2 Boys, 1 Cup

milkboys Art & Fanart, History & People 16 Comments

2000 years old, worth £1.8 million, banned from the US, not publicly exhibited until 1999. Meet history’s most expensive piece of gay porn: The Warren Cup

One side depicts a man (the active participant or erastes) engaging in anal sex with a young man (the catamite, eromenos, or passive participant), who lowers himself onto the erastes using a rope or support from the ceiling in roughly the modern sexual position of reverse cowgirl.

Meanwhile a boy, perhaps a slave, watches surreptitiously from behind a door — the inferior status of a slave in Roman eyes would make him suitable to this role of voyeur.

The other side depicts two young men making love. Both scenes also include draped textiles in the background, as well as a kithara (lyre) in the former scene and auloi (pipes) in the latter. These, along with the careful delineation of ages and status and the wreaths worn by the youths, all suggest a cultured, elite, Hellenised setting with music and entertainment.

Found in this essay about “boys love” in art

Comments 16

  1. OH MY FUCKING GOD do not believe in but this is some real irrelevance OH MY FUCKING GOD.
    Will need 30 days to come to terms. W O W … OMFG thank you. on my knees thank you. ♂ 🔥

    1. So, I don’t know how old you are or where you learned English, but it would be great if you’d stop using uppercase words, (too many) expletives and derogatory language such as “fag”, like in your previous posts. As for bad acronyms, it should be OMFGWDNE, not OMFG. I’ll give you guys one guess. ;)

      And I’m guessing you meant “irreverence,” not “irrelevance.” Or impudence, insolence, impertinence, all of which are also … relevant.

      1. Do write and mean “irrelevance”. The personal react to the post is a do as do so write as. The pictures do find later on do make these knees weak and do fall down again and this person does praise the lord god does not believe in. PRAISE in lieu of a lack of faith. Do not hate god. Do understand godliness and supernal love. DO fall in love with the post, however irrelevant is such about it all. [ As a sex cop spy, u r an awful str8. ]

  2. A great piece of art which I’ve had the luxury of seeing in real life. The side depicted on the left makes me think of Michael Jackson and James Safechuck. You should write a text about the greatest love story of the 20th century.

    1. Do you see this in real life ? WOW. The payers of the piece must be rich in more ways than three back then. To fuck a slave boy on demand and get it on permanent record ? And have, may be, a wife ? Other things show homo desires but nothing do these eye ever see such a like as this “out” of obvious homo fornicate. Now do really like this site. . .

  3. Probably a fake, but also probably a true depiction of such scenes of the time, and if a fake, it now has an historical value of its own, so on these premises, you should be able to get it for half price… ;)

    1. Chimel, proability that it is fake is quite small. The reason why historians think it is fake, is the way subjects are displayed, as they show compassion toward each other.During Roman era homosexual acts were seen only as acts between weak and strong.
      But other details seem to support its 2000y age. it is even thought to be from 5-15 AD.

  4. It was determined by analysis of the corrosion pits that it’s from approximately 10AD, just as it was thought.

    Good that the article corrects the ‘1980s social constructionist’ view of historical ‘homosexuality’. It’s not only Schalow but many others (Rocke, Rouayheb, etc.).

    1. Yes, I should have written “possibly” instead. I did not find any mention of such an analysis, and there’s apparently none on the “fake” camp either, but looking at the pictures of the cantharus in its original state, it would be a huge enterprise to fake not just the artifact, but also its many degradations over natural causes or traces of human use. I also highly doubt the British Museum would pay £1.8M without being certain there could be no controversy.

      In any case, the sex scene seems to be genuine for the time, even if the heavy cleaning after Warren’s death makes it look too realistic to be real. I know it’s a static embossing, but somehow our brains transform this into some animated gif, and that must be what upset its authenticity straight detractors… ;)

      1. There were papers arguing both in favor of it being a fake and in favor of it being real: there are pieces in a similar style by a known faker, so it was plausible to suggest it might have been from that faker’s shop. However, it was determined to be real after the corrosion in the pits was studied.

    1. Brilliant!
      Laughing my socks off!
      Feeling very happy I didn’t come across that little snip when I was last there a year ago.
      Was much more temtpted to get an original Pugin floor tile from Westminster – also a bargain at 50 quid.

      Saw sense though and went home thinking these grasping London wanks can keep all their tat.

      1. Post
        Author
  5. As the guy affirms in the video, such is a real. Though he says sex with males is as common as with females back then, believe it not. A tolerant, may be, some places, but not the same any where as marriage. Not in Roman AC certainly. Sex with slaves is a tolerant even to this day, 2019, depending. Willing sex slaves ? Willing slave guys ? SUCH an assuming of such willingness is my original react. This be a stupid FOOL ! ! ! . . .

Leave a Reply to Distant admirer Cancel reply