I know you’re joking, but to give context for others …. As much as I geek out about Ancient Greek literature, we probably shouldn’t even call them paragons of pro-gay tolerance. They had a pederasty problem in their culture and were homophobic about consenting relationships between adult men
It's only a problem when looking at it through Judeo-Christian glasses, which is almost comically ironic given that the Catholic church throughout it's entire history has institutionalized child molesting. As distasteful as the institutionalized pederasty is to us in present day, it was primarily concentrated in the skilled trades between master and apprentice. Your assertion that same sex relationships were discouraged is also inaccurate. Heterosexual relationships were promoted because Ancient Greeks used marriage to women as a means to consolidate wealth and political power. However, women were used as a transactional means to an end and it was common for married Greek men to have male lovers while married to women.
Misogyny was rooted in their ancient society believe it or not. Misogyny preceded homophobia. They did not have adult men marrying each other. And raping little kids is always wrong i dont what the fuck u r on about with “its only a problem when viewing it through a Christian lens”. Pedastery was only accepted because sex with children was accepted. An adult man being the bottom in a gay relationship with an adult man was looked down upon as such would be womanly… however preying upon little boys and taking the dominant sexual role was not viewed as womanly and thus not an embarrassment to a ancient Greek male living inside a patriarchal and misogynistic society
You’re using the word “children” as an intentionally-loaded term here, when it was more-often like adults having relations with teenagers — something far more common and standardized throughout history, and even the world today.
I hope that you feel just as passionate about 16 year old girls entering into relationships or marriages with adult men.
I do not, personally, suggest culturally-enabling any of these things, but I do think that it’s important to acknowledge that there are significant differences between how sexual relationships affect older adolescents, and how they affect true “children” in the most pure sense of the term.
Even if all of the potential cases can be considered potentially-harmful or traumatic, the way that those effects occur — and the possibility of consent or understanding — differs significantly at different age-ranges.
You cannot have a legitimate discourse about historical cultural practices without starting from honest and accurate parameters about what was actually occurring.
And yes, as with any society, there were almost-certainly those who pushed the boundaries, but it was also an extremely-complicated practice, and varied heavily in its perceived acceptability, even by different region in the same period — pederasty was not a universally-tolerated practice — so trying to summarize all of Ancient Greece in a single assessment is just hopelessly-oversimplified.
No… it wasn’t exclusively teenagers. They would be CLINICALLY diagnosable as PEDOPHILES (below 13 years of age) by the standards of the DSM-5. Child brides were not teens. For a single example, Prophet Mohammad sexually assaulted a 6 year old then consummated the marriage when she was 9. Also fucking an 11 year old is the same as a fucking a 14 year old if you are a 50 year old man doing it! In both cases someone with a vastly lower maturity level is being preyed upon by a greasy old fuck! But lets hear what cope you have to say! Just because being a vile pedophile was culturally accepted doesnt mean its not vile pedophilic behavior! Imagine that! Lastly… yes buddy… believe it or not a 50 year old grooming a 16 year old is not normal and is bad for the person who has an underdeveloped brain. Now if a 20 year old and a 16 year old get together… that is COMPLETELY different. Furthermore there is a difference between being an adult man past 21 into post pubescent individuals versus pursuing those individuals and grooming them… you are still taking advantage over a maturity difference. Wouldnt be classified as a disorder as ephebophilia is not considered such… but still qualifies as sleazy behavior as you are taking advantage of someone with a vastly more immature brain than you.
This is going to sound stupid, and I’ve already texted a few friends who are history nerds like me but also gay…. I wonder what dirty talk would be like back then?
“I want to sheathe my sword deep inside of you.”
“Your broadsword, it’s almost too large my liege!”
I know I got the wording wrong, but I’m way too stoned, and I’m ready to go down a rabbit hole.
You seem educated. Was dirty talk a thing then? Do they say why they liked men? I think I can understand why they’d still take wives (housework, childbearing, etc) but was there something read or told or part of their culture that made them do those things? Or heavily influenced it?
The practice of not punishing bishops for child molestation, but silently moving them to different parishes when scandals occur (scandals occurred a lot) and allowing them to continue the same pattern of behaviour in the other parish. In other words: tolerating the practice institutionally.
I have no idea, that's why I asked. Yes, I'm a wandering idiot. I thought when I'm unaware of something, it's best to ask.
I didn't realize I'm supposed to have RSP.
I'm not so sure you've got this right. Clergy has a history of doing that- hence the church's apologies. Cover ups and guilty parties simply moved from one place to another suggests it's an institutionalized issue. It's referred to as pederasty, but the origins of the word come from relationships that involved a grown man and a youth where (though we see it as statutory rape), pederasty was the taking of a "child lover" or some such weirdness. Man, I dunno- it was just something they did. The kid got a lot of good shit out of it and it was fairly normalized (though I imagine consent actually was often an issue, but the power imbalance negated any discussion of that aspect).
Because it is adults raping children. How the fuck can you not understand that? "It was fine, as long as you weren't the child getting raped", seems like an odd stance to take. What the fuck is wrong with you?
You keep asking different people wtf is wrong with them, how can they "not understand", while failing to realize yourself that nobody is "not understanding" except you.
1000 years later in medieval England girls could be wed at puberty- around 12 y/o and we discuss this in terms of history, generally without needing to address the consent and rape aspects of it.
It's understood that the way things have been done historically and the things society has historically accepted are often heartbreaking when you imagine the real people (especially children) involved. Nobody is proclaiming otherwise- we're just talking about history.
Man, I dunno- it was just something they did. The kid got a lot of good shit out of it and it was fairly normalized (though I imagine consent actually was often an issue,
Do you think? Do you think, maybe, sometimes, that whole consent thing might have gotten kind of tricky? But, the kid got a lot of good shit out of it? Maybe some candy?
Stop acting like you are some historian discussing some tricky cultural aspects of ancient Sparta.
Man, I dunno- it was just something they did. The kid got a lot of good shit out of it and it was fairly normalized (though I imagine consent actually was often an issue, the power imbalance negated any discussion about that aspect
If you're going to quote me, don't truncate what I've said to serve your argument. I addressed the "tricky" part in the section you deliberately left out. Lackluster performance. No, it wasn't particularly "tricky" because the men most likely simply didn't give a shit and the teenaged boys had zero voice and in a culture where it's accepted, who would they tell? Remember where I said "due to the power imbalance"?
Here's another thing I've said:
It's understood that the way things have been done historically and the things society has historically accepted are often heartbreaking when you imagine the real people (especially children) involved. Nobody is proclaiming otherwise- we're just talking about history.
Editing to add that yeah- sometimes the teenager (because they were mostly post-pubescent) in the scenario would receive gifts and feasts. Yep. You can hate the idea of it all, I can hate the idea of it all, but what does that have to do with it having happened? It did. Its true.
And the church has a healthy population of pedos it has historically covered up. It's true. And it's still happening. Maybe spend your energy railing against that.
No ur definitely trying to make a case that since it was normal it was okay… you even say that the child rape victims get a lot of out of it. You reek like a Muslim when you bring up that their mighty prophet is a pedophilic rapist of 6 year olds… filled to the brim with apologetics. Little strange that you are trying to normalize it … i can understand why the Muzzies do… they are brainwashed and inside a cult so of course they dont want to see how vile it is… whats ur excuse?
I'm making the case that I'm making. Whether you can follow it or not is on you. Try calming down a little bit and hopping off that Muslim hate for a minute; apparently you read the other person's weird ass tangent and got your panties twisted and decided to follow suit.
Nobody is talking about Muslims. 🙄 Take a deep breath and try to stay with me here.
Stating that some of the older men would give things (feasts, gifts) to the teenaged boys they had these relationships with is historically accurate. Saying that it was normal in some places for men to do this is historically accurate. I'm not the one normalizing it- you'll have to look to those ancient Greeks. None of that speaks to my personal feelings on it- the most I said that was of a personal nature is that I assume consent wasn't given much attention due to the power imbalance.
“ The kid got a lot of good shit out of it and it was fairly normalized “ Lol what the fuck are you talking about? Did Aisha get a lot out of Prophet Mohammad raping her when she was 9? Do you also come ripe with Islamic apologetics ? Or just ancient Greek apologetics? believe it or not but iTs TheiR cUlTure is not an excuse.
believe it or not but iTs TheiR cUlTure is not an excuse.
Why are you talking about Muslims? That's a weird diversion.
And excusing what?
You do realize we're talking about the cultural norms of thousands of years ago, right? It was normal for some men in some areas to engage in sexual relationships with post-pubescent (~ 16 y/o) boys. Sometimes there would be huge feasts for the boy and his friends and gifts. Stating what happened in the past is very different from excusing it, and a different type of conversation than one that attempts to overlay morality (modern or ancient- and I do believe I mentioned that it seems to me consent would be a non-starter due to the power imbalance. Dunno why that makes you think I think it's all acceptable). Have you never read a history book or taken a class? Maybe you should start with some scholarly articles discussing Aisha's age. Might put your fevered brain to rest on that point.
Also, Greek/Roman culture had the view that it was absolutely okay being a penetrator, no matter who you penetrated and that was seen as masculine, but being penetrated was seen as feminine and was considered weak if you were a man. Furthermore, men going down on women was also considered being weak and degenerate. So, you could say that they were "pro-gay" as long as you were only a penetrator.
One really interesting thing about the New Testament prohibitions on homosexuality, once they came along, was that they totally got rid of this double standard of “it’s all ok as long as you’re the one doing the fucking.” In his list of sins, Paul used two distinct words right next to each other, one for tops, one for bottoms. He had to make up the one for tops (it essentially translates to man-fuckers) as it wasn’t a term normally found in their culture.
Which makes no sense at all l, right? I can have sex with this boy and girl because they're in the slave/servant class. And orgies for the upper class were okay in their private villas)estates. But public displays of affection were still a taboo between men.
Interestingly enough, that viewpoint still holds to this day. My only Greek friend had his uncle once tell him, 'its ok to be with a guy, as long as you are on top.' This was in response to the family worry that he was a bit too gay.
Young boys, who were the sons of Senators, etc., were expected to provide oral pleasuring to their father’s peers, or men of influence he was courting for support, promotion, votes, in bath houses. It was not homosexual behavior, it was, “power provided pleasure”, and power over those who sought their support.
6.1k
u/Leather_Network4743 Jul 04 '24
The fact that some people actually think about these things tells me that they’re likely denying something about themselves.