Controversial General Political Discussion

[Gaimon The Pirate]

You say this

but then you quote wikipedia


And it literally says they were free enjoy sex with other men, sometimes you take, sometimes you give, Rome was hedonistic society to the max, they preached of a lot of things yet would backstab their friends if it suited them

You are just pushing an agenda that suits you while hypocritically negating one source while praising other of same value that would suit you more.

And yes i have translated latin texts and i leaned latin in school and to this day i can converse in simple sentences


In short you are hypocritical and push agenda that suits you

Lol.
Wikipedia, while being not the truth, represents the consensus of the majority.
Consensus that if was not proved, would not be written there.
Let me list some sources:

Spoiler

https://oxfordre.com/politics/displ...lites exalted,by the expansionist Roman state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia

I am not negating sources, I am expressing the consensus of the majority of historians.
You state falsehoods that go against the consensus using an "assistant professor" opinion like it's some undeniable source.
So, if you want to question the status quo, either you bring some undeniable proof of falsification of the theory, or you just accept to be in the wrong.
I am not even bringing my point, I am just stating what is commonly accepted as truth.
So yeah, 15 years wasted.
Shame, you could have used them for something better.

But please, feel free to prove that being passive was the same as being active in ancient rome, I'll gladly admit to be wrong.
You know, some real proof, not some mental fanfiction of a literal nobody.

 

[Adam 🍎]

Lol.
Wikipedia, while being not the truth, represents the consensus of the majority.
Consensus that if was not proved, would not be written there.
Let me list some sources:

Spoiler

https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1243;jsessionid=8ABDB43FE6F5FA61A4D033AC862F2E46?rskey=MxnrBV&result=20#:~:text=Whereas classical Greek elites exalted,by the expansionist Roman state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia

I am not negating sources, I am expressing the consensus of the majority of historians.
You state falsehoods that go against the consensus using an "assistant professor" opinion like it's some undeniable source.
So, if you want to question the status quo, either you bring some undeniable proof of falsification of the theory, or you just accept to be in the wrong.
I am not even bringing my point, I am just stating what is commonly accepted as truth.
So yeah, 15 years wasted.
Shame, you could have used them for something better.

But please, feel free to prove that being passive was the same as being active in ancient rome, I'll gladly admit to be wrong.
You know, some real proof, not some mental fanfiction of a literal nobody.

Why would I continue to converse with someone who will reject what doesn't suit them and cherry pick what suits them?

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Why would I continue to converse with someone who will reject what doesn't suit them and cherry pick what suits them?

I happily will admit to be wrong if you can produce me some tangible proof.
You know, some piece of literature where it's not frowned upon to be passive, or some contemporary talking about it.
Even on Pompey's wall writings there is people being ridiculed for being passive, if I am not wrong.

I am not cherry picking, I have produced multiple piece of evidence, shown you the consensus. You have produced a video of a literal nobody.

 

[Adam 🍎]

I happily will admit to be wrong if you can produce me some tangible proof.
You know, some piece of literature where it's not frowned upon to be passive, or some contemporary talking about it.
Even on Pompey's wall writings there is people being ridiculed for being passive, if I am not wrong.

I am not cherry picking, I have produced multiple piece of evidence, shown you the consensus. You have produced a video of a literal nobody.

You already yourself dismissed something I showed because it didn't suit your agenda only to provide another evidence that again says men could and had sex with other men.

You also totally ignored the fact Romans as a nation were highly hypocritical and while preaching of traits they would break them over and over.

You are just pushing your agenda and dismissing everything that doesn't suit you.

Taa daa kiddo

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

You already yourself dismissed something I showed because it didn't suit your agenda only to provide another evidence that again says men could and had sex with other men.

You also totally ignored the fact Romans as a nation were highly hypocritical and while preaching of traits they would break them over and over.

You are just pushing your agenda and dismissing everything that doesn't suit you.

Taa daa kiddo

So you are saying the propaganda of Rome is to not be believed because a heavily militarised state?
Look, I even agree on that?

But since we only have their propaganda to actually build history from, we must take it as an accountable reconstruction.
And again, you are wasting your time, and just look like you are climbing on mirrors.
I have asked you to present tangible proof, not opinion.

And you failed to produce me any evidence again, I'll be glad to continue when you have something you know, roman, to prove what you say about the romans.
Not what a politicised she/her progressive assistant can say today.

 

[NAMELESS]

So you are saying the propaganda of Rome is to not be believed because a heavily militarised state?
Look, I even agree on that?

But since we only have their propaganda to actually build history from, we must take it as an accountable reconstruction.
And again, you are wasting your time, and just look like you are climbing on mirrors.
I have asked you to present tangible proof, not opinion.

And you failed to produce me any evidence again, I'll be glad to continue when you have something you know, roman, to prove what you say about the romans.
Not what a politicised she/her progressive assistant can say today.

Quite a few Roman Emperors were openly gay.Ancient Greece and Rome were more gay than current Europe.

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

Lol.
Wikipedia, while being not the truth, represents the consensus of the majority.
Consensus that if was not proved, would not be written there.
Let me list some sources:

Spoiler

https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1243;jsessionid=8ABDB43FE6F5FA61A4D033AC862F2E46?rskey=MxnrBV&result=20#:~:text=Whereas classical Greek elites exalted,by the expansionist Roman state.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Scantinia

I am not negating sources, I am expressing the consensus of the majority of historians.
You state falsehoods that go against the consensus using an "assistant professor" opinion like it's some undeniable source.
So, if you want to question the status quo, either you bring some undeniable proof of falsification of the theory, or you just accept to be in the wrong.
I am not even bringing my point, I am just stating what is commonly accepted as truth.
So yeah, 15 years wasted.
Shame, you could have used them for something better.

But please, feel free to prove that being passive was the same as being active in ancient rome, I'll gladly admit to be wrong.
You know, some real proof, not some mental fanfiction of a literal nobody.

No,being "passive" meant the one taking the pounding was badly seen(effeminate),while the other dude banging was "masculine".

Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual". The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality wasactive /dominant /masculine andpassive /submissive /feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome, though professional prostitutes and entertainers might remain sexually available well into adulthood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

This is the great scheme of the far right. To make the working classe think that they are fighting for them when they are in reality rooting for the upper classes. Donald dumb, Bolsonarrow and Marine la haine are great examples of that.

The reality is that the right and authoritarians have been ruling the world for decade with a few exceptions..

We are in dire need of left assistance

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Quite a few Roman Emperors were openly gay.Ancient Greece and Rome were more gay than current Europe.

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

No,being "passive" meant the one taking the pounding was badly seen(effeminate),while the other dude banging was "masculine".

Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual". The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality wasactive /dominant /masculine andpassive /submissive /feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome, though professional prostitutes and entertainers might remain sexually available well into adulthood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

It is exactly what i am saying?
Or are you saying that today we see passive homosexual as effeminate?
Saying that rome was "gay as fuck" implies that there were openly gay couples, which is not true by mothern standards.
You would fuck LESSER men, because since they were passive they were not men.
This is not what we consider gay today, and this is exactly my point.

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

Quite a few Roman Emperors were openly gay.Ancient Greece and Rome were more gay than current Europe.

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

No,being "passive" meant the one taking the pounding was badly seen(effeminate),while the other dude banging was "masculine".

Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate "homosexual" and "heterosexual". The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality wasactive /dominant /masculine andpassive /submissive /feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). "Virtue" (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status, as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, excluded from the normal protections accorded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome, though professional prostitutes and entertainers might remain sexually available well into adulthood
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

Like.. did you even read my messages?
I literally pasted the same quote as you.

 

[Adam 🍎]

Rome - has literal laws that enable men have as much gay sex as they want

Gaimon - ROME WASN'T GAY

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Rome - has literal laws that enable men have as much gay sex as they want

Gaimon - ROME WASN'T GAY

Nice strawmanning my friend :)

Still waiting for you to prove that being passive was not considered a dishonour like I always stated.
I never once said men could not have sex with other men, jsut that they taking it was considered a dishonour.
But you just show that you are advertising an agenda, and arguing in bad faith :)

 

[NAMELESS]

It is exactly what i am saying?
Or are you saying that today we see passive homosexual as effeminate?
Saying that rome was "gay as fuck" implies that there were openly gay couples, which is not true by mothern standards.
You would fuck LESSER men, because since they were passive they were not men.
This is not what we consider gay today, and this is exactly my point.

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

Like.. did you even read my messages?
I literally pasted the same quote as you.

Both are gray,bro.Passive and active bullshit was just ancient cope.If you want to stick your d into another man,you are gay.As for open couple.there were Emperors that were openly gay and even did gay stuff in public.

 

[Adam 🍎]

Still waiting for you to prove that being passive was not considered a dishonour like I always stated.

Lemme tell you something, straight men and men in denial will use any mean possible to justify gay sex.

If you fuck a guy regardless of what, YOU GAY

 

[NAMELESS]

It is exactly what i am saying?
Or are you saying that today we see passive homosexual as effeminate?
Saying that rome was "gay as fuck" implies that there were openly gay couples, which is not true by mothern standards.
You would fuck LESSER men, because since they were passive they were not men.
This is not what we consider gay today, and this is exactly my point.

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

Like.. did you even read my messages?
I literally pasted the same quote as you.

yeah,i missed some posts.

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

Gay was always a thing,but obviously it wasn't the standard anywhere in any time period.

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

Lemme tell you something, straight men and men in denial will use any mean possible to justify gay sex.

If you fuck a guy regardless of what, YOU GAY

Yes?
But culturally, the roman shamed the passive gays. Which is not as today. It is even worse than hating gays. Is basically dehumanising passive men.
Are you slow? Can you understand what other people write?

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

Both a gray,bro.Passive and active bullshit was just ancient cope.If you want to stick your d into another man,you are gay.As for open couple.There were Emperors that were openly gay and even did gay stuff in public.

Yeah but culturally is not the same as saying "rome was hella gay".
If you were passive you were an half man, completely shamed.

 

[Adam 🍎]

But culturally, the roman shamed the passive gays

Oh i am sure they shamed them until it came their turn to take it LUL

 

[NAMELESS]

Yes?
But culturally, the roman shamed the passive gays. Which is not as today. It is even worse than hating gays. Is basically dehumanising passive men.
Are you slow? Can you understand what other people write?

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

Yeah but culturally is not the same as saying "rome was hella gay".
If you were passive you were an half man, completely shamed.

So you are saying the active gays shamed passive gays and therefore they weren't gay?

 

[Adam 🍎]

So you are saying the active gays shamed passive gays and therefore they weren't gay?

That is some jail logic - if i fuck a man that doesn't make me same gay as them duuuuuh

 

[Gaimon The Pirate]

So you are saying the active gays shamed passive gays and therefore they weren't gay?

?
I am saying that they did not even considered a word for being gay .
You were either a man who gives it to women or lesser men, or an half man who takes it.

 

[NAMELESS]

That is some jail logic - if i fuck a man that doesn't make me same gay as them duuuuuh

Exactly lol

 

[Adam 🍎]

?
I am saying that they did not even considered a word for being gay .
You were either a man who gives it to women or lesser men, or an half man who takes it.

still gay af

 

[NAMELESS]

Hot take:all rapists that rape men are gay.

Post automatically merged: Dec 2, 2023

?
I am saying that they did not even considered a word for being gay .
You were either a man who gives it to women or lesser men, or an half man who takes it.

They didn't have that word,its an English word. Still gay as fuck and in denial lmfao. Look up Spartan culture. That 300 movie was full of shit.