July 9th, 2008, 18:59
From:
http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... tml#147438 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-depictions-in-thailand-s-temples-t15200.html#147438)
wondering if anyone has come across any of these illustrations or depictions of xxxxxxxxxx gay past
AT
I was digging in the storage box looking for archives to do with Preah Vihear and found this. The pic (apologies for the quality) was taken taken from in ohhh, 1994 - a fresco on the walls of Angkor Wat Temple (reddishness - could be Bayon) VERY NEAR to Thailand. This mural would be about 1000 years old. Anyway I am sure it in AT's stricter interpretations would definitely qualify as homo-erotic like all else mentioned and via the article quoted. Smoothed shaved muscular legs (they didn't have nylons then) spread wide or only scantily covered almost exposing the genetal areas and on army men with boots. Hmmmm. There's no mistake as to the artist's (refined) eye in this matter. Come to think of it they seem to have forgotten to "cover it all up" in the short-shorted battle scenes as well. I see some BULGES! Pity there must not have been western moral standards then. Or is this like "It's OK for football players"? I hope you don't think I am just 'reading in' to this. Well, I guess the theories toward understanding the homoerotic roots in religious depictions in cultures as to the "Gay Past" need to go back at least whole 1000 years now. I hope it helps them all in their studies.
http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... tml#147438 (http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/forum/gay-depictions-in-thailand-s-temples-t15200.html#147438)
wondering if anyone has come across any of these illustrations or depictions of xxxxxxxxxx gay past
AT
I was digging in the storage box looking for archives to do with Preah Vihear and found this. The pic (apologies for the quality) was taken taken from in ohhh, 1994 - a fresco on the walls of Angkor Wat Temple (reddishness - could be Bayon) VERY NEAR to Thailand. This mural would be about 1000 years old. Anyway I am sure it in AT's stricter interpretations would definitely qualify as homo-erotic like all else mentioned and via the article quoted. Smoothed shaved muscular legs (they didn't have nylons then) spread wide or only scantily covered almost exposing the genetal areas and on army men with boots. Hmmmm. There's no mistake as to the artist's (refined) eye in this matter. Come to think of it they seem to have forgotten to "cover it all up" in the short-shorted battle scenes as well. I see some BULGES! Pity there must not have been western moral standards then. Or is this like "It's OK for football players"? I hope you don't think I am just 'reading in' to this. Well, I guess the theories toward understanding the homoerotic roots in religious depictions in cultures as to the "Gay Past" need to go back at least whole 1000 years now. I hope it helps them all in their studies.