"For I know not any greater blessing to a young man who is beginning in life than a virtuous lover, or to a lover than a beloved youth. For the principle, I say, neither kindred, nor honor, nor wealth, nor any motive is able to implant so well as love. Of what am I speaking? Of the sense of honor and dishonor, without which neither states nor individuals ever do any good or great work… And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor and emulating one another in honor; and it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world." - Phaedrus
Pederasty today has been grossly misrepresented by groups of people afraid that two young men may honorably love each other with a smoldering set of passions, --or groups that wish to misrepresent it to imply sex with children. In fact, Pederasty was the practice of one group of young men, --befriending, training & loving the next generation shortly after the latter entered puberty. It was consensual, noble, loving, educational & was a great benefit to society. And like any society, there were also unethical people who exploited others via prostitution, slavery & other forms of inhumanity. But those bad examples are not by any means representative of the practice of pederasty, -any more than a rapist or pimp represent nurturing love today.
Historical Pederasty from:
As a G0Y man, and former teenager, -I wanted to provide some commentary & clarity with a dose of common-sense to the subject matter of pederasty and what people often incorrectly presume about the term as opposed to the reality. When spoken today, people often visualize an image of a 'dirty old man' in pursuit of a prepubescent-boy. Words like 'NAMBLA & 'pedophile' spring to mind. However, the modern slur has little to do with the original meaning; --And some historical analysis will show how time & misuse of language's gray-areas can drastically alter definitions.
I want to first draw your attention to the Wikipedia articles at:
As of the time of this article, there is discussion of merging the content of the latter into the former -so at some time in the future, -the links above may not be accurate, but a search of the subject matter in Wikipedia should bring up the main subject. Also, because Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, -it is possible that the content of the articles will change over time. My commentary will be on the content at this time, in March-July of 2010. Please start by reading the articles link above.
My 1st comment is about what the article writer said about current knowledge about the subject matter: "A great deal of modern knowledge about Athenian pederastic practices has been derived from ceramic paintings on vases depicting various forms and aspects of the relationship." That art may be a great place to reference, but: God save us from the historic revisions made via Mapplethorpe unearthings!
The article/s above do contain enough information to form a clearer idea of the practice if you can circumnavigate the commentary of simpletons. Here is a great reference.
Hint #1: "It was also integral to Greek military training, and at times a factor in the deployment of troops." The "BOYS" weren't "boys". They were sexually mature teens. "PAIS" is a Greek term that doesn't necessarily relay that very crucial fact. But, common sense does. The "PAIS" was trained for military -because once puberty hits -- muscles & body can masculinize/grow rapidly as circumstances dictate. Armor & weapons are heavy. Training is hard. Prior to puberty, a "boy" doesn't have a chance of acquiring the physique necessary to be a soldier. While the exact age would vary based on the individual, the median entry age would be 14. This is borne out in other comments made in the article/s. Pederasty was NOT sex with a pre-pubescent boy.
Hint #3: Anal-Sex was considered grossly inappropriate and it was referred to generically as "SEX" based on the concept of PENETRATION (penetration being the sex-model with a woman). This simple cultural perception is lost in the present day because society has lost the healthy notion that analsex should be criminalized due to how incredibly dangerous it is. Ancient, PREantibiotic cultures generally realized how helpful having your health & a functional asshole was. Ergo: Getting/giving diseases and ripping out your arse during anal-sex was seen in the light of the destructive act it is. This understanding --that only AnalSex was considered "SEX" in M2M contexts -explains the seeming contradictions in citations such as: "Socrates' love of Alcibiades, which was more than reciprocated, is held as an example of chaste pederasty." Reading other statements makes it clear: Pederasty was "chaste" because AnalSex was forbidden and only IT was considered "Sex" between men.
Hint #4: It was the stuff that intense friendships were made of: "Typically, after their relationship had ended and the young man had married, -the older man and his protégé would remain on close terms throughout their life. For those lovers who continued their lovemaking after their beloveds had matured, the Greeks made allowances, saying, You can lift the bull, if you carried the calf." "Lovers" shared physical intimacy without AnalSex...because...
Hint #5: "Homosexuality" was considered BAAAAAD. Is this a contradiction of terms? Again: Not when you understand the context that ANALSEX ("SEX") between men was the "disgrace". In other terms: Two guys could share a bed all night, --share orgasms & make all sorts of sheet-staining messes, -but as far as anyone was concerned: They did NOT have "SEX" as long as they steered clear of the ButtNasty. Hence the quote from the article: "Only very rarely is anal sex suggested or shown, and then it is depicted as eliciting surprise from the bystanders. A number of other sources also suggest it was seen as shameful." Shameful. And generally, ILLEGAL - considered a violent act. And it IS. Which is why the writer of the article notes: "Likewise, the Cretans required the boy to declare whether the relationship had been to his liking, thus giving him an opportunity to break it off if any violence had been done to him.". What "violence" do you suppose was being discussed as a tort when the relationship was presumed to be intimate from the onset? Once you understand this vital distinction, -observations like the following don't seem confusing: "Plutarch and Xenophon, in their descriptions of Spartan pederasty, state that even though it is the beautiful boys (pais) who are sought above all others (contrary to the Cretan traditions), nevertheless the pederastic couple remains chaste."
Hint #6: Cutting thru the seeming confusion. Statements such as: "K. J. Dover states that the eromenos was not "supposed" to feel desire for the erastes, as that would be unmanly", - seem outright schizophrenic - until you realize that the model-relationship was based on civility and the gigantic sexual taboo was AnalSex. Those principles reframe the meaning of the term "desire" --implying that the specific unmanly desire was a "desire to penetrate or be penetrated". The conflicted language has arisen because the CONTEXT of the Greek is not fully delivered due to the scarcity of texts to more fully explain. However, interpolating the meaning from what we do know is fairly straightforward. Otherwise, the articles seem to describe a schizophrenic society that BOTH idolized young men & physical intimacy while shunning sexual climax with the same. Once the issue is framed- as AnalSex rightfully put in a place of criminal & shameful behavior ... the proper context is easily derived and suddenly it all makes sense.
Hint #7: Contrary to what PROponents of ButtPhukking may ASSert, --AnalSex was NOT & could NOT have been a widespread practice in ancient Greek culture. This FACT is self evident. When the practice of AnalSex began to gain momentum in modern "GAY" culture - it was accompanied by a simultaneous EXPLOSION of sexually transmitted diseases. This is no small point. According to the CDC & World Health Organization (WHO), -the practice of AnalSex spreads disease some +5000% better than even oral-sex. Or in other terms: (1) unprotected ArsePhukk = (50) FIFTY unprotected blow-jobs (and oralsex doesn't cause physical trauma to the mouth)! Even with the advent of modern antibiotics, antifungals, antivirals, antiparasite medications (NONE of which existed in Greece 3000 years ago) -- the "GAY MALE" demographic has the highest margins (by far) of sexually transmitted diseases of any demographic (+4300% higher than the general population according to the American Red Cross). Compare that with Lesbians -- which are among the lowest. The difference? AnalSex (lesbians lack a penis -ya know)! ButtSex kills societies dead! Now, can you imagine what would have happened in ancient Grecian culture if the ButtPhukk had been accepted as part of pederasty? There would have been a metaphorical mushroom-cloud of diseases & ruptured arse-holes within a generation's time span - over the whole culture! Plato among others saw this danger on the horizon.
Hint #8: Consider the various reasoning's in the following quote: "The state benefited from these relationships, according to the statements of ancient writers. The friendship functioned as a restraint on the youth, since if he committed a crime it was not he but his lover who was punished. In the military the lovers fought side by side, with each vying to shine before the other. Thus, it was said that an army of lovers would be invincible, as was the case until the battle of Chaeronea with the Sacred Band of Thebes, a battalion of one hundred and fifty warriors pairs, each lover fighting beside his beloved. Athenaeus states that "Hieronymus the Aristotelian says that love with boys (PAIS) was fashionable because several tyrannies had been overturned by young men in their prime, joined together as comrades in mutual sympathy." He gives as examples of such pederastic couples the Athenians Harmodius and Aristogeiton, who were credited (perhaps symbolically) with the overthrow of the tyrant Hippias -- and also Chariton and Melanippus. Others, such as Aristotle, claimed that the Cretan lawgivers encouraged pederasty as a means of population control, by directing love and sexual desire into non-procreative channels: 'and the lawgiver has devised many wise measures to secure the benefit of moderation at table, and the segregation of the women in order that they may not bear many children, for which purpose he instituted association with the male sex.'" Soldiers. Lovers. Heroes. And Aristotle himself confirms the sexuality aspect of pederasty.
And why do I mention all of this? Why the need for clarification? Because human nature does not change. But societies often driven by rumor & fear of the 'boogie-man' often formulate so-called "cures" for normal behaviors misclassified as social ills. It's become "snake-oil by statute".
For example, -Tremblay in his research on same-gender attracted youth, -describes phenomena which are echoes of pederasty in a our current culture -now incompatible with the open practice because of laws antagonistic to it. The "cure" is now worse than the so-called "disease" (which is no disease at all).
writes: "Dorais (1997) supplies an example of what may happen to a boy who
is discovered to be having sexual relationships with men. Boys who end up experiencing
"unwanted sexual acts" (sexual abuse, as defined by these boys)
vary with respect to their experiences, but they have one problem in common:
They are growing up in a world where they know that same-sex relationships
with males of one's own age is not what they would want others to know, and
they would certainly not want their activities be become public
knowledge in something like a courtroom situation. With respect to their
sexual / love desires for adult men, however, the "revelation"
fear is even greater because any revelation of their desires and related
activities would be a major confirmation of their "fag" status.
Therefore, when sexual abuse is inflicted on these boys, they find
themselves in a socially constructed double bind that only benefits the
abuser(s), almost like society was the abusers' best friend given that the
abused boys will likely not report such abuse to social authorities. In the
given case, for example, the boy's thoughts would have been something like:
"If I tell anyone (about this physical or sexual abuse, rape, etc.), he
will certainly tell on me - tell everyone what I have been doing with men -
then everyone will know about me!" The following life events reported
to me in Calgary during the 1990s illustrate how society, its professionals,
and even gay communities contribute to the double bind. Their refusal to
acknowledge the reality of teens having sex with men (often well known to gay
community leaders) are, in the final analysis, the ally and best friends of
men who sexually-abuse boys."
And the so-called "GAY" community; --What help are they? NONE! They're a 'tolerated' gathering of self-exposing sociopaths who have made the scarab (dung beetle) their unofficial mascot!
Gabe Kruks, the director of public policy and planning for the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Community Services Center, is quoted on the subject: "boys and straight girls who are having sex for money, shelter, love - they are at risk. And our community, the gay and lesbian community - and I particularly fault gay men here - has done nothing to try to help our youth. Gay men view these boys as recreational toys to be used. I have heard many stories of HIV-positive men having unprotected (anal)sex with boys. They don’t think it matters. If there is a single reason why so little is being done in this country about adolescent AIDS, it is that as a nation we are terribly afraid of the sexuality of our teens. These kids, no matter how they identify, gay or straight, need more than condoms and instructions on how to use them. They need someone to talk to, a support network, a place where they can feel safe and secure and where their confidentiality and personal histories are going to be protected and respected." (Brownworth, 1992: 41)
I recall one experience where an 18 year old "girl" married a 42 year-old man and most in their religious group who knew of the event had no difficulty with it. However, that same religious group also had no qualms about disassociating itself from a 19 year-old guy who had a number of younger male friends (mid teens) when it was discovered that the 19 year old often slept w. his guests in the same bed during stay-overs -often in close physical contact. None of the teens were "gay" identified & none objected to the affections of the older -nor were any sexual improprieties ever reported by those younger. The shunning was based purely on the mere suggestions of "the homosexual potential" -- as if mere same gender affections are innately evil (an irrational prejudice that many 'religious' people harbor).
In a previous post from the man who was the aforementioned 19 year-old; --He disclosed that the friendships sometimes had a sexual component involving wrestling, massage, frottage, JO, etc. These activities were done in private, 1-on-1, & generally after the end of a day of traditionally 'male' activities. The bonding effect created was extreme by facilitating a respectable sexual outlet to hormone-raging teen guys in an atmosphere of trust & deep friendship. Anal-sex was NOT ever considered an acceptable component (-never even suggested) & was discussed only in the negative. The only impediment to these male friendships was the extreme positions of contempt & guilt projected from the religious component of their socialization & what any stigmas from that might mean to the guys participating. The threat did nothing to stop the bonding, --but only drove it underground & made such loving-friendships a deep secret among the participants. The concern voiced by the man who had been the 19 yo & shunned, - was that guys who had these experiences -without a framework of masculinity & respect for the sexual component of friendship - might have been otherwise swayed by the "gay" movement (which treats it's members as a minority instead of the normalcy) to engage in disrespectful & unmanly behaviors such as analsex, promiscuity, drug-use & gender-fukk. The man who had been the shunned-19 yo pointed out that one of the things he did was guide the guys who were younger in affirmative directions & helped navigate the issues of life. He pointed out that the sexual component of their friendships had not been part of some rebellious mindset, --but a natural progression of deep intimacy. He also pointed out that truly destructive behaviors are self evident from the fruit they produce: Drug abuse & rebellion become addiction & crime - for example. Promiscuity too easily leads to disrespect & a prostitute's mindset. Such things hardly echo in comparison with a couple of guys who tenderly share a bed & physical affections after the mid-week Scripture-study!
Jesus Blessed the Practice!
This is, of course -an area that is going to shock some readers; --But the Scriptural evidence shows that Jesus himself understood the practice & far from being morally neutral on the subject matter - he is recorded as blessing it on at least one occasion. The account is right there in the text & obvious for anyone with an understanding of historical context. In Luke 7, the account is recorded as: "
"In that town an army officer's servant was sick and about to die. The officer liked this servant very much.And when he heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish leaders to ask him to come and heal the servant. The leaders went to Jesus and begged him to do something. They said, "This man deserves your help! He loves our nation and even built us a meeting place." So Jesus went with them. When Jesus wasn't far from the house, the officer sent some friends to tell him, "Lord, don't go to any trouble for me! I am not good enough for you to come into my house. And I am certainly not worthy to come to you. Just say the word, and my servant will get well. I have officers who give orders to me, and I have soldiers who take orders from me. I can say to one of them, 'Go!' and he goes. I can say to another, 'Come!' and he comes. I can say to my servant, 'Do this!' and he will do it." When Jesus heard this, he was so surprised that he turned and said to the crowd following him, "In all of Israel I've never found anyone with this much faith!" The officer's friends returned and found the servant well." - Lk 7:2-10 (See also Mt 8:5-13)
In the account, Luke's word usage for
"servant" is "doulos" in the Greek. It generally means
"slave" or "servant". Considering we are discussing
the Roman Military occupation of Israel -- the term "doulos" obviously
caries the connotation "CONSCRIPTED".
The second account of God's life-changing blessing - entering the house of Roman goy'im paints a fuller picture about the first. For the manifestation of healing in the account recorded in Luke 7 to have occurred; --The summary of WHY (given by Peter in Acts 10) must have also been true in order for Scriptural-harmony to exist. Jesus healed the Roman's doulos/pais ("servant") despite the fact the relationship was pederastic. Why? Because Pederasty is not a mala-inse' condition of "sin". Quite the contrary! According to Peter, --it's a moral form of living because he said that God accepts WITHOUT PARTIALITY those "who reverence Him and do what is right".
Consider: With obesity being a leading cause of death, --many people still don't have the common sense to realize that it's the ways in which a real need it met that leads to social success or failure. Only a fool would suggest that in order to prevent obesity that people simply not eat; --But that is precisely what religion (& the laws such hell-spawn influence) suggests to men when they hit puberty: "Don't have an orgasm -until you're 'married' in 5-10 years."! That posturing is simply INSANE -- but an effective approach if you wish to control people through the guilt of having 'failed'.
And, of course -- with the "ages of consent" dropping globally: The message to sexually mature young people is that they can fukk like rabbits among their peers -- just not with somebody who may be outside of the "acceptable age-range" -regardless of how mutually beneficial or how much love, & affection are actually involved! Paranoid fear of potential abuse has resulted in outlawing legitimate expression!
And this pattern has repeated itself! Did you know that under US federal law, possessing pictures of a child getting a bath by an "adult" now constitutes statutory "child pornography"; and that people have actually been charged & jailed! Fear of child pornographers has outlawed the legitimate expression! There goes the 'baby' - out with the proverbial bathwater!
What has become of the principle of "Mens rea"? State of Mind - MATTERS!
One letter communicated a series of accounts written by a man about his relationships as a teen at a religious camp. In addition to highlighting a number of close friendships that developed & grew physical when in private (such as campouts while in the same tent); --one account was particularly on point: It was between the camper and a counselor. According to the account - the camper (16 at the time) experienced a powerful attraction for a counselor 9 years his senior -and detailed the steps that the camper took over the course of the camp-season to befriend (& ultimately seduce) the counselor. As read about in other accounts of similar behavior: There was no desire for AnalSex whatsoever, and the bond was consummated in the nude, -face-to-face & groin-to-groin. The writer described his disappointment with his older 'conquest' when the counselor initially expressed regret at having done the deed (very soon after the deed had been done) on supposed religious principles. However, the counselor had a difficult time resisting "temptation" for the rest of the camping season as the younger was able to sway him to take a naked bed-roll several more times. The counselor did not return the following season -despite the camper's return (in hopes of deepening the friendship even further).
The writers point was that in his mind -- sexual climax was the shared event of the very best friendships -especially where handsome men were involved; -- And that he could not have possibly have been anyone's "victim" because nothing was ever forced onto him. He wanted the physical contact & shared sexual intimacy with a man he admired, respected & had grown to love deeply. From his perspective: That's simply what best friends did with each other. And his beliefs have +3000 years of precedent! How about your's?
But can you imagine what would have happened to the counselor in this day & age -- had he been discovered with the camper who had seduced him? The only tragedy would have been the situation created by the legal-system itself! From a victim-count of ZER0, --the state would make (2) -- maybe more! And what would become of the camp itself (a place smeared by the state & rumored to allow counselors and campers of the same-sex to seductively-socialize)!
You know: The Scriptures define immoral men as such that: INVENT WAYS OF SINNING. I would suggest that to turn something into a SIN, that for thousands of years has not been considered to be one -- is INVENTING A WAY OF SINNING. And ironically, --such an "invention" comes by way of the exact type of people that Jesus himself had criticized as being hypocrites in both religious & matters of governance! Imagine that!
And so, religious hypocrites who preach a message of generic hatred against mere same gender affections are constantly being caught in situations that are actual abusive torts (I.E: ASS-FUCKING PROSTITUTES while INTOXICATED on HARD DRUGS); -And then obtuse idiots attempt to paint all same-gender affectionate relationships with the same broad brush in their attempt to ride the moral shockwave toward their own agendas. Never in my lifetime have I yet heard any of them raise the point that "Some men who love men feel NO-compulsion to AssFuck nor use hard drugs." ... & so their sheeple-followers remain clueless & without discernment between moral & the immoral distinctions - having lost touch with the simple principle that "Love works no ill".
Of course, there are still places where the insane don't have jurisdiction in such matters; --where people who love each other can enjoy the physical dimensions in safety, love & respect without worrying about the penis-police making baseless, arbitrary pronouncements. Maybe, someday - the rest of the world will gain wisdom & the only matters the state will concern itself with are those outcomes birthed by malice, & gross disregard for safety.
Perhaps someday, the likes of the "Church-Lady" won't be able to "raise up victims from these stones"... so easily by shaming young guys with a lie that tells them that their feelings of natural-affection are actually "grievously-sinful". God-damn her & her political whores (& I believe with all my heart that: That prayer will come to pass)!
"A form of 'morality' based on abstract rules changes as the rule-makers change the rules; --But a morality based on loving principles is timeless." - Gimmel Yod
Which is a sentiment that leads me to the very next part of this commentary.
Why did the culture of Pederasty come to an eventual "end" in the old world and why does the term evoke such controversy today when discussed? Once again, the historical records lead us to the reasons -- the things that Plato had feared might eventually come about.
Who was responsible? It was the ASS-FUKKERZ! A social tolerance/acceptance of Anal Sex destroyed ancient civilization. It sounds extreme until you examine the bigger psychological profile of those who promote the practice: COMPLICIT CRIMINAL SOCIOPATHS...AND WHEN THEY RISE TO POWER...
The practice seems to have taken off in Rome & once it spread --coloring politics & weakening law-making; --The rest of the Mediterranean soon followed. I can almost hear their political speeches now: "We must 'be tolerant'..."
You see, although it's unclear as to which dynasty decided to die-nasty; --Roman culture somehow slowly got the notion that it was OK to butt-fuck certain persons. The practice likely started with "slaves" as the targets of the act (men deemed to have very few rights in the eyes of the law). It's interesting how once a culture decides that certain groups are OK to abuse because of imagined status -- how that same culture soon hardens it's conscience & the abuse grows & spreads.
Well, why did some Romans get the notion that it was OK to rape a male slave --in the 1st place? It was because so many male slaves were also made eunuchs & eunuchs were considered NON-MEN. Once Roman men began to think along the lines that butt-phucking eunuch-slaves didn't make the butt-phucker any "less of a man" (a mind-set very similar to male prisoners who rape other men in prisons today);--The only question remaining for those who wanted to expand the butt-phuck practice was "Who else?". Their twisted answer: Anyone who's not a "man", but not a woman, either. To be with another woman was seen as cheating on the wife...but since being with a eunuch had never been seen that way and since eunuchs were considered "non-men", --Roman culture --in a twist of morality in keeping with the increasing amount of lead in their "royal" brain-damaging-diets, -reached a cultural consensus (evidenced by the sheer amount of documentation of the practice) -- & began the increasing practice of castrating young (pais) men in ever-growing numbers - in order to make them 'eunuchs' & endlessly arse-phuckable! Mix in the drug induced insanity of the large number of Roman fertility-cult religions & you've got a real hell-bent movement!
Immoral? If you judge morality by the outcome of an act, - such was absolutely, phucking immoral! But under Roman law -- astonishingly ... eventually "bread & circuses" -LEGAL! A senate full of complicit cowards; --& Caesar-Nero ('Mr. 666' himself) was emperor during the pinnacle of these barbaric abuses. And history records Nero's bizarre 'marriage' with a 12 year old boy! And what do you suppose Nero did to the "boy" as soon as pits & pubes threatened to sprout hair?
Malik states in his paper: Born Eunuchs:
Suetonius said of the emperor Titus that "he was suspected of excess; and likewise of lust because of his crowds of catamites (kept boys) and eunuchs."
Apuleius, in the picaresque novel The Golden Ass, tells of a band of "half-men" [semiviri], who call each other "girls" [puellae] and have sex with young men, both as active and as passive partners (tops/bottoms). They also act as cultic priests of the Mother Goddess, a traditional role for eunuchs.
The next piece of evidence is a bit complicated. It consists of some comments by Clement of Alexandria about the followers of Basilides, a Christian Gnostic. Clement said they lived "lewder lives than the most uncontrolled heathen."
It was that sort of behavior & those abuses against people that the Apostle Paul was highlighting when he penned this in Romans chapter 1:
It's self-evident that tolerating the appetites of the arse-phuck-minority eventually debased the thinking in the entire region! And keep in mind -- this was the approved & legal practice of Rome: The very 1st recorded butt-phuck dictatorship in history! Speak against the practice -- and those like Nero would have your balls on the chopping block!
Have "Tolerance"? Not a chance! History already shows us where this all leads!
Taking captive (by whatever means) a handsome young man to cut his nuts off & make an artificial eunuch out of him so that rich elitists can phuck the "non-man" in perpetuity without giving their own wives 'legal' grounds for divorce; --That gross-evil is a far, far cry from the Greek warrior/mentor who loves his Pais with a committed passion that would protect him from such a tyranny with the mentor's very own life! The former set of acts is cruel beyond adequate-words; --While the latter is the very definition of love itself: "Greater love has no one than this, that he lays down his life on behalf of his friends." - Yeshua
Understand: Some cultures are better than others.
Pederasty was defamed because society turned a blind eye to butt-phucking and the associated practices eventually spread like gangrene via those predisposed to politics & religion (Show me a person who wants to dominate other's & I'll show you an abusive orifice invader)! Trust was destroyed and young men were treated with ever increasing contempt. And government -- which is instituted to protect lives & property, --became the instrument of those bent on abusing lives & stealing their property; --All by mere edict & turning the very military itself into a tool against the lawful purposes.
That culture was destroyed from the inside out! Why? Because men became "tolerant" of things that never should have been tolerated! Arse-phukkerz pollute & destroy entire civilizations.
Pederasty was defamed because the arse-phuck became 'tolerated' & the physical abuse & diseases brought by cultists & tyrants against the youth of the day brought the very term into disrespect. Love -which works no ill & which had been the foundation for pederasty for generations, --was effectively locked out by the act of the arse-phuck (which is the very working of 'ill') & the sick-ticket personalities that promoted the vile practice.
And g0ys believe that it's time to stop tolerating practices that destroy people's lives...