Homosexuality in ancient Egypt

9 views
Skip to first unread message

JTEM

unread,
May 23, 2005, 1:46:42 AM5/23/05
to

This is real -- no trolling -- and these are real
web sites put together by serious people.

Any credentialed Egyptologists care to comment
on this subject?

This first link is the most interesting in my mind, as
the source appears credible enough. Are there
alternative views?

http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/

There's plenty of others, but I'll limit myself to one
more, because you don't need 20 cites to offer an
opinion:

http://www.gayegypt.com/aneggaygod.html

JTEM

unread,
May 23, 2005, 2:05:05 AM5/23/05
to

This is serious -- no trolling -- and these are real
web sites put together by serious people, not
lunatic new-agers.

And SERIOUS comments/opinions on this?

This first link is the most interesting in my mind, as

the source appears totally credible. Are there

Saved by Jesus

unread,
May 23, 2005, 8:47:11 AM5/23/05
to

> This is serious -- no trolling -- and these are real
> web sites put together by serious people, not
> lunatic new-agers.

> http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/


>
> There's plenty of others, but I'll limit myself to one
> more, because you don't need 20 cites to offer an
> opinion:
>
> http://www.gayegypt.com/aneggaygod.html

This must be a troll because homosexualists insist that
homosexuality wasn't invented until the 19th century!

How could it have existed in ancient Egypt?

But if it did, it explains why their civilization has
collapsed!


JTEM

unread,
May 23, 2005, 9:02:21 AM5/23/05
to

"DanielSan" <danie...@myrealbox.com> wrote

> > How could it have existed in ancient Egypt?

> It did.

But what was it's nature?

Accepted? Heavily frowned upon? Part of some
ritual acceptable only for priests?

Katherine Griffis

unread,
May 23, 2005, 8:57:04 AM5/23/05
to
JTEM wrote:

What specifically do you want responded to? That homosexuality existed
in Egypt, or specifically about Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep?

I think the answer to the first is obvious (yes, it did), and as for
the other, Mr. Reeder's opinion is disputed by some "serious"
Egyptologists. Others interpret the pair as bothers or even twins,
which could also account for their closeness in the artwork (Baines
1985; Cherpion 1986). Mr. Reeder's interpretation is not the only one
by any means.

As for the interpretation about Seth (Sutekh) on the other website, I
would say it's taking more than liberty with the myths surrounding this
god than required. Sutekh attempts to rape his nephew Horus as part of
the _power struggle between the two gods_, and Isis knows that
_beforehand_ and to turn the tables on this plan, requires that Horus
allow the homosexual embrace gather Sutekh's semen in his hand, to
later spread around the lettuce plants. Then, when the semen calls out
from Sutekh's own bowels (since he ate the semen-laced lettuce, his
favourite vegetable), the plan to disgrace Horus backfires and Sutekh
becomes the laughingstock of the gods (Griffiths 1960).

The "unification" of Sutekh and Horus is not about Horus, son of Isis,
however, but concerning a deity referred to as the "Elder Horus", who
was _brother_ to Sutekh. Since Horus the Elder represented Lower
Egypt, and Sutekh represented Upper Egypt in early iconography, the
'unification' (/smA tAwy/) of these two deities represent the _unity of
the Two Lands_ (which is the literal meaning of /smA tAwy/), and not a
matter of homosexual union (Nibbi 1997). Similarly, as te Velde (1977)
indicated, with the Elder Horus represented the civilised land of Egypt
and Sutekh, the wild and uninhabited desert lands, this symbols has yet
another layer of meaning of these gods representing the land itself.

Sutekh is acknowledged to have several consorts (Anat, Astarte,
Taweret, for example (te Velde 1977)) - but the goddess Nephthys,
however, is attested as his wife, who flees from him after the murder
of Osiris, who is brother to them both (Osiris and Isis are brother and
sister, as well as husband and wife, just as Nephthys and Sutekh are
similarly related).

te Velde (1968) has noted that Sutekh represents the "trickster"
element in Egyptian mythology - a god who operates 'outside' the
boundaries of civilised behaviour. His unnatural birth from the side
of Nut, his appearance, his function in the temporal plane of
existence (he is the god of abortiofacient events, the brawler who
causes storms, god of foreigners, etc.) shows him to be a god "outside"
the otherwise famially-oriented concept of the gods of Egypt. His
homosexuality is an extension of that "outsider" quality, but as noted
above, it is used as a means of dominion over another deity, and not as
an expression of desire.

In general, the texts indicate that homosexuality was not a desirable
trait, particularly pedophilia with young boys. One of the "negative
statements" on the Books of Coming forth by Dat, made as part of the
Spell 125 Negative Confession by the deceased before the gods in the
afterlife is that 'not have I lain (/nk/) with a young man,' which was
interpreted as a sin which could keep one from receiving a positive
judgment before the gods and disallow the deceased into the afterlife
(Manniche 1997: 22).

Reference:

Baines, J. 1985. Egyptian Twins. Orientalia 54: 461-482.

Cherpion, N. 1986. Deux manucures royaux de la Ve dynastie. In A.
Théodoridès, P. Naster, R. Ries, eds., _Archéologie et Philologie
dans l'étude des civilisations orientales_: 65-72. Acta Orientalia
Belgica 4. Leuven: Peeters.

Griffiths, J. G. 1960. _The Conflict of Horus and Seth from Egyptian
and Classical Sources. A Study in Ancient Mythology_. Liverpool
Monographs in Archaeology and Oriental Studies. H. W. Fairman, ed.
Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Manniche, L. 1997. _Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt_. London: Kegal Paul
International.

Nibbi, A. 1997. Some Notes on the Two Lands of Ancient Egypt and the
"Heraldic" Plants. DE 37: 23-49. (On the iconography of the /smA tAwy/
unification plants between Seth and Horus, and how they represent the
Two Lands of Egypt)

te Velde, H. 1968. The Egyptian God Seth as a Trickster. JARCE 7:
37-40.

____________. 1977. _Seth, God of Confusion. A Study of His Role in
Egyptian Mythology and Religion_. G. E. van Baaren-Pape, transl.
Probleme der Ägyptologie. 6. W. Helck. Leiden: Brill.

HTH.

Regards --
---
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, MA (Lon)
Member, International Association of Egyptologists
American Research Center in Egypt, SSEA, ASOR

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
University of Oxford
Oxford, United Kingdom

http://www.griffis-consulting.com

JTEM

unread,
May 23, 2005, 9:22:03 AM5/23/05
to

"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote

> http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/

> What specifically do you want responded to? That
> homosexuality existed in Egypt, or specifically about
> Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep?

The latter, as that (at least) implies some level of social
awareness/acceptance.

Like it or not, the source (Reeder) does lend a certain
legitimacy to the homosexual relationship idea -- at
least for us laymen types -- because of KMT magazine.

Katherine Griffis

unread,
May 24, 2005, 4:43:49 AM5/24/05
to
JTEM wrote:

It takes usually only a visit to your local lending library, however,
to achieve access to the articles which argue otherwise, via
inter-library lending.

You asked if there were serious scholastic disagreements with Reeder's
conclusion about these two individuals; there are. That there was a
distaste for homosexuality in the society comes from Egyptian texts
themselves, as I cited earlier.

So, it would appear it is upon you to familiarise yourself with the
reasons against Reeder's proposed interpretation as well.

Your choice.

Done.

Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 24, 2005, 11:41:03 AM5/24/05
to
I'm a little confused by name changes that occured during the life of a
person. Was it typical for an Egyptian to keep their birth name or did
their name change as they assumed different positions in society? The names
of these two individuals both reflect some type of union (?) (
http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/names.html ) and I was
wondering if it may be their birth names or names later given to them.
Also, I'm under the impression "twins" at birth were not considered a good
thing. Is there anything to that?


"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:1116924229.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Lamb of God

unread,
May 24, 2005, 5:36:41 PM5/24/05
to

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote

> I'm a little confused by name changes that occured during
> the life of a person.

Same here. One book mentioning the subject implied that it
was quite common, while other sources apparently find it
not even worthy of mention.


stoney

unread,
May 24, 2005, 7:45:06 PM5/24/05
to
On Mon, 23 May 2005 02:05:05 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Looks like the 'bases' are all covered to me.


--

Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP

"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)

Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)

Message has been deleted

Alan OBrien

unread,
May 25, 2005, 7:31:23 AM5/25/05
to
"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:crWdnQs9SNy...@comcast.com...

They look like brothers to me. And they were both manicurists - perhaps they
followed the trade of their mum or dad.
It could be that they were gay, though. I have never seen any specific
Egyptian prohibition on homosexuality.


Katherine Griffis

unread,
May 25, 2005, 7:48:14 AM5/25/05
to
Jon Erlandson wrote:

> I'm a little confused by name changes that occured during the life of a
> person. Was it typical for an Egyptian to keep their birth name or did
> their name change as they assumed different positions in society?<

Not as I am aware: I too noted that Mr. Reeder says on the 'name'
section of the website:

".... We do not know at what point in their lives they assumed these
names."

I am confused as to why he thinks these names are _not_ the men's birth
names, as changing names, particularly birth names which carry the
'essence' of a human being (on this, see the story of the 'naming' of
the triplet kings at birth by goddesses in the Westcar Papyrus) was
quite rare (Aufrere 1989, Ranke 1977 (1949)). The importance of the
naming process is evoked eloquently in the statement of Isis when she
attempts to discern Ra's "secret name," and is told by the eldest god,
in rejecting her request, that his 'true' name was spoken by his
parent/s at birth, and has a magical power:

"... It [the name] is hidden within the body at birth, so that no
wizard or sorceress is given power over me..."

Another text states the God Amun devises the 'true' name of the king in
3 parts upon his conception, when the god couples with the queen,
basing the names upon the words uttered by the queen during conception
(Ranke 1977 (1949): 3, n. 6). With such power inherent in the birth
name as expressed in Egyptian literature, it would be, to me, very
uncommon for a person, royal or non-royal, to change his name since in
doing so, any history of deeds attached to the previous name would be
forgotten by the gods, and would interfere with the overall essence of
the human being.

Of royalty, I believe only Akhenaten is known to have changed his birth
name, although changing in royal epithetical titulary names (not throne
names) occurred with some frequency from about the time of Thutmose III
onwards in the 18th Dynasty (Hannig 1995: 1273b). In extension, the
_damnatio memoriae_ of Akhenaten's throne and second birth name, where
it was never written or spoken again, but the Atenist king was only
referred to epithetically (as "the rebel," or "the enemy of Akhetaten,"
in the inscription of Mose during the Ramesside period, for example)
confirms the power of the birth (and throne) name/s as sustaining the
essence of the human being, even after death.

>The names of these two individuals both reflect some type of union (?)

<http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/names.html>

and I was wondering if it may be their birth names or names later given
to them.<

For one, I think Mr. Reeder has been a little liberal in his
translation of the names. For the record, he states at this URL:

"The name Khnum besides being a reference to the god also means 'joined
together' and 'to unite with' and importantly 'associates, companions,
friends,' and even 'house mates.' Their names inscribed together as
they are above, at the entrance to the rock-cut chamber, may be a
design element to suggest a play on words, meaning 'joined in life and
joined in death.'"

Source: <http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/names.html>

As far as I can tell from the deity name itself, "Khnum' /Xnmw/, has
the meaning of "creator," "former (as in 'one who forms [something]'),"
"who one establishes (as a creative function)," etc. Khnum is
represented as a deity who formed mankind and the Ennead as a potter
forms a pot on a wheel, in other words. Similar words of /Xnm/ have
the sense of 'assembling and giving content to,' 'combining separate
elements into one,' 'filling and acquiring (content)', etc. (Hannig
1995: 636b-637a), which tend to refer to creative functions and not
about 'joined together,' as in love or companionship, etc. In fact, I
see no interpretation of the /Xnm/ terms which mean 'companion,'
'house-mate,' or Mr. Reeder's reading that the two names mean
"joined/unified in life and death."

Reeder also appears to argue that the term /Htp/ argues somehow for a
reading of 'death' to make his 'closeness of lovers' argument work.
However, I cannot find any reference in the Wörterbuch or its
derivative works (such as Hannig 1995 or 2000) which argue for this
translation, not even as a euphemism for "the dead" or "death." The
usual meaning of /Htp/ is either technically "offering table," or more
colloquially, "satisfied" or "fulfilled" (Hannig 1995: 568a-569a),
likely as referring to the expected result when the god or the dead are
offered food on a /Htp/ offering table. While the dead are said to be
in a state of /Htp/, this would mean similarly to the term of "resting
in peace" as we refer to memorialising the dead today in the afterlife,
or, in more of the Egyptian mindset, being "fullfilled" into their
final transformation into an akh /Ax/. Perhaps Mr. Reeder could
explain his translation of /Htp/ = 'death' more fully, because I seem
to be missing it.

> Also, I'm under the impression "twins" at birth were not considered a good
> thing. Is there anything to that?

Not in Egyptian culture, but the antipathy to twins was attested in
other ANE and African cultures (Baines 1985: 471, n. 44, n. 46; 478-80,
n. 75-78, where ancient and modern superstitions about twin births and
twins in general are discussed), and where many times they were killed
at birth. This apparently was not true in ancient Egypt, where the
entire godhead group of Heliopolis is based upon the various twin
births emitting from from Atum - first, two sets of fraternal twins
(Shu and Tefnut, who then give birth to the fraternal twins Nut and
Geb), and then two sets of (presumably) identical twins (Seth and
Osiris; Isis and Nephthys), thus completing the first Ennead (set of 9
gods).

As Baines noted in his article on twins in ancient Egypt (1985: 471),
the phenomena and acceptance of the twinning condition was common
enough for usually only passing mention in most Egyptian texts. The
most unequivocal statement we have of Egyptian twins comes from the
stela of Suty and Hor (meaning 'Seth and Horus,' another well-known set
of twinned brothers, according to the ancient Egyptian myth of Sutekh
and the Elder Horus) in the New Kingdom. There, the stela of the two
brothers say of each other:

"I am a righteous one, whose abomination is evil;
I am not content with any words of who who speaks falsely,
but only (those of) my brother,
Who is like me, with whose ways I am satisfied.
He went forth with me from the womb on the same day..." (Baines 1985:
461-462)

Like Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep, Suty and Hor held the same position in
life as "overseer of the works of Amun in southern Opet," and like
their Old Kingdom counterparts, this title is fused together with the
respective names of the two men which tended to appear side by side on
the stela, just as Niankhkhnum's and Khnumhotep's names appear in their
tombs (Baines 1985: 463; 469). Why Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep do not
mention their twin status as do Suty and Hor is also explained by
Baines, who noted that geneaological information in Old Kingdom Tombs
is extremely rare (1985: 464).

As Baines concluded, this linking of the two names with a single title
may reflect a different sort of relationship between Niankhkhnum and
Khnumhotep than that of homosexual lovers:

"The cause of their high status is probably not their social origin;
although there are possible connections between them and tombs at Giza,
they do not ally them with anybody [royal] in particular. It could be
because they were twins. Twinship could elevate status in some cases,
rather as happened with rare dwarfs, who were also close to the king.*
No single detail reviewed here is decisive, but the general effect of
the tomb [of Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep] is of an extended analogy to
the presentation of certain twins Suty and Hor, who also appear to have
enjoyed a higher status than their unknown kinsmen - but they did
perform _jointly_ an important function." (Baines 1985: 469; emphasis,
[ ] and _ _, mine)

* Citing Weeks 1970: 163-204, on the importance of dwarfs in ancient
Egyptian society. Baines noted, however, that more is known about
dwarfs than twins, so Weeks' information is possibly not the best
evidence of values attached to the twinning phenomena in ancient Egypt.

Baines goes on further to note that eventually, the phenomena of
twinning was common enough to evolve into a formal name by the 25th
Dynasty, /pA-Htr/ (masc) and /tA-Htr.t/ (fem), both meaning "the twin."
Later, during the Ptolemaic period, one sees the evolution of the
Greek name in ancient Egypt of "Didymos/Didyme" (masc/fem)which also
means "the twin." In fact, during the Apis ceremonies of the Ptolemaic
period, _didymoi_ (twin girls) were actually required as part of the
ritual to act in the roles of the divine twins, Isis and Nephthys
(Baines 1985: 472), again arguing for an overall positive response in
the ancient culture to the phenomena of twins.

Reference:

Aufrere, S. 1989. Remarques sur la transmission des noms royaux par les
traditions orale et écrite, BIFAO 89: 1-14.

Baines, J. 1985. Egyptian Twins. Orientalia 54: 461-482.

Erman, A. and H. Grapow 1926. _Wörterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache_.
(7 Vols.) Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich.

Hannig, R. 1995. _Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch
Ägyptisch-Deutsch (2800 - 950 v. Chr.)_. Kulturegeschichte der Antiken
Welt 64. Mainz: von Zabern.

__________. 2000. _Die Sprache der Pharaonen: Großes Handwörterbuch
Deutsch-Ägyptisch (2800 - 950 v. Chr.). Lexica 3_. Kulturegeschichte
der Antiken Welt 86. Mainz: von Zabern.

Ranke, H. 1977 (1949). H., _Die ägyptischen Personennamen. Band II.
Form, Inhalt und Geschichte der Namen, 1. Lieferung_: Einleitung: 1-19.
Glückstadt/Hamburg-New York: J. J. Augustin.

Weeks, K. 1970. _The Anatomical Knowledge of the Ancient Egyptians and
the Representation of the Human Figure_. PhD. Dissertation
(unpublished). New Haven: Yale University.

HTH.

JTEM

unread,
May 25, 2005, 9:25:24 AM5/25/05
to

"Alan OBrien" <alaneob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote

> They look like brothers to me. And they were both
> manicurists - perhaps they followed the trade of their
> mum or dad. It could be that they were gay, though. I
> have never seen any specific Egyptian prohibition on
> homosexuality.

Oh I have. But, as Katherine Griffis-Greenberg's "interesting"
response revealed, opinions are often colored by more than
simple facts.

And before anyone freaks on that comment: We couldn't
have such widely differing opinions if people weren't
bringing their own unique perspectives to the table.

Hint: "In general, the texts indicate that homosexuality was


not a desirable trait, particularly pedophilia with
young boys."

It's not unusual to see people introduce pedophilia into a
discussion on homosexuality. It is however quite unusual
to see it done be someone who doesn't have rather overt
"issues" with homosexuality.

This is usenet. By all means, a simple search on google
groups will demonstrate my point quite effectively.

JTEM

unread,
May 25, 2005, 9:37:21 AM5/25/05
to

"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote

> The importance of the naming process is evoked eloquently
> in the statement of Isis when she attempts to discern Ra's
> "secret name," and is told by the eldest god, in rejecting
> her request, that his 'true' name was spoken by his parent/s
> at birth, and has a magical power:

I've often wondered how an alien culture might come to
define us, relying heavily on our religious texts for answers.

"If you could travel back thousands of years to their time,
make sure you don't do it on a Saturday, and if you pack a
lunch make sure it doesn't include a ham sandwich. As we
see from their religious texts, Saturday was their holy day,
and no work what so ever was allowed to be performed.
The punishment was quite harsh: Death. The sentence, we
are left to imagine, being carried out on the following
day so as not to offend their God. Nowhere in the western
cultures of that time could you find shellfish or pork
products, including bacon & ham, as those things too are
prohibited by their holy texts."

Gregory Gadow

unread,
May 25, 2005, 9:44:11 AM5/25/05
to
Katherine Griffis wrote:

> Of royalty, I believe only Akhenaten is known to have changed his birth
> name

His son, Tutankhamun, was given the name Tutankhaten at his birth. It was
changed after he assumed the throne.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe
in one fewer god than you do. When you understand
why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you
will understand why I dismiss yours."
-Stephen F. Roberts


JTEM

unread,
May 25, 2005, 10:21:59 AM5/25/05
to

"Gregory Gadow" <tech...@serv.net> wrote

> Katherine Griffis wrote:
> > Of royalty, I believe only Akhenaten is known to have
> > changed his birth name

> His son, Tutankhamun, was given the name Tutankhaten at
> his birth. It was changed after he assumed the throne.

The "Of royalty" aside, An Egyptologist by the name of
Hilary Wilson seems to think that name changes were
quite common, particularly (though not exclusively) in the
Old Kingdom period.

As for the royalty, I was under the impression that we
don't know the birth names of most, at least not as recorded
at birth. After they assumed the thrown, centuries after
they assumed the throne, but not before.

In other words, we have nothing to compare them to.

Anyhow, I couldn't find the exact reference from Hilary
Wilson, but if you want to search for it then be my guest:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22hilary+wilson%22+egyptology

stoney

unread,
May 25, 2005, 1:07:41 PM5/25/05
to
On Tue, 24 May 2005 20:33:46 -0400, Iskandar
<alexan...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>In article <o2f791182imc4gsu5...@4ax.com>, stoney


><sto...@the.net> wrote:
>
>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president
>> represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
>> of the people. On some great and glorious day the
>> plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
>> desire at last and the White House will be adorned
>> by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
>

>Mencken was very prophetic!

Unfortunately so.

stoney

unread,
May 25, 2005, 1:16:39 PM5/25/05
to
On 25 May 2005 04:48:14 -0700, "Katherine Griffis"
<egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote:

[]

Fascinating stuff. Thank you very much for posting, Katherine.

Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 25, 2005, 4:52:52 PM5/25/05
to

"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:1117021694.8...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...


Thank You...

o8TY

unread,
May 26, 2005, 11:47:41 AM5/26/05
to
I wonder if the > (= post separators) is turned off on my machine or yours?

See comment between dashed lines below.

"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in message

news:1116853024.2...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
JTEM wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
o8ty
I find the reference to the lettuce fascinating if not corrupt. With lettuce
named after its milk-producing (lacte) capability, the association of semen
suggests the plant in question may have been the rude-looking "squirting
cucumber", or the very phallic "semen-covered" Amanita muscaria mushroom -
which can have grown in Egypt in ancient times.
See http://home.iprimus.com.au/o8ty/fungus_family.htm

However, haunting the back of my mind is the dandelion, whose Greek name
apepe may relate to the Uksos king, Epaphos, but who IIRC was also equated
with Seth. The ancient Greeks deemed Epaphos was the son of Io, who has many
associations with Isis. The leaves of dandelion were also known for their
"milk-producing" capabilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Katherine Griffis

unread,
May 26, 2005, 3:57:56 PM5/26/05
to
JTEM wrote:
> "Alan OBrien" <alaneob...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote
>
> > They look like brothers to me. And they were both
> > manicurists - perhaps they followed the trade of their
> > mum or dad. It could be that they were gay, though. I
> > have never seen any specific Egyptian prohibition on
> > homosexuality.
>
> Oh I have. But, as Katherine Griffis-Greenberg's "interesting"
> response revealed, opinions are often colored by more than
> simple facts.
>
> And before anyone freaks on that comment: We couldn't
> have such widely differing opinions if people weren't
> bringing their own unique perspectives to the table.
>
> Hint: "In general, the texts indicate that homosexuality was
> not a desirable trait, particularly pedophilia with
> young boys."
>
> It's not unusual to see people introduce pedophilia into a
> discussion on homosexuality. It is however quite unusual
> to see it done be someone who doesn't have rather overt
> "issues" with homosexuality.<

Before you are so keen to imply there are those in this thread with
"issues" about homosexuality, I am only going to simply that that the
Books of Coming Forth by Day (aka collquially in modern parlance as the
"Egyptian Book of the Dead") DO have variations over their long
history. However, the general prohibition _against_ homosexuality can
be found in most of these variations, but a reference to a prohibition
against homosexuality with _young males_ is explicit in the texts in at
least one example (below).

pNebseny [BM 9900, aka pBurton] is one of the oldest of the private
funereal books from the 18th Dynasty possessed in a museum today, which
specifically contained the probition against homosexuality, and
distinguish it as a specific sin in saying, "Not have I done wrong
sexually, I have not practiced homosexuality," (Allen and Hauser 1974:
98, No. 27), where the glyphs themselves indicate that the first part
refers to unchaste relations with a woman, and the second part of the
statement refers to copulation with a male (Naville 1971 (1886): 302,
Aa). In short, the declaration distinguishes two sexual sins - having
"unchaste" relations with a woman (often translated in some texts as
"fornicating"), and having sexual relations with a male. That's about
as unequivocal as possible concerning the prohibition against
homosexuality in ancient Egyptian culture, IMO.

However, in the more well-known 19th Dynasty Book of Coming Forth by
Day of Ani (pAni, aka BM 10470), the statement is shortened to only "I
have not wrongly copulated," without referenced to heterosexual or
homosexual relations specifically (Faulkner and Andrews 1994: Plate
32).

Yet even later in the 19th Dynasty, the Book of Coming Forth by Day by
Nakht [BM 10471], the prohibition is again more explicitly stated as "I
have not misconducted myself, nor copulated with a boy," (Faulkner and
Andrews 1985: 32; glyph rendition on 28-29).

So, from my view, if anyone has "issues" with homosexuality, as you
appear to imply, perhaps it's best to look to the texts instead of
implying bias to modern translators, and discover it was the ancient
Egyptians themselves who had such "issues."

Reference:

Allen, T. G. and E. B. Hauser 1974. _The Book of the Dead or Going
Forth by Day: Ideas of the Ancient Egyptians Concerning the Hereafter
as Expressed in Their Own Terms_. Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization. SAOC 37. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Faulkner, R. O. and C. Andrews 1985. _The Ancient Egyptian Book of the
Dead+. Austin: University of Texas Press/British Museum.

Faulkner, R. O., C. Andrews, et al. 1994. _The Egyptian Book of the
Dead. The Book of Going Forth by Day. The First Authentic
Presentation of the Complete Papyrus of Ani_. San Francisco: Chronicle
Books.

Naville, E. 1971 (1886). _Das Ägyptische Totenbuch der XVIII. bis XX.
Dynasty_. (3 Vols.) Graz (Austria): Akademische Druck-u.
Verlagsanstalt.

JTEM

unread,
May 26, 2005, 9:21:49 PM5/26/05
to

"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote

> However, the general prohibition _against_ homosexuality
> can be found in most of these variations, but a reference
> to a prohibition against homosexuality with _young males_
> is explicit in the texts in at least one example (below).

But that would have nothing to do with homosexuality, particularly
in the context of ancient Egypt. After all, what was their idea of
a "boy"?

> So, from my view, if anyone has "issues" with homosexuality,
> as you appear to imply, perhaps it's best to look to the texts
> instead of implying bias to modern translators, and discover
> it was the ancient Egyptians themselves who had such "issues."

You're misrepresenting my position. Allow me to repeat it:

| It's not unusual to see people introduce pedophilia into a
| discussion on homosexuality. It is however quite unusual
| to see it done be someone who doesn't have rather overt
| "issues" with homosexuality.

It was a case of answering a question that nobody asked.

Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 27, 2005, 12:57:49 AM5/27/05
to

"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:RamdnToNwoa...@comcast.com...


Seems to me it's more a case where reference to homosexuality, in ancient
text, has been coupled with other sexual transgressions. That said, isn't
pedophilia also a homosexual act? http://www.answers.com/pedophilia&r=67

>
>
>


Katherine Griffis

unread,
May 27, 2005, 8:09:42 AM5/27/05
to
Jon Erlandson wrote:

Whatever JTEM is on about, I don't know, but my point remains - just as
in modern society, the two 'sins' here in pNakht are distinguishable as
a)wrongful copulation with sexually mature individuals and b) sexual
relations with sexually immature boys.

As I noted, the pNakht reference is complete disavowal to copulating
with a boy, and in the case of the glyphs used (as found in the
Faulkner work I referenced), it is clear they are referring to a "boy,"
who is normally prepubescent.

As van Voss (1973) noted in his article on Section 27 and prohibition
against homosexual transgressions in the Negative Confession section of
the Book of Coming Forth by Day, the use of /nkk/ is combined with
/nwH/ distinguish what is being referred to here as a homosexual act -
together, the two terms mean a sexual action without a female partner.
It is further distinguished by the way the forbidden partners are
referred to - as either sexually mature males or sexually immature
males.

As your URL indicates, almost all pedophiles are males who find their
total sexual pleasure in children, and there's little reason to doubt
this was the case in ancient Egypt as well. From the pNakht reference,
however, this deceased individual (who is male) is avowing that he has
not had "wrongful" sexual relations with either a male or female (of
sexually mature age), but also, just as specifically, he has not
copulated with a boy, meaning a sexually immature individual. In other
words, Nakht is not a pederast, or a man who has sexual relations with
a prepubescent boy.

This is to be distinguished from the texts of the Wisdom of Ankheshonq
of the Late Period, where it is said, "Do not take a young man for your
companion" (Manniche 1997: 98)or "Do not take a youth for your
companion" (Lichtheim 1980: 170, 13/24). Here, the glyphs refer to a
sexually mature young man rather than a prepubescent boy, and is one of
the further ancient Egyptian sources which reiterate the prohibition
against homosexuality outside the Books of the Dead.

However, the Old Kingdom Instructions of Ptahotep (Maxim 32) is a
specific admonition to abstain from making pederastic advances, as
noted by Goedicke (1967), indicating the prohibition of this sexual
transgression is of long-standing.

Reference:

Faulkner, R. O. and C. Andrews 1985. _The Ancient Egyptian Book of the

Dead_. Austin: University of Texas Press/British Museum.

Goedicke, H. 1967. Unrecognized Sportings. JARCE 6: 97-102.

Lichtheim, M. 1980. _Ancient Egyptian Literature: The Late Period_.
Vol. III. Berkeley: University of California.

Manniche, L. 1997. _Sexual Life in Ancient Egypt_. London: Kegal Paul
International.

van Voss, M. H. 1973. Drie Egyptische Geboden. In M. A. Beek, A. A.
Kampman, C. Nijland, J. Rijckmans, ed., _Symbolae biblicae et
mesopotamicae Francisco Mario Theodoro de Liagre Böhl
dedicatae_:185-187. Studia Francisci Scholten Memoriae Dicata 4.
Leiden: Brill.

HTH.

JTEM

unread,
May 27, 2005, 10:57:51 AM5/27/05
to

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Seems to me it's more a case where reference to
> homosexuality, in ancient text, has been coupled
> with other sexual transgressions. That said, isn't
> pedophilia also a homosexual act?

No. Definitely not.

JTEM

unread,
May 27, 2005, 11:00:16 AM5/27/05
to

"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote

> Whatever JTEM is on about,

It's pretty clear what I was "on about," as I left no room for
any ambiguity.

Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 28, 2005, 12:33:27 AM5/28/05
to

"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LtudnSgCqcr...@comcast.com...


Well what's pederasty then?


Message has been deleted

Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 28, 2005, 11:55:02 AM5/28/05
to

"Saved by Jesus" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mtidnfE1SPs...@comcast.com...

>
>> This is serious -- no trolling -- and these are real
>> web sites put together by serious people, not
>> lunatic new-agers.
>
>> http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/
>>
>> There's plenty of others, but I'll limit myself to one
>> more, because you don't need 20 cites to offer an
>> opinion:
>>
>> http://www.gayegypt.com/aneggaygod.html
>
> This must be a troll because homosexualists insist that
> homosexuality wasn't invented until the 19th century!
>
> How could it have existed in ancient Egypt?
>
> But if it did, it explains why their civilization has
> collapsed!


I don't think Egypt "collapsed" but rather passed into some transmigrative
state :)


JTEM

unread,
May 28, 2005, 4:34:44 PM5/28/05
to

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote

> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote

> > "Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >> Seems to me it's more a case where reference to
> >> homosexuality, in ancient text, has been coupled
> >> with other sexual transgressions. That said, isn't
> >> pedophilia also a homosexual act?
> >
> > No. Definitely not.

> Well what's pederasty then?

A rather strange cultural "tradition," one we may never
understand.

It's also quite revealing. That is to say, it reveals a bias on
your part. Girls were married off -- usually to much older
men -- at about the same age as the boys involved in
pederasty. No tears for them though, not the girls. It's not
the age here that matters, apparently, it's our "traditional"
concept of gender roles. This is the crime you appear
to be upset about.

Our "traditional" concept of gender roles is violated
by the idea of pederasty, in a way that sex with equally
young girls is not. In our view, it can amount to
"feminizing" the boy, casting him (sexually) in the role
of a woman. An equally as young girl being handed off
to an older male, on the other hand, suffers from no such
gender-role violation.

Here in modern times, "Homosexuality" is really nothing
more than the equal opposite of the "Heterosexual." A
homosexual male experiences the same feelings towards
a member of their own gender as a heterosexual male
feels towards members of the opposite gender.

Hence: Gay marriage.

This was most certainly *Not* in the case with, say,
pederasty as culturally practiced in ancient Greece.
They didn't share in our ideas, our concept of
"homosexuality," and pederasty was another animal
entirely.

In order to so much as begin to try to understand the
cultural practice of pederasty, we'd have to first be
able to step outside of ourselves. We'd have to first
stop seeing things within our terms, our cultural
"traditions." A rather difficult proposition. And, even
if we're successful, that doesn't grant us understanding
of past cultures. It would only allow us the opportunity
to BEGIN the process of learning about, and
eventually understanding past cultures.

Sour Clayton and Chives Flavoured Pringles...POP

unread,
May 28, 2005, 7:42:03 PM5/28/05
to

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:qv0me.129$Dq7...@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...

That last few followers of the ancient Egyptian religion were murdered by
Christians...one of the very first acts of genocide carried out in the name
of the cross!!

Katherine Griffis

unread,
May 29, 2005, 5:39:18 AM5/29/05
to
JTEM wrote:
> "Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
> > "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
> > > "Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote
> > >> Seems to me it's more a case where reference to
> > >> homosexuality, in ancient text, has been coupled
> > >> with other sexual transgressions. That said, isn't
> > >> pedophilia also a homosexual act?
> > >
> > > No. Definitely not.
>
> > Well what's pederasty then?
>
> A rather strange cultural "tradition," one we may never
> understand.
>
> It's also quite revealing. That is to say, it reveals a bias on
> your part. Girls were married off -- usually to much older
> men -- at about the same age as the boys involved in
> pederasty. No tears for them though, not the girls. It's not
> the age here that matters, apparently, it's our "traditional"
> concept of gender roles. This is the crime you appear
> to be upset about.

We discussed this issue on sci.archaeology about 3-4 months ago, if you
care to look it up. Still, I don't see your point here. In the
ancient and modern Middle East, females are married off when they are
'nubile' - that is, sexually mature, which occurs much earlier than in
western cultures - sometimes as early as 8 or 9. The issue is whether
menarche has occurred; in some equatorial countries, this can occur as
early as 7 years of age.

A young age at menarche, before the age of 12 years, is still often the
case in such modern cultures as Bahrain,

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/bahrain.html

while the median age of marriage in Ghana is 8 years of age:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/ghana.html

even prepubescent marriages are authorised under modern Indian Hindu
culture:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexol­ogy/IES/india.html

As far as I am aware, however, homosexual relations with males, and
specifically prepubescent boys in particular, is still frowned upon in
modern Middle Eastern cultures, just as it was in ancient Egyptian
culture, based upon the references I gave.

Since the definition of pederasty is a specific type of sexual
intercourse with a young boy:

Pederasty: "Where a man who has sexual relations, especially anal
intercourse, with a boy." [AHED]

or

Pederasty n. (also paederasty) anal intercourse between a man and a
boy. [Greek pais paid- boy, erastes lover] [Oxford]

one is talking about a specific type of sexual activity, and not just
homosexuality in general.

> Our "traditional" concept of gender roles is violated
> by the idea of pederasty, in a way that sex with equally
> young girls is not. In our view, it can amount to
> "feminizing" the boy, casting him (sexually) in the role
> of a woman. An equally as young girl being handed off
> to an older male, on the other hand, suffers from no such
> gender-role violation.

What does today's western view of how sexual relations are viewed have
anything to do with how they were viewed in the past, which did not
adhere to western concepts in any form?

> Here in modern times, "Homosexuality" is really nothing
> more than the equal opposite of the "Heterosexual."

But not how it was meant in Egyptian hieroglyphs. In glyphs, in means
sexual intercourse with a sexually mature male partner with another
sexually mature male partner. It has nothing to do with 'feelings' or
'desire,' but acts which were forbidden.

>A
> homosexual male experiences the same feelings towards
> a member of their own gender as a heterosexual male
> feels towards members of the opposite gender.
>
> Hence: Gay marriage.

See above about how ancient Egyptian texts are referring to the act and
not on the issues of 'desire.' Even Parkinson (1995), in his
examination of this subject, concluded that sexual relationships
between men were considered irregular by the literate elite in ancient
Egypt, and that the decorum of official texts were also against such
activity, differing from that of literary (fictional) texts. Such
literary textual treatment approached homosexuality as either an
aggressive move by one male upon another (Contendings of Seth and
Horus) or as a mockery of the two partners and homosexuality itself
(the story of King Neferkare and General Sasenet {van Dijk 1994)). Both
are Late Period stories, which indicates the prohibition of
homosexuality lasted late into ancient Egyptian history.

However, pederasty has nothing to do with "feelings" toward a boy: it
has to do with a specific type of intercourse with a boy.
THAT is why it was declared a separate transgression under the Negative
Confession of the Books of Coming Forth by Day.

Reference:

Parkinson, R. B. 1995. 'Homosexual' Desire and Middle Kingdom
Literature. JEA 81: 57-76.

van Dijk, J. 1994. The Nocturnal Wanderings of King Neferkare. In C.
Berger, G. Clerc and N. Grimal, eds., _Hommages à Jean Leclant_, 4:
387-393. Cairo: IFAO.

wcb

unread,
May 29, 2005, 10:23:31 AM5/29/05
to
Jon Erlandson wrote:

Egypt became a Roman possession after the battle of Actium.
When the Empire adopted Christianity in 325, that applied
also to Egypt. The Christians slowly strangled all non
orthodox religions, and that was completed by the era of
Theodoisian about 550 CE.

--

When I shake my killfile, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie

Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 29, 2005, 11:12:09 AM5/29/05
to

"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eZ-dnerI14d...@comcast.com...

>
> "Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
>> "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>> > "Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> >> Seems to me it's more a case where reference to
>> >> homosexuality, in ancient text, has been coupled
>> >> with other sexual transgressions. That said, isn't
>> >> pedophilia also a homosexual act?
>> >
>> > No. Definitely not.
>
>> Well what's pederasty then?
>
> A rather strange cultural "tradition," one we may never
> understand.
>

[snip]

>
> Here in modern times, "Homosexuality" is really nothing
> more than the equal opposite of the "Heterosexual." A
> homosexual male experiences the same feelings towards
> a member of their own gender as a heterosexual male
> feels towards members of the opposite gender.
>
> Hence: Gay marriage.

Male homosexuality is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the opposite
of heterosexuality. Homosexuality typically involves anal intercourse and
although practiced by some heterosexual couples, anal intercourse (sodomy)
is an uncondoned act and still considered socially unacceptable, hence the
stance against legalization of gay marriage.


[snip]

> In order to so much as begin to try to understand the
> cultural practice of pederasty, we'd have to first be
> able to step outside of ourselves. We'd have to first
> stop seeing things within our terms, our cultural
> "traditions." A rather difficult proposition. And, even
> if we're successful, that doesn't grant us understanding
> of past cultures. It would only allow us the opportunity
> to BEGIN the process of learning about, and
> eventually understanding past cultures.


This is your position on how to learn.


Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 29, 2005, 12:15:04 PM5/29/05
to

"wcb" <wbar...@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:119jjij...@corp.supernews.com...

I'm sure you've heard of the "Law of Conservation of Energy" where energy
cannont be created or destroyed but can change it's form? Universal Laws
apply to everything within that Universe and as long as the Universe
survives those laws will be applicable.

Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 29, 2005, 2:00:27 PM5/29/05
to

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:dZkme.20$RV...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...

That should read "EQUAL" opposite :)

JTEM

unread,
May 29, 2005, 8:21:39 PM5/29/05
to

"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote

> > It's also quite revealing. That is to say, it reveals a bias on
> > your part. Girls were married off -- usually to much older
> > men -- at about the same age as the boys involved in
> > pederasty. No tears for them though, not the girls. It's not
> > the age here that matters, apparently, it's our "traditional"
> > concept of gender roles. This is the crime you appear
> > to be upset about.

> We discussed this issue on sci.archaeology about 3-4 months
> ago, if you care to look it up. Still, I don't see your point here.

Then you're certianly not looking very hard.

Pederasty wasn't without the knowledge -- nor even the approval --
of the boy's head-of-household.

> Since the definition of pederasty is a specific type of sexual
> intercourse with a young boy:

Um, excuse me?

> Pederasty: "Where a man who has sexual relations, especially
> anal intercourse, with a boy." [AHED]

What the hell have you been smoking?

Pederasty? Literally defined as anal sex? Please. That's not even
funny.

> one is talking about a specific type of sexual activity, and
> not just homosexuality in general.

Hardly. It didn't necessarily involve *Any* type of sexual
penetration.

> > Our "traditional" concept of gender roles is violated
> > by the idea of pederasty, in a way that sex with equally
> > young girls is not. In our view, it can amount to
> > "feminizing" the boy, casting him (sexually) in the role
> > of a woman. An equally as young girl being handed off
> > to an older male, on the other hand, suffers from no such
> > gender-role violation.

> What does today's western view of how sexual relations are
> viewed have anything to do with how they were viewed in
> the past, which did not adhere to western concepts in any form?

The question was answered before it was asked.

[---stuff about Egyptian hieroglyphs, when the troll was asking
about pederasty, snipped---]

> However, pederasty has nothing to do with "feelings" toward
> a boy: it has to do with a specific type of intercourse with a
> boy.

Hardly. If anything, it appears to have been a cultural solution
to young men not being able to marry.


JTEM

unread,
May 29, 2005, 8:23:53 PM5/29/05
to

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Male homosexuality is not, by any stretch of the
> imagination, the opposite of heterosexuality. Homosexuality
> typically involves anal intercourse and although practiced
> by some heterosexual couples, anal intercourse (sodomy)
> is an uncondoned act and still considered socially
> unacceptable, hence the stance against legalization of gay
> marriage.

You're a troll or a retard and, either way, there's nothing wrong
with you that a couple of glasses of Liquid Plumber wouldn't
fix...

> > In order to so much as begin to try to understand the
> > cultural practice of pederasty, we'd have to first be
> > able to step outside of ourselves. We'd have to first
> > stop seeing things within our terms, our cultural
> > "traditions." A rather difficult proposition. And, even
> > if we're successful, that doesn't grant us understanding
> > of past cultures. It would only allow us the opportunity
> > to BEGIN the process of learning about, and
> > eventually understanding past cultures.

> This is your position on how to learn.

Okay, maybe a half-dozen glasses....

Jon Erlandson

unread,
May 29, 2005, 9:24:06 PM5/29/05
to

"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EOGdnYDUm_Z...@comcast.com...


When your sores become intolerable remember your prescription.

JTEM

unread,
May 29, 2005, 9:56:03 PM5/29/05
to

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote

> When your sores become intolerable remember your prescription.

Cut to the chase: Are you pouring yourself a glass, or what?

L. Michael Roberts

unread,
May 29, 2005, 11:29:25 PM5/29/05
to

JTEM wrote:

> "Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote
>
>>>It's also quite revealing. That is to say, it reveals a bias on
>>>your part. Girls were married off -- usually to much older
>>>men -- at about the same age as the boys involved in
>>>pederasty. No tears for them though, not the girls. It's not
>>>the age here that matters, apparently, it's our "traditional"
>>>concept of gender roles. This is the crime you appear
>>>to be upset about.
>
>>We discussed this issue on sci.archaeology about 3-4 months
>>ago, if you care to look it up. Still, I don't see your point here.
>
> Then you're certianly not looking very hard.

Perhaps the OP should look at this site
http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/

<snip>

--
+==================== L. Michael Roberts ======================+
This represents my personal opinion and NOT Company policy
Goderich, Ont, Canada. To reply, post a request for my valid E-mail
"Life is a sexually transmitted, terminal, condition"
+================================================================+

JTEM

unread,
May 29, 2005, 11:50:38 PM5/29/05
to

"L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michae...@nospam.com> wrote

> Perhaps the OP should look at this site
> http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/

Sorry, my bad, but the exchange began with that site.

As is often the case, more than one explanation exists for the
images, and not all of them involve homosexuality.

The above page comes from a very credible site, but even a
serious scholar can only see the world through their own
eyes, and I was very interested in competing views.

Unfortunately, the people with competing views have their
own rather obvious (and negative) bias, though not quite
obvious enough to force them to acknowledge it themselves.


Katherine Griffis

unread,
May 30, 2005, 4:37:37 AM5/30/05
to
JTEM wrote:
> "L. Michael Roberts" <L_Michae...@nospam.com> wrote
>
> > Perhaps the OP should look at this site
> > http://www.egyptology.com/niankhkhnum_khnumhotep/
>
> The above page comes from a very credible site, but even a
> serious scholar can only see the world through their own
> eyes, and I was very interested in competing views.
>
> Unfortunately, the people with competing views have their
> own rather obvious (and negative) bias, though not quite
> obvious enough to force them to acknowledge it themselves.

You know, I've finally determined exactly who is the troller here, and
it's not Jon Erlandson: in the beginning, you asked if Reeder's site,
which addressed these two manicurists in a homosexual relationship, had
any opposing views from "serious scholars."

I then gave you myriad citations of those opposing views and further
explanation of where specific Egyptian texts showed opposition to
homosexuality but pederasty. I have supported the position there was
opposition to such relationships in the culture itself, and difefreing
interpretations of these two individuals' relationship from "serious"
scholars.

However, if you are bound and determined to see "bias" in me for that
information, then troll on, JTEM.

But you will get no further response from me on ANY post you write.

Enjoy your own biased ignorance.

Newsgroups trimmed.

Done.

JTEM

unread,
May 30, 2005, 7:35:12 PM5/30/05
to

"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote

> You know, I've finally determined exactly who is the
> troller here, and it's not Jon Erlandson:

Please.

> in the beginning, you asked if Reeder's site, which addressed
> these two manicurists in a homosexual relationship, had
> any opposing views from "serious scholars."

Horrible. Simply horrible.

If I was serious about history, why wouldn't I simply accept
everything I read on a web page at face value?

Critical thinking skills are the surest sign of a troll...

> I then gave you myriad citations of those opposing views
> and further explanation of where specific Egyptian texts
> showed opposition to homosexuality but pederasty.

You're being dishonest here.

The word you used, what you introduced here was "pedophilia."

What I pointed out -- and what you're currently backing away
from -- is the fact that it's not the least bit unusual for people
to introduce "pedophilia" into a discussion on homosexuality,
but it would be unusual for a person who isn't homophobic to
do so.

> However, if you are bound and determined to see "bias" in
> me for that information, then troll on, JTEM.

You are biased. There's no question here.

Reeder is biased. You're biased. Everyone is biased.

And, yes, your bias does color your perceptions.

It's a fact. It's an unquestionable fact. Get over it.

You lent your voice to the attacks against Joann Fletcher,
even as you defended Hawass and his far more outragous
claims.

Bias.

For whatever reason known only onto you, you read
a question on "homosexuality" and started to answer a
question that nobody asked concerning "pedophilia."

Bias.

You even later claimed that "pederasty" was defined as
a very specific act with boys -- anal sex -- when even
the most casual investigation of the facts would have
been enough to dissuade you.

Bias.

> But you will get no further response from me on ANY post you write.

I'll still be here, and I'll still point out your every bias. However,
next time my charges will not be answered with obfuscation, name
calling & a sophomoric attack of ego mania.

> Enjoy your own biased ignorance.

Today's a day for irony.


Message has been deleted

Natalie Clifford Barney

unread,
May 30, 2005, 10:15:25 PM5/30/05
to

w...@privacy.net wrote:

> On Mon, 30 May 2005 19:35:12 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >What I pointed out -- and what you're currently backing away
> >from -- is the fact that it's not the least bit unusual for people
> >to introduce "pedophilia" into a discussion on homosexuality,
> >but it would be unusual for a person who isn't homophobic to
> >do so.
>

> Only heterophobs think that way. It's the nature of their pitiful
> bigotry. You wear it so well too.

Actually I have heard straights make the same observation about the kind
of homophobe who does that....the most pathetic kind...


--
"Sappho wrote only of one theme, sang it, laughed it, sighed it, wept
it, sobbed it. Save for her knowledge of human love she was unlearned,
save for her perception of beauty she was blind, save for the fullness
of her passions she was empty-handed."
--- by Willa Cather (about Sappho) in 1895


JTEM

unread,
May 30, 2005, 10:38:26 PM5/30/05
to

<w...@privacy.net> wrote

> Only heterophobs think that way.

Then nobody will ever accuse you of being heterophobic,
as that would require you to think.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

JTEM

unread,
May 31, 2005, 11:27:53 PM5/31/05
to

<w...@privacy.net> wrote

> Like a queer! Never happen, boy.

The problem with trolls like you is that, nobody how
many people you fool, you can never fool yourself.

Message has been deleted

JTEM

unread,
Jun 1, 2005, 1:48:23 PM6/1/05
to

<w...@privacy.net> wrote

> On the other hand you seem to have thoroughly
> convinced yourself that people give a fuck what
> you think.

Not people. You. And that assumption appears to have been
proven correct.

You're welcome.

Message has been deleted

Mark Ferguson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 9:35:58 AM6/2/05
to
On Fri, 27 May 2005 11:00:16 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote
>
>> Whatever JTEM is on about,
>
>It's pretty clear what I was "on about," as I left no room for
>any ambiguity.

Actually, the lady is correct. You misinterpreted her comments as
actually stating her opinion when she was simply interpreting what was
written.

You are of course wrong in this case and I do hope her posts continue
as they are informative.

--
Mark

JTEM

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 12:00:33 PM6/2/05
to

<w...@privacy.net> wrote

> Not bad.

Thanks, but I'm not very comfortable with you looking at
my ass.

And, oh; put your tongue make in your mouth, or your
mother's.


JTEM

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 12:25:10 PM6/2/05
to

"Mark Ferguson" <ad...@whew.com> wrote

> Actually, the lady is correct.

Which time? When she first said it, or later when she
felt it necessary to misrepresent what she said?

And were the things she got blatently wrong also right,
like her definition of pederasty, or are you speaking of
some "moral right," rather than a "every little fact was
right" kind of right?

> You misinterpreted her comments as actually stating her
> opinion when she was simply interpreting what was
> written.

Actually, you're doing what she did; which is adressing
a strawman argument instead of what I actually said.

And I can prove my point. Heck, you can.

Let's play Egyptologists. We dig up the ancient Egyptian
temple of Usenet, and in it's many rooms & corridors we
we find countless postings in which people have introduced
"pedophilia" into a discussion on homosexuality. The
vast majority of these are written by people who are quite
homophobic, quite biased. Then we find one from
Katherine Griffis, and we are told that this one is different
because...errr... because... well, just because.

Nope, you wouldn't buy it anymore than I'm buying it now.

> You are of course wrong in this case

"Wrong" even where I am correct by any objective measure,
or just some "moral wrong"?

You're not exact "mister informative" here....


Jon Erlandson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 1:54:34 PM6/2/05
to

"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cJSdnUve0MR...@comcast.com...

>
> "Mark Ferguson" <ad...@whew.com> wrote
>
>> Actually, the lady is correct.
>
> Which time? When she first said it, or later when she
> felt it necessary to misrepresent what she said?
>
> And were the things she got blatently wrong also right,
> like her definition of pederasty, or are you speaking of
> some "moral right," rather than a "every little fact was
> right" kind of right?

Here is what she said about pederasty - tell me what is blatantly wrong with
it?

Katherine Griffis" <egy...@griffis-consulting.com> wrote in message
news:1117359558.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

[snip]

As far as I am aware, however, homosexual relations with males, and
specifically prepubescent boys in particular, is still frowned upon in
modern Middle Eastern cultures, just as it was in ancient Egyptian
culture, based upon the references I gave.

Since the definition of pederasty is a specific type of sexual


intercourse with a young boy:

Pederasty: "Where a man who has sexual relations, especially anal


intercourse, with a boy." [AHED]

or

Pederasty n. (also paederasty) anal intercourse between a man and a
boy. [Greek pais paid- boy, erastes lover] [Oxford]

one is talking about a specific type of sexual activity, and not just
homosexuality in general.


However, pederasty has nothing to do with "feelings" toward a boy: it
has to do with a specific type of intercourse with a boy.

THAT is why it was declared a separate transgression under the Negative
Confession of the Books of Coming Forth by Day.

Reference:

[snip]


>
>> You misinterpreted her comments as actually stating her
>> opinion when she was simply interpreting what was
>> written.
>
> Actually, you're doing what she did; which is adressing
> a strawman argument instead of what I actually said.
>
> And I can prove my point. Heck, you can.
>
> Let's play Egyptologists. We dig up the ancient Egyptian
> temple of Usenet, and in it's many rooms & corridors we
> we find countless postings in which people have introduced
> "pedophilia" into a discussion on homosexuality. The
> vast majority of these are written by people who are quite
> homophobic, quite biased. Then we find one from
> Katherine Griffis, and we are told that this one is different
> because...errr... because... well, just because.
>
> Nope, you wouldn't buy it anymore than I'm buying it now.
>
>> You are of course wrong in this case
>
> "Wrong" even where I am correct by any objective measure,
> or just some "moral wrong"?
>
> You're not exact "mister informative" here....


I bet you can prove to yourself you're right about a lot of things huh?


Mark Ferguson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 3:25:51 PM6/2/05
to
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 12:25:10 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Mark Ferguson" <ad...@whew.com> wrote
>
>> Actually, the lady is correct.
>
>Which time? When she first said it, or later when she
>felt it necessary to misrepresent what she said?

No, I mean the time(s) you misinterpreted what was said to suit your
own agenda.

>And were the things she got blatently wrong also right,
>like her definition of pederasty, or are you speaking of
>some "moral right," rather than a "every little fact was
>right" kind of right?

Why is it you morons try to put words in my mouth.

Please point out anywhere on the net where I used the terms in the
above paragraph.

>> You misinterpreted her comments as actually stating her
>> opinion when she was simply interpreting what was
>> written.
>
>Actually, you're doing what she did; which is adressing
>a strawman argument instead of what I actually said.

No, you are wrong and cannot admit it. I attribute too those that
have this failing, a weak mind.

I error and then when it is brought to my attention I take
responsibility for it.

Why is it you can not do this?

>And I can prove my point. Heck, you can.

What is your point? The poster answered a question that was asked.
She has the credentials and quoted what was written never offering her
opinion and you accused her of lending pedophilia to the discussion of
homosexuality in ancient egypt.

Can you apologize to the lady for your error or are you just another
ranting lamer?

>Let's play Egyptologists. We dig up the ancient Egyptian
>temple of Usenet, and in it's many rooms & corridors we
>we find countless postings in which people have introduced
>"pedophilia" into a discussion on homosexuality. The
>vast majority of these are written by people who are quite
>homophobic, quite biased. Then we find one from
>Katherine Griffis, and we are told that this one is different
>because...errr... because... well, just because.

To you, to me, to her and apparently to the Egyptians. However, they
did mention specifically in the same text man on boy sex.

If you have a failing that disallows you the ability to separate
between the lady's opinion and the reading of actual text then that
would of course be your failing.

Sadly enough, far to many fail to recognize the difference between
offering an opinion and stating a fact.

>Nope, you wouldn't buy it anymore than I'm buying it now.

Good thing you are a penny poor then. You definitely got your money's
worth.

>> You are of course wrong in this case
>
>"Wrong" even where I am correct by any objective measure,
>or just some "moral wrong"?

You error in what you thought or the way you interpreted what the lady
said.

You asked a question, the lady was kind enough to give you the
information and you slammed her because it differed from your opinion.

She offered fact you offered opinion.

>You're not exact "mister informative" here....

Oh, I am just so.... ah, no I ain't. If I miss your post will I feel
a pain of regret, misfortune? Nope.

I will of course look forward to Katharine's posts as she post fact
and information. I like read historical information instead of
fiction.

Is there anything else I can help disabuse you of?

--
Mark

JTEM

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 4:17:10 PM6/2/05
to

"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote

> Here is what she said about pederasty - tell me what
> is blatantly wrong with it?

Fine, but I had already done that at the appropriate time.

I guess this demonstration of your total lack of reading
comprehension is meant as an endorsement of my point,
huh?

> Since the definition of pederasty is a specific type of
> sexual intercourse with a young boy:

Wrong.

> Pederasty: "Where a man who has sexual relations, especially
> anal intercourse, with a boy." [AHED]

Wrong, twice. Not only did pederasty encompass males that
we would consider today to be of the age of consent, but it
certainly was never "defined" as anal sex. In fact, in never
required any type of sexual penetration.


> Pederasty n. (also paederasty) anal intercourse between a
> man and a boy. [Greek pais paid- boy, erastes lover] [Oxford]

Same easily-refuted nonsense merely being repeated.

> one is talking about a specific type of sexual activity, and
> not just homosexuality in general.

Wrong.

JTEM

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 4:25:21 PM6/2/05
to

"Mark Ferguson" <ad...@whew.com> wrote

> >Which time? When she first said it, or later when she
> >felt it necessary to misrepresent what she said?

> No, I mean the time(s) you misinterpreted what was said
> to suit your own agenda.

You'll have to fogive me, I haven't the benfit of existing
in your alternative reality. Would you mind quoting this
exchange?

Thanks ever so much.

> >And were the things she got blatently wrong also right,
> >like her definition of pederasty, or are you speaking of
> >some "moral right," rather than a "every little fact was
> >right" kind of right?

> Why is it you morons try to put words in my mouth.

Yes, one would have to me a "moron" to not understand
that which you never said.

> Please point out anywhere on the net where I used the terms
> in the above paragraph.

Hold on. You're on drugs, right? I can tell.

> >Actually, you're doing what she did; which is adressing
> >a strawman argument instead of what I actually said.

> No, you are wrong and cannot admit it.

Not quite, sparky. In fact, I invited you (and others) to prove
it for themselves. As quite obviously you will never accept
my word on anything, by all means, do a simple google
search and investigate the matter for yourself.

Things are as I stated.

> What is your point? The poster answered a question
> that was asked.

This is blatently false: A lie. Nobody asked about "pedophilia."

Period.

And, yes, unbiased people DO NOT read a question about
homosexuality and think "pedophilia."

> She has the credentials and quoted what was written never
> offering her opinion and you accused her of lending
> pedophilia to the discussion of homosexuality in ancient
> egypt.

I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. I stated an objective
fact. She did inject "pedophilia" into the discussion. Period.

> Can you apologize to the lady for your error or are you
> just another ranting lamer?

You're either a drooling imbecile or a troll.

[---remaining bullshit snipped---]

Thanks bunches.


Jon Erlandson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:13:13 PM6/2/05
to

"JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ZidnU6ndb-...@comcast.com...

>
> "Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
>> Here is what she said about pederasty - tell me what
>> is blatantly wrong with it?
>
> Fine, but I had already done that at the appropriate time.
>
> I guess this demonstration of your total lack of reading
> comprehension is meant as an endorsement of my point,
> huh?
>
>> Since the definition of pederasty is a specific type of
>> sexual intercourse with a young boy:
>
> Wrong.
>
>> Pederasty: "Where a man who has sexual relations, especially
>> anal intercourse, with a boy." [AHED]
>
> Wrong, twice. Not only did pederasty encompass males that
> we would consider today to be of the age of consent, but it
> certainly was never "defined" as anal sex. In fact, in never
> required any type of sexual penetration.

The American Heritage provides this exact definition. See for yourself.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/49/P0144900.html

>
>
>> Pederasty n. (also paederasty) anal intercourse between a
>> man and a boy. [Greek pais paid- boy, erastes lover] [Oxford]

See the Oxford online..
http://www.askoxford.com/?view=uk

>
> Same easily-refuted nonsense merely being repeated.
>
>> one is talking about a specific type of sexual activity, and
>> not just homosexuality in general.
>
> Wrong.

I think you're confusing Egypt with Greece. Unlike Greece, Egypt had no
chaste version of pederasty because the relationship would then be something
else.. like apprenticeship :)


Mark Ferguson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:16:29 PM6/2/05
to
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:25:21 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Mark Ferguson" <ad...@whew.com> wrote
>
>> >Which time? When she first said it, or later when she
>> >felt it necessary to misrepresent what she said?
>
>> No, I mean the time(s) you misinterpreted what was said
>> to suit your own agenda.
>
>You'll have to fogive me, I haven't the benfit of existing
>in your alternative reality. Would you mind quoting this
>exchange?
>
>Thanks ever so much.

I guess quoting your post is not good enough.

>> >And were the things she got blatently wrong also right,
>> >like her definition of pederasty, or are you speaking of
>> >some "moral right," rather than a "every little fact was
>> >right" kind of right?
>
>> Why is it you morons try to put words in my mouth.
>
>Yes, one would have to me a "moron" to not understand
>that which you never said.

Where is it I said what you posted and attributed to me? Post the
message ID or be the little troll.

>> Please point out anywhere on the net where I used the terms
>> in the above paragraph.
>
>Hold on. You're on drugs, right? I can tell.

Just waiting for you to post the message ID and the quote where I said
what you attribute to me.

>> >Actually, you're doing what she did; which is adressing
>> >a strawman argument instead of what I actually said.
>
>> No, you are wrong and cannot admit it.
>
>Not quite, sparky.

Testy little man aren't you.

> In fact, I invited you (and others) to prove
>it for themselves. As quite obviously you will never accept
>my word on anything, by all means, do a simple google
>search and investigate the matter for yourself.

What, that you took what the other poster said out of context, applied
your own meaning to what was said. I read it, I do not need to Google
for it.

>Things are as I stated.

Yes, you are nit wit. You cannot show where the lady posted in the
thread I read that she was biased in any fashion against gay people.
That is what you implied when you claimed she added the pedophilia
crap to your questioning about homosexual activities in old Egypt.

It is a good thing you can interpret Egyptian writings. Maybe you can
correct her and interpret what was written yourself.

>> What is your point? The poster answered a question
>> that was asked.
>
>This is blatently false: A lie. Nobody asked about "pedophilia."

You asked a question:

<quote..>

Any credentialed Egyptologists care to comment
on this subject?

This first link is the most interesting in my mind, as
the source appears credible enough. Are there
alternative views?

URLs removed

There's plenty of others, but I'll limit myself to one
more, because you don't need 20 cites to offer an
opinion:

URLs removed

</quote..>

To which the lady replied and even took the time to look up and
provide actual cites for the answers she provided.

What did you do?

I'm a spoiled little shit and she used a foul word and in my mind only
[nobody else read into what she posted any association between the two
act] associated homosexuality with pedophilia.

You should get some sort of life you know.

>Period.

No comment.

>And, yes, unbiased people DO NOT read a question about
>homosexuality and think "pedophilia."

Well you truly are stupid. The lady answered your question and
because there where other definitions in the text she used you piss
and moan.

How about this?

You go to school, get yourself an education and learn to translate the
writing yourself and see if you can translate them differently
omitting the reference to pedophilia that was in the original Egyptian
text.

The Greeks had similar taboos towards sex with prepubescent males as
well. It was okay to lay with a male child as long as there was no
actual intercourse is the way it was put. It has been a while since I
read the article so it might not have been all right to lay with the
kid.

>> She has the credentials and quoted what was written never
>> offering her opinion and you accused her of lending
>> pedophilia to the discussion of homosexuality in ancient
>> egypt.
>
>I'm not "accusing" anyone of anything. I stated an objective
>fact. She did inject "pedophilia" into the discussion. Period.

The Egyptian text had references to pedophilia and it would have been
dishonest of the lady to not post the text in its entirety. Your
attempt to involve others in the gay community in this by cross
posting this is noted. You will of course note I do not shy away from
input from those you seek to use to inflame this into a
heterosexual-homosexual argument.

Gay people have no use for trolls either or those that would attempt
to use them as a shield because you know how full of shit you are.

>> Can you apologize to the lady for your error or are you
>> just another ranting lamer?
>
>You're either a drooling imbecile or a troll.

You are troll that when he is wrong cannot admit it. Instead, you
will fight this until you claim to be ignoring others and me.

Simply put, you are wrong in your claim the lady that was kind enough
to answer your post did so with malice. She does not give a rat's ass
about your sexuality any more then I do. She simply answered a
question as fully as she could. I hope she continues to do so for
others. I sincerely hope you are in her killfile so that she no
longer has to read you insipid rants about your perceive slight.

> [---remaining bullshit snipped---]
>
>Thanks bunches.

--
Mark

Mark Ferguson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:23:13 PM6/2/05
to
On Thu, 2 Jun 2005 16:17:10 -0400, "JTEM" <gymr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>


>"Jon Erlandson" <jerlands@NOSPAM_sbcglobal.net> wrote
>
>> Here is what she said about pederasty - tell me what
>> is blatantly wrong with it?
>
>Fine, but I had already done that at the appropriate time.
>
>I guess this demonstration of your total lack of reading
>comprehension is meant as an endorsement of my point,
>huh?
>
>> Since the definition of pederasty is a specific type of
>> sexual intercourse with a young boy:
>
>Wrong.
>
>> Pederasty: "Where a man who has sexual relations, especially
>> anal intercourse, with a boy." [AHED]

American Heritage Edition Dictionary.

>Wrong, twice. Not only did pederasty encompass males that
>we would consider today to be of the age of consent, but it
>certainly was never "defined" as anal sex. In fact, in never
>required any type of sexual penetration.
>
>
>> Pederasty n. (also paederasty) anal intercourse between a
>> man and a boy. [Greek pais paid- boy, erastes lover] [Oxford]

This was also forbidden in Greek society.

>Same easily-refuted nonsense merely being repeated.

My guess is you failed to notice the reference to the Oxford
Dictionary.

>> one is talking about a specific type of sexual activity, and
>> not just homosexuality in general.
>
>Wrong.

The dictionaries are all wrong. While agree the misuse of certain
words has lead to a redefining of them such words as hacker and
cracker. The word pederasty is not one of them.

Anything else you need help with?

--
Mark

Mark Ferguson

unread,
Jun 2, 2005, 5:25:18 PM6/2/05