My Experiences With Ancient Greek Homosexuality

[Laurasia]

I'm not really ready to go into details about this particular Greek lifetime of mine as of yet; but it was asked about directly elsewhere on the forum, so I figured that I should at least address the inquiries about my experiences of having been homosexual in that cultural time & place....

Dec 10, 2010 9:28:00 GMT -5 @mccoyxyz said:

reply to Laurasia, I never noticed your comment on this thread before, so please excuse the late reply.
You refer to having been a homosexual in ancient Greece, but having to get married.
From what I've heard of it, gaydom in those days implied simply a period of your life, not your entire life. That is, it was accepted up until about age 30, afterwards you had to be "a responsible citizen", married and all that.
So, working around to my question, would a gay person over 30 experience an excessive amount of discrimination in those days? Or would it just sort of be quietly ignored, like extramarital affairs?
(I'm somewhat read up on the whole GL scene, as I had to do the background reading for my former wife on it, as her reading skills were somewhat lacking.)

Indeed, homosexuality was not viewed as something wrong or even unnatural back then. As you stated though, men were expected to "settle down" & have a family too after a certain age. Having homosexual affairs after marriage wasn't shunned, but the men were still expected to mostly chase after women. And it wasn't really viewed as "extramarital affairs", as there really wasn't much of a concept for that type of thing back then (at least from the men's point of view anyway). Men had multiple wives & slept around with women quite regularly. Homosexuality was something that men who really liked one another did with each other on occasion.

There was a level of....gossip about my own actions though because I was purely homosexual rather than a "skirt-chaser" (& my chosen partner caused quite a bit of grief for some apparently). I only slept with my wives to have children. Once that had been achieved I stopped having sexual relations with them. And (as I stated previously on the forum) I did not keep my wives with me, but rather set them up comfortably & provided for them & our children. Though many other men did the same with their own families, it wasn't because the man was any less sexually interested in his wife.

Sincerely,
Laurasia

[msmir]

That is interesting as now I do recall you telling me something about this some time ago, very briefly and vaguely. That must have been difficult to have been homosexual while you had a family as I know stuff like that happens even to this day!! Do you think being gay whether man or woman has to do with having many past incarnations as the opposite gender?

[mccoyxyz]

reply to Laurasia - I recall from the first year half class in Anthropology, that multiple wives are usually associated with cultures where there is a lot of feuding, mini civil wars and so forth, resulting in a shortage of men and therefore polygamy. Under the natural order of things, it just plain doesn't work. Not meaning to be presumptuous, but perhaps you're hinting at having been a Spartan?
Where I actually heard about the ancient Greek thing was a gay book launch at a gay bookstore, now closed due to Amazon competition. The speaker went on about how lucky people were nowadays as opposed to being gay during ancient Greek days.
Needless to say, it was a young guy speaking, if it were someone my age, I doubt if "lucky" is the word he'd choose.

reply to msmir - years ago, I recall reading the reincarnational take on the gay/lesbian thing. Unfortunately, it's so long ago, I don't recall where.
The general thrust is that overall half of your lives will be male and half female, to get a proper overall balance.
However, this isn't usually done in strict alternation, as that gets too confusing, all the switching back and forth.
The usual course of events is several female lifetimes; then when you switch over to male, you may or may not be made gay as a means of easing the adjustment process.
Similarly, several male lifetimes; then you may or may not be a lesbian, if necessary to the adjustment process.
It sounds interesting, but I simply do not know enough people who are BOTH into reincarnation and knowledgable about the GL scene to say so accurately.
With myself, the theory clearly strikes out, as I'm 100% straight, with not even the slightest interest in any gay fling.
As for my former wife, the previouslife snooty British officer, now a lesbian, yes the theory pans out.
Still, to be fair, there simply is no theory that will explain 100% of everything floating around. It would be ridiculous to expect so.
If anyone is interested in reading further on the gay-straight interaction in marriage there is no better book than "The Other Side of the Closet".

[Laurasia]

Hi Miriam.

I really have no idea in regards to a possible many different gendered past lives/being GL in your current lifetime. I have had many lifetimes in which I was either homosexual or bisexual...as I am in this life as well. (Though Hans was definitely not one of the homosexual lifetimes. LOL!) Maybe in some cases it does play a factor, but I doubt that it would in all of them.

Hi McCoy,

Actually, no, I wasn't a Spartan in that lifetime. And I have to say that from both of the ancient lifetimes that I have recalled I have never recalled it being a detriment for someone to have been gay...or rather to engage in homosexual activity. It WAS horrible to be homosexual & yet not be able to be solely with the person that I wanted to be with since society back then said differently. However, we were never given any grief over the homosexual nature of our relationship with one another...so long as we married & had children.

So no gay-bashing or true "stigma" from what I have recalled....which, in my opinion, would have made it better to be a homosexual back then.

Sincerely,
Laurasia

[kapitanprien]

I hope I don't derail this - I had read in the book: Flapper: A Madcap Story of Sex, Style, Celebrity...

About lesbian relationships prior to the 1920s and how it was actually encouraged socially. It is quite interesting what the book stated about it all. Not something one would think about where it concerns the U.S.

Link:

books.google.com/books?id=TIiL9OVQXhEC&lpg=PP1&dq=flapper&pg=PA120#v=onepage&q=lesbian&f=false

[mccoyxyz]

Reply to Kapitan Prien - if you consider two facts about the USA, it would help explain the lesbian thing.
1) the Civil War 1861 to 1865 had by now I've forgotten how many casualties, which would produce a large male-female imbalance. It would then be in the interest of society to encourage lesbians (however quietly), but discourage gay men by the force of law.
2) World War 1 casualties would cause the same sort of imbalance.

Reply to Laurasia - when I made the comment about difference in opinion between an older and younger speaker, it would be along the following grounds: the younger generation of men has had legality of law, constituitional protection against discrimination and overall general social approval essentially handed to them. The older generation faced at first illegality, then still a lot of social disapproval and the AIDS epidemic which decimated them. So, a 60-y-o gay man who was lucky to be alive, would have a remarkably different perspective than would someone in his 20's. Lesbians would be totally different, not facing the epidemic.

[kapitanprien]

Re McCoy: I can't remember if they brought that up in the book or not, but I'm pretty sure they did mention something regarding the Civil War. It was mainly about how women were staying at home while the men did everything business-wise essentially. So such relationships were encouraged between women for companionship.

[mccoyxyz]

At risk of wandering a bit off the topic, I would advance the opinion that the US Civil War had a far more profound impact upon their nation than did their participation in WW1.
Each century brings one event which overshadows everything else: the 1700's the Revolutionary War; the 1800's the Civil War; the 1900's WW2.
And in all cases these result in shortage of men. So, I guess the future of lesbiandom looks better over the centuries than the future of gaydom.

[Laurasia]

The topic that you two are having is interesting & all, but I feel that it needs to be said that just because the male populace has been cut short (for whatever reason) that will not cause women to become gay. The 1920s & the time right before it were an age of sexual exploration in & of itself, just as it was in Germany. Remember why the Nazis took such actions against the GL community in that part of the world.

Having fewer men around may make it more obvious that there are lesbians, but it certainly will not cause there to be more lesbians.

Sincerely,
Laurasia

[msmir]

Dec 15, 2010 20:19:55 GMT -5 Laurasia said:

The topic that you two are having is interesting & all, but I feel that it needs to be said that just because the male populace has been cut short (for whatever reason) that will not cause women to become gay. The 1920s & the time right before it were an age of sexual exploration in & of itself, just as it was in Germany. Remember why the Nazis took such actions against the GL community in that part of the world.

Having fewer men around may make it more obvious that there are lesbians, but it certainly will not cause there to be more lesbians.

Sincerely,
Laurasia

That is certainly true. If is woman is going to be a lesbian it is because that is how she is meant to be.. has nothing to do with a shortage of men in the world Times are changing and there are more people living an alternative lifestyle anyway... more and more.

[kapitanprien]

I have to agree with Laurasia and Miriam. I read a number of books on the Weimar period.

[mccoyxyz]

Laurasia - I certainly would agree with you that if a person is meant to be, they will be, end of story. I ought to know, I was dumb enough to marry one by accident. I should have been a lot more suspicious - after all, what East Indian woman is dead set against having kids?
Still, the fundamental difference between gays and lesbians is the same fundamental difference between men and women.
Think back to elementary school - the boys were always getting caught because they were so flagrant about it. The girls, well they had that sneakiness elevated to an art form, hence they always never got caught at whatever mischief they indulged in.
In any time in history, gays and lesbians tend to approach things differently, in that gays are more flagrant about it, lesbians more interested in keeping it closeted.
Hence, any regime wishing to be repressive will turn toward the most visible target, gay males. In a lot of cases, the whole lesbian thing just sort of disappears.
Bottom line, in any period in history it would be far easier to ascertain how many gay males there were than how many lesbians. It's all conjecture and theory because no one can quantify it.
And especially in the Third Reich, where a lot of gays and lesbians put together show marriages with each other to distract the authorities from what was really happening.
Further, any regime is more demanding of the men, they must "do their duty" and all that; so failure to do so leads to sanctions. Those women who don't remain a lot more invisible.
But still, if after a war your nation is ten million men short; at least a few women will think about changing teams.
Best wishes.

Further comment: the PL nazi at work (involved in S&M) I previously mentioned will serve as an example.
She has been straight all her life; yet ended up in a lesbian fling which lasted 1 1/2 years; then back to straight.
You could not call her a genuine bisexual, as there is no attraction to women in general, or blonde women or tall women; but to just one individual. Perhaps just whim, lust or even maybe an unknown pastlife connection triggered the mechanism which overrides inhibition.
Just pointing out that yes, most people are 100% straight or gay; but there exist certain people open to ambiguity and circumstance.

[Laurasia]

Still, the fundamental difference between gays and lesbians is the same fundamental difference between men and women.

"Lesbians" & "gays" are the same thing, for lesbians are gay. I also your comment that gay men are typically more "flagrant" than gay women a bit...inapprporiate. I've known PLENTY of "butch women", which is the female equivalent of a "flagrant homosexual man". However I think that gay males are more "obvious" for others to pick out because homophobic people typically look out for it more in men. Men, after all, are expected to be macho womanizers - & that is often viewed as a positive thing. So people look for signs of "queerness" in men more readily than they do in woman. Typically those types of regimes (which almost always value men over women) don't think about women being gay. If a woman is sensitive, flowery, etc she is "supposed to be" anyway, so what's the issue, right? There are plenty of butch women that get grief for not being womanly enough. And no one "decides to change teams". They may have been bisexual or gay to begin with & in denial for one reason or another, but if they "turn gay" & it sticks they were gay to begin with.

Sexuality is a very personal thing, so you'll never really know what was going on with your co-worker & her lover. Perhaps she is bisexual, maybe even an EXTREMELY picky one. Or it very well could have been a past life connection between the two of them. It's really no one's business anyway. Being a bisexual female myself I can tell you that in my own experience there are a lot more bisexual people out there than others think...many of us are simply picky in one way or the other. Many things with sexuality are not black & white or can be measured with certain percentages. Some people are 100% one way or the other, some people are equally attracted to both sexes, & many are a mixture of the two leaning more towards one than the other.

Sincerely,
Laurasia

[Iseke]

Dec 16, 2010 10:50:04 GMT -5 @mccoyxyz said:

Just pointing out that yes, most people are 100% straight or gay; but there exist certain people open to ambiguity and circumstance.

I feel strongly that sexuality exists on a gradient, and that any notion of being "100% anything" comes from cultural bias and intent to label and define people rather than truth. As Laurasia said, human sexuality is far too complicated to be black and white. And looking externally at the behavior of one individual tells you little about that individual's sexuality, let alone humanity's!

It is a sensitive issue, that is for sure. And one of the reasons for this is that it is all too easy to extrapolate a huge conclusion from a very small or inconclusive amount of data.

Both my gender and my sexuality are hard to define, and as such I have to disagree entirely with the notion that there are only a few hard, fast options (male, female; gay, straight, bi; flamboyant or "proper" and closeted, for the most part). I also disagree entirely with the idea that we can easily define why a person is gay or "turns" gay, bisexual, pansexual, or whatever. It may be partly cultural, it may be partly physiological, but whatever the case....

No one is truly qualified to make that judgment but the person in question.

[Laurasia]

~claps~

Very nicely put, Iseke. ;D

Sincerely,
Laurasia