Why were the Romans and Greeks so gay?

They had a different conception of sexuality, gender wasn't as important a concept as the actual power dynamic during the sex.If you're a roman citizen, you're supposed to always be in the position of power during sex. It doesnt matter who you're fucking, as long as you're fucking them and you're above them on the chain, all is well.
That's why the romans also found cunnilingus to be completely shameful. Pleasuring a woman, with your mouth, and receiving no stimulation yourself? What a concept.

>Women are really only good for reproduction
name 1 other thing youre good for user

>romans hated eating pussy
>he says using literatim latin term for it

>society has a word for something
>that must mean they like it

They weren't gay. They were misogynistic.

Not really. I mean sure women weren't 100% equal to men but they had a lot more rights then most other women across the ancient world

Legalities are irrelevant. Classical Roman culture was misogynistic. I am using the term free of its pejorative connotations.

Precisely.
t. professional cunnilinguist

Rome would have never built the longest lasting empire in history were they a bunch of emasculated pussies like the Scandinavians today. Swedes are gay. The Romans were manly, vigorously virile pussy wreckers.
Know the difference. It might save your life.

t. assblasted dane

I mean, their entire society was based on patriarchy. I think accusing them of misogyny is kind of silly because it's a completely different cultural lense. Of course its misogynistic to us to imply that women should not be able to read, vote, etc, because our culture is based off of individual equality before the eyes of the law.

Roman Culture was not, so throwing a term like "misogynist" at them is about as pointless as saying Visigoths were shit helicopter pilots.
Okay, not bad, Ill admit I walked into that.

I am not accusing them of anything. Misogyny is good.
I will tear your boi pucci to shreds Björn.

user, do you box? Your reach is incredible.

Fuck women and effeminate men.
It's not gay to give it. It's gay to take it.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's good you fucking fool, what matters is you're applying modernist terms to a time when those concepts didn't exist and were not relevant.

You don't have the gear for it, Abdullah.

>applying our modern conceptions of sexuality onto the ancient world
Next you are going to ask me why the Romans were racist and sexist, huh?

The term describes a cultural pattern, a type of social premises for interaction between the sexes. That the romans did not make note of the concept is irrelevant, you doofus. The Romans didn't have words for many things that were true back then as they are now, like nuclear fission.

You're retarded.

it wasn't a crime

Nice arguement

I see you're conveniently ignoring The Romans didn't have a conception of evolution by natural selection either. That doesn't mean it did not occur back then as it has been the case since life has appeared on this planet.

Brainlet.

A better answer would still be that they were a patriarchal society, not a misogynist one. The term misogyny implies a hatred or belief in the incompetence of women devaluing their equal status as individuals.
The women of ancient Rome were not devalued, they just had a different role in that society.

Also, equating scientific truths with linguistic ones is a false equivalency.

>a hatred or belief in the incompetence of women
Widely the case in Roman society.
Patriarchal society = men are customarily privileged.
Misogynistic society = women are customarily considered inferior to men.
Rome was both patriarchal and misogynistic.

Nothing gets lit more riled up than a topic about being gay

Irrelevant. I am not talking about linguistics, you brainlet. I am talking a sociological state. The issue here is its factuality in Roman society, not semantics.

Then use better metaphors to defend your arguments shitbird.
Those behaviors may have existed, but the understanding of them did not. Presentism is a historical fallacy, and you're skewing history by asking an irrelevant question.

The gay thing we settled in like 10 posts.
Also, why the hell isnt this thread on Veeky Forums?

>this level of brainletry
Misogyny is discrimination based on biological sex. Discrimination is unjust treatment of a particular subset of society. Whether it's conscientious and deliberate or not is irrelevant. Whether the motive is irrational hatred or coherent product of ideology is irrelevant as well.
>society didn't think women are shit it just assigned them this particular role of being shit
Picrelated is you.

>Fuck women and effeminate men.

We know the Romans did that, the thread is about asking why they did that .

>Presentism
Stop using terms you do not understand brainlet.
Presentist bias is irrelevant here.

>why
Testosterone.

How so boo?

Parachical society? Male dominance? Maybe a dash of hypermasculinity and

Either Roman society was misogynistic, or it wasn't. Whether that was good or bad is irrelevant. I am not applying contemporary moral standards to the past in an anachronistic fashion when I say that Rome was misogynistic (and my stance that misogyny is good is independent of that).
I am making a descriptive claim which lives and dies by the facts of the matter.

You're out of your depth son.

>misogyny is good

>why did they live in a natural state of sexual liberty
>this is your brain on 3000 years of abrahamic opium

>a giant militaristic civilisation
>being conducive to the existence of natural sexual norms

You're still using a modern day term babe.
>Uncritical adherence to present-day attitudes, especially the tendency to interpret past events in terms of modern values and concepts.
The concept of misogyny emerged from feminism, and critical feminist deconstruction of CURRENT anti-female behavior. The gender dynamic that they had, of the woman running function of the household and the male leading as the paterfamilias, did not incorporate their inferiority, it required their subservience. Not because they were the lesser group, but because in order to function, the Roman familial unit had to be maintained.

>son

>using the term "natural" like it has any weight in the concept of human sexuality

>natural norms

>"Whether it's conscientious and deliberate or not is irrelevant. Whether the motive is irrational hatred or coherent product of ideology is irrelevant as well."
>is irrelevant
>calls other people brainlet

Did you have trouble with some of the words, bambino?

>implying humans don't have statistically likely sexual tendencies that are formed by the generally consistent experiences we've had for most of the time of our species' existence

>one form of a behavior happens the majority of times this behaviour occurs
>that's it guys this is the only one

You're looking for the words "most common"

Misogyny isn't objective truth, a society makes conscientious decisions to designate roles for the discriminated, predominately based on ideology. To say these factors are irrelevant is absurd.

>natural doesn't mean most common

No, it doesn't. Natural implies its the resting state, that other states don't exist unless they're altered.
People don't "turn gay", thats how they occur.

>formed by the generally consistent experiences
I sense that you were trying to express some thought, but not sure which one.

being a faggot is curse you gain from impiety. There is no faggot gene so the only answer is they are cursed.

Okay, now we see where the shorted fuse is. You have fun with that bud.

>Misogyny isn't objective truth
This phrase doesn't make any sense on any level with or without context.
>To say these factors are irrelevant is absurd.
Irrelevant to discussion topic at hand, not cosmically, doofus.

>implying humans don't have statistically likely sexual tendencies that are formed by the generally consistent experiences we've had for most of the time of our species' existence
This whole post sounds like somebody really really trying not to insert "cuck" after every word and forgetting what he was trying to say in the first place.

what do you suppose it is?

>You're still using a modern day term babe.
Even if I were, it is irrelevant to the matter at hand.
>The concept of misogyny emerged from feminism
You're a historically illiterate moron: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misogyny#Historical_usage

I'm done here.

>diddled children were impious

>muh innocence
God judges them not you

>he's a /pol/ druddisheonalizm type of "christian"
My bad.

>hes an apologist for faggotry
enjoy your test tubes and microscopes empiricist

>who was caesar
Did your version of Plutarch take out all the famous jokes?

>rumors that he denied
guess both his sons were adopted

Rumours he explicitly affirms and jokes about with his men on campaign. Did they bowdlerize your version of Caesar too? How does that work with all the swords and sheaths?

>this level of trying too hard

>heresay outside of a court hudnerds of years after his assassination
you sure showed me. Now tell me why the homo romans executed their own and accuesed marc antony of the same. Leading to his execution of senators

>Caesar didn't write Caesar
Hold up, you've tried to slip some next level retarded in there. He writes in third person but it's his first hand account. Who are you claiming wrote it?

>he doesn't write his works posthumously

>his primary education was subpar
start with The Frogs by Aristophanes

>he didn't start with Xenophanes' Amphibion

Hadrian was openly gay and had his gay boi deified when he drowned

Probably because they weren't awakened by Rick and Morty

If the Ancient Romans and Greeks could see the trap threads and MGTOW threads they would probably say much the same about us

hadrian is a spook

kekked and checked, you alright, frogman, don't be yourself tomorrow

I never unironically use the word cuck

And up to this point in time, the most common state of humanity over time (essentially anprim) is the resting state

Your lacking reading comprehension isn't my problem tbqh

GREEKS WERE NOT FAGS
mc.maricopa.edu/~davpy35701/text/plato-homo.html
GREEKS BEING FAGS IS PROPAGANDA BY THE (((GAY MAFIA)))

only reddit pseuds complain about the word cuck, 17th century English texts are littered with the word

>this entire post

Plato is not representative of the Greek mores.

> Greek moralists aren't representative of Greek mores
Go kill yourself. Fags are human trash.

>has never been in an intimate relationship let alone got his dick wet
>tells us how women "really are"
Sour grapes make the best whine

Boipussi is the thinking man pussi

Doesn't mean they were wrong either kiddo

>Women are really only good for reproduction

I'm not even good at that

>one moralist is representative of Greek moralists

2013 GETTING SAVAGE IN HERE

everybody is gay being not gay is unnatural most people are in denial about gay

>they had a lot more rights then most other women across the ancient world

you must be fucking retarded. In the ancient world, institutionalisation = legal patriarchy (not that it was a bad thing). Roman wives had the legal status of their children

A lot of the 'telluric' Mediterranean tribes that settled around were predicated on feminine ideals and had the highest spiritual authorities reserved solely for women

>The Greeks were so gay
>read Iliad and Odyssey
>Literally zero mention or even references to homosexuality
>Everybody is as straight as a ruler
I want a refund