“How do you know you don’t like fucking men? Have you tried it? I know I’m super duper straight because I fuck a guy every week just to make sure I still don’t like it.”
In addition to the other informative answers, the “serious” reply to the first question would be “no, not really”. I’ll summon up a “Tales of Time Forgotten” blog post on the matter, as best as I understand it, with the recommendation to read the original if you can.
The difficulty with understanding Ancient Greek sexuality from our modern perspective is that they didn’t strictly think in two genders so much as a scale of masculinity, or something close to it. Accordingly, sexuality wasn’t thought of in terms of hetero- or homo-, but as an act of the less masculine party receiving the more masculine one. The expectation then was that your role and choice of partners would evolve throughout our life and progress along the expected social hierarchy.
An adolescent boy in his mid-to-late-teens (~14-18) was expected to be courted by young men (in their twenties) and eventually choose a lover (although suitors did have to work for it and being “easy” was shameful).
It’s worth noting that there was a distinction between (adolescent) boys/girls and children, which were off limits. Obviously, adolescents are still vulnerable and the whole thing is still messed up by most modern western standards. “Not quite as bad” is still bad.
Eventually, they’d reach adulthood and thus become (young) men themselves and were expected to strive and even compete for the affections of boys.
In their late twenties to early thirties, men were expected to proceed to mature adulthood, losing interest in boys and seeking a girl to marry instead (with much of the same expectations as before, though arrangement of marriages typically gave girls much less choice).
Any significant deviation from that expected course would, of course, be considered shameful. There might have been some leeway on the age brackets, but the “direction” of the age dynamic was quite firm, and men seeking out or receiving other men was seen as unnatural and effeminate.
Female sexuality is much less well-attested, just as women in general are less “visible” in most sources, and somewhat contradictory. On one hand, Sappho of Lesbos achieved quite a reputation, but she was writing ~500 BCE. On the other, some sources written in the first and second century CE strongly condemn it. One woman is criticised for loving boys, which would fit with the expectation that both women and boys were to “receive” men.
This might have been a shift over time, but the scarcity of evidence makes it hard to pin it to that cause alone.
On the whole, it’s pretty clear that a male vers would not have been “fine” by any standard. Men were to be tops, boys to be bottoms and mature adults were to be interested in girls and women alone.
Technically it’s dom and sub, but colloquially it’s kinda both, yeah. Pretty sure they’d consider a switch a bottom tho, like a top is a never-bottom and getting pegged is also gay?
Your problem, Henry, is that you are hung up on words, on labels: “gay”, “homosexual”, “lesbian.” You think they tell you who a person sleeps with, but they don’t tell you that. Like all labels, they refer to one thing and one thing only: Where does a person so identified fit in the food chain? In the pecking order. Not ideology or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout. Who owes me favors. Not who I fuck or who fucks me, but who will pick up the phone when I call. To someone who doesn’t understand this, homosexual is what I am because I sleep with men, but this is wrong. Homosexuals are not men who sleep with other men. Homosexuals are men who, in 15 years of trying, can’t get a pissant anti-discrimination bill through City Council. They are men who know nobody, and who nobody knows. Now, Henry, does that sound like me?
“Henry, the only label I need is Sexual Libertarian. An omnivore of genitals and hearts. Come as you are… All over the place. And so will I. Does that sound enticing, Henry?”
Roy Cohn https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Angels_in_America and there’s more context to the quotes, generally the context is realpolitik, power for power’s sake. A real asshole you wouldn’t want to play Diplomacy with. Someone with no ethics but winning. The subject of a run the jewels song. Family Famously Donnie T’s never admit you lost coach. The message is alluring if taken at face value, and seems like wisdom, but if you get taken advantage of was it really you who was weak?
Angels in America is a play and was made into some made for TV movies, yes. I don’t think Roy Cohn the man ever said that, although he was gay and it matched his attitudes.
I had no idea - my add-on comment was just what came to mind as would fit in well. Not shocked to learn it’s about Roy Cohn, though, the “I’m gay, but I exist in a plane of wealthy predator above normies that worry about their sexuality as a label because I’m allowed to participate in society however I want” vibe was strong. I figured it was Peter Thiel, so not far off.
You don’t understand, they aren’t gay, they are just men having sex with other men!
They’re just making sure they AREN’T gay by having sex with other men.
“How do you know you don’t like fucking men? Have you tried it? I know I’m super duper straight because I fuck a guy every week just to make sure I still don’t like it.”
Watching them process that is wild.
“I was only in there to get directions on how to get away from there!”
Don’t worry, I brought protection to keep it from being gay.
pulls out a package of new socks
Ain’t nuffin gay about gettin yer dick sucked! Thems the ones thatter gay for suckin em!
Its not gay if its a girl’s dick.
Technically, yeah
In the wisdom of the ancient Greeks, you’re only gay if you’re a bottom
And only if you’re older than your top. Otherwise, you’re simply receiving some masculinity.
So if you’re a switch you’re fine? (That’s the term for someone who switches between top and bottom right?)
In addition to the other informative answers, the “serious” reply to the first question would be “no, not really”. I’ll summon up a “Tales of Time Forgotten” blog post on the matter, as best as I understand it, with the recommendation to read the original if you can.
The difficulty with understanding Ancient Greek sexuality from our modern perspective is that they didn’t strictly think in two genders so much as a scale of masculinity, or something close to it. Accordingly, sexuality wasn’t thought of in terms of hetero- or homo-, but as an act of the less masculine party receiving the more masculine one. The expectation then was that your role and choice of partners would evolve throughout our life and progress along the expected social hierarchy.
An adolescent boy in his mid-to-late-teens (~14-18) was expected to be courted by young men (in their twenties) and eventually choose a lover (although suitors did have to work for it and being “easy” was shameful).
It’s worth noting that there was a distinction between (adolescent) boys/girls and children, which were off limits. Obviously, adolescents are still vulnerable and the whole thing is still messed up by most modern western standards. “Not quite as bad” is still bad.
Eventually, they’d reach adulthood and thus become (young) men themselves and were expected to strive and even compete for the affections of boys.
In their late twenties to early thirties, men were expected to proceed to mature adulthood, losing interest in boys and seeking a girl to marry instead (with much of the same expectations as before, though arrangement of marriages typically gave girls much less choice).
Any significant deviation from that expected course would, of course, be considered shameful. There might have been some leeway on the age brackets, but the “direction” of the age dynamic was quite firm, and men seeking out or receiving other men was seen as unnatural and effeminate.
Female sexuality is much less well-attested, just as women in general are less “visible” in most sources, and somewhat contradictory. On one hand, Sappho of Lesbos achieved quite a reputation, but she was writing ~500 BCE. On the other, some sources written in the first and second century CE strongly condemn it. One woman is criticised for loving boys, which would fit with the expectation that both women and boys were to “receive” men.
This might have been a shift over time, but the scarcity of evidence makes it hard to pin it to that cause alone.
On the whole, it’s pretty clear that a male vers would not have been “fine” by any standard. Men were to be tops, boys to be bottoms and mature adults were to be interested in girls and women alone.
If you do both everything cancels out and youre asexual.
That would be vers or versatile.
Love that the two of you answered this at the same exact minute
What’s a switch then, or am i just hallucinating new terms here?
Switch is going between Dom and sub. Like being Dom top to sub top or sub bottom to Dom bottom.
Typically a Dom bottom is called a power bottom and a Dom top could call himself a Dom top or power top.
Technically it’s dom and sub, but colloquially it’s kinda both, yeah. Pretty sure they’d consider a switch a bottom tho, like a top is a never-bottom and getting pegged is also gay?
Vers is someone who both tops and bottoms.
Love that the two of you answered this at the same exact minute
What’s a switch then, or am i just hallucinating new terms here?
Like degen said, switch is if you do both dom and sub.
I’d argue they had it backwards, bottoming isn’t gay, it’s just having a fun experience. Penetrating another man is super gay though.
Choo choo!!!
They are imposing their dominance on weaker men. It’s not gay, it’s purely about dominance
They just like to suck other non-gay men’s cocks.
They’re called “brojobs” for a reason.
“Henry, the only label I need is Sexual Libertarian. An omnivore of genitals and hearts. Come as you are… All over the place. And so will I. Does that sound enticing, Henry?”
Wtf is this from, it sounds like a fandom I need to join immediately
Roy Cohn https://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/Angels_in_America and there’s more context to the quotes, generally the context is realpolitik, power for power’s sake. A real asshole you wouldn’t want to play Diplomacy with. Someone with no ethics but winning. The subject of a run the jewels song.
FamilyFamously Donnie T’s never admit you lost coach. The message is alluring if taken at face value, and seems like wisdom, but if you get taken advantage of was it really you who was weak?Oh I thought it might have been like a TV show or something
Angels in America is a play and was made into some made for TV movies, yes. I don’t think Roy Cohn the man ever said that, although he was gay and it matched his attitudes.
I had no idea - my add-on comment was just what came to mind as would fit in well. Not shocked to learn it’s about Roy Cohn, though, the “I’m gay, but I exist in a plane of wealthy predator above normies that worry about their sexuality as a label because I’m allowed to participate in society however I want” vibe was strong. I figured it was Peter Thiel, so not far off.
Doesn’t make them Gay necessarily, but it does make them at least Bi.
Thank you for acknowledging bi people exist. No sarcasm lol
They’re always complaining about the MSM too!