[Roxitova]

View attachment 386814
View attachment 386816
View attachment 386817

please keep in mind that last pix is Rafa comforting Fed after Fed had a big long honkin cry after losing the Ao09 to him.

 

[Roxitova]

Yes because if Federistas "unite" behind nadal it will have such a profound effect on the outcome of the race between Rafa and Djok.
LOL
OP get s all mushy about Rafa now and again, then suddenly goes back to bashing him when the urge strikes.
Certainly the most duplicitous poster on the site, and like his username, full of holes.

 

[R]

Not saying it's wrong, but it isn't normal male behavior. And tbf it's also a special occasion that should draw out some extra emotion than most other situations.

The "it isn't normal male behaviour" bit... a cultural thing. You're looking at it through American glasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_hands

In Arab countries, Africa, some parts of Asia and traditionally in some Mediterranean and Southern European cultures (especially in Sicily), males also hold hands for friendship and as a sign of respect;[3][4] a custom which is especially noticed by societies unused to it, for instance when, in 2005, Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia held hands with the United States President George W. Bush.[5]

Physical and psychological aspects[edit]
According to Tiffany Field, the director of the Touch Research Institute, holding hands stimulates the vagus nerve, which decreases blood pressure and heart rate and puts people in a more relaxed state.[6]

--

Chinese Male Intimacy: On Men Holding Hands

www.echinacities.com

For over one thousand years, ever since Christianity was established as the dominant ideology in Western culture, homosexual behaviour has been viewed as a moral depravity. During this time the church and the state tended to be closely intertwined and the concept of homosexual activity as a sin translated itself not only into law but into culture as a whole. In the last forty years in the West, great efforts have been taken to undo all these years of prejudice, and homosexuality itself is now more widely accepted. But we still have an ingrained awkwardness about male to male platonic affection. When a perspective of discomfort has been dominant for so long, it takes time to get over it.

Why men holding hands in China is acceptable

Anyone will tell you that homosexuality is much less accepted in China than in the West, so why is male intimacy much more commonplace? The truth is that though many older, traditional Chinese people view homosexuality as a Western import; it's homophobia that was imported thanks to British influence following the opium wars. Unlike Judaeo-Christian or Islamic societies, China's traditional culture had no clear definition between heterosexuality and homosexuality. Although Confucianism stressed the importance of marrying and producing children, male-male sexual relations were never viewed in a negative light, nor has Buddhism ever spoken out against nanfeng (男風), or ‘the male fashion', as it was known in Imperial China. Many emperors had male concubines and at certain points in history nanfeng was particularly widespread, especially among upper class men.

Daoism stresses the importance of balance between yin and yang. Yin is feminine, yang masculine, but every man is seen as having some yin in his character. So feminine behaviour is not seen as a negative quality in a man, nor is intimacy among men seen as something which might undermine masculinity. A Chinese man can hold hands with a male friend without having any concerns that such behaviour might in some way weaken him in the eyes of other men. Homophobia has not been present in Chinese culture long enough to undermine this sense of ease.

Doctors say: physical contact is good for mental health

[...]

--

A British photographer captures the Indian phenomenon of men non-romantically holding hands

Vincent Dolman spotted the gesture on a visit to India and found it to be delightfully unconventional.

scroll.in

Though masculinity is rigidly defined and homophobia rampant in the country, the practice is so common that it is rarely noticed. British fashion and celebrity photographer Vincent Dolman, however, found this gesture to be delightfully unconventional, and an interesting contrast to the West, where homophobia and cultural norms have made men of all ages uncomfortable with this kind of physical contact.

--

In general holding someone's hand / putting one's hand over someone's hand can be a form of consolation or soothing in any culture whatsoever.

 

[NSMv1924]

Dont get me wrong, i cried myself watching everything unfold yesterday, but these photos are great meme material once Novak potentially gets a lead in slam race lol..

Nailed it

 

[florentine]

For over one thousand years, ever since Christianity was established as the dominant ideology in Western culture, homosexual behaviour has been viewed as a moral depravity. During this time the church and the state tended to be closely intertwined and the concept of homosexual activity as a sin translated itself not only into law but into culture as a whole.

Do I need to translate?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hommage_féodal

I put the wiki fr page because it is more complete than wiki eng on this subject..

The ceremony takes place in several stages:

first of all the vassal swears fidelity to his lord (the lord takes the vassal's hands in his: this is the immixtio manuum);
then they make each other the kiss of peace: it is the osculum (symbol of equality between warriors and Christians) before swearing mutual loyalty on the Bible;
finally the lord gives an object that represents the fief (earth, stick or piece of wood (festuca), gloves, gold ring or other).
Galbert of Bruges, in the twelfth century, reports the course of a ceremony of homage:

“The count asked the future vassal if he wanted to become his man without reservation. He replied, "I want it." Her hands being joined in those of the Count, they were allied in a kiss. Then the vassal said: “I promise in my faith to be faithful from this moment to Count William and to keep my homage to him against all and entirely, in good faith and without deceit. He swore this on the relic of the saints. Then the count gave him the investiture. »

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_feudorum_Ceritaniae

 

[swiss_tennisgod]

Yes because if Federistas "unite" behind nadal it will have such a profound effect on the outcome of the race between Rafa and Djok.
LOL
OP get s all mushy about Rafa now and again, then suddenly goes back to bashing him when the urge strikes.
Certainly the most duplicitous poster on the site, and like his username, full of holes.

Roxy Baby it's time to make peace once and for all.

This time I mean it, I swear. It's obvious Nadal and Federer are made for each other 🥰

 

[R]

Do I need to translate?
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hommage_féodal

I put the wiki fr page because it is more complete than wiki eng on this subject..

The ceremony takes place in several stages:

first of all the vassal swears fidelity to his lord (the lord takes the vassal's hands in his: this is the immixtio manuum);
then they make each other the kiss of peace: it is the osculum (symbol of equality between warriors and Christians) before swearing mutual loyalty on the Bible;
finally the lord gives an object that represents the fief (earth, stick or piece of wood (festuca), gloves, gold ring or other).
Galbert of Bruges, in the twelfth century, reports the course of a ceremony of homage:

“The count asked the future vassal if he wanted to become his man without reservation. He replied, "I want it." Her hands being joined in those of the Count, they were allied in a kiss. Then the vassal said: “I promise in my faith to be faithful from this moment to Count William and to keep my homage to him against all and entirely, in good faith and without deceit. He swore this on the relic of the saints. Then the count gave him the investiture. »

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_feudorum_Ceritaniae

Would say the author in that China related article isn't exactly wrong in purporting that "in Western culture homosexual behaviour has been viewed as a moral depravity for over a thousand years". It's just that I reckon it's a matter of what constituted "homosexual behaviour" during a specific time in history. The activities during homage ritual probably weren't initially considered to be homosexual behaviour, until they finally were. Apparently by the turn of the 13th and the 14th centuries kissing between members of the same sex came to be associated with homosexuality. But apparently only in the middle to late 1500s was the kiss no longer part of the homage ritual.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_medieval_Europe

Theology[edit]
Main article: History of Christianity and homosexuality
Although homosexuality was not considered a major offense during the early Roman Empire, homosexual encounters and homosexual behavior came to be viewed as unacceptable as Christianity developed. The Old Testament (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:5) condemned females who wore male attire, males who wore female attire, and males that engaged in homosexual intercourse.[3] In the 11th century, the Doctor of the Church, St. Peter Damian, wrote the Liber Gomorrhianus, an extended attack on both homosexuality and masturbation.[4] He portrayed homosexuality as a counter-rational force undermining morality, religion, and society itself,[5] and in need of strong suppression lest it spread even and especially among clergy.[6]

Hildegard of Bingen, born seven years after the death of St. Peter Damian, reported seeing visions and recorded them in Scivias (short for Scito vias Domini, "Know the Ways of the Lord"[7]). In Book II Vision Six, she quotes God as condemning same-sex intercourse, including lesbianism; "a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight, and so is she who subjects herself to such a one in this evil deed".

In the 13th century A.D., the theologian Thomas Aquinas was influential in linking condemnations of homosexuality with the idea of natural law, arguing that "special sins are against nature, as, for instance, those that run counter to the intercourse of male and female natural to animals, and so are peculiarly qualified as unnatural vices."[8] This view points from the natural to the Divine, because (following Aristotle) he said all people seek happiness; but according to Aquinas, happiness can only finally be attained through the Beatific Vision.[9] Therefore, all sins are also against the natural law. However, the natural law of many aspects of life is knowable apart from special revelation by examining the forms and purposes of those aspects. It is in this sense that Aquinas considered homosexuality unnatural, since it involves a kind of partner other than the kind to which the purpose of sexuality points. Indeed, he considered it second only to bestiality as an abuse of sexuality.[10][11]

And (some mixed opinions over the timeframe when homosexuality began to be condemned by Christianity):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity_and_homosexuality

The Middle Ages[edit]

John Boswell, in his essay The Church and the Homosexual,[39] attributes Christianity's denunciations of "homosexuality" to an alleged rising intolerance in Europe throughout the 12th century, which he claims was also reflected in other ways. His premise is that when sodomy was not being explicitly and "officially" denounced, it was therefore being "tolerated". Historian R. W. Southern disagreed with Boswell's claims and wrote in 1990 that "the only relevant generalization which emerges from the penitential codes down to the eleventh century is that sodomy was treated on about the same level as copulation with animals." Southern further notes that "Boswell thinks that the omission of sodomy from the stringent new code of clerical celibacy issued by the Roman Council of 1059 implies a degree of tolerance. Countering this is the argument that the Council of 1059 had more urgent business on hand; and in any case, sodomy had been condemned by Leo IX at Rheims in 1049."[40] Similarly, Pierre Payer asserted in 1984 that Boswell's thesis (as outlined in his Christianity, Homosexuality and Social Tolerance) ignores an alleged wealth of condemnations found in the penitential literature prior to the 12th century.[41] More recently, historian Allan Tulchin wrote in 2007 in the Journal of Modern History that, "It is impossible to prove either way and probably also somewhat irrelevant to understanding their way of thinking. They loved each other, and the community accepted that."[42]

Peter Damian wrote the Liber Gomorrhianus, an extended attack on both homosexuality and masturbation.[43] He portrayed homosexuality as a counter-rational force undermining morality, religion, and society itself,[44] and in need of strong suppression lest it spread even and especially among clergy.[45] Damian reports that even Otto III was intimate with many men (sharing the bed and bath).[46]

Hildegard of Bingen reported seeing visions and recorded them in Scivias (short for Scito vias Domini, "Know the Ways of the Lord"[47]). In Book II Vision Six, she quotes God as condemning same-sex intercourse, including lesbianism; "a woman who takes up devilish ways and plays a male role in coupling with another woman is most vile in My sight, and so is she who subjects herself to such a one in this evil deed".[48] Her younger contemporary Alain de Lille personified the theme of sexual sin in opposition to nature in The Complaint of Nature by having Nature herself denounce sexual immorality and especially homosexuality as rebellion against her direction, terming it confusion between masculine and feminine and between subject and object. The Complaint also includes a striking description of the neglect of womanhood:

Though all the beauty of man humbles itself before the fairness of woman, being always inferior to her glory; though the face of the daughter of Tyndaris is brought into being and the comeliness of Adonis and Narcissus, conquered, adores her; for all this she is scorned, although she speaks as beauty itself, though her godlike grace affirms her to be a goddess, though for her the thunderbolt would fail in the hand of Jove, and every sinew of Apollo would pause and lie inactive, though for her the free man would become a slave, and Hippolytus, to enjoy her love, would sell his very chastity. Why do so many kisses lie untouched on maiden lips, and no one wish to gain a profit from them?[49]

In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas argued that not all things to which a person might be inclined are "natural" in the morally relevant sense; rather, only the inclination to the full and proper expression of the human nature, and inclinations which align with that inclination, are natural. Contrary inclinations are perversions of the natural in the sense that they do seek a good, but in a way destructive of good.[50][51][52]

This view points from the natural to the Divine, because (following Aristotle) he said all people seek happiness; but according to Aquinas, happiness can only finally be attained through the Beatific Vision.[53] Therefore, all sins are also against the natural law. But the natural law of many aspects of life is knowable apart from special revelation by examining the forms and purposes of those aspects. It is in this sense that Aquinas considered homosexuality unnatural, since it involves a kind of partner other than the kind to which the purpose of sexuality points. He considered it comparable to heterosexual sex for pleasure (rather than reproduction).[54][55]

The tone of the denunciations often indicate a more than theoretical concern.[clarification needed] Archbishop Ralph of Tours had his lover John installed as Bishop of Orléans with agreement of both the King of France and Pope Urban II.[56][unreliable source?] In 1395 there was a transvestite homosexual prostitute arrested in London with some records surviving,[57] and the Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards included the denunciation of priestly celibacy as a cause of sodomy.[58]

The Reformation and Counter-Reformation[edit]

Martin Luther's view of homosexuality is recorded in Plass's What Luther Says:

The vice of the ********* is an unparalleled enormity. It departs from the natural passion and desire, planted into nature by God, according to which the male has a passionate desire for the female. Sodomy craves what is entirely contrary to nature. Whence comes this perversion? Without a doubt it comes from the devil. After a man has once turned aside from the fear of God, the devil puts such great pressure upon his nature that he extinguishes the fire of natural desire and stirs up another, which is contrary to nature.[59]

--

In regards to homosexuality and homage ritual:

A new attitude towards kissing

In the late thirteenth century there was a change in the attitude toward kissing. The danger of kisses being exchanged by members of the opposite sex had been noted by the earliest church fathers. The stories of Lancelot and Guinevere and other romances of chivalry demonstrated clearly that the kiss could lead to unforeseen and disastrous consequences. More striking was a new attitude about the exchange of kisses between members of the same sex. During the ancient period homosexuality had been widely accepted. Even the early church fathers were more tolerant of it than might be expected. There was some tightening of the sexual code in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, which may be attributed in part to a growing asceticism. The emperor Justinian outlawed homosexual practices, but neither the late empire nor the early medieval states were in a position to enforce such legislation, and the church was seemingly unconcerned. Indeed, there was a substantial increase in the amount of homosexual literature during the eleventh and twelfth centuries and prominent prelates were implicated. Not until the late twelfth century was there a concerted effort to stamp out homosexual practices and many years elapsed before it had a telling effect. Boswell suggests that this change in attitude was "probably closely related to the general increase in intolerance of minority groups apparent in ecclesiastical and secular institutions throughout the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries." Goodich sees the change as an outgrowth of the Gregorian reform movement. Whatever the cause, by 1300 homosexual practices were generally condemned by church and state alike, and kissing between members of the same sex that had once served as a sign of peace, reconciliation, and agreement now became associated with homosexuality.10

This change in attitude toward kissing may explain why the English began to abandon the kiss of peace around the middle of the thirteenth century. It had long been customary for men to kiss men and women to kiss women as a sign of reconciliation just before communion, but this practice was now replaced by kissing a plaque on which was implanted a picture of Jesus or some saint. This practice gradually spread to the continent and the kiss of peace between Christians, that had been so meaningful as a token of reconciliation, ceased to exist in the liturgy of the Roman Catholic Church except in the form of a light embrace among the clergy. At about the same time, the kiss to seal the various types of contracts, which once had been very common, ceased to be performed.11

[...]

The above changes demonstrated to everyone that aspects of the lord-vassal relationship could be altered and made it all but certain that, when kissing and kneeling fell into disrepute, there would be demands to change the ceremony of homage itself. The most outspoken and most quoted leader of the assault on homage was Du Moulin, who published an influential treatise in 1539. Simple homage, he insisted, implied no personal dependence. To kneel before a noble was ridiculous. One only knelt before a prince. The kiss was "indecent nay reprehensible," and not imposed by custom.

[...]

When d'Ableiges described how homage was rendered in the town and provostship of Paris near the close of the fourteenth century, he specified that the vassal knelt before his lord and promised faithful and loyal service. The lord then took the vassal's hands between his own and kissed him on the mouth. When the custom was redacted in 1510, only the expression la bouche et les mains was used to describe the ceremony of homage. At that time the medieval interpretation of la bouche, meaning the kiss, almost certainly held sway. The phrase was repeated in the revised custom of 1580, but, later in the same document where more detail was given, the vassal was required to place only one knee on the ground and the kiss was omitted. It was in this form that the Paris custom was transplanted to Canada in the seventeenth century.19

Thus the custom itself was altered to reflect the changing social mores. A few commentators, antiquarians primarily sought to retain the letter of the written custom. But the more common practice was to follow the lead that Du Moulin had given in 1539 and to insist that kneeling be reserved for liege homage to the king and that la bouche refer only to a verbal pledge of loyalty. De Ferriere went so far as to argue that the oath of fidelity was not necessary because private wars had been abolished in France and that it was useless for vassals to take oaths that they could neither keep nor execute. But he wrote this opinion after Louis XIV had reigned for many years.20

The customs in some other parts of France also underwent change. That of Melun required kneeling and the kiss when it was redacted in 1506, but when it was reformed in 1560 the vassal put only one knee on the ground and the kiss was omitted. In 1507, the custom of Amiens defined homage in terms of la bouche et les mains, but this phrase, indicating the kiss, was dropped when the custom was reformed in 1567. The kiss underwent a similar fate in Orleans to the delight of the commentator. The late medieval custom of Brittany specified a kiss on the mouth, but, by 1539, the custom prescribed the kiss only when one brother did homage to another. By the final reformation of the custom in 1580 this fraternal kiss was dropped and a bow replaced kneeling even when liege homage was performed. When the custom of Touraine was redacted in I507, the kiss was required, but, when it was reformed in 1559, a partial reprieve was granted by removing this part of the ritual if the lord were represented by proxy. The Normans saw no need to prescribe the ceremony of homage when they redacted their custom, but when they reformed it in 1583 they were careful to limit the ceremony to the vassal placing his hands between his lord's. The representatives of the dukes of Aumale and Montpensier, the duchess of Longueville, and the count of Montaing had tried without success to require vassals to place one knee on the ground and to be bareheaded without arms or spurs, but they did not seek to preserve the kiss on the mouth. It was flattering to have nobles kneel before you, but the kiss was as repugnant to them as to their vassals.

[...]

 

[Nole Fan #1]

The "it isn't normal male behaviour" bit... a cultural thing. You're looking at it through American glasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_hands

--

Chinese Male Intimacy: On Men Holding Hands

www.echinacities.com

--

A British photographer captures the Indian phenomenon of men non-romantically holding hands

Vincent Dolman spotted the gesture on a visit to India and found it to be delightfully unconventional.

scroll.in

--

In general holding someone's hand / putting one's hand over someone's hand can be a form of consolation or soothing in any culture whatsoever.

I think it would be more apt to say that I'm looking at it through "westerner" glasses. It's simply not common behavior in most western countries. I was also talking about the incontrollable sobbing as much as I was talking about the hand holding. That being said this was not a normal everyday situation so I wouldn't read too far into it anyways.

 

[florentine]

Would say the author in that China related article isn't exactly wrong in purporting that "in Western culture homosexual behaviour has been viewed as a moral depravity for over a thousand years".

The question here is not to pass judgment on homosexuality by Christianity, it is to associate the contact of hands between men or even the kiss as a homosexual gesture whereas as specified, it is a gesture of loyalty, of trust, confidence which even confirms a contractual pact (in front of God..) and that it is also underlined that in other cultures, like in Islam for example, this contact has nothing to do with homosexuality and it doesn't seem to me that homosexuality is better regarded by Islam, that's all.

And generally speaking, will it always be "easier" to devote Christianity to all evil? but I prefer to stop here.

😌

 

[R]

The question here is not to pass judgment on homosexuality by Christianity, it is to associate the contact of hands between men or even the kiss as a homosexual gesture whereas as specified, it is a gesture of loyalty, of trust, confidence which even confirms a contractual pact (in front of God..) and that it is also underlined that in other cultures, like in Islam for example, this contact has nothing to do with homosexuality and it doesn't seem to me that homosexuality is better regarded by Islam, that's all.

And generally speaking, will it always be "easier" to devote Christianity to all evil? but I prefer to stop here.

😌

As said, the act of kissing during the homage ritual became to be viewed as "repugnant", "indecent" and "reprehensible", and was thus changed from the oral tradition to a written form.

 

[nadalvamos]

Nadal is doing his best to deny Novak from Vulturing more FO titles, he needs Med and Alcaraz and the young guys to help deny Novak the Wimby, and the AUS and US government to deny Novak the AUS and US titles. It will take everything to save tennis and prevent Novak from winning the slam race. We need all non-Serbian tennis fans to unite to achieve this goal!

 

[nerdybucky]

As a Swiss I'm of course a lifelong Federer Fan, and I simply think "The Big 3" will always stick to the tennis sport as a term and fact for eternity! No matter how many slams any of them won or will win in the future.

I dislike Djokovic for his straight out claim he wants to break records. Shows his boastful mentality really well.

People said about Pete Sampras' Slam record of 14 it could never be broken. Well, we all saw how that went out, didn't we.

Alcaraz just had his first at barely 19 years old. Records will always be broken, even Djokovic will have to live with this fact some day.

 

[SetPointDown]

Never

 

[ivanban]

The "it isn't normal male behaviour" bit... a cultural thing. You're looking at it through American glasses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holding_hands

--

Chinese Male Intimacy: On Men Holding Hands

www.echinacities.com

--

A British photographer captures the Indian phenomenon of men non-romantically holding hands

Vincent Dolman spotted the gesture on a visit to India and found it to be delightfully unconventional.

scroll.in

--

In general holding someone's hand / putting one's hand over someone's hand can be a form of consolation or soothing in any culture whatsoever.

Straight men holding hands is cringe.

 

[R]

Straight men holding hands is cringe.

Ok

 

[Chokeoria]

Fedal was and forever will be the epitome of tennis. The rest are merely pretenders.

 

[Chokeoria]

Straight men holding hands is cringe.

I was about to report you, then I remembered you're from Serbia, a country where homophobia runs rampant. I pity your soul.

 

[El_Toro]

Straight men holding hands is cringe.

Yeah, it feels weird. In India and many other non-western countries (like Serbia), bromance is much more pronounced than in the west, but I haven't seen holding hands. Arm on shoulder is more common.

 

[doubletrollt]

deleted

 

[El_Toro]

delete

As usual, a useless post from you that makes no point.