This article tackles an interesting contradiction in Roman sexual discourse--or perhaps in scholarly discourse around Roman sexuality: how do you integrate the theoretical concepts of "active" and "passive" within sexual activity with the language used to talk about those acts and the people who engage in them? I tend to think that apparent contradictions--rather than needing to be resolved via an additional layer of theory--sometimes simply illustrate the contradictory nature of life and society.
LHMP
Blog entry
Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 221 – Palio by Gwen C. Katz - transcript
(Originally aired 2022/01/29 - listen here)
An interesting article that tackles the association of Sappho, Lesbos, and female homosexuality from a different angle.
Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 220 – John Lyly’s Gallathea - transcript
(Originally aired 2022/01/16 - listen here)
Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 225 - A History of Lesbian Sex in Pornography - transcript
(Originally aired 2022/03/19 - listen here)
Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 219 - On the Shelf for January 2022 – Transcript
(Originally aired 2022/01/02 - listen here)
Welcome to On the Shelf for January 2022.
Just a reminder that submissions for the Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast's 2022 fiction series will be accepted for the entire month of January. I'm looking forward to having just as hard a time picking just four as I did last year!
This brings to a close my summary of Boehringer's Female Homosexuality in Ancient Greece and Rome. The book was everything I hoped it would be. (Well, ok, I fantasized that it might include data that I'd never encountered before, but I'm not surprised it didn't.) This book makes a good pairing with Williams' Roman Homosexuality, which primarily focuses on the male side of the equation. Read Williams to get a grounding in the dominant structures of the Roman sexual system, and then forget everything he says about f/f sex and read Boehringer.
I have some thoughts about the structure of the book, in how the examination of the Dialogues of the Courtesans is placed apart from the main presentation, as if it were a different type of evidence. As the most complex and extensive presentation of sex between women in the classical era, I can see how it makes sense to sort out the simpler texts first and then use that analysis to interpret the dialogues. And given that it's an adaptation of an independent article, Boehringer may have had structural reasons for separating it from the overall outline.
Several years ago, I did a podcast on f/f sexuality in classical Rome, based on everything I had read up to that point. Obviously, I might discuss certain details differently with the addition of Boehringer's analysis. That's only to be expected and entirely unsurprising. If I weren't learning new things all the time, I might as well close down the Project. And conversely, if I waited to post any summaries or analysis until I had perfect and complete knowledge about a topic, I'd never post anything at all.
Pages
