Roman Sex: 100 BC - AD 250 by John Clarke

I bought a used copy from amazom.com.

Roman sexuality and sexual issues are a fertile (pun intended) area of study. Over the years it is a subject I have returned to, not least given my visits to Pompeii and Herculaneum.

It is clear that the Romans had no "moral" problems with sex in the early imperial period (all that is an entirely Christian problem) and we need to drop some of our preconceptions and values if we are to understand the roman approach to sex from their perspective.

It is clear to me - for instance - that nudity (male or female) was not something that bothered Romans as it would bother many western people today. Slaves and others would often have been seen in nude or near nude conditions, and at the baths same sex nudity would have been common. Privacy in the home was of a different kind to anything we would know and understand.

If one needs any further evidence, the phallus was depicted with no embarrassment and completely openly in fresco and sculpture - it was more about luck and warding off the evil eye that about sex. In Pompeii it greets you at the House of the Vettii (on a huge scale!) and is used to mark brothels and give directions.

What we would call homosexuality also clearly existed - there is a silver cup with a depiction of such activity - but would have been seen more as I believe it is perceived in arab and south American countries as about status and role rather than being good or bad. It was more important and acceptable to be the active partner, OK to receive oral attentions but less so to give them. An older man and a youth was acceptable, two men of the same age more scandalous. two men setting up as life-time partners would ahve been shocking. The Satyricon provides a lot of clues to such things.

But over the whole of Roman history things must have changed and evolved. No doubt Cato the Censor's attitudes were different (narrower?) than those of Commodus!!

Roman theatrical farce could be very bawdy and full-on!! How much was a sexual frisson part of watching the games - scantily clad men fighting and sometimes dying?

Look at the built-in bed supports in the lupanar (brothel) at Pompeii and it is immediately evident that they could not have been used for the missionary position, unless both participants were less than five feet tall. This must tell us something about Roman sexual practices at that time. So do the wall-paintings in the same building - about preferences for positions.

Juvenal and martial provide many examples of humourous sexual comments that must be based broadly on what actually went on. Reading them, I believe we get a clear snap-shot of the tastes and actions of at least a small cross-section of roman society.

A fairly recent book drew attention to the apparent fascination Roman had with being watched by a third person while involved in sexual activities.

Happy to discuss more fully ( though I hope tastefully) if any other posters have an interest in this huge subject.

Phil

I'm doing some catching up after a break over Christmas and came across this discussion and I couldn't resist posting a reply. The original quote seems to be quite correct - the Romans did not share our view of sex at all. To them it was a completely natural thing and was hardly worth commenting about. They had no concept of pornography, for instance, with graphic representations surrounding them on a day to day basis. Though sex was not thought of as a private activity as it is today, having sex in public (despite BBC/HBO's Rome) was considered as bad manners but nothing more. The concept of pornography was basically invented during the 19th century as a classification for "certain materials" that scholars believed should not be shown to the lower classes. Much of the material found in Pompeii and Herculaneum was housed at Naples Archaeological museum in a "secret exhibition" only open to scholars who, it was felt, would not be corrupted by it. Strangely enough quite a trade developed in copies of the material which were bought and sold between "scholarly" collectors.

Valerius - I don't know whether you are aware, but in the bookshops around Pompeii and Herculaneum they still sell many modern illustrated books with titles such as "Forbidden Pompeii". Essentially these are about the material that was once kept locked away. From my visits to Naples Museum, I don't recall seeing much of the erotica on display - so those collections may still sit in the same rooms they always did, largely unseen and unpublished.

Phil

this exellent review is now featured in our book review section...

Roman Sex Review...

cheers

viggen

this exellent review is now featured in our book review section...

 

Roman Sex Review...

 

cheers

viggen

That was an excellent review by Ursus. I think the Republican Romans were extremely conservative and it was more in the upper strata of society, particularly the old patrician families. They were pretty straight laced and any wildness, especially among the women, was a sign of weakness and lack of control by the paterfamilias, who exercised supreme control over the family, including slaves.

However, there were more liberal families as well, including bold women like Fulvia, Clodia and others. Clodia was singled out by Cicero out of personal reasons, no doubt for the hatred he bore her brother, but I'm sure there were many of her class and station who were quite forward in their desires, their opinions and the way they conducted themselves in public. Most Roman women wore the grey stola, cocooning themselves in yards of wool and also wore a veil, when they were out in public. With Rome's expanding empire in the Late Republic and as a ton of stuff started to come in to Rome, new clothes, new fashions were all the rage and women like Clodia no longer were confined to the gray robes of their mothers but began to wear daring dresses, using a lot of color too and make up / cosmetics, a lot of which was imported from Egypt. Alexandria was like Paris to the Roman ladies and most of the cosmetics, perfumes and other fashions were imported from Egypt. After all, Egyptian women were much more free and could move about the city unescorted and even take up professions that were exclusively male in most parts of the world like medicine, architecture, etc. There were also quite a few Egyptian women scholars who worked in the great library at Alexandria and women could own property, slaves, etc. Some of these attitudes must have come over to Rome, especially when Cleopatra visited.

Although Cleopatra stayed in a villa outside of the sacred boundary or the pomerium, as Caesar's guest, she was certainly much sought after by all the Roman elite, especially the women, who were curious to meet her and possibly, learn about the mysterious land of Egypt. The Egyptians were also much more liberated when it came to sexuality and saw this as another aspect of life, of living, no more different than eating or drinking. It will certainly be difficult to speculate how 'liberated' Rome really became during the Late Republic but contact with more liberal cultures from the East and also the barbarians, must have changed the social perceptions a lot. There is a lot of confusion, especially with regard to the barbarians. Some of them were extremely chaste and their women were virtuous and devoted only to their husbands. Yet, on the other hand, there were other tribes where group marriages were common and sexual activity was practised openly and without the modern Judaeo Christian concepts of shame that are associated with such displays. Even Caesar commented on these variances in his commentaries and I think he, like other Romans, were at a loss to characterize their behavior.

Nicely done Skarr, and I enjoyed the review Ursus!

a couple of talking points if I may- I detect a Victorian Christian Britain transforming to a post-modern "liberal " ( what a riseable term) Cool Brittania here , very much as I saw a parallel in HBOs Rome. I know every generation thinks it has invented sin and sexuality but the Republic as a prototype Victorian "Moral Heart " of a muscular christian empire certainly has some amusing resonance, (especially given the Victorian obsession with Roman Dignitas and Stoicism), even the clothes sound similar.

The comment about womens clothes is very interesting , a lot of people suggest that wearing a huge amount of fabric and decorative embellishment shows a subservient role-I suggest it is power dressing on a fearsome scale , the occupation of about a cubic metre of space by one person does not seem to suggest servility, ok it may be conspicuous consumption as a spouse -but the truly marginal wear old sacks and are dirtyand occupy a small cringing space.

Britons were notorious for sexual licence and promiscuity around the "invasion" period, also a splendid , immoderate and wholehearted drunkeness.Fortunately we have been able to reclaim our ancestral rites!

These are not "issues" with Skarr's excellent post, I was just turning a couple of thoughts over for public consideration.

Glad everyone enjoyed the review. It's a very interesting subject. Especially with some of the recent political debates in Western society over sexuality.