Would you slay as a femboy in ancient Rome?

[Lonenely sigma]

Whenever I see an instagram reel of a cute male femboy twink, all comments are like "romans would've went to war over you"


Is this claim based on anything real? Did they really like femboys in ancient times? Where does this myth even come from?

 

[iloveboobs]

nigga what

 

[Alucard69]

Nah my face is narrow but i have ogre browridge

 

[scrunchables]

 

[iloveboobs]

@MrBeastSigma look at this gay ahh nigga

 

[RICHCELDOM]

This is some Reddit copypasta right?

 

[vernier]

I actually want to get banned
Should I post a naked femboy here?

 

[Lonenely sigma]

This is some Reddit copypasta right?

Nah it isn't. Come on guys don't make me feel like a retard on a forum like .org

 

[iloveboobs]

Should I post a naked femboy here?

no

 

[wsada]

You'd be crucified

 

[Lonenely sigma]

You'd be crucified

Not the answer I was hoping for...

 

[apocalypse]

How can a femboy slay? They get slayed.

 

[Lonenely sigma]

How can a femboy slay? They get slayed.

Ok I may have to change my definition of a femboy.


I don't mean a transgender, I mean a guy who is a bit feminized but is still OBVIOUSLY a male.


For example this dude:

 

[certifiedeskimo]

from that one emperor who found a boy who looked like his ex wife, castrated him and married him

 

[apocalypse]

Ok I may have to change my definition of a femboy.


I don't mean a transgender, I mean a guy who is a bit feminized but is still OBVIOUSLY a male.


For example this dude:

View attachment 3262581

Yeah they would have been bottoms in ancient Rome and Greece

 

[Lonenely sigma]

Yeah they would have been bottoms in ancient Rome and Greece

In Greece sure, but I am not sure about Rome. They were kinda gay-ish, weren't they?

 

[kentick]

I am too primitive looking to be a twinkcel

 

[88PSLinAgartha]

Did they really like femboys in ancient times?

yes
but then the jews came in and destroyed it by saying gay sex le bad

 

[Lonenely sigma]

yes
but then the jews came in and destroyed it by saying gay sex le bad

Wait wdym "gay sex" I am talking about attracting women

 

[apocalypse]

"romans would've went to war over you"

This is about gay sex boyo

 

[Lonenely sigma]

This is about gay sex boyo

I didn't mean it that way though...

 

[LimaDummy]

I actually want to get banned
Should I post a naked femboy here?

Yes !!

 

[Deleted member 101955]

Whenever I see an instagram reel of a cute male femboy twink, all comments are like "romans would've went to war over you"


Is this claim based on anything real? Did they really like femboys in ancient times? Where does this myth even come from?

They fucked men and little boys in the ass before Christ in Europe. Yes. Civilzied my ass. We were no different to niggers today before our Lord

 

[MrBeastSigma]

@MrBeastSigma look at this gay ahh nigga

Please don't mention me in posts about femboys

 

[Lonenely sigma]

They fucked men and little boys in the ass before Christ in Europe. Yes. Civilzied my ass. We were no different to niggers today before our Lord

I'd argue christianity was one of the reasons rome fell tbf. I don't think thats the sole reason why european culture is where it is.


Plenty of christian territories in africa that haven't progressed one bit

 

[Deleted member 101955]

I'd argue christianity was one of the reasons rome fell tbf. I don't think thats the sole reason why european culture is where it is.


Plenty of christian territories in africa that haven't progressed one bit

Thats because they have been under Christian rule for less than 200 years nigga.

When we were in our first 200 years as Christians, anglo saxons and celts were slaughtering each other. It takes time for Christian law and government to be setup. Anyways I think Kenya is better off than it was before with niggers eating each other.

Also the roman empire was christian for a large part of its history so how could it collapse cuz of christianity. If anything it was a uniting force for a dividing empire. The only reason why it would have hindered the roman empire if the roman leaders tried to opress it. I dont think the eastern part of the empire would go so strong if it wasnt for its Christian roots.

Anyways I believe that Europeans are Gods chosen people are the 13 tribes that the bible talks about. Moses and the prophets were described to be white, not sand niggas.

 

[Lonenely sigma]

Thats because they have been under Christian rule for less than 200 years nigga.

When we were in our first 200 years as Christians, anglo saxons and celts were slaughtering each other. It takes time for Christian law and government to be setup. Anyways I think Kenya is better off than it was before with niggers eating each other.

Also the roman empire was christian for a large part of its history so how could it collapse cuz of christianity. If anything it was a uniting force for a dividing empire. The only reason why it would have hindered the roman empire if the roman leaders tried to opress it. I dont think the eastern part of the empire would go so strong if it wasnt for its Christian roots.

Anyways I believe that Europeans are Gods chosen people are the 13 tribes that the bible talks about. Moses and the prophets were described to be white, not sand niggas.

Christianity promotes certain values that go against natural human spirit.


If a population A has the strenght, and a population B has a resource that population A wants, but doesn't have the means of protecting that resource, naturally the population A will occupy and take those resources by force. Nature is cruel, sure, but thats how it works.


Christianity, on the other hand, comes in and says "no, invading the population B is not moral. We should starve to death instead". Is that more moral? Maybe. But using that logic, a tiger that eats the slow zebra is immoral as well. I don't think you can use that argument tbf.


Now, on the inner plan, within the state, its better to have Christianity. It allows peoples within that state to live in peace. But Romans were the state built on war and agression - loving peace meant no more colonies, no more slave labour, weaker military, and consequently, the end of their empire

 

[Deleted member 101955]

Christianity promotes certain values that go against natural human spirit.


If a population A has the strenght, and a population B has a resource that population A wants, but doesn't have the means of protecting that resource, naturally the population A will occupy and take those resources by force. Nature is cruel, sure, but thats how it works.


Christianity, on the other hand, comes in and says "no, invading the population B is not moral. We should starve to death instead". Is that more moral? Maybe. But using that logic, a tiger that eats the slow zebra is immoral as well. I don't think you can use that argument tbf.


Now, on the inner plan, within the state, its better to have Christianity. It allows peoples within that state to live in peace. But Romans were the state built on war and agression - loving peace meant no more colonies, no more slave labour, weaker military, and consequently, the end of their empire

In what way does Christianity go against nature? God designed mother nature as recourses for us humans to live off as we are humans not cattle, we are the only conscious beings in the universe who can even fathom we are alive.

Christianity opposes faggots, it opposes beastiality (has the first book in mankind to oppose it), it promotes a strong family structure and opposes hypergamy or multiple partners, if you want to look at the non monogamous shitholes compare the hypergamous regions of subsaharan africa and the more monogamous ones. Its day and night difference.

Also brother you don't speak about my religion in a negative way which I respect I want to say first, anyways I don't know who told you Christianity never tells you to fight. Jesus told his followers, to not resist them killing him, because it was part of prophecy. However there are so much bible verses saying if you get hit to, to hit back, so much times where God ordered the prophets to go to war. The Christians knew this this is why they went on a crusade against the sand niggers who posed an extential threat.

Also you do realise all of the colonial empires were Christian. We took recourses, spread Christ, made pharmicies, made hospitals, made running water, made cities, made community, and high trust societies, and the world strongest militaries. Anyone who teaches you a gospel of lay down and get fucked over they are taking the bible out of context. Jesus himself before his crucifixion, would participate in stoning, breaking tables of people trying to make money from holy sites. Only when his crucifixion was ordered, he could have started a revolt, but it was God's plan for him to always die on the cross.

 

[Lonenely sigma]

In what way does Christianity go against nature? God designed mother nature as recourses for us humans to live off as we are humans not cattle, we are the only conscious beings in the universe who can even fathom we are alive.

Christianity opposes faggots, it opposes beastiality (has the first book in mankind to oppose it), it promotes a strong family structure and opposes hypergamy or multiple partners, if you want to look at the non monogamous shitholes compare the hypergamous regions of subsaharan africa and the more monogamous ones. Its day and night difference.

Also brother you don't speak about my religion in a negative way which I respect I want to say first, anyways I don't know who told you Christianity never tells you to fight. Jesus told his followers, to not resist them killing him, because it was part of prophecy. However there are so much bible verses saying if you get hit to, to hit back, so much times where God ordered the prophets to go to war. The Christians knew this this is why they went on a crusade against the sand niggers who posed an extential threat.

Also you do realise all of the colonial empires were Christian. We took recourses, spread Christ, made pharmicies, made hospitals, made running water, made cities, made community, and high trust societies, and the world strongest militaries. Anyone who teaches you a gospel of lay down and get fucked over they are taking the bible out of context. Jesus himself before his crucifixion, would participate in stoning, breaking tables of people trying to make money from holy sites. Only when his crucifixion was ordered, he could have started a revolt, but it was God's plan for him to always die on the cross.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" principle is a part of the Old Testament, right? From what I figured, the New Testament teaches peace. Maybe its open to interpretation, but from what I've seen, most anti-colonial movements in the UK, France, Spain etc. were pacifist in nature and they all cited Jesus and his teachings.


Another thing I saw, for which you can make an argument that its not the most reliable source ever, was this video of that preacher Cliffe who answers students questions about Christianity:



My point is just that it can easily be turned in any way you want. Americans invaded Iraq to take their oil, but they claimed it was to bring freedom. If you are an American Christian, your stance on that war would depend on do you trust your government or not.


Romans on the other hand didn't even try to hide the fact they were fighting to expand their lands. They weren't endangered, at least not at first, they weren't fighting to liberate, they wanted to colonize, and so Christians stood in their way.


And lastly, when you say that I respect your religion, I also live in a mostly Christian European country, so Christianity is close to me as well, I am just arguing about how certain things are open to interpretation, and how I think that Romans interpreted their wars of expansion as going against their fate.

 

[Awan]

Yes

I actually want to get banned
Should I post a naked femboy here?

 

[flippasav]

Bad combo lmao

 

[Deleted member 101955]

Correct me if I am wrong, but the whole "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth" principle is a part of the Old Testament, right? From what I figured, the New Testament teaches peace. Maybe its open to interpretation, but from what I've seen, most anti-colonial movements in the UK, France, Spain etc. were pacifist in nature and they all cited Jesus and his teachings.


Another thing I saw, for which you can make an argument that its not the most reliable source ever, was this video of that preacher Cliffe who answers students questions about Christianity:



My point is just that it can easily be turned in any way you want. Americans invaded Iraq to take their oil, but they claimed it was to bring freedom. If you are an American Christian, your stance on that war would depend on do you trust your government or not.


Romans on the other hand didn't even try to hide the fact they were fighting to expand their lands. They weren't endangered, at least not at first, they weren't fighting to liberate, they wanted to colonize, and so Christians stood in their way.


And lastly, when you say that I respect your religion, I also live in a mostly Christian European country, so Christianity is close to me as well, I am just arguing about how certain things are open to interpretation, and how I think that Romans interpreted their wars of expansion as going against their fate.

Well I mean as you say there are many interpetations we can go off what the biggest church in the world has to say, which is the catholic church.

The catholic church doesnt denounce the old testament, and believes the law of Moses should be followed. Where as things like circumcision or avoiding eating pork don't need to be done because the old testament says after the coming of the messiah, all unclean animals will become clean. I'm orthodox so I don't know what they say about circumcision but yeah.

Other than that, the principle of marriage, outlawing beastiality, outlawing homosexuality, and having a strong state that punishes crime, are still very important and is what needed to have a good government according to most Christians.

As I said Jesus participated in stoning, and broke tables before he was ordered to be crucified. When Jesus commands his followers to turn the other cheek, he is saying it in the context of his crucifixion. And telling them not to resist his crucifixion, as it has to happen, and since he is God he will take care of the justice. Thats why theres also a verse thats commonly said about "leaving justice to God". This is because after the pharisees and rabbinic Jews killed them, Jesus said he will punish them by kicking them out of Jerusalem, and a couple years later, mass killing of Jews occured and Jerusalem was sacked.

Unless God tells you directly to not respond violently to an aggressor, or not colonize you dont.

Christians in Roman times weren't against expansion. There is times when Jesus and the apostles literally say its okay to be a Roman soldier. Also may I add Jesus' problems was with the Jews, not the Romans. The Roman governor of the region of Israel during Jesus' time became a Christian. He participated in wars trying to expand the Roman Empire, and yet was still a Christian.