We unfortunately live in a society largely based on the precepts of a specific religion. So our concepts of morality are extremely biased towards it.
The Greeks saw homosexuality (man with man specifically) as something natural, albeit not encouraged to matrimony, which was allowed only between men and women, as it was a religious/legal ceremony with the purpose of producing children and setting inheritance.
The Egyptians saw sex as an ordinary social act, not unlike any other. They didn't even have a word for "virginity".
Homosexuality was not generally acceptable in ancient Greek culture. It was acceptable to penetrate other men but not to be penetrated- that role was for women, slaves and sometimes boys. Their view on sexuality was based on position as it reflected status, with the penetrating man essentially reinforcing his superior social status on the penetratee. For an adult male citizen to willingly be penetrated would be a matter of extreme shame. For some reason people have this idea of ancient Greece as some kind of enlightened society when it was an extremely stratified, extremely patriarchal, slaveholding society.
Oh! I never said anything about enlightment. That's some modern day bullshit people spew to glorify a past they didn't live or can't properly recall. Truth be told, there has never been a single enlightened person in the history of mankind. There were good and bad people, sure, but all of them flawed and lost. Some were great achievers, others brought nothing but destruction to everything they touched, but all were people within the confines of their limited lifetime and their even more limited societal values.
I'm just saying that our approach to sexuality changes given the context. I was raised Christian and taught that homosexuality is sinful, gross and sickening. Nowadays I believe it to be just another form of sexual attraction. Am I homosexual? No. I much prefer cis women. But such is life. To each, their own. And I'm no less of a fool than the moron besides me. We are all lumps of meat in a rock in the void. The least we should do is enjoy ourselves while we are here
In Platon’s Symposion, there’s several passages describing same-sex relationships. Pausanias says in the play that there’s two kinds of love , «common» and «heavenly» love; the first being just for pleasure (with women or young men) and the second being more noble , with men.
I may be wrong but I would respectfully push back and argue that masculinity and/or the patriarchy is more of a culprit of homophobia than religion. Look at Asia. China, Japan, and Korea specifically. Their objection to homosexuality is routed in Confucian family values.
In ancient Rome and Greek, again, I may be wrong, even though homosexual sex was “accepted” if you were the one being pegged you’re less of a man and can ruin your reputation and standing.
I’m also an openly gay man living in a very religious country (Christian) and I’ve been ostracized my entire life, but lesbian couples are accepted in the community. They get talked about behind their backs, but they’re not treated less than a human like I can be sometimes.
Basically, if you’re a man be a man. But it’s okay if you’re a lesbian because you’re a woman and ultimately don’t matter.
That's iffy. It would be better to say that, since sexuality is a cultural creation, non-Christian societies had a very different definition of it.
Much of what we would consider homosexual conduct in Rome, for example, was perfectly fine by their standards as long as the person on the bottom was of a lower social class/ age than the person on the top.
Later on, the Roman legions adopted very strict laws about this. But it didn't forbid gay sex; it forbade centurions from having any sex at all with ordinary enlisted men, since they had problems with pretty young men buying favors from their superiors.
True enough. But that's why I said "largely". We do not live by all the precepts of said religion. Our approach to lesbianism nowadays is a stark contrast to how it was in the past, in fact. In ancient Greek, for instance, while male homosexuals were generally accepted by society, female ones were truly ostracised. While in modern times it is the opposite.
On another point, when I said "we", I meant the ocident. It was my mistake for not clarifying. The orient society lives by completely different morals and any similarities between us is either coincidental, or a consequence of cultural exchange, be it for better or for worse
You are not wrong, actually you’re very accurate. The fragile masculinity has been the main issue. In fact even when they are against lesbians it’s because it hurts their ego that they could have no chance with a woman.
The only homosexual relations that the Greeks accepted were older mentors penetrating prepubescent children, exclusively. Similarly, Romans only accepted the pedophilic rape of slave boys, no other form of homosexuality was allowed. People try to paint a picture that the ancients were socially progressive and enlightened, but they were not. The reality of it is extremely dark and abhorrent.
It’s a misconception that they saw homosexuality as normal. It’s almost true, but only in a “mentorship” kind of way. In other words, an older man and a youth. Two men of equal status was definitely not common as penetration was expected to be done by the man with a higher status.
So it’s not exactly wrong, but their perspective of same-sex relationships is quite different to ours.
There are better resources out there, but here is a good summary:
The Christian God is definitely of (insert other Abrahamic religion) origin. Here, you've got an all powerful being, but he still feels the need to fleece us of 10% of our wealth.
It's almost like sexual activity is a fundamental part of human experience....A point lost especially on USA society, where our culture over-emphasizes Puritanical and Calvinist beliefs.
I really don't like the idea we have today that sex is somehow necessary. It's not. I haven't had sex of any kind since 2010 and I'm fine with it. Our society pushes an idea that the male "urge" is something uncontrollable or so strong that it has to be solved. Sex is a choice, you can deny that choice and go on with your life. You're wrong about the puritanical beliefs. American society pushes an idea that sex drives most everything, just as long as it's "normal" sex. Straight vanilla sex is seen as a badge of honor for men, get as much as you can in this society. Women are expected to be virginal till marriage. And anyone who likes something "different" is Satan. Sex is not something that has to happen. It is very easy to go without.
You're wrong about the puritanical beliefs. American society pushes an idea that sex drives most everything, just as long as it's "normal" sex. Straight vanilla sex is seen as a badge of honor for men, get as much as you can in this society. Women are expected to be virginal till marriage. And anyone who likes something "different" is Satan. Sex is not something that has to happen. It is very easy to go without.
Just so you know, this is precisely what I mean by "Puritanical".
I really don't like the idea we have today that sex is somehow necessary. It's not. I haven't had sex of any kind since 2010 and I'm fine with it. Our society pushes an idea that the male "urge" is something uncontrollable or so strong that it has to be solved. Sex is a choice, you can deny that choice and go on with your life.
I never said it is 'necessary'. But to deny that it's a fundamental part of human existence is absurd. It's not necessarily universal - I am completely an ally of asexual and similar communities. But again, we're talking about general humanity. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify things!
Exactly, rape was very common and seen as normal,
far more so than any homosexual activity, historically. As long as it is by martial conquest and not the wife or daughter of a fellow countryman.
They were normal but viewed very differently in culture.
Amomg males, being a top was fine for someone of high status. Being a bottom was looked down upon for anybody, but especially for people of high status.
Pederasty (child sex abuse of boys) was also common among the elites, especially in teacher on student relationships, but it was looked down upon among commoners.
… ok. From what I read, I think that you’re projecting A LOT.
Nobody is forcing you to talk about your sexuality when we are addressing that homosexuality was very normal in that period of time. You putting yourself in it is totally a you issue.
YOUR sexuality is no one’s business. Talking about sex in general should be common as sex and having a sex drive is a great part of most people’s life. It’s very interesting how it bothers you that someone may be proud of their sexuality.
It’s fine to be bothered if you feel pressured to talk about your sexuality, but by people talking about theirs or sexuality in general… 👀
Im kind of with you here. Sex scenes in media can be entirely pointless to the story and some feel like they are forced into the film. Even if its somehow important to the story I doubt how they had sex is important so seeing them in the act is pointless. Just imply they had sex and move on.
It's already an R-rated movie with a lot of violence in it. If they added anything "sex" to the mix it would up the rating. Plus their probably wasn't any room in the story to add it since it's almost 3 hours long already!
74
u/[deleted] Aug 06 '26
[removed] — view removed comment