We've posed the question of "Romans vs Victorians", with the best answer winning a pretty nifty prize. One of the ongoing arguments at Pornokitsch Towers is who would win this particular smackmatch deathdown. Here's a transcript of the most recent round...
Victorians brought the sexxay. Number of romance novels set in ancient Rome: seventy-three. Number of romance novels set during the nineteenth century: nine million, six hundred and twelve. No, fourteen. No, twenty-seven. Look, eight more have been published in the time it took you to read this sentence. Pay attention, boys: cravats, top-hats and UST will always always always be nine million times sexier than leather skirts and manky sandals. No one wants to see your icky toenails. And as a corollary: where's the gladiatorpunk at, fool? Oh, that's right. THERE ISN'T ANY. All the ladies be busy readin' steampunk.
Romans had more fun. ...and not just the orgies. The Victorian idea of fun involved sipping lukewarm tea and perhaps, if the corset allowed, a gentle stroll through a hedge maze. Perhaps Underduke Timothy Piggley-Smythe might steal a look at one's well-turned ankles! Oh, the larks! In ancient Rome, "Piglet" would've been dipped in caviar and thrown to the man-eating jellyfish for being such a limp biscuit. Caligula was batshit crazy and bankrupted the empire, but he did so by providing free entertainment. Not only did he routinely flood a national monument to play wargames, but also he also invented the octopus-wrestling league, the World Cup (which Rome then won 163 times in a row, take that Brazil) and the orgasm. Caligula famously appointed his horse to the Senate just so he'd have more free time to play MMORPGs. (Incitatus never would've cut funding for the arts, by the way.)