Sexual freedom in the Roman world

Roman society was known to be strongly patriacal where children were legally "property" of their parents as long as they were alive. Most of the marriages of the upper classes seemed to have been arranged.

It depended I think, the late republic was v promiscous, in opposition to the early one, after Augustus it began to reduce.

It depended on a number of factors - what level of society you were born at, what part of the Republic/Empire you lived in, chronologically what time you were born in. Roman women of the upper and middle classes were expected to behave themselves and be good mothers, this was especially the case early on when we read of Lucretia killing herself after the shame of having been raped by Tarquinus Sextus.

For marriages of the well-to-do, or those where the arrangement included a significant economic exchange, it was considered important the wife be well behaved. Financial as well as moral considerations rested on it. However, as the Roman state became wealthier and its urban population increased, people increasingly found the time and money to throw very indulgent parties. Vomitoria, where people could vomit after having gorged themselves on party food, is an example of this. And a good deal of sex was to be had by the happy party goers on top of the generous wine and food.

Husbands could generally expect a good deal more liberty. Slaves (which were fairly rare before the 3rd century BC) were the property of the pater familias and he could have sex with them as he wished.

The Emperors themselves were probably among the most sexually active and varied in their tastes. Suetonius notes that all but one of the first 12 (Claudius) had both male and female lovers. But then, as Mel Brooks says, "It's good to be the King" - they generally had license to do as they pleased.

For the ordinary people, it was different. The Greek world was very open to arrangement of pederasty, most Romans didn't mind the practice in the Late Republic and pre-Christian Empire periods. It was only the most conservative elements of Roman society which viewed the practice as both effeminate and insidiously foreign - a view of the Greeks which became mainstream amongst the Christian west in the Middle Ages for partly the Greek acceptance of the sexual practice.

Sex was an industry in ancient Rome, and indulged in with such a variety which would not be seen again in Europe until early Renaissance Venice. The brothels offered a variety of women of different cultures, specialising in particular acts of sex - or able to perform erotic dances instead. Though these tended to be establishments which were available in the larger port cities and the major cities of the empire.

Sex also played a role in religious festivals. The Saturnalia saw scantily dressed young men run through the streets slightly whipping the young women to bestow upon them fertility. The Bachannalia allowed those who worshipped the god of wine to also engage in orgiastic rituals.

There is also evidence showing the most Roman and Egyptian plebians did not have any marriage ceremony. A man and a woman would start going out together and then live together. When the relationship terminated, they'd separate and live with someone else. Sounds very familiar, but was it really the case?

Originally posted by dexippus The actual motives of the Imperial marraige ban remain vague. A very thorough book by Sarah Phang provides a comprehensive overview of all the evidence pertaining to Roman soldiers, and comes to the conclusion that the ban may have been largely motivated by the desire to keep soldiers away from the percieved corrupting effects of women and the comforts they could provide. It does not seem likely to me that the ban was designed to keep women away from soldier's property, as soldiers, even those under patriapotestas, could easily dispose of their property to whomever they wished, including through convenient verbal wills made in procinctu. There also exists the possibility that Augustus, raising a new professional army that was to replace to politicized mobs of the civil wars, wanted an un-married soldiery free from any bonds, matrimonial or otherwise, to Italy and the patronage of any Roman barons who might challenge his position. Or simple logistics may have motivated the decision: Augustus wanted an expeditionary army fighting on the frontiers, and didn't want to expend the money or effort to provide for soldiers families (the US Marines considered policies to dissaude Marines from marrying in the 1990s for just this reason). Clearly, soldiers went ahead and entered into common law marriages anyway from a very early point, so that many of the victims of the clades in Teutonburg were female camp followers who perished with their men.

As I've said I think you refer either to usus or to no marriage at all (i.e. living together without manus). Usus is not exactly a free union; the constraints I've mentioned plus several others were seen as a right to get married, the connubium. Generally the marriages with manus are the equivalent of a family, and though I do not rule out the love, the material interests would have a heavy weight (security at home, future for children, in the high society also bonds between families, etc.). Like in many traditional societies, marriage and family were rather closely related. Within such marriages Romans did not speak of love rather of affectio maritalis, which was the state of mind corresponding to the intention to live as husband and wife for life and procreate legitimate children.

Edited by Chilbudios - 01-Oct-2007 at 12:40

Contuberium is a  term roughly meaning "those who live together" and could refer to either a legionary mess or the informal union of slaves.

The marriage of plebians and patricians was indeed illegal during  the early period of the republic. But both Patricians and plebians, particularly after the struggle orders concluded, were still of basically the same legal status: free persons and Roman citizens. Concubinage is somewhat a legal development of the empire. The divergent status that a concubinage might unit could include: free born and freed, honestiore and humiliore, citizen and non-citizen.