For Europe, it became mainstream with the ascendency of Christianity, which brought with it the traditional Jewish abhorrence of homosexuality. For the Muslim world, opinions on the seriousness of homosexuality varied from era to era and region to region, but became overwhelmingly serious and negative in the 18th and 19th centuries with the rise of Islamic revivalist movements like the Salafis and Wahhabis.
Outside of those two influences, European colonialism brought Christianity and pseudo-rational abhorrence of homosexuality to many colonized areas in the 19th century, influences which last until the modern day.
In eras or places before those influences, opinions on homosexuality varied wildly.
Abrahamic religions were always about increasing their numbers.
So heterosexuality was forced on everyone, because that’s how you get new people born into the cult, which is easier than converting a rational adult.
Everytime an Abrhamic religion ran into a new culture, they forced that rigidality onto them.
True but not entire. Homophobia is still very common in cultures that were never touched by Abrahamic religion like The West was.
Abrahamic religions were always about increasing their numbers.
Should read:
Early societies around the world were always about increasing their numbers.
On OP’s point about homosexuality in Rome specifically, you’re thinking of the Greeks. Homosexuality in Rome was taboo, except as a form of domination between
an owner and his slaves.E: an older man and a young man he had power overHomosexuality in Rome was taboo, except as a form of domination between an owner and his slaves.
More precisely, homosexual sex was seen in two distinct roles (“top” and “bottom”), and only the latter was taboo.
Eh… yes and no. It’s worth acknowledging that “Roman” is a pretty big block of culture to talk about so broadly, but there were definitely more social rules to (older) males’ choice of male concubine than “to be the one who penetrates.” Public homosexual relationships almost always came from a place of power first and romance second (if at all).
On OP’s point about homosexuality in Rome specifically, you’re thinking of the Greeks. Homosexuality in Rome was taboo, except as a form of domination between an owner and his slaves. E: an older man and a young man he had power over
That’s Greek. The dynamic of an older man and a younger man of equal social status was taboo in Roman society, while it was acceptable in Greek society. For the Romans, there was a power dynamic involved, as the bottom was ‘submitting’ to the top, in the same way that a wife submitted to her husband. As such, it was considered unacceptable for anyone seeking political or military office as an offense against the duties inherent in citizenship (of maintaining one’s sovereignty and power over their body), but for those citizens not seeking political or military office it was largely irrelevant, and for noncitizens, it was considered acceptable.
For this reason, actors, who were excluded from political life despite being free citizens, were considered an acceptable sexual partner for Roman citizens.
Excluding actors from politics would be a nice idea. Sorry Minnesota.
