In particular the part about Roman men seeing nothing shameful about their wives having sex with other men. This seems very contradicted by sources I've read. Didn't Claudius execute his wife for adultery and wasn't "cuckold" used as an insult?
Original comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nwbk9/did_roman_men_ever_hire_gladiators_as_prostitutes/cvs8vqz/
Yes, it did happen occasionally. Such was the attitude then, that high-class women could pretty much do as she pleased, married or not - and if a gladiator pleased such a woman, he had a much better chance of being elevated to honored - and protected - status as a Roman citizen. And he wouldn't have to risk his life in the arena again. Like I said, though - it happened only occasionally. You have to remember, attitudes were very different. Marriage was more of a business partnership than a romantic union. Especially among the elite women, you were looked upon as "strange" if you didn't take a lover now and then. Men, when they got together in the Roman bath houses, would brag about how many times a night their wives got it on with other men. It was not at all an embarrassment to be known as a cuckold.
Sources: Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome by Thomas A. J. McGinn
That contradicts everything I have read about Roman sexual norms and attitudes from other sources, both primary and secondary. I have read the very book that is cited as "evidence" in the comment you are quoting, and this book in fact directly contradicts the poster's claim that "it was not at all an embarrassment to be known as a cuckold." On pp.192-193 of his Prostitution, Sexuality, and the Law in Ancient Rome, Thomas A.J. McGinn writes the following (all emphasis is mine):
The man who sold his wife's honor - or merely overlooked her infidelity - possessed no honor himself. He was not a man. In the bipolar scheme of Roman gender typology, this meant he was a feminized male, a mollis...
Humiliated and emasculated, the betrayed husband was dishonored by his wife's faithlessness. Ulpian, who elsewhere refers to the wife's action as a contaminatio that ought to rouse the husband's anger, justifies the outrage against the wife who has defiled her husband's marriage: "quae matrimonium eius violavit." For Velleius, the lovers of Augustus' daughter are thought to have defiled his domus when they "debauched" his daughter and Tiberius' wife. Cicero uses the word contemnere to express the outrage done to the Lucullus brothers by Memmius, who is supposed to have committed adultery with the wives of both men.
To avoid censure as a leno, a husband had to take responsibility for oversight of his wife's morals - which meant punishing her if she erred. In a famous confrontation that took place before the Senate in AD 21, Valerius Messalinus was able to defeat Caecina Severus' proposal barring wives from joining their husbands on provincial assignments in no small part by asserting that husbands were the natural guardians of their wives' behavior, which would suffer if the women were left by themselves in Rome. Similar arguments are supposed to have helped clinch a repeal of the Lex Oppia in 195 BC.
Classical Latin had no word that is exactly equivalent to the English word "cuckold," but the Latin word leno (which literally means "pimp" or "pander") is a close approximate that carries similar connotations of shame and dishonor as the English "cuckold." Being classified as a leno in ancient Rome was certainly not something that you would brag about to your friends at the bathhouse. It is also quite strange that the poster specifies elite women in his comment, because it was precisely Roman elites who would have been most sensitive to these types of issues, and for whom sexual honor was of paramount importance. By compromising their sexual honor, Roman elite women would have also compromised their elite status by essentially behaving like a prostitute or lewd low-status woman (i.e. by having sex with men with whom she was not married).
What McGinn wrote in the passages I quoted above is completely in line with what other historians have written. For example, Clifford Backman also writes about the high value given to sexual modesty in ancient Rome, and argues that the medieval European conception of sexual morality was in fact rooted more in pagan Roman and Germanic traditions than in the Christian religion itself (Worlds of Medieval Europe, pp.347-348). Thus, unless the poster can elaborate more on his position, and also provide a more specific quotation from McGinn's work (he did not provide any page numbers), I will have to discard his comment as fraudulent and inaccurate.
I've read Prostitution, Sexuality and the Law and never came across something like that emboldened comment. If the OP could verify where in the book that was said (or the primary evidence showing it) then I'd happily defend their point, since McGinn is a very well-informed scholar in that area