The myth of homosexuality in Ancient Greece or Hellas

[Euklid]

LOL, ever since i first read this book, some years ago, i never started it from the start again for obvious reasons. The first pages are very appalling to a guy like me. Aristophanes event though homo, but more moderate and much wiser, is and has been my first page for a long time now.

About one month ago, when i first translated that extract i was very consumed with this book, and Plato had already taken form. If you didn't remind me, i would still consider Plato as present. LOL. Also the manner the book is written is like Plato is present indeed, he places the "narrator" in between their speeches very skillfully.

Anyways...

No, I don't see his wanting to have Agathon seated to his right as an attempt to seduce him..

Why, because of the lack of apt and direct evidence?

I seriously believe that you know and i know that this not a reason enough.

Also, the fact that Homosexuality existed is a fact, and the first speeches is the most apt evidence. Request: lets not turn this into an argument refutation series. It is not appropriate for this subject. Plus there are many other arguments supporting that Homosexuality was not encouraged in Ancient Athens. The Symposium and Socrates's Erastis/Eromenos argumentation doesn't mention anything about him rejecting homosexual love or the opposite. It is just an argument towards Love in general any kind of love, and how Love elevates man and the society in the pursuit of the good. Not hetero-love specifically, neither homo-love specifically.

I see it as an attempt to avoid praising Alkiviades who had been harassing him.

But, he wouldnt praise Alciviades, his positioning wouldn't change if Agathon sat in between Alc And Socrates. But if Agathon sat to his left, then on Agathons left it would be Alciviades and on Agathon right it would be Socrates. He wouldn't "praise" "egomize" Alciviades anyway. He would be praised by Agathon. Also at that point of time, the Symposium had already lost its rotating system, people were drunk and tired. Everybody stood up and said whatever, it came to an end anyway soon. More info below about this part.

Do keep in mind that he wasn't alone with Agathon on the coach nor was Alkiviades seated elsewhere. The fact that they were on the same couch but he insisted to have Agathon on his right makes me believe that he was trying to avoid giving Alkiviades any hopes..

Exactly, i stood in this point for many days troubling my head trying to figure out, if these 2 Alciviades and Socrates left together.

OK let me tell you a bit about my interpretation of Socrates and Alciviades.

Lets say that i have a fuck buddy whose name is Julia. I have been with her a long time, we are good friends from the old days and such. At some point i am very close to getting together with a pipinaki. I am in a party, the pipinaki is there, we are playing mpoukala or whatever, and at some point we start discussing about sex as usual. I am an ugly bastard but with an infamous attitude, what do i do? I start babbling about love and how love makes us better and how the whole society becomes better through Love, i also know that this pipinaki is very much into intellectuals and people with attitude as most pipinakia are and also is already a bit "toasted" after hearing my intellectual battles and already is a bit aroused, so i do my best and give the speech of my life, i also keep in mind that this pipinaki is already taken, so i cover up my ugliness by babbling that Love is all about the mind and the spirit and not just about outer appearance and "sarka". And eventually, the pipinaki is drunk and ready for action, all i got to do, is keep drinking a bit more, until everybody leaves the room, goes to sleep or evacuate the building so that i take the pipinaki at home.

At some point though, my fuck buddy enters the building, and uncovers all my bullshit, but not directly to mock me and disgrace me, but just uncover my bullshit, by telling everybody how great i am in the play "hard to get" game. What a "selino" i am, A key card in the playboys Bible. During her tandrum, i am in the corner speechless praying not to tell everything, and about to go purple from shame and fear.

As you might have guessed already in this brief story. I am Socrates, Julia is Alciviades and the Pipinaki is Agathon.

This is my interpretation of the Symposium, and i have come to this conclusion after a long struggle in between the words.

Do you think that this is way out of reality, and a total product of my imagination? Or do you think that it has some basis?

We know that Socrates was butt ugly, we know that he was a By-sexual or homo-erotically inclined would be the accurate word, who had a fire burning in the view inside of Charmides cloak(Plato, Charmides 155 d), but he also called homosexual love as "shameful" in Xenophon's Symposium, nevertheless, this "shameful" characterization is a product of thought, his natural urges were indeed homo-erotically inclined as Plato's Charmides illustrates in the most direct manner. We know that Agathon was the prettiest man in there and a homo with attitude as his speech testifies blatantly, a fact(beauty) repeated and emphasized numerous times. We know that Alciviades was the second prettiest man in there, and one of the prettiest men of Athens And we know that he was a Homo as well. We know that the other Sympotes were feeling a certain degree of jealousy in there(Aristophanes and Erixymachos for sure) And we know that the majority in there were not even by-sexual, but blatant homosexuals. And we know that Alciviades barged in the house dipp drunk, hurt and rejected from Socrates in the past just like a femme fatale and started speaking about Socrate's "weird" games in a manner like wtf? "How could this butt ugly man reject somebody like me?" And we also know that Socrates was speechless for a long time, just waiving his head around hiding behind his cup, waiting to see how far will Alciviades go. And eventually what did he do after Alciviades finished his tandrum? He called Agathon to sit next to him and turned around and said to Alc, "not that i don't want you 2 together" and then Alciviades said "let him sit in both of our sides, let him sit in the middle", Socrates said "no, only at my side, cause i do not want another praising(egomion) about myself on the same night, i wouldn't handle it, instead i will praise Agathon if he sits on my right." Bullshit sto tetragono(squared). Which Alciviades didn't buy ofc. "Another excuse" he shouted for the ugly bastard to have 2 of the prettiest men on his both sides.

The question that had troubled my mind was, who did Socrates take home that night? Agathon? Alciviades? Or nobody?

If i had to write a novel i would say nobody, but Agathon was such a bimbo, that he could have felt for all that bullshit.

Certainly the question that troubled my mind, wasn't whether Socrates was a Hetero or just by-sexual, being a devoted Hetero is completely out of the question for me. And, i honestly cannot see, how did you come to such a conclusion? Because his speech doesn't mention anything specifically about homo-love? And because he rejected Alciviades many years ago during that campaign? Only, the fact that Alciviades was so astonished with such a rejection to his beauty is enough to show, that he was expecting it, and Socrates never said the reason that he didn't give it to him those days or that it's because he is a devoted husband or a devoted heterosexual. He didn't even bother giving a reason.

[Orphic_Hymn]

No re su.. its not a 'refutation series' just a simple discussion on what made us see the text so differently..

Like I can't see it as a historically accurate event that could indeed give us info on social behaviour in Plato's time since the whole plot, the process and the climax of the speeches are simply too conveniently placed to finally indicate that philosophy is superior to comedy, medicine, tragedy..etc hence why only Socrates (the only philosopher in the discussion) gives us the whole 'interpretation' of 'Eros' while the others simply give us some parts of it.

Or in the seduction issue where you mention that "lack of apt and direct evidence" is not reason enough.. then what is.. is it logical to conclude that because homosexual love is mentioned in an earlier speech that Socrates also accepts/practices it and all this depite the fact that we do have direct evidence in Alkiviades' speech that Socrates indeed did reject his propositions ?

As for the seating arrangement..
From the speeches we find that they were obviously seated as following.. (see this as a ground plan (κατοψη))


Eryximachos.................. Agathon
Aristophanes................Socrates
Pausanias ................ Alkiviades
Phaedros

This is how I understand the seating based on the flow of the discussion (from left to right)... Alkiviades that came in late, was to give a speech and then praise Socrates (214c) and then he (Socrates) would praise the individual seated to his right (Agathon).. but drunken and jealous Alkiviades after his speech goes and sits between Socrates and Agathon (222e) which is clear from Agathon's words and Socrates' rejection ("if Agathon sits beyond you") to his choice of seat..


What I don't get and you didn't answer is why you consider Alkiviades to be Socrates' "fuck buddy" when the text in question refutes the very though of anything having taken place and we could actually say that he was the finest example of an 'erasths' proper conduct.. are the urges seen in Charmides enough to constitute proof of such activities when the text is purely philosophical and related to virtues like wisdom and modesty ??

[Euklid]

Orphic from the image i get in my head every time i read this book is that Socrates was having dirty thoughts.

Besides what you mention that the book does, of offering the narrow or wide insights of a doctor or of a politician or whatever, it also gives us a plot, an erotic plot, which certainly cannot be separated in my opinion as like Socrates speech can stand on its own. Since he heard so many pro-homo views that night, if he would be opposing it, he would have clarified it in his speech or something. He is passive.

This "fuck buddy" is an exaggerating remark certainly, but from the situation, it seems that Alciviades and Socrates shared a lot, enough to classify them as being close to each other. Close to each other for them in that time period implies homo-eroticism as well.

Socrates was one day this and this other day that.

To the question: Was Socrates homo erotically-inclined , i have to answer, yes, he was. This is what i understand from the text, and i really cannot change that.

To the question: Was Socrates horny that night? Propably he was.

And to the question: Had Socrates ever erotic relations with males?

I believe he had, not because of any of the reasons referred to in this thread.

I dont think thats its diminishing for the Greeks. And i believe that the argument that the percentage of todays Western Societies fit very much the same with Ancient Greece, is true.

He happens to belong to the other percentage in my opinion.

After all, if one of us writes somewhere even once: i got "hot" looking under that guys robe. i think he/she will be stereotyped as homosexual, thereafter, even if he denies homosexuality for the same reason that they should had denied homosexuality back then, because it was politically incorrect.

[Efstathios]

I will make some questions, that need answering.

What was Plutarch talking about when he said in his "moralia" that Plato and other philosophers had approved homosexual relationships? I quote the text here:

But I must venture to answer one question, which is this: whether we ought to admit those that make love to our sons to keep them company, or whether we should not rather thrust them out of doors, and banish them from their society. For when I look upon those straightforward parents, of a harsh and austere temper, who think it an outrage not to be endured that their sons should have any thing to say to lovers, I am tender of being the persuader or encourager of such a practice. But, on the other side, when I call to mind Socrates, and Plato, and Xenophon, and Aeschines, and Cebes, with an whole troop of other such men, who have approved those masculine loves, and still have brought up young men to learning, public employments, and virtuous living, I am again of another mind, and am much influenced by my zeal to imitate such great men.

The Greek text also says the same. Actually it's not exactly "making love" rather than "kiss", but you get the point. I dont think there is any room for misinterpretation here.

Futhermore the symposium shows us that something was going on. Was it only at the circle of the Philosophers? Or was it a general behaviour?

Apart from the things that you quoted Orphic_Hymn, there are also the things that are behind the scenes. For example, in the whole symposium Socrates talks about love that must be pure e.t.c, but in order to do that there must have been something not pure. Furthermore the fact that Socrates denied Alciviades that night, does not imply that they never had any form of homosexual relationship in the past.

Another thing is that there were many male prostitutes. Remember the boys that were brought to Alexander from Corinth? Although he denied them, it doesnt mean that he denied homosexuality in general, but just doing this thing with some prostitutes.

And dont forget Armodios and Aristogeiton of course. The laws in Athens indeed forbade homosexual relationships for politicians, but they were just left unpunished.

Another thing that comes into my mind is the sacred band. They were couples of lovers. But what kind of lovers could they be? They were about the same age i guess, so we are not talking about erastis and eromenos here. And Thebes was one of the first cities that had an obsession with male beauty, even before Athens.

All these things come to my mind that need to be answered in the topic we are talking about. Of course the truth may be somewhere in the middle. Or as Orphic suggested initially.

[Orphic_Hymn]

Hi Efstathios welcome aboard..


The quote you presented is by far anything that could be titled an accurate translation.. For example that door issue.. is non-existant.. but anyway..

The problem here is that you've taken the quote out of text and thats why it seems as if homosexuality was approved by the individuals mentioned.
Just one line later Plutarch clarifies what he means by "ἐρῶντας τῶν παίδων".. by quoting Euripidis:

ἀλλ’ ἔστι δή τις ἄλλος ἐν βροτοῖς ἔρως,
ψυχῆς δικαίας σώφρονός τε κἀγαθῆς

Another love there is in mortals found;
the love of just and chaste and virtuous souls

As you can see there's no reference to body, lust nor anything sexual..
On the contrary, he clearly suggests that Athenean and Spartan "love" is totally opposite to that practiced in Elis and Thebes (without directly pointing at it, obviously meaning homo-erotic) and the so called "ἁρπαγμόν" of Crete, that may not be homo-erotic at all but simply judged due to the abduction and lack of concent from the parents..

Apart from the things that you quoted Orphic_Hymn, there are also the things that are behind the scenes. For example, in the whole symposium Socrates talks about love that must be pure e.t.c, but in order to do that there must have been something not pure.

Quite true but isn't that exactly what Socrates through the teachings of Diotima is telling us?
He's clearly implying that pure love comes from the persuit of wisdom and from Plato's whole plot we find that this is obtained only through philosophy (love of wisdom) which is superior to all other forms of knowledge (tragedy, comedy, medicine..etc)

Furthermore the fact that Socrates denied Alciviades that night, does not imply that they never had any form of homosexual relationship in the past.

Actually it does.. but why the whole guessing game?
Its clear that nothing between them took place from Alkiviades words. If something had taken place he would never had attempted to 'warn' Agathon of probable 'heart-ache' nor would have constantly talked about Socrates' virtues, which according to him, despite what he had went through (rejection..etc) couldn't be found in neither in men of his time nor in those of antiquity..

Another thing is that there were many male prostitutes. Remember the boys that were brought to Alexander from Corinth? Although he denied them, it doesnt mean that he denied homosexuality in general, but just doing this thing with some prostitutes.

Well noone was brought to him, some just suggested to buy/bring him one, but he refused in a harsh manner..

But why the guessing game again ??
We either have hard proof to support something, which in this case is that Alexander practiced homosexuality or we don't.
But I really can't understand why you'd centralize on the suggestion but totally overlook the responce.

For example, why do you overlook the title of "αἰσχρὸν" (obscene, dirty) he was crying out when describing the sexual preference Philoxenos tried to link him to, why do you overlook the character of the letter of responce which was "πολλὰ λοιδορήσας" (highly abusive/reproachful) and his demand that Theodoros (the 'pimp') was destroyed ??

Anyway, I've already posted a little something on Alexander's life HERE

Another thing that comes into my mind is the sacred band. They were couples of lovers. But what kind of lovers could they be? They were about the same age i guess, so we are not talking about erastis and eromenos here. And Thebes was one of the first cities that had an obsession with male beauty, even before Athens.

I've also posted my 2 cents on this one in post 5 on page #1 of this topic..

[Efstathios]

There is an interesting text by Athenaus ,that i assume you have already read. But i will quote it anyway:

fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/athenaeus13.html Athenaeus: The Deipnosophists XIII (put a www in front, cause i cant put links to sites, due to being a new member).

Hieronymus the Peripatetic declares these love affairs with boys became widespread because it often happened that the vigour of the young men, joined to the mutual sympathy of their companionship, brought many tyrannical governments to. an end. For if their favourites were present, lovers would choose to suffer anything whatever rather than incur a reputation for cowardice in the mind of their favourites

Later on we read

The practice of paederasty came into Greece from the Cretans first, according to Timaeus. But others declare that Laius initiated such love-practices when he was the guest of Pelops; he became enamoured of Pelops's son, Chrysippus, whom he seized and placed in his chariot, and then fled to Thebes. Yet Praxilla of Sicyorl says ; that Chrysippus was carried off by Zeus.b And among barbarians the Celts also, though they have very beautiful women, enjoy boys more; so that some of them often have two lovers to sleep with on their beds of animal skins. As for the Persians, Herodotus says c they learned the use of boys from the Greeks.

And

Sophocles was fond of young lads, as Euripides was fond of boys, or at any rate, in the work entitled Sojournings, writes as follows a " I met Sophocles the poet at Chios when he was sailing as general to Lesbos; he was playful at wine, and clever. A Chian friend of his, Elermesilaus, who was the proxenus of Athens, entertained him, when there appeared, standing beside the fire, the wine-pourer, a handsome, blushing boy; Sophocles was plainly stirred and said: ' Do you want me to drink with pleasure ? 'And when the boy said ' Yes ' he said, ' 'Then don't be to rapid in handing me the cup and taking it away.' When the boy blushed still more violently he said to the man who shared his couch: ' 'That was a good thing Phrynichus wrote when he said [604] " There shines upon his crimson cheeks the light of love."' To this the man from Eretria (or Erythrae), who was a schoolmaster, made answer: ' Wise you are, to be sure, Sophocles, in the art of poetry; nevertheless Phrynichus did not express himself happily when he described the handsome boy's cheeks as crimson. For if a painter should brush a crimson colour on this boy's cheeks he would no longer look handsome. Surely one must not compare the beautiful with what is obvious]y

It cant be more obvious than that though:

Hieronymus of Rhodes says in his Historical Notes that Sophocles lured a handsome boy outside the city wall to consort with him. Now the bov spread his own cloak on the grass, while they wrapped themselves in Sophocles' cape. When the meeting [ie the "doing"] was over the boy seized Sophocles' cape and made off with it, leaving behind for Sophocles his boyish cloak. Naturally the incident was much talked of; when Euripides learned of the occurrence he jeered, saying that he himself had once consorted with this boy without paying any bonus, whereas Sophocles had been treated with contempt for his licentiousness. When Sophocles heard that, he addressed to him the following epigram, which refers to the fable of the Sun and the North Wind, and also alludes lightly to Euripides' practice of adultery: " Helios it was, and not a boy, Euripides, who by his heat stripped me of my cape; but with you, when you were embracing another man's wife, Boreas consorted. So you are not so clever, because when sowing in another's field you bring eros into court for thieving.

The whole text has more things. Well, from these quotes, i surely cannot tell that the relationship between an erastis and eromenos was only restricted to education. Athenaus speaks perfectly clear, and since he quotes other writters, there is no reason to doubt him and say that he makes things up.

We dont know the extent of this pederasty practise. Some say that it was only common in aristocracy.

[Efstathios]

Furthermore, i would like to say that i had the argument of how could a whole society be keen to homoerotic affairs? Meaning that it is not natural for every man to like another man. Most men dislike even the thought of an erotic touch by another man, not to mention anything more. So how could a whole society have this kind of behaviour? Was it forced? For that i dont have an answer. But surely what we get from the sources indicate that there was a level of homoerotic affairs in ancient Greek society. We just dont know how widespread it was, and if it also reached the lowest ranks.

[Orphic_Hymn]

I'd prefer you comment on what I've written prior to going on posting more quotes, if anything so that we manage to have some kind of a discussion on the issue. We all know that homosexuality was indeed practiced but acceptance and cultural norm it was not..

I have this little issue with Atheneus' text, not for the contents which you presented but for its historic inaccuracies which make me question its authenticity and for the fact that it was written when Christianity had already begun to spread. For example, he mentions Ulpian numerous times and mentions his death when Ulpian dies at a later date (and in a different manner) so he must be talking about some other figure without providing any info but instead misleading us, he totally screws up the Bagoas incident, he claims that the 'Band of Thebes' was founded by Epameinondas when we know it was Gorgidas..etc .but anyway.

Hieronymus the Peripatetic.................

.........cowardice in the mind of their favourites

We indeed do have this account from Atheneus (at least in the traslation since I know of no source with the original) but while we can't crosscheck its accuracy, we can see exactly what kind of relationships he's talking about just above which you omitted..

From your own choice of source we read:

Altogether, many persons prefer liaisons with males to those with females. For they maintain that this practice is zealously pursued in those cities throughout Hellas which, as compared with others, are ruled by good laws. The Cretans, for example, as I have said and the people of Chalcis in Euboea, have a marvellous passion for such liaisons.
Echemenes, at any rate, says in his History of Crete that it was not Zeus who carried off Ganymede, but Minos. But the Chalcidians just mentioned assert that Ganymede was carried off by Zeus in their own countrv, and they point out the place, calling it Harpagion; in it grow excellent myrtle-trees. Even his quarrel with the Athenians was given up by Minos, though it had arisen over the murder of his son,a because he loved Theseus and gave him his daughter Phaedra to be his wife, according to Zenis (or Zeneus) of Chios in the History of his native land.

So we have the following (in bold) which indicate how he starts off (even though the discourse on love starts a whole lot earlier with reference to gymnasiums and statues of Eros and Athena in them) and what he's originally talking about.

Since as mentioned we lack the original we can only work with the chosen translation. The first word in bold is "liaisons". So does "liaisons" indicate sexual relations?
After looking in several dictionaries, I found that any relation to a sexual meaning is given as a 3rd or 4th definition, so while it may indeed mean so (even if thats 3rd or 4th), the question is why the translator chose a word which could first be interpreted as something different, like cooperation..etc ??

I find it evident that the choice was intentional just by looking at the reference to the Ganymedes myth, especially since Xenophon ( Symposium 8.59 ) clarifies that Ganymedes is he "whose mind gives pleasure".

The second issue that is raised and indicates what he's talking about is those "good laws". What were these "good laws" and how could they be related to the perception of acceptance of homosexuality ??

Right after your chosen quote he continues by giving us examples of this "love" and regions in which the "good laws" allowed it.. so he starts off by mentioning Harmodios and Aristogeiton as an example. But how can they be an example and a manifestation of these "good laws" when we know that they were both Athenian citizens and Athens beyond any doubt indeed had laws against homosexuals since the time of Solon which is prior to their time ?

Furthermore, we know that Aeschynes in his speech against Timarchus uses their 'relationship' as an ideal one and titles it "σώφρων καὶ ἔννομος" in total contrast to those Timarchus was accustomed to.

We then move on to Chariton and Melaruppus..
Atheneus quotes not one of their contemporaries but Heracleides of Pontus who, thanks to the Suda we know lived in the 1st cent. AD which is some 5-600years after the events. But the timeline isn't the issue here, but what the Suda indicates that is being lost in the traslation. Under entry 'alpha' #2634 "Anteros" we find:

Χαρίτων ἐραστὴς ἦν, Μελάνιππος δὲ τὴν ψυχὴν ὁ ἐρώμενος ἐς τὸν φίλον τὸν

I'm sure you understand the meaning of "φίλον" which is used to describe the relationship the two men had. Do keep in mind that the Suda is written in the 11th cent. when Hellas and Hellinas were pagan and persecuted terms not to mention ideas. So IF there was anything that could have been condemned in this relationship, the Christian scholars would have used anything but the word "friend" to describe it.

If we continue we read :

guides for mortals in divine loving

Do look back and see exactly how devine love is described and why not, lets even discuss it a bit.

The practice of paederasty came into............................ As for the Persians, Herodotus says c they learned the use of boys from the Greeks

Yup that seems like the theory, but Atheneus seems to neglect what history taught us about Laius and his entire family line being wiped out due to his choice of action.
He also neglects to quote Plutarch who in his "malice of Herodotus" gives us loads of info on the fallacies presented by Herodotus with this one being a fine example.

Athenaus speaks perfectly clear, and since he quotes other writters, there is no reason to doubt him and say that he makes things up.

Allow me to disagree, as I've indicated above even without the original the meaning can be questioned just as his sources can. The only source that can be considered ancient in the specific page provided is that of Herodotus since the rest can be considered his contemporaries but even so, even his reference to Herodotus can be questioned by quoting Plutarch.

But Lefkowitz puts it a whole lot better than I can in one of here notes when refering to the text in question and specifically the use of Ion as a source.. so I quote:

“the surviving fragments of his Epidemiai
provide little reassurance that he is a historian in our sense: they
consist of dinner‐table conversations, comparisons of generals and
poets with one another, famous name‐dropping.â€�
Yet, Ion cannot be faulted for not being a modern historian, nor Athenaeus for considering a gossip‐monger a source of memorable information.

Furthermore, i would like to say that i had the argument of how could a whole society be keen to homoerotic affairs? Meaning that it is not natural for every man to like another man. Most men dislike even the thought of an erotic touch by another man, not to mention anything more. So how could a whole society have this kind of behaviour? Was it forced? For that i dont have an answer. But surely what we get from the sources indicate that there was a level of homoerotic affairs in ancient Greek society. We just dont know how widespread it was, and if it also reached the lowest ranks.

I see you have a thing with generalizations and the guessing game..
You presented a text with some 10 names of which half accounts can be and have been questioned yet you try to present it as a cultural norm.
But your closing statement actually puzzles me since its a total contradiction to what you suggest just one line above.. while you speek of "keen on homo affairs" and "whole society" you then turn around to suggest that we don't know how widespread it was.

While I'd like to hear what you were actually thinking of, let me simply note that under the logic of 10, 20 or even 50 names constituting proof for this activity being titled a cultural norm, I guess that Kostetsos, Valianatos, Tzeni Xeloudaki (among a very long list of names which we all know) represent all 11 million of us today.
Nice analogy but I refuse to be included.

[olvios]

Deipnosophitsts is gossip like magazine like the type " i had elvis 's baby". Its just making fun of everything. Not a source for anything like that. Its title is even "dinner wizecrackers" or something.

[Efstathios]

Ok, a few replies:

Orphic:

But your closing statement actually puzzles me since its a total contradiction to what you suggest just one line above.. while you speek of "keen on homo affairs" and "whole society" you then turn around to suggest that we don't know how widespread it was.

It's because i am still searching for the truth. I am quoting some things merely to put them in the table for discussion, and not to state something as defacto.

However i think that Athenaeus is one of the best texts to quote, because it has not been discussed much and he really goes into some spicy details. Maybe he was a gossiper. But even some gossips have a base. Let's not forget that Athenaeus, as well as the writters of his era, had a direct access to all the sources that we now dont. Furthermore there was a continuity from the classical era up to the first centuries a.d. so that the knowledge, written or oral was there.

Of course he had historical innacuracies. Many writters do. But when he talked about Sophocles, and presented him like a lustfull Satyr, then there must have been something known about him. It's too much i think to claim such things and describe such events about a person that was well known in ancient Greece. We also get the information from Plutarch, about the Philosophers that had tried the masculine loves.

Was it only the aristocracy? I dont know. I tend to agree though that the erastis and eromenos thing, did not include any form of body contacts. But i have a question. We all know and have read these famous laws that prohibbited adults from going to the gymnasiums when teenagers were there e.t.c. Then how could Socrates be there? How could he be everywhere that teenagers were, and not got arrested, or anything else, according to these laws? In the end he was accused of corrupting the youth by "kena daimonia". Why not anything else, like breaking the laws multiple times, hanging out at the gymnasiums e.t.c?

Were these laws actually ever used?