Anon Questions His Sexuality

\>you need to give that bitch a history lesson. Okay, here you go: >"The word in ancient Greece for homosexuality was 'kinaidos', a practice widely shunned and giving rise to great shame to those engaged in such activity, to the degree that men caught having sexual relations could be stripped of their political rights, banished or even put to death." Meanwhile, most "acceptable" homosexuality was pederasty, as in the coerced sexual abuse of younger males. Children or teens. Pedophilia or ephebophilia. The older males would take advantage of the "master and apprentice" arrangements they were supposed to partake in, and teach the younger males to act like girls and play hard-to-get, mimicking what they were supposed to look for in a wife when they got older. In Ancient Greece, "male" and "female" as biological states weren't necessarily the primary considerations they are today. *Man* and *woman* were, and men were seen as conquering agents, primarily, and sex was seen as *sexual conquest*, an idea we still reference to this day. Someone who was submissive, or a receiver in sex, was seen as less of a man, or not one at all. When this came to pederasty, it was "accepted" more than "kinaidos" (regular homosexuality) because it didn't necessarily involve a man shamefully forgoing his status as a conqueror. The younger male simply wasn't a man, by age or by action, and so wasn't a conqueror. More importantly, while they were receiving, they weren't a conqueror *being conquered*, which would make them a failure. They were simply not a man, not a conqueror, and, by this strange, antiquated logic, not a failure. They were closer to a woman. Needless to say, the entire arrangement was nauseating. Thankfully, pederasty wasn't practiced in every city-state, and, in some, it was just as looked-down-upon as kinaidos.