Abstract
Nguyen’s positional insistence demands a delicate balance between “high” gay male theory, which has yet to account adequately for racial difference, and Asian American criticism, which still grapples with queer subjectivities and “low” materials like pornography. According to Nguyen, these texts have codified a “sexual orthodoxy” (179) by advocating same-race same-sex desire at the expense of the Asian bottom’s pleasure with his white top. Future projects dealing with race and sexual representations, particularly those of gay Asian and Asian American subjectivities, must confront this question and reckon with the insights in Nguyen’s study.