They did go down on each other regularly. Fellatio was common, not cunnilingus. There are lots of fun Latin words for face-fucking.

Roman sexuality just was very penis centric in general. They really struggled with understanding lesbians - they assumed that the more dominant woman would grow a penis or something.

The term for a man who performs oral sex on a woman is cunnilinctor, and this kind of man is highly stigmatized. In the Roman mindset, to perform oral sex on anyone is to make oneself passive, to choose to be orally fucked by that person. According to their phallocentric model, then, the Romans conceptualize the cunnilinctor as a man being orally penetrated by a woman.

Like in a way, they did think eating pussy was “gayer” then sucking off a guy who was higher in social status than you.

This is exactly what Andrea Dworkin was saying in Intercourse. Calling it out explicitly was such a threat to conservatives like Rush Limbaugh that they had to turn it into “this crazy lesbian feminist said all sex is rape!”

A human being has a body that is inviolate; and when it is violated, it is abused. A woman has a body that is penetrated in intercourse: permeable, its corporeal solidness a lie. The discourse of male truth - literature, science, philosophy, pornogra-phy-calls that penetration violation. This it does with some consistency and some confidence. Violation is a synonym for intercourse. At the same time, the penetration is taken to be a use, not an abuse; a normal use; it is appropriate to enter her, to push into ("violate" the boundaries of her body. She is human, of course, but by a standard that does not include physical pri-vacy. She is, in fact, human by a standard that precludes physical privacy, since to keep a man out altogether and for a lifetime is deviant in the extreme, a psychopathology, a repudiation of the way in which she is expected to manifest her humanity.

There is a deep recognition in culture and in experience that intercourse is both the normal use of a woman, her human potentiality affirmed by it, and a violative abuse, her privacy irredeemably compromised, her selfhood changed in a way that is irrevocable, unrecoverable. And it is recognized that the use and abuse are not distinct phenomena but somehow a synthesized reality: both are true at the same time as if they were one harmonious truth instead of mutually exclusive contradictions.

Like - yes! A lot (not all) of heterosexual men see sex as domination, as something they have to “get” from partners who might not be eager or willing. The idea that women actually enjoy sex is not supposed to be a part of it. Think about how absolutely frothingly buttmad conservatives got over W.A.P.

Also all of the common Christian preaching about how wives need to ensure that all of their husbands “needs” are met. If she doesn’t put out, it’ll be her fault when his eyes go wandering (whether it lands on a man or a woman or a child). A young Christian girl is to remain pure until she is married and then immediately cater to all of her husbands sexual demands - at no point is she supposed to develop her own ideas about sexual pleasure. (The things Mark Driscoll was telling his congregation both in person and anonymously online are so fucked up.)

Sex is such a powerful instinct that people who want to control others are going to spend a lot of effort working on systems to control sex.

So many of these internet incel philosophers give off the energy of that weird home-schooled kid where they just talk about family bath time or whatever like it's the most normal fucking thing in the world

Don't you know that it's sinful for men to lust for their wife's pleasure?? /s obviously