Does a real man have to do some things that a good person doesn’t? Is he not allowed to do some things that a good person would do?
[QUOTE=Hedgehogey;2695363]Honestly, after knowing a lot of transgender people who educated me quite a bit on this subject, i’ve come to see that gender ain’t nothing but a set of performances we put on. There’s very little inherent about it. Research shows that your gender identity is usually fixed at birth, but how one performs that gender, socially, is culturally transmitted.
Let’s take a look at this. The ancient Greeks and Romans considered homosex (within certain bounds) the more masculine because getting too close to ladies made you weak. Samurai had a similar tradition (wakashudo), and ancient Chinese generals would often hook up with each other on the DL (I have a friend who wrote a paper on that as it relates to Romance Of The Three Kingdoms). Quite a lot of warrior-nobles, chieftains, etc. throughout the ancient world where heavily concerned with fashion and doing up their hair just right. For instance, from here:
And as a modern example, there’s Shad Smith, openly gay and better than 99% of the posters on this site.
Meanwhile there’s a long tradition of foppish, effeminate men who got blimploads of coo, starting with the Macaronis in the 1700s all the way through Prince (i’m not counting metrosexuals here because they’re basically Tijuana knockoffs of gay culture).
So is it about having ‘masculine’ hobbies and inclinations? Well that pretty much holds no water either. The entire existence of the Real Men Wear Pink and Agent Peacock tropes puts the lie to that. Some highlights:
These guys, who were posted here a few months ago in the news section.
So wherefore art thou sweaty, grunting ass, masculinity? Evopsych continues to be bunk science, culture continues to change (and with it what constitutes masculinity) and some of you premature old people think that whatever was masculine when you were a teenager is the absolute standard.
Me, I don’t think there’s an objective standard of masculinity (or femininity) at all. So while the rest of you are focused on being good men, i’ll keep trying to be a good person. I’ll be watching shows designed for Japanese teenage girls while y’all pretend to like Dog The Bounty Hunter.[/QUOTE]
I hate to say it but Chen is right dude. You talk about the Greeks and Romans thinking homosex to be more masculine due to being with a woman makes you weak, you’re attacking “sexism” with sexism. I may regret asking this, but were these homosexual relations in Greek and Roman culture relationships in the sense of husband and wife (boyfriend and girlfriend), or just on a friends with benefits level kind of like the little boys they messed with in the army?
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
[QUOTE=jwilde88;2695393]I may regret asking this, but were these homosexual relations in Greek and Roman culture relationships in the sense of husband and wife (boyfriend and girlfriend), or just on a friends with benefits level kind of like the little boys they messed with in the army? 2[/QUOTE]It doesn’t really fit either of those models, though it’s closer to the second. People weren’t “gay”, but many had lengthy homosexual relationships that were parallel to the wives and children that would still have been socially expected.
It’s actually a Greek, rather than Roman, thing. The Republican Romans were prison-style homo for the most part, giving out was cool but taking was weakening and extended relationships were foreign, subversive and for nancies. Greek cultural influence collapsed this a bit in the later empire, Hadrian deified his boyfriend.
[QUOTE=Hedgehogey;2695356]
And really that’s about it. The rest of this thread is mostly Iron John fantasies that went out of fashion in about 1989.[/QUOTE]
Forgive me if I don’t defer to an admitted princess on the subject of manliness.
Also, there’s more than a little irony in your logic. 1989 is out of fashion but ancient Greek/Chinese man buggering is totally hip? No, they were ass backwards (pun intended) then, just as they are now. There are a few left like them - tribal hillbillies in Afghanistan, for instance. We handle them appropriately with white phosphorus.
[QUOTE=PointyShinyBurn;2695406]It doesn’t really fit either of those models, though it’s closer to the second. People weren’t “gay”, but many had lengthy homosexual relationships that were parallel to the wives and children that would still have been socially expected.
It’s actually a Greek, rather than Roman, thing. The Republican Romans were prison-style homo for the most part, giving out was cool but taking was weakening and extended relationships were foreign, subversive and for nancies. Greek cultural influence collapsed this a bit in the later empire, Hadrian deified his boyfriend.[/QUOTE]
Modern scholarship has moved beyond this interpretation.
Also the dominant penetrator/passive penetrated was also traditionally viewed as a Greek thing, not purely Roman.
Nowadays there’s a more nuanced view than that of the fashionable 1970s - Greeks invented gayness and loved it view.
The extent to which homosexuality was practised outside the elite is questioned and there is now a recognition that homosexual relationships could incur significant social censure even if they fitted into the dominant penetrator/passive penetrated paradigm.
Also the thing that popularly doesn’t get discussed when talking about Greek homosexuality is the strongly pederastic nature of it.
Indeed your statement about maintaining lengthy homosexual relationships alongside marriage and not attracting social sitgma is incorrect. Any man who continued being the penetrated partner as an adult was seen to be eroding his masculinity and suffered the consequential social ostracism.
Greek homosexuality was not about happy consenting adult males in loving relationships. It was about dominant penetration of submissive- young and adolescent boys.
Its not the happy clappy homosexual paradise that equality groups like to paint it as.
Greek homosexuality was more abusive Catholic school than Brighton gay club.
You motherfuckers know way too much about buttsecks. Let’s talk about something else.
Anybody watch the Hatfields & McCoys miniseries on the History Channel? Those Hatfields were not to be fucked with. I bet those bitch-ass McCoys knew a little something about buttsecks though.
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695422]Modern scholarship has moved beyond this interpretation.
Also the dominant penetrator/passive penetrated was also traditionally viewed as a Greek thing, not purely Roman.
Nowadays there’s a more nuanced view than that of the fashionable 1970s - Greeks invented gayness and loved it view.
The extent to which homosexuality was practised outside the elite is questioned and there is now a recognition that homosexual relationships could incur significant social censure even if they fitted into the dominant penetrator/passive penetrated paradigm.
Also the thing that popularly doesn’t get discussed when talking about Greek homosexuality is the strongly pederastic nature of it.
Indeed your statement about maintaining lengthy homosexual relationships alongside marriage and not attracting social sitgma is incorrect. Any man who continued being the penetrated partner as an adult was seen to be eroding his masculinity and suffered the consequential social ostracism.
Greek homosexuality was not about happy consenting adult males in loving relationships. It was about dominant penetration of submissive- young and adolescent boys.
Its not the happy clappy homosexual paradise that equality groups like to paint it as.
Greek homosexuality was more abusive Catholic school than Brighton gay club.[/QUOTE]
Looks like Hedge might have a Dahmer complex.
[QUOTE=Devil;2695425]You motherfuckers know way too much about buttsecks. Let’s talk about something else.
Anybody watch the Hatfields & McCoys miniseries on the History Channel? Those Hatfields were not to be fucked with. I bet those bitch-ass McCoys knew a little something about buttsecks though.[/QUOTE]
Too true. The way those young boys cried before they were taken to the firing squad and pining for their “Papi” to come save them body chill It was fucking sickening.
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
[QUOTE=jwilde88;2695428]Too true. The way those young boys cried before they were taken to the firing squad and pining for their “Papi” to come save them body chill It was fucking sickening.
[/QUOTE]
Bullshit. They had it coming.
[QUOTE=jwilde88;2695428]Looks like Hedge might have a Dahmer complex.
[/QUOTE]
As in Jeffrey Dahmer?
I don’t think so. Its just that the popular history of Greek homosexuality has been seized by groups with an interest in advancing a homosexual agenda and they have politicised it to support their objectives.
The problem is they aren’t proper historians and they have either not bothered to keep up with or deliberately ignored developments and advances in scholarly understanding.
I think if you want to promote homosexuality you are really undermining your cause by referencing the Greeks, because it opens you up to charges of either endorsing or encouraging paedophilia and sexual abuse of children.
Hey, is there a similiar buttsecks paradigm in black ghettos?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cookie&defid=755973
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695422]
Greek homosexuality was not about happy consenting adult males in loving relationships. It was about dominant penetration of submissive- young and adolescent boys. [/QUOTE]To the extent that’s true, it holds at least as strongly for their heterosexual behaviour.
That adult homosexuality was sometimes stigmatised socially is also clearly true, but there’s no hint of it attracting the kind of legal persecution that would arrive with the Christians, for example. That way Aristophanes bangs on about it indicates to me that it’s hardly unknown, or even uncommon, even if people disapprove of it.
Anyway, how 'bout that Johan Santana?
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695430]
I don’t think so. Its just that the popular history of Greek homosexuality has been seized by groups with an interest in advancing a homosexual agenda and they have politicised it to support their objectives. [/QUOTE]I don’t think it’s twisting history to point out that the Mosaic cultures’ extreme aversion to gayness isn’t the only available norm or any kind of historical inevitability.
If the example is somehow tainted because it involves fucking what we now think of as children then the institution of ‘traditional’ Christian marriage is sunk without trace…
[ATTACH]13408[/ATTACH]
[QUOTE=Devil;2695429]Bullshit. They had it coming.[/QUOTE]
I was agreeing with you.
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695430]As in Jeffrey Dahmer?
I don’t think so. Its just that the popular history of Greek homosexuality has been seized by groups with an interest in advancing a homosexual agenda and they have politicised it to support their objectives.
The problem is they aren’t proper historians and they have either not bothered to keep up with or deliberately ignored developments and advances in scholarly understanding.
I think if you want to promote homosexuality you are really undermining your cause by referencing the Greeks, because it opens you up to charges of either endorsing or encouraging paedophilia and sexual abuse of children.[/QUOTE]
I see I need to work on getting my point across clearly lol.
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
[QUOTE=PointyShinyBurn;2695432]To the extent that’s true, it holds at least as strongly for their heterosexual behaviour.
That adult homosexuality was sometimes stigmatised socially is also clearly true, but there’s no hint of it attracting the kind of legal persecution that would arrive with the Christians, for example. That way Aristophanes bangs on about it indicates to me that it’s hardly unknown, or even uncommon, even if people disapprove of it.[/QUOTE]
I’m not aware of legal penalties, but then again Greece wasn’t one country it was made up of many city states so some may have had legal penalties.
The notion that the arrival of Christianity unleashed a wave of persecution is also a bit of a myth. Yes the Church is and was opposed to homosexuality, but it took the Church a long time to establish widespread control and even when it had homosexuality was still known about and carried out.
The real dedicated persecution of homosexuals we now associate with Christianity is a relatively new phenomenon - 19th century onwards.
[QUOTE=PointyShinyBurn;2695434]I don’t think it’s twisting history to point out that the Mosaic cultures’ extreme aversion to gayness isn’t the only available norm or any kind of historical inevitability.
If the example is somehow tainted because it involves fucking what we now think of as children then the institution of ‘traditional’ Christian marriage is sunk without trace…[/QUOTE]
No, but it is twisting history to portray ancient Greece as a paradise of consensual adult homosexual practice when the reality was more nuanced and darker.
I’m not sure where you’re going with the Christian marriage thing, but either way its no skin off my nose.
[QUOTE=Devil;2695441]
//youtu.be/PrfBbKpeEHw
[/QUOTE]
I can’t believe that video actually sucked me in like it did. I watched the whole thing without looking away, I don’t even think I blinked. I’m not even a boob guy.
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695440]
The notion that the arrival of Christianity unleashed a wave of persecution is also a bit of a myth. Yes the Church is and was opposed to homosexuality, but it took the Church a long time to establish widespread control and even when it had homosexuality was still known about and carried out.[/quote]The first laws against it that I’m aware of came with the Christianisation of the Roman Empire. The extent of the enforcement I can’t precisely speak to, but it certainly marked the first official sanctions.
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695440]The real dedicated persecution of homosexuals we now associate with Christianity is a relatively new phenomenon - 19th century onwards.[/quote]Hysteria about it seems to start in the Medieval period, really. You can’t really say it starts in the 19th Century given the amount of prosecutions (grounded or not) instigated by the Inquisition.
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695440]No, but it is twisting history to portray ancient Greece as a paradise of consensual adult homosexual practice when the reality was more nuanced and darker.[/quote]I don’t think I portrayed it that way. A pretty large fraction of the sex had in Ancient Greece or Rome would be very not-OK by modern liberal standards.
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695440]
I’m not sure where you’re going with the Christian marriage thing, but either way its no skin off my nose.[/QUOTE]You’re saying the ‘homosexual agenda’ is mis-using history. I’m saying if that’s so their opponents are doing the same.