The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
gay vikings- could it be true...
milomorris:
--- Quote from: louisev on November 14, 2009, 01:21:55 pm ---Look to Socialist Scandinavia and New Old Europe for actual equality.
--- End quote ---
What do women there have that women here do not??
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: milomorris on November 14, 2009, 01:02:05 pm ---Thank you VERY much for this, sopy.
The following indicates that Vikings were OK with man2man sex as long as homosexual men still behaved like other men in daily life. That's the basics of androphilia.
Homosexuality was not regarded by the Viking peoples as being evil, perverted, innately against the laws of nature or any of the other baggage about the concept that Christian belief has provided Western culture. Rather, it was felt that a man who subjected himself to another in sexual affairs would do the same in other areas, being a follower rather than a leader, and allowing others to do his thinking or fighting for him. Thus, homosexual sex was not what was condemned, but rather the failure to stand for one's self and make one's own decisions, to fight one's own fights, which went directly against the Nordic ethic of self-reliance. (Sørenson 20).
--- End quote ---
But this was true in most societies where male homosexuality was a normal part of society? That as long as a man was a top, it was fine, but if he were a bottom, then society questioned his manliness however they defined it. Sadly, in most male/male relationships someone has to bottom at sometime, so that means men tried to stay tops, which limited the bottoms or men willing to bottom and the bottoms were not held in very great respect.
milomorris:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on November 14, 2009, 01:48:01 pm ---But this was true in most societies where male homosexuality was a normal part of society? That as long as a man was a top, it was fine, but if he were a bottom, then society questioned his manliness however they defined it. Sadly, in most male/male relationships someone has to bottom at sometime, so that means men tried to stay tops, which limited the bottoms or men willing to bottom and the bottoms were not held in very great respect.
--- End quote ---
In Greece and Rome for sure. Of course, nobody (anywhere) has been able to answer the question of how anyone but the men themselves knew who topped and who bottomed. My understanding, though, is that the assumption of weakness/effeminacy could easily be dispelled by living an honorable and respectable life.
delalluvia:
--- Quote from: milomorris on November 14, 2009, 01:59:52 pm ---In Greece and Rome for sure. Of course, nobody (anywhere) has been able to answer the question of how anyone but the men themselves knew who topped and who bottomed. My understanding, though, is that the assumption of weakness/effeminacy could easily be dispelled by living an honorable and respectable life.
--- End quote ---
I thought that would be obvious.
You're assuming that the men themselves didn't gossip or the men didn't have orgies or men didn't have menage a trois where servants/slaves were present or that they didn't get angry or jealous with one another and 'out' each other in public.
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on November 14, 2009, 01:48:01 pm ---But this was true in most societies where male homosexuality was a normal part of society? That as long as a man was a top, it was fine, but if he were a bottom, then society questioned his manliness however they defined it. Sadly, in most male/male relationships someone has to bottom at sometime, so that means men tried to stay tops, which limited the bottoms or men willing to bottom and the bottoms were not held in very great respect.
--- End quote ---
Indeed. Women, slave boys, and boy prostitutes (who were also probably slaves) got fucked. Adult male citizens did not. At least in theory.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version