The dream that kept me alive this whole time

However, the concerns around status and social structures got in the way when it came to positions within same-sex relationships, as the central distinction was made between taking an active role versus a passive one. The passive role was only for “inferiors” (those that were women, slaves or male youths who were not yet classed as citizens) and the active role was reserved for free men. Hence the cultural idea of a same-sex relationship being between an older man (erastes) and a boy (eromenos), which would have both sexual and mentorship aspects to it, and was expected to end upon the boy becoming a man.

This brings us to the ideas that Plato explores. Born into an aristocratic family, he had two brothers, Glaucon and Adeimantus (both of which appear in the Republic) and became a well-known philosopher from being the student of Socrates. He founded the Academy, which was a philosophical school considered the foundation of western philosophy. 

Plato’s ideas involving men and women were somewhat standard for the time period. We see this within the Symposium, a collection of dialogues taking place in a fictional symposium setting where the characters all discuss love. One of these characters, Pausanius, outright claims that women are intellectually inferior to men, “partners with the least possible intelligence”, and therefore unable to be completely loved by men on an equal standing. Pausanius goes further into this idea that love for women could only ever be considered “pandemian eros”, a sensual & common type of love, in comparison to the more heavenly “uranian eros” which is almost strictly reserved for same-sex relationships because of the mentorship they can lend each other. This idea reflects the treatment of women perfectly at the time, as they were so repressed and “private” in comparison to men that they weren’t allowed equal education and were therefore consistently considered as lesser beings. Similarly, Plato refers to women as secretive, inferior, irritable, crude, overly emotional and promiscuous throughout his works, and he also tells us in Timaeus that the womb inside of a woman is an animal that, if it fails to become pregnant, can wander about the body causing ill health by blocking air passages. Plato seems to propel many ideas cementing women as perhaps only good for their ability to reproduce. 

However, on many other levels, Plato explores within his various dialogues a perhaps more “unambiguously feminist” perspective (as Vlastos suggests) in his suggestion that women have the same 

souls as men. This is seen through how he portrays Aristophanes in the symposium, referring to the story of the creation of humans, a time where we were all spherical and were split apart from our “other half” as punishment from Apollo. He uses this story to suggest that, as humans, all we do is search for our other half, which can be a man or woman no matter your own gender, suggesting that all relationships are made equal and stem from the spherical origin. Ultimately, the symposium portrays lots of different opinions, which was heavily important for a philosopher to be able to do, but also made it much harder to pick apart which opinions are truly Plato’s. This is different to in the republic, where Plato outright states that “if the difference consists only in women bearing and men begetting children, this does not amount to proof that a woman differs from a man in respect of the sort of education she should receive”, condemning the idea that men and women should receive any different treatment, and going almost directly against the ideas he portrayed through Pausanius previously. This almost radical stance is backed up when he completely proposes the abolishment of the family structure, leaving sex purely up to procreation and abandoning the roles of “mother” and “father”, effectively equalling the roles of men and women only as providers of children rather than being protectors / nurturers of them.

However, as Okin explores, Plato is only “forced to reconsider the role of women because he has already opted to abolish the traditional family.” In this sense, Plato may not exactly be as “unambiguously feminist” as Vlastos says, but he certainly explores feminist ideas only because his own contradicting stances on family structures force him to do so. Similarly, in this sense, Plato is also posing a complete restructuring of the idea of marriage, suggesting that for young men during wars, they will be given “opportunity for more frequent intercourse with women, which will be a plausible pretext for having them beget as many children as possible”. Plato, here, is suggesting that by completely removing the concept of marriage, it will lead to an increase in childbirth, which was the main aim in Plato’s posing here, perhaps suggesting that marriage isn’t important for the social structure at all outside of for childbirth. Marriage is unnecessary even to the context of having children, however, because more people could have more children if there was no marriage holding men back.

We see a similar sentiment in the Symposium through Aristophanes, who suggests that “men have no natural interest in getting married and having children, although they are forced to do this by convention”, posing the idea that marriage is in no way natural to human nature, and is instead only a social standard which could be abolished with no change to human ideology.

This is contradictory to Diotima’s stance within the same dialogue, furthering the idea that Plato’s values are very hard to pick apart, as Diotima instead describes marriage in a way that seems to be more-so divinely inspired rather than something that’s only down to human-made structures. Through Socrates’ words, Diotima suggests that “reproduction is the closest thing that mortals can get to being immortal”. This idea makes marriage, in her / Socrates’ eyes, the best way to have a child as it offers a legitimate lineage through means of law, and makes you closer to the status of divine because of your family name being carried down throughout generations. Therefore, Plato within the same text highlights how marriage is significant only to societal structures rather than human nature, but also suggests that marriage is the best thing you can do to become the closest to divine status. 

In laws, Plato poses that marriage is a duty to the state. While staying in line with the idea that marriage isn’t anything more than societal, he also contradicts his past ideas by suggesting marriage’s extreme importance by suggesting that both men and women should be fined yearly if they are not married by a certain age. This idea is seemingly, again, peddled by the idea that “lying in a nameless grave” is the worst thing that could happen to a man, and marriage is the easiest step for your existence and family name to continue to live on, giving men a purpose. Plato feels so strongly here about how essential marriage is that he wants to annually fine those that disobey such rules, making it mandatory by law. 

And in that sense, Plato’s contradictory views on marriage seem to wrap up with the idea that whilst it is not down to human nature, it is incredibly essential to the societal and perhaps “divine” structures peddled by the idea that marriage creates children and children create a reputation to pass down - this can be done by completely restructuring marriage and simply having children with as many people as possible, or be done through the traditional means of marriage.

Interestingly, Plato’s opinions on sex are also nuanced, as Plato seems to express that “sexual gratification distracts from the focus”, but Socrates “does not wholly condemn couples who occasionally give in to their sexual urges” (Dodds). Whilst Plato seems to completely disagree with the idea sometimes, he also takes a lot of inspiration from Socrates in his values, and so also seems to contradict himself on his own takes on sex too.

Firstly, Plato does seem to pose sexual relationships as perhaps “less than”, as explored through Pausanius again, the idea of Pandemian eros is associated more with heterosexual relationships and the more lust-filled love that stems from sex, whereas Uranian love is a more intellectual and less sexually-peddled idea which stems from mentorship and beneficial mutual relationship. Pausanias directly describes this Pandemian eros as “the common type”, differentiating those that “love the body rather than the mind”. In this sense, sex is condemned in favour of relationships that centre personal growth. Similarly, in Laws, Plato criminilises pedestry, masturbation and incest because they are all, in his eyes, preventing the societal function of reproduction, therefore portraying mindless sex with no reasoning apart from lust as completely useless and furthermore borderline criminal.

However, in the very same sense, Plato acknowledges that sex is necessary and you can’t have a world without sex because of just how much Plato values reproduction within his works. In Laws, he suggests that not having children is to “deprive women of their purpose, and men of glory”. But he also suggests that sex, as Dodds described Socrates’ perspective, is the first step on the ladder of virtue and one cannot be fully condemned for it because it’s a journey rather than a straightforward line.

In the symposium, the characters of both Pausanias and Diotima are said to express sexual relationships as being the start of the ladder. Pausanias is an Erastes, and therefore is directly defined by the pleasure he gains from the mutually beneficial relationship with his eremenos. He describes that “there is only one form of voluntary slavery which isn’t reprehensible, this is slavery whose aim is goodness”. Through this expression, Pausanius clearly believes that getting something from the relationship with his eremenos doesn’t take away from the fact that the relationship is one which desires to give virtue to and mentor the younger party. In this sense, the sex he receives is worth it for the mutually fulfilling knowledge the eremenos will receive in return.

Similarly, Diotima refers to the “latter to virtue” which is described as being the creative search for immortality, as well as Socrates comparing it to the soul having two horses - instinctual desire and moderation - which are in a constant battle. Socrates is therefore forgiving to those who lose control of these horses momentarily and give into desire, and Diotima is forgiving in the sense that she acknowledges that this “latter to virtue” always starts with sexual desire which one can then progress from once they become more experienced and restrained.

However, whilst Plato explores why sex is necessary as well as unnecessary if it’s done in an unproductive context, he also explores how sex and the desire that stems from sex can be something that can go entirely out of control. In the symposium, Plato depicts Socrates exploring the idea that desire can lead to obsession, which is something to be frowned upon. He relates this obsession with his own relationship with Alcibaides, whose attachment to him is something he describes as a “nuisance”, stating that he is “quite terrified by his mad attachment to his lovers”. This is something that Alcibaides also explores in his own words as his desire for Socrates makes him lose better judgement, making him “frenzy… greater than that of the Corybantes”. He compares this “frenzy” to divine rituals done by the Corybantes (worshippers of Cybele) and so emphasises just how intense desire can become - it seems to easily spin out of control and leave the holder of this desire with a lack of control over these two horses in ones soul, therefore delaying / distracting from the ladder to virtue.

Finally, in the Republic, Plato's ideal state liberates people from carnal desire so they can be carefree. He wishes the role of eros to be minimised in order to preserve focus on more “important” values. 

And so, what can be considered more essential than sex? Possibly love, as when we remove sex from relationships, the purity of love can possibly catalyse the journey to virtue. In Phaedrus’ speech, there is an outline of the idea that love, specifically between men, can produce a sense of shame from being consistently examined by your partner, which can encourage people to succeed and do good under said scrutiny. This possibly implants in men “stronger guidance towards leading good lives than family, state, money, or anything else”. This idea is significant as the hyperbole of love being held above “anything else” in importance cements Plato’s views on love as far more positive than his views on sex. This passage could be a reference to the idea that entire armies made up of male lovers would be better as the eremenos would be inspired to fight to impress the erastes, and visa versa, specifically drawing ties to the real life sacred theban band which was made up of 150 male/male lovers and were considered heavily successful and therefore ideal in how love forms in that context. As Phaedrus states, “there is no greater benefit to a young man than a good lover, and none greater for a lover than a good boyfriend”. Homoerotic relationships were seen as the basis of social structures and morals because of women’s oppression being so underlying in ancient greek society, romantic relationships between men are almost always the exception to the idea that “common” love is condemnable.

Similarly, Erixymachus, a doctor, highlights that love can be perceived as “from medicine”, and from his own personal experience, it is powerful in balancing and harmonising all aspects of a person. He comments further on how “great and wonderful a god Love is”, personifying love as the divine acting as further emphasis on how important the many perspectives of the symposium seem to highlight that love is.

And, whilst Alcibiades condemns how his own desire for Socrates sends him into frenzy, he also explores that his more pure love for socrates has the ability to inspire virtue in him, suggesting that “nothing is more important than becoming as good a person as possible”, and that no one can help him more effectively than Socrates in reaching this aim. Whilst Plato describes lust as harmful, love in its purest form can definitely directly lead to virtue in how the other person, usually the older person, can directly teach and inspire the younger.