Monogamy...huh?

[Ariakas]

So taking a child, throwing him in with some big burly men and forcing sexual action (I don't believe it was as nice and fluffy as is sometimes portrayed) on them... thats bound to make some serious fucked up individuals who believe being gay is the only way.

I am all over history, thats one of the more fucked up practices. You remove any future freedom of choice by creating what you want early. Its amazing what a lil boy can be molded into when raped and abused throughout his prevailing years... ptsd anyone? stockholm syndrom? etc etc. Lil anal slaves for the rich, powerful and strong...

I believe there is a slew of catholic priests somewhere that have done the same thing with boys and girls. Its rape now, and it was rape then.

[Tonberry]

I heard about a culture in which it was believed (apparently) that semen gave you more testosterone, so boys were supposed to drink it (from the source) throughout teenage. Once they were adult, it was their turn to share the testosterone.
I can't remember where and when that was, though.
(But man, if that's true, I'm going to have testicles any time soon now!)

[opalescent]

The thing that is fairly new to Western society (and I would argue most non-Western societies) is the idea that sex is an activity that happens between equals.

A free, high status Roman man generally did not have sex with an equal - his wife, slaves, younger boys or men, and lower status free men certainly did not qualify. In fact, sex between male equals was looked at askance. "Roman Homosexuality" by Craig A. Williams is a brilliant book on this topic - he argues that degrees of free, unfree, dominant and submissive (and not the consenting, negotiated bdsm versions) are the critical categories, not hetero- and homosexuality.

*Now removing historian of sexuality hat*

[BlackUnicorn]

Originally Posted by Magdlyn

When it was time for a man to marry, the wife chosen for or by him, after the wedding, would be put in a room, have her hair clipped short, be dressed in men's clothing and left alone in the dark. Her new husband, if he had the nerve, would come in and consummate. If he really didnt like women, this male drag requirement for sex could go on for months or years.

What I find funky about the Spartans is that they were supposedly under huge pressure to produce more high-class warriors to keep the numerous slaves under check and keep on doing what they did best - quarreling with Athens. So why not encourage high nativity practices? Maybe for them, male bonding was such crucial part of the military institution that high nativity could be sacrificed to upkeep that.

Or it might be that there were warring goals between different classes of society, i.e. the leaders wanted a lot more soldiers pronto, and the aristocracy wanted to ensure high class privileges by having as few heirs as possible to split family fortunes among, which is the explanation I've heard for rapidly sinking nativity among the Roman aristocracy in the beginning of the Imperial Era.

Originally Posted by Tonberry

I heard about a culture in which it was believed (apparently) that semen gave you more testosterone, so boys were supposed to drink it (from the source) throughout teenage. Once they were adult, it was their turn to share the testosterone.
I can't remember where and when that was, though.

I think it's the Maasai.

Originally Posted by opalescent

The thing that is fairly new to Western society (and I would argue most non-Western societies) is the idea that sex is an activity that happens between equals.

A free, high status Roman man generally did not have sex with an equal - his wife, slaves, younger boys or men, and lower status free men certainly did not qualify. In fact, sex between male equals was looked at askance. "Roman Homosexuality" by Craig A. Williams is a brilliant book on this topic - he argues that degrees of free, unfree, dominant and submissive (and not the consenting, negotiated bdsm versions) are the critical categories, not hetero- and homosexuality.

Many people have read Foucault's History of Sexuality and said it argues with many of the same points. I think his central argument was that 'male homosexuality' was a diagnosis owing its birth to the birth of the modern science of sexology. Eve Kosofsky Sedwick and Lillian Faderman have argued similar points.

For a man, being a 'bottom' in homosexual sex has been considered damning, whereas male tops were natural and acted according to their gender role. Similarly, 'active' female homosexuals were considered to be the real misfits and perverts, whereas 'passive' (I'm guessing the one being penetrated) females in woman-to-woman sex did not lose status. In ancient India (as with the Romans), oral sex was considered so beyond the pale that no prostitute, let alone a wife, would consent to such a foul practice with their male partners. Male prostitutes were thus specifically kept to provide fellatio to upper class men.

[redpepper]

I was lost at seven year olds being taken from their mothers (I have a seven year old boy). DISTURBING> I know its history and things were different... but disturbing nonetheless and for everyone concerned, not just the boy.

[BlackUnicorn]

Originally Posted by redpepper

I was lost at seven year olds being taken from their mothers (I have a seven year old boy). DISTURBING> I know its history and things were different... but disturbing nonetheless and for everyone concerned, not just the boy.

RP, taking boys away from their mothers is most often practiced in societies that enforce strict gender separation. I think the reasoning is that if you allow boys to hang out with Mum and the girls too long, they grow up to be effeminate.

[Magdlyn]

And the Spartans were of course, the ultimate warrior society.

There is less info on the Spartan women, but of course they were getting their own "lesbian" jollies back at the ranch.

Also, Spartan women had much more freedom than the women in Athens. They wore less constricting clothing, could leave the house (Athenian women rarely did), could exercise in the nude like the men, could own land, taking a large role in politics, were educated and trained in laconic speech. They were also not expected to marry and start breeding til the ripe old age of 19.

[redpepper]

Originally Posted by BlackUnicorn

RP, taking boys away from their mothers is most often practiced in societies that enforce strict gender separation. I think the reasoning is that if you allow boys to hang out with Mum and the girls too long, they grow up to be effeminate.

thanks, I am aware of that.... bullshit really, but whatever... I would just not be okay with losing my boy. He already has twice as much male influence as female in this house. That is quite enough. I am not your average woman either really... no, I will hold on to my boy child and be thankful that I don't live anywhere but right here and right now.