It is very rare for societies to encourage people to engage in premarital or extramarital relationships

Ancient Greek Promiscu= ity?

Lyle Steadman and Jelena Cvorovic

Department of Anthropology

Arizona State University

Human Behavior and Evolution Society Meeting

Amherst College

Amherst, MA<= /st1:place>

June 9, 2000

Elsewhere, we have argued that what distinguish humans from other animals are not their appetites for mating or survival but their ability to influence the behavio= r of their distant descendants throu= gh their behavior transmitted as traditions (defined as behavior copied from ancestors). Obedience to traditions is found in every society but is especially prominent in all simpler societies.

In every society, parents are the main transmitters of traditions, which there= by directly influence their own descendant-leaving potential. Sociobiologists have long recogniz= ed that parental care, or K behavior, is at the expense of reproductive, or “r” behavior: the more parental care given to each offspring, t= he fewer offspring one can have. Likewise, the more sexual, or reproductive the behavior, the less parental care, and by extension, the less altruism (social behavior) will be exhibited in general. The more “r” exhibited, the less “K”, and vice versa.

Parental behavior is a sacrifice not only of the parent’s reproduction but also the parent’s resources important for survival. So too is a child’s acceptan= ce of his parent’s influence. He does what his parent’s encourage at the expense of his own “r” appetites.

Love, as epitomized by a mother’s behavior toward her offspring, contrasts = with sex, which need not have anything to do with love. Feelings of love are sharply diffe= rent from erotic feelings, despite the psychology deriving from Freud. K is in contrast to r. The relationship between human spo= uses may be characterized fundamentally as females giving r to their husbands in order to get K for their children, whereas males give K to their wives and children in order to get r. In every human society, apparently, females regularly give both cooked food and sex to their husbands.

We assume male sexual behavior is a result of selection for male sexual eagern= ess, resulting from low parental investment in the past. This eagerness has led to many non-reproductive activities, including pornography, child molesting, bestia= lity, masturbation and homosexuality.

Sexual competition between males is the greatest threat to cooperation and social behavior. As E.O. Wilson puts it: sex is an “anti-s= ocial force”. In the Moral An= imal, Robert Wright argues that the most significant effect of the widespread promiscuity in the U= .S. today is the loss of love, especially toward children. We predict that everywhere, ancest= ors through traditions promote K, or social, behavior, the basis of human societies, and discourage “r” behavior, including sexual promiscuity, which threatens cooperation.&= nbsp; Therefore, wherever traditions are more or less intact, where both ancestors and kinsmen are highly respected and traditions followed, we pred= ict that significant ancestral restrai= nt on promiscuous sexual behavior will be found.

= To test this proposition we examine ancient Gr= eece, for ancient Greece is often cited as an example of great sexual freedom, especially for male homosexuality. For example, t= he anthropologist Gilbert Herdt has written: “Virtually all of the famous figures in Greek philosophy -- the teachers such as Socrates and his studen= ts Plato and Xenophon -- engaged in homosexual intercourse. It was part of the educational pro= cess. The teacher transmitted knowledge, morality, and the concept of masculine h= onor to his pupils, which were believed to be facilitated by experiencing love a= nd sex with them.” Herdt (1981:203) also wrote that the Thebans and Spartans were said to have taken their male lovers with them as comrades and sex partners on their military expeditions. Marvin Harris (Harris 1981:104), on the same subject, argues: “Everybody practiced it; nobody was ashamed of it”. [DELETE? Dover (1978:2023)= has put the matter this way: “Homosexual relationships are not exhaustively divisible, in Greek society or in any other, into those which perform an educational function and those which provoke and relieve genital tension. M= ost relationships of any kind are complex, and the need for bodily contact and orgasm was one ingredient of the complex needs met by homosexual eros.̶= 1;?]

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'>An examination of = the Greek literature, however, does not support such unalloyed enthusiasm for homosexuality. What we find is that, while there was indeed instances of so called “boy love”,= it was of great concern to the philosophers who generally attempted to restrain it, along with promiscuity in general.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman"'> <= /span>

Let us look at the Greek evidence on homosexuality, in particular, and promiscuity, in general. Note particularly the powerful encouragement of K behavior and discouragement of r behavior. The ancient Greeks left very littl= e in texts and comments concerning their understanding of love in general, especially concerning the subject of “boy-love.” A very limited number of texts were saved, so any image and judgment about the subject must be recognized as va= gue and unreliable. All texts are from, or are connected to the Socrates-Plato tradition, and what is missing are the important works of Antistenos, Dioge= nes the Cynic, Aristotle, Teofrastus, Zenon, Chrissipi and Krantor (Foucault 19= 80: 189). No ordinary Athenian left a word about himself. What we have are many details, but= we must be cautious with our conclusions.

From the known texts, it is clear that the Greek “elite”, the educat= ed people and the philosophers were against homosexuality, and against any excessive sexual behavior. The Greek philosophers supported and argued for = the idea of RESTRAINT in sexual behavior. Many of them asked married men to restrain themselves from any extramarital adventures, with men or women. The Greek ideal was Aurea Mediocrita, or the Golden Mean.

It is not well known that ancient Greeks generally demanded complete abstinenc= e in homosexual relationships (from Plato and Xenophon, for example). Some modern writers mention Homer = as depicting homosexual love between Achilles and Petrocles. Excerpts taken from Homer, who liv= ed in the 8^th century B.C., (Illiad, XVIII 76-116) show a different picture. As Socrates, accordi= ng to Xenophon’s Banquet (or Symposium) (VIII 31) points out: “Homer described Achilles as he specially mourned over Petrokles not as a lover bu= t as over a deceased friend … and many of them which were the best, were glorified not because they had slept together, but because they had admired each other and together done the most glorious and greatest deeds.”

Also, it is not known if Athens itself, the center of Greek culture, ever fully accepted “boy-love.” Boy-l= ove, although allowed, was met with various opinions, ranging from praise to condemnation, so it is hard to judge the morality that surrounded it. For example, from Pausania’s speech, it is not clear that A= thens was tolerant of homosexuality (Plato, Symposium, 182 a-d). From the same speech, it is clear = that fathers tried to protect their sons from such relationships, demanding that pedagogists suppress it; also, the oration goes, students reproached one another for accepting homosexual relationships.

Most philosophers and educated people did not accept homosexual love as correct;= it was considered “unnatural”.&nb= sp; Plato, for example, in his Laws, demanded that homosexual love be forbidden among men (VIII, 841 c). Xenofon presented Socrates as a man who condemns “love for the body” and praises only “love for the soul” (Xenofon, Banq= uet, VIII 12 and 25). Socrates taught that all touches and kisses should be avoi= ded at any cost; a relationship between two males should be founded on friendsh= ip and mutual benefit. No Eros (= erotic passion) should exist between two males, only the relationship of philia (friendship) (Xenofon, Banq= uet, VIII 26).

According to Xenofon, this kind of “ideal” philia, can be found in Likurg’s <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Sparta: men who would fall in love with boys’ (bodies) were called dishonest, while men who loved only ‘= ;the soul” of young boys were praised as honorable. In this manner, in Lacedemonia, “…lovers were restrained in the same way in their = love towards children, as were fathers toward their sons, or brothers toward one another” (Xenofon, Republique des Lacedemoniens, II, 12-15).

Isocrate(?) also supported the idea that an honorable man should have the power over all his sexual pleasures and desires (Isocrate, Nicocles, 31-35). Nicocles, the main character in this text, was praised because “…from the day= he took his political function, people were assured that he did not have a physical relationship with anybody but his legal wife” (Isocrate, Nicocles, 36).

Aristotle, also, argued against extramarital affairs (Foucault 1980:175). In PlatoR= 17;s Phedra, first orations have the same subject: what happens with homosexual = love and relationships, how a boy might end up in a shameful position, how such a relationship can create a shame for the boy himself and his family, how such man-love can turn a boy away from creating his own family, and how a young = boy can come to hate an older man who is using him like a woman, with all shame= ful consequences that this kind of relationship can bring to a young person (Pl= ato, Phedra 231-233 a, 239-240 a, 240 d, 239c-d). Plato actually sees homosexual love as a form of unrestrained sexual relationship.

The Greek ideal was temperance, in every form of everyday life; a well respected man should have temperance as his main characteristic. A well-known and respected man, wi= th a lot of political power, should make his life honorable, and the first restr= aint concerns his sexual behavior (Foucault 1980:61). Even if he has sexual desi= re toward boys, he should restrain himself from acting on it: that is the mess= age Socrates is preaching, according to Plato (Republic, IX, 571 b). Socrates w= as always successful in refusing advances, including from the handsome Alchibi= ad, not because he didn’t like the man, but for the purpose of restraining his appetite. Temperance, as a virtue, in the writings of Plato, Xenofon, Antifon, Diogenes and Aristotle, is to be understood as “having power= over one’s passions and pleasures . . . and governing them” (Foucault 1980:71). Xenofon argued agai= nst unrestrained behavior in general; unrestrained behavior in eating, drinking= and sexual habits is to be seen as “unnatural”, since such pleasures cannot be found in Nature itself: “…for enjoyment in meals, it (indulgent behavior) needs cooks, for enjoyment in drinks it needs expensive wines, and in the summert= ime, snow; to find new pleasures, it uses men like they are women” (Xenofo= n, Memorables de Socrates, II, 1, 30).

Plato, at the beginning of his Laws, confronts the ‘correct” relations= hip between man and woman, whose purpose is to leave descendants, and “unnatural,” the relationship between two males. According to Plato, (Plato, Laws, = I, 636c) the behavior which is against “the laws of Nature” and against the principle of leaving descendants, is not to be understood as a result of a deviant personality or a special kind of passion; homosexual behavior is just the consequence of unrestrained behavior, and its root is immoderate pleasure (akrateia hedones).

Foucault, the well respected classical scholar, (Foucault 1980:46) cites Dioscurus, w= ho explained boy-love as a consequence of too much unbridled behavior. Socrates even advised the ones who are not “armed” well enough (with self-temperance and restraint) to stay away from beautiful young boys, or, = to leave the city for a year (Xenofon, Memorables, I, 3, 13). For Socrates, a = man should be “sophron and enktates, to be the master of his = own passions and pleasures” (Plato, Gorgias, 491 d). The Ancient Greeks glorified heroes who had power over their sexual pleasures and behavior; to= tal abstinence was praised, as a way to achieve wisdom and a higher state of be= ing.

Abstinence was closely connected with wisdom; through self-control, they achieved high= er elements, above human nature, which allowed them to find the real truth. Th= is is how Socrates is presented by Plato (Banquet, 217-219e): “the one w= ho draws everyone’s attention, with whom everyone was in love, whose wis= dom everyone wanted for himself, but the wisdom which made Socrates strong enou= gh to refuse the advances of the beautiful Alchibiad.” Through such self-control, K is pr= omoted at the expense of r. Indeed, = in all societies, taboos function to achieve the same thing: restraint on appetite= .

Others, less strong than Socrates was depicted, relied on rules. The fact that homosexual love was not against the law in ancient Greece has been taken by some= as proof of a casual attitude toward homosexual behavior. But the Greeks themselves emphasized the demand for strictness concerning homosexual love,= and rules that should be followed. In their thinking about boy-love, the Greeks emphasized the ideal of restraint= , whose model was Socrates.

There were certain rules for homosexual relationships. Much attention was paid to a boy&#= 8217;s behavior and his honor; the whole society discussed and judged this. It was necessary for a boy to make= sure that he stayed “honorable” if engaged in homosexual love, that = he, as a young man, should watch his behavior, and when grown up, should respect the honor of his younger male friends. Very few details are given on this subject, and it is not known which acts a boy should refuse in order to beh= ave properly. Temperance, sophrosune, is again emphasized as the highest quality, according to Plato (Banquet, 183 d= ). It looks like a boy should not accept any position or status which would ca= use him to be humiliated. It was not right for a boy to behave passively, or to become a servile partner for another man’s desires; boys who would of= fer themselves to anybody, going from one lover to another, were considered shameless and without honor (Demosthenes in Eroticos, 39-43).

It seems that the advice which philosophers gave, tried to limit the number of partners a boy might have, and to shape his behavior, as well as the whole relationship, into something other than just sex. If engaged in “honorableR= 21; homosexual love -- a boy should be restrained and should refuse many times = the advances of his older partner, and older men should give gifts, advice and = take care of the boy’s honor -- partners should behave with restraint and finally get to the last stage of homosexual love, which is deep “platonic” friendship, lasting a lifetime. The emphasis is on a different kind of relationship than sexual, wh= ere the sexual act will no longer be important. Again, the accent is on temperance= , for both partners. For a younger partner, it is even more emphasized: he should realize that even the slightest wrong behavior in this matter could cause h= im to lose his honor. He will be judged and condemned by public opinion if he gives up to advances too soon, or if he is promiscuous, or an easy target (Demosthenes in Eroticos, 53-55). If so, he won’t be able to take his position in a society and won’t be respected. On the contrary, if he behaves well in love relations, a young man will celebrate the name of his parents by being strong and above his friends and suitors with his resistan= ce and temperance.

Not all relationships had an age difference, although it is impossible from the literature to determine the real age and status difference most of the time (from Foucault 1980:190). It looks like relations between two young boys we= re tolerated, while the same relationships between two adult men were met with criticism most of the time. Certain rules and advice should be obeyed, in o= rder to shape the relationship into an ‘honorable’ one. First, after a certain age, it was= not considered good and honorable for a man to be in a position of a younger partner; although not clear, it looks like the first beard marked that boundary: the first razor sho= uld cut the beard and all ties of love, says Plato (Banquet, 181 d-e). Boys who accepted advances and aff= airs after that age were severely criticized the same as older men who pursued t= hem in spite of their “growing up.”

A common subject in the literature was how to make such relationships less temporary, due to the fleeting nature of such partnerships, or a fading boy’s beauty. At the sa= me time, it was not good to love a boy who had grown up. On the one hand, a boy was acknowl= edged to be “an object of desire,” but on the other, many men’s relationships were surrounded by silence, and the ones who broke it were criticized (Foucault 1980). There was a constant encouragement to make/turn homosexual relationships into a deep friendship, which would last a lifetim= e. An entire speech of Socrates was dedicated to this subject, showing his dee= pest concern because of the fleeting nature of homosexual love between males (Xenophon, Banquet, VIII, 18). Also, any pleasure that a boy might feel in homosexual love was denied, and criticized. Between a boy and an older adult male there could not be any common pleasure. Socrates argued, “a boy, after all, does not enjoy like a woman does, in love pleasures with a man; = he stays like a sober observer of man’s love drunkeness” ( Xenopho= n, Banquet, VIII, 21). The ones = who enjoyed such activity, along with their easy acceptance of many relationshi= ps -- dressing up, using make up, decoration and perfumes -- were severely condemned. A boy may give in, staying completely cold at the same time, but only if he feels admiration and gratefulness toward his male friend.

Thus, it is wrong to think that the Greeks, because they didn’t forbid this kind of relationship, didn’t worry about homosexual behavior. They sp= ent much time philosophizing about it, and how to make it morally honorable. Homosexual love was considered to be ‘honorable’ only if it cou= ld be transformed into a relationship based on true friendship and without sex – i.e., K without r!

Although homosexual love was not forbidden, there were laws that restricted sexual behavior generally. For example, there was a law against rape of slaves and= children; in Athens, there was a law which protected free (citizens’) children against adult males, who were not allowed to go into their schools, and a l= aw that protected children from their teachers and fathers, and from slaves who would be put to death if caught (Rostovtzev, 1980). Plato himself (Plato, L= aws?) suggested the death penalty for homosexual acts. Essene, also, brings up the subject of male promiscuity: because of that a man cannot become Arhont, or a priest, or do any pub= lic functions (Against Timarh, 9-20). The man who had commited “debauchery” is one who is promiscuious, and should be excluded from every public and honorable function. Essene considered male sexual promiscuity atimia, which means= to publicly acknowledge that a man has no honor. It was tolerated for young bo= ys to be passive partners in homosexual relationships, since they were young, without status and experience; but for adult males passive roles were conde= mned.

Apart from relationships with men, Greeks placed great value on marriage with women. Almost all philosopher= s were married, and many had not only a legal wife, but also a concubine or mistre= ss (hetera) (de Crescenzo 1986). Socrates, for example, had two wiv= es, with whom he had 3 sons; according to some reports, Socrates loved to love certain hetera (de Crescezno, 1986:9-14). Pericles was called a womanizer, while Aristip [?] and Demosthe= nes both were married with children, and in love with the same hetera (ibid.: 57). Aristotle, also, had a legal wife, and a concubine with whom he bore one son (ibid.: 108).

Marriage was encouraged, and even taken as a duty. Plato (Plato, Laws, VI, 783, e) emphasized that each spouse must watch their behavior, care for the other, = and have a certain right moral attitude, in order to have “the best and t= he most beautiful children” for the city. Also, having offspring was the first reason and the duty of marriage, so, that when a man died, he wouldn’t be left without “the glory” and “the name&= #8221; (Plato, Laws, IV, 721, b-c).

Marriage in Athens was considered to be the only legal, special and authorized relationship to bear children and future citizens. Aristotle, for example, discouraged any kind = of sexual relationship outside the house, that is, any extramarital affairs th= at a man might have (Foucault 1980: 176). We find a morality that requires that = both spouses remain faithful to one another. Such ideas can be found in Plato, Xenophon, Pseudo-Aristotle and Isocrat. Although rare, these ideas were par= t of the famous Greek temperance in men. Because of the fact that he is married,= a man should reduce and restrain his sexual activity outside of marriage (Foucault 1980).

Life in temperance, as described in Plato’s Laws, represents living “well in every way, with calm sufferings, calm pleasures, tender desi= res and love which is devoid of passion” (Plato, Laws, V, 734 a). In all thinking about boy-love, the principle of total abstinence is emphasized, w= hose model was Socrates, with his consistent resistance to temptations. The Gree= ks demanded the highest discipline regarding homosexual love, much more than f= or health or marriage, and to whose adherence they watched closely. Their sexual behavior required res= pect for temperance and discipline. Classical Greek arguments focused on the soc= ial relationship between males, not the satisfaction of passion.

Nevertheless, in less than a century after that of the “flash of Athenian questioning” -- the Golden= Age of Greek philosophy, skepticism and science -- Greek civilization had effectively ended. While outs= iders greatly admire Socrates today, Athenians by and large apparently didn’t. He threatened t= heir traditions, in contrast, for example, to the beloved Sophocles, whose plays tried to preserve them. Sopho= cles was made “general”, the highest Athenian honor. Socrates was put to death for undermining the ancestor worship of Athens, through his encouragement of skepticism among its youth.<= /p>

CONCLUSION=

What can we derive from this excursion into antiquity? What is clearest is that all the G= reek writers show a powerful interest in promoting “K” – love/philia – and reducing appetite driven “r” – hedonism. Homosexual behavior challenged this ideal and therefore was the focus of much concern.

Because of the great importance of reproduction to males, the greatest competition among them in human societies is sexual.&n= bsp; Yet humans have been most successful in leaving descendants, for a l= ong time apparently, by influencing their male descendants to curb their sexual appetite and be responsive to others, especially their ancestors, and eventually to take on the responsibility of being a parent themselves. The Greeks, twenty-five hundred ye= ars ago, promoted this strategy eloquently, and for that we love them still.

References

Herdt, G. H. 1987 The= Sambia, Ritual and Gender in new Guinea, Holt, rinehart and Winston, New York<= /p>

Harris, M. 1981 America Now: The Anthropology of a Changing Culture, New York= ; Simon and Shuster

Dover, K.J. Greek Homosexuality. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press=

De Crescenzo 1983 Sto= ria della filosofia greca, Arnaldo Mondadori Editore, Milano (Beograd 1984)

Foucault, M. 1980 L&#= 8217; Histoire de la sexualite, Ed. Gallimard (Beograd, Erotikon, 1980)

Aristote, Ethique a Nicomaque, Paris, 1970, Loeb classical Library ( Paideia 1992)

Aristote La Politique= , Paris, 1982 Loeb classical Library ( Paideia 1990)

Diogene Laerce Vie des Philosophes Paris 1965, Loeb classical Library ( Beograd, BIGZ 1970)

Platon Apologie de So= crate, Prosveta, Beograd, Jugoslavija 1981=

Platon Les Lois, I-IV= , Paideia, 1991

Platon Les Banquet, P= rosveta, 1990

Xenophon Le Banquet, = Srpska knjizevna zadruga, 1967

Xenophon Economique, = Srpska knizevna zadruga, 1967

Boswell, J. 1980 Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality, Chicago

Rostovtzeff, M. I. Th= e Social and Economic History of the Hellenistic World, Oxford 1980

Vatin, Cl. 1970 Reche= rches sur le marriage et la condition de la femme marrie a l’epoque hellenistique, Paris, De Boccard