>>18763481
Now brown people larp as them LOL

>>18763498
It really is funny.
Some of the things Romans did to and said about Asians and Africans would give those brown "med" larping cucks heart attacks kek.

>"Syrians and Asiatic Greeks, the most worthless peoples among mankind, born for slavery.”
— Manlius Acilius (191 BC, Quoted by Livy)

>>18763532
>Manlius Acilius
Manius Acilius Glabrio

levantine 'men' getting fucked in the ass

>>18763481
This reminds me of the french in north africa

>>18763481
Because they weren't yet cucked by Abrahamic sand nigger beliefs.

What if the Jews sprrad the moral stigma against topping in order to stop whites from buck breaking them

>>18763481
Shitposts, nobody in the ancient world was gay. Being called gay was an ultimate insult and meant you were a woman because you sucked cock and took it up the ass.

>>18764243
That’s why they wrote about beautiful boys thighs and asses all the time

>>18764223
jej best fag apologia I've ever read
10/10 might buck break a j*w

But anon told me racism didn't exist until the 1800s. Before then everyone was raceblind and moved only by idealogies and faiths..what the algo

classical sexuality was top/bottom differentiated. It was more shameful for a man to eat pussy than to fuck another man

>>18764303
>more shameful for a man to eat pussy than to fuck another man
giga trvke

>>18763481
how did it feel for the receiving party to know they were effectively a third gender or a woman instead of a man because having sex with them "wasn't" gay

>>18764303
I still believe this.

>be roman soldier
>every day take down your camp, march 30 miles and build it again
>sometimes have to build roads and bridges
>have to do this and keep up with the army even with malnutrition, sickness and lack of supplies like decent sandals
>constant terrifying raids by the barbarians reminding you why you go through the trouble of fortifying the camp
>few casualties but every Roman was a brother who died for his country
>finally arrive at the key point, a rebel settlement
>more gruelling combat and PTSD
>finally it is over
>after defeating the enemy warriors all that are left are supple twinks (18+) squirming together in the prison pit
How naive do you have to be to not see what happens next? Given the extraordinary circumstances and their excited emotional state they are taking these effeminate brown boys into their tents and their commanders will turn a blind eye, if they have not already selected the most attractive for themselves. Most would be satisfied with intergluteal but not a few prostates would be prodded. Some might risk oral or unbinding a particularly enthusiastic twink and snuggling with him for the night under their blanket. The option was also available to take a particularly beloved twink as a slave as their share of the war booty.

File: IMG_2611.jpg (295 KB, 827x1034)

295 KB JPG

Anatolia outside of the Greek held areas was associated with effeminacy and weakness even back in Greek times.

File: Roman.png (296 KB, 367x363)

296 KB PNG

>>18764741

>>18763481
So, basically North Africa and Near East were the SEA of the Romans.

>>18764217
Islam stole brown femboy slave harems from us, VGH...

>>18764217
>>18764621
The muslim world was actually quite faggy until nationalism spread to them a century or two ago. They were zuttmaxxing.

>>18764545
Did you know the Romans fought the Celts because their men were bottoms while their women were tops while at the same time having twink femboy partners they had passionate sex with?

>>18764566
Better than modern India

>>18763481
How come all accounts of pedophilia in the ancient world are homosexual rather than heterosexual?

>>18764759
Female chastity was guarded incredibly fiercely (which is partly why young girls were married off very young) and adultery was extremely dangerous both in terms of legal consequences but also violence from a jealous husband

>>18764759
Because heterosexual pedophilia was the standard until WW2

>>18764759
You're conflating pederasty, which is essentially just faggotry restricted to ephebophilic bottoms (ie. male teenagers), with pedophilia, which is fucking pre-pubescent children.
There's plenty of accounts of non-fag (ie. "straight") ephebophilia in Antiquity, as it's the standard human attraction to fertility. Average age of the bride in Rome was something like 14.
The fags of the time (and many fags of today) just transmuted the natural attraction towards female fertility markers (ie. youth) onto male teenagers, despite it obviously having no sexual utility other than fulfilling whatever bizarro perversions they had/have.

>>18764820
See >>18764825

>>18764825
Beauty is an end unto itself

>>18764840
I agree. Which is why faggotry is horrendous, since it takes that which is beautiful (youth) and merely degrades it and prevents its blossoming into that which is was meant to be (a man), merely for the gratification of some sex addicted paraphiliac.

>>18764859
Hmm, that sounds more like a predatory relationship between an older and younger person. In high school I had a crush on another boy and fell deeply in love with him and we became boyfriends. Is that so bad?

>>18764867
oh god

File: 2b6n18d4.png (60 KB, 948x1547)

60 KB PNG

>>18763481
Rapeson is my favourite 'jak

>>18764872
> that sounds more like a predatory relationship between an older and younger person
That was the context of the post. Greek pederasty.
>we became boyfriends. Is that so bad?
It was mutually assured destruction. None of you became men as a result. Which of you got diddled as a kid that made him this way? Both or just one?

>>18765213
Neither of us were molested. Both of us are rather strong and fit as adults, despite sickly childhoods, though we share the same degree of flaws as anyone. So I wonder what makes us deficient as men now. If anything there seems to have been a mutual and collaborative improvement.
Despite my moral objections to the age discrepancy of Greek pederasty, it seems difficult to argue that the homosexual component robbed eromenoi of their masculinity, seeing as how Grecian antiquity has furnished us with better examples of the genus Man than practically any era before or since...

>>18765227
>Neither of us were molested [but we had] sickly childhoods
I see, well if it's not the first, then it's the latter. If not both.
>strong and fit as adults
Well that's certainly good. No drugs? No binging? That would be uncommon for your demographic.
>So I wonder what makes us deficient as men now
I presume that you are unwilling or unable to perform a number of your duties to society, such as tardwrangling a wife, fathering and raising children, and refraining from emasculating other men by shoving yourself into them. In my experience, hedonism and egotistical behavior is all dominant, although I can't say for sure if that was the cause or consequence of the faggotry.
>seeing as how Grecian antiquity has furnished us with better examples of the genus Man
How many of these great men had been sodomized? The classical objection to the behavior comes from the consequences on the bottom fag. I think Plato has the best know critique, but others have said similar things.

>>18765684
>drugs
Nope
>binging
Nope
>shoving yourself into them
Nope, not interested in this sex act
>Tardwrangling a wife
Hope you enjoy it
>How many of these great men had been sodomized?
Read Plutarch’s Lives. Many of them were eromenoi, since pederasty was an essential component of aristocratic education.

>>18765693
>Nope
>Nope
>Nope
Good for you, legitimately. I haven't given non-penetrative male-on-male sex acts any thought, but I must assume that they have a similarly degrading effect, although presumably less so. You seem to be in the "healthier" end of the fag spectrum, so to speak. For your sake, may you avoid the other end.
>eromenoi
Eromenoi did not always refer to someone who had been sodomized or even sexualized, although it certainly seem to gain that connotation over time, although to the criticism of writers like Plato. It's essentially like the word "gay" or "queer". It meant something different two centuries ago.
I asked about the ratio of Greek heroic men who had been sodomized vs. not. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority had not, and of those heroic men who engaged in faggotry (even if we include all the ones where modern scholars have read between the lines and inferred it from basically nothing), few if any of them appear to have been the receivers, so to speak.
Can you name a great Greek who was explicitly penetrated? If yes, did this degrade him, resulting in abnormal behavior and/or reputational damage? Honest question.
>Hope you enjoy it
That's exactly what I meant. This is not how a man views the world. Marriage and family life is not some hedonistic pursuit, but a duty. You cannot comprehend this, because you are not a man (and I know it sounds like it, but I don't even mean this as an insult). Many "straight" people are also like this nowadays though, so that's not exclusive to fags. Not all hedonists are fags, but all fags are hedonists it seems.
It's hard to explain colour to a blind man though. Try to imagine that your pleasure-seeking urges were largely subsumed into society-building urges. You would marry, make children, lead the household, serve under arms, suffer hardships, build communities and legacies, all for the betterment of your in-group rather than act for the sensory pleasure of your sterile genitals.

>>18763498
>retard accuses others of larping
lmao
romans were not different than arabs or jews, retard

>>18765734
>This is not how a man views the world. Marriage and family life is not some hedonistic pursuit, but a duty.
Except most men genuinely love their wives and families and enjoy their familial lives. You are asking people to end up in a loveless, unhappy relationship for the sake of abstract concepts.

>>18765884
You are assuming that love cannot follow from duty, and that duty cannot result from love, because as mentioned, you lack what makes a man a man. Whether the buggery made you unmanly or your unmanliness made you a bugger, only the gods can say.

>>18765734
>Eromenoi did not always refer to someone who had been sodomized or even sexualized
It must always have had a romantic/sexual connotation, because it derives from the word eros, and because there's not really any non-romantic examples of someone being called an eromenos. The word 'erastai' could be used to describe both a lover of women and a lover of boys.
>Can you name a great Greek who was explicitly penetrated?
This is a tall order. When talking about men and women in love, out of politeness, no one ever talks explicitly about the wife being penetrated, unless they're in vulgar company. The only difference is we have material evidence of intercourse in pregnancy and childbirth. But we pass over the sex act in silence. That being said, it seems unlikely that none of them had sexual relations. Socrates was notably considered *strange* for turning down sex with Alcibiades, his eromenos. So when we read that Solon and Peisistratus had lifelong "philia" for each other even after their "eros" had ended (Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, who wrote explicitly sexual poems about intercrural sex, by the way) it seems to stretch credulity to imagine their relationship lacked a sexual component - otherwise why did the eros have an expiration date. And we read that great men like the Spartan general Lysander, the conqueror of Athens, was the eromenos of Agesilaus II. The Macedonian king Philip II was allegedly the eromenos of Pammenes, and Philip was later assassinated by his own eromenos, Pausanias.
>Serve under arms, suffer hardships, build communities and legacies, all for the betterment of your in-group
I do like this idea, and I think homosexuality can serve a similar prosocial role. The samurai, the Theban band... the Sturmabteilung....
>>18765981
That's not me bro..

>>18765734
>Marriage and family life is not some hedonistic pursuit, but a duty.
Ironically, anon, the idea that duty and happiness are incompatible, or opposed, or pull somehow in opposite directions, is quite un-Greek. Here is a quote from Alasdair Macintyre's Short History of Ethics:
>Greek philosophical ethics differs from later moral philosophy in ways that reflect the difference between Greek society and modern society. The concepts of duty and responsibility in the modern sense appear only in germ or marginally; those of goodness, virtue, and prudence are central. The respective roles of these concepts hinge upon a central difference. In general, Greek ethics asks, What am I to do if I am to fare well? Modern ethics asks, What ought I to do if I am to do right? and it asks this question in such a way that doing right is made something quite independent of faring well.
You seem to be full of convictions, and ideas about how people ought to live, but you have a non-philosophical attitude towards them. You give no account of where they come from. You just assert them. I think you have an instrumental attitude towards your beliefs. It gives you pleasure to say things like this. It doesn't matter to you whether or not they're true, so you're not really interested in investigating them.

>>18765998
>It must always have had a romantic/sexual connotation
I know this is the modern scholarly concensus, and I am certainly not learned in Koine, but I am well I would wager anything that the god Eros, for example, is the principle of attraction rather than literal sex. After all, in the mythology, Eros causes desire among the immortals, which, because we represent them in human guise, we commonly represent as sexual, but I doubt that an educated Greek would conceive of Heaven and Earth as having actual literal sexual intercourse when reading a Cosmogony.
But since sexual desire is the strongest form of attraction, the term is primarily applied to sexual attraction, and nowadays exclusively so. Certainly, the term as I read it would be applied to sexual relationships too, and I do not deny that pederasty/eromenoi/etc. at least in some places and times seem to have quite commonly included a sexual relationship.
But I suspect that it could also include something akin to a passionate bromance. I have had several male friends that I loved and spent most of my free time with for years, and undoubtedly would suffer for them more than I would have for any woman I was dating at the time. What is that relationship? Certainly more than friendship, and yet none of us ever felt any sexual attraction to one another.
But all of this is really besides the main point, which I will address below. Don't read this as an argument of some sort, more just casual musings.

>>18765998
>This is a tall order.
Well, by the late Republic and early Empire, the Romans are slandering each other as catamites, so clearly suggesting or explicitly claiming that various men had been buggered was a thing then and there.
Out of curiosity, assuming you're right, why do you think the Greeks had a taboo on being explicit about penetration?
>Socrates
I tend to consider him a literary fiction, and his rejection of Alcibiades at least seems to be written by Plato to present him positively in light of Plato's own views on the matter.
>Solon and Peisistratus
How do we know this isn't to be understood as "lifelong love for each other even after their passionate bromance had ended"? That doesn't preclude them from having had sexual interactions btw. I want to reiterate that I'm not a Hellenic heterosexuality purist at all.
>why did eros have an expiration date
Passion wanes naturally. It's the "honeymoon phase" of a marriage for example. See my previous post for examples of platonic relationships with similar passion. I still love those guys even if we are not in that intense bromance phase of our relationships.
>I think homosexuality can serve a similar prosocial role.
I am aware of the examples you mentioned, but I fail to see how it would be the most desireable option at a societal level. I think Plato is right on the money with this, and I otherwise find him mostly morally disagreeable. Hitler also did seem to have gotten rid of Rohm because his buggery was getting the best of him (and it suited him to improve his relationship with the Wehrmacht). I am only superficially familiar with the Japanese equivalents, so I can't speak to that at all.
>That's not me
I suspected, but just called that anon a bugger for the hell of it anyway. The point stands that not understanding the relationship between love and duty is unmanly.

>>18766006
>Ironically, anon, the idea that duty and happiness are incompatible, or opposed, or pull somehow in opposite directions, is quite un-Greek
Firstly, I'm not Greek nor do I claim to personally hold an ancient Hellenistic view. I am merely discussing what I think it might have been. Secondly, I at no point have suggested that love and duty are incompatible.
>you have a non-philosophical attitude towards them. You give no account of where they come from.
You're confusing citing your sources with philosophizing. A common error among people with humanities degrees. A man should be expected to have convictions and assert them as he sees fit. Only a cattle-person requires his convictions to be handed to him by some authority. If you'd like to know how I came to hold this conviction, all you have to do is ask: I have had to spend time around individual buggers, and I've happened across bugger parades. That was the convincing argument in my case, only later did I read Plato.
>You just assert them
Yep. As I see fit. This is /his/, not a peer reviewed publication.
>It gives you pleasure to say things like this
>It doesn't matter to you whether or not they're true
>you're not really interested in investigating them.
What a silly thing to say, particularly after I've clearly read and engaged with several effortposts by a self-proclaimed homo.

What is up with these pederast topics

>>18766164
>how it would be the most desireable option at a societal level.
That's a bad way to phrase what I mean. There are plenty of good options to build community trust and excellence, and not all of the ones chosen have to be the objectively optimalTM. Allow me to rephrase:
*how the apparent cost is worth the alleged gain, at a societal level.

>>18763481
Can confirm. Half-Greek and completely gay because of it. I wouldn't mind being used by a Roman emperor.

>>18764545
I was born way too late.

Do you guys know why sometimes when you have Scandinavian elective it acts like primogeniture, giving all the lower titles to the guy who wins the election (as long as he's one of your potential heirs) and sometimes it just gives that title to whoever wins the election while the rest of your lower titles are still subject to confederate partition? Do you have to be feudal for it to act like the former?

>>18767477
Sorry wrong thread, I'm fucking retarded.

>>18764248
>>18763481
Being gay in antiquity makes no sense to me. Didn't their anuses bleed out? There is no lube nor condoms to train your ass to take cock

>>18764872
Did you like his cock , anon?

>>18768061
There are multiple ways to have gay sex I'm afraid. Also I'm not a fag, but wouldn't less lube be required if you have foreskin? Pretty sure Romans didn't cut themselves

>>18765227
>Despite my moral objections to the age discrepancy of Greek pederasty
Lame. Boys are cute. You shouldn't be afraid to deny it

>>18768061
I don't think they penetrated that deeply or aggressively, real life isn't porn

>>18768072
>>18768080
I don't have anal sex either but sometimes when i take shits too big it hurts and bleeds. Can't imagine doing that without lube would be pleasurable for the bottom. There is also no enemas in antiquity so the dick of the top would also be filled with poo

>>18768075
>t. least pedophilic homo
The priest in my town has said the same. He's also a faggot. You guys should just all come out of the pedo closet so we can find a nice tall building overlooking a bog for you.

>>18768061
olive oil, duh

>>18768061
>People couldn't spit back in ancient times

Anon, I...

>>18768203
>You're gay so I'm gonna HECKIN' kill you!

Shut the fuck up, sissy. You ain't doing shit.

>>18768414
Then why hide.