Erotic art of Pompeii

[Legs]

Ancient Pompeii was full of erotic or pornographic frescoes, symbols, inscriptions, and even household items. The ancient Roman culture of the time was much more sexually permissive than most present-day cultures and apparently had no concept of obscenity or that such art should be hidden from minors.

http://francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/eroticpompei/mercury.jpg

http://francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/eroticpompei/couple.jpg

See more at this site http://francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/eroticpompei/index.htm

[Sweetie]

It's interesting stuff. Their religions were permeated with sex, with their gods having sex with each other, with mortals, etc.

I found this article interesting:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

[Soubrette]

It's interesting stuff. Their religions were permeated with sex, with their gods having sex with each other, with mortals, etc.

I found this article interesting:

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0003.html

To say there is no evidence that homosexuality is biological is bullshit - twin studies on mz (identical) and dz(non identical) twins and siblings show that there is a higher correlation of both mz twins being homosexual compared to either dz twins or siblings.

To say that genetics is the full story is bullshit too.

And to bring in Freud to support a viewpoint? Ohhhhh the shame - Freud has been pretty much discredited as non scientific (whatever symptoms you show there is a Freudian explanation, if you go to more than one psychoanalyst you're likely to get more than one Freudian explanation for your behaviour), all of his theories are flavoured with his own experiences - he felt introspection (and worse only his own) was a worthy scientific proof. There seems to be some evidence that he exaggerated his case studies to show what he wanted to show them and in the end they did not show the success he pretended (Anna o) and in some of them (Little Hans) he didn't even meet the person he was so say psychoanalysing.

He did some positive things but to present psychoanalysis of any kind as evidence to your point of view is pretty dodgy imo.

Sou

[Sweetie]

To say there is no evidence that homosexuality is biological is bullshit - twin studies on mz (identical) and dz(non identical) twins and siblings show that there is a higher correlation of both mz twins being homosexual compared to either dz twins or siblings.

To say that genetics is the full story is bullshit too.

:chin:

The ideas I linked the article for are those mostly at the beginning with the whole pagan, sex, judaism, religion bit which is in keeping with this thread.

I apologize that I could not snip off parts that you might not have liked.

The article should be especially interesting to many here because what it is in fact saying is that homosexuality to the world without Judaism and Christianity, would have had no problems with homosexuality because they didn't back then.

Seriously, if you would look deeper you might find it an astonishing article coming from Christians for what it admits.

[Soubrette]

:chin:

The ideas I linked the article for are those mostly at the beginning with the whole pagan, sex, judaism, religion bit which is in keeping with this thread.

I know - I'm a terrible thread derailer - so many ideas are interlinked :) Apologies to legs :)

I apologize that I could not snip off parts that you might not have liked.

I like debate inducing - although it slightly ticks me off when people say things that they believe and pretend there is no evidence against that belief. But hey - that means I wouldn't bother to point to the evidence that does exist, which means I wouldn't get involved in interesting discussion - which would make my life slightly less questioning and slightly more boring so I'm back with the I like debate inducing comments, articles etc.

A possiblity would be for you to just quote the bits you feel are relevant though - if it troubles you that articles you link to aren't wholly on topic and you don't want people to comment on the article as a whole.



The article should be especially interesting to many here because what it is in fact saying is that homosexuality to the world without Judaism and Christianity, would have had no problems with homosexuality because they didn't back then.

I don't think that's precisely what it is saying, I think it is saying that homosexuality to the world without JudaoChristianity existed and was a bad thing and that JudaoChristianity has worked to prevent, ban and suppress these behaviours. It then goes on to state some interesting facts and some dubious facts to back up that statement.

Seriously, if you would look deeper you might find it an astonishing article coming from Christians for what it admits.

I'm happy to reread it again :) Probably won't have time today because I want to get onto our other discussion :)

Sou

[Legs]

I know - I'm a terrible thread derailer - so many ideas are interlinked :) Apologies to legs :)


That's okay... I just like to look at the penises ;)

[Godless Dave]

My dad and his wife saw those a couple years ago. According to their tour guide, until the 1970s or 80s women were not permitted to enter the buildings with the most graphic phallic illustrations.

[Sweetie]

A possiblity would be for you to just quote the bits you feel are relevant though - if it troubles you that articles you link to aren't wholly on topic and you don't want people to comment on the article as a whole.

No, can't do that. There's restrictions on how much you can cut and paste of articles, I'm just never sure what the rules are but, here's some of the thoughts I found interesting:

"As Martha Nussbaum, professor of philosophy at Brown University, recently wrote, the ancients were no more concerned with people's gender preference than people today are with others' eating preferences..."

"Thus, the first thing Judaism did was to de-sexualize God: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” by his will, not through any sexual behavior. This was an utterly radical break with all other religions..."

"In the ancient Near Fast and elsewhere, virgins were deflowered by priests prior to engaging in relations with their husbands, and sacred or ritual prostitution was almost universal. Psychiatrist and sexual historian Norman Sussman describes the situation thus: “Male and female prostitutes, serving temporarily or permanently and performing heterosexual, homosexual oral-genital, bestial, and other forms of sexual activities, dispense their favors in behalf of the temple.”

I suppose part of what I'm thinking is:

The ancient Roman culture of the time was much more sexually permissive than most present-day cultures and apparently had no concept of obscenity or that such art should be hidden from minors.

that the above wasn't necessarily a good thing. One could maybe argue that they were more "naturally" sexual or what have you, but it seems that these sexual ideas and such may have alot to do with their religion.

I don't think that's precisely what it is saying, I think it is saying that homosexuality to the world without JudaoChristianity existed and was a bad thing and that JudaoChristianity has worked to prevent, ban and suppress these behaviours. It then goes on to state some interesting facts and some dubious facts to back up that statement.

The overall intent of the article is certainly one thing, but pieces of it seperately coupled with thinking outside the box and other general critical thinking skills means to me that what it says is interesting.

[livius drusus]

Ancient Pompeii was full of erotic or pornographic frescoes, symbols, inscriptions, and even household items. The ancient Roman culture of the time was much more sexually permissive than most present-day cultures and apparently had no concept of obscenity or that such art should be hidden from minors.

Yeah, I can't really endorse this conclusion. At best it's oversimplified. Much of the art being referred to here is brothel decoration, which is hardly likely to be typical of the mean societal mores. That's a far cry from having no concept of obscenity or that sexually eplicit art should be hidden from minors.

I would say class, for example, plays a huge part in any discussion of sexual morality, whether it be historical or contemporary. Freedwomen and senators' daughters had very different standards to live up to. If Pompeiians didn't have a notion of obscenity did they not have one of vulgarity which might have performed the same societal role?

I'd also say there are distinctions to be made between figurines of Priapus and frescos of the reverse cowgirl. It's not all the same thing just because genitals are involved, even genitals that size.

[JoeP]

Ancient Pompeii was full of erotic or pornographic frescoes, symbols, inscriptions, and even household items. The ancient Roman culture of the time was much more sexually permissive than most present-day cultures and apparently had no concept of obscenity or that such art should be hidden from minors.
But were any of them animated? I don't think so.
:caesar:

:caesar: http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/images/avatars/avatar315_1.gif :caesar:
:caesar:

[Legs]

Joe!

rofl :rofl:

[Gurdur]

Just what does "minors" mean here, BTW ?
In antique and till very recently, it meant anyone 7 or under (or as high as 12 and under in 19th century England), significantly different from our time.