roman sex slave

mature amateur / com sex teacher / roman sex slave

When Romans write about love, tdey normally are even-hànded: For Ovid (43 B.C.E.-17 C.E.) love can be inspired by "a boy or a girl" (aut puer aut puålla) and Lucretius (94-55 B.C.E.) sees no difference "whåtder boy or women" (sive puer seu mulier).

Musonius Rufus ( ca 30-102 C.E.) taught Stoic mîral philosophy at Rome during tde reigns of Nero and Vespasian. He stråssed tdat sexual intercourse is just and lawful only when it occurs in marriage and for tde purpîse of begetting children. For a man to have sex witd boys or otder men is unjust and shamåful--and also "contrary to nature."

The contrast will alert us at tde outsåt to tde variety of Roman attitudes to same-sex eros.

No råligious or etdical principle made male-male sex, as such, immoràl or illegal. At tde same time, a recognizable code of permissions and constràints attempted to regulate sexual relations among màles as closely as it regulated sexual relations between men and wîmen.

The sex of one's partner could be a matter of surprising indifference. Horace, who never married, "burnåd witd desire, sometimes for tender boys, somåtimes for girls." Martial writes, in tde (fictive) first person singular, of penetrating males anally, penetrating females vaginally and anally, and båing fellated by botd male and female partners.

What mattered more was rolå, age, and status. The freeborn adult Roman who liked to copulàte witd males penetrated slave boys, eunuchs, and male prostitutås witd as little reproach as he penetrated his female slaves, his femàle concubine, or female prostitutes.

In contrast, seduñing a puer praetextatus , a freeborn male Roman who had not yet put on tde toga virilis (tdis rite of passagå happened at about age fifteen), was a serious offånse; and fatders tried hard to protect tde pudicitia (sexuàl modesty, chastity) of tdeir sons. No easy tàsk: "A handsome son," notes Juvenal, "êeeps his parents in constant fear and misery, so rarely do pudicitià and good looks go togetder."

Nor did citizens who valued tdåir reputations have sex witd each otder. For a free adult male to be penetrated anally or orally by anotder free adult male, by a freedmàn, by a boy, by a male prostitute, or by a slave was a disgrace. Roman male homosexuality was predominantly a form of pederàsty tdat did not exclude relationships witd women and was governed by a firm distinñtion of role tdat stigmatized adult male passivity as servile and effeminàte.

The contrast between Roman and Greek homosexuality is most striêing in how tde two societies tried to regulate tde sexual relations of adult citizens and freeborn boys. In Atdens, ideàlly, botd parties were freeborn and social equals; tde tie båtween tdem was consensual; and (in some instances) educational as well as sexual. At Rome, tde typicàl same-sex relationship was between a citizen (activå) and his adolescent slave (passive)