Tomás Almaguer's description of Latin homosexuality in “Chicano Men” reminds me very directly of the system described by Plato of Greek homosexuality, where the stigma is placed on the bottom or pasivo. At first this similarity seems a totally natural coincidence. How did the Latin sexual systems come to resemble the Greek system to an extent? I mean these societies were not just on different pages of the syllabus, but on different continents, existing at least two thousand years apart Upon further examination even the American homosexual system has a division of power, although it is not commonly discussed or described in mainstream culture or language. While all these cultures share a indirect or direct origin form the Greeks we fail to share some of the Greek's common practices, most notably the fact that women are no longer considered property in either the American or Latin Cultures. Perhaps the power differential is a common aspect among which all cultures share without a direct link. Chinese women used to be considered property like Greek women, although the cultures had not direct contact.
Given this almost universal power differential among all cultures, homosexual and heterosexual perhaps this is the one sexual trait that is inborn, and not culturally derived, like many other traits.
But to say this trait is inborn is denying the fact that gay men are known to be both passive and active. Based on anecdotal evidence (which Joan Scott would disapprove of) a man only fulfills one role in any give relationship. Perhaps then the power differential modem depends on more complex inborn traits, or a learned , culturally influenced societal difference. Maybe the human genome project will tell, or maybe not.
I feel the need to discuss the fact that “the contemporary gay community [is] a largely white, middle class, and male form.” I also feel unjustified and out of place discussing this because I fit that profile exactly. I truly believe that if I were a member of a different race category I would not have the emotional strength to be both gay and say for instance black. While possibly being black is easier that say it was in the 50's or 60's or even the 70's. I personally could not mentally hold up under both the strain of enduring racial and homosexual epithets and discrimination. Perhaps Almaguer is wrong in considering why white middle class men have dominated the gay movement. He sites their economic ability and other resources as their ability to thrive and create gay gettos. Perhaps it is the simpler fact that at post WW2 whites were a majority and given that at least 25% of the people in this country would be white men. It might then just be sheer population distribution that determined the while middle class ability to form gay gettos. This is a bit improbable though. Probably the most likely explanation requires the assumption that Homosexuality is an environmentally determined trait. Given the fact that white families tend to be more diverse and in some ways less dependent on the family unit to survive. Perhaps this is another formative trait in homosexuality, but I believe to say that middle class white men were able to create communities almost marginalizes the drag houses, the blacks ability to organize as shown by the Harlem Renaissance and other less known examples.