Thread 18059860

So a lot of people like to depict Rome and ancient Greece (and much of early Europe for that matter) as very homosexual nations/empires.
So....Is it true? Is it played up for modern times?

>>18059860 (OP)
>were there fags throughout history?
yes
>were Europeans ever broadly tolerant of it until modernity?
no, but the exact views have differed throughout history
>is it played up?
drastically
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNAT4ybsz_E

>>18059860 (OP)
Male love is the highest form of love

>>18059860 (OP)
Its hard to say for sure. Some thought it was o.k. some did not.
Supposedly there were twink companions for the pantheon. But it may have just been some fags daydream.
It had its versions of San Franscisco and pride parades. And the prostitution centers may have catered to both preferences.
The short answer is it was regional. And some people didn't like it at all.

>>18059866
>the few fags in ancient Greece/Rome were Pedophilic elites
I don't think that's the epic gay win many think it is.

>>18059904
You seem to have invented some sort of argument and randomly (you)d me.

There's a pretty big rabbit hole which I haven't flushed out about the introduction of Pederastie to western vocabularies and the assumption that greeks had homosexual relationships. Of course this happened around the renaissance

This >>18059891 but even back then there was just constant back and forth of ideas and competing philosophies so who is to say for sure. But it was there and it was important enough that it was a big part of the lore of certain Gods, like Apollo.
A big issue is that every time that this topic comes up someone will try to derail the conversation to bring up p*doshit.
A lot of the time young men who were between the ages of 16 and 20s were called boys but people come into the conversation always talking about underaged prepubescent boys and I honestly blame heterosexual men and women for that because usually you will not see children depicted until after Aphrodite became very popular with her child, who just so happens to be called Eros.

>>18059860 (OP)
>So....Is it true?
Yes
>Is it played up for modern times?
Also yes.

>>18059920
The source material definitely has references to it. But much of it argues against the practice of it. Aristocracy and class barriers may have been partly a reason for it. As well as not having birth control. Similar to some religions, when women's chastity or monogamy is highly valued, men are still horny. It happens all the time today when its illegal as hell, pederasty that is.

>>18059931
not really, there's basically 0 references before around the renaissance to greeks being fags, and it's almost entirely predicated on the induction of pederasty into northern vocabularies which translates literally to "lover of boys"

>>18059925
>Eros
like the corrupt Greek scribe who conspired to assassinate a righteous and benevolent Princeps, literally the best they had been blessed with since Trajan, possibly even Augustus
275 AD never forget

>>18059920
If you look at the history of the translation of Roman poets you'll find that in the anglosphere at least people deliberately downplayed the sex with boys stuff.
Some people were clearly in to it in both Greece and Rome. Probably mostly the aristocratic class. Some people disliked it but people were doing it. There's at least 4 separate mythological inventions of pederasty in the hellenic imagination I can think of off the top of my head. Aristophanes made fun of effeminate gay men, there's that story from one of the Roman historians about Caesar's soldiers making fun if him for being a bottom.
People were clearly having homosex. These people also seemed largely to have also taken wives and had children. Certain contexts or acts were unmanly, and a source of mockery, but overall people don't seem to have been that bothered by gay sex (at least as long as one of thrm was younger).
I don't think that in the ancient world fucking boys made you "gay". Gay doesn't seem to have been an identifier really. It was something you did or didn't do. The greeks were a lot like gamers in an Astolfo thread.

>>18059975
if a word doesn't mean what people says it means suddenly greeks are talking about fucking boys in the street

>>18059860 (OP)
https://archive.org/details/higmc
In short, the homo narrative is bullshit propped up by americans. Many of which cant even read greek. But I would recommmend reading the book for a deeper explaination.

>>18059952
Have you read Socrates dialogues? Are they a Renaissance fabrication?
Those Sacred Thebans did more than wrestle to form thier fighting bond.

>>18059860 (OP)
Boy fucking was fairly common in both ancient Greece and Rome, if that's what you mean. They didn't think about sexuality the way we do. They didn't even think of sexuality the same way as one another. So they wouldn't have fit neatly into modern sexual identities. But they did fuck boys a lot.

The only thing greeks cared about was beauty and excellence and that included the beauty of young men

Plays, poems, philosophical texts, and satire magnify the phenomenon because writers often focused on the philosophical dimensions of sex.

>>18060077
>>18060104
By the classical period they fucked boys so much they had mythic etiologies for boy fucking. But "gay man" doesn't seem to have been an identity the way that people make it today.

>>18060077
did they?

>>18060130
this is how you can tell these people are full of shit because being gay was a thing and they were called sodomites

Boys are attractive because their secondary sexual features are not fully developed so they have a feminine appearance that is still distinct from that of a woman.
Most men will kiss and cuddle boys if they could do it without any repercussions. Sex is another topic.
There I said it.

>>18060077
No they didnt, nothing less attractive than a soldier on the field.

>>18060136
Yes I'm sure the greeks of 600BC were using a term from the hebrew bible to describe sex acts that's a completely coherent thought.

>>18060156
Well the greeks just called them faggots.

>>18060163
I doubt you'll find the word faggot extant in any dialect of classical greek.

>>18060195
Well the greek word for faggot obviously.

>>18059920
>>18059952
>>18060049

>>18060204
Forgot image

>>18060206
the final piece to the puzzle is of course "sexology"

>>18059860 (OP)
Probably played up for modern times.

>>18060200
That being?

>>18060218
Kinaidos. How do you not know this?

>>18060141
>they have a feminine appearance
Not really. In fact, I'd argue it's somewhat the opposite.
Among pederastic societies like the ancient Greeks and feudal Japanese, fucking boys in their mid teens was the norm and continuing to fuck them into their late teens was not uncommon. By that point boys have decidedly masculine bone structure and musculature. But they're not hairy and their faces are still semi-neotenous.
That's really what it's about. It's a specific point in male development when the attractive features of masculinity and youth are able to coexist.

>>18060225
Basically meant "effeminate" and applied exclusively to bottoms. Not at all the same thing as calling someone a "sodomite". It was a criticism of a lack of masculine behavior. The greeks depicted their own gods as engaging in pederasty, you going to give me some examples of them calling Zeus or Poseidon Kinaidos?

>>18060245
It also mean you weren't a person and lost citizenship in athens.

>>18060245
it meant "anus" and meant you liked it up the ass

>>18060250
Not true. That’s only if you prostitute yourself

>>18060275
No it applied to all kinaidos.

>>18060276
Then why not Agathon and Pausanias

>>18060285
You'll first have to prove that plato's dialogues are entirely non-fiction for me to give a shit about the characters in them.

>>18060275
So not a word for having sex with another male then

>>18059860 (OP)
They had a different view of sexuality in general and men are always going to fuck each other in the ass eventually but a lot of this is definitely played up by modern alphabet soup people saying "See, LGBTQIASSFAGGOTS+ was literally always accepted by the general public, you're just a bigot" for political points

>>18060320
The truth nuclear bomb that his is unprepared for is that the burning hatred for gays they demand to see in the ancient past is actually a result of their own internalization of the values of jewish scripture.

I don’t understand why most people have this idea that homosexuality is all about being a femboy OR wanting to fuck femboys in the ass

>>18060334
Because this discussion usually takes place in the classical Mediterranean context where it was perfectly acceptable behaviour for a grown aristocratic man to take a boy as his lover under the stipulation that you stopped taking dick once you became a man yourself and started giving it.
They thought that grown men acting like queeny cocksluts was unforgivably cringe.

>>18060334
The jews feminized the shit out of gay culture and poisoned the well with tranny freaks of all shades.

>>18060342
>under the stipulation that you stopped taking dick once you became a man yourself and started giving it.

The boys they took as "lovers" were usually not citizens themselves. They were branded as luckless catamites in Rome or stripped of their civic rights in Greece and had to live the rest of their lives as essentially property. The passive partner, therefore, was almost always a slave or otherwise disadvantaged member of society.

Philip was killed by his gay lover and Alexander didn't have kids. Use your head

>>18060446
Alexander had a kid

>>18060390
>The boys they took as "lovers" were usually not citizens themselves
Literally false. also why would they build statues of these faggots and put them up everywhere then. Harmodius and Aristogeiton

>>18060522
Forget it anon. He has internalised the torah's hatred of gay sex and will do anything he can to deny and downplay it in societies he admires.

>>18060522
What?

>>18060527
If you want an honest look at what homosexuality was in the ancient world this is it. It was degenerate faggots raping their slaves, I don't know why you get so hung up about this, ancients were different from us and lived in a different world with different rules. To them there was no good or bad as we conceive of it today, it was just the great and the weak. That was their moral paradigm.

>>18060547
That was a lot of words for agreeing with me.

>>18060552
I think you misunderstand, the ancients knew they were raping their slaves, they just didn't care. Do you care if a pen runs out of ink, or if you drop a glass and it shatters? No, it can be replaced easily. That was how they viewed humans that they owned, their agency and their life had no value.

>>18060522
>the elite can get away with raping kids
Some things never change.

>>18060564
Remember Podesta's painting, or the ones in Epstein's various properties. The deliberate lack of critical thinking to ignore the parallels is shocking to say the least. I wonder if in a few thousand years this exact thread will repeat but this discussing Podesta and Epstein instead of Episthenes and Pederasty.

>>18060566
Probably.

>>18060390
>or stripped of their civic rights in Greece
This didn't happen.

>>18060576
Men that took it up the ass often would get unperson'd or at least be the target of extreme social shame. They had whole elaborate slurs for them and everything.

>>18060582
>Men that took it up the ass often would get unperson'd or at least be the target of extreme social shame
Where is your evidence that boys involved in pederastic relationships in ancient Greece were stripped of their civic rights, as was your original claim?

>>18060586
I mean you have the case prosecuted by Aeschines against Timarchus, and the general social stigma associated with it is evidence that this wasn't some unique to Athens hatred. I could probably bring up more cases of rape victims getting stripped of their civic rights after getting raped, but just think about it for a moment. The Greek's had serious stigma about being the passive partner in sexual relationships, what kind of aristocratic/noble family would allow their boys to be raped by some syphilitic old freak and deal with this ostracism?

>>18060590
>I mean you have the case prosecuted by Aeschines against Timarchus
Which had to do with prostitution, not the fact that Timarchus was involved in a pederastic relationship (which you would know had you bothered to read Against Timarchus or any secondary literature about it).

>and the general social stigma associated with it
What is your evidence for this assertion?

>I could probably bring up more cases of rape victims getting stripped of their civic rights after getting raped
You haven't brought up a single case of this happening.

>>18060594
>Which had to do with prostitution, not the fact that Timarchus was involved in a pederastic relationship

The prostitution bit is pretty obviously euphemistic. Aeschines never provides evidence that Timarchus took any money nor would those with the means or ability to have pursued him sexually have been women. He also was mentioned by Aeschines to have been a boy at the time of the events. It is pretty obvious what he is being prosecuted for if you don't have an immense personal bias preventing you from acknowledging the reality of the situation.

>What is your evidence for this assertion?

κίναιδος

>>18060594
>What is your evidence for this assertion?

ἀρσενοκοίτης

>>18060594
>What is your evidence for this assertion?

παλακός

διγιντάγκας

κουνιστός

oh and most importantly

πισωγλέντης

>But what other law has been laid down for the protection of your children? The law against panders. For the lawgiver imposes the heaviest penalties if any person act as pander in the case of a free-born child or a free-born woman. The son, as one whose person had been prostituted, was debarred from addressing the assembly of the people. cp.

>And what other law? The law against outrage, which includes all such conduct in one summary statement, wherein it stands expressly written: if any one outrage a child (and surely he who hires, outrages) or a man or woman, or any one, free or slave, or if he commit any unlawful act against any one of these. Here the law provides prosecution for outrage, and it prescribes what bodily penalty he shall suffer, or what fine he shall pay. Read the law.

>[If any Athenian shall outrage a free-born child, the parent or guardian of the child shall demand a specific penalty. If the court condemn the accused to death, he shall be delivered to the constables and be put to death the same day. If he be condemned to pay a fine, and be unable to pay the fine immediately, he must pay within eleven days after the trial, and he shall remain in prison until payment is made. The same action shall hold against those who abuse the persons of slaves.]”

>Now perhaps some one, on first hearing this law, may wonder for what possible reason this word “slaves” was added in the law against outrage. But if you reflect on the matter, fellow citizens, you will find this to be the best provision of all. For it was not for the slaves that the lawgiver was concerned, but he wished to accustom you to keep a long distance away from the crime of outraging free men, and so he added the prohibition against the outraging even of slaves. In a word, he was convinced that in a democracy that man is unfit for citizenship who outrages any person whatsoever.

lol. lmao even. Apparently the Athenians were even better than I previously thought.

>>18060637
Surely this can't be ... judeo-feminist thought has reached 5th century Athens!

Woe!

I say

Woe!

>>18060600
>>18060603
>>18060608

The slurs never fail to shut these annoying faggots up

Aeschines attributes to Solon laws prohibiting prostitution involving boys or women:
>[13] Now after this, men of Athens, he legislates for offenses that, though they are grave, still (I think) occur in the city. For it was the fact that some unseemly acts actually took place that led the men of old to lay down the laws. Anyway, the law states explicitly that if any father or brother or uncle or anyone at all in the position of guardian hires a boy out as a prostitute—it does not allow an indictment to be brought against the boy in person but against the man who hired him out and the man who paid for him, the former because he hired him out and the latter, it says, because he hired him. And it has made the penalties the same for each of them, and it adds that any boy who has been hired out for prostitution is not obliged on reaching maturity to keep his father or provide him with a home, though on the father’s death he is to bury him and to carry out the other customary rites. [14] Observe how fair this is, men of Athens. In life the law deprives him of the advantages of parenthood, as he deprived his son of the right of free speech, while after death, when the recipient cannot perceive the benefit conferred on him but it is the law and religion that receive the honor, finally it instructs the son to bury his father and to perform the other customary rites. What other law did he lay down to protect your children? The law against procuring, to which he attached the most severe penalties, if anyone procures for prostitution a free boy or woman.

Aeschines attributes to Solon a law prohibiting a man who has prostituted himself (this is not just euphemistic for homosexuality, but explicitly referring to prostitution) to hold public office:
>[19] And what does he say? If any Athenian (he says) prostitutes himself, he is not to have the right to serve as one of the nine archons (the reason being, I think, that these officials wear a sacred wreath), nor to undertake any priesthood, since his body is quite unclean; and let him not serve (he says) as advocate for the state or hold any office ever, whether at home or abroad, whether selected by lot or elected by a vote;
>[20] let him not serve as herald, nor as envoy (nor let him bring to trial people that have served as envoys, nor let him act as a sykophant for pay), nor let him voice any opinion in the Council or the Assembly (not even if he is the cleverest speaker in Athens). If anyone acts against these provisions, he has allowed for indictments (graphai) for prostitution and imposed the most severe penalties. Read this law out to them as well, to make you aware of the noble and decent character of the established laws, against which Timarchus has dared to address the Assembly, a man whose way of life is known to you all.

He argues that a man who sells his body would be inclined to sell out the interests of the city (this argument is contingent on prostitution not being euphemistic):
>[29] And who are the next ones he forbids to speak? ‘‘Or anyone,"" he says, ‘‘who has not performed all the military service he is ordered to, or has thrown away his shield,’’ and rightly. Why exactly? Mister, when you do not take up arms for the city or because of cowardice cannot protect it, do not presume to give it advice. Who are the third group he addresses? ‘‘Or anyone who has been a prostitute,’’ he says, ‘‘or has sold himself.’’ For the man who has willfully sold his own body would, he thought, casually sell out the interests of the city.

Explicit talk of prostitution:
>[40] Now this man first of all, as soon as he ceased to be a child, settled in the Piraeus in the establishment of the doctor Euthydicus, ostensibly to learn the profession but in reality because he had determined to sell himself, as events themselves showed. I pass over voluntarily all the merchants or other foreigners or our fellow citizens who had the use of his body during that period, so that nobody can say that I am dwelling excessively on every detail. I shall confine my account to the men in whose house he has lived, bringing shame on his own body and the city, earning a living from the very practice that the law forbids a man to engage in, or forfeit the right to address the people.

Note from translation "Presumably Aeschines has in mind entertainers who performed at symposia; certainly in the case of females in this category, the borderline between musician and prostitute was fluid.":
>[41] There is a man named Misgolas son of Naucrates of Collytus, men of Athens, a man who in other respects is decent and above criticism but who has a phenomenal passion for this activity and is always in the habit of having male singers and lyre-players in his company. I say this not to indulge in low gossip but so you will recognize who he is. This man, perceiving the reason for Timarchus’ spending his time at the doctor’s house, paid a sum of money in advance and moved Timarchus and set him up in his own house, a fine figure of a man, young and unprincipled and ready for the acts that Misgolas was eager to perform, and Timarchus to have done to him.

"Kept-lover' is the translation of hetairikós. Again, Aeschines explicitly states it is because it is done so for pay:
>[51] Now, men of Athens, if this man Timarchus had stayed with Misgolas and had not gone to live with anyone else, his conduct would have been more decent, if indeed there is any decency in such behavior, and I would have hesitated to charge him with anything beyond the frank term used by the legislator, that is, only with having been a kept lover. For I think that this is exactly the charge for anyone who engages in this activity with a single partner but does so for pay.

Here he accuses Timarchus of being peporneumenos (i.e. a whore):
>[52] But if, ignoring these wild men, Cedonides and Autoclides and Thersander, into whose houses he has been taken to live, I remind you of the facts and demonstrate that he has earned his living with his body not only at the home of Misgolas but also in the house of another and then another, and that he went from this one to yet another, then it will be clear that he has not only been a kept lover but (and by Dionysus!—I don’t think I can evade the issue all day) has actually prostituted himself. For I think that this is exactly the charge for anyone who engages in this activity casually with many partners for pay.

Aeschines accuses Timarchus of prostituting himself to a slave to finance his lifestyle:
>[54] One of the people who pass their time there is a man called Pittalacus; this person is a public slave of the city. Now Pittalacus, who was financially well-off and had seen Timarchus passing his time there, took him up and kept him at his house. And this vile creature was not bothered even by this, that he was about to shame himself with a person who was a public slave of the city; no, his only concern was to get a backer to finance his vile habits, while to questions of decency or disgrace he gave not a moment’s thought

More prostitution:
>[57] Well-off as he was, and as a regular visitor to the house of Pittalacus, who was a gambling partner of his, he saw Timarchus there for the first time. He was impressed, and his passion was aroused, and he wanted to take him into his own house; he thought, I imagine, that Timarchus’ nature closely resembled his own. First of all he spoke to Pittalacus, urging him to let him have Timarchus; and when he could not persuade Pittalacus, he assailed Timarchus here in person. It did not take much argument; he persuaded him instantly. Indeed, when it comes to the actual business, his candor and openness to persuasion are remarkable; for this very reason he should properly be an object of hatred.
>[58] After he had left Pittalacus and been taken in by Hegesander, Pittalacus was, I think, distressed at having spent so much money (as he saw it) to no purpose and jealous of what was going on. And he kept going to the house. And because he was annoying them, observe the great feat of Hegesander and Timarchus!

Here Aeschines addresses the fact that he does not have evidence that Timarchus prostituted himself:
>[79] Come now, in the name of Zeus, if Timarchus had been compelled to submit to a vote on this way of life of his like that on birth qualifications, to determine whether he is guilty or not, and the issue was being decided in court, and was being brought before you as now, but it was forbidden by some law or decree either for me to make an accusation or for Timarchus to offer a defense; and the herald here standing near me put to you the proclamation in the law: ‘‘Of the voting counters, the hollowed one for whoever believes Timarchus has prostituted himself, the solid one for whoever believes he has not,’’ how would you have voted? I know full well that you would have convicted him.
>[87] Well then, by Zeus and the gods, if those involved had resorted to the same defense used now by Timarchus and his supporting speakers, and insisted that either there should be explicit testimony on the charge or the jurors should disbelieve it, then it would certainly be necessary following this logic for the one man to attest that he offered a bribe and the other that he took it, when there is a penalty of death laid down in law for each, just as on the present matter if someone hires out an Athenian for abuse, and again if any Athenian willingly takes money for the shameful use of his body.
>[89] Now if this trial were taking place in another city that had been called to adjudicate, I should have expected you to be my witnesses, as the ones who know best that I am telling the truth. But since the trial is in Athens and you are at the same time judges and witnesses to my account, my task is to remind you and yours not to doubt me. For in my opinion, men of Athens, Timarchus here is concerned not only for himself but also for all the rest who have practiced the same profession.

Pederastic relationships in Greece often involved an exchange of gifts, but this alone would not qualify the relationship as "prostitution". Likewise, men often provide women with resources/gifts/etc. while maintaining sexual relationships with them, but this does not qualify the relationship as prostitution. Which is why Aeschines is concerned with hand-waiving away the fact that he does not have explicit evidence that Timarchus prostituted himself.

The issue here is prostitution, not pederasty. Pederastic relationships were viewed as legitimate in ancient Greece, so long as they conformed to certain expectations.

Pic rel. is Aristophanes' satirical take, highlighting that there was a perceived difference between a socially condoned pederastic relationship, and a mercenary one.

Anticipating the defense argument that Aeschines can not provide evidence that Timarchus was taxxed for engaging in prostitution (which, if was as known about as he implies, tax collectors would have known about):
>[119] That consummate speaker Demosthenes claims that either you must expunge the laws or else you must pay no attention to my arguments. He says he is amazed if you don’t all remember that every year the Council sells off the prostitution tax, and that those who buy the right to exact the tax do not guess but have precise knowledge of the people who engage in this trade. While I have had the audacity to charge that Timarchus has no right to address the people when he has prostituted himself, Demosthenes claims that the practice itself calls not for an allegation from a prosecutor but for a deposition from a taxman who has collected the tax from Timarchus.
>[120] Men of Athens, see whether you find the reply I make to this simple and frank. I am ashamed for the city’s sake if Timarchus, the people’s adviser, the man who has the nerve to serve on embassies to the rest of Greece, will not attempt to cleanse his reputation of the whole business but instead will query the locations where he offered himself and ask if the tax-collectors have ever collected the prostitution tax from him.

Hand-waiving the fact that he does not have evidence of an exchange of money for sexual services is important, because his prosecution relies on it:
>[123] In contrast, the argument that Demosthenes is trying to persuade you to use is not the speech of a free man but of a prostitute who is quibbling about locations. But since you take refuge in the names of the lodgings and demand that the case be proved on the basis of the establishment where you plied your trade, once you have heard what I am about to say you will not use this argument if you have any sense. It is not buildings or lodgings that give their names to the occupants, but occupants who give the titles of their individual practices to their locations.
>[124] Where a number of people have rented a single building divided among them, we call it an apartment building. Where one man lives, we call it a house. Surely if a doctor moves into one of the shops by the roadside, it is called a doctor’s surgery. If he moves out and a blacksmith moves into the same shop, it is called a smithy. If it is a fuller, it is called a laundry, if it is a carpenter, it is called a carpenter’s shop. If a pimp and prostitutes move in, it gets the name brothel from the trade itself. And so you have created a lot of brothels from your skill in the profession. So then, don’t ask where you ever engaged in the acts, but defend yourself on the ground that you have not done so.

In this section of the speech he anticipates attacks and makes a distinction between socially condoned pederasty and prostitution. Aeschines clarifies that he is a pederast himself, and that he has had many lovers. He makes it clear in explicit terms that he does not take objection to the practice of pederasty (i.e. as Plato did), as to note annoy the pederasty contingent in the audience, but only with prostitution:
>[135] And then he intends to make a direct attack on me, I’m told. He’ll ask if I’m not ashamed to subject the practice to censure and risk, when I make a nuisance of myself in the gymnasia and have been in love with many. And finally, so certain individuals inform me, in an attempt to encourage idle laughter among you, he says he will exhibit all the erotic poems I have written to individuals and claims he will provide testimony to quarrels and blows that the practice has brought me.
>[136] Personally, I neither criticize legitimate desire, nor do I allege that boys of outstanding beauty have prostituted themselves; nor do I deny that I myself have felt desire and still do. And I do not deny that the rivalries and fights that the thing provokes have befallen me. As to the poems they ascribe to me, some I admit to, but in the case of the rest I deny that their character is that presented by my opponents, who distort them.

Again, Aeschines believes that pederasty is fine (he himself is a pederast), but that prostitution is shameful:
>[137] According to my definition, desire for those who are noble and decent is characteristic of the generous and discerning spirit, but debauchery based on hiring someone for money I consider characteristic of a wanton and uncultivated man. And to beloved without corruption I count as noble, while to have been induced by money to prostitute oneself is shameful. The distance that separates them, the enormous difference, I shall try to explain to you in what follows.

>[138] Our fathers, when they were legislating about conduct and activities dictated by nature, prohibited slaves from engaging in activities that they thought should belong to free men. ‘‘A slave,’’ says the law, ‘‘may not exercise and rub himself down with oil in the wrestling schools.’’ It did not add further: ‘‘But the free man is to rub himself down and exercise.’’ For when the legislators in considering the benefits derived from the gymnasia prohibited slaves from participating, they believed that with the same law in which they prohibited these, they were also encouraging free men to go to the gymnasia.

Here he attributes laws to Solon prohibiting men from having sexual relations with a boy until they have reached a discretionary age, making it clear that pederasty is legal and does not lead to disenfranchisement:
>[139] And again the same legislator said: ‘‘A slave may not be the lover of a free boy or follow him, or he is to receive fifty blows of the public lash.’’ But he did not forbid the free man from being a boy’s lover or associating with and following him, and he envisaged not that this would prove harmful to the boy but that it would be testimony to his chastity. But since the boy is at this stage not responsible, and is unable to distinguish between real and false affection, it is the lover he disciplines, and he postpones talk of love to the age of reason, when the boy is older. And he considered that following and watching over a boy was the most effective way of securing and protecting his chastity.

>[140] In this way the city’s benefactors, Harmodius and Aristogiton, those men of outstanding virtues, were brought up by that decent and lawful feeling— call it love or what you will —to be men of such merit that when their deeds are praised, the panegyrics seem inadequate to their achievements.

On Harmodius and Aristogiton:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton

Explicitly stating that his accusation is that Timarchus has prostituted himself:
>[154] How has he managed his property? He has squandered his inheritance, and, though selling his body and taking bribes in political life, he has wasted it all, and so he has nothing left but the resultant disgrace. Whose company does he enjoy? Hegesander’s. And what are Hegesander’s habits? The sort for which the laws forbid the practitioner to address the people. As for me, what charge do I make against Timarchus; what exactly figures in my written accusation? That Timarchus addresses the people when he has prostituted himself and squandered his paternal estate. And you, what have you sworn? That you will cast your vote on the charge brought by the prosecution.

Further distinction between acceptable pederasty and prostitution:
>[155] But I don’t want to talk at excessive length about the poets. Instead I shall tell you the names of older men who are well known, and young men and boys. Some of these have had many lovers because of their beauty, while others are still in the bloom of youth now; but none of them has ever been exposed to the same accusations as those made against Timarchus. And in contrast I shall give you the names of men who have practiced shameful and blatant prostitution; remembering these will help you to put Timarchus in the proper category.
>[156] I shall start with the names of people who have lived in the honorable manner that befits free men. Men of Athens, you know that Crito the son of Astyochus and Periclides of Perithoidae and Polemagenes and Pantaleon the son of Cleagoras and Timesitheus the runner were in their day the most beautiful not only of the Athenian citizens but in all Greece, and that they attracted the largest number of lovers, and the most decent. Yet nobody has ever found fault with
them.
>[157] Again, among those who are young men or still children even now, there is Iphicrates’ nephew, the son of Tisias of Rhamnus, who bears the same name as the defendant Timarchus. Though he is good-looking, he is so foreign to shameful conduct that the other day, at the Rural Dionysia during the performance of the comic plays at Collytus, when the comic actor Parmeno spoke an anapaestic line to the chorus in which mention was made of certain ‘‘big Timarchian prostitutes,’’ nobody suspected a reference to the young man; everyone saw a reference to you. So firm is your claim to the practice. And again there is Anticles the sprinter and Phidias the brother of Melesias. Though I could mention still more, I shall stop there, to avoid seeming to flatter any of them with my praise.

Now he mentions others that he prostituted themselves, contrasting them with the socially condoned practice of pederasty:
>[158] Turning to those who share Timarchus’ habits, I shall avoid making enemies and speak of those who least concern me. Who among you does not know of Diophantus, known as ‘‘the orphan,’’ who arrested the foreigner and brought him before the archon for whom Aristophon of Azenia was serving as assistant? He alleged that he had been cheated of four drachmas owed for this service and cited the laws that instruct the archon to take care of orphans, when he himself had broken those which cover chastity. What citizen was not offended by Cephisodorus, known as the son of Molon, who had defiled his most beautiful appearance with the most infamous acts? Or Mnesitheus, known as the cook’s son, and many others whose names I purposely forget.
>[159] I don’t want to pursue each of them by name spitefully. In fact, in my love of my city I would dearly wish to have a shortage of such cases to cite. But now that we have mentioned some examples of each type, dealing separately with the objects of chaste love and those who abused their own persons, I want you now to answer this question from me: to which category do you assign Timarchus, to the people who have lovers or to the prostitutes? So then, Timarchus, do not try to desert the society you have chosen and defect to the way of life of free men.

Again, the monetary exchange is stressed.

Aeschines further addressing the fact that he has no evidence that Timarchus exchanged sexual favours for money, since that is what his entire prosecution rests upon:
>[160] If they try to argue that a man has not prostituted himself if he did not make a contract to hire himself out, and demand that I provide documentation and witnesses to this effect, firstly remember the laws concerning prostitution; nowhere does the legislator mention contracts. He did not ask whether anyone had disgraced himself under a written contract, but, however the activity takes place, he absolutely bars the man who has engaged in it from the public affairs of the city. And rightly so. If any man in his youth abandoned noble ambitions for the sake of shameful pleasure, he believed that this man should not in later years enjoy political rights.
>[161] Furthermore, one can easily detect the idiocy of this argument. We would all agree that we make contracts out of lack of trust for each other, so that the party who has not broken the written terms can obtain satisfaction in court from the one who has. Well, then, if the matter calls for litigation, the protection of the laws is still available for people who have prostituted themselves under a contract and are wronged, according to the defense arguments. And what case would each party make? Imagine that you’re not hearing it from me but seeing the thing taking place.
>[162] Let’s suppose that the one who hired is honest in the business and the person hired is dishonest and unreliable, or alternatively the opposite, that the person hired is reasonable and conforms to the agreement while the one who has hired him and had the pleasure of his youth has cheated him. Imagine that you yourselves are sitting in judgment. So then, the older man, when given his allocation of water to make his case, will present his accusation with gravity, looking straight at you, of course, and say:

>[163] ‘‘Men of Athens, I hired Timarchus to be my prostitute on the basis of the contract in the keeping of Demosthenes’’ (there’s no reason why this shouldn’t be what’s said), ‘‘and he is not doing what he agreed for me.’’ And obviously he’ll go on to tell the jurors of this agreement and explain what a person like this is required to do. And then won’t he be stoned, this man who hires an Athenian in contravention of the laws? Won’t he leave the court not only liable for compensation but also convicted of serious outrage (hybris)?
>[164] Or say that it is not this party but the one who was hired who brings the action. Now let clever Batalus come forward to speak for him, so we’ll know what on earth he will say. ‘‘Jurors, somebody or other’’ (it makes no difference) ‘‘hired me to be his prostitute for money. And while I have done everything, and still do now, that a prostitute should according to the written contract, the defendant is in breach of the agreement.’’ And then won’t he be met with loud shouting from the jurors? Won’t they all say: ‘‘Despite this do you invade the marketplace, wear the crown of office, do any of the things we do?’’ So then, the contract is no use.

>[165] How, then, has it become an established practice to maintain that before now people have prostituted themselves by contract? This I shall now tell you. It is said that a certain citizen (I shall omit the name in a desire to avoid enmity), who failed to anticipate any of the problems I described to you just now, prostituted himself under a contract that was deposited with Anticles. Since he was not a private citizen but entered public life and was subjected to insults, the result was that the city became accustomed to the expression, and this is why some people ask if the activity has taken place under a contract. But the legislator did not concern himself with the way the activity has taken place; no, the legislator condemned a man to disgrace if he hires himself out in any way whatsoever.

He attributes laws to Solon criminalizing prostitution of freeborn women (to claim that laws against prostitution of women are evidence that heterosexual behaviour is criminalized would be absurd):
>[183] And Solon, the most illustrious of legislators, has drafted ancient and solemn laws on the orderly conduct of women. If a woman is caught with a seducer,191 he does not allow her to wear finery or to enter the public temples, to prevent her from corrupting innocent women with her company. And if she enters them or wears finery, he allows anyone who encounters her to tear her clothing, remove her jewelry, and beat her, though he is not permitted to kill or maim her; Solon thus deprives such a woman of honor and makes her life intolerable.
>[184] And he allows for indictment of procurers, male and female; and if they are convicted, he makes death the punishment. The reason is that when people who wish to sin hesitate through shame to come together, the procurers offer their own lack of shame for pay and advance the affair to the point of discussion and action.

More excerpts making it clear that prostitution is the issue, and not pederasty:
>[188] I also find it surprising, men of Athens, if you, who hate brothel-keepers, intend to let go people who have voluntarily prostituted themselves. Evidently this same man, who will not be allowed to obtain the priesthood of any of the gods, since under the laws his body is unclean, will draft in the text of decrees prayers to the Solemn Goddesses for the good of the city. Then why be amazed at the failure of public policy, when speakers like this man attach their names to decisions of the people? Shall we send abroad as envoy a man whose life at home has been disgraceful and entrust to him our most important interests? What would a man not sell when he has sold off the abuse (hybris) of his person? Who would this man pity when he has shown no pity for himself ?
>[189] Which of you is unfamiliar with the disgusting conduct of Timarchus? In the case of people who exercise, even if we don’t attend the gymnasia, we can recognize them from a glance at their fit condition. In the same way we recognize men who have worked as prostitutes from their shameless and impudent manner and from their general behavior even if we’re not present at their activities. For if a man has shown contempt for the laws and for morality on the most important issues, he has a certain attitude of mind that is visible from his disorderly manner.

Timarchus was prosecuted because he prostituted himself. Not because he engaged in homosexual relationships. Denying that pederasty was legal in ancient Athens is on par with flat earth/space denial.

This word only appears in Koine Greek texts written after the Bible and is widely believed to be a neologism invented by Paul >>18060603

Also, this >>18060608 is modern Greek slang which is not found in ancient Greek texts. This idiot likely asked a chatbot for "homophobic Greek words".

>>18060787
>He makes it clear in explicit terms that he does not take objection to the practice of pederasty (i.e. as Plato did), as to note annoy the pederasty contingent in the audience, but only with prostitution
*As to not annoy the pederast contingent in the audience, he makes it clear in explicit terms that he does not take objection to the practice of pederasty (i.e. as Plato did), but that he only takes objection to prostitution

>>18060847
To a fag if you tell them homosexuality was illegal, especially for the bottom, and then tell them there were people called pedophiles by modern historians but maybe werent pedophiles something in their head breaks and they take this as definitive proof of open faggotry

>>18060847
He made the same argument in another greek homo thread on /his/ with no sources

>>18060365
>The jews feminized the shit out of gay culture and poisoned the well with tranny freaks of all shades.
Might be the only good thing they did. Hairy manly sex is fucking disgusting

>>18060847
>κίναιδος

>πισωγλέντης

These both come from ancient Greek words with the former becoming cineados in latin and eventually catamite

>ἀρσενοκοίτης

Is the only one with perhaps more recent history, but it shows up in the Bible, so at the very latest it is from the Roman period.

>>18060847
There are laws against outraging children >>18060637

The Greeks viewed taking it in the ass as on outrage and generally detested fags >>18060608

Producing excerpt after excerpt in a legal case where prostitution was the charge and thus the word prostitution is mentioned does not change this fact.

>Rome
No. Sex between men was rare
>Greece
Yes. Sex between men was common.

>>18060847
Pederasty was by no means illegal in Athens, but it was only allowed under the condition you do it slaves or undesirables. This makes a lot of sense actually, no family of good quality would want you anywhere near their children such that their children would have had to deal with shame of being taken by an old degenerate. Slaves were cheap, go get one from the market.

>>18061766
>generally detested fags
>>18061786
This is not true either otherwise why the fuck would there be famous men described as having been eromenoi or why would Plato and Xenophon's dialogues depict homoerotic courting between free males

>>18061786
pederasty is mistranslated and literally doesn't mean having sex with children, once you realize this you realize how mentally ill homosexuals are

>>18061803
>mistranslated

>>18061806
>doesn't actually say anything about fucking kids
holohoax tier

>>18061790
Let's not pretend anti-goyim authors like john wouldn't be biased against Greek pre-christian culture. You probably wouldn't want to take Reagan's word for it about living conditions in the USSR either.

>>18061809
>>18061810

>>18061812
>This man was so in love with his virtuous pupil that exuded intellectual and physical beauty
>fags: GAY

What's the historical reason why no one denied Greek faggotry for 2,000 years until the 21st century? Maybe it is because educated people used to learn Greek and Latin, and had to translate Virgil etc.

>>18061821
>loving boys means getting poopdick
not even fags claim this, when you ask fags to show any source for penetration they admit there wasn't any

you're just a bunch of retarded faggots

>>18061818
Why don't you go and tell any straight guy you are in love with him because of his intellectual and physical beauty?
>>18061823
>when you ask fags to show any source for penetration they admit there wasn't any
"Every dumb animal only screws. But we reasoning men have this over other animals: We have invented butt-fucking. But those who conquer women, they have nothing over dumb animals."
—Straton of Sardis (in the Greek Anthology)

>>18061790
Because the boys they took were slaves and people looked the other way in that regard (as the Aeschines excerpt I quoted showed). If Homos were generally detested then bottoms were despised beyond all else, who would want that for their son?

>>18061826
>anal sex with a woman makes you an animal
wow surely that must mean they approved of sex with babies

>>18061826
Men saying I love you to each other and participating in schools of physical excellence or mentioning each others good physiognomy didn't use to be seen as confessions of romantic love, you know that right?

>>18061834
Nice reading comprehension

>>18061837
So why is Plutarch saying of Solon and Peisistratus that they used to have eros for each other (used to be in love), but now only have philia (friendship)? What's the difference? What changed?

>>18061838
>is illiterate
>accuses others of being illiterate
what's next on your bullet point list for convincing people you're not a freak

>>18061843
Are you ESL? Anyway, more evidence of penetration:
>No, pleasure was the mediator even of their friendship. At any rate, when Achilles was lamenting the death of Patroclus, his unrestrained feelings made him burst out with the truth and say "The converse of our thighs my tears do mourn with duteous piety."
Lucian, Amores 54
>Heavens above! the wide-assed are the vast majority.
Aristophanes, The Clouds
>If a beautiful boy doesn’t give his ass to be fucked, may he not get a fuck when he falls in love with a beautiful girl.
Greek graffito from Stabiae
>Heraclitus was beautiful, when he once was. But now, past his youth, a screen of hide declares war on those who would mount from behind.
Meleager, AP 12.33

>>18061830
I don't think an imagined dialogue between Socrates and some guy on the physiognomy of some other dude really means much of anything. They wrote often about taking slaves, why not look there.

>>18061842
Different anon here, but even in modern English, "love" and "like" are still separate words. I have friends that I loved strongly once, but have drifted apart from over the years. I'd still consider them friends. This seems perfectly normal to me.

>>18061846
>The quote is intentionally nonsensical and over-the-top, mixing high-minded language like "duteous piety" with crude or anatomical imagery ("converse of our thighs") to create a comedic or satirical effect. It is part of a larger satirical conversation in which the speaker, likely one of the characters in the dialogue, is being ridiculous and melodramatic

I guess it's true that all fags are like 90 IQ aspies

>>18061842
You cut out the start of that passage, where Episthenes kills the boys companions and take him for himself; i.e he killed all the boys friends/family and then demands him to be his "lover". This is for more characteristic of Greek homosexuality, as this is what it normally was.

>>18061842
philia can be translated as love too you disingenuous nigger.

>>18061849
Don't you think Plato's audience would be upset if they learned he was depicting them (real people) as a bunch of homos?
>>18061852
Sure, but did you love them largely on account of their physical beauty?
>>18061855
Nice AI summary, except Lucian is directly quoting an Aeschylus play (The Myrmidons) which is not a comedy

>>18061859
Lucian is? Isn't that entire thing a fabrication by a turkish imitator?

>>18061858
Sure, but it's more ambiguous than eros. Which is always romantic and sexual love.

>>18061855
>Faggot using chatGPT to do his thinking

>>18061859
Do remind me, what happened to Socrates?

>>18061866
>fags posting pre made out of context quotes which are actually making fun of faggots to try and prove that faggots were accepted publicly as the main coupling

>>18061862
The play pederasty anon cites often, Amores, was not written by Lucian but Pseudo Lucian.

>>18061868
He was executed for impiety. But he was famously much more chaste than the average Athenian

>>18061869
He doesn't deny he's such a bitch nigger retard he needs to use mommy robot to think for him and then claim others are low IQ.

>>18061842
>cuts out the start of passage
>said start of passage is concerned with how a band of mercenaries captures and kills the boys companions
>SEE GUYS, THEY LOVED EACH OTHER

roflmao

>>18061878
>mommy robot instantly dismantles faggot propaganda even have 30 helpings of good goy gas

>>18061880
Post the start of the passage then, I'm curious. I haven't seen it

>>18061864
No its not.

>>18061873
I see so given this, do you think people would much care for the slander of a dead and condemned man?

>>18061881
*even after

Not sexual...!

Just bros being bros...

>>18061859
>Sure, but did you love them largely on account of their physical beauty?
Yes, I innately hate ugly and fat people and refuse to associate with them. I often compliment my friends on staying fit, and consider athleticism a virtue. Are you perhaps American and live in a hyper prudish slash hyper degenerate society where everyone is either terrified of being called gay or a massive flaming faggot? We tend to take a bit more of a middle of the road approach over here.

>>18061882
>Episthenes in band of mercenaries
>Kills a travelling family
>Sees a boy
>Runs up to Xenophon
>Don't kill this one I like him
>Let me take him as my catamite
>Prove it
>I would rather die than not rape him
>ok fine I'll kill episthenes unless the boy speaks up to save you
>traumatized boy who just watched likely his entire family and all their friends die horribly
>please no


goes something like that

>>18061896
epic

>>18061896
also sub out all the sex stuff for a guy that just wants to adopt an orphan with a bunch of bloodlusted soldiers around him

>>18061895
Yeah but if your society had a word for sexual and romantic love would you use that word in particular? I really have nothing against strong friendship with an element of chaste physicality. I just find it historically ridiculous to deny Greek faggotry.

I mean LOOK

>>18061902
one of the ugliest fakes I've ever seen

>>18061881
>Good goy gas
Goy gas? Gotta reboot LLM, it's retarding out for you. There's no proof whatsoever that will dissuade you from your ideological belief. A normal person can recognize that someone in the past held a morality alien to our own and that if the Greeks were gayreek that doesn't mean that was commendable. Yet a stupid fucking cunt like you can only think in HURR BASSEEEDD or DURR CRINGED context. Where if your favorite little epic tradcath Spartans weren't exactly the same political and social views of your own - well they can't be. That's impossible! It's incompatible with your worldview! So clearly it's the JEWS and the FAGS who conspired to ruin your historical fantasy. It can't be that your fragile worldview wasn't shared by a people you idolized in the past. God forbid the greeks be a bunch of weird fucking foreigners to our own philosophies +2000 years later. No they gotta match exactly with what we believe or else it's a conspiracy of the kike fags apparently.

You fucking nancyboy faggot bitch, you're no better than twitterati who screeech and hollar if media they consume doesn't compart to their morality and ideological views. Except this isn't media, this is historical reality. Which you are so fragile and insecure you can't accept if it makes your fee-fees hurt.

Now feed this into your little bitch-boy LLM to translate into retardese so you can understand it you cocksucking faggot.

>>18059860 (OP)
like, 2% of all sexual pottery depicts homofags.
it's a nothingburger.
it's just that the ancient greek terms for "master" and "apprentice" sound really fucking gay to modern day Americans. "Lover" and "beloved." But Greek has several idiosyncratic definitions of "love" that don't actually default to "buttsex." Whereas in modern American English, the ultimate consummation of love is sexual intercourse for some reason.

>>18061842
This never happened lol

>>18061906
it's so funny seeing fags fighting ideological ghosts, tugging on a rope tied to their own neck

>>18061909
Here's your master and apprentice, bro

>>18061900
It's strange because if you had this attitude, which is what the Ancient Greeks had when they were being degenerate faggots and raping their slaves, literally no one would care. Why try and moralize the behavior of ancient faggots?

Nothing strange going on here

>>18061914
You're not a man lol, you actually lack the ability to empathize with greeks outside of "muh dick"

>>18061913
Just like in all periods of history, certain adult men in positions of power would abuse boys. So much so that Plato specifically advises "lovers" to never engage in sexuality with "beloveds"... which means that it's not actually an implicit part of the master-apprentice relationship.

I like how there are two different types of anti-faggots arguing in this thread (one denies greek faggotry altogether, the other just says it was evil) and they are not even able to tell that they are on the same side morally and keep insulting each other
>>18061914
>>18061919

>>18061922
Fags are really bad at gaslighting, almost as bad as jews

>>18061902
I'm not denying the existence of Greek faggots at all. I just suspect that a lot is lost in (cultural) translation, and that we tend to think that each and every instance of male friendship in the sources must mean le heckin buttseggs. Specifically, I was just commenting on Solon and Peisistratus and the notion of them falling out of (potentially non-sexual) love.
>if your society had a word for sexual and romantic love
I have seen words change meaning just in my own lifetime, so I can only assume that the same happened in the past, especially when dealing with a historical culture that stretched for a millennium and grew to encompass a greater and greater number of more and more foreign people.

>>18061913
That anon is right ~2% of ancient pottery was even tangentially about gay shit, and those who could afford and/or commission pottery was already a very small part of the population. If it existed it was much like today with people like Epstein, rich degenerates getting away with whatever they wanted because they could.

>>18061921
Except Plato says everyone does that shit and it will be impossible to outlaw. Also Plato in his Phaedrus, where he advocates chastity, describes it as a relationship of INTENSE ROMANTIC LOVE.
>After he has seen him, the expected change comes over him following the shuddering - sweating and a high fever; for he is warmed by the reception of the effluence of beauty through his eyes ... Meanwhile then, all of it throbs and palpitates, and the experience is like that of cutting teeth, the itching and the aching that occur around the gums when the teeth are just coming through: such is the state of the soul of the man who is beginning to sprout wings - it throbs and aches and itches as it grows its feathers. So when it gazes at the boy's beauty, and is nourished and warmed by receiving particles which come to it in a flood from there - hence of course, the name we give them, 'himeros' - it experiences relief from its anguish and is filled with joy; but when it is apart and becomes parched .. the entire soul, stung all over, goes mad with pain; but then, remembering the boy with his beauty, it rejoices again. The mixture of both of these states makes it despair at the strangeness of its condition, raging in its perplexity, and in its madness it can neither sleep at night nor keep still where it is by day, but runs wherever it thinks it will see the possessor of the beauty it longs for.
Phaedrus 251

>>18061931
>chastity is romantic love
schizophrenia manifest

Can we just stop coping accept that the Greeks and Romans were not the heroes we idolized them as?
The European middle ages were the real height of human civilization.

>>18061921
This is a trvke for the pedoanon

>>18061927
There are plenty of instances of strong male friendship in ancient Greek sources . But if it involves all these elements
>use of the word eros
>focus on physical beauty (particularly on hairlessness, etc.)
>age or status difference
It's obviously a sexual relationship

>>18061938
Just make another thread if you want to advocate for pedophilia

>>18061943
I AM NOT THE PEDO ANON. I DO NOT THINK THIS WAS A GOOD THING. I AM JUST SO FUCKING PISSED OFF AT PEOPLE DENYING A BASIC HISTORICAL FACT. IT DRIVES ME FUCKING CRAZY

>>18061946
Eros is not sexual in any way, just like pederasty does not mean pedophile

>>18061948
WHAT THE FUCK. EROS
IS
USED
TO DESCRIBE
ALL INSTANCES OF MALE AND FEMALE LOVE
EROS IS THE GOD OF LOVE. HE IS CUPID. IN THE GREEK MYTHS HE IS ALWAYS MAKING PEOPLE *FALL IN LOVE!!!!* WITH EACH OTHER
ZEUS FUCKING PUNISHES HIM FOR MAKING HIM FALL IN LOVE WITH MORTAL WOMEN ALL THE TIME

JESUS HFUIASHDGUIOASDNGIOASDKMOPAG'DSK[AG
S

>>18061943
Every time he makes one of those he gets BTFO'd and seethes for a few hundred posts.

>>18061951
Eros is platonic love, it's just "love". Extreme appreciation. Occam's razor anon, the gay greek myth crumbles

>>18061946
>>18061951

I've never seen pedospammer explode like this lol

>>18061955
>The irrational desire which has gained control over judgement ... borne towards pleasure in beauty, and which is forcefully reinforced by the desires related to it in its pursuit of bodily beauty, overcoming them in its course ... this is called eros.
Plato, Phaedrus 238c

>Erotic passion [ἔρος] is a desire that does not arise in virtuous men, for it is an impulse to form a relationship on account of physical attractiveness.
Diogenes Laertius, Life of Zeno 113

>Excitement about boys and women is one and the same thing: Love. [ἔρως]
Plutarch, Dialogue on Love 5

>He who has countless gold and silver ... is no more rich than the man who has just what he needs ... delight from a boy or woman.
Theognis 719-28

>Decide whether you consider those superior who love boys or those who delight in womankind. For I who have been smitten by both passions hang like an accurate balance with both scales in equipoise.
Lucian, Amores 4

>And many men, overall, prefer love with boys to love with females. In the very cities of Greece that have the best laws by comparison with others, this is the mode of behavior that fashionable.
Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae 13.601

>>18061959
>Lucian, Amores 4

Lucian didn't write that anon

>>18061938
None of those are obvious alarm bells to me. I already touched upon language and physical beauty, and I've always enjoyed male friendships with both older and younger men. The age difference gives different perspectives on life which I find useful. A young friend is more energetic and knows all the cool new bars or whatever, and an older friend is wiser and mature and knows all the good books to read.
Presumably the Greeks have a word for sex or intercourse, and are capable of describing sex acts. If and when that is done, I am happy to believe that the involved people were fags. I'm not a fag-denier, just a fag-moderate.

>>18061957
I'm not him. I am a fucking CHRISTIAN who is sick of this revisionist bullshit

>>18061959
>pursuit of bodily beauty, is love
HMMMMMMM

>>18061964
I doubt that you are Christian, considering you use the same file names as pederastyanon

Why was the Greek love god a little boy?

>>18061951
I don't know jack about Greek, but why can't Eros just include all the different kinds of love, from lust to platonic love etc etc.

>>18061972
because then the gay greek myth crumbles

>>18061972
Platonic eros is not non-romantic love. It is romantic love which intentionally resists sexual intercourse. See: >>18061959 and >>18061931

>>18061970
Maybe because a healthy baby boy was the whole point of getting a man and a woman to fall in love with each other, so they could have many sons.

>>18061968
Being christian famously does not preclude one from being a fag of any kind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Gomorrhianus

>>18061975
Sounds more like love is a virtue instead of a feeling

>There cannot be a greater instance of the blind partiality of mankind for this philosopher, than the distinguishing that friendship or affection, which has nothing sensual in it, by the appellation of Platonic Love, when he was as much addicted to a certain unnatural inclination, as any man of that sort who ever disgraced a human form. – We have the strongest evidence of his being guilty of this crime that history can furnish [p.xvii] us with. It is asserted by several, and denied by none.
Charles Crawford, A Dissertation on the Phaedon of Plato, 1733

>>18061981
>It is asserted by several, and denied by none.
sauce?

>>18061975
I understand that that is the standard view. I'm asking for any evidence that eros couldn't just translate broadly as love, and instead has to be always understood as erotic love?
"I love my son" and "I love big tiddy goth girls" use the same word, but the feelings and actions involved are drastically different.

>>18061989
Because no Greek would ever use 'eros' to describe their love for their child. Also see these quotes >>18061959

>>18061989
>that that is the standard view
It's the standard linguistic view because it was the italians that transcribed eros to mean sex. You know, the guys drawing cocks on all their pottery.

>Solon, one of their seven wise Men, and the famous Lawgives of the Athenians, Plutarch tells us, (Amat.) not only himself used this infamous Trade of Sodomy, but recommended it as honest, and established it by Law, (Chryysost.) forbidding it only to Servants, or with them, as a refined Pleasure, proper only for the Ingenuous, and to be reserved to Men of Quality and Distinction. [...] This so pious and excellent Socrates, as an Instance of his Sapience in Morality, was deeply tained with this foul Diseas of Arsenocoitism [anal coitus, i.e. sodomy] [...] The divine Plato, tho' he is said to disapprove it in his Laws, and some have attempted to clear him from it, yet is made to sully his divine Character with the Guilt of it by Laertius in his Life. [...] Nay, so far was Sodomy from being punished amongst the Athenians, under the Institutes of their famous Philosophers, and in their Times, that Aeschylus, and Sophocles also, had a Tragedy publickly acted upon the Stage, called the "Pederastes" Boy-Lover.
Reverend Conyers Place, Immorality of the Ancient Philosophers, 1735

This is the "culture" you worship, /his/

>>18061991
Probably because the word they used for familial love indicated a primal emotional relationship of blood rather than a platonic appreciation for other people's virtue

>>18061996
Eros is a description of emotional experience, didn't you read Plato's description of it here >>18061931

>the entire soul, stung all over, goes mad with pain; but then, remembering the boy with his beauty, it rejoices again.

The taste of the Greeks for the most indecent and unnatural lust is well known; and the most virtuous of the Greeks, according to our ideas of morality, would have been looked upon in Europe as most wicked and contemptible debauchees.
Franz Swediauer, The Philosophical Dictionary, Vol. I, 1786

>>18061991
They did use it for food though

>But even Aristides, is said to have been addicted to the unnatural lust for boys. What can [p.82] one say of a people, where this abominable vice was not even discountenanced? For my own part, when I find such a man as Aristides charged with it, I lament his living in those days. And I regret, that his otherwise unblemished name, should be contaminated by the infamous practice of his country.
Francis Dobbs, Second Volume of Universal History, 1788

>>18061999
Dude's addicted to somebody else's virtue

these guys weren't normal, but they weren't gay

>>18062003
I imagine like I might say I have "lust" or "craving" for food, but not for people unless I mean something sexual by it
>>18062008
Genuinely insane levels of cope.

>>18061090
>if I tell provable lies people tell me I'm wrong
>but I'm spiritually semitic so I just lie more

>>18062012
Yes homosexuals are genuinely insane. Have you ever considered everything you post doesn't actually make sense

>The ancient Philosophers, indeed, were generally noted for sodomy. Plutarch, acknowledging the fact, makes for them this apology, that, though they corrupted their bodies, they made amends for it by improving their souls.
Timothy Dwight, The Nature and Danger of Invidel Philosophy, 1799

>The unnatural love of boys was so common in Greece, that in many places it was sanctioned by the public laws, of which Aristotle gives the reason: viz. to prevent their having too many children. [...] That odious and unnatural vice, which prevailed amongst the Greeks, was also common amongst the Romans. Cicero introduces, without any mark of disapprobation, Cotta, a man of the first rank and genius, freely and familiarly owning to other Romans of the same quality, that worse than beastly vice as practised by himself, and quoting the authorities of ancient philosophers in vindication of it.
Rev. Andrew Fuller, The Gospel Its Own Witness, 1799

>>18062014
>spiritually semitic

I love when the pedophiles get into their absolutely batshit insane conspiracy theories. Genuinely the most hilarious people on the planet, to be so honestly hated yet so unlearnedly indignant. Beautiful.

>>18061991
>Because no Greek would ever use 'eros' to describe their love for their child.
I'm just playing devil's advocate a bit, because I suspect that you're at least partially right on the 'eros' issue, but is there any source that explicitly says that 'eros' cannot be non-erotic love?

>>18062028
I must concede I don't have one at hand. And I wouldn't say definitively that it can never be 'non-erotic love' - but I am really certain it would never be used for familial love.

>>18062023
Now for another nail in the coffin, what were they doing with all these boys that made greek society so mad?

it wasn't gay sex. you guys are literally a cult

>>18061821
All the people denying it now know they're lying. That's the real difference. There is a large and growing group of people who outright despise the truth.

>>18062032
You cling to the exact specifics of his analogy but the point of that was to show that eros could have more than one meaning and pointing to it basedface style every time it shows up in a passage next to the word boy doesn't maybe mean what you think it means.

>>18062024
>absolutely wrongthinky heretical theories
Let me fix that

>>18062035
Sorry to inform you your pagan society is degenerate. Who could've guessed

>>18062041
gays aren't real history appreciators you're just propagandists, that's why you lose

>>18062040
Yes everyone who tells you not to rape a child is a jew or a fed or a feminist. That's surely what that means.

>>18062035
>what were they doing with all these boys that made greek society so mad?
Well, what was it?

>We all know that it was widespread among the Greeks and Romans, and was publically admitted and practised unabashed. All the authors of antiquity give more than abundant proof of this... The philosophers speak much more of this love than of the love of women... Here in general there is no need for proofs for well-informed readers; they can recall them by the hundred, for with the ancients everything is full of it.
Arthur Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation Vol. II, 1844

>>18062047
https://youtu.be/jkAkmL8_JKQ

>>18062052
Why not just answer?

>>18062057
throwing parties yah dingus

>It is not, then, without reason that the poets call him [Hercules] a cruel wretch and a nefarious scoundrel. It were tedious to recount his adulteries of all sorts, and debauching of boys. For your gods did not even abstain from boys, one having loved Hylas, another Hyacinthus, another Pelops, another Chrysippus, another Ganymede.
Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Greeks 2

>>18062032
I see. So even if it can't be used for family, you do allow its use within non-erotic friendships. I'll remain a bit skeptical of it being primarily a gay thing then, since I wouldn't find it strange for a man to say that he strongly loves his good buddy who he went to war with or built his business with or whatever.
The pre-christian culture was different in many ways, and I think we must certainly allow for the idea that men were much more expressive towards one another than now. I think one of the reasons men are guarded these days is that we're individualists, and men don't want women to think that they're fags. Ancient Greece was a patriarchal and collectivist society, so what women thought was mostly irrelevant, and men were very conscious of how much they relied on their in-group. You can see how that might make for men being way more relaxed around one another, and focus on helping each other get as athletic and attractive as possible for the betterment of the village or polis.

>>18062065
>you do allow its use within non-erotic friendships.
I only say that I don't want to deny it absolutely. But the conventional usage is romantic. It's what is used to describe male and female romantic love. Eros is the god of romantic love. etc.

>>18062059
What parties?

>>18061970
Originally he was more frequently depicted older (but still young) when he was representing an ideal of beauty. The younger depictions were more about personifying love as a mischevious brat. The Greeks liked them young, but not that young.

>>18062074
The most famous parties of all, the ones that INVENTED DINNER TABLES

>Hitler lectured me on the role of homosexuality in history and politics. It had destroyed ancient Greece, he said. Once rife, it extended its contagious effects like an ineluctable law of nature to the best and most manly of characters, eliminating from the reproductive process those very men on whose offspring a nation depended.
Rudolf Diels, Lucifer Ante Portas, 1950

>>18062041
>>18062072
>But the conventional usage is romantic.
>It's what is used to describe male and female romantic love.
Right, but so is the word "love" in English.
In fact, "romance" is a great example of a word that has shifted meaning. It didn't use to have anything to do with sex, eroticism or candle-lit dinners.

>>18062079
Oh the ones where the boys were dancing, serving wine and kissing the guests, gottcha.

>>18062024
What is the conspiracy theory here? It is clearly apparent that your mind is so deeply mired in jewish nonsense that you consider truth and reality to be your sworn enemies.

>>18062088
I didn't mean to reply to the yahweh apologist.

>>18062088
Sure, but we also know that homosexuality was an endemic feature of their society - Aristophanes makes the physical element quite clear in his comedies. Plato's Symposium features a discussion of the beloved "providing favours" to and "gratifying" the lover. So if they don't want people to mistake their meaning, they will presumably avoid that language.

>>18062075
Damn brat, how come Zeus never applied correction?

>>18062102
He tries to in one of Lucian's comedies

>>18062092
Yes the parties where rich people collected beautiful virtuous people like pokemon to have the greatest most virtuous parties they could

Where there where groupies whose entire purpose was to keep parties from becoming too boring by constantly talking about interesting things

you 80 IQ people can't even imagine these things

>>18062105
Collected the cutest, prettiest boys from all over the mediterenian like pokemon.

>>18062045
This thread is talking about what people were doing two thousand years ago. But you have now come right out and confessed that you are physically incapable of separating your beliefs about how things should be from how things actually are or were.
You do not possess the basic faculties of a human being. You're not even an animal. You are an incarnated plague of stupidity and lies.

>>18062113
By definition they were collecting attractive an intelligent people to surround themselves which is how they created an administrative and warrior caste

low IQ homosexuals go "but my poopy butthole dick" when they hear this though

>>18062101
We had comedies about men in dresses in the 80s and 90s, but that didn't mean that men actually did wear dresses. The humor lay in its absurdity.
>providing favours
>gratifying
I can think of a hundred things this could be that weren't sexual or erotic in any way. If everyone was such a faggot, why not just write that they got head from a twink at that cool gay party?

We have some extremely explicit sex stuff from the ancient world (some of which is still being censored to this day btw) akin to the Kama Sutra, so clearly it was acceptable to be explicit at least in some circumstances.

>>18062121
And those people had to be entertained by qt boys.

>>18062102
That's what the bees are for.

>>18062123
>spams thread with baseless propaganda not understanding even basic greek history
>actually I'm really smart

>>18062123
Nowhere on that chart is it indicated that low IQ fags don't exist.

>>18062126
There are quite a few
>If a beautiful boy doesn’t give his ass to be fucked, may he not get a fuck when he falls in love with a beautiful girl.
Greek graffito from Stabiae
>I love a female love. Let the snuggling of hairy-assed queens be the concern of goat-mounting shepherds.
Meleager, AP 12.41

245. Strato

Every dumb creature fucks—and only fucks;
But we are marked by rationality,
And have advanced beyond our fellow beasts
Through the discovery of buggery.
Those men who let their women rule their lives
Are level with dumb creatures all the same.

208. Strato

You little book, you are so fortunate!
I am not really jealous, but some boy
Will, as he reads you, press you to his chin,
Or wind you tight and roll you round his lips,
Or cosset you between his dewy thighs:
You are so very lucky. Many times
You shall go wandering beneath his gown,
Or, tossed upon his chair, shall daringly
Caress those parts, and not engender fear;
And you will talk and win his confidence,
And take your time, and have your privacy.
Papyrus scrap, I beg, speak well of me:
Say something nice, and say it frequently.

44. Glaucus

There was a time, a long, long time ago,
When simple gifts—a quail, a leather ball,
Some knucklebones—would let you have your way
With boys who were susceptible to bribes.
They want fine dining now, and cash in hand.
The toys of old no longer hold their sway;
Lovers of boys must seek new sweeteners.

38. Rhianus

‘The Hours and Graces poured their sweetened oil
Upon you, bottom, who disturb the sleep
Of old men, even. Tell me, Blessed One,
Whose are you, and which boy do you adorn?’
The bottom answered: ‘I’m for Menecles.’

12. Flaccus

His beard has started. When they called him fair,
Lado rejected lovers cruelly.
He loves a boy now. Nemesis is quick.

>>18062163
This is when you post proof of a single instance of a penetrative pederastic relationship

It's over for LARPagans

>>18062158
I didn't mean to suggest that there weren't any, I just mean to criticize that the majority of the quotes you've posted are these dubious ones about "love" and "favours" requiring all these *wink wink nudge nudge* assumptions?
I obviously think fags have existed uninterrupted throughout history, and were able to be relatively open about it in certain times and places for a variety of reasons.
I just simply don't think that every time you see men and "eros" does it mean buggery.

>>18062167
I don't think you would be detecting any ambiguity if these quotes had been about relations between men and women. The "favours" stuff is obviously sexual from context - because Plato's characters are debating the morality of beloveds giving favours to their lovers. Like, at which point in the relationship is it licit? How does one differentiate it from prostitution? Is it bad for the dignity of the beloved? Why do certain cities prohibit it? Etc. The climax of the dialogue is when Alcibiades tells a story about climbing into bed with Socrates to try and provide him with "favours" (which he thinks he must do in order to receive education from Socrates) but is rebuffed by him.

>>18062167
By this logic Greek men didn't have sex with women either. I guess they reproduced asexually.

>>18062175
Another fag misunderstanding very easy to understand Greek cultural practices because all he knows about Greece is from queer israeli discords

>>18062175
I'm not suggesting that "favours" COULDN'T be sexual. I'm trying to suggest that they could have been any number of things including sexual favors. It's a classification issue: not all bears are polar bears, but all polar bears are bears. Not all favours are sexual favours, but all sexual favours are favours. Not all love is erotic love, but all erotic love is love.
Do you see what I mean?

>>18062182
What he's not telling you is that bribing people to join your entourage was illegal

>>18062176
How so?

>>18062182
>I'm not suggesting
Yes you are. Cut the jewish bullshit.
>I'm not saying it didn't happen at all
>but I'm going to claim literally every example given doesn't count

>>18062191
>Calling other people Jews
>When you're actively trying to redefine words and can't post a single actual example of what you claim is reality

>>18062184
I wasn't aware, but it makes sense. One could understand prostitution as renting one-self out (illegally?), including but not necessarily for sex.
Words change meaning all the time. Usury used to mean charging interests. Now it means charging too much interest. Funny how that goes.

>>18062199
They called just regular homosexuals prostitutes I'm guessing, and a pederast bribing a child to join his house was overtly illegal.

>>18062191
I see you've run out of arguments and are now just spazzing around aimlessly.

>>18062189
You know how, rat kike.
>>18062193
>>18062199
>you're actively trying to redefine words
>One could understand prostitution as renting one-self out (illegally?), including but not necessarily for sex.
Genuinely kill yourself, you foreskin eating sand demon.

>>18062214
The yehudi doth protest too much

>>18062167
Here's Alcibiades speech from Plato's Symposium:
>Believing him to be in earnest about my youthful beauty, I believed I had had a lucky find and an amazing piece of good luck: I had the chance - if I gratified Socrates - to hear everything that he knew; for I used to take an amazing amount of pride in my youthful beauty. So with this in mind, though I previously was not in the habit of being alone with him without an attendant, I then sent the attendant away and was alone with him... So I was alone with him alone, men; and I believed he would converse with me at once in just the way a lover would converse with his beloved in isolation, and I rejoiced. But exactly nothing of the sort happened; but just as he used to do, he would converse with me; and having spent the day with me he would take his leave. After this I challenged him to join me in stripping; and I stripped along with him. Here, I thought, I shall get my way. So he joined me in stripping and often wrestled with me when no one else was present. And what need is there to say more? I got no advantage from it at all.
[1/2]

>>18062214
Well there's obviously two types of prostitution theyre describing. There's gay sex, which is the least virtuous sexual act, akin to an animal, and then there's getting bribed

>>18062167
>>18062217
>He took his rest in the bed next to me on which he had dined; and no one else slept in the room but ourselves. Now, what I have said up to this point in my speech could properly be told to anyone at all. And you would not hear any more from me than this were it not that, first of all, as the saying goes, wine - with boys and without boys - is truthful ...
>So, men, when the lamp was extinguished and the boys were outside, I resolved that I should in no way complicated the issue before him, but freely speak what were my opinions. And I nudged him and said, 'Socrates, are you asleep?' 'Certainly not,' he said. 'Do you know then what I have resolved?' 'What in particular?' he said. 'You, in my opinion,' I said, 'have proved to be the only deserving lover of mine; and it seems to me that you hesitate to mention it to me. Now I am in this state: I believe it is very foolish not to gratify you in this or anything else of mine - my wealth or my friends - that you need; for nothing is more important to me than that I become the best possible; and I believe that, as far as I am concerned, there is no one more competent than you to be a fellow helper to me in this. So I should be far more ashamed before men of good sense for not gratifying a man like you than I should be before the many and senseless for gratifying you.'
[2/2]

>>18062213
I'm not the anon who made the foolish mistake of trying to reason with a creature that chews on freshly flayed baby dicks. When you spit on people that treat you as a human, you will only be left with people that treat as what you really are.

>>18062215
Hurry up. The longer you spend in this world polluting it with your foul existence, the worse the hell of your own creation will be for you.

>>18062217
>>18062222
I'm not sufficiently familiar with the cultural and linguistic context to provide a specific counter-theory, but nothing here strikes me as necessitating faggotry at all.
The graffiti about buttsex with men did though, but I've seen worse bathroom stall graffiti in my time without that automatically making my childhood math tutor a fag.

>>18062282
>nothing here strikes me as necessitating faggotry at all.
What do you think is happening

>>18062285
Read the whole sentence.

>>18062282
Ugh before I went to bed I should have posted the next part where Alcibiades then says with surprise that Socrates slept next to him without incident like if he had been sleeping next to his own brother or father. Just read the fucking dialogue. Or any of the Greeks. Fuck.

>>18062282
Because it's not constructed to convince, it's constructed to bombard low IQ people until they give up

Fags are just groomers in every aspect of their life

>>18062303
I like the idea Plato constructed that dialogue to groom anons on 4chan

>>18062307
If you're actually intelligent you don't see what you're saying is in there

>>18062330
>The speech of Alcibiades in the Symposium shows almost too obviously how little “platonic” the Hellenic love for youths in fact was.
Julius Evola, Eros and the Mysteries of Love

>>18062355
If I look at a stone carving of a child's posterior and I get and erection does that make the carver a pedophile?

>>18062366
You’re a weirdo

>>18062368
No it makes you a pedophile

>>18062366
This is essentially what my position boils down to as well. It seems to me that there are a rare few things that are decidedly faggy, and then a bunch of stuff where the fag viewer sees faggotry in it because he's already a faggot. I'm not a faggot, so when men talk about doing each other favors, I don't automatically think of them jacking each other off.
What's the saying? A hammer sees everything as a nail...

>>18062385
Is Hitler a fag or what

>>18062385
Fags are just sold this absolute bullshit that it's okay to be gay and one of the ways they do this is completely rewriting Greek history to support their fag enabling. They can't actually engage the material except but superficially because they're not actually interested in it outside of it validating themselves

>>18062385
What do you think of all the quotes posted from the 1700s and shit complaining about Greek faggotry

>>18062395
Does that make it true you actual retarded faggot?

>>18062397
Where did they get that idea from? Keep in mind they are all classically educated and have read the Greeks (unlike you)

>>18062400
Surely they're not just as retarded as you and coming to the same conclusions

>>18062401
Why are they doing that. Are they gay

>>18062403
To make the mistake first you have to be stupid, to propagate the myth you have to be gay

>>18062412
Where does the mistake come from and why did so many intelligent people and scholars make it. Even Shakespeare did it. And Goethe. And Hobbes. And Nietzsche. And Wagner.

>>18062418
Well pederast wasn't even a word until the ~15th century

>>18062419
Do you mean in English? Obviously it existed in Greek. But you still haven’t explained why so many intelligent people formed this mistaken impression about the Greeks. People who were neither gay nor stupid

>>18062425
If the word want even in western vocabularies until the 15th century and then was only known by the handful of people capable of reading Greek at the time... For the express purpose of people that can't read Greek...

>>18062430
What

>>18062434
So before the 15th century virtually nobody in France could understand Greek besides the most learned spooks in the church. After that you have a bunch of people translating Greek into easily digestible french/English whatever. Then you have a whole bunch of christards reading literal translations of Greek texts, like what you're doing, with no context.

It's not very hard to understand

>>18062450
Most of the people I mentioned could read and write in Greek and Latin. It was a prerequisite for being an educated man. Montaigne - who also mentions Greek homosexuality, where he describes it as abhorrent - was famously raised with Latin as his first language. Would you really say that someone like Nietzsche, a classically trained philologist who devoted his entire life to the study of the Greeks, was only a superficial reader of them?

>>18062462
>Learning greek was a mark of enlightenment
Huh what did they call this period again? Two periods right next to each other during this time

>>18062467
I don’t know what you’re getting at

>>18062469
So you had the Renaissance, which was a resurrection of Greek culture in part, including a newly found respect for their history, followed by a period of educational enlightenment coinciding with the learning of Greek for the first time

And in between these periods your have newly circulating texts of Greek in English without context and the word pederast is invented and is associated with pedophilia

Come on now

>>18062476
What?

>>18062480
Exactly. You're stupid

>>18062394
That's my impression too. Confirmation bias is a helluva drug.
>>18062395
What about them? People can be wrong on a topic for generations, clearly.

>>18062482
I legitimately think you have schizophrenia

>>18062484
I legitimately thing you're retarded. But then you'd have to be, right?

>>18062483
Doesn’t it strike you as a little strange that every educated person from the past until the present day has disagreed with you on this point? Perhaps it has to do with your own unfamiliarity with the source material

>>18062489
You're so stupid you don't realize how nothing you posted refutes anything we've said

>>18062462
They can still have confirmation bias. Most of these grew up in a christian society which claims that pagan Europe was degenerate and terrible. You wouldn't expect a Soviet era historian to be unbiased towards the Tsar either. This creates the confirmation bias to look for degeneracy where there is (potentially) none.
If you get taught that eros means erotic love and you have no reason to doubt it (in fact, you have reason to trust it completely, because your society wouldn't lie to you about your degenerate ancestors!), you're just going to interpret it as faggotry.
There's a massive difference between reading a text and being familiar with the two thousand year old culture it was written in. You see it with christians arguing incessantly about this or that metaphor in the bible.

>>18062500
>Jesus is the reason I'm a retarded homosexual
Maybe

>>18062500
Can this mistake have persisted for so long? What about modern scholarship?

>>18062489
I'm happy to concede that I am uneducated on the Greeks. But educational institutions are vulnerable to conservative thinking, so once a presupposition has set in, it is not likely to be challenged (at least prior to cultural marxism etc). If it is so obviously fully faggoty, then it should be easy to convince me without appealing to authority.
See >>18062500

>>18062505
>How could people have been as retarded as me for thousands of years
Lol

What’s the heterosexual interpretation of this

>>18062513
Have you tried actually looking it up yourself? No you haven't because you're 80 is

>>18062505
>picrel
Using faggot as an insult seems to be the main common thread throughout history. That does not indicate common faggotry.
>Can this mistake have persisted for so long?
Appeal to seniority.
>What about modern scholarship?
I care very little for modern "scholars", but if they have a good argument I'm happy to hear it.

>>18062521
Early Christian writers writing to their Greek audiences mentioned the homosexual activities of the Greek gods. Presumably this means they are counting on their audience being familiar with these myths and accepting the validity of the criticism

>>18062534
>The gods didn't adhere to sexual norms so the greeks were gay
Sounds like you're running out of bullet point

>>18062541
Not really. They also mention that homosexuality was approved by Greek society.

>>18062544
Actually no I call bullshit. You're lying

You know, we talk a great deal about Homosexuality. But what of lesbianism?

>>18062553
>Women
>Relevant
>Ever

>>18062550
I posted the quotes here: >>18061790 >>18061882 >>18061964

>>18062563
Haha. We've already established your conspiracy is based on a mistranslation you're actually not intelligent to understand the historical context of

You're out of bullet points

>>18062534
I've already said that I trust the christian writers on pre-christian Europe about as much as Reagan on the living conditions in the USSR.
Historically, christian missionaries are known fraudsters who routinely lied and slandered and tricked the masses in service of their (ig)noble lie. Even if they weren't consciously lying, they are certainly extremely biased.

>>18062566
Will you concede at least that I wasn’t lying. I don’t like that accusation.

>>18062559
I only ask because I find it more believable that men of ancient times would find lesbians more acceptable if only because it's sexually appealing.

>>18062553
Sappho

Greek homosex deniers have Holocaust denier tier standards of evidence. Every primary source - mistranslated. Every secondary source - biased. Every historian, linguist, classicist, playwright, artist - mistaken. Literally all of human knowledge denied just so that the most blindingly obvious historical fact doesn’t have to be accepted

>>18062573
I'm suggesting the early christian writers may have had very good reason to lie, not you. I don't know anything about you, so I can't say either way.

>>18062593
So you weren’t the anon who said “You’re lying”? That’s ok then. Obviously I agree and I wouldn’t rely upon them as my only source, but they’re more effective because they speak negatively about Greek boy eros (implying that it is something shameful, which is hard to understand if it is not a sexual practice) and because they are themselves Greens writing to a Greek audience

>>18062577
Lesbians are even more fantastical than fags about Greece, they really like the island lesbos

>>18062600
No, that was the other anon. A lot of the early christian are jews though (although less and less as the centuries go by), which makes them even less reliable.
>which is hard to understand if it is not a sexual practice
Early christians shamed a lot more stuff than just sex. Yahwism has all sorts of nonsensical ritual purity traditions. But more importantly, they just absolutely hate European traditions, so they might just have been taking shots at anything they could. Think of it this way: modern feminists claim that every woman in the past was a beaten depressed slave and lash out at anything that they perceive at even remotely linked to muh patriarchy.
When you read a feminist opinion, you just shrug it off as their delusional worldview, but if they controlled the narrative for the next fifteen hundred years, nu-anons on nu-/his/ would post some 21st century mangy cunt's opinion as fact to prove that back in the before times, all men beat their wives black and blue each and every day.

>>18062640
Oh also again don't think it's a coincidence an entire sexual alignment is named after a Greek island

>>18062590
"Boy lover" isn't mistranslated it's just misunderstood. The people writing about the greeks with extensive knowledge of them (you can go there, they still exist) probably compared the similarities between pederasty and becoming a squire

>>18062119
The fact that I make such an impotent little faggot like you so angry has to be one of my crowning achievements.

>>18062681
It actually is, we have one extant remaining line of Sappho and she is hypothesized to have lived on lesbos -- we don't even know if she was actually lesbian. Starting in the 1970s fag professors went wild about Greeks being super totally heckin wholesome and queer with enough ego, tenure, and fragmentary excerpts that they could cover their ass. Older scholarship on the topic tended to be much more measured and high lighted the extremely violent nature of sexual deviancy where it existed, people contemporary to this behavior and of sufficient moral fiber condemned it. Homosexuality and "paraphilia" was simply a case of slaves and lower class individuals being raped by syphilitic freaks with no qualms or under the guise of libertine artistic expression.

>>18062642
He samefagged himself after getting ganged up on to soothe his ego. This has to be the most hilarious bit of pedoanons life cycle, I hope this guy never fucking changes.

>>18063010
Well he very evidently hasn't gotten over getting diddled as a kid and so in many ways he still is that raped child, the coping mechanisms he has are very similar to a bullied kid making up an imaginary friend to soothe their social rejection.

>>18062505
What book

>>18061766
>There are laws against outraging children
Aeschines is professing that in his view, prostitution should be considered a type of outrage (hubris), and isn't even clear whether he is citing actual laws:
>[14] Observe how fair this is, men of Athens. In life the law deprives him of the advantages of parenthood, as he deprived his son of the right of free speech, while after death, when the recipient can not perceive the benefit conferred on him but it is the law and religion that receive the honor, finally it instructs the son to bury his father and to perform the other customary rites. What other law did he lay down to protect your children? The law against procuring, to which he attached the most severe penalties, if anyone procures for prostitution a free boy or woman.
>[15] What other law? The law of outrage (hybris), which sums up in a single statement all such acts. In this law is written explicitly that if anyone commits outrage against a boy (and anyone who hires him commits outrage, I imagine) or man or woman, whether free or slave, or if he does anything contrary to law to any of these, it has allowed for an indictment for outrage and prescribed assessment of the penalty he is to suffer or pay. Read out the law.
>[16] [law] If any Athenian commits outrage against a free boy, the boy’s guardian is to bring an indictment before the Thesmothetae, on which he is to specify the penalty assessed. Anyone convicted by the court is to be handed over to the Eleven and put to death the same day. If anyone is condemned to pay a fine, he is to pay it within eleven days of the trial, if he is unable to pay it immediately. He is to be imprisoned until he has paid. Those who commit offenses against the persons of slaves are also to be liable to these charges.

>The Greeks viewed taking it in the ass as on outrage and generally detested fags
Modern slang, try again dumbass.

>>18063212
>Modern slang, try again dumbass.

The word in there with the most recent history is ἀρσενοκοίτης and it comes from the Bible, so at the latest it was in use during the Roman period. I should also remind you that Ancient Greek and modern Greek are quite similar languages, with most modern words for concepts such as sexuality finding their root in antiquity. The passage I posted is, similarly, clear and even clarifies what outrage might mean and then similarly clarifies that while this law mentions slaves it's *ok* to do it to them specifically for the sake of protecting free-born children. A similar law actually exists in Rome, maybe you remember its name.

I think it's time to accept, that no matter where you are or when you are, people will always view you as the same disgusting κίναιδος. Neither jews nor women made you disgusting, it was your own thoughts and your own desires that caused others to be estranged from you and it is why you face so much hatred, you only have yourself to blame.

>>18063429
Show me the ancient Greek texts that use these words: παλακός, διγιντάγκας, κουνιστός, πισωγλέντης

You won't, because all of these words are modern Greek slang.

>The passage I posted is, similarly, clear
That Aeschines interprets prostitution to be a type of hubris, yes this is clear.

>and then similarly clarifies that while this law mentions slaves it's *ok* to do it to them specifically for the sake of protecting free-born children
No, the law he cites explicitly states that hubris against slaves is not okay under the law he cites, thus the next passage:
>[17] It may be that someone at first hearing might wonder why on earth this term, slaves, was added in the law of outrage. But if you consider it, men of Athens, you will find that it is the best provision of all. For the legislator was not concerned about slaves; but because he wanted to accustom you to keep far away from outrage on free persons, he added the prohibition against committing outrage even against slaves. Quite simply, he thought that in a democracy, the man who commits outrage against anyone at all was not fit to share the rights of citizenship.

Which you would know, had you bothered to read the text that you feel compelled to argue about.

>κίναιδος
A word that applies to passive, effeminate men, and would not be applied to a man or even a boy in a pederastic relationship.

>>18063429
It doesn't even matter if you've read the texts which you're arguing about, because you're too stupid to interpret them properly. Luckily for you, this thread has reached the bump limit, and thus you are saved from further public humiliation.

>>18063439
παλακός isn't even a word, it's a name of a person that his chatbot hallucinated.

>>18063429
>jews
>women
Name a more lethal combo to civilization (you can't)

μαλακός (malakos) is a word that means "soft", "weak". The word does not necessarily have sexual undertones. They had a word that denoted softness/weakness. Does this prove that homosexuality was outlawed in some form ancient Greece? No. Does this even prove that homosexuality carried a social stigma? No.

Leather Apron cucks will literally argue:
>I believe homosexual acts to be partook in by men who are morally soft/weak
>The Greeks have a word that denotes moral softness/weakness
>Therefore homosexual acts carried social stigma in ancient Greece

Is this a good argument? No, it's retarded. But this is the argument that these people have been reduced to.

>>18063439
>Show me the ancient Greek texts that use these words: παλακός, διγιντάγκας, κουνιστός, πισωγλέντης

I won't because I can't be bothered to, but the etymology is clear and even lines up with phrases they had for passive partners, especially in the word πισωγλέντης. Likewise arsenokoitai came from Paul so at the very least was in use during the Roman era. Your haughty coping over the slurs is funny though, I think you need to face ostracism filthy κίναιδος

>No, the law he cites explicitly states that hubris against slaves is not okay under the law ...

He then addresses the jurors concerns as to the nature of that statute by letting them know that the law doesn't really care about slaves but that provision is in there just to be sure that no harm comes to free-born children. It's like plain as day but I am sure you will pretend to fumble around what it means because it does not serve your argument. You certainly have earned your reputation.

>A word that applies to passive, effeminate men

in essence: a homosexual man, a dreaded cineadus, a deceptive κίναιδος, a pathetic faggot, a (You)

>>18063483
malakos is a word anon

>>18063455
I like how whenever someone reads a text and finds something which contradicts your sophistry they are just too stupid to understand it, are you truly the arbiter of wisdom or understanding? When have you made argument that was actually your own and not something written down in a script?

>>18063557
>Does this prove that homosexuality was outlawed in some form ancient Greece? No. Does this even prove that homosexuality carried a social stigma?

The many slurs they had for homosexual do prove a social stigma but if you'll recall I never said that rape of slaves was illegal. By all accounts that could be done and even if it was maybe frowned upon or illegal, then I doubt it was enforced as evidenced by the legal case which handwaves that clause. What is clear is that the immense social stigma associated with being a passive homosexual partner and the multiple laws against the "outrage" of freeborn children leaves us with one glaringly obvious conclusion. Pederasty, where it was practiced, was meant to degrade the slave or "relieve" the master. It was not glamorous or anywhere near your fantasy, it was an old man with numerous STDs and a wine gut grunting over some slave he bought at the market. You have resorted to dishonestly misrepresenting my arguments in the hopes that you can bloviate about your complexity and nuanced perspective, but you are as painfully vacuous and biased as they come.

>>18063611
>I won't because I can't be bothered to
*because you can't; surprisingly you can still be bothered to continue seething in this thread.

>Likewise arsenokoitai came from Paul
Widely believed to be a neologism invented by Paul; irrelevant for determining attitudes towards pederasty in classical Greece both because it is a later Koine Greek term, and because the word is value-neutral (which you don't seem to grasp). Fail.

>that the law doesn't really care about slaves but that provision is in there just to be sure that no harm comes to free-born children
At no point does Aeschines claim that outrage against slaves is okay, as was your interpretation. Fail.

>>18063622
>someone reads a text and finds something which contradicts your sophistry they are just too stupid to understand it
This poster >>18063429 believed that:
>if any one outrage a child (and surely he who hires, outrages) or a man or woman, or any one, free or slave, or if he commit any unlawful act against any one of these. Here the law provides prosecution for outrage, and it prescribes what bodily penalty he shall suffer, or what fine he shall pay.
Which he then compared to a law believed to only criminalize sexual crimes against freeborn boys in Rome, making it clear that this was his interpretation:
>A similar law actually exists in Rome, maybe you remember its name.
Implied that slaves were not subject to laws against outrage. Is this faggot too stupid to interpret basic texts? Yes, he is.

>are you truly the arbiter of wisdom or understanding
Compared to the retards on /his/ like (you)? Yes, I am.

>>18063654
This spastic has literally no clue what he's talking about. Just fucking lol.

>>18063655
Fix:
This poster >>18063429 believed that:
>if any one outrage a child (and surely he who hires, outrages) or a man or woman, or any one, free or slave, or if he commit any unlawful act against any one of these. Here the law provides prosecution for outrage, and it prescribes what bodily penalty he shall suffer, or what fine he shall pay.
Implied that slaves were not subject to laws against outrage. Which he then compared to a law believed to only criminalize sexual crimes against freeborn boys in Rome, making it clear that this was his interpretation:
>A similar law actually exists in Rome, maybe you remember its name.
Is this faggot too stupid to interpret basic texts? Yes, he is.

>>18063655
>because you can't; surprisingly you can still be bothered to continue seething in this thread.

They all have, at the very least, 1st century origins. Cineadus or κίναιδος was very much a slur specifically for homosexuals in both Classical and Roman Greece.

>Widely believed to be a neologism invented by Paul

Widely believed but not confirmed, either way it was one of many

>At no point does Aeschines claim that outrage against slaves is okay

What does this mean then: "It may be that someone at first hearing might wonder why on earth this term, slaves, was added in the law of outrage. But if you consider it, men of Athens, you will find that it is the best provision of all. For the legislator was not concerned about slaves..."

>This poster ...

Does similar mean exact same to you, how about those two weird little marks around *ok*, what do those maybe indicate? He is saying exactly what I am here>>18063611

Tfw everyone for the past 2,000 years misread the Greeks until 4chan discovered the truth

>>18063781
I don't think anyone has ever misread the Greeks. It was always known that their penchant for pederasty was a brutal contravention of their own ethical systems, they have been derided all through out history for exactly this reason. The only misreading of Greek pederasty is by those who would delude themselves into believing that it was anything other than the brutalization of slaves.

It's because women have been seething about the love between men for a while. Women only like the gays now because the gays make them pretty and worship them like queens and divas. But back then women were not worshiped like this and add to that that they were men who only wanted to be with other men and that was like adding insult to injury.

>>18063672
>They all have, at the very least, 1st century origins
Nope.

>What does this mean then
Holy shit. You're too low IQ to parse a simple sentence. I CAN'T READ!

>>18063858
Your coping and seething delights me greatly

>Your coping and seething delights me greatly
this faggot is generally malding

>>18063856
>that that they were men who only wanted to be with other men

Women were men in antiquity? What exactly do you mean by this? Also that that they were men, surely your superior reading comprehension skills will explain this to my stupid heterosexual mind.

>>18063869
>this faggot is generally malding

I presume you meant genuinely. Are you drunk or something? I thought you were better at reading and grammar than I was.

>>18063872
>a simple switch between a 'they' and a 'there'
Did pronouns really break your brain that much that you couldn't fix the sentence in a way that made sense?
And 'that' serves two different functions and its grammatically correct.

>>18063923
that that, anon, are you gonna tell me about is is next

>>18063923
I believe you call others ESL when they make such simple and easy to understand mistakes. It is strange right? To have someone so obstinate in their persistence about misunderstanding your every word, typing error or no.

>>18063931
NTA but your grammar is completely fucked up. What country are you from?

>>18063933
Surely! English Sign Language is, as it would indicate, a language for deaf people to sign to one another. There are many reasons as to why it may not translate perfectly into the written word, for example it does not share the same grammatical rules as English does, so people typing as they would sign may come off as unaware of these conventions. Fortunately we, as good people, give them grace on account of their disability and afford them patience.

Thread is just full of argumentative agents who get paid per reply. This is their favorite topic because they're experts on it and it seems to get them a lot of traction too.
>guaranteed replies yadda yadda

>>18063943
Sober up, make another thread when you feel viable, I'll be waiting.

>>18063946
To humiliate yourself further?

>>18063936
>obsessed dickrider is a dysgenic spaz
oh no no no

>>18063947
If that's what you need, then sure. You remember saying I get paid by the post, right? Are you maybe to drunk to remember?

>everyone that posts on /his/ is the same guy
Rent free.

>>18059908
And you love it so much you can't actually back talk, slut.

>>18063963
you live in a strange land

>>18063511
>>jews
>>women
>Name a more lethal combo to civilization (you can't)
jews
christians