David quotes:
>For those who don't have a bible on hand, Leviticus
>18:22 is "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with
>womankind: it is abomination.",[...]
>I've often wondered the same thing, or at least what
>is the earliest evidence of such thinking in an Indo-
>European language.
There is a book just waiting to be bought at Chapters
named "Roman Sex". If I recall it was a large white book
with red letters but I forget the author's name. It's interesting
because it goes into full detail about naughty unmentionable
things that your high school history teacher wouldn't
dare touch.
As I was skimming it, it did give mention to a kind of
machismo behind the idea of anal intercourse in Roman
times, to the effect that it is okay to give anal sex to someone
because you're "on top", but to _receive_ is considered a
passive act. Passivity is then associated with weakness or
femininity. The author goes into detail about certain rules
like, to paraphrase: "If you're a wealthy gentleman buying a
slave boy, don't tell anyone you're 'receiving'".
I can't help but wonder if IEs had the same sort of view
because there are some stories in different IE cultures that
seem to suggest 'anal is bad'. I also wonder whether this idea
relates at all to "fire", crossdressing and deception. Just a
thought.
Although I may have a biased opinion here, I have to admit
that I don't get the cutesy happy feeling that IE peoples
in general supported homosexuality in the same way we
might today, or even that they thought of the concept
of 'homosexuality' like we do today. Anyone have their
ideas?
= gLeN
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail