Forbidden Lust
Rome was a patriarchal society where, in today's parlance "men were men" and they were expected to live their lives accordingly. While the Greeks accepted full male nudity as normal - with the exception of showing the glans of the penis - Romans saw nudity as shameful and it was reserved for defeated enemies and slaves. Rome's free men proudly wore the toga virilis as a sign of their dominant masculinity and to identify them as free citizens.
While Roman men were free to engage in homosexual acts, they were forbidden to play the role of the passive partner in any sexual activities. They must at all times be the penetrator and NEVER the penetrated or face the disgrace of being named as 'infamia' with the loss of legal and social standing for them and their families.
Slaves, on the other hand, had no legal status and were regarded as non-persons. They were merely property and as such they were subject to the sexual depredations of their masters. Rape didn't apply to slaves and one assumes, in the majority of cases, they played the passive role in satisfying their masters' lust.
However, it is inconceivable that there weren't any Roman free men who didn't play the passive role in their sexual activities. The Romans even had a derogatory term for such men - 'scultimidonus' which literally translates as 'arse-hole bestower'.
When I saw the attached picture I imagined it as a scene where a young slave is enthusiastically fucking his Roman master and my imagination fired up.
No doubt, the slave, because of his 'dominant' role, feels a sense of power over his 'passive' master and foolishly plans to use this to his advantage to make his life as a slave easier.
However, the slave's master knows that he will soon tire of the slave and hunger for a newer cock-slave to please him. Soon, the master will visit the slave-market and choose a newer, fresher slave to sate his lust.
And the fate of this current slave? The master could simply sell him at auction but slaves are notorious for gossiping about their masters and there is always the risk that the slave will tell others of his true role and he - the master - will be declared 'infamia'.
Despite being a 'scultimidonus', the master still has total power over the slave and rather than face exposure and humiliation, he will have the slave crucified to silence him.
The slave is well set-up and his good looks and naked, muscular body will soon adorn his cross. As he hangs suspended from the crossbeam, his youth and strength will ensure he lives for several days and his death throes will entertain any jeering onlookers and passers-by.
And as a special reward for 'services rendered' the master will have an oversized, wooden phallus inserted in the slave's virgin arse to keep him permanently aroused as he writhes on his cross.
Artwork by Vittorio Carvelli was found on the internet; the text is mine however.
Chris, as always an outstanding and wonderfully exciting combination between the most correct historically accuracy (even if on the real content of the Lex Scantinia scholars are still debating) and the most lively erotic and sadistic fantasy, in its last part ……. but still fully plausible and historically correct.
ReplyDeleteLet’s me emphasize even more that the fact itself that Romans were not making any distinction between “HOMOSEXUALITY” and “HETEROSEXUALITY” and did not even know these concepts, is a direct consequence of that other fundamental aspect of Roman mentality and society, based on concepts like the SUPER-MACHISMO of his free males, the cult of violence, of physical strength and of domination, in a people made of warriors whose life was dedicated, from 17 to their most mature years (if they were not killed earlier) to military service and wars.
In this atmosphere, it almost an obvious consequence that the sexual act itself was seen almost as a continuous RAPING, an acto of dominance and of subjugation of the passive partner, that might be indifferently a male or a female …… the only fundamental aspect (for Romans) was that the dominating Roman male was penetrating and raping a HOLE !!!!!! ….. it did not matter which hole ! ……. the mouth and the ass of a young male had the same “value” of the mouth and vagina of a girl !
And this strict association between sex and “dominance” and “sexual violence” / raping well explains why slaves, of both genders- were the preferred objects of free Romans’ erotic lust.
This strict connection between sex and “dominance” also well explains why it was (at least in the most ancient times) that a free man, a Master could “sexually submit” himself to one of his male slave !
More than a “blamable action” this fact was mocked and condemned first of all as a sort “revolutionary act against the right social order” !
Said in other words, the “fault” in the fact that an effeminate, sexually passive Roman Master could order one of his slave to possess him sexually, was not a “moral fault” but it was a “SOCIAL FAULT”, something that was dangerous for the good social order.
In fact, even in the Republic, even illustrious and noble Roman Lords who had had, in some circumstances, passive sexual roles but with NOBLE sexual partners …. were perhaps a bit “mocked” but it was a “venial offense”, something extremely less shameful and blamable than having been sexually fucked by a slave !
The most famous episode is probably the one of Julius Caesar himself.
In 80 B.C. the 19 years old Julius Caesar had been sent as an ambassador to the court of king Nicomedes IV of Bithynia; and it seems that the teenage Caesar attracted the lust of the Asian king.
Many years later, in 46 BC, during the sumptuous triumph of Caesar after the conquest of Gaul, his Legionaries in the triumphal procession …… who certainly admired and worshipped their General over any other man …….. were playfully calling him “THE WIFE OF BITHYNIA” and were playfully chanting : “TODAY CAESAR TRIUMPHS HE WHO SUBMITTED THE GAULS – WHY IS IT NOT TRIUMPHING NICOMEDES, HE WHO SUBMITTED CAESAR ?” And the victorious General and “100% macho” Caesar was suffering with a smile the affectionate mockeries of his faithful and loyal soldiers !
Even the stern Augustus was said to have “given his body” in his teenage years to powerful men in Rome ….. including his granduncle and adoptive father Julius Caesar …… for obtaining various “advantages”.
During the Empire this “condemnation” for passive sexual rich men who played the “feminine sexual role” even with slaves, became weaker and weaker.
Already at the time of Nero, the Emperor himself could PUBLICLY “marry” in the “BRIDE ROLE” two young and superbly endowed male slaves of his, named Pythagoras and Doryphorus ……. without counting other later Emperors like Nerva who “liked very muscular and massively endowed males” or Elagabalus who, notoriously, even dressed as a woman and had a court of active male lovers.
Karel
(CONTINUES BELOW)
A further incidental observation: I always thought that the most difficult and, sometimes, even most dangerous fate for a domestic male ”sex-slave” was when he was requested …… by an effeminate, sexually passive Master, or by a libidinous Mistress …… to play with his male or female owners the ACTIVE sexual role and to fuck anally his passive lewd Master or to fuck hi lustful Mistress.
ReplyDeleteA male slave obliged to suffer the anal and oral raping of his active Master, was at the upmost requested to suffer passively and silently those sexual violences !
On the contrary a young male slave who was commanded by his sexually passive effeminate Master to fuck his ass …… or was ordered by his lecherous Mistress to fuck her ……and his Master and Mistress were probably old and ugly ! ……. that poor young and masculine slave was potentially in a terrible danger !
If he wasn’t able to GET an ERECTION ! …… and probably even to have multiple sequential erections, HARD and LONG-LASTING, so to satisfy as commanded his libidinous effeminate Master or his demanding lascivious Mistress …… was most likely destined to be CRUELLY PUNISHED for his inability of “obeying the orders” of his womanish Master or of his lewd, insatiable Mistress !
WHAT A HELLISH and even really DANGEROUS LIFE for those poor slaves !
Karel