Lectures · Lecture 12

12.1

There is, moreover, a considerable element of self-indulgence in matters of sex as well, since those who live in luxury require a variety of sexual partners, not only lawful but unlawful ones, not only females but also males, hunting now after these lovers, now after those, and, not content with those who are readily available, they pursue rare ones, and seek out shameful unions — all of which are grave accusations against a human being. But those who are not self-indulgent, or not depraved, must regard as just only those sexual acts that are accomplished within marriage and for the begetting of children, because these are also lawful; whereas those which pursue mere pleasure are unjust and unlawful, even if they occur within marriage. As for other unions, those that involve adultery are the most unlawful, and no more moderate than these are the relations of males with males, since the act is against nature. And all those unions with females which fall outside adultery, being deprived of taking place according to law, are likewise all shameful, since they are done through lack of self-control. For a man possessed of self-control would not bring himself to approach a courtesan, nor a free woman apart from marriage, nor, by Zeus, his own serving-maid. For the fact that these unions are neither lawful nor decent makes them a disgrace and a great reproach to those who pursue them; hence no one endures to do any such thing openly, even if he is capable of blushing only a little, but those who have not entirely fallen away dare to do these things by concealment and in secret. And yet trying to escape notice in what one does is the mark of someone who admits he is doing wrong. "By Zeus," someone says, "but it is not the same: whereas the adulterer wrongs the husband of the woman he has corrupted, the man who consorts with a courtesan does not in this way wrong anyone, nor, by Zeus, does the man who consorts with a woman who has no husband; for he destroys no one's hope of children."

12.2

For my part, I refrain from saying that everyone who does wrong at once also acts unjustly, even if against no one of his neighbors, yet certainly against himself, making himself worse and more dishonored; for the one who does wrong, insofar as he does wrong, becomes worse and more dishonored. So, to set aside the injustice, it is nevertheless wholly inevitable that self-indulgence belongs to the man who is overcome by shameful pleasure and takes delight in defiling himself, like swine. And of this sort, not least, is the man who consorts with his own serving-maid — something which some suppose to be, in a way, especially blameless, since every master seems to have full authority to use his own slave however he wishes. But to this my reply is simple: if it seems to someone not shameful nor out of place for a master to consort with his own serving-maid — and especially if she happens to be a widow — let him consider how it would appear to him if a mistress were to consort with her male slave. For surely it would not seem tolerable, not only if a woman who had a lawful husband should take a slave, but even if she did this while having no husband. And yet one will surely not think that men are worse than women, nor less able to school their own desires — men, who are stronger in judgment than the weaker, who are rulers than the ruled. For it is fitting that men be far better, if indeed they claim also to be set over women; whereas if they show themselves to be more without self-control . . . and worse. And that it is the work of lack of self-control and of nothing else for a master to consort with his serving-maid — what need is there even to say it? For it is well known.