/lit/ - Literature

>>19424453
your diary desu

>>19424453
What do you want to know about them? They're generally an insignificant population even assuming the whole population is crypto.

>>19424516
>generally insignificant
Not op but that is a fucking retarded statement. Gay liberation in the Weimer republic, the underground gay movement in the 60s, the legalization of gay marriage, etc all have had major impacts on culture. Also literally 50% of girls I know today are "bi" if that counts

>>19424586
My hypothesis is that most people are bi to some degree. The number of people who are purely straight or gay is actually very slim.

>>19424586
Most of those could be spoken about in different terms more accurately like post sex revolution liberalism.
In any sense, there simply hasn't been the historical reputation that modern ppl try to cram down our throats. Being accused of homosexuality seemed to be something that was done in very poor taste. There simply hasn't been a reformation, gay sparticus, etc world event that happened and there probably never will be. In any era and almost any culture big enough we find some mention of homosexual activity or rumors. It's simply not that big a deal.

>>19424586
>>19424627
You'll find some really odd behavior which can at best be explained as homosexual relations (it very well may not but some of these behaviors have a weird clinginess to them) and contemporary records dance around the issue of homosexuality and this is medieval times.

I'm not one to paint every event over as gay but in any sense, by that same token, I don't see this variable being an outsized aspect of our personality. You really have to keep in mind what dogma the 60's "naturalist" movement did to try to assert sex was part of our identity and how marriage and any chasteness was not.

>>19424627
If you can find mentions of an activity in every era and culture then it is definitely significant...

>>19424607
ask your parents where babies come from

>>19424659
You can find less about race in historical events and that's had a much bigger impact on human culture. In this sense being a generally insignificant human population is to speak of the qualitatively as a variable for being a human rather than a quantitative value. People have mostly probably never cared. If you knew you were probably doing it if you didn't you didn't. It seemed to naturally crop up regularly given very scance necessities.

>>19424668
>People have mostly probably never cared
Like you say I'm sure plenty of historical figures were gay, it was just swept under the rug- like Tchaikovsky for instance. But I am also sure being gay was of great importance to Tchaikovsky himself, and to the people who wanted it secret, and to OP who is the one asking, so why do you think it is insignificant?

>>19424680
Because whatever it amounts to it never amounted to something significant as to require a study of it by itself. The church has banned it for forever and you find medieval princes doing gay shit. It was banned at all, the greeks/romans did it, some banned it or it was generally banned. It might be something so ridiculously regular that to speak about it separately from man would require psychopathy or creating this super odd sub culture which can more properly be identified by some other current.

>>19424453
Theres not much literature on it because there’s not much known about it. People that care that much about gay people are trying to push an agenda (hence why the two examples provided) the rest of us realize that it barely ever has or will affect our lives

>>19424680
>>19424702
I mean out of all the occult crap the church studied you would think a study on homosexuality trends would help them operate more properly. The point was probably very clear, "keep it quiet and don't be some turbo hedonist". We probably don't require the exact same contexts regarding the subject but the burden of proof is more on the person arguing that this variable is somehow an outsized subcultural movement that has been here forever and has caused nothing big whatsoever in history and has been banned but idek desu

>>19424703
Lmao, the AIDS epidemic, caused almost entirely by homosexual promiscuity, cost our society barely anything. What planet are you from?

>>19424680
You know what? Let me raise you one. It seems east asians never banned this behavior. That being said, gays didn't team up w gays, there was no gay holocaust or even maybe a leader who was prolifically known for being a homosexual. I mean there were some but I mean this didn't require its own study at all. I mean this didn't seem to happen for straights either and they had lots of pillow talk etc cultures. Ig idk what you're looking for exactly still given how restricted/unrestricted this behavior has been.

>>19424744
You know there was a huge syphilis pandemic in europe right? It's just news-created nonsense because they're a bunch of bored moneygrubbing creeps.

>>19424745
I'm not thinking about the gays effect on world politics but on culture. There hasn't been a gay leader but there have been countless gay musicians, artists, and of course writers, who, if you asked them, I am sure would tell you that it was significant to their lives and work

>>19424758
You sound like some existential twink. There's baroque, classical, romantic, the many modernist movements like impressionism etc, there's no real fag music and it's probably because there's not a huge meaningful difference between being a fag and not. It's mostly a modern mutation into some political movement contingent on other things.

>>19424758
Uhh, Hadrian? Or like most Roman emperors? Granted, "gay people" didn't exist until the 19th century but that doesn't mean people didn't practise homosexuality.

>>19424758
>>19424771
You can go into the east asian culture, you're probably not suggesting anything meaningful to study. Guys decide to pork other guys - what do you want? Higher risks of some diseases? Maybe, maybe some less. Higher crimes? Maybe, maybe less. Probably depends on time period and area. What you're seeking is probably more sociology and not science but I can promise you you shouldn't trust any study that mentions the gays to do so in any material non-cultural relativistic manner.

>>19424771
>twink
post body

I was actually thinking about modern music, specifically Douglas P who said 'being gay is fundamental to Death in June'

>>19424795
I'm not a fag nor a twink. I've had sex w guys and I will again. It's not something super important to me. My main point is it should be treated as what it is and what you want to study should be treated separately as what it is. You may know that ppl dressed even in drag or became eunuchs sometimes for political reasons or whatever. That's not to say there isn't a thing to study but what you're speaking about is nit going to give you much to work with. In any sense we should call every fag on yt doing makeup etc a liberal.

Did you know in Iran it's illegal to be gay but trans ppl are okay so long as they get surgery? You're mixing too much.

Michael Levin is such a mensch. Just absolutely zero bullshit in this man. I wish I were Jewish so I could get away with it

>>19424833
>human rights

>>19424819
I wasn't calling you a twink I was responding to the anon who called me one

>>19424835
>don't apply to homos
t. based Dr. Levin

>>19424848
Human rights is a dumb narrative for trying to understand humans.

>>19424453
Start with the Greeks