/lit/ - Literature

>>18473073
I am a retard and I am ugly as fuck

I feel like Wilde wrote this as a sort of justification for molesting twinks. It’s okay to force myself on this beautiful young boy, beautiful boys are barely sentient anyway!

>>18473073
faggots are what you get when a culture becomes obsessed with sex
faggots reproduce via assimilation, they molest children in order to scar them for life and cause them to grow up with a disordered sense of what love is
love =/= sex

>>18473432
This is true but non faggots who obsess over faggots being faggots are still faggots too.

>>18473432
You do realize how many of the greatest writers, philosophers and artists were sodomites? The Illiad, the foundational text of western literature, is centered around Achilles, his love for Patroclus and the rage and grief he feels because of his death. His last wish is that his ash be mixed with that of Patroclus so that they can spend all of etrnity together.
And before you say that they were just good buddies keep in mind Plato, Pindar and Aeschylus agreed they were lovers. If they are just friend the Illiad just doesnt make sense, they have to love each other more than life itself.

>>18473475
I’d be pissed if someone killed my mom, doesn’t mean I want to fuck her up the ass.

I think you are missunderstanding the quote /lit/:

there is no good gay literature ebcause all you CAN get is the POV of the disgusting rugged faced, dark hair old intellectual, never the actual Adonis.

Its like we are only getting the report form a whale blubber salesman back in Nantuckett and not from one who was on the Pequod.

Sodomites or not, the emphasis is on the Adonis being in the quote.

>>18473491
Your mother is your closest blood relative, she brought you into this world and raised you. You will never feel as close to or love a friend as much as you love your mom. Your sweetheart is a different story.
If you have an above 5th grade reading level it should be clear that Achilles and Patroclus were lovers, especially since they were perceived as so in classical Greece.
And I gave you examples from the text that clearly indicate this.

>>18473534
I’m sorry what clear examples from the text are you talking about?

>>18473073
Based quote. Sometimes I forget how good a prose Wilde has.

>>18473506
>Its like we are only getting the report form a whale blubber salesman back in Nantuckett and not from one who was on the Pequod
Worse yet, we're getting it from a clerk

>>18473475
>If they are just friend the Illiad just doesnt make sense, they have to love each other more than life itself.
Here we go again. Look you
son-of-a-bitch, you better post an excerpt of the original in greek and settle this discussion for good.
Did they in the text use ANYTIME the word EROS to refer to their love for each other????

Fucking revisionist fags, man!

>>18473552
It is indisputable that Achilles and Patroclus are especially close to one another. Achilles even wishes that all of the other soldiers, both Greek and Trojan, would perish so he and Patroclus could conquer Troy by themselves (Book 16).
After Patroclus is killed by Hector, Achilles reacts with intense sorrow and anger, going as far to say that he has lost his will to live until he is able to avenge Patroclus’ life. Here are some of his words: “My dear comrade’s dead - Patroclus - the man I loved beyond all other comrades, loved as my own life - I’ve lost him.” Book 18.
Patroclus returns as a ghost and has one final conversation with Achilles: “A last request - grant it, please. Never bury my bones apart from yours, Achilles, let them lie together…So now let a single urn, the gold two-handed urn your noble mother gave you, hold our bones - together.” Book 23.

>>18473608
Were Plato, the father of western philosophy, and Aeschylus, the father of greek tragedy, revisionist fags too?

>>18473608
im not part of your discussion, but I find etymologcial meaning searching fags to almost be worse than revisionist fags.

At least they find the true essence in it, and not whatever it is that you wish these texts to bear.

At the end of the day you can see them as just unusually close and loving friends if you wish, but you cant negate this interpretation (which dates back to classical Greece) as invalid or incorrect.

>>18473073
Do you even read fag lit, faggot? Only allowed one pic but I could post others: City of Night, fucking Call Me By Your Name...

>>18473652
>Gore Vidal
please delete your file while you still can.

>>18473658
Why aren't you writing your twink masterpiece again? I mean, assuming your catty little 4chan queer persona isn't as fulfilling as it appears to us all... But, hey, your greatest work of art is your life, right ;)

>>18473073
I don’t know how you got ‘there’s no good /gay-lit/‘ from that quote. There is a great number of gay literary masterpieces (The Symposium and Phaedrus, Shakespeare’s Sonnets, Wilde), but it tends to be written by the older and uglier gays, the erastai, as opposed to the young, passive, beautiful eromenoi.

>>18473678
ok seriously delete that picture.
fucking disgusting

>>18473681
In Search of Lost Time is another excellent example, anon.

>>18473475
God, I really want my wife to mix her ashes with her boyfriends' ashes when we die. Just flush mine down the toilet. The ultimate cuck.

>>18473686
Your post is really popular with yourself. Snap snap :*

>>18473628
>comrade
So there we go

>18473698
>admits to phone posting
>uses smileys unironically
and somehow I am supposed to know who you are?

>>18473678
Prlly because he's the old toad-like perv, and hates seeing himself in that git Wilde. Or schizo. Both on second thought.

>>18473636
>Were Plato, the father of western philosophy, and Aeschylus, the father of greek tragedy, revisionist fags too?
I haven't read the Banquet yet. I suppose is there where you're drawing this claim.
What does EXATCLY they say?

>im not part of your discussion, but I find etymologcial meaning searching fags to almost be worse than revisionist fags.
The greeks had THREE words for love. Don't you find curious that not even once do they use EROS to refer to their claimed "sexual" relationship?

Is the love of Jesus also a sexual one, for instance?
When the tradition call its adepts "Brides of Christ" does it mean they will eventually be banged by the Messiah?

>At the end of the day you can see them as just unusually close and loving friends if you wish, but you cant negate this interpretation (which dates back to classical Greece) as invalid or incorrect.
So this is just like "Batman and Robin"?
There might be something between them, huh? Since this interpretation dates back so many decades. Lol

Is like two men just CAN'T have a really close friendship or they will automatically be put under suspection.
I know I'm gonna get shit because of this but a good chunk of Bronze Age Mindset talks preciselly about this kind of stuff.
Is like simply CAN NOT exist a deep sense of camaraderie between two males: "They GOT to be gays. Since my porn-rotten mind just can't conceive this kind of sound soul relationship."
Utter bullshit.
Get lost!

>>18473795
Two arab fags, I suppose huh??

>>18473795
Yes, The Symposium 178a - 180b. No, Homer never actually casts them explicitly as lovers, and I never claimed he did, but you can read between the lines, and to interpret their relationship as more than just a friendship would not be incorrect, literary criticism is not an exact science.
Also you keep mentioning the term eros, but the ancient greek equivalent for the statement I love you is
σὲ φιλῶ (se philo) or σὲ ἀγαπῶ (se agapo). So declarations of love would not have included the word eros.

>>18473795
And plz don't compare Plato's and Aeschylus' views on The Illiad with fan theories on some stupid comic book. Stop trying to mold every historical age into looking like your "trad" Christian fantasies. Even during the middle ages sexual immorality was widespread. There never existed any period in history when people were as pious as you'd like them to be, in this sense a truly Christian society has never existed (outside of puritan settlements maybe). Building beautiful cathedrals doesn't equate to people being more chaste.

>>18473918
>No, Homer never actually casts them explicitly as lovers
And why not?
Christian puritanism?
Weren't the greeks, since time immemorial, famous "degenerates"?
Why would they have this kind of pudor?
Literary subtlety?
The pleasure of mounting a words jigsaw
for you 2 thousand years after find out?

Also, why are Achilles and his COUSIN never depicted with a "fallus erectus" in their artistic representations?

Sadly (for you) they're always flaccid :(
Did our heroes fail to get a hard-on?
Blue pill to them, bro!
This way then maybe they would act your faggot fantasies.
But maybe the greeks were too much of a repressed culture in order to depict this kind of stuff explicitly, right? OR NOT?

>Also you keep mentioning the term eros, but the ancient greek equivalent for the statement I love you is
σὲ φιλῶ (se philo) or σὲ ἀγαπῶ (se agapo). So declarations of love would not have included the word eros.
Which EXACTLY words do they use when they fuck their prize-slaves (here a real SEXUAL relationship btw) to tell us the girls were banged?

>And plz don't compare Plato's and Aeschylus' views on The Illiad with fan theories on some stupid comic book.
The problem is that they, actually, aren't just "fan theories". There's actually whole psychology books dedicated to the subject (read about "Seduction of the Innocent"). It made some buzz at the time. It even generated some internal measures of self-censorship in the industry.
So, since the word of some THIRD PARTY is worth more than that from the author himself. Sure your ancient yaoi theory is totally right, bro.

>Stop trying to mold every historical age into looking like your "trad" Christian fantasies. Even during the middle ages sexual immorality was widespread.
This, actually, just helps my point.
Why then, in a society like theirs, so openly "immoral" the proofs for your claims are so thin?
Look around our faggot world, do we hold our tongues?

Finally, don't you get tired of making the same thread over and over again?
Why don't you go and create you own queer idols instead of trying to claim every single ancient figure and story?

>>18473678
This picture has crossed into uncanny valley. I think it's the head/face.

>>18473412
>Wilde was 39 when he seduced Alphonse Conway, and Conway was an inexperienced boy of 16.
Wilde would've been championed in pedowood and had a best selling movie done on him.

>>18473795
>>18474395
It's actually incredible just how pathetic you sound. Please seek help.

>>18476044
>It's actually incredible just how pathetic you sound. Please seek help
Nice arguments, tranny.

Fujoshis turn into scholastic dogmatists when it comes to literary criticism. “muh plato”

Greek sexuality and the dionyssian phallic cult are the neatest forms of sexuality

>>18473918
>>18474395
σε φιλώ literally means I kiss you and not in a sexual sense morons, σε αγαπώ means I am in live with you (αγάπη) and lastly σε ερωτεύομαι means I am in love with you (ερως)
I'm greek btw
if it makes you niggers stop acting like monkeys post the source text and I will decipher it.

>>18476873
and what is "fuck"?
>hadrian fucked antinous

>>18473795
>When the tradition call its adepts "Brides of Christ" does it mean they will eventually be banged by the Messiah?
yes, why else be Christian?

>>18473412
>beautiful boys are barely sentient anyway!
But that's generally true.

>>18474395
Classic and time-tested literature survives because of deeper meanings, that resonate and call out to higher feelings. A more subtle and nuanced approach, in my limited experience, creates a more beautiful work of art, it gives thoughts and feelings room to breathe and grow. So your "greeks didn't repress" take is a non-argument, and, respectfully, anon above was right when he said you need to learn to read deeper. You are letting your personal biases cloud your critical thought. You can call me a fag and a libtard or globohomo cuck or whatever, but your passive absorption of shallow, identitarian, ameri-christian thought that can breed here will ultimately harm yourself and your faith. Remember Jesus' words after Mark 12:30-31 "there is no commandment greater than these".

>>18479040
>>18473412
?
Lord Henry is clearly the antagonist in the story and Wilde makes that clear and salient. He might not have exploited dorian ‘that’ way but he did in non sensual manners.
it is mocking how dorian only blames basil repeatedly but never henry who made him take that faustian wish in the first place due to what he had said.

>>18473475
Plato doesn't provide very good evidence since he was born hundreds of years after the oral tradition was written down.I don't deny they could have been lovers but I take it to be ambiguous and I find something aesthetically pleasing about that.

>>18473534
oh well I guess I'm fucked then

>>18473073
Poppy Z Brite is decent. Ftm tranny.

>>18482139
tranny=/=gay

>>18480549
>anon above was right when he said you need to learn to read deeper.
That is, you need to read HOMO!

>You are letting your personal biases cloud your critical thought
How ironical.


Right, I'm gonna show you a song
(by Elton John btw):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PhtpVmgXRbw

I bet you think this is a song about a gay couple instead of being about an old bluesman bum with a gangster nickname
and his young pupil since he says pretty clearly "I love you, razorface". Kek

I suppose, once you put on your faggot glasses the whole world turns around it.

Mishima, wilde, Woolf, proust, rimbaud are all gay. thats pretty solid

>>18484080
>insecure and ugly; too intellectual and ugly; woman (and ugly); ugly;
i have not read Rimbaud yet. Maybe i should give him a chance.

>>18474395
Patroclus was not his cousin. Have you only watched the film? Please read the book first and then argue about it.

Wilde looks like a troll

>>18484176
>According to their lineage, Achilles and Patroclus were related to each other through a nymph called Aegina. After being raped by Zeus, Aegina gave birth to Aeacus, whose son, Peleus, was the father of Achilles. The same Aegina also married a mortal man called Actor, whose son was Menoetius, the father of Patroclus. Based on this, Achilles and Patroclus were first-cousins once removed.

>In addition, a more obscure tradition which is attributed to the poet Hesiod (a near contemporary of Homer), suggests that the heroes were direct cousins (F147 Catalogue of Women):
>One should know that ancient history records that Patroclus was also a relative of Achilles, since it states that Hesiod says that Patroclus’ father Menoetius was Peleus’ brother, so that accordingly they were each other’s first cousins.

That is, is easier for them to be cousins than to be lovers since, in this case, the "external source" was actually contemporary with Homer.
Also, I have to remind you that beyond being brothers in arms, forged by the war, the both were actually raised together which makes them like, what,
FOSTER BROTHERS??

Is starting to make sense to you their really strong bond?

>>18473073
... yet.
>>18473506
And? Men's love for females has been written countless times over and over, but never by the female (at least properly). Doesnt mean that literature is trash, quite the contrary. What could an Adonis possibly write? He is the object of desire, a being whose activity is completely pointless. The one who desires a man or woman is the one who is elaborating something and being active in the proccess of love.

Mishima wrote 2 great closet case-core books

>>18484159
This sounds super shallow but it does affect the way they write about men. Mishima for example had a lot of contempt for Men and mankind in general, he fetishized death in his male (in book described with attractive attributes) characters as a way to vent his frustration.

>>18485043
>This sounds super shallow but it does affect the way they write about men
exactly the point. but the conundrum then is that an adonis might become
>all nose, or all forehead.
I dislike the notion that an adonis must be an empty head and aimless thing.
>>18485024
perhaps and just maybe an adonis would write another adonis?

bumpe

>>18473073
i don't like men very much, but damn. look at those nipples poking out of that shirt! i'm always down for some pokies.

I for one find the common understanding of a Narcissus to go against the one from Ovid’s tale:
1. he is completely indifferent to other people’s opinions and desires vs. a narcissist only cares how others see him
2. he does not want other people and fights them off if they get too close (the young men and Echo being vehemently rejected) vs. narcissist wants everyone for his pleasure and exploits them
3. the narcissist is satisfied with himself and loves himself (he falls in love with his reflection but only the spell by the young admirer cursed narcissus) vs. a narcissist is never satisfied with himself, with just being himself

how clear it then is that people completely fail to understand a true narcissus is a result from perpetual misrepresentation.
>inb4 narcissus was not a real narcissist

>>18473639
What??? Finding the author's intended message is bad? Commandeering the the text to justify your sexual fetish is good? This is why people hate faghots (you)

.>ITT: Gaycels defend pederasty

Reminder to all the twinks on this board: you insistence on the authors being ugly is if no consequence.
Homosexuality is still male sexuality and just like the man is always dominant and the woman always submissive, so too this dynamic repeats in homosexual relationships. Nature has made it that couples are rarely looks matched, there is always one more beautiful than the other. The same holds true in boylove.
Catamites like you have nothing interesting to say, you have youth and hence no life experience. Like the female muses, you are there to sit and look pretty, to be an object of inspiration and lust for the wiser and more experienced erastes.
Also twinkdeath is real.

>>18487064
Proudly.

>>18484080
>rimbaud
He was at the very least Bi. He had written erotic poetry about women as a teenager and continued to do so before he quit poetry entirely.

Sensations
>I will go far, very far, like a Bohemian,
>Through nature, happy, as if with a woman.

Nina
>Your chest against mine,
>Mingling our voices together
>I will talk into your mouth,
>Pressing against your body
>Drunk with blood
>That runs red underneath your white skin
>with a pinkish hue

AU CABARET-VERT
>Happy, I stretched out my legs underneath
>the green table; I contemplated about naive things
>It was adorable when the girl with the large tits
>with lively eyes, brought to me a colorful plate of butter and pink ham

LES POÈTES DE SEPT ANS
>The neighbor girl, the tiny savage, jumped upon me
>And I, underneath her, bit her bottom
>for she never liked to wear panties
>and after having been attacked by her talons
>I took back into my room the flavor of her flesh

>>18487176
Pretty based ngl.

>>18487206
Go to the kik threads on soc and you can see all the cock and twinks you could ever want

>>18487183
Is there any evidence whatsoever that Rimbaud was gay?

Examples of fag-washed historical people who almost certainly are not gay:

1) Caravaggio. There is almost no evidence that he was a homosexual, but tons of evidence that he was heterosexual. He liked courtesans. He was a known whoremonger. The only evidence he was gay comes from a rumour started by a rival of his, probably a lie to defame him (sodomy was illegal so this was a common accusation between rivals).

2) Wittgenstein. There's absolutely no evidence he was gay. His brother was gay, but as we know, the gay isn't genetic. Wittgenstein's only crime was being a lonely person, uninterested in romance, and for that, he's called gay. Society's accusations to the lonely man change with the ages, and in our current age it isn't witchcraft but homosexuality that a lonely man is accused of.

3) T.H. White. This one infuriates me in particular, partly because of the depravity of the claim, partly because once again there is no evidence to support it, and partly because he's not even famous enough to warrant the attention to be properly slandered. It even says ooh his Wikipedia article, "a gay sado-masochist". Source? A biography. Evidence given by the biographer? None, just trust me dude. Fucking horrific, what did he do to deserve this? He's just another lonely man misunderstood and slandered by modern freaks who can't believe some people aren't perverts.

So I'm a little bit fucking skeptical when someone tells me a famous person was a faggot.

Bump

>>18487337
Verlaine was a sodomite and Rimbaud lived with him for about 2 years. Their relationship is well known, it was a social disgrace for both poets when it was made public.

>>18473440
Best post

>>18483532
Gay Lit retard. Besides, Brite is married and now identifies as a gay man.

Ex stripper from New Orleans who wrote about fags, queers, serial killers, and vampires. Quit writing and had a sex change operation but stayed married to her/his/its (whatever) husband. Brite is actually a decent writer, the book was a lot better than I expected it to be.

>>18488405
ok. i should reclarify:
no american gay lit in general then

>>18473073
Physique too long.

>>18473073
Looks like that twink from Skam

>>18487337
>Is there any evidence whatsoever that Rimbaud was gay?
C'mon man, not a fag, but Rimbaud definitely took it in the butt. Read his letters.

>>18487337
dude what the fuck? rimbaud FACTUALLY was dating verlaine

>>18487183
yes he was bisexual

>>18473073
Evil cannot create, it can only corrupt.

Cum

>>18491480
My aunt posted this on facebook a few weeks ago.

>>18491507
And?

>>18473475
>Iliad
>foundational
okay retard

being "gay" is a modern invention, and an infectious fetishistic identity at that, is it really "gay" or corrupt if you are moved to love (even eros) by beauty, masculine or feminine?
this isn't a cope I'm mostly hetero

>>18491694
>is it really "gay" or corrupt if you are moved to love (even eros) by beauty, masculine or feminine?
Pretentiously intellectualizing life choices is still cope.
>I'm mostly hetero
Cope.

>>18491714
sex is only a choice when you repress it

>>18491728
>sex is only a choice when you repress it
Trying to pass off tautologies as wisdom only underscores that you're intellectualizing your cope. You're a pretentious pseud.

>>18491766
You're the pseud with pretensions here. My exact point is that love and desire are not intellectual at all which you've contradicted without justification in your insinuation of "life choices". Explain yourself or you're a spiritual sodomite

>>18491802
>You're the pseud with pretensions here
And yet your lead in was "being "gay" is a modern invention, and an infectious fetishistic identity at that, is it really "gay" or corrupt if you are moved to love (even eros) by beauty, masculine or feminine?"

That's one of the most pretentious statements I've seen on this board. Then you tried to back it up by relying on a semantical argument over a word (i.e. "choice") and a tautological statement.

You're a pseud and you don't realize your statements are nonarguments. You vaguely appeal to complexity and confuse your own lack of clear understanding as profundity.

>My exact point is that love and desire are not intellectual at all
See. That's vague. It's a nonstatement. You're attempting to romanticize animalistic impulse...the fact you follow it up by implying you're making a spiritual argument is just icing on the cake.

Pseud.

>>18491694
I still believe most fail to understand physiognomy beauty because they themselves are ugly and even worse they perceive or know themselves as ugly.
Little is as revolting to ugly guys as praising another man’s beauty. They are stuck in their normative dogmatic view and fail to see physical or intellectual beauty even in the opposite sex outside of clear sex symbols.
Definitely these guys are more corrupted than the ones who can appreciate a beautiful guy at the pinnacle of his young physical beauty.

>>18491883
I'm making a distinction between gay identity as a social phenomenon in contemporary times and natural attraction and desire towards beauty, if you think that's pretentious then maybe you're just limited. Your petty accusations make you seem butthurt I bet you kiss men
>>18491889
"The gays" disgust normal people because of their ugliness which is why I think there is a distinction to be made more important than sexual preference. See pride parade freakshows

>>18491935
no adonis would go to a pride parade. Those are pure faggotry and disgusting; they have nothing to do with beauty.
I mean that most guys would revolt at the notion that calls the guy in the OP “beautiful”.

>>18487337
>However, White's long-time friend and literary agent David Higham wrote, "Tim was no homosexual, though I think at one time he had feared he was
Heterosexual men do not need to think (let alone fear) about whether they are a homosexual or not. He was either gay or in some other way a fetishist, maybe an AGP.

It never ceases to amaze me how much discussion the subject of homosexuality elicits on this board. This thread has been on top of the bumping order for three days now. The number of twinks, fags, and guilty/self-repressing homosexuals on this board is truly stupendous. I wonder if it's a 4Chan thing in general, or something specific to /lit/ in particular.

>>18492010
This is a twink supremacist board

>>18492010
Faggotry is the basis for all kinds of art
Welcome to /lit/ nigger

>>18491968
Is this bait? A comment from a friend, saying he 'thinks you feared you were gay', isn't evidence that you're gay. It's just a speculative comment and it doesn't mean anything. And why did you ignore the first part of the comment you yourself posted? "He was no homosexual".
God I hate this shit. Why did we stop burning fags? They taint everything with their perversion.

>>18487525
People can live together without buttfucking each other.

>>18491441
I asked for evidence, retard.

>>18491432
I will, but if it's ambiguous and you're all just speculating, I'm going to be pissed.

>>18492255
Look at the look of dejection and disappointment on that lad's face. When he got hired by the modeling agency, he imagined hot girls and fast cars, fine wine and magazine covers. Instead, he's taking gay fetish photos with a bunch of old, stinky jews who smell like cigars and vodka. It's all sinking in right as this photograph was taken.

>>18492010
>I wonder if it's a 4Chan thing in general, or something specific to /lit/ in particular.
A bit of both. The anonymity of this board certainly makes it easier to not hold back. I mean, I could go post some gay shit on /pol/ without consequence except for some neckbeards telling me to kill myself. Which wouldn't upset me because I know they wouldn't have the nerve to say that to me IRL.
That said most of the positive conversations relating to homosexuality are had on here. Homos are lonelier and therefore predisposed to reading, plus they are aesthetes and /lit/ appreciates beauty more than most boards.

>>18473073
>This is why there is no good /gay-lit/
based and bunkerpilled

>>18492353
I'm sure this lad has all the hot girls he wants, bro. A few weird photo sessions are the least of your worries when you look like motherfucking Apollo

>>18487337
You were absolutely right until this.
>He's just another lonely man misunderstood and slandered by modern freaks who can't believe some people aren't perverts.
You dont want people to think that the lonely man is a homosexual archetype, which is absolutely right, but you cannot commit the mistake of thinking that some homosexual men cannot be the lonely man.
Yes, gays have a lot more sex than straights, but there is nothing that makes gays genetically more handsome (there is the same percentage of ugly gays inside the gay people as there is ugly straights inside the straight people). Therefore, the handsome gay men have a lot of sex with different partners, but is always amongst themselves. The ugly ones basically starve, and unlike ugly straight men who later can always get a whore "ready to settle" with him because of his professional success, handsome gay men can be professionally sucessfull on their own and have no need to be financially sustained by their partner. Basically, there are many gay incels, maybe more than straight ones. In fact, any gay that doesnt come out is one.
And, besides that, there are many gays who, as children, were closer to their grandmother than their mother, emotionally absent. The fact that the tender motherly figure comes from one generation earlier makes that gay male very conservative and appreciator of the beauty of old things (which is basically what Art and History and Philosophy etc are all about). Obviously this is not a trait of the gays at all. But its clear that children who have a lot of contact with their grandparents develop these sensibilities earlier; and in the gay this proximity is favoured due to the distance to the mother. Yes, people are born gay, but its the mother's stress, anxiety and personality that diminishes the uterine testosterone. Those things in her obviously continue after birth.
Historically, there is no reason that a gay would be "progressive". Progressivism is a recent thing. The vast, vast majority of those lone men in the past was straight obviously. But dont think that because of their views and the ideal of intellect and creation that their memory carries into the future that they could not be gay

>>18492010
>guilty/self repressing homosexuals
What guilt do I have? What am I repressing? By not making homosexuality the major backbone of my life (and not even the source of my struggles - never has homosexuality been conflicting to me. Its just what I was and i needed not think about it) I am actually more liberated, socially integrated, definitely much more mentally stable than the gays that came out. What do they win? A fucking label to wear that immediately makes people around them form an idea of them before they actually show their worth.
The irony is that those that choose the label publicly actually do it because they have nothing else to embrace. And they actually fit the stereotypes quite well, generally! Those that could come out and actually show they are much more than that (and they do, every single day, people view them normally as their behaviour is that of a perfect straight, because by not embracing the label thats what they end up becoming. Not an alpha male but very usually a shut-in male type - the type of people 4chan attracts and thats why you were asking that) are the ones that dont.
To choose to come out is a fucking big filter. Unless you have already proven wide and big your value and how you function in the same way as a straight (basically, normal) you are, if you come out then you are fucking dumb.

>>18493482
And apologies for butchering the last sentence, but you get it

>>18493482
1) you sound repressed and coping

2) how do I get a cute bf with this attitude? at this point I ask unironically You describe a dude who will behaviorally straight but mentally desire to be gay.

>>18493531
>>18493531
I am not coping. Its the path I chose willingly because it gave more satisfaction and freedom. I can have all the opinions I want without having my hands tied to my sexuality. And people can choose to follow whatever opinion or trait of mine they want, because they arent forced to view me as a gay, as an "other".

2) there are most likely many, but honestly. dont expect them to be cute? And why would you want a boyfriend (meaning you are gay) like this if you dont have the personality yourself? You want your boyfriend to be a much better man than you?

>>18493570
*but honestly dont expect them to be cute.

>>18473073

>>18493570
>>18493570
I like your opposition to sexuality; i like to think I share it. But if all I could be is a male beauty lover in my head I would not ever have to deal with any of this.
It is because I have only watched from a far, hid my emotions and hemmed my desire for excessive physical contact that I am unsatisfied.
When I encounter this guy I admirer I would like to do more that just give a manly hand shake and a one handed hug, I want to hold eye contact for longer while we talk, lie in his lap in the evening instead of leaning against the park bench, hold his hand while we walk and enjoy a true solacing hug.
His presence and beauty that I find reflected from myself I want to bathe in; so that means more than just spectate. It is precisely his beauty that doesnt allow me to contently restrain myself. With any one other Id be fine to keep it this way, but his beauty I want to taste. I dont know why, but as long as I dont have that I am unsatisfied and depressed. To satiate this desire gives me so much lust which makes him specifically so much more beautiful than anything else.
>why would you want a boyfriend like this if you dont have the personality yourself? You want your boyfriend to be a much better man than you
I want him because I see myself in him. Narcissus beat himself to death and engulfed in flames because he could not have the one thing he finally wanted; his own reflection. If I were a brute I wouldn’t deserve him and couldn’t love him, but because he exemplifies what I strive for what I believe in, what I am, but is in another, is opposed to me, I want to hold him. Your mentality will, if it has not already, make you sad and lonely. Narcissus cared only for himself till he found what he really loved and then could not bare being without (and how ironic it was himself kek). you wont last either; it is fun to live and feel. your attitude is that of a repressed catholic. more freedom? sure. but more satisfaction? No way. unless you lie and you never actually found That beauty in another guy.

>>18493741
I won't probably answer in detail tonight because exams, but ill try before going to sleep (hoping the thread is still up). Anyways, you wrote beautifully and touched me. And yes, I did find love, more than once, and the last one was not so long ago. Funny that you mention Catholicism, because it was because of his beauty, good-heartedness, and the intelligence of a long-lived angel that I went back to the Church. He was the second. Obviously not corresponded (I think he's straight). The first one, also straight, and with the same traits, ended up becoming my best friend and like a brother to me.
I only asked that because I assumed that if you were asking you couldnt know what it was to be like that. Sorry, I misread it. anyways, I'll reply later.

>>18491935
>I'm making a distinction between gay identity as a social phenomenon in contemporary times and natural attraction and desire towards beauty
See, that's a much better way to put it. Much less pretentious. (No need to dress up a simple take with jargon borrowed from contientals and Greeks).

You need to learn the difference between depth and the mere appearence of such. Cut the pretentious nonsense and just state your point; you're not impressing anyone.

>>18494079
Are you illiterate?

>>18494079
I don't see how what anon wrote was pretentious, do you need everything to be written at an 8th grade reading level?

>>18473073
who is this semen demon

>>18494186
Todd Cantwell, plays for Norwhich fc

>>18494288
gay

>>18492010
twink masterrace

>>18493867
Yeah, I won’t put the effort in to keep this bumped, but I’d be interested in what further you have to say.
Make a thread if you have to just to reply; Ill make sure to check the archive.

>>18492010
>I wonder if it's a 4Chan thing in general, or something specific to /lit/ in particular.
/lit/ isn't 4chan's gayest board, not even close. Places like /int/ are much gayer.

>twink supremacy
Lmao my untrained ass could beat you <110 lbs skinny twigs

>>18494152
Saying much with very little is a skill. Needing much to say very little is an impairment.

Relying on jargon to falsify the weight of an idea is pretentious.

You're pseuds.

>>18494906
your*

>>18494540
To love is, to me, a completely different part of homosexuality. The male wolf eats, breathes, sleeps. But is only complete with a partner doing that by his side.
You spoke of lust. Lust, to me, is only good when it is either fought or conceded by the other. A lust exists as a ghost between your body that you want to project onto his sould (or, rather, the soul you make of him), and the other person's rejection of your desires. Lust is quickly fended off when you realise the other person's trueness. And now your souls are both so bare to each other that the bodies are useless to dig yourselves out. This is platonic love.
Now, anon, what if your souls are so different that one wants to be like the other? The lust endures, and the differences disappear when your bodies melt. A hotter substance gets to know a colder one. Then the hot likes it so much that he needs the cold, the cold also needs the hot, you mix yourselves for some time. The only problem being that in the end the cold is no longer cold enough to give that, nor is the hot hot enough. So, you both are the same (and many couples do not resist this boredom they have created).
Im convinced in every non platonic relationship there are differences that both sides want to edge out. This, to me, is to refute freedom. But freedom is only really good when we are fighting to search ourselves. If we have already found the other we want to be and to be with, freedom can be damned.
However, anon, I dont think Id be having this talk with you if my personality was different. If I did not try to forge my own path and my views etc My sexuality is something like a flavour too strong that if I want to always preserve it like that I cannot eat it much. Otherwise Id get used to it and my tongue would no longer have its climaxes of martyrdom be replaced by a good taste. Hence the satisfaction in this path.
Now, maybe this sounds like shit, but well, Im tired and need to sleep. Thank you for this exchange because I liked it and made me know myself better!

>>18473491
>>18473608
cope

>>18473795
>>18474395
extreme cope. unknowledgeable cope. shoehorning scattered pieces of evidence into your agenda. pathetic. the relationship between achilles and patroclus would have been obvious to most ancient greeks.

>>18494296
But he doesn't play for Brighton

>>18495169
Homer was a homophobe

>>18495181
classic!
>>18496901
bold!

>>18473073
>This is why there is no good /gay-lit/
What are you talkjing about . 60% of the Western canon is gay lit by Bloom's estimation

>>18473608
>>18473795
>'eros' always used to mean passionate sexual romantic love in antiquity and middle ages and modernity
>because this means the greeks describe certain male-male relationships as erotic dernaged poster denies ths meaning
>and therefore erases every reference to heterosexual romance in the greek canon too
deranged

>>18497608
>>18497613
Based and homopilled.

>>18473795
If Lysis, Alcibiades, Symposium, Charmides, and Phaedrus, are not describing same-sex eroticism, then Plato's Laws cannot be referring to homosexual relations either, but must be expressing disapproval of male friendship!

>>18497608
Based
Any coper who denies that the Greeks were massive homos hasn't read a word of them

if you wouldn't consider at least intercureal with a hot twink I don't consider you a real man

>>18498732
Planning on doing this with a grindr twink this weekend

>>18498732
based