How many soldiers in WW1 were gay? So far, two are confirmed

...

is this gay? can a photograph of two men seemingly sharing a tender romantic moment be accurately construed as a confirmed homosexual relationship. Or is it platonicism that has become unacceptable as our expectations of masculine interaction has changed?

Whoever is posting these, do you have girls kissing girls?

i also have some actual porn, but only if you're using it for purely historical purposes

...

Nah, no porn. Just candid cute stuff like the guys.

"mind the lads, sergeant. there's an australian division next door and i fancy a bit of colonial rough, what what?"
"yes sir, you disgusting sodomite, sir. with all due respect, like"

Go get some Syphilis and back to /lgbt/.

Your picture is from the interwar period

>Projecting modern notions of sexuality into history.

There was probably very few faggots in those days, men just were able to bond better without the stigma of being an AID's ridden homo. Kind of like how older guys in the gym have no qualms about walking around with their floppy wrinkled dicks out because the thought of gay shit isn't even in their mind. But younger guys have the thought in their mind" Well I don't want to be naked around other men what if there is a homo in here, plus isn't it gay to be nude with other men?'

Is that still arround?

Reminder that back then society wasn't so obsessed with homosexuality and very strong, but non-sexual friendships between men were a lot more common.

There was no real gay identity back then. You might be a sodomite but you wouldn't be gay. Homosexuality was an action not an identity, by the same token all the Romans and Greeks and Arabs who fucked boipussy wouldn't consider themselves gay in the modern sense of the word.

>you will never be behind a maxim machine gun as dozens of young qt female "doughgirls" rush you at marne
>you will never open fire into their tight young bodies, many of them virgins
>you will never watch their faces contort with pain as they stumble and fall into the muck
>you will never watch their beautiful young bodies pushed down into the mud by the footsteps of their comrades
>you will never hear the survivors moans of agony as they bleed to death over the course of several hours
>you will never watch weakened dying qts unable to fight off the vultures as they land and begin to peck them apart as they are still alive.

Call them sodomites you cunt

Read Gay New York. This is the period all that shit started.

>but homoerotic themes are rife in British poetry
Wow, there's gay shit in poems, the average soldier was a fag now.

>homosexuality as a cultural phenomena didnt exist so homosexual people didnt exist
when will this meme end

Why do faggots have to turn everything gay? Why can't you just go get you shock therapy?

I don't know how you see that particular picture as anything but platonic. But I do think our society had become way too sexualized.

What the fuck am I reading

Just gals being pals

How large was the Italian Army?

It's the truth nigga. Homosexual people didnt exist. Julius Caesar wasn't an Italian citizen. Because Italy didn't exist back then. Men in the middle ages who had sex with men didn't think to themselves 'Guess I'm gay then.'
Sodomy was an action, not an identity. I don't identify as 'a fucker of user's mom' just because I fuck your mom. Because even though there is a large amount of people who fuck your mom we don't really have a group identity.

In Boho New York perhaps, but the average doughboy in the trenches no so much

>a person who forms a romantic and sexual bond with a person of the same sex isn't bi/homosexual because they don't culturally identify as such
you are an actual retard

t. never had a real friend

Me and my mates fuck all the time but we're all still straight

>just because I was born as a biological male doesn't make me a man because I don't identify as one
Ok

Homosexuality was a crime back then, so the answer is zero. You would have been put in the worst sectors, for the worst missions.
>take this scissors and go cut these barbed wires right in front of the machinegun
Believe me there was NO gay in the trenches.

this is why i come to Veeky Forums

This is literally after sexual inversion and homosexuality were conceived of, and the Uranus movement.

It wasn't the fucking middle ages.

As long as the balls don't touch then it isn't gay. It's also compulsory to say "no homo". As long as these steps are followed, you're in the que- I mean, clear.

a thread died for this

exactly 65% of them sodomized each other alternatively. how does that make you feel?

Don't forget the last resort method if your balls accidentally touched or if you forgot to say no homo, it's also not gay if you beat them up afterwards

That is what your brain looks like on Ancient Greece

>homosexuality was a crime back then, so the answer is zero
tell me, if heterosexuality was a crime, would you cease being attracted to the opposite sex?

If homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex without actually indulging in it what makes them different from pedophiles or any other -sexual orientation- that equally do not indulge in it?

Logically they're all the same, having an abnormal sexual attraction that's essentially a defect of normal sexual urges.

who the fuck is talking about pedophilia? you are heterosexual whether or not you engage in sexual or romantic relations with the opposite sex, you are homosexual whether or not you engage in sexual or romantic relations with the same sex, and yes you are still a pedophile whether or not you fuck kids.
>If homosexuality is being attracted to the same sex without actually indulging in it what makes them different from pedophiles?
and whats makes that different from heterosexuals?

Who are you quoting

>who the fuck is talking about pedophilia?
I am.

>and whats makes that different from heterosexuals?
Heterosexuals are normal and their sexuality is essential to the procreation of the human race.

except you specifically make the point that homosexuality is like pedophilia and other paraphilias because you are still gay even if you dont act on your gay feelings, nothing about heterosexuality being normal. In the aspect you were arguing, they are the same

I think I was pretty clear when I stated they are abnormal sexual orientations. Do I seriously need to state that heterosexuality is the norm?

Now, tell me how non-practicing homosexuals differ from non-practicing pedophiles (or even ebephiles) without invoking morality or what is socially acceptable. Society told me one is acceptable and should be celebrated in pride parades while the others are monsters with health (mental) issues. The way I see it both suffer from sexually abnormal desires except one is socially acceptable today.

the non-practising pedophile can never engage in his philia in a healthy way, because the practice of pedophilia is inherently harmful to at least one party
however the non-practicing homosexual could engage in his orientation in a healthy way, because a consenting relationship between two same sexed people is not inherently harmful
also heterosexuality and homosexuality are both attractions to a sex, to sexually mature bodies who can reproduce (which is normal, though I'm not arguing that heterosexuality isnt normal, just that homosexuality isnt negative in its abnormality), while pedophilia is just attraction to people who are not sexually mature, which is unhealthy

>the non-practising pedophile can never engage in his philia
If he's non-practicing then he doesn't engage in any sexual activities.

> in a healthy way
You mean socially accepted way? Considering the STD rate in the gay community I would also argue the conventional definition of "healthy" hardly applies.

>because the practice of pedophilia is inherently harmful to at least one party
You mean like homosexuality? Or do you believe the anus was created to facilitate penetration from outside?

>could engage in his orientation in a healthy way because a consenting relationship between two same sexed people is not inherently harmful
See first line, also third.

>consenting
What prohibits a 12 year old from consenting that isn't "arbitrary age upon which society decides that a person can consent" which varies wildly depending on the society? Again, see line number one. I specifically said non-practicing. All you're doing is giving me socially acceptable reasons to have sexual intercourse, but we're not talking about sexual intercourse, we're talking about sexual attractiveness.

>to sexually mature bodies who can reproduce
Two men and two females can not sexually reproduce, claiming they are attracted to "sexually mature" (women are sexually mature as early as 13, some even before that, does that make is okay then?) bodies has no substance and is a moot point.

> just that homosexuality isnt negative in its abnormality
If you ignore the health issues caused by it in far greater frequency than in heterosexuality.

>while pedophilia is just attraction to people who are not sexually mature, which is unhealthy
What makes it unhealthy if you're not acting out your sexual attraction?

All you did was appeal to morality and completely ignored my entire point which was based on non-practicing homosexuals and pedophiles. Your argument hinges on actual sex, not on the defining feature of that sex-sexual attractiveness.

>doughboys spontaneous pop into existence outside their barracks

Thus there is no difference between homosexuals and pedophiles, they both share an abnormal sexual attractiveness that they didn't chose to have. The pedophiles just has the misfortune of being more "extreme" and not being socially accepted.

If one is a mental/health defect, so is the other. You can't chose and pick.

>Or do you believe the anus was created to facilitate penetration from outside?

Absolutely, that is exactly how God intended it.

That's weird. Murder, rape, theft, drug dealing etc etc are Al illegal, yet happen on a daily basis...

Pedophiles have the misfortune that the object of their attraction isn't a fully developed person with real agency, acting on pedophilia is by definition rape

I'm now mentally envisioning myself having sex with some of my male friends.
Fuck you user.

True, but that does not contradict my argument of both being mental/health issues just that we all started pretending that one isn't.

>acting on pedophilia is by definition rape
Not if we make it legal and drop down the age of consent to 9...homosexuality was by definition sodomy once. Muhammed married Aisha at 6 and consummated the marriage at 9...

then how is non practicing heterosexuality different to pedophilia by your standards, if being attracted to sexually mature bodies is not a factor? (also 13 year olds are not sexually mature, even if they have gone through puberty, there are other factors to sexual maturity than basic reproductive faculties)
>What prohibits a 12 year old from consenting that isn't "arbitrary age upon which society decides that a person can consent"
emotional maturity, ask a 12 year old about the ramifications of sex, safe sex practices, and see how they deal with sexual encounters (specifically from people older than them, since we are talking about pedophilia)
>Considering the STD rate in the gay community I would also argue the conventional definition of "healthy" hardly applies
you mean to say that a community that has traditionally been denied education about safe sex, healthcare for HIV/AIDS, and contraceptives has a higher STD rate? astounding. Also the increased AIDS rate also applies to heterosexual couples who engage in unsafe anal sex. Not to mention the AIDS crisis in Africa, which is mostly transmitted through heterosexual sex. I'm failing to see how this is an exclusively gay issue

>homosexuality was by definition sodomy once.
It still is. In fact anal and oral is sodomy no matter the sex of the participants.
Read your bible people.

>if being attracted to sexually mature bodies is not a factor?
Because its a moot point, you can't sexually reproduce with the same gende. So why is sexual maturity a factor?

>also 13 year olds are not sexually mature
>can have offspring
Its sexually mature.

>emotional maturity
Aha, emotional maturity is a constant or does it shift around depending on society? It seems it goes as low as 13 and as high as 21 depending on where in the world you are. Wait, are we back to the same "whatever society in which I live at present finds acceptable"? I asked you to avoid appeals to morality.

>you mean to say that a community that has traditionally been denied education about safe sex
It's everyone's else fault that in 2017 the majority of HIV cases in the western world are due to homosexuals? How about the fact that many STD's spread trough anal intercourse at a much higher rate than trough vaginal or oral sex? Did that ever occur to you or did you default to blaming someone else for it?

>In 2014:
>Gay and bisexual men accounted for 83% (29,418) of the estimated new HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 and older and 67% of the total estimated new diagnoses in the United States.
>Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.
>Gay and bisexual men accounted for an estimated 54% (11,277) of people diagnosed with AIDS. Of those men, 39% were African American, 32% were white, and 24% were Hispanic/Latino.
How many decades of safe sex propaganda targeted at homosexuals do we have to go trough to reverse this?

In legal speak, not bible speak

Do you also think 12 year olds should be allowed to vote?

>Because its a moot point, you can't sexually reproduce with the same gende. So why is sexual maturity a factor?
if sexual maturity is not a factor, then there is no difference between heterosexuality and pedophilia
>Aha, emotional maturity is a constant or does it shift around depending on society?
well it seems to be the case in society's in which child marriages are socially acceptable, that, amazingly, 12 year olds do not like being forced to have sex with older people regardless of the cultural context
>It's everyone's else fault that in 2017 the majority of HIV cases in the western world are due to homosexuals?
so denying people who have sex anally education regarding how to safely have anal sex is not at all a contributing factor to people not having safe anal sex? denying people with HIV/AIDS treatment to make them HIV negative does not contribute to people being HIV/AIDS positive? Your logic is astounding

This is not really an argument I'm for or against, I just like playing devils advocate. However, reason dictates there should be an upper level for voting as well. Old people often devolve into a child like state yet are still allowed to vote. I'd go even as far to say that 12 year olds ought to have more of a right to vote than 90 year olds.

>if sexual maturity is not a factor, then there is no difference between heterosexuality and pedophilia
Exactly, they are not, they're the same with similar defects in their sexuality that impose on them a sexual desire of which they don't have control of. Blaming a pedophile for being a pedophile is the same as blaming a homosexual for being a homosexual.

If you conclude one is a health issue, so is the other, the fact that it happens to be commonly accepted shouldn't detract from that nor should it be a basis for discrimination.

>so denying people who have sex anally education regarding how to safely have anal sex is not at all a contributing factor to people not having safe anal sex?
I asked you, how many decades of this propaganda do we need to reverse the trend? It has been ongoing for at least a decade now and yet;

>>Gay and bisexual men aged 13 to 24 accounted for an estimated 92% of new HIV diagnoses among all men in their age group and 27% of new diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men.
>>Over the past 5 years (2010-2014), the increase in HIV diagnoses among all gay and bisexual men was less than 1%, although progress has been uneven among races/ethnicities.
It's increasing! Albeit less than a 1%, but it seems your safe-sex

>contributing factor to people not having safe anal sex?
It is inherently more dangerous than vaginal or oral sex. You can't "fix" it.

>denying people with HIV/AIDS treatment to make them HIV negative does not contribute to people being HIV/AIDS positive?
>make them HIV negative
lol

>but it seems your safe-sex
classes aren't working

>If you conclude one is a health issue, so is the other, the fact that it happens to be commonly accepted shouldn't detract from that nor should it be a basis for discrimination
even acknowledging your point about AIDS (which I cant be bothered to argue right now if youll excuse me), there are literally no safe ways to pursue pedophilia. pedophilia actively detriments the health (whether it be mental, emotional, sexual, or physical) of at least one party. Even if the pedophile uses protection and is clean and does not physically harm the child, there is no scenario in which this is healthy.
however if you take two consenting adults of the same sex, and they are clean and take measures to have sex safely, the relationship is not inherently harmful
>Blaming a pedophile for being a pedophile is the same as blaming a homosexual for being a homosexual.
I am not blaming pedophiles for being pedophiles, by all means there should be help available for people who can in no way enact their sexual desires in a safe way, but that doesnt mean that I, or society as a whole needs to accept people who want to fuck kids, but thats just my opinion
>>denying people with HIV/AIDS treatment to make them HIV negative does not contribute to people being HIV/AIDS positive?
>>make them HIV negative
>lol
yes you mongoloid, Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (or PEP) is a drug that makes it so that a person who is HIV positive cannot spread HIV through any means, it also halts the progression of the disease. so yes, for all intents and purposes, it does make them HIV negative

apologies, the treatment for HIV+ people is Antiretroviral Therapy (ART), does the stuff I was talking about. PEP is a post exposure treatment that prevents you from contracting HIV in the first place

I think you consistently fail to understand my argument. Sexual orientation is not a state of doing but a state of being. It's not the act of sexuality that defines your sexual orientation. That's why I, several times, emphasized the "non-practicing" part.

>is not inherently harmful
Why is this a criteria now? Besides, I think I already proved that it is in fact inherently more harmful than heterosexual intercourse regardless of protection or lack of. But that's not really part of my argument.

>I am not blaming pedophiles for being pedophiles, by all means there should be help available for people who can in no way enact their sexual desires in a safe way
In other words, they would need treatment for their health issues even if they do not indulge in any behavior associated with pedophiles. Homosexuality was treated much in the same way in the past. The only reason it's no longer considered a mental issue is because in order to express(!) their sexuality one party is not involuntary harming another party. But you failed to explain how that means that homosexuality is not a mental issue as well just because its something done by consenting adults.

I mean, plenty of things done by consenting individuals are considered illegal and those who commit them considered as people with mental issues. Why is homosexuality different? We already established its a defect in sexual orientation over which they have no control of, much like other sexual defects.

Basically its based on contemporary morality and what is socially acceptable rather than an objective assessment and classification along scientific lines. That's why you can arbitrary state that X is a mental issue and Y is not but if you look at it an objective matter you'll discover that, morals aside, they are just different expressions of defective sexuality. The only difference you can point at is that one can not attain consent (according to present social norms) while the other can.

the reason why I continue to delegate to practicing people, is because under your definition (that the sexual maturity of the object of affection doesnt matter), heterosexuality is also the same as pedophilia, yet that is apparently different?
i am also wondering how you fit bisexuality into this framework

>(that the sexual maturity of the object of affection doesnt matter)
Because it does not, state of being, not state of doing. Both are irrational from a biological standpoint-defective.

>heterosexuality is also the same as pedophilia, yet that is apparently different?
Heterosexuality is the norm and is essential to the human race. Why are you comparing it to the abnormal? You don't say humans born with 3 legs are normal despite there being humans with three legs out there, it's, by definition, abnormal.

>i am also wondering how you fit bisexuality into this framework
In much the same way. One fucks up completely, one fucks up the genders and the other fucks up genders sometimes. I never said they are equal in degree but they are equal in principle.

"gay" as an identity wasn't invented until 1960-80

Reminder that there's nothing more alpha than fighting alongside your lover

>Sexual orientation is not a state of doing but a state of being
this is a method of thinking designed to commodify human attraction and sell rainbow flag t-shirts and phone cases

Gay as a sexual orientation has been around forever though, mr. Popsci

In such a nightmare of a war? Fucking yes, I would have done anything to not being spotted. Do you really think faggots would have risked their life just for a kiss? lol

You don't understand how it works don't you? Commiting crimes during such a war time is a very bad idea. In the better case you'll be send in a disciplinary regiment, and guess who will be the scapegoat of the regiment between a thief and a gay, at a time where faggotry was universaly considered as a digusting perversion?

Being gay in the trenches would have been more than suicidal, you would have been beaten, insulted by everyone before being send to the most pittyful death.

How is that a bad thing? Gays die and everything's nice.

No, it's how you think it because you fell in that mold which you're now projecting onto me.

I'm talking about a persons innate sexual orientation which I describe as a state of being as it is not something which can be controlled. It has very little to do with identity politics as we've not been discussing any manifestation of group identity stemming from innate sexual orientations.

>Do you really think faggots would have risked their life just for a kiss? lol
do i believe that someone with a repressed sexuality would indulge in it in a situation in which he thinks he could die at any time and in which he is surrounded by a great amount of the objects of his repressed affection? yes i would believe that

Another soldier who recognized that he was gay during the war explained at a later date why he did not act on his feelings:

‘There was no sexual contact with anybody in the services. The simple reason [for me was], I got promoted to sergeant from corporal. As you’re getting promotions, you couldn’t take no chances. I had several chances, mind you, with two or three different private soldiers I knew. You can gauge ‘em, but the point is, when you come to look at it you say to yourself – well, is it mind over matter? You know, you say to yourself, No, I mustn’t. You’re jeopardizing your chances, because if something happened you’re going to get court martial.’

eastsussexww1.org.uk/homosexuality-in-wwi/

That is some fucking impressive mental gymnastics.
>Newton hadnt discovered gravity yet so thing just fell downwards.

YES, people didnt go around and call themselves gay or homosexuals because the word didnt exist or had reached th popular vocabulary. Still, "sodomites" who fucked guys is gay and homosexual in every extent of the word.

/sp/ get out

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>doughgirls
nigga what

That's at least three, perhaps four if there's no tripod.

Hitler and Rohm were gay.

I understand your point of view but this is a 2017 way of thinking. Think that despite all the horror, fear and violence, very few even thought to desert. They prefered suicide and automutilation rather than breaking the social codes. Individualism was nonexistent, they certainly wouldn't have said "fuck off this shit, let's fulfill my desires".

If history is like today, atleast a 1% of is actual gay. A good 5-7% would be bisexual.

So with ~40 million soldiers involved, 400K would be "defacto" gay. Around 2.5M would be bisexual.

in a war you become gay or a rapist or both