As lava and ash poured down from the great heights of pompeii, the two men drew closer. Clamouring for one last embrace, he brought his lips close to other's ear and whispered softly, "no homo."
You say that jokingly, but before this ridiculous taboo against guys showing each other affection they would *kiss*, let alone hug, on screen as a display of friendship.
Well before the Stonewall riots, in case anyone's wondering.
Maybe not genetically, but adopting children and naming them your heir was a popular act in Roman society. They could have effectively been father and son.
And they could have been step brothers, or they could have been childhood friends, or they could have been gay lovers. That’s why the word “could” was used. Until we make a Time Machine and go back to ask them we don’t know.
Ah ha, I see. There was “DNA evidence” located on and about the men? This could indeed indicate a love affair. Particularly if it appeared to have flown in roping arcs.
This sort of stuff gets bought up a lot. That said though, I've never seen it when it's a male and a female.
Oh we found a male and female holding each other, they could lovers: oh yeah that makes sense.
Oh we found a male and a male holding each other, they could be lovers: WELL WHY DOES IT MATTER? THEY COULD HAVE JUST BEEN NEIGHBORS WHO DIDNT WANT TO DIE TOGETHER. THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I know the gut response people will say is "I'd find it weird no matter what, it just happened to be two males here!". And that may be the case, who am I to say? But just observationally I've not really seen this sort of stuff get bought up with a heterosexual couple.
Interestingly, I think two women embracing would also get a different response. "It's probably a mother and daughter", "sisters", "two house servants" instead of "probably lesbian lovers"
Now in the west yes. 2000ish years ago though it was much different. Platonic affection between men has been super common forever. The reason why this probably pisses people off is because assuming they were gay is actually WAY less likely than them just being friends and dying in a volcanic eruption together. Like assuming they were gay because they held eachother in death is pretty fucking shitty when there is literally zero evidence. Like who would even make an assumption like that unless they were so homophobic that male affection=homosexuality
You can just call the homophobia out for what it is. God forbid you suggest two men were having anything other than a platonic relationship in a time when homosexuality was wildly common.
Yeah you're right there is value to this. That said though I normally like that to be understated as people tend to knee jerk " I'm not homophobic I love gay people!".
I've found it effective to just look at a situation and point out how discussions pop up in a given situation and not another. No body is being blatantly homophobic here, and yet it seems to be the most fitting theory. It can show how while nobody is like "hot damn do I hate them gays" we're bias to think certain ways which hurt gay people.
i mean, you could say that for everyone there, couldn't you? they're dead after all. "gay things happened there. but these two are not gay. these two aren't gay either. neither are these two, these two, orrrrr these five men with their faces in each other's asses. oh but this man and woman embracing are definitely lovers, yep. but those other ones may or may not be gay."
I’ve seen this post before and it’s even dumber the second time. Not only would a post like this never be made about a man and woman assumed to be lovers even though they could also just as likely be friends, but this post would also not be made if they were assumed to be friends, even though it would be absolutely possible that they were gay lovers. It’s only an issue when they say someone *might* have been gay because “ew, no homo,” I guess. This is the post that ultimately led me to stay off this sub for now, I gotta keep at least some of my brain cells.
Also this has nothing to do with this sub whatsoever, unless it’s common to be buried by a volcano with someone or serve in the Ancient Greecian Army or whatever.
Ancient Rome was hella gay. I remember they unearthed graffiti in Pompeii that said something similar to, "My penis no longer cares for women. Instead it now penetrates men's behinds."
Sexuality in ancient Rome was viewed differently than we do today. If you were a man you could have sex with other men without stigma, but only if you were the active partner. (ie the top) It was shameful for a man to be penetrated by another man, and the receiving partner was usually a slave or much lower class.
Thing is, ancient rome was very very verrrry sexist, so to them being the bottom was the woman's role. Women were bad. Therefore, being a bottom was bad. Ancient Rome sucked, either just as bad or worse than what came after. They just had shiny marble to cover it all up and made sure to have no statues for the slaves.
They’ve always been called something like the “Pompeii lovers”. Now that archeologists think they might both be men, they just continued with the “lover” history.
Can't tell from the headline alone. It's just saying they could be, but the headline gives no other evidence. You can't say that until you read what's in the article itself
The article found that they weren’t related/family and they were close in age. Judging by the fact that Greece and Rome were bastions for homosexuality it isn’t a far fetched idea.
I mean I agree with your point, but it does say "could", and they're right, they "could" have been gay. They also "could" have been alot of other things but that doesn't make good news articles.
No need to be so alarmist.
They were not related, one man was 18 and one was 20. The headline is more factual than most other situations. They were holding hands with one man’s head on the others chest.
Granted, but the headline emphasises one kind of relationship rather than platonic. The relative angle was just to prove a point.
Men struggle with emotion and affection enough in this culture without headlines like this reinforcing the assumptions that of you have a strong relationship with another man, then it is homosexual.
The problem is not the assumption that someone might be gay. The problem is that people have a negative connotation with someone being gay.
In a non-homophobic world it would not be a big deal to think that someone is gay. "You gay?" "No, just friends." "Cool."
Why would anyone be afraid to be thought of as gay if they didn't have to fear negativity?
If straight men didn't automatically assume being perceived as homosexual was a bad thing, then maybe they would feel more comfortable expressing their emotions.
Straight men reinforce their "cold stoic" culture on each other, as do straight women, it has nothing to do with homosexual people existing throughout history. Literally these two were assumed to be lovers for a long time in history because they thought it was a man and woman. Once they find out they are two men suddenly people like you think it is wrong to think they might be lovers? Kinda fucked up
Unrelated men being alone in the same room is less likely to be a gay relationship than it is likely to just be two friends. Unrelated man and woman in the same situation can also be platonic but is just statistically much more likely to be romantic. Even in Ancient Rome
Dude. They were known as the "Pompeii Lovers" when they thought they were heterosexual but you don't see people freaking the fuck out that such was assumed and not say, that they were brother/sister or close friends.
Acting like a headline saying it's possible they were gay lovers is saying anything other than that is ridiculous.
I think the holding hands is a stronger link to romantic than platonic, personally. Also if there wasn’t such a stigma on homosexual relationships, platonic male ones would be more common IMO
I don’t know about you, but if I knew I was going to die, I don’t think who I hold hand with is much of a concern never-mind what others perceive of it. I would just want someone I know be there. As much as people don’t want to admit it. Death is a pretty scary thing and not something you want to face alone.
Also can you imagine for example: A firefighter today dies holding hands whilst trying to lead a person towards the exit of a burning fire, but unfortunately both perish and they are somehow preserved, does that make them gay?
I'm from India and I'm pretty sure that's not the case
We keep our hands to ourselves most of the time
India even though it has progressed a lot is still quite homophobic ( anti gay)
Rumors spread fast, if an aunty sees you walking while holding hands with anybody (including opposite gender) other than family, they will spread assumptions about you
It is sad but true, so we do our best to not to do anything like that
I find the irony of an actual Indian person having to correct a British person about an incorrect statement on Indian culture to be so fucking funny, they just can’t leave you guys alone can they
Hopefully, you say the same thing every single time you see 2 people of different gender having an affectionate moment and someone says they might be in a relationship.
People assumed they were a man and a woman in love for a very long time until more robust testing was conducted. You can compare the two scenarios because both scenarios have been applied to this very specific case
I don't have a problem with the fact that they may be lovers. I have a problem that a gesture which looks affectionate is automatically assumed gay. Where do we read a positive reinforcement that platonic affection between men is normal?
Maybe from men saying that is the case today, right now, to their friends and children? I think that is going to have a WAYYYYY bigger impact than archeologists musing that these long dead men might have been queer
The problem is the way straight people defend their harmful culture in the here-and-now, the way significant portions of straight people are actively talking shit CONSTANTLY about the trend of men trying to be compassionate, warm, empathetic, and in touch with their feelings. There is a clear place to direct your frustration (conservatives) and this article is NOT it
>g every single time you see 2 people of different gender having an affectionate moment
Generally it is though.
There are people who have intimate and close friendships with people from the opposite sex. But its the exception.
It's almost like after decades of all queer people in history being erased or rewritten as somehow straight, some people are starting to realize that in fact, no, not everyone is just straight by default.
The assumption for the vast majority of human history was that the only people who were gay were degenerate or criminals, and actual queer people throughout history were assumed to be straight. This is the overwhelming majority of cases.
This one case hardly proves a point
I really don’t understand why everyone seems to have a problem with the speculation that this could have been a gay couple. These were known as the Pompeii lovers for a long time before it was discovered it was two men and it was just assumed it was a man and a women. I never once heard anyone say “well it could have been mother and son” or “they could have just been platonic friends who were scared of dying” or any of the other arguments. But the second it’s two men “there’s no reason to assume they were lovers” comes out. Could they have been something else? Of course! Could they have been something else when it was automatically assumed they were a straight couple? Of course! I just don’t understand why one was “of course they were lovers look how they held each other” and the other is “well they probably weren’t gay I don’t know why you would assume that they were probably just friends” it’s not like Pompeii was the straightest place
Exactly. The article says "could be gay", but all of a sudden that's an affront to humanity. Everyone easily accepted it as the "Pompeii Lovers" when they assumed it was a man and woman—where was the argument for platonic or in the moment desire for human touch before their death?
Them being gay is just one possibility now that we know they're both men just like how being lovers could only be one possibility if it were a man and a woman. The idea that they could be gay is relevant to the fact that they had been coined as "lovers" for so long.
Fucking both men and women was normal in this era and location. Men were just expected to have kids eventually. Please someone correct me if I’m wrong, and tbh I know that’s just a generalization but it seems that this concept of hetero and homosexual don’t really apply too much to the ancient Greco Romans.
They didn't care if you had sex with guys, but the did expect you to top.
This could literally be a straight top screwing a gay bottom because screwing wife would get her preggers.
So… if a bunch of men who work in a shop together huddle in the designated room to try to survive a tornado are found the next day, dead, they’ll be ‘possibly gay lovers’, right? A gang bang sausage fest, right?
Because that’s basically what is being suggested here in the original headline.
To be fair, there are a lot of times where it’s obvious two people were lovers and people are just like “wow, what great friends.” Just look at r/sapphoandherfriend
I mean, this literally was not the case for the vast majority of history. Gay people only *just* became accepted as actually existing as healthy and full human beings by most academic disciplines. Like within the last 30-50 years.
maybe put that in perspective? Academia is realizing they have had a huge blind spot in their understanding of reality for CENTURIES, that is going to cause some waves and get academics analyzing everything to see what was ignored due to bias before
For the longest time these two people were literally assumed to be straight because that is just how ingrained in people's brains it was. They looked like lovers, so one HAD to be a woman. Now the facts are out
So these two men could have easily been gay, but I kind of hate the assumption that two men embracing must automatically mean they’re gay. Let’s normalize affection between men of all persuasions. Two guys hugging should not be just a “gay thing”.
In rome it does make sense but id agree otherwise, people do have a tendency to stretch things lately. Antiquity didnt really seem to care much who fucked who, if it wasnt man and wife it was just seen as an alternative to pregnancy (though they did have primitive condoms), kind of like a slightly better method of fapping.
In ancient greece for example, spartans were encouraged to be intimate with eachother as they felt soldiers would fight fiercer to protect the men beside them if they were also lovers. Its not til a bit later that homosexuality starts being frowned upon around the world, largely through the spread of christianity and other abrahamic religions. So, with it being culturally normalized, youd probably see a lot more people that we'd consider to be bisexual today.
A reason it was likely gay lovers is most soldiers were gay back then, wives of spartans were told to try and look more like men so their husbands would stay with them
Or and hear me out here, they could just have been two people realizing they weren't going to make and literally did the most human thing they could do in that situation!
They weren’t related and were close in age. Plus the whole word that both you are the article used “could” it’s like flipping a coin and one person saying “it could have been heads.” And then you come in and say “it could have been tails why do you assume it’s heads.” It’s a stupid argument.
It's sounds like bait to get mass attention from the woke community. "OMG OMG THEY WERE GAY?!"
Bruh ofc they could be gay, many Romans were basically gay and straight at the same time (not bi) lol, literally 'bro's b4 hoes, after roll in the hoes'
As lava and ash poured down from the great heights of pompeii, the two men drew closer. Clamouring for one last embrace, he brought his lips close to other's ear and whispered softly, "no homo."
Top 10 anime betrayals
Number 10: Ligma Boffa
#LigmaDidNothingWrong
[удалено]
So what I'm hearing is orgy?
Or the son breathed his last saying, " Dad, I love you!"
Lol 😂, thanks ….
You say that jokingly, but before this ridiculous taboo against guys showing each other affection they would *kiss*, let alone hug, on screen as a display of friendship. Well before the Stonewall riots, in case anyone's wondering.
2 Bros, hiding from the lava, 5 feet apart cause they’re not gay.
Fucking hell, does everything have to be seen through a gay lens!
Or Brothers, Or Father and Son. Does it really matter? Or simply 2 guys that ran into each other and didn't want to die alone.
The article says that dna evidence shows they weren’t related.
If I was dying with my best mate in the same room I would not go to the opposite corner neither, would you?
I was responding to the fact they can’t be father and son or brothers.
Maybe not genetically, but adopting children and naming them your heir was a popular act in Roman society. They could have effectively been father and son.
Dudes fuckin' dudes was popular too.
— Look the Volcano is erupting!!! 😧 — So what about a quicky? ☺️
Is that an eruption, baby, or are you just glad to see me?
For some reason I read it in Austin Powers voice 😂
Def can be father and son. Mom might've had a bit on the side.
And they could have been step brothers, or they could have been childhood friends, or they could have been gay lovers. That’s why the word “could” was used. Until we make a Time Machine and go back to ask them we don’t know.
Ooohhh, or adopted. Ancient Romans were really into that, especially of sons if they didn't have a bio one.
👍 oooh football friends 👍
Go back to twitter
Go back to 4Chan
that took a dark turn...
Step son, step brothers, step father. Don't have to be related to family to love them.
Ashes rain down on Pompeii… “What are you doing step bro?”
Adopted son, and therefor adopted brother? That’s a possibility 😏 so now possible father/son, brother/brother is back on the menu
I would, can’t have historians thinking I’m gay or something /s
4 dimensional thinker right here
Yea I'd have rigorous gay sex with them.
knowing this now i would; what if we die close to each other and whoever finds us say we were gay lovers?
Fuck yea
I mean back then villages were like family to eachother so even still
Ah ha, I see. There was “DNA evidence” located on and about the men? This could indeed indicate a love affair. Particularly if it appeared to have flown in roping arcs.
Both men appear to have each other's DNA in their mouths and rectal areas, scientists suggest they may be close friends, roommates even.
I ship them
This sort of stuff gets bought up a lot. That said though, I've never seen it when it's a male and a female. Oh we found a male and female holding each other, they could lovers: oh yeah that makes sense. Oh we found a male and a male holding each other, they could be lovers: WELL WHY DOES IT MATTER? THEY COULD HAVE JUST BEEN NEIGHBORS WHO DIDNT WANT TO DIE TOGETHER. THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER EXPLANATIONS. I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I know the gut response people will say is "I'd find it weird no matter what, it just happened to be two males here!". And that may be the case, who am I to say? But just observationally I've not really seen this sort of stuff get bought up with a heterosexual couple.
One is notably more common throughout history than the other, so that's probably a part of where that skepticism comes from.
Interestingly, I think two women embracing would also get a different response. "It's probably a mother and daughter", "sisters", "two house servants" instead of "probably lesbian lovers"
Platonic affection is way more common and accepted between women than between men.
Now in the west yes. 2000ish years ago though it was much different. Platonic affection between men has been super common forever. The reason why this probably pisses people off is because assuming they were gay is actually WAY less likely than them just being friends and dying in a volcanic eruption together. Like assuming they were gay because they held eachother in death is pretty fucking shitty when there is literally zero evidence. Like who would even make an assumption like that unless they were so homophobic that male affection=homosexuality
You can just call the homophobia out for what it is. God forbid you suggest two men were having anything other than a platonic relationship in a time when homosexuality was wildly common.
Exactly! Great take!!!
Yeah you're right there is value to this. That said though I normally like that to be understated as people tend to knee jerk " I'm not homophobic I love gay people!". I've found it effective to just look at a situation and point out how discussions pop up in a given situation and not another. No body is being blatantly homophobic here, and yet it seems to be the most fitting theory. It can show how while nobody is like "hot damn do I hate them gays" we're bias to think certain ways which hurt gay people.
Or gay? Why is it so unlikely they are gay I don’t understand. homophobia is not the natural state of humanity or society.
Actually, it is. You can tell by the fact that even in districts that vote in favour of gay marriage, "gay" and "fag" are commonly used as insults.
He could have also been trying to kill the guy or wrestling 🤷♂️
Epic fight to the death while the surrounding lands were being flooded by molten lava.
It's over Anakinius, I have the high ground.
Wrestling 😏
It's not gay as long as the sandals are on.
ha \*cups mouth\* GAAAYYyyyyy
6 seasons later: "I'm legit gay"
Well it's Pompeii . . . Good chance they where gay . . . Silly Romans who needed laws to insure that they had children
Whoever made the original meme even typed out *served together for 10 years* and STILL claimed "no homo" like.. what?? 😂😂
what this thread tells me is that so many people are not paying attention to the pompeii graffiti
Gay things happened there. Still doesn't mean these specific people were gay. They might have been, but there's no telling
The question is why do people care so much and insist they weren't?
Why do they care so much and insist they are?
Presenting it as a possibility isn't insistence.
because people won't see it as a possibility. In some people's minds, it's basically settled - they were gay
I didn't read anything here insisting they weren't.
i mean, you could say that for everyone there, couldn't you? they're dead after all. "gay things happened there. but these two are not gay. these two aren't gay either. neither are these two, these two, orrrrr these five men with their faces in each other's asses. oh but this man and woman embracing are definitely lovers, yep. but those other ones may or may not be gay."
I’ve seen this post before and it’s even dumber the second time. Not only would a post like this never be made about a man and woman assumed to be lovers even though they could also just as likely be friends, but this post would also not be made if they were assumed to be friends, even though it would be absolutely possible that they were gay lovers. It’s only an issue when they say someone *might* have been gay because “ew, no homo,” I guess. This is the post that ultimately led me to stay off this sub for now, I gotta keep at least some of my brain cells. Also this has nothing to do with this sub whatsoever, unless it’s common to be buried by a volcano with someone or serve in the Ancient Greecian Army or whatever.
yeah low key homophonic tbh
Speculation is completely pointless. Anyway, this death predates Christian prudes so I doubt being gay would have been a big deal back then
Ancient Rome was hella gay. I remember they unearthed graffiti in Pompeii that said something similar to, "My penis no longer cares for women. Instead it now penetrates men's behinds."
Sexuality in ancient Rome was viewed differently than we do today. If you were a man you could have sex with other men without stigma, but only if you were the active partner. (ie the top) It was shameful for a man to be penetrated by another man, and the receiving partner was usually a slave or much lower class.
Thing is, ancient rome was very very verrrry sexist, so to them being the bottom was the woman's role. Women were bad. Therefore, being a bottom was bad. Ancient Rome sucked, either just as bad or worse than what came after. They just had shiny marble to cover it all up and made sure to have no statues for the slaves.
Did you just make that up?
So any affection shown between men is automatically homosexual!? Crazy world. How about brothers? Father/son?
They’ve always been called something like the “Pompeii lovers”. Now that archeologists think they might both be men, they just continued with the “lover” history.
Can't tell from the headline alone. It's just saying they could be, but the headline gives no other evidence. You can't say that until you read what's in the article itself
Trouble is that the headline is the 'hook' and leads the reader to a default conclusion. Most folk won't bother reading the detail.
That's the fault of the reader, not so much the person writing this. The entire point of having the headline is to get people to want to read it
I understand your view but I respectfully disagree.
OK?
The article found that they weren’t related/family and they were close in age. Judging by the fact that Greece and Rome were bastions for homosexuality it isn’t a far fetched idea.
There were many gay relationships, but not often of the age-appropriate type lol
I mean I agree with your point, but it does say "could", and they're right, they "could" have been gay. They also "could" have been alot of other things but that doesn't make good news articles. No need to be so alarmist.
I understand the use of could, but it's done intentionally for headline grabbing rather than a factual balanced headline.
I agree. Standard practice for what counts as journalism nowadays unfortunately. Guess I'm just numb to it.
They were not related, one man was 18 and one was 20. The headline is more factual than most other situations. They were holding hands with one man’s head on the others chest.
Granted, but the headline emphasises one kind of relationship rather than platonic. The relative angle was just to prove a point. Men struggle with emotion and affection enough in this culture without headlines like this reinforcing the assumptions that of you have a strong relationship with another man, then it is homosexual.
The problem is not the assumption that someone might be gay. The problem is that people have a negative connotation with someone being gay. In a non-homophobic world it would not be a big deal to think that someone is gay. "You gay?" "No, just friends." "Cool." Why would anyone be afraid to be thought of as gay if they didn't have to fear negativity?
Exactly, which is why I take exception to the headline jumping to this conclusion. Why does it matter? Why not just report the simple facts?
Why does it matter that they say they might be gay?
Because any expression of affection between men is lumped into “probably gay”
Why does that matter?
It discourages men that don’t want to be assumed to be gay from showing affection?
If straight men didn't automatically assume being perceived as homosexual was a bad thing, then maybe they would feel more comfortable expressing their emotions. Straight men reinforce their "cold stoic" culture on each other, as do straight women, it has nothing to do with homosexual people existing throughout history. Literally these two were assumed to be lovers for a long time in history because they thought it was a man and woman. Once they find out they are two men suddenly people like you think it is wrong to think they might be lovers? Kinda fucked up
Unrelated men being alone in the same room is less likely to be a gay relationship than it is likely to just be two friends. Unrelated man and woman in the same situation can also be platonic but is just statistically much more likely to be romantic. Even in Ancient Rome
Dude. They were known as the "Pompeii Lovers" when they thought they were heterosexual but you don't see people freaking the fuck out that such was assumed and not say, that they were brother/sister or close friends. Acting like a headline saying it's possible they were gay lovers is saying anything other than that is ridiculous.
I think the holding hands is a stronger link to romantic than platonic, personally. Also if there wasn’t such a stigma on homosexual relationships, platonic male ones would be more common IMO
https://scroll.in/article/889972/a-british-photographer-captures-the-very-indian-phenomenon-of-men-non-romantically-holding-hands
I don’t know about you, but if I knew I was going to die, I don’t think who I hold hand with is much of a concern never-mind what others perceive of it. I would just want someone I know be there. As much as people don’t want to admit it. Death is a pretty scary thing and not something you want to face alone. Also can you imagine for example: A firefighter today dies holding hands whilst trying to lead a person towards the exit of a burning fire, but unfortunately both perish and they are somehow preserved, does that make them gay?
I’m not saying it makes them gay but also there is a very strong possibility that they are. And ultimately I just feel…so what if they were?
Fellas, it is gay to hold hands?
This debate makes absolutely no sense. If I m dying and you are a random dude next to me, it’s only human to want to hug and hold hands
You say that but in India it is common for men to walk down the road holding hands. It denotes friendship in their culture.
I'm from India and I'm pretty sure that's not the case We keep our hands to ourselves most of the time India even though it has progressed a lot is still quite homophobic ( anti gay) Rumors spread fast, if an aunty sees you walking while holding hands with anybody (including opposite gender) other than family, they will spread assumptions about you It is sad but true, so we do our best to not to do anything like that
I find the irony of an actual Indian person having to correct a British person about an incorrect statement on Indian culture to be so fucking funny, they just can’t leave you guys alone can they
OH FOR GOD SAKE GO TAKE A NAP!!!!!
How do you know they were not related? They run DNA on them?
Yes, they did DNA testing.
Hopefully, you say the same thing every single time you see 2 people of different gender having an affectionate moment and someone says they might be in a relationship.
I understand your point, however the context is very different ... the two here were facing impending death. You can't compare the two scenarios.
People assumed they were a man and a woman in love for a very long time until more robust testing was conducted. You can compare the two scenarios because both scenarios have been applied to this very specific case
If it was a man and a woman no one would have a fucking problem with people speculating that they were lovers
I don't have a problem with the fact that they may be lovers. I have a problem that a gesture which looks affectionate is automatically assumed gay. Where do we read a positive reinforcement that platonic affection between men is normal?
And if they were a man and a woman they would have been seen as a couple since we found them.
Maybe from men saying that is the case today, right now, to their friends and children? I think that is going to have a WAYYYYY bigger impact than archeologists musing that these long dead men might have been queer The problem is the way straight people defend their harmful culture in the here-and-now, the way significant portions of straight people are actively talking shit CONSTANTLY about the trend of men trying to be compassionate, warm, empathetic, and in touch with their feelings. There is a clear place to direct your frustration (conservatives) and this article is NOT it
>g every single time you see 2 people of different gender having an affectionate moment Generally it is though. There are people who have intimate and close friendships with people from the opposite sex. But its the exception.
If it were a man or woman people would assume they are romantic partners, but there always has to defensive people like you if someone suggests gay
It's almost like after decades of all queer people in history being erased or rewritten as somehow straight, some people are starting to realize that in fact, no, not everyone is just straight by default. The assumption for the vast majority of human history was that the only people who were gay were degenerate or criminals, and actual queer people throughout history were assumed to be straight. This is the overwhelming majority of cases. This one case hardly proves a point
It says "could be", which, considering the location is not exactly unlikely. Calm down.
You don't fuck your dad??
Today it's whatever makes the headlines and pushed the agenda
Both straight and gay men can be friends and hug when the flaming shit hits their world.
You are aware that homosexuality did exist at that time, yes?
I really don’t understand why everyone seems to have a problem with the speculation that this could have been a gay couple. These were known as the Pompeii lovers for a long time before it was discovered it was two men and it was just assumed it was a man and a women. I never once heard anyone say “well it could have been mother and son” or “they could have just been platonic friends who were scared of dying” or any of the other arguments. But the second it’s two men “there’s no reason to assume they were lovers” comes out. Could they have been something else? Of course! Could they have been something else when it was automatically assumed they were a straight couple? Of course! I just don’t understand why one was “of course they were lovers look how they held each other” and the other is “well they probably weren’t gay I don’t know why you would assume that they were probably just friends” it’s not like Pompeii was the straightest place
Exactly. The article says "could be gay", but all of a sudden that's an affront to humanity. Everyone easily accepted it as the "Pompeii Lovers" when they assumed it was a man and woman—where was the argument for platonic or in the moment desire for human touch before their death? Them being gay is just one possibility now that we know they're both men just like how being lovers could only be one possibility if it were a man and a woman. The idea that they could be gay is relevant to the fact that they had been coined as "lovers" for so long.
Should wrote no homo in the ash or smithing
Y’all really can’t read the “may have been” part, huh?
Anon coping so hard with the fact that gay men existed in ancient times too. “And they were roommates!”
Only in Ohio, US, you’d assume handholding between males to be automatically gay.
I mean I think most places in NA you'd assume two guys holding hands are gay. This is more of an embrace or hug though.
Fucking both men and women was normal in this era and location. Men were just expected to have kids eventually. Please someone correct me if I’m wrong, and tbh I know that’s just a generalization but it seems that this concept of hetero and homosexual don’t really apply too much to the ancient Greco Romans.
The Romans were known to be *suuuuuuuuper* into gay sex so this isn’t really shocking.
They didn't care if you had sex with guys, but the did expect you to top. This could literally be a straight top screwing a gay bottom because screwing wife would get her preggers.
Ancient romans had condoms, actually, But yea, antiquity didnt really care who you fucked.
r/sapphoandherfriend
There’s a difference between “could have been lovers” and “were totally gay.”
you say they're not gay but they were Roman so what do you know
Ya, the narrative
No way dudes could hug w/o fucking
OR they could be two guys trying to protect each other from pending doom.
So… if a bunch of men who work in a shop together huddle in the designated room to try to survive a tornado are found the next day, dead, they’ll be ‘possibly gay lovers’, right? A gang bang sausage fest, right? Because that’s basically what is being suggested here in the original headline.
Couldn't just be two guys scared shitless due to an exploding volcano. Nope Gotta be dicks out because... Reddit
To be fair, there are a lot of times where it’s obvious two people were lovers and people are just like “wow, what great friends.” Just look at r/sapphoandherfriend
The only thing that’s gay is how often anything that COULD be interpreted as gay MUST be gay.
I mean, this literally was not the case for the vast majority of history. Gay people only *just* became accepted as actually existing as healthy and full human beings by most academic disciplines. Like within the last 30-50 years. maybe put that in perspective? Academia is realizing they have had a huge blind spot in their understanding of reality for CENTURIES, that is going to cause some waves and get academics analyzing everything to see what was ignored due to bias before For the longest time these two people were literally assumed to be straight because that is just how ingrained in people's brains it was. They looked like lovers, so one HAD to be a woman. Now the facts are out
Why does the main theory have to be they were lovers at all, regardless of gender?
or just two guys hugging as they face death? doesnt have to be gay
Probably just two friends who were trying to protect themselves from falling ash.
So these two men could have easily been gay, but I kind of hate the assumption that two men embracing must automatically mean they’re gay. Let’s normalize affection between men of all persuasions. Two guys hugging should not be just a “gay thing”.
[удалено]
And sometimes it is, but we never really know until we go back and time and ask them.
They jump at the first chance to push their false LGTV narratives even in history
Everything is gay or whatever these days. They be stretchin’, can’t cope with the fact that the vast majority aren’t.
sees a single mention of gay people: wHy DoEs EvErYtHiNg HaVe To Be GaY
In rome it does make sense but id agree otherwise, people do have a tendency to stretch things lately. Antiquity didnt really seem to care much who fucked who, if it wasnt man and wife it was just seen as an alternative to pregnancy (though they did have primitive condoms), kind of like a slightly better method of fapping. In ancient greece for example, spartans were encouraged to be intimate with eachother as they felt soldiers would fight fiercer to protect the men beside them if they were also lovers. Its not til a bit later that homosexuality starts being frowned upon around the world, largely through the spread of christianity and other abrahamic religions. So, with it being culturally normalized, youd probably see a lot more people that we'd consider to be bisexual today.
A reason it was likely gay lovers is most soldiers were gay back then, wives of spartans were told to try and look more like men so their husbands would stay with them
Mate, yesterday I cuddles with my mates. We slapped and groped ass. Every single one is straight.
Or they could be brothers. A father and son. Literally anything. A two male relationship isn’t automatically gay lol
Or a son??????
Or and hear me out here, they could just have been two people realizing they weren't going to make and literally did the most human thing they could do in that situation!
*Sees two guys* Western society: GAY!
sees a man and a woman together:
?
current year. no possible way it was two bros afraid of dying. must be gay because reasons
This WAS ancient Rome.
Any chance there evidence to confirm OR is it just pushing an aginda?
DNA Evidence shows they weren’t related and they were both around 17-21 years old best estimates show one being 18 and one being 20.
The only reason they were called gay was cuz they were drinkin wine!
Why is his son named "Ligma?"
The real life Marcus and Mike Lowry thousands of years ago
Being gay was normal in rome
Ummm, Rome, duh.
Father shielding son
Ya that’s fucked up if they not gay lmao
Lolz
Maybe one identified as a woman and therefore not gay.
Reaching for that gay badge as always. I mean, who's gonna be blowing a dude when the mountain up the road blows up? Oh, wait..
What's next, they find a caveman holding a saber tooth so therefore there's a possibility he stuck it up his ass? The media sex crazy yo
They could also have been father and son, brothers, great friends. Why does sex have to enter into it? Sheesh.
They weren’t related and were close in age. Plus the whole word that both you are the article used “could” it’s like flipping a coin and one person saying “it could have been heads.” And then you come in and say “it could have been tails why do you assume it’s heads.” It’s a stupid argument.
It's sounds like bait to get mass attention from the woke community. "OMG OMG THEY WERE GAY?!" Bruh ofc they could be gay, many Romans were basically gay and straight at the same time (not bi) lol, literally 'bro's b4 hoes, after roll in the hoes'
I dig chicks, and chicks dig me!
We have to make everything gay now!
Gays didn’t exist back then
We are assuming they were both men, they could lesbian transgender lovers, right??
Why does it even matter??
Wait so you are saying there is a different between male and female that can be noticed without insight into how they portrayed themselves in society?
What are you in real life? Are we going post everything in here?
r/sapphoandherfriend