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.
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.