Guest spartacus Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 From Murals to painted Vases, Romans romping at orgies are a familiar sight, but were they really as rampant as History suggests? If they were, then most would have diseases I suspect! For an advanced society, it appears they were not so cautious, which to me suggests ignorance on a grand scale, did medicine at that time cope with sexual diseases? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Love affairs in ancient Rome....who do you think is the most romantic couple at any point in Roman History? Marcus Antonious and Cleopatra are my best bet! I find their love affair sensual and romantic, I don't know why I just had to bring it up. I know families arranged marriages in anicnet Rome but what if they didn't how would a man prepose to a woman? What do you think was the romantic relationship of the day. Sorry about spelling, Zeke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demson Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 What do you think was the romantic relationship of the day. Emperor Commodus and his bed sheep! True love overcomes even biological catagorisation. I know families arranged marriages in anicnet Rome but what if they didn't how would a man prepose to a woman? A man would ask her familyhead for permission, I think. A man wouldn't propose to a woman, as marriage had little to do with love between two humans. Love was often depicted as a disease or curse. Marriage served purely to make babehs and continue the bloodline, and also had a few social-political features. It was trully a family affair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 Demson is right. Marriage, at least among the upper classes, was considered purely from a standpoint of uniting families in economic and socio-political alliances. Love had little to do it. Roman men who displayed too much feeling for their wives were considered effeminate. Love wasn't, strictly speaking, a family value. This cold affair actually worked during the Republic with all its insular austerity. But as the imperial age dawned, divorce and adultery became as common as they are in the modern West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 A Roman male wasn't supposed to be too overly concerned with sex. Someone that was enthralled with sex was considered weak, effeminate, and easily manipulated. Caesar, with his legendary promiscuity, was easily mocked by his opponents for being "a man for every woman and a woman for every man." Those Romans who practiced Stoicism would also have frowned on excessive sex a s a sign on uncontrolled emotion. However, under the empire, with all its wealth and disintegration of traditional mores, some of that austere morality did start to decay. Sex became more open, and was considered a blessing of Venus. Some Romans in the upper class became famous for debauchery, although the extent to which this allegedly happened may have been exaggerated by critics with an agenda, especially the early Christian writers with their own dim views of sexuality. I am currently reading Roman Sex by John R. Clark. It's very enlightening and the pictures are, uh, interesting. I was thinking of doing a review on it if I could convey some of the details in such a way that wouldn't require censorship... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 This might be more of an indication of Caesar's personal dignity than any love for his first wife, Cornelia, but his refusal to divorce the daughter of Cinna at the order of Sulla has the makings of a classic romance story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olympia Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 At school they taught me that Romans "officially" didn't like orgies like the Greek orpics did and, in any case, disliked omosexuality. They were a bit homophobic... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 22, 2005 Report Share Posted February 22, 2005 As for sexual depravity, yes there are murals of orgies, sexually suggestive images and the like, but I think for the most part Rome was outwardly far more conservative. (Here I go again) I think the great bulk of propoganda involving the Romans comes from later Christian teachings, trying to push their own moralistic code on the masses. Own way to do it, was to bash the status quo. By describing the aritocratic pagans as sexual monsters, they could more readily appeal to the masses who frowned on ridiculous behavior. As for the pornography... well we sure have a ton of it today. I know that I am fairly conservative and don't know anyone personally who engages in 'extreme' behavior. Yet, 2,000 years from now, we could guarantee that our own moralistic code as a western society, including surviving images of modern *or*, will be discussed in depth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeke Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 So sorry to say...did the Roman enjoy sex or what?? lol, if they wern't in it for love then they probably had some sort of sexual desires . Zeke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursus Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 So sorry to say...did the Roman enjoy sex or what?? lol, if they wern't in it for love then they probably had some sort of sexual desires . Zeke The Romans did enjoy sex. Just not with their spouses. :-) No, seriously, the Roman male was allowed to sleep with slaves, prostitutes, and other men. He wasn't supposed to sleep with someone else's wife - this was actually a capitol crime in the Republic - but in the empire it happened all the time. During Republican times women were not supposed to sleep with anyone but their husbands, but as they became increasingly liberated in imperial times they started sharing in men's vices, and adultery was rampant. Now this was the upper classes, for whom social advancement came before anything. When marriage is more about money and politics than love, you can see why things were the way they were. I know less about love and marriage in the lower classes, but I suspect since cutthroat social advancement was less of a possibility for the lower dregs, things might have been more stable for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Primus Pilus Posted February 23, 2005 Report Share Posted February 23, 2005 I merged two similar topics into one, and did some creative editing to eliminate some bad vibes floating around. Let's stick to what we do best... discussing history, culture and everything related to it! Thanks all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dnewhous Posted February 25, 2005 Report Share Posted February 25, 2005 Caesar, with his legendary promiscuity, was easily mocked by his opponents for being "a man for every woman and a woman for every man." It's good to be the Caesar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.