>>21350487the "provocative" (or interpreted as provocation) things ammon states, in relation to ancient texts, are exclusive to the bible and other christian or abrahamic works. none of his other stuff, the overt "pagan" (vs. where abrahamism still had yet to reinvent itself from its originating environment) work or parts of his works aren't too controversial, at least at present (doctoral thesis was revolved around or had a large section about drug use in the ancient world and one of the panel members blockaded him until he took it out because the greco-romans "wouldn't do such things" and there's the medea play with dildos and "opening portals" at the catholic university he taught at).
as for that passage for plutarch's lives, one of the key offensive elements of that "boy love" looks not that it's because it was "gay" but because the boys were bought as sex slaves (trafficked by leistes it seems like, which ammon goes deep into).
it also should be noted that in the supposed "trad" fit-for-conservative christians ancient graeco-roman world, "homosexuality" and genderbending weren't illegal and the intense "condemnation" was basically limited to some writers making snarky satirical jabs or voicing their displeasure for sluts and flamers (which seems like bitterness from old guy).
there was also a stint with one of the roman emperors making a public divestment with the magna mater/cybele "cult" and a disapproving statement for "eunuchs", however that same emperor had his own personal "eunuch" catamites.
