Talk:Effeminacy/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

What St. Thomas Aquinas says will also be added. There should be a wealth of Latin evidence for this subject also. WHEELER 15:24, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I object to the edit that made it a section. The word continues through history and has an effect. I point out the the educational influences of the word "Effeminacy" in Victorian England and 19th century America and now the section head destroys the continuity of the article. How come there are many references in English Literature to effeminacy----because maybe Its found in the Bible. What had the greatest effect on Western culture the Bible. Where is this word from The Bible. Where did the Bible pick it up from -----The Greeks!!!!!! Who should define the word? This word doesn't exist in any Western culture but by the Greeks. Let the word and its meanings stand in context. There is no division of the word from its content and the heading does that.WHEELER 16:10, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Context" refers to more than you seem to think. Slrubenstein

Revisionism in the Church

Guess what word is missing from New Bibles:

NEW BIBLES Nestle-Aland Greek-English New Testament 26th edition l979 (Used as textbook in Roman Catholic Seminaries.)

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, not idolaters, not adulterers, not sexual perverts, …will inherit the kingdom of God.”

The New American Bible with Nihil Obstat Stephen J. Hartdegen, O.F.M.,S.S.L. Christian P. Ceroke, O. Carm., S.T.D. Imprimatur: Patrick Cardinal O’Boyle, D.D. Archbishop of Washington l987

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes not practicing homosexuals…will inherit the kingdom of heaven.”

The Orthodox Study Bible with Joseph Allen, Th. D.; Jack Norman Sparks, PH. D.; Theodore Stylianopoulos, Th. D.; Archbishop IAKOVOS, Metropolitan THEODOSIUS. 1993

1 Cor 6:9 “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, not homosexuals, nor sodomites, will inherit the kingdom of God.

OLD BIBLES The New American Catholic Edition The Holy Bible Imprimatur Francis Cardinal Spellman l958

1 Cor 6:9 “Or do you not know that the unjust will not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor sodomites,…will possess the kingdom of God.”

The King James Bible

1 Cor 6.9 “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, not idolaters, not adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind…shall inherit the kingdom of God.

This is an importance of an Encyclopaedia. So, information does not get lost. Nestle Aland is an prestigious work. It has an authority. It is used in many seminaries. Yet, where the Greek has five activities, the English only reads four.

Words are important. Lose the Word, one naturally loses the concept. It is important that this word disappears from modern culture. WHEELER 14:15, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The passages against homosexuality are confuted at http://www.jeramyt.org/gay.html . It also deals with effeminacy. lysdexia 08:11, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree withyou -- it is important. It shows how language and culture change. It shows how our culture is different from that of the Greeks. To explain this, though, we need much more than sacattered quotes. We need to explore the broader social and cultural context in which people used language this way, and how that social and cultural context have changed so the meaning (or usefulness or value) of the word has changed. Slrubenstein

Did it change of its own accord or did someone purposely drop it? Furthermore, shouldn't texts of the Bible be translated without fault? Here is a clear example of political correctness creeping in.WHEELER 14:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

See Reformism and all the links to it. like evolutionary socialism. Yes, the word hasn't changed its been completely dropped like a hot potato. And NO, I am not into reformism and revisionism like some people are.WHEELER 14:31, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How and why the term changed is an important question I am surte historians and others have studied. I agree with the spirit of your desire to see texts translated accurately. But perhaps you are unaware of debates over translation. I grant that in the case at hand the issue may be very simple. In many cases, however, it is not -- the correct translation of a term may change, as meanings of words change (for example, translate the Hebrew "atah" as "you" or as "thou?") Also, some words simply have no literal translation into another language. Finally, some grammatical constructions are difficult to trnslate. Most Bibles begin with "In the beginning" which is an absolutely incorrect translation, although what would be the correct translation is a matter of debate. And this has little to do with political correctness. Slrubenstein

The difference between you or thou is nothing significant. It is the difference between style of polite or common. Malakoi is very definite in its meaning and its connotation. This is the reason I placed many quotes. This is read by many people that can not just jump to their study and pull out a book and say ah-ah. This article gives plenty of examples of word context and usage so that people are aware of the historical context and they way people thought and used the word. Many Christians also use this encycopaedia, they would be greatly informed.WHEELER 00:27, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MS Word

Whoever is the primary author of this article (User:WHEELER, I presume) badly needs to stop pasting from MS Word or whatever it is you're doing. I just cleaned up a bunch of "?" question mark characters in place of what should've been single or double-quote characters. This is really bad practice; please find a way to avoid this. :) - Korpios 16:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

POV

Looking at the article right now, it seems quite POV against effeminacy; I'm probably going to take a crack at revising it towards a more NPOV ideal. For one thing, there are many who view effeminacy as attractive. There's also the issue of including the current context with regards to gender issues, identity, roles, and transgenderism. - Korpios 16:49, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Actually... seeing as how effeminate is a redirect to gender role, the bulk of this article would actually make an interesting move/addition to prescriptions regarding gender roles, fleshing it out to more of a full-length article rather than a stub. It can then also redirect to gender role. - Korpios 16:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This is about the "Classical" meaning and Idea of effeminancy. Korpios This needs to remain because it is in Aritotle's list of vices in the book "Virtues and Vices". This is also a Christian teaching. both the Classical and Christian teaching of this is very different from where you are at. You do not have a classical background. In any other Classical sense, this would be in a Classical reference book. This is not about gender roles or any modern ideas. If you want to make your own article about how effeminacy is attractive place it as a paragraphy in the gender role article. But the content and meaning of this article is about VICE and the Classical meaning which is also has a Christian meaning. This article is not POV --it is nothing but direct quotes. Please read the Oxford Dictionary.WHEELER 18:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I work from a Library computer and all they have is MS Word. If you want to add a modern definition at the bottom of the article be my guest. But the Classical and Christian meanings have to remain because classicists and christians will be using this definition also and they need to know the history of the word.WHEELER 21:56, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How's a disambiguation page sound as a solution? That way we can make it crystal-clear what sort of sense the article intends, and still direct people to gender role who are looking for that particular sort of information. We would move this article to Effeminacy (classical vice), with the disambig page linking to it; that way, it's crystal-clear. Korpios 23:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

I fixed the redirect from effeminate. The idea of merging the article is ludacris, it is no stub, but rather very nicely written and well supplied w wikipedia:citations. - Sam Spade 23:54, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wow, are we even talking about the same prescriptions regarding gender roles stub here, Sam?

As for the redirect, that just makes things worse — there are many articles talking about effeminacy in the gender role sense which link to effeminacy and expect information about the gender role. This article, according to WHEELER, isn't intended to talk about gender roles, so this is highly misleading. A disambiguation page at this point is a must.

- Korpios 00:04, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I'm moving this page to Effeminacy (classical vice) and replacing this with a disambiguation page, so we can avoid all the messiness, redirects and otherwise. - Korpios 00:09, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The concept of effeminacy with regards to modern gender roles should get its own article at some point, so the disambiguation page can point to more than just gender role. I'll probably work up a stub before too long. - Korpios 00:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

B.S., its all the same thing! Splitting the article only doubles the problem, and you can't rename your troubles away. I dispute this false dicotomy. Sam [Spade] 00:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER seems to dispute that it's a false dichotomy, and I'm inclined to agree in the sense he means. If he wants to track it as a classical vice, I'm fine with that, so long as it's not confused with the very straightforward, more modern sense of femininity applied to men. (Besides, I'm not sure we could get him to go along with any plan that would require extensive reworking of the article.) - Korpios 00:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I know what your saying, but I don't like it. I think we should make a grade-a "Effeminacy" article. That said, I'm not going to write it, and am certainly not going to have a hissy fit about the whole thing. Lets just have a wine cooler and watch "sex in the city", ok? ;) Sam [Spade] 04:16, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ew, television? :) If we can get a good article written on it in the non-classical-vice sense, we might then be able to merge it back with the classical-vice article. But, that's a big "if"; gender role covers it adequately for now, and calling the classical-vice article a neutral article about a "gender role" just doesn't work. I'm not even sure WHEELER is up for debate on this. :/ - Korpios 17:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Lets not assume anything about each other for one thing, there are plenty of other people doing that already ;). Next, the best thing for the reader is to have a combined article on effeminacy. There is no "classical effeminacy" separate from modern effeminacy. That’s something invented on the spot to keep you and wheeler from having to discuss matters further ;). Effeminacy is effeminacy, then and now. It is poofs and swishers and boys who join the cheerleading squad instead of the football team. We all know what the word means, for gosh sakes! It’s actually a rather interesting subject, because most gay men (who I have met) are effeminate, but there are supposedly (I haven’t met them but pro-gay folks do go on about them) non-effeminate gay men, and there are definitely non-gay effeminant men. The thing is regular jock-type guys assume all effeminate men are gay, and all gays are effeminate, which creates an unfortunate dynamic for a puny heterosexual guy w a lisp ;) I think there needs to be a coherent article which explains how in classical times, bisexuality was standard, w effeminate men and boys generally ending up on the "receiving" team, and agro type-a men ending up... running w the ball ;) Today, bisexuality is much less publicly accepted than it was in ancient Greece, and we have a "gay community", something largely unheard of in classic times. Indeed the closest thing they had to a gay community was in the military, w decidedly non-effeminate men who paired off w a partner for combat as well as romantic purposes. It’s all rather confusing, and deserves a quality article to explain to joe-sixpack why the effeminate guy at work might not be a homosexual, while the football player on his TV might be. I wonder, is there any research on effeminacy, showing the likelyhood of an effeminate man to be homosexual, or a homosexual to be effeminate, or what-have-you? All food for thought. I think I better go watch the ball game where there's obviously no homo-erotic behaviours whatsoever, just alot of men in tight clothing slapping each others bottoms... actually, forget the ball game... ;) Sam [Spade] 18:34, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be little trouble to make the "classical vice" page part of a larger effeminacy page. The "classical effimancy" is a concept from antiquity and the modern sense is evolved from that, further, they are nearly identical, with small details of what is considered effeminacy varying between times and places. This is how music articles develop, for instance: Chromatic, or chromaticism, is a Greek concept, the term for which was borrowed by Medieval European theorists to describe another concept, the term for which was then applied to the different concept of modern chromaticism.

Also, the "classical vice" article does not:

Mention the intersection of class and gender that defines appropriate effeminacy
Mention sex at all
Mention the other "classical vices" of which effeminacy is considered a part

The link provided to vice does not clear this up, but is further confusing, as effeminacy is listed as one of the "cardinal" vices, corresponding to one of the four cardinal virtues, despite being fifth in a list of six. Hyacinth 20:37, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I just missed my bus to work and thus edited the vice article.

Now what?

Okay, I made a boo-boo. :( I shouldn't have been so thrown off by WHEELER's reaction (over now at Talk:Effeminacy (classical vice)), and I should've tried to work through it. Does anyone want to help me fix this? :) - Korpios 20:55, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Mmmmaybe.. ;) Not enough to do alot of work, but enough to keep an eye and help out where I can. I'll also do my part by being sassy in the talk page, which I'm sure we'll all take great comfort in ;) Sam [Spade] 20:57, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to do the following to get the original article back in place:

Move this article to overwrite the redirect over at effeminate.
Move effeminacy (classical vice) back over here.
Change effeminate back to a redirect to here.
Start modifying the article to take into account all the various senses of the term.

All the legwork above is necessary because I can't move-overwrite as a non-admin, so I have to do some shuffling. :)

- Korpios 17:44, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Bah, I can't even do that since effeminate has an edit history at all, even if it just consists of redirects. :( Time to get some admin help.... - Korpios 17:46, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

haha, you don't need an admin. I'll see what I will do ;) Sam [Spade] 18:16, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Time to add info

OK, moved. Feel free to add as much info as you can, just please don't delete any of the good stuff wheeler so kindly cited for us :) Sam [Spade] 18:22, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it strange that moderns want to change the meaning of words. The word effeminate has over 2500 years of the same meaning. Korpios have you read the Oxford English dictionary? Who is an expert: you Korpios or the OED? Here, I want to point out the arrogance of the moderns who think they can change a word that has a meaning of 2500 years in numerous texts and change it into something else. St. Thomas Aquannis did not change the word. Who is a greater teacher? St. Thomas does not know what he is talking about when he wrote on effeminacy in his Summa Theologica? The OED has 75 references to 500 years of the use of the word in their own language meaning one thing. It corresponds to the classical meaning. Korpios, what you want to do is not in the OED, medieval texts, or classical texts.

Can someone restore the whole history of this article and the original talk page? It now looks like Korpios originated the article. He didn't transfer the old talk page nor the original history of it either. Please restore the history and original talk pages.WHEELER 14:15, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First, on the history part — you're right, it shouldn't have been clobbered, and that was never my intention (nor that of Sam Spade, I'm certain). It's still sitting around, in all likelihood, in what's now a redirect here. We might have to get admins involved to fix this properly.

Second, back to your definition point: your fallacious Arguments from Authority aside, I don't have access to the OED — but Webster's seems to be a fairly definitive resource, and it states:

having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement

Exactly how am I "changing" these meanings? I'd love to know. You do realize that "feminine" is a reference to gender roles, right?

Regardless, the article needs to encompass all meanings, and all from a NPOV.

- Korpios 17:01, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

And the first thing to define is what effeminacy is and you changed it. Follow the OED. It defines it first. Then add later meaning after the original meaning. WHEELER 15:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Feminine is not a gender role it is a Character trait. Effeminacy is generally, 95% of the time it is applied only to men and societies and in a bad and evil way. Gender role doesn't answer it being applied to human societies on the whole.WHEELER 15:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Restore the original history and talk pages of this article Korpios.WHEELER 15:42, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Kor can't easily do that. Nor can anyone, actually - merging edit histories is virtually impossible. The old edit history should still be around on an article. Probably Effeminacy (classical vice) if I understand correctly. As for your other points... oldness does not make something dominant. Effeminacy is now basically used to refer to "Men who seem like they're probably gay." (At least in common usage.) Since no one much calls societies gay, there's limits to how much that usage is current. The OED lists definitions chronologically. However, older definitions are not always the most important. Snowspinner 21:34, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

People call France gay all the time ;) Sam [Spade] 23:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Definitions

There are now least three definitions given on the current article.

The negative classical view: indicative of other "weaknesses"
The negative modern view: indicative of gayness
The neutral modern view: indicative of nothing else

Hyacinth 21:50, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand the "neutral modern view" part. The term always means the same thing, clasical or modern, it means "feminine". There is no other meaning. Alot of people think a man being Effeminate is bad, or gay, or whatever. The bad is subjective, and as for Effeminates being more likely to be homosexual, I'd like to see some evidence on that (or on gays being likely to be Effeminate, etc...). Sam [Spade] 23:33, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You especially would not understand as my comments were directed at Wheeler, who accused "moderns" (Korpios?) of "change[ing] the meaning of words". I see what you are saying: it has the same definition even if that definition is viewed negatively or positively. We can argue about whether a definition, by definition, may include a judgement, in which case I would decline to continue the discussion, or you may choose to interpret my previous post more loosely.

However, Wheeler has argued that a negative judgement was inherent in the "Classical" definition, and I agree. Even today the same term implies, for some, other negative characterics.

Further, the term effeminate does not mean "femininity", it means "femininity in men", which cleary has a value judgement, in that appropriate or correct male and female characteristics or traits are already defined and segregated.

Hyacinth 02:04, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree with all of that, and on second reading I understand what you ment, that there are 3 definitions in the article, rather than 3 separate real world definitions. If you ever change your mind and decide you do want to talk about definitions containing value judgments, come on over to Political Correctness, and I (and/or others) will gladly oblige you :). Sam [Spade] 02:25, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I like your recent edits to the introduction, they help to unify the POVs into one article. However, you turned many strong statements into weak ones with the use of what some call weasel terms. Specifically : "Traditionally it is considered a vice, perhaps even indicative of other negative character traits." I disagree, effiminacy always indicated other negative character traits. This was apparently true of all vices, and either should be spelled out strongly and truthfully, or omitted as obvious. Thus, I edited appropriately. Hyacinth 03:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Editing, see above, pointed out to me that we have seperate paragraphs about "characteristics" and "behaviour", with nearly identical discussion. I suggest we merge the two, and will attempt to do so. Hyacinth 03:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Butch

I would argue that the definition of this term is essentially the same within and without the gay community (a masculine woman, nearly always a lesbian). Sam [Spade] 03:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I suppose the protective status is the more specific meaning to which you refer? Sam [Spade] 04:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope:

"Inherent to butch-fem relationships was the presumption that the butch is the physically active partner and the leader in lovemaking....Yet unlike the dynamics of many heterosexual relationships, the butch's foremost objective was to give sexual pleasure to a fem....The essense of this emotional/sexual dynamic is captured by the ideal of the "stone butch," or untouchable butch."
- Davis, Madeline and Lapovsky Kennedy, Elizabeth (1989). "Oral History and the Study of Sexuality in the Lesbian Community", Hidden from History: Reclaiming the Gay & Lesbian Past (1990), Duberman, etc, eds. New York: Meridian, New American Library, Penguin Books. ISBN 0452010675.

Yah, I was surprised too. Hyacinth 05:03, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not me, I know all about lesbian lovemaking, stone-butch and all. Don't ask how (lets just say your not the only one whose read a few unusual books ;) Sam [Spade] 05:08, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Butch" does not only refer to women. Men can be butch as well. Exploding Boy 00:52, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add that factoid because:

I couldn't find a way to make it pertinent
I've only heard gay men call men butch

Feel free to add it, for instance, "The opposite of effeminacy is butchness, masculinity, etc." could be added to the end of the first paragraph. Thanks. Hyacinth 20:49, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Recents edits

Very good recent edits Hyacinth, I think your getting to the very heart of these matters, whcih IMO is to be found within greek homosexual practices. The strict hierarchy distinction between those who were penetrated (Effeminant slaves, or young boys) and those who did the penetrating (strong and powerful affluent men, exuding machismo) was very signifigant, and relates to topics we have been discussing elsewhere. Sam [Spade] 05:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, Hycanth and Sam Spade have made better edits to it. The Greeks and the Christian Fathers always held to the ancient law of "Strict Continuity". Words and ideas were kept to their strict meaning. It comes from the mileiu. They were a hard people so their character passed to their mentality. Today we live in an effeminate society, weak in character, weak in constitution, weak in morals, weak in mind. Words can mean anything and everything today. Tomorrow effeminacy is what football players have and it will mean something glorious and it will mean being hard. Today words have no meaning.

This is an example on the uselessness of an encyclopedia for today. Words have no meaning. The good has become evil and evil good.WHEELER 14:01, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why do I put the occurences of the word in the article? Why does the OED put occurences in their dictionary? Because they both show the meaning of the word in its context. Yet, the NEW and MODERN definitions don't match at all the classical, biblical, Christian contexts at all. Why is that? Because moderns don't care they make all things in their image. They conform reality to what they want it to be not the way it is. Changing reality to the way they want it to be.

I am reminded of the story of Hegel, upon being told that the facts contradicted his theories, he replied sternly: Um so schlimmer für die Tatsachen—"All the worse for the facts". Theory and ideology trumps facts. Modern man is out to rewrite all conventions and knowledge. Modern Man says, I am God, I will remake reality to my liking. Hegel reigns supreme.WHEELER 14:10, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I find it strange that the word has no sexual connotations yet it is made into having sexual connotations. Reading all the historical facts, I can not find where it pertains to anything sexual.WHEELER 14:19, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

First, aren't you a "modern"?

Second, do you have any complaints specifically related to the article? Would you care to enumerate them outside of a rant, with details. For instance, you could quote statements within the article that you disagree with and explain why you disagree with them.

Thirdly, I would say that the anciennes would not be able to work on wikipedia, because wikipedia does not use definition by fiat, except that I completely disagree that the meaning of words never changed in some mythically perfect past: the word Malakos, you're unchanging ever-constant "effeminate", meant soft, and only through a change in definition or analogy did it come to mean effeminate. Hyacinth 19:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER - if you feel that way, perhaps Wikipedia is not the project for you? Snowspinner 21:05, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Hi all. If we are going to mention things like "a high voice or lisp", even parenthetically, then we may as well just start making lists of things considered effeminate by different folks in different places at different times. Either that or drop the specifics. Hyacinth 20:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm ok w such lists, but agree they arn't necessary. I simply added a mention of one of the most commonly "effiminant" stereotypes. Sam [Spade] 20:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If one reads the classical texts and the biblical texts, it doesn't mean homosexual. Effeminacy does not have sexual connotations. So I disagree with all of sudden this is made out to being somehow all about sex. And it isn't. It is a character trait, a persona, a failure of the soul. not some sex thing.WHEELER 20:48, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hycianth are you Korpios?

And second, please point out in a classical text where Malakos has sexual connotations? Please I am interested in where this is found? WHEELER 20:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

""A Greek word that approaches one modern meaning of effeminate is kinaidos (or cinaedus), a man "whose most salient feature was a supposedly "feminine" love of being sexually penetrated by other men." (14) However, "cinaedus is not actually anchored in that specific sexual practice....It refers instead to a man who has an identity as gender deviant." (15) Kinaidos is malakos, but malakos is more general effeminacy (16).""

Is this sentence really have to do with effeminacy? Effeminacy is something that is missing of the soul. It is not materialistic. It is a vice. This idea of penetration this and penetration that, You think the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Catholic Encyclopedia would or any classical reference dictionary include any of this in it??? NO. I think this is just a bunch of homosexual propaganda that has nothing to do with the term effeminacy at all.WHEELER 20:56, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Except insofar as anyone actually uses the word "effeminate" anymore... Snowspinner 21:05, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think you moderns have a clue what is meant by this term. I spent my life reading the ancient Greeks and classicists. This idea has nothing to do with gender roles or homosexuality. It has to do with being able to stand in the spear line. Aristotle remarks that an effeminate man is one who lets his cloak drag on the ground. It is laziness. The Greek idea of this is laziness, softness of one not able to do his duty. Where in Aristotle is this about penetration? Where in Herodotus is this about penetration? Come on. What did St. Thomas Aquinas think of the word? Do any of you know? How does penetration make the old Athenian kings malakoi????? Do you find any of your terms and definitions at all in the OED?WHEELER 23:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, actually, I do - the first definition of "effeminate" is "Of persons: That has become like a woman: a. Womanish, unmanly, enervated, feeble; self-indulgent, voluptuous; unbecomingly delicate or over-refined. Also (Obs.) absol." Snowspinner 00:47, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

First, I, Hyacinth, am not Korpios, as evidenced by my discussion with Korpios and this very talk page. Second, I doesn't matter what you think of me, but what do you think of the article. Thirdly, if this has nothing to do with gender roles, where are the examples of effeminate women? Hyacinth 03:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the OED, and we are allowed to use other sources.

As Dale Martin explains regarding malakos:

"The JB (1966) chooses "catamite," the NAB (1970) renders arsenokoités and malakos together as "sodomite," others translate malakos as "male prostitute" (NIV 1973, NRSV 1989), and again some combine both terms and offer the modern medicalized categories of sexual, or particularly homosexual, "perversion" (RSV 1946, TEV 1966, NEB 1970, REB 1992)."

Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. 1995, reads:

"effeminate - ADJECTIVE: Having qualities more appropriate to women than to men: epicene, feminine, sissified, sissyish, unmanly, womanish. See GENDER." [1]

Also, please see: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and especially Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Hyacinth 03:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)