If the greeks were so gay, why are all there love stories about

because they weren't gay?

>>9193832
>he read Ovid's version of Hylas being raped
LATIN SCUM PLS GO

Girls are for lub, boys are for fug

Because you don't need to be in love to get your dick wet

>>9193832

love is exclusive to opposite sex partners

>>9193832

I guess they thought you could have sex just being friends, no need bring eros to the conversation

The M/F romance stuff was retconned in later by the Christian monks during the dark ages. It was one of Thomas Aquinas' jobs that he had to do on the weekends. We can only imagine how much not gay stuff he had to do to make Europeans believe what an unholy thirst for the D the Greeks actually had. This was a kind of a thing tho for the pope and kings and stuff tho.

So they had to kind of wing it, basically. Too much dick - and I mean, anybody who knew how things actually worked would have known that civilization at that time was like a thin tissue stretched over what was basically the elemental plane of sodomy - would have been completely disruptive for Christendom. The Greeks, man: the helmets, chariots, all of this, you have to realize that it was all about putting the round peg in the round hole since the Trojan War (and beyond that). And all the monks wanted to do, right, was to just sort of get everyone singing the songs at the right time and not thinking about dicks long enough to put Europe back together.

It wasn't easy. Forging a hetero relationship to cover up an all-consuming lust for penises was a big, big operation. You needed statues, illuminated manuscripts, pot shards, all that. It was a huge effort. We didn't even know about it until after the Second World War, when the Nazis figured it out with their encryption machines.

Anyways, that's why everybody's gay now.

File: c6bf9b08586c241b021dd04c204b7a85.png (17KB, 120x120px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 120x120px

>>9193832
>be dank civilization
>plant seeds for every civilization in Eurasia
>men more masculine than any civilization
>women more feminine than any civilization
>2000 years later
>females and faggots infest western universities
>"Lmao Achilles was fucking Patroclus"
>Can't tell the difference between men and women anymore
>Society starts falling apart
>Marriage and birthrates in the west drop to the lowest rates ever
>The white race is destroyed

File: oh my god.gif (3MB, 396x299px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 396x299px

>>9193920

>>9193920
...have I been redpilled?

File: neat.gif (97KB, 350x283px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 350x283px

>>9193920

>>9194129
go away Davis

>>9193857
As if you or anyone else here could demonstrate

>>9194194

I think there's something to be said about the feeling of dumping your seed in something that can actually get pregnant from you. We can all clearly only postulate from our own lack of experience, but I think that would be the fundamental difference.

>>9194129
That's all history is now. A bunch of memers reinterpreting the acts of the past to suit their own social agendas

>>9194160
>>9194154
>>9194146

Except for the fact that it's not true. Read a book

>>9194217
books are a tool of the jew

>>9193920
this sounds interesting, source?

>>9194224
woah...holy... i want more

>>9193832
Faggots are a modern invention. They didn't exist in Greece, and they didn't exist in Rome. Pretty much every 'gay' Roman and Greek had a spouse and children. Even those amongst the ancients that practised some same sex love would all be abhorred by today's standards of abandoning family and natural procreation.

>>9194252
>implying he didn't just make it up

don't be so gullible chump

File: images.duckduckgo.com.jpg (91KB, 560x415px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 560x415px

>>9194205
I got banned from r/history for saying this

>>9194274

And thats bullshit.

Widespread male-male sex was fairly common in both, and was not seen as 'gay' so much as long as you were the penetrating partner.

But we know that actual romantic relationships existed between men in Roman times, primarily because we have the records of people doing what you're doing (i.e. whining about them).

It wasnt legal for them to marry, but apparently it wasnt unknown for male lovers to do a kind of unofficial version of the standard marriage rites around their friends. We know they did this because people wrote about it complaining.

(More laws started to be passed against male-male couples as christianity came in and started fucking everything up)

And as for Greece, fucking this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes

That was an entire military band made up exclusively of romantic gay couples, because the idea was that they would fight even better by the side of their beloved.

So yeah. I dont give much of a fuck about the gays, but i definitely give a fuck when someone who knows fuck all about history tries to pretend they do.

>>9193920
Your prose is so awkward, mechanical, and messy I had to put five times the mental effort I would put into an otherwise well-written text of the same size.

File: 1387389336168.gif (2MB, 286x224px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 286x224px

>>9194333

>clearly be the biggest fag on all of 4chan right now
>like the chronicler king of the gays
>"i dont give much of a fuck"

>>9194333
he's right tho. nice trips

>>9194351

Someone who tries to rewrite history so they never get triggered by their existence probably cares about the gays way more than someone who wants history recorded correctly and is happy to let the gays go off and be gay out of his vision.

The latter does his own thing. The former gets caught in bathrooms with male escorts.

File: Hollow-Crown-532094.jpg (95KB, 590x788px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 590x788px

>>9194375

Well excuse the fuck out of me for not having majored in queer history. I'm more interested in strong black women of color.

>>9194396

Fair enough.

Also, I think i'd accept being "Chronicler King Of The Gays" if they were the greek kind of gay. I.e. armed to the teeth.

I dont even give a shit. That's a cool sounding title. At least at first glance.

Anyway, faggots are part of human nature. Always have been, always will be. You can argue that its wrong if you like, and more power to you if you can think up a logical argument for that. That's not my fight. But history sort of is.

But if you want to read more queer history, here's Roman Emperor Elagabalus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elagabalus

If you think gays today are some kind of sign of the decay of all moral values in modern times, tThis guy is like if South Park's Mr Slave became Emperor.

Dude prostituted himself for fun, wore makeup everywhere and offered money to anyone who could give him female genitalia.

By all accounts, he was quite a fag.

>>9194444

You're on a fucking roll, man. That's the power of the King.

>>9193832
>why are all there love stories about a man and a women
That's absolutely false and it proves you're a FUCKING PLEB

>>9194274
You're a goddamned idiot, m8. History shouldn't be a tool by which you confirm your ideological biases. Read a book before you post again, or literally just Google the things your taking about.

There are hundreds of articles on jstor and Google scholar on ancient sexuality. You have no excuse to be so ignorant besides laziness.

>>9193832
If you, op, or anyone else in the thread really cares for the answers they would read "Greek Homosexuality" by Dover. Really interesting read that covers, in my opinion, this topic extremely thoroughly.

>>9194473
and it has also been thoroughly criticized in academia for selectively omitting research that suggests that actual romantic homosexual love did exist in ancient Greece

>>9194453

All my subjects keep asking if they can help clean my Crown Jewels.

They keep waggling their eyebrows when they ask.

Help.

>>9194444
to be fair, most sources to Elagabalus are from his detractors and do not paint him in a positive light

>>9194466

You are talking about wikipedia pages. Your hundreds of fake history articles are not even existing. The picture they paint is actually much closer to what I described. And when you go with actual sources, with Tacitus, Livy, Euripides... the ones on which all the modern fake assumptions are based, you can quickly draw your own conclusions. Than people are pushing faggotry into your brains that never existed. Go with sources and you'll see that world was painted for you.

>>9194333
>and was not seen as 'gay' so much as long as you were the penetrating partner.
And the person that was on the receiving end told everyone he got penetrated?Or did they only fuck slaves and little boys?

>>9193920
epic dude

>>9194551

That is true, and its always the problem with old history. A lot of the time we only know about someone because someone took the time to complain about them, but they could be doing so in a very biased way.

Nero gets this. We have lots of stories about how he was an insane tyrant, yet indications are the actual empire did pretty well under him. So if he was an awful emperor he at least had little effect on the empire economically.

>>9194558

In greece at least they mainly fucked younger men/boys, who were then expected to grow out of it around the time they started developing proper body hair. Those who continued this into adulthood would have been mocked.

File: Alchimowicz_Study_of_a_male_nude.jpg (23KB, 381x500px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 381x500px

>>9193832
OP is trolling. The Greeks saw the human body as beatifull espically the male form in a different sense of modern definition of"beauty"
A non sexual , a more of grace a "platonic divine forms" way.

>>9194685
really made me think, you sound like an expert in Classics

File: tumblr_n926qeLqKe1radmcao1_500.jpg (66KB, 468x720px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 468x720px

>>9194685
as in seeing a beautiful sunset or nature ect.

Viewing the male figure as "beautiful" is not in any way "gay"

>>9194129
Oh yeah, the Antic Greece was so white.

>>9194628
It's a popular thing nowdays to pick a 'bad' emperor by telling the public that he was in fact good, and then releasing a popular history book based on it. Showing sources biased is simple work of tying family trees together, and then the historian is free to invent everything. The fact of it all will always be, that we do not know enough. Every conclusion is based on few dated accounts of the persons. In case of later emperors all we often have is one written source. Only new thing that we do have are excavations. In Neros example they do show prosperity, but to account that to him alone is preposterous. Especially when you know he inherited stringent Claudius and Octavian's coffers.


A good book to enlighten you all on the general topic:
http://www.brill.com/products/book/family-flavian-epic

>>9194444
>Mr Slave became Emperor

How is that in any way acceptable or desirable? You forget that is also human nature to be violent, cruel and perverse. Sometimes all at once.

>>9194685
Is that Nietzsche?

>>9194752
>"Lmao Achilles was fucking Patroclus, who were both black btw"

ok there you go

christian rubes of the 3rd century or whatever probably burned any literature they came across that was gay

>>9193841
that's backwards, guess you haven't read your plato

>>9193832
Sex was sex and bodies were bodies, they didn't give a fuck, the hedonistic rapscallions. It was probably pretty great. I'm not sexually interested in men, but who knows what society would be like today if sex was as ambiguous as it was back then. Probably wouldn't have this whole war-on-gender ridiculousness going on now.

>>9194205
*That's all history has ever been

>>9195005
Guess we can add it to the list of things Plato was wrong about alongside literally everything.

damn that achilles with feathers on his penis