The Roman Empire, which lasted for around 537 years, was considered the greatest ancient empire. Munus Gladiatorium or gladiatorial performances began in 235 B.C. Gladiators were men of war, but these men accepted same-sex homosexuality. While there weren’t many laws written about homosexuality, the Roman Empire was a complex society. There were rules, but they were rarely enforced. Roman Empire represented virtue. However, gladiators are seen as aphrodisiacs. Gladiators were able grab both male and female attention in the amphitheatre due to their erotic beauty. The lust of gladiators led to the same-sex relationship. The Roman Empire did not view sexuality as negatively as it does today.
The Roman system of sex and gender may seem foreign to someone who is unfamiliar with this period. Briefly, Romans had a different system for determining gender than we do. Roman sexuality seems to have classified the world by ‘penetrators and those penetrated’, rather than dividing it into gender identities. Roman sexuality was about dominance, not gender. The gladiators considered themselves to be top men. They were the ones who displayed their brute strength during gladiatorial fights. Gladiators were a symbol of dominance and power in the amphitheatre. This dominance was then translated into a sense of control over sexual situations. The norm was homosexuality; there was no rule about what was right or wrong. It was just a matter of doing your duty. Gladiators are seen as lustful men that need certain characteristics to survive. While they cannot have women who lust for them, like master wives, there are men/boys in the empire and within the gladiators themselves who fancied these gladiators. The Roman empire was not yet Christianized, so homosexuality wasn’t considered a sin. Women were viewed as only being useful for procreation and to carry on the legacy of their ancestors, while men were there purely to satisfy gladiators. Gladiators only have the ability to show dominance through sexual means because they do not possess dominance. According to the Priapic prim directive, a man should only and always play the insertive part in these hierarchically structured encounters. It is difficult to read Roman texts without coming across the constant understanding that penetrating the enemy’s territory is an essential and masculine role. Seneca once said that women were a “born submissive”11, and the prevailing view was that men had been born to penetrate. Paul Veyne perfectly summarizes Roman texts’ outlook. “To be male is to act, no matter who the passive partner may be.12” In order to control the sexual activity of someone of a lower status with a infamy or gladiator that individual must be the penetrator. This means the higher someone’s status is, the less likely they are to be the dominant party in a similar sexual activity. Lex Scantina is a law that punishes men of higher status for being submissive towards the lower classes. The question of homophobia has generated a lot of debate. The Romans considered sexuality ‘illegal’, mostly because of the enigmatic lex Scantina. This distinction is meant to mean that while crimes are punished publicly, sins should remain hidden.
Infames refer to sins or shame. The gladiators were regarded as the infames by their society. Gladiators were alienated from the society and had no control over their bodies or their surroundings. Gladiators had no rights to their own lives and were viewed as property. The sexual vulnerability of male slaves made them less than men. A slave was called puer throughout his life and this term likely refers to the sexual use of slaves as well as their age. Some slave owners would try to prolong their boyish characteristics, but we only hear this from those who disapprove.
A puer was a man who had a ‘boyhood for life’. Gladiators and slaves were forced to fight in order to please the masters. It was evident that rape had occurred. These slaves were not held accountable for rape because their master had complete control over his property. They could also torture and punish them as they saw fit. The infamias accepted rape as a social norm. Because these slaves were not allowed to name themselves, they could not protest against the abuse. To do so would have meant death. Seneca’s speeches are full of homophobic sentiments and blame the victim statements. This definition is both puella and impudicus. The act is the same as writing a carmen furiosum, or a slanderous comedy? Take note of the meaning famosus in this case, which is “to cause infamia”. Infames were defined as being abused constantly; being infamed in a hierarchy; living a life of such horrors where one has no control over their body or social status.
In a patriarchal society, men are in charge and women have little or no influence. In the Roman Empire, patriarchy was about status and men. Gladiators, who are not men, are not equals. Gladiator men, who are inferior in sexuality to men in a male-dominated society, suffer a disadvantage. Gladiators did not have any rights. They were not allowed vote, and the Roman Empire didn’t trust them. The Roman Empire did not protect the gladiators from sexual abuse by their masters. The lower class gladiators must accept the abuse of upper class people. Togas were used to separate them. “In Roman terminology, any deviation from the proper wearing of the Toga would be considered a grave affront against the state. Furthermore, the assumption and wearing of the Toga marked the transition of the male from puer into vir… It’s a symbol, a parasemon. It is a sign, a parasemon.
It was possible for men of higher status to engage in sexual relationships despite being married. It shows that the Roman Empire only cares about the status of the men in power. They are the ones who benefit from this. It is a way to show that the roman empire only cares about the status of men. The gladiators were separated from those with higher status, and it was the men who benefited. Even in the homosexual sense, gladiators were ranked. These ranks were used to classify men as ‘effeminate,’ and therefore lower than other gladiators. Effeminate can be used to denigrate men who are not considered manly. A man’s feminine features made him more attractive to women. Oscar Wilde was viewed as aristocratic and aesthete by his friends and strangers because of his ‘effeminate interests’. The British public only began to associate effeminacy or aestheticism in general with homosexuality after the Wilde trials. Sinfield, among others, argues that this was a result of the trials. Gladiators with no rights can be sold to men as escorts. Gladiators, who are often viewed as prized for their gladiatorial fighting skills, are actually people of lower status. With a history of power, white men can manipulate almost anything. Gladiators are one of their many manipulations.
The gladiators of the Roman Empire were men whose lives were consumed by games. The gladiators are entertainment and will never achieve higher status. They can’t distribute dominance. They will be considered forbidden fruit, and they will live the proletariat life. Gladiators, in Roman society’s eyes, are not considered anything more than men who perform lustful combat in an amphitheater. Gladiators’ fights are seen as a sensual dance that attracts the gaze of men and women with high status. The Roman Empire would not be the same without gladiators. In a society where the status of men is important, the gladiators play an important role. Even the emperors of Rome were homosexual. “Ancient commentators’ remarks about Julius Caesar sexual experiences offer a parallel. Suetonius tells how, during Caesar’s Gallic Triumph, Caesar’s soldiers were chanting ribald jokes about Caesar adulteries. Also, they made fun of his affair with King Nicomedes Bithynia and his alleged subordinated receptionist role. Caesar’s men were not the first to make fun of him over the Nicomedes affair. Suetonius writes that Bibulus referred, as his colleague, to Caesar, in his public edicts. “The queen of Bithynia” who, before, was in love a king. Now, she was in love a kingship. Another man, Octavius, referred, in a public context, to Caesar, just as Pompey referred, to a king. It was not wrong to be homosexual, it was a matter of pride and understanding the status of the gladiator in Roman society.