What causes homophobia? Is it more biological(innate) or more social phenomenon...

> There's not a lot of evidence supporting a relationship between Alexander and Hephaeston aside from one letter from Diogenes the Cynic.
And you're ready to dismiss that evidence just because you don't like the conclusions?
> young paired with old
Yeah, but age difference was not that big, 10-15 years.
> boy and man
Can't see why this matters. This is something we would consider gay relationships now and it was pretty much accepted in the ancient times, ergo there is no such thing as innate aversion to gays. Modern homophobes don't discriminate passive/active partners neither.

No because it's not good evidence. It's a letter from a philosopher who potentially didn't exist and wasn't close to Alexander.

Boy on Man is important because it wasn't seen as man on man, the boy was the female.

>Yet most people in the ancient world and in non-Abrahamic cultures generally had no problems with gays
We can't know anything about it. Tolerant attitude towards gays ≠ lack of disgust to gays.
I have no problems with gays, but if I see "act of homosexual love" I feel disgust to this, simple physiologically, like to the acne.

>we don't distinguish between homosexuality and pederasty in the modern world

New user here.

Then what about Caesar's gay episode at the court of Nicomedes IV of Bithynia? He had his 'shameful' gay escapades in the east follow him during his entire political career.

Rome
An adult male's desire to be penetrated was considered a sickness (morbus); the desire to penetrate a handsome youth was thought normal.

Sex between male citizens of equal status, including soldiers, was disparaged, and in some circumstances penalized harshly.

It's looks like a prison relationship.

LIES LIES LIES

> No because it's not good evidence
Isn't Alexander's reaction to his death is quite an evidence?
> it wasn't seen as man on man, the boy was the female
This is a baseless assumption, if they wanted to fuck females, they would go back to their wives. They fucked boys because they wanted to fuck boys, something that would be considered either gay or pedophilia now, and they had no problems with it.
Roman didn't share the Greek's ideas of love.

Homosexuals did not exist for most of human history.
There were men that occasionally had sex with other males, it was generally considered degenerate and harmful to society to only do this. It was expected every man would sire children.

Now it varied how accepted buttsex was in the ancient world. In Greece it was pretty open, again as long as you were knocking up a woman it was fine to fuck young boys. Man on man less generally accepted on the whole, but you do have the Sacred Band.
Rome considered receiving buttsex to be degenerate if you were a man of status. It was something those of higher rank and status did to lower rank and status, because they could.

But if you did that to someone of equal status, or had it done to you by anyone, it was a pock upon you for the rest of your days.
A lot of cultures considered man on man to be entirely off limits, for it to be a sickness, the Jews were not the first, or the only culture to look down on Sodomy.

Also generally speaking the acceptance of widespread buttsex heralds the downfall of an Empire.

his grief at the death of a close friend? makes him no more of a homo than Achilles when he grieved for Patroclus

Being sad about the death of someone you've known since youth isn't gay

The passive role was feminine

Buttsex was prevalent in Rome way before it fell

The whole degeneracy thing killed the empire is a meme

>Implying Achilles and Patroclus bromance was strictly no-homo

>, but if I see "act of homosexual love" I feel disgust to this, simple physiologically, like to the acne
I'm curious, do you believe anal sex between a man and woman is disgusting?

There's little evidence pointing towards it in The Iliad

>tumblr

>do you believe anal sex between a man and woman is disgusting
Yes.
And i'm not believe, i'm feel. How do can i believe pizza is delicious?

No, widespread acceptance of buttsex heralds a country's downfall. It is not the cause of it, and buttsex was only acceptable before the Empire began to crumble under very specific circumstances.
In the time of Julius Caesar, it was not widely accepted. Claims that he fucked a manbutt haunted his political career until he died.

Rampant buttsex is not a cause of a falling empire, it is an effect.

I have homosexual relations with 12-16 age boys, but homosexual relations with adult men seems ugly for me.

The original discussion was the origin of anti homosexual sentiment, not the ancient Greek view on homosexuality.

MODS

>There's little evidence pointing towards it in The Iliad
That's irrelevent, Achilles and Patroclus were a "homosexual" couple during the Classical Period.
People were mostly arguing about who was the erastês, who was the erômenos or if it was an egalitarian couple.

this

>That's irrelevent, Achilles and Patroclus were a "homosexual" couple during the Classical Period.
>the lack of evidence supporting my assumption is irrelevant

Yes it is, the lack of evidence was perceived as reserve during the Classical Period.

Are you denying the existence of pedastry?

Alexander would have understood them to be a couple because that was the understanding in his day.

What causes national sozialism aversion? Is it more biological(innate) or more social phenomenon? It looks like most of people have an innate aversion to nazi incons. It's like with spiders or with shit. This type of disgust has rational roots, it's is an innate.

no it wasn't, nowhere do people or can people assume such things, there's no evidence now and there wasn't then

it's pederasty and Patroclus was around the same age as Achilles, not a small boy

fucking what
where's the proof

Its the same reason you feel like throwing at a guy sticking his dick in a pile of shit, humans are grossed out by things involving bodily fluids if they cant jerk off to it, so straight men are disgusted at the idea of gay sex because they cant jerk off to the idea so its revolting.

They didn't need any evidence.

>Suffice it to say that from the Classical Period on, most Greeks (and Romans) assumed that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers of the very sincere, everlasting and heroic type that every honorable pair of the upper-class erastai and eromenoi would have aspired to be.
williamapercy.com/wiki/images/Reconsiderations_about_greek_homosexualities.pdf
P. 19

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles_and_Patroclus#Classical_and_post-Classical_views_in_antiquity

>assumed
I could assume that Zeus frequently indulged in Dionysus' boipucci and it'd mean as much as their assumptions, but since Homer never explicitly stated that Achilles and Patroclus were mutual fuckboys it doesn't mean shit

We aren't debating Homer's intent. We are debating the perception of the relationship in the classical and Hellenic periods.

And that's not the point, I don't care if Achilles and Patroclus ACTUALLY fucked, it's a myth.
This is however what people during the Classical Period wanted to read in the Iliad, whether you like it or.

no, we're debating whether they were homosexuals or not, with nothing backing up this assumption bar fags marking everything of intimacy between a man and another man as homosexual behavior

yes, and it's what a lot of modern readers read into it as well, especially when they read

>But Achilles slept in the innermost part of the well-builded hut, and by his side lay a woman that he had brought from Lesbos, even the daughter of Phorbas, fair-cheeked Diomede. And Patroclus laid him down on the opposite side, and by him in like manner lay fair-girdled Iphis, whom goodly Achilles had given him when he took steep Scyrus, the city of Enyeus.

can't even lay down next to a bro with your concubines without being impugned as a homo

Fags like Alexander and Plato who understood them to be lovers.

>Romans weren't gays
Explains this: pompeiana.org/Resources/Ancient/Graffiti from Pompeii.htm
>Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity!

>one bit of graffiti

By that logic everybody wants to see Restituta's hairy privates

>he doesn't

I think the fact someone made a big scene with graffiti instead of just doing it makes a solid point that homosexual was not a super common occurance in Ancient Rome.

Most of the more well known emporers are said to have had homosexual relations.

Emperors had a particularly revolting sexual life, they can't be compared to the average Roman nor even Roman patricians.
It doesn't mean homosexual relations were uncommon though.

>samson and david gay together
Is this a joke

>et most people in the ancient world and in non-Abrahamic cultures generally had no problems with gays
that's incorrect, there isn't a culture on earth that doesn't look down on faggotry

Define faggotry

I'm guessing it was discouraged because

a) It probably was not as clean back in the day and made oneself and others at a higher risk for disease

and

b) Societies want their people to procreate, back then they needed as little distraction from that as possible

Homophobia couldn't exist without the erroneous belief according to which such as thing as males and females as distinct and definite categories of the living exists.

As an example, just look at your picture: it obviously depicts people in a deeply ideological and contrafactual way. Each individual in it is pretty much identical to the others from the same alleged gender. All males have the same facial features, the same hair, the same expression, even the same morphology, as although some of them are more muscularly developped they still have the same basic body type. The same goes with women.

This is extremely caracitural and in no way whatsoever accurate. The author must be some kind of aryanist and probably never went outside of their little consanguineous american town. They consider a very specific type of ideal and non-realistic morphology as strictly and essentially better than the others: more natural, more efficient, more in the norms. They created from naught an entirely fictitious and very unhealthy representation of mankind, in which Man and Woman are basically platonic forms, transcendantally superior to the facts. They invented a wall between genders and thus they invented genders themselves as a individual-defining concept, while this complete artificial abstraction shouldn't ever mean anything about anyone else than the one talking. This kind of eugenic sexism is very common and should be considered as a type of degenerescence of the mind and the society.

[spoiler]Also, no, I'm not a sjw, I don't use tumblr, and my point of view is certainly not the same as theirs, as I regularly find myself fighting with them.[/spoiler]

>It looks like most of people have an innate aversion to nazi
Yes it is.

1. The pic is from a how to draw comic book characters book iirc. Chill out.

2. Men and women are biologically distinct in many ways. This leads to both physical and behavioral tendencies that generate differences in societal roles.

3. Gb2 tumblr

That's a straw man if I ever saw one.

>The author must be some kind of aryanist and probably never went outside of their little consanguineous american town.
>alleged gender.
>eugenic sexism
>Also, no, I'm not a sjw, I don't use tumblr,
uh huh

>The pic is from a how to draw comic book characters book iirc. Chill out.
Doesn't change anything. What I said could apply to any classical comic book author.

>Men and women are biologically distinct in many ways.
Purely and simply wrong. You learnt that, but you were taught wrong. No such thing as men and women exist.
First, there is a purely continuous spectrum between all of the following axes, which aren't even related to each other as most individual don't have the same position on all these axes:
>penis-vagina
>hormonal equilibrium
>XX-XY genome
>social behavior
>sexuality
Second, learn how to Heraclitus tbqh. Categories are wrong in themselves, whatever category you're talking about.

Anyone who blames the Church. What do you think about homophobia in no muslim Asia?

you sound like a disturbed individual

>No such thing as men and women exist.
elaborate further

That's simple: only individuals exist, and individual cannot be defined as "men" or "women", as they don't have anything in common strictly corresponding to these abstract and artificial categories. When you see someone, some face, some body, some name, or even just some anonymous discourse, you should never see "a man" or "a woman", only "an individual" without any attached sexual category.

Faggots should be shot

For nearly all purposes the distinction between male and female is useful. If there are a few examples where there is overlap or ambiguities, it doesn't matter. The classes of categorization are generated out of the common case, not the rare exception. There is an ambiguous distinction between a sofa and a loveseat, but it doesn't mean that sofas do not exist.

Why not?

Should we stop using all adjectives?

but girls have girl parts and boys have boy parts
then there's male and female hormones
and the ability to make children

The pic is for you.

Categories are useful. It doesn't make them a vector of truth. They are approximations, and, in their details, they are plainly wrongs. Details matter. It is okay to use them as long as you stay conscious of that. On the other hand, believing there REALLY are men and women with a strict and essential distinction between the others is forgetting the original metaphor and confusing pragmatical functionality with metaphysical truth.

Good question, and the answer is no, as I just stated in the present post.

See 1. These are spectrums
2. These spectrums are independant from each other

All description is fundamentally oppressive. Death to all language. We should speak of things using perfectly nonspecific and meaningless words.

Christians outlawed ass sex and Rome was Christian by the time it fell

That would be ideal if that was possible. Instead, just stay conscious that words are approximations and never describe the world accurately. That should be enough of a precaution.

Also, I never said the word "oppression".

If you are against homosexuality, why you do not against lesbians?

Lesbians are hot and nobody cares that much about women

I'm a fictionalist in the sense that I think our discourses only imperfectly represent the world as it is. We agree on the philosophy largely, but philosophy doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade. All language is fundamentally approximate. We should not expect more from language than it can give to us.

You seriously wish to speak entirely in nonsense to be faithful to Truth?

it's all wrong but at least one form is hot to a heterosexual male

>I'm a fictionalist in the sense that I think our discourses only imperfectly represent the world as it is. We agree on the philosophy largely, but philosophy doesn't stop me from calling a spade a spade. All language is fundamentally approximate. We should not expect more from language than it can give to us.
Then, what you call a spade is not really a spade. The word "spade" is an approximation. The same goes for "man" and "woman". There are many different kinds of "man" and "woman". Calling X "man" or "woman" is not calling X the same thing as Y if you also call Y "man" or "woman". These words have many distinct meanings, and in fact, there are no two instances in which they share the exact same meaning.

>You seriously wish to speak entirely in nonsense to be faithful to Truth?
If that was possible, yes. Obviously, it's not, since it wouldn't be language at all anymore. Also, even then, yes in some cases. See Cratylus or Artaud, for example. In some instances it is very useful to show directly the nature of language. However, I agree that we shouldn't destroy language. Instead, we should deconstruct it, as Derrida tried to.

I would say the aversion is gayphobia rather than homophobia, homosexual can be masculine and they can be accepted unless you live under some abrahamitic shit cult.
It's gay behaviour that I think has an almost innate aversion, maybe it has to do with a perception of weakness and misplaced femininity that is not acceptable for the survival of the group or something.

Why do LGBT invents more sexual categories? Isn't it because of the sexual categorization they have problems?

Being I agree. And that's one of the reasons why I said I'm certainly not a sjw. Sjw are very sexist, usually. Also, pic related. It very often apply to them.

>transnigger

>prince

Every time.

There is no "real" world that we can have immediate access to. Things in themselves are perceived and understood through the senses and intellect. The objects we refer to in language are fictional entities necessarily. When we perceive a spade, we are reducing a phenomenal event to a fictional representation of the event. We extract important and essential qualities from the event and develop names for them. When we see a spade we say, "That phenomenal event is sufficiently like a fictional representation that I have in my head. That representation is called "spade". I will call this phenomenal event "spade" by analogy." Other people see the same events and adopt the same word to describe it. We understand each other despite the unique qualities of both our experiences because language works by analogy, not equivalence.

When we use language we don't refer at all to the "real" world, we refer to past uses of language and the fictional objects created thereby.

In plain English, the word spade refers to the concept of spade rather than the spade-in-itself or any other formulation of the real and true spade. When we want to know what a word means we look at a definition. We don't go into nature or engage in transcendental meditation to understand what words mean.

And to the last point I see no value in tearing structures down without cause.

It creates a subgroup among males, gay men by existence alone, deny masculinity, this creates a deep aversion, gay men were always looked down upon or even turned into a separate gender.

the fact that you equate homosexuality mostly and primarily with 'buttsex' betrays your naivety. try leaving your room and talking to other people

There's a difference between a faggot and a normal Veeky Forums gay man

Not my fault, if young boy look like this

I think it has something to do with our primitive ape brains seeing weaker men and wanting to dominate them because they are such easy targets.

I don't care what gays guys do on their own time and don't think they should be persecuted on a visceral gut level homosexuality really disgusts me and when I see a particularly faggy twink the first thing that crosses my head is how easy I would be able to bash his brains in.

Rome was also corrupt to the bone and laws don't change society. Society was rotten by the time Rome became Christian and collapsed largely for that reason. Buttsex had been widely accepted because of said rotten society, getting rid of buttsex didn't fix society any more than buttsex caused it to become fucked in the first place.