I should have been more clear - I don't think the article was saying there was a 'gay aspect' (insomuch as a definite homosexual aspect) at all, I was just usin

I should have been more clear - I don't think the article was saying there was a 'gay aspect' (insomuch as a definite homosexual aspect) at all, I was just using the parent comment's language to contrast what was claimed and what was actually in the article. In fact, the article only makes passing reference to homosexuality, saying Whether these critiques of macaronis insinuated homosexuality is debated. Certainly it is difficult to generalize one way or other: though some commentators appeared to frame macaronis in terms of same-sex attraction, not all did. My main point was that the article was citing actual discourse from the time, and that was not at all consistent with a city vs country narrative. [edit] clarified further