Why was female homosexuality no considered defiling a woman on many culture of old. A virginal woman could have had sexual relations with women but she would be still pure for marriage
>>18470820Penetration
>>18470820Sex is about male ownership of women. Lesbian sex is value neutral.
>>18470820I hate to break it to you, but "female homosexuality" is a very recent invention, it was made around the 1970s and mainly astroturfed by Playboy showing girls kissing and the idea of "political lesbianism".
>>18470820You kept your hymen and couldn't get pregnant.
>>18470864No, fags have existed all throughout history. Its just that nowadays they've got a name and a platform yo speak in. You can't invent shit out of then air.
>>18470900For the most part, the very idea of "homosexuality" was invented from thin air. In the past, one would be considered a sodomite if they committed any unnatural sexual act, and a buggerer if they "penetrated men's behinds" or vice versa. The word "homosexual" was invented in the late 19th century to attempt to legitimize buggery as an identity. The idea of buggery having anything to do with male relations was considered an erroneous relic of Spartan degeneracy for most of European history. This buggery is now what is typically referred to "gay sex". Now, the obvious problem with its inverse is that there is no equivalent "lesbian sex". In the past it would simply be called masturbation. Which has no bearing on virginity or purity for marriage.
>>18470934>dinosaurs didn't exist until the 1840s
>>18470820Being disgusted by other men fucking your woman is a natural adaption against raising other men's children.
>>18470944There is no gay gene and there's no such thing as "innate homosexuality".
>>18470988Wrong
I think a better question is why is/was male homosexuality universally more looked down on than female homosexuality.
>>18470934What is it about homosexuality that causes the christard IQ to drop 60 points? They can pretend to be normal, functional people in most other contexts. But you mention fags and they start drooling and going off on slurred incoherent rants like they've just been struck in the head with a hammer.
>>18470988>There is no gay geneI never said there was>there's no such thing as "innate homosexuality"A. Yes there isB. That has nothing to do with whether or not homosexuals existed before the 1800s
There is nothing to women. They are the leftover shell that is used to replicate but that is just an exclusive use and purpose of this realm.The only reason why women have started having more of "their own" is because they have made a mistake to give a woman a man's things.Example: taking Ouranos the sky lord and giving his role and archetype to a woman and calling her Urania Aphrodite.And now women are wanting to take over for men because they are imitating his behavior.
>>18470864Go back worthless /pol/yp
>>18470873>>18471119Before the modern invention of running water and soap there were no women licking each other's vaginas.
>>18470988>There is no gene with a 100% allele frequency difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals, therefore homosexuality can't be heritable since polygenicity doesn't exist
>>18471122Absolute retard, I understand thinking faggots are disgusting but to deny they never existed before the modern day is retarded bullshit. It was pretty common in Greece until the Rabbis took over the western world, even in the Ottoman Empire sultans actively had men in their harems and engaged in bisexual activity.
>>18470991Not an argument>>18471044Not an argument>>18471087Yeah, that's cause they didn't. They were just "sodomites". Also, not an argument.>>18471119Not an argument
>>18471134"That's not an argument" isn't an argument.
>>18471134>They were just "sodomites"So they existed?
Sapphism is a male fantasy.
>>18471141They "existed" in the same way blacksmiths or graverobbers existed. It was an act that people did depending on their circumstances, not out of any particular internal compulsion of "love of man".
>>18471171so they existed?
>>18471133yeah but he is talking about females
>>18471176NTA but they did not "exist" in the same way "blue" was not a color in Ancient Greek. There was no understanding or concept of "homosexual" in historical cultures that can be translated 1 to 1 to how we understand homosexuals nowadays in the contemporary world. They used words like sodomite, luti, etc. which did not imply that they were exclusively attracted to men or even attracted to masculinity at all, but rather just that they indulged in certain behaviors towards some members of the same sex. Sodomites and lutis often still engaged with women in similar manners other men did.pic related. read a book
>>18471176no
>>18471122Do you think people didnt have soap in antiquity?
>>18471201>homosexuality is as innate and natural as wavelengths of lightGlad we agree.
>>18471210I mean I kinda agree, but to be pedantic I wouldn't agree with conflating the innate same-sex desires and attractions with all the implications and extra baggage that the word "homosexual" brings like exclusive attraction to the same sex, in the same way I don't believe in color essentialist notions that all cultures have named colors in a way that can translate perfectly to ROYGBIV.That other anon you were replying to still disagrees though lol
>>18470820>Marcille and Falin are gayReally nigga?
>>18471201so they existed?
>>18470900>>18470861>>18471015/u/ headcanon are toxic
>>18471134Are you under the impression that men who fuck other men are never attracted to the men they fuck? Or do you think men who fuck other men only started being attracted to the men they fuck in the 1800s?I can believe there were cases where non-homosexual men engaged in sodomy (I've always assumed modern prisons are like this). But the idea that this was the case for *every* same-sex relationship, and that attraction to men is an invention of 19th century intellectuals, is absurd.All of your posts ITT have been incoherent attempts to be pedantic about semantics as part of a desperate effort to psyop people into thinking gays didn't exist before the modern age.>>18471201>Sodomites and lutis often still engaged with women in similar manners other men didI mean, even in the modern west there are gay men who marry and have children with women because of societal exceptions. Either out of a fear of disapproval or because they think that's what they're "supposed" to do. Besides, I'm sure there have been countless undocumented cases of homosexual men simply never marrying and no one knew the real reason why. And this is all ignoring bisexuals.
>>18470820western culture is gynocentric and jewish
>>18470820pic unrelated?
Ancient and pre-modern same-sex relations were almost always rape or prostitution. Attitudes about sex and sexuality were much different for most of human history and anyone subjected to it was usually at a disadvantage. There were exceptions at certain points, or at least they were exceptions in the minds of those who practiced it and cared enough to write it down, but they sort of prove the rule. Women did not have much written about them, and their gay relationships were written about even less so. I think if you want a fairly good example of what they might have looked like, the relationship of Servilia and Octavia in HBO's Rome is a good place to start. It is an entirely fictional relationship with an entirely fictional premise, but it nonetheless displays the character of these "relationships" well.
>>18471287>so they existed?In casual conversation, yes.>>18471359>I mean, even in the modern west there are gay men who marry and have children with women because of societal exceptions. Either out of a fear of disapproval or because they think that's what they're "supposed" to do. Besides, I'm sure there have been countless undocumented cases of homosexual men simply never marrying and no one knew the real reason why. And this is all ignoring bisexuals.Fair, some Arab luti-positive literature quite hilariously professed that God only forbade sodomy because men would not interact with women and thus procreate otherwise. Lutis often would imply that men in general only tolerate women as an inferior alternative.>A luti's wife told him "I have what boys have">"Yes, but it has an unpleasant neighbor."They even bragged that an attraction to beardless men/boys was an attraction of intellect in comparison to the primitive and brutish attraction towards women.
The Jews did irreparable damage to human sexuality by inventing identity labels based on the sex of the person getting fucked. The only thing that matters is beauty.
>>18470820It was counted as defiling in ancient India. “If a virgin violates another virgin, she should be fined 200 or pay three times the bride-price, and receive ten lashes”(8.369).
>>18471671>>18471193We prefer futanari elves
>>18471044He’s right. Homosexuality as a term was invented in the 19th century by “sexologists”. Before that, it was an act and a behaviour. The act was called sodomy and doing it made you a sodomite. There was no fixed identity of being “gay”. If a man committed sodomy habitually he was a total degenerate and if he made it his defining identity he would be considered insane. Inclination to do it did not make you a sodomite, acting on it did. This is how Western society traditionally viewed it. It’s only in the past century have we been told that certain people are ontologically “gay” since birth and thus must pursue their desires unabounded.
>>18471015Men were protagonists, women were passive characters.
>>18470820no peepee = no seggs
>>18471015Disease? Technically anal sex was banned and concidering this was a pre-germ theory world, doing that deed is the fastest way to get a nasty STD.
>>18470988>anon admits he'd suck a cock and let it penetrate his anus if someone made a convincing enough argument
>>18471015You ever taken a shit and had to keep wiping? Over and over again it's just constant shit on the paper? Now imagine shoving a man's cock inside that shit. Then ask why this is considered weird.
>>18473775Really nigga? That just means you don't have enough fiber in your diet. The gay pedophiles arguing for edge case interpretations of ancient homosexuality are lying retards and easily proven wrong, but not if you in turn are an even bigger retard posting bullshit like this.
>>18470820PLAAAAAAAPPPPPPPPP
>>18473799>the human sewer isn't constantly smeared in shit if you eat fiber
>>18470820SAAAARRRR
>>18470820>>>c/u/ck
>>18472579>"as a term">jewshitGenuinely kill yourself.
