Talk:Sexuality in ancient Rome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Move to move :>
I move to move the article under Sexuality in Ancient Rome, as it looks like that's the standard name for history and gender courses offered in the articles cited. Project2501a 19:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --LambiamTalk 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: this process isn't really necessary. Just wait until the AfD is closed (which, since I just withdrew my nomination, it probably will be quickly) and then just move the article. Because it's Wikipedia convention, there's no real reason to vote on it. - CheNuevara 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Support, but we wanted to wait until the AFD is over before we do anything. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
This was listed for deletion and kept. --SPUI (T - C) 18:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Expansion
Beyond the penetration dichotomy of ancient roman sexuality, I'd like to see the article expanded to explore the Ancient Roman's evolving views of sexuality, its basis and justifications, and perhaps discuss additionally, meretrix, and prostibulae. Ember 2199 23:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, this could clearly be expanded, I think for instance Romans lacked the concept of sex as sin, as it was a pre-christian religion. (Cf. erotic art in Pompeii and Herculaneum. Also, oral sex allegedly was considered more dirty than anal sex, since the mouth was defiled. Many things like that could be covered. 惑乱 分からん 00:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I heard Roman men had sex with young boys and this was commonplace? Even with marriage? I am very curious about this. Osirisx11 13:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Also sex during the day, except for married couples, was considered obscene. And women, even prostitutes, tended to wear brassieres during sex.
- There's already an article about pederasty, but that mainly seemed to be a Greek thing. 惑乱 分からん 17:22, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
There's Homosexuality in Ancient Rome, which should really be connected better. --Kizor 19:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Why not merge them? - CheNuevara 19:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- I guess that makes sense, since the article is quite homonormative already as it is... =S 惑乱 分からん 23:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Article needs a rewrite
If you look up erotic art in pompeii, the pictures and assertions on that page seem to conflict a bit with the broad generalities made on this page. I'm sure there was more diversity in an empire as long-lasting and large in size as Rome than this page admits...72.78.159.55 21:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Article needs a new title
This article is NOT about sexuality in ancient Rome, and a statement such as "men considered women useful only for reproduction" is baloney. (Anyone read Catullus?) This is an article about homosexuality in ancient Rome, and needs to be retitled to reflect that. PiCo 14:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Or, you know, you could expand the article, and change the statement you disagree with. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] This article only focuses on Roman homosexuality
this article should either be retitled as "homosexuality and bisexuality in ancient Rome" or greatly expanded to include much more on Roman heterosexuality and other Roman sexual practices, perhaps such as masturbation, zoophilia, pedophilia, and attitudes toward sexuality among slaves, the young, and the old. how did Romans feel about their unmarried daughters having sex? before the Christians, were there any Roman movements advocating monkish chastity? on the question of homosexuality, how far did educated Roman agree with Plato’s call in the Symposium and the Phaedrus for sublimating homosexual desire and his condemnation of males having sex with each other?
it seems as this article, like many here on sexuality, has been taken over by homosexuals and other queers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.154.10 (talk) 09:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)