[Teaser] Rome's Gay Emperors

We are ending the month of June and Pride with an exclusive sneak peak at our upcoming documentary on Rome's Gay Emperors.

Societal ideas regarding sexuality have long been evolving over the course of human history. In our own time we bear witness to how just a few generations can affect the changing of the tides. Thus, it should be no surprise that millennia ago, during the age of antiquity, things were very different for our ancestors. Today I’d like to explore this fascinating topic through the lens of the most powerful figures of their time; lets meet Rome’s Gay Emperors.

Roman Sexuality

But before we begin, it will be helpful to speak generally on Roman ideas regarding sexuality. This can be derived from a variety of sources such as surviving literature and depictions across different forms of material culture. As with any study of the past we are dealing with only a partial data set from which to begin drawing tentative conclusions. Levels of uncertainty and potential bias are always high and we should certainly keep this in mind. That being said, we can tease out some general concepts. To this end, two main points stand out the most. One, the Romans did not primarily categorize sexuality by gender and Two, they did not entwine concepts of love and marriage.

Let’s address the first point. Rather than looking primarily at a dichotomy of gender, Romans looked at a dichotomy of dominance. Their society was patriarchal and the expectation for its free males was that they maintain their status by establishing their virtus ("manliness"), which in this context refers to their sexual purity. Thus same-sex relations were permissible but only so long as the socially superior male was the active, dominant participant. Between two partners of equivalent status this would cause a problem for at least one member. Therefore it seems that partners of same-sex relations tended to be of different statuses. Generally a free adult male could be with a slave, a youth, or a social infamis such as an entertainer or prostitute without raising any eyebrows. If however they were found to be in the passive or submissive role THAT would be of concern and the level of shame would vary based on the perceived shamefulness of different sex acts. I should note that the same concern could also be raised if a male was passive or submissive in a heterosexual relationship. Admittedly things become more nebulous when we try to understand sexual mores for the rarely documented lower classes or for women.

As for our second point, the Romans seem to have separated the ideas of marriage and love. The former served a social function of establishing inter-family relations and generating children while the latter was a means to pursue personal passions. Both could take place in parallel. A Roman could therefore have sex with his wife one night and a male partner the next without breaking any social mores. The same actions would draw different reactions in the modern era.

There is much more we can discuss regarding these topics but for now I think we’ve sufficiently re-framed the conversation. Now let’s see how things played out in real life by taking a look at examples of Rome’s Gay Emperors.