The majority of ethnographic material on homosexuality in Latin America covers multi-varied regional accounts. The abundance of this localized material emanates mainly from the countries of Brazil, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Cuba, and Mexico. However, there exist several thematic commonalties among the anthropological accounts in Latin America. In general, there is an extraordinary focus on the gay/lesbian liberation movements (however underground) in association with the frequent political transformations common in Latin America. Other common topics include accounts of identity-based movements, life histories of gay artists (gay-cultural icons), social theory critiques, transvestitism and prostitution (particularly in Brazil), the influence of democratization and the West (United States and Europe), and HIV prevention. Indeed, political and economic anthropology remain at the forefront of research on homosexuality in this area. Symbolic, applied, and feminist anthropology also contribute significant information.

The goal of this paper is to document the significant contributors, contents, methodologies, developments, and theoretical frameworks relevant to the anthropological study of homosexuality in Latin America. Other sister disciplines such as sociology, psychology, women's studies (gender and feminist), and history also provide significant collaborators and contributors. In order to understand such an array of topics, one must first look at general methodology as well as the history and associations between sexuality and anthropology.

Methodology and Sexuality Research

Anthropologists use the traditional fieldwork methods of participant observation, personal interviews, and questionnaire surveys in sex research. Other methods include literature reviews and, recently, the use of the Human Relation Area Files (HRAF) to supplement their investigations (Davis and Whitten, 1987, p. 70). Anthropologists also use culture change models to describe sexuality cross-culturally. Other approaches include social dynamics, social networks, homosexual behavior, and emic categories (“emic” categories reflect the insider's or subject's perspective rather than the anthropologist's view, which is termed “etic”). There exists, however, no empirical metho-dology specifically designed for sex studies in anthropology.

History and Development of
Anthropology and Sexuality

Davis and Whitten (1987) characterize the connection between anthropology and the study of human sexuality as a love-hate relationship. Early accounts often focused on human biology and evolution, reproduction and health and hygiene, and gender roles and status. The ideas of

cultural evolution, promiscuity, and group marriage characterized the early nineteenth century. Accounts that noted sexuality or the topic of sex in general even created a short lived genre of anthropology called “ethnopo-rnagraphy” (Davis and Whitten, 1987). However, in the twentieth century, new waves of thought such as cultural relativism, feminism, reproduction, and minority rights influenced the study of sexuality. In retrospect, one can observe that, “the specific nature of cross-cultural sex research has typically been a function of how the West views sexuality at a given time” (Davis and Whitten, 1987, p. 70).

Historically, homosexuality is seldom mentioned in ethnographic literature. Truly, “the most glaring omission in professional research on sexual practice is certainly the area of homosexuality” (Davis and Whitten, 1987, p. 71). Among Amazonian cultures, Claude Levi-Strauss and Hugh-Jones try to explain away even observed genital stimulation as ‘friendship' and ejaculate as ‘sentimental demonstrations' and ‘ritual' (Murray, 1997, p. 3). One can attribute the absence of this cultural facet to fears of deviance, ethical dilemmas, or lack of general acceptance in the intellectual community. However, several early anthropologists, such as Franz Boas, made efforts to understand homosexuality cross-culturally. Murray (1997) describes Arthur Sorenson, Gunter Tessman, and Louis Faren as other examples of early non-judgmental anthropologists on the subject of sexuality. In the late 1980s, anthropologists Davis and Whitten embarked on suggestions for a more inclusive research on sexuality. They made four significant suggestions for the improvement in this area. They stated,

First, anthropology needs an open, sensitive, and thorough debate on the ethics of sex research. Related are issues involving publication and dissemination of materials related to non-Western sexual practice. Second, more emphasis must not be placed on combining studies of heterosexual practices with studies of gender and symbolism; nor should the erotic and pleasurable aspects of sex be ignored.