Was Ancient Greek Education a Rape institution?

[Caesarmagnus]

You don't want to discuss it as a historical event though. You've said you want us to avoid all of the historical context it occurred in, and not discuss it as a matter of morality either. Rather, you want us to consider in a vacuum whether "young boys being groomed at an early age is good for them". That's a question of psychology, not history. Any historical element it connects to has been removed by you as irrelevant to your question. It would be like posting on here asking "where do you stand on the science of Einstein's work towards a unified theory... it happened during the history of the world, so this forum seemed like the logical place to discuss it" (it isn't, a science forum is the place to go).

 

[dreamregent]

You don't want to discuss it as a historical event though. You've said you want us to avoid all of the historical context it occurred in, and not discuss it as a matter of morality either. Rather, you want us to consider in a vacuum whether "young boys being groomed at an early age is good for them". That's a question of psychology, not history. Any historical element it connects to has been removed by you as irrelevant to your question. It would be like posting on here asking "where do you stand on the science of Einstein's work towards a unified theory... it happened during the history of the world, so this forum seemed like the logical place to discuss it" (it isn't, a science forum is the place to go).

It's a sad day for Historum when it's members don't appear to even know what history is. Under that standard, your attempt to limit the consideration of this topic to a question of morality doesn't belong in a historical discussion either as morality is properly a concern of philosophy and not history. Practically speaking, however, your standard is complete nonsense. Specifically, history has conventionally been defined as covering the period associated with written records, which have existed for only about 5000 years. This is why the period before written records is called pre-history. While my treatment of the subject matter draws significantly from anthropological and psychological perspectives, it's also explicitly historical, by definition, as we do, in fact, have extant written records which inform the topic. History is a very broad discipline which is comprised of all recorded events and intersects with all other disciplines which encompass those events. Strictly speaking, only present, future and pre-historical concerns of other disciplines can be excluded from history. Anthropology is basically the study of human interactions between themselves and their environment as well as their biology so all inquiries concerning anthropology clearly intersect with and are a part of history to the extent that we're examining past societies. Inquiries concerning psychology likewise clearly intersect with and are encompassed by history to the extent that the minds and behaviors of people comprising those past societies are under consideration.

 

[Caesarmagnus]

I can read. You're discussing an event that occurred at a point in time, so in that sense it is historical, but you're asking us to assess it in a historical vacuum (not just morally, but as an actual event). It's a discussion of psychology, not history, insofar as it is a discussion of anything at all.

 

[dreamregent]

I can read. You're discussing an event that occurred at a point in time, so in that sense it is historical, but you're asking us to assess it in a historical vacuum (not just morally, but as an actual event). It's a discussion of psychology, not history, insofar as it is a discussion of anything at all.

It's like I'm in the Twilight Zone or something. Yeah, I'm asking you to assess it "as an actual event". This is a history forum and history is comprised of "actual event(s)". There appears to be ample evidence indicating events like this actually took place as described, so why not assess it "as an actual event"? As for a historical vacuum, I don't even know what you're getting at there. You're free to cite contemporary morals all you like but that will still be a fallacious red herring if that's your response to my arguments.

 

[Caesarmagnus]

It's like I'm in the Twilight Zone or something. Yeah, I'm asking you to assess it "as an actual event". This is a history forum and history is comprised of "actual event(s)". There appears to be ample evidence indicating events like this actually took place as described, so why not assess it "as an actual event"? As for a historical vacuum, I don't even know what you're getting at there. You're free to cite contemporary morals all you like but that will still be a fallacious red herring if that's your response to my arguments.

You've received ample answers about it "as an actual event". It happened, none of us think it is appropriate for modern times, etc. You've had plenty of people chime in on what the historical consequences, significance and rationale behind it was. Your response to all that analysis was to say you "weren't concerned with the morality or historical justifications". You basically have wanted to discuss 2 things, only one of which is actually a thing:
1) Does it share some vague characteristics with modern day church abuse. The answer is basically "not really, unless these characteristics are being looked at in a broad and unhelpful way". So yes, it is analogous in the way a goat is analogous to a horse; not really at all, but they have some broad similarities.
2) What was the psychological effect on these young people? Was it bad? Everyone started up with the "well, this was pretty normal for the time, so not like you'd think..." to which you interjected that you weren't interested in discussing any of that pesky "historical context" because "there's right and wrong". Without historical context discussing the psychological effect of the event on the people living in that time is pointless. You prefer to discuss it in a vacuum. Your question is therefore one of psychology or abstract morality. It's not historical, because you refuse to discuss it in a historical context. It would be much like asking what the psychological damage of having your nose chopped off was in a culture where noses were all removed as a rite of passage at age 13. In such a culture you would be thrilled to lose your nose most likely, because it would see you accepted into the group. Retention of your nose would make you a freakish outsider.

 

[bedb]

"I'm not sure I see how or why it was ever necessary (or beneficial) for a 13ish-year-old boy to be groomed to perform sexual favors for a 30ish-year-old man who had a great deal of psychological influence "

Logical fallacy: argument from ignorance; What you understand or do not understand is irrelevant to discussion. .

As has been explained more than once. Ancient Greek morality was very different from our own in may ways. Homosexual love was seen as the ideal. The relationship between an adolescent boy and older man was seen as a great good. The man was the boys mentor. Yes it was a sexual relationship. That was simply seen as a natural part of the relationship, which usually lasted several years.


I recommend a read of the quoted passage below





Pederasty is an ancient Greek form of interaction in which members of the same sex would partake in the pleasures of an intellectual and/or sexual relationship as part of a socially acceptable ancient custom (Hubbard: 4-7). The question of whether the ideal pederastic relationship was the most common form of pederasty in Greece, or whether the reality of ancient same-sex desire involved relationships between males of the same age, is one that has been contested between scholars for many years.
The ideal pederastic relationship in ancient Greece involved an erastes (an older male, usually in his mid- to late-20s) and an eromenos (a younger male who has passed puberty, usually no older than 18) (Dover, I.4.: 16). This age difference between the erastes and the eromenos was of the utmost importance to the scheme of the ideal pederastic relationship. The power dynamics involved in such a relationship, with the erastes always in control, ensured that the erastes kept his dignity as a fully-functioning member of Greek society, while the eromenos grew up under the tutelage of such a man and as such could become a great citizen when he reached adulthood. Both people in an ideal pederastic relationship would have practiced great sophrosyne, or taking no indulgence to excess (Dover, II.C.5.: 97). The erastes shows restraint in his “pursuit” rather than his “capture” of the young boy, and the eromenos would similarly show restraint by not immediately giving into the older man’s sexual desires.
Ideal pederastic couples were ones whose relationship directly benefitted their Greek society.


Examining Greek Pederastic Relationships

A gay man bashes women and this is the ideal? The Athenians would disagree with you. Aristotle was disliked by Athens and they let him know it There are No great gay romances except those ripped off from straight stories. Acrotatus fought Pyrrhus to keep Chilonis.....that was a relationship between a man and woman.

Raping children was evil, and the ancients knew it was. They weren't stupid.

 

[Caesarmagnus]

A gay man bashes women and this is the ideal? The Athenians would disagree with you. Aristotle was disliked by Athens and they let him know it There are No great gay romances except those ripped off from straight stories. Acrotatus fought Pyrrhus to keep Chilonis.....that was a relationship between a man and woman.

Raping children was evil, and the ancients knew it was. They weren't stupid.

You should write a comic outlining your alternate version of history, where homosexuality from a young age wasn't open and accepted in ancient Greek society. I would read it. It sounds cool.

 

[dreamregent]

You've received ample answers about it "as an actual event". It happened, none of us think it is appropriate for modern times, etc. You've had plenty of people chime in on what the historical consequences, significance and rationale behind it was. Your response to all that analysis was to say you "weren't concerned with the morality or historical justifications". You basically have wanted to discuss 2 things, only one of which is actually a thing:
1) Does it share some vague characteristics with modern day church abuse. The answer is basically "not really, unless these characteristics are being looked at in a broad and unhelpful way". So yes, it is analogous in the way a goat is analogous to a horse; not really at all, but they have some broad similarities.
2) What was the psychological effect on these young people? Was it bad? Everyone started up with the "well, this was pretty normal for the time, so not like you'd think..." to which you interjected that you weren't interested in discussing any of that pesky "historical context" because "there's right and wrong". Without historical context discussing the psychological effect of the event on the people living in that time is pointless. You prefer to discuss it in a vacuum. Your question is therefore one of psychology or abstract morality. It's not historical, because you refuse to discuss it in a historical context. It would be much like asking what the psychological damage of having your nose chopped off was in a culture where noses were all removed as a rite of passage at age 13. In such a culture you would be thrilled to lose your nose most likely, because it would see you accepted into the group. Retention of your nose would make you a freakish outsider.

Have you even read my posts? I ask because it's clear that you either don't comprehend the words I've written or you're intentionally misrepresenting them. You just stated the following:

[...]to which you interjected that you weren't interested in discussing any of that pesky "historical context" because "there's right and wrong".

You and others are the only people who are talking about "right and wrong" (i.e. morals), not me. I am speaking only of harmful trauma. There is a big difference. And my position on cutting off noses would be the same. In the obvious absence of modern medicine, that would be a horribly painful and traumatic experience which would result in painful suffering, a large open wound and a high risk of infection. And in the absence of medications to prevent infections in such large open wounds, I'm sure you would agree the aftereffects of such a thing could be quite gruesome, probably even resulting in eventual death in at least some cases due to infection. Hence, regardless of whether anyone, including the person it happened to, thought it was "right" or morally justified, I'm comfortable concluding that the people who cut off their noses inflicted a very traumatic and harmful experience on these 13-year-olds. The psychological piece doesn't even need to be explored in that case.

 

[bedb]

When I was young I saw a picture of a young boy standing before his teacher. Behind him was a man with a staff. Being young I thought that staff was to us on the boy....now I know it was to use on anyone who would harm the boy.Apparently someone thought molesting his child was wrong.

 

[Caesarmagnus]

Have you even read my posts? I ask because it's clear that you either don't comprehend the words I've written or you're intentionally misrepresenting them. You just stated the following:



You and others are the only people who are talking about "right and wrong" (i.e. morals), not me. I am speaking only of harmful trauma. There is a big difference. And my position on cutting off noses would be the same. In the obvious absence of modern medicine, that would be a horribly painful and traumatic experience which would result in painful suffering, a large open wound and a high risk of infection. And in the absence of medications to prevent infections in such large open wounds, I'm sure you would agree the aftereffects of such a thing could be quite gruesome, probably even resulting in eventual death in at least some cases due to infection. Hence, regardless of whether anyone, including the person it happened to, thought it was "right" or morally justified, I'm comfortable concluding that the people who cut off their noses inflicted a very traumatic and harmful experience on these 13-year-olds. The psychological piece doesn't even need to be explored in that case.

The noses thing is just an example. If your mind literally can't wrap around it being done safely, pick something different like the removal of an ear, and assume there was a relatively safe way to do it, perhaps numbed beforehand (or not, like circumcisions, tattoos, ear elongation, bone piercings, and other body modifications that were part of being accepted into a culture, etc). The point you seem to be vaguely aware of, and trying to avoid, is that it wouldn't be psychologically scarring at all; it would be far worse if they didn't go through that short term pain, and were left as freakish outsiders to the group. That's the context your latest post continues to emphasise is irrelevant. Unfortunately for you it's extremely relevant when discussing it historically.

When I was young I saw a picture of a young boy standing before his teacher. Behind him was a man with a staff. Being young I thought that staff was to us on the boy....now I know it was to use on anyone who would harm the boy.Apparently someone thought molesting his child was wrong.

Does the character in your story have a name? If not I vote for calling him "Staff Master". Please, stop fictionalizing history on here without giving us creative input. We want to contribute to your story too.