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
I saw him once making eyes at a poodle
Alexander had 3 wives and several mistresses. He had children.
Which would not preclude bisexuality.
The word "GAY" has been so misaligned by this Unholy abominal practice.
Remember when having a gay old time was just having good clean fun?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 19:4-5 --
Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The past is murky,
but it seems clear some places
had a lot of gays . . .
...and your affirmative evidence of his bisexuality is?
The accepted culture of the Greeks at the time, as documented by contemporary writers.
Let me ask a question: Is the movie any good? Worth seeing? No evidence.
Not that there's anything WRONG with that...LOL!!
Now I gotta go back and see how many folks already said that...MUD
not true. It was never accepted and was considered a CHOICE. You mistake acceptance for minding your own business. Even the present day homoadvocates state that there was no more homosexual behavior then as there is now.
Contemporary from where? Homoadvocates from which leftist western university?
It was written as a perversion then.
From what I've read/heard, it's overly focused on interpersonal interplay and lacking on historic content and "BraveHeart" battle scenes. I don't get out to movies much, but this is one I think I wait around until the Networks play it, which'll probably be within the year!!
FReegards...MUD
Braveheart wasn't all that accurate, either (from what I've heard) and the Henry V speech was lifted in a weird way. HOWEVER -- it was a good movie. It was exciting, action-packed and had a few laughs. That's all I want from a movie. I want to buy my ticket, get the popcorn, soda and twizzlers, and get a little excitment and a couple of laughs. If I want accurate history, I'll read a book.
That's my point, from what I hear, "Alexander" is no "Braveheart"...MUD
The problem --and I have to phrase this very carefully -- is that they're not making movies for grown ups anymore. Every movie caters to someone with the IQ of a not terribly bright 16 year old.
Apparently, that's where the money is...MUD
Not my money...and as for the gay stuff, I don't think that anybody would care if the movie was decent. T.E. Lawrence was gay (the least of his weirdness) and Lawrence of Arabia is still a great movie. A couple of years ago I saw a re-mastered version of it on the big screen and it really is magnificent.
He wasn't Irish either.
I agree...but it sounds like Stone sticks yer nose in it in this flick, as if it was one of his driving motivations...MUD
Firstly, it's Oliver Stone. He's addicted to playing the bad boy. Secondly, it's Oliver Stone. He's a known moron.
Here's some Oliver Stone trivia. If you look closely at Wall Street, you'll see "Mad Dog Beck" in a couple of the scenes. Beck was a notorious Mergers & Acquisitions guy during the 1980s. The trouble was, he had no real qualifications and made up his entire life story, including a stint as a Special Forces guy in Vietnam and being heir to Beck's brewing. Oddly, people believed him, particularly Stone.
Alexander wasn't Greek, you know, and no contemporay writer ever suggested he was gay.
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.