I remember hearing many years ago that in Rome it was a common occurence for men to sell their wives and even their pre-pubescent daughters into sex slavery in whore houses and sometimes even to have sex with donkeys in donkey shows.
I am having a hard time verifying this which leads me to believe it may not be true, but I thought the community might be able to point me to a source that may touch on this, or talk about something I may be confusing this assertion with.
Thanks,
The Texas Trigger
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
Dear Clayton.
Typical is typical, is a peculiar behavior. A characteristic behavior. The Germans did not as the Romans. They were not promiscuous, adultery was rare.
If you doubt on the hight rates of promiscuity among the Romans, remember the Bacchanalia, the public baths without pudency etc.
Also note the following:
6 To restrain generation and the increase of children, is esteemed an abominable sin, as also to kill infants newly born. And more powerful with them are good manners, than with other people are good laws.
non-government enforced manners versuch government enforced (formalised) laws.
@JohnC: *shrug - I think the presumption should be that any historical culture is typical of any other culture (particularly in respect to things that we know are culturally universal, such as prohibitions of rape, murder and most other violent crimes) until a reason can be given to think otherwise. Claims of spectacular debauchery or virtue are unlikely to be true, even if made by contemporaneous historians and even then might represent the historian's own very narrow experiences.
I'm not saying we can't know anything about history but I am saying that some ancient historian's claim that 7-year-old girls were commonly raped in the open air while people stood by and clapped is laughably incredible.
One other thing to bear in mind is that history is often far too generalized. It's easy to speak of "the Romans" but the fact is that there were local variations within Roman culture. This makes it twice difficult to discern whether even a true historical fact was representative of Roman culture generally or just a particular region where it occurred.
Clayton -
@JohnC: *shrug - I think the presumption should be that any historical culture is typical of any other culture (particularly in respect to things that we know are culturally universal, such as prohibitions of rape, murder and most other violent crimes)
But you are right to be careful to go by anecdotal evidence. And Rome did change over its history sometimes drastically. They had slavery and it wouldn't surprise me that someone would have bought a girl for the purpose of having sex with her. This has some advantages over taking her as a wife.
Child rape is already a widespread practice in the USA, I see no reason why it would be less common millenia ago in a slave society where fathers legally had absolute control over wives/children, at a time in history where sex slavery was considered legitimate, as in concubine slaves, and also sexual slavery as the spoils of war. The wikipedia page for concubinage acknowledges sexual slavery, referring to youth sexual slavery as "characteristic" with a source cited.
In my understanding, though sexual slavery is still widespread in the world and in "civilized" countries, the rape of youth has always been characteristic (see Sigmund Freud). What's modern is the general public acknowledging something immoral with such behavior, so that such behavior tends to be pushed underground.
In other words, if you didn't find sources on child sex slavery you didn't look hard enough. I, for one, am confident it was prevalent. It is certainly prevalent now.
[Rape] wasn't seen as a crime amongst Southern African Bantu for instance, before the White legal systems introduced this to them as such.
Says who? The invading Europeans? What exactly qualifies as rape? And rape of who?
Rape of and taking captive the women of conquered tribes has been a culturally universal practice. Anglo-Americo-European culture is no different in this regard, just ask the young women of Okinawa who live around Futenma Air Base.
But there's nothing unique to Rome about this practice. The taking of concubines was common long before Rome.
Child rape is already a widespread practice in the USA,
Wha? Who is doing this? Jerry Sandusky is hardly a representative sample of the population.
I see no reason why it would be less common millenia ago in a slave society where fathers legally had absolute control over wives/children, at a time in history where sex slavery was considered legitimate, as in concubine slaves, and also sexual slavery as the spoils of war.
How does sex-slavery and concubines (which is actually just one category of sex-slavery) have anything to do with child rape?? And the very point in contention here is the outrageous claims of the extents of the power of the Roman father over his household, so let's not start going in circles just yet.
The wikipedia page for concubinage acknowledges sexual slavery, referring to youth sexual slavery as "characteristic" with a source cited.
Concubines are from the slave class - it is clear that past cultures justified rape and sexual slavery of people who were not from their peer group, that is, war spoils or slaves. But that's irrelevant to the question of whether rape qua rape (rape as they understood it) was simply tolerated.
And we're not so much different or better today. Modern people do not consider those who have been convicted of a crime and imprisoned to be a part of their peer group. So the documented fact of commonplace rape in prison is simply shrugged off as not one of the pressing issues of our times. Or, more often, joked about.
"Sigmund Freud" is not evidence of the claim that rape of youth has "always been characteristic."
Who is raping all these children?
His question was regarding whether it was a common occurence (not accepted or legal) for "men to sell their wives and even their pre-pubescent daughters into sex slavery in whore houses". My point was that it was most likely common, especially at a time in history where sex slavery, particularly sex slavery with youth, was insitutionalized. My logic was that if child rape (different from child sex slavery, which is also prevalent worldwide) is widespread even now in "civilized" nations, then it would be reasonable to infer that selling your children or wife into a legal trade could be common in ancient Rome.
Your question "who is doing all the raping" is no rebuttal to the prevalence of sex slavery thousands of years ago in slave societies where sex slavery was institutionalized.
[Rape] wasn't seen as a crime amongst Southern African Bantu for instance, before the White legal systems introduced this to them as such. Says who? The invading Europeans? What exactly qualifies as rape? And rape of who?
Your statement has got some clichee-like undertones. Nevertheless let's look at the relevant facts. Actually most South Africans of White ancestry won't know that. But you will hear this from the Blacks that still have good knowledge of their culture and history. And even the present President Jacob Zuma can tell you something in this regard:
For example, South African President Jacob Zuma is a celebrated and acquitted rapist. He raped the daughter of a family friend. “He said that the woman in question had provoked him, by wearing a skirt and sitting with her legs uncrossed, and that it was his duty, as a Zulu man, to satisfy a sexually aroused woman, “ Hunter-Gault reported. http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/nAGlggw1d0
http://ilga.org/ilga/en/article/nAGlggw1d0
His question was regarding whether it was a common occurence (not accepted or legal)
But things that are not accepted or legal have a way of not being common. Smoking pot is a good example. It's illegal. It's not accepted (in "polite" society). It occurs anyway. But it's not true that smoking pot is common or that the typical American smokes pot.
for "men to sell their wives and even their pre-pubescent daughters into sex slavery in whore houses". My point was that it was most likely common, especially at a time in history where sex slavery, particularly sex slavery with youth, was insitutionalized. My logic was that if child rape (different from child sex slavery, which is also prevalent worldwide) is widespread even now in "civilized" nations, then it would be reasonable to infer that selling your children or wife into a legal trade could be common in ancient Rome.
You're mixing a bunch of things together that don't need to be mixed. The fact that slavery ("sex slavery" is really redundant when you think about it, it's not like they appropriated a slave to exclusively sexual or non-sexual use) existed has nothing to do with whether it was common for Roman fathers to sell their children into slavery. And how can sex slavery not be rape (by any enlightened definition of rape)?
I don't agree at all that it's obvious from the existence of slavery that selling one's own genetic relatives into slavery was commonplace. First of all, every society that has slavery distinguishes between slaves (humans with no rights) and freemen (humans with rights). Wives, by definition, are women who are daughters of freemen, not daughters of slaves (since those would be concubines or just recreational sex slaves). I'm not aware of any society where wives have no rights, de facto or otherwise. So, the existence of slavery has no bearing on the question of how common it was to sell wives or children into slavery.
That's not the claim that my question is in response to. Please re-read what I wrote for comprehension.
Please re-read what I wrote for comprehension. Sure, let's try that:
Common: widespread; general; ordinary
But it's not true that smoking pot is common You lose all credibility upfront, with this statement. I don't even need to argue against it. Pot smoking is so widespread it would be silly to try and "prove" it. Like it would be silly to try and "prove" that grocery stores are common.
I don't agree at all that it's obvious from the existence of slavery that selling one's own genetic relatives into slavery was commonplace. Consider a rephrasing: "I don't agree at all that it's obvious from the widespread use of marijuana that selling one's own plants into circulation is commonplace." To use more of your logic: "Oh really, then who's selling all these plants???" But it's actually fine if you "don't agree at all" with your red herring, regardless of how silly the logic is when applied to other scenarios. I wasn't arguing that "it's obvious from the existence of slavery that selling one's children into slavery was commonplace." Rather, I said, quote: "My logic was that if child rape (different from child sex slavery, which is also prevalent worldwide) is widespread even now in "civilized" nations, then it would be reasonable to infer that selling your children or wife into a legal trade could be common in ancient Rome."
Please pay attention.
Sorry it took a while to answer I've been busy lately.
anyway, as someone else pointed out you may be geting things mixed up with the authority of the "patriarchial" model of Roman society, in which the male head of household had almost absolute power over the happenings of the family. However there is little to suggest there was the selling of children to sex s;avery as a common occurance, in fact it probably would be more reasonable to assume such a thing would have been more scandalous to society.
You may be getting something mixed up with the Religous custom of Roman Vestal Virgins. But this was simply a custom, and a very rare thing.
There ay be a mix up with the forced prositution of slaves, which was common. And would remain common in almost every society for some time.
Other than that,
I think some enemies may have been tortured by forcing them to have sex with animals (such as baboons) as a form of humilation. I can't verify this right now though, as I forgot how I have come across that bit of information. Either way, if it did occur it there is certainly no reason other than "innovative narrative" to think it would be common.
Even if the above (sex with animals) isn't true, it may be some comfusion along the lines of the way Romans used animals to torture and deal with other enemies / criminals. And if this is the case, these would be the same types of criminals that they would throw in the arena.
That's all I can think of for now. Most of that stuff you can probably just look at Wikipedia or whatever to confirm. If you want me to show things to read off the internet based off of what I said, I'll try to dig them up.
If you want e to try to think of more things, perhaps specific examples, I'll try to do that.
If you want me to go the extra mile and give you primary source texts I'll dig those up as well.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Humans are capable of great injustice, especially when it is instutionalized as "normal" in society. Think about the recent killing of a supposedly adulterous woman in Afghanistan --- of course assuming the story is true.
But to think it was "common" is something different that believing it happened. Abuse is still common today, but maybe less or even more so than in some eras. It might have been common in the sense that it was accepted as legal, and was practiced by a significant number of the population (1% maybe, or 10%), but it wouldn't seem logical for this to be a practice by the majority. But you never know...
I like the "adversarial witness" reccommendation. I always like to get accounts from as many sides as possible and scrutinize them all with absolute unibias and unattachment to any view, and be as rational, reasonable, and logical as possible.
If a majority of men sold their wives into slavery, then that would make a mojority of the populaiton slaves, unless children born in slavery were easily freed. Why would a slave owner let the children go free so easily? My guess is that it was at most a minority practice.