Narcissus - the true story, a gay tragedy

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 10:21 AM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 11:17 AM GMT
    dinoalexit said


    Lovely video;lovely script and lovely voice icon_razz.gificon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 11:45 AM GMT
    I WANT TO BE NARCISSUS!!!! How nice to have everyone think you're the most beautifulest thing in the world... *siiigh* icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 11:47 AM GMT
    Lenoxx said I WANT TO BE NARCISSUS!!!! How nice to have everyone think you're the most beautifulest thing in the world... *siiigh* icon_smile.gif
    I want to be a modern day Narcissus, and clone myself to have the hottest boyfriend in the world. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 11:48 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    Lenoxx said I WANT TO BE NARCISSUS!!!! How nice to have everyone think you're the most beautifulest thing in the world... *siiigh* icon_smile.gif
    I want to be a modern day Narcissus, and clone myself to have the hottest boyfriend in the world. icon_biggrin.gif


    LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 12:52 PM GMT
    Narcissus was a youth who suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 2:36 PM GMT
    It's not a gay tragedy, it's a Greek tragedy. Narcissus fell victim to the overweening pride (hubris) that only the gods are entitled to. In classical Greek literature hubris is the traditional cause of tragedy.

    That said, yes, he was obviously gay too. Otherwise he wouldn't have fallen in love with a man's image.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 4:13 PM GMT
    icon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gificon_lol.gif
    paulflexes said
    Lenoxx said I WANT TO BE NARCISSUS!!!! How nice to have everyone think you're the most beautifulest thing in the world... *siiigh* icon_smile.gif
    I want to be a modern day Narcissus, and clone myself to have the hottest boyfriend in the world. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 4:14 PM GMT
    Thanks for watching icon_razz.gificon_razz.gificon_razz.gificon_razz.gificon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 4:24 PM GMT
    Greek mythology is awesome. I was so glad I took an elective Greek mythology class in college.




    So kinda off topic but.....
    Anyone read theogony? It's the Greek creation myth and its awesome and it involves rape, castration and all sorts of messed up things that gods (apparently) do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 4:34 PM GMT
    Homoseuxality didn't exist as we know it in Greek times. Good try though
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 4:43 PM GMT
    adam228 saidHomoseuxality didn't exist as we know it in Greek times. Good try though


    Um dude really....homoseuxality has always existed since, well two f+ bacteria had some fun....anyways just because they didn't use the word or record it in their history does not mean it didn't exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 4:47 PM GMT

    I've read "The Theogony of Hesiod"
    The book, the poetry takes you in an entirely different world icon_razz.gificon_razz.gificon_razz.gif
    wolverinecub86 saidGreek mythology is awesome. I was so glad I took an elective Greek mythology class in college.




    So kinda off topic but.....
    Anyone read theogony? It's the Greek creation myth and its awesome and it involves rape, castration and all sorts of messed up things that gods (apparently) do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 4:54 PM GMT
    viitz said
    adam228 saidHomoseuxality didn't exist as we know it in Greek times. Good try though


    What? icon_eek.gif

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece


    Bingo! this is the shit I learned in World history class in HS.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 6:57 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 7:05 PM GMT
    I'll definitely be sure to watch those clips in a bit.
    Some stories can never be told too often, but...
    I'm kind of in the middle of something right
    now. The mirror's captivated my attention
    and it's just too fine a piece to pass up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 8:19 PM GMT
    Simon78928 said
    adam228 saidHomoseuxality didn't exist as we know it in Greek times. Good try though


    Um dude really....homoseuxality has always existed since, well two f+ bacteria had some fun....anyways just because they didn't use the word or record it in their history does not mean it didn't exist.


    viitz said
    adam228 saidHomoseuxality didn't exist as we know it in Greek times. Good try though


    What? icon_eek.gif

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece



    An anachronism—from the Greek ανά (ana: up, against, back, re-) and χρόνος (chronos: time)—is an inconsistency in some chronological arrangement, especially a chronological misplacing of persons, events, objects, or customs in regard to each other. The item is often an object, but may be a verbal expression, a technology, a philosophical idea, a musical style, a material, a custom, or anything else so closely associated with a particular period in time that it would be incorrect to place it outside its proper domain.

    icon_razz.gif

    Comparing the story of narcissus to a modern day gay person is being anachronistic. Homosexuality in Greek times as we define it today simply did not exist. To draw comparisons to our time is highly inaccurate. It is this same type of argument that created the association of pederasty as pedophilia, and the whole relationship as homosexual. Ergo, homosexuals are all pedophiles. That's grossly inaccurate as well.

    Michel Foucault says this with much more grace in his book "The History of Sexuality", check it out if you're interested.

    I don't normally poo-poo Wikipedia, but there are always different interpretations of history and I do not agree with that author(s) interpretation of Greek history. That article draws a link between homosexuality and pederasty, which is not at all accurate for those times.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 29, 2011 10:12 PM GMT
    viitz said

    Coming from a sociology background, I'd have to say that I disagree.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childhood#History_of_childhood


    Coming from a Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Neuroscience, Neurophilosophy.. yeah see it doesn't really matter unless you say something icon_razz.gif

    But your disagreement is noted, are you actually going to tell me why you disagree?

    You linked to the history of childhood... and in the first sentence it talks about the invention of the idea of childhood as a social concept. Of course there were always children, but calling it childhood now doesn't mean you are describing the same concept as "childhood" in the 1600s or even pre-history and the article goes on to say that our modern conception of childhood came from Jean Jacques Rousseau in the 1700s. Creating a demarkation of modernity implies that pre-modern is different from modern and thus unrelated to the modern concept. Post modernism ftw. Thanks for proving my point icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 12:41 AM GMT
    I also come from a psychology, criminology, and education background (neuroscience falls into the psychology category). I didn't want to get into the details, but I was specifically commenting through a constructivist perspective. Jargon aside:

    By todays definition being gay "as we know it" means having an attraction towards the same sex. You said gays didn't exist in Ancient Greece "as we know it". I quote: "Homoseuxality didn't exist as we know it in Greek times. Good try though." That's just silly. It's well known and documented that man on man action was accepted. No, it wasn't pedophilia. The difference lies in the standards of acceptable sexuality. Not too long ago, old men were marrying 10 year old girls and children weren't even recognized as children--but instead as mini-adults.

    So no, it's not the same as likening it to pedophilia. Biologically, our bodies are ready to reproduce by around 10-13 years of age. They weren't having sex with toddlers in Ancient Greece. It was consensual and socially accepted. And I'm also sure that sex requires some sort of attraction--so yes that's a tendency towards being gay, or at least bisexual. And that, my friend, suggests that it was socially acceptable to be "gay", or however you wish to define it. Language changes, actions don't.
    ----------------------

    I'll forgive you for saying neuroscience is a part of psychology because that would derail our argument. Neuroscience derives from biology. Psychology from philosophy and is attempting to pair up with neuroscience.

    Jewish and Christian attitudes towards homosexuality did not exist in Greek times. Thus, having sex with other men didn't need to be sinful, or homosexual or gay. Athenian men had sex with boys while married and the society at the time did not care. The man was still expected to have children. I fail to see how displays of your masculinity by penetrating others (including boys) is inherently gay or anything close to how we define homosexuality today. A modern thread of this behavior might be the type of "man on man" that occurs in prisons. Those men do not emerge as homosexuals. Least of all, there is very little evidence that Greek adults allowed themselves to be penetrated. Greek homosexuality was restricted to pederasty between a dominant adult and a smaller/shy boy.

    So I ask you, how can this type of behavior possibly be similar to what it means to be homosexual today?

    By going and saying that this is Greek homosexuality, it carries with it the same kind of notions that homosexuality came from this type of behavior and I do not agree.

    And just to get closer to the topic, Narcissus isn't in love with other men, he's in love with the image of himself and more than that, his immortality.

    PS - I love you and I just like to argue. Also probably why I'll never have a LTR boyfriend ;)







  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 2:37 AM GMT
    He said "homosexuality as we know it didn't exist in ancient Greece."

    Obviously, homosexual activity existed.

    It took the fruity, swishy dandies of the Renaissance (and following) to really get full-on gay. (Early Modern Europe certainly had its share of Gore Vidal types).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 2:55 AM GMT
    I heard a preacher once(who I hold no stock in) say that homosexuality is just narcissism. Gay men want to be with another man because it's the closest they can get to being with themselves. I don't buy it because I'm usually attracted to guys who look the opposite of me. However, I think it's a theory that MIGHT hold true in some people. I've seen some guys who are partnered with other guys who look exactly like they do. I've found it true in the muscle culture too where muscular guys only want to be with other muscular guys. Not saying there's anything wrong with that. Just find it interesting when it comes to narcissism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 1:18 PM GMT
    viitz,

    I am not arguing gay people don't exist. I am arguing that labeling Greeks homosexual or gay is not accurate. We cannot understand their "brand" of homosexuality through the lens of homosexuality as we know it.

    Whether men who desired other men existed is not really in question if you believe a biological theory of homosexuality (I do) but labeling them as gay or homosexual brings along all of our modern ideas of identity. They couldn't identify as gay or homosexual because it simply didn't exist as a concept in their society.

    The example of I often use is child abuse. Child abuse as a social conception did not exist until the 20th century when radiologists did full bone scans on children and saw old healing fractures, it became a concern. Did people abuse their children prior to this? Of course. But the social stigma and more importantly the social institutions (law, courts, child services) did not exist to give more meaning to child abuse. So, it would be anachronistic to go back in history and label acts of violence toward children as child abuse. It simply didn't have the same meaning and conception as it does today. So, I (and Ian Hacking) argue that they are different concepts.

    Short of actually going to quote ancient philosophers (which I can do icon_razz.gif), I'm going to just agree to disagree. It's clear to me that their type of homosexual behavior is not related to our modern conception of homosexuality and I for one am glad. Also, I'd be more agreeable if you mounted a better argument <3





  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 3:38 PM GMT
    If you made this video.... You have a very soothing voice LOL, I wish you can come and read me a bed time story omg I'd love it!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 4:02 PM GMT
    "Greek homosexuality was restricted to pederasty between a dominant adult and a smaller/shy boy. "

    Are you sure? Just because it wasn't as well documented in literature doesn't mean that there were no gay couples (i.e. homosexuality as we understand it) in ancient Greece.

    Counterexamples:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece#Love_between_adult_men
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 30, 2011 4:11 PM GMT
    viitz said"Whether men who desired other men existed is not really in question if you believe a biological theory of homosexuality (I do) but labeling them as gay or homosexual brings along all of our modern ideas of identity. They couldn't identify as gay or homosexual because it simply didn't exist as a concept in their society."

    It did "exist". They just labeled and stigmatized the receiving partner. I think you missed that point. Again, it's the "you're not degrading yourself by acting like a woman if you're not taking it up the ass" argument. Just because they didn't wave around rainbow flags, it doesn't mean that they weren't gay. You can't honestly tell me that you know exactly what they were feeling and experiencing back then. But let yourself think about it. If they stigmatize the receiving partner and are apathetic about the penetrator--what kind of behaviours is that going to promote in society?

    "So, it would be anachronistic to go back in history and label acts of violence toward children as child abuse. It simply didn't have the same meaning and conception as it does today. So, I (and Ian Hacking) argue that they are different concepts."

    Just because something was more socially acceptable at a different time, it doesn't change what it was. This is a really bad argument. I understand that "meanings change", but to assert that the act didn't exist because they lacked any sort of civility is absolutely ridiculous. If we're going to go that far, then we might as well start saying that there was nothing wrong with not regarding women as "persons", black slaves, denying gay rights, aboriginal genocides, etc.--because it's just a matter of perception. Slippery slope, much? It's called evolving. Yeah, maybe we can argue that they did not have the capacity to understand this back then. But that doesn't change what it was. icon_rolleyes.gif

    "Short of actually going to quote ancient philosophers (which I can do icon_razz.gif), I'm going to just agree to disagree. It's clear to me that their type of homosexual behavior is not related to our modern conception of homosexuality and I for one am glad. Also, I'd be more agreeable if you mounted a better argument <3"

    I think you missed the meaning of what a good argument is--not everything has to agree with your views. I suggest putting down Ian Hacking's silly book and start looking into feminism. icon_lol.gif

    As for quoting philosophers--good for you. But how about an original thought? ;) Don't worry, I'm just playing with you.


    This has made the thread very interesting but I think you are missing a large part of his point. He is not arguing that homosexual acts or homosexual desire didn't exist. The argument becomes one of splitting hairs if we only focus on homosexuality. The question is did heterosexuality exist as we know it today? There was not a movement for society to recognize gay marriage because marriage was perceived more as a duty, than as a monogamous lifelong union between two lovers. Women were expected to be monogamous but not men. So the idea of two opposing sexualities did not exist. There were many homosexual lovers but when they were the same age and of equal social standards it confused society. It was frowned upon by some while it intrigued others. Sex between men was more commonly older/younger, master/slave(not in the kinky sense here). Many Greeks did not understand the relation Alexander had with his lifelong companion Hephaestion. Some refused to believe it was anything but platonic since anything else would imply there was a top and bottom. Both men were great warriors so no one want to think of either as a bottom.

    We can see remnants of the Greek concept of homosexuality in Latin and Arab countries with the "a hole is a hole" idea that its okay to insert, just not to receive. The difference today is we now have modern religions condemning the acts which was not the case in Greek times. Also the glorification of the heterosexual union in Latin and modern Arab culture was not part of the Greek culture. BTW it was not just the Greeks but the Chinese and Japanese who had societies where homosexual acts occurred openly but were not perceived as the opposite of heterosexuality.

    In all societies, from ancient to today, homosexuality was seen as a problem WHEN it interred with the family, and the duty to procreate. It is only in modern history that it has been seen as a problem even when it does not.