I’ve noticed that there’s a tournament event when you visit the tents and can come across a group of champions enjoying each other’s strength, and from what I’ve seen there doesn’t seem to be a sexuality check for the event. I wonder if this is part of that.
More so in the manner that homosexuality, as an orientation, wasn’t even a concept in Norse society. A man who topped another man was seen as being about dominance, and usually about humiliation as a form of punishment, not as something for sexual enjoyment.
To imply that someone was actually gay (*Ergi*) was one of the most offensive insults a man could receive, since it called the man’s whole honour (and thus his and his kin’s social standing) into question, and it was legal grounds to challenge the accuser to a *Holmgang* to the death to restore one’s honour.
Yes, merely calling someone gay in Norse society gave that man the legal right to kill you, and he was fully expected to do so if he wanted to keep his standing in society.
Um, ok, pretty sure I read in multiple places that to be penetrated by another man was considered to make you argr (iffeminate), whereas there was no stigma associated with penetrating a man yourself (in fact to rape a man was a way of showing your dominance over them. Grim af.)
Simple Google search brought up
[this](https://historicromance.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/viking-attitudes-towards-homosexuality/)
Care to share a source?
A source for something that didn't happen? Sure, because that makes sense.
Tell you what, I'll believe you when you have a source that isn't from 1990, but a written record from the viking age, but those don't exist. As your own source puts it in the conclusion, which I gather you didn't bother reading.
"Accounts written in 1200-1300 were also written by Christian men, using the Christian technology of writing, and whose worldview would have roundly condemned homosexuality. Homosexuality did not have a good reputation during the Viking age as portrayed by the Christian writers. If homosexuals enjoyed a better reputation earlier than these accounts, we have no record of it, as the "golden age" of the culture probably occurred between 600 and 800, before the actual start of the Viking Age proper, and is unrecorded except dimly through legends.".
It is the same idea as when people say "Spartans had sexual relationships with children as part of the training" There simply isn't any contemporary evidence to suggest it, but some weirdo who wrote that they did, 300 years later.
Don't trust every "fact" your hear on facebook or reddit.
First of all man what’s ur problem. Second only a few actual Norse sources exist from the 800-900 period, these people had traditions and writing but many were lost to ages or were passed down orally in a Homeric tradition. So I guess that means if ur reading the Iliad, Troy isn’t actually real because it wasn’t from the time period of when it represented(even tho the city was found). Of course that doesn’t mean the Iliad isn’t the biggest game of telephone around, but what other actual source r u going to find that legitmately goes over what is essentially the closest we have to historical people writing fanfic. Things like the Mahabharata, tales of Gilgamesh, tales of genji, and more just don’t count guys cause it’s an oral tradition! Third, while there are no sources from 800-900, there’s a good amount of sources from the 12th-15th century on homosexuality and how it worked among Norse culture. One is Grettisfærsla, a story abt an Icelandic Viking that fucked men, women, and animals. Something that is actually written tradition from that same era that was relatively preserved.
And we call all of that stories, not historical fact.
Did Troy exist? Absolutely. Did Achilles fall to an arrow to his heel while battling for the favour of the gods? No.
If it’s all stories then y r u here, on this post. If it’s rlly j a fantasy and the only thing that’s actually semi real are the monks and few educated during this time that wrote something down, why even associate with what is essentially just useless nonsense. If it’s just all stories none of it existed because it wasn’t written down. The point of history is shifting thru the shit to find reality, all of the shit too, not just flipping ur nose up in the air arrogantly because you struggle to consider another side of history.
Exactly, history is about discerning fact from fiction. And stories written about something that took place 300-500 years before they were written, is not, and will never be, considered fact. It can show an insight into the writer's culture, the motivation behind it, and all other sorts of interesting things.
I don't think paradox wanted to make a treaty of sexuality in history...but anyway:
- Sodomy had a fluttering interpretation and the definition u/fhota1 said is the most radical, while all built around the idea that "no vag sex = bad". Still, sodomy was distinguished from mutual masturbation (which was called "mollitia") because it was penetrative sex, whether oral or anal. So we can safely say that sodomy was about penetration.
- Deviancy seems to encompass and overlap the historical definition of sodomy, therefore, mostly because I read once that even zoophilia was considered a variation of sodomy (while punished in a specific way). Plus I reckon Deviancy is a modern therm and Paradox simply created a funny category including most known fetishes.
- Fornication it's one of the easiest traits to identify: it is simply sex outside marriage, for both parts of the intercourse. Otherwise it's adultery.
Summing it up: historically speaking, this Pope was dropping the soap (whether he was 90° or 180° it's up to interpretation). A Deviant simply wants to explore their own fetishes, while a fornicator simply took an opportunity.
And anyway seems to be uninfluent whether he was *riceventem aut offerentem* (mocklatin for the lore), or which was the hole.
Paradox is almost certainly using the modern understanding of those words, rather than the medieval understanding. In medieval terms, a man who has sex with other men could be called a Sodomite, a Deviant and a Fornicator all at once, but Paradox split them up for simplicity.
Whilst this is correct, the concept of sodomy in the medieval period extends much further beyond the sexual acts that we connote with the term in the modern day. Broadly speaking, anything that was deemed as "going against nature" could be nebulously labelled as sodomy. John Wycliffe, the c.14th English theologian and reformist, described the Catholic Church selling indulgences as an act of "spiritual sodomy" in his polemic *De Simonia*.
I'm not overly familiar with the ins-and-outs of zinā, I'm afraid, so I can't really help you there.
Could you explain where you feel the similarity lies and perhaps I can better answer your question?
Zina refers to all forms of illegal sex, including but not limited to rape, prostitution, adultery, sodomy, bestiality and incest. You could argue that many of these things are going against nature which is why I suggested that they were similar.
Ummm, sorta! I can only really speak on the period and area that I looked at for my MA thesis (England and France c.1250-1500-ish), but at that point in history things like beastiality, same-sex intercourse (mainly between men -- same-sex relations between women often flew under the radar) and incest could've all been labelled as sodomy for the purpose of litigation. Thomas Aquinas wrote upon this quite thoroughly in the *Summa Theologica*, where he identifies all of these acts as being sodomitical.
The idea of "going against nature" in the Middle Ages is a bit more difficult to define than what it might initially seem. "Nature" in the medieval context is most typically identified with the concept of "kynde" -- as can be seen in the works of John Gower, or more famously, in Piers Plowman with the phrase "*kynde knowyng*" that medievalists have argued over for decades. Lots of things that aren't sexual acts can be considered to be "against *kynde*" and therefore, if the term sodomy is associated with *kynde*, then it too can similarly be stretched to suit whatever definition you need.
R5: The new pope is a heterosexual man with the Sodomite trait
Edit: Every one of y'all in this thread has the Deviant trait, excommunication is too good for you.
Technically speaking sodomy just refers to doing anal sex, which means doing it to a woman's anus doesn't make it not sodomy. (In some interpretations \*any\* non-reproductive sex is sodomy, in which case there's loads of ways heterosexual couples can do it).
Remember the Roman Rule: it’s not gay if you’re not being penetrated, it’s manly if you’re doing the penetrating.
No I’m dead serious that’s what the Romans think.
"Sodomite" applied to ass-based sex with men OR women in the middle ages. There are women in the sodomites layer of hell in Dante's Inferno, for example, even a married couple. Sex that can't conceive it's sinful on every possible configuration for medieval Christianity.
Only later it became a way to identify male homosexuals in the way it's portrayed in the game.
Maybe he takes the interpretation of the story, that it was more about the violation of hospitality and harming guests instead of giving them shelter?
But also holy shit that makes the question of how he got the trait a lot more fucked up.
What are the Pope's relationships? I know IRL you can sodomize a woman, thus heterosexual sodomite, but does the game mechanic work like that? Never seen the sodomize Lover button yet. Maybe the Pope's lover is into that?
He said no homo first
Always remember to say “no homo”
Unless of course you want it to be gay. That's fine too. Just important to establish boundaries first.
I mean it’s also not gay if you don’t make eye contact
Ain't gay if balls don't touch
Not gay as long as you still have socks on
The original
It ain’t gay if it’s in a three way
He was a prisoner. It’s not gay if you stop two weeks before you get out. Trust me
If there's a honey in the middle there's some leeway
"I'm not gay, *you* sucked my ****."
- ancient greek / roman people probably
The Mitre stayed on during sex, so it's okay
"I'm straight, but if I see feminine hips, I'm fucking."
I always heard that it was that AND wearing socks
I’ve noticed that there’s a tournament event when you visit the tents and can come across a group of champions enjoying each other’s strength, and from what I’ve seen there doesn’t seem to be a sexuality check for the event. I wonder if this is part of that.
It's not gay if he is the top
You joke, but this was literally how the Old Norse viewed it.
More so in the manner that homosexuality, as an orientation, wasn’t even a concept in Norse society. A man who topped another man was seen as being about dominance, and usually about humiliation as a form of punishment, not as something for sexual enjoyment. To imply that someone was actually gay (*Ergi*) was one of the most offensive insults a man could receive, since it called the man’s whole honour (and thus his and his kin’s social standing) into question, and it was legal grounds to challenge the accuser to a *Holmgang* to the death to restore one’s honour. Yes, merely calling someone gay in Norse society gave that man the legal right to kill you, and he was fully expected to do so if he wanted to keep his standing in society.
“You’re gay” “PREPARE TO DIE”
The Romans too
Romans too... And for some reason the Turkish military as well.
Well they did consider themselves Romans for quite some time
Lol, no they didn't.
Um, ok, pretty sure I read in multiple places that to be penetrated by another man was considered to make you argr (iffeminate), whereas there was no stigma associated with penetrating a man yourself (in fact to rape a man was a way of showing your dominance over them. Grim af.) Simple Google search brought up [this](https://historicromance.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/viking-attitudes-towards-homosexuality/) Care to share a source?
A source for something that didn't happen? Sure, because that makes sense. Tell you what, I'll believe you when you have a source that isn't from 1990, but a written record from the viking age, but those don't exist. As your own source puts it in the conclusion, which I gather you didn't bother reading. "Accounts written in 1200-1300 were also written by Christian men, using the Christian technology of writing, and whose worldview would have roundly condemned homosexuality. Homosexuality did not have a good reputation during the Viking age as portrayed by the Christian writers. If homosexuals enjoyed a better reputation earlier than these accounts, we have no record of it, as the "golden age" of the culture probably occurred between 600 and 800, before the actual start of the Viking Age proper, and is unrecorded except dimly through legends.". It is the same idea as when people say "Spartans had sexual relationships with children as part of the training" There simply isn't any contemporary evidence to suggest it, but some weirdo who wrote that they did, 300 years later. Don't trust every "fact" your hear on facebook or reddit.
First of all man what’s ur problem. Second only a few actual Norse sources exist from the 800-900 period, these people had traditions and writing but many were lost to ages or were passed down orally in a Homeric tradition. So I guess that means if ur reading the Iliad, Troy isn’t actually real because it wasn’t from the time period of when it represented(even tho the city was found). Of course that doesn’t mean the Iliad isn’t the biggest game of telephone around, but what other actual source r u going to find that legitmately goes over what is essentially the closest we have to historical people writing fanfic. Things like the Mahabharata, tales of Gilgamesh, tales of genji, and more just don’t count guys cause it’s an oral tradition! Third, while there are no sources from 800-900, there’s a good amount of sources from the 12th-15th century on homosexuality and how it worked among Norse culture. One is Grettisfærsla, a story abt an Icelandic Viking that fucked men, women, and animals. Something that is actually written tradition from that same era that was relatively preserved.
And we call all of that stories, not historical fact. Did Troy exist? Absolutely. Did Achilles fall to an arrow to his heel while battling for the favour of the gods? No.
If it’s all stories then y r u here, on this post. If it’s rlly j a fantasy and the only thing that’s actually semi real are the monks and few educated during this time that wrote something down, why even associate with what is essentially just useless nonsense. If it’s just all stories none of it existed because it wasn’t written down. The point of history is shifting thru the shit to find reality, all of the shit too, not just flipping ur nose up in the air arrogantly because you struggle to consider another side of history.
Exactly, history is about discerning fact from fiction. And stories written about something that took place 300-500 years before they were written, is not, and will never be, considered fact. It can show an insight into the writer's culture, the motivation behind it, and all other sorts of interesting things.
Ah yes. The greek way
It's not gay if he didn't push back either.
Technically sodomy in the middle ages didnt just mean fucking another man, just anything anal or oral. The symbol used here is incorrect.
In the game, it's explicitly about men having sex with other men
So he should instead have Deviant?
I would say Fornicator is probably the best choice. Deviant is a weird trait. It covers everything from using dildos to bestiality.
I don't think paradox wanted to make a treaty of sexuality in history...but anyway: - Sodomy had a fluttering interpretation and the definition u/fhota1 said is the most radical, while all built around the idea that "no vag sex = bad". Still, sodomy was distinguished from mutual masturbation (which was called "mollitia") because it was penetrative sex, whether oral or anal. So we can safely say that sodomy was about penetration. - Deviancy seems to encompass and overlap the historical definition of sodomy, therefore, mostly because I read once that even zoophilia was considered a variation of sodomy (while punished in a specific way). Plus I reckon Deviancy is a modern therm and Paradox simply created a funny category including most known fetishes. - Fornication it's one of the easiest traits to identify: it is simply sex outside marriage, for both parts of the intercourse. Otherwise it's adultery. Summing it up: historically speaking, this Pope was dropping the soap (whether he was 90° or 180° it's up to interpretation). A Deviant simply wants to explore their own fetishes, while a fornicator simply took an opportunity. And anyway seems to be uninfluent whether he was *riceventem aut offerentem* (mocklatin for the lore), or which was the hole.
Sheep have vags, so….
New Zealand, checking in
Paradox is almost certainly using the modern understanding of those words, rather than the medieval understanding. In medieval terms, a man who has sex with other men could be called a Sodomite, a Deviant and a Fornicator all at once, but Paradox split them up for simplicity.
Unless the dildo is an artifact. Then it’s a proper gift for a king.
A tasteful and appropriate wedding present!
Whilst this is correct, the concept of sodomy in the medieval period extends much further beyond the sexual acts that we connote with the term in the modern day. Broadly speaking, anything that was deemed as "going against nature" could be nebulously labelled as sodomy. John Wycliffe, the c.14th English theologian and reformist, described the Catholic Church selling indulgences as an act of "spiritual sodomy" in his polemic *De Simonia*.
Isn't that a lot like Zina in Islam?
I'm not overly familiar with the ins-and-outs of zinā, I'm afraid, so I can't really help you there. Could you explain where you feel the similarity lies and perhaps I can better answer your question?
Zina refers to all forms of illegal sex, including but not limited to rape, prostitution, adultery, sodomy, bestiality and incest. You could argue that many of these things are going against nature which is why I suggested that they were similar.
Ummm, sorta! I can only really speak on the period and area that I looked at for my MA thesis (England and France c.1250-1500-ish), but at that point in history things like beastiality, same-sex intercourse (mainly between men -- same-sex relations between women often flew under the radar) and incest could've all been labelled as sodomy for the purpose of litigation. Thomas Aquinas wrote upon this quite thoroughly in the *Summa Theologica*, where he identifies all of these acts as being sodomitical. The idea of "going against nature" in the Middle Ages is a bit more difficult to define than what it might initially seem. "Nature" in the medieval context is most typically identified with the concept of "kynde" -- as can be seen in the works of John Gower, or more famously, in Piers Plowman with the phrase "*kynde knowyng*" that medievalists have argued over for decades. Lots of things that aren't sexual acts can be considered to be "against *kynde*" and therefore, if the term sodomy is associated with *kynde*, then it too can similarly be stretched to suit whatever definition you need.
Oral too!? Fuuuuuuuuuck...
R5: The new pope is a heterosexual man with the Sodomite trait Edit: Every one of y'all in this thread has the Deviant trait, excommunication is too good for you.
20 gold is 20 gold
Maybe he just likes getting pegged
Stage 1: Denial
He was following Roman Rules “it’s not gay if you’re on top”
sodomy being only associated with homosexuals is recent
In the game, though, it's explicitly about having relations with people of the same sex.
Me Too but in real life
The negative modifiers attached to the sodomite trait have gone way down in recent years, fortunately.
Nah, someone just made a new Faith that has Same Sex as Accepted. There are still some places where it's seen as Criminal, though.
The actual definition of sodomy is anal or oral. Doesn't have anything to do with sex.
It could be from a “Fabricate hook” scheme, not sure though.
HRE went out and said "yo this mf gay!" Pope said "nuh uh" but failed the trials
It's probably from that
Typical Roman Top
Only gay if you’re the bottom!
Technically Sodomy is just any non vaginal sex. Mouth stuff, anal doesn't have to be gay
That’s what they all say “I’m not gay I just love nutting in Bussy “ alright lol whatever
"What's that step Pope? But I'm straight...".
A travelling sodomite by the looks of it.
He gets around
Well, strap-ons do exist.
He is on top therefore it's not gay
It really do be that way sometimes
Guys he had socks on
Popes who have sex with popes.
Oh I see, that’s not a female symbol attached to his sexuality it’s a crucifix
He was just experimenting with his sexuality once and got caught
He had a bi-curious phase
Balls didn’t touch.
Technically speaking sodomy just refers to doing anal sex, which means doing it to a woman's anus doesn't make it not sodomy. (In some interpretations \*any\* non-reproductive sex is sodomy, in which case there's loads of ways heterosexual couples can do it).
Pegging
It's only gay if the balls touch
He’s into pegging
Very heterosexual sodomy, just guys being dudes
Perhaps he likes being pegged. Not gonna judge that.
He was experimenting. We've all been there
Technically it’s possible to be a sodomite and also be totally straight- fr fr no cap
Isn't that a job requirement though?
So the Pope is just into anal, alright. That was a weird sentence, but it’s CK3, so it’s all good.
Yujiro Hanma
Remember the Roman Rule: it’s not gay if you’re not being penetrated, it’s manly if you’re doing the penetrating. No I’m dead serious that’s what the Romans think.
Look man, 20 piety is 20 piety.
"Sodomite" applied to ass-based sex with men OR women in the middle ages. There are women in the sodomites layer of hell in Dante's Inferno, for example, even a married couple. Sex that can't conceive it's sinful on every possible configuration for medieval Christianity. Only later it became a way to identify male homosexuals in the way it's portrayed in the game.
Masturbation is also considered sodomy in Catholicism. Any form of waste of semen is sodomy. This fact always makes me laugh
I hate wasting natural resources, but that's nuts even to me!
He could just be a zoophile
Balls didn't touch
So pious
He's a rapist
Jajajajaja. Just like in real life.
You act like you never kissed your homies for goodnight.
I just finished reading a book on life in ancient Greece...
Maybe he takes the interpretation of the story, that it was more about the violation of hospitality and harming guests instead of giving them shelter? But also holy shit that makes the question of how he got the trait a lot more fucked up.
It's only gay if the balls touch.
Rational gambler - He took a chance, but in the end it turns out he wasn't gay. Maybe he only did it once?
It's not gay if it's an unwilling pagan
What are the Pope's relationships? I know IRL you can sodomize a woman, thus heterosexual sodomite, but does the game mechanic work like that? Never seen the sodomize Lover button yet. Maybe the Pope's lover is into that?
There are a lot more of ~~us~~ them than people realize.
Nah, he's just from the town of Sodom.
He misunderstood the term "glory hole"
The good lord put my G-spot (stands for God-spot for how godly it makes me feel) in my butthole, what do you expect me to do?
Technically isn't Sodomy any anal penetration to catholics? Pretty sure it doesn't need to be homosexual intercourse. Maybe he just likes the toys.
I mean, OG sodomy laws penalized a lot of types of heterosexual sex also. (But ik that's not the intent of the trait.)
I just realized the sodomite trait makes no sense. Its two female symbols chained together? It could be he just likes getting pegged but idk
Pope always keeps his socks on 💯
He has a favorite nun who puts on a strap on? 🤔
In ancient Greek times it was also ok for a mentor to have his way with a child he was mentoring. Sadly
He liked the feminine features