Why almost every place on the earth look down male sex male? What are the reasons?
I know if male sex male was a normal thing, women would get mad because they would lose a lot of attention.
Ancient Greece and Rome were the most patriarchal societies in my opinion and they were very advanced.
Other urls found in this thread:
facultystaff.richmond.edu
twitter.com
Religion
There are no apparently reasons. People just say it's wrong because it's wrong, a sin, whatever
Did Sup Forums make you gay?
Because it is wrong and sinful. It is a relation mainly based on lust, not love.
Why it's wrong? Just because women will go grazy with 16336277% less attention?
they're jealous that they don't have to deal with the opposite sex
>Ancient Greece and Rome were the most patriarchal societies in my opinion and they were very advanced.
This is a meme. Actually Greeks looked down on homos and they had to do their stuff in private.
For example, in Athens, if one was exposed as a Κιναιδος (someone who practices unnatural lusts, both "giving" or "receiving") one could never hold any political office again and basically was deprived off citizenship. Plato didn't find this enough and demanded the death sentence for Κιναιδει.
being in a male homosexual relation means that one of them is submissive and NO culture likes submissive men, a submissive man is a weak man, an useless man.
can't go against nature's instinct
It's God's law.
There is no God.
>Actually Greeks looked down on homos and they had to do their stuff in private.
Lies, Spartans belived that homosexual warriors tend to be heroic more than heterosexual one.
What a bullshit. There are shit tons of gay stuff in Greek legends
shut the fuck up
I don't believe there are 100% gay males, only bissexual males. If you like anal sex it doesn't mean you are submissive to women
Yes there is. You'll find out once.
Also I can cite Plato for you.
A lot of the Greeks were proud fags memes come from two notoriously unscientific works, Dover and most notoriously Samiakis. The last one is a homo himself and his work is liberal propaganda.
Dover was an academic, but his mistakes were based on a mistranslation of έραστής which did not have a sexual meaning but rather an educational one (younger male is guided by older male). Greeks made very clear distinctions between love and lust, both natural lust or unnatural.
It is in this sense that your claim about Spartan warriors is wrong.
Provide me examples. Again, έραστής =/= sexual
the truth hurts doesn't it?
truth hurts because truth is absolute
Zeus was bissexual, Apollo and Ares too. This is why it's bullshit.
Zeus was a God. Quod licet Iovi, non livet bovi.
Please go on, cite a text that proves you are right. I have mine right here.
The truth is, Dover is the only academic who made such claims through his mistranslations, and Samiakis didn't just copy Dover, but added all sorts of plain lies to it, as a propaganda book. He even claimed that Plato was a homo, or pro-homo while he asked the death-sentence for them. And Salmiakis was later quoted by an American "expert" in ancient Greece who can't even read ancient Greek. Of course the gay lobby loved all this and spread it like wild-fire.
>Quod licet Iovi, non livet* bovi.
licet
Also you are referring here to Ganymedes. I don't know anything that claims Apollo and Ares were Κιναιδει, so I'd like some proof for that.
You are making rules now. Zeus had sex with Ganimedes, a man and many other women.
Even the art representations that are gay by the Greeks, are predominantly Satyrs that do this stuff. Because Satyrs were hardly regarded as an example to follow. In this way it was still borderline acceptable to make and distribute openly.
Didn't I tell you just that. But Zeus was a god. What gods could do didn't just apply to men, hence the quote. And I await proof for your claims about Ares and Apollo.
>Greeks look down gay sex
>let's idolize bissexual gods
Nigga wat?
Compared it to the rites of Aphrodite. THese things involved an orgy with a dedicated prostitute. People saw it as a necessary evil, but would keep their kids away from it, and preferred that temple far outside the city.
I know of no homosexual equivalents to that btw. knowing the paganism of the Greeks, if such a thing would be acceptable, they'd have a similar cult somewhere to it.
Did you read what I wrote.
Also gods plural? There's just the case of Ganymedes.
You are just brainwashed by Jewish fairytales and prophets
Nigger what, the jewish fairytales is literlally that the Greeks were all pervs who accepted homosexuality.
You base yourself on hearsay, spread by a certain lobby, I study the texts themselves, as you also could do.
You are the one that prefers jewish fairytales above the primary sources.
What does a pair of glasses or a candle help, when the owl refuses to open his eyes?
Varangians were bisexual as fuck. Gay sex being perv is a Jewish thing.
Abrahamic religions.
Romans and Greeks had no problems with it.
>I know if male sex male was a normal thing, women would get mad because they would lose a lot of attention.
Not me, I would enjoy watching the men have sex
Male sex male is hot
of course they are, anyway who cared about being 100% gay, as long as you take the role of a woman ad get penetrated by dicks it means you're weak
believe whatever error you want m8
read the damn thread, you've been jewed
alt-righters and traditional hardcore conservatives always search easy targets as sjws do. one of them are gays but its not like gays are their "real" enemies. they always just need such evil icons to attack to underpin their ideology. in reality what they believe in is delusional and actually pretty much empty.
for what it is worth, japanese conservatives and those retarded netousyos arent really against gays. they tend to support the views of patriarchy and object to gay marriage as legal system despite being pathetic virgins but dont try to criticize/violate someone being gay.
Because all living things should procreate, that's the reason they exist.
If something wish not to, it means they should not live and spread that harmful """ideology""".
Also, they exist for a reason too, as killing them solves overpopulation.
...
But gays are way more misogynic
>Because all living things should procreate
I think a tiny minority of male sex male are 100% gays. Most are bissexual.
I read it but I still don't agree. It's not homosex that was considered wrong but being on the receiving end, as it was deemed weak and womanly.
don't mind me here dropping truthbombs
This is the guy that according to gay lobby agitprop was pro-homo. My exit-only ass he was.
No man that is the Arab way of thinking, for the ancient Greeks Κιναιδος was both, unnatural lust is unnatural lust. Pic very related.
Doesen't matter. Either you're straight or you're not. You can't wear a welding hat and work at drugstore at the same time.
Here we have Xenophon quoting Socrates on the subject matter.
Then, why didn't any emperor got criticised for it aside from Caligula who was on the receiving end?
based belgiumbro
Here we have Aeschines quoting Athens laws protecting boys against pederasty. Note that even mere companionship of males that are not immediate family over 13 years old to the students before sunset or after dawn was enough to be punished with the death sentence no less.
So far for the myth that Greeks allowed pederasty, or that only the receiving part would be punished.
Because in those imperial days of Rome, the emperor was considered divine. That is btw why the Christians were persecuted in Rome but the Jews were not, because the former did not want to accept the divinity of the caesar.
Again: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi.
More proof for:
again Aeschines and also Demosthenos quoting Athens legislation against pederasty. Note the term "insulting a free Athens boy" for lewd behaviour.
Also I want to add that when I mentioned the work of Dover here the full credit goes to Dover & co-author (((Reinsberg)))
In the past it was because more gay people = less reproduction and if you weren't reproducing you were worthless. Now that concept is no longer relevant but the social stigma around it still stands.
Why did Caligula was criticised then if he was divine?
You can't deny that there was a difference of treatment regarding top and bottoms
Mostly it's because of religion.
And here we have the coup de grâce, Aeschinus citing Athens legislation on homosexuality in general.
Note the law not only deprives the offender (whether giving or receiving) of all his civic rights, but also reduces him to nothing, from a social and political point of view, and, in some cases, leads him to the executioner.
This is revealing of the contempt Athenians showed to such deeds, of the fact that they wanted, by all means, to send lewd persons away. They didn't harm someone who declared such a preference, but they denied him the possibility to be a part of the city's life. He was no longer treated as an Athenian citizen , but as an alien resident in the city of Athens (μέτοιχος)
And since I'm in the mood and always willing to defend the birth-cradle of European civilisation, I'm going to dig up Spartan law as well.
Because he was batshit crazy. We are talking about the guy who, in his ""campaign against the Britons"" in 40 AD, ordered his legions to gather seashells, referring to them as "plunder from the ocean due to the Capitol and the Palace".
The guy was married to his sister, another thing simply not done in Rome. Of course the criticism only came after his death.
And I am denying that there was a difference between top and bottom, I just haven't come to Roman sources yet. But for the Greeks there was no difference, as I have aptly proven for Athenians so far in my last 3 posts.
Here, this is the clear and final word about there being no difference between "top" and "bottom" in the eyes of the Athens legislator.
For those who might object that my former pic seemed to refer to prostitution in particular, here is some more Aeschines Athens legislation that clearly does not only prohibit prostitution, as (((some))) would like us to believe, but homosexual relations in general.
This crushes the myth that it was acceptable that parents sold their children to tutors for sexual acts.
Now you may tell me, so far the laws you have shown as were only applicable towards free citizens, but what about slaves? Well pic related proves adequately that slaves were equally protected from said shameful acts against nature, and the reasoning therefore by the legislator is given.
In this court case the legislator actually benefited the passive party because he showed up in court, in public shame, over the active party, who wanted to pay his way out of court and did not show up out of shame.
Both in the end were deprived of their civic rights for their breach of the law, but the active party lost his money too for contempt of court.
Didn't they being invaded by christians this time?
By now it should have become clear for those of you still reading this, that someone who engaged in unnatural lusts, a Κιναιδος, could not represent his city, in no case and in no way. Contrary to the (((generally accepted opinion))) of recent years.
In exactly the same fashion, people nowadays also generally assure anybody who wants to hear, that Homer describes Achilles and Patrocles as a notorious homosexual couple, although they have never read a single Homeric rhapsody.
Unfortunately, this happens also on many sites in the internet, where Achilles is celebrated as the first known homosexual hero. Although Iliad is but the epic relating the grieves Greeks suffered from Achilles' wrath, because Agamemnon took his concubine, Vreseis, away from him.
Pic related we have Plato speaking about the love between men, where he clearly defines it as a sort of love that is entirely free of lust, termed by him as "the celestial Aphrodite", in contrast to "the vulgar Aphrodite".
What, not at all, Aeschines was born in 390 BC, this was even before Roman invasion. The golden era of ancient Greece this was.
I've never met a gay person IRL who was normal and just happened to be a man who liked other men instead of women, they're all unstable or have some sort of issues.
More Xenophon, on love and lust.
B-b-but Putin is God...
Here we have more Xenophon, and it shows that one engaged in unnatural lusts, and as the giving party, wasn't even considered worthy of the name Greek anymore. If you did this you were considered a barbarian, doesn't matter if you were born and bred a free Greek before.
A barbarian. And with that all the contempt they had for barbarians. Subhumans as Ikibey would say.
i think it's hot
Here we have Xenophon on Zeus and Ganymedes.
Still waiting on that "Ares and Apollo were bisexual" proofs btw
Ok, now prove the existence of god.
>Gay sex being perv is a Jewish thing
still convinced of that error?
No, I still have more proofs that Greco-Romans despised homosex.
Also, I'm not Kant. Go read Scripture and the early Church Fathers (apologists like Justin Martyr) yourself, and while you're at it, the first book of Enoch and Flavius Josephus. After that you too will be convinced of the reality of Scripture.
You convinced me about it not being seen as "good" by everyone.
But the amount of texts you posted talking against it shows that it was more common and less of a taboo than when Christianity came along.
Both of those civilizations had a period of collapse, you can guess during which part homosexuality was most tolerated
>more common and less of a taboo
not at all, I just cited legislation mostly
It was certainly not less of a taboo. Look here again: This was for life. While Christianity also abhorred it in a very similar fashion, the repenting can receive forgiveness for their sins after due penance. This was not the case in ancient Greece, not at all.
During a period of collapse there is unlawlessness, but that doesn't imply tolerance of this crime. It merely implies the ineptness of a collapses state to ensure law and order.
Yes, and that's exactly why it was more common.
If it wasn't a common practice, no one would deem useful to talk about it.
Like there are no laws against zoophilia in many country.
Under Christianity there were also enough laws against this, I could make the case from that that it was as common under them. You can't eradicate it with law, that was never implied by me.
Legislation did mirror the sentiments of the general population against it. Hence the harshness.
fair enough, didn't the Romans go full tolerance mode during the late parts of the first empire? Letting the barbarians sack Rome a couple of times before it collapsed
Yeah, you could safely state that those were the days the Romans became Italians.
Why does every homophobe say this
Because you are a unstable faggot with issues yourself.
Because they are closet faggot
because pic related
>flag
I was wondering what kept you
>Both of those civilizations had a period of collapse, you can guess during which part homosexuality was most tolerated
Weren't Germanic tribes openly bissexual as well? I know Native Americans were openly bissexual.
>le gay men are degenerated
It's just because you need to pay women for easy sex, unless you are an alpha male. If women weren't selective, Sup Forums would be a desert.
Not at all! Where you guys get these things? If you would direct your attention to Tacitus (~150 AD), in his Germania, he describes the punishment for unnatural lust there. Basically you were tied to a wooden construction, and the tribe threw you in a bog.
This method of execution was considered very shameful.
By the times of the Germanic migrations a couple of centuries later, the invading Germanic tribes were all Christians (Arians) by then.
Paying women for sex is also degenerate.
People confuse love with lust so easily these days. That is in my opinion what is the cause of the mental problems of many homosexuals. Many resemble alcoholics or drug addicts in their craving behaviour.
This. I love AIDS = gay meme.
It's just because women don't like sex, unless they get some benefit from this. Meanwhile in Africa where heterossexual tribal orgies are common, heterossexuals have high HIV rates.
>Tacitus (~150 AD)
>he describes the punishment for unnatural lust there
Where and who? He describes a multitude of Germanic tribes with different norms and rules. I don't recall anything about homosexuality and most Germanics at the time and for hundreds of years later didn't give much damn about what people did with their personal time.
If you're a pagan LARP'er nut, you might be interested to know that even Varg quoted this one.
If, not....
facultystaff.richmond.edu
and pic related;
>you're welcome
it would be nice and courteous if you guys for a change provided proof for what you claim, be it about Greeks, Germanics or native Americans.
Oh, and BTW, in these parts there have been unearthed several of Tacitus' bog bodies, in wicker baskets and constructions, just like he described.
If what is true what you say (disregarding nigger orgies for a moment) that would mean that homosexuals would be happier and lead more fulfilled lives than heterosexuals and they are clearly not.
Because what we really crave is a loving partner, in the way nature intended, and not a hole to rub your dick in like a dog. Sure we all have lustful cravings, but there is a good reason why these are considered wrong. Only loving, and being loved back, and the mutual trust and closeness of hearts is what we really crave.
Hence we heteros who fuck whores (alpha or not) are also unfulfilled. But with homos there wannot be any loving fulfillment, as their love can't come to fruiton in building a family, literally coming together and the product of your love being a child that combines a piece of you both.
>Hence we* heteros
* why
Regarding Africa: the culture of human sacrifice is today rampant in many African tribes in countries, including Nigeria, Zambia, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Swaziland, South Africa, and several others. These practices involve the hunting down, mutilation, and murder of the most vulnerable members of the society, particularly children, people with albinism (a genetic skin disorder), and the handicapped.
As you will surely agree they are hardly the example to follow.
...
Fair point. Though it remains a dubious one since Tacitus never personally witnessed any assembly, let alone one that would've convened to judge "sodomites".
I'm just a fan of history, not a LARPer or part of Vargs weird cult. I'd tell you all about second and first hand accounts and his wifes father, whom Tacitus relied on to give him accounts of northern Europe. But you are not gonna care about it anyway, so I'm just gonna leave you to your ahistorical fantasies that you probably only care about because they justify your beliefs.
No the claim that it is dubious is pure post-modern revisionism. In essence they make a claim for a point that the like to have proven. For example, if you go to odinist blogs of the progressive kind (or one that claim anti-homosexual sentiment is a Jewish thing like our Hohol friend here: ) you will see that go on rants against alleged Jewish and Christian influences, without even quoting Tacitus.
What they don't say or know is that Tacitus basically made a condensed and abridged version of the now lost work of one of Rome's greatest historians, Titus Livius, now lost, and that his goal was basically to present a popular version of Livius' lofty and well-researched work, to convince an increasingly decadent public that they should go back to the ways of old. Hence why he praises the monogamy and dedication to a monogamous marriage of the Germanics, the barbarians, so much. You have to see it as: even the barbarians have become more praiseworthy in their morals than us.
So the fact that Tacitus never witnessed such an assembly is irrelevant, as it was Titus Livius who either witnessed it or used as he always did a very trustworthy source.
And I take offense to you insulting me about ahistorical fantasies. I have been providing direct quotes from Athens legislation all thread long to prove my points, I have been quoting the most trustworthy sources. While I also have invited you guys to do the same about your claims about bisexual Greeks, Germanics and native Americans, and no one has delivered anything as of yet.
The invitation still stands, so please go ahead.
I hope you will see that my offense to your insult is quite valid.
And next to that, you want me to post pictures of bog bodies found all over in these parts, that prove that Tacitus' exact description of them (in the wicker-like construction) is spot on?
Again, what does a pair of glasses and a candle help, when the owl flat out refuses to open his eyes?
>Belgian autism
Damn, that's some dedication.
Thanks I guess.
I have a problem with people spreading totally unfounded and outright false claims to fit their agenda. Go for example to any lbgt lifestyle site and they make the wildest nonsensical claims, for example again Plato being gay or pro-gay. They don't even read what he wrote, they cherry-pick a sentence somewhere (not even bothering to validate with the original Greek text) and deliberately misrepresent it to suit their propaganda.
And then the legions of parrots come, like you saw in the start of this thread, parrotting things they have never checked themselves and taking offense when someone pushes their nose on it.
Still, gays are ok.