Way back in 1982 I took a classics course at the U of Minnesota, Eroticism and Family Life in Ancient Greece. Was it a wonderful time, erotically? For the families of men of substance, at least, family life was not what we would call 'healthy'. Women were second class people. The were viewed as domestic labor and breeding stock. She was generally not well educated, so couldn't be an intellectual partner to her husband. That is a picture of what the bourgeoisie home life was like, at least. What the mass of workers and slaves experienced is not really documented -- as usual.

So, it may be the case that well established men poured more attention, effort, and time into sexual relationships with young men, and social relationships with other adult men. Homosexuality among adult men was, apparently, frowned upon as inappropriate (to their age). Why not. Young guys liked the attention of an adult man, and they were (just guessing -- a shot in the dark) probably a lot more fun than the tired wife/drudge at home.

The Greeks did not document anything at any level of their society like the kind of gay male sexual experience that exists in the 20th / 21st century. There was a time-limit for the young man and older man: after the young man reached a certain age, he was supposed to take his place as a heterosexual man with a wife, etc.

The era of the Roman Empire was a different story. Homosexuality existed then and there, of course. It's perennial. But it was not an approved behavior. Men of substance were expected to be productive at home and at work. Sex between men wasn't necessarily persecuted, but it wasn't something to flaunt in public. (Unless you were a male prostitute -- hardly a high-status profession.)

At least that's the way I understand it. Greece and Rome were slave-based economies, and particularly in Greece, one's good life could be lost abruptly. Bankruptcy or high indebtedness was punishable by enslavement. You could be close to the top today and a slave tomorrow. (Usually not, but it was possible and it did happen to people.).

Many Americans, in particular, seem to have difficulty thinking calmly about eroticism in Ancient Greece because of near-hysterical attitudes toward pedophilia -- adult sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. The Greeks weren't engaged in pedophilia; nor were they engaged in hebephilia, adult sexual attraction to young post-pubescent adolescents (teenagers).

While a lot of Americans make no distinction among pedophilia, hebephilia, and pederasty. there's substantial psycho-sexual difference among them. The Greeks engaged in pederasty -- relationships between adult men and mid-to-late adolescents.

What in God's name were they thinking?

Judging by the art work at Herculaneum, covered by ash from Mt Vesuvius, AD 79, they were obsessed with sex. A LOT of erotic art has been uncovered in the city. It was not "hidden art"; it was place where it would receive plenty of exposure. We might not be on the mark, however. What an erotic painting meant to a Roman might not be what it would mean to us. Large phalluses, for instance, were not about an obsession with big dicks (size queens); they were a sacred referent to fertility, procreation, and agriculture, the specialty of the god Priapus.



We don't know precisely what the God Pan screwing the goat mean to the people of 79 AD. Was it intended to be ridiculous--some sort of joke? Presumably it was not promoting bestiality. What did Pan mean to the people. What did goats symbolize? Did the goat give informed consent?

BC! I am pleased with your reply. I honestly thought about you when I started this thread because I know that you took classes on Ancient Greek. We talked about this in the past in the shoutbox.

OK -- coming back to the thread:

I agree with the point that rich and powerful men had affairs with young boys because they ended up bored in their marriage. Nonetheless, if they got tired of their respective wives, why didn't they pay for the services of a prostitute? This point is also explored in the books I quoted above. Perhaps it was more accepted amongst Greek society to be a master of young boys -- and these innocent kids pay them back with sex because it was the correct way to proceed.

There was a time-limit for the young man and older man: after the young man reached a certain age, he was supposed to take his place as a heterosexual man with a wife, etc. — BC

Exactly. When the young boys started to have beards or their voices turned deep, they ended up rejected by their "tutors" or old lovers. Some students and experts of Ancient Greece agree that the young boys were never forced to have those affairs, and most of them were in the teenage span. They were not kids.

The Greeks engaged in pederasty -- relationships between adult men and mid-to-late adolescents. — BC

And theese relationship were consented -- it wasn't an abuse of power by the adult men.

While a lot of Americans make no distinction among pedophilia, hebephilia, and pederasty... — BC

Hey! I had the same issue, so I had to read on the Internet the distinction between them. :sweat:

What in God's name were they thinking? — BC

I thought the same. But I ended with the conclusion that they were not ethically bad. It was a widely accepted practice amongst Ancient Greek society, and most of them considered it good and acceptable. Yet everything changed when Plato wrote about it in "Laws" when he argued that there should be a limit on the age of sexual relationships between men.

Nonetheless, everything really changed when the Greek Orthodox Church started to have more power in Greek culture and education -- they rejected any kind of sexual affair that wasn't just for procreation objectives.

It is important to show the art done by goldsmiths: they just represented what was commonly done in their era.

Nonetheless, everything really changed when the Greek Orthodox Church started to have more power in Greek culture and education — javi2541997

I suspect that major changes in Greek culture began way before the G. O. church got going. General Octavian defeated Greece in 29 BC at Actium, definitively ending the Hellenistic Age. Augustus organized Greek territory into the Roman province of Achaea in 27 BC, integrating it into the Roman Empire (that's the short version). The 'golden age of Greece' was well past by this time. Who influenced whom more? Greek culture had had a firm foothold in the Roman peninsula for centuries, and Greek influencers (as we might say now) had been prominent in Roman Culture. But some things didn't translate -- Rome didn't emulate the Greek adolescent / adult relationship.

Just as Latin is not like Greek, Rome was not like Athens.

The Romans--had they invented the Olympic contests--would not have had naked athletes. The Romans were modest by comparison. Everyone kept their clothes on in the Roman Colosseum. Alas.

When I asked, "What in God's name were they thinking?" I was referencing the goat/Pan photo. We don't know what they were thinking, unless they wrote about it, and if they did, the texts haven't turned up yet.

Nonetheless, if they got tired of their respective wives, why didn't they pay for the services of a prostitute? — javi2541997

They probably did, but while the institution of man/adolescent relationships included a sexual element, it was also a civic mentoring relationship. It existed to reproduce the ruling class. Your local plumber in Athens did not take on an apprentice that included sex on the side. This was a ruling class activity, guided by rules, enforced (more or less) by other members of the elite.

High "CULTURE!" is the province of the elite. Plato and Aristotle weren't writing for brick layers and plumbers; the Age of Pericles wasn't for the slaves or the free workers. That's pretty much the usual and customary relationship between culture and class throughout history, including the present moment.

The high level of literacy and communication tools today allows for people like you and me (who will always have to work in order to live) to engage in discussions about 'elite topics'. But we aren't members of "the elite" because we lack the wealth, credentials, opportunities, relationships, and so on that characterize elites. We are not "movers and shakers" as the expression goes. The elites have always been the tip of the social pyramid.

We just don't know much about what life was like in Greece and Rome for the vast majority of the population. The classical era's proletariate wasn't the topic of a lot of writing from the period. Alas.

BC! I am pleased with your reply. — javi2541997

Thank you. I wish there was more interest in the broader aspects of Greek and Roman culture, rather than the narrow focus on a handful of philosophers. But Plato and Aristotle had access to the press, so to speak, so that's what we know the most about.

"Pederasty, Eros and Ancient Greece" is an excellent topic. Plato and Aristotle were products of their society; the more we know about that society, the better. They were also, I'm guessing, highly exceptional. Your well-above-average Greek male in the Age of Pericles was likely an ambitious, money-grubbing, status conscious, insecure person, like the well-above-average modern German, Brazilian, or Chinese on the make. Did the ambitious Athenian read much? Plato and Aristotle were more like people like today's public intellectuals: erudite, a tenured academic, and free to pursue ideas wherever they led. They aren't representative of the rank and file people that keep society going.

They probably did, but while the institution of man/adolescent relationships included a sexual element, it was also a civic mentoring relationship. It existed to reproduce the ruling class. Your local plumber in Athens did not take on an apprentice that included sex on the side. This was a ruling class activity, guided by rules, enforced (more or less) by other members of the elite. — BC

Furthermore, I also read that prostitution was low-class because the prostitute didn't have anything to offer but just sex. It is interesting to distinguish between those young boys who were sexual offerers and the young boys who were just "innocent" or learners of the old men. Surprisingly, it was accepted by the Greek culture the latter, because it was fine for the people to have sexual interactions with minora if they weren't "corrupted" in both spirit and body. While a young boy offering sex in exchange for money was not well seen at all. It wasn't until Plato that some basic sense needed to exist regarding the minimum age for that kind of relationship.

For the reasons expressed above, I think that pederasty, in an Ancient Greek context, could be seen from two different perspectives: ethics and aesthetics (eros). I think Plato explored the first option, and he got really mad at those vicious members of Crete.

Plato and Aristotle weren't writing for brick layers and plumbers; the Age of Pericles wasn't for the slaves or the free workers. That's pretty much the usual and customary relationship between culture and class throughout history, including the present moment. — BC

Yes, that's right, but according to those authors, the relationships were never forces; or there isn't proof of that at least. I think this is important, because it was a specific way of interaction, and philosophers were interested in it.

The high level of literacy and communication tools today allows for people like you and me (who will always have to work in order to live) to engage in discussions about 'elite topics'. But we aren't members of "the elite" because we lack the wealth, credentials, opportunities, relationships, and so on that characterize elites. We are not "movers and shakers" as the expression goes. The elites have always been the tip of the social pyramid. — BC

Exactly.

We just don't know much about what life was like in Greece and Rome for the vast majority of the population. The classical era's proletariate wasn't the topic of a lot of writing from the period. Alas. — BC

Do you think the erômenos (younger male) were part of the classical era's proletariate?

"Pederasty, Eros and Ancient Greece" — BC

Thanks! I am pleased with your replies and contributions to this thread! :smile:

Do you think the erômenos (younger male) were part of the classical era's proletariate? — javi2541997

No, as far as I know. The young men taken on by the older men were from other ruling class families. They were not picked up off the street, as luscious as they might have been. It's safe to say that the ruling class has always been careful about preserving itself. The elite's adolescent boys were available in the same social circles as the adult men. They splashed to the same baths, had the same good seats at the theater, sacrificed the same chickens at religious events, worked out at the same gyms, learned from the same tutors, went to the same parties, etc.

The ruling class in 2025 does exactly the same thing: its children are funneled into class-preserving schools, clubs, colleges, and recreational activities. In the US, there are elite prep schools from which the boys go to Harvard, Princeton, Yale, etc, where they meet important people with whom they will engage int he future. The elite doesn't send its sons to Podunk State College, even if the kid is a certified idiot. Something similar goes with the elite in Spain or Uzbekistan, I'm guessing.

Of course there were men in the ancient world who liked boys / men because they were, in our terminology, gay or queer. These men, proles themselves, could pick up a boy on the street who was good looking, lively, and willing. [That last sentence is blue sky history. I've not a shred of evidence for it -- but it seems like it would be true.] One feature of the ancient world is that there didn't seem to be as much privacy available to people. Lots of eyes, lots of wagging tongues. So the man/boy relationship couldn't be wide open -- not that somebody would be shot, but they might be ridiculed.

By the way, there was a group here, the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which promoted pederasty, back in the 1960s and 70s. There were (are) gay men who like adolescent boys, but it was then, even more so now, a hot potato. NAMBLA was excoriated by feminists and feminist-adjacent men, and homophobes of all stripes. It threatened a lot of gay men too much for them to support the group, or even show interest.

I wasn't then, and haven't been since, interested in adolescents (just to make that clear). But I can understand the attraction -- both ways -- and my guess is that there is no harm, as long as the relationship isn't exploitative. That's true for most human relationships--good as long as they are not being subverted for selfish gain.

Judging by the art work at Herculaneum, covered by ash from Mt Vesuvius, AD 79, they were obsessed with sex. — BC

I think this might be our projection. We are obsessed with sex; we have made endless taboos and rules of conduct. I would go so far as to say that it is all the rules and taboos more than any particular act that creates the trauma, and separates sexual acts from all the other intercourse humans engage in.

Pan fucking a goat is just Pan being Pan. We are shocked, but in olden days an inch of stocking was looked on as something shocking, and that is closer to our modernity than the song admits — anything assuredly does not go at all. But I think in even more olden olden days anything, or almost anything, sexually, might well have gone without any outrage at all.

@javi2541997, Here is an interesting interview with Mary Beard, British scholar and author. She does speak about sex in Rome among other interesting topics. She suggests that one should be careful about taking everything Romans said about sex at face value. Romans, like everybody else, might exaggerate on occasion. (Well, everybody except me and thee.)

The elite doesn't send its sons to Podunk State College, even if the kid is a certified idiot. — BC

PSC! Gooo Hayseeds!

Sorry, this made me chuckle.

I graduated from Podunk; there were no elites there -- just us hayseeds. We hayseeds don't really like being in places where the elite hang out--be that a bar or the ivy league.

She suggests that one should be careful about taking everything Romans said about sex at face value. Romans, like everybody else, might exaggerate on occasion. (Well, everybody except me and thee.) — BC

Interesting!

Yes, I don't usually take the Roman writings as reliable. It is true that they exaggerate, and I don't think that the Roman soldiers in the Legion were the objects of endless orgies. For this reason, I wanted to take the Greek testimonials as more accurate to the time we discussed.