Homosexuality in ancient Rome often differs markedly from the contemporary West. Latin lacks words that would precisely translate " homosexual " and " heterosexual ". Roman society was patriarchal , and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty libertas and the right to rule both himself and his household familia. The conquest mentality and "cult of virility" shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role.
Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes , and entertainers , whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia , so they were excluded from the normal protections afforded to a citizen even if they were technically free.
Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome. Same-sex relations among women are far less documented [ 2 ] and, if Roman writers are to be trusted, female homoeroticism may have been very rare, to the point that Ovid , in the Augustine era describes it as "unheard-of". During the Republic , a Roman citizen's political liberty libertas was defined in part by the right to preserve his body from physical compulsion, including both corporal punishment and sexual abuse.
Williams has noted, "the prime directive of masculine sexual behavior for Romans". It was socially acceptable for a freeborn Roman man to want sex with both female and male partners, as long as he took the penetrative role. Both women and young men were considered normal objects of desire, but outside marriage a man was supposed to act on his desires with only slaves, prostitutes who were often slaves , and the infames.
Gender did not determine whether a sexual partner was acceptable, as long as a man's enjoyment did not encroach on another man's integrity. It was immoral to have sex with another freeborn man's wife, his marriageable daughter, his underage son, or with the man himself; sexual use of another man's slave was subject to the owner's permission. Lack of self-control, including in managing one's sex life , indicated that a man was incapable of governing others; too much indulgence in "low sensual pleasure" threatened to erode the elite male's identity as a cultured person.
