A few reservations. If the heart of the matter is that gay relationships involve passivity, an abrogation of status, in the ‘recipient’ would we not expect to find the idea that the young men who have been involved sexually with older ones emerge into adulthood tainted - and do we find that? Is an Eromenos the same as a Kinaidos - surely not?
Plato when writing the Laws has to withdraw the name Socrates from his hero because ‘the Socrates of history’ was known for admiration of boys and this hero is rather ‘homophobic’. This sentiment is not explained by the active/passive distinction but by the principle that sex should be practised for the good of the city, thus for reproduction. Which may be related to status but is not exactly the same.
Ovid’s remark in Art of Love that he is ‘not so much drawn’ to love of boys is a rare explicit rationalisation of a kind of homophobia - ‘odi’ - specifically on the ground that the boy doesn’t enjoy it as the man does, which suggests that in Ovid’s version of popular morality there was something of a call for equal status in the moment of sexual expression.
Catullus Poem 45 disguises beneath an air of satire/sentimentality over lovers who use rather excessive language a serious question about love and status, which is different from acceptance of the supremacy of status in these matters. The heroine is the hero’s slave but proclaims that love is now the only master of both of them. Were there some Roman couples who actually lived like that? How were they thought of?
Just to bring the Bible into it - I think that the Song of Songs beneath its lyricism introduces the question of how status becomes unstable in the presence of passion, since the Beloved seems to morph somewhat between princess and prostitute, victim of police brutality.
There’s certainly something mysterious about the sexual morality of the ancients
A few reservations. If the heart of the matter is that gay relationships involve passivity, an abrogation of status, in the ‘recipient’ would we not expect to find the idea that the young men who have been involved sexually with older ones emerge into adulthood tainted - and do we find that? Is an Eromenos the same as a Kinaidos - surely not?
Plato when writing the Laws has to withdraw the name Socrates from his hero because ‘the Socrates of history’ was known for admiration of boys and this hero is rather ‘homophobic’. This sentiment is not explained by the active/passive distinction but by the principle that sex should be practised for the good of the city, thus for reproduction. Which may be related to status but is not exactly the same.
Ovid’s remark in Art of Love that he is ‘not so much drawn’ to love of boys is a rare explicit rationalisation of a kind of homophobia - ‘odi’ - specifically on the ground that the boy doesn’t enjoy it as the man does, which suggests that in Ovid’s version of popular morality there was something of a call for equal status in the moment of sexual expression.
Catullus Poem 45 disguises beneath an air of satire/sentimentality over lovers who use rather excessive language a serious question about love and status, which is different from acceptance of the supremacy of status in these matters. The heroine is the hero’s slave but proclaims that love is now the only master of both of them. Were there some Roman couples who actually lived like that? How were they thought of?
Just to bring the Bible into it - I think that the Song of Songs beneath its lyricism introduces the question of how status becomes unstable in the presence of passion, since the Beloved seems to morph somewhat between princess and prostitute, victim of police brutality.
There’s certainly something mysterious about the sexual morality of the ancients