-
[QUOTE=legion_quest;2276248]Eh, agree to disagree there then. He was pretty much the clearest you can find to a modern extremely promiscuous cross dressing twink. [/QUOTE]
I still... don't get it. He's promiscuous... and? It's not an achievement (thought it does make someone verrrrrrrry popular ;)). When you're put next to the genius of Turing or Michelangelo or Leonardo (or ANY of the turtles, frankly); can someone really compare just because they were born into such privilege they could do whatever they wanted, and decided getting f*cked a lot was the way to go. I don't know, maybe I'm just a prude; seems kind of a waste of such power and influence. :p
[QUOTE=legion_quest;2276248]See, as someone with a classics MA, I really have to dispute your understanding of the ancient world's notion of sex and relationships. The notion of men being the better company and being ok to have sex with and be with forever had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with the idea that women were the underclass, they weren't worth the time of day outside of being brood mares. They needed men to protect them and were important because they could be used for procreation, but beyond that, men were what mattered because men were better. It was misogyny taken to the extreme and not an endorsement of gay living. Indeed the suggestion of committed male on male relations only, with no women involved, would have been scandalous, and indeed totally against the very nature of purpose of the [I]polis.[/I] Your're putting a modern take on a classical ideal - an ideal that basically saw institutionalised bisexuality, but with the pure intent of keeping women in their place and promoting men being on top at all times. The pedastry was allowed because it was meant to be installing respect in the young for their elders, while keeping with the idea that the male who gives has the power, and whomever takes may be cared for, but has no power. They rely on the top to give them what they need. The 'army of gay soldiers' is the flip side, but again, has nothing to do with being gay as we think of it. It was just companionship, you cared about those around you and that made you fight harder and more together as a unit. A bit of manonman action to sate the blood lust when there were no women round to rape was just fun.
And that, in the end, aside from the misogyny and the power trips, was what the ancients saw in sex - sex was fun, who cares who it is with? It was only with the advent of Christianity that we see all the GOT style SHAME SHAME SHAME come in to it. The misogyny remained, but the fun was lost. [/QUOTE]
My issue is you can't have it both ways. You can't disregard the term gay or homosexual "because the Greeks didn't see it as that" and YET call Elagabulus important because of being transgender and calling Plato a pedo; neither of which were terms used back then, or recognized either. You need to pick one stance to take, viewing things with a modern eye or an ancient eye; using both options when it suits your arguement is just greedy. My questions would be this:
[B]a)[/B] do you believe, back in Ancient Greek times, even IF they had no word for it, there were men who lusted after men (exclusively men).
[B]b)[/B] do you know, categorically, Plato or Aristotle only engaged in sex with males not yet of age? (obviously they had no concept of age of consent, but you know what I mean).
[QUOTE=legion_quest;2276248]But it is an apt comparison for the point I was making - namely that you only excuse the pedastry of the ancients because of their positive legacy. If they were remembered for being butchers and only paedophiles, you wouldn't even think about putting them on the list. [/QUOTE]
So your arguement is: IF Plato hadn't contributed monumental achievements to the world other than f*cking boys he wouldn't be on your list? Really? That's your arguement? Good point, I guess, you got me there he wouldn't be on the list (apologies, I've run out of emoticons, insert the tongue sticking out one).
[QUOTE=legion_quest;2276248]It's ironic that Nietsche used that term, considering the fact that Christianity destroyed some of the very ideas you've included Plato for. [/QUOTE]
Take it up with Nietsche.
[QUOTE=legion_quest;2276248]HAHA, I'm pretty sure you've said your age before and you are older than me, so I dont know how the Smiths passed you by. I'd say some of their best songs, in all their eighties melancholic pre-cursor to later nineties indie rock would be 'There is a light that never goes out,' 'Heaven knows I'm miserable now,' 'The Queen is dead' and their possibly gay anthem 'This Charming man.'[/QUOTE]
Nope. None of those songs ring any bells sorry. Remember not everyone is enthralled by people who can sing. It's passed me by because my interest in music (outside of classical... and the occasional Broadway musical, I'm not a monster after all ;)) is nearly non-existent. My focus is cinema. In my eyes most people have to choose: films, TV, books or music. You can't be incredibly versed in more than one (and still have a social life and career). I chose films. So music... eh. Ain't my bag I'm afraid (but the important fact: I don't pretend to know music; my music 'taste' is describable as poor -- AT BEST -- and I'm very happy with that knowledge).
-
Kieran, you seem to have missed what I was saying.
Elagabulus was important because he was the first recorded person of power who basically said 'fuck it' and went about doing whatever he wanted as his 'true self' - if the commentaries that survive are to be believed. He had all the responsibility and pomp that came with being Emperor and he decided he'd still be openly gay/trans in the way that we see it today, not the way the ancient world did.
That's the difference between him and the two old Greeks. What they championed was institutionalised bisexuality that wasn't the sort of bisexuality we see today, but a version that was all about power, and the role of people in society.
Of course there were gay men, having feelings as gay men do now, back then. But those men were shamed, lambasted and ridiculed in society. They were not the type of men that Plato, Aristotle, Socrates or anyone else championed. They were weaklings, who put themselves first of the needs of the [i]polis;[/i] the needs of the people to flourish, survive and grow. Even Alexander, where it's almost certain that he had a romantic relationship with his friend Jared Leto would never ever have considered just being with him and being in what we would see as a committed gay relationship. He would happily have slept with his male friend, would have cared for him deeply, but would have then married and had children and promoted the growth of his dynasty and of his city state/empire.
We cannot look at these figures and see homosexuals as we know them today - the closest we get to gay people as we know them today - in recorded history anyway - is Elagabulus.
It's just more desired to take those with legacy and the positive image, like the philosophers and the conquerors, because they are heroic or influential characters, but what they did and what we do is so far apart, it isnt the same thing, and they would likely be as disgusted as a Southern Baptist minister by it. It's just a shame that the real characters who stood up for what it meant to actually be 'fully gay' like Elagabulus get the bad press, and so no wants to acknowledged the true bravery people like him showed in standing up to a system that would happily allow you to have gay sex, as long as you were always the top and never showed any affection for the other person (the Roman's being a bit more austere with emotions than the earlier Greeks) by saying 'no, that isn't who I am, I'm this guy.'
He died trying to be himself, all the old philosopher's did was hate on women and bum younger males. But their legacy is more important, so they get pride of place. I find that.....unsettling. Whose the better role model - the person who stands up and says this is who I am, screw you if you dont like it - or the person who hides everything behind words and fits in with a society and it's power structure?
-
I think you give Elagabulus too much credit. He was the Emperor! All that power, all that opportunity, I don't think "choosing to get f*cked a lot" is something worthy of too much praise. How did he better the lives OF OTHERS? How did his actions contribute to a positive change FOR OTHERS? His actions were entirely selfish. Now yes, he was still stepping outside the bounds of what society said you should be, but when you have the position and power to do that it's less of an achievement. We may as well praise Caligula ;) Plato also came from great wealth, and he used that opportunity to build an entirely new way of thinking, or reviewing things that would have repercussions across the Western World and beyond for thousands of years. I just do not agree we should praise the self serving actions of Elagabulus, over someone who changed the world as we know it.
One CLEARLY contributed more to our world than the other. Being the first recorded promiscuous twink of note (your words), is not worthy of songs of old.
[QUOTE=legion_quest;2276488]He died trying to be himself, all the old philosopher's did was hate on women and bum younger males. But their legacy is more important, so they get pride of place. I find that.....unsettling. Whose the better role model - the person who stands up and says this is who I am, screw you if you dont like it - or the person who hides everything behind words and fits in with a society and it's power structure?[/QUOTE]
Firstly, I don't think someone with all the power "standing up" to anyone is that impressive (he was GOD, he could do what he wanted, and did). Secondly, a promiscious twink is not the type of person I look to for a role model. Three, and for someone with an degree in this I'm surprised how much you disregard and whittle down the complexity of Plato and Aristotle. BOTH of which did stand up to society, Aristotle spent his last years in exile because he stood up to the new regime. They did not simply "fit in with society." They CREATED society.
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;2276201]Plato and Aristotle INVENTED PHILOSOPHY! Everyone who came after owes everything to them[/quote]
They're big, but they're not that big. In "western" thought, perhaps, in the sense that parts of Europe like to trace their history from Greece to England and France in isolation. From Abraham (if there was indeed an Abraham, natch) to Confucius, the world managed many a philosopher prior to Plato and Aristotle.
Though, you're right in that it is a huge difference between them and serial murderers.
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;2276201]HA! No idea who the Smiths are either. Would I know any of their songs? (sorry, if it's not Mel C, Linkin Park, Nina Simone, Bon Jovi, Adele or Clannad I really don't know much about it).[/QUOTE]
Not that my opinion counts for much, but it seems like, as it's your sig, you'd want to keep it more to people you're "closer" to, yeah?
I think Smiths fans feel that the Smiths, and by relation, Morrisey, are bigger and more remembered overall than they are. (Not that we don't all do this with someone.) You might recognize a tune or two, at least, from the radio, though.
-
I've never thought it's fair to call men from ancient Greece "pedophiles" and not just because what they were doing was socially acceptable back then. From what I understand the boys in those relationships were almost always teenagers, though I'm not saying that a mature adult having a relationship with a teenager is always totally fine.
I just don't think referring to people who want to have sex with teenagers as pedophiles is accurate, I think there's a big difference between a person wanting to have sex with a teenager and a person wanting to have sex with a child. For example I just don't think using the same word for someone who wants to have sex with a 16 year old and someone who wants to have sex with a 6 year old is accurate.
And even in certain parts of the modern world the age of consent is 14, 15, 16. Here in Canada the age of consent is 16 and up until 2006 it was 14. It's still 14 and 15 in various parts of Europe. So a lot of what those ancient Greek "pedos" were up to wouldn't be illegal in most parts of the modern world.
Also I was under the impression that Socrates was bi, Plato was gay but Aristotle was actually straight. I looked at Aristotle's Wikipedia profile and it says he did have an eromenos.
-
If you are interested when it comes to the Mozz/The Smiths...
[URL="http://myqueerjesus.blogspot.com/2011/06/top-ten-smiths-songs-that-represent-gay.html"]http://myqueerjesus.blogspot.com/2011/06/top-ten-smiths-songs-that-represent-gay.html[/URL]
-
You could also include Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon, who was Governor of New York from 1701-1708, and was reputed to be a cross-dresser. I have no idea if Robert Louis Stevenson got the name for his character in Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde from this guy, though.
-
[QUOTE=t hedge coke;2276567]You might recognize a tune or two, at least, from the radio, though.[/QUOTE]
I don't know. I'd guess most folks know "How Soon Is Now?" even if it's not The Smiths version.
-
How about Long John Baldry, one of the cornerstones of the British blues scene from the 60s on? He was the guy who talked Elton John out of a marriage with a woman, telling him "Men like us don't get married", and Elton thanked him by writing the song "Someone Saved My Life Tonight" about him:
[QUOTE]When I think of those east end lights, muggy nights
The curtains drawn in the little room downstairs
Prima donna lord you really should have been there
Sitting like a princess perched in her electric chair
And it's one more beer
And I don't hear you anymore
We've all gone crazy lately
My friends out there rolling round the basement floor
And someone saved my life tonight sugar bear
You almost had your hooks in me, didn't you dear
You nearly had me roped and tied
Altar-bound, hypnotized
Sweet freedom whispered in my ear
You're a butterfly
And butterflies are free to fly
Fly away, high away, bye bye[/QUOTE]
Baldry had always been out to his fellow musicians and friends, and he finally came out to the public with his album Baldry's Out.
[IMG]https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51ZR1vpe6jL.jpg[/IMG]
It included "A Thrill's a Thrill" which later got covered by Mitch Ryder with the legendary Marianne Faithfull:
[QUOTE]Take a hard look around you, babe,
There ain't nobody got it made
So you can live in your head
Or you can live in your heart
But if you don't live at all
Then why the hell did you start ?
Thrill's a thrill
I said a thrill's a thrill
Even in paradise
A thrill's a thrill.
Now the young boys are all hanging out in the bars,
Old men they don't have to cruise all night in cars.
And those young girls love the smell of flowers,
Old women love to play with them for hours.
Gays are straight -
And straights are weird
The bi's just call
Everybody 'dear'.
You know a thrill's a thrill
I said a thrill's a thrill
Even in paradise.
I said a thrill's a thrill.
Down to get up -
Yeah, up to get down.
Oh, I will try anything
If it makes my head go round.
Leather whips
And fingertips
I know a boy who is growing, growing.
A thrill's a thrill
A thrill's a thrill
Even in paradise
[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;BuSTIg84QRg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuSTIg84QRg[/video]
[IMG]http://waytofamous.com/images/long-john-baldry-09.jpg[/IMG]
-
[QUOTE=MasterOfMagnetism;2276926]I just don't think referring to people who want to have sex with teenagers as pedophiles is accurate, I think there's a big difference between a person wanting to have sex with a teenager and a person wanting to have sex with a child. For example I just don't think using the same word for someone who wants to have sex with a 16 year old and someone who wants to have sex with a 6 year old is accurate. [/QUOTE]
I do get what you mean, in the sense we have the words "child" and "teenager" for a reason. Similar with "murder" and "manslaughter". The English language especially likes to differentiate on minute specifics; yet not here. Hell we have a word for killing someone by throwing them out the window... I mean how is that even a thing someone would bother naming? ;)
[QUOTE=MasterOfMagnetism;2276926]Also I was under the impression that Socrates was bi, Plato was gay but Aristotle was actually straight. I looked at Aristotle's Wikipedia profile and it says he did have an eromenos.[/QUOTE]
Oh. Hmmmm, I thought it was Plato gay, Aristotle bi, Socrates str8? Ahhhhh; need to research this more...
[QUOTE=Malvolio;2277020]You could also include Edward Hyde, 3rd Earl of Clarendon, who was Governor of New York from 1701-1708, and was reputed to be a cross-dresser. I have no idea if Robert Louis Stevenson got the name for his character in Dr. Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde from this guy, though.[/QUOTE]
Ohhhhh, I wonder if... interesting. I'll look him up (though would you say he changed the world?)
[QUOTE=numberthirty;2277063]I don't know. I'd guess most folks know "How Soon Is Now?" even if it's not The Smiths version.[/QUOTE]
YouTubed it, skipped bits, nothing is ringing a bell (outside of MAYBE it was in some 80s film montage, or a background track during a scene in a film, but I can't say for certain). Apologies. :(
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;2277895]YouTubed it, skipped bits, nothing is ringing a bell (outside of MAYBE it was in some 80s film montage, or a background track during a scene in a film, but I can't say for certain). Apologies. :([/QUOTE]
Just realized I left out the "How" most folks would have heard it...
[video=youtube;9FDl2ylXLko]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FDl2ylXLko[/video]
-
Oh god, numberthirty, I'm so tired of disappointing you (and others) but... I'm really, REALLY sorry... I've never watched [I]Charmed
[/I]
[IMG]https://mikeydislikesit.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/scream-queens-screaming.gif?w=620[/IMG]
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;2277989]Oh god, numberthirty, I'm so tired of disappointing you (and others) but... I'm really, REALLY sorry... I've never watched [I]Charmed
[/I]
[IMG]https://mikeydislikesit.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/scream-queens-screaming.gif?w=620[/IMG][/QUOTE]
You've never seen [I]Charmed[/I]?
[IMG]https://ijusthaveafewnotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fainting.gif?w=696[/IMG]
I guess I'm biased because of my username xD
-
[QUOTE=Kieran_Frost;2274967][B][SIZE=4][U]NEW TOPIC:[/U][/SIZE][/B] [B][I]can anyone help with my signature?[/I] [/B] I like it to keep an air of fun, while remaining informative. I've wanted to "ping" as many major, defining LGBT stars/historical figures as possible, one who have truly changed everything for us. Sadly I can only know so many, so: HELP!!! Anyone I've missed? Anyone you'd take out?
Signature: [I]"We are Shakespeare. We are Michelangelo. We are Tchaikovsky. We are Mercury. We are Wilde. We are Turing. We are Lincoln, Lorca, Leonardo da Vinci. We are Alexander the Great. We are Fredrick the Great. We are Rustin. We are Addams. We are Marsha! Marsha Marsha Marsha! We are so generous we DeGeneres. We are Olivier, Gielgud, Guinness, McKellan. Controversially we are Malcolm X. We are Plato and Aristotle. We are RuPaul, god dammit! And yes, we are Woolf."[/I][/QUOTE]
How about Rob Halford the singer from Judas Priest? He came out in the early 90's and it's interesting because not only were they one of the most influential bands of their genre, but JP was always seen as one of the more macho or heavy bands.
-
[QUOTE=Charmed;2278002]You've never seen [I]Charmed[/I]?
[IMG]https://ijusthaveafewnotes.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/fainting.gif?w=696[/IMG]
[B][SIZE=3]I guess I'm biased because of my username xD[/SIZE][/B][/QUOTE]
LOL! Oh you!
[QUOTE=ed2962;2278043]How about Rob Halford the singer from Judas Priest? He came out in the early 90's and it's interesting because not only were they one of the most influential bands of their genre, but JP was always seen as one of the more macho or heavy bands.[/QUOTE]
Thank-you so much for the suggestion, at-least I've heard of Judas Priest ;) I would, if possible, want to move away from musicians though, only in the sense we have Mercury and Bowie (and Tchaikovsky, who trumps them all). Obviously music is very important... BUT... other factors contribute to society/the world. I mean I don't have Elton John, because I feel Mercury and Bowie were more revolutionary and cross more lines, and influenced more people. If that makes sense?