This week is my last week working on Craig of the Creek... I'm so thankful to this show and for everyone on the crew for making the past year plus of my life truly special. It's really been an experience like no other and I'm so proud of the show we made... proud to have had even a small part in it.
I'll prob post some more fanart in the next couple weeks + actual bg designs from the show. There's an 8-ep special premiering on CN on the 10th after all!
3K notes
·
View notes
Some notes to myself for writing gay Roman dudes, based on details from Roman Homosexuality by Craig Williams. Not intended as authoritative, but I thought it might be useful for other writers:
Class matters. Are they both freeborn? Slaves? Is one a slave or freedman? This will play a big role not just in the power dynamics between them, but also in what their peers would consider socially acceptable.
Age matters. The Romans judged adult men more harshly for acting "effeminate" than they did for adolescent boys.
Yes, adult/teen relationships were a thing in ancient Rome. Not specifically a male/male thing; girls were usually married off as teens, too. But if (like me) you'd rather not write that, there's plenty of evidence for relationships between adult men (or between two teens), too. There were at least a few triads and other non-monogamous living arrangements, too.
Roman men wouldn't think of themselves as gay, bi or straight. They could certainly have preferences for one gender or another, but that wouldn't have any social consequences. There was no need to "come out" as being attracted to men; everybody knew that sometimes dudes were just hot.
On the other hand, performing masculinity was a big deal. There was a lot of pressure for men to act assertive, sexually dominant, self-controlled, and to get married and have kids. This could be compatible with also having sex with men - as long as you were the "man" in the relationship (excuse the heteronormative phrase). But more "effeminate" partner(s) would be looked down upon.
The Romans cared a lot about who topped or bottomed. This had consequences for a man's reputation. It could be interesting to explore how your characters react to these pressures, how they view themselves, and how they talk to their partners about it.
Sometimes falling in love was seen as unmanly. Roman masculinity demanded that men exercise control of their desires, and a man who seemed too emotional might get mocked or seen as weak. This might make for a neat internal conflict if a character cares way more than he's "supposed to" about his partner.
For consenting adult men, the "dangers" of a romantic/sexual relationship were low. This was not 1960s America; there were no cops busting down gay bars. A man who was seen as effeminate could get mocked, slandered, or passed over for promotion, and he might not be allowed to work as a lawyer. But he wouldn't have been ostracized, and almost certainly wouldn't face criminal charges. Numerous men were called "effeminate" but had successful careers. Wealth, family connections, or a strong military record could also shield a man from stigma to some extent. (Cf. Caesar getting called the "Queen of Bithynia" throughout his career.)
The concept of male/male marriage was understood and talked about. We have some limited (and maybe false?) stories of it happening, and it was never legally recognized. But our Roman sources claimed it happened sometimes, so Roman characters could theoretically consider doing it, too.
The strongest sexual stigmas appear to have been reserved for cunnilingus, fellators and female adulterers, not for effeminate men, and not for male/male couples.
Not all Romans had the same attitudes. Rome was super diverse in the 200 BCE-200 CE period. There were many ethnicities, languages, and religions in Rome itself, and people traveled a lot. Opinions also varied from more conservative to more open-minded Romans, between social classes and professions, and different schools of philosophy. Individuals developed their own opinions, too. So you have a lot of flexibility as a writer for what Roman characters might believe, and what their social circles and daily life might look like.
There was a general shift in the 300s CE toward prudishness. Laws got stricter, both toward homosexuality and toward non-married heterosexual affairs.
There's a difference between having prejudiced characters, and a prejudiced narrative. You might also choose not to talk about prejudice in your story if you don't want to. It's your story, after all.
(Please correct me if I got something really wrong. Not all scholars agree with Williams' conclusions, but I haven't had time to read others yet.)
187 notes
·
View notes