Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
c a Se y c . mo ore Cross-Dressing: Ancient and Modern Reappropriations of Homosexual Identity It turns out that where homoeroticism is granted full social sanction, as it was in Rome, it flourishes . . . Men, we learn from ancient Rome, will enjoy sex with other men, if there is no social censure . . . And so now we come back to the idyllic day of free choice and tolerance envisioned by the gay and lesbian movement. Joshua Berman Without dispute, the understood schemata for sexual relations in the ancient world signic fi antly diverge from those of the modern world, especially those that me- diated behavior in same-s ex sexual or social relations. Same-s ex relations in an- cient Rome—and in fact, all sexual relations—were largely predicated on notions of power, of domination and submission, and of social class.1 As Marilyn Skinner notes, “Sex relations were structured hierarchically, in contrast to our ideal of equality between the partners, and the gender roles of active and passive partner were not tied to sex—for the person in the submissive role, at least, structural ‘femi- ninity’ was the consequence of lower status, not sex” (19).2 As far as
The Comparatist – University of North Carolina Press
Published: May 12, 2013
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.