I refuse to believe degenerate shit (pederasty...

It wasn’t widely accepted by all. You gotta remember that Athens, Spartans, Macedonians kind of did their own shit

You're comparing dozens of societies across large swathes of time. Athens was mocked for its pederastic practices; Sparta was mocked for its rapey-indoctrination stuff. Thebes struggled to keep the Band of Thebes at full fighting strength because they simply couldn't find enough homos to join it and they recruited from all over Greece and pressganged people caught engaging in homosexual activities into the Band. Plato later came to look down upon pederasty. The Romans were keen to stress that homosexuality and general hedonism were looked down upon and not engaged in by the majority of society.

Greco-Roman society being an enormous orgy is about as historically accurate as the "Roman Salute". It's largely just a Romanticist reimagining of Greece and Rome as utopian paradises free of the stifling [insert bad things here] that afflicted the society [insert person here].

pederasty is unironically one of the greatest ideas ever. it all stems from the idea, that women are not capable of love, which only men can do. aristotle said that in countries without male love, the women rule their husbands.
pederasty was not some faggot shit. they admired youths and were attracted to them, but sexual intercourse was generally frowned upon. the goal of this was to keep male interest in the formation of a young man.
alcibiades talks about some form of friendship with socrates. phaidros told socrates that not all who one falls in love with are worthy of ones friendship.
pederasty was mostly a mentor relationship filled with attractive thoughts and admiration about a young man.

At first one might say "lol the Greeks were just a bunch of faggots" but i think its much deeper than that and it is rooted in the hatred of women.
As you all know the Greeks were a patriarchical people. To them women were something to be married off and have children with and of course a source of pleasure. They never liked or trusted them.
The Iliad one of the oldest Greek writings, shows true female nature. Some female godesses literally start a war over who is the prettiest one. In fact Ancient Greek literature is full of quotes about women and their subversive nature so i wont bother naming them all.
Now here comes the institution of pederasty.
>i believe that pederasty was an invention of Greek men so that they would focus on each other and not on women
First of all i just wanted to clarifiy homosexuality in Ancient Greece. Of course it did exist like everywhere else, but gays in the sense we understand were mocked and ridiculed by the them.
Sex was largely a thing between men and women just like today.
I have 2 examples illustrating that.
>The play of Ecclesiazousai by Aristophanes ( which basically says that women take over the government and institute communism kek)
There the women introduce a law of free sex. However every man should first sleep with the ugliest women and vice versa. ( homosexuality is not mentioned because it was infrequent)
>the play of Lysistrata
The women refrain from having sex with their husbands until the war is over. This was a huge problem throughout the entirity of Greece

Now where does this put men and young boys? First of all they called each other lovers. But love to the Ancient Greeks was a disease which could destroy men. I.e. A woman who rules over a man.
But pederasty was celebrated. The men educated the young boys into becoming men, capable of supporting society. Of course there were rare instances of homosexual activities, but also purely spiritual ones.
Alcibiades was said to have fallen in love with Socrates, for the wisdom the latter could teach him.
The pursuit of young males was a way to ignore the woman and focus on the improvement of the males. All Greek myths which are about pederasty do not include sexual activities and are purely platonical.
Pederasty was in my opinion a tool to form a male brotherhood. We know about the Sacred Band of Thebes, where the lovers died together against the Macedonians. Socrates who saved his pupil in a battle.
Think what is more real? The love of a man ( who will save your life or die with you like a military brother) or the love of a woman ( she divorces you and takes everything).
There are 2 societies where male love was forbidden.
The Spartans forbid any male on male love. They were known to be ruled by their wifes and were the only ones who enslaved other Greeks which was a huge insult to the Hellenic world. Sandman of mgtow has argued that it was their women who persuaded their men, to enslave people for their own interest.
The other one is Crete. In Crete pederasty was purely a mentor relationship. Now Crete was an island full of pirates. In fact it was the pirate hub of the ancient World. Could it be because their women controlled men and made them get riches for them?
Im sure there are many more things missing which i havent adressed. There was the myth of Orpheas who took all the attention of the Greek men away from their women, which made them kill the musician.

Aristotle, Lacedaemonian Contistution
>And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury. The consequence is that in such a state wealth is too highly valued, especially if the citizen fall under the dominion of their wives, after the manner of most warlike races, except the Celts and a few others who openly approve of male loves

>This was exemplified among the Spartans in the days of their greatness; many things were managed by their women. But what difference does it make whether women rule, or the rulers are ruled by women? The result is the same. Even in regard to courage, which is of no use in daily life, and is needed only in war, the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy.

There are 2 Aphrodites. i will later on illustrate this with quotes from Platos Symposium
The bodily part, which is men and female. Some also make the mistake of using this love on youths.
Then the higher more noble love is about men and youths. Notice that it talks about loving the soul. In other words it was probably used to focus men on educating and improving younger males. Which is why most sources even mythical ones talk about improving the young man. Such as when Zeus „kidnapped“ Ganymedes and made him divine, but never did that to any of the 1000 women he slept with.
Pederasty is therefore a spiritual/platonical love used for mentoring young men and turn men away from women, so as to not be tempted by them and their evils.

From the Symposium

>And am I not right in asserting that there are two goddesses? The elder one, having no mother, who is called the heavenly Aphrodite-she is the daughter of Uranus; the younger, who is the daughter of Zeus and Dione-her we call common;
>The Love who is the offspring of the common Aphrodite is essentially common, and has no discrimination, being such as the meaner sort of men. The goddess who is his mother is far younger than the other, and she was born of the union of the male and female, and partakes of both. feel, and is apt to be of women as well as of youths, and is of the body rather than of the soul...
>But the offspring of the heavenly Aphrodite is derived from a mother in whose birth THE FEMALE has no part,-she is from the MALE only; this is that love which is of youths, and the goddess being older, there is nothing of wantonness in her. Those who are inspired by this love turn to the male, and delight in him who is the more valiant and intelligent nature; any one may recognise the pure enthusiasts in the very character of their attachments. For they love not boys, but intelligent, beings whose reason is beginning to be developed, much about the time at which their beards begin to grow.
>as we restrain or attempt to restrain them from fixing their affections on WOMEN of free birth.

>there were going to be a lot more men than women

Yes. Do you have brain damage? It's a fairly simple point.

back it up then

Plato only looked down on consummated pederasty. He thought the unrequited romantic love in pederastic relationships was ideal.

>The Iliad one of the oldest Greek writings, shows true female nature.
Yea and the in the Odyssey women were the only ones who consistently helped Odysseus.

The middle east is patriarchal today and they also fuck little boys.

citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.878.6115&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Adult skeletons in Greek graveyards are consistently older than their female equivalents. Women, on average, died significantly younger, which means that assuming gender ratios at birth are fairly even, you start seeing significant disparities once you get out of young adulthood.

>turn people gay in prison
Uh, no. I'm sorry snowflake, but nobody has ever been 'turned gay' in prison. Over half of all gay men have committed crimes in their lives, and many end up imprisoned with others of their kind. Perhaps you're referring to the epidemic of homosexual-on-homosexual behavior in the American justice system, propagated by laws prohibiting discrimination and banning the separation of prisoners due to sexual orientation? Maybe you should do some reading.

ABSOLUTELY, yes, it was rejected by Classical Hellenes.

The boy-fucking and general degeneracy you refer to was the domain of THEBANS and Eleans.

If you want sources, see Xenophon's Constitution of the Lacedaemonians and Plato's Symposium. Theban mud-farmers were wholly given over to fucking small children, and unsurprisingly they are considered the shame of the Hellenic race. Sparta, however, abhored all of this.

>>Sybiline oracles
>>The text is an "odd pastiche" of Hellenistic and Roman mythology interspersed with Jewish, Gnostic and early Christian legend.
That's not a reliable source for a single fucking thing.

It was only ever prevalent in the decadence and decline of empires.

So they'd have young women to fug?

Don't forgot that women were rightfully treated as sex toys to be used by men how ever they wanted though.

Back then people were considered adults at age 14, fucking 8 year olds happened because back then there were many circumstances where drunk 8 year olds were in close proximity to drunk 20+ year olds. Most families had at least five if not six kids (ones that lived past age 5 anyway) so if they fucked around there was less of an incentive to care.

Likewise the concept of a mentor/tutor was much stronger, our modern notion of this has been utterly destroyed by the existence of a large public library and public education system, culminating in the global information system known as "internet". Back then if you wanted to learn a skill you had to be an apprentice and luck into working for someone else, even another (more experienced) apprentice. Information wasn't freely accessible and available as it was after the printing press and digital telecommunications.

>what is men dying in war
>what is having a lot of female slaves
There were no shortage of women in the powerful greek states

Nice pseudepigrapha faggot

>ha gottcha
No

Read what? I'm unironically curious where you're getting your info.

not him btw.

I don't know the answer to this question, but thousands of years from now people looking back on our society will think 50% of people were homosexuals and 10% were transvestites.

>bacha bazi
I was just going to post on this. It's apparently been a huge problem in the Afghan military. It would seem that people surrounding the commanders (warlords?) see it as acceptable enough to look the other way, but even though it's in the realm of common knowledge it's jealously guarded as a secret from outsiders. At least a few US soldiers have been killed over making a stink about it, including one who was assassinated by one of the boy-slaves themselves.

Straight guys go gay in prison all the time it’s ridiculously common. They go in and fuck some dudes for a few years then come out and go back to pussy. You’ve seriously never heard of that? Or are you so afraid of gay people you just make shit up like your doing now ?

I thought Sparta was all about homosexuality for pleasure and heterosexuality for pro creation

Probably ben Carson’s website or something similar

Hahahahhahaha
*shoots self*

>this much denial

The bond was deeper because men were the only ones who could get an education. Imagine how boring it must be for someone to talk to an uneducated, uncultured person (in this case, women).

No that was Athens

>Xenophon: Lycurgus adopted a system opposed to all of these alike. Given that some one, himself being all that a man ought to be, should in admiration of a boy’s soul endeavour to discover in him a true friend without reproach, and to consort with him — this was a relationship which Lycurgus commended, and indeed regarded as the noblest type of bringing up. But if, as was evident, it was not an attachment to the soul, but a yearning merely towards the body, he stamped this thing as foul and horrible; and with this result, to the credit of Lycurgus be it said, that in Lacedaemon the relationship of lover and beloved is like that of parent and child or brother and brother where carnal appetite is in abeyance.

>Plutarch: Affectionate regard for boys of good character was permissible, but embracing them was held to be disgraceful, on the ground that the affection was for the body and not for the mind. Any man against whom complaint was made of any disgraceful embracing was deprived of all civic rights for life.

This, women were considered somewhere between mildly retarded and physically feeble because they were compared 1:1 to "man", which was the default and found inferior.

I suppose there is a sort of deep love that a person can feel in an intimate relationship for someone they see as their equal, but honestly I think that's something of a meme when it comes to sexual relationships which is much more stable when one has a clear power and authority over the over.

Pretty sure it's talked about in "This is what winning lookes like" where the pro ISAF commander pretty much just asks the Americans "Who are we supposed to fuck? Old women?"

All you need to know about cheek bustin' in prison.

youtube.com/watch?v=1pEzp-Bn1Lk

youtube.com/watch?v=-WczkNmD_-0

So just like today, the ruling elite were all pederasts and degenerates?

It was not accepted, you baiting faggot. It was tolerated. There's a difference.
Women were considered inferior and not worthy enough for men to sleep with them. They were needed only for children. Naturally, men went for the emotional connection with other males.

>Women were considered inferior and not worthy enough for men to sleep with them. They were needed only for children. Naturally, men went for the emotional connection with other males.
Fucking based. We need to go back.

Seeing as pederasty and traps are popular in various strongly patriarchal societies in modern times such as in afghanistan what makes you think that past societies were immune to that sort of shit?

>There was no "love" between men

Read some primary sources ffs mate.

>patriarchal

>Greco-Roman society being an enormous orgy is about as historically accurate as the "Roman Salute". It's largely just a Romanticist reimagining of Greece and Rome as utopian paradises free of the stifling [insert bad things here] that afflicted the society [insert person here].

I've heard it argued that the reason why we associate roman society with hedonism is because early christians used it as an extremely efficent propaganda tool to achieve conversions amongst the conservative roman people. Combine that with the slandering gossip-tier works we have about the Julio-Claudian dynasty and pagan Rome comes off as the worst cesspool of degeneracy imaginable.

Some people are just gay, Amerimutt. Two men can love eachother and you have no say in their private life. Easy and simple even for an el atrocidad for you.

Not so much early christians as the middle christians.

It was more like "remember the old days, before Jesus? People were fucking dogs in the streets and using wayward children as urinals, but then the LORD's word saved us from that vile heathen debauchery!"

The Romans also slandered Egyptians, calling them hedonistic, overly sexual and degenerate.

itt: brainlets writing retarded nonsense. if you want an honest (atleast with my own biases) then only read this

Citations?

KEK

Oh look, another shit thread confusing "degenerate" with "things I don't like."

Neat.

>/pol/tard reads greek history for the first time

KEK

>widely accepted in otherwise patriarchal ancient societies.
Patriarchal doesn't mean "straight white male" you reverse-SJW.

No; see Plato and Xenophon.

Elis and Thebes were the ones who adopted boy-fucking as a national value.

BLACKED

Is that a Turkic Kara Boga on the right?

Given the lack of religious obligation nowadays, why are we supposed to hate gay sex, anyway?

They're both scholar gentry.

Typical arguments seem to boil down to
1) They're more likely to have aids
2) They don't have children for the nation or whatever
3) They're 'mentally ill degenerates'

Consider this: the greeks often applied these same "degenerate" characteristics to more barbaric societies such as the Celts and Thracians to their north in attempts to mock them and paint them as uncivilized. Obviously they couldn't have themselves believed such acts were normal if they used them to humiliate others.

Do you have any good examples of negative descriptions of Celtic/Thracian homosexuality?

youtu.be/f8Qu4yRT148

He has all the sources listed.

No, they probably wouldn't, because adult males of all ages are mostly competing for the same young women.

Retard. Just THINK for once in your goddamn life. Consider how you can go decades without your individual polis even being in a war. Consider how losses in Greek city-state warfare were often pretty light; I believe 15% of the losing side's force was common for a Hoplite battle. Consider that the winning side suffered enormously less losses. Consider that due to no system providing arms and armor existing at the time, the people who went to war were the people who could afford to buy equipment, necessarily limiting the manpower pool that even goes off to war.

All of those drive down the battle losses, which are disproportionately male. Meanwhile, people are going to fuck a lot, because people. There is little in the way of effective contraception. Childbirth is continual, widespread and dangerous as all hell. You even have jokes about it in classical plays. What's that line in Medea? Safer to be in the forefront of the battle line three times than to give birth once?

who said anything about white?

That casualty rate is still devastating, user. Imagine losing 14% of your adult male population and in small communities that might have been pretty bad.

Remember that most Greek armies were made up of the citizen body.

>Remember that most Greek armies were made up of the citizen body.
And the citizen body is a relatively small part of the overall population. Most people in Greece didn't fight, because they couldn't afford a hoplite's panoply. If we believe Thucydides's numbers, the Sicilian expedition at the outset was 7,180 soldiers, not all of whom were Athenian. They were transported in a fleet of 134 triremes, which implies a group of over 40,000 rowers. And that fleet was all Athenian. You could scrounge up enormously greater numbers of people without property than you could of real citizens.

I'm sorry, I miscalculated; the ships crews for a Peloponesean era triereme was about 200, not 300 of the later ships that fought the Punic wars that Polybius mentions. That only leaves you with 26,800 crewmen.

I'm too lazy to dig it up again by the Heruli/Taifali (reported by Amminanius Marcellinus at a minimum as a primary source) practiced pedastery. Youths who had not captured/killed a boar/bear or I think a man in battle were free to be sodomized by the older men. From some other descriptions of the Heruli and Taifali it made me think they were young warrior male brotherhoods who might have lacked the standard family dynamic found in the Goths and others. I seem to recall, though this may have been in a secondary modern author, that this was a repulsive practice that other Germanics did not condone and either the Romans or those Germans looked upo nthe Taifali/Heruli negatively for it.

Makes me think the Alamanni with their own wolf-totemic male youth secret societies probably had similar, though they also clearly had lots of stable families like Goths and Franks.

In Wasps Aristophanes seemed to make the joke that the upper classes of Athens were the homosexual pederasts while that old guy who wanted to be on courts to judge people and get free money was the quintessential "hey deary sit on old daddys lap :^)" perverted old man lusting after little girls.

But lots of men die in warfare. You would think that would even it out a bit

Greek warfare didn't just involve hoplites. It involved men who served as missile support and the rich who often fought as cavalry. In fact Herodotus even mentions that the poor outnumbered hoplites in Greek armies.

I went through it here. You don't always have wars going on. Not everyone fights, (in fact, a very small minority of people in a classical setting would see military service). You probably wouldn't die in military service in a given engagement even if you lost, and if you won, the odds of dying in battle are almost 0.

Almost every woman is going to give birth at some time in her life, assuming she lives long enough to reach childbirthing age. Pregnancy doesn't know class or wealth lines. A given woman is probably going to get pregnant more times than anyone but a professional mercenary is going to see battles. And there is no roughly halving of that risk for the equivalent of being on the winning side.

As an aggregate across a society, pregnancy is orders of magnitude more dangerous than war.

>In fact, according to the Sybyline oracles the Jews were the only people in history who didn't fuck boys:
Bull. Shit. Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Jesus fucking Christ, I'm not even a /pol/head but good fucking lord you have to be honest to God retarded to believe this shit. "hurr durr every other culture but jews were pansy little fanny fuckers but no no not those jews."
The audacity to then go on and name the Phoenicians for fuck's sake. lol.

From readings on the Islamic world I think it's also the seclusion of women to the private sphere. Women were not put in total purdah in Athens and Sparta, but in Sparta the men were spending most of their time among other men and in Athens any upper class sort would likely only hang out around Hetaireia in the public sphere when it comes to women. Even in the private sphere they held Etruscans in il repute for dining/partying with their wives.

On the one hand having to aggressively stipulate against carnal relations suggests it was an endemic problem. On the other hand it seems like it's more the utter sex-crazy perversion of modern society that leaves us thinking you can't have platonic love. I've railed against the fujoshit ethos that two men can't love eachother without wanting to fuck, but here I am thinking the Erastes/Eromenus had to have a carnal component.

Judging from the Pompeii graffiti and artwork they are no more perverted than we are. And it's risky when we try and moralize an entire age as being righteous or degenerate. Fucking detest the fairytale of the 1950s being the squeaky clean leave it to beaver everyone was mike pence myth.

Herodotus claims a lot of things. More accurate historians, like Thucydides or Polybius or Didorious almost inevitably give far more heavier troops in both classical Greeks and later Macedonian style combined arms armies than they do to the psiloi. And even those guys have property/armament requirements for the lighter equipment they use.

>was somehow widely accepted in otherwise patriarchal ancient societies
.... It wasn't? It was seen as an upper class phenomenon in both Greece and Rome. Tacitus sperged about it regularly desu

>I refuse to believe history because I don't like how it makes me feel and fucks with my world view

Seriously? Is this bait or are you twelve?

And the repetition of wars. Think about how many battles there were in the 50 years of 450-400. Or 400-350. Victor Davis Hansen presents it as a sort of rolling death sentence. Casualties may be light but you (if a propertied man) have to consistently go out again and again. And age and experience makes it more liable you're going to be put at the front (if not the rear-guard that gives the younger folks in the middle more spine to not just shirk away).

It's not a guaranteed death since guys like Socrates could go from young boy to old cunt and not die from battle. But it's not infintsemal.

Older troops were generally put in the back, not the front: Routs started from the rear most of the time, and you wanted dependable, experienced men ready to keep the formation pointed in the right direction.

>Think about how many battles there were in the 50 years of 450-400
And how many pregnancies would you have in a similar time period? Somehow, I bet that the total number of man-battles is miniscule next to the total number of woman-pregnancies.

Generally authors like Thucydides didn't really present other troop types in battle. However they're still there and their actions are still noted.

Thucydides tells us of Demosthenes who set out without waiting for his light-armed Lokrian allies to arrive. When they came head to head with the javelin-armed Aetolians they held out until their supporting archers ran out of arrows and his hoplites were slaughtered. (Thuc. 3.95.3-.98.2)

Xenophon tells us how Arcadian hoplites feared Iphicrates' peltast like "children fear hobgoblins" (Xen. Hell. 4.4.16-17) and how a small group of light infantry put to flight the Sacred Band (Xen. Hell. 7.1.19).

Ariostotle also notes that light infantry fight easily against hoplites (Aristot. Pol. 6.1321a.19-20)

Thucydides account at how effective they were in Sphacteria Thuc. 4.32.3

Xenophon's ideal example of good order involved a force of combined arms (Xen. Ec. 8.6).

Demosthenes required javelin-throwers in Aitolia (Thuc. 3.97.2). Nicias needed longe range missile to ward of Syracuse horsemen (Thuc.6.22) The Spartans raised their own cavalry and archers to deal with the Athenian horsemen (Thuc. 4.55.2)

>fucking men
was only okay, and even then only up to a point, if you were the penetrator and not the receiver. Taking the "womans" role was considered shameful as fuck even when it was ok. I don't believe there was any revulsion per se but it was certainly a point of slander or insult if you were in relationships like that as two adult men. See Julius "Queen of Bithynia" Caesar
>pederasty
honestly this seems to stem from the sequestering of women into a separate sphere, which inevitably leaves men isolated among themselves. The afghans notoriously still do this, and the japanese did until really the meiji restoration (and honestly I don't think it ever left their psyche, since pederastyesque tropes are common).

These people weren't exclusive homosexuals in what we think of gays today. They still sought wives and had children. You can think of most of these as a way to relieve yourself in an easy and less binding way.

>Do you have any idea how high rates of maternal mortality were back then?
When was the pull-out invented?

You do realize that has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, right?

I apologize. It was late and I misread your post.

But my point is that in the accounts of Thucydides light infantry tends to be ignored and cavalry as well but, there's no reason to discard Herodotus statement on the number of light infantry outnumbering the hoplites. As I've shown in that post light infantry posed a very serious threat to hoplites and unsupported hoplites were at the mercy of light infantry.

And my point is that when they ARE mentioned with numbers of composition given, they are generally somewhere between 1/4 to 1/3 the number of Hoplites or Phlaganites (sp?) deployed. Considering some of Herdotus's other clear mistakes when it comes to military matters, like the implausibility of Marathon's "Fight in one big line and then chase them all the way to their ships instead of the actual battle line shifting as the Greeks gain the upper hand" or his truly absurd numbers given for the Xerxes war, I'm less inclined to believe him as to states of composition over other authors.

And that, winding its way back, implies that yes, the citizen body, a minority, is doing the bulk of the military service, and consequently the bulk of the dying in war, which means that you are probably seeing a hell of a lot more women dying in childbirth than men dying in war.

Just go to afghanistan.