/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10218148]

>"Greeks were pro-homosex and pederasts"
>research the topic
>turns out its an anachronistic, modern distortion of history
>out of context quotes, out of context descriptions

who else fell for this meme? People think because the greeks made flattering comments about the male body, or young male bodies that it was sexual in nature. Or because they bathed together or wrestled naked they were gay. In fact they made fun of gays.

[Anonymous No.10218151]

You may want to Google the term paiderastía

[Anonymous No.10218155]

>>10218148
Never fell for the meme, OP. Victorian England is responsible for projecting its own insecurities about male bonding onto the Greeks, and why we think of them as obsessed with buggery. It was the Brits all along.

[Anonymous No.10218159]

>athenian noblemen fuck boys during the golden age of greece
>the greeks were all soo gay!

[Anonymous No.10218172]

>>10218159
They didn't fuck boys anon, they just borrowed their slender thighs for a minute or two. Chill out homophobe.

[Anonymous No.10218177]

>Plato will never eat your ass
why even live tbhq

[Anonymous No.10218180]

>>10218172
>they just borrowed their slender thighs for a minute or two
This.
>>10218177
This x2

[Anonymous No.10218228]

I've never understood the classical scholars, they are among the most liberal professors at universities that spend a vast majority of their time espousing the philosophy and writings of authors who ranged from proto-fascists to ultra-conservatives to violent populists. Bunch of masochists.

[Anonymous No.10218237]

>>10218177
hahaha lol

[Anonymous No.10218240]

>>10218228
They fetishized it, anon. It's the same mechanism that allows women to be terrified of rape but still pay for and devour cheap self-insertion bodice rippers from KMart. In the scholar's mind, the Greeks were artfully barbaric. Their pyres and battles and symposiums are mythic, not the ho-hum barbarity of the 19th and 20th centuries.

[Anonymous No.10218244]

>>10218228
You can study something without espousing it

[Anonymous No.10218245]

so am I supposed to read Phaedrus as a satire?

[Anonymous No.10218247]

>>10218228
>>10218228
>why do liberal scholars rewrite history to fit their political biases
gee I dunno

[Anonymous No.10218256]

>>10218228

This is why Mommsen is still lord of the classicists.

[Anonymous No.10218259]

>>10218228
>You have to ideologically agree with everything you like
Have fun being a Christian anticlerical atheist nazist commie hindu romantic rational conservative classicist bohemienne progressive

[Anonymous No.10218266]

>>10218259
>Christian anticlerical atheist nazist commie hindu romantic rational conservative classicist bohemienne progressive
This unironically describes most of /pol/.

[Anonymous No.10218282]

>>10218148
people today are just degenerate in the true meaning of the word. just see for yourself how any sort of relationship in fiction or otherwise that ISN'T sexual is just confusing and strange to most people.
we've collectively turned ourselves into sexual commodities

[Anonymous No.10218294]

Aristotle says in the Nicomachean Ethics that male homosexuality is on par with disorders that compel people to eat dirt or chew their nails.

Plato rewrote The Republic and called it The Laws just to include some homophobia.

Dunno about Phaedrus though.

[Anonymous No.10218295]

>>10218256
Non-modern classicists were absolute personalities, Gibbon embraced ancient Rome so hard he was basically a Roman pagan.

[Anonymous No.10218299]

>>10218247
So it would have been fine if they were conservative professors?

[Anonymous No.10218306]

>>10218299
>conservative
>professors
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.10218308]

>>10218299
Straussians would.

[Anonymous No.10218339]

>>10218159
What about the Theban sacred banders? What about the Dorian ritual weddings between mentor and protege practiced in Crete and Sparta?

[Anonymous No.10218370]

>Xenophon (Kyroupaideia II, 2 28): "Do you want to introduce that young boi that lies with you to the ways of the Greeks, because he is handsome?"

>Herodotos (Histories I, 135): "A notable instance is pederasty, which they (Persians) learned fron the Greeks."
Face it Classical history is not your conservative safe-space

[Anonymous No.10218379]

>>10218370
What does conservatism and homosexuality have to do with each other?

[Anonymous No.10218385]

>>10218379
>Hear hear and indeed!

[Anonymous No.10218393]

>>10218379
People tend to put pro-gay stances in the Liberal idea group and anti-gay stances in the Conservative idea group.

[Anonymous No.10218394]

>>10218370

Wonder if the pedo Greeks had high rates of anal cancer or STDs, like the CDC stats on gay guys who are doing well at punching above their weight when it comes to spreading sexual disease.

Anyone got any books on Ancient Greek epidemiology?

[Anonymous No.10218398]

>>10218393
That's silly.

[Anonymous No.10218403]

>>10218148
>marcus aurelius pic
>greek

[Anonymous No.10218413]

>>10218148
You must be doing poor "research" because fucking boys in the butt was commonplace but it totally wasn't "gay", they didn't adhere to a modern notion of sexuality

>>10218294
Aristotle and Plato weren't exactly big fans of Athenian society

[Anonymous No.10218457]

>>10218394
>Wonder if the pedo Greeks had high rates of anal cancer or STDs
No, they didn't. They were more into molesting young boys, and even that mostly as a show of power, not for base sexual gratification. They certainly didn't approve of having your bunghole ripped apart by 40 anonymous pozzed masked faggots, like modern-day homosexuals do.

[Anonymous No.10218474]

>>10218148

They made fun of people who loved only men because not having children and a family was considered a disgrace.
Yet, it was considered normal to love little boys.

[Anonymous No.10218477]

As this post says >>10218457

>You must be doing poor "research" because fucking boys in the butt was commonplace but it totally wasn't "gay", they didn't adhere to a modern notion of sexuality

That is all there is really to say regarding the subject.

[Anonymous No.10218492]

>"Christianity is anti-homosex"
>research the topic
>turns out its an anachronistic distortion
>only negative quotation is by (((Saul))) of Tarsus
who else fell for this meme?

[Anonymous No.10218496]

>>10218477
So you agree that being "gay" means molesting young boys, yes or no?

[Anonymous No.10218497]

>>10218148
>In fact they made fun of gays
Reminds me of The Birds, where Aristophanes wrote one of the characters saying something like, "Why can't I just live in a world where a man goes up to me and says, 'You saw my son coming out of the baths from the gymnasium and you didn't kiss him or fondle his nuts? What the fuck is wrong with you, faggot'"

[Anonymous No.10218499]

>>10218148
Greeks and Romans were not "gay" because such a term didn't really exist. You were a fag if you let yourself get penetrated but if you penetrated others, even other men, that shit was alpha as fuck.

[Anonymous No.10218503]

>>10218496
It doesn't matter what I think, the Greeks had no notion of "being gay" as we do now. Which is why they cannot be pro-gay in any way.

[Anonymous No.10218512]

>>10218403
HE DISKOVERED STOICISM IS WHAT HE DID
HE WUZ A BRAVE ITALIAN EMPEROR
AND IN THIS HOUSE MARCUS AURELIUS IS A HERO, END OF STORY!

[Anonymous No.10218517]

>>10218492
>ignores Christ saying marriage is between man and woman like was intended from the beginning
>ignores Jude referring to the wickedness of Sodom and Gomorrah
>discounts Paul because he was jew...same as the other apostles, except maybe Luke
>discounts OT, doesn't understand the new covenant.
neat

[Anonymous No.10218519]

>>10218413
>it totally wasn't "gay"
>>10218457
>even that mostly as a show of power
>>10218477
>>10218474
>>10218499
>Greeks and Romans were not "gay" because such a term didn't really exist. You

Imagine believing what the TA teaching your sociology 121 class said.

[Anonymous No.10218520]

>>10218497
I remember there's a scene in The Clouds where Truth and Deceit have a debate. Deceit convinces Truth he's a faggot and Truth runs out of the theater in women's clothes, pretending to kiss audience members. I forget the circumstances exactly.

[Anonymous No.10218532]

>>10218519
It isn't about the term, you absolute idiot, it is about the connotations and viewing of "having sex with boys" that differed. It has nothing with "the term not existing".

It is not gay in the sense that they had romantic relationships, dated eachother, went to the plays holding hands.

[Anonymous No.10218543]

>>10218517
>Jesus reiterating God's command on remarriage from Genesis is somehow anti homo
>Sodom and Gomorrah's wickedness is never stated as being gay, and would make no sense for Lot offering his daughters in this case
>ignoring David and Jonathan's formal legal union, their kissing, and their love "surpassing the love of women"
>Trusting a (((Pharisee))) who also was buttblasted about vegetarians and celibates
neat

[Anonymous No.10218552]

>>10218532

Are you saying that the love of boys had nothing to do with romantic relationships and everything to do with sodomy (which totally wasn't "gay" btw)?

[Anonymous No.10218553]

>>10218148
>in fact they made of gays

You do realize they didn't consider fucking a man to be gay, right? It was getting fucked that was gay/womanly.

[Anonymous No.10218554]

>>10218543
>Sodom and Gomorrah's wickedness is never stated as being gay, and would make no sense for Lot offering his daughters in this case
Weren't they wicked for not being hospitable to a stranger? I don't know if I'm remembering that right, though.

[Anonymous No.10218558]

>>10218552
Dude according to them, no it wasn't. It was penetrater > penetrated. If you were penetrated, you were a dumb womanly fag. If you penetrated others, no matter their gender, you were alpha because you were the one doing the dominating you fucking nigger.

[Anonymous No.10218560]

>>10218554
my point exactly.
the wickedness was never homosex, and this only comes about in later medieval jewish interpretations

[Anonymous No.10218564]

>>10218552
In most cases, probably, but we'd both be guessing. And indeed; it totally wasn't gay, in the way we perceive homosexuality in our current age.
It was gay if you take being gay to mean putting your dick inbetween someone's cheeks.

[Anonymous No.10218578]

>>10218558
I love this. A couple thousand years ago, the males of our species would pester and chase each other until one finally said "fine you can do me in the ass just leave me alone."

And then the chaser would DO IT. Probably in the street, while getting high fives and thumbs up from passers by.

[Anonymous No.10218596]

>>10218560
>the wickedness was never homosex
>libshit exegesis and lies

And [the men of the city] called unto Lot, and said unto him: "Where are the men that came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may ''know'' them.'"

(NRSV: know them, NIV: can have sex with them, NJB: can have intercourse with them, KJV: know them,).

Lot gives the mob of men his two virgin daughters, and states they are virgin, but the mob refuse and get angry trying to break down his door. Their intentions are clearly homo-sex not straight sex. The men/angels come out and blind the degenerates.

>the wickedness was never homosex, and this only comes about in later medieval jewish interpretations

It was always an unspeakable abomination, the bible doesn't like to paint detailed pictures of it. So it'll say things like "if a man lies with a man as he does with a woman, it is an abomination" or "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

[Anonymous No.10218606]

>>10218578
No, not at all. It was plain old mean assrape, the same that happens in prisons today. That's what happens in lawless societies, degenerate violent people float to the top. Ancient Greece was a lawless society.

[Anonymous No.10218608]

>>10218578
then they were hanged by vikings and thrown in a bog

[Anonymous No.10218617]

>>10218578
I doubt it was "pestering", it was more holding someone down and forcibly raping them. I know Romans had laws stating that freeborn men shouldn't have their rights withdrawn from them if they were raped, but if it was consensual, then yeah whatever fuck them, they're gross.
If I remember right a lot of the reason why slaves, even freed slaves, were looked down upon was 1) people had some ideas about certain groups being "naturally slavish" and 2) it was automatically assumed they were fucked in all holes

[Anonymous No.10218626]

>>10218596
>that we may ''know'' them.'"
This is וְנֵדְעָ֖ה, the same "that we may know" as in Judges 18:5
"And they said unto him, Ask counsel, we pray thee, of God, that we may know whether our way which we go shall be prosperous."
Did they pray God for sex? No.
This is not the same word as "to have known" in a sexual instance. NRSV, NIV, and NJB are inaccurate translations giving into later medieval interpretation.
Funny how you should also quote KJV considering King James was quite possibly England's biggest homo.
>It was always an unspeakable abomination
>>ignoring David and Jonathan's formal legal union, their kissing, and their love "surpassing the love of women"
neat

[Anonymous No.10218639]

>>10218177

[Anonymous No.10218641]

>>10218596
>>10218626
also to emphasize, the word in question in Genesis is never, not a single time, used in a sexual instance in the Bible. It is in fact even a different word than the verb used in Genesis 19:8 when Lot says his daughters "have not known man".

[Anonymous No.10218653]

>>10218641
>>10218626
>>10218596
>>10218517
Moralfags gtfo this is a Greco-Roman Queer thread. Gnaeus, fetch my spatha.

[Anonymous No.10218662]

>>10218626
>city known for being full of degenerates
>"we want the two men, so that we may know them"
>no, but take my daughters instead, who have not known man
>no, we want the men, reeeeeeeeeee
>angels come out and blind all the degenerates

ya the mob clearly just wanted to chat with the men.

>This is וְנֵדְעָ֖ה, the same "that we may know"....
>we want to know the men
>have my daughters, they have not known men

You understand context changes meaning?
So Lot literally meant his daughters had never met or known or encountered any man, they were kept in solitary confinement all their lives? The context was sexual in nature, hence Lot mentions the virginity of his daughters. To "know" a man or woman in the biblical sense also means to lay with them, i.e have sex.


>king james was a homo
nice meme

>ignoring David and Jonathan's formal legal union, their kissing, and their love
Dumb modernist drivel.

[Anonymous No.10218669]

Read Xenophone last year. Would totally hang out with Socrates.

[Anonymous No.10218673]

>>10218626
>>10218662
This is the exact problem with proddies.

Google sacred tradition and convert already.

[Anonymous No.10218682]

>>10218641
>It is in fact even a different word than the verb used in Genesis 19:8 when Lot says his daughters "have not known man".

The word means the same thing in this context, to have sex, hence Lot mentions the virginity of his daughters.

[Anonymous No.10218687]

>>10218669
>People that unironically post this every thread

[Anonymous No.10218690]

>>10218662
>No textual indication of sex
>But it was about sex because I feel like it
Cool.
>You understand context changes meaning?
>>the word in question in Genesis is never, not a single time, used in a sexual instance in the Bible

>>nice meme
>Robert Carr and George Villiers suddenly don't exist now
Nice cop-out
>Dumb modernist drivel.
Oh same-sex kissing and "love surpassing the love of women" is not gay now so you can conveniently ignore it, cool
>OT is modernist
kys

[Anonymous No.10218698]

Is there a word for people who fetishize Jewish laws from the Iron Age?

[Anonymous No.10218702]

>>10218698
Jews

[Anonymous No.10218710]

>>10218698
Hasidic Jews
most modern (Conservative) Jews are pretty normal

[Anonymous No.10218716]

Will all of the Jews in this thread please shut up about your dumb interpretations we're trying to talk about buttsex.

[Anonymous No.10218720]

>>10218690
>>No textual indication of sex

Everyone in the town was degenerate.
Lot believed their intentions were sexual, so he mentioned the virginity of his daughters.
Why would the angels blind the mob if all they wanted to do was "talk" ?

>>OT is modernist
Homosexuality is an abomination in the OT and NT. Nothing changed and no libshit new-age twisting of scripture will change thousands of years of tradition.

[Anonymous No.10218734]

>>10218690
repent, learn hermeneutics, your soul is sick faggot.

[Anonymous No.10218736]

>>10218339
Sexual aesthetic.

[Anonymous No.10218748]

>>10218477
>it's not gay, I swear!

[Anonymous No.10218757]

>>10218720
Why would Lot offer his daughters, if he knew the citizens were ravenous homosexuals? It is much more likely that they wanted to see the guest to expel them, mistreat them, rob them, or otherwise kill them as Sodom was inhospitable to strangers.
Ezekial 48-50: "As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, your sister Sodom and her daughters never did what you and your daughters have done.
‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.
They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."
They abused the poor and needy, and if you consider the "detestable things" as gay sex, then why is this not the chief sin of Sodom and mentioned as such?
>no libshit new-age twisting of scripture will change thousands of years of tradition.
Does your traditional marriage include polygamy? Do you put people who remarriage to death? Are vegetarians and those who do not marry equally as abominable as homosexuals?
If not, your following a "libshit new-age twisting of scripture".
>muh tradition
Stay plastered, papist. I guarantee you'll leave your church as soon as a Pope admits gays.

[Anonymous No.10218777]

>>10218282
>we've collectively turned ourselves into sexual commodities
>implying that's unnatural in any way
you're just mad because you don't have any capital.

[Anonymous No.10218802]

>>10218777
checked and rekt

[Anonymous No.10218811]

>>10218282
>see for yourself how any sort of relationship in fiction or otherwise that ISN'T sexual is just confusing and strange to most people.
This pisses me off quite a bit tbqh. Just because two characters are close doesn't mean there has to be something sexual between them. Friendship is a thing that exists after all.

[Anonymous No.10218820]

>>10218757
>why Lot give gays his daughters
bisexuals. pansexuals. freaks. pedos-fags aren't picky about the holes they put their penises in.

Anyway even if the Sodom event wasn't in the bible homosexuality would still be an abomination against God and man and all things holy and good.

The bible doesn't like to paint detailed pictures of it. To have sex is to "know" someone or "lay" with them. It doesn't use vulgar jargon. So it'll say things like "if a man lies with a man as he does with a woman, it is an abomination" or "Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. Likewise, the men abandoned natural relations with women and burned with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

Only straight marriages were sanctified and approved of scripturally and by tradition. Gay marriage was never an option, never mentioned, never celebrated. So gay sex is impossible, since sex outside marriage is fornication.

Jesus reiterated the heterosexual nature of marriage in the NT. Paul did as well.

> papist.
nope, wrong again.
your soul is sick, seek God.

[Anonymous No.10218830]

>>10218259
to like something != to study it for your entire life

[Anonymous No.10218837]

>>10218757
>sodom was just inhospitable to strangers and mean to the poor ;)

No.

"Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire." - Jude 1:7

Repent.

[Anonymous No.10218838]

>>10218228
Are you really suggesting that to appreciate somebody's contributions you have to agree with all of their views? I guarantee that almost nobody who reads Tolstoy is some kind of clerical anarchist, just like how almost nobody who listens to Schoenberg is a weird secular Habsburg royalists.

Humanities professors tend to be staunch liberals or socialists simply because their line of work offers them a greater freedom to study ideas concerning hierarchy, equality, and liberation.

[Anonymous No.10218859]

>>10218820
>Jesus reiterated the heterosexual nature of marriage in the NT
He repeated God's law to Moses at the behest of Pharisees, saying it was written for the hardness in their hearts. He also said that the law should consist of the love of God and love for one's neighbors.
Jesus himself never mentions homosexuality. He does say that women who remarry commit adultery though.
Do you also condemn those who remarry? Vegetarians as Paul says? People who wear polyfibers?
Are you fine with polygamy, because this is included in "traditional marriage". Solomon had hundreds of wives.
>Gay marriage was never an option
Jonathan and David had a same-sex covenant - which implies formal union in the OT - where their souls were "knit".

>sex outside marriage is fornication
>>10218837
>Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire
But suddenly fornication is specifically homosexual in the case of Sodom? Nice one.

[Anonymous No.10218862]

niggers, christians, even faggots claim to be what ancient greek pagans stood for. They're all just pathetic wastes clinging to some imaginary world history that would make Herodotus chuckle. They start to say that it was 'discovered' that something 'came to light' when in reality they just basically retconned ancient greek history. In athens socrates was literally put on trial for fuckign boys, and was found not guilty. They then executed him anyway because of their suspicions of him.

[Anonymous No.10218875]

I don't know what you've read, but Republic and Nicomachean Ethics both directly reference the fact that Greeks liked to bugger boys.

[Anonymous No.10218887]

>>10218148
There wasn't such a thing as homosexuality, simply because in both ancient Greece and Rome there wasn't any taboo in regards to same sex fornication. It was perfectly normal to be attracted to and fool around with men, but naturally it would be nonsense to marry a man or to think of having sex with only men, since without women there's no children. So homosex was a strictly for-fun kind of thing, and neither heterosexuality or homosexuality really exist.

When it comes to age, they didn't care either. Child prostitutes and child sex slaves were common, and ''women'' could get married at 10 years old. Pederasty was different, it wasn't with children but with young men and teens, and it was a tutorship kind of relationship beyond just sexual.

[Anonymous No.10218888]

>>10218875
Granted Plato is against it, leading to one of the greatest lines in the history of philosophy, something like "It's okay for men to date boys and even kiss them, but if a man gets sexual with a boy we'll say he isn't educated in music and poetry." But the point is it was a common enough issue to be addressed.

[Anonymous No.10218903]

>>10218875
I read their actual works. You read a cock's veins to get your crack-pipe of an account of ancient Greek societal norms.

[Anonymous No.10218906]

>in class about Greek law
>Reading Lysias
>A whole case about who gets to fuck an imported live-in rentboi

[Anonymous No.10218908]

>>10218862
>socrates was literally put on trial for fuckign boys, and was found not guilty
Hot fucking damn anon, are you willfully misconstruing or did you misinterpret this badly?

[Anonymous No.10218909]

>>10218906
>i pay money for SJW doctored works
enjoy your ideology, you can swallow that down your throat like all the other priders.

[Anonymous No.10218910]

>>10218903

[Anonymous No.10218913]

>>10218906
what the fuck

[Anonymous No.10218915]

>>10218909
>anything that doesn't agree with me is just the swjs rewriting history

[Anonymous No.10218918]

>>10218908
>dude the greeks were gay lmao are you dumb??!1???
eat shit you apologist

[Anonymous No.10218926]

>>10218915
whend I say that you pathetic excuse of a scholar. A donkey at least knows when to leave, you just linger like a sore on the face of the earth.

[Anonymous No.10218931]

He's reeing now.

[Anonymous No.10218932]

>>10218862
Socrates was not a real person, you dirty philistine

[Anonymous No.10218938]

>>10218148
What about Plato's Symposium?

[Anonymous No.10218943]

I was once told that the sexual immorality of sodom related to having sex with angels not having gay sex.

>faggot hating fake christians probably don't even believe in literal angels and will dispute this

[Anonymous No.10218947]

>>10218932
did they execute a ghost? maybe he was one of the faggots-nigger-christians you apologists like to scriblle onto ancient greek works.

[Anonymous No.10218948]

>>10218913
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Simon
>Anon has live-in rentboy, probably an imported second-class citizen or a slave
>Simon allegedly pays rentboy for sex
>Anon wtfs and tries to take boy away
>Anon is injured in the ensuring fight for control of Theodotus' boipussy

[Anonymous No.10218950]

>>10218943
Well, it was more about having gay sex with angels, but you're right in that God wouldn't have been so mad if they hadn't been angels because there was a whole lot of butt fucking already going on in S&G prior to their arrival

[Anonymous No.10218954]

>>10218948
Simon is a christian name, not a greek name. Obviously doctored

[Anonymous No.10218957]

>>10218947
They didn't execute anyone you silly bastard, Apology and Trial and Death are fictitious dialogues, not works of history.

[Anonymous No.10218959]

>>10218943
>>10218950
>i drink christian kool-aid
you're all so blind a comatose person could find you in the dark

[Anonymous No.10218961]

>>10218859
>But suddenly fornication is specifically homosexual in the case of Sodom? Nice one.

Unnatural desires are gay.
Jude is saying the story of Sodom was sexual in nature. He read Genesis. The story says the mob wanted to "know" the men. Lot saw this as sexual intent so he gave them his daughters and mentioned their virginity saying they can do whatever to them. Jude reiterates the sexual and unnatural sin of Sodom for which they are burning in hell for.
Can you put 1 and 2 together ??
Gay marriage is never approved in the bible. Gay sex is an abomination.
Sorry.

[Anonymous No.10218962]

>>10218954
>Ancient Greek: Σίμων (Simon). This name appears in Greek mythology as one of the Telchines. In Greek means "flat-nosed".

[Anonymous No.10218964]

>>10218962
>wikipedia
I can see why you're not allowed in college

[Anonymous No.10218966]

>>10218148
Even with concrete accounts of rampant boy-fucking it wouldn't make the Greeks gay. To claim such is to be a historical revisionist who doesn't understand how our understanding of terms and events relies deeply on our culture and development of language.

[Anonymous No.10218968]

>>10218964
I said I was in a class on greek law
that shit doesn't get taught in high school nigga

[Anonymous No.10218969]

>>10218961
Enjoy your slave morality, kiddo

[Anonymous No.10218970]

>>10218959
Not a Christian, I just read. The KJV is bretty gud literature.

>inb4 the swarm of buttflustered Catholic tripfags

[Anonymous No.10218972]

>>10218968
>a class on greek law
no. such. thing.

[Anonymous No.10218973]

ITT: OP gets fucking destroyed

[Anonymous No.10218975]

>>10218970
their account of sodom is wrong. you closeted homo. Though, if you were educated you could understand what was said in metaphorical terms, which you didn't, because you're uneducated and don't know what you're talking about. Do you think that you can believe someone called "The Lord"?

[Anonymous No.10218977]

>>10218961
If Gay sex is an abomination, then so is vegetarianism, wearing polyfibers, remarriage, divorce, not getting married, ect.
Ezekiel defines the sins of Sodom as being hostile to strangers and the poor, before sexual immorality (which as you yourself pointed out is sex before marriage, and about any form of sex besides missionary piv)
A same sex "soul bond" is approved in the Bible and is one of the most emotive passages in the OT.
But still, cling to your misguided mindset.

[Anonymous No.10218981]

>>10218972
looks like you're the one who hasn't been to college, kiddo

[Anonymous No.10218982]

>>10218975
>their account of sodom is wrong
>it's metaphorical

So, which is it?

[Anonymous No.10218984]

>>10218972
that's a pretty bold statement for something so easily searchable

[Anonymous No.10218985]

>>10218875
It was power worship though, not being a repressed sexual deviant rebelling against your parents and society. This is the difference between Greek boy love and modern fags.

[Anonymous No.10218986]

>>10218977
christians are abonminations. ITs why their place was to burned to death, made into serfs, die of the plague, etc.

[Anonymous No.10218990]

>>10218984
>google and some joke of a college
once again, you are wrong, there is no class. Because there is no skill, and it contributes to no skill. And your 'text' is a pipe-dream cooked up by some homos.
>>10218981
>no you
get out
>>10218982
>which is it
its not factual, but if you are smart enough you can understand some of the metaphors.

[Anonymous No.10218997]

>>10218990
you can stop shitposting anytime

[Anonymous No.10219004]

>>10218997
>no educations allowed. We homo greeks now
I have a great book by Yakub the black scientist would you be interested in buying it?

[Anonymous No.10219012]

>>10218906
If you ever read Seneca the Elder's Controversiae (hypothetical law cases), there's one case in the second book I think where this guy goes out dressed like a woman and gets raped by 10 other guys. The trial is fucking hilarious. One side is "he is freeborn and was raped, being dumb isn't a crime" and the other is "well if he looked enough like a woman that he got his ass cheeks parted like the red sea that's his problem aint it"

[Anonymous No.10219017]

>>10219004
You have provided no evidence for your claims that Lysias was doctored by "muh boogeymen", or your claim that no university ever has had a class on greek law, or that Simon is an elusively Christian name, when you have been supplied with evidence to the contrary of every one.
Kindly end your life fag

[Anonymous No.10219025]

>>10219017
Just stop replying to him. Some NEET christfag has been posting endless argument (for hours, into the double digits) every day for almost a week. Confront him with evidence and he just ignores it. You can't win.

[Anonymous No.10219033]

>>10219017
>some faggot demanding I show him evidence
I don't have to. You loser, you abomination. Take a class, if you can get into a school, which yo uwon't. You're too poor, because liars don't prosper like your intellectually dishonest bullshit of an account of ancient greece. Where socrates isn't real and homos abounded.

[Anonymous No.10219045]

>>10218148
They did literally fuck men in the ass, especially younger boys. This is a fact, it's not disputed or controversial.

However, men were expected to get married with women and have kids. Effeminate men were ridiculed. There was no gay marriage or gay parades.
All the degenerate shit that is nowadays associated with homosexuality didn't exist.

[Anonymous No.10219057]

>>10218990
>some joke of a college
>Stanford Law
>a joke

you should try applying there, or any college within that university. the hilarious joke will be the rejection notice.

[Anonymous No.10219067]

>>10219057
>mfw gpa is higher than median stanford law student
also fuck that one creative writing class I took that kept me from 4.0

[Anonymous No.10219070]

>>10219057
>ivyshit
>not a joke
Try again
>>10219067
If you found creative writing difficult, then you're just an idiot taking simple STEMshit.

[Anonymous No.10219091]

>>10218977

Other anons did a good job refuting you. I would also mention that the masoretic OT is not as accurate as the LXX, the apostles quoted the LXX septuangint, early church fathers (such as St. Justin Martyr) preferred it.
Read the greek septuangint, genesis 19:4-8

The word is not "to know" but is "συγγενέσθαι" which means "to be with" or "have relations" or "to be intimate with" as per Genesis 39:10 "to be intimate with her"

Here is a full translation:
" Bring them out to us in order that we may have relations with them.” And Lot went out to the doorway to them, but he shut the door after him. And he said to them, “By no means, brothers do not act wickedly. Now I have two daughters who have not known a man. I shall bring them out to you, and use them as it may please you;"

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/01-gen-nets.pdf
Greek interlinear
http://studybible.info/interlinear/Genesis%2019

>If Gay sex is an abomination, then so is vegetarianism
Gay sex and gay thoughts ARE abominations, the rest of your implications are either totally false, confused or fulfilled by the new covenant and thus have passed away.

[Anonymous No.10219094]

>>10218413
>>10218477
>>10218499
So let me get this straight, traps aren't gay then?

[Anonymous No.10219118]

>>10219094
Not if you're the one fucking them and you don't do weird shit like touch their cock, kiss them, or interact with them sexually in any way besides 1) getting a handy, 2) getting a blowie, 3) sticking it up the ass.
A male dominating and fucking a weaker male will always be alpha. Fuck you.

[Anonymous No.10219144]

Xenophon wrote about some fag who rescued a young boy because he likes boys in Anabasis. The guys just laughed at him.

[Anonymous No.10219464]

>>10219091
>fulfilled by the new covenant and thus have passed away.
If you are pulling this, then the two most damning pieces of evidence for your case Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 have passed away. Which only leaves (((Paul))), the Pharisee who also said it is good not to eat meat or drink wine (the blood of Christ) with Romans 14:21. It is odd for him to count thieves among those who will not inherit the kingdom of heaven when the only person Christ explicitly says will enter heaven is a thief.

[Anonymous No.10219466]

All these braindead moralizing Christcucks make me want to turn gay and larp as an Athenian.

[Anonymous No.10219501]

>>10219118
kissing is not gay
see >>10218888

[Anonymous No.10219513]

Okay then.

[Anonymous No.10219526]

[Anonymous No.10219542]

>>10219057
That median GPA combined with the cost of attendance just tells you that it's a school for unintelligent upper class kids who get a free pass just because their parents can afford the tuition. I'm at one of the best engineering schools in the world and the average GPA is below a 3.5

[Anonymous No.10219550]

>>10219057
>in my fantasy world of hypotheticals you are a loser
you are a sad person

[Anonymous No.10219556]

>>10219526
>>10219513
>there are supposed pictures of supposed greeks that I have not dated to the era nor have I understood the meaning of the pieces because I lack an art degree
>but these pieces prove that 'ancient greeks' were 'gay'
you're jumping to then nearest cock you can find and telling everyone plato suck on it too. Just keep your degeneracy to yourself, homo.

[Anonymous No.10219566]

>>10219513
fuck greek sculptures made me gay

[Anonymous No.10219575]

>this entire thread

[Anonymous No.10219581]

>>10218282
There's this moment in Arrested Development of all things that makes fun of exactly what you're talking about.

These two guys are talking, and they find out they have a lot in common, and the conversation escalates, then one of them says "... I have feelings for you." then the narrator cuts in and says "That feeling was friendship, but neither had ever experienced it."

Pretty on-point moment

[Anonymous No.10219589]

>>10219526
>angel bending its back because you fuck it so well

hot.

[Anonymous No.10219592]

>>10218398
The political groupings "conservative" and "liberal" are a silly false dichotomy in the first place.

Terms like "protectionist," "expansionist" "ethnocentrist" etc. are more politically descriptive, but we don't use them in common discourse because most people are fucking retarded, borderline illiterate, and can't handle vocab overload. I used to think more highly of people. Don't mind me.

[Anonymous No.10219598]

>>10219592
the use of colorful vocabulary in politics leads soley to extrmist, degenerate ideologies as they all argue for their own brand of ideology. Whereas a simplification into two camps, and two sides, or a simulation or even just a label of such; leads to conquest, empire, and prosperity. Like the opitimates and populares, or the democrats and republicans.

[Anonymous No.10219610]

>>10219598
>degenerate
Neck yourself

[Anonymous No.10219616]

>>10219610
>degenrates demands I kill myself
you are a degenerate. No wonder you want everyone to take out the rainbows and flags when they argue politics.

[Anonymous No.10219619]

>>10219598
>prosperity
Tell it to the Democrats. Clinton literally paid the DNC's debt and bought her nomination. They sank all hope of winning and ran a Nixon-tier candidate over a few measly million dollars in the party coffers.

Political parties are the problem, as the founders well knew. They are basically unions whose interest is screwing over the taxpayer. And they get away with it too, because they can't be fired.

[Anonymous No.10219623]

>>10219598
what the fuck did I just read

[Anonymous No.10219685]

>>10219598

>the use of colorful vocabulary in politics leads solely
Buckle your seatbelts, we're comin' up on a slippery slope.
>leads solely to extremist, degenerate ideologies
1) Doesn't "extremist, degenerate ideologies" amount to an explicit use of the very vocabulary you're roundly condemning? Not that being a hypocrite makes you wrong, or anything, it's just that I suspect you're trolling when your first clause and second clause so clearly contradict. Nice attempt, in any case.
2) This position you're putting forth also seems extreme and contrary to the reality.

>simplification into two camps, and two sides, or a simulation or even just a label of such; leads to conquest, empire,and prosperity.

Elaborate

[Anonymous No.10219690]

>>10219616
The guy who said neck yourself wasn't the guy you were initially responding to.

I am.

That being said.

Double neck yourself for assuming consistency of identity on 4chan

[Anonymous No.10219700]

>>10219690
>hand-waiving retardation toe justify death threats
you are a nigger

[Anonymous No.10219707]

>>10219700
>muh aryan dick black boi

I don't care whether you actually neck yourself or not. Which by the way you would have to do voluntarily and doesn't amount to a death threat

[Anonymous No.10219711]

>>10219685
>waht about you?
im using colorful language, not a colorful snow-flaky brand-laden "colorful vocabulary in politics."

one side is always more pious than the other. The two fight in a war, at some point, and the winners rule over the place and make it nicer. When there are more than two factions, only one can win in the end, leading to a longer process to achieving a more pious society.

[Anonymous No.10219713]

He responds to
>>10219700

Before
>>10219685

How stupid

[Anonymous No.10219715]

>>10219707
>its not a death threat to tell someone to vivdely light themselves on fire
>when people on the internet have done this very thing
>when a girl literally drove a kid to suicide with this kind of trite
being a two-faced whore on top of that won't save you in court. It didn't save any of them.

[Anonymous No.10219718]

>>10219711
>colorful not colorful
>not snowflaky, but unique and snowflaky

Zzzzzz
neck

[Anonymous No.10219724]

>>10219715
Zzzzz

holy shit you're tiresome
your troll game on point tho

[Anonymous No.10219725]

>>10219718
>im illiterate
its okay. no one cares about your education being limited to how to steal shit from walmart

[Anonymous No.10219730]

>>10219711
>one side is always more pious than the other. The two fight in a war, at some point, and the winners rule over the place and make it nicer. When there are more than two factions, only one can win in the end, leading to a longer process to achieving a more pious society.
Are you high on crack or just someone who watches a lot of anime?

[Anonymous No.10219733]

>>10219715
>>10219718
Can both of you fucking spergs take your retardation somewhere else

[Anonymous No.10219735]

>>10219733
yeah man ill just go back to my ivory tower so I can get homos to comit suicide when I don't give em their faggoty dentistry degree

[Anonymous No.10219736]

>>10218838
I'm a clerical anarchist. When we look at modern history it is clear that as a philosopher Tolstoy took the day.

[Anonymous No.10219737]

>>10219725
>anyone who doesn't want a political false dichotomy ruling society and who doesn't believe in my silly "we iz romanz" political theory of limiting political vocabulary is illiterate

you better neck yourself
before your wreck yourself

[Anonymous No.10219744]

>>10219737
You get to be postwar europe. Where 'coalitions' vote on how to import the most muslims and give away money to fatfucks with no jobs.
>ruling class
nice conspiracy theories
>false dichotomy
unless you have a legit education in which there would be no need to argue you would never be able to know how any of this actually works. The euros, obviously, have no idea, how any of this works.

[Anonymous No.10219749]

>>10219730
nothing wrong with either of those things.

[Anonymous No.10219750]

Benis in boibussy :---DDD
T. Anusdiddeles

[Anonymous No.10219777]

>>10219744
Alot of what you're spouting sounds like psychopathic everything-is-zero-sum-no-one-is-willing-to-compromise-ever horse shit

Are you a defense contractor?

[Anonymous No.10219782]

>>10218830
Same shit, you don't have to agree with the Greeks to study the Greeks. Mainly because "agreeing with the Greeks" (or with the "classical authors", which is a even more nebulous and broad category) doesn't actually mean shit since the Greeks themselves had all kinds of philosophy. You can believe someone has very interesting things to say and be completely enamoured with his prose, thought processes, etc etc and still disagree with most of what they said. Think Plato and Aristotle for example. Or Marx and Hegel. Or Nietzsche and Schopenhauer. I don't even know why the fuck I'm writing this since it should be obvious to anyone who has half a brain.

[Anonymous No.10219793]

>>10219782
>...etc etc and still disagree with most of what they said
That's not how it works anymore. Any favorable opinion towards something that is shunned by the group will get you shunned. No thought, no questions. Debate is dead, and Facebook killed it.

[Anonymous No.10219801]

What I mean to say is. Don't repeat or share something someone else will disagree with. Even if they have no opinion on the matter, you publicly sharing it implies endorsement: "it is worth reading." Your audience will presume you agree with it, and in fact so much so that you represent it. People assume you are aligned with it.

[Anonymous No.10219826]

>>10219801
>Even if they have no opinion on the matter, you publicly sharing it implies endorsement: "it is worth reading."

translation:
>I am clinically retarded and can't understand why people would share unintentionally hilarious books or even books that show a different kind of mindset that although it may not align with their own they still think is worth considering. Also, I love it when niggers cum down my throat and I slurp it up like a gogurt.

[Anonymous No.10219835]

>>10219826
Sorry to be the one to tell you, anon. We're fucked buttgood.

[Anonymous No.10219838]

>>10219793
Yeah people are dumb nowadays. I agree and your post also explains pretty well why someone would be surprised at a classics professor having liberal views like the other anon did.

[Anonymous No.10219969]

It's not homosexuality, It's bonding!

[Anonymous No.10219993]

>>10219542
What would that school be, just to know?

[Anonymous No.10220105]

>>10218512
Is The Sopranos the official show of /lit/? Because I'm pretty sure Twin Peaks is the objectively patrician choice.

[Anonymous No.10220241]

>>10218554
They wanted to fuck the stranger tbqh

[Anonymous No.10220256]

>>10220241
They did. They did want to fuck him. But I thought that they were punished because it was extremely disrespectful to ask a stranger to let them rape him. They were mean and not welcoming or hospitable.

[Anonymous No.10220260]

>>10218148
>People think because the greeks made flattering comments about the male body, or young male bodies that it was sexual in nature. Or because they bathed together or wrestled naked they were gay. In fact they made fun of gays.
based greek pranksters

[Anonymous No.10220603]

>>10220105

>I'm pretty sure Twin Peaks is the objectively patrician choice.

Wrong. Father Ted is peak /lit/.

[Anonymous No.10220789]

>>10219464
Moral law never ever passes away hence Christ says to "keep the commandments... Don't murder steal commit adultery...don't divorce (except in the case of adultery) font even lust mentally... Etc". Paul also confirms the moral law and that faggots are abominations against all goodness. Seriously read the bible and get someone to teach you Christianity
The dietary laws don't apply anymore Christ said its not what goes in your mouth that defiles us. Peter had the dream about eating meat. Paul spoke of those who try to forbid others from eating certain things...etc
Circumcision is nothing. We have a new covenant now baptism takes its place. We dont sacrifice animals since the real sacrifice was already done on Cavalry.
If you equate homosex to dietary laws you're totally confused.
Moral laws are natural and eternal.
Ceremonial laws have passed away.
Learn Christianity. Don't just read fedora and fag sites. Talk to a priest not a female lesbo pastor.

[Anonymous No.10220835]

>>10220789
>female lesbo pastor.

I actually know a local protestant church that has one of these

[Anonymous No.10220847]

>>10218155

God bless the Victorians then.

[Anonymous No.10220851]

>>10218155
hee hee.... "buggery"

[Anonymous No.10220860]

>>10218148
You took one oversimplification for another and feel enlightened. Aka, you're everything bad about history.

[Anonymous No.10221004]

>>10218155
Great album

[Anonymous No.10221018]

So is Kevin Spacey Greek?

[Anonymous No.10221113]

>>10218155
Seconding anon who said this was a great album

[Anonymous No.10221157]

ITT: people who skipped Symposium
Jesus Christ

[Anonymous No.10221180]

The word paul uses, that is often translated 'homosexual', would actually more accurately be more accurately translated 'pussy' in our modern understanding of these words (I mention this because it speaks to the difference in the Greek understanding of homosexuality). As has been noted, if you were doing the penetrating, this word would not apply to you. If you were the one being penetrated, the word would apply to you. But just insofar as being penetrated makes you a 'pussy' or a beta essentially. It doesn't have an inherently sexual connotation. 'Weakling' would be a much better translation than homosexual (this applies to the letters that Paul actually wrote, not the pseuds). Likewise, in Plato, to be a pussy is condemned with severity. If you were given the option of being seen fucking the brains out of some dude or shirking an honorable responsibility out of laziness, you would choose the former if you knew what was good for you. To the latter, Paul's word that is horribly translated 'homosexual', would apply, but the guy fucking a dude is just getting off and would not be called 'homosexual'

[Anonymous No.10221237]

>>10221180
fagposting is an abomination, you shame your parents and species, the Gods will cleanse your filthy soul with eternal fire. Your life is meaningless and will never attain anything of merit or truth.

[Anonymous No.10221343]

>>10221237
someone seems upset. dumb /pol/ christian

[Anonymous No.10221595]

>>10218259
>>10218838
I think his point is more like "Why would you bother devoting your life to this if you don't really connect with it."

Yes the Greeks are objectively important, but so is Shakespeare; so why spend your life studying and teaching the former and not the latter? I would think it's some sort of personal connection, some chord that's struck between you and the subject.

Which goes back to >>10218228's question: how do so many of these classicists become men so contrary to everything they teach? Not just in the sense of being liberal compared with Greek conservatism/borderline proto-fascism; I mean how can they spend their whole lives in quiet study of a culture which also glorified vigor and strength and physical activity, considering them necessary counterparts to contemplative living?

I love the Greeks and many friends have suggested that I go to grad school to study them or something similar. My response has always been that I refuse to learn about one of the most masculine, active, vigorous, beauty-loving cultures from a bunch of stodgy, pudgy, unhealthy old men in sweater vests. Classics scholars remain one of academia's greatest paradoxes in my mind. I can't help but shrink from wondering what someone like Caesar or even a "softer" man like Pompey would think if he were introduced to all of these men who do nothing but read about his past life and the deeds that filled it. My bet is that he'd be disgusted, or at least scornful.

[Anonymous No.10221623]

>>10219057
who /shitposting from an ivy right now/
feels comfy

[Anonymous No.10221632]

>>10221595
Since the Renaissance what has happened is that the fundamental nature of antiquity is simply ignored and instead they just focus on the stuff they like.

Shit like "The Republic was satire!", "Umm ya they were racist but that was normal for the time, they were just ignorant", "haha weren't the presocratics so silly?" and the focus on the least important part of works such as the Illiad, they focus on style, superficial symbology and the like

[Anonymous No.10221649]

>>10220789
>Christ said its not what goes in your mouth that defiles us
Unless it's dick right? Or is sucking cock not gay?

[Anonymous No.10221677]

>>10218244

Not if you really really like reading and writing about it and stay with it for decades. If that happens, then you earnestly like/fetishize something about what you're reading, on some level (or you believe that knowing it perfectly lends value to your contrary project), or else you wouldn't spend the time.

>>10218259

This is a very stupid post, and its whinging and vacillation betray its emotion.

"liking" implies some level of "agreement", in both the rational and aesthetic senses, among others. This means that in various qualified ways, yes, if you "like" something, then yes, you really do "agree" with it, to some certain meaningful extent. Now whine about the blanks that you can't fill in and that you think I haven't anticipated.

[Anonymous No.10221685]

>>10218820

Not that guy and there is no such thing as a soul and you are hereby informed of your error.

[Anonymous No.10221698]

>>10221685
>no such thing as a soul
and thus you show your spiritual sickness and folly.

[Anonymous No.10221699]

>>10221685
if there's no soul how can hell exist?
atheists BTFO

[Anonymous No.10221702]

itt: op tries his hardest to be an edgy contrarian; sucks a boatload of cocks instead, just like a good Athenian

[Anonymous No.10221704]

>>10221698

okay fellow story-telling meatbag. Stay asleep and settle comfortably on your error. It's all the same.

You, like all the rest, aren't going anywhere. And upon reflection, real reflection, you may know this to be true. You're committed to the lie so this is done, and know that your view is false.

[Anonymous No.10221707]

>>10220105
>>10220603
Wrong. Mad Men is the offical show of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.10221709]

>>10221704
t. someone who's never encountered the supernatural

[Anonymous No.10221711]

Have any of you actually ever read the Symposium?

[Anonymous No.10221712]

>>10221704
Your kind, who lie, and deceive. Who lead others to BE deceived. Then claim to be the light in the darkness of ignorance. Know nothing, and you prove you know nothing, because you say nothing. Besides that everyone is wrong, and that you alone, bear the torch of 'the truth' which was imposed upon humanity by God. You best pray Great Hektor free you from your torment upon his blood, for you sail to annihilation.

[Anonymous No.10221715]

>>10221704
>being this high
if you can't distinguish between the absolute and the relative, material and immaterial truths, then your language and intuition have been subverted. You are not accustomed to questioning your first principles and presumptions about reality.

[Anonymous No.10221717]

>>10221709
What have you encountered anon? Please tell us instead of giving yourself airs.

[Anonymous No.10221720]

>>10221711
>have you ever read my doctored pro-faggot works that says greek gods were gay?????
the whole world of ancient greece was NOT flowers and peace. It was the illiad, where cities were burnt to the ground and only self-sacrifice would save you, faggotry would lead to you suffering for all of eternity for IMPIETY just like the akhaians. Who weren't even gay, but suffered the same.

[Anonymous No.10221728]

Is there any good explanation for why homosexual/pederastic behavior was so common in ancient Greece and Rome? Yeah, I get that "homosexuality" didn't exist as a sexual identity, but I'm referring to the acts themselves, which I don't think anyone disputes were fairly prevalent.

Is sexuality just heavily socially constructed? If so, why isn't homosexuality more common in non-human animals? And why do most people (women excepted) feel as if their sexual orientation is ingrained? Why do people who self-identify as "gay" tend to exhibit certain physical traits (the "gay voice", effeminacy for men, masculinity for women, etc.)? Wouldn't this suggest a genetic or at least biological component of some kind?

[Anonymous No.10221730]

>>10221720
You know saying "ancient Greek was the Iliad" is as bumfuck retarded as saying "the United States is Batman 2 The Dark Knight", right?

But you unironically think ancient texts were doctored by le librul boogyman because they don't fit your ideology / narrative, so I guess "brainlet" is too kind of a term for you

[Anonymous No.10221734]

>>10218492
They were jews, this prophet Jesus didnt feel compelled to rehash a specific law already established in Jewish society, just as every other prophet didn't feel the need to repeat what everyone said before them. It was still a knot on his tzitzit. Christians always hated fags

[Anonymous No.10221740]

>>10221711

Don't bother Anon. If these people are serious about studying literature/"the classics," as soon as they go to college and take a 200 level Greek course they will discover that, surprisingly enough, the sexual behavior and values of Greeks living 2400 years ago do not precisely match up with theirs. Of course this goes for both conservative and liberal modern Westerners. Foucault, who usually does not have my sympathies, pretty much got it right about the construction of sexual orientations. Which is no work of genius on his part: if you actually read the primary sources without an overpowering bias going into things, it is obvious that the Greeks did not have a conception of sexual orientation like we do. But most of these people are not, in fact, serious.

[Anonymous No.10221741]

>>10221720
>doctored pro-faggot works that says greek gods were gay?????
KEK
How can you have this little knowledge and still talk so big? It says little about the sexuality of mythology and more about the sexuality of the actual society as is. The Iliad is also several centuries before the time we are talking about. I don't think there is any reference to homosexuality in the Iliad - but by the time of 5th century people interpreted Achilles and Patroclus as erastes and eromenos.

>>10221728
There does seem to be a real physiological difference between people with homosexual behaviours and those without. In the Symposium something *similar* (but not analogous) to this is enumerated, where Aristophanes proposes a mythological explanation for human desire and love. He says that all humans used to be being with two conjoined bodies and heads, and that the gods feared their power so they split them in half - creating the desire of people for one another, a longing for the companionship they used to have. He explains that men attracted to women originally came from bodies of male and female, and men attracted to men likewise came from bodies of male and male. In a sense there is a recognition of subjective desire innate to the individual.

There's also a concept of the 'Sodatic zone' - includes Arab pederasty.

[Anonymous No.10221743]

>>10221730
>we're not batman so....
ignorant, impious filth, you have no place in academia if you're too much of an asshole to take your head out of your ass
>ancient texts were doctored
they were, you idiot. Its why that 'symposium' teaches NO SKILL and is purely teh gay agenda to get your people more of an accepted place in society when you are better off dead

[Anonymous No.10221744]

>>10221741
>knowledge
I actually know becuase I havea degree and saw the fucking angel memories. You just read whatever cock's cum splatter lands on your face and decide it was amde by fucking plato.

[Anonymous No.10221748]

>>10221744
>saw the fucking angel memories
what :)

[Anonymous No.10221789]

I've heard that a lot of gays were molested as children. I wonder if pederasty could explain the prevalence of homosexuality. Say for some reason or another you have a group of pederasts who go on a tear raping children and a certain percentage of those children become "gay" and go on to do the same, you could imagine how after awhile homosexuality would spread. As for why these group of pederasts would have been able to rape so many children, look at the Catholic church or Hollywood. People who are into this stuff tend to find each other and form cabals that are difficult to stamp out.

There probably isn't just one single explanation, but this seems plausible imo.

[Anonymous No.10221795]

>>10221789
If this is true then how did the first homosexual become homosexual?

[Anonymous No.10221802]

>>10221795
some men are born with braindamage

[Anonymous No.10221808]

>>10221802
And even retards understand sex, don't you think it's more possible that homosexuality is genetical?

[Anonymous No.10221810]

>>10221789
>us homos are innocent victims of homosex
no. you're not. You sinned, and acquired a curse because of how impious you are. It happens naturally, from the form of piety, which is weakness/improper forms in your soul.

[Anonymous No.10221814]

>>10221808
>don't you think it's more possible that homosexuality is genetical?
ultimately its a choice to entertain certain thoughts and engage in certain behaviors. But there is probably some fundamental braindamage at work as well, either acquired in the womb or afterwards.

[Anonymous No.10221819]

>>10221814
How do you define "braindamage"?

[Anonymous No.10221820]

>>10218256
>yfw Mommsen had such a hard on for Julius Caesar that he left out the assassination when writing his biography of Juilus

[Anonymous No.10221822]

>>10221740
I sure hope not, man.

[Anonymous No.10221825]

>>10221744
Anon are you having a psychotic break?

[Anonymous No.10221832]

>>10221677
>>"liking" implies some level of "agreement", in both the rational and aesthetic senses, among others. This means that in various qualified ways, yes, if you "like" something, then yes, you really do "agree" with it
not at all. only rationalist claim that first agreement exists and that they can agree to something they like. oddly enough, once the thing liked is no longer liked, they refuse to see how retarded their claim is

[Anonymous No.10221840]

>>10221819
creating unnatural desires, inclinations, and creating delusions in the subject.

[Anonymous No.10221846]

>>10221840
I wouldn't call that "braindamage", it's more like i said, genetical.

[Anonymous No.10221848]

>>10221840
So delusions like pretending an angel talked to you?

Fascinating, do go on...

[Anonymous No.10221859]

>>10221795
I doubt there is just one cause of homosexuality. It could be that in some cases it's caused by prenatal conditions affecting the hormones, or something else entirely. But this could explain why it was so widespread. Of course, I could be completely wrong. It was just an idea I had.

[Anonymous No.10221915]

>>10221848
depends if an angel did talk to you or not.
pretending something happened if it did not would be delusional.

>>10221846
genetic transcription errors can cause braindamage, like downsyndrome. The anus can not be impregnated. Getting poop on your penis is not love, nor is it healthy or what the penis was designed for. So anal sex is a bizarre, unnatural and egotistic fetish. How people begin to suffer from such desires probably has multiple causes, not just one.
I wouldn't rule out demonic influence though.

------
>>10220789
This is correct and to add to it we should look at history. Scripture is abundantly clear that homosexuality is a perversion against nature, a sin and was punishable by death in the OT.
But what was the early Christian position towards it? Much the same desu.
If we read Emperor Justinians Code of Laws we see that he recommended "severe punishment" and/or "death" for homosexuals who do not repent and turn away from their sins, "we order the most illustrious Prefect of the Capital to arrest those who persist in the aforesaid illicit and impious acts (homosex) ... and to inflict upon them the most severe punishments,"
This was in the 5th century and Emperor Justinian was also a Saint. At the time the Prefect of the Assembly was a cappadocian saint and he recommended death by immolation.
All apostolic Church's view homosexuality as a sin, their position has never changed, the nature of the punishment has though.

The ancient jews and early christians viewed homosexuality similarly, and thought it was right to be punished if the subject declined to turn from his sin. It's only very recently, in the 19th century that the most liberal and heretical protestants (crypto atheist/pantheists/agnostics) try to ignore history and ignore scripture and ignore reason, and try to justify homosexuality to fit their political and secular humanist agenda. Their hermeneutic is nonsense. Their minds are darkened.

If they can't interpret such clear lines what chance do they have of interpreting anything slightly complicated, metaphorical or nuanced?

[Anonymous No.10221977]

>>10218240
w0ke shit.

[Anonymous No.10221978]

>>10221915
What does your angelic encounter have to do with either your degree (in what?) or with Greek homosexuality? If your knowledge on the subject is divinely inspired, why does it then lead you to say that Symposium (or its "doctored" version) states the "Greek gods" were gay? Do you even know what the conversation in Symposium is about?

It seems your condemnation of homosexuality stems from your Christian morality, which is fine and good. Homosexuality is prominent, accepted and extolled in modern day Western civilisation, which has drifted further and further from its Christian religion, right? So, on that note, why do you object to the idea that pre-Christian Hellenic civilisation had an un-Christian moral attitude toward homosexual acts? They were victims of original sin too, no doubt - and had not the Incarnation to guide them.

Another point - if homosexuality is the result of brain damage akin to down syndrome, why do you castigate the homosexual like a moral abomination? Don't you have any questions about the culpability of the person for their actions, in that case? And it seems like you use equate it with down syndrome because you know that people will find down syndrome inherently unfavourable on an aesthetic level - you have little compassion or thought for the person with down syndrome since you don't think twice about putting them on the same page as what you think are terrible sinners.

[Anonymous No.10222002]

During the pre-christian era all kind of degeneracies were persecuted except for the dominant homosexuality, because a male who fucked both males and females were considered twice as manly, passive homosexuals were always shunned.

[Anonymous No.10222008]

>>10222002
>it wasn't gay if balls were touching

[Anonymous No.10222022]

>>10221978
>why greek gods gay
Greek Gods were capricious and petty and the mythology surrounding them wasn't always prescriptive or admirable.
so your point is irrelevant.

>It seems your condemnation of homosexuality stems from your Christian morality, which is fine and good.
When the cults of dionysus started having night orgies in the mountains the Roman senate declared a national emergency and outlawed their sects, they paid informants to rat them out and executed thousands of degenerate homos, pedos, rapists and polygamists.

>if homosexuality is the result of brain damage akin to down syndrome, why do you castigate the homosexual like a moral abomination? Don't you have any questions about the culpability of the person for their actions, in that case? And it seems like you use equate it with down syndrome because you know that people will find down syndrome inherently unfavourable on an aesthetic level - you have little compassion or thought for the person with down syndrome

I could have used any biological disorder that impairs judgment, downsyndrome just came to mind quickly. Of course homos and downsyndromes aren't morally equivalent. A person isn't culpable for being downsyndrome, a person is culpable for engaging in homosexuality. The person with homosexual lust can choose to act on those lusts or decline them, he can choose to entertain perverted thoughts or minimize them. He can pursue celibacy or perhaps straight sex if he has some desire for it. He has options and will power, the downsyndrome person has to operate within his intelligence limitations as best he can.

If someone is born with an sadistic mind that takes pleasure in hurting innocent folks they shouldn't indulge that identity or desire, they shouldn't embrace it and "live the violent lifestyle", it's bad for their souls, bad for others and ugly in the eyes of God.
If someone acquires a taste for beastiality or pedophilia they should similarly seek to purge those thoughts and desires, not embrace them and identify with them.

[Anonymous No.10222027]

>>10222002
What you call 'degeneracy' is pretty vague term completely depended on the time and dispensation. For example child marriages were normal thing throughout the human history but now they considered to be degeneracy.

[Anonymous No.10222034]

>>10221814
>But there is probably some fundamental braindamage at work as well, either acquired in the womb or afterwards.
No. Pretty much all homosexuals are made, not "born that way"; almost all of them became homosexuals after being raped by older homos.

[Anonymous No.10222036]

>>10222027
>What you call 'degeneracy' is pretty vague term completely depended on the time and dispensation.
Only because there are forces at work that undermine the meaning of words. Degeneracy is immorality and what is immoral idoes not change from time to time. This relativistic view of morality is the cause of confusion and disorder.

>child marriage is degenerate now
Consummating a marriage with a child is always degenerate. Marrying a child and waiting until they are young adults/pubescent/mentally mature to consummate is not degenerate.

[Anonymous No.10222040]

>>10222034
You're thinking of vampires

[Anonymous No.10222043]

>>10221728
>Why do people who self-identify as "gay" tend to exhibit certain physical traits (the "gay voice", effeminacy for men, masculinity for women, etc.)
Can't speak for the rest, but I can answer this one. It's confirmation bias: you remember the super effeminate homos because they are such a walking stereotype. Most gays are normal dudes, some more masculine than average, and you wouldn't think they're gay because they are normal people and don't inject their sexuality into every facet of their lives.

[Anonymous No.10222047]

>>10222040
Very funny. *tips fedora*

Seriously, read any memoir of any public homosexual who's past the stage of caring about public appearances. There's __always__ a childhood rape in that closet.

[Anonymous No.10222051]

>>10222047
Yes, those anecdotes are my favourite part of all the many memoirs of famous homosexuals that I read.

[Anonymous No.10222057]

>>10221728
>Is there any good explanation for why homosexual/pederastic behavior was so common in ancient Greece and Rome? Yeah, I get that "homosexuality" didn't exist as a sexual identity, but I'm referring to the acts themselves, which I don't think anyone disputes were fairly prevalent.
It has always been prevalent everywhere, especially Middle-east, East Asia and South Europe. It's still very prevalent in the Middle-east.

[Anonymous No.10222065]

It's true, gay culture has made it difficult to express an admiration for the beautiful without having it turned into an affirmation or dismissal of faggotry by politically motivated hacks or intellectually small queers who think that gender theory is something new and revolutionary and unquestionably valid in their own interpretation.

[Anonymous No.10222070]

>>10222027
>What you call 'degeneracy' is pretty vague term completely depended on the time and dispensation.
Spoken like a true degenerate.

[Anonymous No.10222097]

>>10218228
>I've never understood the classical scholars, they are among the most liberal professors at universities

This is absolutely false. I was a Classics major and all my professors were either conservatives or centrists.

None of them were on the left at all. In fact, one of them was even a Heidegger scholar.

[Anonymous No.10222099]

>>10219513
Its a 19th century sculpture dumbass.

[Anonymous No.10222106]

>>10222065
I can't find the quote online and can't be bothered to look it up on my book, but in one of his early books Plato wrote about young Socrates (not the ugly troll) and the person who introduced him to ugly troll Socrates starts praising the young ones beauty, but mentions something like "Now, don't you think I'm in love with him, but-" kind of suggesting that open admiration of others beauty had that stigma even back then.

[Anonymous No.10222109]

>>10222106
But nowadays homosex is commonly acceptable. It's offensive to deny too strongly that you're sexually attracted to the person whose beauty is being praised.

[Anonymous No.10222111]

>>10222097
Liberal and centrist mean the same thing, you idiot
>Implying Left Heideggerians don't exist

[Anonymous No.10222113]

>>10222111
They do exist, but I'm just telling you that from experience that Classics professors are usually pretty conservative compared to the rest of the faculty.

[Anonymous No.10222117]

>>10222106
>Being this biased.

Let's ignore all mentions of open homo admiration and all poems written for homo partners in ancient greece, if it was something that was frowned upon we wouldn't have so much documentation on it, yo retard.

[Anonymous No.10222132]

>>10222117
That is what I suggested in my reply. You are projecting your own views on their life.

All you should take from my example is that there was a stigma of some kind. In my example it was an older teacher not wanting Socrates to mistake that he was in love with his student when he admired his beauty and good looks, meaning that was a real concept and something that could have branded him with a negative effect in his social circle. You cant just reject this example because it doesnt suit you.

[Anonymous No.10222133]

>>10222132
That is NOT what I suggested-****

[Anonymous No.10222163]

>>10222109
nah begin homo talk is part of male socialization but actual homo stuff is a fast track to social alienation

[Anonymous No.10222171]

>>10222132
IIRC the admiration and love of young boys was considered something shameful because being some kind of "fan" was something more fit to a young person rather than an old fart, which was the guy you're quoting in your post, I'm not dismissing your quote because it doesn't fit my view, I'm dismissing your interpretation because it's flawed in my opinion.

[Anonymous No.10222199]

>>10222171
It would be pretty unfair and biased to form a definite opinion on the subject purely based on my example, so rest assured I havent done that. All I wanted to do was to bring fowards an actual example where an admiration of a young boys beauty warranted "no-homo but"

The fact is, they had a concept of Erastes (in my example the older man) and Eromenos (young Socrates). These relationships played a role in the Classical Greek social and educational system, had its own complex social-sexual etiquette and was an important social institution among the upper classes.

Most people take issue with calling this homosexuality as that in itself is a concept which was formed in Gothic Europe. Yes, we call 2. men in an intimate relationship homosexual, but they didnt. Did they take part in actions which we would concider homosexual? Yes. Was it normal for them? In certain aspects of the society, yes. It's a very interesting topic and I'm looking for books about the subject which don't put me on FBI watchlist.

[Anonymous No.10222210]

>>10222132
Stop posting sculptures that are not ancient greek or roman.

[Anonymous No.10222224]

>>10222210
The first statue I posted is a Roman copy from 2nd century BC made after a Greek original of the 5th century BC. The second one is from 1780 but the same God. You're assuming I posted them as "PROOF OF THE GAY GREEKS" but no, that was not my goal.

[Anonymous No.10222247]

>>10222163
LOL you don't love in New England, clearly

[Anonymous No.10222261]

>>10222247

[Anonymous No.10222266]

>>10222261
The armpit of New England hardly counts. I bet you're a Yankee fan.

[Anonymous No.10222270]

>>10218148
Well, considering Attic charged the child victim of anal sex with hubris and deprived them of their citizenship, and not the adult perpetrator, it tends to come across as pro-pederasts.

also:
>treating the Greeks as a unified culture
shiggy.

[Anonymous No.10222272]

>>10222266
wrong again nigger
you sound like a masshole, or even worse a Rhode Islander.

[Anonymous No.10222280]

>>10222272
And you sound like the butthurt provincial that you are
I mean do you even have gay friends?
Half the girls I know are lesbians

[Anonymous No.10222292]

>>10222280
Don't you have a grungy vegan restaurant to frequent?

[Anonymous No.10222296]

>>10222292
'no'

[Anonymous No.10222301]

>>10222296
that's too bad, if you're actually in Providence The Grange is pretty good, I go there sometimes because I am pretty close. It's a bit pricey though, but it is RI.

[Anonymous No.10222307]

>>10222301
Capitalism and high prices are good

[Anonymous No.10223444]

this thread is gayer than /v/