I think a lot of the time, especially in the modern west, homosexuality etc is seen as being completely foreign to our culture, but obviously that attitude is changing now. For whatever reason, even non-religious westerners, usually on the right, but it doesn't really matter, will completely forget that homosexuality was practiced extensively in two of our founding cultures - Rome and Greece.The main issue, as far as I understand, is that most of those relationships were basically like predatory arranged marriages at best (Eromenos) in Greece, and actual sex slavery (Puer Delicatus) in Rome. The receptive partners were usually adolescents I believe. Though, one could argue that at those times and in those places, girls were also married at that age, so it's not some exclusive flaw of homosexuality.With how prevalent those practices actually were in those cultures, it raises the question of whether or not these people even naturally felt gay, or if they were just performing what was thought to be a societal norm, without really wanting that. It kind of confuses me, because the fact that most of the nobility in Rome practiced homosexuality almost implies that sexuality is just a cultural phenomenon, and being gay, straight, or otherwise is more directly influenced by your environment, rather than your genetics or neurochemistry. What do you think - should homosexuality in those cultures be condemned as a cultural perversion, or instead appreciated as an indication that homosexuality can be a feature of a successful and influential society?
idrc but i wish i got fucked in the ass by a hoplite
>>42205077Anglo culture forced a lot of labels because of their compulsive need to rationalize and moralize everything. Attraction isn’t based on categories just cues. If a twink has enough positive cues men like in women and lacks the offputting cues like facial hair or overly masculine jaw a lot of men will find him attractive to varying degrees. If you just show a bunch of men and women the same picture where it’s shifted masculine or feminine you pretty much get that gradient. But modern society insists that everything fit into rigid categories which they cared less about before
Greek society proves that a sharp social distinction between tops and bottoms is necessary and desirable. Equality for bottoms and allowing bottoms to become the voice of the gay community is where the gay rights movement went wrong and a big part of the reason why gays are hated by many - the idea of a man getting sodomized by another man provokes a strong instinctive negative reaction in the average person, whether they like it or not. Revert bottoming back to a temporary rite of passage to be abandoned once the cultural process of "becoming a man" is complete, and the issue will largely solve itself. Actually just frankly avoid anal sex altogether, the Greeks mostly managed fine without it. It's icky and I don't like it.
>>42205077It's not cultural, it's biological lol males are just pedophilic there is no difference betwween lysander and warren jeffs
>>42205077>will completely forget that homosexuality was practiced extensively in two of our founding cultures - Rome and GreecePedophilia>Though, one could argue that at those times and in those places, girls were also married at that age, so it's not some exclusive flaw of homosexuality.Nope, girls were locked in their homes until they were close to 30 and then married off. Thats why the nobility was so gay. They had no access to women until marriage. Greek women kept running away to live with wild steppe tribes cause greek society was so abusing towards them. Steppe women were free.Before rome fell, noble roman women got some freedom and they were having lots of sex with random men. They were willing prostitutes and some men were extremely stressed because of this (maybe it was the gay men who hated the competition)>With how prevalent those practices actually were in those culturesIt was not that common as you think, specially for common folks.>homosexuality can be a feature of a successful and influential societyWhat you consider success was that only for the rich men.
>>42205215This anon actually knows history!
>>42205171>Anglo culture forced a lot of labels because of their compulsive need to rationalize and moralize everythingGreek and roman culture were more pathetic. They were scared of being labeled as feminine or gay. They hated persian men who took great care of their looks and they hated steppe tribes for letting their women be free. Greek and roman culture was full of pathetic self hating homosexuality and misogyny. They were extremely insecure about their status as "men"The whole its gay to bottom but straight to top is the oldest form of pathetic internalized homophobia .
>>42205215>Nope, girls were locked in their homes until they were close to 30 and then married off. Thats why the nobility was so gayThat's wrong. Girls were also married off in their early-mid teens in both societies.
I really don't care to psychoanalyze it too much. I want to go back to those times where male relationships and intimacy were more welcome and enjoyed like that.
>>42205215>Nope, girls were locked in their homes until they were close to 30 and then married off.Is that true? I thought the average lifespan in those times was about 30?>Thats why the nobility was so gay. They had no access to women until marriage.Makes sense. I've heard that some of the emperors would castrate their slaves in Rome to keep them feminine too, basically like a forced, early-history mtf. I understand that a lot of it is very fucked up and deserves to be criticised.
>>42205246Honestly, even if it didn't have all of the weird predatory aspects to it, and it was all just adult men being gay, I don't think I'd wanna go live in a time where I'd die so early and probably be riddled with disease etc.
>>42205231That’s natural though. Homosexuality presents a structural problem so they had to cope to maintain social order. They were less ridiculously moralistic. Like Antonius was considered beautiful without having to pre filter it as gay or not
>>42205231To be honest, this is a really good point. I don't think that anon realises that Greeks and Romans didn't really have a shame-free, unrestricted view of homosexuality, but rather were some of the first to invent the culture of "it's not gay to top", which we still see today from self-hating gay guys. I mean, I love getting bossed around by a masculine top just as much as any other bottom, but it's still gay.
>>42205077Where the fuck are the pooners in Rome/Greece? Did they not exist? People glaze these places, but how is it that even Africa had poons and they didn't?
>>42205247>Is that true? I thought the average lifespan in those times was about 30?High infant mortality makes it look low but people who lived past their childhood lived pretty long lives
>>42205276Trying to be a man as a woman in such an orderly society is completely different from a man taking on the role of a woman. One is showing submission to someone within an accepted social order, whilst the other is trying to ascend that social order to become higher than what they are believed to be owed at birth because of their sex.
>>42205253I would.>>42205276Don't ruin the mood goddamn.
>>42205264There’s never any shame free anything in society. Cultural norms uphold social order. The main difference is the cope back then was more natural, it’s not a big leap in logic to assume the dominant partner should hold the reins. It’s far more bizarre that today we insist if a man finds any other man attractive he’s gay or bi. And it’s because the culture needs that to be the case even if it isn’t true in any objective sense
>>42205261Its not natural. Homosexuality is in every society and there is no reason to make it so pathetic, cucky, insecure or misogynistic.
>>42205304There is though. It doesn’t produce children, can make women feel insecure, can spread disease more easily, disrupts the social order of men being the dominant sex etc. Can you really imagine a stable society where everyone is treated equally?
>>42205298Well you're just conflating sexuality with role. I'm all for tops holding the reigns... in fact they should, BY LAW (jk, maybe...) but topping and bottoming are both gay, and the romans for example saw bottoms as conquered and weak and inferior, whereas topping was somehow considered akin to just having normal straight sex with a woman.
>>42205289Also before hrt, trans men would had looked just like normal women.Now in middle east, in some of the countries that opress women, parents dress their little girls as boys and cut their hair, this way they can live like boys until puberty starts
>>42205298>It’s far more bizarre that today we insist if a man finds any other man attractive he’s gay or bi.Thats literally what homosexuality is. You are coping hard for no reason.
>>42205313Exactly but I think back then they at least acknowledged same sex attraction without it being assumed you were going to act it out. Like today if I tell people a guy is hot I’ll be assumed gay even if I have a girlfriend. When you think about it that’s pretty strange. So the whole gay to bottom thing has less to do with homosexuality in itself as it does with social rules and expectations. Anglo society puts more emphasis on moralizing it
>>42205321The attraction is homosexual technically but if they like 50% of women and 1% of men it doesn’t really make sense to call them gay. They’d technically be bi but barely, and at that point it would include so many people that you’d just say most are bi because 90% of men will find at least some guy attractive
>>42205311>It doesn’t produce children, can make women feel insecure,Exclusive homosexuality is very rare, most men that have mxm sex were bisexuals>can spread disease more easilyNot if you don't have anal or oral. Greek men used to fuck between oiled thighs>disrupts the social order of men being the dominant sex etc.Men don't need to be dominant. Cultures were men make all the leaders are pretty shitty>can make women feel insecureWhy would they? Womens number one porn is lesbian sex, it does not disturb anyone. Also no matter how much gay sex, women are still always they more desired gender>Can you really imagine a stable society where everyone is treated equallyI live in northern euro and its pretty nice
>>42205325I agree that your attraction to the same-sex is not a moral issue, as sexual attraction is really something that should come before politics or culture. However, if you're saying that you're actually attracted to males, then you're at least bi-curious. There's a difference between saying "this person is attractive", and saying "I think this person is hot". The latter is more subjective and implies more about your own feelings than about their objective features. I can say that Margot Robbie is beautiful and attractive, but that doesn't mean that I'm sexually attracted to her myself.
>>42205341Literally no one, straight male or otherwise, finds 50% of women attractive. If you assume take all legal-aged women in the world, or even just in your country, I'm sure you'd find that you're a lot more selective than you might think. You most likely don't want an old, or fat, or very skinny, or severely mentally ill, or just weird or annoying or ugly woman as your partner.Similarly, a lot of gay and bi men, or women, only want a certain type of male partner. A guy is still bi if he only wants a cute twinky bottom as his male partner, and is more liberal with his preferences in women.
>>42205343I mean the main thing is women hate the idea of dating a bi guy infinitely more than men mind her being bi. And eventually patriarchal cultures win out if for no other reason then they invade and kill non patriarchal ones. It can work, I’m just saying it’s complicated and extremely dependent on the people. Northern Europeans are very good at the egalitarian thing but it would never function with many other ethnic groups, that’s why culture exists. Being open minded also requires prosperity, I guarantee you if your country becomes poor that tolerance starts to evaporate
>>42205358>straight male or otherwise, finds 50% of women attractiveI find 90% of young slim women attractive
>>42205358I get that, I guess that would be me. But the thing is if you consider that bi then a lot of people are bi and it doesn’t make sense that society treats it like a rare thing. In ancient societies I’d bet a huge portion of men had at least incidental same sex attraction where now people are so ashamed of it because they don’t want to be considered gay
>>42205367So that's what, like, 10% of all women, if that? Even if you said "but I also find most slim, mostly-hairless, young twinks attractive, but that's probably only 1% of men", then you're only just over 90% straight arithmetically.Also, I know it's not that deep and attraction can't be quantified that easily, but my point is that having a selective attraction and strict preferences does not nullify your attraction that sex overall.
>>42205383The problem though is if you’re 90% straight people won’t treat it that way. More people will treat you like you’re 90% gay because they’re the ones who feel uncomfortable acknowledging that some same sex attraction is pretty typical
>>4220537340% of men are somewhat bisexual. This was investigated by kinsey. Thats the amount of men who were willing to do some sexual acts with other men. If I rember correctly the number of men who would be down to have anal sex with other men was pretty low but most were fine with receiving head for example.So ye, its not rare
>>42205397That's their problem, not yours.
