Is there any evidence that Romans viewed Christian teachings on sexual restraint as a liberating influence? Sarah Ruden (via John Stonestreet) makes an interesting claim about the Roman Empire in the time of Paul:


  Dreher cites classics scholar Sarah Ruden, whose book “Paul Among the Gentiles” was the subject of a BreakPoint three years ago. According to Ruden, “it’s profoundly ignorant to think of the Apostle Paul as a dour proto-Puritan descending upon happy-go-lucky pagan hippies, ordering them to stop having fun.”  On the contrary, “Paul’s teachings on sexual purity and marriage were adopted as liberating in the pornographic, sexually exploitive Greco-Roman culture of the time . . .”  Christianity “worked a cultural revolution, restraining and channeling male eros, elevating the status of both women and of the human body, and infusing marriage—and marital sexuality—with love.”  (from BreakPoint Commentary 5/23/2013)


While it is common to think of Classical Rome and Greece as morally decadent societies, I do find it surprising that sexual restraint was positively received as Christendom advanced.

Outside of Ruden's claim, are there are patristic sources that suggest the introduction of sexual restraint was positively received by Rome?
"Are there patristic sources that suggest the introduction of sexual restraint was positively received by Rome?"

This question is a little too broad I think - what do you mean by received "by Rome"?

Clearly it WAS well received by many; since there were lots of converts. 

Clearly it WAS NOT well received by many others, even to the days of Charlemagne who had multiple wives and concubines, and teaching it was ridiculed by pagan contemporaries.

A few things are clear - the teaching was revolutionary. Concubinage was well accepted as a perfectly good alternative to marriage when marriage was not possible (perhaps due to class). Sexual rights to one's slave was considered natural. The man of the house had life and death over the entire household. 

Certainly the teaching was more appealing to women, than to powerful men. 

It is hard to know how a "common man" reacted, but again, there were many converts.

So although I am not at the moment recalling any specific sources commenting on the issue, I am sure that the claim is historically defensible even without direct commentary. 

NOTE - Rome was not a "morally decadent society" to the extent as described by some. We have lots of evidence of pagan "moral philosophers" that taught many "Christian" values. To claim otherwise would be to claim that God completely abandoned pagans.