CHAPTER 42. ACTIVE OR PASSIVE?
Costa Rica followed the so-called Mediterranean tradition, which stated that the active partner was less homosexual, or not homosexual at all. Just like in Greece and Rome, a man could penetrate another without it implying an identity. The rigidity of the Latin model imposed a permanent tension because one thing was a man and a woman playing these roles, and another thing was two men.
In the case of my friends, even those who played the submissive role, infidelity was intolerable, and they had not internalized the values of domesticity or care. It was always easier for them to end a relationship that brought them injustice.
A typical case of this relationship was Jorge and Miguel. The first, an executive in an international company, was masculine and the homosexual that no one would suspect. Fifteen years ago, he had met a feminine boy, Miguel, his partner, and since they had resources, they chose to rent an apartment. Both were part of the traditional couple: the first one masculine, active, a businessman; the second one effeminate, passive, and a homemaker. Their relationship was no different from any heterosexual couple.
Another type of traditional couple was an older man with a younger one, or “kid” The opposition was not about gender but about age: the adolescent 150
acted as a son-lover. Although the former took the initiative in sexual matters, there was no masculine-feminine dichotomy. This difference relieved many tensions in the couple because both could be virile, but it also led to contradictions: young men usually don’t give up control.
A new way of relating arrived from the United States.
The new philosophy said that gays should not imitate heterosexual couples and that they should aspire to symmetry. It was argued that both should emulate a single pattern, that of masculinity, and that opposite couples were reactionary. Love was a republican contract in which the votes would be distributed, and in this new Athenian democracy, the couple divided the functions equally: no one would sew or cook exclusively, nor would they be the other’s domestic employee.
What kind of relationship did I have with Ted? If we look at it from the perspective of masculinity, Ted was a hyper-masculine man that not even the most astute discoverer of homosexuals would notice. But I no longer had anything feminine about me and never learned how to cook or do laundry. In terms of these domestic things, Ted rightly told me that I was a shmuck incapable of fixing anything while he could cook and take care of a house. In terms of age, we could say that I was the “kid” in the relationship since the age difference was huge. But emotionally, I was more mature than Ted and played more the psychologist role than he did as a father figure. Our relationship was also not 151
symmetrical because Ted had much more power than me in American society. I would define it as complementary. We were so different that we were attracted to each other’s shortcomings. Ted lived according to the rules of white Anglo-Saxon society and I, he said, was a breath of fresh air because I violated all of them, something he secretly enjoyed. For me, Ted represented acceptance in the Anglo-Saxon world where I felt safe. As a student, I didn’t even have a credit card, let alone any money. Being with someone who had plenty of credit cards and bank accounts and who could buy whatever he wanted was erotic to me. But since we couldn’t go out in public and because I was proud, I never let him buy me anything.