Was Any Sexual Relations at all important to Alexander

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

Post Reply
iskander_32

Was Any Sexual Relations at all important to Alexander

Post by iskander_32 »

Companions hi,, Many posts and topics threough forum have discused Alexanders Bisexuality,, I fundamentally think that any kind of sexual relations at that time were nopt the big issue it is today.Everything in todays society is sexually orientated from fashion through th pornography and the rest,,, It seems thgat sopciety today is obsessed and cant really find anything else to say or talk about,,, We are forevere been told about boundaries etc been pushed, But to me its all a bit stale,,, Movies and the media is full of who has slept with who and what they did.Its really sad that some girls value is only the size of there breasts amnd plastic surgery.What im saying is that I doubt Alexander gave a rats arse about Sex, I believe in those societies sexwas a means to an end and to produce generations of Macedonians and soldiers,, I think its fare to say women second class citizens.I'm sure Alexander prefered the adventure and company and the war like life that he lived,, Been this close with his boys im sure bisexual instances took place,, I wouldnt be surprised if they didnt,, hetrosexual sex Im sure was a carnal pastime that im sure they did in a casual way.I think it fair to say the bonds and trust Alexander had with Heaphastion and his other close friends were stronger bonds as brothers comrades than he had with any woman and thats not to be sure he had sex with any of them.regardsKenny
Linda
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2003 2:57 pm

Re: Was Any Sexual Relations at all important to Alexander

Post by Linda »

Kennyi think it is true that our media is very sexualised Alexander would be puzzled probably by the attention paid to his sex life - that is a product of confusions and differences in morality in our times - but to say that sexual love was not important in ancient times, when the whole of the Trojan war is, in the tale, caused by a woman running off with Orland Bloom. well, I know that isn't what it is all about, but love was as important then as it is now - and then as now, it depends who you are having the sexual relations with...But I don't think it was means to an end - I think that is to turn the ancients into some sort of insect life. There is a great deal of love poetry from Hellenic times, some of it sexual, and its beauty indicates that sexual love was important, both as part of deeper love and casual attraction. Basically, people had sex, fell in love, fell out of love, procreated, and died - then as now. Maybe social structures and what was considered acceptable and natural behaviour differed, in fact they definitely did - and perhaps Alexander spent more time and energy fighting than making love, but that is not to say that his sexual affairs were casual or meaningless - in fact evidence is to the contrary. And if you read poetry of the time, you will see that there are plenty about desire, and dying for love, and the court reports have people involved in cases because they have fallen for someone elses' boys or woman. Marriages were arranged, often, but that doesn't mean to say people did not fall in love - Socrates says that men who fall in love with women will become adulterers, precisely because they will fall in love with someone other than their wife. And nowadays, there are lots of surveys which say people like television, or football, or shopping more than sex - and everyone is different. I know sometimes it helps people deal with the fact of Alexander's bisexuality if they say: "everyone did it in those days - those "pre-Christian times", it was just because women were considered inferior (hell, that thought doesn't put most men off - it usually encourages them :) )", but you still can't get away from Alexander having to be pulled from Hephaestion's body, and trying to get him made a god. That was love. Romantic love - whether it was linked to sex or not. Sexuality isn't all about sex, you know. I think Boy George said that ... :)
jan
Strategos (general)
Posts: 1709
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2003 2:29 pm

Re: Was Any Sexual Relations at all important to Alexander

Post by jan »

Usually, I don't like to get into discussions of whether Alexander did or didn't have sex. According to Arthur Weigall, he could have been called Pope Alexander, as he calls him incontinent, not meaning the urinary form, but as nonsexual or not interested in sex at all. So it will depend upon the author, something I have learned is especially important in discussing and learning who Alexander is, as each adds his or her own interpretation of the extant sources which cannot be taken as gospel either.My main point is that I am interested in the opposite sex for romantic liasons, and why is other people's sexlife any of my business anyway? Unless they are gay and I am straight. That is all that counts, that you find someone who you want to satisfy your desires. Alexander is a thing of the past, so why the heck is it so important? I believe he was celibate more often than sexual as he wanted to think of himself as a god so much and mortality was known only through sex or sleep is a quotation often ascribed to him. And as sex is often called the little death, maybe he was onto something. Would people turn against a modern leader if it is learned that he is gay? You know darn well that they would, except in certain states, nations, and places where it is common knowledge. Britain appears to be a place where homosexuality is not quite so threatening as in other nations of the world. In some places, one can get killed for it. Alexander himself killed the Sacred BAnd of Thebes, and their status was famous then. He is also quoted as scorning the wishes of Persian women offering male boy children to him for his pleasure as though it were an insult to him. I support Agnes Saville's position on his sexuality most of all as she has made a complete chapter defending her position. She at least uses direct quotations from the known sources to support her position. Personally, I prefer him straight as an arrow!
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4764
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 6:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Was Any Sexual Relations at all important to Alexander

Post by marcus »

Hi Jan,Largely I agree with you, but watch out for "Alexander himself killed the Sacred Band of Thebes, and their status was famous then." In the context of your post you make it look as if Alexander destroyed the Sacred Band *because* it was composed of pairs of lovers. Their sexuality had nothing to do with their deaths (I know you know that) - they were enemy soldiers who were slain in the course of a battle, nothing more.By the way, I suspect Weigall called Alexander incontinent because at the time he was writing no-one (on the whole) took opposing views to those of Tarn, who of course thought the whole idea rather mucky (unless one was 'properly' married in a monogamous relationship, contracted purely for love ...)All the bestMarcus
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Tony O.

Re: Was Any Sexual Relations at all important to Alexander

Post by Tony O. »

I've been reading Dr. Jeanne Reames-Zimmerman's take on Alexander's sexuality and had some points to ponder. The good doctor does not believe he was gay, i think otherwise.
First of, if what the doctor's saying is true about language shaping us, which i believe, and this is with regards to using homoerotic instead of homosexual because our concept of gay is not appropriate with the ancients, would it be possible then that even though the ancient greeks did not have an equivalent term for the gay concept that we now know, what they really meant was that the homoerotic attachment in antiquity that Alexander and Hephaistion shared is in fact 'homosexuality', its just that language hasnt caught up with the times yet? surely they know of the concept since in the text i read, coeval relations are frowned upon. what do they call that then and why is that not acceptable? which brings me to my second question;
If as a young male person, having an older male sexual partner in those times is normal, is it safe to say that there are young males or older males for that matter who chose not to engage in those kind of sexual interactions? if so, and if we might deduce that this is then a choice, would choosing a lifestyle of having sexual interactions with the same gender just because society says its ok mean that there are no attractions involved, would i be lead to believe that i would rather be walking naked in public if society permits even if i dont want to? The point is if nobody was pressuring Alexander to have an erastes why would he want one?
Third, indeed Alexander was mobile in those days and perhaps he would leave his may wives behind and could only focus on Hephaiston, the question remains, aren't there any women in those places that they went to? its not like they are in the navy and are cramped in one cruise ship.
Lastly, when Alexander died supposedly within months of Hephaiston's death, that after 19 years of knowing each other and having an intimate relationship between them, would we believe the kind of attachment between the two is just mere friendship? i know its kind of subjective but dont we develop a higher love for somebody that has become our friend and someone who we have sexual relations with? Are we to say that this higher love is not tainted with any carnal attraction that it stemmed out from? Is this higher love for a person of the same gender cannot be categorized as homosexual even by today's standards? Isnt that what gay people are t
Post Reply