Reading Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity
Extremely fascinating! The author makes the argument, compelling in light of the evidence presented, that the Romans did not see male-male homosexuality as foreign or Greek, and, in fact, that native traditions of Roman homosexuality were more wide-ranging in their tastes for the male body than Greek traditions.
The presentation of evidence from Roman literature and poetry, as well as nuances of individual Latin terms without Greek equivalents, presents a view of Roman homosexuality which, while maintaining the accepted interpretation of Roman sexuality as 'penetration-oriented', also suggests considerable acknowledgement of attraction towards older men which is largely absent in Greek literature, and interest in the 'passive' role in male-male sex which scholars of Roman sexuality have marginalized as jesting rather than note the implications of interest and audience comprehension that those very jests suggest.
I, for one, have noted before when vomiting Roman trivia unprompted at people that the Emperor Galba is the only historical Roman figure specifically noted to have preferred older men (though I also pair this with the fact that the dictator Sulla had a lifelong boytoy in the form of the actor Metrobius). In terms of an explicit statement in the literature, this appears to be true - however, the fact that I'm a filthy monoglot who only reads in English robbed me of the rich context of the numerous Latin terms for prostitutes, with 'exoleti' specifically referring to older male prostitutes who serviced primarily men, and that a number of Emperors are noted as 'enjoying' their services.
The point is also made that the Roman condemnations of 'Greekness' in sexual behavior is in reference to immoderacy and excessive attachment to female partners as well as males; the condemnation of 'Greek love' is not gendered, as is often thought, but in reference to the supposed tendency of Greeks to let emotion and affection rule their decisions instead of DUTY like a GOOD HONEST ROMAN.
This may seem like a minor detail, and I suppose it is - to change the view of Roman homosexuality from 'eagerly accepted as a foreign import, but sometimes mocked' to 'wholly native, and sentimentality mocked as foreign' - but considering the currency that the idea has, and the fact that I certainly believed as much, has me reeling to reconsider it.