Artifacts Reveal Ancient Greeks', Romans' Completely Uninhibited Attitudes Towards Sex (VIDEO)

Some look back on early civilizations and shake their heads at how prudish the times were. Well, not so with the ancient Greeks and Romans. A new exhibition of artifacts goes a long way towards showing you just how voracious their appetites were for sex.

As the narrator says, the artifacts reveal an attitude towards love and lust so uninhibited it needs a warning sign.

WATCH:

Comments

[leeannethethird]

08:36 AM on 12/11/2009

Sooo where's he news about this exhibition. where is it?

[johnnygoodwud]

11:30 PM on 12/10/2009

wasn't that tiger on one of the bowls?

[AlexFTW]

10:57 PM on 12/10/2009

I was definitely born in the wrong age.

[bobo5]

10:11 PM on 12/10/2009

The NEA needs to fund a red state tour of these artifacts.

[xypher0725]

10:37 PM on 12/10/2009

Perhaps they could marry the tour to a health/human reproduction seminar...who knows...might even bring down the number of unwanted pregnancies in bible belt states.

[xypher0725]

09:32 PM on 12/10/2009

Funny how the Greeks seemed to be able to express their bodily lusts and desires without coming across as desperate and trashy....we could learn a thing or two.

[bobo5]

10:13 PM on 12/10/2009

I could see the BJ and BF vase in my living room.

[DissedBeliever]

06:06 PM on 12/10/2009

Thank you Christianity for taking a wonderfully healthy celebration of human sexuality and twisting it into the enforcement of shame and punishment. Really, kudos.

[popart]

02:34 PM on 12/10/2009

huh, just like american teenagers.

[UncleJimbo]

07:40 PM on 12/10/2009

If Only!

[wm1066]

01:46 PM on 12/10/2009

It should be remembered that Ancient Greece was made up of city states and not the big country it is today. Each city had different laws and codes of behavior. What happened in Sparta wasn't condoned in Athens and what happened on the island ofLesbos wasn't condoned on another island. So to make a blanket statement that the ancient Greeks were uninhibited isn't true. Some women in certian cities were treated like some of Muslim women today, they weren't allowed to be in the company of men and they pretty much had to stay in doors all day, they couldn't watch the mens sporting events, and the men couldn't watch the womens events. For a man to see the religious activities of the women at certian times meant death for the man. Uninhibited, I think not.

[BigShotBob]

12:15 PM on 12/15/2009

Well said. This conclusion is greatly overdrawn.

I would also add that many of these artifacts - drinking bowls and vases and the like - would have been intensely personal gifts between lovers and/or spouses, and not intended for public consumption. Further, we extrapolate from artifacts - especially artistic artifacts - at our own risk. Will some archaeologist 2,000 years from now, upon discovering the works of Botticelli, et al, conclude that 15th century Florentine society generally was tolerant of female nudity? Some ancient Greek and Roman cults incorporated sex or sex acts into their ritual, which would explain much of the public display. Then there are the Lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis and the Lex Papia Poppaea - Augustus' moral legislation - for example.

[Usama]

10:04 AM on 12/10/2009

Tiger didn't make his adultery public- his moral bankruptcy was at least done in private. Who made all of his affairs, including the details of his dreams, feelings, physical traits public? Who has set up scores of interfaces about Tiger's sexual liasions?

[seattle music]

04:39 AM on 12/10/2009

I am always amazed by how many people posting on the Internet have no comprehension of their own culture.

Enjoying sex in private -- and refraining from forcing it on children and other people in public -- is not a sign of prudery.

It's a sign of respect for the people around you.

One can have it all -- an active, satisfying, varied sexual life in private, and respect for the sensitivities of the people around you in public.

Only very young men practically dripping with testosterone -- and the mentally ill -- cannot comprehend that enjoying sex in privacy does not equal prudery or fear of sex or hatred of sex or any of the other non sequiturs they use to justify inappropriate behavior.

[eastjame]

04:58 AM on 12/10/2009

nobody said only havig sex in private makes you a prude. nobody said that we should force sex on children. nobody said that having sex in private means you must not like sex.

i think your being a little over the top. why are you talking about having sex in public anyway? 99% of people have no desire to do that no matter how comfortable they are with sex and nudity.

anyway in america seem to prefer to let our kids watch violence on tv rather than see a half naked body. that seems backwards to me. nudity is not sinful and sex isnt either. there is no logical reason to think that it could be.

[RogHol]

08:10 AM on 12/10/2009

That response seems also over the top.
SM is not talking about public sex, she talks about the sexual exploitaition in public spaces ln magazines like Playboy or worse.
That's indeed relevant and very questionable.

[RogHol]

08:14 AM on 12/10/2009

SM I'm fanning U but not for Sexual reasons ;-)

[CigarGod]

08:57 AM on 12/10/2009

I don't like how you walk or talk or hold hands or kiss or show bare skin or the tone or volume of your voice or the lanuage you speak or the words you speak which describe normal bodily functions or the curves and bulges of your body or your politics or your religion or your skin color....etc.

I want you to just stop it all right now...except in private...as it offends me or my kids or my community or my programming.

[RogHol]

09:06 AM on 12/10/2009

Hey! 'And you should stop smoking...

[RogHol]

09:09 AM on 12/10/2009

Ure a liblr, right?
Mee too, but not that kind....

[eastjame]

04:10 AM on 12/10/2009

isnt this very common knowledge?

who thinks that earlier civilisations were more prudish? its the complete opposite.

in the west we are less prudish than we were 50 years ago and 150 years ago, but that trend doesnt continue all the way back to early civilisations. the victorians are known to have been extremely prudish, but leading up to the 19th and late 18th century, people in the west actually had healthier attitudes towards sex.

[NinjaWolfHybrid]

04:01 AM on 12/10/2009

NSFW! Unless you're an art historian X-D

[ThankGodhesgone]

03:58 AM on 12/10/2009

Looks like sex was revered and enjoyed until the Church got it;s grubby hands around it.

[CintiBlue]

04:12 AM on 12/10/2009

Second. We are programed.

[hypnotoad72]

12:12 PM on 12/10/2009

Better to be programmed than to show the world how many cold sores and other sorts of cooties one has, some of which are lethal.

"Deprogramming" isn't entirely good either.

The truth is in the middle.

[PatricktPDX]

03:56 AM on 12/10/2009

He wasn't English/British.....

[KIVPossum]

02:51 AM on 12/10/2009

Why is this considered news? I thought this was common knowledge. Anyone who's been to a few museums can figure this out.

[Mortifyd]

05:49 PM on 12/10/2009

How many Americans percentage wise actually go to museums of their own free will? LOL