Let’s face it, state-mandated & enforced heterosexuality and cisgenderness hasn’t stopped people from being gay and/or trans, so I’m pretty sure state mandated homosexuality will be purely symbolic.
i mean the romans were reasonably successful, granted that was mostly just for rich politicians which isn’t much different from the modern republican party except without the denial
afaik the deal with rome is that it was really specifically that powerful men were expected to have twinks to “mentor”, sexually dominating another man showed that you were powerful, and being dominated did much the opposite. Being a lesbian seems to have just been strange to them although i don’t recall hearing of it being illegal or anything.
in general a lot of our ideas of identity and sexuality are quite modern and in the past it depended WAY more on where specifically you were and what social class you belonged to. Like why would anyone give a shit what some rural people do in their bedroom? the only ones who are likely to give even the slightest shit about that are their fellow villagers and they’re probably gonna actually care about them being happy.
As far as I’m aware there were only a few instances mentioned of older men having sexual relationships with young boys and they were looked on with disgust from the population and even other elites.
As for villagers being gay I think they were treated really badly because religion and having children was really important back then.
I unironically want to see this just as much as I want to see all women running government and on the supreme court. Just for like one presidential cycle.
Let’s face it, state-mandated & enforced heterosexuality and cisgenderness hasn’t stopped people from being gay and/or trans, so I’m pretty sure state mandated homosexuality will be purely symbolic.
i mean the romans were reasonably successful, granted that was mostly just for rich politicians which isn’t much different from the modern republican party except without the denial
Isn’t that a complete myth? As far as I know there has never been a society more gay than today’s. Rome was not accepting of gays.
afaik the deal with rome is that it was really specifically that powerful men were expected to have twinks to “mentor”, sexually dominating another man showed that you were powerful, and being dominated did much the opposite. Being a lesbian seems to have just been strange to them although i don’t recall hearing of it being illegal or anything.
in general a lot of our ideas of identity and sexuality are quite modern and in the past it depended WAY more on where specifically you were and what social class you belonged to. Like why would anyone give a shit what some rural people do in their bedroom? the only ones who are likely to give even the slightest shit about that are their fellow villagers and they’re probably gonna actually care about them being happy.
As far as I’m aware there were only a few instances mentioned of older men having sexual relationships with young boys and they were looked on with disgust from the population and even other elites.
As for villagers being gay I think they were treated really badly because religion and having children was really important back then.
I unironically want to see this just as much as I want to see all women running government and on the supreme court. Just for like one presidential cycle.