Homosexuality among the Samurai

[Samurai-do]

Homosexuality in Feudal Japan
This is a part of Samurai cutlure that is often glossed over, or overlooked, yet if formed an integral part, both in the development of young warriors, and in the cementing of warrior bonds on the battlefield. It seems an alien concept to us because most of us in the west come from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic background that exalts virtue, purity and virginity in contrast to the feudal Japanese belief that sexual expression was a good in and of itself. This alone in my opinion makes it a worthy subject for debate...

 

[Chris Parker]

Not bad, Jack… I'm not sure the Shoninki quote is quite saying much about the topic there, but that's for another discussion. The cultural concept of homosexuality has a lot more to it in Japanese history… for example, there wasn't actually a word for differing sexualities in Japan… love and relationships didn't distinguish the genders in many cases. Marriage was, much like in the West, predominantly for political alignment and the gaining of heirs… but the idea of having an affair was perfectly acceptable… to a point. As with much of Japanese culture, the driving force was based upon shame… so the way things had to be handled was based around the way you were perceived. While homosexuality wasn't an issue… being caught in compromising positions, or doing anything that reflected badly on you was very much a bad thing. An interesting tome that touches on a number of these situations is Hagakure… which not only shows how accepted the practice was, but also showed how the rules must be adhered to at all times.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Military cultures of all ages have found a place, whether overt or covert, for homosexual practice and behavior. At times, this culture was not that different from the general population at large, at other times it was utterly a world unto itself.

 

[Touch Of Death]

Homosexuality in Feudal Japan
This is a part of Samurai cutlure that is often glossed over, or overlooked, yet if formed an integral part, both in the development of young warriors, and in the cementing of warrior bonds on the battlefield. It seems an alien concept to us because most of us in the west come from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic background that exalts virtue, purity and virginity in contrast to the feudal Japanese belief that sexual expression was a good in and of itself. This alone in my opinion makes it a worthy subject for debate...

Let's just say the Japanese were very Spartan.

 

[aedrasteia]

Let's just say the Japanese were very Spartan.

for those opposed to service open to all (by definition).
the Sacred Band of Thebes: Life of Pelopidas
from Plutarch: Internet History Sourcebooks Project

w/respect A

 

[Tez3]

Let's just say the Japanese were very Spartan.

I laugh quite often these days at stuff I see on social media, we have recently seen the rise of very far right groups who among other things are opposed to same sex marriage and want gays to be banned/imprisoned whatever. They think the country's youth are going soft. However, one of their favourite calls is for the country to be more like Sparta, they have loads of memes about that. Well, you do have to laugh.

 

[kuniggety]

It brings another meaning to watching someone's *** in a fight.

 

[ShawnP]

Homosexuality in Feudal Japan
This is a part of Samurai cutlure that is often glossed over, or overlooked, yet if formed an integral part, both in the development of young warriors, and in the cementing of warrior bonds on the battlefield. It seems an alien concept to us because most of us in the west come from a Judeo-Christian monotheistic background that exalts virtue, purity and virginity in contrast to the feudal Japanese belief that sexual expression was a good in and of itself. This alone in my opinion makes it a worthy subject for debate...

how does ones sexual preference develop and bond warriors?

i understand that homosexuality in their culture was not viewed as it was when i was growing up in my culture, but how does ones sexual orientation effect one another on a battle field?

 

[Tez3]

how does ones sexual preference develop and bond warriors?

i understand that homosexuality in their culture was not viewed as it was when i was growing up in my culture, but how does ones sexual orientation effect one another on a battle field?

Ah, now you are opening up a can of political worms. Men who are sexually and emotionally close to each other are considered good for bonding and safeguarding each other on the front line but heaven forbid if women want to fight on the front line because being sexually and emotionally involved and/or attracted to other soldiers is A BAD THING.

 

[ShawnP]

Ah, now you are opening up a can of political worms. Men who are sexually and emotionally close to each other are considered good for bonding and safeguarding each other on the front line but heaven forbid if women want to fight on the front line because being sexually and emotionally involved and/or attracted to other soldiers is A BAD THING.

thats a good point Tez3, Sorry i didnt make myself clear enough, i was thinking how it effected people back in the days of the Samurai on a battle field, and not necessarily on todays battlefields. personally i dont see the difference be it man or woman, if someone is about to either gut me with a katana, or shoot me in the head. if you understand my point.

oh and silly me, i didnt see the link (my bad) so im reading the article now.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Ah, now you are opening up a can of political worms. Men who are sexually and emotionally close to each other are considered good for bonding and safeguarding each other on the front line but heaven forbid if women want to fight on the front line because being sexually and emotionally involved and/or attracted to other soldiers is A BAD THING.

I'm not against women in combat, although I do question whether America is ready to accept that women POWs will be raped as a standard practice.

The only thing I am against is lowering standards so that women can qualify for combat roles. That's a recipe for disaster, and too high a price to pay to be fashionable.

 

[Tez3]

I'm not against women in combat, although I do question whether America is ready to accept that women POWs will be raped as a standard practice.

The only thing I am against is lowering standards so that women can qualify for combat roles. That's a recipe for disaster, and too high a price to pay to be fashionable.

The wars we've been fighting recently are sadly against people who rape men and women. Women have been on the frontline in Afghanistan and have gone out with the infantry and Royal Marines as combat medics, they have proved they are every bit as good as the men in every area. we've had female casualties too. The standards for non SF aren't lowered for women. SF are still men only, though we did have a unit with both men and women in Northern Ireland .

 

[ShawnP]

=The only thing I am against is lowering standards so that women can qualify for combat roles. That's a recipe for disaster, and too high a price to pay to be fashionable.

although this may be the standing factors, does it really take a woman more to squeeze a trigger? believe me i know plenty of women who can out do me in just about every thing. and TBH why is "Flat Feet" a deciding factor to deny a man entry into the military? i tried to join before i got out of High School, but due to having flat feet they sent me packing, so yeah i would say they need to update their qualifications, 40 years ago.

 

[Tgace]

although this may be the standing factors, does it really take a woman more to squeeze a trigger? believe me i know plenty of women who can out do me in just about every thing. and TBH why is "Flat Feet" a deciding factor to deny a man entry into the military? i tried to join before i got out of High School, but due to having flat feet they sent me packing, so yeah i would say they need to update their qualifications, 40 years ago.

If you have never humped a mortar plate , a rucksack or been an assistant machine gunner who had to dig a fighting hole after a 16 mile road March you really have no perspective on the stuff other than "pulling a trigger" when it comes to military standards.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

 

[ShawnP]

If you have never humped a mortar plate , a rucksack or been an assistant machine gunner who had to dig a fighting hole after a 16 mile road March you really have no perspective on the stuff other than "pulling a trigger" when it comes to military standards.

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

so your saying a woman can not do these things?

 

[Tgace]

so your saying a woman can not do these things?

I am saying that in general, more men can do those things more effectively than the average women (and then engage the enemy in a firefight...toss a grenade 15 yards and reposition a M2 machine gun from one position to another). It's pretty much a medical/scientific fact that "men" are physically larger than and stronger than "women". There are certainly exceptions, but retooling a nations military specifically to make accommodations for the exception to the rule is ridiculous IMO.

Your implication originally was "well any woman can pull a trigger" as if that's all there is to combat. Now you appear to want to expand the point to "well SOME women can do the job". Sure....some can. But retooling the entire military for those SOME is more about using the military for social experimentation and politics than it is about combat efficiency.

Certainly, women can excel in many military occupational specialties, female Piolts, MP's, etc by all accounts do fine....but Infantry combat and SF are entirely different jobs with different demands.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

so your saying a woman can not do these things?

I'm saying recent extensive and unbiased testing by the Marine Corps resulted in no female graduates, yes.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

although this may be the standing factors, does it really take a woman more to squeeze a trigger? believe me i know plenty of women who can out do me in just about every thing. and TBH why is "Flat Feet" a deciding factor to deny a man entry into the military? i tried to join before i got out of High School, but due to having flat feet they sent me packing, so yeah i would say they need to update their qualifications, 40 years ago.

With respect, you do not know what the requirements are.

 

[ShawnP]

no i dont, like i stated i was sent packing for flat feet so no i have never been in the military and never went through the requirements. i find it hard to believe not a single woman could pass the requirements.

 

[ShawnP]

I am saying that in general, more men can do those things more effectively than the average women (and then engage the enemy in a firefight...toss a grenade 15 yards and reposition a M2 machine gun from one position to another). It's pretty much a medical/scientific fact that "men" are physically larger than and stronger than "women". There are certainly exceptions, but retooling a nations military specifically to make accommodations for the exception to the rule is ridiculous IMO.

Your implication originally was "well any woman can pull a trigger" as if that's all there is to combat. Now you appear to want to expand the point to "well SOME women can do the job". Sure....some can. But retooling the entire military for those SOME is more about using the military for social experimentation and politics than it is about combat efficiency.

Certainly, women can excel in many military occupational specialties, female Piolts, MP's, etc by all accounts do fine....but Infantry combat and SF are entirely different jobs with different demands.

so now the story changes a little bit, no one said anything about this part or that part, specifically not infantry. do we have women in the military, who can fight for their country or not? like you stated there are plenty of ways women can and probably are serving their country and doing it equally or better than men are, can we agree on that?