ALEXANDER WAS NOT HOMOSEXUAL

[ruthaki]

Thank you, Pam.
Linda, I believe you misinterpreted what I said. You cannot put today's 'morals' on ancient Greek times. Today in a great many places (and up til recently) 'gays' (homosexuals) were and are not particularly accepted by society. Back then nobody really cared, unless it was young kids under 12 who were being tampered with.(pedophilia) It was (and still is in certain places on this planet) acceptable for men/men or women/women relationships and it's not particularly frowned upon. (people who chose to do so in ancient Greek didn't have to be 'in the closet' That's what made it different from now.)
It was common for older men (soldiers, teachers, etc) to have younger boys as 'eremenos'. And nobody called them 'gay'. I believe it was the eunuchs who were considered 'feminine'. So Alexander was bi-sexual. So what! So was his father and probably most of his Companions.

[marcus]

Linda,I'm not sure whether I'm getting a good or a bad press here :-)And what do you mean by "mostly gay"? Neither of which two points have the slightest thing to do with Alexander, of course.All the bestMarcus

[marcus]

That's all right, Susan. Certainly no need to apologise.
But I'm going to have to start controlling my press a bit, I think. All this bandying about of my name could get someone (ie. me) in hot water one of these days! At least you've met me off forum, so if *you* get the wrong idea about me I only have myself to blame...
All the best
Marcus

[Linda]

RuthI don't think sexuality is really anything to do with morality. It is to do with how people are - and I do not believe it is a modern preoccupation or mania; I believe it is a human characteristic, mostly genetic in origin, and it has been something which has been debated and discussed throughout history. In Alexander's day, the Jewish bible forbade those kinds of relationships. And here were, as you say, other taboos in A's day - for example the Athenian who objected to the adult male relationships he saw at Philip's court.Perhaps Alexander would be baffled by our discussion, but my issue is not with history but with interpretation of history - ie my original objection is the claim that homosexuality as a concept did not exist in old times. It did not exist as vociferously as now if you include in the term homosexuality the issue of "lifestyle". But I am not concerned whith, in this, expression of sexuality in Alexander's day, or to define A's own sexuality, but to establish that the notion that "everyone was bisexual in nature" was not the case, and that Platonic thought recognised that people fell into different types - men attracted to men, women to women etc etc. Behaviour is a slightly different issue, and affected by culture.Why this matters to me, and why I keep arguing...I suppose it is a bit political-small-p, but also it is to do with a psychological profile, I suppose. I know this is dangerous when applied to people long ago, but we all try to understand why Alexander did things, and for me, I believe very few people are actually bisexual, in the sense of falling in love with both sexes equally...so that affects how Alexander (who, as I have argued before, seems to me be more male than female orientated) would react in his personal relationships. This is all interpretation, but based on what we have learned. So, if it is fair to re-interpret battles from what we have learned about weapon technology, or why an army died from what we have learned about the profile of a particular disease, then to me, it is fair to reinterprete, reexamine what we think to be probable from what we have learned about human sexuality. Another fact for Marcus - men are more likely to be gay who have more brothers. So, to summarise - my issue is not with morality then or now, it is a challenge to the interpretation of how sexuality was perceived then (I think they split people into types, although (mostly) people could sleep with who they liked wi

[Linda]

(if you can be arsed reading this too...) So, to summarise - my issue is not with morality then or now, it is a challenge to the interpretation of how sexuality was perceived then (I think they split people into types, although (mostly) people could sleep with who they liked without censure, as long as it fitted into social status etc), and secondly, I think it matters to Alexander vaguely in interpreting his character but probably not that much, except I think I would find a character less believable who fell madly in love with both men and women - I don't really think those people exist, but that is just a kind of fine tuning, and probably doesn't matter that much to most people.But if Alexander read the Phaedo, did he wonder which of the types he was? Did he just know? Presumably he didn't agonise over it.Mostly gay - Marcus, you'll just have to guess what it means LindaApologies to those who think this is all nothing - I try to think that too, and then I think of that passage in The Phaedo..

[nick]

Hi Companions -What a discussion! Just to let you know: when I first spotted Tim's orginal message (still without any answers) I was in doubt: should I delete this one on the spot? Or was it in accordance with what we tend to discuss on the Forum?"If in doubt: don't delete", I thought. Well, I am quite happy now. It goes to show that it is nice to have a moderated Forum, but censorship needs to be restricted to those postings that really abuse people.Thank you all for sharing your valuable thoughts on this issue that still appears to be 'tricky'. (As far as I am concerned: I am Dutch; you can't really shock me discussing any sexual subject - or object.)Regards -
Nick

[marcus]

I'm guessing, Linda, I really am!Interesting thing about the number of brothers one has determining how likely one is to be gay. I'd never heard that one before... and, to be honest, it sounds very spurious to me... but that's not a forum discussion.All the bestMarcus

[Linda]

hulloMaybe it isn't a forum discussion, but in case anyone is interested, it was reported in the New Scientisthttp://www.newscientist.com/inprint/ipcontents.jspi haven't read the article, but a summary of it. The bit which interested me, and which does, I think back up my view that sexuality is not dependent on culture is the quote: "Other studies have now backed up Blanchard's work, the New Scientist says, and the link between the development of homosexuality and the number of older brothers is believed to be true across different cultures throughout the world."After all, the past is just another country. That's what I think