Lawrence of Arabia - "You know what they'll do to him if they catch him alive"

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Arabs and Turks both were known for torturing prisoners, and even to this day, have a very bad tendency of raping male prisoners.

That's actually what happened to Lawrence when the Turks captured him, he was sexually assaulted/tortured and it really messed up his head, as years later he started to believe he'd enjoyed it (probably trauma induced psychosis).
 

Earl_of_Rochester

Ad Honoris
Feb 2011
13,609
Perambulating in St James' Park
Arabs and Turks both were known for torturing prisoners, and even to this day, have a very bad tendency of raping male prisoners.

That's actually what happened to Lawrence when the Turks captured him, he was sexually assaulted/tortured and it really messed up his head, as years later he started to believe he'd enjoyed it (probably trauma induced psychosis).

Ol Lawrence mentions it himself. Tho there's the rumour that he fancied his own Arab lad and that's who the intro is dedicated to.

"The Arab was by nature continent; and the use of universal marriage had
nearly abolished irregular courses in his tribes. The public women of
the rare settlements we encountered in our months of wandering would
have been nothing to our numbers, even had their raddled meat been
palatable to a man of healthy parts. In horror of such sordid commerce
our youths began indifferently to slake one another's few needs in
their own clean bodies--a cold convenience that, by comparison, seemed
sexless and even pure. Later, some began to justify this sterile
process, and swore that friends quivering together in the yielding sand
with intimate hot limbs in supreme embrace, found there hidden in the
darkness a sensual co-efficient of the mental passion which was welding
our souls and spirits in one flaming effort. Several, thirsting to
punish appetites they could not wholly prevent, took a savage pride in
degrading the body, and offered themselves fiercely in any habit which
promised physical pain or filth."


Seven Pillars of Wisdom
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
Ol Lawrence mentions it himself. Tho there's the rumour that he fancied his own Arab lad and that's who the intro is dedicated to.

"The Arab was by nature continent; and the use of universal marriage had
nearly abolished irregular courses in his tribes. The public women of
the rare settlements we encountered in our months of wandering would
have been nothing to our numbers, even had their raddled meat been
palatable to a man of healthy parts. In horror of such sordid commerce
our youths began indifferently to slake one another's few needs in
their own clean bodies--a cold convenience that, by comparison, seemed
sexless and even pure. Later, some began to justify this sterile
process, and swore that friends quivering together in the yielding sand
with intimate hot limbs in supreme embrace, found there hidden in the
darkness a sensual co-efficient of the mental passion which was welding
our souls and spirits in one flaming effort. Several, thirsting to
punish appetites they could not wholly prevent, took a savage pride in
degrading the body, and offered themselves fiercely in any habit which
promised physical pain or filth."


Seven Pillars of Wisdom
It wouldn't surprise me, Arabia and the Middle East as a whole, among other places where women are not available to men outside of marriage, often practice pederasty. Its still true to this day.

When I was in college one of my professors was discussing British interests in the Middle East in the early 20th century and how many British civil servants, academics, etc were drawn to the place because it allowed them to bang little boys as much as they wanted. The exact phrasing of the quote my professor made was one of the most disturbing things I'd ever heard, hard core pedophile for westerns, but I doubt anybody in the Middle East, then or now, would be surprised or question it.

And before some SJW on historum who calls me a racist, I'm part Arab and spent time over there and saw the culture first hand for myself. Pederasty is still a way of life over there. Fact.
 

Earl_of_Rochester

Ad Honoris
Feb 2011
13,609
Perambulating in St James' Park
Arabs and Turks both were known for torturing prisoners, and even to this day, have a very bad tendency of raping male prisoners.

That's actually what happened to Lawrence when the Turks captured him, he was sexually assaulted/tortured and it really messed up his head, as years later he started to believe he'd enjoyed it (probably trauma induced psychosis).


Intro:

"To S.A.

I loved you, so I drew these tides of men into my hands
and wrote my will across the sky in stars
To earn you Freedom, the seven-pillared worthy house,
that your eyes might be shining for me
When we came.


Death seemed my servant on the road, till we were near
and saw you waiting:
When you smiled, and in sorrowful envy he outran me
and took you apart:
Into his quietness.


Love, the way-weary, groped to your body, our brief wage
ours for the moment
Before earth's soft hand explored your shape, and the blind
worms grew fat upon
Your substance.


Men prayed me that I set our work, the inviolate house,
as a menory of you.
But for fit monument I shattered it, unfinished: and now
The little things creep out to patch themselves hovels
in the marred shadow
Of your gift
."


Seven Pillars of Wisdom

*sorry lost connection halfway through posting.
 

Earl_of_Rochester

Ad Honoris
Feb 2011
13,609
Perambulating in St James' Park
It wouldn't surprise me, Arabia and the Middle East as a whole, among other places where women are not available to men outside of marriage, often practice pederasty. Its still true to this day.

When I was in college one of my professors was discussing British interests in the Middle East in the early 20th century and how many British civil servants, academics, etc were drawn to the place because it allowed them to bang little boys as much as they wanted. The exact phrasing of the quote my professor made was one of the most disturbing things I'd ever heard, hard core pedophile for westerns, but I doubt anybody in the Middle East, then or now, would be surprised or question it.

And before some SJW on historum who calls me a racist, I'm part Arab and spent time over there and saw the culture first hand for myself. Pederasty is still a way of life over there. Fact.
I define Middle East as Afghanistan to Libya and maybe even Algeria. There's a whole documentary about it in Afghanistan, I wasn't aware of it happening elsewhere though, I'd be surprised if the Saudi's allowed that sort of thing. There is a theory that pedo stuff made it to Afghanistan via the Greek influence when Alex went over there though that's probably a bit far fetched as it happens in most cultures.
 

aggienation

Ad Honorem
Jul 2016
9,813
USA
I define Middle East as Afghanistan to Libya and maybe even Algeria. There's a whole documentary about it in Afghanistan, I wasn't aware of it happening elsewhere though, I'd be surprised if the Saudi's allowed that sort of thing. There is a theory that pedo stuff made it to Afghanistan via the Greek influence when Alex went over there though that's probably a bit far fetched as it happens in most cultures.
Pederasty is common in most places in the world that deny sexual access with women. The Pashtun of Afghanistan and Pakistan are notorious for it, but Arabs of the Middle East are fans too.

MENA is Middle East North Africa. Afghanistan is Southwest Asia, which includes the Middle East. So to make your point, just say Southwest Asia and North Africa, and you'll be correct.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,734
Dispargum
From Christianity is it ? Is that a joke ? Go look up An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub

Saladin - Wikipedia
So I guess you're saying that because Saladin was chivalrous therefore all Muslims are or were chivalrous. Seems to me that Saladin was admired by Europeans because he, unlike most Muslims, was chivalrous or something like it.
 

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,447
Australia
So I guess you're saying that because Saladin was chivalrous therefore all Muslims are or were chivalrous. Seems to me that Saladin was admired by Europeans because he, unlike most Muslims, was chivalrous or something like it.
I guess you made a silly guess then . Why would I be suggesting something like that ?

I was responding to what you wrote here ; " ... countries and cultures with different traditions don't understand or practice chivalry. .... chivalry is not part of the Bushido tradition. "

I am poo-pooing your idea that Christian Knights had the monopoly on chivalry . Many didn't behave well on crusade, you know. 'Saladin' was renown for his chivalry and high moral and ethical codes , from BOTH sides, and he was Muslim . You seem to be suggesting he was renown as he was the only decent one ?

Of course, in all cultures, religions and armies there are 'chivalrous' and 'unchivalrous' types .

I do note all the relevant comments above about Lawrence and his 'kinks' though. Not greatly unusual for Christian British Victorian gentlemen .


Also, there is a 'chivalrous code ' in Bushido - its just of a different type.
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,734
Dispargum
From Christianity is it ? Is that a joke ? Go look up An-Nasir Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub

Saladin - Wikipedia
If I made a silly guess it's because the above quote gave me little to base a better guess upon. Your "Is that a joke?" comment suggested to me that your skepticism of Christianity was based upon modern contempt for all religions.

Also, by calling Saladin by his historically accurate but more obscure name, you came across as something of a snob. Either you have contempt for all people who do not recognize his more obscure name or you wished to show off your superior knowledge. Either way, I found it somewhat off-putting. I find it helpful to avoid jargon and use only common terms unless I know my audience knows the jargon. Admittedly, I might be the only person in the forum who applies that rule. But in a diverse community like the forum, we can't assume that everyone knows the jargon. We were talking about 20th century warfare and then you brought up an obscure Medieval name. Why would you think that everyone in that conversation would recognize that name? You clearly thought I knew nothing of the crusades. Just call him Saladin and avoid coming across like a snob.

It is the easiest thing to find an exception (like Saladin) or even a short list of exceptions. If you want to impress me, do something difficult - like maybe come up with an alternative theory of why Lawrence's enemies mutilated their prisoners.

Your argument that Saladin was chivalrous while some crusaders were not does not to me seem relevant to Lawrence of Arabia. My argument is that different cultures have different systems of military ethics because those ethics evolved from different traditions. The key word here is 'evolved'. 20th century military ethics do not resemble their crusader-era antecedents because those traditions changed over time. I never said that Christian knights had a monopoly on chivalry. I never mentioned the crusades or knights. I said we can trace modern ethics back to Medieval antecedents. By bringing up Saladin in a conversation about Lawrence of Arabia you almost imply that process works in the opposite direction, that because Saladin was chivalrous it must necessarily follow that modern Muslims must all be chivalrous.

Your comment that 'Japanese chivalry exists but is different' I find quite telling since that is the crux of my argument - that different cultures evolve different traditions. I thought I had implied that I was talking about European chivalry. I called it Medieval and Christian and linked it to Lawrence as the source of his ethics. Perhaps I should have more clearly specified European chivalry. If you want to argue that Muslims are chivalrous, that's fine, but you're missing my point about different cultures. It's a different kind of chivalry - one that may or may not include non-mutilation of prisoners.

So I understand why you thought I said that Muslims had no chivalry. What I meant to say is that Lawrence's enemies had a system of military ethics that was not based on European chivalry. Lawrence and his enemies were fighting that war according to two different rule books because their cultures had evolved from different traditions.
 
Last edited:

specul8

Ad Honorem
Oct 2016
3,447
Australia
If I made a silly guess it's because the above quote gave me little to base a better guess upon. Your "Is that a joke?" comment suggested to me that your skepticism of Christianity was based upon modern contempt for all religions.
More guesses then ! I am actually a student of comparative religions and studied the subject at Sydney Uni and have a lot of contact with people of different religions due to my work in refugee relocation and re settlement .

Also, by calling Saladin by his historically accurate but more obscure name, you came across as something of a snob.
I see , by using an historically accurate name on a history forum, that makes you think I am a snob ? Interesting .

Either you have contempt for all people who do not recognize his more obscure name or you wished to show off your superior knowledge.
I have contempt for all people that do not recognize someone's real name, when their common name is more commonly known ,,, yeah, thats exactly right :D

'show off 'superior knowledge' " :D Dude - I also linked you to the wiki article as Saladin, where that name is clearly shown.

Either way, I found it somewhat off-putting.
yeah, I wonder why ? Most people would have just gone "Ohhh, that was his real name . "

Not get all uppity about it . Makes me wonder why it pushed your button ? In future I shall refrain from such so as not to upset you; I shall refer to Winston Churchall as 'Winnie' , and Adolph Hitler as 'Old one ball' from now on .

I find it helpful to avoid jargon and use only common terms unless I know my audience knows the jargon. Admittedly, I might be the only person in the forum who applies that rule. But in a diverse community like the forum, we can't assume that everyone knows the jargon. We were talking about 20th century warfare and then you brought up an obscure Medieval name. Why would you think that everyone in that conversation would recognize that name? You clearly thought I knew nothing of the crusades. Just call him Saladin and avoid coming across like a snob.
If you find that helpful - YOU do it . Again, I linked to an article, I didnt leave the name hanging in the air for everyone to be mystified by .

You dont appear to know much about the crusades because of what you said about Cristian chivalry and how they fought .
It is the easiest thing to find an exception (like Saladin) or even a short list of exceptions. If you want to impress me, do something difficult - like maybe come up with an alternative theory of why Lawrence's enemies mutilated their prisoners.
I have no interest in trying to impress you , that is something you appear to be imagining . As I said, I am debunking the statement you made that Christianity leads to chivalry and decently behaving soldiers. My point is Saladin ( there you go ) is known HISTORICALLY as a good decent moral and ethical leader . Are you going to claim the reason he entered history as such is because he was the only good one ?
Your argument that Saladin was chivalrous while some crusaders were not does not to me seem relevant to Lawrence of Arabia.
Its not MY argument - its history ! As far as revelence goes, you bought it up, and 'in attachment' you went on about how Christians and chivalry having some monopoly on it , and then commented on Bushido - both wrong . You started it .

My argument is that different cultures have different systems of military ethics because those ethics evolved from different traditions. The key word here is 'evolved'. 20th century military ethics do not resemble their crusader-era antecedents because those traditions changed over time. I never said that Christian knights had a monopoly on chivalry. I never mentioned the crusades or knights. I said we can trace modern ethics back to Medieval antecedents. By bringing up Saladin in a conversation about Lawrence of Arabia you almost imply that process works in the opposite direction, that because Saladin was chivalrous it must necessarily follow that modern Muslims must all be chivalrous.
Wow, you trying real hard to put 'implications' into what I wrote ... oh sorry, I misread that , you actually said 'I almost imply '

I shall be careful in the fiture not to ' almost imply' things . :D

...... What I meant to say is that Lawrence's enemies had a system of military ethics that was not based on European chivalry. Lawrence and his enemies were fighting that war according to two different rule books because their cultures had evolved from different traditions.
THAT , I can agree with . ... now that it is corrected .