|
Pretty deliberately stupid reading of what I said but go off on those Houston chuds
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:People think the Greeks and Romans weren't prudes because we have access to all of their upper class celebrity gossip and whorehouse toilet scribblings. But that kind of stuff is a pretty bad example of public attitudes towards sexual mores which were generally much more repressive than what you'll see in media representations. People think victorians were prude because they're disproportionately exposed to the less horny big famous literature while the porn and dirty stuff was on disposable media that largely wasn't preserved (and of course, the later generations will never romanticize the idea of their parents and grandparents having sex in their later conceptualizations of previous eras). It's extremely normal to try to put up a less horny official front. Although Caesar also told the Senate to suck his dick, so the Romans seem to have less separation.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 17:57
|
|
|
I mean who wouldn't tell the Senate to such their dick if they had the chance
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 18:25
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:go off on those Houston chuds ok
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 18:34
|
|
|
you can't really claim to have a materialist, systematic view of the world and also sneer at wide swaths of the population for not being virtuous enough and cheer when they freeze to death
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 18:36
|
|
|
Grape posted:internalizing Republican propaganda as a leftist so hard I come to think of red state republicans as genuinely open hearted jesus following good samaritans that love refugees, no big deal *gavin newsom smugly pushing the "destroy innocent goodhearted texans" lever, as every single Californian cheers from their gold-plated ivory SF condo towers* Rah! fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Feb 20, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 18:51
|
|
|
Also in the process performing a mirror action of what I'm mocking by showing how extremely poorly I understand the republican voting demographics of blue states. Which I mean obviously are pretty much entirely poor rural people, I hear, I guess. Oh and come to think of it likewise profiling red state republicans as all being the same kind of people. Dallas mcmansion dwelling Cruz voters would extremely love rural Oregonian refugees moving into their area.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
BonHair posted:There is the point that before contraceptives, having sex included the risk of starting a family, and the family unit was the main economic unit as well, so infidelity was a lot worse than just breach of trust. That leads to some prudish behaviour I guess. Ancient Greeks were so misogynist that they believed a fully egalitarian romantic relationship was only possible between men. Also Romans did use contraceptives, in fact they made a particular weed go extinct that they used for it because they used it up completely. Another thing is that Greeks and Romans had no real concept of homosexuality (they didn't have a word for it), their main dichotomy was between being the penetrator and the penetratee, with the latter somehow being shameful. Of course, men were still expected to establish heteronormative lives, but if he pounded some dude's butt on the side no one batted an eye. Interestingly, the classical Arab world was kind of like that, too, their current intolerance of homosexuality seems to have been the result of colonialist powers introducing stricter sexual morals along with the concept of sodomy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 19:00
|
|
|
Pope Hilarius II posted:(they didn't have a word for it), their main dichotomy was between being the penetrator and the penetratee, with the latter somehow being shameful. It's what historians call "the ol' sodomy dichotomy"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 19:10
|
|
|
Teriyaki Hairpiece posted:It's what historians call "the ol' sodomy dichotomy" I enjoyed that Schoolhouse Rock song back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 19:15
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:People think the Greeks and Romans weren't prudes because we have access to all of their upper class celebrity gossip and whorehouse toilet scribblings. But that kind of stuff is a pretty bad example of public attitudes towards sexual mores which were generally much more repressive than what you'll see in media representations. A lot of the really saucy stories we have from Roman times are probably exaggerations and/or satire, and were also supposed to be scandalous at the time. Not necessarily describing what was accepted business as usual. Sort of how much of the info we have on the worst and craziest emperors comes from right after the end of their reigns, and may well be a bit propaganda-ish, by writers trying to distance themselves from the former regime.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 19:56
|
|
|
Haven't people who've gone through early modern church records found out that the time between people marrying and baptising their kid was often a lot shorter than 9 months? Meaning they were probably boning through the courtship and engagement. I've even heard tell of some people in more isolated communities that didn't have a regular priest living in sin and having a few kids that wouldn't get baptised until a priest was sent over sometimes years after their birth.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 20:07
|
|
|
Shotgun weddings? What a scandalous and unimaginable concept
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 20:16
|
|
|
In Norway in the 19th to early 20th century an important, but maligned by religious authorities, part of rural courtship was the guy climbing into his beloveds window for some hanky panky a few times before they officially proposed. And that was the sons and daughters of the rich landowning class. The peasants just hosed as much as they pleased because no one cared.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 20:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Shotgun weddings? What a scandalous and unimaginable concept they didnt have shotguns in middle ages op
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 20:52
|
|
|
Ancient Babylonians had prostitute-priestesses from what I’ve read. Also Roman and Greek mores fluctuated a lot through time. Augustus was upset because Romans were so decadent to the point he enacted morality laws. I like to imagine that was a counter reaction to looser mores in the late Republic. Just because one author was an Athenian chud who thought women could never be men’s equals, doesn’t mean Greeks in Sparta or Heliopolis or w/e agreed with him
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
There's also a great quote by Dolly Parton ,,Where I come from there was two kinds of women: The ones that got married and had lots of children and the ones that never got married but had lots of children"
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 20:56
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Shotgun weddings? What a scandalous and unimaginable concept Technically shotgun weddings are pretty new, replacing the previous phenomena of arquebus weddings and crossbow weddings
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:Although Caesar also told the Senate to suck his dick, so the Romans seem to have less separation. This made me curious: what's the context, and in what sense did he mean? Like, did he actually want them to do it or was it a way to say "gently caress you, I'm in charge"? Also all cultures have always been more complicated. But it's pretty common to hurry the gently caress up and get married when you find out you're pregnant, regardless of culture, since basically all cultures have the women in the position of being economically dependent on a husband. Being a single mother has, historically, never been an attractive position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 21:32
|
|
|
We've come a long way since rock-tied-to-stick weddings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:
Would love to read about this if you have a link
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 21:49
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Would love to read about this if you have a link It's been a long while since I read it, but I think it was in this book. https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Comedy-David-Konstan/dp/0801493986 I think the specific incident was at the end of his political maneuvering to get the governorship of Transalpine Gaul after his opponents in the senate tried to give him a less worthwhile province. He told the senate he would "leap upon their heads" which was another way of saying suck my dick.
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
SlothfulCobra posted:It's been a long while since I read it, but I think it was in this book. Is that closer to ‘I’ll skull gently caress you’? I don’t see how that’s akin to ‘suck my dick’. Is there a visual to go with the Latin word play? For us non Latin versed
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2021 22:30
|
|
|
Cracker King posted:Is that closer to ‘I’ll skull gently caress you’? Yeah it's an important distinction. There are actually two latin terms for oral sex, fellatio and irramabo. The difference is who is taking the active role. Irramabo is actually often translated as skull-gently caress See catullus 16 for a great example https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catullus_16
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
Historians in 2000 years are going to discover some twitter posts and conclude that it was extremely common for the people of the 21st century to suck the dicks of complete strangers, and in fact suggesting for someone to do so was normal social etiquette
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
 Which counties are ready for schools to fully open?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 10:44
|
|
|
Deltasquid posted:Just because one author was an Athenian chud who thought women could never be men’s equals, doesn’t mean Greeks in Sparta or Heliopolis or w/e agreed with him No, Ancient Greece in the Classical Age (~6th-4th century BCE) was awfully misogynist pretty much everywhere (Homeric Greece was probably somewhat better for women though). While it's true that Spartiate women could sometimes hold considerable powers of their estates on account of their husbands being off to fight in a war (or dead), that was a tiny minority. Most Spartan women lived under the constant threat of rape from the upper class, so much so that Sparta had to invent an entirely new caste to denote bastards from upper class fathers and commoner women.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 15:09
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:I've even heard tell of some people in more isolated communities that didn't have a regular priest living in sin and having a few kids that wouldn't get baptised until a priest was sent over sometimes years after their birth. This was not unusual. Go back a bit earlier than "early modern" and it used to be the case that getting formally married in front of a priest was generally optional. (The Catholic Church, IMS, didn't really start pushing for the concept that only a church marriage was a valid marriage until after the Reformation started. Marriage in European cultures was originally a secular, civic affair.) In out of the way places, you'd sometimes see as you say maybe everyone in the family getting baptised and the parents (and sometimes grandparents!) gettin married at the same time, once they had a priest at hand.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 15:30
|
|
|
Groke posted:This was not unusual. Go back a bit earlier than "early modern" and it used to be the case that getting formally married in front of a priest was generally optional. (The Catholic Church, IMS, didn't really start pushing for the concept that only a church marriage was a valid marriage until after the Reformation started. Marriage in European cultures was originally a secular, civic affair.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 16:21
|
|
|
For most of human history, "getting married" has meant saying "Hey, we're married" and everyone around agreeing "hey, you're married."
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 19:55
|
|
|
Yeah, getting married is essentially just calling dibs on someone (mutually usually). As long as everyone acknowledges the dibs, it works. At some point, some people wanted to get it in writing for legal reasons mostly, and the church saw a way to use that I guess. Rings are related to this, they let people who don't know you see whether you are already married.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
BonHair posted:Yeah, getting married is essentially just calling dibs on someone (mutually usually). As long as everyone acknowledges the dibs, it works. At some point, some people wanted to get it in writing for legal reasons mostly, and the church saw a way to use that I guess. Rings are related to this, they let people who don't know you see whether you are already married. The church has to find some way to be relevant. Appropriating the social events people hold at birth, marriage and death is just useful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 20:55
|
|
|
to be fair it makes sense for an institution claiming to represent the supernatural to find interest in the areas of human life that seem to be closest to the boundaries between the natural and supernatural world
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Im not sure i see whats supernatural about marriage, but then again, i dont really see anything as supernatural
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 22:13
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Im not sure i see whats supernatural about marriage, but then again, i dont really see anything as supernatural Sex feels really good OP
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 22:17
|
|
|
FreudianSlippers posted:In Norway in the 19th to early 20th century an important, but maligned by religious authorities, part of rural courtship was the guy climbing into his beloveds window for some hanky panky a few times before they officially proposed. There was a fine for premarital sex in Denmark (and Norway) until 1813, and if you couldn't pay the fine, you'd go to jail. For extramarital sex, the punishment could include death. Not that it stopped people, but it definitely was frowned upon
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 22:27
|
|
|
Carthag Tuek posted:There was a fine for premarital sex in Denmark (and Norway) until 1813, and if you couldn't pay the fine, you'd go to jail. For extramarital sex, the punishment could include death. Meanwhile, before divorce was liberalized, middle-class Swedish women would often "move to Copenhagen" to meet the definition of spousal abandonment.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 22:33
|
|
|
Owling Howl posted:The church has to find some way to be relevant. Appropriating the social events people hold at birth, marriage and death is just useful. I think it's more just that the church as one of the most common authorities in their regular lives that so many holidays and such center around, would probably be a reliable authority to go to if there's too many people in town to notify about your marriage. It's also the place that owns the whole big room full of seats for if you want to have a party where everyone can watch you getting married if you want to disregard the pervasive presence of religion in medieval life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
mandatory lesbian posted:Im not sure i see whats supernatural about marriage, but then again, i dont really see anything as supernatural i mean, there's something "magical" (or whatever word of your choice) in theory about bonding yourself to another person and starting a family, probably bringing new people into the world, right? If birth flirts with the supernatural, so does marriage.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2021 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 02:30 |
|
|
Civil marriage did come before religious marriage, at least in Scandinavia. The betrothal ceremony was originally considered to be the legally binding part, and having sex after betrothal but before religious marriage was generally okay, and any kids were considered legitimate. The change is status was gradual over centuries. The maximum duration of betrothal before the religious marriage was limited to two months in Denmark 1783 cause people were super slow about it. There's a Faroese one in my family that's 13 months. Carthag Tuek fucked around with this message at 01:19 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 01:15
|
|