Roman Sexuality and Morals

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMBAHfN9dh4

This is a fascinating podcast/interview of historian Tom Holland. If you start at around 19:00 mins and up to around 33:00 mins into the video he gives his insights and notions on Roman sexuality and how different it is to ours.

Perhaps a bit too philosophically ethereal but really really interesting to listen to and contemplate, especially when compared to our present morals on sexual matters.

My husband man-crushes over Tom Holland. He's got all his books. When we take a car trip we listen to podcasts and alternate who gets to choose, I usually do This American Life or Sword and Scale and he almost always picks The Rest is History with Holland and the other guy.

@agracier - That was a wonderful interview. I only listened to the part you marked out so far and may go back to it for the rest. I didn't find it philosophically ethereal. The roman period has fascinated me since I watched the series 'Rome'.

Rome was such a well done series. Everything had to be as close to authentic as possible, which was the demise of the series. It was too expensive to make an keep it authentic. I think it ran for 3 seasons. I have it on a stick somewhere and hope it is not corrupt. I have watched it a few times. It's a binge watch thing to me. Have you seen the series?

I enjoyed the societal, political, sexual (sometimes raw) and romantic threads. There was revenge, intrigue and (what we would consider) criminal aspects that drew me in. The acting was superb. When you consider the people to be real, everything is truly alive with it's own spirit.

That was a wonderful interview. I only listened to the part you marked out so far and may go back to it for the rest. I didn't find it philosophically ethereal. The roman period has fascinated me since I watched the series 'Rome'.

Rome was such a well done series. Everything had to be as close to authentic as possible, which was the demise of the series.

Oh yes, I must have watched the HBO series 'Rome' some 6 or 7 or more times by now, not quite every year, but often enough. I watch the first episode out of having nothing else to watch and then cannot stop. Love the acting, callousness and even though toned down a bit, the violence that must have been part of the culture.

The link I posted was to an interview of Tom Holland, whose latest book I just happened to have finished, called 'Pax'. A widely different approach to Rome than traditionally written about. The link does a very good job of illustrating many of Tom Holland's points. And he is a surprisingly cheerful and spontaneous person when talking on his subject matter.

Glad you liked the part I singled out. The rest is worth listening to, but for other more historical/sociological reasons I'd say. Fascinating stuff to contemplate.

I think it was interesting, yes. Double interesting when you consider that during that period, the price of slaves was at an all-time low due to slaves being one of the spoils of war, and that some Romans would have owned 400+ slaves. Fucking would have then been about like owning a used car lot where you get to drive a different one every day depending on how you feel.

Although, I do question whether sexuality in Rome was quite as pansexual as he suggests. I think it is probably more likely that sexuality did exist in that way for the upper caste of men, but for the everyday Roman, it would have been more about men and women. I think this is evidenced by literature at the time offering Roman men tips to pick up women, graffiti on the walls of bars where men fought over women, etc. I'd like to hear what someone else has to say on the matter. If we're talking about the upper crust, I agree, it's probably accurate, cause that's what people immune to punishment do, whatever they want to whomever they want, and still do today if you wanted to turn the big eyeball toward Prince Andrew, although I guess he isn't a prince anymore. Now that I think about it, if he ever needs work, he could be cast as The Penguin in Batman.

I think it was interesting, yes. Double interesting when you consider that during that period, the price of slaves was at an all-time low due to slaves being one of the spoils of war, and that some Romans would have owned 400+ slaves. Fucking would have then been about like owning a used car lot where you get to drive a different one every day depending on how you feel.

The availability and price of slaves depended on conquests in war. This varied over time with gluts and scarcity, but mostly a lot of gluts in the republic and early Empire.

Nor would more or less 'normal' affluent Romans have owned all that many slaves either. A few perhaps, maybe some 5 or 10 perhaps? And then chosen not especially for use as possible sex toys, but for more useful work tasks and therefore not always that appealing perse.

But there is still a lustful appeal to the notion in a way we would presently think quite perverse. And which, by the way, was not unknown of as practiced in the institution of slavery in the Antebellum South. But this is a contentious subject perhaps.

I do think though that Tom Hollands description of the more feminine a boy/male looked, the more appealing he was, is especially interesting in the way that at present we have become more open and accepting of the idea of male trans-sexuality and feminization. Or at least many of us have become more accepting.

Reminds me of the quip you often read that 'boys make the prettiest girls' in erotic trans literature and stories.