Re: Silver Nemesis reborn, only with cappier music

On Jan 19, 1:58 am, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"L. Ross Raszewski" <lraszew...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in messagenews:slrnfp2fhd.uef.lraszewski@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 18:28:51 -0500, VtSkier <VtSk...@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Agamemnon wrote:
"Martin Edwards" <big_mart...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:c44kj.220471$S37.104062@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stephen Wilson wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e44bf847-31e8-4f8c-acce-c892c20c7fe9@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That could explain Aggy's weird conviction - he's got the bizarre
notion that the meanings of words never change, they are just
'corrupted' into new words in later languages that mean exactly the
same thing. He has yet to explain such observations as the fact that
"science" and "psychic" mean two entirely different things despite
being derived from the same root.
He's got plenty of bizarre notions. One is that if a new word is
coined
for something that's always happened but just didn't have a word to
describe it before, the thing this new word is used to describe never
really happened before, and is basically an invention.

Example - "homosexual". There have always been homosexual animals, as
well as humans. But Aggy refuses to accept this.

He might also react badly to the revelation that the Spartans were
nearly
all homosexual, and those who stayed out of the boys' quarters were
considered odd.

BULL***! There were no such thing as "homosexual" in ancient Greeks or
any
other society before the British invented it in the 1800's.

Uhm, yeah, ok, if you say so.

Like all good bull***, Aggie has taken a half-understood truth and
twisted and distorted it until its meaning is totally confounded.  One
might say that the ancient greeks didn't have homosexuality, but only
if one says that they didn't have *heterosexuality* either.  The
classical greek views on sex just didn't work in terms like that.

It would have been very odd for a man not to take a wife, and, as his
situation allowed, father children by her. But this had very little to
do with sexual desire or love.  The rest of his time, he'd stick his
*** wherever it pleased him, male or female. He'd be more or less
likely to choose one gender over the other for his pleasure-related
sex as according to his personal tastes, but I don't think the greeks
would have viewed this as a major part of his identity the way we
moderns do.

To think it was worth identifying and describing people according to
which gender they tended to prefer for sex would have seemed as odd to
them as it would for us to group people according to whether they
prefer chicken or beef.

It's just the way that aggie presents this social difference that
makes  it crazy; his implication is that 'homosexual activity is just
a form of masturbation', which he means as disparaging, but what
really becomes disturbing is the implications of it.  He's
essentially saying that sex-for-pleasure doesn't count, and that
"proper" sex is essentially a business transaciton about making
babies.  "Proper" sex is when a man activates his baby-machine
(ie. wife) . He takes no pleasure in this, and neither does she,
beyond the abstract pleasure of a job well-done. If he wants love,
companionship, and sexual fulfilment, he shoves his *** in whatever
floats his boat, typically another man's ass. This is base and low and
terrible, in aggie's view.

WRONG! The plays of Aristophanes prove that the overwhelming majority of
Athenians were straight and idiogenogamotics were ridiculed as either being
effeminate or only doing kologamosis in return for political or financial
favours. If this was not so then Aristophanes would not have mocked the
politicians in the front seats as boy fuckers (kologamosis with young boys
will illegal in ancient Athens and those engaging in it were banned from
holding elected office) or made numerous bum gags, or brought naked girls on
stage for an all male audience to represent peace or written plays featuring
female prostitutes. Hellenistic romantic fiction such as the Aethiopica also
disproves your claims that women were only regarded as baby making machines.
Menanders Dyskolos also disproves your claims as does book 3 of Apollonius
Argonougtica and Euripides Hellen. Kolofilia was nothing more than
masturbation. Just ask yourself why it was only with a man and adolescent
boy. Because it was easier for the giver to think the receiver was a young
girl than if it was with a man the same age. He might as well have fucked a
sheep or a goat. So to get back on topic, it makes you wonder why RTD made
Captain Jack an omnisexual, read complete wanker.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hooray "Kolofilia was nothing more than masturbation."

Another classic tag-line from radw's own pseudo scholar

Regards

Ged
.

Loading