Skip to comments.Alexander wasn't gay
Posted on 11/26/2004 8:59:56 AM PST by SusanD
Aristotles dictum still stands: He who asserts must also prove. When you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that claim.
Lets ask some clear, practical questions in light of Oliver Stones Alexander: Did Alexander ever kiss a man on the mouth? No evidence. Did he ever play a passive or active role in same sex sexual unions? No evidence. Did he have sex of any kind with the eunuch Bagoas? No evidence. Did he ever play footsie with men or boys at a sports bar? No evidence. Did he have sex with Hephaestion or any other man, young or old? No evidence. Was he anything other than a married, heterosexual male with children who chose power as his supreme mistress? The answer in concert with all the primary sources is again: no evidence!
Alexander clearly distained his father Philips alpha male excesses and was considered something of a prig with regard to sexual matters. Interestingly enough, no one who knew them both considered Alexander either in character or in conduct to have followed in his fathers licentious footsteps. Instead it was said of him that he gave the strange impression of one whose body was his servant. Alexander stated that his true father figure was Aristotle, for although Philip had given him life, Aristotle had taught him how to live.
What then was Aristotles position on such issues. What would Alexander and Hephaestion have learned from their mentor in three years of study? In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between what is naturally pleasurable from what is pleasurable without being naturally so.
K. J. Dover explains:
In this latter category he puts (a) things which are pleasurable because of deficiencies or impairments and those who find them so, (b) things which become pleasurable through habit, and (c) things which are found pleasurable by bad natures.[xiii]
Those who are effeminate by nature are constituted contrary to nature; for, though male, they are so disposed that part of them (sc the rectum) is necessarily defective. Defect, if complete, causes destruction, but if not, perversion (sc. of ones nature). it therefore follows that they must be distorted and have an urge in a place other than (sc. that of) procreative ejaculation.[xiv]
Dover concludes Aristotles thought:
The writers concept of nature is not difficult to understand: a male who is physically constituted in such a way that he lacks something of the positive characteristics which distinguish male from female, and possesses instead a positively female characteristic, suffers from a constitutional defect contrary to nature, and a male who through habituation behaves in a way which is a positive differentia of females behaves as if he had such a defect.[xv]
Non heterosexual relations are contrary to nature. But again, why should anyone care? Why would Greek lawyers be threatening to sue Oliver Stone and Warner Brothers film studios with an extrajudicial note saying that the movie is fiction and not based on fact? Is it a Bible-thumping, right-wing conspiracy? No, I believe its only a concern for truth - clear historical facts versus Hollywood interpra-facts. Gay activists say that the film soft-pedals Alexanders sexuality. Terms such as erotic reality denyers and homophobic Keystone Cops are used of anyone who dares to challenge that Alexander might actually have been just a heterosexual guy. It is interesting to me that Alexander is not even mentioned in the important studies of homoeroticism in ancient Greece by the likes of Sir Kenneth Dover, (Greek Homosexuality, 1989), John Winklers The Constraints of Desire, (1990), and David Halperins 100 Years of Homosexuality (1990).
In short, regardless of the sexual mores of Alexanders time, coupled with the clear evidence of homoerotic relationships on the part of his father Philip II, at end the question of whether there is evidence in the ancient historians to suggest that Alexander was homosexual, bisexual, homoerotic, or anything else of the sort, just isnt there.
Personally, I dont care. I am neither angry nor homophobic. I just appreciate historical evidence when historical claims
By today's standards, everyone is gay.
PS: Is the issue gay or bisexual. Since we know he had a wife, children and mistresses, it would seem the allegation would be that he swung from both sides of the plate.
Pssst! Some of us are just jovial.
"Alexander had 3 wives and several mistresses. He had children."
What does that prove?
Well, they also try to claim David and Jonathan were gay, event though there is no evidence, and their culture and religion was deeply opposed to homosexuality.
Facts and liberalism don't mix.
Alexander wasn't homosexual.
According to the experts on the History Channel on Tuesday night, Allie boy's lover was Hephastian (sp?). Also, when I was in college, we studied Mary Renault's writings. She was considered one of many authorities on ancient Greece. Homosexuality was the norm for males of ancient Greece, especially boys in the bath houses. Women existed to procreate and keep the house while the real pleasure for the boys was in homosexuality.
Stop, or I'll scratch your eyes out!
It is contemporaneous evidence of Alexander engaging in normal sexual behavior. To be contrasted with the total absence of evidence to the contrary.
Does anyone have information about the early returns of Stone's "gay" movie?
The word "GAY" has been so misaligned by this Unholy abominal practice.
One can only hope Stone stays away from producing childrens' themes.
What does that prove?
Only that his natural function was in working order. It does not disprove the negative.
Word is the film is a pain in the @ss...
Don't ax, don't tell...
Speak for yourself.
This kind of garbage film making runs in the family. What do you expect from Oliver Stone? His nephew, Matt Stone, produces similar garbage.
Most gays are queer.
Actually, if you read Dioneysseus' critically acclaimed biography of Alexander, you'll know that...
"And yet, despite his prowess upon the field of battle, it was said that Alexander was verily good with colours, always sharply turned out and that he was appreciative of the arts."
And I think we know what that means...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.