"Boy Toys"

[Lost_Warrior]

This came up in a discussion on another forum, and I thought it would do well for discussion here:

 

If you had money in Late Ancient Greece and Middle Rome, you had your wife and then your toy-boy for show ( it meant you were MANLY!). Many of the keepers of said arm-candy did not use them except as show.

 

So, is there any ancient source for how much young male "boy toys" were anything other than "arm candy"? Is there anything to suggest that they WERE just "show"?

[Ludovicus]

This came up in a discussion on another forum, and I thought it would do well for discussion here:

 

If you had money in Late Ancient Greece and Middle Rome, you had your wife and then your toy-boy for show ( it meant you were MANLY!). Many of the keepers of said arm-candy did not use them except as show.

 

So, is there any ancient source for how much young male "boy toys" were anything other than "arm candy"? Is there anything to suggest that they WERE just "show"?

 

 

Interesting question. Certainly a Roman "paterfamilias" or head of household had every legal right to have his way with anyone in the household. I imagine that a Roman father with money would shop for "boy toys" and/or "girl toys" to share or not share with the Mrs. Nothing could have stopped him.

[Nephele]

Is there anything to suggest that they WERE just "show"?

 

It would be interesting if anyone can pinpoint an ancient source indicating that sometimes young male slaves were kept merely for show, but I doubt such was the case. To quote Professor John R. Clarke, author of Roman Sex: "Considering that a beautiful boy or girl slave cost about as much as a Mercedes, not to have intercourse with your slave would be like buying a Mercedes and never driving it."

 

-- Nephele

[Lost_Warrior]

Hey Ludovicus!! Nice to have you back!!!

 

It would be interesting if anyone can pinpoint an ancient source indicating that sometimes young male slaves were kept merely for show, but I doubt such was the case.

 

I am in agreement with you here, Nephele. Considering how different the Roman attitude towards sex was from our own, it seems perfectly logical within that context that there would be a lot of sex with the slaves. It was not only accepted, but EXPECTED, it would seem.

 

"Considering that a beautiful boy or girl slave cost about as much as a Mercedes, not to have intercourse with your slave would be like buying a Mercedes and never driving it."

 

I love this analogy.

[Ursus]

Is your interest academic or personal ...?

 

 

I don't usually demand sources from people, but I agree with Nephele: where did the person on the other forum get their info? If it is a primary source I want to read it. If it is HBO: Rome with Attia's well-hung slave from the first season, then we can dismiss it

[Lost_Warrior]

Is your interest academic or personal ...?

 

Purely academic, of course.

 

I don't usually demand sources from people, but I agree with Nephele: where did the person on the other forum get their info? If it is a primary source I want to read it. If it is HBO: Rome with Attia's well-hung slave from the first season, then we can dismiss it

 

I do not know. She did not site a source...It's not an academic forum, and that wasn't the topic of discussion so her comment wasn't really questioned by anyone. I can find out if you like (I'm still trying to get her to join *pokes Illgrace*)

[caldrail]

The roman pater had the right to bed his slaves for instance, but then, surely this was something that required a little more discretion? At least before the principate anyway. Domitian was said to keep a deformed man as his companion, and was overheard asking him his opinions on the games in progress, but is this really for 'showing off'? No, it was an amusing diversion for Domitian, who did not apparently allow his companion any real airs and graces.

 

There was a need in roman males to establish their public image, especially those in the public eye, but generally this was a white-wash image of generosity, decency, military credibility, and good humour, besides any any real talent for something. Its much like modern american politicians who seem obsessed with a clean cut image. With emperors, the need for showing off increases since much of their reputation revolves around being able to dazzle the public with their magnificence, something which a few emperors got well carried away with.

 

The thing is, a 'boy-toy' is a novelty for such personalities, someting they display for a short period to achieve compliments then discard when it all gets boring. I think too that many romans had to be careful with displaying trophies and ornaments, many of which were personalised and sometimes with political significance. It seems to me that roman patricians in particular made efforts to impress their visitors from both ends of the social scale, and I recall a long corrdor of a villa in sicily with a extravagant mosaic displaying the lengths the owner had gone to to put on a display of beast-hunting.

 

So, roman 'boy-toys' are certainly there, but they're either personal pleasures which remain in the background, or devices for making statements about the owner and therefore with a definite purpose in mind.

[Maty]

The ultimate boy toy was undoubtedly Antinoos, a beautiful lad whom the emperor Hadrian picked up in Asia Minor, and fell for like a ton of bricks. He eventually drowned at age 18 in the Nile in rather odd circumstances, and the distraught Hadrian founded a city on the spot and made him a god. Way to go!

 

Two other minor comments - if you are that way inclined and you have a boy toy, why not go for it? Especially as it would rather damage your image if it got out that you were not performing. Also, in the Republic, especially the early Republic, this was (barely) tolerated behaviour but not something to particularly flaunt. Secondly, it is interesting that the very hereosexual Pompey was regarded as effeminate in that he showed genuine tenderness toward his various wives - being macho counted for more than the gender of the person you got macho on.

[caldrail]

Yes, I have read that 'being in love' for a man was regarded as something akin to emotional slavery. Its also true that romans married for practical reasons - romance had little to do with it. The romans also had a penchant for the body beautiful, and young men were often considered desirable purely for that. So I wonder if in some cases the ownership of these people was something like owning a flash car today - something to be envied and admired - although given the envy these cars arouse today one wonders whether the same human nastiness arose in Hadrians case? We'll never know.

Edited January 31, 2008 by caldrail