>>17923894
At the end of the day you're just ass-blasted that pedophiles exist, have existed historically, and that sex between adults and children/adolescents occurred historically (and is not harmful btw), and are unwilling to accept any facts on the matter that contradict your religiously motivated anti-sexual preconceptions on the matter.
Your continual seethe fills me with joy. Same goes for any of the other chuds that post here. Keep crying for me.
>>17923913
>If there was a law prohibiting the rape of freeborn boys it does imply that sex with them was viewed as such
Source: I just made it up.
>In almost no other context can a pederastic relationship assume to have existed
Source: My opinion.
>it was acknowledged that when these relationships became sexual they are degraded in their character
...according to a minority of commentators.
>subjected the passive partner to shame
When it involved penetration.
>for this offense
The offence of prostitution, not homosexuality. You haven't read Against Timarchus btw, otherwise you wouldn't be making these retarded arguments.
