I can comment on Roman sexuality, if not so much specific behaviours (beyond the broad).
Before Christian morality became dominant, the basic rule of Roman sexuality for men was that a man's sexuality depended upon him doing the penetrating. So male to male oral sex was fine provided that the male receiving was of lower status (slave, woman, actor, prostitute) or was a youth.
Similarly, a man engaging in male to female cunnilingus would be regarded as mollis or soft.
Martial (2.28) cited in Parker (1997) The Teratogenic Grid illustrates this well:
Laugh aloud at the one who called you, Sextillus
a cinaedus and stick out your middle finger.
But you are not a butt-fucker, nor are you, Sextillus a cunt-fucker.
Nor does the hot-cheek of Vetustina please you.
I confess you are none of these things. So what are you?
I don't know, but you know there are two things remaining.
Sextillus is not a cinaedus (receptive man-to-man) not a pedico (penetrative man-to-man) neither does he get sucked off or fuck women. He must either give oral to men or, as Parker notes, what? The answer is give cinnilungus - which the Roman's saw as equally passive as giving male oral.
A key concept of Roman sexuality revolved around the concept of pudicitia - a difficult to translate concept that could be describes as 'sexual shame'. Becoming impudicitia would lead to loss of social capital. But it was context driven, a male youth (e.g. Caesar) who was a receptive male to male partner would not attract such social consequences unless he persisted in doing so beyond an age that was considered 'proper' (and political adversaries claimed he did, it may not have been true but was a good political attack).