>Doug Henwood writes:
>
>> There's a myth, going back to Roman times, that gay men are
>> affluent.
>
>Really? Was there even a social role equivalent to our "gay man" back
>then?
I lifted that from Badgett. I suppose the appropriate way of phrasing it was that men having sex with men was framed as a vice of the upper classes. Obviously there weren't "gay men" in the sense we think of it now.
Doug