/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.14724361]

Who was the top?

[Anonymous No.14724431]

Neither, they were redpilled cockrub warriors

[Anonymous No.14724791]

patroclus. he realized what needed to be done and sacrificed himself while achilles only stopped his bitch fit to have a bigger one after his source of dick died.

[Anonymous No.14724883]

>>14724361

I've had many bad dreams where my genitals are exposed in such a way.

[Anonymous No.14724928]

>>14724361
Look at that little hairlet, of course he takes it in the butt

[Anonymous No.14724946]

>>14724361
>assuming all homosexuals practice the repugnant activity called anal "sex"
I hate normies and their preconceived notions of everything.

[Anonymous No.14724957]

>>14724946
What do homosexuals do then?

[Anonymous No.14724990]

>>14724957
There's frotting for example. In any case, people assuming you're a sodomite just because you're gay is one of the most demoralizing parts of being gay imo.

[Anonymous No.14725024]

>>14724990

I would personally support openly gay man shaming sodomites of all varieties, but we know that this isn't going to take hold for a variety of reasons.

[Anonymous No.14725056]

>>14724361
Patrocles.
>>14724946
Even intercrural sex has a "top" though.

[Anonymous No.14725068]

>>14725056
>Even intercrural sex has a "top" though.
Indeed but that's not what people usually mean when they use the words top and bottom.

[Anonymous No.14725070]

>>14724990
What's wrong with anal sex as long as you're not whoring yourself?

[Anonymous No.14725092]

>>14725070
It's debasing, ugly, filthy and unhealthy. You're not treating yourself or the other person with respect.

[Anonymous No.14725105]

>>14725092
Are you even a gay man?

[Anonymous No.14725114]

>>14725105
I guarantee you that.

[Anonymous No.14725123]

>>14725105
No. I am an obese, middle-aged woman living in a trailer. Thank you fo rasking.

[Anonymous No.14725125]

>>14725114
And do you delight yourself in reading?

[Anonymous No.14725137]

>>14725092
This.

Half of my dislike of homos is the debasing the imagery of sex. I’m not exactly a fan of m/f anal either, but at least it’s not the poster boy position for straight sex unlike anal is for guys. I think part of it is that modern gays take their relationship from that of men and women and try to simulate it somewhat instead of conceptually seeing it as distinct. I think this is a similar subconscious effect that made gays want to have gay marriage, an institution based around reproduction that most ancient gays did not try to encroach upon. Pretty sure Nero even made his boytoy cut off his genitals because sex was intimently tied to the idea of marriage.

I feel most gays are going for an intentional antithesis if kosher western relationships, and because of this they are innately defined by them.


(The other half why I dislike gays is because most seem to do a lot of stuff out of pure antithesis)

[Anonymous No.14725142]

>>14724361

>Zooms in

Jesus Christ how many testicles does he have?

[Anonymous No.14725154]

>>14725125
I want to say yes but I don't read books nearly as much as I should.

[Anonymous No.14725162]

>>14725154
And things that bring pleasure such as reading are generally held to be safe and good?

[Anonymous No.14725180]

>>14725137
I think I came off hard here, I’m not against gays, but the correlation with antithetical notions inevitably causes a context that makes many of them reactionaries.

[Anonymous No.14725181]

>>14725162
I'd say they're held to be sufficiently safe. But it depends on what you mean by safe. Safe for your body, your mind, your moral integrity ?

[Anonymous No.14725193]

>>14725180
No, I agree with you.

[Anonymous No.14725216]

>>14725181
Does liver cancer come from drinking one shot each two or three weeks or drinking a bottle of alcohol each day?

[Anonymous No.14725262]

>>14725216
A bottle each day but I don't see the correlation. If you commit sodomy even once, you now think of yourself as someone that can be penetrated or someone that can penetrate other people in wrong places.

[Anonymous No.14725283]

>>14725262
You're safe from STDs and HIV if you stick with one partner so that's one reason less to view it in a negative way

[Anonymous No.14725293]

>>14725283
I could never do it and see myself as being respectful of my partner or him being respectful of me.

[Anonymous No.14725303]

>>14725283
>You're safe from STDs and HIV if you stick with one partner
Besides, I very much doubt that anyway.

[Anonymous No.14725313]

>>14725293
Do you respect the necessity of someone to nourish himself?

[Anonymous No.14725321]

>>14725313
Yes.

[Anonymous No.14725340]

>>14725321
But you're not respecting the necessity to sarisfy one's sexual urges

[Anonymous No.14725350]

>>14725340
Not all urges are acceptable.
Besides, it's not like I'm forbidding sex in general. There's a ton of fun(nier) stuff they can do.

[Anonymous No.14725356]

>>14725350
But how does it damage him if your partner desires sex?

[Anonymous No.14725378]

>>14725356
>sex
You mean anal sex ? Reread me if you think I said all sex is bad.
Answer : because he's already damaged enough that he sees such an activity as beautiful/suitable/exciting. It's a bit like you're not supposed to find drinking piss enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.14725390]

>>14725378
How does something which makes you the center of someone's life become harmful?

[Anonymous No.14725399]

Patroclus, as proven by Plato in Symposium.

>Very different was the reward of the true love of Achilles towards his lover Patroclus-his lover and not his love (the notion that Patroclus was the beloved one is a foolish error into which Aeschylus has fallen, for Achilles was surely the fairer of the two, fairer also than all the other heroes; and, as Homer informs us, he was still beardless, and younger far).

[Anonymous No.14725403]

>>14725390
I don't think sex makes you the center of someone's life. And even then, a lot of things could potentially make you the center of someone's life. Like, torturing someone for example...

[Anonymous No.14725421]

>>14725403
But if someone wants to share with you something he doesn't share with anyone, doesn't it mean you're held in higher regard by him compared to everybody else?

[Anonymous No.14725444]

>>14725421
Imagine a scenario where two lovers agree that one of them will kill the other. Just because it's only between them doesn't make it right.

[Anonymous No.14725459]

>>14725444
Imagine a scenario where killing your partner means ending his excruciating suffering. Would you love your partner by putting him through endless pain?

[Anonymous No.14725468]

why tf do ancient greek potters always draw guys with their dicks out

[Anonymous No.14725510]

>>14725459
The pain is not endless, and you're not the one who put him here. There are many ways of helping someone who is in pain other than shortening his life. As someone who tried committing suicide in a moment of severe psychological pain, and had to endure a lot of physical pain afterwards, I can tell you that escaping life and escaping suffering are two very different things. You never know what life has in store. You never know what remedies can be discovered. In any case, as I'm no expert, I suppose there could be a measure of "love" in that act, but even then, it doesn't mean it's the right thing to do, it just means you could be forgiven more easily for it.

[Anonymous No.14725533]

>>14725510
I'm talking about acute sickness pain or insanity. Would you let him harm someone else to live a little longer?

[Anonymous No.14725578]

>>14725510
I am not the anon you responded to, but I am interested in how you would apply this to straight people. Do you view hetero penetration (not intended for procreation) in the same light that you view anal?

[Anonymous No.14725586]

>>14725533
There are many ways to prevent someone harming someone else other than killing him. As for the acute sickness, waiting longer to see if he dies or survives, and providing him with attention, care and painkillers in the meantime is a lot more loving than killing him. I don't actually remember it (sometimes your brain buries traumas), but when I attempted suicide I explicitly asked people to finish me and now I'm quite happy they didn't comply.

[Anonymous No.14725611]

>>14725586
This socratic method is getting us nowhere, fuck it. Well, who cares either way, you don't seem to be a fanatic christian believer since you included alternatives to reproductive & anal sex and I'm a friendless virgin anyway so i doubt fucking someone in the ass would make a change in my life.

[Anonymous No.14725622]

>>14725578
Straight anal sex very much disgusts me, but slighly less. Because to me in gay couples there should be ideally a 'sacred' element of equality, and it can't happen than one dominates the other in an excessive way. That's my view.
As for vaginal sex or oral sex, I don't really care. I just think whatever they do, people should always keep respect at the forefront of their mind.

[Anonymous No.14725642]

>>14725611
This isn't related to philosophy. It's related to the most basic elements of what is and isn't beautiful.
The best painter in the world can paint shit in the most elaborate way possible, and put it in a golden frame, at the end of the day it's just shit.

[Anonymous No.14725643]

Neither. Constantly confused and baffled, the Greeks of around a thousand years later had the impossible task of projecting their current "understanding" of relations between men to Achilles and Patroclus, characters from the Aegean bronze age resembling brothers in arms. They could never quite figure out who fit into their concepts of "Erastes" and "Eromeno", with Achilles being the powerful warrior, and Patroclus being older and bearded. Both were men.

Now if only there were more surviving artifacts from this lost era of Greece. This piece alone, and the tomb it was found in, has recently changed how historians view the development of Greece significantly (and what we define as "classical").

[Anonymous No.14725650]

>>14725643

[Anonymous No.14725653]

>>14725642
Is cuddling and kissing beautiful?

[Anonymous No.14725658]

>>14725653
Sure I guess.

[Anonymous No.14725690]

>>14725658
You don't know how much i long for someone who'd be committed to me in a physical way. I'd be fine with making out too, but the worst thing is I shouldn't be feeling this to begin with, I've never held hands or made out with a boy much let alone a girl.

[Anonymous No.14725700]

>>14724946
the ones that aren't penis fetishists do

>>14724957
they have penetrative sex

>>14724990
cope

>>14725105
he is a coping gay man

[Anonymous No.14725722]

>>14725690
"Committed to you in a physical way" ? Sounds slightly cultish. Anyway, you're not the only guy in the world who's despaired because he's single, far from it.

[Anonymous No.14725732]

>>14725700
Okay bugger.
Remember Sodom.
Here's an awesome painting for you.

[Anonymous No.14725749]

>>14725732
*reminding sodom*

[Anonymous No.14725757]

>>14725722
It's not cultish to wish to want to feel someone's warmth

[Anonymous No.14725771]

>>14725757
>sends a pool of lava through your screen

[Anonymous No.14725803]

>>14725771
If you believe in sodom you should be aware that any sort of romantic affection between men is strictly forbidden.

[Anonymous No.14725814]

>>14725803
I don't believe in mainstream interpretations of religions.

[Anonymous No.14725818]

>>14725814
What do you believe in?

[Anonymous No.14725853]

>>14725622
Well how about gay oral? Classically defined as sodomy, though I see you don’t believe in the mainstream interpretations. I’d assume you think it’s fine.

[Anonymous No.14725861]

>>14725818
God.

[Anonymous No.14725866]

>>14725861
Which God?

[Anonymous No.14725888]

>>14725853
I was talking of oral for straights.
For gays I generally think oral is disgusting and should be avoided. Probably not worth it in terms of pleasure. But then again, to me other practices might seem more acceptable, and they might seem worse to you. It's difficult to debate such matters.

[Anonymous No.14725906]

>>14725866
The one who is in control, the source of morality, the arbiter, the sustainer of the means of knowledge. Call him by whatever name you'd like as long as it's not an idol you've carved.

[Anonymous No.14725925]

>>14725906
But is he akin to an abrahamic God?

[Anonymous No.14725946]

>>14725925
Are there several abrahamic Gods ?
What people call "the abrahamic God" is often more of a creature of their mind rather than the creator of all things. In any case, I'll just drop the mystery and say that I'm a quranist.

[Anonymous No.14725975]

>>14725946
>quranist
but the quran surely forbids same-sex relationships

[Anonymous No.14725983]

>>14725975
Yeah after all everyone knows that.
Or do they ?
https://lampofislam.wordpress.com/2018/02/12/the-significance-of-nay-but-in-the-story-of-lot/

[Anonymous No.14725998]

>>14725983
cna you name any same-sex couple in the quran or in the bible that isn't just "romantic friendship"?

[Anonymous No.14726020]

>>14725998
No, but why would that be necessary ?
(I don't believe in romantic friendships, it's either friendship or romance)
I know that some people have written about David and Jonathan, but I don't find it very interesting. I'm more interested in ethical thought.

[Anonymous No.14726032]

>>14726020
Because it would show that the writers were aware of endorsed somehow these relationships. Denying someone's existence is also a way to damage them.

[Anonymous No.14726067]

>>14726032
Not speaking of by example and denying are two different things. After all, I also believe that we homos should be not make too much noise in society, it's useless and only aggravates people. If there was a gay couple in the book, I suppose it's possible that certain people would use it to further bad agendas, like saying they should be able to adopt or be treated 100% like straight people or things like that.

[Anonymous No.14726073]

>>14726067
You can use any book for any agenda, are you also against displaying gay people in literature or tv?

[Anonymous No.14726152]

>>14726073
Like most things in life, it's complicated. I prefer the middle way in all things, and I think that works of fiction should portray stories that emphasize the importance of morals. If it's very little and not sexualized, and portrayed in a rational way (not "we're the most evil creatures ever, fear us" or we're the most courageous people ever" because none of these versions are real).
(I also enjoy shipping fictional characters so doing it would spoil the fun).
But coming back to your former question I'd like to add that verse 42:50 of the Quran leaves room to think that God makes certain people androgynous/intersex. I believe a number of gay people have intersexed brains.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3008-homosexuality-is-biological-suggests-gay-sheep-study/

And also verse 7:81 "Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.""
can be understood as "we get that you're gay, but you're going too far " this is exactly like what a lot of people are saying today, and for good reasons.

[Anonymous No.14726161]

>>14726152
But in the age in which the Quran was written there were no acknowledged homosexual couples, do we have any records of homosexuality inside and outside the Quran?

[Anonymous No.14726212]

>>14726161
I believe that in the first century after the Prophet's death "islam" already became corrupted as a religion and its true teachings were overshadowed by political strifes and ritualistic legalism.
>do we have any records of homosexuality inside and outside the Quran?
Inside, yes, the story of Lot. Outside, there are
various accounts, mostly negative.

[Anonymous No.14726244]

>>14726212
If there are no positive accounts it must mean they had to hide it or look down on it. Homosexuality is a privilege of the west and a privilege of modern age, not even the Greeks were endorsing homosexuality as we know it today, and what we call today romantic relationships may or may not have been abject close friendships in ancient times, heteronormativity was the only accepted sexuality, and we owe it to secular activists if we can talk freely about alternative sexualities without being beaten within an inch of our lives.

[Anonymous No.14726263]

>>14726212
>>14726161
About the early corruption of the true teachings of islam (this is just one example)

Narrated Az-Zuhri that he visited Anas bin Malik at Damascus and found him weeping and asked him why he was weeping. He replied, "I do not know anything which I used to know during the life-time of Allah's Apostle except this prayer which is being lost (not offered as it should be)."

[Anonymous No.14726274]

>>14726244
Various hadiths speak of the mukhannathun.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mukhannathun

[Anonymous No.14726314]

>>14726274
What I'm getting at is that homosexual couples were never the norm in any age of history before the 20th century. They might have been regarded as temporary partners or prostitutes but never actual romantic partners men would spend their lives with. Even the Sacred Band of Thebes was made of married men with children. Gay relationships were always redundant and not endorsed as primary relationships at all.

[Anonymous No.14726339]

>>14726314
>homosexual couples were never the norm
And they'll never be, and why would/should they be ?
>They might have been regarded as temporary partners or prostitutes but never actual romantic partners men would spend their lives with
If you believe gay men have suddenly popped from the ground for no reason at all...I find that unlikely, but it sure would be funny. After all, there are some very old accounts of mentally ill men who wanted to become women, so if they already existed back in those times, I think it's fair to assume gay people also did, they were simply very discreet.

[Anonymous No.14726351]

>>14726314
Besides, the general tendency of gays to be unfaithful and promiscuous probably didn't help many of them to stay together for long, making it more difficult to spot the few ones who did.

[Anonymous No.14726364]

>>14725142
Men had more balls back then, figuratively and literally.

[Anonymous No.14726374]

>>14726339
>And they'll never be, and why would/should they be ?
They became the norm in the west after a painful struggle to normalize different sexual choices. By the norm I mean they aren't persecuted or looked down on.

>>14726339
>If you believe gay men have suddenly popped from the ground for no reason at all
Gay men didn't but stable homosexual relationships did. No such thing would happen before the 20th century.

>Besides, the general tendency of gays to be unfaithful and promiscuous probably didn't help many of them to stay together for long, making it more difficult to spot the few ones who did.
We went from bashing homosexuals to liberating them from any moral shackle. Gay men were never integrated into society until the Stonewall Riots, they were never asked to stick to one partner in exchange of social acceptance, they were just labeled as abominations and outsiders, and the moment they got rid of their persecutors they went all out with their promiscuity. A lot of novels document this phenomenon that took place in the 80s, but nowadays gay men are starting to get tired of hookup culture and looking forward to long term relationships, at least some of them are.

[Anonymous No.14726424]

>>14726374
>By the norm I mean they aren't persecuted or looked down on.
Yeah but that's not what "the norm" means. "The norm" means it's something most people do.
>nowadays gay men are starting to get tired of hookup culture
If only. If you ask me, not much has changed in any profound way, the suffering guys like me experienced before is comparable to the suffering we will experience in the near future if normal people start to get really angry at us. Furthermore one oppression has been replaced by the oppression of the lgbt lobby, which sanctions a lot of nasty things, fights a lot of useless battles, is generally insufferable, and accuses you of homophobia if you're genuinely trying to better the condition of gays.

[Anonymous No.14726501]

>>14726424
They won't, most educated people are fine with homosexuality and we're unlikely to face a violent repression after 50 years of struggles.

>the oppression of the lgbt lobby
It's a double edged sword, without it you'd still be an outcast but their problem is that they too often conflate sex with love. Needless to say the lgbt lobby is another byproduct of a repressive heteronormative community, given that no heterosexuals at the time would have stood for homosexuals, lgbt people swung more and more to the left until it eventually resulted in political extremism. Regardless of this, at least we seem to be on the same page on a number of subjects. Can we be friends, anon? I don't really know many interesting guys i can engage in lengthy discussions with.

[Anonymous No.14726541]

>>14726501
I prefer to wait until I know people well enough before viewing them as friends, but otherwise yeah sure what's your discord ?

[Anonymous No.14726548]

>>14726541
Summer#3911

[Anonymous No.14726553]

>>14726548
Ok, seen it.