[QUOTE=PointyShinyBurn;2695445]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.
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.
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.
You’re saying the ‘homosexual agenda’ is mis-using history. I’m saying if that’s so their opponents are doing the same.[/QUOTE]
l agree with everyone so far. Gay sex is far better when it’s illicit, dirty, and between putative straights. Nothing’s worse than the bourgeoisification of the bathhouse. I blame the middle-class and property rights and gay marriage. Keep it DL and DTF, boys.
I also agree with Devil; this thread needs some more manly videos.
[QUOTE=Rivington;2695448]l agree with everyone so far. Gay sex is far better when it’s illicit, dirty, and between putative straights. Nothing’s worse than the bourgeoisification of the bathhouse. I blame the middle-class and property rights and gay marriage. Keep it DL and DTF, boys.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Rivington;2695448]l agree with everyone so far. Gay sex is far better when it’s illicit, dirty, and between putative straights. Nothing’s worse than the bourgeoisification of the bathhouse. I blame the middle-class and property rights and gay marriage. Keep it DL and DTF, boys.[/QUOTE]
Meh, i was born in Hawai’i, the “mahu” thing is no big deal.
Seriously, volleyball coaches, kumu hula, musicians etc…
I just disagree that the fop is the ideal.
So i’m not sure where you’re going, unless it’s along these lines:
…in which case i guess i have no argument.
[QUOTE=ChenPengFi;2695455]Meh, i was born in Hawai’i, the “mahu” thing is no big deal.
Seriously, volleyball coaches, kumu hula, musicians etc…
[/QUOTE]
Don’t stop at etc! What else? We should have a megathrowdown there.
[QUOTE=Rivington;2695457]Don’t stop at etc! What else? We should have a megathrowdown there.[/QUOTE]
You people want everything! You’ve already got Gay Days at Disney World and control of San Francisco. Next you’re going to want to get married and such.
The answer is somewhere between “a penis” and “the social norms in their culture”, which is sort of a disappointing taint of an answer. Fortunately this thread seems to be on the right track towards getting there.
[QUOTE=Rivington;2695457]Don’t stop at etc! What else? We should have a megathrowdown there.[/QUOTE]
Ok, just one more, for you. Firemen!
Ya’ know, if we had a Mega here, we could meet up at the Royal Hawaiian:
maybe if we’re lucky Keali’i will be performing
we could catch a hula show
it would be a manly time for all.
Just think, we could even grapple at the end of the day!
This thread is so far from what the founding fathers of Bullshido intended.
I thought Mahu was TG; does the term work for gay guys too?
What does it mean to be female?
- Good mother.
- More concerned with nurturing children than “having a career.”
- Doesn’t wear man pants.
- Washes dishes.
- Lady on the streets. Whore in the sheets.
Did I miss anything?
[QUOTE=PointyShinyBurn;2695445]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.
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]
You’re assuming. Do you know how many homosexuals were tried by the inquisition? If so where and at what times? How were the inquisition defining homosexual acts?
The ‘crime’ is usually recorded as contra naturam? But what did that mean to individual inquisitors, theologians and others and at what times?
People assume it to mean sodomy or male on male anal sex, but Foucault in his History of Sexuality called sodomy “that utterly confused category”.
It wasn’t until the Third Lateran Council in 1179 that precise penalties for sodomy were laid out. However, these ranged in severity from, for clerics - being expelled from their order or confided to a monastery. Or for laymen excommunication and removal from the company of the faithful.
This was in contrast to the penalty 50 odd years earlier in the Kingdom of Jerusalem where the penalty was being burnt to death.
Theological writings are similarly confused Thomas Aquinas lumps all same sex activity together as contra naturam. However, creates an extra category of ‘unnatural vice’, which includes masturbation, homosexuality and bestiality. Yet despite this concluded that homosexuality was a ‘natural’ condition and that it was a necessary evil.
We are left with a confused picture of attempted classification and lack of clarity other how to view and deal with the issue of homosexuality.
During the 12th century issues were further confused by the emergence of a tripartite notion of gender which included hermaphrodites.
The central reproductive textbook of the time De Spermate concluded that a woman’s uterus was arrayed from left to right (cold to hot) and that where the seed landed on this spectrum would determine the temperament of the child.
“If the seed falls into the right hand part of the womb, the child is a male. However, if a weak virile seed there combines with a stronger female seed, the child, although male, will be fragile in body and mind. It may even happen that from the combination of a weak amle seed and a strong female seed there is born a child having both sexes”
This surely doesn’t square with the popular view of a reactionary medieval period in which all difference was rejected and to be destroyed by fire?
Let’s jump forward a few hundred years to the the 17th century streets of Paris.
“In the seventeenth century, as in the sixteenth and even more so in the eighteenth centuries, magistrates prosecuted sodomy sporadically and selectively, most commonly when the offense involved physical violence and provoked public scandal. Most same-sex relations, especially involving members of the privileged classes, did not result in prosecution”
Even in the case of quite serious peadophile repeat offenders action was relatively light.
Jean Perrin, known as Grisy, had a longstanding reputation for sexual misconduct. In 1658 or 1659 he frequented the house of Gabriel Brussart in the Saint-Antoine quarter on the Right Bank of the Seine and one day took Brussart’s fifteen-year-old son to a tavern, where he tried to violate the boy. Some years later he was reportedly imprisoned for trying to corrupt another boy in another quarter, but he continued to consort with adolescents after his release. Some of them talked about him, and so did adults in the neighbourhoods where he lived. In the spring of 1666 the seventy-two-year-old Grisy accosted fifteen-year-old Germain Lesueur and subsequently spoke to him many times, mostly at the office of his master (Charles de Henault, notary) but also around the house of his father (Jean Lesueur, bourgeois de Paris).
He took the boy on walks and to taverns, sometimes hugged, pressed, caressed, fondled, groped, and kissed him, and repeatedly offered to give him some money and show him a good time. He also had conversations with and made propositions to Germain’s fellow clerk, seventeen-year-old Louis Fleuret. The head clerk, Etienne Legay, eventually asked them about Grisy and then reported their escapades not to his employer, who played no role in the case, but to Jean Petre, syndic of the corporation of master inspectors of signatures and letter writers (so called because they verified signatures on documents). During the third week of June Petre questioned Fleuret and then told his friend Lesueur what was going on. No longer in the dark, Lesueur confronted his son and instructed him not to see Grisy anymore. On Sunday the 20th Grisy looked for Germain and asked him to take a walk with him, which the boy declined to do. On the 21st Lesueur filed a complaint with district police commissioner Nicolas Devendosme. On Sunday the 27th Grisy looked for Germain again and arranged to take him to breakfast the next morning. On the 28th Lesueur learned of the rendezvous and asked Devendosme to investigate. At the Plump Grape tavern, run by Pierre Soirat and his wife, Barbe Coquille, with the assistance of their servant Edme Mondat, he caught Grisy in flagrante delicto. The commissioner interrogated him as well as the boy and sent Grisy to the Grand Chatelet prison. Devendosme took four depositions that day and three more in July. It is not clear from these documents or other sources what happened to Grisy
Chaussons in the Streets p170-171
The historical record simply does not fit with simplistic notions of automatic punishment of homosexuality and other perceived deviances, punishments ranged wildly in severity over time and place and most crucially whatever the punishment may have been on the statute books, the implementation of the law was key and more often that not tolerance and turning a blind eye was favoured to enforcement.
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3704814?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21100838099041
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3704138?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21100838099041
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4617219?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21100838099041
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4629651?uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21100838099041
[QUOTE=PointyShinyBurn;2695445]
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]
No I don’t think you did, you merely reproduced what is popular perception.
[QUOTE=PointyShinyBurn;2695445]
You’re saying the ‘homosexual agenda’ is mis-using history. I’m saying if that’s so their opponents are doing the same.[/QUOTE]
I’m saying people and organisations with a vested interest in pushing homosexual causes are mis-using it either deliberately or through ignorance. I don’t know which it is, although I would assume ignorance.
I’m not arguing in favour or against Christian marriage in fact I haven’t even brought it up, so I don’t really see how any potential mis-use by them is relevant.
[QUOTE=ChenPengFi;2695465]Ok, just one more, for you. Firemen![/QUOTE]
swoon
Both of these were in my newsfeed, right next to each other. I’m going to take it as a sign.
Man Claims Self Defense in Fatal Shooting of Neighbor
“This is a difficult defense to mount,” says Dana Cole, legal analyst and defense attorney. “He had no injury, he brought a gun to a noise complaint, and it appeared he was escalating it, by baiting the party-goers.”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fn%2Fa%2F2012%2F06%2F07%2Fnational%2Fa072250D50.DTL
Teen accidentally shot self in webcam chat
Investigators say a Philadelphia teen who accidentally shot himself in the head was handling the gun after his manhood was challenged by another person during a webcam chat.
What does it mean to be male? To be masculine? To be manly?
I think, now more than ever, it means not having the need to prove oneself as such.
I go to sleep and History gets everywhere. For the record, i’m not disagreeing about how the ancient Greeks buggered each other, but rather that their standards of what is masculine included lots of things that would nowadays be considered only for sissy felchers. Which is part of my central point, that there isn’t an objective standard of masculinity and therefore that most of you are wasting your time.
[QUOTE=Hedgehogey;2695530]I go to sleep and History gets everywhere. For the record, i’m not disagreeing about how the ancient Greeks buggered each other, but rather that their standards of what is masculine included lots of things that would nowadays be considered only for sissy felchers. Which is part of my central point, that there isn’t an objective standard of masculinity and therefore that most of you are wasting your time.[/QUOTE]
There’s a fundamental philosophical problem there though Hedge. If you believe concepts of masculinity are transient and change over time. Then you have to accept that in certain time periods there are singular conceptualisations of masculinity, these may not be immutable in the long term, but are definitive in their epoch.
The current epoch does not define masculinity as the Greeks did, nor does it definite as 17th century samurai did.
The current definition of masculinity is what the majority of people have outlined in this thread. A definition that currently rejects notions of femininity and disassociates itself from perceived homosexual traits.
Masculinity is defined in our epoch by self-reliance, anti-femininity and general lad culture.
If you’re going to buy into cultural relativism, you can’t complain when the relativism of the culture epoch you currently inhabit isn’t one you like.
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695532]The current definition of masculinity is what the majority of people have outlined in this thread. A definition that currently rejects notions of femininity and disassociates itself from perceived homosexual traits.[/QUOTE]
How did you come to this conclusion?
Hell they throw parades and rallies like they’re politicians over here and a lot of people really don’t care. If you’re talking about the opinions of ANYbody you have to think about people that are afraid to speak up for whatever reason, women, anybody. The OP asked for what you would tell your 13 year old son, it didn’t say you had to be a man or straight to answer.
Sent from my DROID4 using Tapatalk 2
[QUOTE=judoka_uk;2695532]If you’re going to buy into cultural relativism, you can’t complain when the culture you currently inhabit isn’t one you like.[/QUOTE]
whittled down