Cycloneboy posted:
Also, babyfinland, I would like to note that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) pretty much explicitly says there's pederasty in heaven, as in (for example) 76:19, where he notes that "And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls."

The Holy Virgin Poonany....

the only place i can find that translation is THE X RATED PARADISE OF ISLAM http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/heaven.html lol

Cycloneboy posted:

babyfinland posted:

Cycloneboy posted:
Also, babyfinland, I would like to note that the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) pretty much explicitly says there's pederasty in heaven, as in (for example) 76:19, where he notes that "And round about them will serve boys of perpetual freshness: if thou seest them, thou wouldst think them scattered pearls."

The Holy Virgin Poonany....

the only place i can find that translation is THE X RATED PARADISE OF ISLAM http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate/heaven.html lol

yeah, yeah, it's obviously an archaic translation not commonly used. maybe you could check the original arabic and tell me what it says, since you're such a great Muslim and all?

ويطوف عليهم ولدن مخلدون اذا رايتهم حسبتهم لولوا منثورا

getfiscal posted:
i think that most pederasts must not know children. children are annoying as hell and look all weird and shit. it'd be like wanting to fuck a white south african.

i think pedophiles have a sexual self perception that is a child, liek their sexual component never grew into an adult so theyre just focused on having sex with kids.

this is why attitudes liek cycloneboy's are so terrible

getfiscal posted:
i think that most pederasts must not know children. children are annoying as hell and look all weird and shit. it'd be like wanting to fuck a white south african.

pederasts don't fuck children, they fuck adolescents (14+), and the western concept of adolescence Is Toxic Much Like Everything Else About The West.

getfiscal posted:

Cycloneboy posted:
pederasts don't fuck children per se, they fuck adolescents, and the western concept of adolescence Is Toxic Much Like Everything Else About The West.

ephebophilia, you say?

STAY AWAY FROM MCCAINE

ya theres better ways to spend $15

Cycloneboy posted:
yeah dude i'm sorry but that's not really what i meant? like, i get it, you're straight or w/e, but here's the thing, there's lots of cultures out there (past and present) where there is no exclusive heterosexuality. It does not exist as a concept. Men are supposed to fuck men sometimes. they enjoy it, too, otherwise it wouldn't persist as a cultural institution. they're also supposed to get married and have babies. the nambikwara practiced homosexuality between brothers-in-laws, as recorded in Tristes Tropiques. the greeks practiced homosexuality between adolescent and full-grown men, universally. etc, etc.

that's mostly true. whether something exists as a concept in a culture is irrelevant to its factual existence. the idea that homosexuality was something both inherent and biologically predicated did not exist in most cultures until less than a century ago. it does not exist in many cultures today. nonetheless, it exists. the idea that stars are fusing balls of plasma did not exist in any culture, for dozens of millennia, until the latter half of the 19h century. nonetheless the sun, during this time, did not cease to fuse hydrogen. i will admit i don't know the sexual practices of the nambikwara. i can assure you however that many of the men socially expected to engage in homosexual behavior did so despite lacking physical attraction to their partner, in the same way that gay men in Abrahamic cultures engaged in and continue to engage in sexual activities with a gender they have no attraction to. i know a bit more about greek culture. greece and rome did not engage in classically homosexual behavior. they engaged in pederastic behavior. homosexual behavior was looked down upon in greek and especially roman society, although not in spartan society, and being a "bottom" in the modern parlance was a sign of weakness and a lack of social standing. pederasty was a fairly limited practice, centered around the subculture of the upper classes. i can guarantee you that the majority of grecians did not engage in pederasty, and i can further guarantee you that many of the men and most of the boys who engaged in sexual relations did so despite a lack of physical attraction to their partner.

i get it, you're totally straight, bro, but even in the United States of Shitland, 1948, there's something about 4 times as many men who have had gay sex ("brought to orgasm by contact with another man") as there are men who have been exclusively homosexual for any period of time. further, homosexuality is negatively effected by college education (better internalization of standard narratives if one is heavily invested in society, intelligence determines ability to adjust behaviors in evolutionary nonstandard ways, etc)

i sincerely doubt that homosexuality is negatively "effected" by college education,. one data point to consider is the number of open homosexuals with any amount of college education vs. homosexuals who have a high school degree or less. a better one would be to consider the atmosphere of college education and why this would present a depressant effect on homosexuality. college atmospheres are ones of experimentation, and a bastion of liberal politics, of unsupervised post-adolescent rebellion. compare this with the atmosphere experienced by a laborer without a college degree. depending on situation, they may be considered economically progressive, but there is no doubt as to their open homophobia. do you really believe that people without a college education have a better opinion of homosexuals than ones without it? you are right that they have largely "internalized the standard narrative." the standard narrative of the less educated is that homosexuality is disgusting, weird, sinful and to be derided. do you dispute this for a moment? have you seen any polls?

american society does not conceive of homosexual behavior as acceptable. just as you can grow up in a "gender equal" enclave and still internalize sexism from the media, you can grow up in a "pro-gay" enclave and still internalize false concepts about sexuality from the media. not to say that you should go fuck a dude just because, anymore than a woman who likes high heels should stop just because.

it is certainly true that american society as a whole does not think of homosexuality a acceptable. it is also certainly possible that i have been passively internalizing false concepts by the media. however, the available evidence suggests that this is not the case, and further given your general ignorance, penchant for sophism and a willingness to believe whatever cleaves to your ideology i am skeptical. on top of your stupidity.

i don't recall that study, probably because you're misrepresenting it but w/e, this is a p half-assed callout.

i am not misrepresenting you. everything i said was factually accurate and i should further add that after being mocked for the sample size of your study you engaged in laughable blithering about the methods of statistical sampling and accusing others of being idiots for refusing to accept that a sample size of eight could be representative of the entire non-homeschooled juvenile population of the united states.

mangosteen posted:
i'm not sure what victorian ideas of sexuality you are referring to, except as a clumsily parroted bit of jargon to dodge the fact that far from being a peculiarity of a century in one small nation, homosexuality has been considered unnatural and even evil by societies based the abrhamic religions since long before the birth of christ, and a great number of others we have records for. this is not to justify the belief, rather it is to point out that not something that began or was even most prominent among a bunch of stuffy 19th century Britons.

Interesting that you should mention Abrahamic religions! Let's look at the historical facts of the origin of anti-homosexual thoughts among early Judaism. The original proscription against homosexuality was relatively late, and does not appear in any pre-Exilic texts (it is added to Leviticus quite late). Further, the language used seems to imply passive homosexuality, and the term "abomination" is a mistranslation of a word meaning something more like "unholy." It is probably a reaction to Asherah worship among the ancient Israelites by the Aaronites and Mushites - who, despite their long rivalry both loathed Asherah worship - where male temple prostitutes took up a passive homosexual role. It was later reemphasized to keep Judaic culture against Greek and Roman society, both of which had a lot of homosexuality.

In any case, the Abrahamic religions all draw descent from one single religion among one tribe, which really says all that needs to be said about extrapolating universality from their precepts. One might as easily say that belief in a male god named Yahweh who created the first woman from the rib of a man is "natural" based on the same evidence.

mangosteen posted:
i also note with some boredom that you did not address any of your palpable sophistry.

greek and roman societies did have many famous and influential people who were probably actually homosexual. that does not dispute the point that that society in general considered homosexuality to be somewhat disgraceful. discussion question: is this something you can find parallels to today? (5 points and a Gold Star redeemable for one Ice Cream Cone.)

hey, did you know that Achilles and Patroclus appeared in one of the most famous mythological works of the Greeks, developing from myths that had been around for centuries? that there is evidence that their love was idealized by contemporaries? and that there is no evidence of strictures against homosexuality in Greece? and that men were, in Crete at one point, barred from marriage until age 30, likely as a development from previous thoughts on an appropriate age for marriage? (PS: unmarried men in societies without a proscription against homosexuality generally engage in homosexual behavior) while perhaps we do have to make some tiny leaps, it is worth recalling that homosexuality was debated as part of Greek military doctrine (in the sense of "should all dudes in the army fuck other dudes, so that they will fight harder?"), as noted in, say, Plato's Symposium or by Xenophon. I haven't really see any good evidence for widespread anti-homosexual thoughts in Greece. Would you care to provide some?

plus, it is absolutely known that the love between an erastes and an eromenos was idealized, and that's pretty homosexual too, even if it's not peer-based.

let's roll on to the Romans. While later Roman authors idealized the "family-based" sexuality of their predecessors, they owed much of their culture to the Etruscans, and as the fourth century BC Greek Theopompus noted:

[After a gathering of friends] the servants bring in sometimes courtesans, sometimes handsome boys, sometimes their own wives. When they have taken their pleasure of the women or the men, they make strapping young fellows lie with the latter…. They certainly have commerce with women, but they always enjoy themselves much better with boys and young men. The latter are in this country quite beautiful to behold, for they live lives of ease and their bodies are hairless.

It was common during the Republic for an unmarried Roman to keep a concubinus (male slave youth used as a passive homosexual partner) as early as the 4th century BC. the Satyricon features as the sexual preoccupation of its protagonist, Encolpius, his boyfriend, Giton. and this relationship is used as a contrast to the sexual degeneracy of the Roman upper classes at large!

mangosteen posted:
i have no particular reason to doubt the data garnered by kinsey, but two points. one, that data is 32 years old. homosexuality has only begun to be accepted in general society in the span of that same period, and certainly moreso in academia than in the general public. second, related to the first, i was quite clearly talking about modern polling data. this clearly shows that educated people have a more positive opinion of homosexuals than less educated people, and that there is a higher rate of open homosexuality in the educated. certainly a greater number of those less educated people have engaged in homosexual acts than are willing to admit it; that was not the point. the point was whether they had "internalized the standard narrative" where the "standard narrative" is homophobia, and the data shows that they certainly have to a greater extent when compared to those educated in secondary institutions.

Actually, the Kinsey data itself is 63 years old. i'll yield on this point, though I do find it distasteful that I'm the one who had to find the research on correlation between education level and homosexual sexual behavior in the modern era (btw, here's the study in question, though it's admittedly from '93), even though you're the one who posted it.

by "standard narrative" i was actually referring to binary sexuality (which restricts self-identified heterosexuals from engaging in homosexual sexual behavior), not homophobia.

Cycloneboy posted:
Interesting that you should mention Abrahamic religions! Let's look at the historical facts of the origin of anti-homosexual thoughts among early Judaism. The original proscription against homosexuality was relatively late, and does not appear in any pre-Exilic texts (it is added to Leviticus quite late). Further, the language used seems to imply passive homosexuality, and the term "abomination" is a mistranslation of a word meaning something more like "unholy." It is probably a reaction to Asherah worship among the ancient Israelites by the Aaronites and Mushites - who, despite their long rivalry both loathed Asherah worship - where male temple prostitutes took up a passive homosexual role. It was later reemphasized to keep Judaic culture against Greek and Roman society, both of which had a lot of homosexuality.

Ah... your hebrew is shit.

The verse is actually worded against the active, it's basically "do not lie with other men as you would with women" - it clearly means 'don't penetrate butts' rather than 'don't have your own butt penetrated'.

SomeIsraeliFuck posted:

Cycloneboy posted:
Interesting that you should mention Abrahamic religions! Let's look at the historical facts of the origin of anti-homosexual thoughts among early Judaism. The original proscription against homosexuality was relatively late, and does not appear in any pre-Exilic texts (it is added to Leviticus quite late). Further, the language used seems to imply passive homosexuality, and the term "abomination" is a mistranslation of a word meaning something more like "unholy." It is probably a reaction to Asherah worship among the ancient Israelites by the Aaronites and Mushites - who, despite their long rivalry both loathed Asherah worship - where male temple prostitutes took up a passive homosexual role. It was later reemphasized to keep Judaic culture against Greek and Roman society, both of which had a lot of homosexuality.

Ah... your hebrew is shit.

The verse is actually worded against the active, it's basically "do not lie with other men as you would with women" - it clearly means 'don't penetrate butts' rather than 'don't have your own butt penetrated'.

donno if you noticed but hes full of bologna. literally.

Cycloneboy posted:

SomeIsraeliFuck posted:

Cycloneboy posted:
Interesting that you should mention Abrahamic religions! Let's look at the historical facts of the origin of anti-homosexual thoughts among early Judaism. The original proscription against homosexuality was relatively late, and does not appear in any pre-Exilic texts (it is added to Leviticus quite late). Further, the language used seems to imply passive homosexuality, and the term "abomination" is a mistranslation of a word meaning something more like "unholy." It is probably a reaction to Asherah worship among the ancient Israelites by the Aaronites and Mushites - who, despite their long rivalry both loathed Asherah worship - where male temple prostitutes took up a passive homosexual role. It was later reemphasized to keep Judaic culture against Greek and Roman society, both of which had a lot of homosexuality.

Ah... your hebrew is shit.

The verse is actually worded against the active, it's basically "do not lie with other men as you would with women" - it clearly means 'don't penetrate butts' rather than 'don't have your own butt penetrated'.

The prohibited act is indicated by the words miskebe issa, which is a very unusual construction, unique in Hebrew scripture. However, a similar term appears in a number of passages to refer to the male act in intercourse (literally, “to lie the lying-down of a man”) (Genesis 20:15, 16; Exodus 22:15; Numbers 31:17, 18, 35; Judges 21:12). Because the word issa means “woman” a number of scholars have concluded that the phrase miskebe issa would translate as, “to lie the lying of a woman,” or to take the female or receptive role in intercourse.

lol you have had such a sheltered and ideologically bent education havent you

http://www.amazon.com/Origins-Same-Sex-Relations-Human-Societies/dp/0786435135/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1

This groundbreaking work draws on a vast range of research into human sexuality to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a phenomenon limited to a small minority of society, but is an aspect of a complex sexual harmony that the human race inherited from its animal ancestors. Through a survey of the patterns of sexual expression found among animals and among societies around the world, and an examination of the functional role homosexual behavior has played among animal species and human societies alike, the author arrives at some provocative conclusions: that a homosexual or bisexual phase is a normal part of sexual development, that same-sex relations play an important balancing role in regulating human reproduction, that many societies have institutionalized homosexual traditions in the past, and that the harsh condemnation of homosexuality in Western society is a relatively recent phenomenon, unique among world societies throughout history. This well researched and meticulously documented book is the first that integrates into a coherent picture the startling revelations about human sexuality coming from the recent work of sexual researchers, psychologists, anthropologists and historians. The view that emerges, of an ambisexual human species whose complex sexual harmony is being thwarted by the imposition of an artificial understanding of nature, represents a new way of thinking about sex.

you don't get to quote this book on the subject you idiot

babyfinland posted:
think about it

naaaah. i think i'll spend my time on much more productive thoughts, like how much ice cream i can eat without vomiting.

Cycloneboy posted:
]Interesting that you should mention Abrahamic religions! Let's look at the historical facts of the origin of anti-homosexual thoughts among early Judaism. The original proscription against homosexuality was relatively late, and does not appear in any pre-Exilic texts (it is added to Leviticus quite late). Further, the language used seems to imply passive homosexuality, and the term "abomination" is a mistranslation of a word meaning something more like "unholy." It is probably a reaction to Asherah worship among the ancient Israelites by the Aaronites and Mushites - who, despite their long rivalry both loathed Asherah worship - where male temple prostitutes took up a passive homosexual role. It was later reemphasized to keep Judaic culture against Greek and Roman society, both of which had a lot of homosexuality.

so...how does that invalidate my point which was, and i quote "has been considered unnatural and even evil by societies based the abrhamic religions since long before the birth of christ." as in that guy born centuries after the addition of leviticus. go right ahead, i would certainly love you hear you bumble and fluff your way out of this one

In any case, the Abrahamic religions all draw descent from one single religion among one tribe, which really says all that needs to be said about extrapolating universality from their precepts. One might as easily say that belief in a male god named Yahweh who created the first woman from the rib of a man is "natural" based on the same evidence.

But I never said it was natural, cyclone teen. I said it was not predicated on Victorian ideas of sexuality, a concept which you, as a reminder, regurgitated reflexively like a buzzard making its escape. you invoked this concept as a part of a one-line non sequitir, which, when I am looking back on it, is still just stunning in its incoherence. so bravo there.

hey, did you know that Achilles and Patroclus appeared in one of the most famous mythological works of the Greeks, developing from myths that had been around for centuries? that there is evidence that their love was idealized by contemporaries? and that there is no evidence of strictures against homosexuality in Greece? and that men were, in Crete at one point, barred from marriage until age 30, likely as a development from previous thoughts on an appropriate age for marriage? (PS: unmarried men in societies without a proscription against homosexuality generally engage in homosexual behavior) while perhaps we do have to make some tiny leaps, it is worth recalling that homosexuality was debated as part of Greek military doctrine (in the sense of "should all dudes in the army fuck other dudes, so that they will fight harder?"), as noted in, say, Plato's Symposium or by Xenophon. I haven't really see any good evidence for widespread anti-homosexual thoughts in Greece. Would you care to provide some?

let me break what you have presented down, in order. one, a myth about homosexuals who were admired. two, a reference to the admiration by contemporaries of homosexuality, deriving from that myth. three, the fact that there were no legal boundaries to homosexual behavior in greece. and goongrats on that one for it actually happens to be true. four, the implication that the reason that marriage was banned before age 30 was to encourage homosexuality. five, the claim that homosexual behavior was debated as a possible effective military doctrine - by pederastic upper-class philosophers with no control of the military- particularly the Symposium, which by the way is likely the entirety of your evidence for claims one and two.

as for evidence it is clear that disgust at homosexual behavior in greece was not the same as it is in modern western societies. however it is also clear that there were strong social stigmas to being the penetrated, which seems reminiscent of homophobia to me, wouldn't you say? somewhat similar to the model enjoyed in our so many of our nation's prisons, perhaps? how interesting that one can rail against the sinister hidden messages infecting the minds of supposedly tolerant modern people but fail to understand that a society that treated bottoms like property was a bit homophobic. i dunno. i blame your upbringing.

let's roll on to the Romans. While later Roman authors idealized the "family-based" sexuality of their predecessors, they owed much of their culture to the Etruscans, and as the fourth century BC Greek Theopompus noted:

[After a gathering of friends] the servants bring in sometimes courtesans, sometimes handsome boys, sometimes their own wives. When they have taken their pleasure of the women or the men, they make strapping young fellows lie with the latter…. They certainly have commerce with women, but they always enjoy themselves much better with boys and young men. The latter are in this country quite beautiful to behold, for they live lives of ease and their bodies are hairless.
It was common during the Republic for an unmarried Roman to keep a concubinus (male slave youth used as a passive homosexual partner) as early as the 4th century BC. the Satyricon features as the sexual preoccupation of its protagonist, Encolpius, his boyfriend, Giton. and this relationship is used as a contrast to the sexual degeneracy of the Roman upper classes at large!
.

indeed. those men were probably actually homosexual, bisexual, or pedophiles, depending on your view and their particular activities. nonetheless, as i made clear, i did not dispute that there were homosexuals in rome or that they engaged in young male sodomy. i pointed out that that society was homophobic and looked down on what we today see as healthy , legal homosexual behavior.

once again, cyclone teen, i am not arguing that homophobia is inherent or natural. in fact, that was not at all the focus of my point in the first place. let's go back to that first paragraph you responded to with a lot of blither and nonsense

cycloneboy posted:
yeah dude i'm sorry but that's not really what i meant? like, i get it, you're straight or w/e, but here's the thing, there's lots of cultures out there (past and present) where there is no exclusive heterosexuality. It does not exist as a concept. Men are supposed to fuck men sometimes. they enjoy it, too, otherwise it wouldn't persist as a cultural institution. they're also supposed to get married and have babies. the nambikwara practiced homosexuality between brothers-in-laws, as recorded in Tristes Tropiques. the greeks practiced homosexuality between adolescent and full-grown men, universally. etc, etc.

mangosteen posted:
that's mostly true. whether something exists as a concept in a culture is irrelevant to its factual existence. the idea that homosexuality was something both inherent and biologically predicated did not exist in most cultures until less than a century ago. it does not exist in many cultures today. nonetheless, it exists. the idea that stars are fusing balls of plasma did not exist in any culture, for dozens of millennia, until the latter half of the 19h century. nonetheless the sun, during this time, did not cease to fuse hydrogen. i will admit i don't know the sexual practices of the nambikwara. i can assure you however that many of the men socially expected to engage in homosexual behavior did so despite lacking physical attraction to their partner, in the same way that gay men in Abrahamic cultures engaged in and continue to engage in sexual activities with a gender they have no attraction to. i know a bit more about greek culture. greece and rome did not engage in classically homosexual behavior. they engaged in pederastic behavior. homosexual behavior was looked down upon in greek and especially roman society, although not in spartan society, and being a "bottom" in the modern parlance was a sign of weakness and a lack of social standing. pederasty was a fairly limited practice, centered around the subculture of the upper classes. i can guarantee you that the majority of grecians did not engage in pederasty, and i can further guarantee you that many of the men and most of the boys who engaged in sexual relations did so despite a lack of physical attraction to their partner.

the point was that regardless of if their culture recognized exclusive heterosexuality, it nonetheless existed. can anyone read through this and believe that you have disputed any of the claims made in the paragraph above?

oh and finally " they enjoy it, too, otherwise it wouldn't persist as a cultural institution." functionalism is dead cycloneteen, and for a marxist to invoke it..these are various serious ideo-lolgical crimes comrade