Explanation: Roman sexuality did not quite line up to modern ideas of sexuality. Essentially, ‘homosexual’ and ‘heterosexual’ were not widely recognized groupings. Instead, sexuality was largely figured on an ‘active’ vs. ‘passive’ dichotomy. Attraction to the same sex (at least for men - women were given less leeway in this field) was not considered abnormal, nor was same-sex behavior. But which role you took in same-sex behavior was extremely important.

In addition, it’s widely recognized that Roman men used sexuality as an expression of their own virility and power. While they could go overboard and receive censure (moderation was highly valued amongst the Romans), in general, a Roman man who ‘conquered’ a non-Roman (or very certain Romans - actors were considered acceptable partners) man was thought to be exercising an entirely normal and manly behavior.

In that sense, it’s not so different than sexuality today (or at least, when I was a youth, I guess I’m pretty detached from ‘normal’ social circles anymore), wherein men are generally thought well of for high levels of sexual activity. The difference is that in that modern conception, only women would be praiseworthy for taking as a partner, whereas in the Roman conception, anyone you ‘top’ would be praiseworthy for taking as a partner (and conversely, anyone you ‘bottomed’ for, including a woman, would be emasculating).

Same as in US prisons then?