What do you think?
Rate this book
Roman Homosexuality: Ideologies of Masculinity in Classical Antiquity. Ideologies of Desire
This study of Roman sexuality and the ideologies of masculinity discusses a wide range of ancient texts, arguing that native Roman concepts of masculinity did not rely on the distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality, but were instead structured around such antitheses as free versus slave, dominant versus subordinate, and masculine versus effeminate.; This book is intended for scholars and students of gender studies, history of sexuality, lesbian and gay studies, classics.
395 pages, ebook
First published December 19, 1998
28 people are currently reading
407 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
June 25, 2016
About Roman masculinity rather than 'homosexuality'
The modern scholarly literature on Roman sexuality, homosexuality, and masculinity and gender is growing almost monthly: Williams' book, however, still remains indispensable for anyone working in the field. It is, though, mis-titled in my view since it is so much broader than being about 'homosexuality' (a concept which didn't, of course, exist in Roman culture, along with the idea of such a thing as 'sexuality'), and might be better titled as Roman masculinity.
This is detailed and nuanced as Williams discusses texts from across the canon and genre, teasing out the complexities and, often, contradictions in ideas of Roman manhood.
This is a new edition, published 2010, of the original 1999 text with some added appendices and thoughts - required reading for anyone working on Roman gender and/or sexuality.
The modern scholarly literature on Roman sexuality, homosexuality, and masculinity and gender is growing almost monthly: Williams' book, however, still remains indispensable for anyone working in the field. It is, though, mis-titled in my view since it is so much broader than being about 'homosexuality' (a concept which didn't, of course, exist in Roman culture, along with the idea of such a thing as 'sexuality'), and might be better titled as Roman masculinity.
This is detailed and nuanced as Williams discusses texts from across the canon and genre, teasing out the complexities and, often, contradictions in ideas of Roman manhood.
This is a new edition, published 2010, of the original 1999 text with some added appendices and thoughts - required reading for anyone working on Roman gender and/or sexuality.
May 30, 2023
Great read. I will warn my more fragile readers: this review will be quite graphic, so be careful.
In Rome, no one called themselves gay, straight, or bisexual. Some men preferred to sleep with mainly men, and some with mainly women, but this was more like a strong preference, not an exclusive sexuality. The book compares it to how today someone might prefer tall men, but no one would make that their sexuality. In fact, it was rather rare for a man to be exclusively attracted to one sex, and there was no stigma on sleeping with another man.
However, there was stigma based on what kind of sex they had. Men were divided into two groups: those who played the insertive role and those who were receptive. Tops and bottoms, for the unlearned. The insertive role was a normal part of being a man, while the receptive role was shameful and effeminate and was only reserved for slaves and prostitutes, and normally for boys.
Masculinity and femininity were the big divide in Roman sexuality, not straight or gay. Giving oral sex (including to women), enjoying the receptive role in anal sex, wearing too much perfume, curling your hair, and caring too much about your appearance were all considered effeminate and shameful. To the Romans, feminine meant bad, and any man who gave up his manhood through a feminine sexual act was doing something bad.
I found this book really interesting. It’s strange reading about a culture that has such a different view on sexuality and gender, and it's a sign that our views on sex, sexuality, and gender are a lot more socially conditioned than we might think. I was also kinda taken aback at how little regard the Romans had for the bodily autonomy of slaves and women, and at times, this was a pretty uncomfortable read, even for a dry history book.
3.75 stars because it was repetitive and much too long, but I did learn a lot.
In Rome, no one called themselves gay, straight, or bisexual. Some men preferred to sleep with mainly men, and some with mainly women, but this was more like a strong preference, not an exclusive sexuality. The book compares it to how today someone might prefer tall men, but no one would make that their sexuality. In fact, it was rather rare for a man to be exclusively attracted to one sex, and there was no stigma on sleeping with another man.
However, there was stigma based on what kind of sex they had. Men were divided into two groups: those who played the insertive role and those who were receptive. Tops and bottoms, for the unlearned. The insertive role was a normal part of being a man, while the receptive role was shameful and effeminate and was only reserved for slaves and prostitutes, and normally for boys.
Masculinity and femininity were the big divide in Roman sexuality, not straight or gay. Giving oral sex (including to women), enjoying the receptive role in anal sex, wearing too much perfume, curling your hair, and caring too much about your appearance were all considered effeminate and shameful. To the Romans, feminine meant bad, and any man who gave up his manhood through a feminine sexual act was doing something bad.
I found this book really interesting. It’s strange reading about a culture that has such a different view on sexuality and gender, and it's a sign that our views on sex, sexuality, and gender are a lot more socially conditioned than we might think. I was also kinda taken aback at how little regard the Romans had for the bodily autonomy of slaves and women, and at times, this was a pretty uncomfortable read, even for a dry history book.
3.75 stars because it was repetitive and much too long, but I did learn a lot.
November 2, 2022
Intro to Toxic Roman Masculinity
July 6, 2015
This was one of the best books on the Classical Past I have read. I enjoyed the discussion of how the title is an ironic nod to the common misconception that our sexual categories are universal across time, space and cultures: the Romans were much more keen to consider who penetrated whom, rather than whom one penetrated. This was helpfully broadened into discussions of mollitia etc. which I had enjoyed in Catherine Edwards'.
I also like books to open up new texts and new readings and certainly with its discussions of the relative abusiveness of accusations of vaginal, oral, anal sex in differing combinations this book brought much of Catullus and Martial into sharper focus as well as introducing me to the Priapic corpus.
There were so many interesting readings, fascinating insights etc. that I know I will come back again and again to certain chapters.
I also like books to open up new texts and new readings and certainly with its discussions of the relative abusiveness of accusations of vaginal, oral, anal sex in differing combinations this book brought much of Catullus and Martial into sharper focus as well as introducing me to the Priapic corpus.
There were so many interesting readings, fascinating insights etc. that I know I will come back again and again to certain chapters.
November 5, 2014
I'm annoyed that standard Roman lit translations don't usually include the naughty bits, which make up the abundant sourcing of Mr. William's interesting study. (Even bad boy Catullus is usually bowdlerized, and really, what's the point?) Roman Homosexuality is richly detailed and analytically rigorous...to the point of occasional tedium, surprising in a book about sexuality. It is a worthy addition to the shelves containing those other books on classical sexuality whose titles I can't remember right now but I know Foucault is one of them. Now I need to find the good parts translations I missed in college.
March 24, 2021
Craig Williams gives an in-depth analysis of ancient Roman cultural and societal views towards same-sex relations through evidence from ancient writings, mythology, and art. It's really quite fascinating the view point he presents, since its based on the notion that sexuality in ancient times, specifically in Rome, was influenced and judged not by the gender of the participants involved, but instead by where the person fit in society. He makes a very believable case for the ideology of masculinity within ancient Rome and how it essentially dictated their social norms, which is vastly different than modern societal views that we are used to.
February 16, 2023
It was many years ago when I read this and I found it fascinating and written in very clear readable prose. I would not think it is out of date but there has been plenty written about sexuality in ancient Rome and other cultures in recent years and certainly as a topic is more likely to attract open mindedness then in the past. Of course the whole way people thought, or didn't think, about sex was different - homosexuality didn't exist as a concept.
One minor complaint I had with the book, and gives for many others, is that it takes various prohibitions on certain sexual acts that are evidenced in the written record way to seriously. I know it was different time, etc. but the tendency to go from a text saying saying a Roman's mouth was sacred and could not be polluted to absolute absence of practices like cunilingus way to dogmatic. Again with all respect for changing times you had some absolutely ferocious prohibitions against all sorts of sexual activities within ancient Jewish law and in Christianity. Yet it is plain from the way these bans were continually reimposed it is clear ancient Jews and later Christians ignored the prohibitions. I see no reason to think that Romans were any different.
But this is fine book with plenty of ground work information for later speculation and reading.
One minor complaint I had with the book, and gives for many others, is that it takes various prohibitions on certain sexual acts that are evidenced in the written record way to seriously. I know it was different time, etc. but the tendency to go from a text saying saying a Roman's mouth was sacred and could not be polluted to absolute absence of practices like cunilingus way to dogmatic. Again with all respect for changing times you had some absolutely ferocious prohibitions against all sorts of sexual activities within ancient Jewish law and in Christianity. Yet it is plain from the way these bans were continually reimposed it is clear ancient Jews and later Christians ignored the prohibitions. I see no reason to think that Romans were any different.
But this is fine book with plenty of ground work information for later speculation and reading.
December 18, 2019
Really interesting and fairly comprehensive look at the construction of masculinity and male-male sexual behavior in ancient Rome, though I'd say it strides the line between "deeply academic" and "readable to interested nonspecialists" (if you're not at least somewhat familiar with classical studies and/or Latin it might be hard going, though the appendices help a little bit with that, and it goes into intra-academic squabbling about sexual etiology/theorizing about various sexual schemata)
July 22, 2024
This was pretty repetitive, but I also learned a ton. The author begins by reminding the reader that homosexuality is a modern term, not one that the Romans had a conception of. The book does a great job explaining how Roman masculinity was performed, particularly when it comes to sex.
November 3, 2019
An essential read
May 11, 2024
On page 123 so far so not even halfway there, and oh gosh. This book makes 2 statements: 1. First, that romans did not differentiate between sex with a woman or a man, they just cared that you did it with a slave or your wife, and that you were the top, not the bottom. 2. Sex between older men and teen boys was usual in Greece and happened in Rome too, but it was perceived slightly differently.
So these points are made, then they are made over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER again. Just again and again, through countless examples. And I am like oh my god, how much can I really read about the sexual habits of these people who lived so long ago? Just crazy. All the tiny little details are examined, no stone is left unturned just to make the same point over and over again, just from slightly different angles. This is crazy.
Update after finishing: Oh my god, I can't believe I finally finished this book after 4 months. It was a hard read and so tough to get through, mostly because of the extreme repetitiveness. This book could have been 50 pages and didn't need to be more. Every facet of sexual interaction was covered super in detail, yet this hyper focus on that one aspect of life also caused some issues: after reading this long book, I do not feel that I really gained much of an understanding about the average everyday life of roman people. Just their sex lives. And even then, mostly of the privileged class. It is also very telling that while the book goes on and on about sex, it hardly ever mentions love, and never goes into detail on that subject.
I don't know, overall I would say that reading this book was a little bit educational and I learned a lot about an extremely small slice of life in antiquity, but all these pages could have been used so much better and tbh this was mostly a waste of time. Unless you have to read this for school for some reason, just skip it. There must be much more enriching (and more concise) books on the subject out there.
So these points are made, then they are made over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER again. Just again and again, through countless examples. And I am like oh my god, how much can I really read about the sexual habits of these people who lived so long ago? Just crazy. All the tiny little details are examined, no stone is left unturned just to make the same point over and over again, just from slightly different angles. This is crazy.
Update after finishing: Oh my god, I can't believe I finally finished this book after 4 months. It was a hard read and so tough to get through, mostly because of the extreme repetitiveness. This book could have been 50 pages and didn't need to be more. Every facet of sexual interaction was covered super in detail, yet this hyper focus on that one aspect of life also caused some issues: after reading this long book, I do not feel that I really gained much of an understanding about the average everyday life of roman people. Just their sex lives. And even then, mostly of the privileged class. It is also very telling that while the book goes on and on about sex, it hardly ever mentions love, and never goes into detail on that subject.
I don't know, overall I would say that reading this book was a little bit educational and I learned a lot about an extremely small slice of life in antiquity, but all these pages could have been used so much better and tbh this was mostly a waste of time. Unless you have to read this for school for some reason, just skip it. There must be much more enriching (and more concise) books on the subject out there.
March 1, 2021
As someone who is trying to learn more about the borders of identity, this was a very interesting read. I do, however, only give it three stars more so for my overall reading experience (I’m not good at nonfiction so some parts I skimmed). Very good if you’re interested.
April 15, 2010
williams does a great job explaining sexual categories in ancient Rome, and teaches plenty of dirty words too!
Want to read
October 1, 2012I was just going to use this as reference and not actually read through it, but so far it's fascinating.
Actually, I am reading too many things now to keep up with this. Later.
Actually, I am reading too many things now to keep up with this. Later.
January 6, 2015
Fascinating look at homosexuality and attitudes in the years 200 BCE to 200 CE. Excellent research was performed by the author. My only complaint is that he repeated himself WAY too much.
Read
August 29, 2019Williams was like ~i could have called this book roman heterosexuality and ended up with the same content~ but in that case he might as well have called the book roman toxic masculinity tbh
September 3, 2019
Really good read if this is your topic of interest.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.