I was hoping I would have an article, or a video, discussing this subject. But the problem I've found is when asking this question, is that it only ever seems to focus on individual religions, such as why christianity hates gays, why islam does, why Scientology does, why mormons do.
But what I'm more looking for is an explanation as to why so many of these huge organized religions, and some of the smaller ones, all seems to share the same outlook on homosexuality. If its either what they call Sin, or an affront to Allah, or their version of a divination, all these major religions seem to look at homosexuals in the same way, like some primitive backwash to tribal times.
Now it could be believed that is the reason why, that its just the primitive nature of religions, in sense of old tribal bigots and their stories of hokum. However I found something interesting. Even today, certain tribes in tropical climates, who have their own beliefs and rituals associated with that tribe, do no carry that same outlook. The Sambian tribe of New Guinea, practice a ritual where young men are expected to give oral sex to the older warriors of the tribe, which is believed in them swallowing the older warriors semen will make them into strong warriors themselves, even made to be kept away from women of the tribe until the ritual is done.
In ancient greek religions, same sex partnering happened both in the fictional stories, and in conflict, where warriors were told to choose a male lover as his companion, as it was believed two lovers in battle would fight alongside each other far better. Of course much of the homoerotic nature of greek culture was wiped out when Christianity came in and bulldozed over it, trying to cover up those practices.
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a5/8f/de/a58fde194d560b6d6079ee21146c9187.jpg)
Infact despite Indias current aggressive stance against homosexuals, its shown in many ancient indian artworks that those practices took place a long time ago, but have been cast off from the modern version of india.
(http://www.lorinroche.com/benefits/tantric/tantric/monks_files/401x292xpage127_5.jpg.pagespeed.ic.MGYIvBCMJ8.jpg)
Even the ancient Aztecs have a gay god, Xochipilli, who was the patron of art, games, beauty and songs, and had same sex followers.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Statue_of_Xochipilli_(From_the_National_Museum_of_Anthropology,_Mexico_City).jpg/440px-Statue_of_Xochipilli_(From_the_National_Museum_of_Anthropology,_Mexico_City).jpg)
So interestingly, both in older times and in current tribal cultures away from the rest of the world, homosexual practices were a thing, where as today, the mega religions that indoctrinate thousands across the world (except perhaps Buddhism, though even some Sects of Buddhism prohibit it) all have the same opinion of it, that its an 'evil' that needs either be forced out of a person, or that person needs to die.
Is this really just something inherently part of the primitive nature of humans in general, because when I think about the atheist community, and those who have cast off religion, the greater percentage of those that do are all for gay rights, even those who might wince at the thought of same sex couples would support their right to it.
I think it's because certain societies make sex in general a shameful thing. When sex is seen as "icky" or "embarrassing" then the idea of two people of the same gender probably just becomes too much, like the next logical step is to imagine their sex life and if your own sex life makes you blush, well... I think because our society is becoming more open about sex and intimacy that homosexuality is becoming less of a big deal.
If the religion and/or society is pessimistic then it's likely that sex will be shamed in some degree. Interfering with the way people feel toward sex makes them much easier to control, since people who are generally unhappy are seeking reward or redemption.
Homosexuality, or sexuality in general was never to blame, and had they not been so tied to our very being, then those seeking control through religion or law would've never taken an interest. Civilizations like the ancient Greeks or Romans valued sexual freedom. It was integrated into some of their economic and political services.
The Greco-Romans were not liberals. Their tolerance of variant-sex activity didn't come from liberalism, but from their mythology. In their mythology, the ability to do anything you wanted to whoever you wanted was an expression of power ... ultimately divine power as demigods in the case of the upper class. For example nudity ... the Emperor was shown nude on statues meant to convey his divinity, not his humanity. Statues of gods in general might expose more of the body than would be considered appropriate for mere humans .. as well as display a superhuman male or female physique. This was apparent on the coinage also ... originally only gods appeared on coins ... it was Alexander who started the trend toward personal divinization ... which reached its apotheosis with Augustus. So sex was only limited by hubris ... too much of anything (nothing in excess) was considered bad ... men in particular had public duties that needed attending to. Same thing with wine or drug consumption ... in moderation it was OK. This is why moderate pederastry in particular was tolerated. Women were devalued by both societies, in spite of goddess worship ... goddess worship being second class worship. The problem with male on male sexuality was ... who would be bottom. It wasn't the gay sex that was opposed ... but it was inappropriate for any man to be a bottom. This is in societies where casual sex with male and female slaves, by both master and mistress was routine. The privacy of the home and the devaluation of women, meant that female on female sex wasn't even noticed ... both were bottoms as far as the men were concerned. Similarly the older male on younger male pattern ... this had to stop when the younger male got older, because otherwise the power problem reared its ugly head. And women did know about sex aids, they have been seen on the pottery, not just the hetairai at the symposia. War was of course sexual, since it was the main source of slaves ... and in iconography the conquered country was depicted as a foreign woman about to be raped. The conquered men were depicted as wounded and dying ... or supplicating for their lives.
So basically a power relationship thing ... if this developed from Greco-Roman society. Jewish society on the other hand was more liberal, but still allowed certain abuses per the OT. IMHO ... like part of Christianity being developed from the East ... I think the puritanism against sex was driven by fear of STM ... which was legitimate ... and by ascetic practices from India (which ironically involve the cumulation of magical powers thru abstinence ... the saving of the vital fluids, as the general in Dr Strangelove kept going on about.
Quote from: Baruch on June 29, 2015, 12:48:01 PM
The Greco-Romans were not liberals. Their tolerance of variant-sex activity didn't come from liberalism, but from their mythology. In their mythology, the ability to do anything you wanted to whoever you wanted was an expression of power ... ultimately divine power as demigods in the case of the upper class. For example nudity ... the Emperor was shown nude on statues meant to convey his divinity, not his humanity. Statues of gods in general might expose more of the body than would be considered appropriate for mere humans .. as well as display a superhuman male or female physique. This was apparent on the coinage also ... originally only gods appeared on coins ... it was Alexander who started the trend toward personal divinization ... which reached its apotheosis with Augustus. So sex was only limited by hubris ... too much of anything (nothing in excess) was considered bad ... men in particular had public duties that needed attending to. Same thing with wine or drug consumption ... in moderation it was OK. This is why moderate pederastry in particular was tolerated. Women were devalued by both societies, in spite of goddess worship ... goddess worship being second class worship. The problem with male on male sexuality was ... who would be bottom. It wasn't the gay sex that was opposed ... but it was inappropriate for any man to be a bottom. This is in societies where casual sex with male and female slaves, by both master and mistress was routine. The privacy of the home and the devaluation of women, meant that female on female sex wasn't even noticed ... both were bottoms as far as the men were concerned. Similarly the older male on younger male pattern ... this had to stop when the younger male got older, because otherwise the power problem reared its ugly head. And women did know about sex aids, they have been seen on the pottery, not just the hetairai at the symposia. War was of course sexual, since it was the main source of slaves ... and in iconography the conquered country was depicted as a foreign woman about to be raped. The conquered men were depicted as wounded and dying ... or supplicating for their lives.
So basically a power relationship thing ... if this developed from Greco-Roman society. Jewish society on the other hand was more liberal, but still allowed certain abuses per the OT. IMHO ... like part of Christianity being developed from the East ... I think the puritanism against sex was driven by fear of STM ... which was legitimate ... and by ascetic practices from India (which ironically involve the cumulation of magical powers thru abstinence ... the saving of the vital fluids, as the general in Dr Strangelove kept going on about.
Indeed. A lot of people forget that homosexual behavior in ancient times generally wasn't done from a sense of liberalism.
I think that, at least in the case of the Abrahamic religions, there seems to be an emphasis upon doing only that which is necessary in this life and reserving pleasure for the next life. Since homosexual sex has no productive function at all (from the standpoint of producing offspring), it seems to me they would naturally want to discourage it.
Not just discourage homosexuality, but sex for any reason other than procreation. In Medieval Jewish law, a guy has to make out with his wife, using a sheet to keep contact to a minimum, with a hole in the middle to do the deed! The problem with puritans, is they are afraid someone, somewhere, is having fun. Kabbalah is different, sex between husband and wife is encouraged, particularly on Shabbat, because that is the same time every week that G-d is making out with Shekhinah.
I have often thought about that myself and came to a conclusion that perhaps there is a far simpler more obvious answer. Perhaps someone in a position of power or importance had a gay son (I don't think a gay daughter would have bothered anyone as they can still produce a child). Now even today many men view their "legacy" as the children and grandchildren they have to carry on title or position that they worked hard to get. To have a son, the only heir apparent, get smittened by the evil gayz would be enough to start making laws to get rid of them. Over a few centuries I am sure many kings and the what-nots in every region could come to the conclusion that gays were evil.
Quote from: Baruch on June 29, 2015, 12:48:01 PM
The privacy of the home and the devaluation of women, meant that female on female sex wasn't even noticed ...
Not unnoticed. But simply not taken 'seriously', because it didn't threaten the patriarchal system.
And when it started to 'threaten' things a bit, that's when lesbians and bisexual women were even outlawed from homosexuality. There is still an understanding in the world that holds the belief of lesbians are different than homosexuals and that it is a specific form of 'perversity' different than male homosexuality. This is a result of the oppressive heteronormative understanding that the 'homosexual' female is trying to fill a heterosexual male norm or role. Because in order to humans have sex, there should be penetration by a penis. And of course they are the women alluring the ones were to be good mothers and wives to men. In short, they just desire to be heterosexual males.
In Ottoman Empire, lesbian women showed their status by wearing same clothes or doing their headdress the same. Woman's duty is to be virtuous and bear children. As long as she provides this, marries as a virgin and not let any penis in her, it was OK. Female worthiness measured by the sex she had/has with het men. Her maidenhead is borrowed from her husband. So was/is she.
Apart from that, there are plenty of evidence ignored that among palace artists, miniature painters, poets and writers there are homosexual lovers and that they were tolerated in Ottoman Empire. One of my professors wrote a fiction about it, however knowing her sources and her, she basically implied a relationship between a miniature painter and one of the sultans.
Another example, Rumi and his lover and the famous story is sad. And it's a gay love story.
QuoteSimilarly the older male on younger male pattern ... this had to stop when the younger male got older, because otherwise the power problem reared its ugly head.
That's too much from 'noble class' and the empire perspective. The class that can hold a pen. Powerful males only. That's a minority.
Homosexuality with both genders have become a real problem by Vatican becoming...well Vatican and after that Modernism. Cities, social orders, labels. Nuclear family. National armies.
Today, there are homosexual islamic groups.
Basically, for a long time now, homosexuality in general has been seen as not 'beneficial' to the society, and it is thought to be uncontrollable. Humans are 'supposed' to get married an breed. States -any kind of- need registered families; taxes, soldiers and certain norms to define a system of two black and white genders to 'turn the wheel'.
As Tomfoolery mentioned, one factor is the nature of disgust. Most heterosexual men find sex between men to some degree disgusting and people often perceive that if something is disgusting then it must be inherently wrong, e.g. the gods don't like it, it is unnatural, unhealthy or immoral. This is one reason why for some people acceptance of homosexuality is a measure of moral attitudes because if one can't recognize something as "unnatural" as homosexuality is wrong then what other kinds of moral mistakes will he or she make.
Quote from: Baruch on June 29, 2015, 01:22:30 PM
Not just discourage homosexuality, but sex for any reason other than procreation.
This first and then some.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 29, 2015, 03:33:43 PM
As Tomfoolery mentioned, one factor is the nature of disgust. Most heterosexual men find sex between men to some degree disgusting and people often perceive that if something is disgusting then it must be inherently wrong, e.g. the gods don't like it, it is unnatural, unhealthy or immoral. This is one reason why for some people acceptance of homosexuality is a measure of moral attitudes because if one can't recognize something as "unnatural" as homosexuality is wrong then what other kinds of moral mistakes will he or she make.
But that depends on what people see while they grow up. It's not natural, it is inflicted. And so it is pretty new compared to human history.
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 29, 2015, 03:42:05 PM
But that depends on what people see while they grow up. It's not natural, it is inflicted. And so it is pretty new compared to human history.
So homosexuality is learned behavior? If people were exposed to homosexual sex growing up then more people would be homosexual?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 29, 2015, 03:42:05 PM
But that depends on what people see while they grow up. It's not natural, it is inflicted. And so it is pretty new compared to human history.
I don't get that, are you saying homosexuality isn't natural but inflicted, or that the mentality of homophobes is what is unnatural and inflicted?
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 29, 2015, 03:49:04 PM
So homosexuality is learned behavior? If people were exposed to homosexual sex growing up then more people would be homosexual?
No, I meant being 'disgusted' by it is. Especially in a collective sense. It's a trait for being included in a community too.
If you tell children it is just a relationship they will see it that way. If you raise children with 'it's disgusting and unnatural' and more they will see it that way.
Considering a big majority of the world is raised that way and brainwashed that it is something 'disgusting and unnatural', it is inflicted MORE than felt. And that mostly happened with Abrahamic religions and modernism. So it is pretty 'new' compared to our 'history' actually. That's what I mean.
Quote from: GSOgymrat on June 29, 2015, 03:49:04 PM
So homosexuality is learned behavior? If people were exposed to homosexual sex growing up then more people would be homosexual?
I don't think she was saying homosexuality is learned, but rather opinions about homosexuality are.
Quote from: Munch on June 29, 2015, 03:54:43 PM
I don't get that, are you saying homosexuality isn't natural but inflicted, or that the mentality of homophobes is what is unnatural and inflicted?
Ffs Munch do you really see that I could be saying homosexuality is inflicted?
Yes, mentality of homophobes is unnatural and inflicted.
Sorry for the bad English.
I was always under the impression that it was about procreating. The anti-gay religions tended to come from harsh environments where people tend to die a lot and what with the constant wars with neighboring tribes over the scarce resources, people died even more. So the tribe needed people to have as many babies as possible to keep the tribe populated and viable. At some point it was set up as a taboo that grew into the icky-poo feelings that is still around today, unfortunately.
I think the bigotry towards homosexuality, lesbianism, and whites marrying other races is all for the same reason, bigotry from religion puritanism, and white supremacy, where it makes the white race weaker and impure according to ancient Patriarchal customs and culture. Less white children makes the white race weaker, and why anyone that is a mixed race, always called black, red, brown, or yellow. Just read the entire New and Old Testaments and it is obvious where all the ignorance comes from. :axe:
I don't buy into the hypothesis that homosexuality became frowned upon by the old monotheistic religions because of an ick-factor. That, to me, seems an too easy explanation. But what do I know, maybe something as simple as disgust became a moral lecture.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 29, 2015, 04:12:54 PM
I don't buy into the hypothesis that homosexuality became frowned upon by the old monotheistic religions because of an ick-factor. That, to me, seems an too easy explanation. But what do I know, maybe something as simple as disgust became a moral lecture.
I don't think it became that way. I think that has come about rather recently. I think it was frowned upon for procreation reasons and as society became more progressive and began allowing divorce and not stoning women to death for adultery, homosexuality continued to be rejected based on individual comfort level and taught to children as being wrong because the Bible says so, despite the obvious hypocrisy it creates.
I never thought sex of any kind was icky, no matter what I did, until I saw porn movies. :eek: :biggrin2:
Comfort level with sexual relationships and marriage partners has changed considerably over the last few millennia for practical reasons as well as political.
Girls used to marry in their teens because life expectancy wasn’t great and women had no need to be educated or employed in skilled labor, so given that she was on borrowed time anyway with nothing better to do, the sooner she could start churning out babies, the better. Nowadays, we view the idea of a 14-year-old bride as disgusting, because it would deny her a childhood and an education.
A lot of the arguments against homosexual marriage stem from maintaining traditional marriage. You know what used to be very traditional? Cousins getting hitched. When you lived in a small community, pickings could be slim. Moreover, if you were a part of a ruling class, marriage was seen as a political tool for alliances. Anyone who knows a thing or two about genetics and history knows that continued inbreeding tends to produce not-so-good results, such as hemophilia among European dynasties in the 19th century and the famous Habsburg lip that made Charles II of Spain so deformed he was unable to chew his food. So we made it illegal.
Crazy as it sounds, after the ruling came down a lot of people went on a rampage wondering what was next, polygamy, pedophilia, incest? It honestly really made me think about those issues in a way I hadn’t considered them before, and made me confront things about my own preconceptions of non-traditional relationships.
Honestly I have no problem with polygamy. I understand it people worry about it being abused for tax purposes and that’s why we shouldn’t allow it. Well, tax codes can be amended, and if we truly believe love is love and in free exercise of religion, we should allow fundamentalist Mormons the right to marry as many consenting women of a consenting age as they wish. Seems only fair, and it doesn't affect me.
As to pedophilia, it will always be disgusting to me, because it’s predatory. It will never be allowed, because a child cannot consent.
Incest? Honestly, I don’t care. Again, if love is love and brothers and sisters or cousins or whatever want to get married, how will that hurt anyone? It was made illegal on the idea that close relatives produce invalid children, but I fail to see that as a logical argument, especially since it tends to take a few generations of close inbreeding to start churning out some Hills Have Eyes babies, and we don’t tell people who have genes for Huntington’s or Tay Sachs that they can’t have kids. We don’t tell a mother with three severely autistic children she should get sterilized. And it also promotes the idea that marriage is solely about producing children, like we pretend that if two cousins are in love that if we prevent them from getting married they can’t have kids.
Quote from: Solitary on June 29, 2015, 04:29:38 PM
I never thought sex of any kind was icky, no matter what I did, until I saw porn movies. :eek: :biggrin2:
Sex is icky and sticky and stains the sheets.
Or the table cloth.
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 29, 2015, 04:45:33 PM
Sex is icky and sticky and stains the sheets.
Or the table cloth.
Or your communion slacks. Too far?
Quote from: drunkenshoe on June 29, 2015, 04:01:44 PM
Ffs Munch do you really see that I could be saying homosexuality is inflicted?
Yes, mentality of homophobes is unnatural and inflicted.
Sorry for the bad English.
Sorry, I didn't mean a bad assumption, just clarifying what you said. <3
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 29, 2015, 04:12:54 PM
I don't buy into the hypothesis that homosexuality became frowned upon by the old monotheistic religions because of an ick-factor. That, to me, seems an too easy explanation. But what do I know, maybe something as simple as disgust became a moral lecture.
The idea that disgust influences morality is not my idea but I think there is something to it. I am not expressing the concept very well. Jonathan Haidt has been researching disgust and moral psychology. http://people.stern.nyu.edu/jhaidt/disgustscale.html
Quote from: the_antithesis on June 29, 2015, 04:02:43 PM
I was always under the impression that it was about procreating. The anti-gay religions tended to come from harsh environments where people tend to die a lot and what with the constant wars with neighboring tribes over the scarce resources, people died even more. So the tribe needed people to have as many babies as possible to keep the tribe populated and viable. At some point it was set up as a taboo that grew into the icky-poo feelings that is still around today, unfortunately.
The procreation idea doesn't make sense to me because heterosexual primates usually compete for females. One male can father many offspring. Because homosexual men are not competing for females one would think they would be ignored by heterosexual men rather than badgered into mating with females to produce offspring.
Because they prefer incest releationship or rape the kids.
drunkenshoe ... you use big words ... and you are a scholar!
Want to kill?
Beheading cures homosexuality in Saudi Arabia, Ahmadinejad said there are no gays in Iran they hang them if they come out of the closet,the Islamic state throws gays from their tallest buildings and stones them to death if they survive the fall.
The only time more than 500 imams protested against anything it was gay marriage in the UK.
Quote from: Baruch on June 29, 2015, 07:52:52 PM
drunkenshoe ... you use big words ... and you are a scholar!
Big words? What are those?
baronronvort ... also in Iran, they have sanctified male/male relationships, by forcing the bottom partner to get a sex change, and then have them legally marry. This is of course exactly the opposite of what most gay men want for themselves.
I think Pat Robertson explained it as clear as possible. .YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE US ALL TO LIKE ANAL SEX! as opposed to just saying "ouch...that hurts."
I used to think gay was weird , I can careless now. If your gay , good for you- enjoy your body. No gays have an agenda to turn everyone gone so being anti-homosexual is pretty silly to me.
Quote from: Munch on June 29, 2015, 07:14:42 AM
I was hoping I would have an article, or a video, discussing this subject. But the problem I've found is when asking this question, is that it only ever seems to focus on individual religions, such as why christianity hates gays, why islam does, why Scientology does, why mormons do.
I had a good article on this; I'll find it later if I can, but here it is in summary.
In general cultures or religions which are war-like are more more homophobic than cultures in which war and death is less common. Saying "religions" as a whole are homophobic isn't totally true - I don't think Buddhists have a huge reputation for being homophobes for example. it's specific religions, particularily ones invented by authoritarian, war-centric cultures.
This doesn't just apply to religions like Christianity and Islam; some cultures which are or were homphobic include the Mongols (under Ghengis Khan), the Aztec Indians, and modern day North Korea. Even when there are no similar religious or ethnic ties - the warlike nature of the culture seems to be the one thing they have in common - for example the Aztec Indians brutally executed homosexuals, while more peaceful Native American tribes were less homophobic.
I believe the cultural attitude develops from the fact that life expectancy was low and death rates were high due to their authoritarian and warlike nature, so these cultures placed more emphasis on the importance of procreation (believing therefore that gays were harmful to society due to their inability to procreate).
It also may have had to do with the fact that since they emphasis male strength and ferocity in war as being highly desired traits, they looked down on gays (gay men especially) due to stereotypes about them being effeminate (I believe this is also the reason why these cultures were more oppressive of women; since men were highly valued for their strength and combat ability, women were viewed as "weaker" and inferior).
Quote from: Munch on June 29, 2015, 07:14:42 AM
Even the ancient Aztecs have a gay god, Xochipilli, who was the patron of art, games, beauty and songs, and had same sex followers.
Keep in mind the Aztecs were very homophobic
The penalties for male homosexual intercourse were severe. Mexica law punished sodomy with the gallows, impalement for the active homosexual, extraction of the entrails through the anal orifice for the passive homosexual, and death by garrote for the lesbians.[16] In Tenochtitlan, they hanged homosexuals. In nearby Texcoco, the active partner was "bound to a stake, completely covered with ashes and so left to die; the entrails of the passive agent were drawn out through his anus, he was then covered with ashes, and wood being added, the pile was ignited."[14]
Aztecs .. the penalty for alcohol intoxication ... except for medicine or the elderly ... was death. The war on drugs in America, starts there. It was the trick of one god (Tezcatlipoca) against Quetzalcoatle ... that led to his banishment ... that set up the mistaken scenario that Cortez was the return of Quetzalcoatle.
The word "virtue" comes from "virtus" which is the Latin word for the ability of a man to father a child thru a woman ... whether the sex was consensual or not ... because this world also extends to the role of the Roman male (originally a cattle thief, rapist and murderer) as a warrior ... because raping captured people, male and female, was an expected part of that activity.
Quote from: Baruch on July 02, 2015, 07:58:28 AM
Aztecs .. the penalty for alcohol intoxication ... except for medicine or the elderly ... was death.
In most ancient pagan societies, 'drunkness' or the status of being 'high' was seen as a 'tool' or 'power' to reach gods or some divine status in rituals, so they were defined as dangerous in ordinary people's hands. Something 'sacred' that can only be used by certain people. (Like the Middle Age and Early Modern age clergy saw Latin as the only suitable language for god and themselves to use it, but dangerous in ordinary people's hands. Not a good example, but root is the same.)
So the idea of banning alcoholic drinks in those societies is not the same with ours today. It's also an evolved process like most other things. People have made alcoholic drinks in their kitchen for a looong time, we still do not know how old really it is. In Anatolia we have many names for it.
For example, Romans banned the mushrooms or any other same kind of substance used in rituals by the 'primitive' tribes they invaded and slaved and forced them to use wine in their rituals and then banned them alltogether eventually, because they thought it cannot be controlled.
Most bans came with industrialisation and modernism, with growing demographic and its influence on social life, because there wasn't any means to control the production or the consumption of it while there was too much money to make, too many things to control. Modern state is just 200 years old. That's very young. It's almost like these subtsances -in general- have just been started to be made beneficial for the societies developed enough to benefit from it in every way.
Also, bad absinth from those times gave us a few good artists and many mentally unstable people. We call most of them 'genius' today.
The idea is closely connected with 'purity'. (So comes any kind of puritans, puritanism, purification of language, purification of soul, body...my ass...etc) Many other things. Banning intoxicating substances evolved to be connected to this idea of 'purity' with evolution of abrahamic religions. Same with other drinks and foods. Anthropologically, the isssues connected with purity is based on religion. (Mary Douglass, if memory serves right.)
After every plague, societies banished certain minorities they thought were 'impure'. Jews suffered from that a lot in Europe's history. Undesired people... Guess which ones. They also made a law that certain occupations they thought were 'impure' were to be founded outside of cities. They thought plague was a result of impurity of their souls. They tortured (purified) infidels with fire or drowned them in water. But this is not just about cleanliness. It's about 'purity' according to the specific religion. For example in Spain -don't remember which king or cardinal or who- declared christians are not to wash themselves or have a bath because it destroyed their pruity. Because muslims did. It was a muslim trait. In Early Modern period Spain and 'Holland' are two extreme ends of this.
Another reason for baths being closed in Europe is that it encouraged 'immorality';homosexuality and probably all kinds of sex. And they were dirty. Dirty-immoral-sex-nudity...etc.
Quote...because this world also extends to the role of the Roman male (originally a cattle thief, rapist and murderer) as a warrior ... because raping captured people, male and female, was an expected part of that activity. ...
That is called 'sexual imperialism'. Is that one of those big words you were talking about? Going on exactly the same today as you implied.
At most cases there is no accusation, let alone some prosecution. But that depends on how politically powerful the country of the soliders are. It's usually very easy to prevent it from going out.
For example, American troops raping children in Colombia and filming it. Or systematic rape of Boshnak women by Serbian soldiers. Two examples comes to my mind that happened recently. Many others we know in history. And probably a lot will come up in the future from Afghanistan and Irak.
The 'victorious' do not see the other side as human at most times. And it is often thought to be based on racist and sexist rage.
[I just wonder if this is also related to the rape issues in male-female armies around the world. Hmmm.]
drunkenshoe ... I can tell by your responses you are an edumacated person ;-) Yes, in warfare, it is necessary to dehumanize the soldier, so that they can do inhuman things both to enemy soldiers, but also to enemy civilians ... but in a hierarchically controlled manner. Technically, some things are by statute, not to be done, or they are punishable under military law. Of course like all laws, this is observed in the breach. Today the greatest risk is to female soldiers is from their own male comrades ... the male soldiers are all keyed up to do some war raping ... and their female comrades are close to hand ;-(
St Patrick was a big BO guy ... he said one couldn't be a saint, if one had bathed even once ;-) The Irish were fanatics ... being a believer isn't enough, you have to try to be a blarney saint! The Culdee priests slept on a rock for a pillow ... if it was good enough for Jacob, it was good enough for them. I am not into ascetic stuff myself.
Quote from: MagetheEntertainer on July 11, 2015, 11:33:21 AM
I think that the hatred towards homosexuals and homosexuality was first created because by definition homosexuality does not produce babies, and back in those days there was something like a 1 in 5 chance of a baby dying before it reaches sexual maturity, those chances were probably even worse for the desert nomads who created the hatred compared to the greeks since the greeks atleast had city states, running water, markets, etc all the things that make human survival more likely. So the ancient jews probably saw homosexuality as a threat to the propagation of their tribes. As far as being disgusted by homosexuality I'm almost certain that that is a learned behavior, I know several people who can't stand the sight of 2 men fucking, or even kissing in some instances, yet they have almost no problem watching someone being beheaded, I used to have a friend that I watched those videos with who had almost no problem watching things like The Dagestan Beheading Massacre, or 2 guys 1 hammer, but yet he refused to watch broke back mountain.
My brothers the same, and while he isn't in any way homophobic, being liberal minded, has gay friends and support gay marriage, he use to (before he became a dad) was video like mans head being run over by a steam roller, or body mutilation on banned videos, but just bringing up brokeback mountain which my mum saw and loved, my brother winced at watching it, even calling it shit when he hadn't even seen it.
There is an outright psychological dissonance with a lot of people in this, even if they know gay people deserve the same rights as others and support it, they still get effected psychologically when seeing two men fuck, not something that effects me when I accidentally clicks on a lesbian porn video on porn hub.
It's just like any other taught prejudice. Any thing that is not like us is undesirable mentality. True shame really there use to be a pride in being well rounded by studying and admiring the customs of other cultures. Now it seems like anything that detracts from the 'american" way is a crime. It's the same I feel with gay.IN religion It is viewed as being unnatural or not as nature intended and therefore an abomination(i.e. not like us). Too bad for them(i.e. homophobes) that there are now many examples of homosexuality in (nature)animals including monkeys as an example.
Quote from: doorknob on July 11, 2015, 01:31:10 PM
It's just like any other taught prejudice. Any thing that is not like us is undesirable mentality. True shame really there use to be a pride in being well rounded by studying and admiring the customs of other cultures. Now it seems like anything that detracts from the 'american" way is a crime. It's the same I feel with gay.IN religion It is viewed as being unnatural or not as nature intended and therefore an abomination(i.e. not like us). Too bad for them(i.e. homophobes) that there are now many examples of homosexuality in (nature)animals including monkeys as an example.
Oh speaking of which, Bill Nye just recently talked about his thoughts on the subject.
https://youtube.com/index?&desktop_uri=%2F#/watch?v=ohFOHvcTC6I
homo-phobia. Any kind of phobia, is an irrational and defective mental/emotional phenomenon. If one is rational and mentally/emotionally balanced, I don't think one can be homophobic. This is not the same as preference ... personally I am much more tolerant of two women going at it, or a man and a woman, than two men ... but I don't see any need to disapprove of anyone because of my preference. There are forms of sex that I would be intolerant of ... just push my limits far enough. Everyone has phobias, even gay people.
Actually some women do have balls. What I want to know is why heterosexuality is not icky, it sure seems to be to me if it is done right. :eek:
Very good question, Solitary. Certainly in some respects, particularly under the observation of puritans .. heterodox is icky ... and they would prefer that babies come about some other way, or that there simply aren't any more babies at all. And part of that is related to misogyny. Girls are icky .. but not boys ;-) This is why in orthodox Judaism, a woman can't handle a Torah scroll ... because you never know when she will become ritually impure when she periods. Making a $40,000 heirloom ritually impure ... is serious business ;-)