Talk:Homosexuality in ancient Rome

message: One structural problem with this article is that there is a bit of orientalism going on here in even trying to apply the word "homosexual" to Roman culture.  The Romans themselves were quite clear in drawing a bright line between, for example, male irrumators and fellators.  One role was considered (in broader society) to be slightly distasteful and embarrassing, while the other role was considered to be scandalous and a sign of a fundamental moral failing.  That we in the 21st century conflate or group both of these roles under the label "homosexual" or 'bisexual" is no excuse for not accurately presenting the Roman view of them.  The article sort of tries to touch on this in its topic headings, but the text itself muddies the issues.  I'll see if I can find some academic discussion of this and clean things up. Nandesuka (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Homosexuality" as a 21st century projection on ancient Roman values considered harmful 

message: Nothing in the Nero article suggests that he ever married a male.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.192.96 (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Suetonius, Nero XXVIII: "[Nero] castrated the boy Sporus and actually tried to make a woman of him; and he married him with all the usual ceremonies, including a dowry and a bridal veil, took him to his house attended by a great throng, and treated him as his wife. And the witty jest that someone made is still current, that it would have been well for the world if Nero's father Domitius had had that kind of wife. This Sporus, decked out with the finery of the empresses and riding in a litter, he took with him to the assizes and marts of Greece, and later at Rome through the Street of the Images, fondly kissing him from time to time." --Jere7my (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

text: To the unsigned comment above: yes, there are many omissions in the article still. No Hadrian and Antinous, for instance. There should probably be a whole section specifically on the emperors, who are a special case. I'm willing to try to address these as time permits. Thanks for the reminder. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nero 

message: Why don't you write about "concubinus(concubini)" ?                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I suppose Nandesuka a,k.a. infamous "ARASHI" could not understand the term.
124.255.12.224 (talk) 07:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: concubinus(concubini)

message: The statement in the article appears to be blatantly incorrect; Maximus gives an account of one Roman (Gaius Lusius) who was killed simply for requesting sexual favours from another Roman, and states that this killing (which we might consider murder) was perfectly justified and considered acceptable.  There's nothing about excess or abuse in this case; it was simply homosexual propositioning.  The Jade Knight (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valerius Maximus 

message: The side of the Warren Cup used for this article is the so-called "Greek" side; see Greek love#Ancient Rome. The cup's authenticity has been cast in doubt; this doesn't matter so much in the Greek love article, which is about the reception of classical models anyway, but it may matter here. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warren Cup and balance 

message: Isn't it somewhat problematic that the most important book on Homosexuality in ancient Rome isn't actually cited as a source for this article? I refer to Craig Williams, Roman Homosexuality. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Williams 

message: This text fragment needs fixing by someone knowledgeable please
"Sextus Empiricus, who asserted that άρρενομιζία was outlawed in Rome, Athens and Cyprian."
"άρρενομιζία" is not previously explained and Google Translate doesn't help,  Wikipedia search shows it's used precicely once in English Wikipedia, on this page & the only page that Google search found for it that wasn't from the wikipedia text was in the greek text of  Julianis imperatoris Opera quae supersunt omnia et sancti Cyrilli. Possibly it's the "arsenokoites" used later, but it would help if this was clarified.
What does "Cyprian" refer to. The disambiguation page it links to doesn't help. Is it meant to be Cyprus?
Thanks Kiore (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Your concerns are well founded. As I pointed out above, the article doesn't cite the major book in English on the subject, Craig Williams' Roman Homosexuality. I don't mean to complain and not contribute, but overhauling the article would require a substantial investment of time. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with understanding sentence in lead section 

message: I spent several months refurbishing Sexuality in ancient Rome, and never once in the many sources cited there did I encounter this term arsenokoites, which is from the New Testament. Although the NT originates in the Roman world, placing discussion of the word in the intro seems grossly undue, as does the prominence of a Greek term, rather than any Latin, in the first paragraph.  The Gibbon quote says more about later attitudes toward homosexuality than it does about the Romans. I also don't understand the organization of the article. I see that the article hasn't been edited for a few months, and I just wondered whether I'd be stepping on any toes if I did a complete overhaul. Interested editors can look at Sexuality in ancient Rome to see the kind of thing I have in mind (though that article is naturally quite massive, since it has to encompass so much), and the sources I'd be using. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've started a draft on a user page and welcome feedback. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I proceeded with this. There were some legitimate specific examples that I've probably inadvertently deleted; please feel free to locate those and restore them within the new structure. In particular, I hope to develop the "Roles", with more detailed exploration of terms such as cinaedus and pathicus. There will also be a section on "Pederasty in ancient Rome," currently covered mainly at Greek love#Ancient Rome. Some of the new material here may repeat too much from Sexuality in ancient Rome; I hope to differentiate these passages more in future. Cynwolfe (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  arsenokoites 

message: After a brief discussion, I have removed this addition which picked Eerdmans' viewpoint that an artist in the 21st century creating the Warren cup would be put in jail for creating indecent pornographic art with minors. There is a danger of giving inappropriate and off topic weight to poorly supported editorials, such as Eerdmans, and dubious moralizing. It seems to me highly anachronistic to describe the artwork as indecent or paedophile in nature and ignores the issue of how youth was interpreted or any comprehension of how households worked in the ancient world, including the position of slaves. If we include the "21st century view" then there is as strong a case for including the 20th century or 19th century viewpoints (for which many sources exist expounding on the decadence of the ancient world), and even less helpfully, one would have to define pederasty and paedophilia in those periods and in alternative legislations in different countries which defined minors and pederasty in many different ways. There is a danger of turning this article specifically about homosexuality in ancient Rome into a general exposition on pederasty which I suggest is to be avoided as being massively off-topic and covered adequately in more relevant articles. --Fæ (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, Eerdmans is the publisher, not the author. In pronouncing on extremely difficult topics, it's usually best to be as accurate as possible. Second, I don't object to deleting the sentence, and I recognize the risks you're trying to express. But I might suggest that you calm down a little, as here and on my talk page you imply that I lack an adequate understanding of ancient Roman culture. In general, ancient societies had rites of passage to mark the end of childhood and the beginning of sexual majority.  I suggest that you read Sexuality in ancient Rome#Sexuality and children and Lex Scantinia to gain some additional familiarity with Roman views on sex with minors. In fact they didn't think it was OK. They thought it was something they should protect their own children from. This particular form of the exploitation of slaves is just one example of how the Romans, who are so careful to define the integrity and rights of citizens, excuse themselves from treating slaves as human beings. (Some Romans, such as Seneca, criticize the inhumane treatment of slaves.) Consequently, some scholars on Roman sexuality do indeed take the view that the puer delicatus was an outlet for pedophilia, if the child was prepubescent or "underage" by the Romans' own definition. The boy on the "Roman" side of the Warren Cup appears in the eyes of any scholar I've read to at least push the lower limits of "youth." Cynwolfe (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 21st century 

message: I'm pasting here some material from Greek love as it is better suited here or in other related articles and it is clogging the works over there. I'll almost certainly transfer some more material here later. Please use it here where it belongs. McOoee (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Material from Greek love 

message: I find it curious that a section purporting to be about female-female erotics should so studiously avoid the most important books on the subject, namely the following:
* Boehringer, Sandra. L'Homosexualité féminine dans l'Antiquité grecque et romaine. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2007.
* Rabinowitz, Nancy Sorkin, and Lisa Auanger, eds. Among Women: From the Homosocial to the Homoerotic in the Ancient World. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002.
* Martos Montiel, Juan Francisco. Desde Lesbos con amor: homosexualidad femenina en la antigüedad. Madrid: Ediciones Clásicas, 1996. 
Boehringer's study is by far the best ever written on the matter. Instead, we get references to the highly controversial Bernadette Brooten, who isn't a classicist, and whose Love Between Women has been largely rejected, excoriated, or ignored by specialists with regard to its more unique, unusual, or outdated claims. This approach is unhelpful. (Of course, citing Amy Richlin in this context is only somewhat better.) Antinoos69 (talk) 07:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Female-female sexuality" section, revisited 

message: This article exhibits multiple problems in its use of sources: 
# The article should use secondary sources written by classicists and historians of ancient Greece and Rome who actually specialize in same-sex sex in Antiquity, especially Rome. The speculations of scholars specializing in other areas should not be of concern. Even classicists specializing in Greek and Roman "sexuality" more generally constitute a largely disjoint group from that specializing in same-sex sex. They generally don't specialize in the subjects addressed by this article. Unfortunately, the article uses far too many sources by these nonspecialists, with very predictable results, while ignoring or underutilizing far too many sources by specialists. 
# The article should focus on the consensus of specialists, clearly designating any minority or dissenting views mentioned precisely as such. Brooten (not even a classicist or historian of ancient Greece and Rome) and Richlin fall into this latter group.
# This article cites primary sources directly in support of some of its claims, seemingly independently of interpretation by secondary sources. This is a clear, straightforward, and indisputable violation of Wiki policies on the use of primary sources and "original research," such as they are. It is unhelpful that some instances involve(d) misinterpretations of those primary sources. Think what you will about these Wiki policies—and I've been known to point out that secondary sources don't magically interpret themselves, though mostly in vain—but they are what they are, nonetheless. (Nor will it help to refer to the critical and historical importance of primary sources to classics. Primary sources are central to all disciplines. Classics is in no way unique in this regard, yet Wiki policies are what they are.)
# I've also noted at least some instances when secondary sources are inaccurately cited, whether due to misinterpretation or to inaccurate or dubious edition/page citation. Antinoos69 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with sources 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Support The term h*mosexual is considered a slur and a violent term by many LGBT+ people, whose history this article is trying to illuminate.  Thus, it would be disrespectful to continue to refer to their history as h*mosexual history, when many LGBT+ people have made it clear they do not want to be referred to as such.  Furthermore, not all of the history described on this page falls under gay sexuality.  Much of it falls under the other parts of the LGBT umbrella, thus making it more appropriate for the page to be rechristened "LGBT+ Identity in ancient Rome". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faunadolls (talk • contribs) 01:38, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: AjaxSmack, I didn't quite understand what you meant by "I hope most Wikipedia readers not so homophobic as to oppose 'homosexual' in an article title." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I have been WP:BOLD and WP:SPLIT some material on biological variations, previously in a section on 'Gender Identity', into a new article on Intersex in history. In the context of that new article, other contemporaneous material on Favorinus, regarded as a "eunuch by birth", becomes relevant, as well as later Canon Law and medical approaches towards intersex people, and other material on "eunuchs by birth". I appreciate that this is bold, but the fit of the material here and the primary focus and length of this article were factors, as well as the broader scope of the material on the new page. Trankuility (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Trankuility, considering that what you split does belong in this article, I can't agree to you removing all of that material. You should have downsized the section and left a hatnote at the top of the section pointing to the article you created. There is no valid reason to exclude intersex history from this article when it absolutely belongs in discussions of homosexuality in ancient Rome. The role of intersex people in ancient times is commonly discussed among scholars when commenting on homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome. Right now, this article is missing a significant aspect because you removed the intersex piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

text: You are free to add back material if you wish, however, there is no mention of intersex anywhere else in the article including the lede so relevance is undetermined. I am responding to what is actually in the article, not what might be commonly discussed but not verifiable in the article. Trankuility (talk) 19:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The text you removed was clearly discussing intersex people. That's why you moved it to the Intersex in history article. Of course, most intersex people these days object to the term hermaphrodite, but it was the term commonly used to describe intersex people. And intersex people are clearly relevant to the topic of homosexuality in ancient Greece and Rome. Whether or not such material is in the lead, it belongs in this article. This edit is better. Thank you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:SPLIT]] material on hermaphroditism to [[Intersex in history]] 

message: User:Antinoos69 removed a pssage of my authorship where it was said that the Satyricon treats homosexual affairs between free adult men with some sympathy. The passage had as a reference this article, authored by Rabun Taylor, where the following is said:
:Of all the surviving literature from the Roman period, only Petronius's Satyricon offers a sympathetic view of homosexual relationships between coevals.
The author himself uses as a reference for this passage two academic works, "Homosexuality in the Satyricon" by T. Wade Richardson, published in 1984 on  Classica et Mediaevalia, and Craig Williams's 1992 dissertation "Homosexuality and the Roman Man".
Further in his article, Taylor writes the following, based on Williams's text:
:The view from the inside is best presented in the Satyricon. Craig Williams's reading of the novel reveals an environment where freeborn men have genuine relationships in which they trade active and passive roles without shame...
User:Antinoos69 warns me not to cite works by scholars who express "minority opinions". But as far as I know, a census of classical scholars on adult homosexuality in the Satyricon' has never been conducted so that Wiki editors know which is the majority or the minority view. Has any published work actually denied that adult homosexuality is portrayed in that book? Can User:Antinoos69 actually cite us one?
In any case, I made use of a reliable source, and as far as I care, that's what should matter to fellow editors.Rafe87 (talk) 03:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition, reliably sourced passages shouldn't be removed based only on certain editors' inability to remember the entire work under discussion.Rafe87 (talk) 03:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

text: You know perfectly well that Taylor represents a minority view on Roman male-male sex, generally, as in the article you cite, “subculture” and all. And here’s the problem with using scholars representing such minority views and the reason I insisted you present specific page references, which you failed to do. Williams speaks in terms of “[t]he difference in their ages,” which would typically recall the traditional roles of amator (lover) and puer (boy), whereas Taylor mischaracterizes all this as concerning “freeborn men” (Taylor 327–28)—and, earlier, “coevals” (320)—which then morphs into your “freeborn adult men.” That’s simply an amateurish and very misleading and counterproductive mess. So my memory actually served me very well. You’ll have to get rid of the highly unreliable and minority-view Taylor and instead speak in terms of a majority-view scholar like Williams, or just drop the subject entirely—unless, of course, you wish to detail how several different scholars represent this matter, which would seem to give the subject undue weight. Williams may very well have had something to say on the matter in his standard reference, Roman Homosexuality, either edition. I suggest you start there, if you wish to pursue the subject. Antinoos69 (talk) 06:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Adult homosexuality in the ''Satyricon''

message: In the linked article on Trebonius, the man he killed for attempting to rape him is repeatedly referred to "Gaius Lusius" without a "c", but here repeatedly as "Gaius Luscius". I've no idea which is correct, but the spelling with a "c" is somewhat comical, since the name could be "translated" as "gay and luscious". Did someone slip this in as a joke, I wonder?89.212.50.177 (talk) 11:06, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: https://archive.org/details/quaesupersuntomn02plut/page/n835 and http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Plutarch/Lives/Marius*.html#14 have (Caius) "Lusius". wikt:Luscius means something else, cf. Luscia (gens). Nemo 12:29, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gaius Luscius/Lusius?