Plutarch in the Life of Pelopidas describes "Gorgidas first formed the Sacred Band of three hundred chosen men to be guards for the citadel. It was composed of one hundred and fifty pair of young men attached to each other by personal affection. For men of the same tribe or family little value one another when dangers press; but a band grounded upon love is never to be broken, and invincible; since the lovers, ashamed to be base in sight of their beloved, and the beloved before their lovers, willingly rush into danger for the relief of one another."
Sure there is. In Erotikos (Dialoge of Love) Plutarch argues that “the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference in physiological detail.” Gender being the irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important and the issue of what biological sex one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste.
Thank you for A.) Introducing a text consistent with my claim and B.) Your interpretation of the prose that is consistent with my claim.
After all, your interpretation of Plutarch’s writing, which is “Gender being the irrelevant “detail” and instead the excellence in character and beauty is what is most important and the issue of what biological sex one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste,” is precisely the point. To Plutarch and others at the time, “biological sexual one is attracted to is seen as an issue of taste,” as opposed to a sexual orientation in which the attraction is rooted in, because of, derived from an innate, inborn orientation to a particular sex. After all, there’s no evidence they had any notion of sexual orientation, an innate, inborn sexual orientation to a particular sex.
Plutarch, in the specific prose above, is asserting the lover of beauty finds love essentially where there is beauty and nothing else. That notion fits the time I’m which helps wrote as there was only the notion of sexual relations and relationships, and not that they were derived from, because of, or based in a sexual orientation to a particular sex. Plutarch isn’t saying the lover of beauty finds love in beauty based on, because of, derived from, an innate sexual orientation to a particular sex.
Plutarch’s comments are entirely consistent with what I’ve stated. Love, sexual attraction, sexual relations, were based on nothing more than the person’s subjective appeal to what was desirable without any regard for the sex of the person. Such a notion is inconsistent with the concept of sexual orientation.
Simply, Plutarch’s writing above is consistent with my view, and neither weakens or undermines my view.
Plutarch’s notion of finding love and beauty irrespective of the sex of the person can also be discovered as a concept in Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, Ancient Rome, and other societies at or near the time. The evidence is reflected in the writings, drawings, and laws in existence of those societies.
I now turn to address another possible use of Plutarch’s writing, substantively, as a rebuttal to my claim it is presently a dubious proposition at best that Plutarch or others at or near that time, approximately around 2,000 years ago, had a concept of, belief in, sexual orientation in which attraction, sexual attraction, romantic love, was rooted in, derived from, because of an innate, inborn orientation to a particular sex.
The flaw with a use of Plutarch’s writing to refute my statement (there’s no evidence he or others at or near the time had a notion, concept, understanding of sexual orientation and a logical and rational belief they didn’t) is A.) treating Plutarch’s comment as an argumentative device against B.) sexual love, sex relations, sex relationships, relationships, attraction based in, because of, derived from, an innate sexual orientation and to so interpret Plutarch’s writing that way C) ASSUMES Plutarch had knowledge of sexual orientation to so write against it in that specific manner.
That simply is a circular argument, a tautology, as there is an ASSUMPTION of knowledge where the very issue is whether Plutarch, Paul, or others had such knowledge of a concept of sexual orientation.
In his Symposium Plato speaks of soldiers who form exclusive love based bonds and how such soldiers are superior in all manner to the more mundane types "For I know not any greater blessing to a young man who is beginning life than a virtuous lover or to the lover than a beloved youth. If there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor, and emulating one another in honor; and when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world. For what lover would not choose rather to be seen by all mankind than by his beloved, either when abandoning his post or throwing away his arms? He would be ready to die a thousand deaths rather than endure this. Or who would desert his beloved or fail him in the hour of danger? The worst coward would become an inspired hero, equal to the bravest, at such a time; Love would inspire him.”
Poetic, but doesn’t establish Plato had knowledge of the concept of sexual orientation as described above. The same is true for the other prose of Plutarch.
Whether sexual orientation, as described above, such description based on today’s academic and societal understanding of sexual orientation, is something I have researched, by and large by consulting the research and scholarly work of others. There is no evidence Plutarch or others had any knowledge, understanding of sexual orientation and to believe they didn’t is a logical and rational conclusion.
