08-16-2004, 06:52 PM
Just thought I'd add some food for thought.
I was talking to visting Professor Dan Goldman at Boston University after a Roman Civ class. He has taught Roman History in Rome for four years, before returning to Brown to finish his doctoral thesis in Roman Culture.
He had said something in passing to the effect that sexuality was viewed quite differently than it is currently. So I engaged him after class and he explained that in Roman times it was common for men to engage in sexual intercourse with other men. It was only socially not accepted if the man 'received.' This was shunned.
From my own knowledge I know that even in Greek times homoerocticism was common. There was a reason why Greek athletes during the Olympics competed in the nude, and were well oiled, and it wasn't just for better performance ;).
I find this information to be more in agreement with Chaerophon's point.
Cheers,
Munk
I was talking to visting Professor Dan Goldman at Boston University after a Roman Civ class. He has taught Roman History in Rome for four years, before returning to Brown to finish his doctoral thesis in Roman Culture.
He had said something in passing to the effect that sexuality was viewed quite differently than it is currently. So I engaged him after class and he explained that in Roman times it was common for men to engage in sexual intercourse with other men. It was only socially not accepted if the man 'received.' This was shunned.
From my own knowledge I know that even in Greek times homoerocticism was common. There was a reason why Greek athletes during the Olympics competed in the nude, and were well oiled, and it wasn't just for better performance ;).
Quote:That stigma is born of either dogmatic religious conditioning or undemocratic, majoritarian conceptions of "normalcy"
I find this information to be more in agreement with Chaerophon's point.
Cheers,
Munk