8 CommentsThis discussion is locked.
Well these two lines were a well conceived bomb of controversy imo. It's not even relevant if you take it from a historical perspective (this is directed to the lgbt warriors who are defending these lines). In ancient rome there were same-sex relationships but there was no legalized same-sex marriage in the form of a state contract. In a nutshell, these lines seem nothing but forced.
Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status.... "
That was true, it is thought, only for the active partner. (Source: The Roman Sexual Vocabulary, by J.N. Adams.)
Hermesianax is right IMHO. The sentences are valid Latin and worth studying as such; there doesn't seem to be any need to discuss Roman sexual mores here.
Irrespective to what happened in the ancient world, it is not a bad thing in my opinion to teach the language in a current way. The Rosetta Stone Latin course has phrases like "Computatorium super mensam est", "Puellae birotas (bicycles) habent", "Ad benzoinopolium (gas station) imus" "fascia croatica (necktie)", "bracae Genuenses (jeans)", "hamaxostichus subterraneus (subway)" etc. Also, the Vatican has a dictionary of neologisms, like"follis canistrique ludus (basketball)" and "fistula nicotiana (cigarette)" here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/latinitas/documents/rc_latinitas_20040601_lexicon_it.html (Mind you, I'm not 100% sure whether this is completely serious, but I'm fairly confident)
A little off-topic, but I can't get why there are people that downvote threads that are created automatically and have to do with an exercise (in this case, "Femina uxorem habet." has a score of -26). Do they think that it has an impact somewhere?