How can you justify an ethical loving relationship between an older male lover and a younger male lover?

Question

I'm referring to an erastes and eromenos here as referenced in the Symposium [speeches on love by socrates and counterparts]

does love inspire virtue?

if you're familiar with these speeches im especially keen to hear from you. but if not dont worry, just give your opinion on it; its nature in the past or its nature these days... like 'NAMBLA' :P

Answer 1

i believe that love is love and love is blind.

if they are in love, who is to deny them their feelings?

Answer 2

i know a 16 y/o guy who is dating a 35 y/o guy. the 35 y/o realy loves the 16 y/o but the 16 y/o is only dating him because he has **** loads of cash and is alowed to spend whatever, whenever.

Answer 3

Men are all alike in that they are interested in the idea of youth. But men are also all alike in that they should do their best to avoid giving in to the desire for that. We've decided that 18 is the magic number, so let's just stick to it.

I'd also like to say that love DOES inspire virtue, thus when virtue is absent in a place, there love cannot be. Is it virtuous to ensnare a youth? I don't think so.

Answer 4

Is it virtuous to ensnare a youth? It most certainly does not. Treyvon is right. Relationships between men and "boys" has always been under the microscope through out time. I'm sorry but I don't understand how any "man" in his right mind can condone a relationship with a boy under legal age. Regardless of how much in "love" they are, it is not right. Unless it involves "star crossed" teens, a relationship with someone under legal age with an older person is not right. NAMBLA is way out of line as far as I am concerned. Of course it is just me opinion.  

Answer 5

I see two questions here.

As to the question of whether love inspires virtue, I think that is unquestionably yes.  If we are loved, we will tend to love in return: and love is the basis of all virture and good.

The other question is whether an older male lover may properly inspire a younger male lover.  I have read varying accounts of how this worked in ancient Greece.  Some say that the ideal of the erastes/eronemos relationship was non-sexual, and that it usually was lived out in a non-sexual fashion, stressing the education and grooming of the teen boy.  Others say, no, it was sexual, and that such sexual relations were intercrural (as the vases show); still others say that anal intercourse was also part of it, as witnessed by comedies that were current in that day.

I gather the age of the younger male would have been between 12 and 17 or 18.  The older males were any age over 18, up to perhaps 30.  What troubles me deeply about that arrangement is the likelihood that the younger boy would be taken advantage of sexually by the elder male.

I do not think that the average youth is emotionally equipped to deal with the pressure of an older, dominant male wanting romance from him, particularly since the eronemos and erastes lived together.  We know now from experience with clergy and teacher s*x abuse cases that a person in a mentoring role has enormous emotional power over the younger person, even if they do not realize this.  There is a built-in inequity and the younger person might be unable to say "no".

I believe in a more idealised Hebrew vision of romantic love as witnessed in the Genesis Hebrew text, "I shall make him a helper equal to him" and in the egalitarian Song of Solomon.  To me, two males of roughly the same age would be good romantic partners if they were so inclined, but a significant age difference waves red flags in my mind -- that is sexual "taking-advantage-of" waiting to happen.

As for NAMBLA, that lamentable group has been discredited for many years.  I think it is underground now if it exists at all as an organization.  Their chant about young boys, "Eight is too late" is so reprehensible I can hardly bear to think of it.  I remember my own child as she was at the age of eight.  (I used to be married.)  There is just no way such a child is emotionally or physically or mentally able to enter into a sexual relationship at all, let alone with an older person.  That is child molestation and rape, pure and simple.

I believe s*x is for love, not for domination.

And love does not have to be sexualized.

The love of a pupil for a teacher is common and beautiful; but if that is sexualized, it poisons the well of learning and becomes a swamp of lust instead of a watered field ready to be planted that a non-sexualized education can produce.

I think of myself as a teen boy.  If a male in his 20s had taken me into his life, I would have been flattered and done hero-worship and might have been inspired to emulate him.  Being g*y myself, I might have been open to a sexualization of the relationship.  Hahaha, okay, I'll be honest, I would have loved it.  But my heart would then have been jeopardized should he have ended our relationship when I turned eighteen, as was typical.  I would then have been crushed and devastated to be without my lover.  Besides, as a g*y guy I am not the norm!  Most boys would be weirded out being romantic with an older male, because most boys are wired to be drawn to girls.  I think for many adolescent boys, being sexual with an older male might feel just bad and strange and a violation.

The ancient erastes-eronemos system, like slavery, might have had an established place in its day.  But I think it tends to be emotionally unsafe, obviously unequal, vulnerable to misuse, and mistaken in the idea that love must involve s*x.

It had been better for those erastes to have trained the boys in their care, but to have kept it non-romantic.  In that way, the hero-worship and affection that inspires learning would have been retained, but without the danger of sexual abuse.

Answer 6

Well I tried to skip this question, but my thoughts were burning holes through my pockets so here's my 2cents:

I can answer from the female-female perspective. Look at the relationship between Octavia and Servilia (Ancient Rome not Greece in this case). Thats an age gap relationship- thats very beautiful.

I did a speech on the pyschology of attraction and (amidst many theories) there are three fundamentals:

Proximity

Similiarity (or differences)

Recipricity (bad spelling)

and when it comes to people of the same gender, AGE is the opposite factor of attraction. Its like boy/girl are actually..and this sends shivers down my spine- thank goodness Im more les than bi- nways, its that opposites, that repulsion ignites attraction.

Furthermore times change, society changes its dogmas and conditions. I believe that it is completely ethical. Love cant be boxed, its part of human nature (see it like that then you can see it from Socrates's angle). And then I ask to humans what is virtue? Humans are the last to know what that is. I mean even heterosexual relationships are strewn with immorality...so why only point the finger at g*y relationships? Plus, people judge this from a pureply physical/sexual perspective. Emotional and even spiritual connection runs deep. People wont ever understand it totally until it happens to them. Its a flawed arguement (virtue).  

Have you read Ovid's theories?? Well you should. There's the Art of Love (which is very unorthodox but rings true to me) and also read up on Freud (yes I know condescending and a tad contrived) but his thoughts on maternal/paternal love etc...just try it for interests sake. I dont personally believe all of Freud myself so..  

And nways, I speak from being in love with an older woman at the moment...*coughs*, lol.. if you both feel it its right- people just sometimes condition themselves into gulping societies ooh, and ahhs as holy, its very narrow-minded. Hope that helps. :) oh and i just googled NAMBLA, very interesting..so yes, it seems neo-liberalism does have some good to it.