| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Apr 13, 2011 6:48 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ^ I'm not sure about that. Got any evidence to back it up? It can also be tolerated with a measure of benign neglect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
exit86
Joined: 17 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ummm, the Paleolithic era was much much much earlier than 2500 BCE.
How can we justify calling this individual a "caveman" when folks had emerged from their caves and hunter/gatherer tribes thousands of years
prior to this date with the onset of the Neolithic Revolution in northern and central Europe? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Space Bar
Joined: 20 Oct 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ^ I'm verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll give you a topic: the first gay caveman was neither the first nor gay nor a caveman. Discuss. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 14, 2011 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Space Bar wrote: |
| ^ I'm not sure about that. Got any evidence to back it up? It can also be tolerated with a measure of benign neglect. |
It can be, yes, but that's not normally what happened. You already brought up the Greeks and Romans - those two cultures did exactly what I said, embraced it. The same was true of many Pacific Islanders and African tribes. The opposite, violent discrimination, was found in nearly every culture with a Judaic background. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Illysook
Joined: 30 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 6:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Space Bar wrote: |
| ^ I'm not sure about that. Got any evidence to back it up? It can also be tolerated with a measure of benign neglect. |
It can be, yes, but that's not normally what happened. You already brought up the Greeks and Romans - those two cultures did exactly what I said, embraced it. The same was true of many Pacific Islanders and African tribes. The opposite, violent discrimination, was found in nearly every culture with a Judaic background. |
Would you care to back up that bit of anti-semitism? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| I�ve heard that in some primitive cultures a penchant for men over women doesn�t define �orientation�, but whether one takes on the active or passive role in the sex act, the active being manly, the passive effeminate. (Is that even true, or just post-modern historical revisionism?) Maybe this guy was a dedicated bottom? Geldedgoat�s ideas seem more likely. |
As far as i understand this is how it worked in the Roman empire. Who was the dominant person sexually was more important. I'm not even sure if the romans had the concept of homosexuality, just dominant and passive.
Hadrian, who by modern standards was gay, was apparently talked about because he preferred men too much. Bi-sexuality was the norm. He even went so far as to deify his dead young lover. A cult grew around him that rivalled another cult of the day that we all know about today... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| All this talk of Rome is definitely historical revisionism. Homosexuality was considered a Greek perversion and only gained tolerance in the late, decadent era. Active/passive were perhaps mitigating factors in how immoral a practitioner was deemed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 15, 2011 8:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What do you mean by late decadent period? After Ceasar Augustus? Hadrian was emperor in the early 2nd century AD. As far as I know most of the emperors were bi sexual to some degree with Claudius being the only fully straight one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 10:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, this is a minefield of a topic, and I'm not qualified to give the question the treatment it deserves. In a general way, I'd define the decadent period as beginning with the civil wars, crescendoing through Nero, then wobbling and worsening until the rise of Stoicism and Christianity, which together rescued and revitalized much of Roman civilization. I realize how ridiculous it is to summarize everything in a sentence, but that's all I have the time and desire to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
northway
Joined: 05 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| All this talk of Rome is definitely historical revisionism. Homosexuality was considered a Greek perversion and only gained tolerance in the late, decadent era. Active/passive were perhaps mitigating factors in how immoral a practitioner was deemed. |
Yeah, my understanding is that it was common practice to beat gays to death in the army. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 16, 2011 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Well, this is a minefield of a topic, and I'm not qualified to give the question the treatment it deserves. In a general way, I'd define the decadent period as beginning with the civil wars, crescendoing through Nero, then wobbling and worsening until the rise of Stoicism and Christianity, which together rescued and revitalized much of Roman civilization. I realize how ridiculous it is to summarize everything in a sentence, but that's all I have the time and desire to do. |
Well if you start the 'decadent period' with Marius modernising the military and making the legions the deciding force in the empire more or less, and end with Constantine then you have a period of almost 400 years. Its hard to discount a period so long as being atypical of Roman culture. This period was also when Rome's power was at its highest with some fluctuations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 3:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| JMO wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Well, this is a minefield of a topic, and I'm not qualified to give the question the treatment it deserves. In a general way, I'd define the decadent period as beginning with the civil wars, crescendoing through Nero, then wobbling and worsening until the rise of Stoicism and Christianity, which together rescued and revitalized much of Roman civilization. I realize how ridiculous it is to summarize everything in a sentence, but that's all I have the time and desire to do. |
Well if you start the 'decadent period' with Marius modernising the military and making the legions the deciding force in the empire more or less, and end with Constantine then you have a period of almost 400 years. Its hard to discount a period so long as being atypical of Roman culture. This period was also when Rome's power was at its highest with some fluctuations. |
That's a good point. Then again, I wasn't saying that what might be called homosexual tolerance was precisely co-extensive with the period of Roman decadence; it was in fact shorter, and also sporadic. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm not even convinced that homosexuality was socially acceptable in Athens. Plato speaks of it as unnatural in Laws, and as shameful in Phaedrus. I've also yet to encounter a Greek myth that condoned homosexuality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Illysook wrote: |
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| The opposite, violent discrimination, was found in nearly every culture with a Judaic background. |
Would you care to back up that bit of anti-semitism? |
Please tell me you're joking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JMO
Joined: 18 Jul 2006
Location: Daegu
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2011 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| Well, this is a minefield of a topic, and I'm not qualified to give the question the treatment it deserves. In a general way, I'd define the decadent period as beginning with the civil wars, crescendoing through Nero, then wobbling and worsening until the rise of Stoicism and Christianity, which together rescued and revitalized much of Roman civilization. I realize how ridiculous it is to summarize everything in a sentence, but that's all I have the time and desire to do. |
Well if you start the 'decadent period' with Marius modernising the military and making the legions the deciding force in the empire more or less, and end with Constantine then you have a period of almost 400 years. Its hard to discount a period so long as being atypical of Roman culture. This period was also when Rome's power was at its highest with some fluctuations. |
That's a good point. Then again, I wasn't saying that what might be called homosexual tolerance was precisely co-extensive with the period of Roman decadence; it was in fact shorter, and also sporadic. |
Maybe not generally tolerated but Gibbons did say that Claudius was the only fully straight emperor. Maybe it was just an upper class thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
