This is an extract from Mary Beard's just published book on what Pompeii tells us about the lifestyle of ancient Romans. It's pretty interesting. She writes:
Power, status and good fortune were expressed in terms of the phallus. Hence the presence of phallic imagery in almost unimaginable varieties all round the town. This is one of the most puzzling, if not disconcerting, aspects of Pompeii for modern visitors. There are phalluses greeting you in doorways, phalluses above bread ovens, phalluses carved into the surface of the street and plenty more phalluses with bells on and wings.Yes, I recall years ago seeing a ring in the British Museum with a little erect penis diagram on it. I wonder what passed for pornography in those days? Did teenage boys sneak into the kitchen to look at the ribald drawings on the pottery? Or were human copulation and erections of such common knowledge that there was no sense of it being inappropriate for young children's eyes?
Beard also writes:
For elite men, the basic message was that sexual penetration correlated with pleasure and power. Sexual partners might be of either sex. There was plenty of male-with-male sexual activity in the Roman world, but only the very faintest hints that “homosexuality” was seen as an exclusive sexual preference, let alone lifestyle choice.It's odd to think that the Romans would find Oxford Street in Sydney hard to understand. And it's also probably fair to say that they would find the concept of "gay marriage" ludicrous, and not because of religion.
The Roman baths are discussed as well, and this part shows the old guys could see still cause and effect:
And it is not only the modern visitor who is drawn to reflect on quite how hygienic it all was. There was no chlorination to mitigate the effects of the urine and other less sterile bodily detritus. Nor was the water in the various pools constantly replaced, even if there was sometimes an attempt to introduce a steady flow of new water into them.
The Roman medical writer Celsus offers the sensible advice not to go to the baths with a fresh wound (“it normally leads to gangrene”) . The baths, in other words, may have been a place of wonder, pleasure and beauty for the humble Pompeian bather. They might also have killed him.
UPDATE: here's a way in which the position of women in the Roman empire wasn't bad, at least for the ancient world:
As the responsibilities of women became more significant to their husbands' prestige and political clout, so education for women became increasingly more common. Unlike Athens, it became acceptable in Rome for girls as well as boys to receive elemental education, to have read "improving" Roman and Greek authors and to be able to discuss political affairs. Boys then went on to higher studies, including rhetoric, the passport to political careers, while women married in their mid-teens. Throughout the Empire, however, a woman cherished her ability to read and write both as a mark of excellence and as a sign of her status.Sounds as if the women of Rome may have had more independence than many in present day Afghanistan or (arguably) Saudi Arabia. Nothing like progress, hey?
The separation of women enforced by the Greeks had never been the Roman way; women were permitted to go out in public, attend lectures and meetings, dine with guests, and conduct their own affairs with some initiative. At the same time, as moral guardians of the health and virtue of Rome itself, their behavior was severely scrutinized for signs of intemperance, sexual laxity, or extravagant (and dangerous) display.
