....I see there is an implication that while sex between free Roman men was condemned, that there is no record of condemnation of a Roman man having sex with his (male or female) slaves.[Correct me, Heather, if I have got this wrong, please:-)]. If so, I get the impression that it may not have been homosexuality per se which was being condemned, otherwise it would have been condemned with slaves as well. I get the impression that perhaps, since slaves would be of a lower social status, that it was the social meaning of sexual behaviour was an issue; I get the impression that perhaps the socio-sexual meaning of sexual behaviour didn't matter when it came to slaves; that it didn't matter if the Roman freeman's sexual motivation was exploitative of the slave. Regards 194............ |