Where did our modern concept of sexual identity come from?The Ancient world, for better or worse had a far more naive understanding of sexual orientation and roles than we do now, and this is consistent amongst ancient Greco-Roman and Levantine societies where it appears that sexual orientation didn't exist conceptually like it does today. They didn't have sexual identities, they only understood sexual roles, either dominant or submissive. This is why there is seemingly less ancient discourse regarding lesbians, since they understood that women can't assume dominant roles to begin with. What happened along the way to where we now consider sex to be an identity rather than just a way to describe actions and roles?
>>18520115kill yourself, faggot.
>>18520119Assume the position
>>18520115Man, you don't have to drag these poor guys into this.They were born with a very rare congenital condition where they are joined at the hip.Even in their adult life they have to live with this condition and back then there weren't enough tools to help them with their disability that they can't even get up from the bed.
>>18520164Imagine being born as a tandem conjoined twin and one of you has to live with the other persons cock inside of their ass their entire life. Truly a tragedy
>>18520115>Where did our modern concept of sexual identity come from?19th century Jewish 'psychologists'
>>18520115It came from the pit of hell
>>18520115Do you mean what is claimed to be our concept of sexual orientation? Or do you mean the concept of sexual orientation itself? The first is split between descritipve literature of what people do and a lot of people making normative arguments for what it should be. The second is contested. Not everyone holds that the question or concept makes sense. Below is a link to a very recent Vanderbilt University academic philosophy commission basically stating that contemporary philosophers don't really accept philosophy of sex and love as a legitmate field for epistemological reasons.This means that sociological or psychological uses of the concept esepcially normative ones are a bit tenous. This does not mean the descriptive project is totally incoherent.https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wpfsx/wp-content/uploads/sites/51/2026/06/State-of-Scholarship-Report.pdf
>>18520115All this homo LGBT shit comes from white people. The US literally bribes countries to accept homo shit for billions in aid. They do the bidding of the degenerate mother of the demigods.
>>18520396I hold it isn’t a legitimate field for theological reasons
Michel Foucault claimed that the idea of sexual identity arose in the 19th century. However, the prevailing academic view is that he overstates the case and is likely wrong. Further, many argue that he simply showing in reality that homosexual preference existed not identity itself. Examples of this would be Richard von Krafft-Ebing and Havelock Ellis. Really, it is the 1970s. This would be things like Ken Plummer and Jeffrey Weeks. These both articulate them social communities and more than preferences.Alan Soble also comes to mind for his work in trying to state sexual identity is not reducible to behavior and that love and sex are conceptually distinct and thought about the concept of desire. Many philosophers and even professional sociologists as mentioned above think a lot of this is Frankfrutian bullshit. That is to say statements that are not even capable of being true or false and apparently are getting very annoyed with it.
>>18520403Thank you for giving me another opportunity to present my mythbusting efforts.Do you see that thing in the back? That's the supposed mother. It's not an actual living entity.Homo stuff is unrelated to the "mother of degenerates". The mother of degenerates is what happens when people want to superimpose a myth or religion of that non-living female on the back over the two male deities.And it's not so much that sex is degenerate is that those who follow female "gods" seem to lack boundaries and control and lack the intuitive knowledge to be able to discern right from wrong properly.
>noo but they are brothersMore like "brothers" and they are stars and you guys are capable of abstract thinking now. Do better.
One big problem or why it is considered bullshit is that a lot of the work assumes the ability to read other minds. This is famously connected to the problem of other minds in philosophy. Until that problem is solved it does not seem likely that we can ever really say anything meaningful besides behavioral descriptions or probabilities of behavioral actions. Nevermind the epistemological problems of actually figuring this stuff out.https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/other-minds/
The kinda anti-sexual identity work is Alex Posner's Sex and Reason which argues that empirically and behavioristic terms that sex is simply self motivated behavior usually for percevied interests. Economics seems to have the best explanations for sexual behaviors rather than identity. Identity itself might be one such product of economic signaling.
>Hitler lectured me on the role of homosexuality in history and politics. It had destroyed ancient Greece, he said. Once rife, it extended its contagious effects like an ineluctable law of nature to the best and most manly of characters, eliminating from the reproductive process those very men on whose offspring a nation depended. (Rudolf Diels)Was he right?
Famously one of the best takedowns of methods like Foucalts that appeals to historical evdience are works arguing aganist the epistemological effectiveness of history in general. Alex Rosenberg has argued that folk psyhology makes history incapable of generalizing truths in a law like regular manner. Narrativizing found in history but also in crticial theory and anthropology are ineffective in general.
>>18520458The anti-sexual identity work is right here >>18520407
>>18520464Retarded schizo bullshit
>>18520470You can think of Rosenberg's work in analogy with Immanuel Kant. What Kant did to metaphysics and claims about the limits of reason, Rosenberg does to history and anything that uses narrative.
>>18520432The degenerate mother wants his son to suck dick.
>>18520396Oh that's convenient, you make any questions which would undermine your position an error in logic and thus force cooperation from otherwise unhelpful fields of research. Interesting. Is the paper you linked even really concerned with your advocacy in any meaningful way, it isn't? Rather believing that it is betrays you hold these non-epistemic judgements that the paper warns about? Curious.
>>18520115>more naive understandingIt's the opposite. They had a better, more accurate, even more evidence based understanding of human sexuality than we do.>>18520396vanderbilt is jewish trash.
>>18520396Upon a second reading I realized I misread your post, sorry I have pedophile fatigue and wrongly assumed you were arguing in favor of it.
>>18520478Ok you’re an idiot
>>18520502>The degenerate mother wantsAnd you completely missed the point of everything I told you.Please don't quit your day job.
>>18521702No, it was meant to capture how academically a lot of the stuff people think is about sex and gender is seen as anything but standard, and professionally it is seen as epistemically worthless stuff. Claims that there is a history of sexuality studies or something are actually not quite accurate. Much less the epistemic justification of them. They also list a few other types of "radical" philosophy that have the same problem.
>>18520165>Imagine being born as a tandem conjoined twin and one of you has to live with the other persons cock inside of their ass their entire life. Truly a tragedykek
>>18522174>jew ruins the joke by bringing up vagina sex because lel so funni
>>18520115Sexual dimorphism comes from the way humans procreate and survive as a species. Obviously this sexual dimorphism is not limited to physical features but extends to mental features as well. This does not exclude that there are outliers and exceptions but those are a minority. In the majority they developed because they were evolutionarily adaptive. Humans also can not change their gender as of yet so roles remain over a lifetime. Infertiles dont count because they cant directly pass on their genes. There exist species that can change their functional gender over their lifetime and so they would have a more temporal kind of gender which would produce quite a different headspace around it as well. Im not excluding the possibility of humans being able to really change their gender in the future trough medical procedures but as of now we cant. Gender roles are a result of adaptation not an arbitrary concept grabbed out of thin air.
>>18520115None of that is provable or falsifiable.
>>18520115Many artists are gay. What's new?
