Another good example was DaVinci, the ass he gave god in the Sistine chapel in itself is a damn good argument for him being gay and a troll along with his journals (though a theology major once argued with me it'd be blasphemy to give an artistic rendition of god anything but the best ass possible).
Sistine chapel was Michelangelo.
A sculptor who hated painting btw. Was basically kidnapped and forced to do it. Got paint in his eyes and almost went blind. Also probably closeted gay.
(though a theology major once argued with me it'd be blasphemy to give an artistic rendition of god anything but the best ass possible).
That makes sense tbh. Also makes sense to get a gay guy to paint God for that exact reason.
Yea that's what we ended up agreeing on, that and a lot of the Renaissance artists probably saw love and divinity as the same thing. To have a poor art history major in that room lol.
(though a theology major once argued with me it'd be blasphemy to give an artistic rendition of god anything but the best ass possible).
I'm sorry, this is the religion whose followers are commonly seen being homophobic?
Ikr, his argument was 'oh it wasn't as severe in those days' (total horseshit) also something about pre-modern man seeing the world-universe as perfect, not just sacred, and by extension the human form. Idk about that neither, in those days pretty much just existing and being born was a sin, there's a gap between whatever he was arguing and real world shaping things imo. Whatever, too much religious exhilaration in an academic setting poisoned him.
He's like...sorta kinda right about the human form stuf, man being made in the image of God means that God would be the hottest man is the quick version, but a theology major is pretty likely to have a pretty eack view of history, cause that does play into things but is far from an exclusive factor. It's not like...totally wrong but is so reductive that it's worse than just being wrong cause it requires a long multidisciplinary explanation that I'm too about to make supper for to deal with
Probably was, in those days I knew even less about sociology and things than I do now. Remember hearing the form of man in an elective I took.
hordes of eunuchs practiced in playing the women's part
hordes, you say
mmmm, love me sexual violence when it's femboy coded.
History is gay AF. That's why they only teach the marketed versions in school. Even the bible... Pretty sure Lucifer and God just had a sloppy breakup.
If I can't have you no one can! Leviticus write this down!!
Cast out because he saw God wasn't doing what God itself was preaching.
I've come to learn angels are actually just demons.
They are both just one in the same,
Talking bullshit for their own personal gains.
And "...if angles had fingers connected to strings,
Then we would be puppets, and love would be king.
War wouldn't be a word with any worth,
They made earth on hell instead of heaven on earth."
(Quote part is from Ancient Astronauts - Oblivion - The Poet Azeem is the lyricist.)
Pretty sure angels and demons were originally other mesopotanian gods and demigods before it went monotheistic.
??? There's certainly a Satan-like figure (Ha-Satan) in the Bible, specifically in the Books of Job and Zechariah. Many Jews interpret that figure as a metaphor, like the "idea" of evil, not a fallen angel type dude, but Satan is definitely real and in the Bible.
Yeah, though even then the idea of a singular figure in opposition to God is not present at all in the Talmud. And the earlier Hebrew books of the Bible have no supernatural satans, which is translated as "adversary"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sYhbtk8jJc
This is what I was meaning yeah, "satan" wasn't meant to be an individual antagonist like a modern supervillain, more like the antithesis of the goodness of god, like a shadow is to light that casts it. There is no shadow, there is only light and places where it does not go
though I'm no christian scholar I'm mostly just regurgitating a video essay I saw like a year ago
Wasn't there a "Satan" or "Accuser" figure in the story of Job? Not in opposition to God, but tasked by God with testing man's faith or something? I going off half-remembered stuff I read years ago.
Edit: nevermind I misread the previous reply somebody already mentioned Job
I'm not too savvy with religious shit. What do you mean and do you have a source to link to?
I'd take a look at @Vncredleader@hexbear.net's reply to my comment
Were the Greek the type to think anal sex with another man was okay as long as you weren't the bottom?
No it was the Vikings who did that weird shit
Greek dudes were just gay
Egh, the Romans did it...
Edit: the Romans made the notion that it's not gay if you're Dom, just to clarify
My understanding is that that's pop history and that the ancient Greeks were very, extremely, violently homophobic. MLM sex was about the worst thing you could do and if you got caught you'd be publicly shamed for the rest of your life if not outright killed.
This post calling Alexander the Great gay is questionable too but eh.
It varied hugely by city-state, but most were at least pretty OK with pederasty. A young boy having a sexual relationship with an adult man was seen as a pretty normal part of most educational/mentorship relationships. In the city-states where it was more frowned on, it was the "receiver" role that tended to be stigmatized, rather than the relationship as a whole. Hence all the references to eunuchs here: since they didn't have to worry about being emasculated, it tended to be a lot more acceptable. Adult men who preferred to bottom were definitely stigmatized in a lot of places, though.
Correct me if I'm wrong but pederasty wasn't supposed to be sexual. It was a mentorship-like relationship between an educated man and a young boy where the man taught the boy like a son. Sex in this relationship was condemned as much as modern pedophile teachers would be.
Also, saying that ancient Greeks were gay because some men molested their students is... not the argument people think it is.
Correct me if I'm wrong but pederasty wasn't supposed to be sexual
You're wrong, sex in the relationship was absolutely not condemned, it was very typical and expected. It is very well attested and this isn't a controversial or conjectured position.
I agree that ancient Greece is not a good example of a society with chill views on sexuality, but there's no reason to deny reality.
We also have examples of adult to adult homosexuality like the sacred band of Thebes, where it wasn’t just accepted but required. So it was a mixed bag.
It wasn't condemned, really? I'd like a source on that please. From what I've read, sexual pederasty was considered an obscene transgression. The relationship was not meant to be sexual though child abuse did happen.
Is that really so hard to believe? I mean, ancient Greek society thought little of women and thought even less of men "who took on the women's role" so why would Greek parents send off their boys to be violated? The Greeks also greatly valued sexual temperance and monogamy so I'm pretty sure they wouldn't want men acting like satyrs with their sons.
Probably need more reading on this, pederasty feels like it would have been pretty common
It's agony trying to find sources that are specific and contemporary. Aristotle mentioned pederasty in the Nicomachean Ethics saying that it's a morbid state of character that arises from men who are either naturally brutish or who were abused as children.
...and others are morbid states (C) resulting from custom, e.g. the habit of plucking out the hair or of gnawing the nails, or even coals or earth, and in addition to these paederasty; for these arise in some by nature and in others, as in those who have been the victims of lust from childhood, from habit.
You know what, I can't find any contemporary sources that hate on gay men directly and I'm getting tired of reading this junk so I'll leave it at "just trust me bro".
I will say that they saw marriage as between a man and a woman for the purpose of breeding good citizens for the state. People who wouldn't pair up and reproduce were punished socially and maybe even legally. So you can imagine what the Greeks thought of gay people (how many ancient gay spouses can you name?)
...Then let us now proceed to marriage, and teach persons in what way they shall beget children, threatening them, if they disobey, with the terrors of the law.
Cle. What do you mean?
Ath. The bride and bridegroom should consider that they are to produce for the state the best and fairest specimens of children which they can.
That's fine, it's not super important. I'm glad modern nationalism has the same root cause for hating gay people.
Ya it's refreshing how candid they were, even. Modern nationalists bend over backwards to make it seem like what they're doing is deeper than what it is but ancient Greeks would stare straight into the camera and say "I command you to breed"
Eunuch essentially means trans woman or enby fyi, unless forcefully made one by someone else. The cult of Cybele was very prevalent in Greece and they referred to themselves with female pronouns, many similar cases in the Levant and Persia. So let's not assume that it's gay, but it definitely was a queer situation
Very few people (some asexuals for example) would willingly become a eunuch outside of being trans or as a punishment.
I know from the courses I took that in the Byzantine world, becoming a eunuch could be an avenue to familial advancement, if you could get employment in the imperial palace bureaucracy in Constantinople. Some eunuchs even became powerful enough that they made their brothers emperor, like with Michael IV. It's all very interesting history to learn about.
yes, i actually know a trans lady that is wanting to write a book about trans history through a marxist lens, and a lot of societies were like this before industrialization and the spread of mercantilism. ive been helping her get into contact with people so she can touch on every region of the world, im mostly parroting what she has told to me. eunuchs (re: usually trans people) held an immense amount of power due to 'checking out' of inheritance, which was necessary for primitive accumulation and allowed bureaucracies and impartial judges to appear. to the point that eunuchs were THE people to please, and were given all sorts of things for free, like primitive hrt, food, money, surgeries, leniency for homosexuality in some homophobic societies, ability to create laws and solve marital and inheritance disputes, and so on
That's cool to hear that your friend is writing about the topic. It's interesting to explore that aspect of societies through a materialist lens like that. Just off the top of my head I'm thinking right now of how these societies essentially tried to use eunuchs to get around bureaucrats reducing the effect of meritocratic recruitment through generational acquisition of privileges through their offspring. But eunuchs like John the Orphanotrophos still found a way around it.
Didn't Alexander share a tent with his best friend Hephaestion though? With descriptions of them reading letters together, kissing a ring to the others lips to keep a secret, and Alexander "yielding to Hephaestion's thighs". And after Hephaestion died, Alexander showed immense grief.
That sounds very gay to me. Or bisexual and polygamous considering they also had wives. To be honest applying modern conceptions of sexuality to ancient Greek rulers probably doesn't work too well.
of course, im not saying alexander wasnt gay or bi, but that eunuchs were often trans
Oh cool, thanks for the interesting information, I didn't know that. Though it makes sense when you explain it.
It's interesting how you never really learn about these things in history class. I remember surprising my history teacher with some interesting questions. It should be taught, LGBT history. Trans history especially, given all the nonsense right wing propaganda out there about how "being transgender is a modern phenomenon".
Didn't Alexander share a tent with his best friend Hephaestion though?
Yes and Hephaestion had died less than a year before Alexander. His body had to be physical pried away from Alexander because he wouldn't leave it for the entire day. He wept and didn't eat for three days after and had the doctor looking after Hephaestion hanged. He declared an empire wide period of mourning. They also both married daughters of Darius and Alexander hoped that a child who was related to the both of them would one day rule. You know ... normal heterosexual things.
Hephaestion's wikipedia page is where they put all the gay stuff since I guess it's too offensive to have in Alexander's.
With descriptions of them reading letters together
Fellas, is it gay to read correspondence with another bro?
Jokes aside, I think we should be careful applying the sexual and cultural standards of modern western culture across borders and time. For example, it's still very common in the middle east for men who are friends to hold hands while walking down the street. To us that's a sign of homosexuality, to them it's just bros being bros.
That all being said, taking a stance that any ancient Greek figure was straight as we know it is hilarious.
so thats a later thing in the catholic church, but you can also find people that referred to themselves as women or a 'third gender' in that context. some however were also forced because the catholic church is problematic. in this catholic idea, eunuchs are sexless and do not have sex, but this was obviously not the case in so many instances.
eunuchs also had various roles in different cultures. there was a jewish king for example that had a eunuch in his harem was implied to be treated as a woman as a result (re: fucked like a woman). theres also some theories that Puyi was in love with his 'eunuch', and they lived together after the revolution in China (was told this by chinese friends) and might have been a big part of why he was spared (no progeny)
The big thing with being a eunuch is that the idea was that because you gave up having direct descendents, it meant that you could more easily be trusted to run bureaucratic tasks for the good of the royal line. Whether or not this works is one of those oft-debated ancient and medieval political science topics of the time (particularly in China) with most petty lords that would lead revolts against kings/emperors blaming the bad government on the influence of eunuchs. If this was true or not is unknown, but the ones that won were the victors so their histories survive.
As far as I am aware though, you are correct that the only culture that believed eunuchs to be 'sexless' is the Catholic Church.
Interesting, I didn't know the term had such a wide definition. I remembered it in the context of the Ottoman sultans, who used eunuchs to guard their harems.
The wider definition is becoming more common with recent scholarship, a lot of historians ommitted source materials on eunuchs demanding to be referred as women or otherwise, and some of this source material is even first person due to many eunuchs being clergy and literate
There's a lot of work being done on the restudy of history without chauvinism these days
who used eunuchs to guard their harems.
Bear in mind this is kind of underselling the whole deal. If you live in a patrimonial state then the royal household is equivalent to the center of government. Relatives and close aides to the monarch are all influential, often serve in the administration and have the opportunity to accrue real power. Eunuchs guarding the harem means they are individuals who have access to all wings of the royal household, which is why they didn't just serve as guards or messengers or aides. Since the Ottomans often bought Eunuchs in the red sea, the chief black eunuchs were often in charge of religious endowments or vaqifs. Which means that they were in charge of some of the most important financial instruments in the empire.
It's like if the king of norway racistly believed that black ethiopians were the most courtly of peoples and bought an eunuch to administer a part of the country's sovereign wealth fund.
Eunuch essentially means trans woman or enby fyi, unless forcefully made one by someone else.
that vast majority of eunuchs were forcibly made eunuchs, and this is true across different cultures. Eunuchs would usually be servants or slaves who had been castrated to make them less threatening servants of a royal court where physical access to the ruler could wield great influence.
Did people really not know Alexander the Great was bisexual or gay in some way? I remember it because I watched some terrible movie about him nearly 20 years ago as a kid. The one with Collin Farrell and Angelina Jolie in it.
They made two Alexander the Great movies with Collin Farrell and Anjelina Jolie??
According to Wikipedia there are four versions of the film lmao
Four versions of the film exist, the initial theatrical cut and three home video director's cuts: the "Director's Cut" in 2005, the "Final Cut" in 2007, and the "Ultimate Cut" in 2014.
They all suck so don't worry lol. 16% on rotten tomatoes.
They never mentioned it to me in school, and I didn't know. But tbh I'm very fuzzy on that part of history... I remember studying the decline of Rome, and I remember studying Mesopotamia. Maybe I just wasn't paying attention.
To be honest I found out about it from this terrible movie well before I even learnt about ancient Greece in school. Made for some interesting questions to my history teacher years later lol.
The same things that are wrong with every other corporate social media platform.
Show
Haven’t read it in twenty years but The Persian Boy is about this and was pretty good.
I knew he was bi but, did not really hear about this relationship he had. It's interesting to hear about it.
