Talk:Pederasty in ancient Greece/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Pederasty in ancient Greece. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Disputed Material. Evidence that suggests pederasty was not common

Here is just some evidence:

In Plato’s laws the anonymous Athenian states “in the matter of love we may be able to enforce one of two things-either that no one shall venture to touch any person of the freeborn or noble class except his wedded wife, or sow the unconsecrated and bastard seed among harlots, or in barren and unnatural lusts; or at elast we may abolish altogether the connection of men with men; and as to women, if any man has to do with any but those who come into his house duly married by sacred rites, whether they be bought or acquired in any other way, and he offends publicly in the face of all mankind, we shall be right in enacting that he be deprived of civic honors and privileges, and be deemed to be, as he truly is, a stranger.” (laws 841)

What this basically means is that no man shall touch a woman except his wedded wife and that love between males should be prohibited.

Megistess responds “I, for my part stranger, would gladly recieve this law.” The Athenian would shortly later say “We had got about as far as the establishment of the common tabels, which in most places would be difficult, BUT IN CRETE NO ONE WOULD THINK OF INDRODUCING ANY OTHER CUSTOM.” Meaning that the Cretans would adopt the law.

Here are more quotes:

If someone, being himself an honest man, admired a boy's soul and tried to make of him an ideal friend without reproach and to associate with him, he [Lycurgus] approved, and believed in the excellence of this kind of training. But if it was clear that the attraction lay in the boy's outward beauty, he banned the connection as an abomination; and thus he caused mentors to abstain from boys no less than parents abstain from sexual intercourse with their children and brothers :and sisters with each other. (Lacedaemonian Constitution, II. 13.)

Regarding the myth of Ganymede and Zeus, the myth is compared to

“[as in] Homer pictures us Achilles looking upon Patroclus not as the object of his passion but as a comrade, and in this spirit signally avenging his death. So we have songs telling also how Orestes, Pylades, Theseus, Peirithous, and many other illustrious demi-gods wrought glorious deeds of valor side by side, not because they shared a common bed but because of mutual admiration and respect.”(Symposium, VIII. 30 - 32.)

Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life. (Ancient Customs of the Spartans, 7. 237 - c.)

Robert Flaceliere writes

"[I]t appears extremely likely that homosexuality of any kind was confined to the prosperous and aristocratic levels of ancient society. The masses of peasants and artisans were probably scarcely affected by habits of this kind, which seem to have been associated with a sort of snobbery. The available texts deal mainly with the leisured nobility of Athens. But they may give the impression that pederasty was practiced by the entire nation. The subject, however, of the comedy by Aristophanes entitled Lysistrata suggests that homosexuality was hardly rampant among the people at large. It would be an error to think so.

(Robert Flaceliere’s Love in Ancient Greece pg 49-50)

He also writes "The permanent popularity of courtesans [hetairai] in ancient Greece is surely the best proof that homosexuals were either not consistently so or not particularly numerous. We have already suggested that inversion was never very prevalent except in one class of society and over quite a limited period." (pg 140)

"Whether such matters are to be regarded jestingly or seriously, I think that the pleasure is to be deemed natural which arises out of the intercourse between men and women; but that the intercourse of men with men, or of women with women, is contrary to nature, and that the bold attempt was originally due to unbridled lust." (Plato's Laws 636)

"The teachers of the boys shall open the school-rooms not earlier than sunrise, and they shall close them before sunset. No person who is older than the boys shall be permitted to enter the room while they are there, unless he be a son of the teacher, a brother, or a daughter's husband. If any one enter in violation of this prohibition, he shall be punished with death. The superintendents of the gymnasia shall under no conditions allow any one who has reached the age of manhood to enter the contests of Hermes together with the boys. A gymnasiarch who does permit this and fails to keep such a person out of the gymnasium, shall be liable to the penalties prescribed for the seduction of free-born youth. Every choregus who is appointed by the people shall be more than forty years of age."

(Contra Timarchus 12.)

Also, there is a rediculous claim in the article that the Cretans practiced pederasty as a population control. Funny. I didn't know they were overpopulated. That definitely needs to be taken out. Also read the laws at the top of this page. You all are biased and have your own agendas.Cretanpride 02:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

primary source material from to-do list

• NOTE: Ensuing text has some useful primary source material.

Sexual Crimes in ANCIENT GREECE α. Child Abuse & Sex Offenses

<<Εαν τις υβριζη εις τινα η παιδα η γυναικα η ανδρα των ελευθερων η των δουλων η παρανομον τι πιοηση εις τουτων τινα γραφεσθω προς τους θεσμοθετας ο βουλομενος Αθηναιων οις εξεστιν οι δε θεσμοθεται εισαγοντων εις την ηλιαιαν τριακοντα ημερων αφ ης γραφη. Οτου δ αν καταγνω η Ηλιαια τιματω αυτου παραχρημα οτου αν δοκη αξιος ειναι παθειν η αποτεισαι>>. (Νομος υβρεως,Δημοσθ.Κατα Μειδιου 47)

Meaning <<Whoever abuses any child or woman be they free or slaves or breaks the law regarding to them should be accused of commiting a public offense from any Athenian that wants and has the right (to sue) before the lawmakers and they must to the latest in a month to bring him to trial to be judjed and suffer the consequenses of the law >>.

β.Pimping To those condemned for pimping freeman or slave ,child or woman the penalty of death is given.

-<<Και τους προαγωγους γραφεσθαι κελευει (the law) καν αλωσι θανατω ζημιουσι>>. Αισχιν. Κατα Τιμαρχου -<<Υμεις Μενωνα μεν τον μυλωθρον απεκτεινατε (=execute) διοτι παιδ ελευθερον εκ Πελληνης εσχεν (=abused,raped) εν τω μυλωνι... Ευθυμαχον δε διοτι την ολυνθιαν παιδισκην εστησεν επ οικηματος (=put up in a brothel)>>. Δειναρχος ,κατα Δημοσθενους ,23

WHORING & *ΚΙΝΑΙΔΙΣΜΟΣ(=homosexuality) <<Αν τις Αθηναιων εταιρηση μη εξεστω αυτω των εννεα αρχοντων γενεσθαι μηδ ιεροσυνην ιερωσασθαι μηδε συνδικησαι τω δημω μην αρχην αρχετω ουδεμιαν μητε ενδημω μητε υπεροριον μητε κληρωτην μητε χειροτονητην μηδ επικηρυκειαν αποσταλλεσθω μηδε γνωμην λεγετω μηδ εις τα δημοτελη ιερα εισιτω μηδ εν ταις κοιναις στεφανηφοριαις στεφανουσθω μηδ εντος των της αγορας περιρραντηριων πορευεσθω . Εαν δε τις ταυτα ποιη καταγνωσθεντος αυτου εταιρειν θανατω ζημιουσθω>>. (Αισχινης Κατα Τιμαρχου 52 , 1)

Meaning <<Whoever Athenian gives his body to be had(sexually) by another man is forbidden to be elected as one of the nine lords and be a priest or lawyer or any place in public office or any other position internal or external by voting or chance and never to be sent as messenger never to speak before the parliament or the forum (Agora) or to enter in public temples or take part in public festivals or wear the festive ring of Demeter and enter the market. Whoever condemned thus breaks the following prohibitions must be tied <<δησαντων αυτον>> and once the civilians have tied him to be delivered to the eleven to be slain before the day has passed

<<τεθνατω αυθημερον>> . Ο Δημοσθενης reports the <<περι της εταιρησεως νομον >> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 21), [εταιρειν= το τους ανδρας πασχειν τα των εταιρων εταιρει μεν ουν και πορνευεται ο πασχητιων] ενω στον ιδιο λογο του (παρ. 30) μνημονευει τον σχετικο νομο του Σολωνος συμφωνα με τον οποιο ο δραστης εστερειτο το σημαντικοτερο για τον Αθηναιο πολιτη δικαιωμα το δικαιωμα του λογου ενωπιον της βουλης και της εκλησσιας αλλα και αυτο της υποβολης <<γραφων>> και <<εισαγγελιων>> δηλαδη δημοσιων μυνησεων. <<μητε λεγειν μητε γραφειν εξειναι τοις ηταιρηκοσιν>> And Λυσιας (Κατ Αλκιβιαδου Α) gives us safe information about the cruel treatment of homosexuals(κιναιδων) in Ancient Athens not only by legislation but by its "liberal" society that mocked and stigmatized this practice . Ο Αριστοφανης δε αθυροστομος τους παραδιδει σε δεινη χλευη παρουσιαζοντας τους με θηλυπρεπεις ενδυμασιες ακκιζομενους (=κουναμενους) ως εταιρες κ.λ.π. και αποκαλωντας τους με ασεμνες ονομασιες π.χ. <<Χαονες>> προκαλωντας ατελειωτους γελωτες στο κοινο.

Στους εταιριζομενους <<τους ομοτεχνους πορναις>> (Δημ.Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 58), συνεχιζει ο Δημοσθενης << οι νομοι ουκ εωσι ουδε τα εννομα τους αισχρως βεβιωκοτας νομον θειναι>> (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος 24), meaning <<the law forbids them to propose laws>>.

Homosexuality α. Of the Athenian State <<Ει τις πεπορνευομενος η εταιρηκως εστι εξειργεσθω ειναι των ρητορων>> (Αισχινης κατα Τιμαρχ. 5,2). ( It is forbidden to whoever has given himself as prostitute or a girl or boy to be a council of the state ). Despite things told and written even in certain universities that homosexuality & pedophilia were not only sanctioned but a normal practice is PROVEN FALSE BY THE ATTIC LAWS . What impresses especially is the cruelty of the penalties to the offenders from total loss of civil rights and death (μη εξεστω αυτω λεγειν και γραφειν = απαγορευεται σε αυτον να λαβαινη το λογο στις λαικες συνελευσεις και να υποβαλλη δημοσιες καταγγελιες) the same day the verdict was pronounced by the Ηλιαστικο δικαστηριο . Sex crimes were of the heinest type and belonged to the category of public offenses . This derives from the fact that every citizen had the right ( a moral and political obligation in Ancient Greece) to bring against them <<γραφην εταιρησεως >> according to the special <<περι φθορας νομον>> meaning a public suit because the above offenses were public as they attackes against the state itself ( All of Athens). Beyond the harsh treatment against sex offenders the public opinion was especially hard against them . Homosexuals were called χλευαστικως <<κιναιδους>> meaning those that move shame & aversion <<κινουν την αιδω>> and bring about the punishment of NEMESIS. They were also called ανδρογυναια,γυνανδρους,ημιανδρους,πορνους,ομοτεχνους εταιραις ο δε Αριστοφανης οπως προαναφερθηκε που ηταν ιδιαιτερα καυστικος εξαπελυε εναντιον τους προκαλωντας εκρηξεις γελωτος και χλευασμων του λαου στα θεατρα επικλησεις ως χαονες και αρσενικες πορνες . Ειναι πραγματι εντυπωσιακη αυτη η σταση της Αθηναικης πολιτειας και κοινωνιας απεναντι των ατομων αυτων που εφτανε μεχρι και τον κοινωνικο αποκλεισμο τους θα ελεγε κανεις οτι η ποινη τους ηταν η οιονει capitis deminutio του ρωμαικου δικαιου δηλαδη νομικος αποκεφαλισμος μη αποκλειομενης και της παραπομπης τους στον δημιο οπως ρητωςπροβλεπονταν απο την σχετικη διαταξη. The only logical explanation for this harsh treatment from the most free and liberal state of ancient greece is the regard of such actions as ABOMINATION ΜΙΑΣΜΑ as a disgusting act that made them οιονει εναγεις , that <<εμιαινον>> polluted the city thus and divine wrath would fall on everyone . This is also proven from the fact that they had the same treatment as murderers . To remain out of any public event or sacred place and lose all civil rights. . Χαρακτηριστικη και διαφωτιστικη ειναι η πληροφορια που μας δινει ο Δημοσθενης (Κατ Ανδροτιωνος) και αφορα βεβαιως τους <<ανδροφονους>> στους οποιους απαγορευονταν και η εισοδος <<εντος των περριραντηριων της αγορας>> δηλαδη του <<καθαγιασμενου δια ιερων ραντισματων χωρου της αγορας>> ως μη εχοντων <<καθαρας τας χειρας>>. Εξ αυτου σφοδρως μπορει να πιθανολογηθη οτι επιβαλλονταν η αυτη απαγορευση και στους εταιριζομενους ως μη εχοντας <<καθαρον>> το σωμα τους.

β. The Spartan Laws Against child Abuse Against the commonplace mythicaly regarded as commonplace like <<δωρικους ερωτες>> an excellent source of Spartan Legislation and life , the honest Ξενοφων ο Αθηναιος in his work <<Λακεδαιμονιων πολιτεια>> ΙΙ,13 reports the law attributed to Lycurgus according to which child abuse is condemned as an ABOMINATION = <<Εις τις παιδος σωματος ορεγομενος φανειη αισχιστον τουτο θεις εποιησεν (ο Λυκουργος) εν Λακεδαιμονι μηδεν ηττον εραστας παιδικων απεχθεσαι>>. [The lawmaker Λυκουργος charakterized as most horrid if someone desired the body of a child and set that lovers should abstain from this (lovers of the same sex in ancient greece are Spiritual Brethren not sexual partners, remember this & please learn Ancient Greek dont read "translations" in other languages Ancient Greek cannot be translated)] . Ο Πλουταρχος also (Λακεδ. επιτηδ. 7,237 c) informs us that whoever tried to abuse someone was striped of his civil rights for life = <<Εραν των την ψυχην σπουδαιων παιδων εφειτο το δε πλησιαζειν αισχρον νενομιστο ως του σωματος ερωντας αλλ ου της ψυχης ο δε εγκληθεις ως επ αισχυνη πλησιαζων ατιμος δια βιου ην>>. Meaning = The (Λυκουργειος) law allowed admiration towards the mental gifts of the youths but any physical desire was an abomination that declared carnal and not spiritual love . Whoever by law was condemned thus was dishonoured (striped of his civil rights) for life .

γ. Of Magna Grecia (Lower Italy) Even in Magna Grecia where customs and morals where supposedly more lax CHILD ABUSE WAS PUNISHED WITH THE MAXIMUM PENALTY MEANING DEATH THAT TOOK THE FORM OF THE HANGING OF THE OFFENDER. Particularly ο Μαξιμος ο Τυριος (20,9α) informs us=

<<Εν Λοκροις τοις Ιταλιωταις εφηβος ην καλος και νομος καλος και ερασται πονηροι εραν μεν ηναγκαζοντο υπο του καλλους ειργοντο ομως υπο του νομου κακως εραν οιστρουμενοι δε υπο του παθους προς την υβριν τον μεν εφηβον ουκ επεισαν ηξαν δε οι δυστυχεις επι βροχον παντες>>. [To those greeks that reside in Italy Λοκρους (η Επιζεφυριους) there were a handsome youth and cunning lovers but also a proper law . And the lovers where possesed by strong desire because of his physical beauty but were stopped by the law to manifest the carnal part of love but in the end by their strong passion to abuse him tried to lure him but were lead all of them to the gallows.]

And while in Greek Legislation the maximum penalty is given for the heinous crime of child abuse in the Roman it is absent as a crime (Α' βασιλειων ιδ,ιε 12 ,κβ 46, β βασιλειων κγ 7)

• Κιναδος δηλ. ο κινων την αιδω

Liddel-Scott τομος ΙΙ σελιδα 719 Κιναιδεια,homosexuality= η παρα φυσιν ασελγεια(animal lust,abuse), Αισχινης 18,29 Δημητριος Φαληρευς 97. Κιναιδευομαι= ειμαι κιναιδος Κιναιδος,homosexual= ο καταπυγων(degenerate,One who has annal sex) , ο καθολα αισχρος (all shamefull,dishonourable), κακοηθης ανθρωπος (immoral person)

on a lighter note

I really have nothing to contribute other than this article sure puts a spin on the Monty Python philosopher song lyrics "Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle". 64.173.240.130 18:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous complaints

And who posted the note, asserting that pederasty was punishable by death? --Wetman 02:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Both Aristotle and Plato's Laws unequivocably condemn homosexuality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.22.98.162 (talk • contribs) .

That is a vague and misleading formulation, since Plato in the Laws was condemning anal intercourse with boys (please quote source for Aristotle). That is not inconsistent with his support for chaste pederasty in Phaedrus and the Symposium. It is also demonstrably false, since what is currently understood by "homosexuality" and what Plato wrote about are two very different things. Haiduc 09:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I checked the article and noticed that some important material on opposition was removed when breaking out the article on Philosophy of Greek pederasty. I have restored the part about Plato's Laws. If you have other material that you feel needs to be quoted here please discuss. Haiduc 10:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are more homosexuals in the United States today than in all of Ancient Greece, and homosexuality was considered normal in Ancient Judaea and Jerusalem, which was the San Francisco of that time, and still is.

---

This subject requires attention away from personal belief systems. There are several points to make with reference to the above:

Most Greek men expressed their bisexuality through this relationship. Please note that sexual intimacy itself was not frowned upon, if it was processed in the "correct" manner. Anal penetration was stigmatised, a citizen caught in the passive act would find himself in the courts. The reason? To make yourself a passive partner and allow yourself to be penetrated was mimicing the female sexual role. In a mysoginistic society this was a cardinal sin. For metics, or any other males, it was acceptable. The ideal pederastic relationship saw the young boy receive attention from an older male, he was meant to play "hard to get" and thus test the resolve and intention of the older man. The young boy would receive instruction from his older lover, and as such importance was stressed at the suitablility of him.

True the older lover was expected to house sexual motives, but they would not involve penetration. That was the "ideal" to what extent this happened is up for debate.

One theory is that this relationship took the place of the father/son relationship as there was a large age-gap between both. If you assume the average male married when he was expected to (around 30) and add to this that his son would be looked after mostly by his mother till the age of 7 it is possible that many fathers never really bonded with their sons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scamander (talk • contribs) .

I think in the West we are brought up in Judaeo-Christian belief system which is somewhat narrow minded when it comes to the subject of love. People fail to realize that words such as "Phila Delphia" once existed, which referred to loving someone as a brother or brotherly love. Is it not possible that the Sacred Band of Thebes were some of the closest of friends, who became so close through their living, fighting and suffering together that they saw and loved one another as Brothers? Where one soldier of the band would sacrifice his own life to save his Friends', so close was their bond? Or are we supposed to mindlessly believe that they were all penetrating one another? I think the perversion of modern Western thinking has changed the actual meaning of what the Sacred Band really was and the purpose it served. --Xenophonos 02:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. Yet most people now fall in line and obediently believe that male love in Greece was about "penetration" and about "dominance." It clearly was first and foremost about love. But, what kind of love? One based on the dogmatic denial of eros, or one honoring eros and also the bounds of moderation, as Philip Macedon implies? Carnal relations were often condemned or avoided, but that did not diminish the erotic nature of the relationship. It may have heightened it. The Thebans were subject to Greek ideals, not Judaeo-Christian ones. Haiduc 12:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Seminal matters

Removed this from text: Some research has shown that ancient Greeks believed semen, more specifically sperm, to be the source of knowledge, and that these relationships served to pass wisdom on from the erastes to the eromenos within society. Didn't find any sources. Haiduc 13:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Bethe who mentioned that the man's arete (Αρετή) was believed to

be transferred to the boy via anal penetration. I don't know for sure, but this may

have also been the case with the ancient Persians.

Dan Asad 06:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Evolution of pederasty

"Greek pederasty went through a series of changes over the millennium from its entry into the historical record and its final demise as an official institution. In some areas, such as Athens, the construction of the relationship seems to have gone from greater modesty in the early days to a freer physicality and lack of restraint in classical times, followed by a return to a more spiritual form in the early fifth century. Its formal end resembled its beginning, in that it came by official decree – that of emperor Justinian, who also put an end to other institutions that sustained ancient culture, such as Plato's Academy and the Olympic Games."

Does anyone know where i can find more information regarding the evolution of greek pederasty? This paragraph is all there is in the article. Thanks. (66.189.104.220 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC))

There is little specific material out there, rather there are different presentations at different times, from Homer (Telemachos & Pisistratos in the Oddysey, not properly addressed yet in the literature) to pseudo-Lucian's Erotes, eleven or twelve hundred years later. Read Percy and Sergent. Haiduc 23:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Charioteers at Chaeronea

The article asserts that the Sacred Band of Thebes at the Battle of Chaeronea consisted of 150 warriors "each assisted by his beloved charioteer". Surely war chariots had been obsolete in Greece for at least three hundred years before Chaeronea (338 BC). Nor does any description of the battle mention chariots. My impression of the Sacred Band is that they fought as hoplites, with erastes and eromenos fighting side-by-side. If they used chariots, and if the eromenoi were charioteers, this remarkable fact ought to be supported by a citation. Agemegos 03:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I just don't get it

I like this article very much. I think I understand what it says, but it leaves gaps which I can't reconcile with my own experience. As a parent, I've read child rearing books which emphasize the value of a male mentor for adolescent boys. Our society has recognized that the root cause of many social ills is the lack of male role models and fathers for our adolescent boys. Charity groups such as Big Brothers Big Sisters, attempt to fill this gap, so to that point, I can see how this institution served the Greeks very well. But our society has also identified the sexual abuse of children to be a root cause of many social ills. Sexually abused children grow up to have all kinds of emotional and developmental problems. The article mentions that Greek men were seen to be deficient if they did have boys as lovers. Many of these men are mentioned by name – names I recognize as prominent men and heroes, but what of the boys? Did they grow up to achieve such status? How could this have possibly been good for the boys? It seems to me that an entire generation would have grown up irreparably damaged, but of course Greek society flourished for hundreds of years, so that's what I just can't see, and that's my suggestion for improving the article. -ErinHowarth 00:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your suggestion. The evidence points both ways - some boys were abused and hurt, others were loved unabusively and helped. The Greeks were quite conscious of the abuse issue. Haiduc 04:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The deal was not abusing little boys, the deal was to take care of their whole education including sexual education. As the article points out, the boys were courted and could choose their mate. Unlike nowadays, after 2000 years of judeo-christianism, the Greeks did not consider sexuality as a sin. But they didn't like the idea of unrestrained passion. They didn't like people unable to control their body or mind. Got it ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.195.40.92 (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2007

The answer to Erin's question probably should be in a separate article that talks about how cultural views of Pederasty might or might not have an impact on the psychological experience pederasty has on boys, both historically and today. The current article is focused on history and associated analysis of that history.

"I like this article very much. I think I understand what it says, but it leaves gaps which I can't reconcile with my own experience. " Maybe then the issue is coming to terms with things that go beyond your own experience and accepting that not everything will fit nicely within your understanding of contemporary society and what it is. One step that might help you reconcile this issue for you is possibly by understanding that concepts of sexuality are not static nor fixed; rather, they evolve and mutate throughout history. Those child rearing books you've read are contemporary creations; you'd be surprised how far something like 'child-rearing' has changed throughout the previous four centuries. As well, your comments "How could this have possibly been good for the boys? It seems to me that an entire generation would have grown up irreparably damaged," are slightly anachronistic, given how societal values were structured differently compared to your own religious and cultural biases. Rather than seeing the boys as being "damaged" ostensibly because of their sexual relationships with men (an assumption which is arguably fueled by cultural and religious values and taboos), it may have well been considered natural or acceptable. 206.248.179.113 (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, " But our society has also identified the sexual abuse of children to be a root cause of many social ills " is arguable and fallacious, considering how society itself is not a barometre from which we can gauge things. Sexual abuse of children being reprehensible notwithstanding,how has it been found to be the root cause of many societal ills? And what societal ills? The above sentence makes for a statement of facts when the point of this article, as I understand it, is to somehow impart on people that societal norms are not static, and what we consider egregious and reprehensible today may have either not been a long time or was understood differently. It is not a matter of justifying or condoning things, but merely to come to grips with the notion that concepts such as "societal ills" and god forbid "sexuality" are arguably socially constructed! 206.248.179.113 (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

However, given how fraught the issue of pedophilia is today, and the ways this article will undoubtedly be read and refered to beyond its proper scope, I'd strongly suggest a prominent see-also pointing to articles that examine larger cultural aspects of abuse and/or non-abuse. In other words a clear disclaimer along the lines of "This scope of this article is limited to discussing scholarship on historical evidence for practices in ancient Greece, and on their presumed meanings to those that actually practiced them. Articles on pederasty in other cultures or historical periods, including discussions on how contemporary society views the ancient Greek practices can be found here, here, and here..." I know that that's annoyingly meta and silly, but I think it's responsible to include it in the article in order to prevent irresponsible or out-of scope readings of it. --Ajasen 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Solon

In the section 'Regional characteristics - Athens', it is asserted that Solon is the founder of the 'pederastic tradition' in Athens. This is unsubstantiated. Elsewhere at Wiki, the assertion is sometimes wrongly supported by citing Aeschines. This needs to be cleared up.Lucretius (talk) 09:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are they called boys?

Something of note is that these men were not having sex with children they would enter these relationships at the age of marriage for young woman which was around 16 they were not small children and i think it is a disgusting lie and a shame we would dishonor such an amazing ancient civilization by calling them pedophiles which they were not if the age was truly 16. 16 is the legal age of consent of many countries around the world today why do we not call them pedophiles?

In the section Social Aspects it reads,

"Boys entered into such relationships in their teens, around the same age that Greek girls were given in marriage" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.179.156 (talk) 10:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That is very true, but the fact remains that males in adolescence are by that very definition not yet men. The whole point of the regulation of Greek pederasty is that it was a regulated relationship where only males old enough but not too old could participate as beloveds. However, a relationship with an adolescent is not pedophilic in the modern sense of the word. Haiduc (talk) 10:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A sixteen y/o is in my eyes both: a boy and a young man. However, when such a teen later developed a real growth of beard, the erotic part of the relationship was expected to end, so it was actually a rather short time span that is relavant here. Greek homosexuality was basically a case of Ephebophilia, which is not the same phenomenom as Pedophilia. Here you can see how these youths looked like: http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Greece/indexGreece.htm Fulcher (talk) 11:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "boy" is not useful at all in this article nor completely accurate and leaves the reader with suggestions not encyclopedic in nature.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the polis they entered the institutionalized relationship at 12-14 . Many scholarly sources about pederasty do use the word "boy", as you can easily convince yourself with a google books search. Pcap ping 23:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see you've been replacing boy with youth. I don't particularly mind it, but it does seem prudish given that "boy" is liberally used in scholarly sources on this topic. Pcap ping 00:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The main argument I have against what you percieve is that I have easily found references to age as well being upwards of 22. As I stated the use of the term "Boy" is misleading. What defines a boy by age today may not have been so in ancient times, but the varying ages do include older young men as the attraction was the perfection of the male form not looking for the youngest trophy. That simply was not the case. When using the term boy we are communicating or modern usage unless further explained and feel the use of the term to be unencyclopedic in this sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are making assumptions that are not based on any action so far. Prudish? Well I guess there are all levels, but I see it as not glorifying something that simply not accurate or even encyclopedic.

See this google book search;

--Amadscientist (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mentions of Homosexuality in Modern History

The section on modern scholarship implies that no mention was made of homosexual relationships of classical times in history books until the twentieth century, which is untrue. Edward Gibbon makes quite unequivocal (if euphemistic) reference to it on a number of occasions, in both footnotes to and the main text of Decline and Fall. It would be more accurate to say that references to homosexuality were suppressed in the nineteenth century. Tolken (talk) 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Technicaly the term Homosexuality did not exist untill the 19th century so depending on what's being discussed here, it may be well to remember the differences between homosexuality and the practice same-sex in ancient times.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct. This is explained by Hubbard on page 1 of his book for instance . Pcap ping 23:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)