Homosexuality in the Roman Empire: Power, Status, and the Complexities of Ancient Sexuality

Photo: Heroic portrayal of Nisus and Euryalus (1827) by Jean-Baptiste Roman: Vergil described their love as pius in keeping with Roman morality

When we think about ancient Rome, our minds often jump to images of gladiators, emperors, and colossal architecture. But beneath this grandeur lay a society with complex social codes—especially when it came to sexuality. Homosexuality in the Roman Empire wasn’t understood in the way we think of it today. Instead of identifying people by sexual orientation, Romans focused on power dynamics, social status, and masculinity. This gives us a fascinating look at how sexual relationships, especially between men, were perceived in one of history’s most influential empires.

1. Social Hierarchies and Power

In Roman society, sexual relationships were often seen through a lens of dominance and submission. This wasn’t just about preference but about power. For a Roman man, engaging in sex with another man wasn’t seen as inherently shameful. However, the way each participant was perceived depended on his role in the encounter. To retain honor, a Roman man needed to be the dominant partner. Passivity in sexual relationships was associated with femininity and subordination—qualities Roman men were expected to avoid in public.

Roman laws didn't criminalize same-sex acts, but they did frown upon male citizens assuming a passive role, particularly if they were interacting with other citizens. Engaging in a dominant role with a lower-status individual (like a slave, a foreigner, or even a younger male) was often acceptable and did not impact a Roman man’s masculinity. This dynamic was largely rooted in the deeply ingrained social structure that put a high premium on power and status.

2. Pederasty and Relationships with Youths

Relationships between older men and younger males were relatively common and even celebrated in certain contexts, especially when the younger male was not a Roman citizen. Roman elites were known to have had relationships with youths, often from ages 12 to 17. This wasn’t a clear-cut romantic relationship by today’s standards but was frequently a mentorship bond that also held physical elements. Importantly, it was understood that as the youth aged, he would grow out of his "passive" role and assume the duties of an adult male Roman, eventually marrying and contributing to the family line.

In Roman culture, these relationships were seen as an extension of educational or mentor-like bonds—provided they adhered to strict social norms. This concept differed sharply from that of ancient Greece, where pederastic relationships were sometimes idealized. Roman society was less accepting of open affection between two men of equal status or age and prioritized marriage and the continuation of family lines.

3. Marriage, Masculinity, and Expectations

Despite the prevalence of same-sex relations, Roman men were expected to marry and produce heirs. Family loyalty and duty were deeply valued in Roman culture, and marriage, often arranged, was a duty tied to maintaining familial honor and legacy. Many Roman men, particularly those of high status, engaged in homosexual relationships while still upholding these family responsibilities.

Interestingly, bisexual behavior was not unusual, particularly among the upper classes. Roman literature, particularly satire by writers like Juvenal and Martial, often mocked men who openly displayed affection for other men or who were seen as too effeminate. This reflects how public perception of masculinity intersected with sexual conduct: a “real” Roman man could engage in same-sex relations as long as he maintained a dominant and active role.

4. Laws and Morality

Roman law largely tolerated same-sex relations if they respected social hierarchies. For instance, a Roman man engaging in relations with a slave was not uncommon and posed little risk to his reputation. However, if a free-born Roman male was perceived as passive, it could bring social stigma, as this role was often associated with foreigners or enslaved people.

Prominent figures such as the emperors Nero and Hadrian had documented relationships with men. Nero’s relationships, including his marriage to a man, were sometimes criticized as excessive, but not merely because of the same-sex nature. It was more about Nero’s disregard for traditional masculine norms. Hadrian’s love for his companion Antinous was less controversial and even widely celebrated. After Antinous's tragic death, Hadrian mourned him deeply and established a cult in his honor, a rare move that underscores the unique nature of their relationship.

5. Cultural Reflections in Literature

The literature of ancient Rome provides a window into public perceptions of same-sex relationships. Satirical writers like Martial and Juvenal mocked men who took on the “passive” role, depicting them as weak or feminine, which could be a source of humor or ridicule. At the same time, epic and historical accounts often avoided moralizing about these relationships directly. This indirect approach reflects a society less concerned with sexual orientation and more focused on the societal roles each person was expected to play.

In the end, sexuality in the Roman Empire was less about preference and more about power and social status. Homosexuality existed in various forms, shaped by rules about dominance and hierarchy, and was accepted as long as it aligned with the strict social codes. Today, examining these norms offers a glimpse into how the ancient Romans defined relationships and personal identity, reminding us that our modern understanding of sexuality is shaped by history, culture, and ever-evolving social norms.