Sexual Orientation Linked To Personal Identity

[Jingthing]

http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/you-are-who-you-sleep-with-1.358823

You are who you sleep with

Today, people form identities based on sexual orientation, but it wasn't always that way. Why is it so important now, and why has contemporary research focused only on homosexuality?

Posting this as it might reflect on how western gays perceive the issue of sexual orientation in Thai society. To many of us, it appears much more fluid and less linked to set in concrete personal identity as in the west.

I differentiate that from Thai kathoeys which I think have a long cultural tradition and defined role in society (the third sex as it were). The idea of "real men" who want to sleep with other "real men" (which westerners would call gay) being an important part of your overall personal IDENTITY is indeed even newer in Thailand than in the west. Maybe this is indeed a case of an unfortunate western import, like fast food?

Edited April 30, 2011 by Jingthing

[isanbirder]

Why are we always trying to make excuses for ourselves (or listen to others when they make excuses for us)? I think the Thais have got it about right.... we are what we are, and we don't need to find a reason for it.

[Jingthing]

Why are we always trying to make excuses for ourselves (or listen to others when they make excuses for us)? I think the Thais have got it about right.... we are what we are, and we don't need to find a reason for it.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What does this have to do with making "excuses" about ourselves?

[isanbirder]

Never mind, Jingthing, one day you'll learn not to take all your psychobabble seriously. Are you so concerned about your "identity"?

[Jingthing]

Never mind, Jingthing, one day you'll learn not to take all your psychobabble seriously. Are you so concerned about your "identity"?

I didn't post this to talk about my personal psychology. If you don't want to talk about the actual topic in the OP, there isn't any need to post.

[tombkk]

Why are we always trying to make excuses for ourselves (or listen to others when they make excuses for us)? I think the Thais have got it about right.... we are what we are, and we don't need to find a reason for it.

I agree with this statement.

[Ijustwannateach]

I find myself in agreement with Jingthing that the conceptual structures are important. First off, there is the politicised effort at legalisation including various rights in the US, which has been greatly (and IMHO, mistakenly) dependent on the hope of a clear, unambiguous, straightforward 'gayness', easy to define and preferably based on biological preference, though without determinability. Since this concept of gayness is unlikely actually to obtain in the world, they have built up a lot on a shaky foundation. I think it is correct, inevitable, and ultimately healthier to admit that sexuality has many sociocultural aspects to it, including not only what kinds of people one finds attractive but also how interactions with them are managed, personally and socially. This varies greatly based on country and time period, whether for 'straight' or 'gay' sexual relationships, and it is worth studying to be aware of the wide variation out there for the same purpose that such things are worth studying in any event: to know that one's own way is not some kind of universal which can be used to oppress others on that basis alone (this is the way 'god' made us, therefore you are wrong... etc.)

[LeCharivari]

Why are we always trying to make excuses for ourselves (or listen to others when they make excuses for us)? I think the Thais have got it about right.... we are what we are, and we don't need to find a reason for it.

I agree with this statement.

I too. "we are what we are" - simple.

I am afraid I don't really have a clue what JT and IJWT are trying to say (other than JT repeating his mantra that he is a "real man" and that "Thai kathoeys" are not gay but a "third sex") or, more importantly, why they are trying to say whatever it is they are trying to say. Its a bit like asking "Why am I black / white / Asian / tall / short / thin / fat / left-handed / ambidextrous / etc / etc". At least there are some answers as to why they were born that particular way, while there are none as to why we are born gay.

On the other hand maybe that wasn't the "actual topic" at all ...................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[jdinasia]

Why are we always trying to make excuses for ourselves (or listen to others when they make excuses for us)? I think the Thais have got it about right.... we are what we are, and we don't need to find a reason for it.

I agree with this statement.

I too. "we are what we are" - simple.

I am afraid I don't really have a clue what JT and IJWT are trying to say (other than JT repeating his mantra that he is a "real man" and that "Thai kathoeys" are not gay but a "third sex") or, more importantly, why they are trying to say whatever it is they are trying to say. Its a bit like asking "Why am I black / white / Asian / tall / short / thin / fat / left-handed / ambidextrous / etc / etc". At least there are some answers as to why they were born that particular way, while there are none as to why we are born gay.

On the other hand maybe that wasn't the "actual topic" at all ...................zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I am with you guys ... regarding legal issues (that are NOT identity issues) ... they simply need to be brought up on a legal/fairness basis as often as needed until the lawmakers get it right. I lead my life openly and make no excuses for who I am, and don't want others to do so for me. I have my own definitions that work for me .. and in the ned that is al that will ever matter.

[Jingthing]

Its a bit like asking "Why am I black / white / Asian / tall / short / thin / fat / left-handed / ambidextrous / etc / etc". At least there are some answers as to why they were born that particular way, while there are none as to why we are born gay.

It isn't even a known thing that people are born gay, or that everyone who identifies as gay was so called born gay. Look, if you are anti-intellectual and don't think certain controversial topics are even worthy of discussion, maybe Thailand is a better match for you than I.

It's so simple. No, it bloody well isn't.

If complex questions bother you, I suggest silence rather than fabricating silly personal attacks about people who bring them up.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Jingthing

[SweatiePie]

Its a bit like asking "Why am I black / white / Asian / tall / short / thin / fat / left-handed / ambidextrous / etc / etc". At least there are some answers as to why they were born that particular way, while there are none as to why we are born gay.

It isn't even a known thing that people are born gay, or that everyone who identifies as gay was so called born gay. Look, if you are anti-intellectual and don't think certain controversial topics are even worthy of discussion, maybe Thailand is a better match for you than I.

It's so simple. No, it bloody well isn't.

If complex questions bother you, I suggest silence rather than fabricating silly personal attacks about people who bring them up.

I'm with JD, LeC, Tom, IB, et al here. It really is pretty simple unless you deliberately try to confuse the issue - I believe baffling with bullshit is the correct term.

JT, as you infer that Thailand is somehow "anti-intellectual" I will try to be a "match" for you, and to keep things "simple" enough for you to understand without "fabricating" anything.

To address your "complex questions" in no particular order:

"It isn't even a known thing that people are born gay". WRONG. It is no longer denied by anyone that "people are born gay" except by the religious fundamentalists (Christian and Muslim alike); your view is decades out of date. Why they are born gay, on the other hand, is the subject of widespread debate with arguments varying from genetics (not viable on the grounds of inheritance, which the proponents of the gay gene avoid answering), to the length of the fourth finger (unclear if this indicates or predisposes being gay), to the parents' diet and environment when in the womb (the current favourite).

Far from being not known "that everyone who identifies as gay was so called born gay" this is generally accepted, as it has been shown to be not unusual for some people to identify as gay due either to peer or environmental pressure or because of an inability to sustain a heterosexual relationship.

"real men" who want to sleep with other "real men" are what "westerners would call gay". WRONG. In my own experience (and I have a lot of experience of Western gays!) the vast majority of Western gays are neither so narrow-minded nor so frightened of their own masculinity being questioned by association that they would not see "gay" as encompassing a wide variety of sexual taste and display, from the very macho to the very fem. The idea that men sleeping with other men, neither of whom are "fem", is somehow "even newer in Thailand than in the west ..... maybe an unfortunate western import ..." is as bizarre as it is wrong; the difference with the West is that it was never considered noteworthy here - nothing more.

"You are who you sleep with". WRONG. You have not only quoted Esti Ahronovitz out of context but also mis-represented what he wrote; the whole line of his article was that it was wrong to catalogue and categorize sexual orientation, as you have done.

"Thai kathoeys" are "the third sex as it were". WRONG. Kathoeys (or "ladyboys") are not the "third sex" in Thailand or anywhere else. As has been discussed here previously at length and established beyond any doubt according to every recognised dictionary and reference, although all transexual men are kathoeys, not all kathoeys are transexuals or transgenders. To Thais, particularly Thai gays, the term kathoey covers a wide spectrum of gays from the slightly fem to the full transexual. Transexuals are the "third sex" in Thailand, not kathoeys - the two are not interchangeable. Even then, being a transexual denotes sexual identity but does not necessarily denote sexual preference - some full male to female transexuals are openly lesbians.

If the best you can do to appear "intellectual" is to denigrate Thailand as being somehow "anti-intellectual" and not up to discussing "certain controversial topics" and to sling about a few terms you don't fully understand and then accuse those who disagree with you of "fabricating silly personal attacks" then, with all the respect you are due, "I suggest silence".

[Jingthing]

I can't be bothered playing games with people with an obvious personal vendetta.

Beyond that, the above flame/rant/whatever it is/ is written in a voice of someone who actually thinks he has all the final for all time, correct answers on yes a VERY COMPLEX issue, human sexuality across different cultures and eras. It's amusing to see, that's the end of my involvement with such a person, who needs the stress? I started this thread to suggest an open ended discussion of yes, a complex topic, not to attract zealots who actually believes shouting WRONG means it's the end of the story.

I strongly suggest people read the book Sex at Dawn, BTW. Mostly about hetero sex but it sheds some amazing like on homo sex as well. Even these authors, truly scientists and scholars, don't ever even once affect a voice of total final knowledge at Mr. Sweat just did above, and what credentials does he have?

Edited May 10, 2011 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

Whilst the OP may not like the posting style of SweatiePie ---- SP does bring up some direct points to the topic and makes a pretty strong case.

For me .. it still boils down to the basics and "we are what we are" sums it up nicely. I don't take offense to the "anti-intellectual" flame ... Thailand does suit me well. A place where as a professional I neither have to hide my sexual identity nor deny it, and I suffer no ill consequences due to being openly gay IS a good fit. (It doesn't make me or anyone else "anti-intellectual" --- but hey... if it makes it easier to label someone that disagrees with you ... go for it )

[sfokevin]

I'm in the Leow Tare Khun camp

[SweatiePie]

.... an obvious personal vendetta.... thinks he has all the final for all time, correct answers on yes a VERY COMPLEX issue, .... zealots who actually believes shouting WRONG means it's the end of the story. ....and what credentials does he have?

No vendetta, definitely not all the answers (why are we born gay??), and certainly not a zealot (I am quite open to criticism, as long as it is valid not just abusive).

My credentials? I majored in psychology at the Sorbonne with sexual identity in different cultures as my main thesis and I spend most of my working time as an international human rights lawyer specialising in cases of sexual discrimination.

I don't take offense to the "anti-intellectual" flame ...

Neither would I have done, JD, if it hadn't contained the totally unnecessary and self-aggrandising swipe at Thailand (I am a "Thai khatoey" - although now I am rather less of a khatoey and more of a "real man"!)

[sbk]

So, then have a discussion and debate without getting personal. I know you all are completely capable of doing so and I HIGHLY suggest that you do.

Cheers

[Jingthing]

Back to OP, I reread it and want to clarify I certainly didn't mean that there wasn't gay sex in Thailand before westerners started labeling themselves gay BECAUSE they had gay sex. I still strongly believe that Thais labeling themselves gay just because they have gay sex is a much more RECENT development in Thailand than in the west. Historically, again referring to the article in the OP, it's relatively modern anywhere.

I also feel that westerners as a generality DO tend to label themselves based on their sexual acts, I have sex with men (or desire it) so therefore I am gay, and that the concept is spreading globally. I hear some people denying that, but I just don't believe it, especially westerners. I mean get real. In the US for example more and more kids are labeling themselves gay at ridiculously young ages, when I really think they shouldn't commit yet, but they are anyway!

I consider the kathoey "issue" very peripheral to the focus implied in the OP, which is clear to me people mostly did not even understand, intellectual/anti-intellectual, or whatever.

I am also not suggesting that anyone "should" or "should not' label themselves based on their sex acts, but again, many people most certainly do so. They also label OTHER PEOPLE based on their sex acts.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Jingthing

[jdinasia]

which is clear to me people mostly did not even understand, intellectual/anti-intellectual, or whatever.

Perhaps people DO understand the premise .. and just don't agree. That certainly seems to be the consensus so far .....

Edited May 11, 2011 by jdinasia

[Jingthing]

which is clear to me people mostly did not even understand, intellectual/anti-intellectual, or whatever.

Perhaps people DO understand the premise .. and just don't agree. That certainly seems to be the consensus so far .....

The premise is simply to discuss the issue of people identifying themselves based on sex acts and that this is a relatively modern phenom in view of history, and that it started in the west, and Thailand is NOT the west. So I still don't think think most of the discussion here has remotely been about the topic suggested in the OP. People saying they agree or disagree with me, that's absurd. They disagree that some people label themselves that way? That isn't a matter of controversy, its an objective fact.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Jingthing

[trisailer]

I don't see gayness as any different than left-handedness. If the whole world felt that way than it would not be an issue. I do think that gays are sensitive to "what people think" just as we all are and it's a pretty sad thing for people to put someone down for something that they don't understand.

A couple of friends of mine are veterinarians and both stated that there is gayness among all mammals at about the same percentages as humans. I wouldn't get pleasure from being with men, but why would that made a difference in respecting people for their individual character. It dosen't and people who are gay run the whole gammet of personality types just like heterosexuals. What is sad is for people to deprive them of their human rights because of it.

Frankly, I would rather have gay men as friends anyday over the usual macho louts who IMO are mostly posers. Show me a man who is uncomfortable around gay men and I'll show you a man who has doubts about his own sexuality.

I was active in the "mens movement" in the 90's and about 25% of the men who I met through different workshops and retreats were gay. My experence with gay men is that many have father issues, but unlike straight men they deal with them and as a result are more balanced that most of the straight guys I know.

[jdinasia]

people don't seem to be disagreeing that some people do anything ... they are disagreeing with the need to or that there is validity (or lack thereof) in what other people see as an issue. There are still some "flat-earthers" out there, I find no need in my daily life to point out that they are wrong just because some people put forth a flawed assertion.

Perhaps those that see things differently don't feel the pressure that others do?

[LeCharivari]

The premise is simply to discuss the issue of people identifying themselves based on sex acts and that this is a relatively modern phenom in view of history, and that it started in the west, and Thailand is NOT the west.

That didn't seem to be the "premise" in the OP:

Posting this as it might reflect on how western gays perceive the issue of sexual orientation in Thai society. To many of us, it appears much more fluid and less linked to set in concrete personal identity as in the west.

The idea that being people labelled as "gay" not only originated in "the west" but "that this is a relatively modern phenom" seems to be a little odd to me, given the "objective fact" that homosexuality was recognised and well documented in Egypt and even among the Native Americans thousands of years ago; even if you cite ancient Rome as an example of homosexuality being recognised in the West this is hardly recent. It all seems a bit artificial and contrived, but I'll leave de-bunking the myth to SweatyPie, who is far more intellectual than me.

[isanbirder]

Thank you, SweatiePie.

[Ijustwannateach]

I understand (and have read translations and interpretations) of the writings Sweatiepie has apparently encountered and references to support his claim of homosexuality for those various societies and time periods, however, whether such things are really the same as what we regard as homosexuality TODAY, in either America or Thailand, is hardly uncontroversial.

I don't intend to go to scholarly lengths to explain this (those who are curious can look it up for themselves), but for some examples of how other societies (including some cited above) did NOT express MSM (men who have sex with men) as homosexuals according to the modern American mainstream idea, here are some points:

1. In many documented traditional native American cultures, the 'berdache' was a man who had chosen the role of a woman as an adolescent- he did woman's work in the tribe (however it was defined). A man (non-woman, non-berdache) was free to have either a woman or a berdache as a partner. This is not unlike Thailand's attitude towards men who go out with kathoeys- it doesn't seem to threaten their straight status as long as they are the 'man.'

2. In Papua New Guinea, it seems common- nearly universal- that in the past, before the arrival of christianizing influences, young men would engage in ritualistic (and perhaps other...) homosexual activity, particularly oral sex, on older men of higher status. Nearly universally these young men would go on to marry women and have children, and it was considered very unusual for them to remain preferentially attached to men. Actually, this is also not so different from the past in the States, where in the antebellum period it was common practice for young men to have romantic relations with other young men before marriage- there are some quite scorching sets of letters that have until very recently been hidden away! However, they would still go on to marry women and have families.

3. Classical Greek 'homosexuality' is pretty problematic for those who want to compare it directly with modern American practice, and there is a lively debate over how to interpret both literary and pictorial evidence. To sum up what is commonly believed based on written sources, however: first of all, there are some troubling aesthetics- only one partner (the older one) was supposed to pursue the other partner (the younger one- sometimes troublingly younger to the modern sensibility). Secondly, according to the literary ethic anyway, only intercrural sex was supposed to be practiced. Finally, just as in Papua New Guineau, both partners were still basically expected to marry and get down to serious family business eventually. The more noble model of this was that the older man also became a kind of mentor and social support for the younger- but the ultimate result was two married guys who were friends with wives and children.

4. In feudal Japan, there was an idealisation of the younger man once again as a kind of apprentice to the older man- in older texts this is articulated through the connections between the samurai (knight) and his trainees (basically squires), and this relationship was even considered ennobling (at least in literary terms). Later, in the literature- let's say in the 1700-1800's- one comes across many of the same kinds of ribaldry, angst, humour, and sexual punning that might characterise modern Western stories about homosexual relationships. However, a frequent element of these stories is again the connection between an older man and a younger one, rather than the modern American ideal of more-or-less socially equal, same-aged lovers.

My main point in offering these examples is that in each there are significant departures from modern Western ethical models of what a "gay man" is supposed to be and do in reference to his sex life. Looking in the context of the culture and the time period makes these practices a lot more alien than simply referring to, say, ancient Greeks as 'homosexual.' If presented with a modern, simple definition of that social being, it is doubtful that all of the populations described above would identify themselves in that light (or that in fact all those MSM today do in fact identify as such).

I am a little surprised that if SP studied these things at the Sorbonne that he would be so willing to over-simplify them by regarding them all as synonymous with 'homosexuality' (which is itself potentially a troublesome noun)- certainly the scholars who study them in the contexts of their cultures and time periods and original languages would not make such representations so blithely.

And that is the longer version of why I agree that Jingthing's musing over how one's idea of one's sexuality can have significant, and differentiating, impacts on identity and culture- and vice versa.

[tombkk]

After the posts from SweatiePie and ijustwannateach, I wish you two would get together and write a book! It doesn't mean that you have to agree with each other, but I think both of you have so much knowledge and so much to say about this that a web forum is certainly too small for this. Both postings appear simplified, because the length of a posting on a web forum is limited by readability: This is not an academnic journal, after all.

Two anecdotes (totally unacademic) from my own life:

1. When I lived in the Middle East (and was a young man) it was quite normal for young men to have sex together. The reason was that a man is a man, and therfore needs sex, but he cannot touch a woman unless he is married to her. Among teenagers and early twens, even anal sex was acceptable, and the roles changed (I guess the receiving one was not supposed to enjoy it but do the other one a favour, which was returned at the next occasion). Of course, at some age every man was supposed to marry, but I did meet men who for some reason continued to having sex with men rather than marrying a woman. The straight (I used this word now, didn't use it then) friends just smiled and said, "he doesn't know what is good" but there was no problem in acceptance.

2. My Thai boyfy of eight years (12 years younger than me, but not a spring chicken any more either) does not believe that a relationship in which both partners are about the same age can survive. This goes against everythng we have learned about 'equality in relationships' in the West, but is supported by theories mentioned in this thread. and of course, our own anecdotal evidence.

[SweatiePie]

After the posts from SweatiePie and ijustwannateach, I wish you two would get together and write a book! It doesn't mean that you have to agree with each other, but I think both of you have so much knowledge and so much to say about this that a web forum is certainly too small for this. Both postings appear simplified, because the length of a posting on a web forum is limited by readability: This is not an academnic journal, after all.

Tom, while I agree entirely with your conclusion I regret that I have to disagree with both your proposal and the thought behind it.

I am a little surprised that if SP studied these things at the Sorbonne that he would be so willing to over-simplify them by regarding them all as synonymous with 'homosexuality' (which is itself potentially a troublesome noun)- certainly the scholars who study them in the contexts of their cultures and time periods and original languages would not make such representations so blithely.

IJWT, I am not at all surprised that you are surprised.

I wrote that "I'll try to keep it clean, simple and avoid the "psychobabble"" to make it perfectly clear that I was writing something intended to be readily understood by anyone reading it, not a scholarly study comparing homosexuality with cis-sexuality over the years and around the world - that would have been rather pointless here.

I am both capable and prepared to "go to scholarly lengths to explain this" or to give links to and cite recognised references (other than wiki) but I can see little point here, particularly when those who disagree with me are not.

I did not write that the examples I cited were "synonymous with 'homosexuality'" - far from it. They are examples of homosexuality which is a very broad term covering a wide and ever growing range of sexual tastes, preferences and acivities. Synonymous, for those who are unaware of the meaning of the word, indicates that they have the same meaning or at least a similar connotation, and that is not what I wrote.

The points you make, while interesting, have little to do with "homosexuality" today - as you rightly say. That does not mean, however, that other examples from the same geographical areas and the same periods such as the ones I cited do not. To suggest that would be the equivalent of saying that you haven't seen any gay bars in Walking Street so there are no gay bars in Pattaya - you are simply looking in the wrong place. For example:

1. You and I both referred to native American culture. You referred, however, to "the 'berdache' " (who you say "was a man who had chosen the role of a woman as an adolescent- he did woman's work in the tribe (however it was defined)" while I referred to "two-spirit people". The term berdache is not a native American word and it is no longer used as it is often misunderstood and is considered offensive, however it was an umbrella term that covered considerably more than "a man who had chosen the role of a woman as an adolescent- he did woman's work in the tribe". I referred to "two-spirit people" which is not the same thing as it covers a range of transgender, bisexual, lesbian and gay native Americans, many of whom are examples of "homosexuals" as the term is generally understood today - some used the sweat lodges, fought as warriors, etc. Rather than use a foreign "label" (berdache) many native American tribes "labeled themselves" in their own languages with a number of "labels" some of which which the native Americas themselves at their two-spirit conferences have clearly said "are really the same as what we regard as homosexuality TODAY". I would hesitate to tell them that they are wrong.

2. The PNG tribes have very different customs and traditions so to say that anything is "nearly universal" is risky. You are probably referring to the Etoro tribe where it is difficult to separate ritual homosexuality from any "genuine" homosexuality as the ritual side dominates tribal life, with heterosexual sex being only permitted at certain times (for about 3 months of the year) and in certain places (in the jungle) while oral sex performed by younger boys who ingest the semen of the older men as it is believed to contain a "life force" is routine, anywhere, anytime. To say that they "go on to marry women and have children" as we would recognise it is incorrect; Etoro men and women live apart for most of the time, neither are monogamous, rape or at least non-consentual sex is commonplace, and the male and female children are raised separately and largely communally.

I would never cite this as an example of homosexuality (it doesn't meet the constraint I mentioned), but I would't object to studying it more closely at first hand.

3. It is difficult to compare sexual practice of any description in ancient Greece "directly with modern American practice"; the oft-cited age gap between partners, for example, was the same between male and female partners as it was between all-male partners. While "both partners were still basically expected to marry and get down to serious family business eventually" (nothing remotely like in the same way as in PNG!) some did not and it is generally accepted that they were recognised as homosexual at the time - Achilles and Patroclus, and Alexander and Hephaestion are prime examples.

4. The relationship you refer to in "fuedal Japan" between the samurai and his trainees is called shudo. While shudo has little similarity to the modern Western idea of homosexuality, nanshoku, meaning "male colours" (as the characters do in Chinese) does; nanshoku is very different from shudo and refers to homosexual sex regardless of respective ages, status, etc.

Making the simple appear complicated is easy - all it takes is a few irrelevant points and some sesquipedalianism; making the complicated appear simple is rather more difficult.

[SweatiePie]

...... This is not unlike Thailand's attitude towards men who go out with kathoeys- it doesn't seem to threaten their straight status as long as they are the 'man.' ...........

But how would one know?

Despite any impression some "real men" may like to give of their "straight status", according to many trans-genders it is the one with the make-up and heels who is the "man"!

[isanbirder]

After reading all the erudite posts of SweatiePie and Ijustwannateach, perhaps it is time for a little simplification! Isn't what we're talking about here just one example of the modern world's tendency to define things and put labels to them? There's nothing really new in it, just that the tendency has accelerated as science has taken over our lives.

Aristotle would have loved it; it's what he spent his life doing.

[isanbirder]

If I may 're-complicate' a little, I would like to say a little about the distinctions in the classical world.

In the Greece of Plato, Aristophanes, Menander and the Anthology, there are two very distinct types of homosexual behaviour (maybe, in fact, three). The generally approved type was of the older man taking under his wing an ephebe (15-18 year old), and, apart from having sex with him, training him for the adult world. The second type was what Socrates was accused of, a partiality for young men (don't we all have that?). The third type, endlessly made fun of by the comedians and in the Anthology, was the older man who pursued a handsome youth who would have nothing to do with him, and made himself ridiculous by so doing.

Romans of the late republic and the empire had far fewer moral scruples. The first type no longer existed. Homosexuality was open and flagrant at the baths and at private dinners (in a rich house, the waiters might be pretty slave-boys who would be presented to the guests on parting). Nero actually married his boyfriend publicly. Catullus, Juvenal and Martial are full of homosexual stories.

The words used, at least in the Roman poets, are graphic, and describe the type of sex act (fellatio or whatever) rather than the type of person.

[endure]

Eeeh this is better than Saturday nights in Lumbini