Historically, homosexuals were identified by *lack* of attraction?

[WoodwindWhistler]

http://www.well.com/~aquarius/

Interesting. It seems as if asexuals might have been regarded as spiritual and important members of society in this culture rather than being seen as broken or deficient in our modern one. Well darn. 

[NerotheReaper]

I have noticed this in one of my classes, we are studying the Victorian era and the literature with it. Well during that time period women were expected not to be sexually active, they could only be active if their husband wanted to have sex which was mainly for procreation not pleasure.

 

It is interesting how society has done a 180 

[Toothlesss]

1 minute ago, NerotheReaper said:

It is interesting how society has done a 180 

I'd be comfortable with not being expected to be sexually active..

 

Other than that.. no voting rights etc.. Yeah.. NOPE.. 

[Moophie]

Don't really appreciate the 'shove to the side' treatment of the female version of this. But that's just a sign of how old this line of thought is. Oh, and the 'spiritual', aka: religious aspect of course. Whoot.

[WoodwindWhistler]

8 hours ago, Moophie said:

Don't really appreciate the 'shove to the side' treatment of the female version of this. But that's just a sign of how old this line of thought is. Oh, and the 'spiritual', aka: religious aspect of course. Whoot.

It didn't get into it specifically, but virginal women attended the temples of the Greeks and others. They were also highly prized. (of course, that sucks for women who were seen as 'loose'- it seems we're only embarking on a *balanced* valuing of each nowadays) This just focused on the men, because the shift from praising "Mary Mother of Jesus" for her "purity" was not as big of a shift in perspective. Heck, the Greeks thought love between ordinary men (sexual love, mind you!) was more important than marital love.

So wait, are you saying you don't like the religious aspect, or you do? 

[Moophie]

7 hours ago, WoodwindWhistler said:

It didn't get into it specifically, but virginal women attended the temples of the Greeks and others. They were also highly prized. (of course, that sucks for women who were seen as 'loose'- it seems we're only embarking on a *balanced* valuing of each nowadays) This just focused on the men, because the shift from praising "Mary Mother of Jesus" for her "purity" was not as big of a shift in perspective. Heck, the Greeks thought love between ordinary men (sexual love, mind you!) was more important than marital love.

So wait, are you saying you don't like the religious aspect, or you do? 

Well, I mean, that's cool and all. But as a teeny tiny little spit at the end of the thing that was posted, it failed to leave much impact. I'm just talking about the thing specifically. I do have an interest in ancient history, but that doesn't make me feel any better, at all, about how the genders have been segregated in almost every aspect of that history. It's all one great big line that's helped to lead to where we are now.

 

lol, that wasn't very clear, was it? Sorry. I'm atheist, but where I start to actually dislike religion(s) is in regards to what we're discussing.

[WoodwindWhistler]

On 3/16/2017 at 8:10 AM, Moophie said:

Well, I mean, that's cool and all. But as a teeny tiny little spit at the end of the thing that was posted, it failed to leave much impact. I'm just talking about the thing specifically. I do have an interest in ancient history, but that doesn't make me feel any better, at all, about how the genders have been segregated in almost every aspect of that history. It's all one great big line that's helped to lead to where we are now.

 

lol, that wasn't very clear, was it? Sorry. I'm atheist, but where I start to actually dislike religion(s) is in regards to what we're discussing.

Well, I'll repeat what I've said before: "I'm not a gender nihilist, but I'm definitely a gender skeptic." I think gender is a thing, and it's not bad, it's only when the categories get really rigid and enforced. This probably won't make you any happier, but the other links with regard to transgender people are equally as fascinating, if not more so: 

http://www.well.com/~aquarius/almah.htm

Of course, when you get into people, especially children, recalling past lives with specific historical details where they were different genders, that's fascinating, too. 

[Sally]

Do you realize that your thread title says "homosexuals", not "asexuals"?

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sally said:

Do you realize that your thread title says "homosexuals", not "asexuals"?

The article is about homosexual men being considered "superior" Because they weren't interested in sex with women, and as everyone was having sex with men (like, all men apparently) as well as women, homosexuals stood out because they only naturally wanted sex with men. ..What this actually has to do with asexuality is utterly beyond me.

 

On 16/03/2017 at 8:41 AM, WoodwindWhistler said:

http://www.well.com/~aquarius/

Interesting. It seems as if asexuals might have been regarded as spiritual and important members of society in this culture rather than being seen as broken or deficient in our modern one. Well darn. 

They are talking about homosexuals, not asexuals. Men who only wanted sex with men and weren't interested in having regular procreative sex with women... They were calling them natural eunuchs, but not because they didn't want sex - Because they ONLY wanted homosexual sex.

 

"Historically, homosexuals were identified by *lack* of attraction?"

 

However, as a minority, gays differ by nature from the majority -- not in our attraction to the same sex, but only in our physical lack of response to the opposite sex. Being naturally impotent for procreative sex, innately gay men were referred to in the ancient world as "born eunuchs" or just "eunuchs." 

 

It's not saying they were identified by a "lack of attraction" but by a lack of desire for procreative sex with women, making them a type of "eunuch".

[Blondbear]

On 15/3/2017 at 8:53 PM, NerotheReaper said:

I have noticed this in one of my classes, we are studying the Victorian era and the literature with it. Well during that time period women were expected not to be sexually active, they could only be active if their husband wanted to have sex which was mainly for procreation not pleasure.

 

It is interesting how society has done a 180 

 

Not only during victorian times, for the most part of human history women sexuality was never seen as it is seen today. That was sexuality or asexuality was neither seen as today it is. It changed a lot after the 1920s and specially after the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

Usually what families expected is that women satisfied men allowing men to have sex with them after marriage. Sexual attraction or sexual pleasure was not an issue. Also families and societies determined marriage, marriage was something too important because kids were needed, and a person had not the right to say that he/she didn't want a partner, or he/she had the right to say but not to get it, and it was logical in that historic concept (societies didn't want to commit suicide as a whole).

That's why arranged marriages and everything else existed.

Having said that it was at the same time allowed that a certain percentage of people kept being celibate and that was good, but that percentage in many societies usually was not allowed to be high. For ancient greeks, there was no discrimination for people who had sex with their own gender, oposite gender, both or nothing, but at a certain given time society wanted that the person marry and have kids, it was beyond the point if the person wanted/liked it or not, the goal was higher than the person itself.

[WoodwindWhistler]

15 hours ago, Blondbear said:

 

Not only during victorian times, for the most part of human history women sexuality was never seen as it is seen today. That was sexuality or asexuality was neither seen as today it is. It changed a lot after the 1920s and specially after the sexual revolution of the 1960s.

Usually what families expected is that women satisfied men allowing men to have sex with them after marriage. Sexual attraction or sexual pleasure was not an issue. Also families and societies determined marriage, marriage was something too important because kids were needed, and a person had not the right to say that he/she didn't want a partner, or he/she had the right to say but not to get it, and it was logical in that historic concept (societies didn't want to commit suicide as a whole).

That's why arranged marriages and everything else existed.

Having said that it was at the same time allowed that a certain percentage of people kept being celibate and that was good, but that percentage in many societies usually was not allowed to be high. For ancient greeks, there was no discrimination for people who had sex with their own gender, oposite gender, both or nothing, but at a certain given time society wanted that the person marry and have kids, it was beyond the point if the person wanted/liked it or not, the goal was higher than the person itself.

"for the most part of *European-centric whitewashed history* women sexuality was never seen as it is seen today"

There, fixed. 

Seriously, look at many non-Greco-Roman, i.e., non-Western ancient cultures, and even cultures around today (mostly non-agrarian) that haven't had colonialism shoved down their throats (or those that are resisting said colonialism) and you will find plenty of female sexuality. Anthropology, whee!

Actually, Spanish dances and their derivatives are plenty sexual, so I shouldn't rag on Europeans with a broad brush, I suppose. Dang Brits, ruining everything then making American feminists think they were somehow special in recognizing that women- GASP!- have a sexuality. Y'all go read a book on Tantra (where many schools say that the purpose of sex is to *literally worship* the woman and pleasure her) or something and then tell me no one else was concerned with female pleasure before you rebelled against the mean white ol' boy club. (and even that's unfair because Tantra is so much more than just sexuality)

But at least they are not as bad as modern liberal feminists who whine about microaggressions and other dubious offenses while completely ignoring womanism or the struggles of women overseas. 

And yes, societies did not want to commit suicide . . . just look at the Shakers. Though I have read there has been a little bit of a revival for their culture. 
 

[Sally]

For those who don't think women were not thought of in regard to sexuality in previous centuries, read Chaucer.  

[SithAzathoth WinterDragon]

On 3/15/2017 at 11:53 AM, NerotheReaper said:

I have noticed this in one of my classes, we are studying the Victorian era and the literature with it. Well during that time period women were expected not to be sexually active, they could only be active if their husband wanted to have sex which was mainly for procreation not pleasure.

 

It is interesting how society has done a 180 

I've read the same thing I believe at one point in class years ago, I would rather avoid sex which I do since I never want it, I think the society has become to demanding over women and expecting we all as in female bodied individuals should desire it when some do not ever want it.

It is interesting indeed on how much it has changed over the generations.

[Puck]

I'm going to say this while providing little research to back me up, so here goes fun.

 

I think society and culture changes more than we can conceptualize. I think we grow up with society telling us "how it is" and we feel like that's how it's always been because it feels like it makes sense. We also view past cultures through the lens of what we have grown up with, framed by our own experiences, projection our wants and experiences on it.

 

The greeks were rather into homosexual relationships, but I had never been taught that growing up. That's because the catholic church did a hell of a job getting people to not talk about it and stashing away the artwork depicting it. Without that aspect of greek life being researched, it near erases it. Obviously, I learned about it so it's not totally erased, but had I not gone to Berlin and stepped into a little side room to find this homosexual artwork (it couldn't be out on display with the other work, cue eye roll).

 

Anyway, all this is to say, there have been so many different societies and cultures, I am sure many perceived things that our society frowns on as positive traits. Hell, I bet asexuals made great monks/nuns back in the day, struggling less with their celibacy.

 

We are also living post the sexual revolution which has brought sex out of the bedroom and into social consciousness. Sex is talked about more and I honestly think most people think others are having more sex than they are. It's a tough environment for asexuals, but that's why these discussions are so important to have! It's good for society to be open about sex, in my opinion, but expectations from society that are unjustified is never good. We just have to work on making asexuality cool again