I somehow imagine (don’t know how much substance my imagination has here) that you’d be more knowledgeable about this than I am. And I currently am not.

Have you heard anything about sexual confusion (i.e., men wanting to be women and women wanting to be men) back in the Greco-Roman days?

I don’t know. Maybe dressing up in the other sex’s attire didn’t matter all that much on account of everybody wearing togas. :joke: No, they did dress differently, come to think of it. Still, I’ve never heard of transvestites back then … which I would think would be a lot more accepted by these two ancient cultures.

At any rate, the history I’ve read holds both the ancient Greeks and Romans as unconfused about their, quite often bi/homosexual, sexuality. Which leads me to tentatively speculate that the “confusion” is largely cultural byproduct of today world rather than a natural aspect of our human biology (which I take homosexuality to be … as well as the far rarer instances of intersexed individuals).

... Which is odd to me considering all the suffering that people confused about their gender have to endure in today’s world. Although this later part is probably a different topic.

the history I’ve read holds both the ancient Greeks and Romans as unconfused about their, quite often bi/homosexual, sexuality. — javra

The ancients didn't have a concept for "homosexuality". Their ideas about proper male and female behavior were fairly straight forward. People behaved in various sexual ways without that being an "identity". We can safely assume that some people were homosexual or bisexual, but Greeks and Romans didn't think about "sexual orientation". People just did what they did.

That doesn't mean that the Romans were just fine with whatever somebody happened to do. There were social mores, rules of etiquette, and laws. Adultery, for instance, could get one in a lot of trouble, and the punishment was pretty unpleasant (sometimes involving "the radish" a small ball with hooks attached which was inserted into the anus. Removing it would tear the flesh.)

It's difficult sometimes for us to understand the ancients. For instance, in a bath house in Pompeii there is a depiction of one male goat screwing another male goat. What did that mean to the Romans? It wasn't an advert for homosexual behavior. It was either a joke or it was something else.

The Greeks particularly worshipped Priapus, a fertility God, whose symbol was an erect penis. These Priapic statues were very common inside and outside buildings. In one invasion, the soldiers snapped off all the stone erections they found -- a clear enough message. We won; you lost. We modern people who haven't worshipped fertility gods are not likely to get what the little dildo-ike sculptures meant to the ancient people.

"Homosexuality" was identified as a trait in the latter half of 19th century. Prior to that, people certainly engaged in what would later be called homosexual behavior, but that's not what they called it.

We tell children all the time that "You can be anything you want to be." and of course we have all sorts of ambiguity about sexuality, so it's hardly surprising that people started thinking that they could just switch genders. (Of course the facts are that 99% of people are not going to be anything they want to be. In any generation of 20 years, 5 people max are going to be president. The number of professional athletes that make it big is very, very small. Most little girls learning ballet are never going to be asked to dance for money. Most child-violinists are never going to get to Carnegie Hall, except as paying customers. So basically, forget about it.

The ancients didn't have a concept for "homosexuality". [...] It's difficult sometimes for us to understand the ancients. — Bitter Crank

OK, yea. You’re right. For what it’s worth though, I have a vague memory from some documentary of a Cesar who was ridiculed for being sexually attracted only to women. They might not have had a term for it, but they did have the suspicion that the guy was strangely heterosexual. :rofl:

Let us assume that all transexualism is a delusional state, the question would then be whether there is greater harm in allowing these folks to live out their delusions or in forcing them to accept that they are broken. It seems that neither body modifications (from hormones to genital changing) nor mind modifications (therapy and drugs) makes these folks into Ward and June Cleaver. So, what to do? Do we just continuously remind them that they live in a false reality, and that Bob is no more Jane than I am one of the last of the Condors?

I think there is a good argument that sexual modifications in all their varied forms do not make people happier and that it leads to all sorts of other physical problems and emotional problems, both from the effects of the surgery and the hormones and from the ostracism that occurs from the process. If it can be shown that as a medical procedure it creates more harm than good, then I'd be motivated to limit it. Otherwise, I tend to think that people can wear whatever clown suit they want, including the one I wear.

Jung went over this, it is a mistake, but it isn't a delusional or pathological mistake necessarily, as the anima is in fact part of the unconscious. The problem is loving yourself more than others, regardless of whether you think you're conventional as can be (which would be impossible, because that is what is completely made up), or think you're a garden hose, or Napoleon. So don't sigh easy my friend.

I don't follow your post.

Clearly not, but everyone is dying to pretend to. The two sides will be separated conscious, and present in the world. Leaning on and bound to one and other for comfort more than others because people just won't see you like you know they ought to! Well, you're an abomination. Don't worry, not necessarily incurably, and there are of course degrees.

Let us assume that all transexualism is a delusional state, the question would then be whether there is greater harm in allowing these folks to live out their delusions or in forcing them to accept that they are broken. — Hanover

I am quite content to let transexuals live out their delusions. I too live out some delusions; maybe you do too. Society itself may be something of a delusion, and it is at least worthwhile maintaining it in good condition.

Quite seriously, even the most hard-headed, fact-minded realists maintain delusions of various kinds. It's a necessity for beings of our kind. There are limits, however, to how far we need to go in accepting other peoples' delusions as facts. I liked Jack when he was Jack, and when he became Joanne she was still pretty much the same likable person. Or maybe Jack was a jerk, and so is Joanne. Either way, I'm not going to take Joanne's estrogen away from her.

I will point out there is a difference between our private lives and being public. Our new technology has seriously disrupted the privacy we once had, and this lead to many questions about our social rules.

Like our roads have rules to protect everyone, societies have rules. I have a strong preference for those rules being based on reason rather than religion, and a very strong preference for privacy. I think those rules are good in advancing trust and reducing fear. I hope we can speak more about this. If I think you are like me, I am not afraid of you. However, when I think you are different from me I have all kinds of fears. What will you do and how should I behave? Today a lot of people are loosing their jobs and some are even incarcerated because we do not have agreement on the rules. You don't have sex unless you are married and then you have sex only that person, makes sexual decisions very simple, and that helps people keep their jobs and stay out of prison.

Our liberty goes with the notion that decent people follow the rules, so we do not need authority over the people to make people do the right thing. And again, I will bring up the importance of privacy. These issues were intense in the conflict between Sparta and Athens and for sure their sexual morals were not compatible with Hebrew morality. :rofl: The Jews became much more concerned about educating their sons, when their sons began behaving like Greeks. :gasp:

How about this- the best thing we can do for humanity is expanding their awareness of others, while at the same time having rules for their sense of security because when people feel safe, they are not afraid and relationships are better. Rules can change but perhaps changing the reasoning before forcing a change is a good idea?

I absolutely loved that! I remember having to wear short skirts and how painfully cold my legs got in winter. I complained to my mother and she sent me to school in pants and the school told her not to send me to school in pants again. I couldn't even wear long skirts because at that time, only older girls could wear long skirts. When I was old enough to wear long skirts, the style was wearing very short skirts. I rebelled and have a closet full of long skirts. By God, no was going to take the privilege of dressing like a woman from me. :lol:

Wearing those short skirts made no sense at all because it was just awful if a boy saw our underwear. Have you ever played on the play equipment at an elementary school in a short skirt? My wonderful mother resolved that problem by making me bloomers to wear under my skirts. The dress we have forced on women over the years was truly handicapping! And while I am uncomfortable with a male dressing like a woman, I am perfectly comfortable dressing like a man. Gardening in a dress is most unpleasant.

I have a delightful book arguing God prefers women have long hair. Seriously this is said in the Bible! Women who want to please God should not cut their hair.

Another of my old books is about us having the freedom to be women. I have a problem with not protecting women and children, but leaving them as unprotected as barbarians and forcing women to be as men. I think women's lib destroys our freedom to be women, and that this has a lot to do with the large number of females who think they are homosexual and are strongly against us doing the body care things women have done for a long time. We have become free to be as men, but not different and equal. That goes with it being okay for a woman to wear pants but men shouldn't wear skirts.

We have been through a long run of men's clothing being absolutely boring. How about these fashions?
https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS481US483&biw=1024&bih=710&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=GJkSXNi6Ioa-0PEP3a2WgAQ&q=men%27s+fashion+riegn+or+louis+&oq=men%27s+fashion+riegn+or+louis+&gs_l=img.12...111894.146972..151593...2.0..0.120.3320.15j18......1....1..gws-wiz-img.......0j0i67j0i30j0i10.ZNQFq16QJVA

Our sexuality and social rules is one of the most interesting things we can about.

I love your post! :love:

You said "The Greeks particularly worshipped Priapus, a fertility God, whose symbol was an erect penis. These Priapic statues were very common inside and outside buildings. In one invasion, the soldiers snapped off all the stone erections they found -- a clear enough message. We won; you lost. We modern people who haven't worshipped fertility gods are not likely to get what the little dildo-ike sculptures meant to the ancient people."

I think we should look to the east to improve our understanding of the ancients. In the East we have a better record of the importance of yin and yang. I think we will find, wherever a society was militarized the importance of males and maleness is exaggerated and nothing symbolizes this better than a large penis. For a woman, the equivalent would be large breast. Rape also goes with war. Domination being all important. While the woman is the passive cow and object of male domination and the male is the bull, representing strength and power, an object of worship in many ancient civilizations.

According to a book I have about the history of Chinese sexuality, there was a period when the ruler increased his yang by watching people being tortured. There was also a tribe that practiced extremely rare socially accept incent. Because hunting rhinos is so dangerous, men prepared for this by having sex with their daughters. We have held the notion that males should not decrease their aggressive energy by having sex before a game. Whatever, there is a connection between sexual behaviors and a social need for highly aggressive males.

The Spartan social organization that made male and military relationships more important than heterosexual and family relationships is an interesting contrast to Athens and our own society. The male and male relationships would not do well in Rome where the father was all important! Rome was a better ground for the Christian notion of a Father in Heaven than other places. I don't think the Hebrew God is a father and the Hebrews surely would not have worshiped a holy mother. The Catholics raising the female to an important spiritual/God position is interesting.

And there has to be life after death, because surely I am not a 72 old women, and what is seen as an old woman is only a delusion. The reality is I am a young, attractive and physically fit woman, who wants to be a physically attractive and fit male in my next incarnation. There is absolutely no way I will have the benefits of being a male with my present body.

Yeah, lots of stuff is horrible, would you prefer something better to be the case? Oh, then it must! The objection implies that it is natural to conclude things based on preferences...

The Catholics raising the female to an important spiritual/God position is interesting. — Athena

The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church wisely co opted popular female deities like Isis and Magna Mater into Christianity through Mary, who was given titles similar to theirs (e.g. Isis, like Mary, was worshipped as "Queen of Heaven"), just as it co opted various minor pagan deities who became saints of the Church, just as it co opted the form and structure of the late Roman Imperial state into its organization. While the Roman family was subservient to the pater familias, the women of ancient Rome had significantly greater freedom and status in society than did those of ancient Greece.

But the Romans had their own prejudices even regarding sex. For example, as to (male) homosexuality the "passive" participant was regarded with a certain contempt. For example, Julius Caesar was described by those who disliked him as "every woman's man and every man's woman."

According to a book I have been reading, Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages, the Roman system of Pater Families began to be deconstructed by the Roman Emperors themselves. Step by step, marriage was redefined toward egalitarian arrangements where both partners had rights and protections, and where the man most definitely did not own the woman. But prior to these changes, the woman was officially under the control of either father or husband. Unofficially, of course, things were somewhat different. For one thing, many men ardently and faithfully loved their wives and children. Most Roman marriages were solid. (The rich and the royals... ugh, not so much.)

By the time Christianity was in a position to define marriage through the state, pagan change in the marriage had already accomplished a lot towards the kind of marriage we would inherit.

Big dicks have surprisingly not always been in fashion. The up-market classical Greeks who ordered and paid for great sculpture thought big penises belonged on donkeys and horses; a small penis was more appropriate for a marble statue. (Of course no man has control over whether he has a big, medium, small, or tragically tiny dick.) And, for a bit of insider information for you, not all men who have very large penises are happy with them. They are aware that other guys (Freud missed the boat on this one -- it is males who have penis envy, not females) stare at their crotch if their large organ is visible, and keeping it out of sight means tucking it uncomfortably out of sight. Further, in gay sex, at least, the owner of a big organ sometimes finds that their partner is more interested in their dick than their whole person. Now from the perspective of the partner, a very big dick can be just too big to deal with.

There is a inchoate relationship between sex and violence. They just happen to arise together from the kind of all-out arousal caused by battle, and is more frequent with the existence of honor systems and property values. Raping a woman renders her worthless to others who subscribe to intense honor systems. If the woman is also property, so much the better to destroy the property's value.

I'm pretty sure you are aware that the German barbarians were responsible for giving men trousers in place of togas. That worked out well. Then the Jews gave us 501 button fly blue denim Levis and Dupont gave us zippers. Life has been better ever since. High heels were also a male innovation; the high heel helped the foot maintain it's best position in a stirrup (an innovation of pre-historic Asian Steppe people). Men quickly realized that high heels complimented their calves (or is it calfs?). It seems to me it was in the 20th century that the high heel became common for women.

I'm not much a clothes horse; I like denim trousers, red or light gray sweat shirts, brightly colored button up shirts, open collar/no tie, and not-too-flashy running shoes, nice leather boots, or oxfords. I occasionally wear a suit, but prefer not. Traditional plaids and tweeds are my preferred patterns. 100% cotton broadcloth or flannel. Linen and seersucker are good in the summer. Lambswool sweaters for the fall and winter. A leather vest or jacket is good.

In my youth I was known to mix plaid, florals, stripes, and solids. Fortunately I got over that phase fairly soon.

So tells us about the meaning that is going on here in this little Christian pagan party.

Wow, what an interesting discussion. Way to go Mr. Crank.

My best guess is that we'll never come to a conclusion regarding sexual expression and that the pendulum will continually swing back and forth, bringing periods that are more or less liberal in a predictable cycle. Whatever phase we might be in at a moment in time somebody will always be complaining and trying to take us towards another phase.

One thing the opening post suggests is that sex with software will increasingly be the issue as porn technology matures. Software, with various mechanical attachments, will eventually be able to meet our romantic and sexual needs better than any human, and this whole concern about what humans are doing with other humans is likely to naturally pass from the scene over time.

I'm offering no opinion regarding whether this is good or bad, because having an opinion seems somewhat pointless in regards to developments that appear to be inevitable. The porn industry is already huge (The porn industry makes more money than Major League Baseball, The NFL and The NBA combined.) and will only grow larger as the technical quality of the fantasy is improved.

As example, imagine a porn model photo. Now make the photo in to a video. Now project the video in to 3D space, like a hologram. Now make the 3D model photo realistic. Now make the model fully interactive.

Once we can have literally anything we want, what will sustain our interest in fellow humans, a highly imperfect realm built upon endless negotiation and compromise?

My prediction is that such developments will in time render the issue of human to human porn a thing of the past.

For sure. Christianity is blended of paganism. It was put together with Roman Law of Nature. That isn't a study of nature, but a legal tool taking what is common between separate city/states to make legal decisions involving the persons from different city/states. It was their way of knowing truth. The reasoning was if most people believed something was true, it is true. Putting all the truths together in one religion was just pragmatic. But now we are getting off topic, so maybe we should a different thread for this?

Regarding freedom of speech Thomas Paine did not get the honor he deserves because he was a deist and Christians considered this as bad as being atheist, so he was not honored with statues as others were. What Christians have done to those who do not share their faith is terrible. The biggest challenge to John Kennedy when he became president was to overcome Protestant prejudice against Catholics, and we are still dealing with prejudice against Jews. Should not we address this in a discussion of freedom of speech?

The fact that they used different categories to name and regulate their sexual practices doesn't mean that sexual practices weren't problematised. — Πετροκότσυφας

Yes, that in itself means little. However, difficult though it is for us to understand what life was like before the imposition of Christianity in the Empire, it's at least probable that attitudes towards sex and sexual practices weren't then inspired by the belief that most sex was sinful, repulsive in fact to a remarkably prudish God. There were pagan thinkers who recommended and even preached abstinence (Pythagoras thought people were best advised to have sex in winter) and some of the pre-Christian Gnostics had peculiar views about sex, but I know of nothing which matched Christianity's association of fear and shame with sex prevalent among the pagans of the ancient Mediterranean (with the possible exception of the Jews).

That was fun reading but a little of topic. :rofl: How about a thread "does the clothing make the man?"
I am sure with all of us we could come up with interesting things to say. Like for sure dude, those Romans in their metal and leather uniforms are sexy. :love:

Love and war and sex appeal.

And for penis envy- yeah I think Freud got it wrong, however, I do think having a penis would make peeing easier. I think of the breast envy women can have. It makes sense to be proud of a large penis, or breast, as that signals I am a better man or woman. I am sure this reasoning is good in the animal world and although we may not reason things this way, some things are below our reasoning. Oh, oh I think once upon a time, there was male womb envy, when the goddess was the most important and perhaps only god. Wow is this on topic or off topic?

I am quite sure male domination was the result of having to defend permanent territory. A result of farming. We may have been more like bonobo than chimpanzees. Female domination is possible and leads to different social behavior. :lol: The big concern about colored people taking over is overlooking what female domination could do to us and maybe that is the greater threat to the status quo.

PS when men watch football their testosterone level rises and they become more aggressive.

Don't forget Islam. Jews were opposed to Greek nudity and their females had to be virgins to assure the child would be the man's child because only the man's child had inheritance rights. Christianity and Islam carry on Jewish notions. All are intensely opposed to homosexuality and all want women to be virgins and under the control of men.

One of the 'mysteries of the orgasm' is how Tumblr made money. I viewed only a tiny fraction of their content; they have... more than 5 million accounts. Less than 500,000 are porn. But very few of the sites I viewed carried advertising of any kind, and most account holders had not purchased a theme from Tumblr. So, how are they making money?

It's obvious when one watches YouTube how they generate money: they run first class video ads for auto companies, for instance. I never saw anything remotely like that on non-adult Tumblr sites (like NPR, for example).

(The porn industry makes more money than Major League Baseball, The NFL and The NBA combined. — Jake

The arts establishments in quite a few cities can claim the same thing. Like, "All of the arts organizations in X city bring in more income than the major league sport franchises located here." Best-seats-in-the-house tickets for high-brow concerts in Minneapolis or St. Paul, generally run around $60 to $80 and those seats are usually all occupied. Small theater productions might be $40. Given a lot of venues running year round, it's not hard to imagine that they beat out major league teams which play seasonally, and then in any given city not very often.

The porn industry (which is overwhelmingly straight) in the US doesn't just supply Americans with their visual needs: It supplies the world. And most of their production is located in southern California. It's Gods own work, because orgasms are proof the God loves us and wants us to be happy. So...

I think social agreements are very important. Are you saying they are not?

That was fun reading but a little of topic. — Athena

Maybe I was over-sharing a bit there (blushes slightly). Vestis facit hominem they said in old Latium, Clothes make the man. Whether it's fine Italian suits and shoes, handbags by Gucci, gowns by Dior, or denim, sweatshirts, and boots, our chosen costumes both reflect and amplify who we think we are.

PS when men watch football their testosterone level rises and they become more aggressive. — Athena

So what happens to women's hormone levels when they watch football? (There are class and occupational differences in men who prefer baseball to football. If I remember correctly, it's a somewhat inverse relationship: men with the most physically demanding jobs tend to prefer baseball while men with the more cerebral jobs tend to prefer football.

The big concern about colored people taking over is overlooking what female domination could do to us — Athena

As a White Anglo Saxon Protestant male I have to hope that both of those possibilities are nothing more than wild rumors. Better add a humor emoji. :naughty: :rofl:

I do think having a penis would make peeing easier. — Athena

Yet another way in which God favored males.

I will point out there is a difference between our private lives and being public. Our new technology has seriously disrupted the privacy we once had, and this lead to many questions about our social rules.

Like our roads have rules to protect everyone, societies have rules. I have a strong preference for those rules being based on reason rather than religion, and a very strong preference for privacy. I think those rules are good in advancing trust and reducing fear. I hope we can speak more about this. If I think you are like me, I am not afraid of you. However, when I think you are different from me I have all kinds of fears. What will you do and how should I behave? Today a lot of people are loosing their jobs and some are even incarcerated because we do not have agreement on the rules. You don't have sex unless you are married and then you have sex only that person, makes sexual decisions very simple, and that helps people keep their jobs and stay out of prison.

Our liberty goes with the notion that decent people follow the rules, so we do not need authority over the people to make people do the right thing. And again, I will bring up the importance of privacy. These issues were intense in the conflict between Sparta and Athens and for sure their sexual morals were not compatible with Hebrew morality. :rofl: The Jews became much more concerned about educating their sons, when their sons began behaving like Greeks. :gasp:

How about this- the best thing we can do for humanity is expanding their awareness of others, while at the same time having rules for their sense of security because when people feel safe, they are not afraid and relationships are better. Rules can change but perhaps changing the reasoning before forcing a change is a good idea? — Athena

That pretty much all sounds very different from how I think, what I prefer, how I think people should behave, etc.

Just what good the Abrahamic religions have generated, themselves, would be an interesting study.

Regarding clothes making the man, here's a piece from the late Roman empire showing a German wearing trousers, the romans wearing something more like a kilt. The Barbarians and the Romans were pretty much equally good warriors--the Germans were good at fighting both on horseback and on foot. For horseback righting they had the advantage of stirrups and saddles. Plus trousers. The depiction below is a fragment that shows the German in defeat, but they were as often as not the victors.



Whether the trousers were made out of cloth or leather, the artwork didn't say. Like, there was no Latin script on the work indicating the fabric content in the mind of the artist, like 100% raw linen, or deer skin, or wool, or whatever. Damned inconsiderate, if you ask me.

Would you be disappointed if I didn't recognize you?

As a White Anglo Saxon Protestant male I have to hope that both of those possibilities are nothing more than wild rumors. Better add a humor emoji. :naughty: :rofl: — Bitter Crank

God bless you for that good laugh. :lol: :rofl: I really needed it. Doctors are giving me information that I do not like and if it weren't for family, good friends and humor, I could choose to leave the playing field. I will take that up in another thread asking folks why they are here because I am asking myself why I am here.

Women's hormones are known for their reaction to a baby crying. I love the subject of hormones and human behavior but maybe that would be going off topic here?

Here is a goal I think worthy. We all learn more about how our brains work and about how hormones effect us and what effects the production of hormones. Our freedom of speech without better information could be folly. :wink:

I would love a thread about fashion and what it says about us and our culture. I am planning on going to an annual Christmas dinner at the Hilton and I always wear a semiformal. It is very disappointing when many people show up in jeans and teeshirts. Stay at McDonald's if you want to dress like that. When I complain I am told this Eugene and in Eugene formal means jeans without holes in them, and not even matters too much. Sorry, Jeans are great on the farm or in the mill, but there is a time and place for dressing up. Do a thread about fashion and culture and PM me.