For details on the c/Books bingo challenge that just restarted for the year, you can checkout the initial Book Bingo, and its Recommendation Post. Links are also present in our community sidebar.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Reading Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity

Extremely fascinating! The author makes the argument, compelling in light of the evidence presented, that the Romans did not see male-male homosexuality as foreign or Greek, and, in fact, that native traditions of Roman homosexuality were more wide-ranging in their tastes for the male body than Greek traditions.

The presentation of evidence from Roman literature and poetry, as well as nuances of individual Latin terms without Greek equivalents, presents a view of Roman homosexuality which, while maintaining the accepted interpretation of Roman sexuality as 'penetration-oriented', also suggests considerable acknowledgement of attraction towards older men which is largely absent in Greek literature, and interest in the 'passive' role in male-male sex which scholars of Roman sexuality have marginalized as jesting rather than note the implications of interest and audience comprehension that those very jests suggest.

I, for one, have noted before when vomiting Roman trivia unprompted at people that the Emperor Galba is the only historical Roman figure specifically noted to have preferred older men (though I also pair this with the fact that the dictator Sulla had a lifelong boytoy in the form of the actor Metrobius). In terms of an explicit statement in the literature, this appears to be true - however, the fact that I'm a filthy monoglot who only reads in English robbed me of the rich context of the numerous Latin terms for prostitutes, with 'exoleti' specifically referring to older male prostitutes who serviced primarily men, and that a number of Emperors are noted as 'enjoying' their services.

The point is also made that the Roman condemnations of 'Greekness' in sexual behavior is in reference to immoderacy and excessive attachment to female partners as well as males; the condemnation of 'Greek love' is not gendered, as is often thought, but in reference to the supposed tendency of Greeks to let emotion and affection rule their decisions instead of DUTY like a GOOD HONEST ROMAN.

This may seem like a minor detail, and I suppose it is - to change the view of Roman homosexuality from 'eagerly accepted as a foreign import, but sometimes mocked' to 'wholly native, and sentimentality mocked as foreign' - but considering the currency that the idea has, and the fact that I certainly believed as much, has me reeling to reconsider it.

[–] dresden@discuss.online 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Hmm... that's interesting. Just a random though, when they say "older" men, how old do they generally mean? Just wondering...

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The 'accepted' sexual role of a younger male was, depending on which scholar you ask, either roughly 12-20 or 14-21 - similar to the age of girls at their first marriage (12 being the minimum for a girl's marriage under Roman law, though usually not married 'til mid or late teens; 14 the minimum age for a boy, though males usually married much later than females, in their late 20s).

'Exoleti' is imprecise, but older than that; implicitly old enough that they could no longer even pass for a younger man (as older men, especially actors, are noted to have done to continue carrying on same-sex affairs).

[–] dresden@discuss.online 2 points 1 week ago

Ahan, thanks for the info!

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

An absolutely riveting book. I understood, previous to reading this book, that Romans defined sexuality by act more than the partner's gender. The author, however, takes the argument further than I previously understood it - defining sexuality by act more than partner, period. Previously, I would have mused that Romans regarded same-sex attraction towards 'soft' or youthful boys (or those appearing as such) as normal; now I think, by the arguments of this book, that it would be better to say that Romans regarded same-sex attraction towards 'soft' or youthful boys as unproblematic for the boy - at least in concept, the actual act of sex could cause trouble if they were citizens.

The condemnations traced in the extant evidence outline a double-standard - not that attraction towards older or less 'soft' men was abnormal, but that it was shameful for the object of attraction only. That to be aroused by and even have sex with older men was not unusual, only that doing so was a shameful urge on the part of the passive partner only. In other words, that it could be normal to desire to penetrate even an older man, but to desire to be penetrated was both recognized and stigmatized.

While I understood the 'bottomphobia', if you will, I didn't fully grasp the implication of normalcy of the penetrating partner even of a 'shameful' penetrated target. The modern concept of mutual responsibility in sexual or romantic relations colored my view. A girlfriend has a boyfriend; the two are equivalent in my modern view. A boyfriend has a boyfriend; the two are equivalent in my modern view. But here, the penetrator and the penetrated are not equivalent, they do not 'share' in the act or even the relationship. As actors, even mutually consenting actors, they are both almost totally divorced from each other in the value judgements of their society. Fucking fascinating.

There's also a lot in there about how the Roman perception of 'effeminacy' could be leveled against the exclusively heterosexual (as we would recognize it) because the core aspect of effeminacy was, to the Romans, a lack of control, either over one's own desires or over one's self subject to others. A man who had sex with a great many women might be condemned as effeminate, even if he was manly in appearance, because his lack of control over his lusts was considered an effeminate trait. Of course, conversely, having sex with a lot of women (or male partners) was not inherently a sign of lack of control; only the implication of inability to control one's impulses condemned it.

The past is truly bizarre. Culture is such a powerful thing, both in how it shapes how people in the past saw the world, and how understanding that shows how much of our own perceptions are shaped by our current culture, not as the objective perception of reality we sometimes take it as.