Both chapters detail the history of sexuality in various societies from early Antiquity to the 19th century. What did you find most interesting about these chapters and why? What, for example, did you not know before, and why do you think you did not know it? Did the chapters change your opinion about a belief and/or concept you had before reading the chapters? Explain.
Feel free to respond to only one of the questions or all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
What I found most interesting about these chapters was the section on the Greeks and how the older men and younger boys would have relations. I always assumed that such things would have been taboo, especially that many years ago, just as it is today. I was really surprised to find out that something like that was a part of normal society and was not seen as something that was dirty or wrong as we do in today’s society. I also did not know that those relations were the focus of Homer’s Iliad and Plato’s Symposium. The chapters changed a lot of my previous assumptions about how the ancient world dealt with homosexuality. Some things did not surprise me, such as the very serious consequences for buggery in the past several hundred years. However, I was surprised to learn about things such as the binding spell used by women by ancient Egypt to attract other women. Homosexuality between men seemed much more common and open for discussion than did homosexuality between women. I found it kind of ironic how in the Victorian Era men could be put to death for acting on their homoerotic feelings yet women were assumed to not be capable of having such feelings. I was not aware how popular it was at that time for two women to live together almost as a husband and wife would for many years, without sexual feelings and without any outside prejudice from society. Another one the most interesting parts from the chapters was the discussion on the field of sexology. The way they thought then compared to how we think now is worlds apart from each other, even though it was only about one hundred years ago. I just found the whole notion of homosexuals being considered a third sex, or how homosexual men prefer the color green, to be ridiculous. It definitely reflects how uneducated seemingly educated people at that time could be, and how little society understood about homosexuality.
ReplyDeleteI guess I am unclear about the term "adolescent." The book quotes that it's the time before a boy gets facial hair. How old are boys when they get facial hair? I'm going to guess like 8th or 9th grade. So, with the Greeks, it was okay for an adult to have sexual affairs with an eighth grader? As I read through the first chapter, I kept asking myself, why is it weird? Who says that it is weird for men to be involved with a teenage boy? And the only thing I could come up with is that each state has an age of consent. An "age of consent" is defined as "the minimum age for consensual sexual relations; intercourse at an earlier age can result in a charge of assault or statutory rape; the age differs in different states of the Union." So, I'm guessing the Louisiana Supreme Court decided that the age of consent in Louisiana is 17 because under the age of 17 you aren't mature enough to make a sexual decision on your own. Is that it? If the courts had never decided an age and there was no law, would it be okay? I agree with the law, but I still wonder what if no one ever decided that if you have a same-sex partner that you shouldn't be married. What if all along gays and lesbians were getting married just like everyone else? Whould there be a taboo? If there was never a law against it, would people care so much? Something I learned was that people assumed that women could not be homosexual because they don't have a penis. At first, I thought that was just ridiculus. But, when I truly started thinking about it. I know that being homosexual is more than just sex; it's about love and feelings and emotions (just like any other relationship). But if you didn't think of it that way. You would have to assume that women could not be homosexual.
ReplyDeleteThe illustrations and exploration of life in ancient cultures and the practices of homosexuality were very enlightening. Though aware of the practice of same sex relationships in history, I was previously unaware of a general “guideline” in the definition of these relationships in specific cultures. An adult male and adolescent boy affiliation was not the status quo imagined. Similar aged couples were always envisioned, and it was surprising to find out that along with stereotypical practices a social aspect was present for success among the younger male.
ReplyDeleteIt was apparent that male homosexuals overshadowed the lesbian presence. Women were considered inferior, which was not a shock, but for their unions to be less threatening to societal norms due mostly to a lack of a penis, and thus lack of sexual “unnaturalness” that could be committed, illuminates the ignorance that has plagued and followed same-sex relationships throughout history. It is appalling that actual feelings and affection for a same-sex partner were, and still are, completely disregarded by humanity for the blunt thought that this “psychological disease” is only about physical pleasure.
References in church doctrine to same-sex relationships belittles the arguments made by religious individuals and assemblies about the unholy aspects of homosexual bonds. These admissions do not prove one way or another whether there is a right or a wrong answer to this particular query, but they successfully show that anything in an aged book can be taken and manipulated to make a point. Language and orientations have changed over the years, and therefore literal interpretation of the Bible is not valid. The religious community does not deserve to make remarks that are hurtful and unjustified using an article of faith as a main tool.
The psychological evolution of sexology still shows that nothing definitive has earned its place out of origin. Understanding the human mind has always intrigued and puzzled members of psychological and sociological fields, and though a combination of these thoughts and practices have survived and laid the groundwork for current studies in sexology, acceptance that sexual desires and personal wishes differ from person to person whether by nature or nurture or “disease” warrants a universal instead of communal acceptance.
Both chapters were very interesting to because it showed homosexuality in the earlier civilizations. But what’s even more interesting to me is that, from those chapters I get the understanding that most people believe homosexuality or being gay is something new. I have come to learn that nothing we do in the world today is new. In the first chapter, it showed how in the ancient world how women played less dominate roles then they do today. Women were not conceived to be gay. And I thought to myself how that is possible, but then I think you were considered to be a virgin until you had vaginal sex. So there definition of a virgin defers from mine because I believe if you take part in any sexual activities whether it be anal, oral, or vaginal that you are no longer a virgin. In chapter one it also spoke of how older men and younger men had a very strong bond and the same for wealthy women as well. Those bonds to my understanding were more than sexual, there were preparation for life. The young men and women were paired with people who were in the high class of the civilization who they studied under and got their views in life. It makes sense to me to see why they never were the same age. In chapter two it was funny to me how some people viewed being gay as a mental defect or something because in every aspect of live you can always find an homosexual culture, even as far back as the holy bible. But that chapter also showed progression of the human minds as well because as the sexologist did more research their theory’s where changed. Being gay has always been a person’s choice. Everyone doesn’t share the same favorite color or favorite food, so why would they think everyone share the same sexual preference. By reading these two chapters it confirmed my belief they we all make our own choices; and being gay is one that has been around for forever. But it also showed me how small minded people could be, where in those times I thought people were more opened minded but I guess I was wrong about that.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I feel as if the Catholic Church’s view on the same-sex situation is somewhat hypocritical because they prescribed the death penalty for same-sex erotic behavior but also created liturgies for same-sex marriages, when it’s possible that the same-sex married couple will engage in erotic behaviors. Another reason why I feel their view is delusive is because a couple of years ago there were priest participating in sexual activities with little boy which is queer but also pedophilic. One thing that I didn’t know before reading this book is that if not all but most of the terminology had completely dissimilar meaning. For example, the meaning of the word lesbian altered from a geographical term to a poetic style to the identity marker that it is now. I don’t get why in Egypt; the two manicurists to the king were buried together. I get that they served as manicurists but it doesn’t mean they are a couple; therefore, I feel like they shouldn’t be judged. Also in chapter one, I would have never thought that the social and sexual relationship between an older man and a youth would ever represent the ideal form of love. The Greeks honored these desires and disliked same-sex relationship between men of similar age. Like the Greek, the Arab world and Japan also practice pederasty. I understand being homosexual, but pederasty is extreme. In my opinion, pederasty is disgusting because I believe that older men shouldn’t engage in sexual activity with a child. In Roman Empire, same-sexual activities were illegal and punishable by a fine then later upgraded to a death penalty. I feel that a fine was a more acceptable punishment than death; even though, I really feel like people shouldn’t try to control what other people like. Something that I didn’t know was that female-female sexuality was regarded as a lesser offense than male-male sexuality for many reasons including the absence of a penis. Between the two chapters, the first chapter interested me the most even though I disliked the ways that things were done in the past.
ReplyDeleteI particularly enjoyed that the book focused on more than just Western representations and critiques of gay life. I think that it is very important when trying to paint a picture of the gay community that one takes in all aspects and tries to characterize many different types of people. By presenting Native Americans, Japanese, and many other oft-underrepresented cultures, who were already trying to classify queer statuses in their respective societies, the book helps to foster understanding of minorities within the gay community which is itself a minority group.
ReplyDeleteThe variance between ancient and contemporary gayness was something that I also found very interesting. Often times looking at history through one’s on lens can grossly distort the truth. This is especially true I think in dialogues about what it means to be queer from a historical perspective. The book explains many (but not all) of the same-sex pairings of the ancient world as less of the romantic/sex relationships we think of today and describes them more as commonly accepted societal institutions.
I also liked the exploration of many different types of women’s relationships. The range from the ancient world to the twentieth century is fairly interesting. I think it’s amazing that at one point woman—and likewise lesbianism—weren’t included in any conversation about society and it’s this exclusion that in a way enabled them to have a small degree of freedom with regard to their amorous relations.
The historical argument for homosexuality as a third sex is very intriguing. It’s something I think would be appropriate, but also from a modern standpoint too difficult to comprehend. If gayness is a normal state, a simple variation then it should have its own class. It can’t simply be viewed as heterosexuality gone askew. This kind of taxonomic classification would do well with helping people relate and understand homosexuality (I think).
Society’s view of sexuality can be seen to change just like any other sociological concept, due to many of the same key factors; religious, political, economic, and scientific factors play a key role in determining the people’s view during that particular time. The book goes through a number of such times and society’s as well as some individual’s particular view upon homosexuality, and points out the factors for society’s view changing, sometimes radically. I found the basis for the changes to be some of the most interesting parts in the chapters. It is fascinating that throughout most of the ancient kingdoms homosexual relations were often time revered and was simply a part of society, often time seen as a way to bring the civilization closer and for the greater good; noting the factors for homosexual relations for the concept of the Greeks. One of perhaps the biggest reasons for the Greeks as well as other ancient civilization’s incentives for such thinking was the interpretation of women and their roles. In ancient Greek society the male figure was much more important and ‘fulfilled’ than that of women. The changes involving the Roman Empire’s conquest as well as that of the Roman Catholic Church brought about a difference in thinking and viewing homosexuality, one that lasted for centuries. It can be seen that two of the key factors that I listed above seem to be held primarily to blame for the radicalization of beliefs against homosexuality; religion and politics. The Roman Empire and the Catholic Church brought upon the concepts that homosexuality, or any type of sexual act differing from the norm was an abomination and should be determinately abolished. Such beliefs led to much persecution that lasted well through the middle ages. Centuries later, homosexuality (particularly in women) grew to be more accepted, however only for the privileged class that was deemed more or less, untouchable by other forces. Economic factors brought about this change, though this change was not throughout since there were laws still prohibiting homosexuality. Scientific factors brought about a significant change in the ideology of homosexuality, and are perhaps the birth of what we consider contemporary homosexuality. With the founding of sexology, and with homosexuality being one of the key research ideas for sexologists, many significant beliefs were changed.
ReplyDeleteLike Brittany, I also found the section about the Greeks most interesting. I’ve always heard that they had gay tendencies, such as the male-male relations, but now I know better. I didn’t think behavior such as that happened that long ago. I can’t wrap my mind around the fact that that was the norm to their society. It’s mind-boggling how today men are criminalized, for damn near life, for fondling little boys and back then it was accepted. How times have changed. I was surprised to learn that other cultures like Arabs and Japanese practiced the Greek’s pederasty. I consider both these cultures today as extremely conservative. I was also shocked to read about the Native Americans and their “cross-dressing.” I don’t understand how men as big and mighty as We-wha passed as women. Like I said before, I’d heard about the male-male relationships, but I guess I couldn’t believe that these mighty ancient men could be gay. Like Brandy I didn’t know there was a certain age that was accepted by society; I would have imagined similar aged couples. I also didn’t know that dildos were out back then (1477), let alone leather; the power of invention. I want to blame my ignorance not only on my Christian uprearing, but also due to my strong belief that men and women are meant to form a union. I was drawn aback by the reference to gay men and women in the Bible and how “biblical stories honor” this behavior. All lies and garbage. I don’t find it surprising that women relationships were overlooked. Hell, back then it seems as though women as a whole were inferior. I feel like even today female-female relationships are more accepted than that of men. As of now, I don’t feel like the chapters have changed my opinion. I wasn’t really looking to have my beliefs and opinions changed though. I’ve learned more about different cultures and the uprising of homosexuality, but as far as how I feel about it….that still stands.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found to be the most interesting in the first two chapters of Finding Out was how common homosexuality was in earlier times. I had once learned in a previous class about taboos and how men of certain cultures would perform sexual favors for one another but I had no idea that homosexual behavior went as far back as to the Greeks. In chapter one they focused on male/male relations but they also touch on same sex women relationships. They used to live together and it was considered normal but for two males to have that type of relationship was a crime. At one point they were executed for it, but then they were imprisoned for their actions. I always thought that if you had feelings or sex with someone of the same sex then you were considered a homosexual but before the nineteenth century there was nothing wrong with women having romantic flings with one another and even getting married was common. Also that it wasn’t a “sin” for women to have sex with one another. Those are a few of the new things I learned. Another interesting thing that I found was in chapter 2. It was Hirschfeld’s view on homosexuality. As most people recognize two genders, he recognizes a third one, Urnings, which are homosexuals and he argues the point that it’s not abnormal but hereditary and that they looked different from heterosexuals. I don’t think that the chapters changed my beliefs. I’ve always believed in freedom of choice. I agree with Brandi when she says that it’s not only about physical pleasure. Im not going to judge anyone that’s just how I was raised but I do believe that God made man and woman for a reason and I just don’t think that what he had in mind was for the same sexes to be together. But hey if you like it I love it, but I’m pretty sure as I continue to read this book my views on this issue won’t change.
ReplyDeleteWho Dat!!! We going to the bowl baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One thing I can first off admit is that, until college, I had no idea that homosexuality existed before the 1960s. I attended Catholic high school, and, after reading about the Catholic Church’s standings in antiquity, believe that the teaching of their hypocrisy was strongly opposed in the classroom for a specific reason. I have always been taught that God’s love was unconditional, but obviously this unconditional love does not exist for all Catholics unless otherwise “forgiven” for their wrong doings. Just as with the biblical stories of Sodom and Gomorra, I was taught throughout my life that homosexuality would result in a modern, more personal type of punishment. The book of Ruth, though, shows Ruth’s personal and intimate relationship with another woman positively and this is not frowned upon in the bible.
ReplyDeleteTerminology was different during the time of biblical translation as well. For example, women of the island Lesbos have given the rise to the term “lesbian.” Spawning relationships between men much older and young boys was not looked upon wrongfully in earlier years, because one’s morality was not questioned in such manners as when the bible was most likely translated. Boys would usually follow an elder man in whom they wanted to mimic or learn from. By the time the bible was able to be fully translated, all of the terms had since been “sexed up” in a crazy sense.
This personally changes the way that I do view the teachings of the Catholic Church, a religion I have been following most of my life. I do feel as though each Religion looks disdainfully upon specific issues, but killing people for homosexuality in place of counseling and healing what could have been called the sick should have taken the place of such nonsense. Look at the world in which we today live, priests are molesting young boys, who only decided to take part in church activities to further their relationship with their god. I find myself at a literal loss for words on this issue. I have always felt like there was a missing puzzle piece in this issue involving the Catholic teachings and I now feel as though everything has come together in an instant for me.
Recollecting from high school, the Greeks have been my favorite topic to discuss, especially the Greek wars. Back in the Greek days, much so like today, men fight for each other; they treat each other like family and brothers. However, the term of “brotherly love” was quite literal in the Greek times. Warriors, right before a battle, would engage in intercourse and other “loving” proposals to each other. This would make each of them fight for each other; it would give the warriors strength to engage into battle with wanting to protect each other and defeat the enemy.
ReplyDeleteThe history chapter in our book discuss the Greeks and other ancient civilizations the fact that, yes, homosexuality has been around for centuries and is still around today. Throughout the centuries, however, many barriers on sexuality have occurred, mainly because of the strict rules of religion and the persecution of homosexuals and anyone accused of being a homosexual, whether it be truth or false. It seems that sexuality over time has become more fearful for open love, pacifically for any “abominational” love. In my opinion, the only reason why most religions over time condemned homosexuals is because they needed someone to occupy Hell since everyone else is so “godly.” Is that true? Who knows?
So in other words, like many others in this blog, the Greeks are my favorite topic in the chapters we have just read. I have found that the Greeks took the word “love” to a whole new level. It is, however, unfortunate that because of society and religion, some sexuality has to go back into the closet and stay there until the occupants in the closet find the courage to say “That is enough!” The Greeks did it; maybe someday, someone will challenge the status quo once again.
Green is my favorite color. One thing i noticed many people talking about was their somewhat shock of the Greek relationships between older men and young boys. One thing we all have to realize about that is that not very long ago women would be married off at 13 to older men. So I don't feel that this is such a shocking piece of information. Although I sometimes forget what its like for those who are outsiders looking at homosexuality. I loved learning about how the pre-Colombian America's believed that individuals who processed traits of both sexes had two spirits and therefore better suited for higher positions in society. Leviticus, a book of the bible stating homosexuality as an abomination, also states that shellfish are an abomination. Women who participated in Boston marriages were assumed to be friends who helped take care of each other but never in a sexual way. I had no idea that sex between woman didn't count long ago because of the lack of penis. Finding out information like that makes me want to look more into the reasoning of why homosexual men, I feel, have been prejudiced against more than homosexual women. Is it perhaps the heterosexual male fantasy of having two women at once that made it easier for lesbians to get by? One of the most interesting things I discovered was the theory that people may become homosexual whenever the sex they desire is taken away, such as in schools and prisons. I loved finding out the evolution of the sexologists theories in general. Those studies have made life easier for gays then and are continuing to evolve and help us now. I'm extremely excited to start learning about the sexual rights movement when it really gets off the ground and going. It will be great!
ReplyDeleteWhat I found interesting is not only how long gay and lesbian relations have been going on, but that the women were less criticized than the men. It said that in the second half of the nineteenth century, women were seen as "asexual" so it was not as big a deal for them to have gay relations. I also thought it was interesting about the hirjas in the Indian culture who were thought of to be better because they were intersexed. I remember when I took an anthropology class and we talked about the hirjas and they were almost seen as gods or that they had special powers to heal people.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that kind of surprised me was the same-sex relations in Christianity. Growing up in a Catholic school my whole life, I was taught that the Bible condemned same-sex relations such as what happened with Sodom and Gomorrah, yet this points out the flaws in that teaching with Saints Serge and Bacchus and also with the relations of Ruth and Naomi and David and Jonathan. It is very surprising also that in the early Christian culture, lesbian sex was seen as a preparation for marriage and yet now they teach that any homosexual act is wrong.
The sexologist science also interested me. There has always been the argument as whether a person was born gay or came to be like that throughout their lifetime. It points out that early sexologists thought you were born homosexual but could also become gay if something in your life happened that you reverted to being gay. It was seen as almost a mental illness and this chapter points out that homosexuals are seen as a different species of person. I do not think being gay is a mental illness at all. I think it’s something that you’re born with that you just have to deal with during your life.
Another thing for people to keep in mind is that the life expectancy from birth in Ancient Greece was about 25-35 years
ReplyDeleteI was not brought up attending church and so I have a question for anyone who did because I'm not sure on this-- what is it about same sex relationships that the church condemns? Is it the sexual aspects or the relationship as a whole?
ReplyDelete[Epiphani]
ReplyDeleteI knew about pederasty from an old website I know of that deals with gay men in history, but I wasn't aware of it being presented in the Iliad. That kind of makes me blink.
I remember reading or hearing something once about Achilles having a boylove but I thought that was some sort of inference, not an actual written fact (so to speak).
I have to wonder: if same sex relationships between men of the same age in ancient Greece were frowned upon, what would have happened (and possibly did, since obviously if you seriously love someone you can't just shut that off) if the couple didn't want to stop being together once the younger man was past what was considered adolescence?
What if the younger guy had alopaecia unversalis or some other hormonal issue and couldn't sprout body hair? Did he stop being considered an adolescent once his hair turned gray? Hmm.
Another thing that strikes me is that the text states that once Americans filtered into Japan same-sex relationships began falling out of favor. If they were forbidden in other cultures(including Japan's) before we came along, why would Americans' arrival in a place cause a decline in such a popular practice? Was there something about Americans that made the Japanese ashamed or something? In fact, the sudden negativity toward same-sex relations seems to be a recurring theme in almost every culture mentioned in these chapters: at first it's okay, some people don't like it and it's really rather bad, but it's still all right-- and then suddenly some shift in power or social current or what have you transforms it into a moral or social (or both) crime. What exactly causes the change? That's what I want to know. What kept happening?
@ Brandy: The church, from what I understood growing up, condemns any sexual practice that is a waste of seed. In other words if it doesn't produce children, don't do it. That includes everything from masturbation to homosexual sex.
There's more than likely a lot more to the explanation than that, but that's a minimal explanation.
[Epiphani]
Thanks Epiphani!
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting then that a very small and select amount of people should be having sex at all, and also that this is really followed by almost no one. Except for the most devout religious souls, most married individuals find nothing wrong with having sex with their spouse. What if you find out that you are infertile? According to this point of view, you also should not be allowed to get married or have a relationship, whether it's heterosexual or homosexual.
I didn't know that being a pedophile was historically the most acceptable homosexual relationship. I found it a little disturbing, honestly. I was also surprised to learn that transgendered individuals existed and were even accepted in native American cultures. On the subject of early same-sex pairings, the idea of Boston marriages being completely socially acceptable is interesting. I knew that women were seen as almost asexual, but it seems as though no one could conceive of two women having a sexual relationship.
ReplyDeleteWomen's sexuality is brought into question later in the reading as well. It says that doctors considered sexual desire in women to be pathological and told these women that having too much sex would damage their reproductive organs. Sex was solely for reproduction and male pleasure, it seems. They even suggested that masturbation was linked to criminality.
One last thing I found interesting was that homosexuals were seen as the inverse of heterosexuals. It's as if what they are doing is the opposite of "normal." This is an almost insulting view because their sexual preferences are normal to them. Saying that they are the opposite of normal implies that they are doing something wrong, which is ludicrous.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading these chapters, particularly the first. What I found surprising was that the specific aspects of these chapters that really attracted my attention were the sections that expounded upon the history of women’s sexuality. Obviously throughout history there have been innumerable opinions and perspectives on the matter, but what I found so interesting was the polar opposite ideas and viewpoints. For example, women were at one point described as being “insatiable” and therefore they should only partake in sex for procreation. While at the same time, women openly participating in sexual activity were told that sexual desire in women was pathological and that sexual excitement could damage their reproductive organs, all the while being entitled Nymphomaniacs.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found to be thought-provoking were all the original terms for the words we now use to describe someone with a specific sexual preference or gender identity. For example, the word “gay” was originally a label to describe a prostitute. Also, the term “Molly”, meaning effeminate male, first began with Mother Clap’s Molly house, where men could find such individuals. And then later a “Tommy” described a boyish or passing woman, hence the term “Tom girl.” Which I really found interesting because when I was younger I always wondered what would be the male equivalent for the term tom-girl, because I thought I might be able to use that term to describe myself. Now, close to a decade later I’ve finally received my answer. I might coin the phrase “Molly boy” or just bring back the term Molly all together…
A couple of miscellaneous ideas I found interesting. Just like most of my classmates, the Pederasty peaked my curiosity. Although I’d already heard of these relationships, I didn’t quite realize the extent of them. I also found it interesting that they mentioned these relationships existing among the Japanese samurai which I found surprising. Another would be that “witches” burned at the stake were sometimes women who violated their gender identities. Oh and finally, the literature that I found to be most entertaining was Abu Nuwas’ “In the Bath-house” which was a man describing the joys of the bath-house. There was just something about this poem that I could relate to.