Sex and the Romans
From what we know the Romans had very different attitudes to sex.
The concept of heterosexual and homosexual sex was unknown to them and male on male sex was tolerated with conditions applying.
For example, Romans were free to have "gay" sex as long as they used slaves and were the dominate partner. Sex between free Roman males was frowned upon and if a Roman allowed himself to be penetrated, he suffered loss of face, dignity, his manhood and he could even suffer legal censure.
Therefore, it's not surprising that many Roman youths had their first sexual encounters and honed their sexual skills with the family male slaves and they were encouraged to do with their fathers' tacit approval.
Handsome, young, male slaves were always in great demand and it's not hard to imagine an indulgent paterfamilias ensuring there were suitable slaves available to his son/sons.
However, upon marriage, these activities were to cease and the young husband was expected to give his favours to his wife.
Of course, we know this didn't always happen. Even after marriage, many Roman men still used their male slaves who were sometimes referred to as "puer" - meaning boy in Latin.
Often a Roman would honour a favourite slave by acknowledging him as the master's special "puer" by renaming him.
Thus a slave who enjoyed a special status with a master known as Marcus would be renamed "Marcipor" a contraction of "Marcus's puer" and literally meaning "Marcus's boy".
In the above picture, it is easy to imagine the haughty, Roman youth, the son of a wealthy Roman, reclining back enjoying his father's slaves lying at his feet.
Picture found on the internet; source unknown. The text is mine.
I have little to add, dear Chris, to your perfectly correct illustration of Roman sexual habits, that demonstrate your unusually vast knowledge in History, and especially in Roman History, a characteristic of yours that I have always gretly admired.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to add just a few statements and clarifications to some of your points.
NO CONCEPTS and DIFFERENCE between HETEROSEXUAL & HOMOSEXUAL SEX
All your words are perfectly correct. As a Society profoundly filled of Machismo, of violence and of military domination and bossiness, the society of ancient Rome was able to intend its male citizens only as DOMINATORS & FUCKERS even in the sexual act. It did not matter which “HOLE” was dominated and fucked: the mouth and the arse of a boy or of an young man were perfectly equivalent to the mouth and cut of a girl of woman.
The important thing was that the Roman free citizen was always the DOMINATOR & FUCKER …… while the dominated and fucked, boy or youth or girl, were always SLAVES.
Moreover, in their most ancient times (probably an Etruscan habit) the Roman troops practiced even, on vanquished enemies, a sort of “sexual ritual” that showed even better the concept of “Domination” that Romans associated with the sexual act: i.e. after the victory, the enemy chieftain or general ……. or in case one of his younger male sons …….. were dragged in front of the whole lined victorious Roman legion.
And in front of all soldiers –among cheers of triumph- the Roman General (or another officer, in his substitution) was sodomizing the bound enemy chief !
Even if this cruel habit has later disappeared from Roman military habits (at least as a true “rite of triumph”) this gives a meaningful idea of how Romans always intended sex, and how they instinctively considered their slaves (most often vanquished enemies) as “passive objects of lust” regardless of their gender.
It’s true –as you rightly emphasize- that therefore if a Roman citizen was effeminate and liked to undergo “passive sex” and to be anally penetrated, this might cause that he “suffered loss of face, dignity, his manhood and he could even suffer legal censure” ……. especially if this Roman citizen ORDERED HIS MALE SLAVES TO PENETRATE HIM, FUCK HIM !!!!!!!!!!
However in the Empire this “macho directed” vision of sex with slaves changed quite significantly.
Already in the Julian-Claudian dynasty, Emperor Nero had several “homosexual weddings” with some of his slaves and freedmen, in which he both played the role of the “husband” but also of the “wife”.
In particular, Nero married –as their “faithful wife”- two of his slaves, Pythagoras and Doryphorus. In particular, about Pythagoras, who was probably a young Illyrian or Thracian slave, ancient historians say that he was chosen by the debauched Emperor, for “the prodigious hugeness of his genitals”.
In the later Empire, the blame for “effeminacy” and for “passive sex with male slaves” became even weaker in the higher classes (even if it survived among the low people, as testified e.g. by Martial’s mockeries).
E.g. Emperor Elagabalus (204-222 AD) was most often wearing womanish dresses (a true Drag-Queen !) and he had many “husbands” among his most muscular and most masculine male slaves …… and of course it seems that the “Emperor’s example” was followed by several Senators and noble Lords of his court !
Karel
(CONTINUES BELOW)
HOMOSEXUAL ACTS WITH MALE SLAVES INSIDE ROMAN FAMILIES
ReplyDeleteIt’s again perfectly true and correct that, at least officially, after marrying, it was expected that the young Roman citizen was dedicating all his “sexual vigour” to his wife, at least until the birth of a certain number of children, being procreation the main scope of the Roman marriage.
In a recent post I have just posted the translation of some verses of that beautiful “Wedding Poem” by Catullus for a friend, in which he invites his friend to discard his former concubine male slaves and to focus all his sexual desire on his young wife.
However in the reality things went very differently especially after the birth of sons and daughters.
Not rarely, in rich and noble Roman families, husbands and wives had totally separated sexual lives …… and of course slaves were the first and easiest “objects of sexual desire ” both for the Roman Lord and Lady ……. the Lord both with young male and female slaves ……. the Lady with young and virile young male slaves. It happened even (as testified by Petronius) that the same young male slave was at the same time sexually serving his Master in a passive way, and was sexually satisfying also his Mistress in an active way !
An important thing to underline, about the sexual intercourses, in Roman families, between the Lord and Father and young male slaves, is the following: it seems that Roman women preferred and were much less jealous, if their husband was having regular sexual intercourses with slave-boys and slave-youths, more than with slave-girls !
The reason for this apparent contradiction, is that the Lady of the house felt much more “jealousy” towards other females, even if they were just slaves ….. and moreover that, by having sex with just male slaves, there was not the awful risk that a female slave was getting pregnant by her Master …. a “scandalous” event for the haughty Roman Lady !
You are also perfectly right about the “sexual education” of the young sons of the noble Roman families.
This started at about 13 years of age of the noble boy, by encouraging him to have SEXUAL INTERCOURSES with HIS MALE SLAVES of about his same age !
And obviously, most frequently the Roman boy was allowed to use for this the same teenage male slave used by his father !
Of course, the future haughty Roman citizen and soldier, was taught to “dominate and fuck” his slave-boys and not vice versa !
As a famous French Historian playfully (but not so much !) stated: “Ancient Rome was a paradise both for sadists and for sexual debauchees !”
Karel