Talk:Sexuality in ancient Rome

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. --Lambiam^Talk 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

And it's also been contaminated rather badly by varieties of Francophonie. For the queer aspect (for those interested), this book gives a much better idea of what went on (because, among other things, it's based on evidence, not theory):

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Modern-Homosexual-Cultural-Politics/dp/0304338923/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200453720&sr=1-3

The article cited in footnote 1 is a classic example of evidence-free history.

There's a useful review here:

http://lorenzo-thinkingoutaloud.blogspot.com/2009/11/myth-of-modern-homosexual.html

Many of the sexuality questions (including the one about monkish chastity -- short answer, no) could be usefully answered by reading Robin Lane Fox's 'Pagans & Christians' (Viking: 1986), especially pp 336-374. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skepticlawyer (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Medicine and sexuality

the entire section "Medicine and sexuality" is about a greek interpretation and is uncited. Unless somebody can cite that and cite it in a way that links it to rome, i propose it be deleted. Smitty1337 (talk) 05:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction in section ‘Prostitution’ inferring Plautus - Curculio

This remark concerning Plautus’ comedy Curculio (‘a prostitute is: what everyone treads underfoot’) is not correct.

In the play Curculio , a master and his slave are standing for the door of a leno (usually translated as ‘procurer’). The slave says to his master:

“No one hinders nor forbids you, provided you have the money, to buy what is openly offered for sale. No one hinders another, to go over the public road, as long as you don’t make your way over fenced property; As long as you abstain from nupta, vidua, virgine, iuventute et pueris liberis [married woman, widow (or bachelor woman), girl or young woman, youth, and freeborn young boys], love whatever you please.”

The comparison pertains to: allowed (‘public road’) versus not allowed (‘fenced property’), and has nothing to do with treading underfoot.

I recommend to regard the other statements in this article based on Hallett and Skinner (1997) with some suspicion. --Corriebertus (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I recommend regarding this whole article with suspicion, since much of what it says about Roman sexuality is not only directly contradicted by Roman art depicting sex acts, but seems based on scholarship that cherry-picks Roman literature to suit political preoccupations and biases. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

imbalance and poor use of sources

I'm finding that when legitimate sources are used here, they're often not well understood, and are employed selectively to support a rather nasty view of Roman sexuality that (for instance) is belied by Roman art and a great deal of Latin literature. I also note that Ovid appears only once, and then bizarrely in a citation for same-sex practices, although Ovid is famously averse to "boy love" and probably the most flagrantly hetero of all the Latin poets. Ovid's absence as a major source is like writing an article on psychoanalysis without mentioning Freud, or writing about the Gallic Wars without discussing the role of Julius Caesar. It indicates that the compilers weren't interested in presenting a picture of sexuality in ancient Rome, but in making certain aggrieved political statements. An emphasis on law, for instance, will always skew an article that purports to be on attitudes and behaviors. In the contemporary U.S., the infamous Texas sodomy law, for instance, didn't mean that Texans didn't practice "sodomy," or that practitioners were regularly arrested and convicted.

If you read this article, you'd never imagine that anyone in ancient Rome ever had mutually pleasurable sex. You'd have no clue about Roman attitudes toward sexuality between married couples. The section on adultery is hilarious; again, the emphasis is on law, rather than the way writers talk about it. It's quite evident from Roman historians (let alone poets) that women of the upper classes could sometimes engage in adultery without the dire consequences outlined here; when a big to-do was made about adultery, it was usually for political reasons. (Just as a space alien observing our political campaigns might come away with an imbalanced view that committing adultery leads to disgrace and a loss of career in our culture.) Anyway, this is just a warning to anyone using the article. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed outline

I've been looking for and reading sources on this topic for some months now, and will work on it as I have time. The outline that has suggested itself to me from this review of the available scholarship is as follows:

• Sexuality in archaic Rome is for now instead Sex, religion and the state, which may be OK.I find that the "theorists" are reacting to things that should be spelled out first. In particular, Lucretius keeps denying the role of the gods; to readers, this will make no sense unless the role of the gods in traditional thinking about sexuality is spelled out first. This section would also outline laws pertaining to sexuality in the earliest period. Perhaps other legislation here, such as the Augustan moral reform.
• Erotic art and literature. An overview of how the Romans presented sexuality. This is also a kind of "ancient sources" section that makes clear what the rest is based on.
• Theories of sexuality. How was "human sexuality" understood in the time of the ancient Romans? Both medical theories and philosophical perspectives, which in the Aristotelian tradition can't really be separated. Particularly Stoic sexuality, and Epicurean theories of sex and love especially in Lucretius.
• Male sexuality.
• Female sexuality.
• Sex, family, and society, with the subsections:
  • Marital sex. Clarke has some helpful and interesting perspectives on this.
  • Adultery. But only how it reflects sexual behaviors; see Marriage in ancient Rome for the legalistic aspects.
  • Concubinage and prostitution. For concubinage, same approach as to adultery. Prostitution in ancient Rome has its own article (also in need of dire help), so this piece would again be focused on the role of prostitution in sexual behaviors and attitudes as a whole, not the specifics of the prostitute's life.
• Sex acts and positions. Based on J.N. Adams' book on the Latin sexual vocabulary; the work of those scholars such as Amy Richlin who are obsessed with the verb irrumo; Ovid's famous poem advising women to choose a position that best suits her body type, and others, and the commentaries; Catullus and Martial and commentary on their references to various sex acts, and other epigraphic and literary evidence; John Clarke's Looking at Lovemaking, on what can be learned about Roman sexuality from pictorial art.

The following topics can be integrated above.

• • Sex and imperialism. How the Romans viewed the sexuality of other peoples under their rule.
• Uses of sex in religion and magic. Celebration of sexuality or the furtherance of "fertility" in Roman religion, such as the venerable Mutunus Tutunus, Priapus, Venus, Cupid, the fascinus (magical phallus). Chastity of the Vestals. Magic spells for making someone fall in love with you, or ensuring their fidelity.
• Sexual health and medicine. Magic spells and pharmacological recipes overlap in antiquity, so these two sections should dovetail nicely, and also create a sort of ring composition with "Theories of sexuality" above. This section would deal with "practical" medicine: aphrodisiacs and fertility treatments, including their hilarious recipes for forms of ancient Viagra; contraception (though I also plan an article on Contraception and abortion in classical antiquity, so this would be a summary approach); treatment of sexually transmitted diseases.

Because "homosexual" isn't a category of Roman thought, it's wrong in my view to ghettoize it as set of behaviors or orientation set apart. Rather, I plan to treat male-male sex under "Male sexuality," and female-female sex under "Female sexuality." This seems to better reflect Roman attitudes.

I'd love suggestions about any questions others might bring to the topic that should be answered.

If this seems like a useful outline on which a consensus could be achieved, I encourage editors who'd like to contribute to the topic to do so within the framework, as the topic is potentially unwieldy. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an update on missing bits (I had no idea this would be so massive when I started) that I'm aware of from reading the sources so far. Under "Phallic sexuality," a concise paragraph on circumcision is needed: Romans attitudes toward it, as a marker of Jewish identity (reviled in Martial), and the existence, mirabile dictu, of a reconstructive procedure. Under "Female sexuality," we lack Sulpicia, the depiction of female sexual passion (as with Dido in the Aeneid, and legends involving young women who betray their country for the sake of sexual desire), and a paragraph on pudicitia, the main article for which needs a look. The prostitution section here isn't very good, and the main article needs a massive overhaul. Still lack a section on attitudes toward abortion and contraception, though these topics are now mentioned as medical concerns. The one major section missing will come at the end, "Sex and imperialism." This will deal with: Venus Victrix, "Venus the Conquerer"; sexualized aspects of the depictions of conquered peoples; Roman attitudes toward the sexuality of various peoples brought under their rule (Greeks, Egyptians, Celts, Germans mainly; so far haven't seen much on North Africa as a whole) and the not-conquered Persians and Parthians as the "Other"; depictions of Imperial decadence and debauchery, as by Suetonius, and how this relates to the transition from Republic to Empire, probably starting with Augustus's daughter Julia, the Augustan moral legislation, and Marsyas the satyr as a symbol of both free speech and wanton sexuality, and then the sex-mad emperors such as TIberius and Caligula, and Messalina, and probably concluding with the moral critiques of early Christian writers under the Empire and in the early Christian Empire. This is based on readings mainly of the "Selected bibliography", supplemented with some articles on specific points. Cynwolfe (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Iudaea capta reverse of Vespasian sestertius.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Iudaea capta reverse of Vespasian sestertius.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Update

This article finally exhausted me, but I'll get back to finishing up a couple of things. Here's what I see as still missing:

• Under "Female sexuality", a paragraph on pudicitia, which has a main article that itself needs fleshing out, so to speak; and also a paragraph or so on the problem of female sexual passion and power, which would focus on Dido/Cleopatra.
• Under "Sexuality and children", a subsection on Pederasty in ancient Rome, which is currently a redirect to Greek love#Ancient Rome but which perhaps should have its own article or be a section of Homosexuality in ancient Rome (an article which needs some development and currently has a bizarre emphasis in the lede). The section in Greek love could then be streamlined.
• A little more development of the claim that Ovid "invented" heterosexuality, under "Male-female relations".
• Under "Sexual conquest and imperialism", a paragraph each on Greeks, Egyptians, Celts and Germans, Jews, and perhaps others whose sexuality the Romans took a particular view of, or who took a particular view of the Romans. Some scholars have offered succinct overviews of the transition to Christian sexual morality that might provide a good closing paragraph. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Size split?

Split - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split due to size starting with "Male sexuality". Thoughts? Suggestions?

• You might want to read the article again: "Male sexuality" is the article. If there were no other sections at all, you'd need the male and female sexuality sections, surely—besides the fact that in Roman society, the sexuality of the vir was the baseline or norm by which other sexualities were measured: the article makes no sense without male sexuality, and becomes a collection of dirty words and dirty pictures. Topics that could be spun off include: Lucretius on love and sex, Stoic views on sexuality (though that would require a lot of expansion, since this deals only with Stoic views on sexuality among philosophers of the Roman Empire]], Hermaphroditism and androgyny in ancient Rome, Rape in ancient Rome (which would require combining the topics of male and female rape treated separately, and the legal concepts). The sections on homosexuality could be examined in light of Homosexuality in ancient Rome to see whether they could be further reduced here, but I would be wary of making the article too "heteronormative," to use the jargon, since that would be misleading. Cynwolfe (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you please discuss before spinning off? I don't agree with your choice of topic; I feel that you have removed a central portion of the article, rather than one of the more tangential sections. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Again, as someone who has contributed almost all the content in this article, and who has worked on related articles about Roman sexuality and sections on ancient Rome in overviews of sexuality articles, I would really like to discuss before we rip the article apart. How on earth can "Sex, marriage and society in ancient Rome" be a separate article from "Sexuality in ancient Rome"? Spinoff articles need to have a clearly defined scope. I've named some I view as obvious candidates above. But please, could we do some planning and discuss first? It seems obvious to me that a spinoff article will need an introduction that's unique to the article, or it really isn't a separate article from this one. When you spun off "Sex, marriage and society," you copied this intro—an indication that it belongs within the scope of this article. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply - Since no one has made a concerted effort to reduce the size of the article in weeks, and the vote was one to one, I took it upon myself to do so. If you would like to significantly reduce the size of this article on your own, please do so and/or take Sex, marriage, and society in ancient Rome to the full AfD, where this can get more visibility.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm taking it upon myself to reverse your unilateral action, Jax 0677. Consider the "vote" 2-to-1, if that helps. If you think the size of the article needs to be reduced (I don't!), make some constructive suggestions about how to do that, rather than simply cutting out huge chunks of text.

In case it's not clear, I don't see any reason to change the article at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply - When my SUGGESTION of removing "Male sexuality" was shot down, I SUGGESTED a different section instead. Long articles take forever to load.--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Your SUGGESTION was what, exactly? This? Or this edit? That's not suggestion, that's action. Suggestion would be conducting a discussion on this talk page, and I'm missing where you did that—one tersely worded post doesn't fit the bill. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply - My suggestion was the first part of this section, which said, and I quote:

"Article is over 100 kB, and should be split due to size starting with "Male sexuality". Thoughts? Suggestions?"

Since the vote was one to one at the time, I split this off starting with a different section. I am pleased to see that there is finally dialogue regarding a split, even if that dialogue is in opposition to doing so.--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous reply. Above, Cynwolfe tried to engage you in dialogue regarding a split, and you made no replies until after you had split off a major section of the article. The failure to conduct dialogue is yours. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the concerns about length weren't rejected or ignored. I proposed several topics that I thought could stand on their own as articles differentiated in scope from this one. I got no response to these proposals, and assumed that the tagger had decided that reducing the length of this article could wait. Some material is core to the topic here, entirely within this article's scope, and hard to construct independently. See redlinks above for topics I think could make independent articles. However, they would still need to be represented by a summary section, not just lopped out. Could Jax address why those aren't suitable candidates for spinoffs? Cynwolfe (talk) 19:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Reply - I do not disagree with any of your suggested topics. I'll consider working on one of those next. Thanks!--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that we'll still need summary sections here, and that the new articles will need an introduction that outlines scope. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been mulling this over, and while I still think any of the redlinks above could be independent articles, I don't see any need to rush into creating them unless they are properly thought-out as independent topics. In November 2010, when the short, sketchy, misleading article looked like this, it was getting about 8,400 visitors a month. A year later, when the length was closer to its current form, it was getting just over 25,000. In November 2012, the number had increased to a little more than 32,000. If the article were too long or hard to read "comfortably," why would it be gaining visitors? So I'm not seeing the benefits of dismantling something of demonstrated usefulness to readers. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Just because people click on a link in Google search results and "visit" this page doesn't mean what they got as a result was useful or well-written. -- Beland (talk) 20:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Race & sex toys (bizarre mix, but meh... :D)

Apparatus on the Warren Cup

I'm interested to know about how race played a role in the sexual exploits of Ancient Rome. Even if they weren't an issue at all, I still think it's notable. Also, thoguh there is a tiny bit about contraceptives/aphrodisiacs etc, I thought a bit more could be given about the various sex toys (or devices) used.--Coin945 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your intriguing suggestions. I had once planned to deal with issues of "race" (I put that in quotes because it's more like ethnicities) in the last section on Sexual conquest and imperialism. Although Romans seem to have been more concerned with "miscegenation" of social classes, there were some sexual stereotypes pertaining to ethnicity (Germans are more chaste and delay sex till they're 20; Gallic men would rather sleep with other men than their beautiful women; because Jews are circumcised, they're lascivious; Egyptians are, well, always exotic to Romans). Stuff like that. I'll try to put this on my to-do list and look back at the notes I had on that, and of course it's difficult stuff to present without being offensive. (And as you can see above, there are concerns about length, so not only did I get tired of the subject matter, I was aware of opposition to the length of the article.)

About sex toys, in researching the article I didn't encounter much if anything about what we would think of as sex toys. The section on bestiality has something about role-playing that would involve props and costumes and bondage. The section on lesbian sex mentions dildos, but while these are not unusual in Greek art, I believe at least one of my sources said no example is found in Roman art (I think they're referenced, though, in the poetry of Martial). I can't recall seeing any erotic art in which objects were involved in the sex act. There is an apparatus depicted on the Warren Cup that (in a reference I've lost) supposedly appears in other scene as well, though I haven't seen an example: it seems designed for grasping to maintain one's balance or relieve pressure during tricky sex acts. (It's visible here at an angle from which the cup is not usually shown.) The cup's authenticity, however, has recently been questioned, and it may be the product of Victorian pederastic fantasy. I can't really see "sex toys" as an independent section, given the limited information, but perhaps there's more about this than I realize. If you find reliable scholarly sources on this and don't want to contribute to the article yourself, do share them here. Cynwolfe (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Woow, you really know your stuff. I can't imagine how much you've read about this topic. It seems a shame that you've encountered some opposition. I've thought about the article length myself, and I've come to the conclusion that a more complete article is a better one. I haven't trawled through all the previous talk page archives so I'm not sure why a split never came to fruition, but it seems plausible for this article to be succinctly chopped up, allowing this article to give an overview with many links to the other articles. The information you provided above on ethnicities is extremely fascinating. I think nowadays we always think of us being cultured and the ancients being primitive, so it is just a bizarre experience when you learn stuff like that, and you're like "Ancient Romans are just like us". :D childish I know, but it happens every time. Like when I read about Ancient Roman graffiti. I would love to see the ethnicity stuff in the article. While I have no knowledge of sex toys being used by Ancient Romans, as I said above, a sentence acknowledging that "there is no evidence suggesting this" or something like that would be a better option than saying nothing.--Coin945 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I've found a few things after a very light search:

• "Ancient Egyptians and Greeks used dildos, as did the Romans, who also carved giant candles that resembled enormous penises."
• (the word "dildo" is Latin for "open wide")
• The word "dildo" is likely to have come from the Italian word dilettarsi, meaning to take delight in. Young frustrated women of ancient Rome used dildos made of leather, stone or wood.
• It has been claimed that some thrill-chasing Roman women used live snakes as dildos.
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• They seem to refer to people as "sex toys". [Here to: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=g4ZmqsyC5kEC&pg=PA335&dq=sex+toy+rome&hl=en&sa=X&ei=frQUUeH1HejMmgXdrIGADg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=sex%20toy%20rome&f=false], [and here: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cxCOyD0NkX4C&pg=PA226&dq=sex+toy+rome&hl=en&sa=X&ei=frQUUeH1HejMmgXdrIGADg&ved=0CEwQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=sex%20toy%20rome&f=false]
• Something unrelated but still quite interesting - Rome idolised as an erotic period of history

Most of those don't meet Wikipedia standards for reliable sources (see WP:RS), since there are lots of sources for classical antiquity from scholarly presses, as you found. The four that do were used for this article, but not necessarily on this topic. Sex in the Ancient World from A to Z confirms that dildos are more common in Greek art, but gives a few examples in Roman sculpture that I'm unfamiliar with, plus the literary example from Petronius. Clarke, Art in the Lives of Everyday Romans, mentions the use of dildos by lesbians, which is found in Martial (this is one of the passages in the article in which sex toys are mentioned). Langlands, Sexual Morality in Ancient Rome, and Richlin's compilation for A Companion to the Roman Empire state flat-out something that I had started to suggest above: the use of slave sex meant that objects as toys would've been perhaps superfluous, since the slaves themselves could be used as objects of gratification. "Sex toys" are consumer products, and their greater prevalence in our own sexual culture probably just reflects our consumerism and owning stuff (in the sense of portable, largely disposable objects) as a whole. The readable Alastair Blanshard[4] has some good correctives to modern perceptions of Roman sexual morals. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Excessive length

This page is showing up on Special:Longpages. It currently has about 197 kB of readable prose, which is twice the 100K limit recommended by Wikipedia:Article size and according to that page would take about 2 hours for the typical person to actually read. Some details definitely need to be moved into subarticles.

I'm agnostic as to how this is done, but it seems like content is spread out among multiple sections and could be more easily moved or condensed if it were collected. I think the split between male and female sexuality is probably not helpful in this regard, and the article could be restructured along other lines. For example, I think we could collect all the law-related content and spin off "Sexuality and law in ancient Rome". All primary coverage of homosexuality and gender identity could be consolidated into a single shorter section, since we already have Homosexuality in ancient Rome. I think we could also spin off something like "Sexuality and art in ancient Rome", collecting content from several sections. For example, the long section "Breasts" has a lot of prose about artistic representations and cultural significance of breasts, which are not all that interesting to those that don't care about artsy things. -- Beland (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Habeo Belandum pro viro, quod viri celeriter finiunt, cum feminae numquam defatigant. --80.187.110.67 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"cum nos"

Surely doesn't mean "when we" but "with us"?¨Colacho (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Cum can be a preposition meaning "with," but with nos it's nobiscum, perhaps most familiar in the expression from the Latin Church, pax nobiscum. If you know Latin, the most efficient way to get an answer on the other cum is to review "cum clauses" in your grammar book. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an archaic homophone that already by the time of the Republic was spelled the same. Originally, the two words were com ("with") and quom ("when"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.110.67 (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)