The categorizing of sex roles in a heterosexual setting is often based on employing binary associations between men, masculinity, and activity on the one hand, and women, femininity, and passivity on the other. Thus, in a patriarchal heteronormative setting, these associations translate sexually into understanding women as only sexually receptive and passive, and men as only active and penetrative; thereby cancelling women’s sexual agency and allocating power over women’s bodies to men (see Hymen).  In fact, the very distinction of “active” and “passive” is based on a phallocentric depiction of sex which only views penetration as an active male role (see Sex).

This divide is also central to informing gender and sex roles in queer communities. Categories such as “top”, “bottom”, “versatile”, “butch”, “femme” are not simply sex roles, but are variously categorized in academic literature as queer gender roles, erotic roles, sexual scripts, and erotic subcultures. The butch and femme roles have been an important debate topic in North American lesbian feminism. In the 1960s, “The Ladder”, the first US lesbian magazine, published by the Daughters of Bilitis collective, showcased arguments against lesbian role-playing. Butch roles in particular were seen as unenlightened and old-fashioned. In a continuation of this line of thinking, in the 1970s and 1980s, lesbian feminism advocated androgynous presentations and “egalitarian” sexual relationships as anti-patriarchal tools. Widely-read essays, such as Adrien Rich’s “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence” suggested that butch/femme sex roles are inherently patriarchal, because they replicate heterosexual models and men-women power dynamics.

On the other hand, research into the history of lesbian communities and later, post-structuralist theorizing pointed out that these roles made the working-class lesbian community publicly visible, that they were a mark of sexual choice and agency, that they are not merely imitative but also performative, and that they coopt traditional notions of masculinity and femininity but subvert them by revealing how gender is socially constructed rather than innate. Anthropologist Gayle Rubin has argued that butch should be considered a lesbian gender rather than an imitation of heterosexual men while philosopher Judith Butler pointed out that lesbian role playing is both imitative and subversive of heterosexual norms. While the terms “butch” and “femme” are used in some small circles in Beirut, local terms such as “hasan sabi” (tomboy), “boyat” (from boy), or “mustarjilah” (the one who acts as a man) are more prevalent across the Middle East and denote a different gender presentation and role, but also is often used to describe lesbian sexual behavior or identity. For example, a panic over the masculinization of girls in the United Arab Emirates in 2009 led the Ministry to release a campaign against “the fourth gender” which it understood as girls being too masculinized and too friendly with other girls in schools.

Whereas the discussions about “butch”, “femme”, and “mustarjilat” roles are very much about gender presentation, the question of sex roles used to describe gay men much more often references very concrete sexual practices. Categories such as “bottom”, “top” and “versatile” are frequently defined in terms of so-called receptive or insertive preference during anal and oral sex. It has been suggested that this essentialization stems from public health studies on gay men’s sexual behavior (see MSM).

However, many research interview subjects emphasize that among gay men there is considerable fluidity in claimed roles and a great variety of sexual practices; they feel these aspects show that established labels are restrictive and that a host of practices becomes obscured by medical researchers’ attention for anal penetration. Ethnographic research has also revealed that even in U.S. and European LGBT communities, the labels are used especially in hook-up situations, with an important degree of negotiation. The relevance of these labels in some European as well as Middle Eastern gay groups or communities has been nuanced or challenged, with attention paid to how such roles intersect with other identity labels including ethnicity. While terms such as “top” and “bottom” are used in Lebanon in for example online chats on dating applications such as Grindr, Manjam, or Gay Romeo, local words also exist to denote similar meanings. For example, “salib” سالب and “mujib” موجب (negative and positive) also refer to sex roles between men based on penile insertion wherein the salib is the “penetrated” or “receiver” and the mujib is the “penetrator”.  

Besides denoting erotic preference, “bottom”, “top” and “versatile” are connected to gender performances and status. Stereotypically, “bottoms” are associated with social submission, passivity, effeminacy – associations which stem from the devaluing of the feminine and the penetrable. Within and beyond LGBT spaces, the “bottom” identity is more likely to be devalued and stigmatized. “Tops” are expected to be dominant and may be more protected from stigma. In certain cultural spaces, men who engage in exclusively penetrative anal sex are not considered to be outside the boundaries of heterosexuality (see heteronormativity). “Versatile” identities seem to have proliferated in Western gay communities as a result of critiques of rigid top-bottom roles as mimicking heterosexual power dynamics; increasingly, versatility is seen as the progressive identity and a mark of capacity for equalitarian relationships. Lastly, “versatile top” or “power bottom” are also examples of recent modifications of these sex roles, which, at the same time, challenge the rigid active-passive binary.