though she be but little

Some talk (navelgazing, really) about my smut writing below (in general, but also specifically about my brief forays into PIV sex), so if you're not interested in that, don't read further.

navelgazing within.

I mostly write smut because of the character interactions and feelings it can/will bring up for the characters, about themselves, their partner (regardless the consent level involved in the fic), whatever the relationship is between the two characters, and such. That's always been the main draw, from playing with spark sex when writing TF and perfectly regular human sex now that I have human characters in ships lol.

I'm... very obviously mostly an m/m shipper, and then an f/f one (most of what I read when I read fiction is f/f, even if I don't engage with any of those stories or characters fannishly).

Helen/Paris is the first m/f ship I've had that I'm not just writing fic for (as I've done for a couple others, here and there), but smut fic for.

And it doesn't matter that I do headcanon that they have PIV sex and both enjoy that. It doesn't matter that when I've written it, I put Helen in charge, either literally or metaphorically on top. It sparks no joy, it scratches no itches, even when I can make the way they have PIV sex still say something about the dynamics of their relationship (the "Helen is in charge" and d/s angles/flavouring or outright that).

And sure, I guess that's not really a problem or anything. It doesn't squick me to write (reading other people's work, however, m/f PIV sex is... touching up on being a squick for me), but it's not interesting. I also already knew I'm not at all interested in cock/cock-like object going into a woman's orifices, regardless of the ship-type.

When I read or write f/f, it's both deeply uninteresting and becomes almost squicky when at least one, or maybe both, women's arousal and lust is centered around "I want to be filled". Deeply a problem for me when it comes to professionally published f/f with sex scenes. It is very often a feature and it turns me off so much. Doesn't matter if it's a strap-on or just fingers; that's still too much penetration for me for what I want from an f/f sex scene.

And the same apparently basically applies for m/f sex for me. I really do not want the female character to be penetrated. In any of her orifices (there's definitely a reason I've never written oral sex where Helen is giving it).

Again, I guess, not a problem, really. I can just write whatever smut I want, and if that is pegging (or alpha!Helen with a cock when it comes to omegaverse), because I want Paris fucked, and cunnilingus, no harm, no foul, right?

It's just... idk. It feels kind of odd, too. I guess partially because "obviously" a m/f couple "ought" to be having PIV sex. And I do think Helen and Paris are having it. And pegging in the Bronze Age feels kind of like pushing realism, even if - who cares right, it's just fun smut, whatever. I'm still sitting here feeling awkward about it, for some dumb reason.

I.
Some general points when it comes to ancient Greek culture and certain attitudes relevant to the topic:
Moderation, first of all, was a thing the Ancient Greeks considered paramount; moderation in sex, food, drink, pleasure, clothing - you name it. Self-control and nothing *too much*, of anything. I think this can be reflected in Menelaos' Book 13 speech: "There is satiety in all things, even sleep and even love, and in sweet song and blameless dance [...] But the Trojans are insatiate of battle." He twice juxtaposes (before and at the end of this speech) the Trojans' supposed insatiability (lack of moderation) for war with that one can have "enough" of all things, even those much sweeter than war itself.

Both men and women were supposed to show self-restraint when it came to sex; it was a virtue, and furthermore, self-restraint and moderation was part of what made a man "manly", if you will. Part of Aeschines' speech Against Timarchus argues that he has shown a lack of moderation in his behaviour in all parts of life; seeking out men (whether "unsuitable" or not) to sleep with (as the presumed receptive partner), food, chasing after women; all this made him unfit for what was otherwise a male citizen's rights and responsibilities both. Women being modest and chaste were similar for them, and an extra step further than a man's "moderation". At the same time, women were considered "naturally" more sexual, having less self-control (that was why it was extra important they exercise self-restraint and being chaste), and being focused on pleasure, which leads into the connected idea that a man who does not... becomes feminized.

(Something illustrated by Lucian of Samosata's A True Story, in the very first parts of it, and talked about below: .)

And contrary to what one might think, in general the love of boys wasn't effeminising (later, it would start to gain that association) - though as always, excessive sex no matter the partner "dooms" you, and being the one taking cock is of course effeminate (because being penetrated is what women do). Instead, a too intense interest in women, whether in sex or just spending time with them, becomes effeminising. Like draws to like, and if you associate too much with it, it will "taint" you. Plutarch is of course much later than the Iliad, but this bit from the Amatorius (750f forward) might work as a general illustration:

"Now if this be the passion you talk of which is to be called Love, it is a spurious and effeminate love that sends us to the women's chambers, as it were to the Cynosarges at Athens. [...] thus the true genuine love is that of boys, not flaming with concupiscence, as according to Anacreon the love of maids and virgins does, neither besmeared with odoriferous ointments, nor alluring with smiles and rolling glances; [...] whereas that other love, nice and effeminate, and always nestling in the bosoms and beds of women, pursuing soft pleasures, and wasted with unmanly delights, that have no gust of friendship or heavenly ravishment of mind, is to be despised and rejected of all mankind."

In fact, a man being willing to break law and convention to be with a woman he desired to such a degree he'd try to sleep with a married woman would *also* feminise him. Or, throwing that wround, being effeminate made a man suspect of being an adulterer. For example, apparently a Syracusan law (mentioned by Phylarcus) stated that any man who paid excessive attention to his appearance and personal grooming could be identified as an adulterer or a kinaidos. So the connection between decorative appearance on a man is tied both to immoderate sexual interest in women (as well as characterising him as attractive to said women), but general sexual deviance - a kinaidos was someone who liked to be penetrated.

There's also parts of Electra's speech to Aigisthos' corpse in Euripides' Electra that are pretty illuminating (930ff):
"Among all the Argives you would hear this: "That woman's husband", not "that man's wife". Although this is a shameful thing, for the wife to rule the house and not the husband[...]You were insolent because you had a king's house and were endowed with good looks. May I never have a husband with a girl's face, but one with a man's ways. For the children of the latter cling to a life of arms, while the fair ones are only an ornament in the dance."

Male beauty coupled to a lack of manliness, dance (which can have erotic, if not outright sexual, connotations) contrasted with martial ability and virtue.

It's long, so the rest under here.

II.
For the Iliad specifically, Christopher Ransom in his Aspects of Effeminacy and Masculinity in the Iliad (2011) summarises up a couple other points:

"In the Iliad, childishness and effeminacy are often referred to in order to define masculine identity. Women and children are naturally not operative in the adult male world of warfare, and so can be clearly classified as ‘other’ within the martial sphere of battlefield insults. Masculine identity cannot be formed in a vacuum, and so the feminine or the childish is posited as ‘other’ in order to define the masculine by contrast." and "Idle talk is characterised as childish or feminine, and is repeatedly juxtaposed with the masculine sphere of action." as well as
"Effeminacy is linked to shame [...]; if acting like a coward is a cause for shame, and prompts Menelaos to call the Achaians ‘women’, then effeminacy is seen as shameful in the context of the poem."

And while neither dancing nor sex are something that a man who engages in will become effeminate for, the former is explicitly posited as a peace-time pastime only, and sex is only to be had at the right time (and in the right amount). So, in the Iliad's (as well as the whole war) circumstances, neither of those two activities are proper to prioritise, and are at points set up in juxtaposition and contrast to war and martial effort.
Additionally, physical beauty alone doesn't make a man in any way feminized - otherwise quite a few male characters would be effeminate! - and in fact, a well-born, "heroic" man will be beautiful because it befits his status. (Insert basically any big-name male character in Greek mythology here.) But, there's a limit and some caveats to this; physical beauty in a man (not a youth) must be balanced out against other "virtues", and if, in especially the context of war as in the Iliad, a man's martial ability is lacking, his handsomeness becomes a source of scorn instead, because he can't "back it up".

Here's our most notable "offenders":
Nireus of Syme, who in the second book of the Iliad is called the most beautiful among the Achaeans after Achilles, but "he was weak, and few men followed him". Syme is a small island, but I don't think the "few men" here is supposed to be assumed because of a lack of numbers on the island. His beauty is all there is to him, and no one wants to follow him because he's not sufficiently (manly) able in war.
Nastes and/or Amphimachus of Miletus, wearing gold in [his/their] hair "like a girl", which the narrator then calls [him/them] a fool for and that he will be stripped of those pieces of jewellery when Achilles kills him, and, again from Ransom's article; "Thus, the effeminised male, characterised by his feminine dress, is brought down by the ‘proper hero’, and the effeminate symbolically succumbs to the masculine."
Euphorbus, the man who first injures Patroklos - this is an edge-case, because the text itself isn't obviously condescending or condemning Euphorbus compared to Nastes/Amphimachus. It simply describes him wearing his hair in a style of hair ornaments that pinches tresses in at the middle. But, the narrator still goes to the effort to make this extra description, not just the more general/usual mention of the hair being befouled in the dust as the man killed falls to the ground.

(In the intent of being somewhat exhaustive, two other potential edge-cases:
Patroklos, who does perform some tasks at the embassy dinner in Book 9 that would usually be done by women. And it's not as if Achilles doesn't have women who could deal with the bread and similar. It's not remarked on, or marked in the text in any way, compared to the other characters previous.
Menelaos, even more of an edge case, but like Patroklos he's described as gentle, and by Agamemnon and Nestor's indictment doesn't act when he should, being more prone and willing to let Agamemnon take point. Could say it ties into how Helen in the Odyssey is the more dominant partner in terms of social interaction, as well.)

And then there's our last "offender", who we see more of in terms of his lacking in living up to proper (Iliadic) masculinity; Paris. Before going into that, I want to touch on something else.

III.
That being what the idea of the Trojans being "barbarians" does to the Trojans in later sources. In the Iliad itself, while the Iliad does have a pro-Achaean bias, the Trojans and their allies aren't really portrayed in the same way as happens later (but not consistently so), coming into shape during and after the Persian Wars. In summary, it's during this time the Trojans gain the negative stereotypes of the eastern "barbarian"; luxurious, slavish (but also tyrants! one basically ties into and enables the other), and effeminate.

Not all "barbarians" were considered the same, with the same stereotypes attached to them; northern (Scythians, etc.) barbarians were considered violent and warlike, "savage" if you will.

Edith Hall's book Inventing the Barbarian (1989), is all about this, but have a couple hopefully illuminating quotes about how these stereotypes were expressed, especially in drama/fiction:


So what happens is that all Trojans get tarred with this eastern barbarian brush, as illustrated by the Trojan Women, for example, where Hecuba's description of Paris' looks when he came to Sparta is steeped in the eastern barbarian luxury terms. Which comes attached with other connotations. Another example is in the Aeneid (by a character, not the narrative); "And now that Paris, with his eunuch crew, beneath his chin and fragrant, oozy hair ties the soft Lydian bonnet, boasting well his stolen prize." Notes here: 1. This is said by a character, not the narrative itself, and someone using this as an argument against Aeneas and his Trojans, but the stereotype itself isn't something new; 2. "That Paris" = Aeneas. While this might be more about Paris as a seducer and abductor of Helen, given the emasculation of the rest of the Trojans and then the additional effeminate touches with Aeneas' supposed dress and hair, I'd say it's not just about that; 3. The word translated here as "eunuch" (semivir, "half-man"), by a quick look in Perseus' word tool, is also straight up used about effeminacy, though of course a eunuch wasn't a "full"/proper man and often viewed as effeminate, too, so they're tied together.

This is a development, of course, and we can't know how completely the later ideas of effeminacy would've been reflected in the times when the Iliad was crystallized. But on the other hand, those ideas about effeminacy wouldn't have sprung ready-made out of nothing in the Archaic/Classical era, either. Even in the Iliad, there are clear criteria for what makes a man properly manly/martial, which isn't really followed along the lines of later eastern barbarians/Greeks. So in the Iliad itself obviously not all Trojan characters would be equally easy to cast in an effeminate light.

But, again, we come back to the easiest target, the one who, by the way he's juxtaposed against another character who exemplifies the "war as (part of the) male gender performance" in the Iliad, stands outside of that. The one who basically, as he is portrayed in the Iliad, by the stereotype of the later eastern barbarian becomes the arechtypal "eastern barbarian Trojan".

Paris.

IV.
So, let's talk about Paris!

At the very basic level when it comes to Paris and his place in the Iliad, is that he is the foil and contrast to his brother Hektor in specific, as a warrior and as a man. But in that specific reflection he is also the contrast against almost every other male character, Achaean and Trojan, in the Iliad.

What does this mean?

-Cowardice; he's slack and unwilling as Hektor accuses him of. No way to know if this is specifically because he's always afraid of martial engagement, as in the moment we see before his duel against Menelaos, since being unwilling to fight in deadly combat could be for many different reasons. (He is not always slack and unwilling, however; he is out there on the battlefield with the rest at the beginning of Book 3, and after Book 6 he is, as far as we know, out there with the rest of the Trojans, from beginning to end. His unreliability in his martial efforts is another angle.) Not returning to the battlefield and instead sleeping with Helen, and then, again, not returning immediately after they're done could probably be considered part of cowardice as well. Paris' not returning without being prompted (in one case, if he's being honest, by Helen herself) undoubtedly has several connotations and implications.

-He is one of, if not the worst, fighters among the commanders, on both sides. His martial prowess isn't up to snuff. As we see in Book 3 where Hektor calls him out on retreating, he notes that Paris' beauty would have the Achaeans believe Paris is one of the Trojans' foremost champions, for the idea is that this physical excellence would be paired with martial excellence. But it isn't, because of Paris' cowardice and his lack of martial ability, and tying into this, then, is;

-Paris' beauty. As noted earlier with Nireus, physical beauty not backed up by martial prowess makes you less than, and the epithet used most often for Paris to call him godlike is specifically about his physical looks. There are other epithets (also sometimes used of Paris) that mean "godlike" in a more general way, but the one most often used of Paris is specific. And, that particular word is what's used when Paris first leaps forward in Book 3; the narrative is using theoeides every single time Paris' name is used in Book 3. And so we get something like this, from J. Griffin in his Homer on Life and Death (1980): "...the poet makes it very clear that the beauty of Paris is what characterizes him, and is at variance with his lack of heroism..." as well as from Ransom in his article: "Again the suggestion is that Paris’ beauty is empty, and that he is lacking the courage or other manly characteristics that would render it honourable. [...] Paris is set against Menelaos, a ‘real’ man by implication, and he is told that his skill with the lyre and his beauty would be no help to him then."

-His pretty hair gets insulted at least once (by Hektor) and potentially twice, the second time by Diomedes in Book 11 (the phrase used is uncertain whether it's about Paris' hair or his bow; that it could be his hair, being worn in a particular style, has been an idea from ancient times). And we know what sort of fuss the Iliad makes of pretty hair in men who do not otherwise live up to being properly masculine according to its ethos.

-Being an archer. The bow wasn't the manliest weapon around, and the Iliad disparages its use on the battlefield (selectively!). Paris is basically our archetypical archer, who gets insulted for being an archer and less manly because of that. Diomedes' insult in Book 11 lays this out very clearly; he straight up calls the bow *not a real weapon*, and by implication in his further speech implies Paris is no different than a woman or a child. Now, many people are insulted on the Iliadic battlefield by being compared to women or children. But none of these men are archers - or Paris, who Diomedes has just insisted has given him a(n insignificant) injury, by a "not real" weapon, that is the same as if a woman or child hit him. He's denying Paris' martial ability and masculinity several times over.

-The first part of Diomedes' litany of insults is worth looking at as well; "kera aglae = shining/glorious in horn", which is variously translated as either splendid in your crown of curls/glorying in your hair/bow. The translation varies because the Ancient Greeks also didn't know what was meant, exactly, and while I prefer the 'hair' option (because the bow is superfluous as it's mentioned right after), bow would emphasise again the uselessness of such a weapon; Paris' martial skill is useless and less manly.
But what's more interesting in the case of if it might mean Paris' hair (as a way of dressing it, is meant); it puts an emphasis, again, on Paris' looks and the effort he makes in his presentation. Effort he shouldn't put there. And a third option that I don't know if translators ever use is that it might mean 'penis', which shakes out into "glorying in your penis". So, an insult about Paris' prowess being in the bedroom instead of on the battlefield, which is, of course, unmanly.

-His focus on dancing and music, as brought up by both Hektor and Aphrodite (and, though in a more general insulting context with other sons being mentioned as well, by Priam). The problem is, again, of course not his skill or interest in and with these things, but that he is better at these than combat and that he shows more interest in them and, by especially Hektor's implications, puts more effort and focus in these than martial endeavour.

-His sexuality. As noted earlier, a man should show moderation and self-restraint. Paris, giving in to his desires and having sex in the middle of the day and during a tense moment, even if the forces aren't supposed to be fighting at that very point in time (neither he nor Helen would know Athena has induced Pandaros into breaking the truce), is certainly not showing any sort of moderation. He shows no hesitation in bringing up his desire to sleep with Helen, and has to be fetched from the innermost parts of his and Helen's home. The place where the women clearly are considered to be, which is not where a man should linger.
There is a similar lack of moderation and self-control in how Paris doesn't just sleeping with, but runs off with, someone else's wife - he wants Helen so much he (through whatever means) removes her from her husband's house.

I can't emphasize enough how much especially his speech about how much he desires Helen and the subsequent sex isn't some epitome of macho male sexuality and prowess. Rather, this is the epitome of feminized weakness to sex and pleasure. Paris goes through several possible words to describe his ardour and the pleasure of sex to Helen, and Paris throws himself whole-heartedly into the weakness he is displaying.

-Paris' physical presentation. There is a lot of focus on his dress and how it makes him look (Aphrodite practically objectifies him for Helen's pleasure when she describes him to her!), and that his clothes are gorgeus. Again, have a quote from Ransom about that Aphrodite-Helen scene: "This scene captures his essence perfectly. Once more Paris’ looks and dress are emphasised [...] and, in Aphrodite’s speech, the poet explicitly disassociates him from his martial endeavour." Connected to this we have his first appearance earlier in this book, where he's described as not wearing full armour but a leopard pelt. Here's Griffin again: "[...] so he has to change into proper armour before he can fight - and we are to supply the reason: because he looked glamorous in it."
Now, I don't think it's that simple, because other people wear animal pelts in the Iliad; Agamemnon and Menelaos both do so, as does Diomedes and Dolon. However, Agamemnon and Menelaos both wear theirs as part of a full martial dress and they're clearly meant as part of a display of authority and martial prowess. Diomedes, though he's not otherwise fully armoured as this is part of his dress during the meeting before the night raid, is clearly meant to be similarly glorified (Dolon is more of a question, considering how he's portrayed otherwise). Paris is specifically not wearing a full set of armour, even if he apparently has it at home, so in the end I'd agree with Griffin that, given the other instances of Paris' clothing being extravagant/beautiful, this is indeed an instance of "because he looked glamorous in it".

But as Ruby Blondell puts it: "The destructive power of "feminine" beauty is most ostentatiously displayed, among mortals, in the person not of Helen but of Paris. In contrast to the veiling of her looks, Paris's dangerous beauty is displayed, glorified, and also castigated. [...] His appearance is unusually decorative, even in battle. His equipment is "most beautiful" (6.321), glorious, and elaborate (6.504), and his outfit includes such exotic details as a leopard skin (3.17) and a "richly decorated strap (polukestos himas) under his tender throat" (3.371)." (Helen of Troy (2013))

Too much attention to one's looks would, again, be feminising. (Taking it as an aside because I don't remember where I read it or the source of the statement, but a note to an article I once read quoted a source as saying that a man paying too much attention to his hair was an indicator of either being an adulterer, or effeminate.) Men who were excessively interested in women might then come to decorate themselves further to attract them (because this sort of decorating oneself was thought to be attractive to women when a man did it).
In the Heroicus (Philostratus), Paris is described as polishing his nails and painting his eyes, and in conjunction with the Iliad's focus on Paris' hair and his perfumed bedroom, this could be contrasted with a description of an effeminate character from Longus' novel Daphnis and Chloe: "His hair was glistening with perfumed locks, his eyes were shadowed; he wore a soft cloak and fine slippers, heavy rings sparkled on his fingers." (trans. Goold)

-His attitude towards the whole (Homeric) heroic ethos of the Iliad. Not just his unwillingness or lack of martial prowess, but rather the "personal motto" he expresses to Hektor in Book 6; "victory shifts from man to man". And, while I wouldn't say this is at all a typical mark of an effeminate man in terms of the Ancient Greek outlook on these matters, you do have to set it in connection to his other martial "failings". As Kirk in his The Iliad, a Commentary, vol. 1 (1985/2001) says: "He thus attributes success in battle to more or less random factors, discounting his personal responsibility and performance." and, another point of view from Muellner in The meaning of Homeric εὔχομαι through its formulas (1976) about this same "motto":



-As a brief little point, when it comes to his being a lyrist; that, too, was often edged in ideas of effeminacy. So while, of course, no man is effeminate just because they may take up the lyre at some point, as this was very much part of a genteel and elite culture, if one dedicates one's life to it, that starts to have an effect on how the person is viewed.

-A comment on Paris' epithet of "husband of lovely-haired Helen". While I heavily doubt there's any implication of unmanliness made in the Iliad itself by Paris being called this epithet, compared to the other elements to how Paris is portrayed, in Euripides' *Electra* Electra has a statement about Aigisthos that it's shameful for man to be known as being a woman's husband, instead of the other way around. My guess is that Iliad-wise (or within the epic tradition of the Trojan war), Paris' epithet is factual; he *is* the husband of Helen, nothing more or less. But by the point we get to Archaic/Classical Greece, the audiences would look at such an epithet - while still factual - differently. Especially in conjunction with everything else around Paris, I think.

So what you have, then, in sum is Paris being very much non-masculine. In the Iliad itself he is, at the very least, not conforming to the martial and cultural expectations and mores of the Iliad's/the Homeric masculine ethos. Even if you add in/change some of how the Trojans might view things, Paris would without a doubt still be non-conforming. Myth-wise, he certainly is so, both before and after the Persian Wars and the changes to the Trojans' general perception at the hands of the Athenian tragedians happened.

Here's Christopher Ransom again, to tie things up: "If gender is performance, Paris is simply not playing his part; if ‘being a man’ requires a concerted effort and a conscious choice, it seems as though Paris’ choices are in opposition to those of his more heroic brother."

V.
And lastly, some scattered quotes from ancient sources about Paris, roughly ordered from earliest to latest:

"Accursed Paris, outstanding only in beauty, woman crazed, seducer-[...]The long-haired Achaeans howl in laughter thinking you our first champion, because your appearance is beautiful - but there is no strength in your heart, nor any courage.[...]Your lyre and the gifts of Aphrodite would be of no use to you, nor your hair and looks[...]"
"[...]he is on his bed in his own room, radiant with beauty and dressed in gorgeous apparel. No one would think he had just come from fighting, but rather that he was going to a dance, or had done dancing and was sitting down. (The Iliad, Book 3)
-I think these two Iliad quotes boil things down nicely. Hektor's lines are very much haranguing Paris for his lack of manliness in what Hektor chooses to insult. The focus on his beauty and the clothing in Aphrodite's lines add to it, for the clothing (and their emphasised beauty) especially would enhance said beauty. Aphrodite also bringing up dancing, and this is yet another notch in how he is so attractive and sexual/*sexualized*; the dancing grounds and dancing by young women and men were loci of sexuality.

"No! my son was exceedingly handsome, and when you saw him your mind straight became your Aphrodite; for every folly that men commit, they lay upon this goddess, [990] and rightly does her name begin the word for “senselessness”; so when you caught sight of him in gorgeous foreign clothes, ablaze with gold, your senses utterly forsook you." (Euripides, Trojan Women)
-This one is pretty straightforward, especially keeping in mind all the above and Edith Hall's discussion of the words connected to eastern "barbarians" by this point. And, too, however, that 'ablaze with gold' would imply he's wearing (a lot) of jewellery, which is not really a manly thing to do.

"Vainly shall you; in Venus' favour strong,
Your tresses comb, and for your dames divide
On peaceful lyre the several parts of song;
Vainly in chamber hide

From spears and Gnossian arrows, barb'd with fate,
And battle's din, and Ajax in the chase
Unconquer'd; those adulterous locks, though late,
Shall gory dust deface." (Horace, Odes)
-Double focus on his hair, and through that, Paris' behaviour (playing music, avoiding battle), all of it disassociating him from martial effort and into a more "feminine" sphere.

So then Achilles you, who overcame the mighty, were subdued by a coward who seduced a Grecian wife! Ah, if you could not die by manly hands, your choice had been the axe. (Ovid, Metamorphoses, Book 12)
-Quite literally spelled out in the text that Paris isn't manly, and that he's so very much *not* manly that Klytaimnestra, a literal woman, would've been the preferred slayer instead!

"And now that Paris, with his eunuch crew, beneath his chin and fragrant, oozy hair ties the soft Lydian bonnet, boasting well his stolen prize." (Virgil, the Aeneid)
"[...]shall we endure a Phrygian eunuch hovering about the coasts and harbours of Argos [...]" (Statius, Achilleid)
-Again, the "eunuch" here is "semivir", so Paris is explicitly emasculated and made out to be effeminate, for while it might be used of a eunuch (who is a "half-man", it's otherwise attached to effeminacy or other gender/sexual deviance.)

"And he washed him in the snowy river and went his way, stepping with careful steps, lest his lovely feet should be defiled of the dust; lest, if he hastened more quickly, the winds should blow heavily on his helmet and stir up the locks of his hair." and "he [Paris] stood, glorying in his marvellous graces. Not so fair was the lovely son whom Thyone bare to Zeus: forgive me, Dionysus! even if thou art of the seed of Zeus, he, too, was fair as his face was beautiful." (Colluthus, Rape of Helen)
-I don't think I need to say much about that dainty description of Paris' behaviour and the care he takes to still look as put together and beautiful for when he reaches Sparta, do I? The second quote, though, I think deserves some comment, because Collutus twice in short order compares Paris to Dionysos, and as we saw in Hall's book, Dionysus in the Bacchae is associated not just with a foreign man, but someone who would be tarred with the stereotypes of the eastern "barbarian". And Dionysos has long, of course, been portrayed with a particularly feminized beauty, not just in drama.
On top of this, much earlier than Colluthus we have Cratinus' Dionysalexandros, a satyr play where Dionysos takes Paris' place for both the Judgement and kidnapping Helen. To note is that while the satyrs are followers of Dionysos, their uses as chorus in satyr plays wouldn't necessarily have them attached to Dionysos (often, they seem in fact to have removed themselves from him). And in this circumstance, then, Paris isn't just compared to the effeminate Dionysos, Dionysos straight up (though disguised as Paris) replaces him for a part of the play.

It all starts in the Iliad, but it certainly doesn't end there, and by the end his effeminacy is just all the more explicitly stated in text as effeminacy.

(Christopher Ransom's article can be read right here: https://www.academia.edu/355314/Aspects_of_Effeminacy_and_Masculinity_in_the_Iliad
Edith Hall's book can be downloanded on her own website: https://edithhall.co.uk/product/reading-ancient-slavery/
Meriel Jones' Playing the Man: Performing Masculinities in the Greek Novel can be found as an unpublished thesis here: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa42521 (but also exists as a published book).)

Two OT3 (Helen/Menelaos/Paris) arts under here~

( Again, definitely NFSW )

Something I've been vaguely thinking about for a while, and which I vaguely incorporated into my Femslash February fic that's a Rule 63!AU for Ganymede and Zeus, is Zeus and Hera's relationship dynamic, and how it would honestly be worse if you Rule 63 them.

Now, regular Zeus and Hera are a product of the culture and time they come from, of cultural attitudes and sexual mores, which is reflected in not just their relationship, but their personalities. If you flip them completely, you just get the regular situation between them, nothing new there.

If you flip them while allowing them to keep what we do have of their personalities, even when these are at least partially coloured by gendered societal expectations and sexual mores, you get something more interesting.

Now you have a male Hera who, contrary to all cultural expectation, is monogamous but still in possession of all of female Hera's (righteous) anger over being cheated on. You also have a male Hera with far more licence to do whatever the fuck he wants in retaliation for his wife's cheating, and here is where it gets depressing.
Even if you put aside any threats of domestic violence (Zeus, for example, threatens violence both to Hera and others, but never goes through with it), Hera's favourite methods of retaliation are madness, transformations, and death, and some of these because the women need to survive to at least give birth to the children. There's no need for any such meta-textual consideration to be paid when Zeus is the one pregnant. Hera can instantly punish any mortal man or god Zeus has slept with (see, for example, Zeus killing Iasion for sleeping with Demeter, this is basically what has a high likelihood of repeatedly happening). I figure Zeus is often going to be handing babies over to their grandparents or uncles instead of their fathers.
Or, if Hera doesn't lash out any more times in this version of mythic reality than she does in regular mythic reality (which isn't actually a lot, only, like, 9-11 times), I figure Zeus herself would bear the brunt more often - probably Zeus would get repeatedly locked up? As a way to try and contain her.

As for female Zeus, again, contrary to all cultural expectation, she has a libido and wants to sleep with anyone she wishes to. In that, she would be much like Demeter. They'd probably have a lot in common, here! The problem is just that female Zeus is a woman, she is married, and as a woman, and a married woman, she has no similar freedoms as when she is male. An ancient Greek married woman was supposed, contrary to the man, to be faithful and chaste, which Zeus very clearly is not.
Why marry at all, then, you say? If we let Zeus still be the youngest/oldest, and the one who gets hidden away, she's grown up with a sense of freedom and responsibility, and she would probably want to keep as much power for herself as she can... and if that means marrying the king of the gods (because it's not like Zeus was in the running for one third of the realm or the overall kingship, as a woman), then by Heaven and Earth she will. She just probably feels she should be able to do what she wants, when the married men can do so. You don't need to keep this order of things, Hera could well now be the youngest son and hidden away on Crete, because Zeus can still be much like Demeter, but personally I like the idea better of keeping the general flow of the early myths/Zeus' birth and the general birth order.

Thinking of the children from Zeus, either Metis is now a river god instead of an Oceanid, or she's still female and we go with the version where Zeus alone engenders Athena - just with no head chopping in this version, unless that's kept for the extra wtf when Zeus as a woman very much can give birth to Athena the normal way, but perhaps, because she was created from Zeus alone, she still comes from her head? Which would still piss Hera off and off he goes to have Hephaistos, things proceed as normal there.
I'd honestly only switch Hera and Zeus in terms of gender/sex here, so Persephone will get the distinction of being a magical f/f preg baby, because by god, why not? Demeter is Zeus' only experience with a woman until Ganymede (because I'd keep this a same-sex relationship, even outside of the specific context of my femslash february fic). Persephone can of course not be given away by Zeus in this version, so Hera is her closest male relative - Hades undoubtedly goes to Hera, and since I don't see why Hera can't keep her "deity of marriage" title (because Zeus is considered one of the deities of marriage in regular Ancient Greek religion), he has double the "reason" and "rights" to give Persephone away. Only difference is that you probably get two pissed off mothers. Maybe Zeus refuses to let shit rain on top of Demeter's famine/refusing to let things grow. (Honestly though, Zeus would probably not be upset at Hades specifically as the groom, just, like Demeter, that she wasn't informed.)

Among the mortal women who would now be men that Zeus sleeps with, the only one who really presents a problem is Semele, because of the necessity of Dionysos' double-birth. You could borrow the "getting ripped apart after being born" method, and Zeus sticking whatever surviving piece back inside and baking a new baby Dionysos from that, which would work nicely and easily allow Semele to be male. If we keep closer to the basics and ignore Orphic variations, Dionysos could always be our second miracle f/f preg baby (I mean, why not), and you still get the saving of infant Dionysos from Semele's burning corpse after Hera tricks Semele into asking Zeus to come to her as she does while having sex with her husband.

Some thoughts about the three different prophecies that tell of potential downfall of a divine father by his son(s), and the effects of these. What we have to keep in mind first, of course (because patriarchy), is that any daughters aren’t in the running for the cosmic throne. They can help their brothers, and thus be real threats, but they can’t take the crown themselves. This is just what we have to work with and accept for these prophecies to make sense from what the characters choose to do in response to them.

( Troublesome offspring and the prophecies that touch on them. )

Anyone else like leaning into the parts that, for how (extra-)human the gods are shown in myth, emphasize how they’re not? Like how super-precocial divine babies are born (which Hermes and Apollo gives us various examples for), even if they still need care and minding since they’re young.

Or this bit from Callimachus’ hymn to Apollo; “His locks distil fragrant oils upon the ground; not oil of fat do the locks of Apollo distil but he very Healing of All.”
Which could be Apollo alone of course (and possibly merely a poetic turn as well), though there is a hymn to Hestia that notes she has oil dripping from her hair too but since the ancient Greeks rubbed oil into their hair that could be a reference to that practice alone, it's hard to say. Either way I like the idea that this applies to all of the gods. That this is something their hair just does, if not necessarily with the same effects.

Same as this bit from another hymn of Callimachus (The Bath of Pallas): “It is not I that made thy child blind. […] Whosoever shall behold any of the immortals, when the god himself chooses not, at a heavy price shall he behold.”
The implication that seeing a god who doesn’t want to be seen will just automatically result in some sort of backlash, like a cosmic bitchslap, even if it wasn’t intentional on the mortal’s part is really interesting. It really makes them something other, you know? (And obviously the deity has some choice what sort of form the punishment should take, Artemis, for example is certainly far crueller than Athena is here for the same sort of infraction.)

I just love things like this, completely aside from the gods’ various powers. Like, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love how human they can be in their acting (just that since they are gods, their reactions and emotions have, of course, super-human effects on the world and the mortals caught in their way), but that there are things like this that also have them be something other than human in how they move and act in the world tickles my imagination and love of world-building a lot.

And then you've also got that the gods are (a lot) taller than mortal humans. Some of it of course for exaggeration’s sake (like the length of Ares when he’s felled in the Iliad), but using this you can still shave it down to “taller than humans” and I love it. For the general visual effect whenever the gods aren’t taking a mortal guise, but also just as another angle of difference in general, since buildings meant for humans would then be not quite large enough for a god to move easily in, even if we’re just talking about heights of chairs and tables, not necessarily “tall enough to bonk your head on the roof”.

On the other hand, remembering that humans in the Bronze Age would be (much) shorter than we are now generally, maybe the gods really would be bonking their heads on ceilings even if they aren’t double or triple as tall as humans.

Been vaguely thinking about Hera and Zeus and their relationship again - I think it was kicked off remembering/seeing that gifset from Blood of Zeus where Zeus and Poseidon have the “only a food would trust her.” / “No, only a fool would anger her.”

And like, the only part of that that’s wrong is Poseidon’s “no” because he should know better. Yes, only a fool would anger Hera, but only a fool would also trust her, unless they are 200% sure Hera 1. doesn’t have an agenda, 2. can’t use you for it (because she will).

Hera’s method of political maneuvering is lies. Lies, lies and lies, so she can put people where she wants them or get them to do what she wants. Hera spends basically a whole chapter in the Iliad lying to attain her goals (or just because she’s angry).

Zeus manipulating people to do what he wants is less lies and just making sure people do what he wants by acting so they will act like they can be expected to. To illustrate; if you go with the Epic Cycle being necessary and planned by Zeus and Themis, Zeus ensuring Eris fucks shit up means he suggest they ban her from the wedding, which, while it probably has never happened before... isn’t that just a logical suggestion? Eris is a menace. Ok, they ban her. Eris gets hacked off, the apple thing happens. Zeus does not award the apple himself (because it can’t be him, then it’s all over), so he hands it over to one of the Trojan princes generally known for being fair in his judgements, the goddesses bring out their bribes... etc you know how it goes.

(He does not lie to Hera when it comes to her noticing he talked to Thetis. It would be EASY if he just... came up with some lie to get her to settle about it, but instead he just goes “no u can’t know, not this time, go away, I take your advice often enough”.)

Also, like. Yes, Zeus threatens Hera with violence - he threatens quite a few people with violence if they don’t shut up and sit down, so it’s not just Hera. Those parts are my least favourite bits of the Iliad, but he does not ever actually resort to violence. He’s basically politically grandstanding to get people to fall in line.
What Zeus HAS done to Hera is, that one time she put him to sleep and almost killed Heracles, tie her up and hang her from the sky (which is also when he tosses Hephaistos off Olympus when he tries to stop him from doing that).

What Hera has done is the magical equivalent of drugging Zeus, twice (that thing with Heracles and in the Iliad itself), tie or intending to tie him up (depending on how far you consider her having gotten in her conspiracy), aaand either make it impossible or at least really, really hard for him to not want to have sex with her in the Iliad by getting Aphrodite’s girdle.

If what Zeus has done is bad, then what Hera has done is bad too, and I can’t see how one would be worse than the other. I do think they love each other, but like, this is a complicated as hell relationship even ignoring Zeus’ cheating (which none of the things I counted up that they’ve done to each other actually deal with).

Some brief thoughts when it comes to the offspring of gods in greek myth...

By all appearances not even two gods may necessarily make fully divine offspring every time; see Zeus and Themis, where one set of their triplets is three nymphs (I think they’re the “greater” sort who’re immortal, but they’re still named nymphs, not goddesses).
And, there’s even indications, depending on what variations you use, that gods can make what’s basically “just a human” - Orpheus and Linus, for example. They’re usually considered the child of a Muse and a mortal man, but there’s several versions where they’re the sons of a Muse and Apollo, but that doesn’t make either of them more divine.

Offspring of a deity and a mortal doesn’t seem to get much from the divinity of their parent aside from a fancier pedigree. At most there might be some passive power (Orpheus’ singing, prophetic powers if they’re granted, not sure if Amphion’s magical music is because Zeus is his father or because Hermes gave him a MAGICAL golden lyre haha), or in general some greater-than-mortal strength, perhaps speed, perhaps some extra durability. Or beauty, that one’s possible too (Helen, the Trojan royal family).
(They can on the other hand still be divine enough they get a free apotheosis, see Pollux.) In short, there doesn’t seem to be any fancy magic powers...

Unless you’re Dionysus. I imagine it’s because he’s a mary sue and the most special son ever~ he got some extra shot of divinity by an extra incubation in Zeus’ thigh (and/or, if you count the Orphic/Bacchic mysteries, he was originally born a god).

Some brief thoughts about patriarchy, authority and hierarchy, because, as much as we can focus on Zeus’ undebatable display of patriarchal attitudes when he gives Hades to Persephone without talking to either his daughter or Demeter (to get their agreement or just informing them that “this is happening”), he’s not the only one who is so cavalier about giving a daughter/someone under his authority away in marriage.

Hera does it too.

She literally uses Pasithea as bait for Hypnos to go along with her plan to put Zeus to sleep in the Iliad, and Hypnos doesn’t doubt that this is something she can/has the right to do. His issue is Zeus (again) getting pissed off at him and maybe not getting to Nyx’s protection in time. Hera isn’t even Pasithea’s mother, only her step-mother by virtue of being married to Zeus, but she is her queen (and the goddess of marriage).

On top of that, you have the whole thing with Hephaistos, the trap throne and Aphrodite - regardless of whether it’s Hera or Zeus (or both of them) who announce/come up with the idea that whoever helps free Hera gets to marry Aphrodite, there’s clear authority/hierarchy in play to let [them] do this. The Odyssey of course has the angle that Aphrodite is Zeus and Dione’s daughter, giving Zeus the right as her father to do something like this, but if you go with the common tradition and Aphrodite is the daughter of Ouranos, Zeus and/or Hera can only have authority to use her this way if you lean on the fact that they are her king and queen.

Like, it’s clearly not JUST about patriarchy, and it isn’t just Zeus who cavalierly gives women away in marriage as desired or convenient. Doesn’t make it any less potentially unfortunate for these women, obviously, I just had the thought it couldn’t be just about one thing only.

Both a list and some short worldbuilding thoughts, more as an aid for my fic writing than anything else, though I follow the order they were with Zeus as Hesiod gives it and the children they get together!

( Seven in all )