Pink Praetorians?

[Fluvius Camillus]

@Ludens

The homosexual thing is not the only one in Ancient Roman society where you encounter the difference in submission.

Also oral sex was only a one way ticket (this is for heterosexual, i don't know for sure about the other). The woman pleasuring the man was considered nothing strange. But the other way around was looked down upon. This is from two viewpoints, the first being the one discussed here earlier (the one who pleasures the person is submitting to the other, a man could not submit to a woman). The other was that the man had to keep his mouth "clean" for orations. If the man pleasured the woman, the mouth of the man would be defiled and so his speeches would be polluted too.

My source is a Dutch magazine about history, called: Historia.

~Fluvius

[Brennus]

@Ludens
The other was that the man had to keep his mouth "clean" for orations. If the man pleasured the woman, the mouth of the man would be defiled and so his speeches would be polluted too.

Could explain the frequency of divorces in Roman aristocracy.

[seienchin]

Although we know, that there were laws that punished love between two free men by death, I would be really surprised if it was a punishment often used. We know about so many roman laws and custom (Like burying people alive etc.), which seemed to be only nominal things, which were never really done.
A scociety hunting and killing people for homosexual intercourse did never exist except for Nazi germany. Even in the medival times, when they also had a law against it, we do only know about a few cases when people were actually punished.

[Urg]

I agree completely with what Ludens wrote. For those of us brought up in western societies, our traditional ideas of what is moral or immoral are in large part influenced by 19th century european concepts of right and wrong, which are in turn, as Ludens points out, based on strict religious views. We should not use those views to interpret Roman social history.

The alleged Roman law against homosexual relations, the Lex Scantinia, is shrouded in mystery. We should not assume, based on our own ideas of what is moral, that the Lex Scantinia punished homosexual behaviour per se.

The source usually relied upon by 20th century historians to justify the idea that homosexuality in the Republican Roman army was illegal is Polybius, 6:37:9, who refers to capital punishment "on young men who have abused their persons" (according to the Loeb translation). That is hardly conclusive.

We should also be careful not to let our ideas on Roman republican morals be influenced by late Roman Christian thinking.

[Blxz]

Polybius, 6:37:9, who refers to capital punishment "on young men who have abused their persons" (according to the Loeb translation).

Sounds like death for masturbation? Or capital punishment for attemptted suicide. That translation makes me think of self harm more so than any abuse directed at others.

[Hax]

Or capital punishment for attemptted suicide.

What.

That reminds me of Belgium, where up until the 19th century, attempts at suicide were punishable. By death.

[Lysimachos]

What.

That reminds me of Belgium, where up until the 19th century, attempts at suicide were punishable. By death.

I suppose the punishment was for the failure, not for the attempt :)

[Skullheadhq]

What.

That reminds me of Belgium, where up until the 19th century, attempts at suicide were punishable. By death.

As if the suspect cares...

[Cute Wolf]

Umm, speaking a bit off the way, did anyone know about the castration punishments used on Homosexuals in ancient Persia?

[Celtic_Punk]

Sounds like death for masturbation? Or capital punishment for attemptted suicide. That translation makes me think of self harm more so than any abuse directed at others.

I disagree with your two thoughts, but your last one sounds more like it. "young men who have abused their persons" sounds like self mutilation, or as the Zulu tribes do, "Scarification". It sounds like (for lack of a better word) "pagan rituals" of scarification were deemed barbaric and for a Roman to partake in such "barbarism" was a threat to Roman society in itself, lest the 'habit' spread and 'infect' other good Roman citizens.

[Lysimachos]

I disagree with your two thoughts, but your last one sounds more like it. "young men who have abused their persons" sounds like self mutilation, or as the Zulu tribes do, "Scarification". It sounds like (for lack of a better word) "pagan rituals" of scarification were deemed barbaric and for a Roman to partake in such "barbarism" was a threat to Roman society in itself, lest the 'habit' spread and 'infect' other good Roman citizens.

I rather think the reason is that the soldier in question, who injures himself, impairs his ability for action. Self-mutilation by military personal is still punishable today.

[QuintusSertorius]

Although we know, that there were laws that punished love between two free men by death, I would be really surprised if it was a punishment often used. We know about so many roman laws and custom (Like burying people alive etc.), which seemed to be only nominal things, which were never really done.

I think it's necessary to distinguish the harsh discipline in the legions (which was itself selectively applied) from whatever was actually done in society at large. Romans accepted from their earliest days as a Republic that a citizen gave up a lot of rights when serving their Republic.

[SaigonSaddler]

The burying alive of Celtic man and woman and Greek man and woman was recorded early in the Republic, usually after times of instability. An example quoted by Polybius is after the disaster at Cannae.

Execution for homosexual acts amongst active legions was stated in Goldsworthy's recent book 'The Fall of Carthage' and comes from contemporary sources.