JesusA (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2001 9:49 am Like the adults we have previously seen around little [French King] Louis XIII, the Greeks and Romans couldn't keep their hands off children. I have only turned up one piece of evidence that this practice extended, like Louis's abuse, back into infancy. Suetonius condemned Tiberius because he "taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his 'little fishes,' to play between his legs while he was in his bath. Those which had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio..." Suetonius may or may not have made up the story, yet he obviously had reason to think his readers would believe him. So, apparently, did Tacitus, who told the same story.<p>The favorite sexual use of children, however, was not fellatio, but anal intercourse. martial said one should, while buggering a boy, "refrain from stirring the groin with poking hand.... Nature has separated the male: one part has been produced for girls, one for men. Use your own part." This, he said, was because the masturbating of boys would "hasten manhood," an observation Aristotle made some time before him. Whenever a pre-pubertal boy was shown being used sexually on erotic vases, the penis was never shown erect. For men of antiquity were not really homosexuals as we know them today, but a much lower psychic mode, which I think should be termed "ambisexual" (they themselves used the term "ambidextrous"). While the homosexual runs to men as a retreat from women, as a defense against the oedipal conflict, the ambisexual has never really reached the oedipal level, and uses boys and women almost without distinction. In fact, as psychoanalyst Joan McDougall observes, the main purpose of this kind of perversion is to demonstrate that "there is no difference between the sexes." She says that it is an attempt to control childhood sexual traumata by reversal, with the adult now putting another child in the helpless position, and also an attempt to handle castration anxiety by proving that "castration does not hurt and is fact is the very condition of erotic arousal."

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2001 9:49 am Like the adults we have previously seen around little [French King] Louis XIII, the Greeks and Romans couldn't keep their hands off children. I have only turned up one piece of evidence that this practice extended, like Louis's abuse, back into infancy. Suetonius condemned Tiberius because he "taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his 'little fishes,' to play between his legs while he was in his bath. Those which had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio..." Suetonius may or may not have made up the story, yet he obviously had reason to think his readers would believe him. So, apparently, did Tacitus, who told the same story.<p>The favorite sexual use of children, however, was not fellatio, but anal intercourse. martial said one should, while buggering a boy, "refrain from stirring the groin with poking hand.... Nature has separated the male: one part has been produced for girls, one for men. Use your own part." This, he said, was because the masturbating of boys would "hasten manhood," an observation Aristotle made some time before him. Whenever a pre-pubertal boy was shown being used sexually on erotic vases, the penis was never shown erect. For men of antiquity were not really homosexuals as we know them today, but a much lower psychic mode, which I think should be termed "ambisexual" (they themselves used the term "ambidextrous"). While the homosexual runs to men as a retreat from women, as a defense against the oedipal conflict, the ambisexual has never really reached the oedipal level, and uses boys and women almost without distinction. In fact, as psychoanalyst Joan McDougall observes, the main purpose of this kind of perversion is to demonstrate that "there is no difference between the sexes." She says that it is an attempt to control childhood sexual traumata by reversal, with the adult now putting another child in the helpless position, and also an attempt to handle castration anxiety by proving that "castration does not hurt and is fact is the very condition of erotic arousal."

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2001 9:49 am Like the adults we have previously seen around little [French King] Louis XIII, the Greeks and Romans couldn't keep their hands off children. I have only turned up one piece of evidence that this practice extended, like Louis's abuse, back into infancy. Suetonius condemned Tiberius because he "taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his 'little fishes,' to play between his legs while he was in his bath. Those which had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio..." Suetonius may or may not have made up the story, yet he obviously had reason to think his readers would believe him. So, apparently, did Tacitus, who told the same story.<p>The favorite sexual use of children, however, was not fellatio, but anal intercourse. martial said one should, while buggering a boy, "refrain from stirring the groin with poking hand.... Nature has separated the male: one part has been produced for girls, one for men. Use your own part." This, he said, was because the masturbating of boys would "hasten manhood," an observation Aristotle made some time before him. Whenever a pre-pubertal boy was shown being used sexually on erotic vases, the penis was never shown erect. For men of antiquity were not really homosexuals as we know them today, but a much lower psychic mode, which I think should be termed "ambisexual" (they themselves used the term "ambidextrous"). While the homosexual runs to men as a retreat from women, as a defense against the oedipal conflict, the ambisexual has never really reached the oedipal level, and uses boys and women almost without distinction. In fact, as psychoanalyst Joan McDougall observes, the main purpose of this kind of perversion is to demonstrate that "there is no difference between the sexes." She says that it is an attempt to control childhood sexual traumata by reversal, with the adult now putting another child in the helpless position, and also an attempt to handle castration anxiety by proving that "castration does not hurt and is fact is the very condition of erotic arousal."

JesusA (imported) wrote: Sun Aug 26, 2001 9:49 am Like the adults we have previously seen around little [French King] Louis XIII, the Greeks and Romans couldn't keep their hands off children. I have only turned up one piece of evidence that this practice extended, like Louis's abuse, back into infancy. Suetonius condemned Tiberius because he "taught children of the most tender years, whom he called his 'little fishes,' to play between his legs while he was in his bath. Those which had not yet been weaned, but were strong and hearty, he set at fellatio..." Suetonius may or may not have made up the story, yet he obviously had reason to think his readers would believe him. So, apparently, did Tacitus, who told the same story.<p>The favorite sexual use of children, however, was not fellatio, but anal intercourse. martial said one should, while buggering a boy, "refrain from stirring the groin with poking hand.... Nature has separated the male: one part has been produced for girls, one for men. Use your own part." This, he said, was because the masturbating of boys would "hasten manhood," an observation Aristotle made some time before him. Whenever a pre-pubertal boy was shown being used sexually on erotic vases, the penis was never shown erect. For men of antiquity were not really homosexuals as we know them today, but a much lower psychic mode, which I think should be termed "ambisexual" (they themselves used the term "ambidextrous"). While the homosexual runs to men as a retreat from women, as a defense against the oedipal conflict, the ambisexual has never really reached the oedipal level, and uses boys and women almost without distinction. In fact, as psychoanalyst Joan McDougall observes, the main purpose of this kind of perversion is to demonstrate that "there is no difference between the sexes." She says that it is an attempt to control childhood sexual traumata by reversal, with the adult now putting another child in the helpless position, and also an attempt to handle castration anxiety by proving that "castration does not hurt and is fact is the very condition of erotic arousal."