You know, I have a nagging question.
When people talk about Greco-Roman sexuality, it is now often
suggested as a benchmark for social tolerance of alternative sexual
practices (Ala Boswell, more than Foucault).
But I can't help but imagine that in a slave holding culture, given the
overt brutality and coercion that male citizens exercised either directly
or by implication, that what was tolerated was for a great number, quite
intolerable.
While the man-boy roles might have played out splendidly for some, you've
got to imagine such practices facilitated some horrible mistreatment..
At times, when dealing with the genealogical ironies of a situation, and
their discursive implications, I wonder if it is inevitable that one
looses appreciation of the personal effects of these "formations?" F's
comments about rape, while provocative, and ironically counter to habit,
do leave me a little disturbed. I suppose that's the purpose.
When people talk about Greco-Roman sexuality, it is now often
suggested as a benchmark for social tolerance of alternative sexual
practices (Ala Boswell, more than Foucault).
But I can't help but imagine that in a slave holding culture, given the
overt brutality and coercion that male citizens exercised either directly
or by implication, that what was tolerated was for a great number, quite
intolerable.
While the man-boy roles might have played out splendidly for some, you've
got to imagine such practices facilitated some horrible mistreatment..
At times, when dealing with the genealogical ironies of a situation, and
their discursive implications, I wonder if it is inevitable that one
looses appreciation of the personal effects of these "formations?" F's
comments about rape, while provocative, and ironically counter to habit,
do leave me a little disturbed. I suppose that's the purpose.