#Ancient Greek homoeroticism

[ultanthropo]

do you think pentheus and dionysus explored each other's bodies

[tragediambulante]

Theseus and the Minotaur, Antonio Canova, 1782

[actualmermaid]

Since I've spent the last month-plus neck-deep in queer Christian history research, I ended up with some thoughts™️ about "classical" Western homoeroticism vs. Christian homophobia.

Liberal Christian apologetics sometimes do a very annoying thing when asked to explain the homophobia in the New Testament epistles. Because it's real, it's there, and homophobic Christians take it as the Unquestionable Word of God. So obviously we have to do something about it.

The liberal explanation tends to go something like this: "the epistle writer is talking about the abusive and exploitative homosexual acts that were common in ancient Rome, not the loving/egalitarian/mutually respectful relationships that gay people are able to have today." And it's so frustrating because there is SOME truth in this. We and Paul both know that the Greeks and Romans were notorious pederasts and slave-abusers. And that's bad! It's super bad. I do agree that Paul/the epistle writer is condemning abusive behavior using language and frameworks that would have been available to him at the time. Deciphering the social context of the epistles can get messy.

But the annoying thing is this: it is not affirming to suggest that all gay people in the past were either abusers or their victims, and "we're more enlightened now" is a lie. We are not smarter than the Greeks. We are not more civilized than the Romans. We are not more pious than the medievals. (Hello there, Roman Catholic sex abuse scandals.) And there have always been gay people who have defied all odds to have loving, egalitarian, and mutually respectful relationships with each other, even if we do not know their stories or their struggles.

This is kind of the crux of John Boswell's "controversial" thesis: gay people have always existed, even if they had to conceal themselves and their relationships behind various protective structures. (I actually haven't read any of his books yet, so I'm not going to engage too deeply with the nuances of his arguments.) When people try to dismiss him, I suspect it's because they don't notice or appreciate what he probably noticed. I have a hunch that Boswell's arguments are not super intersectional and focus mostly on the privileged sphere of people who left written records in the Middle Ages, but hey, serious LGBTQ Christian history research has to start somewhere. I'll withhold judgment for now. But I do think he was totally right about one thing: Saints Sergius and Bacchus. They were totally a gay couple until somehow proven otherwise, IMO. The reason I think he was right is because he was able to notice the "classical" aesthetics of homoeroticism in their legend even though it might not obvious to people who don't know what they're looking for. Straight people reading the legend are like "there's nothing gay about this" and gay people are like "wow, this story is pretty gay."

If you've ever looked into Western gay history, you've seen two words: erastes and eromenos. This means "lover" and "beloved," the two sides of a classical Greek pederastic relationship. The Greeks did actually recognize an age of consent and had ideals of proper behavior that regulated these relationships, but these were still usually relationships between a teenage boy and an older man, which isn't great. They also had all kinds of weird ideas about the politics of penetration and so forth. The Greeks and Romans didn't really think that two people could really be equal to each other--in any relationship, there was always one who was sort of subordinate to the other. So it was "weird" for two social equals to be in a gay relationship, as opposed to one with one partner who was already "established" and was "showing the ropes" to a younger guy who needed some wholesome manly instruction. We may not be better, smarter, or more enlightened than people in the past, but we do have the ability to critique them and try to identify the harmful behaviors that we've inherited from them, so we can do better. We've come a long way since the days of erastes/eromenos relationships, but one thing has stuck around: the classical aesthetics of a "manly guy" and an "idealized youth" in love with each other.

Apropos of nothing, here's a photo of John Boswell and his longtime partner Jerry Hart. They were within a year of being the same age.

So anyway, this brings us back to the legend of Sergius and Bacchus. The version that Boswell translated takes great pains to show how Sergius and Bacchus were equals in every way. They're both Roman officers, they're about the same age, they sing in unison, and are united in the egalitarian love of Christ. However, they are still just a little bit unequal. Sergius is of a slightly higher rank than Bacchus.

To be clear, this whole legend is a literary creation, and it's got a bunch of Byzantine propaganda in it. It's not history, it's mythology. Whoever wrote it down would have been familiar with erastes/eromenos dynamics, because these were everywhere in classical antiquity. So they made sure to specify all the ways in which Sergius and Bacchus were equals, but took a firm position in ye olde fandom top/bottom discourse.

Throughout the legend, Sergius acts, and Bacchus is acted upon. Bacchus is killed first, and Sergius is temporarily demoralized. Bacchus then appears to Sergius in a vision encouraging him to stay strong. Sergius is so steadfast that they can't torture him enough to make him recant his faith, and he is beheaded. Even straight couples are not usually said to have been reunited in heaven, but Sergius and Bacchus are.

So, knowing that Sergius is the erastes and Bacchus is the eromenos in this story, we can start to notice it in iconography too. It's not always consistent, but sometimes icons will have Sergius' cloak curling protectively over Bacchus' head, or one of them taking a slightly more "authoritative" posture, etc.

Above all, they are always depicted as true equals--sometimes they almost look like twins.

Increasingly, modern icons are being made that explicitly communicate the idea that they were a gay couple. The one on the left was created by Robert Lentz, a Franciscan friar, for Chicago Pride in 1994. The one on the right makes the classical homoerotic aesthetic super explicit, and is by far the most sexually-suggestive "traditional-style" icon I have ever seen lol. Shoutout to this artist.

So to sum up: John Boswell knew what the fuck he was talking about. Also, none of this excuses the homophobia in the Christian scriptures or the homophobia that Christians continue to perpetuate. However, knowing what to look for in art and writing helps us understand that gay people were not magically granted the ability to have egalitarian relationships in the modern world, and THAT leads us away from problematic apologetics.

[templeofthehorn]

Male-to-Male Relationships Believed a Norm Amongst The Celts ~

Celteroticism: Male-to-Male Relationships Believed a Norm Amongst The Celts ~

Historical accounts state the ancient Celts are believed to have fought their battles naked, a notion that holds a certain erotic allure for many. What may not be widely known, mostly because of editing and revisionist history, is that it many historians have concluded that it was not uncommon in Celtic culture for the men to have sex with each other, even preferentially so. Some speculation suggests that life for Celtic warriors could have been a veritable hot-bed of male to male sex for pleasure - and to think people of the modern times have been worried about gays in the military! The Celts were known as some of the fiercest fighters in history strongly suggesting that there was nothing compromised about them.

Some critics say that the modern Irish as descendants of the Celts, had Christianity and its traditionally homophobic ethos forced upon them. Behind all the seemingly cultural anti-gay context that gets talked about around St. Patrick’s Day because some organizers haven’t allowed GLBT groups to march in the day’s celebratory parades (in the USA), is a history of a people who seem to have had a very active natural pleasure ethic and libido. They seem to have seen no problem with same-sex pleasure, affection or love.

The relationship between gender-variance, homoeroticism, magic and mystery traditions has been, until fairly recently, a taboo subject for occultists, religionists and academics all. Over the last decade or so, interest in Celtic traditions has grown and has been romanticized to the point that it has spurred some to investigate the aspects of the culture which have been omitted by revisionists.

One offering of information is from Diodorus Siculus in 1 BCE who wrote “Although they have good-looking women, they pay very little attention to them, but are really crazy about having sex with men. They are accustomed to sleeping on the ground on animal skins and roll around naked with male bed-mates on both sides. Heedless of their own dignity, they abandon without qualm the bloom of their bodies to others. And the most incredible thing is that they do not find this shameful. When they proposition someone, they consider it dishonorable if he doesn’t accept the offer!”

From this piece and other information about gender variance amongst the Celts that is available, it seems same-sex relations between warriors were not unknown or for that matter, at all uncommon. There is evidence of homosexuality in Celtic warrior bands which were known as ‘Bleiden’ or ‘Wolf’. What is significant is that, despite similarities (such as shape-shifting & wilderness initiation rituals) there was a marked difference between Greek and Celtic homoeroticism in that unlike the Greeks, the Celts did not consider it shameful that males elected to take the so-called ‘passive’ role.

Three areas where evidence is found for gender-variance and homoeroticism include; hints on same-sex relationships in the life of Cuchulainn, the story of the Men of Ulster and the myth of Gwydion and Gilvaethy.

While there are no sweeping statements promoting what today is termed homosexuality in ancient Celtic lore, there are multiple accounts from external observers who commented on the widespread practice of same gender sexuality among the Gaulish Celts. The Greek philosopher Posidonius, who traveled into Gaul to investigate the truth of the stories told about the Celtic tribes, put it rather bluntly: “The Gaulish men prefer to have sex with each other.” This is supported by some Aristotelian commentaries as well.

As far as we know, the ancient Celts had no laws or known prohibitions against homosexual behavior. To the contrary, there are tales and histories in which homosexuality is mentioned in a rather matter-of-fact way, as well as many other accounts which, while containing no explicit mention of any character’s sexual orientation, celebrate deep affectionate and even physical bonds between persons of the same gender. As Diodorus Siculus noted, often Roman and Greek accounts mention Celtic warriors who were deeply insulted if their offers of male-to-male sex were refused.

Celtic mythology is riddled with deities who do not fit neatly into rigid, stereotypical gender roles. There are Goddesses of war and battle and Gods of love and poetry. There is also a tradition of male praise-poets who wrote about the kings they served as a lover writes of their beloved. Many historical commentaries on warriors and monastics speak of devoted companions who shared a bed and often the love between these companions is celebrated in poetry and songs.

While some scholars believe that “gay identity” is a modern construct and may only exist in reaction to oppression or contemporary social aspects, there is indeed evidence that homosexuality and bisexuality have always existed and appeared most certainly a part of Celtic culture…

[enlitment]

asking you your top-5 anything: ok this might not come in list form, but what 5 things do you like the most about Catullus?

Hi, first of all thanks so much for the interesting ask and so sorry for taking forever to answer it!

(obligatory am not a classicist, just an enthusiast. I also sadly can't really speak Latin, so take anything I say here with a grain of salt)

1. The sheer variety of his poems

Are you looking for a poem describing a fun playful banter between friends? A tender love poem? A poem about stolen napkins? An epic poem inspired by Greek mythology that is so beautiful and haunting that it shakes you to your core?

Or perhaps a poem so obscene that it wasn't allowed to be published in most of the English anthologies until relatively recently?

No matter your taste or mood, Catullus has got you covered!

2. There's a feminine aspect to his poetry

The understanding of gender and sexuality in Ancient Rome is hands down one of my favourite subjects, and Catullus' poems give you a great insight into them if you read between the lines.

You could for instance read C 16 as an inherent testimony to the fragility of Roman masculinity (seeing it as an attempt to re-establish his masculinity after he's been criticised for writing 'unmanly' love poems).

But what I especially appreciate is his ability to take on the female perspective. There's the fact that he was a big fan of Sappho's poetry (as evidenced by him calling his partner 'Lesbia' and by his (beautiful!) reimagination of one of her most famous poems) or the fact that he was able to draw parallels between his and Ariadne's pain stemming from feeling betrayed by a former lover.

(I'm also kind of here for the interpretation of Lesbia's sparrow poem as an example of some kind of Pseudo-Freudian clit-neid...)

3. His brutal honesty/ him just wearing his heart on his sleeve in his writing

It just seems he had no filter whatsoever, so reading his poems is this incredibly raw, often times bizarre experience.

But to me, it demonstrates that even though our society has obviously changed quite a lot over the 2000 years that separate us from him, a lot of things that remained the same - the petty jealousies, ambivalent feelings after a breakup, but also the pure joy one feels after spending time with their friends and loved ones

4. His use of language and imagery

More evidence in my previous post. It just sounds so beautiful at times? Plus it often alludes to Greek/Roman mythology in really interesting ways. I'm sure reading the original would make it sound even better, but I'm personally a sucker for the Czech translation as well.

5. He was ahead of his time! (You could say he was a romantic poet almost 2000 years before it was cool...)

Again, by no means an expert of this, but I think you could definitely say he paved the way for some of the latter great Latin poets, like Ovid,

Some aspects of his poems to Lesbia also remind me of the courtly love poetry from the middle ages: the poet's desperate pining after a lady of a higher class - which Clodia, as a patrician woman married to a consul, undoubtedly was. There's of course the important difference that she has been... previously attained, to speak in the annoyingly gendered language of medieval poetry - but alas, no more Catullus!

But to me, he was most of all a forerunner to the romantic poets like Byron or Shelley! The talent, the scandals, the rejection of societal norms (like the fact that he didn't really seem to be too interested in a career in politics or the military which were essentially the two things a respectable Roman man was supposed to take interest in), as well as the homoeroticism of it all (in his case indisputable, re: his poems to Iuventius)...

Hope that covers it! Thanks again for the ask and giving me a chance to rant!

[redheadbigshoes]

An article about how Sappho's highly fetishized relationship with men was used to erase her obvious homoeroticism and how lesbians often experience being hypersexualized for their imaginary relationship with men and have their relationship with women entirely denied.

Some asshole: actually, Sappho is bisexual.

Like, I would love to entertain the thought of Sappho being bisexual because wouldn't it be great if her relationship with men didn't negate her relationship with women? But your argument has to be compelling: Phaon was first introduced in an ancient Greek comedy and Ovid said that her love for him erased all her previous attraction to women, her husband is "dick from man island," and you can't site scholars that specifically argued against her homoeroticism by making her a schoolmistress or something.

Also, why would celebrating Sappho's obvious attraction to women offend you in any way? Sappho loved women, deal with it. And even if there was a hypothetical situation where there were clear instances of Sappho's attraction to men, why would focusing on her love for women be offensive?

I feel like we will never truly know what she was. And people don’t accept that.

Some people say “she did write about men, she’s bisexual”. 1) From what I know a lot of her writing when it came to women was erased and translated to be with men, 2) Considering the society she lived in, even if she was with men at one point that doesn’t necessarily mean she was attracted to men.

[sparklepocalypse]

🍓🍎🍌

🍓What’s a fic you’ve written you feel is underrated?

I’ve got two! And they’re some of my less porny Kinktober fics, which probably explains why they didn’t do as well as some of the others (because this is a horny-ass fandom), but they’re also two of the fics I was happiest with when I posted them.

How You Want to See All the Depths of Me | E | Alex/Henry | 1.4k words: Henry ties Alex to the bed, gags him, and teaches him about Ancient Greek homoeroticism.

Blame My Poor Romantic Mind for the Mess We Made | E | Alex/Henry | 1.5k words: Henry writes lines from Whitman’s I Sing the Body Electric on Alex’s skin.

🍎 Is there anything you straight-up won’t write?

Noncon, vore, sadistic torture, scat, (permanent) main character death, over-the-top angst for the sake of angst without there being any sort of resolution to it, and uh. Kidfic. That last one feels like it doesn’t really fit in with the rest, but ehh. I’m here to celebrate my blorbos, not their OC children. Just… not my thing.

🍌 In your opinion, what’s the funniest joke/reference/pun you’ve made in a fic?

You’re in my docs, you don’t know? 🤣 I’m probably going to have to go with a line from Late Bloomer, which I’ll drop under the jump with a lil’ content warning for Omegaverse OBGYN visit details.

Not even the heat spas seem to be doing the trick for him anymore, which is how he finds himself back in Dr. Millville’s office, four years after his initial presentation diagnosis, lying despondently on an exam table with his pants off, his legs in stirrups, and a speculum up his ass while she goes spelunking with a fucking head lamp in his nethers.

Fruit Emoji Ask Game for Fic Writers

[women-throughout-history]

Sappho: Lady of Lesbos

Sappho, the renowned 7th century Greek poetess whose name birthed the term "sapphic," is a divisive figure among historians and critics. She was revered as a lyrical genius from Lesbos, yet the details of her life remain uncertain. Plato dubbed her "the tenth Muse," highlighting her profound impact on poetry despite only 3% of her work being discovered.

Debate swirls around Sappho's personal life, particularly her romantic interests and sexuality. According to legends, she was married to Cercylas and may have had a daughter, Cleïs. Her relationships with women like Atthis and Megara have sparked speculation about her sexuality. Fragment 132's mention of Cleïs as "pais" adds to the ambiguity, for pais means both “child” and “youthful beloved in a male homosexual liaison"”

While the modern world often portrays Sappho as a lesbian icon, ancient sources present conflicting images. Athenian comedies caricatured her as a heterosexual figure, with explicit discussions on her homoeroticism arising in later periods.

Sappho's surviving poems and ‘fragments’ reveal themes of love and longing. Her lasting influence shows her elusive persona that is still interpreted to this day but also how admirable a lyricist and poetess she is. 

direct quotes and links:

According to the translation of the Suda: “[Daughter] of Simon, though others [say] of Eumenos; others, of Eerigyos; others, of Ekrytos; others, of Semos; others, of Kamon; others, of Etarkhos; others, of Skamandronymos. Her mother was Kleis; [she was] a woman of Lesbos, from Eressos, a lyric poet, who was born in the 42nd Olympiad, when Alkaios also lived, and Stesikhoros, and Pittakos. She also had three brothers: Larikhos, Kharaxos, Eurygios. She was married to a most wealthy man, Kerkylas, who operated from Andros, and she had a daughter by him, who was named Kleis. There were three companions and friends of hers -- Atthis, Telesippa, Megara -- in respect of whom she incurred accusations of a shameful friendship/love. Her pupils were Anagora of Miletus, Gongyla of Kolophon and Euneika of Salamis. She wrote 9 books of lyric poems. And she first discovered the plectrum. She also wrote epigrams and elegiacs and iambics and monodies.”

https://www.uh.edu/~cldue/texts/sappho.html

http://digitalsappho.org/

http://www.aoidoi.org/poets/sappho/

Translated poem about Cleis: https://allpoetry.com/poem/8449313-Cleis-by-Sappho

Sappho in the Phaedrus: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/51248.pdf

[thegaybluejay]

I desperately need more people to know this, so I wanted to ramble and share something I learned recently in my Medieval Women’s Writing class!

(I’m an English major btw! It’s part of why I’m a huge nerd lmao!)

ANYWAY

“Originality” as a concept wasn’t NEARLY as big in medieval writing as it is proclaimed to be among writers today. Many medieval authors would draw from other stories (whether these were local tales told by people in their day to day life or more widely known writings such as the legend of King Arthur, ancient Greek texts, or even biblical parables) as they wrote. Many popular medieval fictional texts were simply new spins or new character perspectives on already well known stories!

For example, there’s an Old English poem called Judith (found in the same manuscript as the poem Beowulf), and it’s simply an adaption/retelling of the (now apocryphal/removed from canon) Book of Judith from the Bible!

Long story short - many medieval authors were simply fanfiction girlies at heart and I love this for them.

When we were discussing originality in class, I actually brought up fanfiction and my professor (a medieval writing historian) agreed that it was a decent comparison to how they viewed originality back then lol.

So the next time someone tells you that fanfiction is just cringy or a new trend, you can say that the art of reimagining and rewriting stories you love has been around since the Middle Ages (and likely long before)!

Also, let me know if anyone wants me to ramble about queerness and homoeroticism in medieval texts because IT’S ACTUALLY SO COOL TO TALK ABOUT AND IT 100% EXISTS LMAO

[jeannereames]

Hello Dr. Reames I hope you’re doing well

I have a question. I was reading everything you’ve written on your blog about alexander and hephaistion and in a post you mentioned that as alex and hephaistion became older their relationship became more complicated. Could you expand more on what you mean by that? In what ways did it become complicated?

Why Alexander and Hephaistion as Lovers as Adults was “Complicated”

I’m not entirely sure whether the asker means the historical people, or the characters in my novel, so I’ll answer for both, as the answer is somewhat the same, but in the book, I can add more specificity. One must be more circumspect about the historical people.

First, if they were never lovers (the historical people), then the only complication would have been Alexander’s increasing power. No matter how much freedom Hephaistion had, the murder of Kleitos showed that a drunk, furious Alexander could do terrible things, even to people he considered like family. As ATG aged, he had more cause for anger, and he also drank more.* So there was that.

But returning to the question of whether they were lovers, my colleague Sabine Müller doesn’t think they were—largely because she believes they met as adults. And THAT gets to the heart of why—if they were lovers—their relationship would have become more complicated across time. They aged.

The Greeks placed homoerotic attachments among the stages of life. A preteen/young teen was the beloved, or pursued partner (eromenos). Once he got a beard, post 18-ish (e.g., ephebe age), then one became the lover, or pursuer (erastes). Any relationship one had previously enjoyed with an older lover was expected to transmute into very close friendship/affection. Then, around the late 20s/early 30s, one would settle down and get married. It was still all right to chase younger boys, but only for a little while. Doing it too long earned “dirty old man” status, although we have evidence of older (40+, even 50+) elite men doing just that. Also, males of any age could pursue affairs with hetairai and other prostitutes (male or female), as well as with slaves of any age.

Two adult men still “carrying on” as if they were teens/young men was considered unseemly. By the time both were past 20, and certainly past 25, they shouldn’t still be having sex with each other. Although if they’d been long-time lovers as youths, they might get nods for loyalty (v. the playwright Agathon and his long-time lover, Pausanias) … and friends didn’t ask what they did behind closed doors. But this was easier to pull off as a slightly counter-culture artist playwright than a king and his increasingly important marshal.

So that’s why Alexander and Hephaistion would have experienced complications as they aged—assuming they stayed lovers. And they may not have. Even if, as youths, they were lovers, as adults, they could each have moved on. Curtius names other youths (not just Bagoas) with whom Alexander might have had a fling. It’s subtle in the text, but the Latin word used could imply something. We don’t have similar attestations for Hephaistion, but I wouldn’t expect us to, so that’s meaningless. Remember, our histories are laser-focused on Alexander, with details about other marshals appearing only if/when they matter to the main story. So, we have the name of Philotas’ mistress only because she became Krateros’ source for dirt on what Philotas said about Alexander as pillow talk. If not for that, we wouldn’t even know he had a mistress. Ergo, we MUST assume there’s a lot of information about the men in high positions around Alexander that our sources simply don’t relate (and perhaps didn’t know).

Now, in terms of Dancing with the Lion, the age thing very much is the problem, as Hephaistion is the elder but Alexandros king. They can continue a relationship for a short while (a few years), but AS KING, Alexandros would be assumed to be the “active” partner (erastes), and that would damage Hephaistion’s reputation—because he’s older (and was originally the erastes). For an older male to accept the passive role (bottoming) was demeaning, making himself “like a woman.”

That’s why the penultimate scene in Dancing with the Lion: Rise is so important! Hephaistion “flips the script,” explaining why he considers bottoming the position of power—startling Alexandros, who never thought about it that way.

Going forward, their friends will ignore any continuation and not examine it too closely due to respect for their loyalty to each other. But this works only for a little while. After Granikos and leading up to Issos, the pressure is on for Alexandros to find a nice girl to make his mistress and move Hephaistion into the role of Older Friend (without benefits)—which he does with Barsine. Yet I don’t plan to have them entirely give up their romantic liaison, so that requires concealment for Hephaistion’s benefit. And it’s not fully successful. Some push back against Hephaistion by enemies does owe to disrespect for his “preferences.”

But keep in mind, I’m speaking now of the fictional characters, not necessarily the historical people. My Hephaistion is pretty high on the Kinsey Scale, in the 5-6 range. Keeping the respect needed to command successfully as his political star rises means he must wear a mask, or find a beard, to use slang. One of the (several) points behind my series is to show it wasn’t necessarily any easier to be gay in “tolerant” ancient Greece. It was just difficult in different ways.

———————

* Before anyone asks, no I don’t think Alexander was an alcoholic, even a “functional” one. There’s literally not enough evidence to say for sure, pace J. M. O’Brien (Alexander the Great and the Invisible Enemy). O’Brien may not call him an alcoholic, but he certainly implies it.

We have two complicating factors that make any sort of real determination difficult: first, the nature of banqueting at the Macedonian court, and second, the fact that historians record the exceptional, not the usual. Symposia (drinking parties) in the Greek world were already venues for both competition and display, and Macedonians didn’t customarily dilute their wine, unlike (many) Southern Greeks. The king was not only expected to keep up, but to excel in all things, including his ability to drink. So there’s that. Add to this the fact historians don’t tell you about the 56 times the king held a symposion where nothing exciting or out-of-the-way happened. They’ll tell you about that 57th when something bad DID happen.

Even in antiquity, there was debate about whether Alexander drank too much, with detractors and Roman-era rhetoricians using him as an exempla of Drinking is Bad (especially in rulers), while apologists (like Aristobulos) claimed he didn’t overdrink, he just liked conversation so he stayed late, lingering over his wine.

Hmmm. I’m going with Door Number Three: yes, sometimes he drank too much, especially as stresses piled up, but if he’d been an actual alcoholic, even a functional one, he probably couldn’t have accomplished everything he did. For one thing, availability of alcohol on the march would’ve been sporadic, so I suspect those famous drinking parties were what happened when they got their hands on some wine, in between long stretches where they probably didn’t have much, if any.

[theetonatheist]

Hi, so I was researching Shelley, and I heard that he once referenced sex between men as "detestable," and I was wondering if you knew anything about that (it won't let me add a question mark here for some reason)

While I understand that it was a different era, I often heard that Shelley was foreward thinking when it came to sexuality, including homosexuality, so I found that surprising, especially since his own sexuality has often been speculated about.

This is a really difficult question to answer, but basically: Shelley viewed penetration as the detestable act. Homoeroticism (as we understand it) was something entirely separate for Shelley. Ancient Greeks had a similar situation going on. It's difficult to understand these sorts of things because Shelley (like all those before the 19th-20th century) was operating without the vocabulary we use today to describe same sex attraction.

We ultimately can't know what Shelley really felt towards other men, so everything is left to speculation. He certainly seems to have had close relationships with men, and he obviously loved Hogg very much. But beyond that... Who knows.

[wilhelmina-murray-harker]

i love having the free will to put words together so my professors get to read things like

"[The Bacchae] has a lot of the same flaws (or features, depending on your view) that other Ancient Greek literature has, such as...accidental homoeroticism..."

[philosophicalconservatism]

More On 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (Supreme Court Case).

In a previous post we debunked the claim made by the state of Colorado that it is "status based discrimination" for a web designer to refuse service for a same sex wedding. In that post we did it by using the hypothetical example of a heterosexual client requesting a commemorative website celebrating the "marriage and love" of two deceased friends of the same sex or ( even more likely) a heterosexual family member of one of these two individuals requesting the same service. But we can also do it by hypothetically replacing the service provider. Can we imagine a service provider who has without any doubt whatsoever no problem at with gays, but who still rejects the notion of same sex marriage?

The one thing that seemed to persuade former Left-wing justice Anthony Kennedy that people could reject same sex marriage without malice was the case of the Ancient Greeks. The Greeks entirely embraced the idea of homoeroticism but still maintained that marriage was solely between man and woman (for example see the dialogue Symposium by the philosopher Plato). And so a person can in principle have a sincere and distinct view of marriage that excludes same sex marriage which does not itself derive from a bias against any group.

That means the rejection of the concept would not be "status based" discrimination.

[chicago-geniza]

Ok so I was reading Plato on the train--as one does--and I realized the toast Manuela von Meinhardis gives to Fraulein von Bernburg in Mädchen in Uniform is a direct allusion to the speech Alcibiades gives about Socrates in the Symposium, right, which makes the nested identifications--me with Manuela and Alciabiades, Manuela with Alciabiades, EvB with Socrates and Eros, Agnes with Socrates, my obsession with Agnes--like 20x funnier. Socrates IS a girl's name, and it's Elisabeth von Bernburg, holy of holies, long may she reign!!! Also fantastic for the Caritas theology Christa Winsloe is drawing on at the same time, though the speech is constructed, rhetorically, like an ancient Greek eulogy/encomium. Interwar literati love to signify homoeroticism with Abrahamic/Hellenistic syncretism

[livvyofthelake]

well the thing about richard and reading the secret history is that it is kind of lame and annoying in the beginning and it’s hard to care about richard. well i guess unless you have an insane tumblr mutual who lovingly posted about him an insane amount a year ago. i imagine all of you would have no problem connecting with richard now that i’ve primed you. but i digress. basically it’s soooo lame until richard gets to winter break and almost dies from pneumonia. and then it hits you that he is so pathetic and sad and you love him and want to wrap him in blankets and make him soup. and then of course the story starts heating up. but of course no it doesn’t because this is functionally a book where nothing happens. yes i know things happen. but can we be honest. 85% of this book is richard going to a different one of his friends houses and being annoying about ancient greek there. that review of pride and prejudice that said it’s just a bunch of people going to each others houses. literally richard. nothing happens for that whole book it’s just vibes. and a little murder. but mostly vibes. and homoeroticism of course. anyway. basically i miss him. but i literally do not have the time to reread and also you knowwww i’m busy with my fanfictions!!!

[woman-loving]

Commentary on Lesbianism in Jewish Tradition

Selection from Like Bread on the Seder Plate, by Rebecca Alpert, 1997.

The Prohibition Against Lesbianism “You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt where you dwelt ... nor shall you follow their customs” --Leviticus 18:3

This biblical passage also says nothing about lesbianism. Yet it was used by later Jewish legal sources to prohibit lesbian behavior: “What did they do? A man would marry a man, or a woman a woman, a man would marry a woman and her daughter, or a woman would marry two men.” This textual reference is from Sifra (Aḥare Mot), a compilation of commentaries on Leviticus from the Roman era, second century C.E.[11] It links the biblical prohibition against “the practices of Egypt” with, among other things, lesbian marriage. The biblical text itself does not suggest that the prohibition of behaviors that are “like those of the Egyptians” have anything to do with same-sex marriage, and we have no evidence to assume that there were same-sex marriages in Egypt during that time when Leviticus was being written.[12] But it is very likely that the author of Sifra knew of same-sex marriages from the Roman culture in which he lived and interchanged the identities of Rome and Egypt without regard to historical accuracy.

Female homoeroticism was considered the ultimate depravity in Roman society. Women who loved other women were seen as seeking male privilege and attempting to usurp the authority of men.[13] But lesbian marriage was known in Roman society, and we do have other examples of references to women-women marriages in the second-century Roman empire. A novel by Iamblichus, a contemporary of Lucian, tells the story of a marriage of a queen of Egypt, Berenice, who is said to have loved and married a woman named Mesopotamia.[14] And Church Father Clement of Alexandria condemns female-female marriage as an unacceptable practice, contrary to nature.[15] 

More evidence of the awareness of female homoeroticism from Jewish sources of the early Roman period (probably for the beginning of the common era) is found in the fragmentary extra-canonical work, The Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides. It was probably written by a Jew living in the diaspora. in this text, women are forbidden to imitate the sexual roles of men.[16] We do not know if this text refers to positions during heterosexual intercourse, to same-sex lovemaking, or to marriage.[17] But like the Sifra text, it reflects the era’s awareness that such activities existed.

While there are other discussions of lesbianism in ancient Jewish texts, this connection to the biblical text is not mentioned again until the twelfth century. Other ancient texts took lesbianism less seriously. In the Talmud (c. 500 C.E.), female homoeroticism is referred to as engaging in mesolelot. Modern english translations define mesolelot as “practicing lewdness.”[18] But there is no indication from the context that such a pejorative definition is warranted by the term. Apparently, this term was used for sexual behavior that did not involved penetration.[19] It is probably the Hebrew equivalent of “tribade,” the ancient term used in Greek and Roman cultures for women who engage in sexual activity by rubbing their genitals against one another.[20]

The rabbis of the Talmud were concerned about mesolelot only insofar as this behavior might change a woman’s status from that of virgin (betulah). Nonvirgins lose their eligibility for marriage to men of priestly descent (who were restricted to marrying virgins). The Talmud records two opinions. Rav Huna argues that women who practice mesolelot should not be eligible for priestly marriage; Eleazar says they should, and the law follows Eleazar. The text suggests that such behavior does not warrant punishment because it is priẓut. This is generally translated as “mere obscenity” but might better be understood as “minor infraction.” 

The Babylonian Talmud refers to mesolelot in one other case. In Shabbat 65a, it is reported that R. Samuel prohibited his daughters from sleeping together. The question is raised in the text as to why he would enforce such a prohibition. The commentators suggested that he was following Rav Huna’s interpretation and assuming that his daughters would be prohibited from marrying priests if they were engaging in mesolelot (in this case, incestuous mesolelot). But the conclusion of the text indicates that Samuel did not agreed with Rav Huna. It suggests that he prohibited his daughters from sleeping together so that they would not grow accustomed to “a foreign body.”

While I am tempted to argue that Samuel feared that his daughters might enjoy female homoeroticism so much that they would refuse marriage to a priest (or anyone else), it is more likely that these two texts illustrate a different point. The rabbis who wrote and edited these passages clearly knew of female homoerotic behavior but assumed that the women involved would certainly marry men. Thus their concern is probably with stopping this behavior, so that the women in question would be prepared for marriage. Samuel’s daughters should not get used to sexual pleasure either because they were not yet ready for marriage or because when they did marry they would have to sleep separately from their husbands. Husband and wife were not allowed to share one bed because of the laws of niddah, which prohibited touching between husband and wife while the woman was menstruating and for seven clean days after. So sexual pleasure, while encouraged, was limited to approximately half of the month because of the demands of niddah. That is not to say that the daughters in question might not have preferred each other’s company to a husband; of this we cannot be certain.

In the Middle Ages the Jewish laws found in the Talmud and other texts were codified by subject so that it would be easier for people to understand and gain access to Jewish legal precepts. One such codification, aptly titled Mishneh Torah (a second Torah) was compiled and edited by Moses Maimonides (1130-1205). Maimonides’ compilation did not only reiterate the legal precedents. His text also reflects his analysis and gives us some information about mesolelot in his era that sheds light on the question of lesbianism in later Jewish societies: 

“Women are forbidden to engage in mesolelot with one another, these being “the doings of Egypt” against which we have been warned, as it is said: “You shall not copy the practices of the land of Egypt ...” (Leviticus 18:3). Our Sages have said: “What did they do? A man would marry a man, or a woman a woman, or a woman would marry two men.” Although such an act is forbidden, the perpetrators are not liable for a flogging, since there is no specific negative commandment prohibiting it, nor is actual intercourse of any kind involved. Consequently, such women are not disqualified from the priesthood on account of prostitution, nor is a woman prohibited to her husband because of it. It behooves the court, however, to administer the flogging prescribed for rebelliousness since they performed a forbidden act. A man should be particularly strict with his wife in this matter and should prevent women known to indulge in such practices from visiting her and her from visiting them.[21]”

From the text it appears that Maimonides’ main interest is not with a hypothetical situation about marriages to priests, which he deals with perfunctorily, but with the problems of men who are married to women who keep company with women known to engage in mesolelot. Maimonides makes a connections not mentioned in the Talmud text between mesolelot and “women who marry [nosin, the technical legal term for Jewish marriage] one another.”

While lesbian behavior was only a minor sexual infraction, lesbian marriage as a subversion of heterosexual norms would have been a serious threat to the legal system and would receive more attention, as Maimonides’ comments suggest. The focus on the biblical source rather than the comments from the Talmud allowed Maimonides to view this behavior as serious and gave more license to punish it. Yet Maimonides still chose to define lesbian behavior as a minor crime of rebelliousness. This leniency is remarkable given his awareness of lesbian behavior in women married to men and his association of these practices with lesbian marriages, which he categorized among the biblically prohibited “doings of Egypt.” Maimonides saw lesbianism as the problem of a husband who could not control his wife’s behavior. But that behavior was not despised nor considered sinful. Lesbian behavior was not a serious crime, especially in comparison to male homosexuality, which was subject to capital punishment. It was taken lightly but not overlooked entirely. Punishment was to be meted out by the authorities of the community, the court, not simply by the man who was wronged by his wife. 

In contrast to modern European practice, Jewish law punishes the wife and not the partner, the presumed lesbian, who entices her. The person presumed to initiate sexual contact is not the one who is blamed or punished. Lesbian behavior itself is not considered problematic unless it threatens the institution of heterosexual marriage. 

Ancient Jewish sources were aware of, but not threatened by, female homoerotic behavior. This stance created a silence around he subject, for there was little to discuss. Now that lesbianism has become a more open topic in recent times, the neutrality of earlier sources tempers to some degree negative contemporary attitudes toward lesbianism.

In contemporary times there has been a limited response to lesbianism in Orthodox circles where the Jewish legal tradition has ultimate authority. In Norman Lamm’s definitive 1974 article on homosexuality, he did not examine lesbianism in early Judaism in any substantial way. He devoted one paragraph to rabbinic sources on women, in which he denied that such behavior had any significant impact on Jewish life.[22] In Lamm’s opinion, lesbianism is a lesser offense but is also not tolerated.

More recent awareness of the prevalence of lesbianism has led to stricter interpretations in traditionalist writings. In a 1994 book about women from an Orthodox perspective, Michael Kaufman briefly discusses lesbianism in a section on married women. Kaufman does not qualify lesbianism as a lesser offense but states boldly that it is prohibited by Jewish law, deriving the prohibition from the biblical injunction against Egyptian practices. According to Kaufman, lesbianism is not only legally prohibited but is “a perversion of nature and the divine order” and “intrinsically repulsive.”[23]

Reading traditional Jewish legal texts on lesbianism leads to the conclusion that the private sexual behavior of women was viewed as trivial. As feminists, we reject the rabbinic sensibility that claims our sexual activities don’t count and don’t matter. However, now that lesbianism has become public and challenges heterosexuality, the response form tradition circles is anger and revulsion.

Taken together, these biblical texts are deeply troubling for Jewish lesbians. They make our existence invisible, pejoratize and trivialize our sexuality, and proclaim norms for human existence that leave out our way of life. These factors are enough to make some lesbians decide to leave Judaism entirely. Others choose to ignore the texts while  maintaining their connections. But as I suggested a the beginning of this chapter, many Jewish lesbians feel a deep commitment to struggle with these texts and to find ways to counteract them.