Talk:Metrobius

Untitled
We need a cite for the final speechGradvmedusa 18:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, in which Sulla admits there relationships which spanned over 30 years... Angela from the Blue (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No such speech exists. This story, while possibly true, is from a fictional account in Colleen McCullough's historical fiction book Fortune's Favourites, part of her Masters of Rome series. -///- Taco Viva (talk) 01:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Homosexuality in Ancient Times
"In ancient Rome the attitudes towards sex and sexuality were much different than they are today. Roman religion promoted sexual prosperity, prostitution was legal and common, pornographic images were often painted and not seen as disrespectful as they might be today.[3] Roman religion also played a role in sexual life, there are many instances of the intersection of sex and faith but perhaps the most notable is Venus, the goddess of harlots and the guardian of honorable marriages.[4] These concepts were not necessarily always in opposition in the minds of the Roman people. Another way in which ancient Rome differs from modern day is the intertwining of the concepts of homosexuality and comradely, Roman soldiers might be encouraged to strengthen their bonds with their fellow soldiers through sex, as such people of other walks of life might have taken a similar course." What purpose does this paragraph serve? First, it lacks referencing as it covers too many details. Who accounted that soldiers would be encouraged to strengthen their bonds this way?Secondly, I disagree with the presence of it in the first place. Metrobius was indeed homosexual, but that does not mean that a paragraph must be crammed into the article, covering sexuality in Ancient Rome. It is unnecessary for a paragraph, covering a fraction of ones life, to write and essay about sexuality. For instance, Sulla's article - so far as I am aware, there is no essay about homosexuality, much less broader sexuality in Ancient Rome, in the article. Caesar, too, has no explanation of a what a branch of his life connects to. Simply, it is like saying in an article about Scipio Aemilianus, "Oh, the Gracchi are mentioned . . . maybe we could write a biography of them in this article instead of just putting a hyperlink in this article." And then after the Gracchi biography is finished, "Oh, we mentioned the influence they had on Marius... and him to Sulla . . . and him to Caesar . . . to Augustus . . . to Tiberius . . ." etc. Is Wikipedia here to break off into essays of any mention? I am not criticizing this paragraph itself, but more of its presence, as I have noted before. Sexuality is unnecessary; only because he was homosexual, it is not required to write a paragraph about that in the place and times, much less sexuality, of which hardly is useful (academically speaking) to the former, of which should not even be in the article. Third, it is not obligatory to make a comparison from the scarcely intertwined topic of sexuality (to Metrobius) to a modern-day Western perspective. This is written as a School essay or an "Ancient Rome explained!" book to children who no nothing of the subject, like, "It was very different from things nowadays. They were a bit ruder!" And in addition, the "prostitution was legal and common" statement is completely unhelpful; anybody researching into the actor of who Sulla had an affair with would probably know of the other person he had an illegal relasionship with; the prostitute Nicopolis. 17u9e (17u9e) 8:01 PM, 24 May 2020 (UTC) I will proceed with the deletion of this, and if one cannot provide a reason against the removal of this section, it cannot be withdrawn. 17u9e (17u9e) 2:34 PM, 29 May 2020 (UTC)