Ancient Homosexuality

[Iulius]

i know the greeks practiced homosexuality with and almost admiration for it, how did the romans view homo sexuality?

[Favonius Cornelius]

I think the Romans viewed homosexuality with some degree of acceptance, but they did not hold it high as an admirable trait as the Greeks may have to some degree. Romans tended to be a harder sort in terms of attitude, and gay loving was seen as excessive. You should be producing sons for the city-state or busy with work as opposed to wasting your time on such things. That was the Republican attitude I think. Later in the empire it was probably much less so. Additionally, though if you were on the receiving end of things (and I care not to explain that phrase), it was simply something of a humiliation for any man who took himself seriously. Caesar and the Bithynian king come to mind.

 

I kind of think Roman gay love is comparable to smoking pot today. It's largely frowned upon, but a lot of people still do it mostly in secret, in the privacy of their own homes, and few people bother to scorn or hunt it down, seeming largely harmless.

[Ursus]

There were social taboos associated with its use in context, but it wasn't strictly speaking immoral. It was merely subject to the Roman obsession with the flux of their social structure.

 

For instance, it seems homosexual relations in active duty legions were punished by death. But this wasn't because male-male sex was inherently evil -- it was because some strapping, handsome young grunt of a soldier could catch the eye of one of his superior officers and seduce him, and thereby upset the delicate balance of the chain of command. Kind of like the boss sleeping with his busty secretary --- or the high school teacher sleeping with 16 year old jailbait .... same principle.

[Primus Pilus]

Once again Ursus eloquently points out that the underlying and sometimes overriding structure of the Roman social system always came back to the social order. Homosexuality, while in many cases was looked upon mockingly, only really became a problem if it interfered with class stucture and social heirarchy. Roman aristocrats had no concern over Greek actors and entertainers defiling eachother with all sorts of sexual depravity, but when it came to men such as Caesar, homsexuality was just the sort of political tool which they hoped to tear down a career. (Of course in his case, such attacks made little difference, and in fact likely helped inspire him)

[Skarr]

Roman men were primarily taught to dominate and exercise their will over others. In the Republic, even non homosexual acts which involved some form of submission (especially with weaker classes - women, slaves etc.) was looked down upon and seen as a sign of weakness. The highest virtue that a Roman man could display apart from being the dominant one in all relationships, sexual or otherwise, was restraint or the perception of restraint. It's like saying - I can do this whenever I want but I am superior to you and am voluntarily restraining myself from doing this or that act. Anyway, with so many dominant men running around vying for power, it's just amazing how one short little period of history produced giants like Pompey, Caesar, Crassus and others.

 

I think the Republic killed itself when they resorted to assassination instead of traditional methods like disgrace, exile etc. Caesar had become too much of a threat and had to go, leading many like Cassius, Brutus et al to pursue this extreme method of getting rid of him.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Caesar hadn't been assassinated. I don't think we would have seen the rapid spread of Christianity either as Nero's and the others excessive targeting actually brought more to the faith and had the opposite effect. I think the Republicans would have just ignored it and this would have probably become a minor sect along with the hundreds of pagan religions that were destroyed / lost in history.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I think the Republic killed itself when they resorted to assassination instead of traditional methods like disgrace, exile etc. Caesar had become too much of a threat and had to go, leading many like Cassius, Brutus et al to pursue this extreme method of getting rid of him.

 

I wonder what would have happened if Caesar hadn't been assassinated. I don't think we would have seen the rapid spread of Christianity either as Nero's and the others excessive targeting actually brought more to the faith and had the opposite effect. I think the Republicans would have just ignored it and this would have probably become a minor sect along with the hundreds of pagan religions that were destroyed / lost in history.

 

 

Well, I don't know about that really. I think there were probably less well known assassinations going on through Republican history. Anyway though, an assassination seems like a small thing compared to the wholesale slaughter during the upheavals of the Gracchi or the civil war of Marius of Sulla. I'd say those violent events were what irreversibly changed the Republic.

[Lex]

I know the greeks practiced homosexuality with and almost admiration for it

 

 

Could someone please explain this to me? I know that the Spartans all had male "companions", does this imply that they all had homosexual relationships?

Edited July 20, 2010 by Lex

[Lost_Warrior]

The Spartans...well the elder Spartans would take on young Spartan "students" and...I'm not sure how to put this lightly, but they believed that they could "inject" knowledge into the students by homosexual acts (use your imagination on where they were injecting it ) the Athenians looked down on this and so they never actually penetrated their...companions.

[Iulius]

oh dear... thank god i am not a spartan

[Primus Pilus]

I thought that people were either born gay or not?

It's almost impossible for a person who is not born a homosexual to take part in such acts. How could things have been so much different in those days?

 

I know the greeks practiced homosexuality with and almost admiration for it

 

 

Could someone please explain this to me? I know that the Spartans all had male "companions", does this imply that they all had homosexual relationships?

I have a bad feeling that this will turn political, so lets try to leave this in the context of ancient ideology...

 

Within Spartan society, such behavior was normal and was learned as a part of the normal growing process. There was no overriding doctrine telling society that it was wrong as we have today (Christian doctrine or otherwise... keep in mind that the Romans largely frowned upon it in an open sense long before Christianization occured) . Being born 'gay' or 'straight' was irrelevant because to the Spartans there was absolutely nothing abnormal about giving your buddy a little reach around. Whether or not you were born with a desire for female sexual connection was beside the point. One action was expected for pro-creation, the other was expected for unity of spirit and cohesive military function.

[Favonius Cornelius]

I thought that people were either born gay or not?

It's almost impossible for a person who is not born a homosexual to take part in such acts. How could things have been so much different in those days?

 

I know the greeks practiced homosexuality with and almost admiration for it

 

 

Could someone please explain this to me? I know that the Spartans all had male "companions", does this imply that they all had homosexual relationships?

I thought the relationship thing was the Sacred Band of Thebes.

[Ursus]

I thought that people were either born gay or not?

That's just the thing ... our entire notions of "homosexuality" and "heterosexuality" are modern notions.

 

 

To a lot of ancient peoples, men were allowed to have sex with women under some circumstances and men under other circumstances. It was not thought you had to be exclusively one or the other.

 

In fact, some people would say it is only in the last century or two society has conceived the possibility that someone could be purely homosexual on a genetic level and not have any use for the other gender at all (e.g., gay marriage).

 

 

Without getting too postmodern on this, I think notions of sexuality and sexual morality are cultural constructs. The Romans were obsessed with power and social hierarchies and viewed sexuality from that perspective, rather than from gender. To the Greeks, sexuality was often a creature of their polis culture.

[Onasander]

It's almost impossible for a person who is not born a homosexual to take part in such acts. How could things have been so much different in those days?

 

 

Hhuuhhh, ummm. Dude, it happens all the time, more so today. Boyfriends are goading their girlfriends into situations involving another female; movies of a adult type are made where they for all practical reasons bribe a heterosexual to be performed on by homosexuals(Imagine now Rome, slavery and prositution are legal, and all the plebes are dirt poor) I think if I remember correctly, the first Han emperor was made to crawl between the legs of another man before he rose to power.

[Lex]

Hhuuhhh, ummm. Dude, it happens all the time, more so today. Boyfriends are goading their girlfriends into situations involving another female; movies of a adult type are made where they for all practical reasons bribe a heterosexual to be performed on by homosexuals(Imagine now Rome, slavery and prositution are legal, and all the plebes are dirt poor)

Edited July 20, 2010 by Lex

[Onasander]

Well, I don't know about imbalance, cause though people can have different intensities of lust, the choices for sex seemed pretty much codified, man or woman. I don't see how a inbalance would make them make this kind of decision. It's not like if thier have this inbalance they suddenly want to make love to chair or book or cat, it tends to be pretty much hard wired somewhere what the acceptable range of options are, the opposite or same sex. An imbalance might give them that extra push the need, but I don't think it is the determining cause for this effect, something else is guiding their sexual logic.