Thread by @StefanPaas

I learned a great deal from Kyle Harper’s study of slavery in the Late Antique world, so I’m looking forward to reading this study about the transformation of sex.

Chapter 1: Roman sexual culture. What strikes most is the ubiquitousness of slavery, that is, the constant availability of human bodies as the backbone of Roman sexual culture. Deeply depressing too.

‘The sexual culture of the high Roman Empire was dominated by the imperatives of social reproduction. (…) early marriage for women, jealous guarding of honorable female sexuality, an expansive slave system, late marriage for men >

… and basically relaxed attitudes toward male sexual potential, so long as it was consonant with masculine protocols and social hierarchies.’ (i.e., a free man was at all times to be the dominant partner). >

‘It is in that context, as a dark horse in the chaotic, competitive atmosphere of the high empire, that the early Christians, with their highly distinctive sexual gospel, need to be imagined.’

Chapter 2: the main driver behind early, pre-Augustinian (2nd/3rd c.) Christianity's attitude to sex was Christianity's commitment to free will. In a society where intellectual debate revolved around issues of determinism, fate and astrology, Christians stressed human liberty. >

In contrast with the stoics, they didn't see free will as a capacity that free men could develop through reflection and exercise, but as belonging to human nature as such. Only this, free will, could be reconciled with the justice of God who holds us responsible for our deeds >

Sex was the battle ground where concepts of free will vs fate were tested and advocated. Adultery, for example wasn't the consequence of a conjunction of Mars/Venus, but it was 'sin', that is, a moral choice for which we are responsible - according to Christians. >

'The Christians of the second and third centuries invented the notion of free will. Against the threat of gnostic determinism, amid a popular culture increasingly addicted to astrology, and in opposition to a philosophical culture with ever more sophisticated accounts ... >

... of moral causation, the Christians entered the fray with a message that was jarringly simple and distinctive. The individual ... was a moral agent with unqualified ca- pability and responsibility.' >

This absolute commitment to liberty and responsibility bears some similarities with late modern movements such as #metoo or wokeness. 'Boys will be boys' wouldn't do for those early Christians. Also important: just like these modern movements, Chr ethics was a minority morality >

'But the men and women of the first centuries did not imagine a future where the sexual protocols they formed would be placed in the hands of a powerful institutional church. Indeed, the strident tone of so much early Christian writing on sexuality was nurtured in an atmosphere >

... where the advocates of the religion were a small, persecuted minority. Christian sexual morality of the second century has a shrill tone precisely because it is the urgent message of an embattled, if confident, group of dissenters.'

Chapter 3 is about the mainstreaming of this perspective after Constantine. Christianity emerged from its minority position to take responsibility for the entire Roman society. This resulted in an extremely complicated civilization process. >

Part of this was the 'gendering' of sexual vice. Roman sexuality was embedded in social hierarchies. Christian sexuality in man/woman relationships. One consequence was the gradual outlawing of same-sex relationships (rather than merely 'passive' males). >

Another was that the full legal weight of the late-Roman jurisdiction came to crack down on forced sex, esp prostitution (mostly a matter of slavery). Pimping, trafficking, forced prostitution was submitted to increasingly harsh legislation from Theodosius II to Justinian.

Also, mainstream Christians (e.g. Augustine) had to find a place for marriage. The ascetic Christian minority perspective of the early centuries had to be reconciled with procreation, social stability, family formation, etc. Marriage became more equal. >

For example, Chr moralists criticized male adultery (female adultery was, of course, extremely censored since times immemorial in these patriarchal societies). Take Jerome (4th c.): 'The laws [against adultery] were made by men, and they are disposed against women'. >

Against double standards: 'Among them [the Romans], the bridles of sexual restraint are unloosed for men. The Romans condemn only stuprum and adulterium, letting lust run wild through whorehouses and slave girls, as though social status makes an offense, and not sexual desire.'

Or Chrysostom (4th c.), on (male) adultery (that is, in Christian terms, bc for Romans it wasn't adultery when a married man went to a prostitute or had sex with his slaves): 'I am not unaware that most think it is adultery only to violate a married woman. >

But I say that it is a wicked and licentious adultery for a man with a wife to have an affair even with a public whore, a slave girl, or any other woman without a husband ... >

Do not show me the laws of the outside world, which say a woman committing adultery is to be brought to a trial, but that men with wives who do it with slave girls are not considered guilty'. >

Some genuine concern about a wife's feelings was part of this moral attack on adultery: 'Your wife did not come to you, and leave behind her father and mother and her entire household in order to be humiliated.'

On the other hand, while male adultery was censored, divorce (which was quite possible under Roman laws) was made more difficult. Harper argues, though, that changing views of property (emergence of conjugal property) played a role in this. Anyway, fascinating history.

At the risk of oversimplification, one could say that the main concern for these Christians was sexual lust as a fundamental human drive that was responsible for much abuse, violence and - basically - 'sin' (a new category in the shame/honour-driven Roman society). >

This concern, rooted in the stern biblical linking of illicit sex ('porneia') with idolatry, was the source of much societal criticism (often in quite gross terms), and when Christians became responsible for social order, it was the driving force behind new views of marriage. >

Lust could not really be trusted, so sex was to be seen as an instrument for procreation rather than something to be enjoyed for itself. Also, lust was the source of the horrible violence against slave bodies. Slaves were 'forced to sin', and this was a great evil. >

And finally, lust was the source of adultery, which was - legally - mostly a male problem (free Roman males enjoying much licence as compared to women). So much Christian moral effort consisted of curbing male adultery. >

Anyway, all this shows the complexity, unpredictability and ambiguity of cultural transformation. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to assess from our modern perspective. There was new liberty and equality, but also new oppression and prudery.

In general, if Harper's analysis makes sense, life was more difficult for homosexuals at the beginning of the 6th c., but far better for slaves and prostitutes. Life was better for married women (since double standards of fidelity were in retreat), but divorce was more difficult.

And finally, while there was a genuine sea-change in the transition from ancient Roman to late-Roman Christian culture in terms of sex, there were older layers in the Christian civilization process such as the Roman emphasis on monogamy and family and ... >

... the long-standing prejudice (which could be quite vitriolic in pre-Christian times) against men who let themselves be penetrated by others. Within new frames of sin/penance, some of these older honour/shame-framed issues lived further.

Note: my use of the word 'homosexuals' above, is of course anachronistic. People didn't think in terms of biologically rooted sexual orientations. It was seen in terms of choice, derailed lust, or 'disease' (also by a pagan author like Libanius).
#threadendshere