Ancient Greece: Hedonistic Narcissism at its finest.

After reading Halperin’s “Is there a History of Sexuality” I was upset by the fact that the Athenians used sexuality as a way to oppress marginalized individuals. I mean don’t get me wrong, I have a strong appreciation for Greek culture. After all, they brought us falafel, baklava and the greatest creation ever made from chickpeas…hummus! However, their contributions to the world of food don’t counteract the fact that they make Jenna Jameson look like Mother Teresa. At least Mrs. Jameson uses sex as a means of procuring wealth and not for perpetuating an unjust cycle of domination. When Jenna looks at herself in the mirror when she reaches the end of her “porndom” journey, she may arguably have a few regrets. But, I highly doubt one of them would be “I used my sexuality to subjugate woman, boys, foreigners and slaves.”
I guess what infuriates me about the Athenians is the idea that those of high-status could get as freaky as they wanted with whoever they wanted, but their sexual escapades helped keep a tyrannical system in place. Unlike, the fee-lovin-tyedye-wearing hippies of the 60’s and 70’s, the Athenians used their sexual liberty to keep others shackled. (yes, and I mean shackled figuratively, literally, and one could even interpret this as a bondage reference.) Maybe some people can find admiration for the Athenians because they were accepting of homosexuality, but the nature of the sexual relationships practiced and the roles each partner were forced to take on tell that the Athenians were actually uptight and rigid when it came to the birds and the bees.
“Sex is portrayed in Athenian documents not as a mutual enterprise in which two or more persons jointly engage but as an action performed by a social superior upon a social inferior.” This excerpt from Halperin’s essay says it all.
“Social Inferiors” were forced to live in a society where every aspect of their being is controlled. Their sexuality should have been something they could exercise according to their own free will. By not even owning their sexuality they were made to feel like something below an animal. These “Social Inferiors” were tools of pleasure for the hedonistic elite. It just goes along with the idea that the upper-class felt they were entitled to whatever they desired. Since these “enterprises” were NOT mutual aren’t we really talking about a society where gangs of power-hungry RAPISTS walked the streets? I just wonder what happened to those brave souls, male or female, who refused to give in to the elitists’ advances.
Speaking of brave souls, I have come to the conclusion that Maurice is not one. So he is a member of a yuppyish wealthy circle who wouldn’t be in favor of his loving inclination toward men, but he just strikes me as a coward. I don’t expect him to parade through the streets with a “WE’RE QUEER WE’RE HERE!” sign, but at least get a little more backbone. Maurice is terrified of who he really is and in the beginning of the novel takes denial to a whole new level. I am talking about the dreams he has where he interprets them to not be lusty, but Christian based. The conclusion he reached about his dreams proves to be both humorous and annoying.