[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 139 KB, 683x603, 1350515672463.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10140465 No.10140465 [Reply] [Original]

Why were the Romans and Greeks so gay?

>> No.10140470

they were italians and greeks

>> No.10140471

>romans were gay
lol

>> No.10140501

They were redpilled.

>> No.10140651
File: 384 KB, 3648x3944, 1504180667999.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10140651

>>10140501
This.

Annnnnd

>>10140471
This.

There was some gay stuff in Rome, not as much. Greeks invented sex, Romans added women, or so the saying goes.

Maybe they knew something we didn't. Imagine, if every angry neck beard guy didn't have to worry about talking to women? Didn't have to be frustrated with women's emotions or the mysterious complexities of them being women or whatever, but could just get their rocks off with another guy.

Like your buddy Jeff. You play video games together, shoot some hoops, and you both like Whitman more than Emerson right? You've got plenty to talk about, the wellspring of topics never runs dry, hell you can talk about anything. You'd be cool hanging out with Jeff for as long as the road goes, and yeah, occasionally you just nut in each other's assholes. No big.

Did wonders for military team building, just look at the Spartans.

>> No.10140668

>>10140651
This guy is exactly right.

Male relationships are a lot less problematic. Women are really only good for reproduction, and their role in human history has shown this. The fantasy of heterosexual love was invented by medieval faggots like the author of the Tristan myth and enforced for political purposes by the Church. You can't raise tithes across generations if men are still buggering each other.

>the Spartans
and the Sacred Band.

>> No.10140692

>>10140651
>>10140668
Stop justifying faggot behavior, they fucked 10yo kids and that doesnt mean they were right

>> No.10141079

>>10140651
>and yeah, occasionally you just nut in each other's assholes. No big.

Sprayed water on my keyboard anon, fuck you

>> No.10141422

>>10140465
Too busy Owning the world and genociding Gaul to care about homosexuality

>> No.10141444

does anyone have a real answer? what was foucault’s?

>> No.10141455
File: 97 KB, 437x600, bath-scene.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141455

>>10141444
They had a different conception of sexuality, gender wasn't as important a concept as the actual power dynamic during the sex.If you're a roman citizen, you're supposed to always be in the position of power during sex. It doesnt matter who you're fucking, as long as you're fucking them and you're above them on the chain, all is well.
That's why the romans also found cunnilingus to be completely shameful. Pleasuring a woman, with your mouth, and receiving no stimulation yourself? What a concept.

>> No.10141473

>>10140668
>Women are really only good for reproduction
name 1 other thing youre good for anon

>> No.10141490

>>10141455
>romans hated eating pussy
>he says using literatim latin term for it

>> No.10141503

>>10141490
>society has a word for something
>that must mean they like it

>> No.10141511

>>10140465
They weren't gay. They were misogynistic.

>> No.10141517

>>10141511
Not really. I mean sure women weren't 100% equal to men but they had a lot more rights then most other women across the ancient world

>> No.10141520

>>10141517
Legalities are irrelevant. Classical Roman culture was misogynistic. I am using the term free of its pejorative connotations.

>> No.10141521

>>10141503
Precisely.
t. professional cunnilinguist

>> No.10141524

Rome would have never built the longest lasting empire in history were they a bunch of emasculated pussies like the Scandinavians today. Swedes are gay. The Romans were manly, vigorously virile pussy wreckers.
Know the difference. It might save your life.

>> No.10141527

>>10141524
t. assblasted dane

>> No.10141528

>>10141517
>>10141511
I mean, their entire society was based on patriarchy. I think accusing them of misogyny is kind of silly because it's a completely different cultural lense. Of course its misogynistic to us to imply that women should not be able to read, vote, etc, because our culture is based off of individual equality before the eyes of the law.

Roman Culture was not, so throwing a term like "misogynist" at them is about as pointless as saying Visigoths were shit helicopter pilots.
>>10141521
Okay, not bad, Ill admit I walked into that.

>> No.10141531

>>10141528
I am not accusing them of anything. Misogyny is good.
>>10141527
I will tear your boi pucci to shreds Björn.

>> No.10141532

>>10141524
Anon, do you box? Your reach is incredible.

>> No.10141537

Fuck women and effeminate men.
It's not gay to give it. It's gay to take it.

>> No.10141540

>>10141531
It doesn't matter whether or not it's good you fucking fool, what matters is you're applying modernist terms to a time when those concepts didn't exist and were not relevant.

>> No.10141543

>>10141531
You don't have the gear for it, Abdullah.

>> No.10141548

>applying our modern conceptions of sexuality onto the ancient world
Next you are going to ask me why the Romans were racist and sexist, huh?

>> No.10141551

>>10141540
The term describes a cultural pattern, a type of social premises for interaction between the sexes. That the romans did not make note of the concept is irrelevant, you doofus. The Romans didn't have words for many things that were true back then as they are now, like nuclear fission.

>> No.10141556

>>10141548
You're retarded.

>> No.10141566

>>10140465
it wasn't a crime

>> No.10141570

>>10141556
Nice arguement

>> No.10141576

>>10141570
I see you're conveniently ignoring >>10141551
The Romans didn't have a conception of evolution by natural selection either. That doesn't mean it did not occur back then as it has been the case since life has appeared on this planet.

Brainlet.

>> No.10141579

>>10141551
A better answer would still be that they were a patriarchal society, not a misogynist one. The term misogyny implies a hatred or belief in the incompetence of women devaluing their equal status as individuals.
The women of ancient Rome were not devalued, they just had a different role in that society.

>> No.10141583

>>10141576
Also, equating scientific truths with linguistic ones is a false equivalency.

>> No.10141589

>>10141579
>a hatred or belief in the incompetence of women
Widely the case in Roman society.
Patriarchal society = men are customarily privileged.
Misogynistic society = women are customarily considered inferior to men.
Rome was both patriarchal and misogynistic.

>> No.10141592

>>10140465
Nothing gets lit more riled up than a topic about being gay

>> No.10141596

>>10141583
Irrelevant. I am not talking about linguistics, you brainlet. I am talking a sociological state. The issue here is its factuality in Roman society, not semantics.

>> No.10141618

>>10141596
Then use better metaphors to defend your arguments shitbird.
>>10141589
Those behaviors may have existed, but the understanding of them did not. Presentism is a historical fallacy, and you're skewing history by asking an irrelevant question.

>> No.10141622

>>10141592
The gay thing we settled in like 10 posts.
Also, why the hell isnt this thread on /his/?

>> No.10141630
File: 56 KB, 645x773, 1507233605754.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141630

>>10141579
>this level of brainletry
Misogyny is discrimination based on biological sex. Discrimination is unjust treatment of a particular subset of society. Whether it's conscientious and deliberate or not is irrelevant. Whether the motive is irrational hatred or coherent product of ideology is irrelevant as well.
>society didn't think women are shit it just assigned them this particular role of being shit
Picrelated is you.

>> No.10141647

>>10141537
>Fuck women and effeminate men.

We know the Romans did that, the thread is about asking why they did that .

>> No.10141651

>>10141618
>Presentism
Stop using terms you do not understand brainlet.
Presentist bias is irrelevant here.

>> No.10141654

>>10141647
>why
Testosterone.

>> No.10141656

>>10141651
How so boo?

>> No.10141662

>>10141647
Parachical society? Male dominance? Maybe a dash of hypermasculinity and>>10141654

>> No.10141673

>>10141656
Either Roman society was misogynistic, or it wasn't. Whether that was good or bad is irrelevant. I am not applying contemporary moral standards to the past in an anachronistic fashion when I say that Rome was misogynistic (and my stance that misogyny is good is independent of that).
I am making a descriptive claim which lives and dies by the facts of the matter.

You're out of your depth son.

>> No.10141679
File: 8 KB, 261x216, 1507762767763.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141679

>>10141673
>misogyny is good

>> No.10141682

>>10141647
>why did they live in a natural state of sexual liberty
>this is your brain on 3000 years of abrahamic opium

>> No.10141687

>>10141682
>a giant militaristic civilisation
>being conducive to the existence of natural sexual norms

>> No.10141698

>>10141673
You're still using a modern day term babe.
>Uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
The concept of misogyny emerged from feminism, and critical feminist deconstruction of CURRENT anti-female behavior. The gender dynamic that they had, of the woman running function of the household and the male leading as the paterfamilias, did not incorporate their inferiority, it required their subservience. Not because they were the lesser group, but because in order to function, the Roman familial unit had to be maintained.

>son

>> No.10141706

>>10141687
>>10141682
>using the term "natural" like it has any weight in the concept of human sexuality

>> No.10141707
File: 10 KB, 645x773, 1497515352778.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141707

>>10141687
>natural norms

>> No.10141719
File: 168 KB, 1180x822, 1491515928179.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141719

>>10141630
>"Whether it's conscientious and deliberate or not is irrelevant. Whether the motive is irrational hatred or coherent product of ideology is irrelevant as well."
>is irrelevant
>calls other people brainlet

>> No.10141730
File: 13 KB, 231x288, tc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141730

>>10141719
Did you have trouble with some of the words, bambino?

>> No.10141737

>>10141706
>>10141707
>implying humans don't have statistically likely sexual tendencies that are formed by the generally consistent experiences we've had for most of the time of our species' existence

>> No.10141745

>>10141737
>one form of a behavior happens the majority of times this behaviour occurs
>that's it guys this is the only one

You're looking for the words "most common"

>> No.10141747

>>10141730
Misogyny isn't objective truth, a society makes conscientious decisions to designate roles for the discriminated, predominately based on ideology. To say these factors are irrelevant is absurd.

>> No.10141749

>>10141745
>natural doesn't mean most common

>> No.10141759

>>10141749
No, it doesn't. Natural implies its the resting state, that other states don't exist unless they're altered.
People don't "turn gay", thats how they occur.

>> No.10141762

>>10141737
>formed by the generally consistent experiences
I sense that you were trying to express some thought, but not sure which one.

>> No.10141764

>>10141759
being a faggot is curse you gain from impiety. There is no faggot gene so the only answer is they are cursed.

>> No.10141766

>>10141764
Okay, now we see where the shorted fuse is. You have fun with that bud.

>> No.10141770

>>10141747
>Misogyny isn't objective truth
This phrase doesn't make any sense on any level with or without context.
>To say these factors are irrelevant is absurd.
Irrelevant to discussion topic at hand, not cosmically, doofus.

>> No.10141778

>>10141737
>implying humans don't have statistically likely sexual tendencies that are formed by the generally consistent experiences we've had for most of the time of our species' existence
This whole post sounds like somebody really really trying not to insert "cuck" after every word and forgetting what he was trying to say in the first place.

>> No.10141784

>>10141766
what do you suppose it is?

>> No.10141787

>>10141698
>You're still using a modern day term babe.
Even if I were, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
>The concept of misogyny emerged from feminism
You're a historically illiterate moron: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Historical_usage

I'm done here.

>> No.10141789
File: 19 KB, 309x305, C_9M4h8V0AAyqHS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141789

>>10141764
>diddled children were impious

>> No.10141790

>>10141789
>muh innocence
God judges them not you

>> No.10141794
File: 14 KB, 250x334, Tumblr_nnv8fmVyfa1ut727bo1_250.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141794

>>10141790
>he's a /pol/ druddisheonalizm type of "christian"
My bad.

>> No.10141800

>>10141794
>hes an apologist for faggotry
enjoy your test tubes and microscopes empiricist

>> No.10141805

>>10140471
>who was caesar
Did your version of Plutarch take out all the famous jokes?

>> No.10141807

>>10141805
>rumors that he denied
guess both his sons were adopted

>> No.10141817

>>10141807
Rumours he explicitly affirms and jokes about with his men on campaign. Did they bowdlerize your version of Caesar too? How does that work with all the swords and sheaths?

>> No.10141818
File: 24 KB, 422x422, 0QfWiKAO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141818

>>10141800
>this level of trying too hard

>> No.10141826

>>10141817
>heresay outside of a court hudnerds of years after his assassination
you sure showed me. Now tell me why the homo romans executed their own and accuesed marc antony of the same. Leading to his execution of senators

>> No.10141839

>>10141826
>Caesar didn't write Caesar
Hold up, you've tried to slip some next level retarded in there. He writes in third person but it's his first hand account. Who are you claiming wrote it?

>> No.10141853
File: 277 KB, 469x452, 1505502179938.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141853

>>10141839
>he doesn't write his works posthumously

>> No.10141856

>>10141853
>his primary education was subpar
start with The Frogs by Aristophanes

>> No.10141866
File: 23 KB, 446x362, 1423501724865.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10141866

>>10141856
>he didn't start with Xenophanes' Amphibion

>> No.10141906

>>10140471
Hadrian was openly gay and had his gay boi deified when he drowned

>> No.10141907

Probably because they weren't awakened by Rick and Morty

>> No.10141912

If the Ancient Romans and Greeks could see the trap threads and MGTOW threads they would probably say much the same about us

>> No.10141917

>>10141906
hadrian is a spook

>> No.10141925

>>10141866
kekked and checked, you alright, frogman, don't be yourself tomorrow

>> No.10142053

>>10141778
I never unironically use the word cuck

>>10141759
And up to this point in time, the most common state of humanity over time (essentially anprim) is the resting state

>>10141762
Your lacking reading comprehension isn't my problem tbqh

>> No.10142070

>>10140465
GREEKS WERE NOT FAGS
http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/plato-homo.html
GREEKS BEING FAGS IS PROPAGANDA BY THE (((GAY MAFIA)))

>> No.10142082

>>10141778
only reddit pseuds complain about the word cuck, 17th century English texts are littered with the word

>> No.10142087
File: 26 KB, 600x750, fedora tip.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10142087

>>10140668
>this entire post

>> No.10142118

>>10142070
Plato is not representative of the Greek mores.

>> No.10142195

>>10142118
> Greek moralists aren't representative of Greek mores
Go kill yourself. Fags are human trash.

>> No.10142207

>>10140668
>has never been in an intimate relationship let alone got his dick wet
>tells us how women "really are"
Sour grapes make the best whine

>> No.10142364

Boipussi is the thinking man pussi

>> No.10143558

>>10140692
Doesn't mean they were wrong either kiddo

>> No.10143662
File: 3.61 MB, 4608x3456, Fedora arsenal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
10143662

>>10140668
>Women are really only good for reproduction

>> No.10144185

>>10141473
I'm not even good at that

>> No.10144845

>>10142195
>one moralist is representative of Greek moralists

>> No.10144869

>>10143662
2013 GETTING SAVAGE IN HERE

>> No.10145020

everybody is gay being not gay is unnatural most people are in denial about gay

>> No.10145030

>>10141517
>they had a lot more rights then most other women across the ancient world

you must be fucking retarded. In the ancient world, institutionalisation = legal patriarchy (not that it was a bad thing). Roman wives had the legal status of their children

A lot of the 'telluric' Mediterranean tribes that settled around were predicated on feminine ideals and had the highest spiritual authorities reserved solely for women

>> No.10145113

>The Greeks were so gay
>read Iliad and Odyssey
>Literally zero mention or even references to homosexuality
>Everybody is as straight as a ruler
I want a refund

>> No.10146174

>>10140651
The problem with your Jeff analogy is that the Romans and Greeks never fucked their equals--they reserved a platonic bond with those they respected...

In both societies it was young (slave) boys who got the dickings.

At that point, it's pure hedonism.

>> No.10146394

>>10145113
Read Thucydides' recount of Hipparchus assassination if you want the full gay experience.

>> No.10146422

>>10140471
>who is Caesar
>who is Hardian
>Who is Elagabalus
>who is Nero
>who is Claudius