Sex with Mirrors Was a Kink Too Far for Romans

Tright here’s a joke from the early days of the Roman Empire in regards to the unlucky finish of a person named Hostius Quadra. Hostius was a rich man and, like rich males of his day, an enslaver. He had a fame for being grasping and debauched, however what he actually achieved notoriety and fame for was his love of mirrors. He was what in technical circles is named a katoptronophiliac: he appreciated watching himself have intercourse.

However not any mirrors. In line with Seneca, in his encyclopedia of the pure world, Hostius put in trick mirrors in his bed room that made issues seem bigger than they really have been. These mirrors might change a picture in order that “a finger exceeded the dimensions and thickness of an arm.” These he “organized that when he was providing himself to a person he would possibly see in a mirror all of the actions of the stallion behind him after which take delight within the false measurement of his accomplice’s member.” Properly then.

In what seems to be loads like kink shaming, Seneca writes that Hostius was “vile,” and Augustus didn’t even suppose it was worthwhile avenging Hostius’s dying after he was murdered by the enslaved employees in his residence. This was, it’s price noting, uncommon. Often if a employee murdered their householder they’d anticipate to pay for that with their life. Augustus didn’t suppose Hostius was well worth the bother and Seneca infers Augustus thought he had acquired his simply deserts.

Why? In a presentation on the Society of Classical Research annual assembly earlier this month, Robert Santucci, a PhD candidate in Classical Research on the College of Michigan, defined that “on the most elementary stage Seneca, like most conservative Historic Roman males, has an issue with grown males taking the underside place whereas having intercourse with different grown males.” The issue was not same-sex relationships per se, it’s assuming a sexual place that doesn’t match up with one’s social place. However that’s not even the true challenge, Santucci stated, “Seneca does inform us that Hostius has intercourse with individuals of all genders, however Seneca particularly emphasizes his enjoyment of the mirror enlargements of his companions’ penises. Certainly, this use of mirrors—not the sexual acts themselves—is the explanation” Seneca targets him.

In common tradition people who like to observe themselves have intercourse are additionally typically depicted as narcissists. Assume Patrick Bateman, in American Psycho, who solicits the corporate of two intercourse employees to observe himself within the mirrors. Bateman is so aroused by himself that his companions are incapable of even getting his consideration. Psychologists categorize the curiosity as a species of “autosexuality” (the phenomenon of being drawn to oneself), that’s distinct from narcissism. “By itself,” writes Dr. Leo Seltzer, “autoeroticism doesn’t point out a character disturbance,” it’s extra like a desire or orientation. Having a mirror in your bed room appears unremarkable. Loads relies upon, although, on how far alongside you’re on the spectrum.

Nevertheless thrilling human beings would possibly discover intercourse in entrance of mirrors, dolphins outstrip us. Bottlenose dolphins, the intellectuals of the ocean, can acknowledge themselves in mirrors. Mark Pendergast, the creator of Mirror, Mirror: A Historical past of the Human Love Affair with the Reflection cites a examine that reveals that dolphin “libido goes wild” when mirrors are launched. Using the work of dolphinologists Marino and Reiss, Pendergast reviews that in a single half-hour intercourse session two half-brother dolphins named Pan and Delphi tried to penetrate every one other 43 occasions. The important thing data, Marino and Reiss confirmed, was that the dolphins positioned themselves so they might watch, and discontinued their actions in the event that they by accident moved out of sight. Bateman seems to be tame by comparability.

The issue with Hostius, nevertheless, is a little more difficult. It’s not simply that Hostius is lazy, decadent, and spends his time on the baths selecting out potential sexual companions with whom to debase himself. Santucci informed me, “It’s not simply that he makes use of funhouse-style mirrors—in any other case we would think about that many extra individuals would come beneath hearth for this sort of mirror use. It’s that Hostius boasts that his mirror use compensates for the dearth of perspective that nature (natura) gave to humankind.”

This afront to nature didn’t jibe with Seneca’s Stoic view that the universe was rationally and completely organized. As Santucci argues in his dissertation and elsewhere, Hostius is making an attempt to remake nature and, within the course of, turns his eyes into organs of consumption: “Seneca makes a number of references to Hostius’ “consuming” of the mirror photographs together with his eyes. (Followers of Neil Gaiman’s The Sandman shall be reminded of The Corinthian.)”

It’s additionally that his favourite pursuit is a perversion of what he ought to be doing together with his time. As a thinker, Seneca was all for introspection for taking a look at oneself and reflecting upon who you’re and who you ought to be. On the finish of every day, the truth is, this was one thing Seneca would do. He would revisit his actions and mirror on methods to enhance.

Hostius additionally spends lots of time reflecting on himself… having intercourse. His sexual passivity is (ahem) mirrored by the truth that he’s passively watching himself get penetrated. He’s consuming the scene and, in a way, consuming himself. You would possibly say, as Peter Toohey has mentioned in his e book Melancholy, Love, and Time, that Hostius was the consummate self-reflector.

Besides, for 2 causes, he wasn’t. First, Hostius was, as Santucci reveals, a sexual glutton. His feasting is—to Seneca—antithetical to human nature. Many Romans have been gastronomic over-indulgers, and gluttony was, to historic philosophers like Seneca, the gateway drug to every kind of debauchery and overindulgence. Since you “eat first together with your eyes” the extra you feast together with your eyes, the extra precarious the state of affairs.

There’s some scientific proof to again up this concept. A 2004 examine from the College of Illinois-Champaign confirmed that moviegoers provided M&Ms in ten colours ate 43 % greater than these provided a M&Ms combine in seven colours. An analogous experiment involving jellybeans revealed that when completely different colours are combined collectively, individuals eat 69 % extra. The extra visually diversified the culinary expertise, the extra you’ll devour consequently. Buffets are a minefield. Hostius discovered a option to increase the stakes. It’s what Santucci calls a sort of “gluttony of the eyes.”

To make issues worse, Hostius wasn’t even feasting on actuality. The mirrors he used to embellish his residence created misrepresentations. So, as a substitute of partaking in self-reflection and dwelling in accordance with nature, he used the distortive results of the mirrors to ‘contact up’ his look. To Seneca he was spiraling into an illusionary world of sexual appetites.

This could in all probability make us really feel a bit uncomfortable. In any case, social-media filters are the very top of misleading self-reflection. Filters, lighting, and curation current photographs of our our bodies and our lives that aren’t actual. We’re faking it (or, as Hostius would say, “supplying what nature didn’t”) however as we do, we additionally devour different “touched up” photographs that feed our need to look higher, reside higher, and have extra. I’m not shaming anybody for utilizing filters or altering their look, however Seneca would. He would say that we’re cultivating a sense of insatiability in ourselves. And never even the great sort. It makes us enthusiastic customers of issues—meals, intercourse, clothes, no matter—and which means worse philosophers.

So, for those who suppose historic Romans are prudish kink shamers, think about how a lot they’d hate us. Maybe we will take some comfort in figuring out that we’d nonetheless look good subsequent to dolphins.