This is in response to an "ask" on the social media site Tumblr: "Could you please write an 'Ancient Greek Sexuality for Dummies?'" It seemed like an excellent idea.
Caveat the First: while this may look long, it IS the short version. It’s not a book; it’s not even an article. There are no citations.
Caveat the Second: it’s colloquial and even irreverent, and includes quite a few NSFW images from ancient pottery. The Greeks were far from prudes.
Caveat the Third: every modern reader—put away current terminology and assumptions about human sexual behavior. It’s natural to try to understand new things by fitting them into frameworks we already have. But that can get in the way of allowing us to grasp how, and how much, human conceptualizations have changed.
So, first, the TL;DR version: The Greeks looked at what was done and the status (not gender) of the one doing it. Everything else is the flavor of your dipping sauce.
***
Now, here’s the longer skinny with proper nuance:
Sex was what you did: a verb, aphrodisiazō. That meant “have sex,” or, bluntly, “fuck.” And yes, same root as Aphrodite’s name. They also had “politisms” such as sunousía, but that noun just means “intercourse” and is used for verbal conversation too.
Nobody described or categorized themselves by their choice of sex partners, which was assumed to vary.
Ergo, it all came down to WHAT you did, not who you did, that determined acceptability. This is why you’ll see me use the term “homoeroticism” and “heteroeroticism” rather than “homosexual,” “bisexual,” or “heterosexual.”
For ancient Greeks, the role taken was crucial: active or passive. And that linked directly to one’s social position. In general, Greek thinking tended to the dichotomatic. Even the language shows it in the so-common-we-only-rarely-translate-it pair of words “men…de.” Literally, “On the one hand this…on the other hand that.” It’s all over the damn place in ancient Greek. Language shapes how we think about ourselves and our world, and the Greeks thought in “men…de.”
Also, those dichotomies are hierarchical: immortal-mortal, man-woman, citizen-non-citizen, adult-child, free-slave, etc. Your relative status determined your role in the sexual encounter: active/penetrating/on-top, or passive/penetrated/on-bottom.
Sexual relationships are not equal. And you didn’t switch positions as the mood struck.
It’s hard to get across just how super-steroid-competitive Greek society was. I think that’s why they developed democracy, even if that seems counterintuitive. Democracy was Athens’s wild-card attempt to deal with the problem of stasis (clan and class conflict) that was shredding Greek civic life by the end of the archaic era. It spread out from there, although more Greek city-states weren’t democratic than were (yes, really).
In a lot of sexual transactions (using that term intentionally) relative status was automatic, and thus, easy to figure out. So sex between a freeborn man and freeborn woman, or a freeborn man and a slave of either gender would put the man on top or in the active role: the penetrator. If the woman was on top, it was transgressive.
NOTE: Just because it’s
transgressive doesn’t mean they didn’t engage in it. In fact, given the prices
we find on the walls of excavated ancient brothels, positions that put the
woman “on top” were more expensive. This appears to be male-penetrating-female
sex, not pegging. The Greeks certainly had dildoes. We find pictures of them on
pottery and have found them archaeologically too; we’ve even found double
dildoes. Sex toys were a thing. (See comical image below of a respectably
dressed matron gardening her dildo patch.) But there’s not much evidence for
strap-ons. If a woman used a dildo on a man, that would be doubly transgressive.
That brings me to THE most important thing to remember: Status/honor (timē) is EVERYTHING. This is a shame society, not a guilt society. Guilt was certainly felt, but usually as a result of letting someone down; it was personal and mostly semi-private. Shame was public. It could (and did) lead to suicide in extreme cases.
These concepts aren’t unfamiliar; human feelings are consistent across time. What tends to change is what evokes those feelings.
So if you get their basic status constructions, you can figure out how the Greeks would view any given sexual relationship. As noted, many would have been straightforward. Things got muddier, however, if both partners occupied one of those larger social categories—both were freeborn men, or both freeborn women, or both slaves.
Now, I just gave all three chief possibilities, but the Greeks themselves only worried about the first. Greek misogyny means Greek men didn’t care, and therefore didn’t talk much about what the women were doing sexually unless it might lead to family shame. And slaves? Phfft. They’re slaves.
So (cue Rod Sterling Voice) “You are now entering…The Male Gaze Zone.”
We also have an evidence problem: most of what we know is Athenian, both in art and in text. Those of us who look outside Athens have fewer sources.
Yet while some parameters can fluctuate, such as how much age difference is required, where these relationships are fomented, or when same-sex affairs should respectably end, what seems constant is a need to maintain a hierarchy.
Again, these are not equal relationships. One partner is the social superior, the other, the social inferior. The elder partner was assumed to play a pedagogical role, hence the use sometimes of “paedophilia” [note spelling!] for the Greek practice, with an emphasis on paideia as teaching, not “little kids.” Many modern scholars have dropped the term, just as we avoid “gay,” because it feeds modern assumptions.
That’s NOT to say ancient relationships were never pedophilic. By their use of age to establish hierarchy, they created a veritable breeding ground for potential abuse.* I don’t want to sugar-coat or romanticize what the Greeks were doing, but do want to explain why Greek freeborn male/male pairings are better compared to dating in 1950s America.
In democratic city-states such as Athens, age became the primary way to mark relative status when all citizens were theoretically equal (but of course weren’t). Even non-democratic city-states such as Thebes and Sparta, or monarchic Macedon, used age as a factor. A youth’s Older Friend was expected to introduce him to “all the right people” and take him to “all the right parties.” Non-democratic cities such as Thebes, Sparta, and those on Crete had other unique-to-them customs I won’t go into. (See my long-ago article, “An Atypical Affair.”)
The terms they employed were erastes (lover) and eromenos (beloved): pursuer/pursued. In Sparta, it was “Inspirer” and “Hearer,” underscoring even more the teaching aspect. I should add that in addition to age, breeding mattered. For one thing, male-male courtships were perceived as largely an upper-class conceit. They had time (and money) for it. Farmers’ sons were busy with backbreaking labor out in the fields, and potters’ boys were minding the house shop.
So in a society hyper-fixated on maintaining the agency and honor of freeborn citizen men, how did they keep these relationships from looking too much like sexual transactions with women or slaves?
By requiring courting from the erastes, and giving the boy (eromenos) the right to say “No.”
Thus, I compare it to dating in 1950s America, or really any time after girls were allowed out without a chaperone, before the Sexual Revolution of the ‘60s/’70s. Citizen boys of status were roped about with remarkably similar velvet cords regarding “proper” behavior.
Courting
involved not just attention but presents. Yet these couldn’t be worth too much
or the boy might be accused of accepting payment, making him a prostitute (and thus,
barring him from a political future). We see a lot of “low-ticket” items:
wreaths of sweet-smelling leaves, hunted game (esp. small like hares), plus cockerels
(right, Ashmolean G279). Love-poems, sometimes commissioned from a real poet,
might be recited.
After courting from various suitors, a boy might select his Friend. Now they’re going steady! In fact the term philos (friend) is used more often than erastes. These pairings didn’t necessarily last. Remember, most involved teens and young men in early/mid-20s. Ideally, sex was verboten in early stages, but a lot of longing glances, caresses, and kissing (image below). To “give in” too soon made one a Loose Boy!**
If things do progress? How does your erastes ask to get hot and heavy in the backseat…er, under the blanket? He’ll chuck you under the chin! Oh, and also slip fingers inside your himation to tickle your dick. If you’re okay with that, lean in and look up lovingly, if not, grab his hand! (Below are four courtship scenes, Peithinos Painter, Attic red-figure, Altes Museum. A consenting boy and a partially consenting one [allows the arm around his shoulders] are bookended by two who reject advances.)
The proper boy is expected to refuse of course, at least at first. One can’t be easy—horrors! Also, except for the black-figure scene below (which is probably meant to take place in a gymnasion), note how covered up the youths are in public, even to their himation being partially over their head…like a girl! It’s not accidental.***
Once they get to sex, some activities were acceptable while others absolutely were not.
A youth should submit to his lover only out of friendship (philia), and pity for his predicament, never lust on his part! And the quintessential sex position was intercrural: between the thighs. The boy is NOT penetrated in any orifice! That prevents feminizing him because it’s terrible if a Greek man becomes “like a woman.” (The misogyny fairly drips….)
Consider the Attic black-figure below: the central pair are engaged in intercrural, yet note the youth’s disinterest, back upright, arm raised. Also note posture in ALL these courting scenes. The lover bends at the waist or knees: a position of supplication while the boy stands straight. The locus of power is with the youth, not the man. Only in the one scene (above) where the boy is receptive do we find him in a “melting” posture not unlike Harlequin Romance covers.
Yet all depict intercrural. It is by far the most common. We have a few pots that depict same-sex anal, and at least one of these appears to be between boys of about the same age—which I find most interesting. By contrast scenes of anal sex with women are common (prostitutes and wives); it’s a form of birth control. What I have never seen, anywhere, is oral sex between two men. And with women, it appears only with prostitutes. Especially oral sex had enormously demeaning connotations related to warfare and defeat. That said, there are some references in Comedy to the vagina as a “tongue pocket.” *snort* Art and texts don’t necessarily line up.
The upshot, however, is that Good Boys don’t let themselves be penetrated. Period.
So yeah, 1950s America meets 5th Century Athens. Except the arm-candy is a boy. And unlike the arm-candy girl, he will eventually outgrow it and turn into a voting citizen like his former lover. That former lover is now his TRUE equal and possibly political ally. But sex should be a thing of the past (because sex requires one of them to take the “lesser” position).
Yet just as in 1950s America, the ideal only sometimes lined up with the real. And I expect much of the above reflected Athenian democratic myths not seen in non-democratic cities.
Reality suggests boys got pressured to “give in,” or did so simply because they wanted to. Some were gold diggers, using their looks to climb the social ladder, and some were raped, especially if the rapist was so far above the youth as to be untouchable and act with impunity. If these boys didn’t have to worry about pregnancy, they did have to worry about the ancient Greek gossip mill which could be just as devastating.
The last question I often get: Even if the ancient Greeks didn’t have terms for “gay” or “lesbian” (etc.) ….did they at least recognize the basic concept?
My answer is, "Perhaps." Ancient sources suggest that at least some recognized people might prefer their own gender, the other gender, or both in varying degrees of intensity. But here's where categorization gets tricky. Even if they recognized these tendencies, they clearly didn't think them important enough to create labels, much less conceptualize them in the ways we do.
Interesting, no? And instructive.
I’ll leave y’all with one last titbit that, I think, shows how truly different Greek attitudes were.
It wasn't necessarily lovers of men who were assumed to be effeminate, but men obsessed with women. What a twist! The modern equation of effeminacy with homosexuality assumes that gay men really want to be women. (Regardless of whether this is true, of course.) But the ancient Greeks assumed that loving women "to excess" would cause men to become womanish. You are who you fuck?
In the end, Greeks worried about excessive desire of any kind. We have only to recall the admonition at Delphi from Apollo: moderation in all things. Sophrosunē (self-control) was the desired goal. It wasn't the object of one's desire that concerned them, but the control exercised over it. A katapugos or kinaidos was not a "fairy," but simply wanton: insatiable and constantly seeking sex past appropriate boundaries. That could mean serving as the passive partner in male-male relations when one shouldn't, or by committing adultery with another man's wife. BOTH violated boundaries and displayed a shocking lack of sophrosunē!
The ideal man was expected to display self-control at all times: in his public speech (measured and calm, not angry or overly excited), in his public comportment, in his consumption of alcohol (why wine was watered), and in his sexual practices.
Anything less was the mark of the barbaros: barbarian.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
*Like us, they recognized “dirty old men” and one (lesser) job of gymnasiarchs (andministrators) and gymnastai (trainers) was to police behavior in the gymnasium (gymnasion). Not enclosed like today, these were big parks where men and youths exercised nude; they usually included various specialized buildings. Older men caught harassing youths could be thrown out.
So if they lacked a #MeToo Movement, they did have courts, and honor killings over “hubristic” acts. Rape of a youth was an hubristic act. Keep in mind, girls were typically married c.15-16, possibly even younger. That said, sex with a child (prepubescent) was not okay. Even following sieges, rape of children was loathed (but certainly happened).
**Again, parallels between Loose Woman and Loose Boy with overtones of “whore,” which presumably would lead to eventual prostitution are perfectly valid. See my final discussion about the kinaidos as one who can’t control himself = like a barbarian = a “natural slave.” Slaves (and prostitutes who usually are slaves) had no citizen rights.
*** Pottery can be tricky because telling free from slave in sex scenes requires recognizing other symbolic markers—so be careful. Hint: slaves are often depicted nude when others are clothed, with short hair (especially for women), and are physically smaller. Just as gods are depicted as taller. That figure you think is a child? Might be a slave. And not just in sex scenes; same issue on funeral stelae. Is that the deceased's child, or servant?
No comments:
Post a Comment