Gay Icon

This moderated forum is for discussion of Alexander the Great. Inappropriate posts will be deleted without warning. Examples of inappropriate posts are:
* The Greek/Macedonian debate
* Blatant requests for pre-written assignments by lazy students - we don't mind the subtle ones ;-)
* Foul or inappropriate language

Moderator: pothos moderators

jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Still the most viewed topic out there. So the sexuality thing is of great interest to most porthonians.
User avatar
Beatriki
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:55 pm
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Contact:

Post by Beatriki »

jasonxx wrote:Still the most viewed topic out there. So the sexuality thing is of great interest to most porthonians.
Not to me. I don't care if he was homo, bi, hetero, or asexual, words that by the way didn't exist back then. I will admire him no matter what 8)
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

Beatriki

Hail We all have boundaries, And cant say no matter what. If I learned he had tendencies of some of the Lunatis Romans.Caligula . Tiberius in particular had tendencies towards, Vile and degrading sex acts against kids.

I could never forgive my Son crimes like that nor Alexander. :(

kenny
jasonxx

Post by jasonxx »

I accept Alexanders possible Bi Sexual. regardless how much diagree with any kind of Homosexuality. And I aint afraid of em either.
User avatar
Beatriki
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 54
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 10:55 pm
Location: Madrid (Spain)
Contact:

Post by Beatriki »

jasonxx wrote:I accept Alexanders possible Bi Sexual. regardless how much diagree with any kind of Homosexuality. And I aint afraid of em either.
According to today's terms, he is :wink: But I've always prefered the word "homoerotic". More appropiate for the time... :)
Alita
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 2:15 pm

Post by Alita »

Hi again :)
In this homo-/bisexuality debate, I'm surprised at how little the culture of ancient Greece has been properly examined. Sodomy was, and still is, practised among men (with either women or men) in Greece, purely for survival. Women in ancient Greece (and even today in the villages) were kept under lock and key, much like Muslim women are today. Men, on the other hand, were required to show an aggressive sexual nature and marry after many sexual experiences. I have heard many accounts of women, betrothed to be married, who wanted to marry with their virginity intact, and so consented to anal sex with their fiances, who later ended up in hospital with severe injuries and problems defecating. I can imagine it was the same in ancient Greece. And if a man wanted to keep his fiance 'pure' and didn't want to treat her such that she would sustain permanent damage, he would have no option but to either see prostitutes or, as is more likely, considering he had already started having anal sex, he would see other men for sex. It is not difficult to believe Alexander's army engaged in sodomy, if you think of the all-male military in those days or the jail systems today. Women were, for the most part, kept away from Alexander - he being in the thick of the danger - due to the likelihood of injury, especially rape. We have evidence that Alexander did not wish for women to be too long in his mens' company. In the absence of women, the men would then have only themselves to look to for sexual gratification. This is a matter of mechanics; it does not make Alexander a homosexual. In Greece, as in Persia, men showed their loyalty and affection for each other by kissing, often many times on both cheeks. In the Assyrian culture today, men still kiss each other on the lips and it is quite normal. There is a difference between sodomy and homosexuality.
Cheers,
Alita.
First, be human.
Semiramis
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 403
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:24 am

Post by Semiramis »

Alita wrote: Women in ancient Greece (and even today in the villages) were kept under lock and key, much like Muslim women are today. Men, on the other hand, were required to show an aggressive sexual nature and marry after many sexual experiences.
That is a huge and inaccurate generalization about 1 billion people (the number of Muslims int he world). I love this forum as it's full of mostly knowledgeable people and interesting posts about Alexander and his times. But perhaps it's time to tackle ethnic generalizations and bigotry the way homophobia is regularly (and admirably) challenged here?
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 7:17 pm

Tackling Generalizations

Post by sikander »

Greetings,

" But perhaps it's time to tackle ethnic generalizations and bigotry the way homophobia is regularly (and admirably) challenged here?"

Bravo! Sometimes I try to address it privately, but yes, I would agree: the lack of awareness and knowledge and the presumption of stereotypical views of the Other are too often found, even on a site that generally works hard to catch such errors. I know we have often addressed these issues on the Forum but sometimes, a few "get away" from us.

Thank you forthe reminder.

Regards,
Sikander
Eschatos

Post by Eschatos »

I think the main problem consists in the fact that nobody could discern the difference between the Alexander's myth, and the Achilles' myth. A confusion pushed by the king of Macedon himself!
On the other side, sexuality in the classical age wasn't so "manichean" (feminine and masculine) as our nowdays.
Loving a male or a female was part of the sexual growth of a young boy. Not as in our christian point of view.
It's true that homosexuality existed in ancient ages, and it was taunted by Petronius; but, almost 500 years after Alexander, in a late roman milieu. The homosexuality of Alexander could have been the same that many young boys lived in their youth. I cannot think that, in that ancient times, with such a different mentality, it's possible to find a gay icon.
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 7:17 pm

Post by sikander »

Greetings Eschatos,

I certainly do not mean for the entire issue to erupt again, but I did want to address a few points.

"On the other side, sexuality in the classical age wasn't so "manichean" (feminine and masculine) as our nowdays. Loving a male or a female was part of the sexual growth of a young boy. Not as in our christian point of view."

Fortunately, on Pothos you will find people from many different cultures and environments, not all of them so easily defined. One of the advantages to having an international,, multi-cultural site is that differing viewpoints have as strong as voice as the perceived dominant culture.

This is why it is not difficult for some members to accept that the current dominant orientation and/or Christian view is neither the only view nor the world view. So yes, I agree with you on that point.

"I cannot think that, in that ancient times, with such a different mentality, it's possible to find a gay icon."

I fully understand why gay men, especially, would find an "icon" or at least a hero, in Alexander: *because* his sexuality is not easily defined, because his achievements were not based on his orientation but on his personal will (and the hand of Fate or Destiny), because he defined his own terms and lived by them. If, in looking at Alexander's life, a gay person sees something he can identify with, or sees an aspect of his own personality there, it is easy to understand why Alexander would become a gay icon to that individual- someone to emulate, admire and perhaps, even have pride in, knowing that he may have shared *some* aspects of personality or behaviour.

In reality, I suspect the majority of people ascribe thoughts, beliefs, values, orientation, etc to their heroes that may or may not be true but that serve the needs of the admirer... and if it helps that person achieve their own goals, or win the struggle of life, or even become a stronger person, then the icon has served its function for the admirer.

Regards,
Sikander
User avatar
Efstathios
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 759
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2005 7:08 pm
Location: Athens,Greece

Post by Efstathios »

Greetings Sikander.

You know that this is not the case now. Gay people, and mostly men, focus mainly at Alexander's relationship with Hephaestion and Bagoas, and say that the world's greatest military leader was gay. That probably because they want to say that gay people can also be military leaders, warriors, or anything else that traditionally is considered masculine.

But the thing is that there are no facts about Alexander's sexuality. And as i have said before, there is a certain established view about this matter, and the matter of homosexuality-homoerotism-bisexuality in ancient Greece that isnt based on hard facts, but on independed incidents throughout the sources. But that needs a lot of analysis and discussion in order to draw a conclusion, and not an established view since we dont have many facts.

So, some things are unknown about Alexander's sexuality. But some people prefer to establish views that maybe suit them, or think are correct because they saw it on Stone's movie for example, and that is how history is altered.
Eschatos

Post by Eschatos »

sikander wrote: Fortunately, on Pothos you will find people from many different cultures and environments, not all of them so easily defined. One of the advantages to having an international,, multi-cultural site is that differing viewpoints have as strong as voice as the perceived dominant culture.
I do know that, Sikander

...and i think yo shall write from the east part of the Alexander Empires, with this name... :wink:

i don't speak about pothos users, but historical-cultural way to view sexuality in "west" civilisation, where Alexander was born, and where the polemic about his sexuality took place.
You know, for example, that after the release of the Stone's movie a great part of the pblic opinion felt the homosexual relationships of the CHARACTER-Alexander as a scandal, and, on the other side people said "it was normal in Greece colture at that time...etc."
The idea to find a gay icon, in a historical figure that we can't define "gay" nowday (because the totally different sexuality of 2000 years ago), risks to make misunderstandings on the real Alexander behaviour, and, moreover, risks, as reaction, to cover Alexander with a stupid homophobic refuse by some ignorant part of public opinion.
Alexander is now renewed as a mass phenomen, so, i think it's better to clear his image from every "symbolism", if we want to undersand him totally. Leave the magic, the icon, the romantic hero; but never confusing it with the REAL Alexander.
Thanks
sikander
Somatophylax
Posts: 267
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2002 7:17 pm

Post by sikander »

Greetings Eschatos,

"The idea to find a gay icon, in a historical figure that we can't define "gay" nowday (because the totally different sexuality of 2000 years ago), risks to make misunderstandings on the real Alexander behaviour"

I agree it can lead to misinterpretation of Alexander.. but so, too, can viewing him as strictly heterosexual. That said, I can still understand why aspects of his nature appeal to, and are admired by, gay men, as much as they are admired by heterosexual men.
And considering how many gay "heroes" have been deliberately made to disappear in history or to pass as heterosexual, I understand the need for icons.

" and, moreover, risks, as reaction, to cover Alexander with a stupid homophobic refuse by some ignorant part of public opinion."

Then it seems it is the "ignorant part of public opinion" that must change, not the admiration of Alexander by gay men.

"Alexander is now renewed as a mass phenomen, so, i think it's better to clear his image from every "symbolism", if we want to undersand him totally. Leave the magic, the icon, the romantic hero; but never confusing it with the REAL Alexander."

Ah, but there is the rub, Eschatos.. since no one has yet defined the "real" Alexander (and probably never will, since each sees what they need in him), people will always create from him the icon, magic and romantic hero.. I do not have to agree with the images, but I do understand them <smiling>

Regards,
Sikander
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Obsessed!

Post by jan »

For some reason, this thread is back at the top again, and I find myself rereading it.

:D :D

There are so many authors writing books and in each book, each author seems to establish his own will about what he wants to say about Alexander. Nobody will ever be able to dissuade anyone from a belief that they have about any historical person, no matater what repetitious fiction has been stated ever since their given lifetime.

I find it peculiar that so little is said about the numbers of people that Alexander annihilated but so much is made of his victories in battle. So little is said about the number of cities he founded, but so much is made of his sex life and nobody truly knows that he had a sex life at all except for a few children produced by different women.

And as I was beginning to read another book about his failures by Grainger, I noticed that again Alexander is at least given credit for accomplishments of some kind that keep him in the forefront of World Historical figures.

Only the gay world gives a hoot about whether he was an icon or not, and they cannot prove that at all either.

And why do you care anyway, Kenny? Most of Hitler's Nazi troops were known to be gay. Did it matter? (Smft in court reporting is As a matter of fact), and that means that it does matter. At least to me it does!
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Obsessed!

Post by marcus »

jan wrote:And why do you care anyway, Kenny? Most of Hitler's Nazi troops were known to be gay.
Jan, I can't let this pass without comment. What piffle! And quite what such arrant nonsense has to do with Alexander or his sexuality, real or perceived, I really don't know.

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply