#stuprum posting | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

theoihalioistuff · 4 months

Note

In the post you made debunking the claim of Ares being the protector of women, you have written that secrecy and disposal of the child born point to rape. Can you please elaborate a bit as I'm having a hard time understanding how exactly? Especially with the latter, is it because the conception of the child happened without the permission of the father of the woman (I've heard even if woman slept willingly, without her father's assent then it would have been considered rape)?

TW for Rape and Infanticide. (My eyes actually started watering and I had to stop several times while researching this ask)

There's a lot to discuss in here, and I'm afraid a Tumblr post from someone who's not a classicist won't cover all that needs to be addressed, so for further reading I recommend Rape in Antiquity (1997) edited by Susan Deacy and Karen F. Pierce, and their follow-up Revisiting Rape in Antiquity (2023), Edited by Susan Deacy, José Malheiro Magalhães and Jean Zacharski Menzies, a series of collected essays regarding Sexual Violence in Greek and Roman Worlds.

Broadly speaking, our modern concept of Rape (criminal act defined by the lack of consent during sexual intercourse) does not have a strict ancient greek equivalent (bearing in mind that "ancient greece" covers large periods of history where attitudes almost certainly differed from time to time and from place to place). Nor is there a greek match found for the english word 'rape' – derived from the latin rapere "seize, carry off by force", which was used for both people (in the sense of abduct or kidnap, only rarely denoting sexual violence) and objects (in the sense of plunder). The latin words most commonly used to denote rape were stuprare "defile, disgrace, rape," which is related to stuprum "illicit sex" (also to stupere "to be stunned, stupefied", origin of the word stupid) and violare "maltreat, profane, infringe, violate".

In ancient greek several words could be used to denote what we today would call rape: Biazomai (βιάζομαι - inflict violence, force, constrain), Harpazo (ἁρπάζω - snatch away, seize, carry off; from where the Harpies get their name, later used to refer to the christian rapture), Hybrizo (ὑβρίζω - outrage, dishonor, affront, treat as an inferior; related to hybris, a complicated word), Moicheia (μοιχεία ‐ adultery, illicit sex) or Phthora (φθορά - ruin, damage, destroy) were all words that, to a greater or lesser extent, were used to refer to violent or illicit sex. These last two concepts, though intimately related to our definition of rape, can be considered distinctly, especially when approximating a definition of "rape" in the classical world: e.g. the forcing of a slave was not morally wrong or illegal, while consorting with a free married woman was. Willingness did not define the crime, rather status and ownership did.

Regarding this last point, women's sexual and reproductive rights belonged to their kyrios (κύριος - guardian, master, head of the household), generally fathers and husbands, but failing that brothers (e.g. Apemosyne and Althaimenes) or sons (e.g. Penelope and Telemachos). Moreover a woman's virtue and reputation were primarily linked to her sexual activity: chastity, modesty, shame and obedience being her main ethical concerns. Therefore, when it came to sexual relationships outside of marriage, it was narratively "preferable that a woman should be raped [be unwilling] rather than seduced" (The Portrayal of Rape in New Comedy, Karen F. Pierce), thus preserving the moral virtue of "respectable" characters like goddesses or heroines. This is not to say every sexual interaction in greek mythology is presented as a rape, that obviously varies from telling to telling and depends on the myth, but it explains the narrative predilection for it. It should also be remembered that plenty of these unions are ambiguous as to whether rape or seduction take place, primarily because it's not usually of interest to the narrator unless the virtue of the women is being discussed (e.g. the centuries long discussions on Helen that survive to this day, and even then the distinction can be dismissed as irrelevant or nonexistent; "We think that it is unjust to carry women off. But to be anxious to avenge rape is foolish: wise men take no notice of such things. For plainly the women would never have been carried away, had they not wanted it themselves." – Hdt. Histories 1.4.2).

When it comes to panhellenic myth, sexual unions between gods and women are primarily framed as extramarital (beffiting a monogamous culture where gods' official consorts where to be found elsewhere), without the κύριος knowledge or consent (for a reversal see Hyg. Fabulae 129), and therefore under the umbrella of illicit sex (i.e. Rape). Recurring motifs are attached to these kinds of stories, which give us narrative context to identify (or at the very least be suspicious of) similar accounts in other myths where no explicit word denoting rape is used (as is most common in surviving works of mythography, that prioritise genealogy and gloss over instances of sexual assault). One of the most common tropes is that of exposure.

Myths of exposure in greek mythology usually come in three flavours. Either the child is exposed because of some prophecy (e.g. Paris or Oidipous), because it is born female (e.g. Atalanta or Iphis) or, in the majority of cases, because it is the product of rape (see below). As you noted the most frequent reason given for the exposure is fear of the κύριος discovery, who, in instances where he does find out about the rape, either does not believe the victim or is indifferent to her plight, and in either case kills her or attempts to do so (some examples below):

[Apemosyne: killed by her brother Althaimenes after she is raped by Hermes] "Not much later he became the murderer of his sister. Hermes loved her, but she ran away, and he could not catch her (for she was faster than him at running). So he spread freshly stripped hides along her path, and when she was coming back from the spring, she slipped on them and was raped. She told her brother what happened, but he thought the god was just an excuse, so he kicked her to death." (Apollod. 3.2.1)

[Auge: sentenced to death by her father Aleos after she is raped by Herakles] "After Auge was raped by Herakles, she concealed her baby in the sanctuary of Athena, whose priestess she was. But the land remained barren, and the oracles revealed that there was some ungodly thing in the sanctuary of Athena, so Auge was found out by her father, and he handed her over to Nauplios to be put to death. Teuthras, the ruler of the Mysians, received her from Nauplios and married her." (Apollod. 3.9.1)

[Psamathe: killed by her father Krotopos after she is raped by Apollo] "Psamathe the daughter of Krotopos got pregnant by Apollo [in Statius' Thebaid 1. 562-669 she is explicitly raped beside a river] and because she feared her father she exposed the child, whom she named Linos. The shepherd who received him raised him as his own, and one day the kings sheepdogs tore him apart. Maddened with grief, she was detected by her father, who [after she had bared her breasts and told him all] sentenced her to death, assuming she had been a harlot and lied about Apollo." (Conon. Narrations 19)

[Alope: killed by her father Kerkyron after she was raped by Poseidon] "Since Alope, daughter of Kerkyon, was very beautiful, Poseidon lay with her, and from this embrace she bore a child which she gave to her nurse to expose, since she did not know its father. When the child was exposed, a mare came and furnished it milk. A certain shepherd, following the mare, saw the child and took it up. When he had taken it home, clothed in its royal garments, a fellow shepherd asked that it be given to him. The first gave it without the garments, and when strife rose between them, the one who had taken the child demanding signs it was free-born, but the other refusing to give them, they came to king Kerkyon and presented their arguments. The one who had taken the child again demanded the garments, and when they were brought, Kerkyon knew that they were taken from the garments of his daughter. Alope's nurse, in fear, revealed to the king that the child was Alope's, and he ordered that his daughter be imprisoned and slain, and the child exposed. Again the mare fed it; shepherds again found the child, and took him up, and reared him, feeling that he was being guarded by the will of the gods." (Hyg. Fabulae. 187)

Not every account of exposure explicitly denotes rape (as mentioned before the nature of the union generally goes uncommented), and sometimes depending on the version seduction is to be better understood. Though both are interchangeable narrative-wise, frequently other details lead may us to suppose the stock character of the unwilling (raped) maiden is being portrayed, I'll use the example of Phylonome again:

"Phylonome, the daughter of Nyktimos and Arkadia, was wont to hunt with Artemis; but Ares, in the guise of a shepherd, got her with child. She gave birth to twin children and, fearing her father, cast them into the [River] Erymanthos. By some divine providence they were borne round and round without peril, and found haven in the trunk of a hollow oaktree. A wolf, whose den was in the tree, cast her own cubs into the stream and suckled the children." (Ps. Plutarch. Greek and Roman Parallel Stories. 36)

1. Phylonome is explicitly mentioned as a huntress companion of Artemis (presumably sworn to chastity). The sexual vulnerablility of Artemis' companions is a common trope; see Kallisto, Daphne, Arethousa, Britomartis, Kyrene, Syrinx, Nikaia, Pholoe, etc.)

2. Ares transforms/disguises himself to approach her (perhaps the most common trope of all), and conceals his identity in the guise of a shepherd (a disguise otherwise used by Zeus to approach Mnemosyne; Ovid. Met. 6.103-128, Clement. Recog. 22)

3. After giving birth she casts her children into the river Erymanthos. The reasoning is the typical stock example, fear of her father, though in this case the form of infanticide is much more direct than exposure: she casts them into the river to drown. As usual with these stories the children are saved by divine intervention, and are nursed by an animal and later raised by shepherds.

Again, no verb denoting rape is ever explicitly used, yet the context of the story is enough to reasonably suppose it was considered as such. Other examples of myths where babies are exposed are listed below, many of them are explicitly rapes, almost all the rest can be inferred as such (I can't for my own sake provide references for all of them, so those interested must do their own research):

Koronis exposes Apollo's son Asklepios on a mountain near Epidauros according to a local legend, Psamathe exposes Apollo's son Linos, Antiope exposes Zeus' sons Zethos and Amphion, Alope exposes Poseidon's son Hippothoon, Akakallis exposes Apollo's son Miletos, Tyro exposes Poseidon's sons Pelias and Neleus, Kreousa exposes Apollo's son Ion, Pelopia exposes Thyestes' son Aigisthos, Auge exposes Herakles' son Telephos, Evadne exposes Apollo's son Iamos, and Phylonome "exposes" Ares' sons Lykastos and Parrhasios (this list is by no means meant to be exhaustive).

My post confronting fake claims that Ares was the protector of women can be found here.

46 notes · View notes

horizon-verizon · 2 years

Note

You are convinced that Aemond raped Alys and your reasoning is "Alys Rivers was a war prize “proving” Aemond’s power and military prowess. If you are taken as a war prize, you are an object, a literal reward or prize. You have no ability to even give consent because your other option is violence/death. Aemond raped her and this son is a rape baby." Your words not mine. Then I click on your blog and you ship Rhaegar and Lyanna lol lets apply that logic to them now! The Greens suck but come on.

Disclaimer: I might edit this post a lot because I might realize some things to add.

Did you know, anon, that the word “rape” in medieval society could either mean the sexual attack or just straight up taking a woman/girl away from her father/brother/husband’s control and authority? Or whenever a female laborer of a household has been taken out of her previous household, unlicensed by her lord?

Its roots come from the Latin word, “rapere” and its past participle “raptus”:

“the usual Latin word being stuprare "to defile, ravish, violate," which is related to stuprum (n.) "illicit sexual intercourse," literally "disgrace," stupere "to be stunned, stupefied" (see stupid). Latin raptus, past participle of rapere, used as a noun meant "a seizure, plundering, abduction”

Rape had the legal and cultural meaning of “property-taking”, sometimes more than when a someone forced a woman into sex. And it comes from ancient Roman culture, literature, and ideas medieval societies would be adopting into their own systems (Ovid's Fasti and Livy's History of Rome): The Rape of Lucrece.

Of which medieval or Reniassance writers have made use to create doubt and suspicion for the state of their various female character’s chastity. Why does such matter in those stories? A woman’s chastity is linked to nation building and male-alliances. Marriages were for alliance, resources and power -- not love. Lyanna was arranged to marry Robert because of power and resources and to strengthen/solidify the alliance already set up by Ned and Robert’s friendship before.

So when we go back to A World of Ice and Fire, which says:

“Brandon Stark, the heir to Winterfell, had to be restrained from confronting Rhaegar at what he took as a slight upon his sister's honor, for Lyanna Stark had long been betrothed to Robert Baratheon, Lord of Storm's End. Eddard Stark, Brandon's younger brother and a close friend to Lord Robert, was calmer but no more pleased. As for Robert Baratheon himself, some say he laughed at the prince's gesture, claiming that Rhaegar had done no more than pay Lyanna her due...but those who knew him better say the young lord brooded on the insult, and that his heart hardened toward the Prince of Dragonstone from that day forth.” (pg. 127)

We get the sense that the Starks percieved Rhaegar taking Lyanna and even just gifting her the crown of blue roses as defiling her female chastity. It wasn’t about her and what she wanted it was about Robert’s claim over her. And it was more about Ned’s ties to Robert and why he was sent to the Eyrie to be fostered in the first place, where he befriended Robert -- to create alliances amongst various families.

By contrast, Lyanna clearly did not want, respect, nor love Robert. When we read AGoT and keep track of Lyanna and Rhaegar (not their families, but themselves), we see that Lyanna wanted Rhaegar over Robert and they formed a genuine relationship.

She expressed to Ned:

"Robert will never keep to one bed,” Lyanna had told him at Winterfell, on the night long ago when their father had promised her hand to the young Lord of Storm's End. "I hear he has gotten a child on some girl in the Vale." Ned had held the babe in his arms; he could scarcely deny her, nor would he lie to his sister, but he had assured her that what Robert did before their betrothal was of no matter, that he was a good man and true who would love her with all his heart. Lyanna had only smiled. "Love is sweet, dearest Ned, but it cannot change a man's nature.”

(A Game of Thrones; Eddard IX )

AND

"You never knew Lyanna as I did, Robert," Ned told him. "You saw her beauty, but not the iron underneath. She would have told you that you have no business in the melee."

(A Game of Thrones; Eddard VII)

AND

Robert reached for the flagon and refilled his cup. "You see what she does to me, Ned." The king seated himself, cradling his wine cup. "My loving wife. The mother of my children." The rage was gone from him now; in his eyes Ned saw something sad and scared. "I should not have hit her. That was not … that was not kingly." He stared down at his hands, as if he did not quite know what they were. “I was always strong … no one could stand before me, no one. How do you fight someone if you can’t hit them?” Confused, the king shook his head. “Rhaegar … Rhaegar won, damn him. I killed him, Ned, I drove the spike right through that black armor into his black heart, and he died at my feet. They made up songs about it. Yet somehow he still won. He has Lyanna now, and I have her.” The king drained his cup.”

(A Game of Thrones; Eddard X)

So, if Robert, a canon and confirmed serial rapist (Cersei) and sexual abuser of children (that 14 year old sex worker that even Ned was like “...bro”) by the time he was 40ish, could not see that Lyanna did not want him and only thought of how pretty she was....while Rhaegar gifted her the crown of roses for her participation and victories at the Harrenhal tourney (however politically stupid it was)...who’s the true rapist here? Would Robert have respected Lyanna’s indifference to him if they did get married? Fuck no.

So if there were any persons defining and saying Lyanna was raped, it was never her or about sexual rape but those who would have benefited more from Lyanna marrying Robert & about “stealing” virginity.

And if you wonder why I bother to introduce medieval society when this is a fictional story with European medieval-inspired and not-so-differently modeled infrastructures and ideologies.....I can’t help you.

Lyanna was 16 when they left for the Tower of Joy and had Rhaegar’s child, and they met when she was 15 at the Harrenhal tourney.

We remember that she was betrothed to Robert before she turned 16, and Robert was 19/20 at the Harrenhal tourney.

Rhaegar was 22/23 at the tourney and 23/24 when he went with Lyanna to the Tower of Joy.

Lyanna, by real, American, modern standards, is a minor/child by the time she’s pregnant with Rhaegar’s kid, but she’s an adult by the Westerosi age of majority. And she’s past marriageable age.

To totally ignore that noble women of both real life and Westeros actively were treated as adults and like Rhaenyra Targaryen, and participated in politics as if they were adults is to:

deny any reality of their political and psychological autonomy and ability to reason

suppose that the man she chose broke a law or principle that is then recognized as a crime

....but if you go back to how I bring up the definition of “rape” and what that means for male-alliances, then you should realize that the crime that anyone would have thought what happened was that Lyanna was not passed into Robert’s authority (and out of her father and brothers’) and Rhaegar intercepted that licensed transfer.

Robert is Rhaegar’s foil. Rhaegar displays an sense of responsibility and emotional intelligence (if not always a political one) that Robert simply lacks and never bothers to develop.

A foil is:

a literary device designed to illustrate or reveal information, traits, values, or motivations of one character through the comparison and contrast of another character. A literary foil character serves the purpose of drawing attention to the qualities of another character, frequently the protagonist. This is effective as a means of developing a deeper understanding of a character by emphasizing their strengths and weaknesses. In addition, a literary foil allows writers to create a counterpart for the protagonist that puts their actions and choices in context.

And you can look up Rhaegar’s characterization by clicking HERE (of what I collected). But the universal consensus (except for Robert, but fuck him) is that Rhaegae was generally both a good and impressive person. He was loved by most and even Robert didn't dislike him until he gave Lyanna the crown and stepped on his "turf".

It is actually more in Robert’s than Rhaegar’s character to rape. Robert thinks Rhaegar raped Lyanna (the other meaning) because he would have raped her. Because to him, "rape" is unallowed transfer of a woman's body, not about her consent. He feels every man naturally thinks and would treat Cersei/Lyanna as he does/would have. (Meanwhile, can we say that his own friend, Ned, that he would do that to a woman?)

Rhaegar was a gloomy person and mimics the Byronic Hero trope; Lyanna was a lot more positive and vibrant, mimicking the Rebellious Princess or Spirited Young Lady tropes:

The Rebellious Princess is usually a teenager, typically brash (since it goes hand in hand with being rebellious). If she's not the hero, quite often she's the hero's love interest. This will sometimes invoke Marry for Love not only as another way for her to rebel, but to also get out of an Arranged Marriage. She usually qualifies as a Royal Who Actually Does Something.

Thus these two embody Forbidden Love, Opposites Attract, and dabble into Good, Bad Adultery.

Edit: I just realized that Rhaegar also fits into the Royal Who Actually Does Something Trope. Also, he and Lyanna are the inversed versions of their traditional gendered roles: Rhaegar becomes the musical, singing quieter lady imbued with remembrances for a time past while Lyanna actively participates in tourneys and masculinized quests/journeys like the Prince Charming/Knight in Shining Armor. Subversion of narrative and gender tropes!

Rhaegar loved Lyanna for:

her bravery and passion

protecting those needing to protecting

her determination to stand up for what she thinks is right despite constrictions placed on her bc of youth and gender

positivity

Lyanna loved Rhaegar because:

he had much more of a sense of responsibility and the sense of grief that comes with his need to "fix" certain wrongs in their current society (thus was more...he cared more than any other person, regardless of gender, about what it means to rule apart from having power)

that that responsibility went even beyond her

that that sense of responsibility went further than most noblemen’s while not trying to change or repress her, nor disregard her entire personality for his own sense of power or (for him, nonexistent) fantasies of her person

his passion

And tropes =/= “trite” or cliche. You can think of them as building blocks for themes, storylines, and characterizations.

Martin has painstakingly made sure to convey that their story and deaths are tragic not just for them and their families, but for Rhaegar’s ambition to remodel and begin to reverse the damages done in Westerosi history after having learned of the prophecy.

What defines a war prize, anon? Assuming you’ve read the post you seem to be referring to (this ONE), you should know that they are people or things that a warrior claims or is given as a reward for victory or conquest during/after a war/a battle.

Lyanna and Rhaegar form a romantic bond and they go off together before Rhaegar ever actually battles anyone or there was a war happening. Before Robert rebels and lords begin to gather weapons and troops.

It begins with him giving her the crown for Queen of Love and Beauty at the Harrenhal tourney, passing his own wife. You can look at all the posts I have tagged “lyanna and rhaegar”, or click HERE for more.

So just by definition of a war prize, Lyanna was never a war prize.

#lyanna and rhaegar #asoiaf asks to me #robert's rebellion #medieval terms #medieval society #rhaegar's characterization #lyanna stark #lyanna stark's characterization #robert baratheon #robert baratheon's characterization #war prize #rhaelya #classical literature #agot comment #a game of thrones #asoiaf #AGoT

69 notes · View notes

human-antithesis · 11 months

Text

Pedophilamorphia of Excreachollemical Endolapse

coitus raped blastomed cranio uretthrall odour starts to pyose pus cadaveric annals macerate necro dissected endo lapses enzyme spyro cardiac marbles on scouring blast pedophilatrophy on rected lipoma danks

haemoglobal furuncle gnaws rupture in the acrid ward the sunken germs quolicystomy retro rigid cartilages now the parylisis splattered deformed

cranio virulunced exeulcerated on castrated gangrened liquefaction on metamorphose grounded fludges verrucose in the crypts anatomy starts changing dissoluced conjunctivated post colemesis defects viruses extirpate by leechs of grin

rot progressive cavernose suppure vile colony of necro biosis in the rectum

abortive psicopatogenetical ureter

empyamical vesaculla chewed in nausea blackened sperms effluviyzing on the corrupts cynic vomited diaorrhea excreted off eructs of faecal chronic stuprumes

rotting cancer in clinic pancreo invulse nodules pseudo regurgitate dilation inner gutted of endo lapse flatulentia

hot stink inside malformed fungoids saturated growths of phelgmy tumours hack crispies munched vaginal gurgle skewering freshly intoxicated pyoma abrupture

monstrosity on clots of catalypts soggyness giblets on total amorpht smells of the cottered putrid oestocondroma

and I taste my enema fullfied me on maturation

mixing anal erupts grubing of putrefactive anereocervyx implants on grotesque mucose necrotic asepsiaphagist in mucopurulence haemangled marbled scoured

on the thyroided my warts clumps in chunks

urina melting and boiling on the porous calculal convulsing rectocells in warts excoriating mincing dismembrent reproducing slowly diseases in dorso in sickly dusks of reek pharygerms now gargling

choped in half and mutated turfs

dark red excreachollemesis facial mastication cadaveric sub tumours blistering in all pharyngalle abruptions evacuationg malformed on dark piss fissures of putrid weak rotting insides along the body, the greenish, sub acrid grubs

#Disgorge #Brutal Death Metal #Death Metal #Mexico #Bandcamp

0 notes

missfinefeather · 5 years

Text

Freshly imported french fan

Reminder that this is right after the end of roman britain, like right after

And I just posted a threesome roman picture earlier

even if it was MMF and not FFM

probably not something everyone did

but it happened

Apparently FFM threesomes were rare in roman times

Here's Ausotonius a Gallo-Roman poet in the 4th century talking about threesomes

MlleBelleplume

Well, to be fair, probably happened way more in history than people like to give credit.

Freshly imported french fan

"Three men in bed together: two are committing debauchery (stuprum), two are being debauched." "Doesn't that make four men?" "You're mistaken: the man on either end each counts as a single offense, but the one in the middle both acts and is acted on

MlleBelleplume

Even in conservative eras

Freshly imported french fan

True

#Kaamelott9 #Kaamelott #Missfinefeather Liveblogs #Missfinefeather watches Kaamelott #liveblog #french television #blacklist Missfinefeather

3 notes · View notes

lovenddesireinrome-blog · 6 years

Photo

Blog Post ONE: Foundation

This blog is meant to be an informative collection of posts that explain the many layers that make up the Homeoerotic cultures and attitudes that existed in the Ancient Roman times. Comprising of topics from Lex Scantinia to the prolific poetry and excerpts of Sappho. The primal issues for philosophers, historians and many others that are apart of the discussions that is Same-Sex love and desire is that the population of people they are surveying no longer exist. Furthermore, because of the heteronormative and patrilineal traditions of that time the accounts of the individuals we are most concerned with happen to be the least prevalent. Fast forwarding to current times Gay culture is now the most accepted that it has ever been not only on a political level but also socially.

To provide background and foundations for context let me preface this discourse by saying Homosexuality was existent since the dawn of times. However, historically it has been viewed a lude, perverse and deviant from normalcy. The Libertas or social liberties and freedoms of the freeborn male manifested themselves in the mastery of the individual's own body. Additionally, in the person’s preference of a passive or submissive sexual position. The choice of this position implied servility and a loss of virility. Homosexual behaviour among soldiers not only violated the law against intercourse among freeborn men, but it also compromised the penetrated soldier’s sexual and therefore military dominance. This is a big issue for Romans because self image is one big part of the representation of Rome. Additionally, rape and penetration are some of the many symbols and sometimes also the realities of military defeat. One great example is In 46 BC, where Caesar submitted to Nicomedes IV of Bithynia. This is where the degreading title, ‘the Queen of Bithynia’ originated. According to the historian Polybius, who writings are thought to be from the 2nd century BC noted that the penalty for a soldier who allowed himself to be penetrated was fustuarium. In short this punishment was cudgelling to death or being beaten with a club. For the Romans this crime was as heinous as deserting the military during battle. Both of these crimes involved cudgelling after the individuals was found guilty.

In ancient Rome, men who were penetrated anally were thought to be taking on the role of a woman, but women who were anally penetrated were thought to be taking on the role of a young man. So it is still to hard fully comprehend how the Romans truly felt about homosexuality. However, this type of sex is clearly prohibited and outlined in the in the Lex Scantinia. The Lex Scantinia is a poorly documented ancient Roman law that penalized sex crime or stuprum against a freeborn male minor otherwise known as ingenuus or praetextatus during ancient times. These laws may also have been used to prosecute adult male citizens who willingly took a passive role in having sex with other men. Thusly, it was aimed at protecting the Roman citizen's body from sexual abuse, but did not prohibit homosexual behavior, as long as the passive partner was not a citizen in good standing. This may seem like a small point of contention but this law single-handedly limited the methods of legal sex at that time. Not only does this law preclude certain individuals but more imporatnly excludes indivudials with certain sexaul charcteristics. Some historians theorize that this law was put in place as a direct strategy to curtail pederastic practices in ancient Rome. Additionally, at that time the morals and ethics that concerned the Romans were normally centered around themselves. Even though there was a clear level of permeability as far as their government concerned. Ancient Rome’s ethical and moral practices were normally one sided so same sex intercourse with prostitutes, slaves or war captives was considered totally acceptable as it did not threaten a freeborn’s masculinity as long as the Roman citizen took the active role in penetration. At this slaves were thought to be property and thusly lacked the legal standing that protected a citizen’s body. A freeborn man who raped a slave would not be charged with rape. The only crimes that charges that could be brought against the rapist would be laws relating to property damage. This only happened in extreme cases because the slave’s owner would have to initiate the legal process. Similarly prostitution was legal, common, and often were organized to take place at brothels and fornices otherwise known as arcade dens. These fornices were run at the circuses that Rome was infamous for. However, almost all prostitutes were slaves or freed men and women. A freeborn individual could become a prostitute but only receiving the social status of infamia. This is the loss of respect and social reputation and credibility. After sometime this individual would be known as an infamis, losing her or his social and legal standing as well. Although the Lex Scantinia and the enforcement of the law is mentioned in several ancient sources, such as 227 BC where Gaius Scantinius Capitolinus was put on a Lex trial for sexually molesting the son of Marcus Claudius Marcellus; the full legality and provisions of the law are still unclear.

Now that we have laid a small but meaningful foundation as far as the foundation of Lex Scantinia I would like to bring up the concept of the Bulla or a small amulet that placed around the neck of growing Roman freeborn children. Primarily worn by young men the bulla is a tangible symbol that asserts both innocence and immaturity of the sexual level but also the fact that these young people should not be touched or swain in a sexual manner. To give you a more comprehensive picture here is a funerary relief of a young roman boy with his two parents. This Roman marble relief found on the Via Cassia an infamous major road that leads from Rome near the Acqua Traversa. Here we can see a father and mother bid farewell to their young son. He wears a bulla around his neck. Normally worn by boys until fourteen years old. The child also wears a toga to symbolize his status and also his family's aspirations. In the picture you can see the young child placing his right hand on his father's shoulder while reaches out with his left hand towards his mother's breast. These two gestures alone demonstrate the young boy’s childlike nature. These maybe an artistic and stylistic element by the artist to show how children may cling to things that comfort them. To continue we see the mother, in turn, outwardly extending a handful of fruit to son. This gesture is both a sign of fertility and sustenance for his long journey to afterlife. Additionally, the child’s father drapes his left arm around the boy's shoulders. This is an affectionate gesture that shows exactly how much his parents loved and adored their son. A beautiful embodiment of the saying “I have your back”. If you look closely in the background you can see two birds perching. These two birds flanking deep in the image I feel, explain how there are other sources of direction in our lives. However, there are two birds. These birds maybe a representation of his parents. These birds on his shoulders protecting him and showing him the way. This relief would have been placed on the family's roadside tomb. This family was most likely very affluent because It is also carved on the back with the mirrored identical image. The other side is very damaged and now the relief rests against a wall in the Vatican museums. This type of marble relief is called "a cassetta" because it is framed in a rectangular boxlike frame that resembles the modern day cassette tape. This piece is dated back to the period of Rome's first emperor, Augustus (27 BCE - 14 CE).

0 notes