The Romans had a view of sex that was very different from that of the Abrahamic religions. It was viewed as a good thing, and something to be celebrated, BUT only in the correct circumstances, typically between a married couple (divorce was common in the upper classes so that did not mean a single partner for life) or between a man and a prostitute. In the latter seas there were 'normal' prostitutes. and those associated with temples, where it was a religious experience of sorts (but often very expensive as a result). In those circumstances, murals and mosaics showing sex were commonplace, and it was celebrated in some household gods. Orgies with groups of married couples were sometime acceptable, at other times not. Nudity was fine amongst the same sex, such as in baths, but in most cases not with opposite sexes unless for sex as above. As has been said, nudity and sex outside this was the ultimate humiliation, so nudity in executions was commonplace at some times at least. Public rape would not have been acceptable to a general audience so was very rare, but was the ultimate humiliation and probably only carried out within the army, such as when Boudicca's daughters were raped in front of her.
Whilst we think of Romans as debauched, this was restricted to a small number of very famous cases, largely of early imperial emperors. This behaviour (possible partly due to brain damage due to drinking wine sweetened with lead) probably aided the call for the assassinations of the worst offenders. Of course sexual excess is common in very powerful people, and was often not popular with the population (for example, Britain's George IV had a special stool made with a notch in the front and a 'bed' underneath, so he could have one woman giving him a blowjob with another on her back underneath sucking his balls.)
Well again yes and no. Remember "Rome" as an important local political power, thru the republic and then the empire was an almost 800 year long enterprise in the West and longer in the east. It ran thru many moral iterations. We can point to any behavior we'd like (based on our concepts) and say 'this was it'. That just isn't so. You find a massive amount of 'immoral' behavior by their own standards occurring (example Roman writers decrying the use of silk as a fabric among upper class women) at all times during the extended existence. You also find posthumous destroying (or enhancing) of the reputations depending on who was in power (as a later example Shakespeare was something of a Tudor shill).
Human sexual excesses are not limited to a particular economic\political strata (although those who are out of power often portray this is so in order to gain power thru class warfare) but opportunity. Admittedly the wealthy and powerful have more opportunity than the poor do. And many times 'disapproval' is based on envy. How often in history have we seen one group shoved out of power because they did "X" and a few years later the group that shoved them out of power is also doing "X"?
Personally I don't think of any culture or time period as debauched because I don't judge them by the standards of MY TIME but I try to look at them by the standards of their time.
And I would say your statement of "Public rape would not have been acceptable" is incorrect based on the fact that every conquered population from the earliest dawn of written history thru about 1700 or so (and that is strictly a European cut off date) expected to be "sacked" which included rape. And when they had their turn on top they did exactly the same thing.
And I am also not sure how you can discount all of the sexually based art that comes out of the classical period too when you state "Nudity was fine amongst the same sex, such as in baths, but in most cases not with opposite sexes unless for sex as above." when virtually every significant public place, temple, wealthy house had nude art within them.
ENFORCED public nudity was a humiliation because it signified someone had power over you. I'm not sure you can apply that to nudity in general (Hell there was an early American President who used to go skinny dipping in the Potomac).
Societies have a perception they wish to create in order to make themselves look better (witness Victorian England) and their enemies have a perception they wish to create in order to make they other side look bad. When I look back at extant writings from any time period, existing physical evidence and myth\rumor I have come to believe humans have evolved very little since homosapien appeared on this planet as far as our BIOS is concerned.
What changes is OUR perceptions of what we see based on who we are right now this minute.
As an example for a long time it was considered Roman propaganda that the Carthagians sacrificed child. In the last 50 years or so a lot of archeological evidence has emerged that maybe the Roman's weren't so far from the truth after all. Egyptology was stalled as long as Egyptologist took the Old Testament as a literal document, it only got rolling when they tossed the Bible over their shoulders and started to look at the evidence in front of them.
Both of those "truths" (A word I hate) were based on what we wanted to believe at the time not what we saw in front of us.
Over it's existence Rome was many different things, as America has been, neither you nor I am absolutely right or wrong. We are both both depending on which time period we pick and which evidence we find most creditable.
kisses
willowfall
![Dirce[1].jpg](https://www.cruxforums.com/xf/data/attachments/1064/1064705-0a5169590dc77151654ce3d503439527.jpg "Dirce[1].jpg")
comics.8muses.com
boydellandbrewer.com
but the list of contents looks quite promising, maybe there's less pretentious academic waffle when you get into it.
