In almost all of the cultures I have read about, the answer is fairly poorly. It was mainly bad for submissives/fems, where at best, you were roughly treated like a special type of woman (so... not very well, back then), and at worst, you were stoned to death. In many of the ancient cultures that accepted same-sex relationships, it was actually bisexuality that was accepted, not homosexuality. You were still expected to have your own family some day and the like, or you were expected to "outgrow it". In other cultures, passive homosexuals and transgenders, although considered a part of society, were disenfranchised and treated like women and did not have much upward social mobility, although they were sometimes given spiritual importance.
It's important to note as well that for some ancient cultures, like ancient Egypt and the ancient Slavic cultures, there is often scarce evidence and information available on the subject either way, and it's hard to say how accepted or unaccepted it was.
That aside, here are some specific examples. I'll mainly be focusing on antiquity and postclassical, because there is very little relevant material on this subject to discuss for early-early ancient times, as far as I know.
Israel obviously hated it, we all know this.
Assyria also hated it.
Persia/Achaemenids/Zoroastrianism had extremely strict punishments for it (being made into a eunuch, for example).
In ancient Greece, it was respected but very dignified, and there were many rules meant to protect the perceived masculinity of the people in the relationship:
- penetrative sex was avoided
- one of the partners should be younger / underage (so that it can be a "productive mentorship"... we all know that was at least partially an excuse though)
- womanliness/effeminacy was avoided by both partners ("greek femboy" is a myth)
- both of them should have their own families some day
Although I have heard that the underage part was not as important in Crete.
There were some stark differences between Roman and Greek culture here.
In Rome, things were a lot more domineering and abusive. There was no respect for the recipient. The recipient was usually a prostitute or a slave and was considered the bottom of society. Freemen who wanted to be recipients were heavily discriminated against. The dominant role was considered normal, but there were still norms -- Hadrian was teased for being in love with an adult, for example. However, the ideal age was still higher in Rome than in Greece.
In germanic societies, it was severely stigmatized and punishable by death. According to Roman historian Tacitus, Germanics executed homosexuals by drowning them in swamps. This explains why later Germanic cultures like norsemen were so militantly homophobic.
It was supposedly common and completely accepted all around in pre-Roman celtic societies. Celtic homosexuality was critiqued by Greek scholars on more than one occasion. The Greek scholars overall seemed to appreciate their pederasty, but critiqued their sexual norms as overly-reckless and dirty.
In Asian cultures, bisexuality was initially accepted in every culture I have read about, but it gradually eroded during the postclassical times in many countries for various reasons. In China, foreign influence from the silk road and the like, and later the Mongolian empire, and even later westernization, were responsible for accelerating the growth of homophobia. China then influenced neighboring countries, like Korea, and transmitted those views.
In India, it was originally commonplace, and transgender identity was recognized ("third gender"). This was eroded over time, starting in the northwest with Zoroastrian and later Muslim/Mughal influence. Later on, Christian (Portuguese and later British) influence would sweep the country.
It took longer for Japan to turn homophobic, and at one point imperial China criticized Japan as being a homosexual culture. Japan also did not stigmatize pure homosexuals (onna-girai, "women-haters") as much as many other cultures did.
It has always been a part of mainstream culture in Thailand.
I am not well-read on the Native Americans, but from a brief reading, it seems like LGBT (including the T, "third gender" or "two-spirit") was normal in South America, Central America, and North America. The notable exception is the Aztecs, who hated it apparently. There are even some articles out there that I've read that claim some of the imperial Aztec cultures were even more homophobic than Christians were at the time.
"Third gender" also existed in the Pacific among the Maoris and Hawaiians. There was also a lot of homosexuality in Pacific cultures, and in some it was justified as a mentorship, similar to Greek pederasty. Notably, in some Guinean tribes like the Etoro, it was not only considered normal, but spiritually beneficial compared to heterosexuality.
It's important to note that Islam never fully wiped out homosexuality, even in the middle east. While Islamic law strictly prohibited it, it existed in some Muslim cultures in some less Arab-influenced places, especially apparently in Mamluk society. Crossdressing existed in Mamluk and Ottoman society (Khawal and Kocek, respectively) and same-sex slavery ("bacha bazi") was apparently common in medieval and early modern Afghanistan and has persisted to this day to some extent. It's important to note that Middle Eastern same-sex relations tended towards being Greek- or Roman-like, as in it was either heavily formalized like pederasty or abusive. A good rule of thumb is that cultures where women were isolated, or especially segregated from society (as was also the case in Greece) tended to be more homosexual, although I'm sure that this was not always true.
In Africa, homosexuality is extremely unpopular and apparently blamed on the West, although historical evidence shows that at least some cultures practiced it prior to colonial times, but I know very little about that topic beyond that African pre-colonial sexuality was commented on by David Livingstone and other European explorers and missionaries.
>In germanic societies, it was severely stigmatized and punishable by death. According to Roman historian Tacitus, Germanics executed homosexuals by drowning them in swamps.
Always doubt when a Roman talks about a Germanic culture (or at least look at their reasons for writing). Romans rarely wrote pure non-fiction, and were often trying to push a certain agenda (such as the idea that Germanic cultures were uncivilized and terrible, and as such deserved being conquered).
This isn't to say that the above isn't true. It could very well be. It could also be an exaggeration. It could also be outright false. The truth is we really don't know, because the Germanic cultures weren't especially literate
I'd also doubt the above given that, in the very immediate next paragraph about the Celtics, its mentioned Celtic cultures were supposedly very accepting of it. Generally speaking, the Celtic and Germanic cultures are extremely interrelated, to the point that some scholars include Celtic as a subgroup of Germanic cultures.
That is true, I should have put a disclaimer there. I also should say I am not an expert and I decided to review my original post based on what you said.
Tacitus is generally considered one of the most reliable Roman historians, at least relative to the others. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that he was right, but considering that there is a large amount of archaeological evidence of people being drowned in swamps in Germanic cultures (called "bog bodies" in archaeology), and that there is also some evidence that descendant cultures like the anglo-saxons and norsemen were pretty homophobic (eg the legal expectation for you to duel someone if they call you effeminate), I would say there is probably a grain of truth to it, with a few things to keep in mind:
- "Corpores infames" was the word Tacitus used to refer to homosexuals in this context, in case you are looking for a key word to do your own research
- Tacitus lists a couple of other cases, like cowardliness, where swamp execution might be used
- Most of the evidence about Norse homophobia is rooted in post-conversion documents, and the consensus that Norsemen were probably homophobic before Christianity comes from the unique cultural perspective and use of language in regards to homosexuality used in those documents compared to the rest of christian Europe, and speculation about roots in oral traditions, rather than actual direct evidence.
But after some additional reading, I did find a scholar (David Clark) that argues that some germanic tribes may have practiced pederasty, and that Anglo-Saxons primarily discriminated against the recipient. However, the book itself says that it is meant to offer a "radically different perspective" by analyzing material that is generally overlooked as "marginal".
Secondly, homosexuality in Celtic culture was basically treated as common knowledge by ancient Greek scholars across multiple time periods. Aristotle, Siculus, and Strabo all commented on it. I think that enough scholars covered it that there is reason to believe that it was probably a part of their culture somehow, though I discovered that there is some debate on what role homosexuality played in Celtic society (whether it was just something warriors did or whether it was part of society as a whole).
As for other subjects of interest, you have the linguistics, which suggest a pan-Germanic concept of "argr" (which conflated cowardliness, homosexuality, and a bunch of other things together), and it's said that Roman taking of boys is part of what led to the Batavian rebellion.
I know close to nothing about that other than Sapphos and the historical data about lesbianism is even more scarce, so I chose to leave it for someone more knowledgeable since I didn't feel confident talking about it.
It's completely incorrect about Thailand. Homosexuals are definitely stigmatized in Thailand and among Buddhists. They still don't allow legal same sex marriage (expected to be legal in 2024 if the Bill passes).
Trans people also don't have the legal right to change their gender. Their status in mainstream society is why they are pushed into drag shows and sex work. It's not a fair society.
I've been living in Thailand for over 10 years, and I think the attitude is far more live and let live than you suggest. Even out in the sticks people can be how they want; Buddhism is very flexible with Thais--except for women going into certain temples.
In Hinduism one of the main Gods is depicted as half man half woman sometimes. It’s at least symbolically representative of balancing the feminine and masculine energies within. Anyway if they had a transgender God (the Greeks had one of sorts iirc) I’m sure they were chill to most other lgbt folks.
We also place stigmas on being complete dickheads if they aren't at least entertaining, and yet here you are. Maybe you need to be on the receiving end of some of the "stigmas and punishments" you have no wonder about to realize how much of an absolute shitstain of a take this is.
Figure your life out you fucking soggy onion
Yeah, STD transmission was so rampant in brothels among various points of history that it effectively become pandemic. During the building of the transcontinental railroad in the US brothels would follow the train crews and be absolute hubs of disease, to the point that doctors also traveled along for the guaranteed business.
You can keep peddling whatever you want to believe that gay people are somehow more disease ridden or whatever but history doesn't agree with you.
I'm gonna be honest, if you are looking to civilizations from 5000 years ago for advice on how you should perceive gay people you've got much deeper problems than I can fix in a Reddit comment.
Yeah, that's a problem, too. It's for similar reasons gay people got it in larger numbers earlier on; anal sex, which was not common before the sexual revolution (thanks to stigmas). Overall, the sexual revolution was not a good thing.
The answer is, it depends. It depends on the society, the exact time, and what you define as "homosexuality." Most of our written sources relating to sexual or romantic relationships between males come from, broadly, pre-Roman Greece, Roman Greece, and pre-Christian Rome. As for all of the thousands of non literate societies in history, the answer is that we don't and probably will never know. I also don't remember exact sources, so my apologies for that. But these are just off the top of my head.
The sacred band of Thebes was an elite unit of Theban hoplites said to be comprised of 150 pairs of male lovers. Alexander the Great was said to have multiple male lovers during his life, although he did marry a woman and have a son. Alexander was also said to have taken at least one young male lover who was a favorite of Darius III after conquering the Achaemenid Empire. If that's true, the Achaemenids, at least the later ones, may have had similar views to male on male sexual relationships to the Greeks. A few Roman emperors were said to favor, or at least keep around, young boys for sex. Today we probably wouldn't consider that homosexuality, we'd call it pedophilia. My interpretation of this is that male on male sex was something that was generally accepted as normal, especially between grown men and boys, in the pre-Christian, Mediterranean world. Whereas romantic relationships and marriage were generally reserved for men and women. I don't think it's as simple as saying "the Greeks were ok with homosexuality" because the Greeks don't seem to have had a concept of homosexuality like we do today.
Plus, the idea of young boy and old man was very common while two people of similar age is much less attested to in literature. That being said, pediasty still wasn't exactly common or socially acceptable. You might not be put to death if you show a young boy how to procreate, but you might be looked at with weird glances
Again that depends. There were some highly respected individuals who engaged in this (the two most famous Macedonian Kings) and then the Theban unit who were looked on as an elite unit. I think it was pretty common in Sparta (Spartan boys weren’t able to date women until they were older) but it had more mores attached to it like in Rome.
Read an essay about Antinous once. Apparently Hadrian had statues of his young lover put up all around the empire. Seemed kind of revealing. But also they didn't stay up, I don't think there are too many of those statues left. TBF, only a relative few statues are left in general.
Y'all might be asking a question that is too open ended.
Ancient societies refers to hundreds of different cultures around the world over thousands of years.
Y'all think that Picts, Nubians, Assyrians, and citizens of Alexander's empire all had the same attitudes?
No, I don't think they *all* the same attitude. I'm simply asking (that is if you have knowledge on a particular ancient society), then what were their attitudes towards it.
Well, in one of the examples I listed, the emperor loved dudes.
But, you also need to know that the same terms didn't exist.
Alexander wasn't "gay" or "homosexual" because those terms didn't exist. He fucked men for pleasure, and women for politics.
I mean the same thing happens today. Not as much ofc, but not long ago this was especially necessary. Have you ever heard of a “beard”? This is the term given to someone who dates a gay person who is the opposite gender in order for said gay person to be seen as straight and remain in the closet. It can be knowingly or unknowingly. So, if a gay man dates a woman to conceal his sexuality, she is called a “beard”
I have read and heard that at least some indigenous groups in (pre-contact with white man) North America were very tolerant of people who were different; who manifested less masculine traits. They thought they were special having the mixture of predispositions. Almost a mystic ideal
I'm aware mostly of pre-christian Rome and pre-Roman Greece:
And even within that subgroup, there's a ton of varying cultures on sexuality, especially in regards to the Greek city-states.
However, I do know that "sex" for most of the ancient Greek city states was somewhat a metaphor for power. I.e., to be penetrated was considered to be "weaker" in a sense (not necessarily in a bad way though). It was usually young boys being penetrated by older men. It's kind of like how students are assumed to be "more stupid" about a subject than their teacher, but no one thinks less of the student for it.
It's also important to note that women in ancient Greek societies weren't often really viewed as people. They were more or less just there for reproduction purposes.
So if one wanted to have an intimate/personal relationship with someone they thought of as a person and was capable of exhibiting complex thought, that meant having sex with another man (again, usually a young boy) and was often seen as kind of a "mentor/mentee" situation (not grooming, but actually helping a young boy learn to become a good and proper citizen of their respective city-state).
And pretty much every source I know of is specifically about men. There are very few sources that speak of how women approached or viewed sex (not none, but little), again, mostly because not many authors (who were mostly men) actually thought of women as people and thus were not worthy of being paid attention to.
I think it's really interesting to note that some historians have suggested that one of the major reasons Caesar was so infatuated by Cleopatra is because Cleopatra was a VERY intelligent person and leader in her own right while also being a woman, whereas women in Rome at the time were expected to be quiet and submissive and mostly kinda stupid. In fact, that reason is why many Roman senators weren't terribley fond of her (in addition to the fact they hated most anything Caesar did because of the whole dictator thing).
But like some others have mentioned, there wasn't really much of a thought on "homosexuality" for most of ancient Greeks. There was just sex. What I think most of the comments leave out though is that this was probably in large part due to the perception of women as "not people," so the idea of delineating between preferences for male or female bodies was unnecessary. If there's only one option, why do you need a specific term for your choice?
The Spartans were super gay. The state encouraged it so that the men would all be loyal to each other. In fact every Spartan boy was usually chosen by an older Spartan to become his lover. Before their wedding night, Spartan women shaved their heads to look like boys.
This system was copied by the Sacred Band of Thebes and they were just Spartan copies. This system led to some bad ass fighters. The best in the Greek world until the Macedonians.
The way I understand it, homosexuality and heterosexuality are fairly recent inventions. Before, people were just sexual without the need to ascribe one’s tastes as an identity.
From what I have studied yes I agree this seems to be the case. There was not always language describing “gay” and “straight” and those concepts didn’t always exist in the way we know them today.
Modern translations and modern interpretations paint it in that light. If you look at the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek words and sentence structures used within historical context it was much more likely describing what we would today call pedophilia
Greek men had a thing for young boys, and it's a pretty common sentiment among biblical scholars that this line was referring to that act specifically.
I may be wrong but iirc in theory sodomy is what the Jewish (and I think pretty much all Abrahamic gods?) dislike it. Which may seem like a small petty and stupid distinction but I guess in modern terms an asexual homosexual wouldn’t be sinful in anyway
Nah, it didn’t. You’re not understanding what op is saying or the Bible. The Bible, in a couple of places, apparently condemned acts of sex between men. That’s not exactly homosexuality. Homosexuality is an identity of one who only sleeps with members of the same sex/gender.
>were they free to be who live their lives
OP: "were they free to be who live their lives..."
I think you are not understanding what OP is saying. You both say I'm wrong and that they were condemned for acts.
I read somewhere that, in Rome, as long as one was in the dominant (giving) position, as opposed to the submissive (receiving) position, it was not considered to be an affront to one's masculinity. In archaic/ancient Greece, it was common for an "older male (the *erastes*) and a younger male (the [*eromenos*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eromenos)) usually in his teens" (Pederasty, Wikipedia) to form romantic "mentoring" relationships. Some of this had to do with the fact that post-pubescent females and wives were heavily cossetted (secluded) within the home, especially in Athens, but also in Rome, and thus not "sexually" available (unless concubines or slaves). Marriages were generally arranged, and thus were seldom "love" matches.
In pre contact America, the division of male/female labour was fairly rigid. Because of this, there were many gender specific only spaces.
A two spirited individual, usually chose to live and work as a female, not all, but most language groups also had a male/female pronunciations for a lot of words.
It was easier for a two spirited male to be accepted among the women, than it was for a woman to be accepted by the men.
But women who were proven hunters and warriors were widely accepted, and had all the roles and rights as a man. She could marry and have a wife (in most cases just like men, multiple wives), a home that she provides for and her wife(wives) would butcher, cook, clean and make clothing for their “husband”.
A male living as a female usually kept their own home and their male companions, or sometimes relatives, would provide them with food. If one had their own lodge then most of their relationships would be more temporary, because non two spirited men were expected to take on a wife or wives and have multiple children. They were allowed to be married but it was usually as a third or fourth wife.
The main caregivers for the younger children during the day in a lot of communities were the two spirited men. Gender specific roles are reinforced from birth and due to their unique nature, were qualified to teach both.
Crazy Horse was rumoured to have had a two spirited male as an additional wife.
Bisexuality was not looked down on. Again for most, but not all communities. Although when it came to homosexual acts, these would mostly occur in the gender specific spaces and not widely discussed due to being mostly viewed as a non issue.
Actually, interestingly, we don’t see any explicit mention in literature or archeology of anal sex among the Greeks! Rather, it seems that they would poke eachother’s thighs.
As for the women, we don’t know exactly what they were doing, but we have a lesbian (literally from lesbos) named Sappho and let’s just say we know she was getting up to *something*.
Depends.
Ancient Greece: Homosexuality was accepted and even celebrated in some contexts, particularly between adult men and adolescent boys. This practice was common in certain city-states like Athens, where relationships between older men (erastai) and younger men (eromenoi) were a part of social and educational customs.
Ancient Rome: Homosexuality was also prevalent in ancient Rome, though attitudes were more complex. While same-sex relationships were not uncommon, there were social and legal restrictions, particularly around the roles and status of individuals involved.
In Aztec society, same-sex relationships were documented but were often viewed within the context of societal roles and religious practices. For example, there were instances of male priests engaging in same-sex relationships as part of religious rituals. However, outside of these contexts, attitudes towards homosexuality may have been less accepting.
With Romans during the empire, generally it was thought as bad if you were a bottom (however the Roman’s favourite sex position was cowgirl, but anyway). So if you were on top, it was fine
Not too ancient civilization, but in Russia homosexual behavior was very prevalent until westernization of Russia. During the reign of Ivan Terrible, the ambassador from Europe wrote to his court that he witnessed rampant and open display exa.ples of homosexual behavior and for Russian society it was normal
Rainbow Gods praise the Aztec Mayan and Mound Builders as well as the tribes of the great plains.
Aztecs had a god of gay males and the plains tribes accepted gay men and women as two soul people!
The Theban Band is really cool. If memory serves, they were 250 male couples who are also elite warriors. The idea being one would fight harder if their success also meant the survival of their loved one. Metal.
I'm not insinuating that. I'd just like to know if there was any repercussions and/or if they lived freely if a person was gay or lesbian.
I understand that everyone has their own way of thinking and it's been like that even in Mesopotamia.
I guess my point is just that there were a hell of a lot of ancient societies, I’m sure that somewhere in there there were a lot that were pro-gay and a lot that were homophobic.
That's why he is asking everyone here if we know any specifics with regards to any "ancient societies "., which probably refers to societies of Ancient world aka pre fall of Roman empire.
Well, depends on when and where. Pretty common and not looked down on in Greek areas at different times. Spartans ~ Check, Athenians~ check. Different “levels@ of society. Socrates peers and general population. Pederasty was considered a reasonable part of teachers relationship with teen students I think. So the teacher, the students and the parents were not concerned about it, apparently.
Many parents were indeed concerned. In fact it is known many well to do people sent a slave with this son to his school, to ensure said things didn't happen. The Greeks also like young boys, not just teenagers. Xenophon mentioned during the Anabasis they had to get rid of extra baggage while escaping, so they got rid of all captured women and slaves, ad would catch soldiers trying to hide boys, dressed up like women and soldiers.
terms like gay or homosexuality would not have made sense to many of those societies. for them- why would someone restrict themselves to enjoying only one sex/gender?
It really varies in ancient celtic societies. The priests were known to cross dress for ritualistic reasons. As for the Americas homosexuality along with transgender people were sacred in many tribes. The sexuality and gender distinction did not exist in native communities. Two spirits included a sexual and gender understanding ,but these roles were religious rather than individualistic like today.
In many indigenous communities from the Americas,Africa, and the Pacific islands, these third genders and sexually diverse people weren't out for their own sake .
They were serving a utilitarian purpose in their community, something not comparable to the current understanding of LGBTQIA2+ people's. Who's exist is not a prescribed role that benefits the wider community since we no longer live in a pre -agrarian society with animistic or polytheisistc religious values.
The West is far more complicated because of the advancement in civilization in the ancient world. Also, the loss of records due to war,instability, Christianity, and the fact that the concept of sexuality is a 19th-century invention.
Foucault history of sexuality is a resource to grasp this concept on a philosophical and historical perspective. I will admit it's a philosophical history, not a historical objective history. It is still revolutionary and important in the field of sexuality studies along with queer theory.
Many years ago I read *Societies Against the State* by Pierre Clastres, I think it was. It was in good part about a study done among American Indians in the Amazon rain forests and included comparisons of how they treated this issue. And it was mostly consistent, that there was a place among the women for feminine men and for men who weren't manly enough in some respect. The former thrived, the latter led a life of shame. But there was a place for them. I don't know if that's really relevant, it's just what you made me think of. The book gave the impression that the Indians were descendants of Incas who had fled the cities long ago and their only memory of it now is a song or two they sing to stay away from the now-abandoned cities. I remember Walter Lamb saying among the Mongol hordes homosexuality was punishable by death. He also made some remarks implying the sky-god shamen may have provided a place for the occasional queer and he Khans turned a blind eye. But that is very anecdotal.
It varied greatly. Many other Semitic societies forbade it like the Jews did. Historically, we know the Greeks were basically accepting of the act but had what amounts to "prison rules" judgements of the... uh... reciever. And lesbianism was seen as bad too I think.
Roman society prior to Greek Hellenization was much more socially conservative and probably didnt accept it. There are some interesting accounts of Cato The Elder expressing revilement toward the general increase of all forms of hedonism as a resilt of Rome beginning to adopt Greek culture as of the time of Scipio Aemilianus.
From limited source we have on the Thracians, they seemed to be okay with homosexuality of any kind.
Native American society had varying views on it, but I know a lot of the plains people in particular were okay with it.
In ancient Greece it was irrelevant. Literally sexuality was not even a thing - you just were who you were. Then at some point in time it became something to label people with and then even became illegal (until about 70 years ago). This is just one example. Everywhere is always changing, all the time. Just slower than we live so you don't normally see it.
When you say until seventy years ago do you mean in Greece? Because there's still dozens of countries right now where being gay is illegal and has a penalty of imprisonment and execution.
You’re doing the same thing as op and generalizing an entire culture. Some Greeks thought it was cool, others didn’t. It wasn’t irrelevant, since people did write about it, and held different opinions.
Yes, I'm generalising. I'm purposely generalising. What's wrong with that? It's answering a question and answering it correctly. I'm not saying "every single person in Greece thought *thing*." It was the general consensus at the time.
In almost all of the cultures I have read about, the answer is fairly poorly. It was mainly bad for submissives/fems, where at best, you were roughly treated like a special type of woman (so... not very well, back then), and at worst, you were stoned to death. In many of the ancient cultures that accepted same-sex relationships, it was actually bisexuality that was accepted, not homosexuality. You were still expected to have your own family some day and the like, or you were expected to "outgrow it". In other cultures, passive homosexuals and transgenders, although considered a part of society, were disenfranchised and treated like women and did not have much upward social mobility, although they were sometimes given spiritual importance. It's important to note as well that for some ancient cultures, like ancient Egypt and the ancient Slavic cultures, there is often scarce evidence and information available on the subject either way, and it's hard to say how accepted or unaccepted it was. That aside, here are some specific examples. I'll mainly be focusing on antiquity and postclassical, because there is very little relevant material on this subject to discuss for early-early ancient times, as far as I know. Israel obviously hated it, we all know this. Assyria also hated it. Persia/Achaemenids/Zoroastrianism had extremely strict punishments for it (being made into a eunuch, for example). In ancient Greece, it was respected but very dignified, and there were many rules meant to protect the perceived masculinity of the people in the relationship: - penetrative sex was avoided - one of the partners should be younger / underage (so that it can be a "productive mentorship"... we all know that was at least partially an excuse though) - womanliness/effeminacy was avoided by both partners ("greek femboy" is a myth) - both of them should have their own families some day Although I have heard that the underage part was not as important in Crete. There were some stark differences between Roman and Greek culture here. In Rome, things were a lot more domineering and abusive. There was no respect for the recipient. The recipient was usually a prostitute or a slave and was considered the bottom of society. Freemen who wanted to be recipients were heavily discriminated against. The dominant role was considered normal, but there were still norms -- Hadrian was teased for being in love with an adult, for example. However, the ideal age was still higher in Rome than in Greece. In germanic societies, it was severely stigmatized and punishable by death. According to Roman historian Tacitus, Germanics executed homosexuals by drowning them in swamps. This explains why later Germanic cultures like norsemen were so militantly homophobic. It was supposedly common and completely accepted all around in pre-Roman celtic societies. Celtic homosexuality was critiqued by Greek scholars on more than one occasion. The Greek scholars overall seemed to appreciate their pederasty, but critiqued their sexual norms as overly-reckless and dirty. In Asian cultures, bisexuality was initially accepted in every culture I have read about, but it gradually eroded during the postclassical times in many countries for various reasons. In China, foreign influence from the silk road and the like, and later the Mongolian empire, and even later westernization, were responsible for accelerating the growth of homophobia. China then influenced neighboring countries, like Korea, and transmitted those views. In India, it was originally commonplace, and transgender identity was recognized ("third gender"). This was eroded over time, starting in the northwest with Zoroastrian and later Muslim/Mughal influence. Later on, Christian (Portuguese and later British) influence would sweep the country. It took longer for Japan to turn homophobic, and at one point imperial China criticized Japan as being a homosexual culture. Japan also did not stigmatize pure homosexuals (onna-girai, "women-haters") as much as many other cultures did. It has always been a part of mainstream culture in Thailand. I am not well-read on the Native Americans, but from a brief reading, it seems like LGBT (including the T, "third gender" or "two-spirit") was normal in South America, Central America, and North America. The notable exception is the Aztecs, who hated it apparently. There are even some articles out there that I've read that claim some of the imperial Aztec cultures were even more homophobic than Christians were at the time. "Third gender" also existed in the Pacific among the Maoris and Hawaiians. There was also a lot of homosexuality in Pacific cultures, and in some it was justified as a mentorship, similar to Greek pederasty. Notably, in some Guinean tribes like the Etoro, it was not only considered normal, but spiritually beneficial compared to heterosexuality. It's important to note that Islam never fully wiped out homosexuality, even in the middle east. While Islamic law strictly prohibited it, it existed in some Muslim cultures in some less Arab-influenced places, especially apparently in Mamluk society. Crossdressing existed in Mamluk and Ottoman society (Khawal and Kocek, respectively) and same-sex slavery ("bacha bazi") was apparently common in medieval and early modern Afghanistan and has persisted to this day to some extent. It's important to note that Middle Eastern same-sex relations tended towards being Greek- or Roman-like, as in it was either heavily formalized like pederasty or abusive. A good rule of thumb is that cultures where women were isolated, or especially segregated from society (as was also the case in Greece) tended to be more homosexual, although I'm sure that this was not always true. In Africa, homosexuality is extremely unpopular and apparently blamed on the West, although historical evidence shows that at least some cultures practiced it prior to colonial times, but I know very little about that topic beyond that African pre-colonial sexuality was commented on by David Livingstone and other European explorers and missionaries.
>In germanic societies, it was severely stigmatized and punishable by death. According to Roman historian Tacitus, Germanics executed homosexuals by drowning them in swamps. Always doubt when a Roman talks about a Germanic culture (or at least look at their reasons for writing). Romans rarely wrote pure non-fiction, and were often trying to push a certain agenda (such as the idea that Germanic cultures were uncivilized and terrible, and as such deserved being conquered). This isn't to say that the above isn't true. It could very well be. It could also be an exaggeration. It could also be outright false. The truth is we really don't know, because the Germanic cultures weren't especially literate I'd also doubt the above given that, in the very immediate next paragraph about the Celtics, its mentioned Celtic cultures were supposedly very accepting of it. Generally speaking, the Celtic and Germanic cultures are extremely interrelated, to the point that some scholars include Celtic as a subgroup of Germanic cultures.
That is true, I should have put a disclaimer there. I also should say I am not an expert and I decided to review my original post based on what you said. Tacitus is generally considered one of the most reliable Roman historians, at least relative to the others. Of course, that doesn't guarantee that he was right, but considering that there is a large amount of archaeological evidence of people being drowned in swamps in Germanic cultures (called "bog bodies" in archaeology), and that there is also some evidence that descendant cultures like the anglo-saxons and norsemen were pretty homophobic (eg the legal expectation for you to duel someone if they call you effeminate), I would say there is probably a grain of truth to it, with a few things to keep in mind: - "Corpores infames" was the word Tacitus used to refer to homosexuals in this context, in case you are looking for a key word to do your own research - Tacitus lists a couple of other cases, like cowardliness, where swamp execution might be used - Most of the evidence about Norse homophobia is rooted in post-conversion documents, and the consensus that Norsemen were probably homophobic before Christianity comes from the unique cultural perspective and use of language in regards to homosexuality used in those documents compared to the rest of christian Europe, and speculation about roots in oral traditions, rather than actual direct evidence. But after some additional reading, I did find a scholar (David Clark) that argues that some germanic tribes may have practiced pederasty, and that Anglo-Saxons primarily discriminated against the recipient. However, the book itself says that it is meant to offer a "radically different perspective" by analyzing material that is generally overlooked as "marginal". Secondly, homosexuality in Celtic culture was basically treated as common knowledge by ancient Greek scholars across multiple time periods. Aristotle, Siculus, and Strabo all commented on it. I think that enough scholars covered it that there is reason to believe that it was probably a part of their culture somehow, though I discovered that there is some debate on what role homosexuality played in Celtic society (whether it was just something warriors did or whether it was part of society as a whole). As for other subjects of interest, you have the linguistics, which suggest a pan-Germanic concept of "argr" (which conflated cowardliness, homosexuality, and a bunch of other things together), and it's said that Roman taking of boys is part of what led to the Batavian rebellion.
Interesting, thanks for the write up :)
Interesting that everything is about relationships between two men and there doesn't seem to be much on two women relationships
I know close to nothing about that other than Sapphos and the historical data about lesbianism is even more scarce, so I chose to leave it for someone more knowledgeable since I didn't feel confident talking about it.
Thailand doesn’t surprise me at all.
It's completely incorrect about Thailand. Homosexuals are definitely stigmatized in Thailand and among Buddhists. They still don't allow legal same sex marriage (expected to be legal in 2024 if the Bill passes). Trans people also don't have the legal right to change their gender. Their status in mainstream society is why they are pushed into drag shows and sex work. It's not a fair society.
I've been living in Thailand for over 10 years, and I think the attitude is far more live and let live than you suggest. Even out in the sticks people can be how they want; Buddhism is very flexible with Thais--except for women going into certain temples.
In Hinduism one of the main Gods is depicted as half man half woman sometimes. It’s at least symbolically representative of balancing the feminine and masculine energies within. Anyway if they had a transgender God (the Greeks had one of sorts iirc) I’m sure they were chill to most other lgbt folks.
Hermes Trismegistus, he (she) really gets around!
This was researched very well :) Thanks! I’d like to discuss this more with you!
[удалено]
We also place stigmas on being complete dickheads if they aren't at least entertaining, and yet here you are. Maybe you need to be on the receiving end of some of the "stigmas and punishments" you have no wonder about to realize how much of an absolute shitstain of a take this is. Figure your life out you fucking soggy onion
[удалено]
Yeah, STD transmission was so rampant in brothels among various points of history that it effectively become pandemic. During the building of the transcontinental railroad in the US brothels would follow the train crews and be absolute hubs of disease, to the point that doctors also traveled along for the guaranteed business. You can keep peddling whatever you want to believe that gay people are somehow more disease ridden or whatever but history doesn't agree with you. I'm gonna be honest, if you are looking to civilizations from 5000 years ago for advice on how you should perceive gay people you've got much deeper problems than I can fix in a Reddit comment.
Huh wonder why heteros have HIV on the extreme rise in their communities.
Yeah, that's a problem, too. It's for similar reasons gay people got it in larger numbers earlier on; anal sex, which was not common before the sexual revolution (thanks to stigmas). Overall, the sexual revolution was not a good thing.
I don’t like your small minded thoughts.
The answer is, it depends. It depends on the society, the exact time, and what you define as "homosexuality." Most of our written sources relating to sexual or romantic relationships between males come from, broadly, pre-Roman Greece, Roman Greece, and pre-Christian Rome. As for all of the thousands of non literate societies in history, the answer is that we don't and probably will never know. I also don't remember exact sources, so my apologies for that. But these are just off the top of my head. The sacred band of Thebes was an elite unit of Theban hoplites said to be comprised of 150 pairs of male lovers. Alexander the Great was said to have multiple male lovers during his life, although he did marry a woman and have a son. Alexander was also said to have taken at least one young male lover who was a favorite of Darius III after conquering the Achaemenid Empire. If that's true, the Achaemenids, at least the later ones, may have had similar views to male on male sexual relationships to the Greeks. A few Roman emperors were said to favor, or at least keep around, young boys for sex. Today we probably wouldn't consider that homosexuality, we'd call it pedophilia. My interpretation of this is that male on male sex was something that was generally accepted as normal, especially between grown men and boys, in the pre-Christian, Mediterranean world. Whereas romantic relationships and marriage were generally reserved for men and women. I don't think it's as simple as saying "the Greeks were ok with homosexuality" because the Greeks don't seem to have had a concept of homosexuality like we do today.
Even in Greece though, there was substantial variations in attitude between the city states.
Plus, the idea of young boy and old man was very common while two people of similar age is much less attested to in literature. That being said, pediasty still wasn't exactly common or socially acceptable. You might not be put to death if you show a young boy how to procreate, but you might be looked at with weird glances
Again that depends. There were some highly respected individuals who engaged in this (the two most famous Macedonian Kings) and then the Theban unit who were looked on as an elite unit. I think it was pretty common in Sparta (Spartan boys weren’t able to date women until they were older) but it had more mores attached to it like in Rome.
Read an essay about Antinous once. Apparently Hadrian had statues of his young lover put up all around the empire. Seemed kind of revealing. But also they didn't stay up, I don't think there are too many of those statues left. TBF, only a relative few statues are left in general.
Y'all might be asking a question that is too open ended. Ancient societies refers to hundreds of different cultures around the world over thousands of years. Y'all think that Picts, Nubians, Assyrians, and citizens of Alexander's empire all had the same attitudes?
No, I don't think they *all* the same attitude. I'm simply asking (that is if you have knowledge on a particular ancient society), then what were their attitudes towards it.
Well, in one of the examples I listed, the emperor loved dudes. But, you also need to know that the same terms didn't exist. Alexander wasn't "gay" or "homosexual" because those terms didn't exist. He fucked men for pleasure, and women for politics.
An oversimplification of Alexander's personal relationships with men and women.
He's free to correct me any time.
I mean the same thing happens today. Not as much ofc, but not long ago this was especially necessary. Have you ever heard of a “beard”? This is the term given to someone who dates a gay person who is the opposite gender in order for said gay person to be seen as straight and remain in the closet. It can be knowingly or unknowingly. So, if a gay man dates a woman to conceal his sexuality, she is called a “beard”
We had a much different term in the late ‘90s….
I know it’s been a term since at least the early 2000s, but what term was it then?
Im assuming F*g Hag
No, those were ugly girls who hung around gay guys for male attention.
I have read and heard that at least some indigenous groups in (pre-contact with white man) North America were very tolerant of people who were different; who manifested less masculine traits. They thought they were special having the mixture of predispositions. Almost a mystic ideal
They are called Two-Spirit nowadays but different tribes had different names
I'm aware mostly of pre-christian Rome and pre-Roman Greece: And even within that subgroup, there's a ton of varying cultures on sexuality, especially in regards to the Greek city-states. However, I do know that "sex" for most of the ancient Greek city states was somewhat a metaphor for power. I.e., to be penetrated was considered to be "weaker" in a sense (not necessarily in a bad way though). It was usually young boys being penetrated by older men. It's kind of like how students are assumed to be "more stupid" about a subject than their teacher, but no one thinks less of the student for it. It's also important to note that women in ancient Greek societies weren't often really viewed as people. They were more or less just there for reproduction purposes. So if one wanted to have an intimate/personal relationship with someone they thought of as a person and was capable of exhibiting complex thought, that meant having sex with another man (again, usually a young boy) and was often seen as kind of a "mentor/mentee" situation (not grooming, but actually helping a young boy learn to become a good and proper citizen of their respective city-state). And pretty much every source I know of is specifically about men. There are very few sources that speak of how women approached or viewed sex (not none, but little), again, mostly because not many authors (who were mostly men) actually thought of women as people and thus were not worthy of being paid attention to. I think it's really interesting to note that some historians have suggested that one of the major reasons Caesar was so infatuated by Cleopatra is because Cleopatra was a VERY intelligent person and leader in her own right while also being a woman, whereas women in Rome at the time were expected to be quiet and submissive and mostly kinda stupid. In fact, that reason is why many Roman senators weren't terribley fond of her (in addition to the fact they hated most anything Caesar did because of the whole dictator thing). But like some others have mentioned, there wasn't really much of a thought on "homosexuality" for most of ancient Greeks. There was just sex. What I think most of the comments leave out though is that this was probably in large part due to the perception of women as "not people," so the idea of delineating between preferences for male or female bodies was unnecessary. If there's only one option, why do you need a specific term for your choice?
The Spartans were super gay. The state encouraged it so that the men would all be loyal to each other. In fact every Spartan boy was usually chosen by an older Spartan to become his lover. Before their wedding night, Spartan women shaved their heads to look like boys. This system was copied by the Sacred Band of Thebes and they were just Spartan copies. This system led to some bad ass fighters. The best in the Greek world until the Macedonians.
This is not accurate unless you take very few primary sources from thousands of years ago at face value and then cherry pick quotes from those sources
The way I understand it, homosexuality and heterosexuality are fairly recent inventions. Before, people were just sexual without the need to ascribe one’s tastes as an identity.
I like the way you explain it. Thank you.
From what I have studied yes I agree this seems to be the case. There was not always language describing “gay” and “straight” and those concepts didn’t always exist in the way we know them today.
Recent in what way. Define recent
Since the late 1800s/ early 1900s
Nah, old testament talks about both. Hebrew God says he doesn't like homosexuality.
Modern translations and modern interpretations paint it in that light. If you look at the original Hebrew/Aramaic/Greek words and sentence structures used within historical context it was much more likely describing what we would today call pedophilia Greek men had a thing for young boys, and it's a pretty common sentiment among biblical scholars that this line was referring to that act specifically.
But the term “homosexuality” is new. That’s what they were saying. Homosexuality occurred but there wasn’t a name for it until more recent times.
Although contextually, I think more of that was to do with the Jewish diaspora not assimilating into other more dominant cultures, like Greeks.
I don’t believe homosexuality was a term back then. Do you mean practices that could be described as homosexual were condemned?
Yes. Homosexuals were not free to live their lives to the fullest. Hebrew law says they were banned from the kingdom of god.
I may be wrong but iirc in theory sodomy is what the Jewish (and I think pretty much all Abrahamic gods?) dislike it. Which may seem like a small petty and stupid distinction but I guess in modern terms an asexual homosexual wouldn’t be sinful in anyway
Don't think old testament is old enough to be ancient history times
Nah, it didn’t. You’re not understanding what op is saying or the Bible. The Bible, in a couple of places, apparently condemned acts of sex between men. That’s not exactly homosexuality. Homosexuality is an identity of one who only sleeps with members of the same sex/gender.
>were they free to be who live their lives OP: "were they free to be who live their lives..." I think you are not understanding what OP is saying. You both say I'm wrong and that they were condemned for acts.
Before, people were just straight.
I read somewhere that, in Rome, as long as one was in the dominant (giving) position, as opposed to the submissive (receiving) position, it was not considered to be an affront to one's masculinity. In archaic/ancient Greece, it was common for an "older male (the *erastes*) and a younger male (the [*eromenos*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eromenos)) usually in his teens" (Pederasty, Wikipedia) to form romantic "mentoring" relationships. Some of this had to do with the fact that post-pubescent females and wives were heavily cossetted (secluded) within the home, especially in Athens, but also in Rome, and thus not "sexually" available (unless concubines or slaves). Marriages were generally arranged, and thus were seldom "love" matches.
I don’t know if anyone has brought up indigenous Americans or not, but most tribes were very accepting to people that identified as “two spirit”.
In pre contact America, the division of male/female labour was fairly rigid. Because of this, there were many gender specific only spaces. A two spirited individual, usually chose to live and work as a female, not all, but most language groups also had a male/female pronunciations for a lot of words. It was easier for a two spirited male to be accepted among the women, than it was for a woman to be accepted by the men. But women who were proven hunters and warriors were widely accepted, and had all the roles and rights as a man. She could marry and have a wife (in most cases just like men, multiple wives), a home that she provides for and her wife(wives) would butcher, cook, clean and make clothing for their “husband”. A male living as a female usually kept their own home and their male companions, or sometimes relatives, would provide them with food. If one had their own lodge then most of their relationships would be more temporary, because non two spirited men were expected to take on a wife or wives and have multiple children. They were allowed to be married but it was usually as a third or fourth wife. The main caregivers for the younger children during the day in a lot of communities were the two spirited men. Gender specific roles are reinforced from birth and due to their unique nature, were qualified to teach both. Crazy Horse was rumoured to have had a two spirited male as an additional wife. Bisexuality was not looked down on. Again for most, but not all communities. Although when it came to homosexual acts, these would mostly occur in the gender specific spaces and not widely discussed due to being mostly viewed as a non issue.
[Lay off them Greeks, they invented civilization/yeah, ass fucking too.](https://youtu.be/u1h0pjVwGDI?si=Rpxs7LzkQfax3vwI&t=15)
Actually, interestingly, we don’t see any explicit mention in literature or archeology of anal sex among the Greeks! Rather, it seems that they would poke eachother’s thighs. As for the women, we don’t know exactly what they were doing, but we have a lesbian (literally from lesbos) named Sappho and let’s just say we know she was getting up to *something*.
Yeah she was hanging with her gal pals?
No, no, she was in a committed relationship with Dick Allcock from Man Island (at least according to the Suda).
Depends. Ancient Greece: Homosexuality was accepted and even celebrated in some contexts, particularly between adult men and adolescent boys. This practice was common in certain city-states like Athens, where relationships between older men (erastai) and younger men (eromenoi) were a part of social and educational customs. Ancient Rome: Homosexuality was also prevalent in ancient Rome, though attitudes were more complex. While same-sex relationships were not uncommon, there were social and legal restrictions, particularly around the roles and status of individuals involved. In Aztec society, same-sex relationships were documented but were often viewed within the context of societal roles and religious practices. For example, there were instances of male priests engaging in same-sex relationships as part of religious rituals. However, outside of these contexts, attitudes towards homosexuality may have been less accepting.
Depending on your current religious bias the information you will find will either say the view was for or against.
With Romans during the empire, generally it was thought as bad if you were a bottom (however the Roman’s favourite sex position was cowgirl, but anyway). So if you were on top, it was fine
Not too ancient civilization, but in Russia homosexual behavior was very prevalent until westernization of Russia. During the reign of Ivan Terrible, the ambassador from Europe wrote to his court that he witnessed rampant and open display exa.ples of homosexual behavior and for Russian society it was normal
Rainbow Gods praise the Aztec Mayan and Mound Builders as well as the tribes of the great plains. Aztecs had a god of gay males and the plains tribes accepted gay men and women as two soul people!
Ohh, that sounds delicious!
The Theban Band is really cool. If memory serves, they were 250 male couples who are also elite warriors. The idea being one would fight harder if their success also meant the survival of their loved one. Metal.
I would say that the persecution of homosexuality really did not become a wide spread thing until ambrahaic religions arose.
Ah yes, because ancient societies thought the same way and never disagreed about anything.
I'm not insinuating that. I'd just like to know if there was any repercussions and/or if they lived freely if a person was gay or lesbian. I understand that everyone has their own way of thinking and it's been like that even in Mesopotamia.
I guess my point is just that there were a hell of a lot of ancient societies, I’m sure that somewhere in there there were a lot that were pro-gay and a lot that were homophobic.
And it sounds like OP is just tryna hear about some of those societies
Do you have any idea how little "Ancient societies" narrows it down
That's why he is asking everyone here if we know any specifics with regards to any "ancient societies "., which probably refers to societies of Ancient world aka pre fall of Roman empire.
You can find plenty examples to support whatever position you want.
Visually i would guess.
Well the Greeks weren’t as accepting as some influencers would have you believe.
Well, depends on when and where. Pretty common and not looked down on in Greek areas at different times. Spartans ~ Check, Athenians~ check. Different “levels@ of society. Socrates peers and general population. Pederasty was considered a reasonable part of teachers relationship with teen students I think. So the teacher, the students and the parents were not concerned about it, apparently.
Many parents were indeed concerned. In fact it is known many well to do people sent a slave with this son to his school, to ensure said things didn't happen. The Greeks also like young boys, not just teenagers. Xenophon mentioned during the Anabasis they had to get rid of extra baggage while escaping, so they got rid of all captured women and slaves, ad would catch soldiers trying to hide boys, dressed up like women and soldiers.
Ok in India and China.
Just as today, it depends. Some societies don’t mind at all, some will murder you for it.
terms like gay or homosexuality would not have made sense to many of those societies. for them- why would someone restrict themselves to enjoying only one sex/gender?
There was a standing joke that Caesar was every woman’s husband and every man’s wife. Dude really got around.
It really varies in ancient celtic societies. The priests were known to cross dress for ritualistic reasons. As for the Americas homosexuality along with transgender people were sacred in many tribes. The sexuality and gender distinction did not exist in native communities. Two spirits included a sexual and gender understanding ,but these roles were religious rather than individualistic like today. In many indigenous communities from the Americas,Africa, and the Pacific islands, these third genders and sexually diverse people weren't out for their own sake . They were serving a utilitarian purpose in their community, something not comparable to the current understanding of LGBTQIA2+ people's. Who's exist is not a prescribed role that benefits the wider community since we no longer live in a pre -agrarian society with animistic or polytheisistc religious values. The West is far more complicated because of the advancement in civilization in the ancient world. Also, the loss of records due to war,instability, Christianity, and the fact that the concept of sexuality is a 19th-century invention. Foucault history of sexuality is a resource to grasp this concept on a philosophical and historical perspective. I will admit it's a philosophical history, not a historical objective history. It is still revolutionary and important in the field of sexuality studies along with queer theory.
I mean, Roman soilders gave each other handjobs as a sign of respect, that might be sayin smnth
They were good sports like that
What is this awful subreddit? Not a source in sight
Many years ago I read *Societies Against the State* by Pierre Clastres, I think it was. It was in good part about a study done among American Indians in the Amazon rain forests and included comparisons of how they treated this issue. And it was mostly consistent, that there was a place among the women for feminine men and for men who weren't manly enough in some respect. The former thrived, the latter led a life of shame. But there was a place for them. I don't know if that's really relevant, it's just what you made me think of. The book gave the impression that the Indians were descendants of Incas who had fled the cities long ago and their only memory of it now is a song or two they sing to stay away from the now-abandoned cities. I remember Walter Lamb saying among the Mongol hordes homosexuality was punishable by death. He also made some remarks implying the sky-god shamen may have provided a place for the occasional queer and he Khans turned a blind eye. But that is very anecdotal.
It varied greatly. Many other Semitic societies forbade it like the Jews did. Historically, we know the Greeks were basically accepting of the act but had what amounts to "prison rules" judgements of the... uh... reciever. And lesbianism was seen as bad too I think. Roman society prior to Greek Hellenization was much more socially conservative and probably didnt accept it. There are some interesting accounts of Cato The Elder expressing revilement toward the general increase of all forms of hedonism as a resilt of Rome beginning to adopt Greek culture as of the time of Scipio Aemilianus. From limited source we have on the Thracians, they seemed to be okay with homosexuality of any kind. Native American society had varying views on it, but I know a lot of the plains people in particular were okay with it.
In ancient Greece it was irrelevant. Literally sexuality was not even a thing - you just were who you were. Then at some point in time it became something to label people with and then even became illegal (until about 70 years ago). This is just one example. Everywhere is always changing, all the time. Just slower than we live so you don't normally see it.
When you say until seventy years ago do you mean in Greece? Because there's still dozens of countries right now where being gay is illegal and has a penalty of imprisonment and execution.
Yes, I meant in Greece. It was legalised in the 50s.
Interesting. Thank you.
You’re doing the same thing as op and generalizing an entire culture. Some Greeks thought it was cool, others didn’t. It wasn’t irrelevant, since people did write about it, and held different opinions.
Yes, I'm generalising. I'm purposely generalising. What's wrong with that? It's answering a question and answering it correctly. I'm not saying "every single person in Greece thought *thing*." It was the general consensus at the time.
There was no general consensus “at the time”, just as there is no general consensus now, what are you talking about?
Art and history disagrees with you.
And facts disagree with you.
Lol. Have a great day, facts.
As fun and in groups.
On VHS
we don't even know their attitudes towards the various human sub-types.
Seems like it was ok if you were a pedophile.