Question.

This is just fascinating, thank you! The poem you linked cannot be digested at one sitting, but I will devote several to it. Your theory that to look for love a wealthy Roman would use "what he has" -- seeking to find a small boy among the sons of his slaves whom he could raise into an ideal object of his love -- makes a lot of sense. In a happier age than ours, you could raise the matter in an article for an academic publication and stimulate debate and further research -- alas, that's probably not possible today. I do have a question, though. THE great means for distinguishing between boy love and boy lust occurs when the boy in question passes out of his lover's AOA, becomes a young man. The boy-luster then treats the youth as piece of used tissue. The boy lover, however, continues to love and cherish the youth, even as the physical attraction diminishes (and probably also the sex). I wonder what the historical record shows on what happened to loved Roman slave boys after they passed beyond their masters' AOA. Were some of them cherished and loved life long (as they were in Attic Greece and the Japan of the samurai where entering into a relationship with an older male lover was almost a rite of passage for well-born boy)? SR