Reading Symposium

>reading Symposium
>Aristophanes and Pausanias are total fags

Wtf is this shit? In what dialogue does Plato BTFO the gays?

fat chicks love that "well behaved women rarely make history" thing for some reason

Yet another quality submission from /pol/

>prescribe to the programming of what good behavior is
>prescribe to the programming of a revolt against those standards
>simply become the antithesis of your those you who considered your enemies
>still unintentionally adhering to the original programming through polar means

what a bunch of half-wits

The most intelligent men throughout history have been homosexual or bisexual.
You are a ant compared to my intellect chump.

Yes, Aristophanes and his gay friends were smarter than me, I admit this. That still does answer my question. When will Plato squash the gay degeneracy?

(To the woman in the photo) Bugs... easy on the carrots.

>That still does answer my question
Are you Jewish?

Only Plato text I know that references homosexuality negatively is The Laws.

...Why do you have such an interest, OP?

Are you a total imbecile?

"Homosexuality" as a concept didn't exist. Almost every Athenian male openly took young boys as lovers. The last speaker in the symposium is one of Soccy's many lovers. If you literally think being queer is degenerate, you need to read some fucking books or get the hell off the lit board pol scum

This man right here knows what's going on.

He's probably gay himself lmao

Having a fuckboy on the side was a Greek intellectual thingy of the social elite. Roman writers were very critical of such debauchery.

>implying any of Aristophanes speech jives with his works
>implying Plato wasn't a homo who hoped for homo fascism by using sockpuppet accounts
Plato's just buttmad Socrates didn't want to fuck him. Keep that in mind every time Plato says
>Alcibiades totally isn't turning on Socrates as much now as knowledge turns him on

There's antigay in the Republic as well.

>Almost every Athenian male openly took young boys as lovers.
False. Why the hell do you people accept the most moronic folk histories and conspiracy theories as long as they reinforce your own moral failings?

he's technically right. young men were meant to make themselves attractive in the hope of trapping older men by their beauty into teaching them about the world. however, there is a line, which when crossed would make the young man ineligible for citizenship [Aristotle argues some of the shame reflects onto the citizen who stuck it in the boipussi, but taking it in the pooper was what lost your citizenship not putting it in]
that's why there's so many references to Alcibiades being the most beautiful, because it reflects that Socrates is the most wise. that's why there's so many references to youths wearing perfume, playing wine games too well, and being dressed like they're asking to have their citizenship revoked, because everything up until penetrative sex was encouraged, while penetrative sex was considered profane and the domain of Spartans. [also why charges of Socrates laconizing are so damning: being unkempt was a sign of being Spartan and therefore basically a child molester surrounded by pre-citizens]

I read Attic Greek. I have been studying ancient poetry (and getting paid to teach it) for my entire adult life. You can be proven wrong with one trip to a library, or just by reading the Symposium, the only fucking book OP mentioned.

You cannot even read one book. And the dialogues are some of the shortest, most engaging works in the canon. Yet you cannot even finish reading them to Alcibiades'

You are the reason lit sucks. You come here begging other people to spoonfeed you confirmation for literally /pol/ tier idiocy. You are looking to antiquity to bolster your moral code and you reject to engage with a fundamentally different society, as though your "degenercy" transcends time. And when you don't find what you want to see, you ignore any undesirable data.

Fuck you for being so intellectually lazy. Fuck you for living the unexamined life. Fuck you for shitting up what used to be the only half decent board on Veeky Forums.

And yes, I am mad. You are trying to bastardize something I care deeply about.

Studying the Classics has been the most important endeavor of my life and fuckers like you keep trying to steal it from me because you hate gay people. So one last fuck you

It's the Laws, god damn, guys. OP's enough of a pseud to know that Plato is pretty homo but too fucking dumb to read the one dialogue that has nasty things to say about hot, sweaty, masculine intercrural fucking.

BTFO. Sick of these retards turning antiquity into some kind of idpol badge. jpegs featuring busts of aristotle or arno breker's work (sad that supposed traditionalists arent able to tell the difference) next to text from some nobody blogger fuck or american wn gang criminal.

The Greeks may have tolerated degeneracy (in the sense of "I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it"), but they certainly did not celebrate it, and they *most* certainly did not abandon the concept of degeneracy altogether.

It's a fact that every (*every* *single* and no exceptions) functioning human society in the history of human societies persecuted gays. Deal with it.

You're literally arguing for eating literal shit right now.

I don't know if there's ever been a single post on Veeky Forums this incorrect in so many different ways before.

Not that guy but
>The Greeks may have tolerated degeneracy (in the sense of "I may not agree with you, but I will fight for your right to say it")
Uh, well a lot of "degenerate" things, in the sense you use the category likely unknown to the Greeks, were not at all tolerated by the Greeks. As for celebrating it, many of Plato's diaologues demonstrate this - Symposium, Phaedrus and Charmides, for example.

Another thing, why do you think the Greeks had an early modern liberal Enlightenment concept of free speech?

>You're literally arguing for eating literal shit right now.
Why do you think arguing that the Greeks had a different attitude toward homosexuality than you think they did means that he endorses it? Do you mean to imply that the Greeks are the standard measurement of human morality and function, or that we perceive them so, so that any attempts to demonstrate that their society tolerated and even reified homosexual behaviour means to imply that we should too? (despite the fact their social homosexuality was largely pederastic, which is highly taboo in our society)

Holy fucking shit just leave and read a book every once in a while. Quit trying to use literature to make yourself feel all warm and fuzzy about your moral code.

If you want ancient Greeks literally praising something pretty close to your "degeneracy," as in the eating actual shit part, go read about the character/philosopher Diogenes. If you want Greeks talking again about how much fun dude on dude action is, just finish reading the Symposium.

or

If you just want to use the past to make yourself feel superior to others, to justify your fear and hated of homosexuality, fuck off back to /pol/ because you are a waste of a brain

Don't even bother, the guy's such a moralistic pleb that he probably can't imagine an idea without also demanding that someone else tell him to approve or disapprove of it. Guarantee you he's an SJW in real life or was one until yesterday.

"Homosexuality" is medical terminology invented by 19th century German doctors. The Greeks did all sorts of weird shit, including "homosexual" acts, though the gay identity was utterly foreign to them. Their culture had paradoxical attitudes, like every culture ever. The Greeks are a source of wisdom and thought not otherwise available in modernity. If you want absolute moral certainty, go back to church or your college's diversity training seminars. If you want to learn something, then read a fucking book without first demanding it impart a plebeian moral truth.

You have no idea, man. The co-option of Classical iconography and appeals to antiquity by pol kids are dumbfounding. It's fucking depressing to see some of the most beautiful, profound, and challenging products of the human mind being cited primarily by "race realist" teenagers to make themselves feel smart

Taking dick up the ass was illegal in Ancient Greece. This is a undeniable fact.

You're basically trying to argue that dogshit is high cuisine based on the fact that the Greeks had no food hygiene laws. Worse, you're not even doing for rational reasons, you're only doing it because you're a flaming coprophague yourself.

That the Greeks had a highly stratified society with a massive amount of leeway for those on top doesn't mean they celebrated degeneracy. They *allowed* it from time to time, but only as a sign of privilege.

(Closest analogue is modern-day prison culture. Those on top of the prison hierarchy have freedom to rape their prison bitches, but this doesn't imply in any way that they support homosexual degeneracy or LGBT rights.)

>calls someone that hates queers an sjw

You really think all the unthinking moralists are on one side?

laws

Taking it in the ass was terrible, putting it in someone else's was not, being a general faggy little flirt was encouraged. It was complicated and does not, in any way, map out onto contemporary homosexual relations either pro or con.

>They didn't support LGBT rights
Yeah, duh, you dumbass. That was never the dispute. Stop using the past as a glorified appeal to authority and start thinking for yourself. Come up with an argument against gay shit besides "the Greeks wouldn't like it!"

What do you think of Sappho? Have you read their poems?

No, I don't think the unthinking moralists are on one side. Obviously, they can be on any side, which is why popular culture has descended into a thousand different little purity spirals in the past few years.

I do, however, think that the alt-right is a secession movement of former SJWs, or a right that's been infected with their idpol mentality. It's the same college-poisoned moralism, just with a different polarity. That's why you see such structural similarities in both argument and tactics, and that's why they're focused mainly on fighting each other.

Linda Sarsour and Richard Spencer are both equally mystifying to the average Trump voter in Michigan.

Literally Google it.

First thing, quit pretending like Greece was one place with one set of laws. What we call Greece was a collection of independent city states that all had their own laws, customs, norms, and dialects over about 600 years.

In most of them, and most famously in Ancient Athens, everyone's favorite, sodomy was not only legal but normal and expected.

Just keep fucking reading that sentence until it sinks in. If it doesn't, go read literally any book about ancient sexuality.

It was more respectable to fuck than get fucked. After that, relations become complex, but male on male pederasty was a regular occurrence.

oh cool we are saying the same thing sass unintentional
here's another bloom

Only skinny people are allowed to post here, Jabba. Back to /fat/ with you.

That fuck has never read a book in his life, much less a poem. He's a lost cause and we should let this thread die

Thanks for the Bloom, friendly user. I see your aggrieved H. Bloom and return an aggrieved A. Bloom.

>First thing, quit pretending like Greece was one place with one set of laws.
Thanks, sherlock. How's your freshman year going? Feeling smart yet?

> In most of them, and most famously in Ancient Athens, everyone's favorite, sodomy was not only legal but normal and expected.
>...
> It was more respectable to fuck than get fucked. After that, relations become complex, but male on male pederasty was a regular occurrence.
First: pederasty is not sodomy.
Second: penetrative pederasty was illegal (as far as anything at all could be called 'illegal') in Ancient Greece.
Third: being penetrated wasn't 'less respectable', it was grounds to lose your status as a free male. I.e., grounds for falling into a subhuman caste.

Let me quote Plato's "Laws":

> Now that we have reached this point in regard to our regulation, but have fallen into a strait because of the cowardice of the many, I maintain that our regulation on this head must go forward and proclaim that our citizens must not be worse than fowls and many other animals which are produced in large broods, and which live chaste and celibate lives without sexual intercourse until they arrive at the age for breeding; and when they reach this age they pair off, as instinct moves them, male with female and female with male; and thereafter they live in a way that is holy and just, remaining constant to their first contracts of love: surely our citizens should at least be better than these animals. If, however, they become corrupted by most of the other Hellenes or barbarians, through seeing and hearing that among them the "lawless Love" (as it is called) is of very great power, and thus become unable to overcome it, then the Law-wardens, acting as lawgivers, must devise for them a second law.

*That* is the conventional thinking of Ancient Greeks on the subject of sexual degeneracy.

(Of course Greek customs and legislation and its enforcement, such as it was, is a whole different issue.)

hardly aggreived, more saucy and bemused, be not fooled by his sorrowful jowls, the burning eyes offer naught but the 'come hither' stare. lrn2bloom

>citing a passage that points out that adultery is destabilizing as though it said sodomy was morally wrong and illegal
You see the mental gymnastics?

surely our citizens should at least be better than these animals

I'm sorry I made you so mad. The guy you're replying to isn't OP tho, I am. I simply hate homosexuality and especially the preying of young men by older men. With that said, I've finished the Symposium since last night and greatly enjoyed it. Calm down :)

>didn't understand the post

Please kill yourself you useless faggot /pol/fag.

>homosexuality as a concept didn't exist

t. retard

Enough with these large-scale, unsubstantiable generalizations - please. They don't prove your point.

Also, it is a thinly veiled attempt to appeal to authority.

You don't sound like an adult. Let alone one living the "examined life." You sound like a whiny child on the verge of tears.

You should think about that.

>someone hasn't read everything
>pseud

Ironically, this is a pseud mentality. Not a single person on this board has read every work that can be suggested by the persons of this board. No one here has read every work of merit. It isn't reading the most books which makes you an intellectual, it is the way you think about what you have read.

Likewise, there are only two ways OP could know that was in The Laws: (1) if he were told, or (2) if he read it. Assuming he hadn't been told until making this thread (otherwise he would have had no need to make it), he would have had no imperative to read it. Therefore, there's nothing "too fucking dumb" about OP's actions. Your logic is bad.

Sappho was married with children, and most of her poems are about men.

Hahaha no

Both bloom and silverblatt browse this board, so you're wrong

Plato has tons of gay shit in his dialogues. As far as I know "Laws" are the only one that is "anti-gay".

The Laws

mad faggot whose wishes for pederasty were met with cold replies detected

even though the Laws aren't even THAT anti-guy... It's basically 'it is the function of the members of the polis to produce healthy offspring; therefore homosexuality should be banned since it does not lead to the continuation of the species.

But this is also put in the context that Plato is fucking autistic in the Laws that the population should be something like 3645 orwhatever because it can be divided by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

He doesn't blow the fuck out the gays, he just blows them.

Haha yes, pleb. Read the introduction next time you pick up a copy of Sappho's verses.

So I am wrong on one point - that no one here has read all those works. My larger point stands, dimwit. Regardless, you are not one of those two names, and neither are the overwhelming majority of people here.

Ill-behaved women don't make history all that often either

>Greeks where all pedophiles
>they believed modern homosexuals (adult male or female pairing) was degenerate, and it was outlawed in most city-states
>anal sex was also outlawed
>therefore the Greeks are proof that 21st century homosexuality is natural and has always been widespread and tolerated

What do pseuds mean by this?

Furthermore
>some people are born gay and others are born straight
>it is impossible to choose to be straight, therefore impossible to choose to be gay
>100% of ancient Greeks were gay

How does that work?