#askhistorians

Is the idea of a “gay Greece” overexaggerated?

Lesbian here, and coming from a stance of curiosity and careful skepticism. Why is it believed that very many, or most, ancient Greek men were same-sex attracted (bisexual/gay)? Isn’t it true that same-sex attraction is a stable minority trait throughout time and culture? If the vast majority of men and women are heterosexual (all with the ability to engage in same-sex sex out of loneliness, etc), why is this idea so prevalent? Were the ancient pederastic poets and writers part of literary minority circles, kind of like a lot of queer people are nowadays? Looking for clarity, thank you!

My response:

This is a really interesting question, and I hope nobody minds if I approach it more from a queer theory perspective, allowing for someone more classically-minded to tackle it as a specific question of ancient Greek sexual norms with primary sources in their own answer.

The idea that "same-sex attraction is a stable minority trait" is not some kind of settled scientific fact. Sexuality is much more loosey-goosey than that! Actual individual preference with all societal baggage removed is simply and literally impossible to find -- we are shaped by the world we live in. A world where being solely attracted to "the opposite sex" is seen as the default, the norm, something that only a small number of people deviate from because they either (depending on your philosophy) were born unable to adhere to that norm or have been seduced into it blah blah. Even the concept of there being an "opposite sex" in the first place is part of a socially-constructed binary rather than something innate and biological, as there are multiple sexes when defined based on chromosomes or physicality, and multiple genders when defined based on how people see themselves. How would we define straightness absent that binary? Moreover, isn't it interesting that even people who are well-versed in the spectrum of sexuality still typically perceive "straightness" as a rigid and defined concept? Isn't it interesting that the modern cultural perception of "straightness" allows for men to have sex with other men as merely "situational homosexuality" in the absence of women, or for men to self-define as "straight" because they always top?

It's very common for people to argue that we shouldn't label historical figures as queer because they would not have understood that self-definition. It's an argument I understand, but it betrays a simplistic understanding of what "queer" means, treating it as something like a political identity today. Which, to be fair, is often how it's used colloquially. However, "queer" is an extremely useful word due to its vagueness, in comparison to pretty much all the other sexuality descriptors: "same-sex attracted" and "opposite-sex attracted" subscribe to that inaccurate binary, and "homosexual" and "heterosexual" do as well, while also being terms culturally grounded in the late nineteenth- and twentieth-century medicalization of sexuality; "gay" and "lesbian" are very specific and also quite politicized labels; "bisexual" and "pansexual" can be useful but not only also come out of a modern context but have a bunch of baggage about What This Specifically Means rooted in interpersonal conflicts within the community (we could make this even more complicated by considering "people who identify as bisexuals who identify as lesbians" but that's not what your question is remotely about); and none of this gets into the difficulties of identifying asexuality even in oneself today, let alone in people we only have records of. "Queer" is a wonderfully vague and all-encompassing term that can be used to mean "anything other than a man who is romantically and sexually attracted to women and only act on those feelings or a woman who is romantically and sexually attracted to men and only acts on those feelings", and there's a reason that it's been embraced in the fields of queer theory and queer history - it's useful specifically as a way to break out of modern paradigms.

r/AskHistorians has a well-earned reputation for quality: its moderators work very hard to uphold high standards for research and civil discussion, resulting in among the most beloved history-centric forums online today. Unsurprisingly, they are among the subs protesting API changes right now, and because u/spez is a bastard and not backing down, they are still protesting post-blackout: most of the sub is currently in private (read-only, effectively) mode.

r/AskHistorians moderator u/CoeurdeLionne pinned this writeup on revolts to the sub, which I quite liked and wanted to share to my primary hellsite.

Post Transcription follows (emphasis mine, links are from original):

Welcome back Historians! Like most of Reddit, we are in the midst of what many news outlets have described as a ‘revolt’ against proposed changes to Reddit’s API policies that will hurt the functionality of our platform, and hinder our ability to continue providing moderated content.

You can read our previous statements here, here, and here. And if you would like to see a sample of r/AskHistorians’s broader outreach to mainstream media, you can read our statements:

The New York Times The Washington Post CBS News SFGate Forward

The act of revolt is common to the human experience. Humans rebel for a variety of ends, often to preserve a norm or institution being threatened, or to destroy one viewed as oppressive. The very act of revolt or rebellion can take infinite forms and have equally diverse outcomes. Some end in small victories that fade into the tapestry of history, while others lead to immense social change that dramatically change the wider world. Even when revolts fail, they leave lasting consequences that cannot always be escaped or ignored.

We are inviting our contributors to write about instances of revolt, rebellion, revolution and resistance. No rebellion is too small, or too remote. From protests against poor working conditions, to the deposing of despots, tell us the stories of revolt throughout history, and the consequences left behind.

Floating Features are intended to allow users to contribute their own original work. If you are interested in reading recommendations, please consult our booklist, or else limit them to follow-up questions to posted content. Similarly, please do not post top-level questions. This is not an AMA with panelists standing by to respond. Such questions ought to be submitted as normal questions in the subreddit.

As is the case with previous Floating Features, there is relaxed moderation here to allow more scope for speculation and general chat than there would be in a usual thread! But with that in mind, we of course expect that anyone who wishes to contribute will do so politely and in good faith.

u/Bufus answers:

... I will argue that the sort of "West vs. East" action movie convention that appears so frequently in Western films of the Cold War did not exist in any real capacity in Soviet Films. The Soviet Film industry took a different approach to "defeating the enemy". While Western Films often depicted the West literally destroying its Soviet enemy, Soviet films took a different route which I will explore below.