![ms_01[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BFAXcxB.jpg "ms_01[1].jpg")
Why has homosexuality changed from an aesthetic predisposition to one of "sexual orientation"?
Is there still room for an aesthetic kind of homosexuality today? Is there a name for it?
The fuck are you on about?
What are you even saying
>>7445294
The jewllumianti
Join me in a rightist struggle for masculine ideals #suckdickforsparta
Modernity
I think so, Mishima exemplified it. Just fuc boypussy as a hobby and not let it take over your identity
cross your legs, act unnecessarily bitchy, flop your wrist, cultivate your bod, wear make-up.. just ignore the identifiers and you'll be sound
when Christianity became the dominant system
don't really know why it became such a thing in the last century though
>>7445294
You mean homosexuality in Ancient Greece?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece
how is homosexuality still not an aesthetic predisposition today?
>>7445916
I think he means that wenow have sexual identities, rather than sexual acts.
>>7446098
and why is that bad? only people that ever complain about that are usually queerophobic white dudes who can't come to terms with their own identities
>>7445554
If your brain is so warped from internet addiction that you can't even read for more than 20 minutes straight you have no place calling strangers faggots.
>>7446105
There are still openly homosexual men who think that the way homosexuality is performed today is an unhealthy attempt to win respectability by aping heterosexual couplings. They would argue that the way homosexual men prefer to lead their sex lives doesn't lend itself to things like traditional marriage and dating the way men court women. Even David Sedaris, mainstream as it gets, wrote in the New Yorker that he only got married to his partner for the financial benefits.
>>7446098
how you delineate between the two. and alternative sexual/gender identities have existed since the dawn of time. just don't call them 'gay' or you'll get someone mad about muh ahistoricism
>>7446142
I'm sure there are places where there have been long standing sexual identities but it's not universally true. The classical Greco-Romans really didn't have a conception of sexual identity. You were simply a person who performed sex acts.
What's the difference between sexual preference and aesthetic preference? When you get right down to it aren't they pretty much the same thing?
> 2015
>still fucking men
also: >>>/lgbt/
>>7446138
The idea that marriage is about love is pretty new though. Through the vast majority of human history marriage has been more like a business/political deal than anything else. It's not wonder why people made fun of Cato for loving his wife.
Wouldn't marrying your partner for financial benefits only seem fake for modern people?
>>7446173
No. Like, you can be gay and still think a girl looks totally fierce, you just don't want to fuck her.
>>7446181
This. People who unironically use the "sanctity of marriage" to argue anything are embarrassing. You can hate homosexuals all you want, but stop grasping at straws and making excuses. Just admit it.
>>7446172
i really don't see what leads you to say that. the fact that there is top/bottom roles in gay greek sexual behaviour suggests a sexual identities for these acts. the fact that there exists varying forms of behaviour in spartan culture vs athenian also suggests different identities, which are socially formed and not simple acts.
how do you simply perform a sex act outside a social context?
I think what OP means is that homosexuality had in itself, due to it's uniqueness, an aesthetic value. In our days everything is put on equal grounds, categorized and there is no longer any mystery or aesthetical difference seperating homos from heteros.
If you look at Mishima, his character was shrouded in a masculine homosexuality which in itself was aesthetic.
>>7446199
But there is nothing stopping someone who takes it from changing and becoming the one who gives it. It was not uncommon for older men to become patrons of younger men in exchange for being the party that penetrates. They have nothing to do with a static long lasting trait that is inherent to the person. They are not sexual identities.
Sexual identities today mean that they have this predilection for sex with a certain sex or sexes, and that this is a permanent aspect of my being, and as something I define myself by.
>>7445294
>Is there still room for an aesthetic kind of homosexuality today? Is there a name for it?
>>>/fit/
>>7445294
> Is there a name for it
/fit/
Be a power bottom.
>>7446229
Is a power bottom a bottom that is capable of receiving an enormous amount of power or is the power bottom generating all of the power by doing most of the work?
>>7446215
top/bottom roles as sexual identities don't have to be rigid, impermeable and permanent to be identities, just like they're not today. the 'gay' identity isn't invalidated by the existence of bisexuals.
but by your definition, i don't see how we can probe the identities of others, since it's so personally formed, which is rightly so, but too impenetrable. you'd need an autobiography of an LGBT individual before you can say anything.
>>7446289
Bisexuality is a sexual identification.
We can't probe the sexual indeitities of others because for the Greco-Romans there were no sexual identities to probe. None of anything I have said has anything to do with my beliefs. I'm just stating the position of the Greco-Romans as regards sexual identity.
>>7446317
the way you define it makes it almost impossible to probe is my point.
>>7446138
Let me guess, those openly homosexual men think being a bathhouse whore is the healthy way to couple.
>>7446241
a power bottom generates all the power, yes.
>>7445294
Taking a vow of celibacy is more aesthetic desu
its not.
homosexual =\= gay
>>7446105
Well, first off it's incorrect. There's no such thing as a sexual identity; it's just some crap invented by judeochristian types to insult guys who like cock, and the latter sanitized the political implications of the term. Because it's incorrect, it robs people of sexual pleasure by reducing their sexual behavior by sorting them into a handful of pigeonholes.
Y'all straight motherfuckers could be having way more sexual pleasure if you weren't shamed into thinking sexual identity is reality for your whole life. baka
>>7445294
Homosexuality is aesthetically inferior to heterosexuality.
>>7446397
how does having an identity rob sexual pleasure
>>7446418
...because sexual identities preclude you from certain sexual acts, more or less.
Most obvious example: the large number of straight me who have homosexual impulses they never act on because it conflicts with their sexual identity (now lick this dick nigguh).
>>7445294
is this about books? no? why don't you post it in /his/ then?
>>7446457
Fuck off, shitcunt.
>>7446457
It's about the writings of Michel Foucault and Arnold Davidson, although somehow nobody has namedropped either yet.
>>7446465
I wasn't aware of a book with that name.
>>7446639
> :^)
>>7446219
That's a cute gif of a hippo.
Can I download it?
>>7447251
please dont save
>>7445294
sex is always about aesthetics, just like transgressive art is fun to watch, not to do it yourself.
