Finally, Brisson concludes that the ambiguity of hermaphrodites threatened the structure and organization of society (Brisson 5). The defects of hermaphrodites stemmed from the fact that they “[violated the boundaries] between the normally distinct sexes of male and female” (Corbeill 152). Simply put, hermaphrodites were neither male nor female, and therefore defied social norms, posing a threat to social stability. The Romans were unwilling to allow hermaphrodites to pose a constant threat to the stability of their society, and so they were often dealt with as soon as possible. Consequently, the earliest possible time to address such detested individuals was birth (Satterfield 120). The Romans were not willing to allow hermaphrodites. Androgynous deities offered stories for the Romans to live by, but androgynes in society offered no advantages, particularly in the realms of marriage and reproduction, two of the most important aspects of a Roman's life. Due to their atypical anatomy, hermaphrodites often lacked the ability to reproduce sexually. Their inability to procreate proved to be another significant problem that contributed to the horror of society. Corbeill quotes Brisson's statement that "[hermaphrodites are] a sign of the divine anger that heralded the extinction of the human race, for it had become alien to itself and incapable of reproducing" (Corbeill 151). However, as opinions on hermaphrodites in Rome changed, their inability to procreate naturally became less influential in the realm of public opinion as the Romans were pushed towards mythology. Corbeill addresses this shift when he reiterates a point made by anthropologist Marie Delcourt: “the sacredness of androgyny in antiquity lies in its embodiment of the polar opposites of being both a biological monstrosity and a majestic mystery of nature” (Corbeill 161). Eventually, the mythology began to prevail in public opinion. For example, Corbeill makes this clear when he writes: "once identified as a prodigy, [the hermaphrodite] cannot be put to death with impunity, but is reserved for the sole judgment of the judge. For example, the hermaphrodite is highly sexualized in Greek and Roman". art, “often [being] portrayed alone and naked, semi-rapped or draped” (Retzleff 462). This indicates how the hermaphrodite was seen in Rome (only) and the most important characteristics of his existence: his ambiguous gender and possession of both male and female genitalia. One of the most iconic artifacts, The Sleeping Hermaphrodite, plays heavily on how hermaphrodites appeared to the common Roman. Ajootian describes the statue as "[from the back, the figures look like sleeping women, but we realize our mistake when we move around [the statues] for a closer look and glimpse male genitalia attached to [a] slender woman[ 's] bod[y]” (Ajootian 93). To the normal eye, a hermaphrodite appeared to be the norm, male or female, but upon further inspection, one is surprised to find that the individual is neither male nor female, but androgynous. This infuriated