/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20600012]

hullo lit,
I've recently been diagnosed with homosexuality and was wondering if any lerature existedon the subject? I wasn't born this way, rather I was molested as a child by another child (actually several) and I tried so hard to be uber machismo and straight as I grew up, but I has just grown into a woman-abuser as I tried to contain the situation.

Anyway, are there any books on how to cure myself of my homosexuality and violence towards women? the two are obviously connected and i know it's taboo and all but i'm wondering if any literature from the earlier part of the last century addresses this.

i don't want to hurt anybody anymore :(

[Anonymous No.20600018]

There's nothing wrong with beating women.

[Anonymous No.20600037]

>>20600018
yes but I keep getting put into prison, thats the problem.

[Anonymous No.20600232]

In terms of artistic temperament, homosexuality is a gift

[Anonymous No.20600239]

Yeah it’s called getting over it. You can’t be diagnosed with homosexuality like it’s some disability. Either you willingly, by your own action that no one but you can control, have sex with men or you don’t.

Did they give you an IQ test?

[Anonymous No.20600248]

>>20600012
Read Freud. Studies in Hysteria, Three Essays on Sexuality, Civilization and its Discontents. Then proceed to Lacan and his theorizing of desire as lack and his comments on sex.

[Anonymous No.20600249]

>>20600239
>Either you willingly, by your own action that no one but you can control, have sex with men or you don’t.

Homosexuality refuted

[Anonymous No.20600272]

>>20600232
this is a fallacy, there's no sudden competency in one thing or the next that comes with not having sex with the opposite sex. I don't think this even existed as the same concept in those days either.

>>20600248
good suggestions

[Anonymous No.20600284]

>>20600272
>this is a fallacy, there's no sudden competency in one thing or the next that comes with not having sex with the opposite sex. I don't think this even existed as the same concept in those days either.
Homosexuality is associated with various behavioural, cognitive and physical differences, presumably as a result of its genetic and foetal hormonal genesis.

[Anonymous No.20600296]

>>20600239
>Yeah it’s called getting over it. You can’t be diagnosed with homosexuality like it’s some disability.
beg to differ; if pedophilia or arson is diagnosable then any act is.

and i cite the BBC
"he had pedophilia, but he didn't need to go to hospital" https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-35026159

Seems very much like this stance is based on acknowledging any act or action or habit as having in some way or another a medical basis or 'get out of jail' card to it.

>>20600249
>>20600239
I would disagree, but it depends on what 'homosexuality' is defined as; a power play, a violent impulse to dominate over other men, violence itself, etc.

[Anonymous No.20600306]

American Psycho addresses your issues pretty completely, I feel.

[Anonymous No.20600314]

>>20600284
ah but this is a recent social thing; the idea of 'homosexuality' as some kind of personality is completely new - coming from the "i was born liking marmalade" notion, which is scientifically suspect - previously perhaps (actual) faggotry amongst boys would have been what it would be recognized as, as: extremely violent acts of bullying and degradation in order to exert power over a younger boy for social or tribal ends.

This seems to be what the OP describes.

>behavioural, cognitive and physical differences,
Certainly this could simply be schizophrenia, bi-polar, manic depressive, emotional instability, etc., which seems to be the general character of the ... "western 'gay' man" where those conditions are ignored and broadcast instead as if 1) they were born suffering from these conditions, 2) these conditions aren't conditions at all but them being 'gay' - whatever this means. A word which meant "chilled out" in english language for five or six hundred years prior to the recent present.

[Anonymous No.20600316]

>>20600296
Nobody cares what the clowns at the BBC have to say. This NPC cope to pretend your actions aren’t you own doing.

[Anonymous No.20600319]

>>20600296
Nigga i just like dudes. I find them physically attractive. I believe that there is some pathological element to it and that it is due to nurture alone but idk what the fuck you mean by violence.

[Anonymous No.20600328]

>>20600316
No no I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of the idea that "pedophiles/arsonists can't help it; it's not their fault its a medical condition" but "homosexual men or women completely can help it" and/or "it's absolutely NOT a medical condition!"

[Anonymous No.20600332]

>>20600319
Oh come on, man. There are some pretty hot trannies nowadays, and you still want to admire a mans hairy bottom? gimme a break with this.. this working class fetish for hairy ugly men, yuck, yuck

[Anonymous No.20600334]

>>20600314
The idea of sexual orientation is new, but the idea that people had strong (and perhaps exclusive) sexual preferences is not. In the Symposium, Aristophanes explains the existence of (in our terms) homosexuals and heterosexuals with his creation myth, and talks about the particular qualities of boys who love males from early childhood, and about how these people only get married to women out of convention, when they would prefer to remain lifelong lovers with males.

>previously perhaps (actual) faggotry amongst boys would have been what it would be recognized as, as: extremely violent acts of bullying and degradation in order to exert power over a younger boy for social or tribal ends.
Not all homosexual entanglements are power plays. Robert Graves and CS Lewis, both heterosexual adults (and CS Lewis, being Christian, considered homosexuality a sin), talk about how romances between boys were the only refuge, in their youth, from the cruelty of school life. Also, the existence of a sexual orientation doesn't mean every person who has romantic or sexual entanglements with the same sex is gay, the same way a gay person isn't straight for having had sex with girls. The boarding school thing is a very good example of situational homosexuality.

[Anonymous No.20600338]

>>20600332
No no no silly, I'd like a manly man to ravage me

[Anonymous No.20600344]

[Anonymous No.20600363]

>>20600334
>Aristophanes explains the existence of (in our terms) homosexuals and heterosexuals with his creation myth, and talks about the particular qualities of boys who love males from early childhood, and about how these people only get married to women out of convention, when they would prefer to remain lifelong lovers with males.
eh this is a good point but there's nothing explicitly referring to sex acts here; this always read to me like a libel from the later christian societies who were looking at brotherhood; chivalry, soldier-soldier stuff and trying hard to paint it as being perverted.

Actually this is a big topic in of itself, probably not entirely related - or is it? meh.

>The boarding school thing is a very good example of situational homosexuality.
Ah but we know from writers of the day, mostly ignored then and today btw, that these were vicious acts of systematicbullying by older boys against younger boys; that's where the concept and word 'fag/fagging/faggot' comes from the social sense; probably from the latin fasces where the bullies "stick together like rods". CS Lewis may have enjoyed himself (lol wtf btw) but there's plenty of evidence from victims talking about this as straight up psychological torture and degradation, and rape, to gain social power over little children by older children. Nothing gay about that.

[Anonymous No.20600376]

>>20600338
So you admit to admiring mens hairy bottoms. hm.

[Anonymous No.20600391]

>>20600363
>this always read to me like a libel from the later christian societies who were looking at brotherhood; chivalry, soldier-soldier stuff and trying hard to paint it as being perverted.
How many Greek works have you read anon? It doesn't really make sense, in my mind, for Christians to put boy-love poems in the mouth of Socrates, while praising him as a forerunner of Christ and as a philosopher who discovered God via reason at the same time. Apart from linguistic stuff which I won't go into unless you want me to, the romantic/sexual nature of it is made evident by the fact the Greeks distinguish it from camaraderie in multiple texts. Plato's dialogue on the definition of friendship (Lysis) uses romantic love from an older boy as a foil, and Xenophon, in one of his Socratic dialogues, argues against the claim of Plato's interlocutors (and of Aeschylus and Aeschines) that the relationship between Achilles and Patroclus was erotic, by distinguishing the Homeric Achilles + Patroclus from the practices of the Theban and Doric militaries.

>Ah but we know from writers of the day, mostly ignored then and today btw, that these were vicious acts of systematicbullying by older boys against younger boys; that's where the concept and word 'fag/fagging/faggot' comes from the social sense; probably from the latin fasces where the bullies "stick together like rods". CS Lewis may have enjoyed himself (lol wtf btw) but there's plenty of evidence from victims talking about this as straight up psychological torture and degradation, and rape, to gain social power over little children by older children. Nothing gay about that.
CS Lewis talks about the bullying and domination stuff too, but homosexuality and fagging weren't always paired together. From what I've read, a lot of the relationships were pretty tender and genuinely romantic. When I had a crush on another boy when I was a kid, my feelings were exactly the sort of swirling, head-over-heels, adoring feelings that probably most guys that age feel for girls. And in a unisex context, even heterosexuals might have that experience. Christopher Hitchens describes having a crush on a boy when he was at boarding school

[Anonymous No.20600432]

>>20600391
>How many Greek works have you read anon?
Quite a lot actually, and the Romans. I don't disagree that some suggest sex-acts going on but it's almost always in a disparaging way, being joked about and looked down on, the uses seem more like a propaganda libel than any statement of fact. It's not hard to see why later christians would have jumped on this as a way to make the pagans look immoral.

Martial mentions a Man marrying another Man, saying something like "is this not bad enough?"whereas most of his untranslated seemingly homosexual-related epigrams are talking about pedophilia; the rape of slave boys by aged pederasts.

>Homeric Achilles, military ethics
aye, good points here. It'd be a long essay to go through all of this now but that itself provides a good starting point where the question can be asked whether or not it was later libel against 'military comradeship' in the first place; there doesn't seem to be any evidence that the military units of Macedon or Sparta, for instance, owed their success to pederasty in the ranks. Other than that these societies were far more segregated along gender lines in the first place and that Men and Women didn't really mix socially.

> head-over-heels, adoring feelings
You mean being friends and doing fun stuff? Or like 'idolizing'? Idk, I don't recall this same thing occurring. I do recall it was a hard time trying to put up with girls though, ha.

>to put boy-love poems in the mouth of Socrates, while praising him as a forerunner of Christ and as a philosopher who discovered God via reason
Well I don't like Socrates and I'm not a christian or a jew, so.. what incel goyim in the 4th cent who believed in hebrew theology thought about and wrote about in their sexual cloisters doesn't move me very much. see: aristophanes on socrates lol

> Christopher Hitchens describes having a crush on a boy when he was at boarding school
Maybe the same could be said for any climate without women, or heavy repression of sexuality - it hasn't escaped my notice that christians who tell their boys that looking at girls is a sin tend to have their boys grow up to be flaming drag queens and crack smokers.

[Anonymous No.20600441]

> It's not hard to see why later christians would have jumped on this as a way to make the pagans look immoral.
and Romans to make Greeks look immoral, or Greeks against other Greeks etc. i don't mean to jump on the christians.

[Anonymous No.20600461]

>>20600363
>eh this is a good point but there's nothing explicitly referring to sex acts here; this always read to me like a libel from the later christian societies who were looking at brotherhood; chivalry, soldier-soldier stuff and trying hard to paint it as being perverted.
>nothing explicitly referring to sex acts here
lol
"So Zeus brought about this relocation of genitals, and in doing so he invented interior reproduction, by the man in the woman. The purpose of this was so that, when a man embraced a woman, he would cast his seed and they would have children; but when male embraced male, they would at least have the satisfaction of intercourse, after which they could stop embracing, return to their jobs, and look after their other needs in life."

[Anonymous No.20600462]

>>20600391
ed. it's broader point about comradeship being slandered that you can see today as well; the idea of two men getting on and accomplishing stuff, being undermined by libel as a political attack against them.

I'm reminded of this happening to Emperor Nero as well, in the same sort of way, his wife was well educated, could speak for herself etc., and they said she was a man in a dress. There are other examples but homosexuality has often been used as an easy libel.

[Anonymous No.20600465]

>>20600432
I'm not sure what exactly we're disagreeing about anymore at this point kek, although I think your contention that ancient depictions of homosexuality are either disparaging or libelous seems untenable. Invoking Roman standards and authors like Martial provides grist to my point, I think. Roman and Greek sexuality were not the same. When Roman writers do depict romantic homosexual love (like Virgil in his Eclogues and Nisus and Euryalus in the Aeneid), they tend to be doing so based on Greek conventions. They did not have the same institutionalised romances between free males in their culture.

Greeks in several texts point to their homoeroticism as a distinguishing feature in a good way. Herodotus says the Persians learned it from the Greeks. Aeschines says the lawgiver Solon thought it was suitable for free males only and not slaves. Plutarch writes that the Thebans owed their military successes to it. The speakers in the Symposium seem to think disapproval of homosexuality is a trait of barbarians. Aristophanes, famous for making fun of passive adult homosexuals, seems to defend homosexual youths from accusations of "shamelessness" (it's also interesting that in the Clouds he has the voice of Right defend the old homosexual practices of the past, compared to the ones today). There is also a genre of works (like Pseudo-Lucian's Amores) where the speakers argue about whether homosexuality or heterosexuality is superior, invoking the romances of gods and famous and legendary people in their arguments.

>You mean being friends and doing fun stuff? Or like 'idolizing'? Idk, I don't recall this same thing occurring. I do recall it was a hard time trying to put up with girls though, ha.
I mean like a crush anon.

[Anonymous No.20600473]

>>20600461
That's obviously a Greek contemplation coming from a society that hadn't discovered how to orgasm inside of Women, no?
> when male embraced male, they would at least have the satisfaction of intercourse,
And it seems to be coming from a society which hadn't discovered that Women can only become pregnant for a few days in a month, and that sex didn't need to result in pregnancy.

[Anonymous No.20600494]

>>20600328
I don’t hold that position though. I think they’re all in control of their actions, obviously.

[Anonymous No.20600505]

>>20600465
>When Roman writers do depict romantic homosexual love (like Virgil in his Eclogues and Nisus and Euryalus in the Aeneid), they tend to be doing so based on Greek conventions.
That would be exactly the point that a Cato the Elder would have made.

I don't think we are disagreeing.

>(it's also interesting that in the Clouds he has the voice of Right defend the old homosexual practices of the past, compared to the ones today).
This is a good point, find the point of contention there; what was 'then' and what was 'today' and I bet you'll find it being along the lines where the 'sex act' of 'today' is differentiated from the martial qualities of the same relationship; two soldiers, of 'the past'.

>Symposium
was a fiction. Aristophanes arguing 'for' pederasty could be a libel itself; given Aristophanes impression of Platos friend Socrates got Socrates killed lol - just a possibility of an inside joke going on there

>Pseudo-Lucian's Amores
I've not read this, I like Lucian tho, I'll have to look it up.

The thing is,
>Greeks in several texts point to their homoeroticism as a distinguishing feature in a good way.
Is that the context of what was being talked about in each instance is open to later interpretation; the word 'homosexuality' eros/eroticism (the character of eros, rather) has no overt sexual overtones as we would read into it; and could easily be referenced as referring to martial valor, fraternity, comradeship, unit cohesion, etc., which is what you'd expect to find in all these contexts; talking about military successes, civilized men, etc.

Does pederasty; the rape of a young soldier by an older soldier bring about any 'good' consequence or unit cohesion? If anything the young soldier would be inclined to stab the rapist to death in the heat of battle; or if it was, as claimed, 'romantic' then like a Woman or a Child the younger soldier would fall to pieces when the Husband/Parent was in harms way and then break ranks and ignore orders. There's nothing implicitly there in any logical manner I can see where either pederasty or homosexuality (as we think of it today) benefits a military unit in the way these are described. This says to me, then, that many of these authors weren't talking about 'gay sex' at all and were talking about comradeship, most likely.

it'd take an essay or a book to make this point fully tho lol

>I mean like a crush anon.
i still don't know what this means..

[Anonymous No.20600512]

>>20600473
have you read the actual story? it's not about controlling pregnancies, it's about managing desire. gay sex is invented by zeus because otherwise the longing some men feel for other men would have no release and prevent them from functioning. homoerotic desire is also portrayed as being exactly as "natural" as heterosexual desire, since they both stem from these double-sided protohumans getting sliced in half and yearning to be joined again.

[Anonymous No.20600532]

>>20600012
My diary desu. Tell me what you wish to know.

[Anonymous No.20600546]

>>20600512
No no I'm saying that the 'idea' that sex with Women was 'fearful' because of pregnancy itself; as being a common idea, came from a society that hadn't figured out this much of Womens sexuality; the Roman Lunar Calendar fro 800/600BC onwards, for example, is based entirely on the Lunar Cycles with days set aside in every month in line with the Moon where festivals of 'debauchery' coincided with the times in the month where Women were fertile.

>homoerotic desire is also portrayed as being exactly as "natural" as heterosexual desire, since they both stem from these double-sided protohumans getting sliced in half and yearning to be joined again.
Possibly. I don't recall any Greek god stories where this goes on; Ganymede may be a half naked teenage boy holding Zeus's wine cup, but Zeus is more interested in having sex with actual birds.

You know, birds with feathers, not the brit slang for women.

Were did this quote come from, btw,
>>20600461

There is the Pandora story, I suppose, where the first evil Woman is created and sent to cause trouble ... but ... idk.I can see how, like in the Medusa story, the idea of Men beign enamored/slaved 'by' Women would make sense as a flaw to be highlighted and warned against, but this doesn't mean that the opposite follows as an encouragement as the aspect of being "led by lust" would be true whether it was lust for a Woman by a Man, by a Woman of a Woman, by a Man for a Man, etc.

[Anonymous No.20600563]

>>20600306
i dont wanna hear about Paul Allen anymore :'(

[Anonymous No.20600578]

>>20600546
>Were did this quote come from, btw,
symposium, the aristophanes speech. you (?) were claiming it was "christian libel" to read that story in a sexual way, so i'm quoting the part where it literally talks about sex organs and climaxing.

[Anonymous No.20600581]

>>20600248
A letter from Freud to a mother concerned about her son's homosexual tendencies:

>I gather from your letter that your son is a homosexual. I am most impressed by the fact that you do not mention this term yourself in your information about him. May I question you why you avoid it? Homosexuality is assuredly no advantage, but it is nothing to be ashamed of, no vice, no degradation; it cannot be classified as an illness; we consider it to be a variation of the sexual function, produced by a certain arrest of sexual development. Many highly respectable individuals of ancient and modern times have been homosexuals, several of the greatest men among them. (Plato, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, etc). It is a great injustice to persecute homosexuality as a crime –and a cruelty, too. If you do not believe me, read the books of Havelock Ellis.

>By asking me if I can help [your son], you mean, I suppose, if I can abolish homosexuality and make normal heterosexuality take its place. The answer is, in a general way we cannot promise to achieve it. In a certain number of cases we succeed in developing the blighted germs of heterosexual tendencies, which are present in every homosexual; in the majority of cases it is no more possible. It is a question of the quality and the age of the individual. The result of treatment cannot be predicted.

>What analysis can do for your son runs in a different line. If he is unhappy, neurotic, torn by conflicts, inhibited in his social life, analysis may bring him harmony, peace of mind, full efficiency, whether he remains homosexual or gets changed.

He also wrote an interesting monograph about Leonardo da Vinci and how him being a latent homosexual influenced his creativity. Leonardo da Vinci, A Memory of His Childhood
. Basically da Vinci surrounded himself with beautiful young men but didn't seem to act on it. This caused him to sublimate his libido and channel it into his supercharged creative drive.

[Anonymous No.20600604]

>>20600578
ah ok i was just curious, symposium then; a work fiction. This would be like saying Virgils fiction of Aeneas in the late republic / early empire was a written statement of theological commandments held by the early romans during the early republic or kingdom.

>you (?) were claiming it was "christian libel" to read that story in a sexual way,
No that probably is legitimate (i'll give you the benefit of the doubt because i can't go back and read it atm), I just bear in mind the overall use of homosexuality 'as' a libel against persons and societies.

e.g. Caligula or - better example: Elagabalus; do we take it seriously that he was a "pioneering transgender celebrity in the modern contexts", or do we understand that it was probably just an easy libel made by his political opponents, accusing him of something knowingly unpopular and widely considered to be depraved and unmanly.. it seems to me that the latter would be the more realistic explanation for (all instances) of these accusations.

[Anonymous No.20600609]

>>20600581
Humanity peaked at da Vinci. Of course he was gay. There was no need for him to reproduce as he was the apex of human capability, the platonic ideal of the human form and mind. From biographer Vasari :

>In the normal course of events many men and women are born with remarkable talents; but occasionally, in a way that transcends nature, a single person is marvellously endowed by Heaven with beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill. Everyone acknowledged that this was true of Leonardo da Vinci, an artist of outstanding physical beauty, who displayed infinite grace in everything that he did and who cultivated his genius so brilliantly that all problems he studied he solved with ease.

[Anonymous No.20600630]

>>20600581
It's a shame Freud didn't follow William Reichs studies on this subject; sexual repression of the healthy sexual drive producing various sexual overflows, called perversions. Or the nature of monogamy itself forcing two people together and making having sex with slaves or servants to be a breach of contract.

>This caused him to sublimate his libido and channel it into his supercharged creative drive.
He matured into an adult man, no longer enslaved to his baseline animalistic impulses. Good for him.

[Anonymous No.20600637]

>>20600505
not the guy you were talking to, but
>I bet you'll find it being along the lines where the 'sex act' of 'today' is differentiated from the martial qualities of the same relationship; two soldiers, of 'the past'.
why make shit up about texts you haven't read? you would lose that bet. pederasty in the sense of attraction to boys is the assumed perspective of both the "voice of right" and "voice of wrong" in that play, and the differentiation is that the former thinks little boys were more attractive when they were all modest and demure, and the latter wants them to be provocative "sluts."

>I’ll tell you about the way boys were brought up in the old days (...) Then in the gymnasium, when they sat down, they were expected to keep their legs well up, so as not to – so as not to torment us with desire; and when they got up, they had to smooth down the sand, so as not to leave any marks on it for their admirers to feast their eyes on. What’s more, [sternly] they never oiled themselves below the belt, [dreamily] and their privates looked like peaches, all velvety and dewy; and you wouldn’t see a boy being his own pimp, walking along making eyes at his lovers and putting on a soft tender voice, oh no!

>Aristophanes arguing 'for' pederasty could be a libel itself;
the guy wrote plays with poetic descriptions of little boy scrotums

[Anonymous No.20600645]

>>20600630
>>20600581
desu this letter does not seem to reflect what he wrote on homosex in his Introductory Lectures, in this case it seems quite accepting, whereas in the Lectures it seems presented as more pathological

[Anonymous No.20600648]

>>20600609
>beauty, grace and talent in such abundance that he leaves other men far behind, all his actions seem inspired and indeed everything he does clearly comes from God rather than from human skill.
Ahh i think this is what anon meant by 'having a crush' on another Man lol

It's skill and competency, that's all. I notice that the idea seem to alienate ordinary Men from seeming capable of accomplishing basic things; a high achiever is a saint or a wizard or now a gay man only 'in' a society where low achievement is the cultural norm - and that's not a good society; that's a society where the saint can just as easily be praised as to be called a witch and tortured to death.

Not optimal.

[Anonymous No.20600666]

>>20600637
>why make shit up
no, I predicted what it would say, here look:
> the former thinks little boys were more attractive when they were all modest and demure,
> the latter wants them to be provocative "sluts."
Whereas the definition of 'attractive', like 'fair', boils down to conduct and disposition. It's that interpretation which the meaning of (these texts) depends on.

Also, as already pointed out: Symposium was still a work fiction not a true report of true conversations.. and the lecherous Man perving over a boy was still a figure of comedy amongst those same Greeks so even in this interpretation where pederasty is assumed it doesn't bring any favorable light to either speaker / to either position.

>the guy wrote plays with poetic descriptions of little boy scrotums
so what - does mentioning something mean you really really like that thing; like a person writing about the holocaust desires to have been commandant, c'mon.

Aristophanes was doing comedy, bear this in mind.

[Anonymous No.20600700]

>>20600648
ed. sorry idk if anybody has read the Last Church, but the image is a ref. to the Emperors point of "great skill (from god)" being a kind of jealousy on the part of people who refuse to believe that 'normal humans' are capable of excelling where they themselves cannot; so they otherize the educated or competent person in some way.

obscure ref. maybe.

[Anonymous No.20600770]

>>20600666
>no, I predicted what it would say
no, you predicted that it would contrast "military camraderie" or whatever with gay sex, which it of course doesn't because you made that up without ever reading the play, or a single line of aristophanes ever. you're also making up inane shit about the symposium (plato wanted to destroy aristophanes by having him be positive about pederasty - in the fucking SYMPOSIUM), another book you've never read but pretend you did. if i tell you why you're wrong you'll just make up something else and still never read the books. you're just here to waste people's time; the other guy was right to bail out early.

[Anonymous No.20600787]

Does anybody have the "Greeks were totally not gay" infograph shitpost?

[Anonymous No.20600863]

>>20600787
here's this until I find the pic

[Anonymous No.20600871]

>>20600787
here it is

[Anonymous No.20600934]

>>20600770
oh calm down

>you predicted that it would contrast "military camraderie" or whatever with gay sex, which it of course
And I said:
"the definition of 'attractive', like 'fair', boils down to conduct and disposition. It's that interpretation which the meaning of (these texts) depends on."

Bearing in mind also that all that's been posted so far is a fictional work called Symposium.

I don't feel I need to apologize or reexplain what I already said; I did predict the thing (actual demonstrable proof) and I did explain already how the context depends upon the definition of the words used - which was what I was actually suggesting, 'not' that the fictional conversation in symposium says something it doesn't - but that the fictional conversation in symposium cannot be said to confirm your view that pederasty was 'good'/'positive' - of which I already argued against, which wasn't responded to.

This was a good discussion but I've moved on =)

> in the fucking SYMPOSIUM
>aristophanes
How can you actually be literate 'in' Aristophanes and hold the position that Platos Symposium or the character of Socrates are worthy of this 'great esteem' that you attach to them? It seems that I've read and understood far more, and this would be proven already since my supposition of the conversation in symposium was confirmed. In all scientific language, anon, I have already been shown to hold the correct position, based upon the proof of the theory: here;
>>20600505
>find the point of contention there; what was 'then' and what was 'today' and I bet you'll find it being along the lines where the 'sex act' of 'today' is differentiated from the martial qualities of the same relationship; two soldiers, of 'the past'.

If you're saying I'm making something up or haven't read these things then I don't know what part you think I'm "making up".


The real issue; given that there's no explicit mentioning of 'gay sex' going on anywhere is to take a step back and examine that claim itself in simple logic, here:
>>20600505
>Does pederasty; the rape of a young soldier by an older soldier bring about any 'good' consequence or unit cohesion? If anything the young soldier would be inclined to stab the rapist to death in the heat of battle; or if it was, as claimed, 'romantic' then like a Woman or a Child the younger soldier would fall to pieces when the Husband/Parent was in harms way and then break ranks and ignore orders. There's nothing implicitly there in any logical manner I can see where either pederasty or homosexuality (as we think of it today) benefits a military unit in the way these are described. This says to me, then, that many of these authors weren't talking about 'gay sex' at all and were talking about comradeship, most likely.

> another book you've never read but pretend you did.
was there another book? The only one mentioned so far was symposium.

[Anonymous No.20600986]

>>20600871
Ohh this is such a straw-man I can't even be bothered. I wasn't denying that 'some' Greeks were fucking children - this is pointed out in symposium, which we've both read, the point is more of a conflation where 'you' want to strongly and vigorously argue that these various aspects discussed by some of the people quoted there (some are fictional) are not talking about anything other than "boys are pretty" - this is based on the same error as the word 'fair' (as earlier mentioned) being conflated to refer to physical appearance and not character and conduct, and other examples along the same line.

When asked 'why' people would ever think to go back through history and boil intellectual conversation down to "boy fucking", one might examine your character, anon, as to why you wish this to be so - or deem sex acts to be highly important, when at best the effort merely pisses on your own history and makes the best and brightest people (let's pretend) seem like vapid superficially-minded pedophiles,which is more an act of projection as well as a tacit libel.

anyways i am done defending this; i think you were the only person who misunderstood what was being discussed earlier anyway =)

[Anonymous No.20601134]

>>20600871
Thanks a lot, anon :)