- cross-posted to:
- roughromanmemes@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- roughromanmemes@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
Damn, looks like I should have taken all those blowjobs back when I was a bouncer. I guess not doing so is why I like wearing my wife’s panties so much
I like wearing your wife’s panties too.
I’ll let her know you enjoyed them
Adding more men to the situation increases the amount of masculinity.
I wonder if it was one of those things like having a jacked up pickup truck with lights all over it and loud exhaust. Yeah, some consider it “manly”, but most are like “Yeah, no…” but historians picked up the notes where people people liked getting blowjobs and now everyone in ancient Rome liked brojobs as a sign of manliness.
Well, it’s a bit of a thing about Roman sexuality not lining up to modern ideas of sexuality. Essentially, ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ were not widely recognized groupings. Instead, sexuality was largely figured on an ‘active’ vs. ‘passive’ dichotomy. Attraction to the same sex (at least for men - women were given less attention in this field) was not considered abnormal, nor was same-sex behavior. But which role you took in same-sex behavior was extremely important.
In addition, it’s widely recognized that Roman men used sexuality as an expression of their own virility and power. While they could go overboard and receive censure (moderation was highly valued amongst the Romans), in general, a Roman man who ‘conquered’ a non-Roman (or very certain Romans - actors were considered acceptable partners) man was thought to be exercising an entirely normal and manly behavior.
In that sense, it’s not so different than sexuality today (or at least, when I was a youth, I guess I’m pretty detached from ‘normal’ social circles anymore), wherein men are generally thought well of for high levels of sexual activity. The difference is that in that modern conception, only women would be praiseworthy for taking as a partner, whereas in the Roman conception, anyone you ‘top’ would be praiseworthy for taking as a partner (and conversely, anyone you ‘bottomed’ for, including a woman, would be emasculating).
We kinda already have modern examples. Pre-internet(wide spread), shows like Beverly Hills, 90210 gave foreigners the impression that everyone in the US acted that way. Yeah, sure, some Americans acted that way, but not many.
Only if the fellater was a young non Roman slave or prostitute. Otherwise it was gay as hell and socially frowned upon.
It was basically a form of pederasty.
Much broader than that. Having sex with a Roman youth was extremely frowned upon, but slaves, non-Romans, and Roman infames were all considered acceptable partners. Even having sex with a Roman citizen was not considered wrong for the man doing the dominating, but was considered extremely emasculating for the citizen being topped. Age was not so much a matter of censure as taste; the Romans preferred younger men (and yes, teen boys), but older men who cultivated a young look were considered just as acceptable.
The ultraconservative dictator Sulla, for example, retired to a Mediterranean island with his lifelong actor boytoy, Metrobius.
I mean, obviously, right?
I wouldn’t be surprised if historians will read the entirety of the internet and come to the same conclusion about people today.
If you don’t think so, suck my dick.
