Anyone else think it should be renamed Sex in the Cistern?

That's good! Yeah, a bit to much time wasted - though I have no problem imagining that the people had so few scruples.

Thing is - I know there were a lot of sex scenes in the book but you can read the book at your leisure. In a show, you only have so many hours to tell the tory and then they have to stop and bang.

I agree; although it must be noted that the refugees on Masada, the Sicarii were considered rather low on the totem pole of the society of that time. And the two main female characters were also outcasts: De Pablo's character the daughter of a prostitute (or not, but so called because she was what might be called a wise woman who had knowledge of herbal medicine)and Yael, the redhead, the daughter of a father who rejected her because she, a blameless child, in his eyes killed her mother who died during childbirth, and she herself bore a child to another married man.
In my opinion, people in a fight for their very lives would be more concerned with trying to preserve them, than with fornicating like rabbits. There was far too much of that in this film, and de Pablo's character irritated the heck out of me.

I could be a morning person if morning happened at noon.

I felt that having sex in the water, which presumably was a shared and scarce resource, was at the very least inconsiderate (and selfish). I don't know if such scenes are portrayed in the book and/or explained.

One thing that kind of excused it for me was that it seemed to have a religious connotation, an act of cleanliness in order to be together, like if they were having sex as a prayer to God. They were purifying themselves in order to achieve a higher being of love. I'm probably reading too much into it.

This makes me sad. :( The book was amazing! But it sounds like they didn't do it justice at all. :-S