A Few Thoughts on St. Paul, Gays, Women, and ECUSA
First, I saw this film on the independent film channel, and I don't know if netflix has it, but I highly recommend Pack, Strap, Swallow. It's a docmentary shot inside a women's prison in Ecuador; it's about English speaking women from all over the world used as mules to run drugs, caught and incarcerated, and it's deeply moving. Yeah Cars was okay, so was Over the Hedge; but if time is an issue, skip everything at the theatre this week and get a hold of this documentary.
Second, the Episcopal church is in the public again for the divisions resulting from the national conference. Yes, 'we' elected a female presiding bishop; the 'apology' for Bishop Robinson wasn't quite enough. I am told, though, that the Archbibshop of Canterbury himself supports the ECUSA theologically but is obviously, and understandably, desperate to hold together the worldwide communion.
I again don't have time to do this any justice, and I'm outside any area of expertise, but a few thoughts follow.
***
I've said before (maybe on Sandalstraps' blog) that I don't know enough about the psychological reality of homosexuality to take a position on the issue as positive or negative practice for the individual. However, I do know that those using Paul's letters to support their position in the Anglican communion worldwide and here in teh US, and they are vocal, need to reckon with a few other proof-texts from our first theologian:
And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. I Cor. 11:4-10
The apostle Paul, in an undisuputed letter (nearly all scholars believe he wrote it) notes that this was one of the teachings he left behind in Corinth. The entire discussion is subordinated under the authority of the man over the woman, true, and Paul is perhaps writing to respond to a particular issue in Corinth regarding hair and head coverings. But the proof-text evidence is quite clear. Women must cover their heads when praying or prophesying. They surely must not cut it. We all pray in church; get out those scarves (for the angels' sake).
The rest of Paul's argument, incidentally, shifts directoin as he notes immediately after that
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. I Cor 11:11-12
Though Eve came out of Adam and that gives Adam primacy, all men (after Adam anyway) come out of women and both come from God. Tricky issue, gender relations, isn't it? What then do we make of the famous Pauline hierarchy regarding men and women? You see, he is reconciling his own (Pharisaic Jewish) tradition with his new faith in Christ. We can see them both compete here. As he attempts to sort this out, he even says to the Corinthians, "you guys judge, doesn't it just seem right for women to wear their hair long and cover their heads; and besides, all the other churches do this?" Rigored logic there.
Though Paul's 'new Law' is in fact quite complex, a mixture of old and new, I know intelligent, educated priests who will point to his verses in I Corinthians 6 as irrefutable proof that God himself opposes gay sex and we need to research the issue no further:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This list, incidentally, comes after a longer discussion of lawsuits among believers. Paul forbids the Corinthians to take each other to court in front of unbelievers, and argues instead that we should appoint our own judges, we who "will judge angels," whatever that means. As an aside, I wonder how the 'free-market gospel' coincides with the prohibition against greed? It's also worth noting, though I'm getting off track, that Jesus says all who have thought of adultery have committed it in God's eyes.
And oddly enough, right after this, what does Paul say?
"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.
What does that mean? Everything in moderation? Do whatever I want unless it begins to control me? For Paul does say, "Everything is permissable." Why? Because of the Torah. NO. Because he believed Jesus had freed him, Paul, from the Law, the same Law he draws on when trying to sort out issues with the disturbed church in Corinth!
The obvious fact is that I'm no Pauline scholar, but I do know that the British church which the ECUSA is supposed to be in so much trouble with, for example, ordains women against this clear Pauline proscription:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. I Cor. 33b-35
Note that Paul's argument here is based on common practice and the Law itself. The Law I am supposed to be free of (according to Paul elsewhere in many places). What is the new responsibility of Christians that takes the place of the old law? Love. Jesus said it. Paul knew it. But it was hard for him to apply.
And while many, perhaps most scholars, doubt Paul wrote I Timothy (I have no idea) there is this also from our canon:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. I Tim. 2:11-14 .
Now there are plenty of churches, and some Episcopalians, who oppose the ordination of women and have no problem with these verses. But some who ordain women oppose the full participation of gays and will use Paul's proof-texts for support even though they have bypassed this clear edict. Of course, the head covering thing remains.
I remember when I was with the ultra-fundmanentalist Calvinists (a group I have yet to write about). There was a group of other, even more ultra-fundamentalists that would sometimes come and visit our church whose women wore what looked like white doilies on their heads during the service. The men I knew from my own church would turn red, bulge veins, and shake a finger at anyone over the innerrant and infallible Word of God, but they thought the head doilies were pretty funny. I don't know what the rationale to that was. Paul is quite clear.
The point I'm lamely trying to make is that we just can't turn to Paul to find out God's will on every issue. And surely don't take me to Leviticus! I won't even go there, but anyone who uses the verses there against gay sex needs to read the entire book and get his act in line along all kinds of fronts. Sex during the menses, tattoos...stone him. Are those prohibitions part of some deeper law of Love? Perhaps. But we've surely moved beyond them.
I do know that Jesus says, in a very famous passage in Matthew 19, that:
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
This is actually a wonderful passage, as Jesus is responding to the shortcomings of the Torah, the Pharasaic interpretation of the Law, and the patriarchal cultural application (I recall that in Malachi, when God forbids divorce and says he hates it, the issue seems to be the abandoned woman). Note the disciples' dismay at Jesus' statement! But what Jesus says then is that "not everyone can accept this word...the one who can accept this should accept it." Interesting. To me, it sounds as though he forbids remarriage, or even marriage, to those who wish to renounce it for the kingdom. To those who can. For us straighties, that's not many; most of us need and crave lovers.
And perhaps for those who are gay, it is better to marry and live in a monogamous, emotionally intimate, and sexual, relationship than it is to white-knuckle their way through abstinence.
I know liberal Christian books have been written on this; Sandalstraps has recommended one to me, but I haven't yet read it or any of the others. All I'm going by here is the plain, literal meaning of the scripture. I believe the fact is most who oppose gay marriage or ordination oppose it out of fear of the other, personal discomfort, even deep-seated unconscious bigotry. I can still remember when interracial marriages were frowned on (growing up in So. Cal.). And what did my parents say? "It's hard on the children." They wrote it off, and told me never to date interacially, over a b.s. accomodation which only furthered the racism of my community. It may be the ECUSA acted too quickly, or rashly, but in some of their anger I hear Paul's own indignation against the Galatians.
Let me say that again: in some of the ECUSA's defiance I hear echoes of Paul's own rage against the Galatians.
The fact is Paul was trying to figure out how to live as a believer. He knew we were under grace, forgiven through Jesus' death, and that we would not be judged. Yet Paul knew that didn't mean we should run around doing whatever us human animals, who surely retain the desire to self-gratify at the expense of others, wanted! Paul tried to refine the Torah-based Pharisaism he knew so well, using his own natural conscience, in light of his conversion. He didn't always get it, frankly; not in his letters and surely not in his life. His extant writings, what we call part of the Holy Bible, make this clear.
Jesus gave us the New Law of Love. I have yet to study the gospels; that comes this next year. But I darn sure hope I can still affirm that truth.
***
Now for a brief and self-centered rant: I know few people read my blog. Thanks to Sandaltraps and Funkiller and sometimes Romy for commenting. I'm sitting here in my house; my levator is hurting from sitting; it's hot and I could be outside where it is cooler, or lying down napping, or reading Wright (who is beginning to impress). Instead I spent an hour plus hammering this out. Why? Sheez, I don't freaking know. I hope it does some good somewhere; writing certainly helps me sort out the issue and I suppose that is an end in itself. Sandalstraps is already ahead of me on all this. It just bugs me that I've seen scholars I respect, Wright actually, and Witherington, balk on this issue, point to Jesus' sayings in Matthew as BW3 does, or even worse, note the historic (and infamous) long-term gay relationship in Symposium as Wright does to show that Paul and the rest of the ancient world understood monogamous homosexuality. NOT FROM THE SYMPOSIUM EXAMPLE. In Athens, and I will get the names of the lovers wrong and don't feel like guessing, the famous gay pair at the party were considered scandalous by their peers, historically, because they stayed together for years and were close in age, both adult men. The accepted alternative in Athenian leisure-culture for hetero, accomplished men: seduce straight teenage boys and have sex with them until your lust passes, perhaps apart from their enjoyment. All the Plato example shows is that there were actual gay couples in the ancient world, and that they were frowned on as aberrant (by the Athenians!), just as they are now. That doesn't mean Paul was necessarily talking about long-term loving monogamous pairs in his verses. Of course for me, it doesn't matter much if he was. His own understanding of homosexuality was almost certainly flawed, based in the Torah and Pharisaic traditions and his own hetero orientation.
Unless, of course, as Spong, with almost no evidence believes, Paul himself was gay.
But perhaps I'm being too hard on Wright. His NT book is impressing me so much I'm ordering it for other people. Doesn't mean he's perfect!
Love to all. Rant over. It's hot and late and Steph will be home soon and I have laundry to do and my you know what hurts and I'm standing up.
God's peace and grace to all through Christ, to myself as well.
Second, the Episcopal church is in the public again for the divisions resulting from the national conference. Yes, 'we' elected a female presiding bishop; the 'apology' for Bishop Robinson wasn't quite enough. I am told, though, that the Archbibshop of Canterbury himself supports the ECUSA theologically but is obviously, and understandably, desperate to hold together the worldwide communion.
I again don't have time to do this any justice, and I'm outside any area of expertise, but a few thoughts follow.
***
I've said before (maybe on Sandalstraps' blog) that I don't know enough about the psychological reality of homosexuality to take a position on the issue as positive or negative practice for the individual. However, I do know that those using Paul's letters to support their position in the Anglican communion worldwide and here in teh US, and they are vocal, need to reckon with a few other proof-texts from our first theologian:
And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 1For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head. I Cor. 11:4-10
The apostle Paul, in an undisuputed letter (nearly all scholars believe he wrote it) notes that this was one of the teachings he left behind in Corinth. The entire discussion is subordinated under the authority of the man over the woman, true, and Paul is perhaps writing to respond to a particular issue in Corinth regarding hair and head coverings. But the proof-text evidence is quite clear. Women must cover their heads when praying or prophesying. They surely must not cut it. We all pray in church; get out those scarves (for the angels' sake).
The rest of Paul's argument, incidentally, shifts directoin as he notes immediately after that
In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. For as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God. I Cor 11:11-12
Though Eve came out of Adam and that gives Adam primacy, all men (after Adam anyway) come out of women and both come from God. Tricky issue, gender relations, isn't it? What then do we make of the famous Pauline hierarchy regarding men and women? You see, he is reconciling his own (Pharisaic Jewish) tradition with his new faith in Christ. We can see them both compete here. As he attempts to sort this out, he even says to the Corinthians, "you guys judge, doesn't it just seem right for women to wear their hair long and cover their heads; and besides, all the other churches do this?" Rigored logic there.
Though Paul's 'new Law' is in fact quite complex, a mixture of old and new, I know intelligent, educated priests who will point to his verses in I Corinthians 6 as irrefutable proof that God himself opposes gay sex and we need to research the issue no further:
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
This list, incidentally, comes after a longer discussion of lawsuits among believers. Paul forbids the Corinthians to take each other to court in front of unbelievers, and argues instead that we should appoint our own judges, we who "will judge angels," whatever that means. As an aside, I wonder how the 'free-market gospel' coincides with the prohibition against greed? It's also worth noting, though I'm getting off track, that Jesus says all who have thought of adultery have committed it in God's eyes.
And oddly enough, right after this, what does Paul say?
"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything.
What does that mean? Everything in moderation? Do whatever I want unless it begins to control me? For Paul does say, "Everything is permissable." Why? Because of the Torah. NO. Because he believed Jesus had freed him, Paul, from the Law, the same Law he draws on when trying to sort out issues with the disturbed church in Corinth!
The obvious fact is that I'm no Pauline scholar, but I do know that the British church which the ECUSA is supposed to be in so much trouble with, for example, ordains women against this clear Pauline proscription:
As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. I Cor. 33b-35
Note that Paul's argument here is based on common practice and the Law itself. The Law I am supposed to be free of (according to Paul elsewhere in many places). What is the new responsibility of Christians that takes the place of the old law? Love. Jesus said it. Paul knew it. But it was hard for him to apply.
And while many, perhaps most scholars, doubt Paul wrote I Timothy (I have no idea) there is this also from our canon:
A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. I Tim. 2:11-14 .
Now there are plenty of churches, and some Episcopalians, who oppose the ordination of women and have no problem with these verses. But some who ordain women oppose the full participation of gays and will use Paul's proof-texts for support even though they have bypassed this clear edict. Of course, the head covering thing remains.
I remember when I was with the ultra-fundmanentalist Calvinists (a group I have yet to write about). There was a group of other, even more ultra-fundamentalists that would sometimes come and visit our church whose women wore what looked like white doilies on their heads during the service. The men I knew from my own church would turn red, bulge veins, and shake a finger at anyone over the innerrant and infallible Word of God, but they thought the head doilies were pretty funny. I don't know what the rationale to that was. Paul is quite clear.
The point I'm lamely trying to make is that we just can't turn to Paul to find out God's will on every issue. And surely don't take me to Leviticus! I won't even go there, but anyone who uses the verses there against gay sex needs to read the entire book and get his act in line along all kinds of fronts. Sex during the menses, tattoos...stone him. Are those prohibitions part of some deeper law of Love? Perhaps. But we've surely moved beyond them.
I do know that Jesus says, in a very famous passage in Matthew 19, that:
"Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery."
The disciples said to him, "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."
Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."
This is actually a wonderful passage, as Jesus is responding to the shortcomings of the Torah, the Pharasaic interpretation of the Law, and the patriarchal cultural application (I recall that in Malachi, when God forbids divorce and says he hates it, the issue seems to be the abandoned woman). Note the disciples' dismay at Jesus' statement! But what Jesus says then is that "not everyone can accept this word...the one who can accept this should accept it." Interesting. To me, it sounds as though he forbids remarriage, or even marriage, to those who wish to renounce it for the kingdom. To those who can. For us straighties, that's not many; most of us need and crave lovers.
And perhaps for those who are gay, it is better to marry and live in a monogamous, emotionally intimate, and sexual, relationship than it is to white-knuckle their way through abstinence.
I know liberal Christian books have been written on this; Sandalstraps has recommended one to me, but I haven't yet read it or any of the others. All I'm going by here is the plain, literal meaning of the scripture. I believe the fact is most who oppose gay marriage or ordination oppose it out of fear of the other, personal discomfort, even deep-seated unconscious bigotry. I can still remember when interracial marriages were frowned on (growing up in So. Cal.). And what did my parents say? "It's hard on the children." They wrote it off, and told me never to date interacially, over a b.s. accomodation which only furthered the racism of my community. It may be the ECUSA acted too quickly, or rashly, but in some of their anger I hear Paul's own indignation against the Galatians.
Let me say that again: in some of the ECUSA's defiance I hear echoes of Paul's own rage against the Galatians.
The fact is Paul was trying to figure out how to live as a believer. He knew we were under grace, forgiven through Jesus' death, and that we would not be judged. Yet Paul knew that didn't mean we should run around doing whatever us human animals, who surely retain the desire to self-gratify at the expense of others, wanted! Paul tried to refine the Torah-based Pharisaism he knew so well, using his own natural conscience, in light of his conversion. He didn't always get it, frankly; not in his letters and surely not in his life. His extant writings, what we call part of the Holy Bible, make this clear.
Jesus gave us the New Law of Love. I have yet to study the gospels; that comes this next year. But I darn sure hope I can still affirm that truth.
***
Now for a brief and self-centered rant: I know few people read my blog. Thanks to Sandaltraps and Funkiller and sometimes Romy for commenting. I'm sitting here in my house; my levator is hurting from sitting; it's hot and I could be outside where it is cooler, or lying down napping, or reading Wright (who is beginning to impress). Instead I spent an hour plus hammering this out. Why? Sheez, I don't freaking know. I hope it does some good somewhere; writing certainly helps me sort out the issue and I suppose that is an end in itself. Sandalstraps is already ahead of me on all this. It just bugs me that I've seen scholars I respect, Wright actually, and Witherington, balk on this issue, point to Jesus' sayings in Matthew as BW3 does, or even worse, note the historic (and infamous) long-term gay relationship in Symposium as Wright does to show that Paul and the rest of the ancient world understood monogamous homosexuality. NOT FROM THE SYMPOSIUM EXAMPLE. In Athens, and I will get the names of the lovers wrong and don't feel like guessing, the famous gay pair at the party were considered scandalous by their peers, historically, because they stayed together for years and were close in age, both adult men. The accepted alternative in Athenian leisure-culture for hetero, accomplished men: seduce straight teenage boys and have sex with them until your lust passes, perhaps apart from their enjoyment. All the Plato example shows is that there were actual gay couples in the ancient world, and that they were frowned on as aberrant (by the Athenians!), just as they are now. That doesn't mean Paul was necessarily talking about long-term loving monogamous pairs in his verses. Of course for me, it doesn't matter much if he was. His own understanding of homosexuality was almost certainly flawed, based in the Torah and Pharisaic traditions and his own hetero orientation.
Unless, of course, as Spong, with almost no evidence believes, Paul himself was gay.
But perhaps I'm being too hard on Wright. His NT book is impressing me so much I'm ordering it for other people. Doesn't mean he's perfect!
Love to all. Rant over. It's hot and late and Steph will be home soon and I have laundry to do and my you know what hurts and I'm standing up.
God's peace and grace to all through Christ, to myself as well.
Comments
I enjoyed reading your impassioned rant, and I admire your willingness to admit that you don't know everything. Would that everyone were so willing! It would save us a great deal of the posturing which passed for reasoned discourse!
With your permission I'd like to attach a link to my extended rant on homosexuality, so that your friends might have access to it. I'll wait until I hear back from you before posting that link, though.
Finally, your reference to the Symposium reminded me of my favorite homoerotic moment in a Platonic dialogue, from Charmides. This scene captures well the way in which homosexuality was viewed in ancient Greece.
Charmides opens with a debate between Socrates and the Sophist Critias, an old antagonist and excellent verbal sparring partner. The debate itself, while it shifts from subject to subject, principally concerns a single virtue, translated "temperance" (Greek sophrosune, though I may have the spelling wrong). In their debate Socrates and Critias discuss Charmides, a young man probably just past puberty, who is desired as both an apprentice and a sexual object, as the two often went together.
The context is a discussion on "beauty," and here is what the text has to say about Charmides:
Whereupon Critias... said "As far as beauty goes, Socrates, I think that you will be able to make up your mind straight away, because those coming in are the advance party and admirers of the one who is thought to be the handsomest young man of the day, and I think that he himself cannot be too far off."
"But who is he," I said, "and who is his father?"
"You probably know him," he said, "but he was not yet grown up when you went away. He is Charmides, the son of my mother's brother Glaucon, and my cousin."
"Good heavens, of course I know him," I said, "because he was worth noticing even when he was a child. By now I suppose he must be pretty well grown up."
"It won't be long, he said, "before you discover how grown up he is and how he has turned out."
Charmides is called into the room with the assembled older men (Socrates and Critias, plus those who had gathered to hear them speak), and this here is what happens next:
He did come, and his coming caused a lot of laughter, because every one of us who was already seated began pushing hard at his neighbor so as to make a place for him to sit down. The upshot of it was that we made the man siiting on one end get up, and the man at the other end was toppled off sideways. In the end he came and sat down between me and Critias. And then, my firend, I really was in difficulties, and although I had thought it would be perfectly easy to talk to him, I found my previous brash confidence quite gone. And when... he turned his full gaze upon me in a manner beyond description and seemed on the point of asking a question, and when everyone in the palaestra surged around us in a circle, then, my noble friend, I saw inside his cloak and caught on fire and was quite beside myself. And it occurred to me that Cydias was the wisest love-poet when he gave advice on the subject of beautiful boys and said that "the fawn should beware lest, while taking a look at the lion, he should provide part of the lion's dinner," because I felt as if I had been snapped up by such a creature.
But despite the text presenting the boy as the seducer and the man as the seduced, we would do well to remember that Socrates is considerably older and much more intellectually advanced than Charmides. In fact, it is Charmides who falls at the feet of Socrates, and not the other way around, despite Socrates' initial stumble.
But as the dialogue is on "temperance," Socrates demonstrates his "temperate" nature and does not engage in a sexual affair with the young man. The temperate one, after all, does not chase after all of the passions of the flesh just because they arise, but rather is in control of his impulses, which is the argumentative reason for placing this scene in the dialogue. I bring it up here because it sheds some light on the understanding of homosexuality in Plato's day, though it is by no means a comprehensive understanding.
Anyway, good to see you writing once again.
whenever I write here I have a mental audience in mind. That mental audience has changed, and now is mostly you, at least with these theological topics. I think I'd continue to blog if you and I were the only ones doing this. I appreciate your comments very much, and realize that my love/hate with blog, in part, has to do with my desire to be part of a physical intellectual community. Here, as co-student but also instructor, you give me a genuine taste of that, and I am grateful.
Of course you may post the link here to your own article. You don't even have to ask. You can put anything on my blog you wish.
Your comments on the Charmides fills me with questions: first, why were the city-states so sociologically different? Was this because they lacked a common holy-book law? In Athens, what is the history of the erastes tradition? How did Plato in fact view it? In what ways is he being ironic, or titillating his readers while not debasing Socrates, or critiquing the entire practice...as a student asked me years ago, was Socrates ever the boy-Plato's lover; he knew Plato's family when P was young, if so, how would this affect Plato's dialogues?...for Socrates, of course, is described as famously resisting Alcibiades in Symposium. It's a repeated theme. And in both examples, the young men are depicted as having the sexual energy which Socrates must resist, but of course, Plato may be saying something about Socrates, and the practice, alltogether different.
All this is intriguing.
If anything, the dialogues seem to show the complexities of human sexuality, and that in Athens at least, what we'd consider actual homosexual orientation was not accepted: lifelong and equal lovers, yuch! One partner must be non-masculine.
But then I believe it was considered debasing for a Roman man to perform oral sex on a woman. In the ancient world, women were supposed to be conquered and passive partners, or so I'm told. Yet humans have always been humans, the same biology, the same essential spiritual/emotional needs. Would that a women's literature from Rome survived, or ever existed.
Thanks again, S. I'm missing EFM I guess, where we do actually sit around and discuss issues.
I hope your summer, and job/career search is going well. You have skills which would fit well in acadaemia, if you ever decide to enter that bizarre congress.
t
It's late here in Kentucky, at least for us parents, so I don't have time to fully explore your questions.
The short answer to the sociology (as it relates to human sexuality and sexual ethics/ethos) of Greek city-states question is: I don't know. Worse, I'm not sure I know anybody who would know. I'll look around in my notes from my ancient history courses and my Ancient Greek philosophy course, though I'm pretty sure that never came up in class.
As for the female as sexually passive, I've heard that, too. In fact, it survived the Christianization of the Greco-Roman Empire as is a part of our cultural heritage. Feminists are still fighting that fight.
Women were seen as sexually passive in Hebrew culture as well, which is one of the reasons why lesbianism is not condemned in the Hebrew Bible. The architects of scripture could not conceive of sexuality without the male.
The Greek philosophy of human reproduction saw the sperm as the "seed" and the woman as the soil, bringing nothing active to the reproductive process. This was the dominant view in the West until the discovery of ovulation.
That's all I can come up with now, but my ability to think is directly proportional to the amount of sleep I've had of late, and, being out of town whooping it up for the 4th of July, I haven't slept much. What little sleep I've had was on a pull-out couch at my parents' house, which is no place to sleep. So I'm headed to bed, no doubt meditating on ancient attitudes about sex.
The Culture War and Homosexuality: A Different Sort of Quagmire
I wasn't expecting you to answer the questions about the ancient world; just throwing them out there.
And thanks for your link. I've read the post and am working on a post which will discuss it a little.
Best,
t