# This is a job for gays



## effeundici

Hi, how would you translate this sentence? Meaning that that job could be very well carried out by a gay.

_Hic est laborem ob ???? _

No offence intended for anybody, obviously.

Thank you.


----------



## Joca

This is a tough one.

Hmm, I would say: Labor est decorus mollibus. 

Or: Labor est decorus viris gay.

I am not sure if the former would sound offensive or not.


----------



## effeundici

Thank you.


----------



## Stoicorum_simia

It's quite difficult to think of a Latin version of 'gay' because categories of sexuality were perceived rather differently. To define a person by their sexual preferences was normally to denigrate them, and I don't think any Roman (or mediaeval) man would have been pleased to be called _mollis. _Any other ideas, anyone?


----------



## effeundici

Stoicorum_simia said:


> It's quite difficult to think of a Latin version of 'gay' because categories of sexuality were perceived rather differently. To define a person by their sexual preferences was normally to denigrate them, and I don't think any Roman (or mediaeval) man would have been pleased to be called _mollis. _Any other ideas, anyone?


 
Mmmmhhh, homosexuality in ancient Greece was, at least, widely accepted. Basically all great Greek men of the past had love relationships with young men and preferred that kind of relationship to those with women. Am I wrong?


----------



## Stoicorum_simia

Many Greek men certainly preferred young men (really, boys) to women, yes, but others the opposite (for instance, it was said that Sophocles preferred boys and Euripides women). In practice, most men were what we would call bisexual. It was definitely not respectable, though, for a grown man to take the 'passive' role in sexual relations, and those who were suspected of having such preferences were subject to ridicule. In early Roman society it seems that gay sex was less prevalent than it was among the Greeks, but that under Greek influence it became broadly acceptable.
My point was really not that having sex with one of your own gender was negatively valued, but that seeing 'gayness' or 'straightness' as part of, even the centre of, your own identity was foreign to the ancient world. Even if you had a strong preference one way or the other, that was just part of the total of your tastes. So I can't think of a neutral word to express 'gay' - you would have to use a periphrastic expression. _Mollis_ is certainly not neutral in this context, and would imply that the person so described is not a 'real man'.


----------



## effeundici

Thank you very much


----------



## Cagey

It would, of course, help if we knew on what grounds this is a "job for gays."  What kind of job is it?  What kind of people would be suited to do it?


----------



## Joca

Cagey said:


> It would, of course, help if we knew on what grounds this is a "job for gays." What kind of job is it? What kind of people would be suited to do it?


 
I was going to ask the same question. What kind of job do you have in your mind? As far as I know, most jobs in Ancient Rome were done by the slaves.


----------



## Outsider

Stoicorum_simia said:


> It's quite difficult to think of a Latin version of 'gay' because categories of sexuality were perceived rather differently. To define a person by their sexual preferences was normally to denigrate them, and I don't think any Roman (or mediaeval) man would have been pleased to be called _mollis._ Any other ideas, anyone?


What about Latin today? Which word does the Vatican use, for example?

*Effeundici*, I second the question about the meaning of "job" here. Is it the same as in "This is a job for Superman", or does it mean an actual job?


----------



## Stoicorum_simia

Outsider said:


> What about Latin today? Which word does the Vatican use, for example?
> 
> I too was wondering what moderns might sensibly say in Latin, but this particular semantic area might be one where we don't necessarily want the Vatican to give the lead...


----------



## effeundici

How about 

CINAEDUS and PATHICUS.

@everybody : The sentence itself is intended to be derogatory. When I wrote "no offence" I referred to my personal opinions. So perhaps a better original sentence could be _: this is a job for queers...(I'm not going to accept it) ..._no offence intended for anybody of course, it's just grammar.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Outsider said:


> What about Latin today? Which word does the Vatican use, for example?
> 
> ...


Paragraph 2357 of the 1997 Latin version of the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses *homosexualitas* for "homexuality" and *homosexualis* for the adjective "homosexual". The closest it gets to using a personal noun for homosexuals is *Personae homosexuales*.

No a lot of help there then!


----------



## Outsider

Thank you, Kevin.

Now that Effeundici has clarified that he intends the meaning to be derogatory, I'm sure there are many possibilities in classical Latin... Wikipedia can give you a start.


----------



## Joca

effeundici said:


> How about
> 
> CINAEDUS and PATHICUS.
> 
> @everybody : The sentence itself is intended to be derogatory. When I wrote "no offence" I referred to my personal opinions. So perhaps a better original sentence could be _: this is a job for queers...(I'm not going to accept it) ..._no offence intended for anybody of course, it's just grammar.


 
Hmm, maybe this is off-topic, but I can't think of a job that a "queer" wouldn't be able to do. Not all "queers" are the same. There are all kinds of "queers," strong and weak, timid and bold, effeminate and masculine, etc...


----------



## effeundici

Joca said:


> Hmm, maybe this is off-topic, but I can't think of a job that a "queer" wouldn't be able to do. Not all "queers" are the same. There are all kinds of "queers," strong and weak, timid and bold, effeminate and masculine, etc...


 
Oh,come on,Joca,that's completely obvious.

We are discussing about grammar,not about silly and obsolete prejudices.


----------



## Sepia

Joca said:


> Hmm, maybe this is off-topic, but I can't think of a job that a "queer" wouldn't be able to do. Not all "queers" are the same. There are all kinds of "queers," strong and weak, timid and bold, effeminate and masculine, etc...



There was no implication that gays couldn't do any job that a heterosexual couldn't do, in the opening thread. In fact nothing excludes the possibility that we were talking about a job that a gay person could probably do better than anyone else ... I mean just by throwing an objective glance at the text. 

But the word "queer" definitely does not have the same value as "gay".


----------



## Cagey

effeundici said:


> Oh,come on,Joca,that's completely obvious.
> 
> We are discussing about grammar,not about silly and obsolete prejudices.


It might have been obvious if _context_ had been provided in the original post that explained why this particular description had been chosen, and what use was going to be made of the sentence.

But it wasn't.  The original post apparently assumed that everyone would have a shared understanding of the derogatory significance (see later post).  The subsequent discussion brought out interesting considerations, but it could have been more to the point, as well, if the intent had been clear from the start.  As it is, we still don't know the _context_ in which would be used, which makes all the difference.


----------



## jmk9

Cagey said:


> It might have been obvious if _context_ had been provided in the original post that explained why this particular description had been chosen, and what use was going to be made of the sentence.
> 
> But it wasn't.  The original post apparently assumed that everyone would have a shared understanding of the derogatory significance (see later post).  The subsequent discussion brought out interesting considerations, but it could have been more to the point, as well, if the intent had been clear from the start.  As it is, we still don't know the _context_ in which would be used, which makes all the difference.



I would tend to agree with this one. In ancient greek at least, _assuming the person in question is male_, there are distinct words for young boys who assume a passive sexual role, boys who continue to do so even if they are somewhat older, old men who engage is such - then considered inappropriate - practices, as well for male prostitutes of different ages. Unfortunately I cannot cite any lemmata at the moment, yet I remember that the majority were sourced from Aristophanes' plays and the more comical epigrams of the palatine anthology. I suspect the situation was similar in Roman times. Am I wrong to suggest that Martial's epigrams are most likely to provide you with the most colourful vocabulary?

From late mediaeval times onwards _sodomiticus_ was used to denote homosexuals (as well as anyone engaging in non-reploductive sex) yet I don't believe the word could have a comic effect.

Also, Greeks and Romans would be more likely to comment on someone's _conduct_ instead of particular actions (as implied by "a job").


----------

