Posted on 11/26/2004 8:59:56 AM PST by SusanD
Aristotle’s 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.
Let’s ask some clear, practical questions in light of Oliver Stone’s 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 Philip’s 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 father’s 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 Aristotle’s 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]
Dover cites:
“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 one’s 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 Aristotle’s thought:
“The writer’s 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 it’s only a concern for truth - clear historical facts versus Hollywood “interpra-facts”. Gay activists say that the film soft-pedals Alexander’s 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 Winkler’s The Constraints of Desire, (1990), and David Halperin’s 100 Years of Homosexuality (1990).
SUMMARY
In short, regardless of the sexual mores of Alexander’s 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 isn’t there.
Personally, I don’t care. I am neither angry nor homophobic. I just appreciate historical evidence when historical claims
That he could have been the Governor of New Jersey...
What does that prove?
That gay marriage was legal in 400 BC? And that gays could adopt children?
</sarcasm>
Dan Rather just announce he has found scrolls which prove that Alexander the Great failed to fulfill his service in the palace guard service. The scrolls are from unimpeachable sources and 60 minutes II will have an interview with the author.
(/sarcasm)
Go to rottentomatoes.com. They post newspaper and internet reviews from all over the country. On their scale, this movie is a giant BOMB. They grade it at 15, meaning only 15% of the critics say anything positive about it. If this movie recovers one-third of what it cost to make (150 million), I'll be surprised.
Sorry, but every man in ancient Greece practiced homosexuality. It was the norm there.
Frankly, I'm just wondering if Oliver Stone will somehow manage to work in USA soldiers being forced to rape and pillage in Vietnam in there. Come on, it's Oliver Stone, he's gotta mention that war SOMEWHERE.
Wednesday's estimates: Screens Nov 24 National Treasure 3,243 $5,680,000 The Incredibles 3,453 $4,410,000 Alexander 2,445 $3,850,000 Spongebob 3,307 $3,700,000 Polar Express 3,650 $3,500,000
You are wrong about your take on ancient greek history. Even the homosexual advocates today admit that there were no more homosexuals then as there are now.
It was NEVER normal then. The claims you state are just a propaganda developed by homoadvocates in the ivory towers over the course of the last 50 or so years.
Stone went to Greece to do research for this movie almost two years ago. He left after he did not hear what he wanted to hear and refused any assistance of historians and museum curators. (this is per the Greek Satelite TV's)
Per a review posted here, BTW, Stone's ending is supposed to be a statement against GWBush.
Thanks, so it opened third loosing out to movies which were already opened.
so it may be around 10 million this weekend and keep falling.
Perhaps hollyweird suits will learn a lesson about the unprofitability of producing "gay" movies.
By the way the link to the info is:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2004-11-24&p=.htm
I forgot to include it above.
Stone Hopes Europe Will Like 'Alexander'
Thu Nov 25, 3:26 PM ET Associated Press.
STOCKHOLM, Sweden - Filmmaker Oliver Stone, whose "Alexander" got a lukewarm reception from critics in America, said Thursday he thought the three-hour epic would get a better welcome in Europe.
Stone visited the Stockholm International Film Festival to pick up a lifetime achievement award and promote "Alexander," which was having its European premiere in Stockholm.
"I think one of the reasons I am being honored here in Sweden is that (Europeans) tend to see me a little differently than they do in the U.S.," Stone told reporters.
He said the film "is not an easy movie, but then I've never made easy movies." His previous films include "JFK," "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Platoon."
Stone said the timing of the award gave him a reason to escape media attention surrounding Wednesday's U.S. premiere of "Alexander," which chronicles the life of the ancient warrior-king Alexander the Great. The film's depiction of Alexander as bisexual has come under particular scrutiny.
"To be here is a delight," Stone said. "Lifetime achievement awards don't come and go. ... I may make better films yet, or I may not. This is a moment of my life that I'd just like to pause and enjoy."
Stone will receive the Bronze Horse award from the festival Friday night. Previous recipients include Roman Polanski, David Lynch, Lauren Bacall (news) and Gena Rowlands.
seems stone is trying to beat the negative word of mouth as fast as possible.
Ridiculous.
Hollyweird makes up homosexuality where non can be proven.
Hollywierd makes "Kinsey" and dances around the homoadvocacy nature of his work and sexual activities which CAN be proven.
It was with great relief, even joy, that the top level guys in Greece saw Alexander off to conquer the world ~ at least he wasn't hanging around Greece bothering people anymore.
Modern Greeks want to think of Alexander as one of their own.
That doesn't make him straight, of course, but it also doesn't make him homosexual.
Just another Hollywood Fairy Tale
I'm so sorry to hear that. Was he "sad"?
You are dead wrong. While the ancient greeks may have considered the northern Greeks uncouth (much like americans may call arkansas "inbred hicks") they were still greek linked by language and religion.
The records and carvings in stone made at that time DURING alexander's life list him as Greek. The notion of Alexander as a non-greek is a recent propaganda creation from the cold war. (Marshal Tito creating a fake state called Macedonia as part of his land grab efforts)
There are displays at the Museum dedicated to Alexander the Great in Thesaloniki Greece which indicate this fact. The world at the time considerd all on the peninsula Greek.
As for your assertion of "happy he was gone", you have no clue. Alexander's army was composed of Greeks from the whole peninsula and make of the city states were glad to participate in the spoils.
The fact that he had wives and children of his own makes him straight. The fact there are no contemporatious records of any homsexual conduct discredits the claims of homoadvocates.
Poor battle scenes. Too much talking and not enough action. Lots of better historical battle epic type movies to see. Heck, even Troy is better than this. My 10 year old could write a better script. Bad bad movie.
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.