/lit/ - Literature

He was a straight man who really loved Catholic Art. 'Nuff said.

>>21582059
>Yeah, masturbating to and fantasizing about men totally ISN'T gay. No, it's because he had a fetish for things specifically related to MEN.
You say tomato, I say that's pretty gay

>>20862659
Semi unrelated but I like sadist Mishima. I like it when he talks about wanting to torture and rape dudes. What books of his should I read? I already read Confessions of a Mask, The Patriot and Forbidden Colors (which I didn't like).

Is there any book that has ever actually attempted to rationally and philosophically explain why homosexuality or even all non-procreative sex especially outside of marriage is bad? Please, no books that just says shit like "da byebowl sez so" that's just fucking retarded, I want an actual argument.
The Stanford article on homosexuality seemed to imply that there is no real argument against homosexuality:
> There are, however, several objections that are made against this account of marriage as a central human good. One is that by placing procreation as the ‘natural fulfillment’ of marriage, sterile marriages are thereby denigrated. Sex in an opposite-sex marriage where the partners know that one or both of them are sterile is not done for procreation. Yet surely it is not wrong. Why, then, is homosexual sex in the same context (a long-term companionate union) wrong (Macedo, 1995)? The natural law rejoinder is that while vaginal intercourse is a potentially procreative sex act, considered in itself (though admitting the possibility that it may be impossible for a particular couple), oral and anal sex acts are never potentially procreative, whether heterosexual or homosexual (George, 1999a). But is this biological distinction also morally relevant, and in the manner that natural law theorists assume? Natural law theorists, in their discussions of these issues, seem to waver. On the one hand, they want to defend an ideal of marriage as a loving union wherein two persons are committed to their mutual flourishing, and where sex is a complement to that ideal. Yet that opens the possibility of permissible gay sex, or heterosexual sodomy, both of which they want to oppose. So they then defend an account of sexuality which seems crudely reductive, emphasizing procreation to the point where literally a male orgasm anywhere except in the vagina of one’s loving spouse is impermissible. Then, when accused of being reductive, they move back to the broader ideal of marriage.
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

>>20162657
how is this amorous? if you find this amorous youre a fag desu not the painters problem

>>20021387
exhibit A

No thread about homoerotic art can afford to fail mentioning Il Sodoma.

Hardmode: no Mishima.

>>17884710
For me, it's picrel.
I also coomed to St Bartholomew and some dude who got roasted alive. I can't remember what his name was anymore even.

Reminder that Satanists are straight up evil, and most evil in the world results from their influence on the world.

It's very concerning that their ideology is spreading.

give me the /lit/ starting kit

Write your suicide note /lit/.

>"A remarkably handsome youth was bound naked to the trunk of a tree. His crossed hands were raised high, and the thongs binding his wrists were tied to the tree…His white and matchless nudity gleams against a background of dusk…It is not pain that hovers about his straining chest, his tense abdomen, his slightly contorted hips, but some flicker of melancholy pleasure like music…The arrows have eaten into the tense, fragrant, youthful flesh and are about to consume his body from within with flames of supreme agony and ecstasy…That day, the instant I looked at the picture, my entire being trembled with some pagan joy…My blood soared up; my loins swelled as though in wrath. The monstrous part of me that was on the point of bursting awaited my use of it with unprecedented ardour, upbraiding me for my ignorance, panting indignantly. My hands, completely unconsciously, began a motion they had never been taught. I felt a secret, radiant something rise swift-footed to the attack from inside me. Suddenly it burst forth, bringing with it a blinding intoxication…Some time passed…I looked around the desk. There were cloudy-white splashes about – on the gold-imprinted title of a textbook, on a shoulder of the ink bottle, on one corner of the dictionary…Fortunately, a reflex motion of my hand to protect the picture had saved the book from being soiled"

What the fuck did he mean by this?