Ok straight people, y’all should know that not every bottom is a twink.
There’s also twunk - a twink and a hunk. A twink with muscles but still hairless, incredibily smooth. A twank on the other hand, a twank is no good. That’s a twink and a skank. Essentially just a ragdoll being passed around from twink to twunk to bear to otter…
It’s very difficult to maintain the lifestyle of a twank-versatile because this often leads to a lot of self-hatred and denial, especially among the political or religious types, so they try to realign their sexual orientation through therapy.
A twank-versatile? That’s impressive
Follow-up question: Is every twink a bottom?
Nope. There’s femme tops such as blouses.
If only.
I like your Venn reasoning
used to really enjoy calling men whores until I just found out I can refer to my homies as concu🅱️inus
Concubanus
gazundheit
analist
🧐
That’s when my boss doesn’t “agree” with the data so he pulls a number out of his ass.
💀💀💀
Half analyst, half therapist… it’s the … Analrapist!
Rapanalist!
one who analyses or gets analysed hard
deleted by creator
As a straight guy, some of those seem kinda mean. I thought, they liked their twinks.
To my gay brothers, are they mean? Or am I just too straight to get it?
They are probably meant to be mean, because the people described had a very low social status in society.
The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active / dominant / masculine and passive / submissive / feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). “Virtue” (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and “cult of virility” shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, so they were excluded from the normal protections afforded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome.
Disappointing and unproductive.
Imagine, you are a top and you are looking for a bottom but the bottoms hide their bottom-ness because they get shit for it.
Praise bottoms and enjoy the fruits of a healing environment.
Of course, there are better reasons to not be a bigot but self-interest should be a convincing one.
Seconded 👐
They liked their twinks like many men today like their women.
I.e. they don’t like them as people. But they enjoy their bodies.
No they did not. The roman republic was very similar to modern America except the guy who ruined it was a bisexual hobag who seemed to care about the proleterii. As a note, it would be culturally improper to refer to a Roman man who exclusively tops men and women as bisexual, but a man who bottoms for men as well as topping women would fit that term. Julius Caesar’s bisexuality was a political scandal, and he was referred to by his political opponents as “every woman’s man and every man’s woman”.
Rome loved twinks like America loves trans women, the sex industry and political world tell wildly different stories, and there was cultural back and forth between “hell yeah” “fucking degenerates” and “lol f@g”
People loved to fuck them but didn’t value them. Like how people are about prostitutes
There is a secret ruling class and they are known as the Effeminati.
So you’re saying the Romans already used “Sick!” as a descriptor two millennia ago?
1000 years of Romans so I’ll be surprised if they haven’t used all of our slang at some point.
Quod est morbosus malusque!
So when the Republicans go full (Roman) fascism, they will do a 180 and start embracing lgbtq?
Roman men were as much gay friendly as Republican men are female friendly. Just because they like to fuck them doesn’t mean they see them as equals.
They already do. Republicans are some of the top viewers of femboy porn.
Pretty sure pretty sure its a power thing to fuck the thing you “hate”It’s also a power thing to hate the people you fuck. Especially when you can weaponize traditional or oppositional sexism against them
it’s not that well-known so i don’t blame the tweeter, but the word starting with E is a slur. i’m not sure if there’s an exact replacement, though, because “Inuit” only refers to one community out of I think three?
I think it’s ok and we can say exoletus, it’s a dead language.
How uh young were they before I make any remarks
Exactly as young as you think unfortunately. They did have slavery, so probably without consent too.
The Romans mollis’d so Tumblr could softboy uwu.
puer is just the regular word for boy, as in ”young male” without any sexual connotation.
Words can mean different things with different tones and contexts.
Oh that one? He’s a guy. But him over there <points> he’s a boy <wink>
“Boy” in English has a ton of potential connotations. As one of many examples, during the Civil Rights Movement there was a famous protest sign that said I AM A MAN to counter the way white men addressed black men as “boy.”
pullus - puella?
Wait does calling girls “chicks” really go all the way back to Latin?
It’s morbin’ time for the hoes
Why am I reading each word like AMOGUS?
A lot of these are just regular words that could also be used for twinkies (especially puer seems funny, calling twink a literal boy).
But we still see influences from the Roman empire today - in financial industry entry positions are often (junior) analyst.
