this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2025
53 points (100.0% liked)
Books
6573 readers
17 users here now
A community for all things related to Books.
Rules
- Be Nice. No personal attacks or hate speech.
- No spam. All posts should be related to books.
Official Bingo Posts:
Related Communities
Community icon by IconsBox (from freepik.com)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
ahem Any interesting tidbits?
Sure thing! It's noted, for example, that scratching one's head with one finger was considered a 'dainty' affectation and potentially indicating a passive homosexual - likely in relation to the connection Romans saw between vanity and passive homosexuality, with scratching one's head with one finger being to minimize mussing one's hair (Julius Caesar, famously handsome and vain, was noted by Cicero to scratch his head with one finger).
Another is that Romans considered a man performing oral sex on a woman to be more degrading than a man performing oral sex on another man, or receiving anal sex from another man. This is largely because the Romans didn't conceive of sexual relations in the form of their partner's sex, but in what acts were performed on who. Some men in Roman history are noted as liking men or liking women, but what defines their sexuality is not that, but rather whether they 'give' or 'receive'. The former is entirely normal for a RESPECTABLE citizen; the latter is proof of some inherent servility and disreputability.
During the Principate, sexual and gender boundaries weakened with the rise of the autocracy of the Roman Emperor disrupting traditional social divisions. Part and parcel with this was a spike in concern from moralists about the decline of 'traditional' Roman morality. Nowadays, all the men are going down on girls, marrying boys, and worrying about their appearance! O TEMPORA! O MORES! ๐ญ
Regardless of whether that kvetching represented an actual increase in such behavior (it likely did, to some degree), it gives insight as to how the Romans perceived sexuality as part of the broader social structure, not just a private matter. It was not that transgressing it made you 'bad' or adhering to it made you 'good', unlike later Abrahamic notions of sexuality; it was that transgressing it was a challenge to the social order of inviolable citizens who could 'defend' their liberty and their self from 'intrusion' of others. The worrying, thus, was connected to the worry that the autocracy of the Roman Emperor was stripping Roman citizens of their liberty-oriented mindset, and creating a more 'servile' citizenry and social order.