Degenerate Heart of HetRio wrote:Riiser-Larsen wrote:Technically speaking that does count as some form of homosexuality (or at least bisexuality), but thank you for elaborating. It's a weird thing to try to summarize.
They didn't believe people were essentially meant to lust after certain sex, so their conception of sexual orientation is far different than ours.
There were no heteros or gays, just tops and bottoms and it had a social role. Sex of the partner was a matter of preference but overall their attitude about being an insertive partner was that very "in times of war whatever hole is a trench" attitude that the Bible authors got awfully shocked and baffled about, they were not conceived as inherent different kinds of people.
...That is a lot similar to historical conceptions of homosexuality in Latin America and the Middle East (lest it is not repressed with threat to one's life), even.
I know, I meant that as an objective standard, whether or not it was social, the fact that they had sex with men and considered it at least somewhat normal makes it some form of non-heterosexuality.