I have to confess that I've been occasionally guilty of romanticizing gay male relationships in the sense that I have thought many times "it would just be easier if I was gay" (or at least bisexual). That it would be nice to escape some of the toxic paradigms that are unfortunately present in heterosexual dating these days by having the option to date other men as opposed to women. And this is a semi-common sentiment that I've noticed when talking to other chronically single men as well. I've begun to question though if that feeling is reasonable: after all, is not the grass always greener on the other side, as they say?

Now, I know that describing gay relationships is not so simple as using terms like one partner being masculine/"the man" and one partner being feminine/"the woman". I know several gay men who are either friends or family members and they are largely masculine. Sure, there are some effeminate mannerisms (thought not universal), and there is a reason why people talk about "gaydar". Even gay men have admitted to me that there is such a concept despite what some social justice warriors would probably have you believe. But still, I don't think it means that modern gender roles present in hetereosexual dating necessarily apply. It doesn't mean that they necessarily don't apply either, though.

So I suppose the question has multiple elements to it.

  1. Do you feel that there is a dynamic of masculine/feminine in the first place?
  2. If the answer to #1 is yes, do they mirror expected gender roles from heterosexual dating? To what degree?
  3. If the masculine/feminine dynamic doesn't exist, but the gender roles from heterosexual dating are mirrored, how do they manifest, then?

In case anyone doesn't know what I mean by heterosexual gender roles, it would be things like:

  1. Men being the pursuers and women being the selectors. (Men being expected to impress, curry favor, and risk rejection from women with little to no reciprocation).
  2. Stigma of being alone if you're a man, but not if you're a woman. (I.E. "he must be a creep/loser if he can't get laid").
  3. Element of hypergamy to selection criteria (women employing status-seeking behavior to marry up the social ladder).
  4. Inconsistently applied concern about sexual aggression and standards for sexuality. (Attractive men being lauded for sleeping around, while gamers are attacked for "objectifying" sexy women in video games. Also: the myth that virgins are more likely to rape).
  5. Unfair dating standards (essentially, the 80/20 split).

My first hypothesis would be that these paradigms don't exist. If they do, then I would guess that the top typifies the male role, whilst the bottom typifies the female role. Essentially, the question is whether the dynamics of heterosexual dating are actually owed to sex differences, or if they're part of a larger feminine/masculine dynamic irrespective of biological sex. (Of course, this also assumes tops are necessarily masculine and bottoms are necessarily feminine, which I imagine isn't so black and white, but its a starting point to jump off from).