ROMA EROTICA

[sicarii sam]

Ha, my days of Bacchanals are over. Im a married man ! hock:

One of the things that has really struck me over the years is that humanity has never changed. You find common needs and actions of humans the same since 'adam' to now. What has changed is social context, technology, etc.

I just find it hard to believe that sexuality, being an inherited need of humanity, to have changed. A percentage will always be pedophiles, incetsous, gay, bi, whatever. The majority are just man, woman, family. My comment above sounded a little smug ( it was late and I worked all day lol ) about the literatii. I think you find today that the homosexual population are generally richer, more educated, more cultured than the average truck driver. So, truck drivers ( which I was for a number of years ) arent writing literature or climbing the social ladder. I often referred to myself as a college educated truck driver but Im now using my degree and teaching special education.

To each his own. Break out the wine !!!!!! :twisted:

[Magnus]

Too bad we can't have pedophiles and sex offenders torn up by wild animals anymore. It'd be a great way to save money, and it feeds needy, hungry animals...not to mention a great deterent.

Any good online articles about roman crime and punishement?

[tlclark]

I cant believe Im posting on this subject but it comes up all the time in examining the ancient world esepcially with the greeks. the porn of pompeii isnt suprising. a brothel didnt have video machines so painting was a logical decoration for such a place but inferring wholesale conclusions about sexuality in the ancient world isnt merited just like looking at amsterdam or bangkok isnt represtentative of the nation as a whole.

I get the same reaction when I tell people I grew up in Las Vegas. They think my dad was in the mafia and my mother was a showgirl. My dad was an endocrinologist and my mother was a school teacher. I know it's surprising but outside the strip and downtown areas, Las Vegas is about the most whitebread surburban place you can imagine. Think of Provo Utah, if Provo was next to LA, that's a lot what Las Vegas feels like.

I have serious doubts about the widespread 'gayness' of the greeks and even romans. In todays world you have a percentage of people who desire homosexual intercourse or something close to it and the majority dont. It isnt in their makeup to do or desire such a thing. I cant concieve that homosexual activity was anymore prevalent than today percentage wise. I could be very wrong but I doubt it.

Well that depends. If you mean 'homosexuality' meaning men having sex with each other then yes, there probably was a lot of it in both Greek and Roman cultures, probably more so in the Greek culture. If you mean 'homosexuality' to mean a lifestyle where people identify with a particular group because of their sexual orientation and pair off into committed pairs, then there wasn't a lot of homosexuality in Ancient cultures. There were committed pairings but they were rare. I doubt very much whether even the spartans, who had practically institutionalized homosexuality, considered themselves "gay". Rather they considered themselves straight but had no negative associations with male on male sex. That was just sexual activity and not indicative of your "identity" like it is suggested today.

In a way their sexuality is far more open and defies labeling. Now does that make them more liberal or less liberal than us? Who knows.

One more thing on erotica in general. Erotica - in a very weird way - a very intersting cultural indicator, a canary in a coal mine if you will. When I first began studying art history, and became axquainted with Greek pornography pottery (and there is a lot of it) I felt like it was an indication of cultural decline. In fact just the opposite is true. At exactly the time that Athens was at its cultural peak was the time it was producing the most pornography. Also, pornography varies from culture to culture. Romans and Athenians made lots of the stuff, Spartans hardly any. At first I thought that meant that Spartans were more virtuous but that doesn't really hold water. Porn is rather a reflection on the society. For example, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia had very little porn, we have tons, which would you rather live in?

(Someday I'm going to write a paper on this but that is ways off, here's the short version of my theory)

In reality porn is a reflection of the prosperity and individual freedom of a society. Societies with wealth and relative freedom will always produce a segment of society that will choose to use that extra cash and time to make pornography. It seems to be human nature. Interestingly, porn is one of the first "art forms" if you will - to be disbanded in times of economic stress and decline. Far from what you'd think porn is not a growth market in times of decline, just the opposite.

Now some sociologist will have to make sense of this, but if your society stops producing porn it says something about the direction your culture is heading. I suppose it's a fringe market and that the fringe markets suffer from any economic social decline. If times are hard, and you are making decisions about purchases, porn gets cut first, which seems entirely sensible.

So rather than looking at Romans and saying "What decadent Romans" you could say "Wow! Their society was so stinking wealthy and prosperous and free a significant minority of the population could afford to spend it on porn!" Just a thought. Interestingly enough, the same is true of souvenirs and kitsch! The percentage of kitsch or mass produced art items that have no functional purpose is a pretty good indication of the health of a culture. Porn is different for obvious reasons, but it kinda functions as a subset of kitsch, as a demonstration of what people do with their expendable income. Anyway, I'll bet you'll never look at plastic flamingoes the same way again!

BTW - This is not in any way an endorsement of porn, which I consider demeaning to women and damaging to families - it just seems to indicate the social and economic factors of it.

[Theodosius the Great]

Hi Travis,

For example, Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia had very little porn, we have tons, which would you rather live in?

Yeesh, what a choice

I think I see a possible hole in your theory : didn't the Weimar Republik churn out with tons of porn ? If so, it wasn't indicative of good times.

BTW, your explanations on the sexual mores of the Greco-Roman world are the most succinct yet comprehensive that I've ever read on the subject. Laudes to you

Too bad we can't have pedophiles and sex offenders torn up by wild animals anymore. It'd be a great way to save money, and it feeds needy, hungry animals...not to mention a great deterent.

Any good online articles about roman crime and punishement?

Right on, Magnus. IMO, no punishment is dire enough for them. I did see a good documentary on the History Channel about crime and law enforcement in the city of Rome. It focused on the day to day routine of the Praetorians and Vigiles.



Theo

[petrinus]

Ha, my days of Bacchanals are over. Im a married man ! hock:

One of the things that has really struck me over the years is that humanity has never changed. You find common needs and actions of humans the same since 'adam' to now. What has changed is social context, technology, etc.

I just find it hard to believe that sexuality, being an inherited need of humanity, to have changed. A percentage will always be pedophiles, incetsous, gay, bi, whatever. The majority are just man, woman, family. My comment above sounded a little smug ( it was late and I worked all day lol ) about the literatii. I think you find today that the homosexual population are generally richer, more educated, more cultured than the average truck driver. So, truck drivers ( which I was for a number of years ) arent writing literature or climbing the social ladder. I often referred to myself as a college educated truck driver but Im now using my degree and teaching special education.

To each his own. Break out the wine !!!!!! :twisted:

im married too 8) , lol, and god i love that my wife has the right idea about life!!!!! again i say break out the wine and bring us fine women!!!!

yes i think society should stop pretending to these needless puritan values, oh bother, i mean really...its the 21st century, sex is no secret and its on everyones mind/agenda anyway. alot of intelligent things have been said in this thread and more conservative views than id have expected from so many "romans" however as indicated there were in fact a good many years of moderacy in rome. i would like to repaint a room in my home in pompeiian tribute, infact our next trip to italy will be focusing on pompeii and herculenium so i will have ample opportunity to study them.

[Jona Lendering]

If you mean 'homosexuality' meaning men having sex with each other then yes, there probably was a lot of it in both Greek and Roman cultures, probably more so in the Greek culture. If you mean 'homosexuality' to mean a lifestyle where people identify with a particular group because of their sexual orientation and pair off into committed pairs, then there wasn't a lot of homosexuality in Ancient cultures.

There is much truth in the words of Gore Vidal that in post-WW2 Western society, "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are used as indications of people, whereas it always used to be indications of acts.

There were committed pairings but they were rare.

This has been refuted by Charles Hupperts in Eros Dikaios. Part of his argument is that we don't recognize same-sex unions when we see them. For example, if we have a piece of pottery with two naked men and a naked lady dancing, we call it "erotic"; when we see three naked men dancing, we don't. The main point of his book, though, is a different one, that Plato can not be used as evidence for actual behavior, as has been done for over a century. Cf. the article here.

In reality porn is a reflection of the prosperity and individual freedom of a society.

A very, very good point. And it's also the other way round: porn is one of the most important keepers of morals. It shows acceptable ways to express lust and freedom.

To explain this paradox, I return to the example I quoted several times above, bondage. If people want to introduce an element of power, things can become dangerous indeed; now the sex shops sells attributes that channel the lust into a more or less acceptable way. You will find handcuffs of leather, not of glass. You can usually buy an erotic novel or two, but not the works of Marquis De Sade (which are boring anyway).

(Of course really unacceptable things are published, but I'm talking about the mainstream porn that one can buy in the average sex shop here in that Sodom & Gomorrah of the third millennium, Amsterdam.)

[Fladius]

Religion creates morality. The promise of going to a better place after death keeps the poor starving man from killing and eating the rich plump man(Well, most of the time anyways.) The same would go for sexual acts.

Look at the difference between even the 1940s and now. People were a bit more "by-the-book" when it comes to religion and look at the things they consider taboo. Today, there are a lot more people who don't use the Bible or so have you, to live their lives by, and so we have less morality. Hence you get the things that we have now, such as the internet. (You all do know the internet is for porn right?)

Now think back to the Polytheistic Romans. Their values were not the same as ours(were). By nature of their mixed deities, sex was either a taboo or encouraged. Life was a lot less valued back then aswell, although some had quite long lives, it was very easy to die. Sex out of wedlock not being an offense banishing you to the underworld, what do you think?

We may call it decadence now, but back then, it was the glowing light of civilization.

[tlclark]

I actually disagree with this.

Utilitarian concerns alone guarantee a certain standard of sexual morals.

Most atheists I know still believe in committed sexual pairings, families fidelity, etc. and not promiscuity for example, all things we associate with traditional Christian values. If sexual morals were really dependent on religious teachings we wouldn't see such unanimous agreement across such diverse religious teachings as Hinduism, Christianity and Buddhism.

I suspect that if you put a group of atheist in a vacuum and came back in 200 years we'd see a set of sexual morals much like we have today.

At any rate, let's remember to keep the focus on ancient Roman morals and ethics and not contemporary ones. By all means, let's introduce modern parallels as warranted by relevant Roman comparisons but let's not let the focus drift to contemporary morals.

Travis

[Fladius]

I was paralleling the difference between what was "popular" in the different times based on the peer pressure caused by religion.

If it seems like I was trying to go in to contemporary morals and ethics, I apologize.

[tlclark]

No worries,

I wasn't really bringing down the hammer on you, sorry if I made it feel like I was singling you out.

I just want to make sure it doesn't wander that direction.

Thanks

Travis

[john m roberts]

Christian sexual mores were derived from the Judaic Ten Commandments and the rules laid down in the Book of Leviticus. These were the rules of a primitive, tribal society and they reinforce the importance of the family and the power of the elders. Adultery, fornication, prostitution and homosexuality endanger the stability of the family, so they are forbidden. They are associated with cities, and in the Old Testament cities, even Jerusalem, are always perceived as "wicked." The Greek and Roman societies, on the other hand, were urban and centered on the security of the city/state. They didn't care what people did to amuse themselves sexually. They cared very much about political/social attitudes. Fornication and buggery were not serious. Treason was serious. In Rome, the greatest crimes were those that endangered the whole community, arson being at the top of the list. Sacrilege was also serious, because it angered the gods, who would punish the whole community.

[tlclark]

The Greek and Roman societies, on the other hand, were urban and centered on the security of the city/state. They didn't care what people did to amuse themselves sexually. They cared very much about political/social attitudes. Fornication and buggery were not serious. Treason was serious. In Rome, the greatest crimes were those that endangered the whole community, arson being at the top of the list. Sacrilege was also serious, because it angered the gods, who would punish the whole community.

I think that the looser attitudes towards prostitution and other sexual acts are the product of pluralistic, relatively free cosmopolitan societies as you suggest, the question is are those normative of the population? I think not. There are numerous Roman pagan injunctions to chastity and fidelity, family and marriage. Too many to mention. Our society is very cosmopolitan and comparable to Roman society in many ways (but not others) and most of us are not philanderers, pornographers or particularly promiscuous regardless of our religious views on pre-marital sex. While we hear statistics that say that 50% of men engage in extramarital sex those statistics don't give us any idea about the frequencies and attitudes. When we do hear what adulterers feel about their actions most concede it was a mistake or it was a daliance an not a serial behavior.

What does this mean for Romans? I think that the historical record argues for a fairly conservative set of sexual morals, on pragmatic and religious grounds, with all the usual exceptions, failings and endemic problems that humans always face.

The evidence that this is the case is that there is no evidence that prostitution abated during the Christian period. All the usual sexual vices were present during the Byzantine period despite the endless harrangue of Christians.

If anything I think the pagan era is marked by a more epicurean attitude towards sex, that excess prevents future enjoyment of pleasures. In Rome, the concept of personal and familial virtus is also pretty strong. It was couched in moral terms, but not in eschatological terms like the Christians. Rather it was the moral terms of the family and personal honor and dignity so there was a strong shame component there as well.

but I'm just rambling and far from my notes on this subject when I was doing research on this so I better stop the endless stream of generalizations now before I hurt myself. :wink:

On a related note, I offer this from my diss research:

Moreover, all the brute animals copulate without seeing each other face to face, and have commerce in a brutal and shameless manner. But man alone as rational proceeds to the act face to face, so that the pair seeing each other may embrace with reason, modesty, and reverence, and may thankfully sing the praises of their Maker for his goodness in giving to their nature help and mutual impulse for the propagation and multiplication of our race. God moreover made the woman from the man's side, because the two sides bind the whole body close together; for he neither made her from the front of man lest the woman should exalt herself above him, nor from his back parts that he might not exalt himself above the woman; but from his side, as being in her nature his equal, although the man, as the cause, is first in point of time, but not, however, in his nature itself. And still further----since the hand always protects and guards the side to which it belongs, so when he had made the female from the male, and the male from the earth, God pronounced the two to be one flesh, both from the constitution of the two sides, and from the fruit that springs from their connection. Wherefore the fornicator sins by estranging his own flesh and sowing illegitimate progeny; nay, he that commits adultery is ranked with the homicide, since he divides what is one flesh, and thus perpetrates murder.

- Cosmas Indicopleustes, The Christian Topography Book 3

It shows that early Christian views were engaged in the meaning and value of sex and tried to create a naturalistic view of its value and spiritual dimension.[/quote]

[Jona Lendering]

In Rome, the greatest crimes were those that endangered the whole community, arson being at the top of the list. Sacrilege was also serious, because it angered the gods, who would punish the whole community.

I think you are right, but it is an interesting question why adultery was (in the Lex Julia de Adulteriis) regarded as a criminal offense.

BTW, the funniest line I have ever read in a law is Paul, Sententiae 2.26.14.1: the adulterers must be exiled to an island, to which is added 2.26.14.2, "dummodo in diversas insulas relegentur", they must be sent to separate islands.

[Matt Lukes]

In Rome, the greatest crimes were those that endangered the whole community, arson being at the top of the list. Sacrilege was also serious, because it angered the gods, who would punish the whole community.

I think you are right, but it is an interesting question why adultery was (in the Lex Julia de Adulteriis) regarded as a criminal offense.

Because we're still basically animals- and what makes a male animal more aggressive and irrational than messing with his mate? It can lead to all kinds of problems not the least of which would be murder- or perhaps that would be the least problematic if we're talking about a wealthy and influential Roman who could do all kinds of damage to an individual, that man's friends, that man's political associates...

[Caius Fabius]

When you are discussing this topic, ancient Rome spans 1000 years; mores and morals changed. Pater Familias is a major factor in Republican and early Imperial Rome that the writers and films neglect. There are few easy to read books on this subject, it is almost drudgery to study this aspect of Roman society, compared to studying the military, Julius Caesar, or erotica.

The head of household could put his wife or daughter to death for adultery (even after his daughter was married). The wife, daughter or son was a client of the father, who made all of the rules and was liable and responsible for their actions and punishments, even after they became adults! The idea that the Roman society was any less Patriarchal and did not "reinforce the importance of the family and the power of the elders" shows that the supreme power of the Father in Roman Law and Society is not well known. The Family took precedence over the State in most situations, and the loyalty and service to "the State" was done to enhance the dignity and standing of the Family group among the other families and tribes.

Without understanding the foundation of the culture and laws are based upon, you cannot really understand the morality of the Romans. A man who brought dishonor on his father and his ancestors was dishonored, no matter his sexuality.

To be the recipient of another man, in a sexual act was demeaning and to be accused of this was considered one of the worst insults imaginable. Julius Caesar was insulted when people said he had surrendered his body to gain an alliance. He was not insulted when he was accused of penetrating men, women and whatever else moved. To be the penetrator was a power thing and it didn't matter who was the partner, as long as the penetrator had power, then it was honorable. To take power over a rival, or his wife or daughter was a power thing, and insulting for your equals while sometimes a complement to your inferiors.

At certain times, morality was legislated, including tax penalties for not getting married, and banishment for being too erotic in ones poetry, or lifestyle.

It is wrong to make a broad generalization, even in this limited context, and it is safest to say that the Romans wanted people to believe that they were very moral, as a race, and they were also very different from what the average modern westerner would accept as very moral. Romans would probably be shocked and offended by many of our modern moral concepts, as well, including women's suffrage, and allowing the breakdown of the family unit.