"Roots" Go Back a Thousand Years Now

From:

http://www.sawatdee-gay-thailand.com/fo ... tml#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.

Similar Threads:

• "Back" button
• "Vincent s Bangkok" back to business as usual...
• "So sorry"....most will not be back and no new one
• "So sorry" - please come back

[Smiles]

Would help if we could actually see it.






Can't see much anyway. Not enough to make a good theory in my opinion, but my eye isn't educated on this stuff.

Cheers ...

[bao-bao]

It's almost a certainty there have been homoerotic images in all cultures throughout history, but I have to admit that unless they're pretty explicit (i.e. some of the Greek or Roman depictions of male-male love) many are open to interpretation and some are lost on me.

40 years ago Tom Lehrer said in his song "Smut":

"Old books can be indecent books, though recent books are bolder
For filth (I'm glad to say) is in the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed, everything is lewd;
I could tell you things about Peter Pan -
And the Wizard of Oz is a dirty old man!"

I'm not sure this attempt at the image is any improvement, but it's the best I could do.



...and for the Tom Lehrer fans out there:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dILeb1sEHZM[/youtube]

Ok, I still can't see it.
Could someone please circle the naughty bits?

Guess I'll still have to go to Ting Tong's to get my porno fix. :dontknow:

PS. From what I can make out it looks like a battle scene from the Ramayana with the Monkey King Hanuman
and a bunch of chariots, horses, monkeys, guys with clubs and bows etc.

THX Smiles.

It previewed and posted fine for me and you did get it from whereever it was.

edit: OK the attached IS posting still. THX for sharpening this one up (more ) for me.

THX Smiles.

It previewed and posted fine for me and you did get it from whereever it was.

And it is, like ATs post, just what you read into it.

[Bob]

Hell, I first thought this was one of those "where's Waldo" deals. I can't find him nor can see anything that gives me a boner (not that I'd be crude about it...).

[Smiles]

" ... I can't find him nor can see anything that gives me a boner ... "

Is this more to the point?: (click on the image to make it ... er ... bigger)

[Bob]

Funny looking peckers there, Khun Dawit. And what the heck is that sticking out the
backside of that one person? Some kind of Canadian pacifier?

Ancient butt plug, obviously. You didn't think Doc Johnson invented them, did you?