Gorilla
05-23-2006, 01:38 AM
http://bitheway.org/Bi/Roman.htm
The Hellinization of Rome brought drastic changes in public morality. One of the most marked changes regarded the sexual mores of Roman citizens. In the Archaic period & early Republic, male bisexuality was accepted in very specific contexts. By the time of the late Republic & early Principate, Hellinization had changed the context of bisexual acceptance. Even under the Christian influence of the later Empire, bisexuality was never completely unacceptable; the contexts just grew more & more unfavorable.
Roman men were socialized to be dominant in every aspect of their lives. They had a manifest destiny to rule the world & only butch, aggressive male citizens could accomplish that destiny. Unlike the Greeks, where love among an older man & younger boy was considered not only acceptable, but a tutoring relationship where the boy was taught how to be a good citizen, the Romans saw sex in clear terms of dominance & submission. Young Roman men forced into a submissive role early in life could not fulfil their destinies as dominators of the entire world. Pedeastry was seen as a distinctly Greek vice. Laws such as the Lex Scatina were passed specifically prohibiting the solicitation of underage male citizens & Roman matrons.
It was not homosexuality itself to which the Romans objected, but the subjugation of future citizens. It was quite acceptable to pay a prostitute (male or female) or have sex with a slave. These men were not citizens, were not in a position to dominate the world & thus could not have their rights of citizenship violated. Subjugating them was seen as no threat because they were already in a subservient position.
Passivity in a Roman male was seen as a threat to the Republic itself. When an adult seduced a minor, it was the adult who was punished. However, between adults, it was the passive partner who was punished in the Lex Scatina. The crime lay not in engaging in homosexual sex, but in not being a dominant Roman male.
This attitude was reflected in laws regarding adultery. Any passive partner in an illegitimate sexual encounter could contract a blood taint which was not removable. These taints were usually inflicted upon women who had disgraced their families through adultery or even sometimes rape. A man could not usually contract this taint because he was the dominant sexual partner. However, in homosexual encounters, the passive man could contract this blood taint.
While citizens & sons of citizens were off limits, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have sexual relations with his male slaves, with paid male prostitutes, with his male freedmen & on occasion, with the slaves & freedmen of other citizens. Relations with the slaves & freedmen of others, while accepted, were frowned upon. The slave was part of a work force in whose productivity the owner had a very great interest. Taking one's own slave as a lover had benefits to compensate for any lack of productivity. However, allowing other people to do this was a different matter entirely. Roman masters paid a great deal of attention to the sex lives of their slaves.
On the whole, a male slave was only allowed sexual relations with his master or with female slaves in his master's household, for any offspring produced from their union would increase the work force. Allowing male slaves to impregnate the slaves of another man's household would do no good for the owner of the male slave & possibly even encourage the slave to flee his master to be with the woman.
Greater Hellinization in the late Republic & early Principate brought a change in the practice, if not to the legal acceptance, of pederasty. Though they felt that they had been put upon the earth to conquer it, the Romans also worried that they were less cultured & refined than their Hellenistic neighbors. They adopted aspects of Greek architecture, religion, poetry & inevitably, morality.
"By the second century,… homosexuality was undergoing a sea-change. Formerly, in the early centuries, it had been an expression of total & irrepressible masculinity, imposed on slaves in a frenzy of aggressive virility. Now, it had turned into a desire to be seductive…& that desire was sometimes – indeed, increasingly – triggered by free born boys."
As in Greece, loving boys became a fashionable Roman literary theme. Powerful men in high positions wrote love poetry to boys, both real & fictional. Quintus Lutatius Catulus wrote of his love for both the boy Theotimus & a young Juvenitus. Valerius Aedituus wrote of his passion for the lad Phileros. Their poetry closely parallelled Greek styles & themes.
However, the love of boys was not just a subject for poetry. To the Romans, public morality had declined to a point where the Lex Scatina had to be expanded to include the escorts of any boys or married women. The wards of citizens were not safe alone on the streets, where men openly solicited both matrons & their sons. For a boy or Roman matron to be seen in public without proper escort would be to invite trouble, or at least the scorn of other well behaved citizens.
Hellenism was considered a significant cause of the decline in public morality. As Rome Hellenized, it saw a conservative backlash in sexuality. Gradually, even sex with the accepted group of young male prostitutes or slaves became frowned upon because of the immoral acts men would now perform in order to impress their young lovers. These acts had nothing to do with sex, but with the far more dangerous crime of seduction. In one instance, a master in the country with a favorite slave was asked by the boy for some beef. There was no beef around, so the master had a work animal slaughtered so he could please his lover. The master was punished – not for his sexual relations with the slave – but for wasting a good work animal which could have been put to years of productive use. This sort of immorality was seen as a corrupting influence on good Romans. Sex was acceptable, but seduction was dangerous.
The new Hellinization, with its encouragement of the seduction of boys, conflicted sharply with the preexisting attitude of Roman male dominance. While they wanted to be more like their cultured neighbors, the Romans also wanted their sons to be good male citizens. Being good citizen was nearly impossible if the boy was submissive.
Under Augustus, a new law, the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis, was passed which made all sexual relationships outside matrimony, concubinal relations & liaisons with prostitutes a crime. It also took such crimes out of the sphere of family law & made them affairs of the state. However, these laws were not taken as seriously as Augustus might have liked. Prudentius wrote questioning why he should honor Jove. After all, if the god were to be judged by the Lex Scatina & Lex Iulia then he would be condemned & severely punished for his behavior, not only with Ganymede, but with the proliferation of female lovers for which he was famous.
Men managed to work around the idea that they were dooming their sons to life as a submissive, inferior citizen by redefining masculinity in light of the Hellenistic influences. The submissive was no longer a person who engaged in anal sex, but a person who engaged in fellatio. Forcing another person, male or female, to engage in oral sex was considered quite disgusting to the Romans. Virility became associated with forcing a partner to perform an act from which they were allowed to gain no pleasure. Fellatio quickly became one of the most shameful acts which one man could be forced to perform on another.
The shame of performing fellatio was reflected in the poetry of the time. The god Priapus was thought to scare birds from orchards & thieves from homes with the threat of his penis. In Catulus work, the Priapea, Priapus is credited with declaring that:
"Thief, I'll bugger you the first time.
Try it again & you'll find it in your mouth.
And if you come back a third time
I'll try both penalties together
you'll find it up your arse & down your throat.
Don't think that what I say
is said by way of jest or playfulness.
When I catch a thief three or four times
never doubt, it goes in his mouth."
Thus, Roman sexual virility continued to remain defined in terms of dominance. Young boys who had been seduced into a passive role in homosexual relations with an older man could still grow up to become dominant male citizens, so long as they had not performed fellatio. Bisexuality among men was redefined around the need to remain dominant & the desire to become Hellenized. As such, bisexuality among women was completely frowned upon. Women who engaged in sexual acts with one another were thought to reject the necessary subjugation to the male, which in turn made him question his image as the only possible dispenser of pleasure.
Unlike male bisexuality, female bisexuality was considered to be completely unnatural. As such, no sane, upright woman would even consider such an act. The most positive reference to sex between women was of it as a bad omen.
"If [in a dream] a woman penetrates another woman, she will share her secrets with the woman she has penetrated. If she does not know the woman she has penetrated, she will attempt futile actions. If a woman is penetrated by another woman, she will be divorced from her husband or become a widow. None the less, she will learn the secrets of the woman with whom she had sexual intercourse."
Love between women was not only considered unnatural, but also criminal. A married woman who had sex with another woman was considered as adulterous, even though there was no risk of conceiving illegitimate children. Women were supposed to be subservient to men. Taking over a man's sexual role was considered monstrous. With the negative attitude towards oral sex, cunnilingus was considered as abhorrent as fellatio.
Issues of dominance & taboo over specific sexual practices all came together in relationships between women. Women existed to give men an arena for sexual dominance. The combination of a woman being dominant in the sexual act & the involvement of oral sex made lesbianism & female bisexuality totally abhorrent to the Roman mind. However, while female bisexuality was considered an unforgivable behavior, the Romans lived in a very male oriented world. In the final analysis, female homosexuality was not considered important enough to merit serious discussion.
In the end, male bisexuality was never considered completely taboo. Sex for the Roman man was yet another way of proving both to himself & the world that he was a master. From the Archaic period through the early Principate, male sexuality was defined in terms of dominance. Whether with men, women, or boys, the Roman man was always in charge.
Works Cited:
Cantarella, Eva. Bisexuality in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Grimal, Pierre. Love in Ancient Rome. Translated by Arthur Train, Jr. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986.
Lefkowitz, Mary R. & Maureen B. Fant. Women's Life in Greece & Rome: A Source Book in Translation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Related Works:
Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece
Lost Goddesses of Early Greece: A Collection of Pre-Hellenic
Art, Desire & the Body in Ancient Greece
On a Voiceless Shore: Byron in Greece
Diana at Her Bath: The Women of Rome
Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity
The Hellinization of Rome brought drastic changes in public morality. One of the most marked changes regarded the sexual mores of Roman citizens. In the Archaic period & early Republic, male bisexuality was accepted in very specific contexts. By the time of the late Republic & early Principate, Hellinization had changed the context of bisexual acceptance. Even under the Christian influence of the later Empire, bisexuality was never completely unacceptable; the contexts just grew more & more unfavorable.
Roman men were socialized to be dominant in every aspect of their lives. They had a manifest destiny to rule the world & only butch, aggressive male citizens could accomplish that destiny. Unlike the Greeks, where love among an older man & younger boy was considered not only acceptable, but a tutoring relationship where the boy was taught how to be a good citizen, the Romans saw sex in clear terms of dominance & submission. Young Roman men forced into a submissive role early in life could not fulfil their destinies as dominators of the entire world. Pedeastry was seen as a distinctly Greek vice. Laws such as the Lex Scatina were passed specifically prohibiting the solicitation of underage male citizens & Roman matrons.
It was not homosexuality itself to which the Romans objected, but the subjugation of future citizens. It was quite acceptable to pay a prostitute (male or female) or have sex with a slave. These men were not citizens, were not in a position to dominate the world & thus could not have their rights of citizenship violated. Subjugating them was seen as no threat because they were already in a subservient position.
Passivity in a Roman male was seen as a threat to the Republic itself. When an adult seduced a minor, it was the adult who was punished. However, between adults, it was the passive partner who was punished in the Lex Scatina. The crime lay not in engaging in homosexual sex, but in not being a dominant Roman male.
This attitude was reflected in laws regarding adultery. Any passive partner in an illegitimate sexual encounter could contract a blood taint which was not removable. These taints were usually inflicted upon women who had disgraced their families through adultery or even sometimes rape. A man could not usually contract this taint because he was the dominant sexual partner. However, in homosexual encounters, the passive man could contract this blood taint.
While citizens & sons of citizens were off limits, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to have sexual relations with his male slaves, with paid male prostitutes, with his male freedmen & on occasion, with the slaves & freedmen of other citizens. Relations with the slaves & freedmen of others, while accepted, were frowned upon. The slave was part of a work force in whose productivity the owner had a very great interest. Taking one's own slave as a lover had benefits to compensate for any lack of productivity. However, allowing other people to do this was a different matter entirely. Roman masters paid a great deal of attention to the sex lives of their slaves.
On the whole, a male slave was only allowed sexual relations with his master or with female slaves in his master's household, for any offspring produced from their union would increase the work force. Allowing male slaves to impregnate the slaves of another man's household would do no good for the owner of the male slave & possibly even encourage the slave to flee his master to be with the woman.
Greater Hellinization in the late Republic & early Principate brought a change in the practice, if not to the legal acceptance, of pederasty. Though they felt that they had been put upon the earth to conquer it, the Romans also worried that they were less cultured & refined than their Hellenistic neighbors. They adopted aspects of Greek architecture, religion, poetry & inevitably, morality.
"By the second century,… homosexuality was undergoing a sea-change. Formerly, in the early centuries, it had been an expression of total & irrepressible masculinity, imposed on slaves in a frenzy of aggressive virility. Now, it had turned into a desire to be seductive…& that desire was sometimes – indeed, increasingly – triggered by free born boys."
As in Greece, loving boys became a fashionable Roman literary theme. Powerful men in high positions wrote love poetry to boys, both real & fictional. Quintus Lutatius Catulus wrote of his love for both the boy Theotimus & a young Juvenitus. Valerius Aedituus wrote of his passion for the lad Phileros. Their poetry closely parallelled Greek styles & themes.
However, the love of boys was not just a subject for poetry. To the Romans, public morality had declined to a point where the Lex Scatina had to be expanded to include the escorts of any boys or married women. The wards of citizens were not safe alone on the streets, where men openly solicited both matrons & their sons. For a boy or Roman matron to be seen in public without proper escort would be to invite trouble, or at least the scorn of other well behaved citizens.
Hellenism was considered a significant cause of the decline in public morality. As Rome Hellenized, it saw a conservative backlash in sexuality. Gradually, even sex with the accepted group of young male prostitutes or slaves became frowned upon because of the immoral acts men would now perform in order to impress their young lovers. These acts had nothing to do with sex, but with the far more dangerous crime of seduction. In one instance, a master in the country with a favorite slave was asked by the boy for some beef. There was no beef around, so the master had a work animal slaughtered so he could please his lover. The master was punished – not for his sexual relations with the slave – but for wasting a good work animal which could have been put to years of productive use. This sort of immorality was seen as a corrupting influence on good Romans. Sex was acceptable, but seduction was dangerous.
The new Hellinization, with its encouragement of the seduction of boys, conflicted sharply with the preexisting attitude of Roman male dominance. While they wanted to be more like their cultured neighbors, the Romans also wanted their sons to be good male citizens. Being good citizen was nearly impossible if the boy was submissive.
Under Augustus, a new law, the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis, was passed which made all sexual relationships outside matrimony, concubinal relations & liaisons with prostitutes a crime. It also took such crimes out of the sphere of family law & made them affairs of the state. However, these laws were not taken as seriously as Augustus might have liked. Prudentius wrote questioning why he should honor Jove. After all, if the god were to be judged by the Lex Scatina & Lex Iulia then he would be condemned & severely punished for his behavior, not only with Ganymede, but with the proliferation of female lovers for which he was famous.
Men managed to work around the idea that they were dooming their sons to life as a submissive, inferior citizen by redefining masculinity in light of the Hellenistic influences. The submissive was no longer a person who engaged in anal sex, but a person who engaged in fellatio. Forcing another person, male or female, to engage in oral sex was considered quite disgusting to the Romans. Virility became associated with forcing a partner to perform an act from which they were allowed to gain no pleasure. Fellatio quickly became one of the most shameful acts which one man could be forced to perform on another.
The shame of performing fellatio was reflected in the poetry of the time. The god Priapus was thought to scare birds from orchards & thieves from homes with the threat of his penis. In Catulus work, the Priapea, Priapus is credited with declaring that:
"Thief, I'll bugger you the first time.
Try it again & you'll find it in your mouth.
And if you come back a third time
I'll try both penalties together
you'll find it up your arse & down your throat.
Don't think that what I say
is said by way of jest or playfulness.
When I catch a thief three or four times
never doubt, it goes in his mouth."
Thus, Roman sexual virility continued to remain defined in terms of dominance. Young boys who had been seduced into a passive role in homosexual relations with an older man could still grow up to become dominant male citizens, so long as they had not performed fellatio. Bisexuality among men was redefined around the need to remain dominant & the desire to become Hellenized. As such, bisexuality among women was completely frowned upon. Women who engaged in sexual acts with one another were thought to reject the necessary subjugation to the male, which in turn made him question his image as the only possible dispenser of pleasure.
Unlike male bisexuality, female bisexuality was considered to be completely unnatural. As such, no sane, upright woman would even consider such an act. The most positive reference to sex between women was of it as a bad omen.
"If [in a dream] a woman penetrates another woman, she will share her secrets with the woman she has penetrated. If she does not know the woman she has penetrated, she will attempt futile actions. If a woman is penetrated by another woman, she will be divorced from her husband or become a widow. None the less, she will learn the secrets of the woman with whom she had sexual intercourse."
Love between women was not only considered unnatural, but also criminal. A married woman who had sex with another woman was considered as adulterous, even though there was no risk of conceiving illegitimate children. Women were supposed to be subservient to men. Taking over a man's sexual role was considered monstrous. With the negative attitude towards oral sex, cunnilingus was considered as abhorrent as fellatio.
Issues of dominance & taboo over specific sexual practices all came together in relationships between women. Women existed to give men an arena for sexual dominance. The combination of a woman being dominant in the sexual act & the involvement of oral sex made lesbianism & female bisexuality totally abhorrent to the Roman mind. However, while female bisexuality was considered an unforgivable behavior, the Romans lived in a very male oriented world. In the final analysis, female homosexuality was not considered important enough to merit serious discussion.
In the end, male bisexuality was never considered completely taboo. Sex for the Roman man was yet another way of proving both to himself & the world that he was a master. From the Archaic period through the early Principate, male sexuality was defined in terms of dominance. Whether with men, women, or boys, the Roman man was always in charge.
Works Cited:
Cantarella, Eva. Bisexuality in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992.
Grimal, Pierre. Love in Ancient Rome. Translated by Arthur Train, Jr. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986.
Lefkowitz, Mary R. & Maureen B. Fant. Women's Life in Greece & Rome: A Source Book in Translation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.
Related Works:
Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece
Lost Goddesses of Early Greece: A Collection of Pre-Hellenic
Art, Desire & the Body in Ancient Greece
On a Voiceless Shore: Byron in Greece
Diana at Her Bath: The Women of Rome
Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity