Ancient Homosexuality

[Eumachia]

For instance, it seems homosexual relations in active duty legions were punished by death.

[Fafnir]

Bleh, that whole thing about the Spartans sickens me. >.< Different times, i suppose.

 

And i heard somewhere else that homosexual relationships were pretty common in Rome, as long as the superior male in the relationship (someone of important status in Roman politics) was always in a dominating position. Being in the... inferior position would really destroy that politicians status.

[Lost_Warrior]

That was the same with the homosexuality in Athens. They never actually penetrated the male because that would make them "like a woman". Anyone in the non-dominating position would be "like a woman" and therefor inferior.

[Violentilla]

That was the same with the homosexuality in Athens. They never actually penetrated the male because that would make them "like a woman". Anyone in the non-dominating position would be "like a woman" and therefor inferior.

 

 

For a modern example, consider modern convicts. It is no big deal to get oral or be the top during sex, but be the bottom more than once and you are a bottom forever.

 

I think it is interesting that the Spartans employed homosexuality in their military, and the Romans forbade it. For quite different social reasons of course, but I still think it is interesting. I actually believe that humans are varying degrees of bisexual, that nothing is as black and white as we'd prefer it to be.

 

We know that the ancient world saw sexuality far differently than we do, and the Romans were probably pretty uptight compared to the cultures around them. Didn't Livy write about the Etruscans' public sexual acts being repulsive to Romans? I find that funny, since we know that the Romans were known for being a voraciously passionate people, they just preferred to keep things more private.

[Skarr]

Didn't Livy write about the Etruscans' public sexual acts being repulsive to Romans? I find that funny, since we know that the Romans were known for being a voraciously passionate people, they just preferred to keep things more private.

 

Yes, Livy described the Etruscan culture in a way that demeaned them and exalted the Romans for their superior control and the restraint they exercised over their passions.

 

This quality of restraint has often been praised by various Romans who did not frown on sexuality per se but believed that anyone who indulged in this to excess was to be blamed. You're right about the privacy aspect though. Within the domus, it did not really matter what they did or even with whom, etc. as the domus was under the absolute control of the paterfamilias and the state had no right to interfere with the affairs of a household. This was a continuation of Rome's ancient laws, largely unwritten but well known and loosely termed as the mos maiorum or the ways of our ancestors.

 

Numa Pompilius, one of Rome's greatest kings was the first to recognize the role of the paterfamilias and the obligations / duties it entailed. In a way, within the domus, the head of household duplicated the priest king's role that Numa had assumed as he was not only the chief priest but also the king at the time.

 

Livy's objections were not so much the sexuality itself of the Etruscans but the open way in which it was practised before strangers who were told by the servants that the master was engaged in ...... [with a graphic description of the very act he was performing]. Also, the fact that the women were on par with the men as regards their status and were also sexually aggressive in their own right, muscular, athletic and very conscious of what they wished to do, threatened the Roman view of family life with the father controlling every thing.

 

After all, the status of a woman in most households was just a little above that of a slave and practically speaking, she had little or no rights in the public domain. For example, it was perfectly acceptable for a man to put his wife to death if caught in the act of adultery but she could not do the same, if the husband were similarly caught. Also, wives were allowed to be put to death for drinking wine and even possessing the keys. I presume the keys opened the locked storage room where the wine was stored.

 

Morality is always a double edged sword and the Romans shrewdly used this to suppress women and certainly, they did not want women to be like the Etruscan women, who had more status and were much freer in regard to their rights as opposed to Roman women. It is therefore important to realize that Livy and others had hidden agendas and often colored their reader's perceptions, much like the media today which seeks to sway public opinion in a particular direction.

[Violentilla]

Thanks for this, it is very helpful!

 

I am of the mind that while the ideal to strive for for a Roman male was to be in full control of his house, I tend to think that the women ruled far more than would be publicly seen. Of course a good Roman wife would let things appear proper in public, but she was responsible for running the household, not the man. This doesn't mean she was in charge as far as major decisions, but certainly she has her husband's ear, and would make all decisions about raising the children and making sure the household ran as it should. Speaking as an Italian woman, I can also say that it is quite hard to find one of us who is meek and slavelike!

 

Just my two pennies, pass them by or pick them up, no matter. :-)

[Skarr]

Thanks for this, it is very helpful!

 

I am of the mind that while the ideal to strive for for a Roman male was to be in full control of his house, I tend to think that the women ruled far more than would be publicly seen. Of course a good Roman wife would let things appear proper in public, but she was responsible for running the household, not the man. This doesn't mean she was in charge as far as major decisions, but certainly she has her husband's ear, and would make all decisions about raising the children and making sure the household ran as it should. Speaking as an Italian woman, I can also say that it is quite hard to find one of us who is meek and slavelike!

 

Just my two pennies, pass them by or pick them up, no matter. :-)

 

Violentilla, I think this is precisely the reason why the Romans tried to suppress women and deny them any rights, especially political rights, as they were most fearful of women influencing Roman politics. History is more biased in that respect too and writers preferred to mostly talk about men and largely ignored the women, unless they created a huge scandal (with their own hidden agendas of course, which were political) like Clodia, Messalina etc. It is interesting to note that in the early part of the 2nd century BC, Roman matrons took to the streets to protest against laws that forbade them from wearing colorful clothes and various other restrictions that were sought to be imposed and eventually prevailed over the Tribunes by blockading their homes.

[Violentilla]

...never try to tell an Italian girl how to dress!

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

I tend to think homosexuality was fine among the common Roman citizens, but if there were rumors of homosexuality in the aristocracy or anyone rich or in a high social position, then it's a big deal.

[Tiberius Sylvestius]

Woe there.

 

There's alot of stuff in this thread i think needs to be elaborated upon. Firstly the most important and crucial thing to get your head around with regards to the Classical (and medieval period) is that there was no such thing as 'homosexuality'.

 

The term is a 19th century one.

 

Romans did not think of themselves as homosexuals. There was no such thing. Yes men had sexual relations with men, women, children etc. Women had relations likewise.

 

The Greeks viewed that there were two 'genders', MASCULINE and OTHER. (This was consistent thinking into the early medieval period, Richard the Lionheart for one is rumoured to have slept with men, it didn't do him any harm).

 

Masculine; is the active, the aggressive, the dominant

Other; is everything else, call it effeminate if you will (women, children and elderly would all fall into this).

 

 

Now for 'homosexual' sex as practiced by the Greeks.

 

If two men were engaged in sexual relations, one would be the active partner (the penetrator), the other would be the passive (the penetratee). They did not switch.

 

One would take the role of the man, the other the 'woman', and as far as we understand once it was settled which was which that's how it stayed. (In theory)

 

So a man who was the active partner was no less of a man, he could sleep with men, women, young boys and he'd still be a full blown man. It was perfectly acceptable, he hadn't reduced his standing, afterall he was still the one with the power. (This is where Richard the Lionheart fell, Alexander the Great too i should think).

 

 

If however (like Elagabalus) he preferred taking the female role then it was a matter of the man degrading the status of his sex to that of a lowly female. This was bad, very bad. This is where they get criticised and seen as effeminate wimps.

 

People like Caligula that seemingly was quite happy to break the rules and switch places between active and passive were seen as abnormal nutcases that were up for anything.

 

 

 

Classical thought was as long as you were the one doing the action you were a real man. Modern thought teaches that people either are homosexual or are heterosexual and the two are mutually exclusive. Bisexual seems to fall into the 'up for anything' case.

 

 

As for the case of 'lesbians' in the classical period i've yet to find any info on that, but i should imagine that it would be frowned upon. If you've got two women engaging in sexual activity then one of them's got to take the male role no? This would have been a woman trangressing her gender and aspiring to greater things than she should, i.e being male. Which they'd have a problem with i would imagine.

 

How many times had historians at the time complained of Emperors being pushed about by their mothers? Severus Alexander, Nero...

[Pertinax]

Tiberius's post is also reflected in Samurai ethics, I apologise if this is slightly off topic but my observation is that the Spiritual strength and moral vigour of a fighting Samurai retainer were not seen to be diminished by such "liasons" but what was considered inappropriate was to be promiscuous . Promiscuity was seen as an affront to proper thinking and decorum.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Well the Romans never have had a term that denotes homosexuality, but knew all greatly what it was and as for the plebs who are more family-oriented, as I've mentioned before, they look homosexuality among the aristocrats as promiscuous and wrong, which having romours of having relations with men, especially young men, can be very jeopardizing to your career and among the plebs, especially in the cases of emperors or those vying for the imperium.

[Germanicus]

I don't think it was a "big deal", and would have only been detrimental to your reputation if you'd been on the receiving end, so to speak.

Rumours of Caesars daliances in Nicomedia didn't stop him becoming Consul, then Dictator and founding the Empire. Tiberius' actions on Capri with little boys didn't get him overthrown, niether did Trajans appetites for young boys. And as for Hadrian - being the "Greekling" he positively revelled in his own homeosexual realionship with Antoninius, and had hin deified after his drowning in the Nile.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

The emperors you've mentioned are the ones where their accomplishments greatly overshadowed their personal lives. If Caligula had relations with boys, a new style of embarassment would have begun. But then again, your argument was better than mine.

My argument would have worked if we we're referring to Late Empire when Christianity was dominence, no need to explain how people viewed homosexuality there.

[Tobias]

Rumours of Caesars daliances in Nicomedia didn't stop him becoming Consul, then Dictator and founding the Empire.

 

You know, that's something i've always wanted to clear up; i've seen several arguments that Caesar was homosexual or at least bi, and my English teacher was convinced he was homosexual. Was he? From things i've read, it just seems like political rumour-mongering that he was homosexual, and as was said above, showing deep affection to your fellow man did not make you homosexual in today's sense. One author in particular (Colleen McCullough) seems to want to prove that Caesar was not homosexual or incapable of fathering children.