Books

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.