- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Explanation: While Ancient Rome’s attitude towards homosexuality was not unconditionally positive, it was far more accepting of homosexuality than European society for the next ~2000 years. The Italian fascist dictator Mussolini being both a homophobe and declaring his intention to revive the values of the Roman Empire are in strong contrast with each other.
Also, Mussolini tried to wean Italians off of spaghetti as part of his futurist and autarkist dreams. What a fucking weirdo.
Were they accepting of the idea of someone having solely male attraction or having sex solely with men? I remember reading that having relations with men was more accepted but what we’d call homosexuality today was an aberration of sorts to them.
What we call homosexuality today didn’t exist as a concept. Most elite man swung both ways, at least as the relationship’s top, and the ones that exclusively liked women got made fun of. I’m not sure if there’s examples of men disinterested in marrying, but I’m guessing if it happened the reaction would be something like “hey, stop goofing around and make heirs!”.
If you liked to bottom that was somewhat embarrassing, though. There were rumours about Julius Caesar.
and the ones that exclusively liked women got made fun of.
CLAUDIUS only likes GIRLS, lmao, he probably has cooties
The Emperors Trajan and Hadrian were both probably exclusively homosexual, in lavender marriages. Trajan is remembered well universally, while Hadrian endures mild mockery/criticism for his boy obsession - and tbf, getting the Senate to deify your dead boytoy is a bit much.
Also, Mussolini tried to wean Italians off of spaghetti as part of his futurist and autarkist dreams.
We know how he ended.
We never forgetti the spaghetti - the italian people
No spaghetti!? That’s it, I think he was up to no good.
