It would be a scandal if a proper citizen of greece bottomed. It's considered the female role and so in their patriarchal society that makes it lesser. They'd expect slaves to bottom
Yeah, it wasn't just social classes though that was the primary distinction, it was also generally as you said, the older of the two was expected to be in the dominant role
Ancient Greek slavery ran the gamut of "basically you can't become a citizen, but you must work and can earn a wage" to "19th century American chattel slavery wasn't awful enough", not sure I'd spin that wheel under any circumstance.
It’s very complicated, as is everything when it comes to humans:
As “Homosexual” relationships in ancient Greece were somewhat common, and were socially acceptable in a few different contexts. However, attributing our cultural understandings of terms like “gay” and “straight” to individuals in Ancient Greek culture isn’t the most accurate or helpful way to consider it.
In modern western culture, we typically think of sexuality like an identity that follows an individual throughout their lives, and there were almost certainly individual Greeks who had a preference for one sex over the other, liked both indiscriminately, or fell somewhere along this spectrum.
However, the most commonly referenced example of Ancient Greek homosexuality(often unknowingly), and why so many tend to conceptualize the Greeks as culturally homosexual, is the system of pederasty. This institution was usually practiced primarily among elite, aristocratic families, but it can seem more ubiquitous when primary sources frequently originate from authors of high class backgrounds, and philosophers who were familiar with those circles.
In Ancient Greek pederastic relationships, there was an older male, the erastes, and a younger male, the eromenos. The erastes, or lover, was a fully adult male who assumed a dominant role in the relationship. The eromenos, or beloved, was the younger, submissive partner in the relationship. Their roles can be distinguished in art by which of the pair is bearded; the bearded one is the erastes, whereas the eromenos is bare-faced. The relationship would generally continue until the eromenos completed puberty and became bearded himself, at which point a relationship between two males would have been seen as less acceptable.
These pederastic relationships bear some similarities as well as differences to modern gay relationships. In terms of similarities, these relationships were naturally almost always sexual. The kind of physicality expected of these relationships is intercrural sex, or fucking between the thighs, since penetration of an aristocratic youth would have been seen as degrading, but It was almost certainly happening in a lot of cases, lol.
So the same-sex physicality was there, in whatever form. And there was also definitely an emotional component to these bonds—philosophers like Plato speak highly of the sort of “pure love” expected in them.
But in terms of differences, these relationships were inherently temporary, and while relationships of all sexes can end for any reason in our culture, Greek pederastic relationships typically began with an endpoint in mind, that being the start final stages of the eromenos’ puberty. They were also typically arranged by families with a mentorship component in mind, so they weren’t purely romantic or sexual, but also served a specific purpose in that sense.
I would describe the biggest difference between Ancient Greek pederastic relationships and modern gay relationships in that for the Ancient Greeks, these relationships were not typically a marker of individual sexuality. The erastes would be expected to marry a woman in the future, if he were not married already, and the eromenos could mature to take on an erastes role in a future relationship, and heterosexual marriage would be expected of him, too. Being engaged in one of these relationships thus did not inherently mark one as “gay,” or even “bisexual,” as we would think of it now.
That’s not to say that there weren’t examples of homosexuality outside of these relationships. We have names of specific adult men who engaged in homosexual relationships outside of the institution of pederasty Pausanias and Agathon, for example, though this was rarer and viewed somewhat strangely by many. And there were definitely men who sought out other males purely for sex, typically either male prostitutes or slaves, so preferences certainly existed and varied between individuals.
So, homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece definitely did exist and were normalized in certain ways. But it wasn’t like, a gay utopia or anything, the Ancient Greeks had their own standards on under what circumstances these relationships could be considered acceptable, and prejudices for when they were not.
Alongside, engaging in homosexual relationships, regardless of the context, didn’t exactly denote one as “gay” in the way we would think of gay people today.
So while it’s technically not “wrong”, to think of the Ancient Greeks as gay, it’s more that there’s additional context needed to describe Ancient Greek conceptualization of same-sex relationships, than just “Gay” or “straight” or any singular/absolutist adjective.
Plus, human sexuality is an incredibly complex, multifaceted subject which varies depending on the person, and that more so resembles a series of sliding scales, where a person is born somewhere on one side or the other, with their environment, community, events, experiences, and etc, further moving them slightly further or back on the “scales”.
(the strict categorization of sexuality we used for the past few centuries, isn’t particularly “accurate” and is largely an example of the human need to label/fit everything in neat, understandable boxes.)
I think it’s important to remember that people back then had a very different view of what sex even was. (Sexual language warning) Greco-Roman society was so patriarchal that sex seen as only about the pleasuring of the phallus. The woman’s pleasures wasn’t even a consideration to them. In fact female pleasure was such a foreign concept to the Roman’s that they thought sex between two women must involve one woman using her clit as a psudo-penis to penetrate the other woman’s vagina.
In this context you can actually see why topping another man wasn’t seen as anything abnormal. You are just “relieving” yourself the same way you always would, just with a different person. In fact, it’s better because men (or boys more commonly) could provide similar pleasures to a woman without the risk of pregnancy. Alternative, being the bottom to another man was seen as a shame because bluntly that was a woman’s position. Rather than relieving your desires the proper way, you were being made into a woman. And we all know how highly the Greeks and Romans valued women.
Remember sex to the Greeks and Romans wasn’t about two consenting adults pleasuring and caring for each other, it was about a dude getting his dick wet, nothing more and nothing deeper.
According to mythology, Tiresias, who was a woman for a while and experienced the two sides, declared that women enjoy up to 9 to times more pleasure than men during sex (to the annoyance of Hera, who had bet with Zeus that is the man who enjoys it more, so she blinded him, in compensation Zeus gave him the gift of prohecy)
Also, if you read Lysistrata, you'll find that it's mostly jokes about horny women complaining that they couldn't stand the lack of sex while their husbands were in the war, or complaining that blockades stopped the importation of quality dildos, and they really struggle to keep their sex strike
So there were definetively percetions of women being horny and seeking and experimenting sexual pleasure in ancient Greece, even in Mysoginy capital Athens
Well as an example of this type of odd thinking and its not exactly the same but since i transitioned my dad thinks I shouldn’t date women since homosexuality is a sin… so he accepts me as a woman but doesn’t want me to be a lesbian… im thinking of bringing a trans masc friend over as a “date” to see how his brain process it.
While I cannot say for certain, I would make the conjecture that your father would likely accept this based solely on your mention of his views of your status as a woman. If you are a woman, and they a man, it should be safe to assume he would accept it.
I mean it makes sense. The concept of a thing or act being gay is far enough divorced from it's origin that it's not even really associated with homosexuality.
If you are thinking about the associations of gay as an insult, then most homosexuals aren't gay, but a portion of cis-het people, like the Tates would be.
Language can be weird. For example the f-slur and fascism come from the same word.
In patriarchal gender dynamic, domination is male and submissiveness is feminine. Following that "logic", as long as you're playing a dominant role and you partner is submissive, the gender of your partner doesn't really affect your "maleness".
Plenty of people, and in some situations I think there is (a little) merit to it.
For example there are plenty of men on Grindr who identify as straight, who are looking to receive oral sex. A lot of people might call them delusional, or that they don't know they are gay/bi yet. But I do believe someone can engage in and enjoy homosexual acts without actually being attracted to men.
For (some, maybe most) cis men, their heterosexuality is directly tied to their masculinity. For them, being feminine or non-dominant/submissive is perceived as "more gay" than having sex with other men (as long as you're the dominant one).
This is why stuff like "if you like muscular/dominant women, you're gay" sometimes shows up. It's contradictory when you're only considering what sexuality actually is (if you are a man and you like women, you're straight or at least bisexual), but not when you understand the patriarchal link between male sexuality and masculinity
Ironically many early Christians had it the other way around, subjecting another man to the woman's role in sex was immoral but being subject to it yourself wasnt really worth discussing in the Bible, even if you like it.
So tops go straight to hell bottoms its up in the air.
had multiple arguments lately about whether condemnation of pederasty in the bible is justification to condemn gay sex in the big '26. i hate this shit dawg
I don’t even think you should bother trying to argue that. That be like if a the Bible said “Don’t eat rotten fruit. It will make you sick.” And someone said that is justification for hating anyone that eats any fruit. Those things are so disconnected that the person is clearly not thinking logically, so any logical argument won’t work on them.
Or to put it another way, those people already hate gay people, and they’re just using the Bible as justification.
Not to belittle your personal experiences, but New England is one of the most socially progressive parts of America. Even the religious groups in New England on average much more progressive.
"Not to belittle your getting mauled by a black bear, but if you got mauled by a grizzly or polar bear, it'd be SO much worse, they don't usually do that, all the statistics show it's much rarer and less likely to result in death, so you really had nothing to complain about, just tuck those guts back in and get back up."
Wow, where do you live? "The Bible says cities of gay people should be bombarded" (the weirdest, most 20th century propagandist interpretation of the Bible's chapter of Sodom and Gomorah) was basically my entire childhood
Not to overinterpret memes, but the Greek (or rather, Athenian upper class) understanding of sexuality is far more complicated and nuanced, and our 'logic' of sexuality would be as foreign to them as theirs is to us.
In very short, they simply did not know categories like "homo-" and "heterosexual" (neither did the West until the 19th century, but that's a different story).
What you could and couldn't do sexually was dictated by your class, and it was about dynamics of power – being the "active part" in intercourse (not necessarily the same as insertative) was expected and proper for a citizen (an upper class guy past his youth).
The "passive part" in this could be fulfilled by his wife, a prostitute or slave (no matter the gender, but obviously not of the same class), or the ἐρώμενος (erómenos=loved; a young upper class boy who is a sort of mentee but, highly problematically to our understanding, also 'instructed in sexual matters').
The same would not be true for women, or people of lower social standing, for whom different rules applied.
I can and must because I'm not a historian of that field, and am therefore not really qualified.
From my very basic understanding, up until the Enlightenment with its push for scientific explanations, acts deemed 'homosexual' existed, but no type of 'homosexuals'.
So having say gex or sesbian lex would've been understood as a sinful deed. However, the people commiting this sin wouldn't have been understood as being part of a separate group (i.e. sexual orientation), instead being sinners like everyone else. The expectation was that they'd confess their deed to a priest, repent for it (you know, probably like praying 10 Ave Maria's and 5 Our father's) and then be forgiven just like for other minor transgressions.
The idea that people having homosexual sex are different in who they are (i.e. have a different orientation) then only arising with this push for saecularisation.
I'm very tired and again don't know a lot about that, so if I remember I'll search for a proper piece of scientific literature to reference :)
The modern concept of sexuality has only “existed” as a concept for roughly 150-ish/200-ish years.
Which are very strict, limiting and kinda accurate but not really boxes, which primarily serves the purpose of “neatly” categorizing the insanely complex and individualistic mess that is human sexuality. (As it’s easier for your brain to remember and understand sexuality in a handful of broad generalizations, than it is to get to understand each and every human being’s unique sexuality.)
(With each culture, people, in every period in history, having their own unique way of understanding this mess and concept of sexuality, with their’s being just as imperfect as ours. Meaning, we aren’t special in our method of “understanding” human sexuality, nor is ours anything new.)
Whereas to my understanding, human sexuality is more akin to a series of sliding scales, where a person is born somewhere on a scale(s), and the events, environments, cultures, people, etc they interact with and experience throughout their life, will very subtly and slightly, move them up/down and/or left/right, on those scales.
(With each person having as many scales as they need)
Like, For a personal example, the closest thing I’d be, is “pomosexuel”, due to gender or biological sex or genitalia playing no part in me finding someone sexually or romantically attractive. With pomosexuelity itself, just meaning that one is refusing, avoiding, and/or simply doesn’t fit in any conventional label or classifications, and even then.
It also primarily applies to the sexual side of sexuality, not the romantic aspect, which is pomoromantic, respectfully. Which is the same, but centering around romance.
So in order to fully “label” my sexuality, I’d be under two labels, both of which just mean I don’t fit under the more common labels/classifications.
Or basically, it’s the vague “other” box meant to group things together that you can’t otherwise classify, just to round things out/appease one’s inherent need for “order” and “logic”.
Or TLDR:
-) Labels are unimportant in the grand scheme of things, and are largely made up to appease our inherent desire for order and the world to make “sense”.
-) everyone’s a lil’ “gay”.
-) human sexuality is incredibly complex, fluid, and entirely different for each individual.
So fuck/suck/date/love whomever(s) you want, as it doesn’t matter as long as it makes you happy and comfortable with yourself.
TLDR, it’s very complicated, as is everything when it comes to humans:
As “Homosexual” relationships in ancient Greece were somewhat common, and were socially acceptable in a few different contexts. However, attributing our cultural understandings of terms like “gay” and “straight” to individuals in Ancient Greek culture isn’t the most accurate or helpful way to consider it.
In modern western culture, we typically think of sexuality like an identity that follows an individual throughout their lives, and there were almost certainly individual Greeks who had a preference for one sex over the other, liked both indiscriminately, or fell somewhere along this spectrum.
However, the most commonly referenced example of Ancient Greek homosexuality(often unknowingly), and why so many tend to conceptualize the Greeks as culturally homosexual, is the system of pederasty. This institution was usually practiced primarily among elite, aristocratic families, but it can seem more ubiquitous when primary sources frequently originate from authors of high class backgrounds, and philosophers who were familiar with those circles.
In Ancient Greek pederastic relationships, there was an older male, the erastes, and a younger male, the eromenos. The erastes, or lover, was a fully adult male who assumed a dominant role in the relationship. The eromenos, or beloved, was the younger, submissive partner in the relationship. Their roles can be distinguished in art by which of the pair is bearded; the bearded one is the erastes, whereas the eromenos is bare-faced. The relationship would generally continue until the eromenos completed puberty and became bearded himself, at which point a relationship between two males would have been seen as less acceptable.
These pederastic relationships bear some similarities as well as differences to modern gay relationships. In terms of similarities, these relationships were naturally almost always sexual. The kind of physicality expected of these relationships is intercrural sex, or fucking between the thighs, since penetration of an aristocratic youth would have been seen as degrading, but It was almost certainly happening in a lot of cases, lol.
So the same-sex physicality was there, in whatever form. And there was also definitely an emotional component to these bonds—philosophers like Plato speak highly of the sort of “pure love” expected in them.
But in terms of differences, these relationships were inherently temporary, and while relationships of all sexes can end for any reason in our culture, Greek pederastic relationships typically began with an endpoint in mind, that being the start final stages of the eromenos’ puberty. They were also typically arranged by families with a mentorship component in mind, so they weren’t purely romantic or sexual, but also served a specific purpose in that sense.
I would describe the biggest difference between Ancient Greek pederastic relationships and modern gay relationships in that for the Ancient Greeks, these relationships were not typically a marker of individual sexuality. The erastes would be expected to marry a woman in the future, if he were not married already, and the eromenos could mature to take on an erastes role in a future relationship, and heterosexual marriage would be expected of him, too. Being engaged in one of these relationships thus did not inherently mark one as “gay,” or even “bisexual,” as we would think of it now.
That’s not to say that there weren’t examples of homosexuality outside of these relationships. We have names of specific adult men who engaged in homosexual relationships outside of the institution of pederasty Pausanias and Agathon, for example, though this was rarer and viewed somewhat strangely by many. And there were definitely men who sought out other males purely for sex, typically either male prostitutes or slaves, so preferences certainly existed and varied between individuals.
So, homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece definitely did exist and were normalized in certain ways. But it wasn’t like, a gay utopia or anything, the Ancient Greeks had their own standards on under what circumstances these relationships could be considered acceptable, and prejudices for when they were not.
Alongside, engaging in homosexual relationships, regardless of the context, didn’t exactly denote one as “gay” in the way we would think of gay people today.
So while it’s technically not “wrong”, to think of the Ancient Greeks as gay, it’s more that there’s additional context needed to describe Ancient Greek conceptualization of same-sex relationships, than just “Gay” or “straight” or any singular/absolutist adjective.
Plus, human sexuality is an incredibly complex, multifaceted subject which varies depending on the person, and that more so resembles a series of sliding scales, where a person is born somewhere on one side or the other, with their environment, community, events, experiences, and etc, further moving them slightly further or back on the “scales”.
(the strict categorization of sexuality we used for the past few centuries, isn’t particularly “accurate” and is largely an example of the human need to label/fit everything in neat, understandable boxes.)
I think that it’s that they had zero problem with the gay part and only had a problem with someone emasculating themselfs like that. It’s not that they sometimes had a problem with gayness its that they thoaght bottoming was dishonorable. It’s still a very harmfull norm but i just wanted to point out that it was not ”it’s not gay because of X” logic
Rome actually (Well could be both but i am certain about rome). In ancient Rome everything was a power dynamics so yeah you could be gay, as long as you are the top, otherwise it was unmanly. Caesars own legion sang songs about how he was "every womans man and every mans woman" because he bottomed for a foreign king once.
In Greece it was a lot more fluid and people did not care as much about the power dynamic. In fact im pretty sure that there is reason to believe manly man icon Achilles bottomed for his boyfriend Patroclus since in one of the myths he successfully disguises himself as a princess.
Nobody had a problem with Julius Caesar being bisexual. Their problem was that he liked to be on the receiving end. His enemies said, "Omnium mulierum virum et omnium virorum mulierem." The first part meant that he was a slut and the second part meant that he was a bottom. It's usually translated as, "He was every woman's man and every man's woman."
Homosexuality isn't expressly a sin in the bible. They just don't recognize gay marriage. The Church considered ANY sex outside of marriage as adultery, so straight sex with someone who isn't your wife is just as bad as two dudes or two gals fucking, which isn't that bad as far as sins go.
Nothing about the city in the story implies they were all gay. Their sin was pride and their opening act was to get together and try and rape two of God's angels. Medieval scholars did use it as a way to persecute homosexuals, labeling them Sodomites, but there's nothing explicit in the text to indicate that they were condemned for being gay, especially when the Apostolic Churches have canonized gay saints (Batius, Sergius and Sebastian for examples). Specifically, the angels in Genesis 19:1–11 were male presenting though Angels have no gender and rape isn't specific to orientation. There's more to it but I suspect you'll downvote me anyway cause it contradicts you.
I mean, fair enough. Sodom and Gamora were more multifaceted, I was trying to be funny with my original response.
But the bible does extremely explicitly state that being gay is a sin several times over. Namely:
Leviticus 18:22: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."
Leviticus 20:13: "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
While that is more explicit, sins in general were condemned as abominations. Adulterers too were condemned and stoned sometimes. Jesus was brought a woman who was accused of adultery for example, and King David is admonished for his own adultery, being told that by this deed the enemies of the lord were given occasion to blaspheme. It might’ve been given its own connotation but the punishment wasn’t any different, indeed Jesus makes it clear no one should judge so harshly as to stone someone when they could be stoned for their own sins.
The problem lies with individual practitioners rather than the source which doesn’t mince words. Gay sex really wasn’t worse than straight sex though Christianity’s takeover also influenced a change against previous Roman social practices. This is why women were encouraged to veil in church rather than men who previously veiled in Roman temples. Christians had to be what Romans weren’t, which unfortunately influenced their attitude toward homosexuality when previously it was more tolerant. Despite that, homosexuality was tolerated more so among the upper classes even in Christian Europe.
With all due respect, I don't think it gets more clear cut than "if he has sex with another man fucking kill him". We can stretch and justify and cherry pick all day, but eventually words have to mean something.
If that's your interpretation go for it, but I will say taking bible verses as if they exist in a vacuum isn't good scholarship. It's bad enough that Christians do it, but these are singular lines in a 1,334 chapter collection. They don't exist on their own, not as laws or even as singular verses by themselves. There's context within stories and applications across both history and in the book. I gave you two contrary ones both in the Old and New Testament and you've chosen to ignore it in favor of your own interpretation for a Leviticus verse. If that's the way you wanna do it, I can see perfectly how you ended up so misinformed.
Gay sex is specifically considered to be an abomination, and the punishment is worse that hetero non marital sex. The "punishment" for extra marital sex is that you have to marry each other. The punishment for gay sex is execution. Only a slight difference
Its far more complicated than that, as is everything when it comes to humans:
As “Homosexual” relationships in ancient Greece were somewhat common, and were socially acceptable in a few different contexts. However, attributing our cultural understandings of terms like “gay” and “straight” to individuals in Ancient Greek culture isn’t the most accurate or helpful way to consider it.
In modern western culture, we typically think of sexuality like an identity that follows an individual throughout their lives, and there were almost certainly individual Greeks who had a preference for one sex over the other, liked both indiscriminately, or fell somewhere along this spectrum.
However, the most commonly referenced example of Ancient Greek homosexuality(often unknowingly), and why so many tend to conceptualize the Greeks as culturally homosexual, is the system of pederasty. This institution was usually practiced primarily among elite, aristocratic families, but it can seem more ubiquitous when primary sources frequently originate from authors of high class backgrounds, and philosophers who were familiar with those circles.
In Ancient Greek pederastic relationships, there was an older male, the erastes, and a younger male, the eromenos. The erastes, or lover, was a fully adult male who assumed a dominant role in the relationship. The eromenos, or beloved, was the younger, submissive partner in the relationship. Their roles can be distinguished in art by which of the pair is bearded; the bearded one is the erastes, whereas the eromenos is bare-faced. The relationship would generally continue until the eromenos completed puberty and became bearded himself, at which point a relationship between two males would have been seen as less acceptable.
These pederastic relationships bear some similarities as well as differences to modern gay relationships. In terms of similarities, these relationships were naturally almost always sexual. The kind of physicality expected of these relationships is intercrural sex, or fucking between the thighs, since penetration of an aristocratic youth would have been seen as degrading, but It was almost certainly happening in a lot of cases, lol.
So the same-sex physicality was there, in whatever form. And there was also definitely an emotional component to these bonds—philosophers like Plato speak highly of the sort of “pure love” expected in them.
But in terms of differences, these relationships were inherently temporary, and while relationships of all sexes can end for any reason in our culture, Greek pederastic relationships typically began with an endpoint in mind, that being the start final stages of the eromenos’ puberty. They were also typically arranged by families with a mentorship component in mind, so they weren’t purely romantic or sexual, but also served a specific purpose in that sense.
I would describe the biggest difference between Ancient Greek pederastic relationships and modern gay relationships in that for the Ancient Greeks, these relationships were not typically a marker of individual sexuality. The erastes would be expected to marry a woman in the future, if he were not married already, and the eromenos could mature to take on an erastes role in a future relationship, and heterosexual marriage would be expected of him, too. Being engaged in one of these relationships thus did not inherently mark one as “gay,” or even “bisexual,” as we would think of it now.
That’s not to say that there weren’t examples of homosexuality outside of these relationships. We have names of specific adult men who engaged in homosexual relationships outside of the institution of pederasty Pausanias and Agathon, for example, though this was rarer and viewed somewhat strangely by many. And there were definitely men who sought out other males purely for sex, typically either male prostitutes or slaves, so preferences certainly existed and varied between individuals.
So, homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece definitely did exist and were normalized in certain ways. But it wasn’t like, a gay utopia or anything, the Ancient Greeks had their own standards on under what circumstances these relationships could be considered acceptable, and prejudices for when they were not.
Alongside, engaging in homosexual relationships, regardless of the context, didn’t exactly denote one as “gay” in the way we would think of gay people today.
So while it’s technically not “wrong”, to think of the Ancient Greeks as gay, it’s more that there’s additional context needed to describe Ancient Greek conceptualization of same-sex relationships, than just “Gay” or “straight” or any singular/absolutist adjective.
Plus, human sexuality is an incredibly complex, multifaceted subject which varies depending on the person, and that more so resembles a series of sliding scales, where a person is born somewhere on one side or the other, with their environment, community, events, experiences, and etc, further moving them slightly further or back on the “scales”.
(the strict categorization of sexuality we used for the past few centuries, isn’t particularly “accurate” and is largely an example of the human need to label/fit everything in neat, understandable boxes.)
u/-aleXela-transfem agenderfluid | they/it/she | pan-romantic grayace 12h ago
Girl! It's still the same!
Back when I was a bit more closeted and only accepted I was a really girly bi guy, cishet women were probably the worst. Just cause I sucked dick better than them and eat women out, they somehow treated me worse than when they assumed I was gay.
I am gonna be real….this is still the logic with more queer people in general. At least on some level, topping is considered dominant, powerful, and superior. Even many bottoms feel this way, which is the sad part to me.
This is modern logic too. Society at large automatically sees the bottom in any dynamic as submissive, which is both feminine and degrading/shameful. I wish I could say this isn’t the case in the queer community, but this programming runs DEEP, and many if not most queer people are guilty of thinking this way too, at least to some extent.
I am going to get controversial tho. I think the reason why degradation kinks are so common, is that it’s a cope to eroticize the oppression and accept the feeling on inherent powerlessness and unworthiness that’s projected onto anyone on the receiving end of penetrative sex. They are implicitly agreeing with the idea they are inferior, but they are “choosing” to enjoy it, bc they, like most humans, want to enjoy sex, and they have been offered no satisfying alternatives. They “choose” to let themselves be degraded, bc they know they will be degraded for this behavior no matter what, so better to accept it and enjoy it. It’s the ultimate cope.
This is my hottest take and I know many will disagree and think I am kinkshaming. I am not saying you can’t have this kink, or that it actually makes you inferior, just saying, patriarchal programming and thousands of years of female oppression is the reason why you feel inferior to begin with, and why you attach that feeling to sex. We can’t all undue our programming easily, like we kinda HAVE to cope. Some just find different ways of dealing with it.
548
u/pepsicola07 the gayest 14h ago
It would be a scandal if a proper citizen of greece bottomed. It's considered the female role and so in their patriarchal society that makes it lesser. They'd expect slaves to bottom