A Brief History of Homosexuality in Rome (Video)
Homosexuality in ancient Rome was a multifaceted aspect of society, often overshadowed in historical narratives. From prominent figures like Julius Caesar to Emperor Nero, instances of same-sex relationships were not uncommon among the ruling elite. The absence of a specific term for homosexuality in Roman lexicon reflects the fluidity of sexual norms, where individuals were categorized based on their perceived dominance or submission rather than their sexual orientation.
This is evidenced by historical accounts of relationships like that of Emperor Elagabalus, who had both female and male spouses, including his male chariot driver. While same-sex activity was tolerated in certain contexts, such as relationships with slaves, it faced strict prohibitions in the military, highlighting the significance of martial masculinity in Roman culture. The fluidity of gender roles extended to religious beliefs, with deities like Venus and Diana embodying diverse forms of love and desire.
The influence of Christianity later led to a shift in attitudes towards homosexuality, ultimately resulting in its criminalization under Byzantine rule. The complex interplay between societal norms, religious beliefs, and individual expressions of sexuality in ancient Rome underscores the diverse range of human experiences throughout history. Despite the patriarchal structure of Roman society, the prevalence of homosexuality among the ruling elite challenges modern perceptions and invites a deeper understanding of ancient social dynamics.
Top image: Sculpture details of classic male form in Venice, Italy. Source: Andrew Deer/Adobe Stock
Comments
The prohibition of homosexuality in the Pagan Roman army was one of the furthering of domination.
Rank in the army meant the possibility of dominating a subordinate in a homosexuality relationship existed there. However, that opened up the possibility of the famous unity of the legions being undermined.
Thus, it was deemed necessary to outlaw one form of domination in order to preserve another. It was a matter of priorities, not morality.
Rome had very little morality.
Had a Roman citizen freed his male slave before beginning a sexual relationship with him, there may have been some case for it not being rape.
However, a Roman citizen was very unlikely to do that, as the dominance and submission in the unequal relationship involving a slave is exactly what justified it in the morality or, rather, immorality of Pagan Roman society.
In other words, they most practised homosexuality when it was rape or effectively so.
The MeToo generation tend to gloss over this, thus exposing the hypocrisy caused by their woke dogma.
There is right and there is wrong. Using a position of power for sexual domination is palpably wrong. It cannot be right, no matter how one seeks to justify it.
Most people are blind to just how prevalent such misuse of power is, however. Indeed, many would be horrified to learn the truth. But that's okay. They have no intention of learning it. They're too cowardly.
To those who believe in the right of dominance over submission, cowardice is a form of consent.
In that respect, not much has changed. Nor will it, until God changes it, for humanity has been proven largely incapable of cleaning itself of such sin. Humanity lacks the willpower to do so. Too many seek a comfortable life over a righteous one.
Ancient Greece was a hotbed of homosexuality and Rome had its roots in Greece (no puns intended).
The dichotomy between Ancient Rome and the Christianity that would eventually take root there may be explained by Paganism.
Paganism is simply an alternative to God provided by the Devil. As such, it is opposite to true Christianity. It has become fashionable to gloss over any sexual relations between a Roman citizen and his male slave. From a Pagan Roman perspective, this was purely the domination of a subordinate.
The same is used as a justification for paedophilia, something I have been unfortunate enough to experience. It is a disgusting practice and one the Devil is very fond of. Ancient Greece and paedophilia were very much bedfellows. Even calling it "paedophilia" is a deception. There is no love involved.
I would suggest that whenever a Roman citizen had sexual relations with his male slave, there was no real love involved there either. There were just property rights.
Is not glossing over that sin itself a sin? Or do we not worry about such things any longer?