/lit/ - Literature

>>18024412
>flamboyantly gay book about ultra-gayness
So you haven't read it?
What does Socrates do in response to Alcibiades faggy advances?
What does Diotima Praise?
Have you never read a Platonic Dialogue before? All speeches other than Socrates' and Diotima's are wrong, and even Socrates' is flawed.

>All of us are pregnant, Socrates, both in body and in soul, and, as soon as we come to a certain age, we naturally desire to give birth. Now no one can possibly give birth in anything ugly; only in something beautiful. That’s because when a man and a woman come together in order to give birth, this is a godly affair. Pregnancy, reproduction—this is an immortal thing for a mortal animal to do, and it Cannot Occur In Anything That Is Out Of Harmony (bumfucking), but ugliness is out of harmony with all that is godly (bumfucking). Beauty, however, is in harmony with the divine.

Plato criticizes and derails homosexuality in Gorgias, Phaedrus, Republic, and Laws (this is from the top of my head). And he/Diotima (a bigger authority than Socrates) praises male-female coupling in the Symposium.

>>15955378
Plato's in Phaedrus says that male lovers who has the gay and can't resist the gay will if they are virtuous in all other regards be set in the lowest heaven after death, with no wings and nothing except each-other, from there their only option is fall fro heaven and loose each other, or to ascend together virtuously NO HOMO and struggle up the ladder of true love to regrow their wings.

Proclus - On the Existence of Evils
https://1lib.eu/book/2639142/dc66ad?regionChanged=&redirect

>>15290284
I gather that you love or have loved such a boy yourself, and I agree with you. Tell me this, however:Is excessive pleasure compatible with moderation?
How can it be, since it drives one mad just as much as pain does?
What about with the rest of virtue?
No.
Well, then, is it compatible with violence and licentiousness?
Very much so.
Can you think of a greater or keener pleasure than sexual pleasure?
I can’t—or a madder one either.
But the right kind of love is by nature the love of order and beauty that has been moderated by education in music and poetry?
That’s right.
Therefore, the right kind of love has nothing mad or licentious about it?
No, it hasn’t.
Then sexual pleasure mustn’t come into it, and the lover and the boy he loves must have no share in it, if they are to love and be loved in the right way?
By god, no, Socrates, it mustn’t come into it.
It seems, then, that you’ll lay it down as a law in the city we’re establishing that if a lover can persuade a boy to let him, then he may kiss him, be with him, and touch him, as a father would a son, for the sake of what is fine and beautiful, but—turning to the other things—his association with the one he cares about must never seem to go any further than this,c otherwise he will be reproached as untrained in music and poetry and lacking in appreciation for what is fine and beautiful.