Homosexuality In Ancient Rome, Apotheosis Collection

Although sexual practices are often left out of discussions of history, the fact remains that homosexuality in ancient Rome did exist. However, it's not quite as cut and dried as a question of "gay versus straight." Instead, it's a much more complex cultural perspective, in which the approval - or disapproval - of sexual activity was based upon the social status of the people performing various acts.

T H E  R O M A N  P A T R I A R C H A L  S O C I E T Y

The society of ancient Rome was extremely patriarchal. For men, the determination of masculinity was directly tied to how one displayed the Roman concept of virtus. This was one of several ideals that all freeborn Romans tried to follow. Virtus was partly about virtue, but also about self-discipline and the ability to govern oneself and others. To take that a step further, the active role of imperialism and conquest found in ancient Rome was often discussed in terms of sexual metaphor.

Because masculinity was predicated on one's ability to conquer, homosexual activity was viewed in terms of domination. A man taking on the perceived dominant, or penetrative, the role would fall under far less public scrutiny than a man who was being penetrated, or "submissive"; to the Romans, the action of being "conquered" implied that a man was weak and willing to give up his liberty as a free citizen. It also brought into question his sexual integrity as a whole.

Elizabeth Cytko writes, "Bodily autonomy was one of the regulatory norms of sex which helped define one’s status within society... an elite Roman male demonstrated his status because he was not allowed to be beaten, or penetrated."

Interestingly, the Romans didn't have specific words that meant homosexual or heterosexual. It wasn't gender that determined whether a sexual partner was acceptable, but their social status. The Roman censors were a committee of officials who determined wherein the social hierarchy someone's family belonged, and occasionally removed individuals from the upper ranks of society for sexual misconduct; again, this was based on status rather than gender. In general, same-sex relationships among partners of the appropriate social status were considered normal and acceptable.

Freeborn Roman men were permitted, and even expected, to be interested in sex with partners of both genders. Even once married, a Roman man might continue to maintain relationships with partners other than his spouse. However, it was understood that he was only to have sex with prostitutes, slaves, or people who were considered infamia. This was a lower social status assigned by the censors to individuals whose legal and social standing had been formally reduced or removed. This group also included entertainers such as gladiators and actors. An infamis could not provide testimony in legal proceedings and could be subjected to the same sorts of corporal punishments usually reserved for slaves.

Ancient history expert N.S. Gill points out that "Instead of today's gender orientation, ancient Roman... sexuality can be dichotomized as passive and active. The socially preferred behavior of a male was active; the passive part aligned with the female."

While a free Roman man was permitted to have sex with slaves, prostitutes, and infames, it was only acceptable if he took the dominant, or penetrative role. He was not allowed to have sex with other freeborn Roman men, or the wives or children of other free men. In addition, he couldn't have sex with another man's slave; this is because slaves were property, and sex with someone else's slave required the owner's explicit permission.

Although not extensively documented, there were homosexual romantic relationships between Roman men. Most scholars agree that same-sex relationships between men of the same class existed; however, because there were so many rigid social constructs applied to such a relationship, they were kept private.

While same-sex marriage was not legally permitted, there are writings that indicate some men did participate in public "marriage ceremonies" with other men; the emperor Nero did this at least twice, as did the emperor Elagabalus. In addition, at one point during his ongoing dispute with Mark Antony, Cicero attempted to discredit his opponent by claiming Antony had been given a stola by another man; the stola was the traditional garment worn by married women.

H O M O S E X U A L  R E L A T I O N S H I P S  I N  R O M A N  W O M E N

There is little information available about same-sex relationships between Roman women. Although they probably happened, the Romans didn't write about it, because to them, sex involved penetration. It's likely that the Romans didn't consider sexual acts between women to actually be sex, unlike the penetrative activities between two men.

Interestingly, among Roman women, there are a number of sources that indicate not a sexual activity but romance. Bernadette Brooten writes in Love Between Women of love spells commissioned by women to attract other women. Scholars agree that these spells provide written evidence that women from the time period we're interested in romantic attachments with other women, and that they were comfortable expressing their desires.

Brooten says: [The spells] do not reveal the internal dynamics of these women's relationships. Nevertheless, the spells do ... raise intriguing, although ultimately unanswerable, questions about the nature of women's erotic desires.

G E N D E R - B E N D I N G  D E I T I E S