619
word (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 1 day ago by not_IO to c/microblogmemes@lemmy.world
all 20 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Jankatarch@lemmy.world 23 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

Every single middle-eastern bigot I seen says "these are sexual perversion invented and pushed by the west to corrupt your generation" meanwhile studying middle-eastern history always goes something like

"Despite objections from the religious class, the sultans traditionally kept a harem of young men that would be dressed in feminine clothes and made to dance, homoerotic paintings of even earlier homoerotic poems became more and more popular over certain eras, and also gay bathouses regularly showed up in tax docments, until late 19th century when westernization..."

Tap for example wikipedia articles.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Iran

Many of the famous love stories celebrated by these poets were between kings and their male servants or slaves. Sometimes, the beloved was the possession of a more powerful individual. Outside of royal courts, homosexuality and homoerotic expressions were accepted in various public settings, including monasteries, seminaries, taverns, military camps, bathhouses, and coffee houses. During the early Safavid era, male houses of prostitution were legally recognized and even paid taxes.

A shift in the view of same-sex relation emerged during the nineteenth century. European

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_and_gender_minorities_in_the_Ottoman_Empire

Nev'îzâde Atâyî's manuscript Hamse, which contains several accounts of moral tales with the final chapter detailing a tale of same-sex male lovers.Concepts such as gay, lesbian or transgender did not exist in the Ottoman era. Homosexuality was de jure governed by a blend of Qanun (sultanic law) and Islamic religious laws, which translated to negative legalistic perspectives, but also lenient-to-nonexistent enforcement. Therefore, negative perspectives often did not lead to legal sanctions, with rare exceptions. Public norms exhibited fluid gender expressions (particularly for younger males), and attitudes toward same-sex relationships were diverse, often categorized by age and expected roles.Literature and art flourished as significant mediums for discussing gender and sexuality, with Ottoman poets openly exploring same-sex love in the arts until the 19th century, when westernization led to the stigmazitation of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Egypt

Volney, a Frenchman who traveled through Egypt in the eighteenth century the later said of Egypt's ruling caste, the Mamluks: "They are, above all, addicted to that abominable wickedness which was at all times the vice of the Greeks ... It is difficult to account for this taste, when we consider that they all have women, unless we suppose they seek in one sex that poignancy of refusal which they do not permit the other." The practice described by Volney as "the vice of the Greeks" is known as pederasty, and this was a visible and tolerated expression of homosexual behaviors in both medieval Egypt and the historical Eastern Mediterranean. The introduction of Islam into the fold did not adversely impact this practice in the general public. In the Egyptian context, it was considered natural for older men to gaze upon younger men seen as desirable and beautiful, with some consideration given to their age, though not always. This attraction to male youth was viewed as natural and compatible with traditional Muslim gender roles; in that regard, pederasty was as natural as heterosexuality

Criminal sanctions against gay and bisexual men tended to arise not from the penal code itself, but from a supplemental law, enacted in 1961, to combat prostitution.The law against prostitution also bans "debauchery", even if the act did not involve trafficking or prostitution.Egyptian courts interpreted the ban on debauchery to criminalize homosexual relations between consenting adults. Repeat offenders of the law can face even harsher punishment for what the law views as "habitual debauchery".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBTQ_rights_in_Tunisia

From the end of the 18th century to the beginning of the 20th century, despite facing ongoing stigmatization, gay men managed to have social roles in Tunisia similar to those in the rest of the Arab Muslim world. Specifically, they served as intermediaries between masculine and feminine spaces in wedding celebrations, were invited to men's homes in the presence of their wives, and were permitted to enter women's private spaces in a similar manner to blind people. Homosexual relationships were common in the Tunisian royal court and among the aristocratic families, particularly during the reign of the Hafsid dynasty (1229-1574) when, according to documentation, large numbers of "effeminate" men offered their companionship to court men, presenting themselves as singers and dancers.During the rule of the Husainid dynasty, Bey Muhammad III as-Sadiq was open about his intimate relationship with his vizier Mustapha Ben Ismail.For the middle and poor classes, meetings took place in all possible private and public places, such as bathhouses, barber shops, zawiyas, but especially places accessible to travelers such as fondouks, hammams, and pensions. The

Article 230, criminalizing homosexuality, first appeared in the Penal Code of 1913, which was inspired by the French Penal Code of 1810 in terms of both "structure" and "values"; despite this, the French Penal Code did not criminalize sodomy. This Article, among others, was the work of a commission created for the codification of Tunisian laws, by the Resident-General René Millet, in September 1896. This commission was made up of eight members, which by 1912 consisted of six Frenchmen and two Tunisians; Hanafi judge Mahmoud Ben Mahmoud, and Maliki judge Mohamed Kassar.

[-] architectonas@lemmy.world 8 points 19 hours ago

I can recommend reading Foucault's The History Of Sexuality. He explains how gender categories serve the exercise of power upon humans. This is particularly interesting given how important self-definition is in queer community.

[-] Leviathan@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

Traditions are rarely more than a century or two old. Your ancestors didn't give a fuck about what your grandparents care about.

Religion also becomes insanely silly when you see it sprout up, badly recycling stuff from the previous religion.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 40 points 1 day ago

To counterpoint the human nature point. Many have said violence is in human nature. Now weither thats true or not is certainly up for debate but it has been said for far longer than 100 years. A similar point could be made for people cheating on their spouses, many say thats part of human nature. Those are just the 2 that come to mind.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 12 hours ago

In case anyone else was curious, 23% of men and 19% of women have cheated.

I thought it was normal too! Both my spouse and I have cheated on past significant others when we were young, I guess we deserve each other.

[-] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 2 points 10 hours ago

In my experience, these numbers seem very low. Ive never cheated but I've been cheated on in nearly every relationship ive been in and many of my friends have as well or have been the cheater. I'd believe these numbers as the percentage caught cheating. If it was self reported, which is probably the only way to collect that data, I'd assume some people lied.

[-] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 31 points 1 day ago

Violence is inherent to our entire evolutionary tree, nature kills to eat. I think it's fair to say that violence is a part of human nature. It's a part of the nature of every predatory animal on Earth, and some plants, and I think you could probably successfully argue that even herbivores are inflicting violence on plants because they're destroying and consuming an organism.

[-] shroomato@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

There's a difference when violence results from instinct and/or having no other choice, and actively choosing violence. But this distinction is even more damning, as we see many smarter animals become capable of cruelty/spite/malice. Like that tiger who stalked and killed a man in revenge, or dolphins/orcas inventing elaborate methods of toying with their prey, or chimps being outright genocidal psychos.

[-] subverted_per 20 points 1 day ago

I'll add to this an anecdote. My neighborhood is near a nature preserve. We get all kinds of animals theough here, but mostly racoon, possums and armadillo. Oh and feral cats. For a while we would occasionally have critters fighting in our yard. You'd hear it at night especially during summer. Not so much lately.

See a few years ago we got a feral kitten fixed as part of our local colony management group. Cat decided to stay, and we've been looking after her. Friendly, but stand-offish. We make sure shes fed, but let her do her own thing. Hasn't shown much interest in the inside.

We noticed that in the evenings raccoons would show up to steal her food. We chased em away, but theyd just come back later. The thing was that cat would sit there and watch the raccoons. She even moved out of the way once she was done, and let the raccoons have their share. Its been a few years now, and our yard cat manages things between other cats, the raccoons and the possums, and sometimes armadillos and nobody fights about it. Heck sometimes we find a small crowd waiting for our cat to summon the food for them.

The point being, violence may be an inherent part of nature, and the wilderness. However even animals when they dont have to work so hard to survive will cooperate when its to everyone's advantage. Which means that anyone who tells you that violence is the only law of nature is full of shit, and is really just telling on themselves. In my opinion.

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 14 points 1 day ago

you could probably successfully argue that even herbivores are inflicting violence on plants because they’re destroying and consuming an organism.

Don't need to stretch that far.

Lots of herbivores use violence, either in defense against predators or in competition with their own species for territory, resources, or mates. I'd even go as far as to say that the majority of them do, at least for the first of those two purposes -- it's rare to find an herbivore so passive that it wouldn't use 'violence' to protect itself against a predator attack if necessary.

[-] LongLive@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

to counteract your point this generation trusts strangers on the internet more than any other /s

[-] M137@lemmy.today 4 points 1 day ago

People who cheat is not the norm though, it's very much not human nature. A part of humanity (or any species) doing bad stuff doesn't make it the nature of that species. Pedophilia has also been going on for as long as humans have existed but it's not human nature, it's some individuals being sociopaths and have a mental issue that makes them attracted to something over 99% of everyone aren't.

[-] LePoisson@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

I don't think you get to be the apex predator on an entire planet without some level of violence in your nature. We got so good at murder it's just casually in the background courtesy of the vast ag-industry slaughtering tens of thousands of animals daily around the world.

Also, see: humans killing each other since forever and ever.

[-] plantfanatic@sh.itjust.works 25 points 1 day ago

Shouldn’t human nature evolve too though?

At one point it was “natural” to live in a cave, not so much nowadays.

[-] Cytobit@piefed.social 25 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The caveman is a stock character representative of primitive humans in the Paleolithic. The popularization of the type dates to the early 20th century, when Neanderthals were influentially described as "simian" or "ape-like" by Marcellin Boule and Arthur Keith.

So yeah, about 100 years for the caveman meme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caveman

[-] OwOarchist@pawb.social 17 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Also, the vast majority of people in this time period did not live in caves. It's just that caves are much better at preserving traces, so much of the evidence for these early peoples that still exists is found in caves.

To think that they were 'cave men' and mostly lived in caves is like, well, seeing dinosaur footprints preserved in mud and therefore thinking that dinosaurs spent most of their time stomping around in mud.

[-] Kwdg@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 1 day ago

Yes, that is why it is a social construction of the last 100 years. The post is saying that all (or at least many things) we consider human nature are not older than 100 years, at any time in human history

[-] SarahValentine 12 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

You're describing too specific a behavior, not nature. Nature is more like:

"It is in man's nature to seek shelter from the elements", and this suffices to describe men who dwell in caves, houses, or anything else.

[-] HogginAnDoggin@thelemmy.club 6 points 1 day ago

Well no. It's natural for humans to seek shelter, caves are very dangerous particularly when we still had mega fauna around, and what is you home but not a fancy safe cave.

this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
619 points (100.0% liked)

Microblog Memes

11823 readers
2043 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

RULES:

  1. Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
  2. Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
  3. You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
  4. Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
  5. Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
  6. Absolutely no NSFL content.
  7. Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
  8. No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.

RELATED COMMUNITIES:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS