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.