>The ancient Greeks practiced an institutionalized form of pederasty where men were paired with boys in a sexual, pedagogical relationship
>In Rome it was common for men to have sexual relations with boy slaves and prostitutes, including various emperors; although later laws prohibited sex with freeborn boys, these laws were rarely enforced
>The majority of men in Renaissance Florence according to court records were implicated in sodomy with boys
>In Japan both Buddhist monks and Samurai practiced ritualized pederasty, these relationships were characterized by intense, mutual love; the practice continued until the Meiji era
>The Chinese practiced it for millennia, only gave it up in the 19th century due to upsetting Westerners
>Accepted practice in Korea for millennia, kings and nobility openly kept "boy-wives"
>The ancient Celts practiced pederasty according to various Greek and Roman sources
>Until the 19th century, it was common in Muslim societies; attraction to boys was viewed as common and comparable to attraction to women; although technically forbidden by the law, men still had sexual relations with boys
>Various tribes in Papua New Guinea believe pairing a man with a boy to anally or orally "inseminate" them is necessary for their development
>During the Nazi expedition Tibet, it was discovered that pederasty was widespread among the monks
>Missionaries during the sixteenth and seventeenth century noted that pederasty was common among the Mayans, Aztecs, and Incans
>Countless other societies and many tribes around the world are noted by ethnographers to practice or to have practiced pederasty

Yet today, the practice is universally abhorred, the attraction is viewed as aberrant, and instead of being viewed as a positive relationship which is conducive to a boy's development, pederastic relationships are viewed as invariably corruptive and traumatic.

How did the opinions of so many past societies change on this matter? Was it the spread of Christianity?

the word pederasty is based on mistranslation of greek paiderastia which meant, essentially, someone who takes on a squire

>>17795088 (OP)
Hello there, faggot.
>inb4 It's not gay if he can't grow a beard

>>17795090
It's a word which directly translates as "love of boys". We use both the words that constitute the Greek word paiderastíā in modern English. Paid = boy/child (pediatrician; pedophile), Eros = love. The word does not mean "someone who takes on a squire", and it would be absurd to suggest that it did, taking into consideration the context in which the word was used in ancient Greek texts.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/παιδεραστία#Ancient_Greek

>inb4 it actually means the love of TEACHING boys

>>17795088 (OP)
>How did the opinions of so many past societies change on this matter? Was it the spread of Christianity?
While christianity was certainly the primary factor in making pederasty taboo in the West, it can't be the sole cause of the global trend against it. China, Japan, and Korea never adopted any abrahamic religion in any large numbers. And even in the West it's more taboo now than it was a century or two ago when christianity was more influential and homosexuality in general was far more maligned.
It's worth noting that there has also been a global trend against marrying young girls, which was even more ubiquitous than pederasty but is now about as rare and taboo in the developed world. So it's really more to do with changing attitudes towards children than anything specific about relationships between men and boys.

please delete this thread, Janny. >>17795088 (OP)

OP obviously hasn't learned from the last ten times he was banned for spamming pedophile faggot shit on boards where it doesn't belong.

>>17795123
It's a well thought out thread about a historical and cultural topic, and I've never been banned for posting about this topic. Stop derailing the thread.

>>17795088 (OP)
95% of these accounts were considered ludicrous and scandalous rumors when they appear in the sources, this applies especially to Rome and you tacitly admit they had laws against this, seems all those times you got BTFO'd for glossing over this in the former threads finally has you acknowledging bits of reality. Florence is also an edge case, and given their usury and wide condemnation by the historical sources you have previously mentioned, we can safely assume (((who))) was behind this.

The only place where we know it was firmly practiced and accepted, in the modern conception of European/Western world, was Greece -- it wasn't uniform however. Some cities allowed it, only it wasn't allowed to be sexual in nature, some allowed it and didn't particularly care about what it lead to, others banned it entirely. At its platonic ideal pederasty was supposed to be a tutelage based relationship where an older man would teach a younger man the intricacies of whatever it meant to be a citizen of the city which they were apart of. It was never supposed to be sexual. Only as Greek history wore on did it degenerate to a perverse sexual pairing and not universally throughout Greece, with some of the largest and most historically important city states getting rid of it entirely. You've had this pointed out to you like ten billion times and you still refuse to acknowledge it.

>>17795114
>And even in the West it's more taboo now
Why do you believe this?

>>17795141
>95% of these accounts were considered ludicrous and scandalous rumors when they appear in the sources
No they don't. Provide me a representative selection of sources regarding the practice of pederasty in these societies, and highlight where these sources portray the practice as being scandalous or ludicrous.

>tacitly admit they had laws against this
I clearly stated that they had laws against sexual relations with freeborn boys. This is not a tacit admission of anything.

>The only place where we know it was firmly practiced and accepted
The practice was accepted during early/middle Roman history, it became scandalous towards the late Roman empire, and it only became criminalized after laws were instituted by Christian rulers, and these laws were massively unpopular among Rome's Greek population.

>Some cities allowed it
The practice was legal and widespread in the majority of Greek cities during the Classical period.

>At its platonic ideal pederasty was supposed to be a tutelage based relationship where an older man would teach a younger man the intricacies of whatever it meant to be a citizen of the city which they were apart of
This is the idiosyncratic opinion of a handful of Greek philosophers which does not reflect widely held beliefs towards the practice.

>>17795159
The sources themselves are often considered scandalous. You are getting your information on the lives of famous historical figures from the antique equivalent of tabloids. They are the best we have but not comprehensive chronicles. The laws which existed prohibiting this behavior suggest more clearly what the society found to be acceptable than the racy accounts you have from senators. You also don't know what you are talking about in regards to Rome, "early/middle Roman history" What? Empire? Republic? Monarchy? The aforementioned law which outlaws it itself comes from the Republican period and was intensified during the early principate well before Christianity was even a thing. Your claim that it was legal and widespread in Greece is also willfully ignorant of the rebuttal I offered you. These "handful" of Greek philosophers that condemned sexual pederasty are coincidentally the most important Greek philosophers with extant records. Strange that they would be immortalized by thousands of scribes through the millennia if their views on such an "important" and "widespread" institution were idiosyncratic musings.

>>17795114
>China, Japan, and Korea never adopted any abrahamic religion in any large numbers
but they all modernized their cultures under the influence of 19th century Imperialism, stripping out (most of) the bits that Westerners (or Japanese, in Korea's case) found objectionable in order to be treated as equals

>>17795175
>You are getting your information on the lives of famous historical figures from the antique equivalent of tabloids
Ah yes, Plutarch, the antique equivalent of a tabloid writer.

>The laws which existed prohibiting this behavior suggest more clearly what the society found to be acceptable than the racy accounts you have from senators
Can you post these laws instead of just vaguely hinting towards them?

>"early/middle Roman history" What? Empire? Republic? Monarchy?
I'm sure you understand the concept of "early" and "middle", and know that Rome was a civilization with a finite existence. The laws against sex with freeborn males were instituted during the Republican period, but these laws were rarely enforced and the practice of pederasty had not yet become abhorred (as evidenced by the fact that people worshiped Hadrian's deified lover). Towards the end of Rome's existence, the practice of pederasty increasingly became controversial (coinciding with massive, documented racial replacement), and after Christianization it was outlawed. So it was only after being ethnically replaced with brown people and adopting a brown, Jewish religion that neo-Romans turned against pederasty.

>These "handful" of Greek philosophers that condemned sexual pederasty are coincidentally the most important Greek philosophers with extant records
The Greek philosopher we have the most extant writings of, Aristotle, does not condemn pederasty. Plato himself believed that the common man was ignorant and should be ruled over by an aristocracy headed by a philosopher king. The majority of 19th century philosophers believed in ontological idealism. The opinions of philosophers are rarely representative of mainstream opinion.

>Strange that they would be immortalized by thousands of scribes through the millennia if their views on such an "important" and "widespread" institution were idiosyncratic musings
This is precisely the reason why their writings would be immortalized by scribes.

>>17795205
romans were brown and early roman emperors had clearly southern facial features. your meme pic with fake sources means nothing.

>>17795223
>romans were brown
No they weren't, modern genetic studies prove the fact that the Romans were actually White (which anyone with half a brain already knew), until being swarmed with non-White immigrants from their empire:
>Italian genetic history was profoundly shaped by Romans. While the Iron Age was comparable to contemporary European regions, the gene pool of Central Italy underwent significant influence from Near Eastern ancestry during the Imperial age. To explain this shift, it has been proposed that during this period people from Eastern Mediterranean regions of the Empire migrated towards its political center. In this study, by analyzing a new individual (1.25x) and published Republican samples, we propose a novel perspective for the presence of Near Eastern ancestry in the Imperial gene pool. In our scenario, the spread of this genetic ancestry took place during the late Republican period, predating the onset of the Empire by ∼200 years. The diffusion of this ancestry may have occurred due to early East-to-West movements, since Eastern Mediterranean regions were already under Roman political influence during the Republic, or even as a result of migration from Southern Italy where Greeks and Phoenicians settled.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.10.07.617003v1

This precipitated the abandonment of the noble practice of pederasty and the decline of their empire. All cultural achievement in Italy since this mass replacement, including the Renaissance, occurred in the north of Italy (where coincidentally, pederasty was widespread), where they have remained relatively racially pure. The Germanic migrations also hardly left an impact on Roman genetics. There are plenty of Brits that look like the picture you posted.

>>17795237
yes they were brown and genetically resembled modern spaniards and italians. those "non-white" immigrants were mostly greeks who looked barely different from romans despite middle eastern genetics

>>17795088 (OP)
>conducive to a boy's development
It conduces to gaining the gay disorder. Everyone knows abused kids are likely to gain the disorder.

>>17795205
Plutarch very rarely comments on homosexually pedophilia and where he does it is related to us with disgust and it is often stated that these were rumors if he is discussing it in the context of a certain figure. The laws I am referring to are Scantinia and Julia respective to chronological order, likewise classical Roman history is divided into three parts generally, monarchy first, then republic, then empire. Empire is subdivided into principate and dominate, then later becomes Byzantine history which itself is subdivided and outside the scope of the discussion frankly. The first law comes from the republican period, so no, it was not "towards the end of Rome's existence", and the second one comes from the early principate. These were well before "racial replacement" occurred, which didn't happen until the migrations of Germans in the 4th century. Nonetheless the demography of the people which instituted these laws and the subjects to which they applied were at most varied by their origin on the peninsula rather than "brown" as you put it.

On the matter of Greek scholastic acceptance, Aristotle condemns sexual pederasty often but an example from Nicomachean Ethics has him calling it a disease and comparing it to cannibalism. Plato, Demosthenes, and others similarly condemn it. I can provide examples should you need them. What the views of the common man, who was frequently illiterate in Greece, are is of little concern to the argument and entirely unknown. Suffice it to say they likely would have been infinitely more prejudiced against it as where sexual pederasty did exist it was a habit of certain more debauched members of the upper classes.

>>17795244
Romans before being genetically replaced most closely resembled modern northern Italians, who are equidistant between southern Italians and Germans. Modern day Germans are just as Roman as modern day southern Shitalians are. And most of the immigrants were from the Near East and were decidedly brown. Ancient Greeks looked more like modern day Brits than they do modern day Greeks.

>>17795252
>Plutarch very rarely comments on homosexually pedophilia and where he does it is related to us with disgust and it is often stated that these were rumors if he is discussing it in the context of a certain figure
This isn't true. Post excerpts.

>The first law comes from the republican period
I've already made my position clear, these laws were rarely enforced and do not encompass a prohibition of pederasty, because the practice was still permissible under these laws, and pederasty had not yet become distasteful in Roman society. These laws were likely enacted to placate the newly arrived contingent of browns which had swarmed Rome from the extremities of their empire.

>which didn't happen until the migrations of Germans in the 4th century
Insane cope. Thanks for confirming that you're a Brazilian with 40% Sicilian ancestry posting from a favela.

>Aristotle condemns sexual pederasty often but an example from Nicomachean Ethics has him calling it a disease and comparing it to cannibalism
This is only in reference to sexual passivity, he makes a positive comment regarding pederastic relationships in the Nicomachean Ethics.

>What the views of the common man
Are of utmost importance to this discussion, unlike the idiosyncratic opinion of a handful of philosophers who admit that their views are in the minority (even regarding pederasty, as Socrates does in the Phaedrus).

>>17795267
>This type of friendship is perfect in terms both of duration and everything else, and in all cases such friends receive from each other the same thing or something quite similar, which is indeed what ought to be shared between friends. The type of friendship formed for pleasure bears similarity to this perfect type. For indeed, good men are pleasing to one another. Likewise, too, the type of friendship forged for advantage. For good men are also advantageous to one another. And it is true also in the case of men motivated by pleasure or advantage that friendships are most likely to endure when each gets the same thing from the other, such as pleasure, and also when it flows from the same source, such as happens between witty people but not between lover and beloved. For lover and beloved do not take pleasure in the same things: rather, the lover takes pleasure in gazing at his beloved, while the latter takes pleasure in the attentions of his lover. But when the beloved’s youthful beauty fades sometimes the friendship too fades. For now the lover does not find the boy pleasing to look at, and the boy receives no attention. But many couples continue the relationship, if, as a result of spending time together, they come to love each other’s character, because they are of similar character.

>But if their erotic relationship is characterized by an exchange of advantage rather than pleasure, the two are less friendly toward each other and the friendship lasts less long. Those who are friends for advantage cease to be friends when it ceases to be advantageous. For they are not friends of each other but friends of profit.
Nicomachean Ethics 8.4.1–2

Oh no no no, 'stotlesisters... I thought Leather Apron Club said Aristotle was against pederasty...

>>17795267
>Romans before being genetically replaced most closely resembled modern northern Italians, who are equidistant between southern Italians and Germans.
north italians are x1.5 more indoeuropean than romans were
>Modern day Germans are just as Roman as modern day southern Shitalians are.
south italy was heavily colonized by greeks long before roman empire
>And most of the immigrants were from the Near East and were decidedly brown. Ancient Greeks looked more like modern day Brits than they do modern day Greeks.
lmao no. they were genetically closer even to levantines than to brits and their facial features are south european

>>17795267
Aristotle calls it brutishness in Nicomachean ethics, and attributes its expression to abuse from childhood existing only naturally in barbarians or those with brutish characteristics. In respect to the views of the common man, these are unknown, so again, unrelated. We can assume they were against it as pederasty is very explicitly mentioned to be a habit of the debauched members of the upper classes, but no one wrote down what the sexual habits of Greek farmers or lowly merchants were. Given that the lower classes tend to be more restrained by their pecuniary situation at the very least we can assume they were not having sex with upper class boys.


Back to Rome, we have an example of laws which were passed and enforced, any claim that they were rarely enforced would need pretty significant evidence which I think you lack. You have made your position clear but have not supported it. The rest of your seething and historical ignorance only betrays the fragility of your argument.

>>17795267
Se ven rete españoles.

>>17795274
Can you provide me with a scientific study which supports your claims?

>>17795267
>>17795272
>These states are brutish, but others arise as a result of disease (or, in some cases, of madness, as with the man who sacrificed and ate his mother, or with the slave who ate the liver of his fellow), and others are morbid states resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these paederasty; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.

The passage you cited appears sexual in part because of translation issues, the Greek conception of beauty and love was not as we would think of it today so to us a passage might seem sexual but to the Greeks this would have had a different meaning. The fact that this relationship continues into adulthood, pretty clearly suggests that it was non-sexual as whatever may have defined the Greeks they were certainly not okay with two citizen adult men having intercourse.

>>17795267
>Insane cope. Thanks for confirming that you're a Brazilian with 40% Sicilian ancestry posting from a favela.
he is fully correct. spaniards and italians (closest to romans) are same dark pigmented caucasoids like greek islanders (closest to ancient greeks). if germans mixed with balts in latvia it would not be racial replacement
>>17795282
that >>17795244 image is from scientific study

>>17795287
The quote included in this post further goes to show even the Greeks understood that sexually abusing children lead to the abused child repeating this behavior and/or becoming incontinent both literally and figuratively. They knew this to be wrong and a brutish characteristic, the question is why you are unable to recognize it as such? Were you perhaps raped as a child? Is this an elaborate schema to cope with the abuse inflicted upon you?

>>17795279
>Aristotle calls it brutishness in Nicomachean ethics, and attributes its expression to abuse from childhood
This is in regards to sexual passivity, not pederasty, which is why he uses a pederastic relationship as an example to highlight a positive aspect of relationships in the same book. The Greeks did not view pederastic relations as compromising the masculinity of either participant, and they did not view sexual attraction to boys as aberrant or effeminate. Pedication was also not expected in these relationships.

>In respect to the views of the common man, these are unknown, so again, unrelated
They are known, authors frequently make reference to them and we can infer their views from wider societal trends. The view of a handful of idiosyncratic philosophers is irrelevant, it's like claiming the Victorians were wide believers in ontological idealism, end this retardation.

>We can assume they were against it as pederasty is very explicitly mentioned to be a habit of the debauched members of the upper classes
This view was common during the late Roman empire. In Greece it was framed to as a noble institution practiced by the societal elite.

>>17795287
This is an inaccurate translation, he is not referring to pederasty, but sexual passivity, which is made clear when he continues:
>Now no one would label men who are subject to this condition because of nature “unrestrained,” just as one would not apply this label to women because they do not mount but are instead mounted.

>The fact that this relationship continues into adulthood, pretty clearly suggests that it was non-sexual
The passage is clearly talking about a sexual relationship. He is stating that a lover and beloved who are in a relationship for pleasure, rather than profit, are more likely to have a continuing friendship.

>>17795292
He literally portrays man/boy relationships positively in the same book, he does not equate these relationships with abuse, insane cope.

>>17795088 (OP)
>same old lies
read: https://archive.org/details/higmc

>>17795279
The Lex Scantinia was poorly documented, rarely enforced, and most citizens were likely unaware of its existence during extended periods of time. It is also vague whether or not it actually criminalizes voluntary sexual relations with freeborn boys, or just rape. It was likely used primarily for political persecution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia

>>17795301
You seem to always resort to posting pornography in these threads when multiple people start countering you, it is quite pathetic.

Anyways the Aristotle quote explicitly mentions pederasty, read it again >>17795287 if you need to, it is a "morbid state" as he terms it. You accuse my translations of being inaccurate, here is my source. And no, even the Xenophon passage does not mention what the opinion of the common man was, you infer it to support your already shaky argument but I shouldn't need to tell you why that is a bad idea.

>https://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.7.vii.html

You then go on to contradict yourself by insinuating that my excerpt refers to sexual passivity but then stating that the apparent sexual passivity he mentions later in your excerpt is somehow fruitful into adulthood. Aristotle was many things and consistent was one of them, either he condemns sexual passivity or he doesn't (he does) and pederasty includes that. He also condemns pederasty explicitly in my excerpt as demonstrated. As to your babbling on Rome you seem to have confused yourself again by suggesting this institution was common in the late Roman empire, which by your own admission is false. Aristotle and many Greek authors portray non-sexual teaching based relationships between men and boys as positive, yes, which is what the excerpt you posted shows.

>>17795307
Can you condense some of the arguments made in this book in this thread? How does that book have any relation to any of the other societies mentioned in the OP?

>>17795308
Yes the wikipedia is quick to undermine the law, I am aware. The uncertainty they try and induce does not come to the matter of pederasty however, instead they try and save face for pathics. All sexual contact between men in the Roman empire was pre-supposed to be rape however, as where pederasty did exist in Rome it was troops of catamites or slave boys that were raped by the elite.

>>17795311
>You seem to always resort to posting pornography
That picture isn't pornographic in the slightest. I have never posted pornography on this board.

>Anyways the Aristotle quote explicitly mentions pederasty
The original Greek text does not use the word παιδεραστία/pederasty, your translation is unfaithful. He wouldn't disavow pederasty, and then continue to use a pederastic relationship to highlight a positive aspect of friendship in the same book, that is absurd. A more accurate translation can be found on the perseus website:
>Other morbid propensities are acquired by habit, for instance, plucking out the hair, biting the nails, eating cinders and earth, and also sexual perversion. These practices result in some cases from natural disposition, and in others from habit, as with those who have been abused from childhood.

>apparent sexual passivity he mentions later in your excerpt is somehow fruitful into adulthood
He didn't say this. The way the Greeks conceived sexual relationships between men and boys did not necessitate that the boy took a sexually passive role, pedication wasn't common and the boys were not expected to be sexually aroused by their partner, which was different to the exploitative form of pederasty practiced by the brown empiremutt Romans. Although I don't personally believe that pedicating boys compromises their masculinity, in fact, I believe it helps develop it, the Greeks did, and as such, avoided doing so.

You are coming to the wrong conclusions about Greek pederasty because you can not separate your modern, Judeo-Feminist conception of sexuality from that of the Greeks.

>suggesting this institution was common in the late Roman empire
No I didn't.

>Aristotle and many Greek authors portray non-sexual teaching based relationships between men and boys
Aristotle portrays men engaging in sexual activities with boys as conducive towards the development of lasting friendships. That is positive.

>>17795331
I have come to conclusion you are largely incapable of reasoning but to address probably your most glaring lie in this post, "This view was common during the late Roman empire. In Greece it was framed to as a noble institution practiced by the societal elite", is a direct quote from your post here >>17795301. Considering how fluidly you change your stance I am unsure if this was just a typo or another insane setting you were attempting to transpose your argument to. Either way sexual passivity is implied in a pederastic relationship that has become sexual, both from extant sources we have describing when it did become sexual, and also from Aristophanes who speaks on of the incontinence experienced by men who were subjects of pederastic relationships in childhood. Aristotle, meanwhile, condemns this sexual passivity, as shown in your excerpt, and sexual pederasty directly, as shown in my excerpt. His disavows firmly all forms of sexual perversion many times in Nicomachean ethics, if you actually read the book instead of screening it for passages you can bend to your narrative, I have a feeling it would benefit you.