True but not entire. Homophobia is still very common in cultures that were never touched by Abrahamic religion like The West was.
Abrahamic religions were always about increasing their numbers.
Should read:
Early societies around the world were always about increasing their numbers.
On OP’s point about homosexuality in Rome specifically, you’re thinking of the Greeks. Homosexuality in Rome was taboo, except as a form of domination between an owner and his slaves. E: an older man and a young man he had power over
Eh… yes and no. It’s worth acknowledging that “Roman” is a pretty big block of culture to talk about so broadly, but there were definitely more social rules to (older) males’ choice of male concubine than “to be the one who penetrates.” Public homosexual relationships almost always came from a place of power first and romance second (if at all).
On OP’s point about homosexuality in Rome specifically, you’re thinking of the Greeks. Homosexuality in Rome was taboo, except as a form of domination between an owner and his slaves. E: an older man and a young man he had power over
That’s Greek. The dynamic of an older man and a younger man of equal social status was taboo in Roman society, while it was acceptable in Greek society. For the Romans, there was a power dynamic involved, as the bottom was ‘submitting’ to the top, in the same way that a wife submitted to her husband. As such, it was considered unacceptable for anyone seeking political or military office as an offense against the duties inherent in citizenship (of maintaining one’s sovereignty and power over their body), but for those citizens not seeking political or military office it was largely irrelevant, and for noncitizens, it was considered acceptable.
For this reason, actors, who were excluded from political life despite being free citizens, were considered an acceptable sexual partner for Roman citizens.
True but not entire. Homophobia is still very common in cultures that were never touched by Abrahamic religion like The West was.
Should read:
On OP’s point about homosexuality in Rome specifically, you’re thinking of the Greeks. Homosexuality in Rome was taboo, except as a form of domination between
an owner and his slaves.E: an older man and a young man he had power overMore precisely, homosexual sex was seen in two distinct roles (“top” and “bottom”), and only the latter was taboo.
Eh… yes and no. It’s worth acknowledging that “Roman” is a pretty big block of culture to talk about so broadly, but there were definitely more social rules to (older) males’ choice of male concubine than “to be the one who penetrates.” Public homosexual relationships almost always came from a place of power first and romance second (if at all).
That’s Greek. The dynamic of an older man and a younger man of equal social status was taboo in Roman society, while it was acceptable in Greek society. For the Romans, there was a power dynamic involved, as the bottom was ‘submitting’ to the top, in the same way that a wife submitted to her husband. As such, it was considered unacceptable for anyone seeking political or military office as an offense against the duties inherent in citizenship (of maintaining one’s sovereignty and power over their body), but for those citizens not seeking political or military office it was largely irrelevant, and for noncitizens, it was considered acceptable.
For this reason, actors, who were excluded from political life despite being free citizens, were considered an acceptable sexual partner for Roman citizens.
Excluding actors from politics would be a nice idea. Sorry Minnesota.