I'm sure there are dozens. France ****phile country confirmed.

But it’s underground sht, certainly not accepted by the vast majority of people, and 99.99% of people would drop any association with you in a second if they saw something like that hung up on your wall.

So you’re assertion is that all the countless artifacts we can find showing gay sht, that’s all the underground crap akin to ****o art?

Sounds super likely.

Uh, yeah. That's my assertion. There aren't "countess" artifacts. You'd know that if you watched the video.

Also, learn the difference between "your" and "you're" before your next post.

Video is fairly accurate and spot on about modern projections. I enjoyed the countervailing opinion.

It remains that if getting buggered by some chums was a sign of normative sexual appetites for ancient Greeks, why on earth would they portray their humiliated enemies as about to get their cheeks clapped? Take the Eurymedon vase, made following the Greek victory at Eurymedon, and whose art depicts a Persian about to get buggered by a Greek, as evidence that male-on-male intercourse wasn't something of social esteem but something shameful/humiliating.

It's all a metaphor, of course, to denigrate the defeated Persians following the battle and to generate some pro-Hellenic sentiment. But for the purposes of our discussion, why would the classical Greeks depict the Persians in such a way if homosexuality was the cultural norm for the ancient Greek man?

Because I'd argue it was not the norm, and had aspects of shame tied to the act.

The night before:

So, ****ing another man in the ass isn’t gay now? News to me.

So, ****ing another man in the ass isn’t gay now? News to me.

According to the video in the OP out of 80,000 pieces of this sort of pottery, only 30 or so depict what could be considered homosexuality, and that they're constantly reused to create the illusion of there being more than that.

I didn't say it wasn't gay. But while the vase depicts a Greek man about to sodomize a defeated Persian, the intention of the depiction is to humiliate and promote shame for the Persians.

Which brings us back to the main issue, which is the ancient perception of homosexuality. Whereas modern scholarship is currently in a trend of trying to depict homosexuality as the 'norm' in ancient Greece, these assertions don't neatly align with the archeological and literary/cultural evidence of the time. If buggering ancient cheeks was normative or celebrated in ancient Greece, then why depict the same act in a clear effort to humiliate one's defeated enemies?

They won a skirmish and a battle, and mantinea was a draw, and the Thebans were never able to take Sparta. Even the great Pyrrhus wasn't able to take a much weaker Sparta 100 years later thanks to the resolve of their women.

It was not the sparta of old, and once Epaminondas set up the arkadian league and recreated Messania, the spartans lost the helots which dramatically damaged their ability to mobilise a powerful army. The Thebans were also never able to take Sparta, so they were not annihilated, they were just beaten at Tegyra and Leuctra (thanks to epaminondas unusual at the time strategy). If they annihilated them, where was there supremacy? Why did they only go back to the Peloponnese once after Epaminondas was killed under Pamenes and achieve absolutely nothing?

Context is important, it's also worth noting the sacred band and athenians got their chit pushed in at chaeronea by Phillip and the macedonians just a couple of decades later.

We also have a bias, because the works that are left to us come almost exclusively from aristocratic upper class writers, and so people have a modern, warped view of the Greek world because they think everyone lived like the aristocrats. Imagine if 2000 years in the future, people are only left with sources from the elites, what they would think of our world? Even now, elites are involved in all sorts of sexual degeneracy (see Epstein..)

The concept of gayness doesn't really apply the same way in the greek world, they operated under a totally different paradigm that's hard for us to understand and love was a much more complex entity for them, than it is to us. Yes some higher class men did smash younger men (but they usually had wives too), but it was heavily frowned upon in most states, only Thebes and Elis had actual policies encouraging lovers (hence the sacred band of thebes, and possibly a sacred band in elis). In Athens, for example, it was considered shameful. We also still lack understanding of exact details of the sacred band, but it wasn't 'gay' in the modern sense of the word. Even a cursory reading of some of plato's works make it clear that it was heavily frowned upon. For example socrates often referred to Alcibiades as his lover, yet it's pretty clear he was against any physical manifestation of love but only a 'love of mind', yet the use of the word 'lover' would automatically make us assume he means gay love (which he doesn't).

Rape has always been of the crudest ways to assert total domination. But you’re not bragging about being the gay rapist to society in general without gay being OK in the first place.

I think on your last point it’s the same story with every group of men that declare “celibacy” type living. There’s always some closet homos who would be hiding what they were doing anyways pumping the choir boys.

Excellent example. We wouldn'tdefinean altar-boy as a sexual relationship between a priest and a younger male just because priests have molested altar boys, but that's exactly what we do with pederasty despite the fact that there is no evidence that pederasty was a sexual relationship by nature. Everything from the time period suggests that it was mentor/mentee/educational relationship in which abuse sometimes unfortunately occurred, and was thus memed. Just like altar boys and priests.

But no, these mouth breathers actually believe that there was a common and socially acceptable practice of men raping boys and destroying their lives and that was just celebrated and considered good by everyone! Chronological snobbery at its finest.

.. is a modern myth that falls apart under ANY scrutiny. People just don't care that much, not that there's anything wrong with that. **It's just crazy how successful this lie has become**. I know that everyone who disagrees is just *repeating the **** they've been told and have spent 0 seconds actually looking into this.* It falls apart instantly and makes no sense.

you have to seriously wonder about a society that thinks it's normal to have prepubescent boys raped by older men....

Yeah, almost like it's a bull**** myth or something.

Catholic church did it relatively recently, so it's not really hard to believe.

Catholic church did it relatively recently, so it's not really hard to believe.

Lmaooo @ op coping and seething unable to accept that their big daddy masculine Greeks where bi as fuk and paedos too.

Lmao op is in shambles right now

It's interesting that the same group that would be interested in tarnishing that institution, is interested in tarnishing the roots of our civilization. From what I remember there was a case of hundreds of accusations of molestation in the northeastern US, names of priests were published so their reputations were ruined in addition to dragging the church through the mud, only to have it surface later there was no evidence and no one was convicted of anything.

Did any of you actually watch the video?

Just LMAO.

strong mental gymnast.

YOUR/OUR ANCESTORS GAY AF!