They are probably meant to be mean, because the people described had a very low social status in society.
The primary dichotomy of ancient Roman sexuality was active / dominant / masculine and passive / submissive / feminine. Roman society was patriarchal, and the freeborn male citizen possessed political liberty (libertas) and the right to rule both himself and his household (familia). “Virtue” (virtus) was seen as an active quality through which a man (vir) defined himself. The conquest mentality and “cult of virility” shaped same-sex relations. Roman men were free to enjoy sex with other males without a perceived loss of masculinity or social status as long as they took the dominant or penetrative role. Acceptable male partners were slaves and former slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers, whose lifestyle placed them in the nebulous social realm of infamia, so they were excluded from the normal protections afforded to a citizen even if they were technically free. Freeborn male minors were off limits at certain periods in Rome.
They are probably meant to be mean, because the people described had a very low social status in society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
Disappointing and unproductive.
Imagine, you are a top and you are looking for a bottom but the bottoms hide their bottom-ness because they get shit for it.
Praise bottoms and enjoy the fruits of a healing environment.
Of course, there are better reasons to not be a bigot but self-interest should be a convincing one.
Seconded 👐