Wikipedia fallacies #2 Athenean Pederasty.

Athenean Pederasty

The first contradiction one comes accross when reading this entry in wiki is that the common and widespread practice of “pederasty” as presented in the entry titled “Homosexuality in ancient Greece” became an “upper class” custom only to again change and just 2 lines down become “encouraged by the Athenean society” .

Anyway, I guess they’ll eventually make up their minds.

We then hear the outrageous claim that it was Solon hat founded the tradition of homosexual relations among Athenean men and youth (still not clarified if this took place among the “upper class” or was a “widespread” custom). A Solon who as we know was the very founder of the laws which Aeschines cites in his Against Timarchus” (see related article pertaining to Laws against homo- and pederastic ralations. In their attempt to support this claim, the authors of this entry totally distort the text of Athenaeus of Naucratis who’s Deipnosophists they claim to quote. The distorted text appear as “boy in the lovely flower of youth, desiring his thighs and sweet mouth.” when in reality the text states:

Deipnosophists 13.79.5

Original:
“μηρών ίμείρων και γλυκερού στοματός”

Translation:
“longing for thighs and sweet mouth”

The authors then try to attribute homosexual relations to Harmodios and Aristogeiton, to whom they first attribute the title of “lovers” prior to any reference to the significance of their actions, conveniently taking Thucydides’ account instead of reading what the numerous ancient texts and the Cambridge Ancient History (Cabridge University Press 2000, page 299) which clearly states that “the motive for the murder was political“..
But even so, how could anyone misunderstand what Plato tells us in his Symposium ?

Plato Symposium 182c:

Original:
[182ξ] φιλοσοφία καὶ ἡ φιλογυμναστία: οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι συμφέρει τοῖς ἄρχουσι φρονήματα μεγάλα ἐγγίγνεσθαι τῶν ἀρχομένων, οὐδὲ φιλίας ἰσχυρὰς καὶ κοινωνίας, ὃ δὴ μάλιστα φιλεῖ τά τε ἄλλα πάντα καὶ ὁ ἔρως ἐμποιεῖν. ἔργῳ δὲ τοῦτο ἔμαθον καὶ οἱ ἐνθάδε τύραννοι: ὁ γὰρ Ἀριστογείτονος ἔρως καὶ ἡ Ἁρμοδίου φιλία βέβαιος γενομένη κατέλυσεν αὐτῶν τὴν ἀρχήν.

Translation:
[182c] and all training in philosophy and sports, to be disgraceful, because of their despotic government; since, I presume, it is not to the interest of their princes to have lofty notions engendered in their subjects, or any strong friendships and communions; all of which Love is pre-eminently apt to create. It is a lesson that our despots learnt by experience; for Aristogeiton’s love and Harmodius’s friendship grew to be so steadfast that it wrecked their power.

Why would they misinterpret the word friendship, why would they ignore the true meaning of pederasty which Plato describes (181c) as of the “heavenly Aphrodite”, which has nothing to do with wantonness , why ignore the words of Plato in his Hipparchus, who although provides a questionable account on his death, tells us exactly what their relationship was (229c) Harmodius “πεπαιδεῦσθαι ὑπ᾽ ἐκείνου” (was educated by him [Aristogeiton]), why ignore the numerous accounts which speak of their contribution to the fall of tyrany but choose to promote the context of a single text and finally why not see how their relationship was used in real life and not some philosophic discussion which is by no means an accurate source for deducting conclusions upon everyday realities ?
Aeschines, Against Timarchus 140

Original:
Ἁρμόδιον καὶ Ἀριστογείτονα, ὁ σώφρων καὶ ἔννομος, εἴτε ἔρωτα εἴτε ὅντινα τρόπον χρὴ προσειπεῖν, τοιούτους ἐπαίδευσεν, ὥστε τοὺς ἐπαινοῦντας τὰ ἐκείνων ἔργα καταδεεστέρους δοκεῖν εἶναι ἐν τοῖς ἐγκωμίοις τῶν ἐκείνοις πεπραγμένων.

Translation:
Harmodius and Aristogeiton, men pre-eminent for their virtues, were so nurtured by that chaste and lawful love—or call it by some other name than love if you like—and so disciplined, that when we hear men praising what they did, we feel that words are inadequate to the eulogy of their deeds.

We then move on to the claim of vase paintings suggesting the “dominant status of pederasty in Athenian social life”.. One can’t but wonder how on earth a total of some 30 vases (A.Georgiades “Debunking the Myth of Homosexuality in Ancient Greece”) which indeed do depict a homosexual scene and are presented by K.J.Dover, a Dover that is considered an authority in the field, can justify the outreageous claim of “dominant status”?

One of the most important and prestigious publishing houses in Hellas is that of Ekdotike Athenon, in their series of books dedicated to Hellenic Art there is one volume about ancient vases. In their attempt to measure the amount of vases in total, they conclude that the total of vases unearthed in Athens alone reaches 80.000!!!, 80.000 vases from Athens and despite the fact that Dover managed to find a total of 30, (the rest are either non-related to the subject or simply based on wild assumptions, they dare distort history by claiming “dominant status”.

Of course Dover attempts through mistaken interpretations to find homosexual scenes, for example, according to Dover the well known “Achilles mending Patroklos’ wound” is related to homosexuality.

Accoding to Dover the painter was under great pressure to conceal Patroklos’ genitals.

or this fine example (seen on Dover’s book cover)

In which the hoop, holds a symbolism of its own !!!

We could continue with suggestions that a tiny scortum and large penis or the opposite are such indications or that a boy is standing in a “pose of embarassment” while a man is conversing with a woman, indicates either jealousy or that he wished he had taken the initiative himself !!
The fact of the matter is that 30 vases or even if we were to raise this number to 100, 200 or even 500 or 1000.. are under no condition an amount that could justify the outrageous claim of “dominant status” simply becuase they do not even constitute 1% of the total vases unearthed in Athens alone.

After such exaggerations, distorting the purpose of the paidagogos is no real suprize. According to the “Harry Thurston Peck, Harpers Dictionary of Classical Antiquities” the “paidagogos” was:

(paidagôgos, “boy-leader”). The name among the Greeks for the slave who had the duty of looking after the son of his master while in boyhood, instructing him in certain rules of good manners, and attending him whenever he went out, especially to school and to the palaestra and gymnasium.

As anyone can see, the “fiery courtship” the authors claim had very little to do with the institution of the ‘paidagogos’.

While they continue by noting the existance of laws, they, either due to ignorance or mallicious intent, jump to totally flawed conclusions by suggesting that citizens were allowed to have sexual relations with children. One can’t but wonder how they’d miss the laws cited in Aeschines’ “Against Timarchus” especially since they note it as their source?

Against Timarchus 16

Original:
[Ἄν τις Ἀθηναίων ἐλεύθερον παῖδα ὑβρίσῃ, γραφέσθω ὁ κύριος τοῦ παιδὸς πρὸς τοὺς θεσμοθέτας, τίμημα ἐπιγραψάμενος. οὗ δ᾽ ἂν τὸ δικαστήριον καταψηφίσηται, παραδοθεὶς τοῖς ἕνδεκα τεθνάτω αὐθημερόν.

Translation:
If any Athenian shall outrage a free-born child, the parent or guardian of the child shall demand a specific penalty. If the court condemn the accused to death, he shall be delivered to the constables and be put to death the same day.

While the use of “outrage” in the traslation may be misleading the use of ‘ὑβρίσῃ’ in the original leaves us no doubts what so ever. According to the “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon” :
ὑβρίσῃ=wax wanton, run riot, treat him despitefully, outrage, insult, maltreat.

But even if they didn’t understand it when reading Aeschines’ speech, they could have read Demosthenes’ “Against Midias”

Demosthenes, Against Midias 47

Original:
[47] “Νόμος

ἐάν τις ὑβρίζῃ εἴς τινα, ἢ παῖδα ἢ γυναῖκα ἢ ἄνδρα, τῶν ἐλευθέρων ἢ τῶν δούλων, ἢ παράνομόν τι ποιήσῃ εἰς τούτων

Translation:
[47] “Law

If anyone assaults any child or woman or man, whether free or slave, or commits any unlawful act against anyone of these

So in short the whole claim of any such form of action being accepted or even allowed is nothing but a total fallacy as the laws cited clearly indicate.

They continue with a reference to “tradition” which they have done anything but respect by again making reference to Harmodius and Aristogeiton, but also add the questionable account of Atheneus on Cratinus and Aristodemus found in his Deipnosophits (13.78). But the problem isn’t if the account is questionable on the basis that Diogenes Laertius mentions the pair being Cratinus and Ctesibius (Life of Epemenidis III) or not, but that the only account of it (Atheneus) clarifies that it isn’t true !!!

Athenaeus Deipnosophists 13.79

Original:
τα περί Κρατίνον και Αριστόδημον πεπλάσθαι φύσιν

Translation:
(the story) of Cratinus and Aristodemus is fiction

Why on earth totally disregard what your source clearly notes about the couple if not to intentionally promote the notion of acceptance of homosexual relations?

They the rediculously attempt to find proof of acceptance of homosexual relations in the speech of Perikles noted in Thucydides. But as already explained in the article “Pederasty“, Perikles’ speech has little to do with homosexual relations but to the contrary we see that the true meaning of “εραστής” through his metaphor. As the ‘εραστής’ seeks nothing more than his ‘ερώμενος’ virtue, his charater, his spiritual elevation, that will allow him to accomplish truelly greaty feats. In order to accomplish this, not even his life is a great enough price to pay, especially since the ‘ερώμενος’ in our case, is the city of Athens itself.

Yet another intentionally distorted quote to present acceptance of homosexual relations, this time even implicating the father. The authors selectively quote and intentionally take out of context a quote from Xenophon’s Symposium and present it as follows:

Wikipedia’s distortion:

It was proper for the lover to respect the authority of the boy’s father. According to Xenophon, “Nothing [of what concerns the boy] is kept hidden from the father, by a noble lover.”

But what does Xenophon actually say?

Xenophon Symposium 8.1.10-11

Original:
[10] εἰκάσαις δ᾽ ἂν καὶ τοὺς ἔρωτας τὴν μὲν Πάνδημον τῶν σωμάτων ἐπιπέμπειν, τὴν δ᾽ Οὐρανίαν τῆς ψυχῆς τε καὶ τῆς φιλίας καὶ τῶν καλῶν ἔργων. ὑφ᾽ οὗ δὴ καὶ σύ, ὦ Καλλία, κατέχεσθαι μοι δοκεῖς ἔρωτος.

[11] τεκμαίρομαι δὲ τῇ τοῦ ἐρωμένου καλοκἀγαθίᾳ καὶ ὅτι σε ὁρῶ τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ παραλαμβάνοντα εἰς τὰς πρὸς τοῦτον συνουσίας. οὐδὲν γὰρ τούτων ἐστὶν ἀπόκρυφον πατρὸς τῷ καλῷ τε κἀγαθῷ ἐραστῇ.

Tranlsation:
[10] One might conjecture, also, that different types of love come from the different sources, carnal love from the ‘Vulgar’ Aphrodite, and from the ‘Heavenly’ spiritual love, love of friendship and of noble conduct. That is the sort of love, Callias, that seems to have you in its grip.

[11] I infer this from the noble nature of the one you love and because I see that you include his father in your meetings with him. For the virtuous lover does not make any of these matters a secret from the father of his beloved.”

So Xenophon is talking about “Heavenly Spiritual Love”, that of friendship and noble conduct and NOT that related to carnal lust. To the disappointment of the wiki authors, their notion of homosexuality being accepted is but a conveniently constructed myth by homosexuals in their attempt to legitimize same sex.

They then continue by misquoting Aelianus’ “Various History”, according to these individuals, in 11.11 we should find an account of Xanthippe’s jealous rage. Unfortunately the verse in question has nothing to do with the notion in question but actually states:

Aelianus Various History 11.11

Original:
Ότι Διονύσιος Σικελός περί την ίατρικήν εσπούδασε καί αύτος, και ίατο και έτέμνε και έκαε και τα λοίπα.

Tranlation:
Dionysus Sicelus also had studied medicine, and cured and cut (as a surgeon) and burnt ..etc

While the verse is indeed found only a couple of lines down, the whole point which they neglect to mention is that the Atheneans literally detested him for his defection and siding with Sparta, an action which literally changed the outcome of the war.
The very fact that no contemporary account of such relations exists, added to Plutarch’s account of false accusations against him (Lives Alcibiades 19-21) of showing disrespect to the Eleusinian goddesses make us conclude that this indeed is propaganda.
Had Alcibiades been implicated in such relations, we know that they could have simply enforced the laws cited in Aeschines’ “Against Timarchus” since they existed since the time of Solon and by doing so, strip him of his position, making the constructed accusations totally worthless since they could accomplish their objective by simply citing the law.

Nice try “boys”, keep them coming.

Advertisements

Wikipedia fallacies

In Wikipedia (yes the “encyclopedia” that anyone can edit) we find an article titled “Homosexuality in ancient Greece”. Beside the obvious interest in the topic, what caught my attention was the total rejection to provide the slightest explaination to WHY quotes are taken out of context (intentionally?), distorted and presented in such a manner to support the twisted agenda that some obviously are striving to promote.

To the article…..

The first audacious claim one comes across, is that homosexual relations between men and boys were… quote “widespread” unquote. To legitimize this claim, they allegedly present quotes from various texts of the Hellenic anthology.

The first one we come across is that of Herodotus 1.135 which is already descussed in “Pederasty”, the second, is an alleged quote from Plato’s Phaedrus 227a:

The exact text according to perseus.tufts is as follows:

Phaedrus 227a

Original :
[227α]

Σωκράτης
ὦ φίλε Φαῖδρε, ποῖ δὴ καὶ πόθεν;

Φαῖδρος
παρὰ Λυσίου, ὦ Σώκρατες, τοῦ Κεφάλου, πορεύομαι δὲ πρὸς περίπατον ἔξω τείχους: συχνὸν γὰρ ἐκεῖ διέτριψα χρόνον καθήμενος ἐξ ἑωθινοῦ. τῷ δὲ σῷ καὶ ἐμῷ ἑταίρῳ πειθόμενος Ἀκουμενῷ κατὰ τὰς ὁδοὺς ποιοῦμαι τοὺς περιπάτους: φησὶ γὰρ ἀκοπωτέρους εἶναι τῶν ἐν τοῖς

Translation :

[227a]

Socrates
Dear Phaedrus, whither away, and where do you come from?

Phaedrus
From Lysias, Socrates, the son of Cephalus; and I am going for a walk outside the wall. For I spent a long time there with Lysias, sitting since early morning; and on the advice of your friend and mine, Acumenus, I am taking my walk on the roads; for he says they are less fatiguing

Its actually mind-boggling how on earth anyone would try to relate this quote to the notion of homosexuality, but it seems that the wonderkids at Wiki managed to do it..

The next quote presented which allegedly supports their objective, which is to promote the fallacious notion that homosexuality was accepted comes from Xenophon’s, Memorabilia 2.6.28. Only this time, we don’t have some quote that needs interpretation since the hidden meaning is only seen by the individual that added the source, but a clear act of distorting the text’s meaning since they have intentionally nit-picked the quote and taken it out of context to support their cause.

Xenophon’s, Memorabilia 2.6.28

Original:

[28] ἀλλὰ θαρρῶν, ἔφη, ὦ Κριτόβουλε, πειρῶ ἀγαθὸς γίγνεσθαι, καὶ τοιοῦτος γενόμενος θηρᾶν ἐπιχείρει τοὺς καλούς τε κἀγαθούς. ἴσως δ᾽ ἄν τί σοι κἀγὼ συλλαβεῖν εἰς τὴν τῶν καλῶν τε κἀγαθῶν θήραν ἔχοιμι διὰ τὸ ἐρωτικὸς εἶναι: δεινῶς γάρ, ὧν ἂν ἐπιθυμήσω ἀνθρώπων, ὅλος ὥρμημαι ἐπὶ τὸ φιλῶν τε αὐτοὺς ἀντιφιλεῖσθαι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν καὶ ποθῶν ἀντιποθεῖσθαι, καὶ ἐπιθυμῶν συνεῖναι καὶ ἀντεπιθυμεῖσθαι τῆς συνουσίας.

Translation:

[28] Courage, Critobulus; try to be good, and when you have achieved that, set about catching your gentleman. Maybe, I myself, as an adept in love, can lend you a hand in the pursuit of gentlemen. For when I want to catch anyone it’s surprising how I strain every nerve to have my love returned, my longing reciprocated by him, in my eagerness that he shall want me as much as I want him.

The objective is clear, since when reading this nit-picked quote, the reader will indeed comprehend that what they are talking about is nothing more than homosexual relations. BUT since this isn’t wiki and the perversion trying to be promoted is not accepted, I’ll do what they should have done and add the following verse which clarifies exactly what Xenophon is writing about and exposes the individuals that composed this wikipedia article for what they really are trying to do. Which is striving to promote their sexual preference through distortions and intentional manipulation of texts.

Xenophon’s, Memorabilia 2.6.29-30

Original:

[29] ὁρῶ δὲ καὶ σοὶ τούτων δεῆσον, ὅταν ἐπιθυμήσῃς φιλίαν πρός τινας ποιεῖσθαι: μὴ οὖν ἀποκρύπτου με οἷς ἂν βούλῃ φίλος γενέσθαι: διὰ γὰρ τὸ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι τοῦ ἀρέσαι τῷ ἀρέσκοντί μοι οὐκ ἀπείρως οἶμαι ἔχειν πρὸς θήραν ἀνθρώπων.

[30] καὶ ὁ Κριτόβουλος ἔφη: καὶ μήν, ὦ Σώκρατες, τούτων ἐγὼ τῶν μαθημάτων πάλαι ἐπιθυμῶ ἄλλως τε καὶ εἰ ἐξαρκέσει μοι ἡ αὐτὴ ἐπιστήμη ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς τὰς ψυχὰς καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς καλοὺς τὰ σώματα.

Translation:

[29] I see that you too will feel this need when you want to form a friendship. So do not hide from me the names of those whom you wish to make your friends; for I am careful to please him who pleases me, and so, I think, I am not without experience in the pursuit of men.”
[30] “Well, Socrates,” said Critobulus in reply, “these are the lessons I have long wished to learn, especially if the same skill will serve to win a good soul and a fair face.”

Honestly how should one characterize the individuals that resort to such pathetic distortions??

We then come accross the questionable account of Atheneus. Questionable simply because the author is justfully not titled as a historian and this early Christian writter commits several mistakes, fine examples is the Bagoas issues explained in the article related to Alexander, he mentions Ulpian numerous times and mentions his death when Ulpian dies at a later date (and in a different manner) so he must be talking about some other figure without providing any info and thus misleading, he attributes a quote to Hieronymus the Peripatetic, when this quote is identical to what Plato has written, he claims that the ‘Band of Thebes’ was founded by Epameinondas when we know it was Gorgidas..etc .but anyway.

Since the band is mentioned and Atheneus uses it in his text as an example, lets look at the text.

Plutarch Pelopidas 18

Original:
δεον εραστή παρ’ ερώμενον ταττειν. φυλέτας μεν γαρ φυλετών καί φρατόρων ου πολύν λόγον εέχειν εν τοίς δυνοίς, το δ’εξ ερωτικής φιλίας συνηρμοσμένον στίφος αδιάλυτον είναικαι αρρήκτον…

Translation:
but that he should have joined lovers and their beloved. For men of the same tribe or family little value one another when dangers press; but a band cemented by friendship grounded upon love, is never to be broken, and invincible; ….

Most scholars agree that Plutarch’s account originates from the text of Plato in whih we read Phaedrus statement:

Plato’s Symposium 178e-179a

Original:
[178ε] οὐδενὸς ὡς ὑπὸ παιδικῶν. ταὐτὸν δὲ τοῦτο καὶ τὸν ἐρώμενον ὁρῶμεν, ὅτι διαφερόντως τοὺς ἐραστὰς αἰσχύνεται, ὅταν ὀφθῇ ἐν αἰσχρῷ τινι ὤν. εἰ οὖν μηχανή τις γένοιτο ὥστε πόλιν γενέσθαι ἢ στρατόπεδον ἐραστῶν τε καὶ παιδικῶν, οὐκ ἔστιν ὅπως ἂν ἄμεινον οἰκήσειαν τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἢ ἀπεχόμενοι πάντων τῶν αἰσχρῶν καὶ φιλοτιμούμενοι πρὸς

[179α] ἀλλήλους, καὶ μαχόμενοί γ᾽ ἂν μετ᾽ ἀλλήλων οἱ τοιοῦτοι νικῷεν ἂν ὀλίγοι ὄντες ὡς ἔπος εἰπεῖν πάντας ἀνθρώπους. ἐρῶν γὰρ ἀνὴρ ὑπὸ παιδικῶν ὀφθῆναι ἢ λιπὼν τάξιν ἢ ὅπλα ἀποβαλὼν ἧττον ἂν δήπου δέξαιτο ἢ ὑπὸ πάντων τῶν ἄλλων, καὶ πρὸ τούτου τεθνάναι ἂν πολλάκις ἕλοιτο. καὶ μὴν ἐγκαταλιπεῖν γε τὰ παιδικὰ ἢ μὴ βοηθῆσαι κινδυνεύοντι— οὐδεὶς οὕτω κακὸς ὅντινα οὐκ ἂν αὐτὸς ὁ Ἔρως ἔνθεον ποιήσειε πρὸς ἀρετήν, ὥστε ὅμοιον εἶναι τῷ ἀρίστῳ φύσει:

Translation:
and in the selfsame way we see how the beloved is especially ashamed before his lovers when he is observed to be about some shameful business. So that if we could somewise contrive to have a city or an army composed of lovers and their favorites, they could not be better citizens of their country than by thus refraining from all that is base

[179a] in a mutual rivalry for honor; and such men as these, when fighting side by side, one might almost consider able to make even a little band victorious over all the world. For a man in love would surely choose to have all the rest of the host rather than his favorite see him forsaking his station or flinging away his arms; sooner than this, he would prefer to die many deaths: while, as for leaving his favorite in the lurch, or not succoring him in his peril, no man is such a craven that Love’s own influence cannot inspire him with a valor that makes him equal to the bravest born

Besides the evident which is that this relationship exhalts honor. the reference to shame of being seen commiting anything shamefull ..etc
What is extremely interesting is the continuous reference to παιδικὰ which is defined in the “Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon” as:

παιδικὰ
παιδ-ικός , ή, όν,
A. [select] of a child, for or like a child, boyish.

2. playful, sportive,

3. puerile

So we either come to the unhistoric conclusion that children were enlisted in the ancient Hellenic military or that this is indeed nothing more than a philosophic text and should be strictly viewed as one and that the reference to “παιδικὰ” (puerile = lack of maturity) is an indication of mixing the troops and combining the strength (and lack of military matuirty) of the young with the knoledge of the old thus creating an unbeatable army.

While Plutarch’s Pelopidas is selectively quoted to support the existance of such an army, very few make reference to the quote which he puts in the mouth of Philip and by doing so overhtorwing any suspicions on what the ‘band’ was all about.

Plutarch Pelopidas 18.23-24

Original:

Απόλοιντο κακώς οι τούτους τι ποιείν ή πάσχειν αισχρόν υπονοούντες.

Translation:

“Perish misserably any man who suspects that these men either did or suffered anything that was base.”

As we continue reading this article we find reference to Sappho which according to David M. Halperin’s (Queer studies professor well known for his class “How to Be Gay”) entry in the Oxford Classical Dictionary who the article notes as its source, was indeed a “Lesbian” (with the meaning attested in the late 1800’s)…
One can’t but wonder how this Prof. could overlook the fact that Hesychius in his Lexicon’s entry Lambda 696 clearly notes:

Lambda 696
Original:
<λεσβίσαι>:
αίτίας είχον ατόπους αί από Λέσβου

Translation:

false accusations (on the women) of Lesbos.

A similar account is found in the Suda Lexikon entry Sigma 107:

Original:
καί διαβολήν έσχέν αίσχράς φιλίας

Translation:
and false accusation/slander of having shameful friendship

The Suda also tell us of her marriage to Kerkylas and of their daughter Kleis, but equally if not more interesting is entry Sigma 108 in which we read:

Original:
au(/th di’ e)/rwta Fa/wnoj tou= Mitulhnai/ou e)k tou= Leuka/tou katepo/ntwsen e(auth/n.

Translation:
threw herself into the sea from the cliff of Leukates for love of Phaon of Mytilene.

Sappho’s poems aren’t actually described as erotic (not in the conventional form) but as describing a form of “terror”, she never describes the feelings as we usually see with terms of joy, happiness..etc.. but as a torment. She never describes the joyfull feeling seen in others but an emptyness, pain and misery left from emense passion…

From the above among other sources, we know for a fact that she was a mother and wife that wrote “epithalamia”= “wedding songs” that spoke, not of lesbian affairs but of the beauty of young girls that were about to become wifes and mothers themselves. But unfortunately even though her poems are lost and we only have one in whole (saved by Dionysos of Hallicarnasos).. while the rest are mere fragments that hardly allow us to understand the topic, let alone deduce alleged homosexual emotions, the “scholars” seem to insist on supporting what to the rest of us remains a huge unanswered question.

Finally a partially correct historic account in this article !!!

Even though the authors should have centralized on informing their readers of his poetic style “Cleomachean” and should have informed us where they came to the outrageous conclusion that the Chalcideans adopted “pederasty”, the reference to Cleomachus, while correctly mentioned as an example of a homosexual affairs is equally interesting, since Strabo clarifies whom the other participant is and leaves us little doubt about the distinction between his relationship and that of an “εραστής- ερώμενος”.

Strabo, Geography 14.1.47

Original:
εἰς ἔρωτα ἐμπεσὼν κιναίδου τινὸς καὶ παιδίσκης ὑπὸ [τῷ] κιναίδῳ τρεφομένης

Translation:
having fallen in love with a certain cinaedus and with a young female slave who was kept as a prostitute by the cinaedus

for the meaning of “κίναιδως” see “defining homosexual”

Unfortunately one correct account doesn’t pt an end to the fallacies. This time we hear the outrageous claim of Achilles and Patroklos having a homoerotic affair. In support of this claim we read another quote from the Prof. with the agenda, David M. Halperin.
Here we learn that Plato in his Symposium and Aechines in his Against Timarchus allegedly provide us with proof of this relationship.
It seems like some are in desparate need of re-reading the text for Aeschines clarifies exactly what kind of relationship he’s talkig about when he quotes Euripides:

Aeschines Against Timarchus 151

Original:
ὁ τοίνυν οὐδενὸς ἧττον σοφὸς τῶν ποιητῶν Εὐριπίδης, ἕν τι τῶν καλλίστων ὑπολαμβάνων εἶναι τὸ σωφρόνως ἐρᾶν, ἐν εὐχῆς μέρει τὸν ἔρωτα ποιούμενος λέγει που:

“ ὁ δ᾽ εἰς τὸ σῶφρον ἐπ᾽ ἀρετήν τ᾽ ἄγων ἔρως
ζηλωτὸς ἀνθρώποισιν, ὧν εἴην ἐγώ.”

Translation:
Again, Euripides, a poet than whom none is wiser, considering chaste love to be one of the most beautiful things, says somewhere, making love a thing to be prayed for:

“There is a love that makes men virtuous
And chaste, an envied gift. Such love I crave.

Its based on this notion of love that Homer informs us of Patroklos’ obligations as the “ερώμενος”:

Homer Iliad 11.786-789:

Original:
τέκνον ἐμὸν γενεῇ μὲν ὑπέρτερός ἐστιν Ἀχιλλεύς,
πρεσβύτερος δὲ σύ ἐσσι: βίῃ δ᾽ ὅ γε πολλὸν ἀμείνων.
ἀλλ᾽ εὖ οἱ φάσθαι πυκινὸν ἔπος ἠδ᾽ ὑποθέσθαι
καί οἱ σημαίνειν: ὃ δὲ πείσεται εἰς ἀγαθόν περ.

Translation:
‘My child, in birth is Achilles nobler than thou, but thou art the elder though in might he is the better far. Yet do thou speak to him well a word of wisdom and give him counsel, and direct him; and he will obey thee to his profit.