The modern practice of explaining a relationship with terms like 'it's complicated' or "we're going out, but not dating" stands to prove very, very different indeed when compared with ancient Roman terms for similar concepts. Even words with similar direct meanings have widely differing context. Sexual promiscuity among males might be transliterated as 'leno'. Whereas, complimenting a male's sexual prowess might be a compliment, "Impudens es leno!" is hurled as an insult, on par with the American "you bastard!" However, does the span of a few millennia dull every convivial sensation or make dreary every delectable euphemism for irrumo? Hopefully, it has not. Roman sexual attitudes have changed greatly since the time of the Caesars, but the facts and records of yesteryear's sexual escapades have not. In fact, sexuality in ancient Rome generally lacked what we would today call 'heterosexual', or 'homosexual'. The colloquialisms of the lower class and silvery loquations of the upper-class possessed innumerable profane terms, some of which have direct lines to modern profanity. There was, of course, the pearly, carnal decadence of the elite, so often portrayed in the media – however, the milk baths and wine showers that come to mind were extravagances and eccentricities, leaving the rest of the people with a very different sexual life. Homosexuality and pedophilia were tenuous topic, despite their common recognition and plentiful literary references. Most important of all, perhaps, was a gaping chasm differing what was a 'normal' relationship in the Classical world and a modern relationship. To say the least, it was an exciting time to be vigorous and lascivious in Rome.

To say the least, there is a large gulf between our own taboos and Roman sexual attitudes. The single most startling and definitive point of evidence to differentiate modern Western sexual attitudes