Top or bottom? Ancients versus Moderns

The argument that a man into a homosexual relationship must be the top because he’s an active male in a heterosexual relationship can be turned on its head. Perhaps he craves being topped by another man because he doesn’t get that with his wife or girlfriend. One can have relationships with women until he falls with another man who is a stallion. The unavoidable implication of that argument is, however, that 'a real man' should always put an effort in a relationship. The superiority is based not on class but on merit. Compare this with the view of a well-respected free Roman citizen of the I century A.D.  - though  the Romans didn’t have a concept of heterosexuality or homosexuality:

aut si de multis nullus placet exitus, illud

nonnne putas melius, quod tecum pusio dormit?

pusio qui noctu non litigat, exigit a te

nulla iacens illic munuscula nec queritur quod

et lateri parcas nec quantum iussit anheles (Juvenal, VI, .

If none of these exits (different manners of killing oneself as a way of escaping insatiable women) pleases you
wouldn't a lad suit you better? a lad who would share your bed?
who wouldn't wrangle all night, wouldn't ask
little gifts when in bed, and would not complain
that your hips remained idle, that you didn't breath hard as he ordered.