Talk:Eromenos

Needs references
Needs ref, unref tag added. --FloNight 10:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Categorization
This article is currently in the categories Greek Pederasty and Category:Sexuality in the classical world. Since "Greek Pederasty" is a subcat of Category:Ancient Greek eros, which is in turn a subcat of "Sexuality in the classical world", is it necessary to have both? WP:SUBCAT has some guidelines, but I'm unsure how to apply them to this case. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably needs to be reduced to the most specific category in a given line. Also moved to B-calss, correct me if I am wrong. Haiduc 02:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've moved this to start-class, mostly because of length. I'll remove the two "stubs" from the page, too. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

WHY is this under Queer Studies? The Greek Eromenos/Erastes relationships were NOT homosexual relationships; they were complicated mentorships that all citizen boys (that is, the aristocracy) took part in. They were relationships of teaching political science, culture, social graces, and philosophy. Rarely was there sexual intercourse between the Eromenos and his Erastes and those relationships that went into that realm were frowned upon, the Erastes mocked and defamed. This has very, very little (if anything) to do with "Queer Studies." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.199.55 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Greek homosexuality is an accepted subtopic of homosexuality, and is seen as a precursor, and by some, such as Symonds, as an ideal to be emulated, while others, such as Halperin, see it as an aberration. Haiduc (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does it seem to me that this whole thing should be viewed much more as a Senpai/kohai relationship? Elp gr (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * And why is the whole article written in comically bad English? The example of public hair would be an accidental howler of note; except that it reoccurs throughout the article. It is definitely overdue an overhaul.
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 20:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Italicisation of title
Should it be italicised in the title given it is throughout the article? AllenY99 (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)