I’m reading about the classical era, and it’s hard to find an admirable man who WASN’T screwing boys on the side. Of the first 15 Roman Emperors, 14 were recorded to have had sex with boys, and the man out—Claudius—was mocked as being “ruled by women” for not doing so. In Sparta and Thebes, men at arms would have sex with each other to promote military efficiency (the Theban “Sacred Band”, Spartan Agoges). In fact, this seems like a constant of militaristic societies, with the Ottomans also practicing this trend. Only where it was religiously prohibited was it not practiced. This kind of homosexuality naturally seems institutional, imposed, and not natural, but it’s bizarre to wrap my head around.
>>18244067Abomination. Next.
>>18244069No, I’m serious. You don’t see homosexuality and pederasty as being prevalent in the upper echelons of Western society until the advent of Christianity?
>>18244067absolutely not.>>18244075i already told you to stop spamming this garbage, repent or you will burn in hell sodomite.
>>18244067Yes. Where do you think the phrase "a man's man" comes from? It refers to a man who is so masculine that he performs the masculine role not only with respect to women but with respect to other men as well.
>>18244067You are conflating rape culture with homosexuality. Pederasty was about power and domination over social inferiors (boys, slaves). You were the MAN because you were the INSERTER. Taking the woman's role was shameful. Your entire premise is f*gged by the fact they'd execute you for taking it up the ass. Modern homo is egalitarian buttstuff, completely alien to them. Your manly heroes would literally kill you for suggesting they were the bottomboys.
>>18244067Yes. Male love was the height of classical man. The demonic penis mutilating jew had to do everything possible to see it destroyed
>>18244080>>18244175I’m not gay, nor do I condone homosexuality. I just think it’s pretty odd how all of these so-called “chads” (like the Roman Emperor Vitellius, or Alexander’s father Phillip) were carrying out amorous relationships with boys. Like, yes, they had to be in the “giving” part of the relationship… but it seems like they were emotionally invested in these relationships, too. Just noticing, I guess!
>>18244067>Of the first 15 Roman Emperors, 14 were recorded to have had sex with boysGossip and or slander
>>18245286for the most part
>>18244175>Pederasty was about power and domination over social inferiors (boys, slaves)This is actually J*wish mentality by the way. They're the ones who think it as a humiliation ritual because they outlaw all sexual relationships between men.That is not to say that penetrating a man is not an act of aggression but that depends on the situation.Nuance is not exactly the forte for people that have an agenda.
>>18245303>penetrating a man is not an act of aggressionI should have been more clear but I was doing other things while writing this.Not saying that it is an outright act of aggression but that it can be an act of aggression, but so can penetrating a female be an act of aggression when done against her consent or in disadvantageous situations all the same.There is a difference between engaging with people in sexual acts for a purpose versus engaging with people in sexual acts and not considering them people and treating them like shit. It's obvious that one is going to be bad compared to the the other. That doesn't mean that all sexual acts are bad.
>>18244067You posted it again?
>>18245303>This is actually J*wish mentality by the way.They're the ones who think it as a humiliation ritual because ...>everyone who doesn't want to take it up the ass at the ripe age of 11 is actually a Jewftfy
>>18245303>Nuance is not exactly the forte for people that have an agenda.True
>>18245806I was having trouble with the captcha
>>18245992You go through the effort of phoneposting this slop?
>>18244067Yes the peak of the Roman Empire was Trajan and Hadrian and they were both either gay or bi by modern definition.Many of the greatest byzantine emperors were gay as well like Basil the Bulgar slayer. Honestly we need to start talking about the fact that gay and bi men are clearly better at ruling than straights or pedophiles Oh and dont forget the Gods are bi and queer pic related
>>18246068>they were both either gay or bi by modern definition.What is the modern definition? “Committing sodomy”? I’m sure there’s more to it.The fact is that back then, they were not “gay” by the modern definition; they were “men” by the ancient definition. “Chads”, even. They fucked what was there, and relieved their urges on whoever they wished. In a way, it’s kind of interesting; the ancient practice of homosexuality calls into question whether there’s even such a thing as “innate homosexuality” at all. How many straight men today would’ve fucked men in ancient times? And only because of the different connotation.
Well, when you have got a bunch of boys watering over you wanting to BE dominated you have done something right as a man, haven't you? You are masculine enough.
>>18244067Times have changed drastically. I understand the argument you’re making, but it simply doesn’t apply to the modern world. That kind of behavior will continue to exist, but only among a minority.
the final redpill is that you only hate homosexuality christian slave morality teaches you that lust and virility is le sin liek everything else that isnt just sitting there worshipping the God of the jews
>>18246149Another midwit that got one-shotted by Nietzsche, many such cases here lately.
>>18244067Who's luckier? Id wager Hadrian is.
In indoeuropean cultures is the bottom that is considered to be doing something despicable.Topping other men is okay, because you bare asserting dominance.Being sodomized is reason of mockery, sodomizing others is simply a display of strength.Virility is radiative, feminity is receptive
>>18245303You are a coping bottom faggot lmaoLatins and Greeks considered effeminacy to be one of the polar antagonistic aspects of realityFeminity was near synonymous with ontological evil for the ancients, and taking a feminine, thus receptive and passive, role in the penetrative act was considered humilliating and embarassing
>>18246459Ever heard of power bottoms?
>>18246462That depends on the person. You can have weak men that never got penetrated, and strong men who take it daily in the ass. Your nation of the USA is full of weak men who get all uppity and cross armed just because they get spurned by women alone.Its a legitimate thing, like the Band of Thebes. Its why almost every hero *will* have a male lover because its a *necessary* part of his character.Yes, there are rules regarding age that are basically just fluff. But that hero took it up the ass when he was younger and he became a fucking full-fledged strong man like Hercules, who was among the more hetero of the bunch.
>>18246499>>18246481>Let me give you my take on itThis was not the Romans nor the Greeks idea though? They thought bottoming was embarassing and humilliatingBeing the bitch of other man was deemed a sign of weakness and submissionIn rome and greece being effeminate was even more shunned upon than in our society, imbellitas, effeminacy, servility, cowardice, excess in luxury and flowing robes.All these were disliked in Rome
>>18244067try it and tell us how it was. you are not sexually repressed cuck who doesn't dare because of church and shit, are you?
>>18246501It varies from person to person, much like everything else in life. Ideally it was kept discreet if they could.
>>18246501The Romans didnt give a fuck, not after curb stomping Carthage.
>>18244067Homosexuality is not in and of itself masculine. The act of penetration is. The gender of the recipient of the penetration didn't matter.
>>18247007What kind of ape nigger logic is that? Thats the people Yuros worship as the enlightened creators of their civilization?
>>18247014>What kind of ape nigger logic is that?The logic of the Greeks and Romans.
>>18244067No its gay.
>>18247034I believe now they were nordic
>>18247048kek
>>18244067Only if you say no homo.
>>18246187cope
>>18247003The Romans absolutely did give a fuck and constantly wrote about how despicable and effeminate, cowardly and slavish orientals were for, among others, being unwarlike, servile to other men, excessive in ornamentation and likely to take bottom roles Being castrated like sporus was seen as one of the ultimate humiliation rituals.A lack of virility was seen as a lack of penetrative capacity and dominance.Sexual impotence and effeminacy were some of the most despised things in rome
>>18244067The Greco-Roman world wasn't that gay. It was around 87% Straight, 7% Bisexual, 4% Gay, and 2% Lesbian
>>18247815>Source: My ass
>>18247950Unironically a good source in this case
>>18248096C’m’ere, sexy ;)
>>18247769I don't think Nietzsche's work was ever really about fully embracing your desires as the ultimate good, it was more a challenge to the underlying reasoning of morals. He doesn't present a convincing alternative moral paradigm, rather he poses a challenge to the systems that invoke these ethical principles. If the message you got from Nietzsche was I am the ubermensch and my will is the only thing of value you might want to read him again, or you just want to use his work to cover for the fact you cannot control yourself. Take the sodomy and homosexuality of the ancient world. It requires no abstraction into ethics to understand why this practice is a pretty shit idea and overall harmful to the society. Yet by abstracting it into ethics you can conveniently ignore these, in some cases physiological, realities. You essentially use his work as a cover for the fact you are incapable of addressing that and prove yourself to be the biggest pseud/sophist of em all.
