Homosexuality.

Sep 2014
837
Texas
#81
The fact that Greek gods took on male lovers seems to me as if they didn't consider homosexuality to be evil. But I may be wrong.
Late to the discussion. I can not think of one Greek myth that started out gay. Hykinthos, the hero of Amyclae whose daughters were murdered by the Athenians became gay after Sparta fell. Ganymedes whose name is found in a sea god of Phyrgia and Lydia O'getes is one version was the lover of the moon goddess. Zeus abducted and raped him. Laius, the founder of Thebes abducted and raped Chrysippus son of Pelops. In one version the boy committed suicide in shame, and in Euripides lost play which has Pelops getting his son back and his wife killing the boy. Euripides for a guy who liked to sleep with women really hated them in his plays.

I have asked this repeatedly and have gotten no answer...why did the Athenians turn against their women? (Oh and one of the founders of the Lover's Brigade was married and had several children by his wife.....gay conversion therapy?)
 
Sep 2014
837
Texas
#82
OK I see this a lot, Spartan girls cut their hair short, dressed in mens' clothes and shaved their public regions and that turned gay boys into straight men. Now I for one believe that no real gay man can be turned, and we know of several famous Greeks who were not turned on by boy butts and penises...Pericles for one, but I have to ask this....if Spartan boys had long hair and hairy dicks, and they didn't wear clothes, how would a naked girl with a shaved pussy make him think of boys in the barracks. And why was Pericles not turned on by boy butts and penises? If all Greek men were gay.
 
Jul 2016
8,684
USA
#83
OK I see this a lot, Spartan girls cut their hair short, dressed in mens' clothes and shaved their public regions and that turned gay boys into straight men. Now I for one believe that no real gay man can be turned, and we know of several famous Greeks who were not turned on by boy butts and penises...Pericles for one, but I have to ask this....if Spartan boys had long hair and hairy dicks, and they didn't wear clothes, how would a naked girl with a shaved pussy make him think of boys in the barracks. And why was Pericles not turned on by boy butts and penises? If all Greek men were gay.
Where are you getting info about girls shaving "public" regions?

Why do only two classifications exist for you: gay or straight? Why are you discounting the classification of something else? Are you aware what the B in LGBQT stands for? Or is this a continuation of the current conflict in that community where the L and G don't consider the B legit, calling them indecisive and cowardly for refusing to commit to an identity?
 

Menshevik

Ad Honorem
Dec 2012
9,009
here
#84
Or is this a continuation of the current conflict in that community where the L and G don't consider the B legit, calling them indecisive and cowardly for refusing to commit to an identity?
Is that a real phenomenon? If so, it doesn't seem very tolerant. Which is especially ironic given how much LGBQT people and their supporters lament the lack of tolerance in society.
 
Jul 2016
8,684
USA
#86
Is that a real phenomenon? If so, it doesn't seem very tolerant. Which is especially ironic given how much LGBQT people and their supporters lament the lack of tolerance in society.
Yes, its real.

Bisexual people still face insidious stigma from inside LGBTQ community

Simply put, the extremists hold the narrative in any sort of lobbying groups, and they're the ones spreading the messages. In this situation, the extremists in the LGBQT community aren't bisexuals, they're the people whose every waking moment is dominated by their identifying solely on being attracted to members of the same sex. They believe fully in the propaganda that its not a choice, so when bisexuals are attracted to both, they consider them still partially in the closet, and too cowardly to fully commit. Either be straight or gay/lesbian, but you cannot be both. Because if you can be both, what does it make for people who see their sexuality in black/white terms? The answer is: Angry.

Remember, all of these movements are not about caring and happiness. They're political movements, they're about power, especially redistribution of power in a world they see as zero sum. If you don't have power, someone else took it from you, and is why you must take it back. And the ends always justify the means.

Inside numerous other "oppressed" identity groups there are actually great conflicts among one another, and its not only not fueled by "oppressor" classes, its largely not even known by them. They literally don't even know these conflicts exist because they aren't members of that community. For example, and I only recently found this out a few years ago, which is crazy considering how many black friends I've had (who don't talk about this to those outside their ethnic groups) out inside the Afro-American community there exists a very complex hatred shared by many over the perceived positives and negatives of darkness/ lightness of skin color.

Its pretty crazy seeing it from the outside, but actually reassuring. That every group oppresses when they have the chance, that every group is full of jerks who are horrible to one another. Take three random people, two of them will probably try to ostracize the third. How? However they need to, they'll find a way.
 
Oct 2009
3,452
San Diego
#87
Well, watch the report before flapping your lips. The fact is, the Greek term for homosexuality translates roughly as "shame-bringers". According to Athenian law, anyone who practiced it was denied all access to holding offices of responsibility in the State. Interestingly, Plato, in his ideal state, would have forbade sex except to procreate. And the very few vases which display homosexual behaviour (less than 0.02%) show it among Satyrs, who were noted for immorality.

Sappho, who started a school for women of Lesbos, was a wife and mother. And she threw herself into the sea in remorse that her husband left her.

Those who were especially considered disgraceful were the men who received it, as they were deemed to be taking the role of a woman.

Ultimately, as the video points out, those who claim that Ancient Greece normalised homosexuality were and are invariably homosexual themselves. Sounds rather partisan to me.

Of course, homosexuality does exist in Greece, as it did and does everywhere. But it was not considered normal. In fact, the only reason it was removed from the DSM of mental illnesses in the USA is because in 1973, while revision to the book was being discussed, a group of militant homosexuals raided the conference, commandeered the mic, and started shouting about declaring a war on psychiatry, and became somewhat violent.

I find it entertaining, in a sick way, that if your brain cycles quickly between happy and sad, you are mentally ill, but if you want to chop off your man-parts and call yourself a woman (even though you cannot menstruate, be pregnant, give birth, or breastfeed), you are considered nomal.

If you can prove the video categorically wrong, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, shut your pie-hole.

It never ceases to amaze me how many homophobes will clutch at any imaginable straw to try and rewrite known history.
The Greek word for man on man love is not "shame bringers"
Its Agape- which was a kind of love that could only develop between intellectual and social equals- i.e.- other men. You literally could not feel agape for a woman, if you were a man.

Beyond that- Both Greeks and Romans thought that having sex exclusively with other males was super weird and potentially humiliating.
that is- for them sexuality was less about the gender or even species of what you were screwing... it was about the distinction between the Penetrator and the penetrated. Adult males were penetrators- and both cultures saw that as manly whether you were penetrating a boy or a girl or a melon.- by the same token, they saw being penetrated as the feminine- and women were not the equals of men. not Physically, and not socially. So any Man who wanted to be penetrated was seen as unmanly.

This is why the graffiti In Rome that accused Caesar of being the "Bride" of his entire legion was a canard aimed at Caesar- Not at the legion that purportedly penetrated him.

There is ZERO evidence that the Ancients had ANY of our puritan hangups over sex.

IN Both societies- BOYS were the preferred targets of male on male sexuality- because before they grow a beard- boys appear to be more feminine in appearance. They are not expected to Be penetrators until they have adult male attributes.
Because virginity was prized and women in both cultures led fairly cloistered lives Young men in ancient Greece and Rome had very little access to women for sex- and so they turned to the Boys for sex as Substitutes for women.

This has been shown to happen in EVERY culture where sexual access to females is strictly controled. For example- In modern day Afghanistan where the Army has had to be counseled to not over-react to Afghan men having sex with boys.
Or even in Saudi Arabia or other muslim nations where Homosexuality is punishable by death- and yet- sex between men and boys is endemic.
It can be seen in the remnant of Roman culture that still is the Catholic church- where sex between priests and altar boys was considered the only way for priests to avoid the sin of Onan.

Oh- and here's a clue that might stop you from Parsing ancient text to mean what you want them to mean... In a culture where homosexuality between men and boys is seen as abhorrent- you DO NOT FIND it depicted graphically on Home Decor items like pottery and metal cast vessels.

The Church and puritans did a Lot of damage in destroying images of ancient sexuality- you still have to literally ASK to see the items unearthed at Pompeii and Herculaneum, where they are kept in a closed section of the museum that they don't tell you is even there until you ask.

Sorry, pal... but the most sophomoric mistake made in anthropology is to imagine that what any people CLAIM themselves to be is how they actually behave. These kind of arguments would be like a far future you arguing that a speed limit sign you dug up proved that 20th century drivers in America only drove at 55 mph. Versus a far future me pointing out that the speedometers on all the cars we dug up read up to 120. Maybe the signs were there because everyone tended to drive a lot faster?

ART proves that the ancients did not bat an eye over a man penetrating a boy. It wasn't art found on items you could shamefully conceal- it was art found on decor items, on walls...
Sure, you can find Greek and Roman writings condemning homosexuality. I can find you contemporary writings condemning vaccination. So what?
The evidence is clear- they simply did not consider pederasty to be homosexuality.

To the ancients, Homosexuality was men wanting sex ONLY with men. Their attitude was that they would prefer a woman... but a beardless boy will do fine in a pinch.
 
Last edited:
Jul 2016
8,684
USA
#88
It never ceases to amaze me how many homophobes will clutch at any imaginable straw to try and rewrite known history.
The Greek word for man on man love is not "shame bringers"
Its Agape- which was a kind of love that could only develop between intellectual and social equals- i.e.- other men. You literally could not feel agape for a woman, if you were a man.

Beyond that- Both Greeks and Romans thought that having sex exclusively with other males was super weird and potentially humiliating.
that is- for them sexuality was less about the gender or even species of what you were screwing... it was about the distinction between the Penetrator and the penetrated. Adult males were penetrators- and both cultures saw that as manly whether you were penetrating a boy or a girl or a melon.- by the same token, they saw being penetrated as the feminine- and women were not the equals of men. not Physically, and not socially. So any Man who wanted to be penetrated was seen as unmanly.

This is why the graffiti In Rome that accused Caesar of being the "Bride" of his entire legion was a canard aimed at Caesar- Not at the legion that purportedly penetrated him.

There is ZERO evidence that the Ancients had ANY of our puritan hangups over sex.

IN Both societies- BOYS were the preferred targets of male on male sexuality- because before they grow a beard- boys appear to be more feminine in appearance. They are not expected to Be penetrators until they have adult male attributes.
Because virginity was prized and women in both cultures led fairly cloistered lives Young men in ancient Greece and Rome had very little access to women for sex- and so they turned to the Boys for sex as Substitutes for women.

This has been shown to happen in EVERY culture where sexual access to females is strictly controled. For example- In modern day Afghanistan where the Army has had to be counseled to not over-react to Afghan men having sex with boys.
Or even in Saudi Arabia or other muslim nations where Homosexuality is punishable by death- and yet- sex between men and boys is endemic.
It can be seen in the remnant of Roman culture that still is the Catholic church- where sex between priests and altar boys was considered the only way for priests to avoid the sin of Onan.

Oh- and here's a clue that might stop you from Parsing ancient text to mean what you want them to mean... In a culture where homosexuality between men and boys is seen as abhorrent- you DO NOT FIND it depicted graphically on Home Decor items like pottery and metal cast vessels.

The Church and puritans did a Lot of damage in destroying images of ancient sexuality- you still have to literally ASK to see the items unearthed at Pompeii and Herculaneum, where they are kept in a closed section of the museum that they don't tell you is even there until you ask.

Sorry, pal... but the most sophomoric mistake made in anthropology is to imagine that what any people CLAIM themselves to be is how they actually behave. These kind of arguments would be like a far future you arguing that a speed limit sign you dug up proved that 20th century drivers in America only drove at 55 mph. Versus a far future me pointing out that the speedometers on all the cars we dug up read up to 120. Maybe the signs were there because everyone tended to drive a lot faster?

ART proves that the ancients did not bat an eye over a man penetrating a boy. It wasn't art found on items you could shamefully conceal- it was art found on decor items, on walls...
Sure, you can find Greek and Roman writings condemning homosexuality. I can find you contemporary writings condemning vaccination. So what?
The evidence is clear- they simply did not consider pederasty to be homosexuality.

To the ancients, Homosexuality was men wanting sex ONLY with men. Their attitude was that they would prefer a woman... but a beardless boy will do fine in a pinch.
Ancients had large access to female prostitutes. In fact, the Greeks had a massive industry of high price courtesans, females who were hired for sex, who could hold an interesting conversation with men (they were educated), and who were really really really into anal sex. Romans had great access to female prostitutes as well. Not was that an easy outlet, but the most easy, the most common, were female slaves. Can you rape a slave? No, its a piece of property, thus cannot be raped unless the owner does not give permission.

Conversation between two Greek landowners in the 5th century BC:

"Hey, Alexandros. I'm super horny. You mind if I have sex with your son?"
"Sure, Nicomedes. But if you prefer, why don't you just have sex with the maid? She's in the next room."
"No thanks, I prefer boys, because I hold male companionship in higher regards and thinks it makes me a better warrior. Women are for making babies, and what guy likes babies, yuck!"
"Ahh, good point. Can I have sex with your son too?"
"Sure. Let's each have sex with each other's sons. We'll make it a tradition!"

2,400 years later: "Is being gay genetic?"
 
Sep 2014
837
Texas
#89
Where are you getting info about girls shaving "public" regions?

Why do only two classifications exist for you: gay or straight? Why are you discounting the classification of something else? Are you aware what the B in LGBQT stands for? Or is this a continuation of the current conflict in that community where the L and G don't consider the B legit, calling them indecisive and cowardly for refusing to commit to an identity?
Spartan men shaved their upper lips and I just had a hard time believing Spartan women burned their pubic hair off. Greek women all shaved their pubic regions...it's been known for a long time. Greek and Roman women all did it. Ancient pubic styling

See here's the thing...STDS and serious urinary tract infections were a part of male Greek life. Women outside of Sparta were forced to marry whomever their father chose for her. Not so in Sparta. The girls knew who were playing for the other team. And they were not friendly about it. But gay men did exist.... But women who can choose their husbands are not going to marry a man who prefers boys or isn't healthy. And Plutarch tells us that there were actually unmarried men who liked women and pursued them. I know why would a man choose a woman over a boy. Right? So the only answer is those girls lying in the dark naked (cause boys were naked too) with short hair and shaved pussies could magically turn gay men straight. As for everyone being bisexual, most women just see them as open minded gays and most of us don't care for that.
 
Sep 2014
837
Texas
#90
It never ceases to amaze me how many homophobes will clutch at any imaginable straw to try and rewrite known history.
The Greek word for man on man love is not "shame bringers"
Its Agape- which was a kind of love that could only develop between intellectual and social equals- i.e.- other men. You literally could not feel agape for a woman, if you were a man.

Beyond that- Both Greeks and Romans thought that having sex exclusively with other males was super weird and potentially humiliating.
that is- for them sexuality was less about the gender or even species of what you were screwing... it was about the distinction between the Penetrator and the penetrated. Adult males were penetrators- and both cultures saw that as manly whether you were penetrating a boy or a girl or a melon.- by the same token, they saw being penetrated as the feminine- and women were not the equals of men. not Physically, and not socially. So any Man who wanted to be penetrated was seen as unmanly.

This is why the graffiti In Rome that accused Caesar of being the "Bride" of his entire legion was a canard aimed at Caesar- Not at the legion that purportedly penetrated him.

There is ZERO evidence that the Ancients had ANY of our puritan hangups over sex.

IN Both societies- BOYS were the preferred targets of male on male sexuality- because before they grow a beard- boys appear to be more feminine in appearance. They are not expected to Be penetrators until they have adult male attributes.
Because virginity was prized and women in both cultures led fairly cloistered lives Young men in ancient Greece and Rome had very little access to women for sex- and so they turned to the Boys for sex as Substitutes for women.

This has been shown to happen in EVERY culture where sexual access to females is strictly controled. For example- In modern day Afghanistan where the Army has had to be counseled to not over-react to Afghan men having sex with boys.
Or even in Saudi Arabia or other muslim nations where Homosexuality is punishable by death- and yet- sex between men and boys is endemic.
It can be seen in the remnant of Roman culture that still is the Catholic church- where sex between priests and altar boys was considered the only way for priests to avoid the sin of Onan.

Oh- and here's a clue that might stop you from Parsing ancient text to mean what you want them to mean... In a culture where homosexuality between men and boys is seen as abhorrent- you DO NOT FIND it depicted graphically on Home Decor items like pottery and metal cast vessels.

The Church and puritans did a Lot of damage in destroying images of ancient sexuality- you still have to literally ASK to see the items unearthed at Pompeii and Herculaneum, where they are kept in a closed section of the museum that they don't tell you is even there until you ask.

Sorry, pal... but the most sophomoric mistake made in anthropology is to imagine that what any people CLAIM themselves to be is how they actually behave. These kind of arguments would be like a far future you arguing that a speed limit sign you dug up proved that 20th century drivers in America only drove at 55 mph. Versus a far future me pointing out that the speedometers on all the cars we dug up read up to 120. Maybe the signs were there because everyone tended to drive a lot faster?

ART proves that the ancients did not bat an eye over a man penetrating a boy. It wasn't art found on items you could shamefully conceal- it was art found on decor items, on walls...
Sure, you can find Greek and Roman writings condemning homosexuality. I can find you contemporary writings condemning vaccination. So what?
The evidence is clear- they simply did not consider pederasty to be homosexuality.

To the ancients, Homosexuality was men wanting sex ONLY with men. Their attitude was that they would prefer a woman... but a beardless boy will do fine in a pinch.
You can also find art of young beardless Greek men having sex with women. What was wrong with them?
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/e7/74/e1/e774e1e3b587cbc31aea64f98ab80496.jpg
This isn't the one I want but I don't think the mods would let me down load it.

You know I am seriously amazed that any of the IndoEuropean Greeks survived. Maybe they did die off because they were all gay. I actually think there was something else at work, I've read Plutarch and Aristotle and no indication that the men were so enamored with gay sex that they were no longer able to reproduce.

Whenever I see gay men arguing that everyone is gay, I get suspicious. Isn't that what the priests in the Catholic church think? 80% is quite a few. I support gay rights between consenting adults. Whatever you want, none of my business. But these arguments involve it's OK to have sex with kids.
 
Last edited: