I mean, if you wanted to slander a political opponent in Rome you didn‘t just insinuate he was getting it on with men, that wasn‘t negative per se, but that he was getting topped by social inferiors.

I just want to share this quote from Roman Homosexuality for cahn: "Finally, the crucial importance of appearances illustrates the complexities of the relationship between representation and reality. If a certain man actually played the receptive role in the majority of his sexual encounters, yet managed to keep that fact a secret known only to himself and his partners and otherwise maintained the appearance of a fully masculine man, then he was a fully masculine man in the all-important arena of public discourse, despite the fact that he actually was breaking the rules behind closed doors. By contrast, if there were persistent rumors to the effect that a man liked to play the receptive role in intercourse, even if the man himself had never actually been penetrated, he was ipso facto a marked man, metaphorically 'fucked' even if not literally so."

„Willing toy“ doesn‘t have to be a sexual position assumption, of course, but it could be, given the climate of the day.

Yep, makes sense to me. The alternative would probably be "source of ready money."

As for Lehndorff, what do you take him for?

Well, not someone who would share this much detail! That's why I was so surprised. I'm glad it was a different source, it makes much more sense.

Also, thanks for spelling out the details of your evidence for the FWB relationship. Yay data. Yay gossipy sensationalism.