I have been watching Spartacus recently and did the Romans really have (for the want of a better term) such losse morals?
I mean
a guy getting sucked by a slavegirl while talking to his wife, who is getting fingered
In HBO’s Rome you saw on many occasions two characters interacting where one was enjoying intercourse, and it is unremarkable to them, no more remarkable than having coffee and talking today.
Both are late Republic period, BTW.
I don’t know the scene you’re talking about in Rome, but if slaves were watching they weren’t considered peers, and if it was an orgy, then it was an orgy. In the series Octavian gets hypermoral near the end, and some emperors tried to create moral standard. Caligula and Elagabalus not so much.
Adultery was especially looked down upon, especially to the woman involved. Homosexuality was more of a non-issue than today.
Wikipedia’s page although note the disclaimers.
This is not the Spartacus I remember watching.
Why don’t you put them together with the others and ask “which one of you is Spartacus”?
Of course it’s not ancient Roman sexual mores. It’s modern American sexual mores. They make the shows that people want to watch, and we want to watch a lot of sex.
What, your appetites don’t include snails and oysters?
In the 1960 version the slave/tutor (Tony Curtis) keeps it on the down low.
Re the porny Spartacus I assume the OP is talking about this
I’m not sure what’s wrong with getting sucked off while you talk to your wife. If she’s OK with it it isn’t really immoral. But yeah, you should stop watching Blood and Sand and just go rewatch Rome.
The Rome scene is specifically with a slave, so ok thank. And yes Spartacus Blood and Sand is what I am talking about. Both shows are set during the late republic era. That is the time I am talking about.
One thing Romans did love to do is accuse each other of rampant immorality, so we have lots of primary sources with tales of pretty serious debauchery. This does seem to suggest that the Romans considered these sorts of behaviors immoral, but it also suggests that those same behaviors were around at least enough for people to think of accusing someone else of them.
Romans valued self-control and certainly celebrated the ideal of personal restraint, including sexual restraint. On the other hand, there were a lot of very wealthy people at a time when life was very cheap. My impression is that most scholars would say that there was a great deal of hedonistic behavior at some times, in some places, by some people, but that those behaviors were largely considered hedonistic at the time.
The shift in mores regarding things like blood sports is really much more dramatic.
One thing this post has taught me: Even if they’re in a spoiler box the words will still appear on the hover-over pop-up preview in the thread view (if there aren’t many words before the spoiler box in the post)!
Based on this thread, I haven’t learned much about Roman sexual mores, but I have determinted that I should be watching this show…
Is it very wrong that the first time I read this sentence, given the context, I thought ‘the Romans were into bondage?’ ? :o
Tacitus bitches about this in his ethnography of Germany. I recall one passage where he notes that Germans don’t consider it “modern” or “stylish” to seduce or be seduced.
Right, but he’s saying that approvingly, right? “The Germans are more pure, more manly, unlike us Romans in these degenerate modern times.”
I recall reading something once that said the Romans considered it “bad taste” to have sex with slaves. Of course, that probably did ot stop them…
Also remember there was no such thing as privacy. 20th-century N. America has this notion that earlier societies functioned like theirs, where you could drive ito a garage with tinted windows in the car; live in apartments or suburban houses with curtains drawn, where nobody could see you come and go and nobody knew your business or who or how many people lived there.
In earlier times, servants did everything. You did not “lock up the house and leave for a few days” or else you returned to find yourself robbed blind. Any decent estate needed tending and guards. Cleanup, laundry, cooking, transport, house maintenance - there were not power tools and labour savcing gadgets. Food rarely kept before refrigerators and rat-proof contianers.
All work required servants, usually slaves, who happily gossiped. Worse than a modern small town, everyone knew everyone else’s business, but slaves’ word was worth nothing so everything was kept quiet with a nudge-nudge-wink-wink, known but not mentioned. Not to mention people who WANTED the dirt would bribe slaves to tell them the real story… Of course, like a small town, inferences could be turned into “facts” with sufficient retelling.
History for centuries has been full of societies where once they could afford it, people went wild. How “publicly” tolerated depended on the number of like-minded hedonistic rich, but inside a family - it’s no surprise how wild things could get, I’m sure. For example - The same Victorian England where mothers saw/imagined absolutely nothing wrong with kindly Charles Dodgson photographing their young girls nude, also had Oscar WIlde and his buddies having wild sex parties with adolescent boys for hire.
He he. I could see Romans coming out with statements like that today.
Yeah, I sometimes think historians have too often gullibly accepted ancient political smears as truth.
Some emperors got smeared after they died, or even damnatio memoriae. Historians may have accepted hearsay as you say, especially when they are writing decades after the fact. In addition, they could have a personal or social grudge against the individual or family. Suetonius and others seemed to revel in negative aspects of certain emperors and their courts and positive aspects of others. Some weird sex acts only have one source talking about them.
Certainly not as we think of it.
See this photo of a row of toilets in the public latrine at Ostia, the port city of Rome. Nothing at all in the way of privacy there!
