1. This argument seemed extremely simplistic and rather unclear.

Is capitalism really the only reason that not only modern-day American homosexuality exists in its current form but also is scape-goated, or are there other forces involved? For example, Chauncey talked about homosexual behaviors as fairy, trade, and wolf, and how it existed in the burgeoning American capitalist state, and mentioned the differences in how the Jewish and Italian immigrants approached homosexual behavior, but under DEmilios logic there should not be such a difference. 2. DEmilio mentioned that women were not given the same opportunity as men to develop their modern-day homosexuality under the capitalist system, so how did they develop their homosexuality? Can their development versus the development of homosexual males really be explained as simplistically under capitalism, or are there other forces at work? If not, then are there apparent constraints in current-day female homosexuality that dont exist in male homosexuality? 3. What would Foucaults stance be on the capitalism versus gay identity theory? Can capitalism be considered a public discourse, or more of an invisible force in society? 4. Is there a way to reconcile the current gay marriage rights movement with DEmilios stance on destroying family units in order to help homosexuality in the public sphere? Chauncey argues that normative masculinity was conferred through a gender continuum between male and female. Thus, same-sex intercourse alone did not denote queerness depending upon the gender roles assumed by the participants. Today, he argues, sexuality is bound within a homo-hetero continuum with sex acts determining sexual identity rather than gendered performance. 1. Is this demarcation overly simplistic and is there a relationship between gender performance and sexual identity both within and between the homo and hetero communities? 2. Utilizing discursive reasoning, is Chaunceys argument hinged to what masculinity is defined against? In other words, in the early-to-mid 20th century if one is a normal man, then one is not a woman. Would it follow then that if in the contemporary U.S. masculinity is conferred through the biological sex of ones sexual partner, then if one is a normal man, one is not gay? 3. If gender and sexuality are continuously defined in opposition (i.e. if I am this, then I am not that), is there a way to structure divergent identities without stigmatization or appealing to predominant power structures? 1. How do class, ethnic, and gender identities problematize theorizations about sexuality? 2. What does it mean to compare Chicano identity to white homosexual male identity? Do you think Almaguers comparisons between the United States and Latino culture were accurate? What were your gut reactions to the text? 3. How does socialization into a patriarchal gender system that privileges men over women and masculine over feminine impact homosexual identities and relationships? Do you think many homosexual relationships conform to traditional patriarchal precepts of dominance and subordination? 4. How do you think the Machismo impacts Chicano perceptions of sexuality? How do you think patriarchy impacts American perceptions of sexuality? How are these two concepts (machismo/patriarchy) both different and the same?

5. Overall Question: How do these articles about how nurture/culture affects sexual identities impact the popular debate about nature vs. nurture in the United States? How you think introducing these ideas in to the mainstream media would affect the gay rights movement in the United States? 1. 2. What do you think Chauncey representation of the word gay? Do you think the use of words like wolves, punks, and hoboes are replacements of the word gay; are these kind of definitions supporting the gay identity or mocking it? 3. Even though Chauncey's writing is presents a "gay" new york, the emphasis on the "man" of the relationships and the lack of view from the more womanly or fairy representative seems supportive of the idea that this gay new york is revolving around the heterosexual, patriarchal values? 4. Doesn't Chauncey's point that each man is defined by their differences rather than their sameness mean that they are using the heterosexual man as the point of reference? 5. Why are all these boundaries drawn of the kinds of men participating in homosexual practices (and not just by positions, performance or definition, but also the actual separation such as in prisons) - in order to be able to know who is the most manly? 1. 2. What are the implications of gender identities being classified by the media? After obtaining an understanding of Thai gender/sexual identities and the concept of phet, how would you say gender and sexuality are related in the West? (Is it necessary to link them?) 3. Is Foucault complicit in the Western perspectives and theories being imposed on other cultures? Despite his acknowledged silence and limited frame of reference (that is to say, Ars Erotica), can we call Foucault an Orientalist? What about insensitive to other cultures? 4. Is there a global gay?