Talk:Spartan pederasty

Comments
There is this text: "Krimon fucked Amotion here"

Is this the literal translation? It appears like whoever added it purposely used what is commonly an offensive word. Are there not others that are equally valid?

~jptdrake
 * Oiphe is commonly rendered as "fuck" though some have rendered it as "have sex with". The important point is that it is no circumlocution but direct speech, and the offensive aspect is in the modern mind but not in that of the writer. I do think that "fuck" is a more honest translation. Haiduc 10:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This piece is not included in or eluded to in any way in Constitution of the Lacedaemonians "though still erotic." 71.211.110.152 20:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)washtub80

This article states factually that Spartan pederasty happens when there seems to be an equal number of historians of the time saying yes and no. This article needs to get a rewrite and organize differently. People are going to read the opening and not realize this is a debated topic amongst historians. 71.211.110.152 20:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)washtub80


 * No one debates the existence of Spartan pederasty. What is debated is whether the relationship was sexually expressed or not. As for its being erotic, that is the nature of the pederastic relationship, whether or not the desires are fulfilled. Haiduc 03:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Check The Sources at Your Local University Library
The author seems to have changed the word "Greek" with "Spartan." I have thumbed through many of the books described in the sources, and none of them specifically refer to Spartan pederasty. Whowever wrote this article has a bias or agenda. Having thumbed through those historical works myself, much of this is falsehood. In fact, there is a little tidbit I read somewhere about how Spartans made fun of other Greeks for their homosexual affairs stating that "their members are not big enough for real women, so they have go with young boys." I think I read it in a historic text talking about Spartan machismo or something.

And speaking of Machismo, turns out that whole notion of exagerated manliness originated in ancient Greece. The "machismo" culture of latin america in fact has its roots in ancient Greece. From Greece, it spread to Rome, and from Rome, to Spain, and from Spain of course, to what is now Latin America. As a matter of fact, Greek and Latin American culture are so close, Greek immigrants to Latin America have no trouble adapting, while Latin American immigrants to Greece also have little trouble. Ancient Greece was the craddle of mediterranean culture, at least, on the European side. Also, for all intents and purposes, Latin America is a mediterranean land and culture.

If the modern med culture is any indication, then, by all logic Spartan machismo must have gone to ridiculous levels. Far more ridiculous even, than in the movie "The 300." They say truth is stranger than fiction; maybe the real Sparans were, highly likely, comically macho. Of course, this last paragraph is an assertion; I would suggest one actually take the time to look at the sources presented here. The Spartans, by and large, except when it came to war, were treated as a footnote by ancient Greek historians so the truth is no one knows for sure what their practices were like. Again though, if modern mediterranean culture is any indication at all, and since Greece is the origin of the med's macho culture, then, highly likely the Spartans were ultra-macho individuals who probably would have had little (if any) tolerance for homesexual behavior, or effeminate men.

Machismo doesn't just exist in Latin America; you see it in Spain, in southern France, in Italy, in Greece, in Turkey, in Lebanon, and in Israel. Please do not forget; culturally, Greece dominated the mediterranean world. Mediterranean men (Israelis included) are macho, because of the ancient Greeks. I believe some of their philosophers even wrote on making clear distinctions between men and women, can't remember who though. It was from here, no doubt, that the whole "macho" culture originated.

Oh well like it matters; please check the sources to anyone reading this page.

206.63.78.97 12:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)stardingo747

" The "machismo" culture of latin america in fact has its roots in ancient Greece." This is nothing but a biased opinion. Where are the roots of the roots, then ? Yep, ancient Greece were very macho, the whole mediterranean world was. But it has nothing to do with heterosexuality. Actually, the fact that the Athenians and most of the Greeks were so much mysoginistic is probably on the reason of their homosexual education : only men could educate (including sexual education) boys, not women. You're talking about sources ? Just read ancient books. You will see that virility was not about who you have sex with (male or female) but who penetrates and who is penetrated. Having sex with a male slave was common. But a grown up free man could not being willingly penetrated, or sucking somebody's else dick without being mocked. Taking care of one's appearance was effeminate. Thus, the Spartans would have considered effeminate every men of today. Homosexuality was not forbidden, it wasn't a sin, some people like it, some didn't and that's all. There is nothing, in ancient romans and greeks books about men being killed because of their homosexuality. Julius Caesar, one of the greatest conqueror of all times, had male and female lovers. He was mocked by his enemies not for having an affair with Nicomède IV, but for having passive role during sex, id for acting like a woman. You can't understand history if you mix the clichés or ancient world with the clichés of so-called modern world.

Anonymous critique
This entire article is an eyesore.

There is no contemporary source claiming the Spartans routinely practiced homosexuality, including physical pederasty. The only time it's ever implied was by Athenian playwrights, jokingly. The Athenians were at war with the Spartans at the time, so it's clear that they were simply insulting them as if to call a straight man "gay" today.

With such bold claims, this page should definitely list the translations used. Xenophon is a particularly good reference on this subject, as despite the fact he was homophobic he still allowed his son to be educated in Sparta. Along with some of his other quotes (specifically II. 13. of "Lakedemonian Constitution"), as well as sources from later writers like Plutarch ("Ancient Customs of the Spartans" 7. 237 - c. and XVII 4 of his Lykurgos biography; which also applies to the rubbish and frankly modern "lovers fight better togeter" theory), Maximus of Tyre ("Declamations" 20.e) and Cladius Aelianus ("Various History" III, 12), we read that the Spartans not only did not practice sexual pederasty, they actually despised it and it was outlawed.

The gymnasium at Thera does not apply to the mainland Lakedaimonians, as it is already known that many Dorians in the Cyclades practiced homosexual relations much more freely than on the Greek peninsula were it was typically frowned upon in most poleis. Despite this, the article still needs more evidence in this department, as William Armstrong Percy III is a homosexual author and though this may sound like a generalization, homosexual historians have been known to revise ancient Greek history since at least the 1870s. Percy also seems to be in support of legalizing sodomy. Just a note to whoever believes his words.

And for the record, the pottery shown in this page is ETRUSCAN, not Spartan, not even Greek at all! This article is so messed up, it should be cleared completely and restarted. In fact, pretty much all the articles about pederasty and homosexuality in ancient Greece are filled to the brim with bias.

I hope this can start a change in this and other relevant Wiki articles. This is a prime example why Wikipedia is a joke when it comes to classical history.


 * Xenophon homophobic?! Explain.
 * Are you conflating "sexual pederasty" and anal relations? Read the Phaedrus (among many others) to be redeemed from that mistake.
 * You presume that heterosexual authors are more reliable than homosexual ones? Explain.
 * "Homosexual relations"? Kissing? Frottage? Fondling? What are you talking about? Be specific.
 * Sodomy still needs to be legalized?! Explain.
 * Attic pottery in Tarquinia is still Attic, just like a Japanese car in the UK is still a Japanese car. Haiduc 00:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all homosexual historians are unreliable, that would be an awful generalization. However there is undoubtably a degree of bias in the works by Kenneth Dover, Robin Lane Fox and the aforementioned Percy III. Dover and Fox both graduated at Oxford. It is speculated this is where Walter Pater and similar characters originally lectured the myth of widespread ancient homosexuality, particularly in civilizations of which modern civilization owes a debt to, i.e. the classical Hellenes.

By sexual pederasty, I refer simply to any pederasty that holds a degree of eroticism, from kissing, embracing and fondling to anal sex. To my knowledge this was indeed practiced by Italo-Greeks (some in colonies originally made by the Spartans which I do not deny) but rarely on the Greek peninsula mainland. Please, read the quotes that I mentioned from Xenophon and later authors in reference to Spartan pederasty. That is the subject at hand, not pederasty from other poleis.

William Armstrong Percy III seems to be in support of sodomy.

There is no evidence in the image description that the Hyakinthos and Zephyrus pottery is even Attic to begin with. The name of the painter is not listed. The style is different from most Athenian art from that time, distinctively loose like Italian art in the 5th century BC. The art is not Spartan and so the perception of the mythical love between Apollo and Hyakinthos, or in this case Zephyros and Hyakinthos may have been seen differently in the area the vase was made.

Haiduc, I understand you seem to essentially own or write most articles on pederasty on wikipedia. Different voices need to be heard.

150.101.129.213 15:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Own?! Hardly. I contribute, and you can be very sure that many someones are looking over my shoulder. No one has carte blanche here. I would be very happy if you would contribute, but just as I try to keep my own opinions out of this, please try to keep yours out likewise, especially on the article pages. Bring in evidence, it can only improve the articles. Haiduc 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I have brought evidence. Have you even looked up on the sources I posted earlier? I apologize for assuming you're the main writer on these articles. But in any case, this particular page should demonstrate that there is still disagreement on the subject of Spartan pederasty. Not make it seem so straightforward and certain that they engaged in erotic relationships. 219.90.221.43 07:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, I actually was honored by your assumption. It is not far off the mark, I am the one who kept on splitting articles from the original one, and expanding the discussion. I confess that between professional obligations and publishing deadlines I have not had the time to study your references, but I promise to do it after the beginning of September. If I might ask you for a favor, please pick one that you would most like to discuss, and we'll address it, and then others as you may see fit. Haiduc 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have taken another look at the Xenophon reference, as it is the first on your list. I see no conflict there, it mentions that in Lacaedemon erastes had to refrain from boys in the same way that parents did. If you read the article carefully you will note that this reference (see Note 13) has already been included in the article, in support of the contention that pederastic relationships were chaste. Please also note that even as he asserts that, Xenophon corroborates the existence of pederasty in Sparta by using the term "erastes." Thus, it was the Spartan erastes who were admonished to refrain from boys' bodies even as they befriended the boys' souls. Chaste pederasty is still pederasty as far as Xenophon is concerned, it seems. However, in re-reading the fragment it appears that the translation I used takes liberties with the text, and I will employ a different one, for the sake of accuracy. Haiduc 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit, it seems to be a much more balanced article now and I, among others, appreciate the changes made. Which translation have you used for the Xenophon quote, by the way? 150.101.130.90 06:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Confusing template
I put that in there. Here is what I find totally confusing. The authors(s) are not careful to distinguish between pederasty as we know it, which is sexual and a crime, and pedagogy. He (she, they) use(s) pederast in an equivocal sense and you never know which is which. If the author is saying there is no difference, well, that is just plain wrong and turns all of Greek history into "queer history." Moreover I believe it borders on being illegal (but I'm not a lawyer). Can you legally "sell" pederasty? And then there is the matter of pinning the whole thing on the Dorians, which is totally false. In those days before public schooling the young WERE given into the care of appropriate older persons for guidance and instruction and that is not just true of the Dorians. And as for attributing the introduction of all this to the Dorian invasion, why, that is just totally off the wall. No scholar I ever heard of advocated a "queer invasion." The thing is, I or anyone else cannot evaluate the validity of the sources or the historic truth of what is being said without knowing what is meant by the terms! What I am saying is, "put up or shut up." Define what you mean and provide line-item sources. We already know there was homosexuality among the ancient Greeks. YOU make it sound as though the whole population was queer and regularly indulged in homosexuality. And that first statement that pederasty is the result of overpopulation - just what in the HECK does THAT mean? I am not even going to ask. Instead I am asking YOU to clarify it. You put the article in there, now make yourself clear and stand the consequences. We have to take responsibility for what we say in public, you included. And by the way "queer studies" is not my term but I got it from a Wikipedia box. That is what the editors on the subject have chosen to call it, for better or for worse.Dave (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I suggest you begin with the Greek definition of pederast. Cite some sources on it. Then distinguish pedagogue. Break out separate sections on the sexual aspect. Use different words when you mean sexual. If you are going to talk about homosexuality in ancient Greece do so in a different context from education in ancient Greece. I for one am NOT going to accept any such contention that Dorian education was by definition homosexual education. If you want to assert that you have to prove it and you have to do it with the proofs others have devised. To be quite honest I have seen quite a bit of writing on homosexuality in Greece. I have never seen one single assertion that education in Greece was homosexual, except for Wikipedia, and I certainly don't regard it as NPOV. I will not even get into your motives as that is not my place.Dave (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Lopsided template
I took a look at Scanlon. I would say he is pretty biased, interested in developing homosexuality as a major theme of ancient Greek life. Concerning the Greeks, he wants us to adopt the Greek wedding song "I'm standing behind you on your wedding day..." I don't think that is an accurate characterization. He seems to have ferreted out every bit of scandal and gossip he can find and presents that as fact. I do not see any numbers here at all or studies of interviews such as the Kinsey or any other report. There are no statistics and no science whatever. As far as anecdotes are concerned, for every homosexual anecdote he can find anyone can find several heterosexual anecdotes. The value of gossip and anecdotes as evidence is not very great. However, what I am putting the tag on for is the generalizations - did the Spartans originate athletic nudity? No evidence is given. I doubt it. He does talk about nudity at Olympia, but that is not Sparta. And then he couples it with generalizations about growing eroticism, etc. Well OK like other scholars he throws his hat into the generalization ring. It isn't general opinion, it isn't backed up by solid scholarship, it isn't scientific, it isn't BALANCED. Well, I'm not saying, in an article of this sort you must run out and find three heterosexual work-ups to counter Scanlon's development. But to present Scanlon's personal view as fact is an unbalanced approach. I want to see some identification of these opinionated (in my mind unduly) but published views as those of Thomas Scanlon and not as general truth about antiquity. Some of his scholarship is good, no doubt, but for the rest he goes off the deep end of supposition, speculation, unverified claims, slanting and general inaccuracy and wrongness of interpretation. He gives the appearance of having an axe to grind beyond his chosen topic. Classics should not be platform for homosexuality.Dave (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC) PS I thought of a great illustration. You can head down to Amazonia or over to New Guinea or to many other places of the world and find plenty of nudity and no one thinks twice about it. Or you can go to the beach in Marseilles or all along that coast and see plenty of evidence that people are still as God made them. Among civilizations Sumerians according to the representations were customarily practically nude. The Greeks and Romans didn't make all that big a deal of clothing or the lack of it. For that matter I saw a film of the last czar and his top military officers skinny dipping in some Russian river (like boys) back in the days when that film was still being shown. Now along comes Scanlon and starts talking about the eroticism of nude athletics and the institutionalization of homosexuality in sports and the military and even worse in primary education, citing nudity as an example of it. That seems rather unbalanced to me.Dave (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't Deal In Absolutes
It seems fairly clear from the variety and contradictions of the sources that the institution of older boys or men mentoring younger was intended to be merely educational, was often romantic and probably frequently sexual and opinions about the desirability of the last were highly divided to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.120.218.117 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

POV
The Xenophon reference, as mentioned above and in the article, states clearly that pederasty was "banned as an abomination". The article needs, therefore, to be completely rewritten in order to avoid giving the impression that Spartans were known to be pederasts. Please do not remove the tag until this problem has been dealt with.Zombie president (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be specific. What passage in what work are you referring to? Haiduc (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Footnote no.9 in the articleZombie president (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Spartan lovers were held by many to have been chaste, but that does not mean they were not lovers. See Percy, p.7. Haiduc (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference simply presents an alternative and concurrent viewpoint. Rewriting is not required.

Justnumb (talk) 08:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

to delete
This article should be deleted as it represents the wishfull thinking of the author. It has references but they do not support his thesis.Popytrewq (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Original research
Most of the references cited in this article are primary sources. This indicates original research. The article should reference mostly or only secondary sources. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)