilles and Patroclus as a purely friendly relationship that came to be misintrepreted as a homosexual relationship during Classical times. Despite what you say, I find this section to be biased and one-sided. Even if it doesn't explicitely say it, it screams indirectly that Homer implies that Achilles and Patroclus were a couple, which is simply not true. I know Josiah's opinion on this and I find it pulled by the hair and unsupported, Homer doesn't have any homosexual implications, and many scholars acknowledge it. Miskin 01:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That's mostly true — there are no explicitly homosexual implications in Homer. The wording in that section is based on the spun-out article Achilles and Patroclus, which has quotations from Gregory Nagy and David Halperin (writing in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, the standard work in the field of classicism). I'm not sure how saying "Homer does not explicitly depict the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus as sexual" makes the implication you think it does. The section should report the facts: the evidence in Homer is equivocal, and can be interpreted either way. Most, but not all, Classical sources assumed the two were lovers. The major debate in the Classical period was which of the two was erastes and which was eromenos.
I'm not comfortable with using the word "misinterpreted", because that assumes that there is a "right" and a "wrong" way to interpret these two mythical characters. It's in the nature of myth to be reinterpreted in each age, according to that age's cultural beliefs and concerns. Homer is, of course, the foundation stone for any interpretation of Achilles, but he's not the totality: if he were, we wouldn't speak of Achilles' invulnerability or "Achilles' heel", neither of which have any Homeric basis.
So there's only the presentation in the original text, and how it has been interpreted in different periods. If you feel that the section places undue weight on the interpretation of the two as lovers, please provide sources for the scholars you mention. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Just to add to what Josiah's said, which I agree with, most secondary sources on this topic agree that Homer doesn't present A. & P. as an erastes/eromenos pair, but there's at least one person who thinks that they are lovers in the Iliad. I'll give some sources at a later time over on Talk:Achilles and Patroclus, if haven't been incorporated into the article already--I haven't looked at it lately. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spartans?

Hi, I'm a Yale undergraduate currently majoring in Classics and writing a paper on pederasty, homosociality, and male identity in the Greek world. I've noticed a significant omission from this article-- there is no mention of Spartan homosociality in the agoge. Would someone more qualified than I please add this section? Professor Donald Kagan recently gave an excellent lecture on this topic, and cited Xenophon and Plutarch as possible sources.

Also, some citations in the original Greek might be helpful in making this page more scholarly. Finally, I think Burwick's Eros and Polis, should be cited along with Dover. Another source which might prove useful is an anthology recently published by Chicago UP entitled Erotikon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A.V. Marraccini (talk • contribs) .

Thanks A.V. I actually have that anthology, but have not gotten a chance to read through it yet. I don't know if I have time to search for some good material in there, but I'll see what I can do. Welcome to the wiki and the page and I'd say BE BOLD! and go ahead and try your hand at a section yourself! Just be sure to avoid original research and cite your sources. CaveatLectorTalk 05:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, CaveatLector. I will head over to the library and get some more sources before I do the section though-- I think Paul Cartledge also deserves some mention, and I would like to cite his essay on homosociality in Spartan Reflections properly.

A.V. Marraccini 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bias

This article has a definite bias toward the claim that homosexuality was simply a practice of the elite in Greek society. I disagree, because common sense would disagree. The claim is based on the claim that homosexuality is a choice, it is homophobic because it intends to posit the homosexual as a higher class in Greek society that "fucked" literally the lower "heterosexual" classes. This is incorrect. Homosexuality in Ancient Greece existed in all socio-economic classes. Anyone could be a homosexual, a member of the elite, a commoner, a slave. This is the nature of homosexuality today. However since the proportion of elite vs. common populace means the populace is much greater in number than the elite, most ancient Greek homosexuals would be a member of the lower, most common class.

Now since most ancient Greek homosexuals would be of the lower class, I see no reason why these theories about homosexuals in higher classes engaging in relationships with those in lower classes out of cultural tradition of not wanting to be the "passive" partner if you were of higher social status. This would not apply to most Greek homosexuals. --Revolución hablar ver 09:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Common sense is far from infalliable. Also note the sources we have to deal with: the authors being generally upper-class would be far more likely to highlight anything involving the upper classes than specifics of the lower classes alone. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
You may have a point, Revolución, but what you call "common sense" Wikipedia calls original research. That is, your argument may be perfectly sound, but unless it's been printed in a reliable source we can't put it in the article. The article as it stands reflects the views of scholars in the field, who disagree on the matter of whether homosexual activity was widespread in all classes, or largely limited to the upper classes. (Note that the article mentions scholars on both sides of this debate, and doesn't say which side is correct.) If you feel that the article gives undue weight to the position held by scholars like Bruce Thornton, you can make that argument; however, for better or for worse we can't change sourced Wikipedia articles based on "common sense" alone. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Revolución, you are working within a modern construct as you raise your concerns. The Greeks did not think of sexuality the way we did (in terms of 'homosexual' or 'heterosexual'). They did not see same-sex desire as something definable within its own category (as the scholars who are cited in the article discuss). They constructed 'proper' sexual behavior based on class. These conclusions do not intend to posit what you feel they do. Rather, they posit a construction of sexuality and society where the sex of the person you slept with was not seen as an identity. (The word 'Homosexual' itself was created by the Victorians in order to pathologize us and place us into a category of mental illness). Same-sex attraction just didn't carry the stigma it did within our society. The stigma for the Ancient Greeks (as, again, the sources in the article articulate) was focused around being penetrated, and therefore made a social inferior. This all, of course, applies to the upper class, but the fact is that Ancient Greece WAS the upper class. We don't have lower class sources, and we can't say much about them. They didn't play a large part in government or history at the time. Surely, there were lower class people with same-sex desire. That is a given. But when we are trying to reconstruct how the Ancient Greeks viewed same-sex desire, we cannot rely on speculation over the lower class. We can't really say anything, so we have to stick with the sources we have and the things we do know. Thanks for the concern, though. It's a relief to find someone criticizing this article who actually has good faith. CaveatLectorTalk 01:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 300 Spartans

I cut this material from the article:

The legendary band of 300 spartans, noted for their valor in the battle of Thermopylae, were also noted because most of them, including King Leonidas, were involved in relationships with each other, which strongly boosted their morale and bravery.

No citation was provided for this, and I think it's incorrect; pederasty was definitely part of the Spartan ethos, but I don't think the 300 were composed of erastes-eromenos pairs like the Sacred Band. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some notes on the intentional fallacies presented in this article.

Seems like although 2 years have gone from my first notes, the specific lobby interested in promoting their agenda hasn't learnt a single thing. While the examples could be endless, lets start off with a couple of notes.

  • The article allegedly quotes Herodotus 1.135.
The question here is WHY is there no reference to the mistranslation, since the original does NOT mention "pederasty" but "παισι μισγονται" (literally intercourse with children) the exact phrase found in Plutarch's "Malice of Herodotus" which clearly depicts the difference between the true notion of pederasty and what some want it to mean ???
someone also presents Plato, Phaedrus 227a as alleged proof but fails to indicates exactly where the reference to any form of sexual activities are noted.
  • Symposium 8
the entire chapter speaks of excellence in character and the notion that that spiritual love is far superior to carnal yet some strive to present something else.
  • Memorabilia 2.6.28
Yet another nit-picked quote since whoever quoted it, intentionally took it out of context since in the very next sentence he clairifies that it has NOTHING to do with homosexuality since he clearly titled the relationship "φιλιαν" (FRIENDSHIP)
  • The ancient Greeks did not conceive of sexual orientation as a social identifier, as Western societies have done for the past century.
How is it possible for anyone to ignore the existance of the term "KYNAIDOS" and the laws cited in Aeschines' Against Timarchus ??
  • Sacred Band of Thebes
More intentional fallacies. The texts makes NO reference to "eromenos" but to "paidikon" so you are arguing that the Thebeans actually enlisted children in their army!!! Then again, those that comprehend ancient Hellenic and don';t simply resort to translations, would see that the word also means: childish, purile, lack of maturity.

We may safely conclude that the use of 'paidikon' indicates the second and that the eromenos as explained two whole years ago, provided knowledge and was not some raging homo.

  • Sappho
I'd really love to hear the explanation from the individual that wrote this rediculous entry. Since there is NOTHING remotely close to female homosexuality mentioned in the single surviving text of Sappho, he jumps to the chance to present yet another intentional manipulation by attempting to link Plato's philosophic texts as proof of the whole Sappho myth.
  • Pedagogic erotic relationships are also documented for Sparta
Erotic ???
Why isn't this audacious claim supported with some form of text ??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.73.48.136 (talk • contribs).
For the most part, the above rant is useless, but it would definitely be worth saying something about the term kinaidos. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] intentional fallacies p.II

Useless ??? Why don't you try to contradict a single thing I've said. Do explain dear Akhilleus, how is Pato's Symposium connected to the fallacies presented about Saphho, explain how the specific quote from his Phaedrus supports anything suggested in the article. Do explain WHY is it that Xenophon's Memorabilia is intentionally taken out of context.. in short GIVE ME ANSWERS before you decide to reject my objections to the article.

PS: was is it that I'm logged in but the screen name doesn't appear? Phallanx

Answers for most of what you've brought up are in the extensive archives of this talk page. Moreover, anything that you've said that is based on your own reading of the primary sources is original research--Wikipedia articles are based on secondary sources, not primary sources.
As far as your screenname, I'm not sure what the answer is. Are you signing your comments with four tildes (~~~~)? If so, that should translate into a signature with a timestamp and your user name. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're telling me that some self-proclaimed authority which supports the rediculous claim that Plato's Symposium is a clear reference to Sappho or the intentional distortion of Xenophon actually exists?!? and if so, why isn't his name presented as a source but instead the original text is, which according to your own link "original research" is nothing more than someone's interpretation of the text and a totally fallacious one at the very least ??

ps1: haven't found any for of refutation of anything I had posted.. ps2: thanks for the sig tip. Phallanx 18:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Phallanx

Please read Wikipedia's no original research policy. It will save us a lot of trouble. If you want to dispute things in the article, find secondary scholarship that does so. If you see something in the article that you don't agree with, and it doesn't have a citation, feel free to mark it with the {{fact}} tag, so that others can provide a citation. For the most part this article is a good reflection of current scholarship on this topic.
By the way, if you are really interested in improving this article, I strongly suggest that you alter the way you're discussing things. Saying that there are "intentional fallacies" here means that you think editors are distorting the historical record to serve an agenda--like you say above, "the specific lobby interested in promoting their agenda". When you start off a discussion like that, I have no hesitation in calling your contribution useless, and trolling to boot. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

OK I see your point on my choice of expression but you still haven't given me a valid explanation on WHY the texts are nit-picked ? Anyone that has read the texts in question can't but wonder how on earth anyone came to this conclusion and why its taken out of context ? A fine example is Xenophon, WHY state that it suggests homosexuality when just 1 line, I mean please !!! its only 5-8 words later that he states that he's talking about "friendship".

As for secondary scholarship, I really don't see what good it will do. Reading the Archive of this discussion to be specific 2, I've found that you've already indicated that "reliable sources" are considered bias individuals that have distorted texts (a few of a long list of examples already mentioned) that out of a interesting coincidence happen to be homosexuals, yet rejected the "secondary scholarship" against this thesis and even went as far as to title him a "poorly-educated crackpot" based on a wiki entry, who's authors obviously ignored that Georgiadis is indeed a historian but chose to centralize on his political ideology.

ps: Since I'm going through the history of this discussion and just came accros it, let me note that I have no relation what so ever to any other individual that has posted here under a different screen name. In the future, lets not use such accusations to avoid providing an argument.

If you don't have any secondary sources to bring to the table then you're right, there's nothing to discuss. Especially since you consider all the sources biased (please note the difference between "bias", a noun, and "biased", an adjective). To imply that scholars have come to conclusions because they're homosexual is highly offensive; furthermore it's patently false, since many of the leading scholars in this area are heterosexual. Not that sexual orientation makes a single bit of difference in one's ability to produce good scholarship. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said I don't have any secondary sources, I said you rejected Georgiadis based on a questionable wiki entry and someone's alleged quotes when I believe that he may have never read the entire book to begin with. Highly offensive, well maybe, but equally offensive is their distortion of texts. Besides these aren't my words (even though I can support this claim) but those of B.Thornton found in the Preface of his "Eros: The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality" p.xii where we read:

>>First, most of the writing on ancient sexuality these days grinds the evidence in the mill of an "advocacy agenda" supported by some fashionable theory that says more about the crisis of Western rationalism than it does about ancient Greece. << Phallanx 19:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Phallanx

And yet Bruce Thornton winds up with conclusions that are not that different than those of the so-called advocacy agenda. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Not different?? If you have read it, then do go through chapter 4 again especially the parts where he speaks of Sokrates' and Kalliklis' 'disgust', go through the preface where he speaks of 'minority' and 'generalizations' promoted by the pre-mentioned 'circles'.. in short I really don't see him accepting the notion of homosexuality considered any form of norm in ancient Hellas.

Going through the discussion I saw the reference to a specific quote from 'Against Timarchus'. The problem is that he either misquoted or as I mentioned hasn't read the entire book since the relevent quote is not 19 nor 21 but 29. There we read “ἢ πεπορνευμένος,φησίν, ἢ ἡταιρηκώς” which clarifies that the law in question is NOT limited to those who have'prostituted theirselves' (πεπορνευμένος φησίν) but also to homosexual relations (ἡταιρηκώς) which the comprehensive Liddle & Scott translates as "keep company" Phallanx 20:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Phallanx

[edit] Removed material

I removed some material added by User:MortizB in this edit. The reason is simply because Flaceliere doesn't represent the current academic consensus on this issue (as the rest of our article shows in detail). It may be worth mentioning Flaceliere's viewpoint in some way; as I've mentioned before on this talk page, there are current scholars who believe that pederasty was associated particularly with the aristocracy, and perhaps even limited to it. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Flaceliere's views are perfectly consistent with the latest research like Bruce S. Thornton's: Eros: "The Myth of Ancient Greek Sexuality". It is appropriate to expand the article and we shouldn't delete the material. I add Thornton's views, too.MoritzB 21:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. Thornton's views have been discussed extensively in the archives of this talk page and they've been persistently misrepresented (and mis-cited) by editors who want to change the direction of this article. Very few of the editors who think that Thornton is some sort of maverick have demonstrated any familiarity with his book besides a handful of excerpts. As for Flaceliere, his views aren't "perfectly consistent with the latest research"--they're significantly different from the entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, which forms the basis for our article here. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Your edit was also a dump of exact quotations from Flaceliere without proper indication that they were quotes. We shouldn't put long, undigested quotes into articles, and we need to cite all quotes properly. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did my best to paraphrase the text. I am not a native speaker. And why are the well-known anti-homosexual views of Plato absent?MoritzB 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Thornton

Keith Windschuttle provides a summary of his arguments:

"Thornton offers two chapters on Greek homosexuality which, hopefully, should demolish these myths once and for all. He shows convincingly that there is no evidence in their literature for the supposition that the Greeks viewed the sexual penetration of men and women in the same light. Sex between males was an offence against the laws of hubris and of sexual outrage. The passive homosexual, the male who allowed himself to be anally penetrated, was viewed with "shame" and "outrage". Plato and Xenophon both viewed sex between males as a depravity that all right-thinking men should abhor as much as they would incest. Aristotle saw homosexuality as a deformed condition brought about either by natural disorder or by habit, but something that was decidedly "abnormal". There are homosexual characters in some of Aristophanes' plays but they are associated with corruption and decadence. In Knights, Aristophanes is saying that corruption in Athens has reached the stage where the shameless pursuit of all appetites, including active and passive homosexuality, is the most important qualification for a politician.

On the one hand, Thornton argues, the Greek philosophers saw homosexuality as an historical innovation, one that was "contrary to nature", a result of the depraved human imagination and vulnerability to pleasure. On the other hand, dramatists like Euripides saw it as a "product of nature" which those afflicted found hard to control. But even in the latter cases, homosexuality is portrayed as a crime that unleashes destructive forces that overthrow reason and law. For instance, in Euripides' play Chrysippus , Laius, the father of Oedipus, kidnaps and rapes the son of Pelops and thereby initiates a chain reaction of erotic disorder culminating in the incest and parricide of Oedipus and the blight of Thebes that destroys the life of humans, herds and crops alike." http://www.sydneyline.com/Myths%20of%20Eros.htm MoritzB 21:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, yes, that's nice. Before you go on, MoritzB, I think it would be good if you learned a bit about the history of this article. More than a year ago, this article and related articles came under attack from a POV-pushing troll who resorted to sockpuppetry and death threats and was banned from editing Wikipedia. There's no reason to think that you're related to this guy in any way, but you're making the same arguments that he made, and using the same sources. You're showing no familiarity with the academic literature on this subject (which is very extensive)--instead, you're taking arguments and quotes from websites of extremely dubious credibility. As for the review you quote above, that's from a source with no discernable academic expertise, from a publication that has a clear conservative stance. Try finding reviews of Thornton's book in peer-reviewed academic journals in classics and history--I think you'll find they're less favorable. And please do all of us a favor and read through the archives of this talk page--they should illustrate that the present form of the article is based on good sources, and the arguments you're making have been extensively discussed. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] gender or not gender?

From the article:

"Greek society did not distinguish sexual desire or behavior by the gender of the participants, but by the extent to which such desire or behavior conformed to social norms. These norms were based on gender, age and social status."

This does not make a whole lot of sense. It says the Greeks did not distinguish sexual behavior based on gender of the participants but by social norms, then lists gender of the participants AS one of these social norms... Which is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.213.46 (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC) The major difference with our contemporary notion of sexuality is this: our absolute object-focused (male, female, both, ...) distinction versus a far more nuanced system where all parts of social interaction have their role, including (and this is where gender comes in) the fact that women were seen to be inferior and hence forced into the passive role (lesbianism was strongly reviled.) DDSaeger (talk) 03:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeus and his sexuality

perhaps something should be mentioned somewhere about the bisexuality of Zeus. you know he was the king of them all! ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.179.109 (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)