Is this image even true? It seems disingenuous at best, I've read a bunch of books from ancient greece and don't remember gay sex coming up at any point, why does the image include Chamides but not what he says in the laws? Why does it include Philo describing the symposium? Hoping the reader thinks he is talking about Plato having real life pedo parties rather than the dialogue? Why is Plutarch accepted as fact when hes the only guy who said that and he started saying it 400 years after? I also remember 99% of the so called gay greek pottery submitted wasnt even gay and was just the guy trying to pull a fast one

well why not? nothing on there says anything about gay sex which they definitely knew about

>>17797547 (OP)
>Is this image even true?
No, the Greeks were massive fags, some people just try to cope with that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc4_36INQ5A
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMs4ijjWA60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB6Bk38xxis

>>17797547 (OP)
So the greeks didn't sanction homosexuality?

>>17797570
>he's gaslighting you
>eros means sex
>I know this to be true
>they didn't use eros for food
>i didn't actually look into that, but it's so clear from... maybe they spoke differently
>he's gaslighting you
>if you have an IQ of 110 you would understand that they don't talk about gay sex because it was taboo, but it happened all the time
these better be two hour parody "refutations"

>>17797547 (OP)
Present day academia cherry picks historical anecdotes/archeology/accounts to create ancient societies which suit the sensibilities of our modern tastes/politics to varying degrees and for different interested parties. A harmless example of this is the art seen medieval illuminated manuscripts dedicated to transcribing ancient works, often there would be depictions of say soldiers or politicians wearing armor or clothes from the 15th century and not the 4th. This is a human impulse in part, but it is also revisionism. The case of making ancients gay is multifaceted, on one hand it poisons the well for conservative views of history by finding reasonable doubt or fault in narratives which entirely ignored these elements and amplifying them through a sort of negative dialectic. On the other hand it comes from a genuine desire of people who are disordered to find reflections of themselves in the past and separate it from any contemporary isolation and condemnation, in a way so they can separate themselves from their contemporary isolation and condemnation. The truth is gay shit happened, it was not liked, in fact it was hated, but it did happen. As long as they have that they will fiercely cling to it because otherwise they are alone.


>>17797570
The Greeks had many words for Gay people, none of them were nice. You should know better than to use the you tube sources the pedophile linked, though I have a feeling you are another one. Gay sex happened but it was definitively loathed in Greek society.

>>17797579
>If you have an IQ of 110 but NOT more than 120 you will agree with everything I say

These were the earth shattering refutations apparently made against the LAC, it's funny because you can just use his sources and not post the video and the faggots usually get all flustered because they have to actually engage with the points made in the video.

>>17797669
>The Greeks had many words for Gay people, none of them were nice
The most commonly used word to refer to persons with a homosexual interest in ancient Greek was the value neutral paiderastes, which translates to "boy-lover". Arsenkoitai is another word, although less common, but completely value neutral.

>>17797570
The only video that was conducted by someone with any attention to detail is the portable orange video and while Bronski is more provably wrong orange uses such deceptive rhetorical tactics. It's hilarious because the pot bellied nigga goes so far into the weeds to find roundabout ways saying absolutely fucking nothing.

>welllll maybe he had his son killed for being gay but the roman legal system PUNISHED him for this

>okkkk so they only had sex with catamites but what about these POETS (who were frequently banished)

>pederasty and adultery were both seen as stuprum but adultery was WORSE

>pederasty (on the whole) was not (entirely) condemned


He argues that LAC is somehow a cherry picking chud but then does the exact same thing but in an even more dishonest way.

>>17797684
Forgot about κίναιδος? Or the ten million other slurs they had?

>>17797690
>none of them were nice

>>17797695
wow you barely SQEUAKED that one in didya

>>17797688
>they only had sex with catamites
that's still gay as hell anon

>>17797714
Yeah but it was generally looked down upon to rape your slaves, like I said it did happen but the Greeks and Romans weren't predominantly gay or even had a majority gay population. It likely appeared in similar volumes the percentage of faggots we have today. So around 1-2% of the population give or take.

>>17797717
Far more than 1-2% of men have the capacity for sexual attraction to boys, and this was the primary form of homosexual expression in antiquity. Homosexuality was much more common in Rome than it is in the modern day.

>>17797720
and on what exactly do you base either of these claims lmao

>>17797547 (OP)

>>17797771
They're talking about the aristocracy recruiting people to join their group through an apprenticeship not unlike a squire or a palace page. They would be brought up, taught etiquette and philosophy and then take their place in greek society. In the martial part of greek/minoan culture some groups like the spartans took this apprenticeship and had mandatory military service starting from the age of like 9 when you start training. Fags say it was only gay sex

It's actually astounding how fags have managed to pull the wool over people's eyes for like 50 years just by blatantly lying

>>17797669
>The case of making ancients gay is multifaceted, on one hand it poisons the well for conservative views of history by finding reasonable doubt or fault in narratives which entirely ignored these elements and amplifying them through a sort of negative dialectic
That's the point. It happened a lot

>>17797717
no. it definitely happens more today

>>17797720
at the same time, there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, furthermore, you did not mention the laws of Athens and Plato's teachings on homosexuality. They were no less "tolerant" than the Bible or the Quran. The most used word was "kinaidos", with a loose meaning of "causing shame"

>>17798483
>you did not mention the laws of Athens
Which were?

>Plato's teachings on homosexuality
Irrelevant to determining what widespread opinion was.

>>17797547 (OP)
A male citizen could lose his legal rights or atleast be seriously ostracized if it was found out he had been penetrated, and a male who penetrated another man (hence damaging his reputation) would have the law or atleast the wrath of the boy's family brought down upon him. Gay stuff like crouch-sex did happen in pederastic relationships (although how frequent is unknown) and I'm sure sodomy did too but it was strongly condemned.

That leaves the issue of slaves, who had no legal rights to lose. Here sodomy did take place, but just like how modern black women like to imagine their ancestors were used as onaholes for massa due to their own sexual fantasies, modern BDSM fags will heavily exegerate just how frequent rape against slaves actually took place.

>>17798475
It didn't happen a lot though, not only is that claim impossible to prove on its own basis but the very staunchly anti-faggot stances we find in ancient societies suggest that it was highly disapproved of. Pretending that it didn't happen is the fault of previous historical narratives, but by no means evidences that it was super common and everyone in Greece was heckin wholesome queer. It is not either black or white you moron, it happened but was evidently disliked and often illegal, much like homosexuality today in non-pozzed countries.

>>17799000
>the very staunchly anti-faggot stances we find in ancient societies suggest that it was highly disapproved of
Such as?

>>17797735
You should know by now that faggots will make claims with absolutely zero supporting evidence or use discredited sources and then accuse you of myopia when you reject their insane claims. It is their bread and butter.

>>17799002
>making a claim that the majority of historians would agree with means that you're a faggot with an agenda

>>17799001
pic rel, or better yet read what they have to say.

https://classics.mit.edu/Browse/index.html

Or look at all the laws they passed preventing homosexuality

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

Or all their evident hatred towards passive partners which I don't even think you are insane enough to deny. Or the entire compendium of stoic philosophy dedicated to condemning wanton sexual lust even towards other adult women.

>>17799009
But every quote in this image besides the Plato one is taken out of context, and Plato was supportive of pederasty in his earlier works. Xenophon was quoting the views of Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta, where he continues to state that most people disagree with his views, and that pederasty is legal in most cities. That quote by Alexander is in response to being offered to purchase two boys as sex slaves; Plutarch in the same work describes Alexander as a boy-lover:
>Moreover, when he came to the royal palace of Gedrosia, he once more gave his army time for rest and held high festival.
>We are told, too, that he was once viewing some contests in singing and dancing, being well heated with wine, and that his loved boy, Bagoas won the prize for song and dance, and then, all in his festal array, passed through the theatre and took his seat by Alexander's side; at sight of which the Macedonians clapped their hands and loudly bade the king kiss the victor, until at last he threw his arms about him and kissed him tenderly.

The quote attributed to Aristophanes is a quote by a character he wrote in a satirical play. Aesop only makes fun of passive homosexuals:
>When Zeus fashioned man he gave him certain inclinations, but he forgot about shame. Not knowing how to introduce her, he ordered her to enter through the rectum. Shame baulked at this and was highly indignant. Finally, she said to Zeus: ‘All right! I’ll go in, but on the condition that Eros doesn’t come in the same way; if he does, I will leave immediately.’ Ever since then, all homosexuals are without shame.

Aeschines was concerned with the fact that Timarchus engaged in prostitution, not homosexuality. Demosthenes actually implies that Aeschines himself made sexual comments towards Alexander the Great, when he was a ten-year-old, in Against Timarchus, the same speech that this quote comes from.

>>17799009
>im going to use a bunch of quotes by greek writers, and then link to laws passed by the romans, and pretend they're the same civilization and hopefully nobody notices

>>17799008
Yeah, it especially does on this topic, because the root of this academic branch has been essentially poisoned by a few books/papers written in the 70s as an attempt to normalize homosexuality. It is clearly motivated by doctrine and not academic curiosity or exploration, homosexuality existing in the Greek/Roman world has now lead to pretty much every major historical figure coincidentally having a gay lover. Some are more egregious examples than others, like Alexander and Hephaestion which are supposed to be gay because Alexander was sad about his bud dying. They all follow a similar pattern, however, of assuming that two men which are close in some way must also have been gay.

If Greece or Rome really did represent a time where there were no institutional forces opposed to homosexuality and people didn't much care if not outright supported homosexuality, tell me why, now, when we have actual verifiable openness to homosexuality and a decline of the influence of Abrahamic religions, is the number still hovering around 2%? It is almost like it is a disorder that effects a small number of people and was never common regardless of where you look, because it is the product of diseased and unfit mind.

>>17799014
Yes later in life he matured and was thoroughly opposed to it is one way of looking at it, but also most of works in "support" were dialogues and do not indicate support so much as a philosophical exercise. As to your Xenophon passage, there is clear evidence that pederasty has multiple types of expression, with only one city state having specified sexual pederasty in that excerpt. The other states he references are left unknown and both the reforms of Solon and Thucydides in Athens and the Spartan constitution he goes on to describe in the very next excerpt explicitly condemn the practice. Mind you these were two of the most important and influential Greek city states. So no, it introduces uncertainty but does not prove that sexual pederasty was even practiced beyond a very narrow slice of time and relative explicitly to Xenophon's knowledge, so perhaps faulty on that basis. As to the rest of your refutation of the image, I didn't make it, I'm sure some of the quotes have lee-way, but it should be noted that a condemnation of passive homosexuality and prostitution (which are like behaviors to active homosexuality) do incline a rational observer to conclude this behavior was also disliked. Pair that with other condemnations of homosexuality in Greek literature, and well maybe you are getting the picture.

>b...b...but plutarch says
Nope faggot, try again.


>>17799018
I very clearly was talking about both Greece and Rome in that post.

>>17799026
>because the root of this academic branch has been essentially poisoned by a few books/papers written in the 70s as an attempt to normalize homosexuality
Then why has homosexuality in antiquity been known about for millennia?

>Alexander and Hephaestion which are supposed to be gay because Alexander was sad about his bud dying
Yes, but a multitude of sources converge on the fact that Alexander had a sexual relationship with the eunuch boy, Bagoas, and other sources describe him as having other boy beloveds. Just because a handful of propagandists try to portray historical figures as having had love affairs with adult men, doesn't mean that the evidence which tells us they had sexual relations with boys is invalid.

>when we have actual verifiable openness to homosexuality and a decline of the influence of Abrahamic religions, is the number still hovering around 2%?
Because the modern form of homosexuality which is accepted is homosexuality between two adult men, a form of homosexuality which has been regarded with disgust since the beginning of recorded history. Far less men have any sexual interest in other adult men than they do towards boys.

Using Romans as an example, Hadrian, Nero, Elagabalus, Trajan, Tiberius, Caligula, and Titus are known to have had homosexual relations, and they comprise close to 10% of Roman emperors. This is far more than the 2% figure which you presented.

If you refuse to differentiate different forms of homosexuality, then you will make incorrect conclusions regarding homosexuality in ancient history.

>>17799039
>with only one city state having specified sexual pederasty in that excerpt
He clearly states that the majority of cities do not criminalize sexual relations with boys, in the context of discussing pederasty. You are a terrible liar.

>The other states he references are left unknown and both the reforms of Solon and Thucydides in Athens and the Spartan constitution he goes on to describe in the very next excerpt explicitly condemn the practice
Solon's laws banned slaves from having a sexual relation with a freeborn boy. Solon was a boy-lover who wrote love poetry about boys himself. Pederasty was widespread and legal in classical Athens, which is why the practice is discussed openly in the works of Plato.

>that a condemnation of passive homosexuality and prostitution (which are like behaviors to active homosexuality)
The Greeks did not believe that the boy in a pederastic relationship necessarily took on a passive role. Furthermore, the Greeks did not always believe that sexual passivity was shameful, which is why figures like Alcibiades were respected. Against Timarchus is an example of a historical text which tells us that both sexual passivity and homosexuality were not viewed as shameful during the time period the speech was given, but rather, prostituting oneself. Prostitution had no more relation to pederasty than it did to heterosexuality.

>Pair that with other condemnations of homosexuality in Greek literature
Example?

>>17798197
Sure there was a mentorship to it, but they were also fucking each other and that part is undeniable.

>>17799043
On what basis do you make the claim it was known about for millennia in the fashion it is today? People knew it existed because faggots have always existed, but the idea that a majority or even a plurality was getting in on it is a figment of modern imagination. Multiple sources converge on this existence of a eunuch slave to Alexander, they do not converge on a sexual relationship unless you are a mentally ill faggot. Also they loathed all sexual contact between two males, as one partner would always need to be passive and thus infame or κίναιδος.

Only two of the emperors you mentioned are known to have had sexual relationships, Nero and Elagabalus. Both were killed for what its worth and Caligula liked loli, Tiberius was propagandized about often on his Villa of Capri and we can firmly reject the stories told. Trajan it is again postulated but no clear evidence beyond he was next to a boy once, I have no idea where you got Titus from but he reigned for two years and then dropped dead, Hadrian sacrificed Antinous in a religious ritual and is later labeled a faggot by the Historia Augusta of all sources. All this should be contextualized with the fact these were emperors they are not representative of broader society and like powerful people today did things unthinkable to average person.

>>17799062
>On what basis do you make the claim it was known about for millennia in the fashion it is today?
The image I posted, retard.

>>17799062
>they do not converge on a sexual relationship unless you are a mentally ill faggot
Yes, they very clearly do. He is stated to be specifically the sexual partner of Alexander, and he is never referred to as a slave. Stop with the lies, Moshe.

>Only two of the emperors you mentioned are known to have had sexual relationships
All of the emperors I mentioned are known to have had sexual relations with males according to historical sources.

>>17799057
>He clearly states that the majority of cities do not criminalize sexual relations with boys, in the context of discussing pederasty. You are a terrible liar.

He says a majority but does not specify them and this opinion only relevant to his specific time and his specific understanding, try again faggot.

>Solon's laws banned slaves from having a sexual relation with a freeborn boy. Solon was a boy-lover who wrote love poetry about boys himself. Pederasty was widespread and legal in classical Athens, which is why the practice is discussed openly in the works of Plato.

It is well known that Athens outlawed sexual pederasty during its golden age, try again you retarded faggot.

> Furthermore, the Greeks did not always believe that sexual passivity was shameful,

Nope they did, try again you stupid faggot.

>Example?

"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". -Aristotle

>>17799069
>Yes, they very clearly do. He is stated to be specifically the sexual partner of Alexander, and he is never referred to as a slave. Stop with the lies, Moshe

Who says this, when do they say it, and where do they say it?

>All of the emperors I mentioned are known to have had sexual relations with males according to historical sources.

Which historical sources?

>>17799064
The image for ants? Yeah that is hardly a basis you dumb faggot, try again.

>>17799078
>and this opinion only relevant to his specific time and his specific understanding
Congratulations on making an obvious statement which could be made of any excerpt, and pretending it's an argument in favour of your position!

>It is well known that Athens outlawed sexual pederasty during its golden age, try again you retarded faggot.
Can you provide evidence of this claim?

>Nope they did, try again you stupid faggot.
Then why does the speech Against Timarchus clearly show us that neither sexual passivity or homosexuality were a point of contention, but prostitution? Why was Alcibiades a respected figure in Greek society despite being known to have been the passive partner in homosexual relations?

>"These states are brutish, but others arise as a result of disease
This is a mistranslation. The word pederasty is never used in this excerpt, he is referring to sexual passivity. In the same book, he makes positive statements on pederasty. Also, this is the single opinion of a philosopher which is not representative of mainstream view, which is why Alcibiades was a respected figure during the same rough time period that Aristotle was writing.

>>17799082
Both the excerpt already posted and:
>There Nabarzanes, having received a safe conduct, met him [Alexander], bringing great gifts. Among these was Bagoas, a eunuch of remarkable beauty, and in the very flower of boyhood, who had been loved by Darius and was afterwards to be loved by Alexander; and it was especially because of the boy's entreaties that he was led to pardon Nabarzanes.
The Histories of Alexander the Great by Curtius Rufus

>>17799085
Dumb phoneposter.

>>17799078
>attempts to ignore a historian's statements which are objective fact claims by stating that his opinion is specific to his time and particular understanding (an obvious statement which is true of any excerpt)
>continues to post the personal moral opinion of a philosopher who was largely ignored by his society as though it is representative of what was believed in ancient greece
What causes this type of retardation? Why would someone undermine their own argument in the same post like this?

>>17797771
this is fucking hilarious

Homos deserve death

>>17799059
>I JUST KNOW they were fucking
>0 references to gay sex for any of the people claimed to be homosexuals by gays
>"t-they just didn't talk about it!"
So there's 0 evidence for pedophiles stealing boys of the street to fuck them as a cultural practice but it happened

>>17799094
>Congratulations on making an obvious statement which could be made of any excerpt, and pretending it's an argument in favour of your position!

But it is relevant, considering that pederasty was condemned in both Athens and Sparta, it is very important. One man making a single sentence reference to the legality without any specificity is hardly evidence for your argument, you would accept this were you not dishonest.

>Can you provide evidence of this claim?

Finding the exact bit from their constitution no, but anyone, and I repeat anyone, who has studied Athenian history knows the shit was outlawed. Forbidden, and not just by Solon. Thucydides even makes offhand mentions and I remember that from a humanities lecture 10 years ago. You pretend as if you have any degree of honesty but your entire argument relies off of either your opponent having a pop-historical understanding of events or them leafing through archives to prove you wrong. No one has the time or patience to debunk things which I am sure you yourself has found to be entirely wrong, you will not admit they are wrong because you have a vested interest in them being right because of your own perverse intentions with children.

>Then why does the speech Against Timarchus clearly show us that neither sexual passivity or homosexuality were a point of contention, but prostitution? Why was Alcibiades a respected figure in Greek society despite being known to have been the passive partner in homosexual relations?

Exceptions which prove the rule, you would have to be a blind fool to suggest passive homosexuality was anything other than hated in antiquity.

>>17799094
>Then why does the speech Against Timarchus clearly show us that neither sexual passivity or homosexuality were a point of contention, but prostitution? Why was Alcibiades a respected figure in Greek society despite being known to have been the passive partner in homosexual relations?

Exceptions which prove the rule, though I am sure if I refreshed my memory on these topics it would also be provable that you were indisputably incorrect. Again your argument hinges on that infographic but the meat of it is that it is undeniable the Greeks loathed passive homosexuality and introducing a highly Jewish negative dialectic like this does not serve your argument save for the rhetorical presentation.

>This is a mistranslation. The word pederasty is never used in this excerpt, he is referring to sexual passivity. In the same book, he makes positive statements on pederasty. Also, this is the single opinion of a philosopher which is not representative of mainstream view, which is why Alcibiades was a respected figure during the same rough time period that Aristotle was writing.

Your translations are perfect but mine are somehow flawed? I would accept that if (considering mine are open source) I did not have a copy of Nicomachean ethics beside me which clearly says that sexual intercourse between males is perversion (Terrence Irwin). It is not just Aristotle, but Plato, and Demosthenes which condemn it too, probably many more I am as of now unaware of. Your dishonesty is plain to anyone who has actually read any of these sources you claim to be so familiar with.

>>17797547 (OP)
>"While one loves boys among the lovely flowers of youth, desiring their thighs and sweet mouths."
I, as a completely heterosexual man, too find myself desiring the thighs of young men.

>>17799094
You call me a phoneposter for not engaging with it but your impossible to verify and scattered sources in that image somehow prove a consistent historiographical awareness of homosexual pedophilia? I don't buy it, the idea of Greek homosexuality is a modern invention, cope harder faggot.

>>17799449
>One man making a single sentence reference to the legality without any specificity is hardly evidence for your argument
It is when he's a learned, well respected historian, who is a widely used primary source in ancient Greek scholarship, and when his statement is in concordance with other historical evidence.

>Finding the exact bit from their constitution no, but anyone, and I repeat anyone, who has studied Athenian history knows the shit was outlawed. Forbidden, and not just by Solon. Thucydides even makes offhand mentions and I remember that from a humanities lecture 10 years ago.
Right, so you have no evidence. You have provided no evidence whatsoever, you just vaguely remember hearing about it in a lecture ten years ago. Next you'll be telling me you remember it from a past life.

>Exceptions which prove the rule
Can you provide evidence that it was the rule?

>Your translations are perfect but mine are somehow flawed?
Yes, because the original Greek text does not use the word παιδεραστί/pederasty. The translation which you are using was likely using the word "pederasty" as synonymous with homosexuality, which was common in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It would be absurd for Aristotle to condemn pederasty, compare it to cannibalism, and then continue to use a pederastic relationship to exemplify a positive aspect of friendship in the same book. Aristotle condemns sexual passivity/sex between men.

And again, Aristotle's personal opinions are irrelevant when it comes to determining the views of wider Greek society, or social customs.

>>17799555
Which one of those sources can you not find online?

>>17797669
>cherry picks historical anecdotes/archeology/accounts to create ancient societies which suit the sensibilities of our modern tastes/politics
That's what you're doing. Everyone else since then has been saying they were boy fuckers, which already wasn't accepted in medieval Europe and sure as fuck isn't accepted now. Meanwhile you're arguing that the ancient Greeks had the exact same views on sexuality that you personally have today over two thousands years later.

>>17799565
>Right, so you have no evidence. You have provided no evidence whatsoever, you just vaguely remember hearing about it in a lecture ten years ago. Next you'll be telling me you remember it from a past life.

I would venture a guess that if you were to read any comprehensive recounting of Athenian history you would very quickly find out that pederasty was outlawed in golden age Athens. This is not some insane historical position, this is fact, finding information on this is a bitch and a half because not much is available on the internet other than unspecific or unconcerned Wikipedia articles.

>Can you provide evidence that it was the rule?

I don't know man, the ten million slurs they had for passive homosexuals, or all the literary condemnations already posted in this thread. Again if I cared I could probably find some but its Saturday and I can hardly be bothered to waste time arguing an obviously false point with a stupid faggot.

>synonymous with homosexuality

It was and always has been synonymous with sexual perversion, but again, I am reading out of the book I have sat next to me and it clearly sates sex between males.

>>17799598
>I would venture a guess that if you were to read any comprehensive recounting of Athenian history you would very quickly find out that pederasty was outlawed in golden age Athens
So can you actually post the evidence?

>>17799567
The sensibility of modern politics is that raping children, especially little boys, is totally ok. I am a radical misogynist and super homophobic for suggesting otherwise in a roundabout fashion.

>>17799600
The Solonian laws to a degree, but again Pericles pushed many reforms to the education system that de-facto removed even non-sexual pederasty from Athenian society. Aeschines also says "if anyone has prostituted his body let him not speak before the assembly". The route of prosecution was also open to parents whose children were victims of sodomites and eromenos were frequently stripped of their citizen rights in Athenian democracy.

>>17799466
Not the fag you're responding to, but honestly after lurking the thread out of morbid curiosity

>"You pretend as if you have any degree of honesty..."

Is a fucking hilarious statement from someone as disingenuous and politically motivated as you anon.

>I would accept that if (considering mine are open source) I did not have a copy of Nicomachean ethics beside me which clearly says that sexual intercourse between males is perversion (Terrence Irwin).

If you have sources post them faggot. You are more passive than the homosexuals you disparage.

You very clearly have no interest in learning, but reinforcing already held ideals. There is no shame in that, but dying on this hill in such a pathetic and lackluster fashion is funnier than you may realize.

whether the greeks did or did not have hella gay buttsex it still has no bearing on how we decide we want to approach hella gay buttsex. crazy, I know.

>>17799622
>The Solonian laws to a degree
They only prohibit slaves from having a sexual relation with a freeborn boy. This is hardly a proscription of the practice, Solon was a boy-lover himself.

>Pericles pushed many reforms to the education system that de-facto removed even non-sexual pederasty from Athenian society
Source? Can you provide a source for that claim?

>Aeschines also says "if anyone has prostituted his body let him not speak before the assembly"
This is in reference to prostitution. The argument is that anybody who is willing to sell his body for profit would be willing to sell his nation for profit. Anybody who has read Against Timarchus can clearly tell that they had no objection to pederasty.

>>17799605
>The sensibility of modern politics is that raping children, especially little boys, is totally ok.
No it fucking isn't. Even accusations of pedophilia against the super rich and powerful are predicated on the idea that it is then used as collective blackmail precisely because fucking kids is the one crime so heinous that evidence of it could destroy the most powerful.
Ancient Greek pederasty is not only in opposition to the popular, modern position on consent and appropriate conduct with children, it also flies in the face of modern dogma concerning the immutability of sexuality. There is nothing about it that supports modern social or political positions.
On the other hand, the lie that the ancient Greeks hated and executed all homos is right in line with the thinking of modern christian retards attempting to export the beliefs of their semitic death cult onto people who died centuries before their favorite jew was even born. Which is doubly pathetic considering even medieval christians had enough restraint to be honest about this.

>>17799630
nigga everyone knows you are either OP or directly from /cm/

>>17799649
Right now it retains a status of illegality and thus can be used for blackmail purpose, but look at the world around you. They constantly convince little boys to transition, get them on estrogen and t-blockers even puberty blockers so they retain their boyish traits. Why do you think they do that? So the boys magically become women? No, its because Jews wants to create generation after generation of gentile children for their rabbis to rape.

>>17799638
>source?

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles) Pederasty was initially a tutelage based institution and even when it became sexual in certain depraved corners of the Greek world it retained that as at least part of its character. Educational reforms did away with the need for pederastic relationships.

>This is in reference to prostitution. The argument is that anybody who is willing to sell his body for profit would be willing to sell his nation for profit. Anybody who has read Against Timarchus can clearly tell that they had no objection to pederasty.

This is in reference to a man who "prostituted" himself with another man; i.e pederasty. Adult citizens did not generally prostitute themselves in Athenian democracy, it is pretty clearly referencing any child raped by an older man.

>>17799702
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericles)
I used Ctrl+F and searched for pederasty/homosexuality, and there were no results. You wouldn't happened to have made a claim which you can't actually provide any evidence to support, right? Why haven't you provided any actual source?

>This is in reference to a man who "prostituted" himself with another man; i.e pederasty.
And the entire speech makes it obvious that the prostitution aspect was the cause for concern, not pederasty or homosexuality.

>it is pretty clearly referencing any child raped by an older man
Timarchus is the one who is being accused of having engaged in prostitution when he was a boy.

>>17799697
>retains a status of illegality and thus can be used for blackmail purpose
No, the whole point is that no other crime would cut it because you can't expect to prosecute someone who has influence within the legal system. So the only effective blackmail is something so hated by society that a failure to prosecute would result in mob justice.
>pederasty is popular and accepted because trannies
trannies are gross abomination that no one of any sex or sexuality is attracted to. And more girls get roped in to that cult than boys. It has no relationship whatsoever with pederasty and I will take your attempt to conflate the two as an admission that you are aware that you are wrong.

>>17799715
>I used Ctrl+F and searched for pederasty/homosexuality, and there were no results.

Because I was speaking in regards to the educational reforms he made, retard. Read my post again and then formulate thoughts.

>And the entire speech makes it obvious that the prostitution aspect was the cause for concern, not pederasty or homosexuality.

The subject this speech is referring to is a he, and is specifically stating any man who has been prostituted (not bought prostitutes) shall not be allowed to speak before the assembly? Did ancient women often buy prostitutes?

>Timarchus is the one who is being accused of having engaged in prostitution when he was a boy.

Woah! Really?

>>17799728
>Because I was speaking in regards to the educational reforms he made, retard. Read my post again and then formulate thoughts.
So you don't actually have evidence that pederasty was outlawed?

>The subject this speech is referring to is a he, and is specifically stating any man who has been prostituted (not bought prostitutes) shall not be allowed to speak before the assembly? Did ancient women often buy prostitutes?
So you don't actually have any evidence that the point of contention in Against Timarchus was the fact that he engaged in homosexual relations?

>>17799692
Aw thanks for calling me cute, kankermongool.
Cope and seethe harder.

>>17799724
Tranny shit is directly related to pedophilia, you ever wonder why they call them femboys?

>So the only effective blackmail is something so hated by society that a failure to prosecute would result in mob justice.

Really? I have seen a lot of high-profile pedophiles who were never prosecuted or were punished far less than they should have been that completely escaped mob justice despite their crimes being well known. In fact I can think of quite a few high profile Jews who made a point of raping as many gentile children as they possibly could.

>>17799735
>So you don't actually have evidence that pederasty was outlawed?

Read this >>17799622 and then this >>17799702

The educational reforms largely removed the excuse pederasty had for existing prior to their institution, though they themselves did not outlaw it which I never claimed.

>So you don't actually have any evidence that the point of contention in Against Timarchus was the fact that he engaged in homosexual relations?

A man who prostituted himself in antique Athens was not prostituting himself for women, you mouth breathing retard.

>>17799737
As predicted, you are in fact a faggot.

>>17799649
This is you

>>17799752
Where did you get that idea? You're the one calling men cute. I accepted your compliment. Accepting compliments from faggots does not make me a faggot. It makes me an egotist. I know it can be hard to tell the difference while you're gripping your knees for daddy.

>>17799747
>Read this >>17799622 and then this >>17799702
But neither of those posts provide any evidence for your claim that pederasty was outlawed in Athens.

>though they themselves did not outlaw it which I never claimed.
But you did claim that here, where you claimed "you would very quickly find out that pederasty was outlawed in golden age Athens": >>17799598

>A man who prostituted himself in antique Athens was not prostituting himself for women, you mouth breathing retard.
Right, but you have provided no evidence that the point of contention in Against Timarchus was the fact that Timarchus engaged in a homosexual relation, rather than prostitution. The fact that he was prostituting himself to males does not prove that homosexuality was the point of contention, female prostitution was looked down upon as well. The quote you posted, "if anyone has prostituted his body let him not speak before the assembly", heavily suggests that it was the prostitution which they took objection to, which reading the full text confirms. You have not provided any evidence to the contrary, you just assume that ancient people shared your modern chr*stcuck views on sexuality.

So this is the best argument that people can provide to prove that pederasty was criminalized in Athens... Leather Apron Cucks are delusional.

>>17799787
>But neither of those posts provide any evidence for your claim that pederasty was outlawed in Athens.

I was referencing the educational reforms in Athens de-facto removing the justification for pederasty.

>But you did claim that here, where you claimed "you would very quickly find out that pederasty was outlawed in golden age Athens

Again I was saying I never claimed the athenian educational reforms outlawed pederasty, just that their existence de-facto nullified pederasty's reason for existing. You are being dishonest, they did outlaw pederasty as evidenced by all the other posts I have made which you have read an responded to.

>Right, but you have provided no evidence that the point of contention in Against Timarchus was the fact that Timarchus engaged in a homosexual relation, rather than prostitution.

If he prostituted himself, it was for other men, simple as. My guess is you posted the shota so you would get banned because this discussion is turning against you.

>heavily suggests that it was the prostitution which they took objection to

Hmm, I wonder who he might have prostituted himself to?

>>17799809
>Again I was saying I never claimed the athenian educational reforms outlawed pederasty, just that their existence de-facto nullified pederasty's reason for existing.
"you would very quickly find out that pederasty was outlawed in golden age Athens"

>You are being dishonest, they did outlaw pederasty as evidenced by all the other posts I have made which you have read an responded to.
I thought you never claimed that pederasty was outlawed in Athens.

>My guess is you posted the shota so you would get banned because this discussion is turning against you.
I posted it because it triggers you.

Am I talking to a bot?

>>17799809
>The more I argued with them, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The Jew had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

>Sometimes I stood there thunderstruck.

>I didn't know what to be more amazed at: the agility of their tongues or their virtuosity at lying.

>>17799815

>>17799809
>Again I was saying I never claimed the Athenian educational reforms outlawed pederasty, just that their existence de-facto nullified pederasty's reason for existing. You are being dishonest, they did outlaw pederasty as evidenced by all the other posts I have made which you have read an responded to.

>I thought you never claimed that pederasty was outlawed in Athens.

No I claimed exactly that, just not in the post regarding the Athenian educational system.

>I posted it because it triggers you.

It triggers no one, it just makes you look like degenerate coomer and bins the threads so you can conveniently forget this BTFO'ing.

>>17799823
>No I claimed exactly that
"though they themselves did not outlaw it which I never claimed."
How can someone be this bad at lying?

>It triggers no one, it just makes you look like degenerate coomer and bins the threads so you can conveniently forget this BTFO'ing.
That isn't a sexualized image, and it does trigger you.

>>17799822
I agree anon, the pedophile Jew and their virtuosity at lying truly does astonish me sometimes. The way they forget all the times they've been proven wrong, or how they squirm in the face the impossibility of their actions even in times far removed from our own. They are horrified by the universal hatred humans have always had for their kikery.

Imagine being so blown the fuck out you start pretending you didn't make a claim which anyone reading this thread can clearly see you made just a few posts prior. Just give up, stop posting and save yourself the embarrassment. It's over.

>>17799829
>How can someone be this bad at lying?

I did not claim that the educational reforms also made pederasty illegal, other statutes did that, as I have showed in my other posts.

>That isn't a sexualized image, and it does trigger you.

It is shotacon, drawn in manga anime style, posted on /his/. It is inherently sexualized because you posted it, nonetheless it does not belong here.

>>17799834
I love when you faggots say that, it lets me know that you truly have nothing left but the rope and your ironic but false detachment. I cannot wait until 9 meals flies out the window and we can just start hunting you.

>>17799840
>"you would very quickly find out that pederasty was outlawed in golden age Athens"
>"you would very quickly find out that pederasty was outlawed in golden age Athens"
>"you would very quickly find out that pederasty was outlawed in golden age Athens"
Utterly humiliated and embarrassed. You are now pretending you didn't say what is on record right here: >>17799598

Just give up. Just stop replying to this thread, you have brought shame upon yourself and can no longer be taken seriously.

>>17799449
>Finding the exact bit from their constitution no, but anyone, and I repeat anyone, who has studied Athenian history knows the shit was outlawed. Forbidden, and not just by Solon.

>>17799844

Take your medication, touch some grass, and don't forget to drink plenty of water. Just please stop schizo posting and thinking everyone is on your side.

>>17799078
>It is well known that Athens outlawed sexual pederasty during its golden age, try again you retarded faggot.

>>17799845
>>17799847

Again I only said I did not claim that pederasty was outlawed in golden ages Athens when you presented that to my post about Athenian educational reforms. You have refused to engage with that and made yourself look like a fool. Athens did outlaw Pederasty for a variety of reasons, the Athenian education system was not my evidence for this claim.

>>17799860
>Again I only said I did not claim that pederasty was outlawed in golden ages Athens when you presented that to my post about Athenian educational reforms
Yes you did. You embarrassed yourself and are trying to move goalposts.

>Athens did outlaw Pederasty for a variety of reasons
>the Athenian education system was not my evidence for this claim.
Where is your evidence for this claim??? You haven't provided any evidence for any one of your claims presented in this thread, including this one.

>>17799860
>i-i just vaguely remember my professor saying something about it ten years ago haha... besides im tired right now, just stop asking for evidence, okay??

>>17799864
>Yes you did. You embarrassed yourself and are trying to move goalposts.

No I didn't, point out exactly where after I mentioned the Athenian education system, that I suggested this was the reason pederasty was outlawed.

>Where is your evidence for this claim???

Athens often revoked the civic rights of those who were eromenos, parents had options for legal prosecutions of those that were erastes, and many prominent Athenians, Athenian Orators and Athenian philosophers condemned the practice. All of these suggest the practice falling out of a favor in a legal sense; i.e pederasty was outlawed.

>>17799871
>Athens often revoked the civic rights of those who were eromenos, parents had options for legal prosecutions of those that were erastes, and many prominent Athenians, Athenian Orators and Athenian philosophers condemned the practice. All of these suggest the practice falling out of a favor in a legal sense; i.e pederasty was outlawed.
Source?? Can you post a source in this thread??

>>17799840
>comes to an anime website to complain about anime
You're what doesn't belong here.

>>17799873

Nah he is going to let the thread die and then repost it while praying someone who has any expertise in Greek history doesn't show up to ruin his fun.

>>17799873
Demosthenes talks at length about the sexual rights of boys, and more particular the legal routes parents had available should their boys be abused. Against Boeotus (39.2) and Neaera (59) in particular. Aeschines talks about how it is a father is required to bring charges against those who would corrupt a boy in his Timarchus case. Like wise the loss of civic rights should perversion occur precluded any young male citizen from engaging in pederastic relationships.

>>17799903
Can you quote these sources here?

>>17799900
It was very clearly the pedophiles that posted this thread, and used the basis of it to set up a discussion for their ideas considering their other threads get banned outright.

>>17799905
>“The laws command the father or brother or guardian to bring charges against those who corrupt the boy…” (Aeschines)

Just one, I'll provide others in a second, need to organize my tabs

>>17799911
>>“The laws command the father or brother or guardian to bring charges against those who corrupt the boy…” (Aeschines)
Which section of Against Timarchus is this from?

>>17799905
>If, now, my opponent can point out a law which gives children the right to choose their own names, you would rightly give the verdict for which he asks. But if the law, which you all know as well as I, gives parents the right not only to give the name in the first place, but also to cancel it and renounce it by public declaration ... (Demosthenes)

>Greeks fuck men on occasion
>they write poems about it
>they talk about it in their philosophical texts
>and their plays
>and in their pottery and artwork
>even some women do it too
And 2000 years later some chudcel will deny it all because Greek society has to align perfectly with American evangelical protestant values or else their entire worldview falls apart

>>17799919
Section 30

>>17799924
Of course they fucked men on occasion you retard. That's exactly what the fuck I have been saying, it was an occasional thing, not some broadly institutionalized nexus of boy fuckery and fag shit.

>>17799925
What translation?

>>17799905
>First, you recall, they laid down laws to protect the morals of our children, and they expressly prescribed what were to be the habits of the freeborn boy, and how he was to be brought up ... (Aeschines)

>>17799929
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.01.0002:speech%3D1

Whichever one Tufts has, again if you read this document you might find the Greeks were as equally disgusted by boy-fucking as any sane person would be today.

>>17799911
>>17799921
>>17799931
There is no reason to believe these excerpts have anything to do with criminalizing pederasty, and the fact that you aren't quoting them in full context makes it obvious that you know that as well.

>>17799932
Your quoted excerpt is not in section 30.

>>17799903
>Against Boeotus 39
>If, now, my opponent can point out a law which gives children the right to choose their own names, you would rightly give the verdict for which he asks. But if the law, which you all know as well as I, gives parents the right not only to give the name in the first place, but also to cancel it and renounce it by public declaration, if they please; and if I have shown that my father, who had this authority under the law, gave to the defendant the name Boeotus, and to me the name Mantitheus, how can you render any other verdict than that for which I ask?
>Against Neaera 59
>For when Phrastor at the time of his illness sought to introduce the boy born of the daughter of Neaera to his clansmen and to the Brytidae, to which gens Phrastor himself belongs, the members of the gens, knowing, I fancy, who the woman was whom Phrastor first took to wife, that, namely, she was the daughter of Neaera, and knowing, too, of his sending the woman away, and that it was because of his illness that Phrastor had been induced to take back the child, refused to recognize the child and would not enter him on their register.
>>17799925
>Against Timarchus 30
>“Or the man,” he says, “who has squandered his patrimony or other inheritance.” For he believed that the man who has mismanaged his own household will handle the affairs of the city in like manner; and to the lawgiver it did not seem possible that the same man could be a rascal in private life, and in public life a good and useful citizen; and he believed that the public man who comes to the platform ought to come prepared, not merely in words, but, before all else, in life.
This is a "hallucinating" bot.

>>17799929
https://dokumen.pub/aeschines-9780292799288.html

Wrong link, though that tufts paper will have it in it as well.

>>17799927
You seem awfully invested in arguing that the Greeks actually le hated boyfucking, when that doesn't seem to be the case at all.

It make me wonder if you are actually the aforementioned seething chudel.

>>17799937
Your quoted excerpt is not in section 30 in this edition either.

>>17799935
>This was the law he passed to deal with young men who commit reckless offenses against their own bodies, while the ones he read to you a little earlier deal with boys; and the ones I am now about to describe deal with the rest of the Athenians.

from >>17799937 this source

>>17799940
From page 30, trying to keep sources ordered,

>but those connected with the boy – father, brother, guardian, teach-ers, in sum those responsible for him. But once he is entered in thedeme register20and knows the city's laws and is now able to determineright and wrong, the legislator from now on addresses nobody else butat this point the individual himself, Timarchus.[19]And what doeshe say? If any Athenian (he says) prostitutes himself, he is not to havethe right to serve as one of the nine archons (the reason being, I think,that these ofÆcials wear a sacred wreath), nor to undertake any priest-hood, since his body is quite unclean; and let him not serve (he says)as advocate21

>>17799948
copy pasting from the pdf has left some artifacts, I apologize, but I do not apologize for your loathsome faggotry.

>>17799940
Section 18 of the tufts source

>>17799948
>from >>17799937 this source
In what section? There is no reason for me to believe the laws they are referring to criminalize pederasty.

>but those connected with the boy – father, brother, guardian, teach-ers, in sum those responsible for him. But once he is entered in thedeme register20and knows the city's laws and is now able to determineright and wrong, the legislator from now on addresses nobody else butat this point the individual himself, Timarchus.[19]And what doeshe say? If any Athenian (he says) prostitutes himself, he is not to havethe right to serve as one of the nine archons (the reason being, I think,that these ofÆcials wear a sacred wreath), nor to undertake any priest-hood, since his body is quite unclean; and let him not serve (he says)as advocate21
This, again, is in reference to prostitution.

>>17799951
It isn't in section 18 either, lying kike.

>>17799948
>This was the law he passed...
This section is in there. But it concerns prostitution, not pederasty. The "quote" here >>17799911 is not present.

>>17799957
directly from section 18

>And I beg you, fellow citizens, to remember this also, that here the lawgiver is not yet addressing the person of the boy himself, but those who are near him, father, brother, guardian, teachers, and in general those who have control of him.

following is section 19

>And what does he say? “If any Athenian,” he says, “shall have prostituted his person, he shall not be permitted to become one of the nine archons,” because, no doubt, that official wears the wreath;1“nor to discharge the office of priest,” as being not even clean of body; “nor shall he act as an advocate for the state,” he says, “nor shall ever hold any office whatsoever, at home or abroad,whether filled by lot or by election; nor shall he be a herald or an ambassador”


No one prostitutes themselves for women, it is the responsibility of the family to seek revenge against the faggot who ravaged their boy.

>>17799961
A man prostituting himself did so for other, usually older and wealthier men. This has always been the nature of pederasty and always will be.

pedophiles BTFO'd, just pack up you sorry faggots, you lost

>>17799963
>No one prostitutes themselves for women, it is the responsibility of the family to seek revenge against the faggot who ravaged their boy.
Right, so you have no evidence that pederasty was criminalized in Classical Athens, and you've just been lying about it the entire thread. Thanks for finally admitting it.

>>17799978

>>17799966
By this logic, a law against female prostitution is also a law against men having sex with their wives since they're both sex with women.

>>17799982
Other than the case against a man who was in pederastic relationships with other men, no. Bu I could probably find some more good reasons if I spent more time looking into it. I'll take this easy victory from a retarded and coombrained pedophile while I am at it, your seething rage has given me so much satisfaction.

>>17799987
Adultery was looked down upon yes, but no, marriage was a formalized and legal institution, pederasty was not. Try again you stupid faggot.

>>17799986
Seethe harder faggot.

I finally get it, this guy is a masochist that gets off on being humiliated on 4chan. He continually posts horribly constructed arguments with no historical basis, knowing they will be refuted, and knowing he will make himself look like an idiot, which he gets off on. He possibly is also waiting for me to post more pictures of cartoon boys, because he secretly likes them, considering how much time he is willing to devote to arguing about this subject. There is no other explanation for this anon's behaviour. Nobody can be this wrong without it being intentional.

>>17800004
>no historical basis

All the historical sources I posted were not enough for you I would suppose.

>>17800008
Yes, because they do not support your argument.

>>17800011
cope harder faggot

>look i posted gigachad.jpg therefore i dont have to present any real evidence

>>17800039
Gonna cry aren't you? You stupid faggot.

>>17799308
The evidence is in all the people talking about it happening and the art they made of it happening.

>>17799043
I cam into this thread specifically for this image. Thanks

>>17800938
The pottery/art really is insufficient evidence given that a vast majority had no depictions of gay sex. It is sufficient evidence that there was gay shit happening but not that it was widespread, us looking at the scenes of art which do depict it and then going "GREECE IS TOTALLY GAY BECAUSE OF THIS" is kind of like looking at furry porn and deciding that all moderns are into dressing up as animals.

>>17801373
Take your autism pills, spergy

>>17801373

Except the issue is that YOU are applying modern ideas on ancient peoples. You are painting the Mycenean and Achaean cultures in the broadest of strokes to win an internet argument.

>"No Greek or Latin word corresponds to the modern term homosexuality, and ancient Mediterranean societies did not in practice treat homosexuality as a meaningful category of personal or public life. Sexual relations between persons of the same sex certainly did occur (they are widely attested in ancient sources), but they were not systematically distinguished or conceptualized as such, much less were they thought to represent a single, homogeneous phenomenon in contradistinction to sexual relations between persons of different sexes. That is because the ancients did not classify kinds of sexual desire or behaviour according to the sameness or difference of the sexes of the persons who engaged in a sexual act; rather, they evaluated sexual acts according to the degree to which such acts either violated or conformed to norms of conduct deemed appropriate to individual sexual actors by reason of their gender, age, and social status. It is therefore impossible to speak in general terms about ancient attitudes to ‘homosexuality’, or about the degree of its acceptance or toleration by particular communities, because any such statement would, in effect, lump together various behaviours which the ancients themselves kept rigorously distinct and to which they attached radically divergent meanings and values."

-The Oxford Classical Dictionary (4 ed.)

The Oxford dictionaries definition and etymology of the word homosexual literally confirms what the due you have been arguing with has been saying.

Please if you take anything away from this, understand that you cannot apply modern morality standards to people who did not exists prior to the dawn of modernity.

>>17801448
I understand modern morality does not apply to ancient peoples, but to pretend like they were all raping children is not an exercise in cultural relativism. Pederasty by no means had clear and consistent expressions, homosexuality was generally hated and those that participated in it were subject to consequences, there are exceptions but these were deeply paternalistic societies with strong traditional ideals. An actual exercise in cultural relativity would be their views on say slavery or marrying extremely young girls, these things actually happened and they happened a lot.

>>17797547 (OP)
>Is this image even true?
You're not capable of critical thought.

>>17801524
>they were all raping children is not an exercise in cultural relativism
In Greece, the eromenos was generally expected to have been past the age of puberty, i.e. not children:
>But, I think, so long as the boy is not his own master and is as yet unable to discern who is a genuine friend, and who is not, the law teaches the lover self-control, and makes him defer the words of friendship till the other is older and has reached years of discretion; but to follow after the boy and to watch over him the lawgiver regarded as the best possible safeguard and protection for chastity.
- Against Timarchus, Section 139

>homosexuality was generally hated and those that participated in it were subject to consequences
Evidently, this was not the case in Classical Athens.

>>17801524
>these were deeply paternalistic societies with strong traditional ideals
This is hilarious. You're all but outright admitting that you cannot begin to imagine a society having a different culture from your own. The traditional values of these people that lived thousands of years ago must be the same as yours.

>>17801585
The age of the eromenos was generally between 12-20, with most being on the younger side when the relationship was sexual. The relationship specified in the Aeschines excerpt YOU posted is directly related to non-sexual pederasty. What you can read in that quote is the implicit guarantees a law giver might have about the boys chastity in such a relationship, so raping the children is out of the picture in this instance. And I would tell you to read Plato's Laws if you want to get an idea what Classical Athens thought about homosexuality.

>>17801596
They weren't, I am opposed to slavery and child marriage and I also think they sucked cock at medicine. We happen to coincide on a few issues, notably their disdain for homosexuality and specifically Aristotle's exploration of virtue and habit or Plato's model of society, but we differ often.

>>17801600
>The relationship specified in the Aeschines excerpt YOU posted is directly related to non-sexual pederasty
What causes this type of retardation? Why is the lover waiting until the younger partner reaches the years of discretion, within the context of a discussion on sexual relations with boys?

>And I would tell you to read Plato's Laws if you want to get an idea what Classical Athens thought about homosexuality.
You really think that Plato's Laws describes actual laws that were instituted in Classical Athens? Are you retarded?

>>17801618
Nigga, read your own damn quote.

>You really think that Plato's Laws describes actual laws that were instituted in Classical Athens? Are you retarded?

Not what I said at all you retard.

>>17801621
Then why would you tell me to read Plato's Laws to get an idea of what Classical Athens thought about homosexuality?

>>17801524

>"to pretend like they were all raping children is not an exercise in cultural relativism."

You just did it again, by modern standards you're absolutely 100% right, they should not be raping children.

THAT WAS NOT HOW ACHEANS LOOKED AT IT. No person in that culture saw it the way we look at it now. It's like an SJW meeting an abolitionist.

SJWs believe a lot of the same things in principle, but the differences in sexual expression ( Sexual Freedom vs. Repression of Sexual Urges) would cause the purple haired nimrod to have an aneurism once they met Sylvester Graham.

>Pederasty by no means had clear and consistent expressions, homosexuality was generally hated and those that participated in it were subject to consequences, there are exceptions but these were deeply paternalistic societies with strong traditional ideals.

See image. A society can be paternalistic and accept fags. Those things are not mutually exclusive. In YOUR mind they are, but in reality no. A society decides what values and morals they deem worthy and then we label it after the fact. It's a label, not every paternalistic society is going to restrict the same practices, uphold the same morals, or even have similar cultural touchstones.

>>17801600
>And I would tell you to read Plato's Laws if you want to get an idea what Classical Athens thought about homosexuality.
Post it here yourself, nigga.

>>17801625
Why would I tell you to read an influential Athenian philosopher to get an idea of what those people might have thought about certain behaviors? Are you really asking me this question?

>>17801546
Everyone else understood the question except you
lol

>>17801636
Hey anon, why don't read Plato's laws to get an idea of what Classical Athens thought of marriage and child rearing?

>>17801632
They were not raping little boys, keep coping, the raped plenty of little girls by modern standards, and I am equally as disgusted by that, yet I don't pretend like they weren't doing it.

>>17801636
Do you believe that Plato's Laws were descriptive of actual laws which were instituted in Athens? Of course they weren't. Plato often goes against the opinion of mainstream society, he is an iconoclastic figure, his opinions were in no way representative of what was believed in Athens, although his works (such as The Symposium and The Phaedrus) can be read as historical sources which tell us how widespread and accepted homosexuality was in Athens.

>>17801633
No, the discussion is over, you lost pretty clearly. It's Sunday, why don't you get ready for the court mandated group therapy session you have at 9 am tomorrow and hop up off this dick.

>>17801644
Never said they didn't rape little girls.

>it has never even read the things it talks about
This thread is a gold mine.

>>17801667
I agree anon, seeing the pedophiles get bodied this hard has been cathartic. The poor stupid faggots screech so hard it is quite enjoyable.

>muh against timarchus proves homosexuality was looked down upon muhfugga
Aeschines was a pederast himself who defended the practice of pederasty, and made it clear that he was not in opposition to the practice, but only took objection to Timarchus' wanton prostitution of himself, which was only an aspect of his wider disreputable behaviour:
>And just here I understand he is going to carry the war into my territory, and ask me if I am not ashamed on my own part, after having made a nuisance of myself in the gymnasia and having been many times a lover, now to be bringing the practice into reproach and danger. And finally—so I am told—in an attempt to raise a laugh and start silly talk among you, he says he is going to exhibit all the erotic poems I have ever addressed to one person or another, and he promises to call witnesses to certain quarrels and pommellings in which I have been involved in consequence of this habit.

>Now as for me, I neither find fault with love that is honorable, nor do I say that those who surpass in beauty are prostitutes. I do not deny that I myself have been a lover and am a lover to this day, nor do I deny that the jealousies and quarrels that commonly arise from the practice have happened in my case. As to the poems which they say I have composed, some I acknowledge, but as to others I deny that they are of the character that these people will impute to them, for they will tamper with them.

>The distinction which I draw is this: to be in love with those who are beautiful and chaste is the experience of a kind-hearted and generous soul; but to hire for money and to indulge in licentiousness is the act of a man who is wanton and ill-bred. And whereas it is an honor to be the object of a pure love, I declare that he who has played the prostitute by inducement of wages is disgraced. How wide indeed is the distinction between these two acts and how great the difference, I will try to show you in what I shall next say.

>>17801681
>But not to dwell too long on the poets, I will recite to you the names of older and well-known men, and of youths and boys, some of whom have had many lovers because of their beauty, and some of whom, still in their prime, have lovers today, but not one of whom ever came under the same accusations as Timarchus. Again, I will tell over to you in contrast men who have prostituted themselves shamefully and notoriously, in order that by calling these to mind you may place Timarchus where he belongs.

>First I will name those who have lived the life of free and honorable men. You know, fellow citizens, Crito, son of Astyochus, Pericleides of Perithoedae, Polemagenes, Pantaleon, son of Cleagoras, and Timesitheus the runner, men who were the most beautiful, not only among their fellow citizens, but in all Hellas, men who counted many a man of eminent chastity as lover; yet no man ever censured them.

>And again, among the youths and those who are still boys, first, you know the nephew of Iphicrates, the son of Teisias of Rhamnos, of the same name as the defendant. He, beautiful to look upon, is so far from reproach, that the other day at the rural Dionysia when the comedies were being played in Collytus, and when Parmenon the comic actor addressed a certain anapaestic verse to the chorus, in which certain persons were referred to as “big Timarchian prostitutes,” nobody thought of it as aimed at the youth, but, one and all, as meant for you, so unquestioned is your title to the practice. Again, Anticles, the stadium runner, and Pheidias,the brother of Melesias. Although I could name many others, I will stop, lest I seem to be in a way courting their favor by my praise.

>>17801683
>But as to those men who are kindred spirits with Timarchus, for fear of arousing their enmity I will mention only those toward whom I am utterly indifferent. Who of you does not know Diophantes, called “the orphan,” who arrested the foreigner and brought him before the archon, whose associate on the bench was Aristophon of Azenia? For Diophantes accused the foreigner of having cheated him out of four drachmas in connection with this practice, and he cited the laws that command the archon to protect orphans, when he himself had violated the laws that enjoin chastity. Or what Athenian was not indignant at Cephisodorus, called Molon's son, for having ruined his surpassing beauty by a most infamous life? Or Mnesitheus, known as the cook's son? Or many others, whose names I am willing to forget?

Another Athenian (Aristophanes) writing in a similar time-frame makes the same distinction between a socially accepted form of pederasty, and prostitution in the excerpt just posted. This distinction is similar to the one which Aristotle makes in his Nichomachean Ethics.

>>17801687
Aristotle comparing pederastic relationships which are an expression of mutual affection, with pederastic relationships which amount to prostitution:
>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.

So there you go, three prominent Athenians making the same distinction between socially accepted pederastic relationships, and prostitution, which makes it clear and apparent that they did not view pederasty per se as disreputable, but rather, prostitution.
>inb4 they're actually talking about chaste, totally non-gay pederasty

>>17801681
>Actually Aeschines was a PEDERAST who LOVED little boys

Yeah man you guys all argue the same way, evidence is presented that Athenian society clearly had an issue with homosexuality and valued chastity especially for their young male children, then you find other fragmentary excerpts which could be interpreted as hinting at gay sex in a roundabout way as some sort of proof that the broader society were all fucking little boys. It is an insane transposition and you've done it tens of times in this thread alone. All pederastic relationships which became sexual were seen as prostituting oneself, which makes a lot of sense if you think about it for like 5 seconds.

>>17801699
>>Actually Aeschines was a PEDERAST who LOVED little boys
"And just here I understand he is going to carry the war into my territory, and ask me if I am not ashamed on my own part, after having made a nuisance of myself in the gymnasia and having been many times a lover, now to be bringing the practice into reproach and danger. And finally—so I am told—in an attempt to raise a laugh and start silly talk among you, he says he is going to exhibit all the erotic poems I have ever addressed to one person or another, and he promises to call witnesses to certain quarrels and pommellings in which I have been involved in consequence of this habit."

"I do not deny that I myself have been a lover and am a lover to this day, nor do I deny that the jealousies and quarrels that commonly arise from the practice have happened in my case."

>and valued chastity especially for their young male children
They mean relative chastity, which is obvious to anyone with a sufficient level of reading comprehension when engaging with those excerpts. They don't mean a total abstinence from sexual activity.

>>17801694
All pederastic relationships which became sexual were viewed as prostitution. Given that it would be unchaste and effeminate to derive pleasure from sex with another man it is assumed that, were the eromenos engage in sexual relations and he wasn't a shameful person, he was prostituting himself. Non-sexual pederasty was a tutelage based relationship and likely the most common and intended expression of the practice at least in Athens.

>>17801702
>They mean relative chastity, which is obvious to anyone with a sufficient level of reading comprehension when engaging with those excerpts. They don't mean a total abstinence from sexual activity.

>source: my ass

>>17801702
>>17801703
>>17801708
Why does this topic in particular always bring out the most laughable delusionposting? Can you seriously not cope with the fact that an ancient civilization which you have little or no relation to engaged in widespread homosexuality?

>>17801703
>All pederastic relationships which became sexual were viewed as prostitution.
>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.

>>17801731
That is because you are using our modern understanding of the word eros in translation. They would use eros to describe food, an erotic relationship appears to have sexual implications for us but it would not have had that in Ancient Greece. Wrong again faggot, go run back to your sources and do it quickly stupid faggot, chop, chop.

>>17801715
Because people are debating a lie and when you debate a lie both sides sound retarded

>>17801741

>>17801741
>an erotic relationship appears to have sexual implications for us but it would not have had that in Ancient Greece
He literally uses the word "erotic" to describe a relationship which is sexual, in the excerpt you are responding to.

>>17801744
No, only one side sounds retarded.

>>17801791
You can see the same thing with the Holocaust. When people engage Holocaust truthers on their level, you look like a moron because they only post strawmen. And of course they look retarded for doing so

It's the same way with this. When you debate a lie nothing ever gets accomplished because one side is lying and the other side is trying to disprove something with no evidence

>>17801804
No. Again, only one side sounds retarded. And it's probably you since this damage control only makes sense from the person that made himself look like an idiot.

>>17801823
How do retarded faggots that believe this nonsense not look ridiculous

>>17801774
He makes no mention of sex in that excerpt, try again you stupid faggot.

I have a pathological need to plap twinks in togas

>>17802000
astute of you to recognize it as pathological

>>17802000
You can't plap a twink, anon. That's what you do to fat girls. Maybe fat guys too but I dunno why you'd do that.