Straightness as defined in the modern day, not necessarily. For the first ~200 years or so of Roman Emperors, only ~4/18 would’ve been ‘straight’ as we would recognize it.
(Claudius, definitely; Vespasian, probably; Antoninus Pius, probably; Lucius Verus, possibly. You can add Marcus Aurelius if you want, but there’s some speculation on his inclinations, if somewhat fringe)
Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula are all noted to have had male sexual favorites. Nero married men. Galba was noted, specifically, as liking older, ‘hard-bodied’ men. Otho took Nero’s castrated husband. Vitellius had male favorites. Titus was a party boy and total bicon. Domitian was noted to have a castrated male favorite. Nerva is suggested to have been gay. Trajan was overwhelmingly gay. Hadrian had the Senate deify his deceased boytoy. Commodus had male favorites.
I mean, unless one is thinking that the Emperors were drawn from some sort of Biologically Bisexual Elite™, it would probably be not dissimilar, in terms of attraction if not necessarily opportunity to sample all the boytoys one wishes, for random people.
I mean the elite often do act different to the common people and their behaviour was sometimes very scandalous, which is why it was so widely written about
Elite act differently from the common people generally for increased ability to act on their wishes. In a society where the elite is not a closed cultural caste, common people and elite generally share tastes, in broad terms, even if fashions and fads differ.
It’s an interesting idea that the people back then would’ve been different to people now on their sexual preference generally. If being gay, bi or straight is biological then something would probably have had to change
It’s one of those things where you have a mixture of biological and cultural factors at play. I always hear it best compared to taste - some people will never like fish sauce, no matter how many times or how many ways or how long they’ve tried it. You can raise some people on fish sauce, and they will just always hate it. Conversely, some people will always love fish sauce, no matter how reviled it is by their society.
But on the other hand, most people who are raised in a society which puts a high value on fish sauce will like or tolerate it. Our tastes are shaped by our environments and upbringing.
Sexuality, I imagine, is much the same. Some people will always be straight or gay, no matter how many alluring statues of naked men you put alongside your nice columns. But most people will probably find beautiful what their society finds beautiful - in societies which glorify male beauty (regardless of whether they formally approve of homosexuality), you’ll likely find more gay and bisexual men.
Expectation of at least elites being into men too could’ve played in that too I guess, since they wanted to imitate the Greeks who were very much into that. Cultural factors could be pushing it that way too.
While some, such as Hadrian (who was nicknamed, somewhat derogatorily, ‘Graeculus’ - ‘Little Greek’ - because of his love of Hellenic culture), may have been pushed in such a direction, in general Romans envisioned homosexuality differently from Hellenic traditions of homosexuality.
In the Hellenic tradition, it was that of a ‘lover’ and ‘beloved’, typically older and younger, respectively, wherein the ‘lover’ would take a mentor position to the ‘beloved’, and the relationship would pass as the ‘beloved’ became older and more mature.
In the Roman tradition, attachment to the bottom from the top was seen as somewhat Greek and foreign - at best, the bottom was in the position of a dependent, such as a client - at worst, that of a slave (often literally a slave, since slaves were considered perfectly acceptable targets for Roman sexual urges). A Roman was never (ideally) to be the bottom, regardless of youth or who their ‘lover’ was. Though by the late 1st century AD, an envisioning of same-sex relationships in the same vein of marriage, complete with marriage ceremonies, had become popular, even this implicitly put one partner in a permanently subordinate position (that of the wife).
While Roman and Greek elite culture increasingly merged as time wore on, it’s not until the 3rd century AD that this process really kicks into high gear. In the first two centuries AD, Roman elite culture remained predominantly distinct from Greek elite culture, and even disdainful of it.
Straightness as defined in the modern day, not necessarily. For the first ~200 years or so of Roman Emperors, only ~4/18 would’ve been ‘straight’ as we would recognize it.
(Claudius, definitely; Vespasian, probably; Antoninus Pius, probably; Lucius Verus, possibly. You can add Marcus Aurelius if you want, but there’s some speculation on his inclinations, if somewhat fringe)
Augustus, Tiberius, and Caligula are all noted to have had male sexual favorites. Nero married men. Galba was noted, specifically, as liking older, ‘hard-bodied’ men. Otho took Nero’s castrated husband. Vitellius had male favorites. Titus was a party boy and total bicon. Domitian was noted to have a castrated male favorite. Nerva is suggested to have been gay. Trajan was overwhelmingly gay. Hadrian had the Senate deify his deceased boytoy. Commodus had male favorites.
I was thinking more about when you consider random people
I mean, unless one is thinking that the Emperors were drawn from some sort of Biologically Bisexual Elite™, it would probably be not dissimilar, in terms of attraction if not necessarily opportunity to sample all the boytoys one wishes, for random people.
I mean the elite often do act different to the common people and their behaviour was sometimes very scandalous, which is why it was so widely written about
Elite act differently from the common people generally for increased ability to act on their wishes. In a society where the elite is not a closed cultural caste, common people and elite generally share tastes, in broad terms, even if fashions and fads differ.
It’s an interesting idea that the people back then would’ve been different to people now on their sexual preference generally. If being gay, bi or straight is biological then something would probably have had to change
It’s one of those things where you have a mixture of biological and cultural factors at play. I always hear it best compared to taste - some people will never like fish sauce, no matter how many times or how many ways or how long they’ve tried it. You can raise some people on fish sauce, and they will just always hate it. Conversely, some people will always love fish sauce, no matter how reviled it is by their society.
But on the other hand, most people who are raised in a society which puts a high value on fish sauce will like or tolerate it. Our tastes are shaped by our environments and upbringing.
Sexuality, I imagine, is much the same. Some people will always be straight or gay, no matter how many alluring statues of naked men you put alongside your nice columns. But most people will probably find beautiful what their society finds beautiful - in societies which glorify male beauty (regardless of whether they formally approve of homosexuality), you’ll likely find more gay and bisexual men.
Expectation of at least elites being into men too could’ve played in that too I guess, since they wanted to imitate the Greeks who were very much into that. Cultural factors could be pushing it that way too.
While some, such as Hadrian (who was nicknamed, somewhat derogatorily, ‘Graeculus’ - ‘Little Greek’ - because of his love of Hellenic culture), may have been pushed in such a direction, in general Romans envisioned homosexuality differently from Hellenic traditions of homosexuality.
In the Hellenic tradition, it was that of a ‘lover’ and ‘beloved’, typically older and younger, respectively, wherein the ‘lover’ would take a mentor position to the ‘beloved’, and the relationship would pass as the ‘beloved’ became older and more mature.
In the Roman tradition, attachment to the bottom from the top was seen as somewhat Greek and foreign - at best, the bottom was in the position of a dependent, such as a client - at worst, that of a slave (often literally a slave, since slaves were considered perfectly acceptable targets for Roman sexual urges). A Roman was never (ideally) to be the bottom, regardless of youth or who their ‘lover’ was. Though by the late 1st century AD, an envisioning of same-sex relationships in the same vein of marriage, complete with marriage ceremonies, had become popular, even this implicitly put one partner in a permanently subordinate position (that of the wife).
While Roman and Greek elite culture increasingly merged as time wore on, it’s not until the 3rd century AD that this process really kicks into high gear. In the first two centuries AD, Roman elite culture remained predominantly distinct from Greek elite culture, and even disdainful of it.