When did sexual conservatisim started in europe?

[ray245]

From what I have read about the romans, it seems to me they are a sexually liberal empire or nation, with depiction of nudity and so on.

So when did sexual conservatism began in europe, after the classical age?

[Oskuro]

I'm no historian, but I believe it had something to do with the proliferation of this school of thought called "Christian Religion".

Of course, someone with actual knowlege can elaborate, but from my understanding, the Classical Era pretty much ended by the time the Roman Empire was turned into Christianity, wich then spread through Europe, replacing or assimilating the local religions.

Not that all pre-christian cultures were awfully liberal regarding sex, but Judeo-Islamic religions were pretty uptight when compared to them.

Of course, this comes from my cursory understanding of history, so take it with a cartload of salt and some pepper.


Edit: As for the depictions of nudity in classical art, I don't think it was such an issue of sexuality, but rather an issue of symbolism, as it often symbolized immortality, so mostly deities were presented in the nude, with the exception of virgin godessess (Like Athena or Artemis).

[ray245]

I'm no historian, but I believe it had something to do with the proliferation of this school of thought called "Christian Religion".

Of course, someone with actual knowlege can elaborate, but from my understanding, the Classical Era pretty much ended by the time the Roman Empire was turned into Christianity, wich then spread through Europe, replacing or assimilating the local religions.

Not that all pre-christian cultures were awfully liberal regarding sex, but Judeo-Islamic religions were pretty uptight when compared to them.

Of course, this comes from my cursory understanding of history, so take it with a cartload of salt and some pepper.


Edit: As for the depictions of nudity in classical art, I don't think it was such an issue of sexuality, but rather an issue of symbolism, as it often symbolized immortality, so mostly deities were presented in the nude, with the exception of virgin godessess (Like Athena or Artemis).

From the very well preserved records in Pompeii, it seems to me that the city has a very sexually liberal posters or signs post all over the city, depicting nude people having sex.

Not just nude people mind you, those are meant to be erotic, just like certain pornograhpy in modern day.

[Kanastrous]

For the most part the Romans were what we would regard as sexually liberal. Although there were strict social regulations governing what kind of contact was appropriate, and with whom, depending upon your social status.

[Thanas]

Sexual conservatism was not brought up by christianity. Heck, the medieval ages were probably among the most sexually liberal times ever to exist on this earth. No, for sexual conservatism you have got to look at the 19th century, when it became more important to look morally superior.

And Ray, please do not make assumptions about Europe based on the roman empire. In fact, the continent was only named Europe in order to differentiate it from the Byzantine Empire.

[TC Pilot]

"Sexual conservatism" as we know it didn't really begin until the 19th Century, although there's some of it in Antiquity.

Rome, I would say, was the first major period of sexual conservatism, or at least was certainly more conservative (or would like to be) than the Greeks. As early as Livy quite a few Romans considered their society morally bankrupt, and I just got done reading Quintus Curtius Rufus describing the oh-so horrible degeneracy of the Babylonians in Alexander's age:

Alexander halted in this city longer than anywhere else, and here he undermined military discipline more than in any other place. The moral corruption there is unparalleled; its ability to stimulate and arouse unbridled passions is incomparable. Parents and husbands permit their children and wives to have sex with strangers, as long as this infamy is paid for. All over the Persian empire kings and their courtiers are fond of parties, and the Babylonians are especially addicted to wine and the excesses that go along with drunkenness. Women attend dinner parties. At first they are decently dressed, then they remove all their top-clothing and by degrees disgrace their respectability until (I beg my readers' pardon for saying it) they finally throw off their most intimate garments. This disgusting conduct is characteristic not only of courtesans but also of married women and young girls, who regard such vile prostitution as 'being sociable'.

[Kanastrous]

^ of course propaganda was as highly-developed an art in Rufus' time, as any other.

[TC Pilot]

^ of course propaganda was as highly-developed an art in Rufus' time, as any other.

I don't think Romans really had anything against Babylonians, particularly not ones from three-four centuries in the past. But whether or not it's true is irrelevant. It at least reflects what he thinks would be scandalous and offensive to his Roman audience's sensibilities.

[Kanastrous]

^ that's true.

[Thanas]

"Sexual conservatism" as we know it didn't really begin until the 19th Century, although there's some of it in Antiquity.

Rome, I would say, was the first major period of sexual conservatism, or at least was certainly more conservative (or would like to be) than the Greeks. As early as Livy quite a few Romans considered their society morally bankrupt, and I just got done reading Quintus Curtius Rufus describing the oh-so horrible degeneracy of the Babylonians in Alexander's age:

Alexander halted in this city longer than anywhere else, and here he undermined military discipline more than in any other place. The moral corruption there is unparalleled; its ability to stimulate and arouse unbridled passions is incomparable. Parents and husbands permit their children and wives to have sex with strangers, as long as this infamy is paid for. All over the Persian empire kings and their courtiers are fond of parties, and the Babylonians are especially addicted to wine and the excesses that go along with drunkenness. Women attend dinner parties. At first they are decently dressed, then they remove all their top-clothing and by degrees disgrace their respectability until (I beg my readers' pardon for saying it) they finally throw off their most intimate garments. This disgusting conduct is characteristic not only of courtesans but also of married women and young girls, who regard such vile prostitution as 'being sociable'.

Quintus Curtius Rufus is not a reliable source. What he objects to is maritial infidelity, child prostitution and women attending orgies. Considering the time he wrote, it is not surprising that he tries to argue against Caligula and Tiberius, who were accused of doing all those things.

The moral bankruptcy is also not an indicator of a real problem, but more a general style - worshipping the "mos maiorum" was a generally used stereotype that does not indicate any connection to reality whatsoever. You are also wrong when you assume Rome to be the first people to care about sexuality - the greeks were also fond of stereotyping their enemies. It is a common occurence in ancient politics to brand the other side as morally bankrupt. What Rufus argues against is also not the practices themselves, but the fact that the married women and unmarried children are practicing them. (Everyone was free to have any kind of sex with their slaves.) This is not a special symptom of roman society - every society has had those kind of laws, just look to the bible for a quick and easy reference.

The truth was that despite Rufus claims, the Romans were easily among the most flexible people when it came to marriages and fidelity. Note that for example, to be considered a true son and heir no evidence of conception or even pregnancy was required - all it took was the consent of the pater familias. There are even records of roman senators sharing their children with each other in order to save some houses from extinction. Also, it was possible for a woman to become the legitimate mistress of somebody, even of foreigner. That was not considered to be too huge a scandal. Prostitution was a legalized trade (something America still has not agreed on) and it was common practice for noble woman to be enrolled in the lists of prostitutes in order to have affairs. Prostitution was so widespread that Caligula was able to finance military campaigns only by raising the tax on the lupanariae.

So you see, for all the claims and all the harsh laws, when it came to the practical side of it, one sees a small amount of sexual hangups. Of course, all that did not dissuade emperors like Augustus to harp on public morals in order to gain political capital.

This is in stark contrast to the Egyptians and the Jews.

[TC Pilot]

Quintus Curtius Rufus is not a reliable source.

Oh, certainly. I'm in the process of reading it simultaneously with Arrian and Plutarch and it's... amusing, simply comparing and contrasting their narratives.

Of course, the fact my copy has a picture of Paolo Veronese's painting on the cover doesn't help affirm its historical veracity.

So you see, for all the claims and all the harsh laws, when it came to the practical side of it, one sees a small amount of sexual hangups. Of course, all that did not dissuade emperors like Augustus to harp on public morals in order to gain political capital.

I certainly agree on the flexibility inherent in Roman society. What little "moral stringency" there was is nothing in comparison to the virtual repression of the 19th Century. Even if they wanted to, the Romans could hardly expect to enforce strict controls of personal behavior. As much as some bemoan how degenerate Rome has become, it's simply just a case of nostalgic "Things were better in the past! Damn kids and their music!" Sort of how the ideal Roman was a plain, simple, small-holder farmer. Not that they bothered to do anything to help those small-holders in the 1st Century BC.

This is in stark contrast to the Egyptians and the Jews.

Agreed, though I would hardly consider Jews "major" and didn't bother to mention them. It seems Middle Eastern societies were much more "conservative" than their occidental neighbors. Persians considered it shameful for men to be naked (in contrast to the Greek athletics, Homeric homoeroticism, and the Theban Sacred Band), the obvious Muslim policy on women in public, etc.

[ray245]

And to think that people considered themselves to be enlightened in the 18th-19th century as they tried to emulate rome, while at te same time, become even more conservative than the people they are trying to emulate.

[TC Pilot]

I've never heard of any Victorian Age attempts to emulate Rome or Antiquity. If anything, the Romantic period sought to emulate the Medieval period. That's where most of our stereotypes of that time come from. It was the Renaissance period and the Enlightenment, perhaps, that saw the upswing in interest in the ancient world in that respect.

Even then, it's dangerous to say Western Europe tried to emulate Rome. No one would seriously contemplate restructuring their society or government in the form of a millenia-old empire.

[Thanas]

Quintus Curtius Rufus is not a reliable source.

Oh, certainly. I'm in the process of reading it simultaneously with Arrian and Plutarch and it's... amusing, simply comparing and contrasting their narratives.

Of course, the fact my copy has a picture of Paolo Veronese's painting on the cover doesn't help affirm its historical veracity.

Looks like you are doing some reading on Alexander then.

I certainly agree on the flexibility inherent in Roman society. What little "moral stringency" there was is nothing in comparison to the virtual repression of the 19th Century. Even if they wanted to, the Romans could hardly expect to enforce strict controls of personal behavior. As much as some bemoan how degenerate Rome has become, it's simply just a case of nostalgic "Things were better in the past! Damn kids and their music!" Sort of how the ideal Roman was a plain, simple, small-holder farmer. Not that they bothered to do anything to help those small-holders in the 1st Century BC.

I then wonder why you wrote "Rome, I would say, was the first major period of sexual conservatism, or at least was certainly more conservative (or would like to be) than the Greeks" in the first place.

This is in stark contrast to the Egyptians and the Jews.

Agreed, though I would hardly consider Jews "major" and didn't bother to mention them. It seems Middle Eastern societies were much more "conservative" than their occidental neighbors. Persians considered it shameful for men to be naked (in contrast to the Greek athletics, Homeric homoeroticism, and the Theban Sacred Band), the obvious Muslim policy on women in public, etc.

Please be careful with such sweeping generalizations. For example, the persian dominion of cyprus worshipped naked temple boys as symbols of fertility and the romans considered easterners to be even more sexually liberated than themselves, even after 400 years of assimilation.


Oh, and Ray, please, please read a history book.

[TC Pilot]

Looks like you are doing some reading on Alexander then.

Yeah. Classwork and all that...

I then wonder why you wrote "Rome, I would say, was the first major period of sexual conservatism, or at least was certainly more conservative (or would like to be) than the Greeks" in the first place.

I wasn't aiming to give a perfectly nuanced answer (particuclarly because "sexual conservativism" remained completely undefined) to the question nor do I think the two statements particularly contractict one another. Regardless of the flexibility and openness of imperial Roman society and the inability (and possible unwillingness) to do anything to change that, there was still at least an undertone of sexual conservativism in Roman society. It may have been some nostalgic myth, it may have been how the majority behaved in the past, or it may not neccesarily have applied to the oligarchs of society and thus escaped notice, but there was certainly a perception, at least among some Romans, that ideally morals should be stricter, lives simpler and more austere, etcetra.

There are obviously contradictions and exceptions to this assertion, but no one can seriously expect a uniformly upheld societal code of conduct.

Please be careful with such sweeping generalizations. For example, the persian dominion of cyprus worshipped naked temple boys as symbols of fertility

Cyprus? What does that have to do with Persia? It was Phoenician. Did you mean Cyrus?

and the romans considered easterners to be even more sexually liberated than themselves, even after 400 years of assimilation.

Of course, just look at the Babylonians.

On the whole, I don't think this is actually an objection to my point. But out of curiousity, what do you mean by "easterners"? Everyone east of Italia? Parthia? "Asia"?

[Thanas]

I wasn't aiming to give a perfectly nuanced answer (particuclarly because "sexual conservativism" remained completely undefined) to the question nor do I think the two statements particularly contractict one another. Regardless of the flexibility and openness of imperial Roman society and the inability (and possible unwillingness) to do anything to change that, there was still at least an undertone of sexual conservativism in Roman society. It may have been some nostalgic myth, it may have been how the majority behaved in the past, or it may not neccesarily have applied to the oligarchs of society and thus escaped notice, but there was certainly a perception, at least among some Romans, that ideally morals should be stricter, lives simpler and more austere, etcetra.

That same perception exists in every society in every age. I still fail to see how that makes Rome the first case of social conversationism.

Cyprus? What does that have to do with Persia? It was Phoenician. Did you mean Cyrus?

No, Cyprus was persian territory, having been captured around 545 BC. One can even find a persian palace there. Artaxerxes III crushed an uprising there around 334. Phoenicians were certainly the vast majority, but there were some persian settlers. And the temple boys can be found throught the whole middle east.

On the whole, I don't think this is actually an objection to my point.

It is.

But out of curiousity, what do you mean by "easterners"? Everyone east of Italia? Parthia? "Asia"?

Everyone beyond and including Asia Minor, and specifically the cities of Syria, Egypt, the Levante and Persia.

[TC Pilot]

That same perception exists in every society in every age. I still fail to see how that makes Rome the first case of social conversationism.

Again, I was not aiming for a perfectly nuanced and accurate claim, and the "first major" claim appeared before you pointed out the Egyptians and, arguably Persians.

It is.

Then I'm confused what exactly you're expecting to accomplish by pointing out Roman perceptions (which are ultimately irrelevant, anyway) that other, eastern cultures are less sexually conservative in the same post you're objecting to me claiming they're sexually conservative in comparison to their eastern neighbors.

[Thanas]

^What I was attempting to do was to show that your claim of Rome being the first conservative nation

Rome, I would say, was the first major period of sexual conservatism, or at least was certainly more conservative (or would like to be) than the Greeks. As early as Livy quite a few Ro[mans considered their society morally bankrupt, and I just got done reading Quintus Curtius Rufus describing the oh-so horrible degeneracy of the Babylonians in Alexander's age:

as it was stated, is simply wrong. Rome was not the first major period of sexual conservatism, nor was it more conservative than the Greeks. The simple fact of the matter is that sexual conservatism existed in every society and you always find role models of the faithful husband or wife who does not engage in extramritial activites. In effect, I was trying to argue against you painting such a broad picture which was wrong to begin with. In the end, the subject is way too complex and it makes me wonder why you made such a generalizing claim in the first place. It seems like you immediately thought of the words of Rufus, the examples of Augustus, Cato etc and therefore jumped to the conclusion that Rome had a very influential conservative movement. Which was not the case.

Now, when you said that my words weren't an objection to your point, I fail to see how that can be true. My words were an objection to your original point. Now that you have restated your point as "there may have been a conservative element" (which is not the same as "Rome was the first instance of sexual conservatism" but merely goes to show that there were some conservative elements) my objection obviously doesn't stand on principle and how could it, for I happen to share the opinion that there was, as in every society, a conservative element in Rome. What I am objecting to is rather the specific notion that it was something special. Even in the time of Tiberius, when Caecina, one of the best Roman generals and a genuine war hero who fought and defeated Arminius, tried to introduce legislation in favor of sexual conservatism, he was laughed at and lost so much face that he only delivered a second speech in the senate before his death. In fact, Tacitus offers the reasons for his doing so: - he was "old and infirm".


As for my many examples about the easterners, it is the same thing - you cannot make such a sweeping generalization. There were areas which were extremely conservative, others less so. Even in the same faith we find different takes on the situation - like the jews and their various enclaves outside judea.

[TC Pilot]

At this point, I don't feel particularly inclined to respond point-by-point to your post, if you'll excuse me for that; most of what I find disagreement with are relatively minor nitpicks at best, and grammatical coincidences (for lack of a better word at the moment) at worst. I figure most of our disagreements stem from my sloppy overgeneralizations and, to be frank, the rather awful starting question.

[Thanas]

At this point, I don't feel particularly inclined to respond point-by-point to your post, if you'll excuse me for that; most of what I find disagreement with are relatively minor nitpicks at best, and grammatical coincidences (for lack of a better word at the moment) at worst. I figure most of our disagreements stem from my sloppy overgeneralizations and, to be frank, the rather awful starting question.

After a long look at the topic, I have to agree. In general I'd imagine we would be arguing the same thing. Come to think of it, my own first answer was a bit overgeneralizing as well, so maybe I shouldn't jump your bones for that.

Ah well. Maybe when Ray asks a specific question (that does not cover all of western history:roll:) we can go back to this.

[ray245]

Well, I have a very basic understanding about the culture of europe during the past. Which is why I tried to ask a more general question to get a little bit more insight.

Moreover, historical books covering sexual conservatism isn't that easy to find.

Perhaps the question should be better phased as 'How sexually liberal is the empires/nations of the past'

I mean, tons of people simply blame christianity only in regards to a sexually conservative society.