Go to the alexander-the-great.co.uk homepage
alexander-the-great.co.uk
Talk about the Oliver Stone movie "Alexander"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Was really Alexander homosexual?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the man
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
galatasaray



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 177
Location: england

PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

exactly, mr stone might have suffered from much critisizm about this movie but i think he shoudld focus on the respect hes gained from just as many people for being brave and tackling a number of issues very well..... i jus hope he doesnt tone it down for the dvd cause that would jus ruin not only the film but the respect he gained.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Lala



Joined: 22 Feb 2004
Posts: 324
Location: Thessaloniki, Macedonia, Greece, Europe, Earth

PostPosted: Mon Feb 07, 2005 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The problem with this movie and Stone is that he tried to say to much in too little time. He risked condencing knowledge, wisdon, history, opinions & art and the whole thing is sitting on a fine line between disaster and masterpiece.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nebari_at_heart



Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 114
Location: Sussex

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hefestion19 wrote:
Alexander was not hetero, homo, or bi. Why not? Because in his times, there arent this words...

Many studies said that, human being, in his own nature, is attracted by "beauty", and that beauty can be masculine or feminine. Alexander, like many other men in that age, was free and had no cultural borders. He felt attracted by beauty of his friend Hephestion, and they felt a strong friendship and love between them.

False? Who can say that this love was false? There are many things that confirm this relation. Alexander and Hephestion were inseparable. Alex dreamed to imitate the history of Achiles and Patroclus, with Heph. He always had in hand a book of "the Iliade". The confussion about the queen mother of Persia, when Alex said "dont worry, he's also alexander" was real, so we can see what signified had Heph to Alexander.

When Hephestion dies in Ecbatana, Alexander ordered to cover all the city walls of black cloths, and make very important funeral games to honor him, only comparable to games honoring the Kings dead. We also can see that Hephestion was the real love of Alexander's life in that case..

So, was Alexander gay? No. The words "gay" and "homosexual" are modern words based on Freud theories. What was Alexander then?
He only was a free Human Being, who has not moral or religious borders to do what he really felt and love the person who really loved, would be man or would be woman. In that case, it was a man, his best friend.

What is the problem if the great love of his life was a man? This fact makes him less man or less masculine than he was? No. He was more masculine, more courageous and braver than many of many Kings before, but he loved his closer friend. Why cant you accept this fact?

Im really sad, because I see that ancient greek culture, 2000 years ago, was more open minded than our society is now. Our society put all us in a jail, and doesn't let us follow the way of our feelings.


i'm sp totally with you on that one. maybe we could learn something from this society? you would have thought that over time it would have gone the other way - we would be more free, not more opressed. it's kinda sad, really. what is the world coming to? will we end up back in Salem?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Catherine X



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 814
Location: England

PostPosted: Mon Feb 14, 2005 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
maybe we could learn something from this society? you would have thought that over time it would have gone the other way - we would be more free, not more opressed.


Yes, I agree. That society seems much more liberated than today. Its so tiring and boring that people go on about 'the terrible evil of homosexuality' all the time these days. Who cares who loves/ sleeps with whom if they're not hurting each other?

I think what set us back recently though was the emergence of AIDS. People really went mad in the 80s when AIDS appeared and it was seen [by some] as a plague sent by God to punish immoral people who 'chose to be gay' [because of course you can choose your sexuality Rolling Eyes ]. I assume that people under, say, 25 cannot really remember this hysteria as they were too young, but I remember it well. There were adverts on TV with gravestones warning us to have safe sex OR ELSE. There was a mass panic.

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, that is where this 'anti gay' feeling stems from: a fear of disease. Which is nonsense really because you can obviously take precautions against AIDS, but you can't take precautions against many forms of cancer etc. Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
allison



Joined: 04 Feb 2005
Posts: 233
Location: Australia

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Makes you wonder what is so different - I mean, why is our world (today's Western society) so hung up about labels and the 'evils' of sexuality? In the ancient world, bisexuality was socially acceptable because of the division of the sexes - in many instances, males and females only came together for the act of procreation unless they were in father/daughter, brother/sister or mother/son relationships. It made sense that if you were spending a great deal of time with other males/females that very intimate relationships would be involved. I've never really understood what people's problems with homosexuality/bisexuality - or any other sexuality were. Surely if two people are in a consensual relationship, what happens is entirely up to them.

It really made me angry that the focus on Alexander the film (especially in America) was on the sexuality of Alexander and how bad this was - what does it matter what his sexual preferences were? What effect could that possibly have on what he did and how he did it? The Sacred Band were acknowleged as being an exceptional force to have to face precicely because they were made up of male couples who had nothing to loose but each other. Could the bisexuality of the Macedonians had added to their successful battles in much the same way?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Catherine X



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 814
Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It really made me angry that the focus on Alexander the film (especially in America) was on the sexuality of Alexander and how bad this was - what does it matter what his sexual preferences were? What effect could that possibly have on what he did and how he did it? The Sacred Band were acknowleged as being an exceptional force to have to face precicely because they were made up of male couples who had nothing to loose but each other. Could the bisexuality of the Macedonians had added to their successful battles in much the same way?


Yep, I was angry too. Who cares who Al slept with?

Maybe your last point about the bisexuality of the Macedonians etc. could be the truth, it is a good point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pipsqueak



Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 141
Location: West Midlands, UK

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

About the whole inflammatory was he or wasn't he question - who cares - Alexander The Great is 2300 years in his grave - what matters is that what he accomplished is still prevalent today and inspires many people (I've read that his battle techniques are used in training hard business men to trade) not who he decided to be intimate with.
Unfortunately the whole male bonding issue is complicated by Christian principals. Alexander The Great lived BC - ergo, there were no "laws" or "commandements" governing who or what people slept with.
Yes, if you believe in this theory, God did create man and woman to be together - and (for the survival of the human race) I think everyone would agree that that was for the best!!!!! but before Christ came along man was free to pretty much do what he wanted without the fear of "condemnation".
Personally, if Alexander found comfort in another mans arms - good for him, if he loved women - good for him, in other words, it doesn't matter - does it? I don't think Homosexual people are claiming Alexander The Great as their own - but if they want to see him as a role model there are a lot worse people they could be looking to. The historians sum Alexander up with the word "Pothos" - which (if I remember correctly) means love - passion - determination - sensitivity and an unwillingness to yield - these sound like good attributes to me, no matter the sexual preference.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Catherine X



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 814
Location: England

PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2005 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
what matters is that what he accomplished is still prevalent today and inspires many people (I've read that his battle techniques are used in training hard business men to trade)


Yes, I think many of his military ideas are used in training today's armies etc. I watched Time Commanders, where they had some real Army soldiers playing the game as Alexander and his army. At first they made a good job of it, but then.... they completely hashed it up and were defeated. So even today, real soldiers with modern technology [i.e. an overview of the battlefield and instant communications] can't do as good a job as Alexander and his army did 2300 years ago! That really made an impression on me as to just how good Al was.

Anyway, in conclusion to my lecture, ahem, I'd like to say that yes I agree that it didn't matter a flying duck who he slept with. It probably just proves he liked and enjoyed people in general.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
nebari_at_heart



Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 114
Location: Sussex

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pipsqueak wrote:

Unfortunately the whole male bonding issue is complicated by Christian principals. Alexander The Great lived BC - ergo, there were no "laws" or "commandements" governing who or what people slept with.
Yes, if you believe in this theory, God did create man and woman to be together - and (for the survival of the human race) I think everyone would agree that that was for the best!!!!! but before Christ came along man was free to pretty much do what he wanted without the fear of "condemnation".


are you saying that Jesus caused opression? i'm not going into a deep religious argument here - really i'm not opposing your view - you have good points, but just wanna say one thing. admins- delete it if you feel necessary Confused .
judaism was still around in BC - and they have laws againts homosexuality.
i'm just trying to get this straight in ma head...
actually...i have no idea what i'm tryna say... but anyway, the "God" that has "laid" all these rules - He's all for love right? initially, man and woman were created for procreation, but humans were created to love each other...and who can understand love? whether it's male+female, male+male etc, a deep loving relationship - who can oppose? anyway, times are changing - The Bible has to be interpreted in the context of the society in which it was written.

did any of that make any sense?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pipsqueak



Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 141
Location: West Midlands, UK

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fair point - you got me thinking......
I guess what I believe is that until Jesus came along - there was no way sinful man could get claim the inheritance of eternal life in the presence of the One who gave it - they were damned - condemned by the very passions that defined them - so maybe they didn't care what they got up to - after all - there was no escaping what was to come - so why not enjoy it (you know, drink and be merry and turn up the heavy metal to drown out the sound of armageddon outside!!!). But when Jesus came along, there was suddenly a way that man COULD obtain absolution, so I guess I'm saying that - Yes, Jesus did cause oppression - in a way - because people who were inclined to the lusts of the flesh were all of a sudden called to answer for what they were doing; were made to feel ashamed, abominable, trapped - and not just homosexuals - but heterosexuals who slept around and ignored the sanctity of marriage - and not even just the lusts of the flesh! Jesus wasn't crucified because he "went with the flow" - he put all the false prophets' backs up and through their beliefs; their laws into question.
Yes, Jesus did all this because he loved humanity and wanted them to see the error of their ways - but man is stubborn - I believe in heaven and hell and am pretty sure I'll never see the former - and yet do I change my ways - do I submit to God? - no - do I feel oppressed - hell, yes! but that's the way it is.....

Who knows - maybe this is just sophistry - I guess at the end of the day (ohh I feel all Les Mis') there's too bigger gap between Alexander's society and ours to fully understand - humanities different - for better or worse? I guess that's for God to decide...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
nebari_at_heart



Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Posts: 114
Location: Sussex

PostPosted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

woah! good points - all very good points. i guess we will neverfully understand any of it...
i'm spent, and my brain hurts.
i could probably say some stuff about "submitting to god", but i realise this is not the time, or the place.
i sleep now Mr. Green *conk out*

Nari
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
joanna



Joined: 02 Feb 2005
Posts: 1270
Location: Greece/USA/Italy/UK/

PostPosted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 10:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He was bisexual and proud of being one! For him it was not wrong ,and neither is for me.He was so handsome that attracted both men and women. That's why he was proud of been bisexual . Lucky guy!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger
Goldsnail



Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Posts: 77

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wouldn't go so far and say that he was "proud" of it. Most likely he just never thought about it and didn't imagine anyone could make it an issue.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Adriv



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 1144
Location: Maryland, USA

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good thing he's not alive now, otherwise he will think we are punch of weirdos.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Catherine X



Joined: 17 Jan 2005
Posts: 814
Location: England

PostPosted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Goldsnail wrote:
Most likely he just never thought about it and didn't imagine anyone could make it an issue.


that's really how it should be, isn't it? I bet in the future, people will look back at the fuss that is made today about sexuality and laugh because it won't be an issue then. If people love people, who cares what sex they are? Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    alexander-the-great.co.uk Forum Index -> Discuss 'Alexander' the man All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Page 8 of 10

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group