”'3" LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF A GAY°MALE COMMUNITY

presented by

Richard Carl Omark

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

 

 

 

Ph.D degreein Sociology
m y/ ,. «
j ' kl/LIiviWL
Majoriprofessor ' J

Date August 10, 1979

 

0-7639

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllNilllllllllllllllllllllllll l

293 10504 5755

 

OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY .
PER ITEM

 

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1*..uiii‘3ver {i111 . slit . “if b. . . 1 1| . til»; . ... lnli ‘. s. 7 I- i . .ul 8-. k . , i-I. .

THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF A
GAY MALE COMMUNITY

By
Richard Carl Omark

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Sociology

1979

ABSTRACT
THE SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF A GAY MALE COMMUNITY
By

Richard Carl Omark

This is a study of young adult gay male groups in a medium-
sized city "Midwest City," (SMSA of 378,000 population). Unlike
gay males in the largest metropolitan areas who have gay neighbor-
hoods and developing social institutions, gay males in Midwest
City do not have sufficient numbers to form a residential concen-
tration, to maintain fully developed or complete institutions and
as a result must participate in the city's institutions. The study,
using the methods of participant Observation, interviews, network
analysis, and the semantic differential, explored in what ways
these men constitute a community for themselves.

The ecological approach which is used to conceptualize the
development of community is limited in its explanatory ability.

Two processes bearing on the constitution of community were
examined: How ecological settings contribute to the sense Of
community and how cognitive labels, e.g., "gay community,“ con-
tribute to the perceived salience to community members of certain
places. The label “gay community" is powerful in only certain
ecological settings. Some places come to be known as "gay places,"
even though heterosexuals may be present. However, the places
require actions and attributions by gay males to transform such

places into gay places. When a place comes to be perceived as a

Richard Carl Omark
gay place, and an actor emits cues read off as gay by others
present, the responses of the audience affirm the perception of
the place as a gay place. Several kinds of messages assign
meaning to the place as a gay place where a gay identity is
salient. The gay community, as a set of gay places where a gay
identity is salient, is constructed by the repeated interaction
of the participants in the places.

This ethnography of a gay community focuses on interactional
patterns, the criteria of membership in the group, and the extent
of shared cognitive orientations. Interactional patterns are
complexly related to segmentation in the community. The sharpest
divisions or segments within the community are based on sex
(lesbians versus gay males) and age identities. Other identities
serving as bases of interaction and segment groupings among gay
males are "drag queen", "leatherman", "chickenhawk", and Gay
Lib member, while the identities of "chicken", "hustler", and
bisexual do not as clearly demarcate interactional patterns.
These identities can be presented in very few settings. Be-
cause sexual relations among most young gay males are with
strangers and are infrequently repeated, Open and changing
friendship networks are important in the social organization
of the community. Membership in these networks is one basis
for inclusion in the community. A member of the community

is recognized by being seen in gay places with other gay

Richard Carl Omark
people and by emitting "gay cues" toward others. One asserts
membership verbally by stating that one has "come out" or by
claiming a "gay" identity. Within the community, as well as
outside of it, the identity categories "heterosexual" and‘
"homosexual" are reified conceptions and viewed as inevitable.
Many believe that alternation between the categories is impos-
sible. These reified beliefs about "coming out" promote the
stability of the gay male identity and membership in the com-
munity. Data from the semantic differential showed that a
sample of gay men did not differ from a sample of hetero-
sexual men On evaluations of a set of general cognitive

categories, but gay males did share distinctive evaluations

 

of categories that are salient within the gay community.
Other evidence Of a gay community is seen in the implicit

gay annual calendar of ceremonies. Particular ceremonies

 

are of greater interest to some of the segments, but the
calendar is meager and most holidays are shared with the

larger society.

PREFACE

In the pages that follow, I hope that I have conveyed to the
reader, the excitement of studying a group of people who refer to them-
selves as a "community," but do not reside in a shared and clearly
bounded territory. The elusive and fragile nature of community found
in this study contrasts sharply with most community studies, and yet
it shares with them a concern for the interaction of the micro-level of
analysis, with individuals interacting in patterned ways, and the
macro-level, with concern for the effects of social structure on in-
teraction.

This study also shares with other community studies a certain cru-
cial problem: In order to fully grasp the patterns of interaction
among the members, the criteria they use for determining membership in
the group, and the cognitions that they share as a unique group, one
is forced to use participant observation as the preferred method.

This method requires considerable volumes of time just to understand
the one community under study. Hence, the researcher can make many
conclusions about one group in one place, but is severely limited
thereby in the ability to compare the group with other communities. A
crucial issue raised by this study is the comparability of this group
with gay communities in both larger and smaller cities. Only by com-
parison of communities in different-sized cities can such concepts as

“institutional completeness" (Breton, 1964) of the community be fully

ii

iii
grasped. Yet ultimately, the comparison of this group with communities
in larger and smaller cities must be left to be made in another place
and time. One can only hope that this study will contribute to that
comparison by the reader.

Many of the events and conversations described in the dissertation
occurred between 1972 and 1976. In many cases, they have been supple—
mented by frequent visits to Midwest City since 1976. Nevertheless,
the ethnography was written in another city and removed in time. I
had read that fleaving the fieldf was often a problem, even before
this study was begun. Yet, the anguish, loneliness, and boredom felt
after moving away from Midwest City and leaving the large number of
friends that had been cultivated during the participant observation
makes me realize only in retrospect in just how many different ways
the respondents have been more important to me than I have been to
them. I feel distant now from those gay friends in Midwest City, both
in time and place. At the same time, I am aware of the many debts and
obligations owed both to those left behind and those who have now also
moved elsewhere. In Chapter Three are several examples of the toler-
ance shown me by gay male friends, and examples of their friendship
are sometimes implicitly given in Chapters Four and Five. I can only
hope that this dissertation, by contributing to the ongoing exploration
of homosexuality and of the gay community, will in some small way rec-
tify the debts that were incurred to the many gay male friends during
the course of the participant Observation.

A brief overview of the dissertation is to be found after the

statement of the theoretical problem at the end of Chapter One.

iv
However, it should be mentioned here that the selective review of the
literature on the gay community in Chapter Two was written during 1978.
Several important additions to that literature (Bell and Weinberg, 1978;
Delph, 1978; and Lee, 1978a and b) are not included in the review but
are cited at relevant places elsewhere in the text.

By far, the greatest contribution to this dissertation was made by
Peter K. Manning. Not only has he supplied many of the ideas that have
proven useful in the analysis, but also the clarity of the criteria at
the basis of his professional standards has sustained me through sev-
eral crises engendered during the course of the participant observation.
A "thank you" is hardly sufficient for the many hours of conversation
engendered over the many years necessary to complete this study.

Many thanks are also owed to the other members of the dissertation
committee: Donald Olmsted, John Gullahorn, and Bill Ewens. Their
patience through several delays and extensions is much appreciated.
Several sociologists at other universities have also made important
contributions through correspondence; chief among these is Edward
Sagarin of the City College of New York, whose continuing interest and
suggestions are much appreciated. I also appreciate careful readings
of the dissertation proposal made by Joseph Harry of Northern Illinois
University, Randall Jones of San Francisco State University, and Pepper
Schwartz of the University of Washington. Some of the ideas suggested
in correspondence with Robert A. Stebbins of the University of Calgary
and George Psathas of Boston University, which predate the writing of
the dissertation proposal, may have survived in the writing of the dis-
sertation; in any case, their time and interest during the earliest

phase of the research is appreciated.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

Introduction

The Ecological Perspective

The Cognitive Perspective .

Networks and the Interactional Boundary

Analysis and Implications .

CHAPTER TWO. GENERAL ISSUES BEARING ON THE CONCEPT OF
COMMUNITY ,

A. Institutions

B Public versus Private Places

C. Interactions . . . . .

D Intimate Structures (Private Settings)

Identities

Focus of the Study
A. Interactional Patterns .
B. Criteria of Membership in the Group
C. Shared Cognitive Orientation

Summary

ix

xi

mm!»

11

16
16
17
22
24
28
33
35
36
37
39

vi

CHAPTER THREE. THE SETTINGS AND RESEARCH TECHNIQUES
Introduction
Midwest City
Techniques
Fieldwork
Interviews
The Instrument

Estimates of the Gay Male Population in Midwest City

CHAPTER FOUR. THE CONCEPT OF THE GAY COMMUNITY
Introduction .

"Coming Out" and Membership in the Community

Quasi-institutions, Major Segments, and Ecological Settings .

Introduction .

The Segments .

The Quasi-Institutions
1. Gay Bars
2. Stable Quasi-familial Relations
3. Political Quasi-Institutions

The Ecological Settings .

The College Center

The Gay Bars .

Public Restrooms .

PSin Strip"

Adult Movie Theater

Adult Bookstores .

Gay Baths

44
44
44
47
48
57
58
58

67
67
68
83
83
92
97
98
100
110
112
113
119
123
123
124
124
125

vii

Private Areas .

Summary

CHAPTER FIVE. INTIMATE SOCIAL STRUCTURES: IDENTITIES AND

ACTIVITIES

Introduction .

The Identities

Drag Queens

Leathermen

Gay Lib Member
Chickenhawks and Chicken
Hustlers

Bisexuals .

Closet Queens .

Activities in Public: College Center, Bar, Slave Auction,

and Drag Shows

1.

01 h (A) N
o o o o

Cruising in the College Center

Non—sexual Activities in the College Center
At the Bar

The Slave Auction .

The Drag Show .

Private Domain: Parties, Dates, and Couples .

1.
2.

Parties and the Home

Dates and Couples .

The Annual Gay Calendar

Conclusions

126
126

131
131
137
138
143
148
149
154
157
157

159
159
166
186
190
192
195
195
201
203
211

viii

CHAPTER SIX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . 216

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228

LIST OF TABLES

Percentage of Employed Persons by Occupation, Midwest
City SMSA, 1970, and National Average, 1970

Census

Mean Numbers of People Per Day Eating in the College
Center Cafeteria Who Defined Themselves as Gay or

Ate With Gay Males

Mean Responses on the Semantic Differential of Fifty

Gay Males and Fifty Straight Males
Where Lovers First Met

Frequency and Per Cent of Appearance of Participants Who
Ate a Total of Seven or More Times in the College
Center Cafeteria, By Year, and Per Cent of Total

Frequency

Diners Attending the College Center Cafeteria More Than

Ten Per Cent Per Year (the "High Attenders"), by Year.

Average Per Cent Attendance Per Year of Participants in

the College Center Cafeteria, by Year

ix

45

55

95

106

169-170

172

175

8.

9.

10.

Analysis

Pairs

Analysis

Pairs

Analysis

Pairs

X

of Pairs of High Attenders as Ratios of Total
and Total Possible Pairs, 1974 . . . . . . 225
of Pairs of High Attenders as Ratios of Total
and Total Possible Pairs, 1975 . . . . . . 226
of Pairs of High Attenders as Ratios of Total

and Total Possible Pairs, 1976 . . . . . . 227

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Floor Plan of the First Floor of the College Center . . . 114

2. Floor Plan of Carl's Bar. . . . . . . . . . 120

3. Floor Plan of Tom's Bar . . . . . . . . . . 122

xi

CHAPTER ONE. INTRODUCTION AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
Introduction

There are two basic explanations for the emergence of community:
The ecological (e.g., Park and Burgess, 1925) and the social psycho-
logical or cognitive (e.g., Toennies, 1887). This study is an attempt
to combine these approaches; this is a two-sided question: To what
degree do ecological settings influence or make possible the social
psychology of community, and to what extent does the social psycho-
logical influence the ecological settings? In a sense, ecological
settings are preconditions for interactions; obviously, interactions
always are situated‘in a location or setting. However, some ecological
settings are viewed with some preconceptions for some people, so
that the perception of community is based on particular known ecolog-
Aical settings and the interactions that are known to typically occur
in those settings. This dissertation is primarily a study of commun-
ity as perceived and acted on by young adult male homosexuals. The
methods used to study this are participant observation, interviews of
key informants, and some paper-and-pencil tests; the study has been
in progress since 1972. The main purpose is to explicate the meaning
of community for these people, and to understand the relative contri-
bution of the concept of "communityt as an overall integrative mech-
anism for them. To what extent does the concept of "gay community"
(widely used among them) serve as equivalent to such terms as "my
home town? and "my country,9 having a symbolic value for them? That
is, instead of assuming that the term, Pgay community? has an inte-

grative value, one would want to see if it does, and when and how.

2

If community, as a sense of integration, is based on territory and
interaction, then one would want to specify a denotative meaning, such
as the verbal label plus the basis of the use of the label, "gay commun-
ity.f Hence, this study is concerned with two interrelated processes:
How the ecological settings contribute to the sense of community (or
more generally, how structure contributes to perceptions), and conversely,
how cognitive labels (as, the "gay community“) contribute to the perceived
salience of certain territories and places. The main argument is that
the label of "gay community" is most powerful in certain ecological set-
tings; certain accepted places (as the gay bar, the College Center, and
certain public washrooms) come to be known as fgay places." Most of
these places are in public so that heterosexuals may also be present.
Hence, most_fgay placesf are liminal - they are transition places which
may be transformed by the actions of gay persons into "gay places."
Basically, this is an ethnographic study of young adult male homo-
sexuals in a medium-sized metropolitan area (the SMSA has a population
of approximately 400,000). As such, it appears to be unique because
the few previous ethnographies of male homosexuals have all been done
in the largest metropolitan areas in the country. This study will
fOcus on the social organization of homosexuality by viewing social
organization as situationally created in the activities of members.
By asking how much of the lives of members is implicated with others
who are also gay, the study seeks to determine if homosexual activities
should properly be viewed as a "central life interest," and by impli-
cation as a subculture, or simply as a recreational activity. Certain
aspects of interaction that tie the members together will be focused

on: 1) The interactional patterns (the core members and shared

3
activities in the networks); 2) the criteria of membership in the
group; and 3) the extent of shared cognitive orientations. These as-
pects are examined so as to determine to what extent and in what ways
the members constitute a community.

From this study, evidence will be considered on the way the con-
cept of community is used in and made viable by institutions and in-
teraction patterns. In doing this, a large body of interview and ob-
servational data will be mobilized to provide a detailed description
of these institutions, interactions, and identities. This descriptive
material with its analytic focus is the only study available in the
literature which gives a full description of the different territorial
sets of groups acting together in a medium-sized city. The study will
show that the concept of community is symbolically real, but manifested
by and in certain "representative figures" and activated only in cer-
tain locations.

The Ecological Perspective

Before considering the cognitive perspective on the emergence of
community, the ecological perspective will be briefly considered,
especially as seen in the Chicago school. Robert Park and the Chicago
school emphasized Pnatural areasf of the city as the ecological loca-
tions of types Of deviant behavior as these cluster in various sub-
communities of the metropolis.1 In the largest cities of the present
day, homosexual neighborhoods become established whereby the predom-
inant residents of the area, the majority of employees, the main rec-
reational forms, etc. all assume a homoerotic sexual orientation on
the part of the participants in the area.2 Levine (1977) suggests,
following Wirth's criteria (1928), that some gay neighborhoods in the

4
largest cities now qualify as "gay ghettoes." For example, the Castro
area of San Francisco, in which a predominance of homosexuals reside,
work, and recreate, can be considered as a ”natural homosexual area"
or a "gay ghetto" of San Francisco.

However, such natural areas of deviant communities are not to be
found in the smaller metropolitan areas of America. Certainly, in
smaller cities, certain areas come to have a reputation among partici-
pants as good areas for public sex; certain places come to be known
as gay recreational establishments; and certain neighborhoods and
apartment complexes may have clusters of homosexuals residing in them.
But these do not overlap in the same ecological area of the city, so
that one cannot speak of natural homosexual ecological communities in
medium-sized cities. For example, a male homosexual may typically
look for sexual partners in particular public washrooms (Ytearooms")
which are several miles distant from the gay bar, both of which may
be several miles from his residence. This raises the question: In
the medium-sized metropolitan area, in what sense is the concept of
community as used by gays (e.g., Hoffman, 1968), a community in the
structural and institutional sense as used by sociologists.

The general ecological approach to urbanism can be subdivided
into three distinct approaches (Fischer, Chapter 2, 1976): 1) The
determinist approach (Wirth, 1938; Park, 1916; and Simmel, 1905) em-

 

phasizes that increasing urbanism (larger city size) induces differ-
entiation of the social structure and greater division of labor, but
with the consequence Of isolating individuals. Impersonal procedures
moderate the resulting individual anomie by formal social control and

formal (secondary) integration. Fischer's description here really

5
just emphasizes the independent variable of population size of the city,
with the dependent variable ofthe social psychology of the individual
(feeling isolated and suffering from anomie), while the intervening
variables of formal social control and formal integration are believed
to moderate the effects on the social psychology of the individual.
2) The compositionalist approach (e.g., Gans, 1962; Oscar Lewis, 1965)
is also derived from the Chicago school which emphasized the view of
the city as fa mosaic of little worlds which touch but do not inter;
penetratef (Park, 1916, p. 126). This approach sees small primary
. groups as of continuing importance in the city, no matter how large
the city population may become. In this approach the dynamics of
social life depend on the non-ecological factors of social class, eth-
nicity, and stage in the life cycle. These attributes which individu-
als bring with them to the city determine who their associates are and
what social worlds they live in. In other words, fsocial worlds? is
the intervening variable between the demography of the city and the

intensity and quality of interaction. 3) The'Schultural approach

 

(Fischer, 1975) contends that urbanism independently affects social
life by helping to create and strengthen social groups. The ecology
and demography are independent variables which encourage the emergence
of distinctive subcultures in the city. This approach recognizes that
increasing population size produces the structural differentiation

and elaboration of the division of labor, which was stressed by the
determinists, but it does more: Increasing population size intensifies
subcultures by two distinct processes. The most useful process (for
our purposes) is in the achievement of a tcritical masst; sufficient

numbers allow people to support institutions that serve the group

6
(such as newspapers, clubs, and specialized stores); sufficient numbers
also allow them to interact extensively with each other, and to have a
visible and affirmed identity. The second process of intensification
results from contacts between subcultures in the city which contrast.
APeople from one subculture often find people in another subculture
threatening, offensive, or both" (Fischer, 1976, p. 28). In other
words, the contrast and Yrecoil" intensifies and helps to define the
urban subcultures. In each of the ecological approaches, the demog-
raphy of an area (the city size) is an important independent variable
affecting the social organization and sense of Ycommunityf in the city
because the size of the city is crucially related to the amount of
specialization within the city. However, this set of distinctions is
not very useful for the present study. The three ecological approaches
explain'gxtggt_groups and subcultures in the city; as such, the ap-
proaches assume that the "group? is visible and can be explained. In
this study, the variables in the ecological approaches contribute but
do not fully explain. For example, the concept of a Asocial worldt in
the city implies a cultural dimension to the groups, which is not
necessarily the case here. This study is concerned to determine if
the subjects do constitute a_§group" or a tcommunityt, and if they do
have a subculture.

The demography of a city fits into a regional pattern with a hier-
archy of cities and functions the cities play in the region.3 That is,
there is a hierarchy of cities, with a dominant city and subsidiary
cities in a hinterland; this is just a function of the size of any
consumer group (or Vcritical mass“) in an area. In this sense, the

city under study is one of several intermediate cities in a region

7
dominated by a large metropolitan area. The most specialized and
smallest groups (e.g., gay leather clubs) are located only in the
large metropolitan area, and residents of the moderate-sized city un-
der study who are "into leather" must go to the leather bar in the
large metropolitan area, while people in yet smaller cities are served
by facilities such as the gay bar to be found in the moderate-sized
city under study.

One could also consider a political aspect to the ecology of the
"community": The escalating effects of more visibility of the gay
institutions of the community in the last ten years (Humphreys, 1972).
This aspect is, however, debatable. It is true that patrons of the
gay bar do not worry now about being raided by the police for dancing
by couples of the same sex, nor for public "drag shows." It is also
true that the Gay Liberation Movement (Gay Lib) at the local college
openly advertises its meetings and dances in the student newspaper.

However, it is debatable if there really is more visibility of
gay institutions in this medium-sized city than ten years ago. A prob-
lem for resolving such a question is that participants in the gay
“community" have no sense of a history of the community except as per-
sonal biography. For example, an older gay male, who "came out"
(allowed others to assume he was gay in certain settings) years ago
could tell what bar was gay when he came out and his circumstances
when he came out, but he would not talk about how the community has
changed apart from his personal sense of his own changing life circum-
stances. This lack of a sense of the history of the community except
as personal biography is related to the importance attached to iden-

tity as a criterion of membership in the community. This lack of a

8
perceived history of the community is in sharp contrast with the sense
of history found in traditional community studies (Chicago school;

Middletown; Yankee City Series). The lack of a sense of history of

 

the community is promoted by the high turnover into and out of the
area by college students and staff, who comprise a portion of active
participants in the city's gay bar scene (and of course, in Gay Lib,
which is a student organization on the college campus).
The Cognitive Perspective

The cognitive perspective is grounded in interaction. That is,
shared cognitions about the world are assumed to come about through
interaction. Using this perspective, one could say that interaction,
along with the shared symbols and cognitive views, underpin the
"quasi-institutions" (the bar, gay couples, and Gay Lib) to be found
in the gay community. This perspective reverses the tradition of the
Chicago school; it was concerned with the links between ecology and
social institutions; the concrete, ecologically bounded institutions
'caused' the cognitive views of the participants. Here, the adapta-
tions of individuals in ecological locations are considered, and it
appears that the cognitive views and interaction organize institutions
also, as well as being affected by them.

Networks and the Interactional Boundary

Various sorts of dyadic relationships (friendships, roommates,
sexual relationships) coalesce into cliques and groups at certain times
and places. This means that fcommunityf can be viewed in terms of
three components: 1) Shared cognitive orientations (or, shared world
views), 2) interactional scenes and rates, which are 3) public and

consensual, or private. In one sense, "community" can be viewed as

9
composed of a set of interacting networks of people, tied together
at least by their mutual sexual orientation toward the same sex (indeed,
Leznoff and Westley, 1956, view their community in just this way).

It should be clear that the network would usually define the boun-
dary of the community, that is, an interactive boundary, rather than a
territorial boundary (Suttles, 1972, p. 55). However, the desire (by
males) for new sexual partners not previously known makes the inter-
active boundary problematic. This highlights the questioning found in
groups of gay males when another male walks by, typically taking the
form: tLook at him. Do you know him?f Typical positive responses
might be: AI've seen him in the johns, and he's the biggest whore in
town," or "I've seen him down at the bar," or PWe've been friends for
years." With a positive response to the inquiry, the male walking by

is included in the questioner's network, but a negative response ("I

 

don't know him") does not necessarily imply that the questioner is not
connected to the stranger, nor that the stranger does not share the

sexual orientation of the questioner. The point is that the network

 

is open and the interactive boundary is problematic: Who is a member
and who is not? The consequence of a wrong guess can be severe for

the individual (e.g., propositioning a vice cop), unlike in non-deviant
communities. In certain ecological locations (e.g., the bar), members
assume that all others present are members of the Pcommunity,9 but
recognition of those others outside the settings may be denied by the
other. For example, sometimes a person does not want to be recognized
as_gay when with a business associate or with a member of his family
Of origin, so that approaching someone known to be gay when outside an

explicitly gay setting (as, the gay bar) is also sometimes problematic.

10
This raises certain questions: What constitutes membership in the
community? How is a person recognized as being a member by others?
What are the minimum requisite actions necessary to qualify as a mem-
ber? Is the determination of another's membership itself problematic
for a member and if so, under what conditions?

The problematic nature of the interactive boundary is not found
in communities where the shared basis of the community is obvious: A
little town clearly has all, except the newest members, known to each
other, based on extended residence in the area. Obvious symbols (e.g.,
skin color, hair length) could also be used to demarcate the boundaries
of a community and who is and who is not a member. With a deviant
Acommunity,? the individual often wants to Apass" as a non-deviant
(also true Of con-men and certain thieves such as check passers and
box men), so that no symbols likely to be recognized by outsiders can
be used. Instead, reliance is placed on the type of response of the
unknown other, especially as seen in the art of "cruising,9 a term
used Pto denote going out to look for a sexual partner? according to
Bell (1974, p. 13) (briefly described in Hoffman, 1968, p. 45; Mileski
and Black, 1972, pp. 193-5; also see Delph, 1978).

It is not just the interactional boundary that is defined by the
interaction of participants, in the view to be used in this research.
The social organization of the "community? can best be understood as
situationally created in interaction, and in the factions of networks
of friends. Coordinated collective activities and Sequences of action
(such as responses of others in tcruising?) are started or “touched
offf by the presentation Of identities and responses to the presenta-

tions. In this sense, "community" is a complex thing, created and

11
again re-created by the members by their deliberate behavior. Unlike
the general view in the literature, "community? and its social organ-
ization is not a single, static, and monolithic thing. The view of
social organization of the "community" to be used in this research is
much like Evans-Pritchard's use of the segmentary principle (1940) to
describe the social organization of political relations among the Nuer,
who do not have a "chief" nor other form of political leadership.
There he saw complementary tendencies toward fission and fusion at each
inclusive level of interacting groups; tribes segment into sections
and their sections segment further, so that any local group is a bal-
anced relation between opposed segments (1940, p. 255). He showed
that for some situated activity, as a dispute, one section would de-
fine itself as opposed to another section of the tribe, but in another
situated activity (as cattle raiding), a member of a section would see
himself and his section as unified with the other section in the whole
tribe's opposition to another tribe. (Also see Nicholas on "Factions,"
1965). It is in this sense that social organization can be viewed
as situationally created in the activities of members.
Analysis and Implications

The concept of community has traditionally implied a shared terri-
tory, shared norms and values and cognitive orientation, and shared
institutional patterns (of work, religion, family, entertainment, pol-
itics). The most basic issue of this study is whether homosexuals in
one moderate-sized city can best be characterized empirically as a
community, or as sets of networks.4 30, a basic question is how much
of these people's lives are implicated with other people who are gay:

Are there interconnected institutions? What degree of overlap and

12
integration is there between institutions? What is the degree of cog-
nitive similarity in world view among participants? What is it that
is shared? If, as is usually assumed, the sexual tie is powerful, is
it sufficient to bind people together as an acting unit, in and of
itself?

Certain conventions of ethnography will be followed. The name of
the moderate-sized city, which will henceforth be called Midwest City,
the names of places, and the names of all participants are pseudonyms.
The reader may assume that the use of pseudonyms is consistent, so
that a pseudonym used in a second place in the text is the same person
or place as used on the first occasion. For example, Bob B. is a
pseudonym consistently referring to a real person who is quoted in sev-
eral places in the text. Also, terms from gay argot will be set in
quotation marks and defined when first presented, but it will be as-
sumed that the reader has followed the definitions and noted its place
in gay argot when the same term is used without quotation marks sub-
sequently in the text.

The general description of Midwest City and the methods of study
will be presented in Chapter Three. However, some observations and
inferences from the fieldwork will be used to set the Scene when re-
viewing the previous studies Of gay communities in Chapter Two. The
ethnography to be presented in Chapters Four and Five uses Kenneth
Burke's discussion (1945) of the ratios among the scene, act, and
.agent. Chapter Four begins with a consideration of membership in
the community and forming a career as a member of the community. The
Chapter will thereafter examine the institutions and ecological set-

tings (Tgay.places") of the area, especially with concern for Breton's

13
concept of "institutional completeness" (1964); in Burke's terms,
concern will focus primarily on the scenes. Chapter Four will also
consider the most basic segments of the community, in particular,
those segments based on age and sex. Data from the semantic differ-
ential will be presented in this chapter to establish the cognitive
reality of the sexual segments for the members. However, the main
emphasis of the chapter will be on the ecological settings, and a de-
scription of the sexual places will be presented here.

Chapter Five considers further segmentation of the gay male com-
munity in terms of identities, in addition to that of gay male (such
as Adrag queen,f "chickenhawk," "leatherman"). The chapter will also
contain an ethnographic description of activities in the public (the
gay bar, College Center, and Slave Auction) and private settings
(parties, dates, and couples). The ceremonies and rituals connected
with the implicit gay annual calendar and their relation to the seg-
ments will be described. By considering the content of the interaction
in terms of displayed identities and mobilized roles, emphasis will be,
in Burke's terms, on the agents and acts, while the scenes will then
be assumed baCkground to the chapter. This will be followed by a
summary chapter.

. Having presented an overview of the problem to be explored, atten-
tion will now turn to the ethnographies and studies of gay communities
that have been done in order to see what is already known about the

social organization of the gay community.

14

Footnotes to Chapter One

For a good statement on the concept of natural areas, see Harvey
Zorbaugh (1926); also see Paul Hatt (1961). Park (1916, pp. 128-
30) also refers to them as "moral regions."

In Carol Warren's major ethnography of a gay community (1974), she
says, "In many cities, including Sun City, gay bars and homes are
clustered in the same areas.... In Sun City there are several ma-
jor areas of gay residence: Downtown among the city's gay and
straight night life, an upper-middle class suburb, and an adjacent
beach area, all of which have gay bars" (pp. 20-21). The population
of the SMSA of “Sun City" is about one million.

This goes beyond the Zipf rank-size rule of expected population
sizes of ranked cities in a nation, and suggests that the ranking
of a city by its size indicates the degree of specialization of
functions to be found in that city in the region. For discussions
of the Zipf rank-size rule, see 8. Berry and W. Garrison (1958)
and Harley Browning and Jack Gibbs (1961). On the functional
specialization of services by some cities for other nearby cities,
see Gibbs (1961, p. 396). Specialization of functions by sizes

of cities has been shown for types of gay bars; only larger cities
have more specialized types of gay bars, such as leather bars; see
Joseph Harry (1974) and Bolin (1974).

There are a variety of meanings of community in sociology (see, for
example, Stoneall, 1978, Chapter One, or Hillery, 1968, for the
range of meanings). In this dissertation, I want to specify a

particular denotative meaning, and ask to what degree that definition

15
can be empirically verified. Alternative definitions and meanings
of community cannot thereby be rejected; they may be studied by
others. Also, one should note that community is not zero-sum,
either present or absent; rather, one should say that a group of

people are more or less a community.

CHAPTER THO.
GENERAL ISSUES BEARING ON THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY

Because the question of the appropriateness of application of the
concept of community to homosexuality in a moderate-sized city has been
raised, consideration of the concept will now be made as it is found in
the major sociological studies. The most useful empirical studies,
most of which have been published, were done in large metropolitan areas:
Leznoff and Westley (1956, Toronto?), Martin Hoffman (1968, San Fran-
cisco), Laud Humphreys (1970, St. Louis), Carol Warren (1974, San Diego),
Weinberg and Williams (1975, New York and San Francisco), Bolin (1974,
Denver), Tom Weinberg (1976, Buffalo), and Lee (1978 a and b, Toronto).
These constitute the major source of Sociological knowledge about gay
communities.1 These few studies will be reviewed in terms of what
appear to be the main dimensions of community in order to see what is
already known about the gay community. The general issues bearing on
community raised by these studies are: The institutions of the commun-
ity; the public and private places and the interactions transpiring in
them; the intimate structures that develop in the more privatized
places; and finally, the presentations of identities in the places.

The specific characteristics of the city under study will be presented
in the next chapter.
A. Institutions

Miller and Form (1964, p. 74) suggest that a community can be con-
ceived as composed of five major institutions: The economy, politics,
family, religion, and recreation (this is identical with the Lynd's
Middletown, 1929). Yet, none of the above studies of the gay community
has considered what institutions are to be found in the gay community.

16

17
What we have are segmentalized studies, e.g., of the bars as an insti-
tution (Achilles, 1967), of gay baths (Weinberg and Williams, 1975),
and of interactions by the young male promiscuous segment primarily in
gay bars (Hoffman, 1968), but not studies looking at it as an ecological
system or community with institutions. Nobody has made such a study
because researchers have reacted to the "sick" label of homosexuality,
and hence, have tried to answer the question: "What is the difference
of homosexuality from heterosexuality?" Instead, the view to be taken
here is that the significance of any behavior and the subjective inter-
pretation of its meaning for participants results from the situation
in which it takes place (cf. Mileski and Black, 1972, p. 192).

Rather than proposing a list of institutions which should be found
in the gay community, this will be turned into an empirical question:
What do the respondents say are the key institutions? Clearly, leisure
in public places (the bars, baths, cruising areas, and the ceremonies
which take place in them, such as the Miss Midwest City Drag Contest)
constitutes one important institution, while social control (e.g.,
gossip) and integration constitute another. Gay couples living together
can be considered an analogue to the institution of the family. And
the Gay Lib organization is one focus of a political quasi-institution.
These institutions, along with the segmentation of the community by
age and sex, and the ecological places, will all be considered in
the fourth chapter of the dissertation.

B. Public versus Private Places

Theimportance of the general distinction between behavior in

public and private situations is fairly well established sociologically

(Douglas, 1971. Pp. 226-43; Goffman, 1963; Lyn Lofland, 1973, especially

18
Chapter 8). Most discussions of the general distinction focus on rules
(and also laws) relevant only to behavior in public places. Douglas
says, "the essence of the public situation is strangeness and a result-
ing untrustworthiness..." (1971, p. 237); hence, public rules, such as
tolerance, courtesy, respectability and presentability, facilitate
achievement of one's purpose in public situations (1971, p. 237).

The studies of the gay communities have implicitly and sometimes
explicitly used the distinction between public and private places to
describe their communities because some places (the public) are impor-
tant for meeting potential sexual partners. Hoffman says:

"The homosexual community is a kind of community
which is not defined so much by geographical
factors (although homosexuals tend very Often to
live in certain sections of the city rather than
others) as by certain common values and behaviors,
and by shared public places" (1968, p. 8).

Except for the gay bars, the shared public places are used almost
exclusively for explicit sexual purposes (p. 58; e.g., baths, restrooms).
In Hoffman's view, the bars are a marketplace for finding short-term
(one-night stand) sexual partners, and conversations there tend to be
short and superficial (p. 54) because sexual partners tend to be se-
lected primarily on the basis of physical appearance (p. 56).

Hoffman does not see friendship among male homosexuals as important,
and so the view that he presents of the San Francisco gay male community
is one of loneliness, punctuated by anonymous one-night stands. He
sees both a "tendency toward promiscuity and an inability or severe
difficulty in forming lasting paired relationships" (p. 169) as the
emergent problems felt by the homosexuals he interviewed. This indi-

cates that he has only studied a segment of the gay community (the

young, promiscuous, bar-going segment).

19

Hoffman's explanation for the pervasiveness of one-night stands
among males is based partly on the observation that female homosexuals
have much less difficulty than male homosexuals in the formation of
stable relationships (p. 165). In other words, there is something
about males and masculinity in general that promotes promiscuity among
gay males. He holds that in the common conceptions of the male sex
role, there are greater prohibitions against intimate feelings, tender-
ness, and dependence toward one's own sex, than for the female (p. 183).
This is the phenomenon of "homosexual dread," and makes it a greater
problem for males than for females, and this is his explanation for the
greater reactivity and sanctions by others to male homosexuality than
lesbianism. He posits that male homosexuals accept this view of homo-
sexuality from the larger society, and so feel guilty as well as fearful
of detection and apprehension in their sexual relations. All of these
factors, the male sex role (de-emphasizing intimacy, tenderness, and
dependency), the dread of homosexuality, and the guilt and fear of pub-
lic exposure for homosexual acts, then lead to furtive and anonymous
sexual relations in public places for gay males.

Weinberg and Williams (1975) also consider the social organization
of sexual behavior in a public place, gay baths. (Although owners of
baths try to restrict entrance to gays by asking questions of newcomers,
the behavior is nevertheless semi-public, even when only self-defined
gays are present, because most participants are not known to each other.)
Contrary to Hoffman, Weinberg and Williams note that participants in
gay baths are present in the location because they desire_an impersonal,
bounded sexual encounter (also see Lee, 1978a). Their description of

the social organization of the baths is based on statements by gay

20
respondents of ideal conditions for impersonal sex, such as security
from legal interference, opportunities from which to select an acces-
sible sexual partner, a known and shared set of rules to follow in
order to consummate and end the sexual encounter, and a comfortable and
clean physical setting.

The baths obviously more closely approach the ideal conditions
facilitating impersonal sexual encounters in public than bars, which
are useful only for selecting a partner and arranging for a subsequent
sexual encounter in a private setting, and than public washrooms, which
do not offer security from outside interference nor a comfortable and
clean physical setting. (Humphreys' study of public washrooms, 1970,
will be considered in a later context.) However, it should be noted
that there are no gay baths in Midwest City, unlike the large metro-
politan areas which have several gay baths.

In contrast with studies of gay public places, Warren (1974) pri-
marily studied behavior in private places. Although her study will be
considered further later, it should be mentioned in this context that
her study of middle-aged gay male couples, sharing rounds of private
dinner parties in their homes with their clique of friends, is a seg-
ment of the community different than that studied by Hoffman (1968),
Weinberg and Williams (1975), and Leznoff and Westley (1956). She
mentions that even though "the long-term sexual relationship is vital
for the maintenance of community" (1974, p. 71), the relationship is
usually not characterized by fidelity between the partners (p. 72)
because short-term sexual relationships (especially one-night stands)
are expected. Because the short-term sexual relationships would be

formed in public places, such as bars, baths, or public restrooms,

21
while the long-term relationships (couples) are within cliques in pri-
vate settings, the type of location in which the relationship is formed
has importance in explaining qualities of the relationship. In other
words, the significance and the interpretation of the meaning of homo-
sexual behavior for the participants is derived from the qualities of
the situation in which it takes place.

Leznoff and Westley's study (1956) is primarily concerned with be-
havior only in public settings, especially gay bars. They distinguish
cliques of "secretive" and "overt" male homosexuals on the basis of
their mode of adjustment in the larger society, but mention that each
clique has its "own" gay bar where it regularly assembles.

The distinction between public and private settings should perhaps
best be viewed as a continuum, rather than dichotomous, so as to allow
for the quasi-public nature of some settings (e.g., tearoom encounters
described by Humphreys, 1970, which can be disrupted by intrusion of
another stranger) and the quasi-private nature of other settings (e.g.,
the baths described by Weinberg and Williams, 1975). Even a gay bar,
the most public setting in the gay community, may only vaguely be known,
or even not recognized at all, by the "general public." But perhaps
a more fundamental problem here is, given that some aspects of the com-
munity are public, how is a transition from private identities to pub-
lic identities accomplished? The private level, structurally does not
have a public transition. The costs and risks of a public identity as
a homosexual are large because of stigma from the larger society. The
social organization of the gay community appears to mitigate against

integration of private and public biographies.

22

C. Interactions

The private nature of interactions limits their meanings and makes
their public debate and legitimation less likely. The kinds of inter-
actions are largely a result of their enactment in public or private
settings (Mileski and Black, 1972, p. 192). "Cruising" or seeking
new sexual partners (primarily with the expectation of a short-term
sexual encounter) can only be done in public settings where unknown
potential partners are to be found. But the nature of the public set-
ting further determines the kind of resulting relationship and organizes
the nature of the interaction; that is, "cruising" is performed differ-
ently in a bar or a bath, or a public restroom. The anonymity of a
sexual relationship consummated in the public setting itself (bath or
restroom) is more easily assured and the relationship more easily
bounded and ended, than a relationship begun in a bar, which must be
carried over into the private domain.

"Cruising" in bars has been described by Hooker (in Gagnon and
Simon, 1967, pp. 195-6), Hoffman (1968, p. 45), Mileski and Black
(1972, pp. 193—5), and Delph (1978, chapter 6), while the process of
selecting a sexual partner in a public washroom has been described by
Humphreys (1970). Apparently, "slave auctions" in bars have not been
previously described.

In contrast, interactions in private settings, such as parties and
dates have a different nature because the interactants are previously
known to each other, and they generally assume that they will continue
to be known to each other subsequent to the event. Although Warren has
dealt with these in depth, discussion will be deferred to the next

section to consider how the interactions she observed in private

23
settings are intimate structures.

One form of non-sexual interaction is the friendship clique sharing
situated activities. Leznoff and Westley (1956) consider this in some
detail with regard to their secretive and overt cliques. But from Lez-
noff and Westley's description, it is difficult to see what activities
differentiate the cliques. They say that interaction in secretive
"cliques is frequent, with members meeting at each other's homes and in
bars and restaurants" (p. 261), which the overt groups also do. They
also mention that each kind of group has its own bar in the city (p. 261).

The social organization of Leznoff and Westley's community is more
complex because of what they describe as the "incest taboo" among
friends within the clique (evidently, none were in stable couples, as
in Warren's community). They suggest that the homosexual develops a
deep emotional involvement with his group because it provides the only
context in which homosexuality is normal and moral behavior, so that a
major form of recreation within the friendship group is the narration of
sexual experiences and gossip about the sexual exploits of others,
thereby allocating prestige among the members because of the high eval-
uation placed on physical attraction and sexual prowess. Another func~
tion of the gossip about sexual encounters, as well as "camping" (ex-
aggeration of feminine behavior and affectation of speech), is the
dramatization of the affirmation of homosexuality in the group, showing
that it has the collective support of the group (p. 258). One of their
interviewees said, "you might have sex with somebody you just met and
then he might become your friend. But you won't have sex with him any
more as soon as he joins the same gang you hang around with" (p. 258).

Clearly, one would not because the group would gossip about it. Finally,

24
they suggest that the emphasis upon friendship rather than sexual re-
lations within the clique preserves group unity by eliminating excessive
competition (p. 263).

Because of this "incest taboo" within the groups, sexual relations
occur between the secret and overt group members, on a casual and prom—
iscuous basis, and in the spirit of anonymity (p. 263). In their view,
this is what ties the two kinds of cliques together in their community.

0. Intimate Structures (Private Settings)

From other studies, it is clear that identities and interactions are
the basis for intimate relations. But among homosexuals, what kind of
variations are there in private settings? What have been described are
bits and pieces from a couple Of studies.

In her study of secretive middleeaged homosexuals in Sun City, Carol

Warren says "the longeterm seXualrelatiOnShip is vital for the mainten-

 

ance of community" (1974, p. 71, emphasis in the original), i.e., it is
"couple-oriented." This kind of relationship is usually not character-
ized by fidelity between the partners (p. 72) because as mentioned,
short-term sexual relationships (one-night stands) are also expected.
She says that "eligibility for a short-term sexual relationship is
based on different criteria than eligibility for a long-term sexual
relationship? (p. 75) and that "in most cliques, the norm is that the
members find short-term sexual relationships outside the group, either
among strangers in bars or from connected cliques" (p. 75). Further,
"the main group sustaining community interaction is the gljgge, and

the form of relationship between clique members is the relationship of

 

Obligation" (p. 77, emphasis in the original), especially the obligation

to reciprocate in giving cocktail parties and dinner parties in the

25
home. The general picture that she paints of the community in Sun City
is of cliques of couples in some flux, inviting each other to their
homes for entertainment, and individuals separately finding short-term
sexual partners in the bars while their long-term sexual relations are
with the other members of their couple within their clique.

Further, Warren says that

"in the gay community, there are two levels of

criteria [for sorting persons into suitability

categories for forming relationships]: member-

ship in the gay world itself, and, within that

membership, criteria specifying who is acces-

sible or legitimate as a sexual, sociable,

friendly, or other type of relational partner"

(p. 80).
Although she notes that most "members of this community" were gay males,
there were also a minority of gay and straight females.

Not only is the size of Sun City over five times larger than Midwest
City, which does not have a geographic residential base to its "commun-
ity," but also the segment of the gay community that she studied is very
different than that under study here. Here, nearly all gay males are
not in stable couples; the one-night stand and impersonal sex in certain
public washrooms are the most common forms of sexual relation, with
dating between two males for more than a couple of weeks exceedingly
rare. For example, after an extended period of time participating in a
non-couple clique, two males began a sexual relationship with each
other and after several weeks decided to live together as a stable
couple. They then stopped participating in the friendship clique and
stopped going to the gay bar. Although they are known by the clique
members to still be living together. they are virtually never seen by

their old friends in the clique. The point of this example from my

field notes should be clear: It is the Only-example of the formation

26
of a stable couple relationship extending over a year, and the stable
couple stopped participating in the friendship clique composed of
single individuals.

In Warren's segment of the gay world, the clique and the "relation-
ship of obligation" based on reciprocating home parties is viewed by
her as the principle sustaining a sense of community, whereas in the
younger segment which does not regularly engage in home parties, no
such obligation to reciprocate such events can bind people together.

Unlike the light sociability and lack of discussion of work and
occupations in the home parties described by Warren, and perhaps just
because the segment of the Pcommunity" under study here is younger and
not middle—aged and securely established, both the short-term (present)
work and long-term work career goals connected with their present edu-
cations are viewed as major tOpics of apprOpriate conversation both in
the College Center and afterwards in bars. A common question on seeing
someone after an absence of weeks would be "what are you doing these
days?" Sometimes the person would initially reply humorously, "yhg_am
I doing?t but would then proceed to describe his present work. The
students are, of course, concerned about going on in school, getting
degrees, and plans for starting a work career, but those who are out of
school and started on their work career talk freely, sometimes for hours,
about the nature of their work, promotions, applications for other jobs,
and other matters related to their work careers. Such conversations in
the cliques of friends often include comments about (straight) co-workers,
bosses, clients, and so on. Such topics of conversation are found as
well among those who have not gone to college, but usually attenuated.

For example, Tim, a high school graduate, worked in a shoe store which

27

was "okay," but told everyone when he changed to work in another shoe
store, which was an improvement for him.

It is for this reason, that is, the apparent contrast between the
light sociability and lack of expressed concern about work at the din-
ner parties described by Warren versus the serious concern exhibited
about work in conversations among gay males in Midwest City, that makes
it difficult to apply many of Warren's ideas to the gay world in Mid-
west City. Indeed, it seems possible that Warren has exaggerated her
own description. For example, she says

"stigmatization and secrecy, the closing in of
the community as the centrallyidefining aspect
‘of life, the spefiding of leisure in highly
structured (indeed institutionalized) gay set-
tings and interactions, and the development of
gay relationships all promote affiliation and
identification with the community, underpinned
by th learning of a new world of knowledge...

[plus the homosexual desire itself" (1974,
p. 157, emphasis added). *

 

0r_again, she says,

"gay identity is a master-status for those who

commit themselves to the secret community; it

is the most important and defining character-

istic of the members' selves" (p. 89).
Warren's concept of gay identity as a master-status will be considered
further in the section, "Identity."

The main issue that has been raised is: If it can be described as

a gay community, then it should have a shared territory, shared norms
and values, and institutional patterns (work, religion, politics, home

life, and entertainment, as in the Lynd's Middletown). Then the ques-

 

tion becomes: How much of these people's lives is implicated with
other people who are gay? Warren would have her readers believe that

most of their lives are shared with others who are gay, but she gives

28

evidence only on entertainment time and residential patterns of living
in gay couples, in a shared territory. Warren would have her readers
believe that, because of "the secret," interaction with non-gays at work,
church, parents, etc. is somehow not important and not an aspect of the
"genuine" self (or in her terms, "the_true identity" is hidden behind a
mask then, p. 122).2 One would also ask: Are there interconnected
institutions? The gay "community," at least in a smaller city cannot
be self-supporting. Therefore, members must continue to maintain re-
lations with others who are not gay.

E. Identities

Identities are the basis of interaction in the sense that the pre-
sentations of most identities and the mobilization of the corresponding
role provide "cues," thereby "touching off“ and steering the interaction.
What is important to consider, then, is the range of identities which
are presented jg_the range of situated contexts. Other studies, such
as Warren's, as will be seen, have only limited conceptions of identi-
ties which tend to ignore the contexts. In this connection, one can
consider "salient" and "latent" identities (Becker and Geer, 1960;
Gouldner, 1957; Goodenough, 1969).

With regard to decreasing generality, or salience across situations,
one can say that the identity of male is most general (in terms of work,
school, family, sexual entertainment, etc.), followed by the identity
of gay male, followed by: The identity of drag queen (a cross-dressing
‘gay male), or the identity of leatherman (a gay male usually into
bondage or S & M),3 or the identities of chickenhawk (a gay male who
purchases sex with a younger male) and chicken, or tearoom participant,

or member of Gay Lib. As one goes from consideration of the former

29
to the latter, the identities are salient in more and more specific
situations and bounded for their presentations more and more in terms
of time and place; most of the time the latter are not salient and are
"latent" (in the sense used by Becker and Geer, 1960).

Presenting an identity is the same as including and excluding in—
formation about the self (i.e., some aspects of the self become rele-
vant when an identity is presented, while other aspects drop out of
relevance to the presentation), so that presenting an identity is a
dramaturgical problem (cf. Goffman, 1959). The person wants and looks
for confirmation of the presented identity from an audience.

In this sense, social organization can be determined by the cate-
gories of a person's identities (i.e., identities as a key to social
structure). For example, the identity of drag queen is less often
salient than the identity of gay male. In order to present the iden-
tity of a drag queen, the gay male must further take on the appearance
of a woman using props (wig, clothing, jewelry) at a certain time, go
to a certain ecological location of his choice (gay bar, on the street,
straight bar, etc.), to present his appearance of self to an audience,
in order to get a response from the audience confirming his presented
identity.

With this model of salient and latent identities, the social organ-
ization of the gay "community" can be described, at least at one level,
as composed of "segments" of interacting people sharing salient iden-
tities. For example, there would be a leather segment, drag, Gay Lib,
etc. and also various lesbian segments (separatists, lesbian/feminists,
etc.), each bounded as to time and place. These segments could be, and

sometimes are in the same general ecological location; e.g., "regular"

30

gay males, drag queens, and lesbians often are all in the gay bar at
the same time, but one would expect as an implication of this line of
analysis of salient and latent identities, that the different segments
would have different role behavior associated with the salient identity
of the segment, even when in the same ecological location. (It is only
in a large metropolis that the segments can segregate themselves into
separate ecological locations, such as a leather bar, a lesbian bar,
etc. (Harry, 1974; Harry and DeVall, 1978; Bolin, 1974)).

One can see now that Warren uses a very limited conception of iden-
tity. Her ethnographic presentation assumes throughout, citing Becker
(1963, pp. 32-4), that homosexuality as a master-status is "the cen-
trally defining aspect of life" for the homosexual. But in fact,
Becker was emphasizing how he thought other§_(non-deviants) reacted to
revealed knowledge of a deviant status, i.e., "that is what the person
Iggflly_is" with implications for his other (lesser) statuses. (Becker
extended Hughes' (1945, p. 147) usage of master-status as part of the
reaction by others).4 But from the point of view of the gay person,
one should hold this as an empirical question, i.e., it is possible
that sex -- being male (for example) is more basic than sexual orien-
tation, and occupation is more important in organizing and patterning
the life of the gay. That is, work could be a more central life inter-
est than leisure activities connected with sexuality (see Dubin, 1956,
on work as a central life interest) and in this, the gay person would
be no different than anyone else of the working and middle classes in
America. Homosexuality is the symbolically shared difference from the
larger society, so to focus on and emphasize that difference, a writer

(such as Warren) runs the danger of imputing it as more central to the

31
life and self-identity of the gay person than it is subjectively viewed.5
One should hold the empirical possibility further, and consider that
the gay sexual orientation is less central than other identities in or-
ganizing a person's life for some gay people than for others.
Warren says further,

"gay people in our society inhabit multiple

worlds, only one of which is gay; since the‘

rest are straight, the gay must use various

strategies and tactics of concealment in his

relationships with non-gay people" (p. 93).
This is a curious conjecture for her to make because she did not study
and gives little evidence about gays in non-gay settings (with the sole
exception of the behavior of groups of gays at 'straight' parties).
This assertion of Warren's violates the sense of multiple identities
and multiple roles that all people have and play, recognizing which
identities and roles are relevant and appropriate in certain settings
and at certain times of their day (cf. William James, 1890, p. 264).
For example, just when is a gay public school teacher or a gay college
student conscious of being gay? A strategy can be played out only
consciously and with intent. Warren assumes that homosexuality as a
master status makes the person always conscious of it, but this is
doubtful, if not an absurd exaggeration.

In this connection, she says one strategy of secrecy
"is the schizophrenia of separating straight and
‘ gay people into separate settings as well as sep-

arate worlds. This is one of the basic strategies

adopted by most secret gays, and it has important

implications,"
including progressive attenuation of relationships with straight people

over time (p. 97). This is surely an absurd description of modern

urban life. ‘Most urban people interact with others in only certain

32

settings and for limited purposes.6 There is nothing "schizophrenic"
about the segmentation and compartmentalization of roles and identities
in different settings and at different times. Warren's description
assumes that a gay person at work consciously views his sexual orienta-
tion as relevant to his work role, that he consciously adopts a strategy
about this relevance, and further, that a gay person can afford to pro-
gressively attenuate relationships in the straight world, such as work.

On the contrary, it seems that sexual orientation is'ngt_relevant
to many aspects of a person's life, and one should instead speak of a
restriction of personal information, rather than the holding of a secret.
This should be clear from an example in the straight world: A co-worker
need not know one's religious affiliation (that is, for doing most jobs,
it is simply not relevant), and the fact that a person does not volun-
tarily reveal such innumerable bits of personal information to a co-worker
should not lead the observer to conClude that a secret is being with-
held. Of course, this should not be carried to the opposite extreme of
equating sexual orientation with any other bit of personal biography.
A co-worker may make a joke about gays (as well as about Jews, Catholics,
etc.) and the person may have to hide his indignation and accept the
(unbeknownest) imputation of stigma, whereas the Catholic or Jew would
likely Openly Object and reveal that self-identity. But the point
should not be lost: In nonegay settings, when interacting with known
straights, the sexual orientation of the "secretive“ gay person would
not usually be relevant. (How many gay jokes could co-workers say in
an eight-hour day, and still get the work done?) Further, people who
are not themselves deviant and who are not familiar with recognized

deviance (e.g., those who are not "wise" about homosexuality) tend to

33

impute normalcy to those around them. More specifically, when no sus-
picion has been aroused in a 'straight' audience, they will tend to
assume and impute heterosexuality to those around them. Warren has
highlighted aspects of the problems of Apassing" as straight by gays
(e.g., 1974, p. 96), but she has ignored the opposite process, the im-
putation of heterosexuality by the straight audience, which must be as
disconcerting as experiencing a problem in passing and have as many
implications for the stability of the gay identity.

Humphreys' study (1970) is a good example of how different identities
are acted out in one setting, the public washroom. Each type of iden-
tity (e.g., ambisexual, gay, trade, etc.) has its own mode of presenta-
tion but individuals with different identities can nevertheless success-
fully interact, following the rules of the "game." Humphreys further
tries to show how the larger society impinges on the individual in de-
termining his choice of identity in the setting; Humphreys uses the
distinction between dependent and independent occupations, first pro-
posed by LeznOff and Westley, and shows that the kind of occupation of
the individual in the larger society is significantly related to the
kind of identity enactment in the tearoom. However, his concern with
occupation is not relevant to this study, as the larger institutions
Of society, such as the economy and occupations will not be considered.

Focus of the Study

The above review has shown that writers on the gay community in
large metropolitan areas basically have assumed that it is both a com-
munity and a subculture, rather than attempting to show the extent to
which that is the case. The above writers are much like the proverbial

blind men examining the elephant because the community is segmented by

34
age and sex, with quite different patterns of behavior in the different
segments and different locations. This holds true in Midwest City also
as will be seen; the segment of young, promiscuous males does not by
and large interact with the middleeaged, stable male couple segment, nor
with the Black, male homosexual segment, nor with the lesbian segment.
Recognizing this limitation of the earlier studies, we can acknowledge
it, but can do little more; this study will be confined primarily to
the young adult, promiscuous male and predominantly white segment. But
the question asked remains the same: Is it a community, and if so,
what is it that is shared?

A community traditionally implies a shared territory, shared norms,
values, and cognitive orientations, and shared institutional patterns of
work, religion, politics, home life, and entertainment. Some of the
studies that have been reviewed have mentioned a shared territory, that
is, a gay neighborhood (e.g., Warren, 1974; Hoffman, 1968, quoted, page
8; Levine, 1977). Some shared normative behaviors connected with
"cruising" have been shown (e.g., Weinberg and Williams, 1975, on gay
baths; Hoffman, 1968, and Delph, 1978, on gay bars). In fact, the
studies reviewed have said a great deal about entertainment time of
gay males (e.g., cruising by the younger segment, Warren's description
of dinner and cocktail parties in the homes of middle-aged gay male
couples). However, except for Warren's description of the home life of
gay couples, the studies are not helpful in delineating the institutions
Of the gay community, nor the shared norms, values, and cognitive orien-
tations. Of these traditional aspects Of community, male homosexuals
in Midwest City do not have a shared residential territory (i.e., there

is no gay neighborhood in Midwest City). nor shared patterns of work,

35
religion, and politics, while the home life of gay couples in Midwest
City obviously can not be located in a gay neighborhood. In order to
test if the gay "community" in Midwest City is nevertheless really a
community, the aspects of interaction that tie the group together will
have to be examined. The several aspects of interaction can be summar-
ized as: A) interactional patterns, B) criteria of membership in the
group, and C) shared cognitive orientation.

A. Interactional Patterns

 

A consideration of interactional patterns would try to answer such
questions as: Who spends time together with whom, doing what? what
are the groupings within the community? In this view, some members can
be seen as core members of networks, while others are on the periphery
of the community, who share some special interests as well as sexual
orientation, such as "leather" or doing "drag shows." The latter are
still within the "community" (and purview of this study), while some
individuals are on the margins of the community by their conventionality
(specifically, males who do not go to the gay bar, do not know any gays
as friends, but do engage in sexual relations in public johns, and who

7 The latter are excluded from

may consider themselves "straight").
this study.

An analysis of networks and interactional patterns should ideally be
designed to show hogflmygh.of the subjects' lives are shared with others
who are gay. This implies a measure of the complement: How much is
not shared with others who are gay (i.e., how extensive are relation-
ships and activities with non-gays). An analysis of interactional

patterns should show the amount of time spent and the activities engaged

in with others who are also gay.

36

B. Criteria of Membership in the Group

 

The criteria used to designate membership in any group have obvious
importance because they demarcate the boundary by reference to individ-
uals (who are inside and who outside); also, the criteria indicate to
the members which of their behaviors and qualities distinguish them as
a group from outsiders. The study of the criteria of membership in the
gay "community" as an essential feature of the networks includes three
aspects, which will be elaborated below: "Coming out" as a career
stage, "cruising,“ and “Look at him. Who is he?"

9Coming out" is gay argot referring to when the person first began
to think of the self as homosexual and began to know other homosexuals.
As such, it refers to the time when the person considers that he first
became a member of the group. Of course, "coming out" is just one stage
in the "career" as a homosexual. The patterns of "coming out" and be-
liefs held by members about the nature of "coming out" at least par-
tially get at the criteria for qualifying for membership in the group.
To study this aspect, one can use a model for the development of com-
mitment to the social identity of homosexual composed of the subject-
ively expressed rewards and penalties for taking on the identity, and
the rewards and penalties for changing from the Old identity (as a
heterosexual). Coming out and becoming a member will be considered
in Chapter Four.

The study of tcruising" (looking for a sexual partner, usually for
a short-term sexual encounter) exemplifies membership criteria also be-
cause cues, such as directed glances, are used to indicate a sexual in-
terest. Such cues, although subtle to the outsider, are fairly standard

and recognized among members. (Of course, not all cues in all situations

37
are subtle; some, such as showing an erection to another male in a pub-
lic washroom, would be recognized by anyone). Cruising in different
contexts will be considered in Chapter Five.
When a group of gay males is together in public, a common question
addressed to the group about a male passerby is: "Look at him. Who

is he?" The answer by a person in the group is identity attribution to

 

the other and establishes the membership of the other. Although this
question can be found in any group, in groups of gay males, the question
can usually be viewed as verbally expressed "cruising" in the group
because the question is usually asked about a male who is evaluated by
the questioner as physically attractive and hence, a potential sexual
partner.
C. Shared Cognitive Orientation

If networks of homosexuals actually constitute a subculture, then
one would expect them to share a common outlook on the world around
them. The categories of thought and evaluations made of the categories
(i.e., the connotations) should be more similar within the group than
in comparison with nonmembers. (Several empirical studies have been
made of shared cognitions; see, for example, Tyler, 1969; Agar, 1973;
Psathas and Henslin, 1967; Spradley, 1975; and Faris, 1973.) Of course,
a sgbculture would share some cognitive orientations with the larger
culture, but the categories of thought which have greater salience to
the group and to its unique activities should differ.

Shared cognitive orientations are seen in a mapping of "sexual
places,f and in a cognitive mapping of the "social world." Gay "sex-
ual places" are places where a gay identity is most salient. Even

though any one gay male may choose to display a_gay identity and enact

38
a gay role in only some of them regularly, he presumably knows that the
other places exist and are sexual places for other gay males because
knowledge about sexual places is shared in conversations. A description
of the sexual places for gay males will be presented in Chapter Four.
Cognition can be defined briefly as the ways of recognizing and giving
meaning to the objects and conditions around a group. In this view,
people construct, or negotiate in a group, a picture of reality. Just
as negotiation occurs with others about the meaning of specific events,
so also negotiation (through talk) occurs about the relevance of places
to an identity and the meanings of places for the identity. The cog-
nitive map of gay sexual places is part of the ecology of the gay com-
munity.

The object of the study of shared cognitions will be to see how much
agreement there is among gay males on how they view an aspect of their
world, and would imply that other aspects of their cognitive world are
probably shared as well. A high agreement on the relevance of certain
places as tsexual places" implies that a view Of the world is shared;
this view of the world is an aspect of gay culture, and would differ from
the cognitions of Vsexual places" by heterosexuals. Hence, agreement on
cognitions about gay sexual places would lend support to the idea that
the gay community has a distinct subculture. One would assume that the
underlying principles used to categorize the sexual places are implicitly
shared in talk about sexual places among gay males. However, one would
not expect completeagreement on how to categorize sexual places among
gay males nor any other shared cognitions because: 1) Any negotiated
"picture? of the world is subject to re-negotiation in a group, 2) a

negotiated picture may be only partially transmitted to new enlistees

39
in a group, and 3) likewise, those who are less centrally involved in
a group may only partially grasp the negotiated picture which is agreed
upon in the group. Low agreement, however, would indicate that each
individual is alone in figuring out how to structure his view of his
world; it would imply that there is little content to gay "culture."

A cognitive mapping will be made of categories of the social world,
using the semantic differential of the Objects: Gay males, lesbians,
men in general, women in general, and self. The responses of a sample
of gay males will be compared to the responses of a sample of straight
males. High agreement on these categories of the social world by gay
males would imply that aspects of the "world views" of gay males are
shared, and gay "culture" has a content to it which is distinct from
the larger society.

Summary

This chapter has reviewed the major ethnographies of gay communities.
All of the ethnographies were based on studies of male homosexuals in
the largest metropolitan areas of the country, and many of the studies
indicated that there existed a shared territory (a gay neighborhood) in
the metropolitan area under study. Certain short-comings of the studies
have been noted: Each study only dealt with a segment of the gay com-
munity (e.g., the young adult, male promiscuous segment, or the middle-
aged, male couple segment), each only considered a few identities in
addition to that of gay male (for example, Bolin's 1974 ethnography of
Denver only considered "regular“ gay males, "leathermen," and "drag
queens“), and each only gave an apparently incomplete description of
the various sexual places in the ecology of the community. Each study

appears to have assumed that the group under study was a community and

40

a subculture, rather than trying to show that such was indeed the case.
The studies do not clearly answer how one becomes a member of the com-
munity, how one recognizes another member, what is shared in the commun-
ity, how the boundary of the community is recognized, nor how many and
how complete are the institutions of the community. In general, one
can only assume from these studies that males with the same sexual or-
ientation come together at some times and in some places, but the studies
do not even indicate how frequent this is, nor what activities are en-
gaged in (besides the study of "cruising" in gay bars and gay baths).

Because of these short-comings in the earlier studies, this study
will focus on the aspects of interaction that tie the members together
to determine if the gay community in the moderate-sized Midwest City,
without a shared territory (i.e., without a gay neighborhood), is never-
theless actually a community. The aspects of interaction to be focused
on are the rates of interactional patterns in shared activities, the
criteria Of membership in the group, and shared cognitions about the
world. But first, the general characteristics of Midwest City must be
considered, as well as the methods of study that were used in Midwest

City.

41
Footnotes to Chapter Two

Of course, there are many other studies of homosexuality which use
other perspectives, such as the psychoanalytic, psychological, bio-
logical, historical, survey research, and so on. For example, one
would classify John Money's work as biologistic psychological. For
a good overview of the range of studies, see the annotated bibliog-
raphy by Weinberg and Bell, 1972. These other approaches to the
study of homosexuality are not relevant here because they only bear
tangentially on community.

The reader is cautioned in these criticisms of Warren because she
has studied a different segment of the gay community in a larger
city: Perhaps when a person has made a long-term commitment to
another person, owns a house in common, together shares a clique of
friends in a round of home entertaining, then the "secret" of it
being a homosexual relationship may become more valuable to the in-
dividual, and he would come to value his world of work, parents

(if they are still alive for the middle-aged men), religion, etc.
less in comparison. Nevertheless, her description does not hold
true for the younger segment of the gay world in this smaller, more
typically sized metropolitan area.

For an excellent description of appropriate philosophy, techniques,
roles, and psychology of the gay male "into leather," written for
the naive gay male, see Townsend (1972).

Becker correctly uses Hughes' distinction between master and aux-
iliary status traits when he writes: "Possession of one deviant

trait may have a generalized symbolic value, so that'p‘eople [not

42
the deviantt] assume that its bearer possesses other undesirable
traits allegedly associated with it? (1963, p. 33; emphasis added).
Becker says further: "The status of deviant (depending on the
kind of deviance) is this kind of master status. One receives the
status as a result of breaking a rule, and the identification proves

to be more important than most others. One will be identified as

 

a deviant first, before other identifications are made" (1963, p. 33;
emphasis added). My criticism of Warren is that she says she follows
Becker's master status concept, but throughout, she assumes that the
.gay person accepts that self-identity as more central than his other
identities (even without any actual reactions by non-deviant others);
obviously, the subjective comparison of the importance of different
identities that a person has, is very different than the association
of auxiliary status traits with a particular status. McIntosh (1968)
asserts that the general public associates certain traits with the
role of the male homosexual: Effeminacy, exclusively homosexual,

and sexual in relations to all men. If gay males accept the view
from the larger society that homosexuality is a master status, then
it logically follows that they would also accept from the larger
society these auxiliary traits. (They do not, but the point is

that these are the kinds of traits that are supposed to be less
central and associated with the central status and identity,
according to Becker's and Hughes' writings.)

Many examples of this over-emphasis by other writers could be given.
Perhaps one example from the writings of Gagnon and Simon will Suf-
fice: "Minimally, the gay community provides a source of social

support, for it is one of the few places where the homosexual may

43
get positive validation of his own self-image? (1973, p. 151).
When stated this way, a gay male has many "self-images" (as worker,
voter, citizen, son, movie critic, etc.) and the gay community min-
imally only validates one facet of the self-image.
It is precisely because of the compartmentalization of urban life
that becoming a member, or "coming out", will later be conceptual-
ized in terms of a social career.
Likewise, the two male (pre-Operation) transexuals who were in ef-
fect interviewed are excluded from consideration here because they
defined themselves as heterosexual women in men's bodies, whose
work as prostitutes serving males would be construed as homosexual
only by an outsider's perspective, and because they apparently had
virtually no contact with people who considered themselves gay.
The interested reader may note that they thought gay males were in-
tolerant of their desires for the sex change operation because the
gays thought they were unwilling to "admit? that they were really
engaging in homosexual acts. One of the two transexuals had never
had Sexual relations with a female, but the other had had sex with
a female at the age of sixteen but "didn't like it." The only
other transexual (post-operation), who was seen in the gay bar
(pointed out by a mutual friend, a drag queen), was killed by her
new husband during their honeymoon, so she could not be interviewed.
It is quite problematic whether male transexuals are inside or out-
side the gay community; indeed, it is problematic just what groups
, give them emotional support before the operation, but as they are a
rarity in this area in any case, they will be excluded from con-

sideration here.

CHAPTER THREE: THE SETTING AND RESEARCH TECHNIQUES
Introduction

This chapter will first give a brief description of the setting of
the research, Midwest City. Thereafter, it will describe the techniques
used to study the gay community in Midwest City and will follow with an
attempt to estimate the numbers of gay males in the metropolitan area.

Midwest City

The tri-county Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) of
Midwest City is nearly surrounded by SMSAs in every direction. Within
seventy miles lie five other SMSAs with central cities of 100,000 to
200,000 population. The ring of cities is dominated, at least econom-
ically, by a large metropolitan area of over two million, which lies
eightyafive miles from Midwest City.

The total population of the Midwest City SMSA was 378,000 in the
1970 Census. While the central city held 132,000, an additional 131,000
of the population resided in places above 2,500 population. Hence,
nearly 70 percent of the SMSA population was classified as urban by
place of residence.

In 1970, the Midwest City SMSA had 149,000 employed workers. In
terms Of sources of income, 100,000 (67%) were private wage and salary
workers, 40,000 (27%) worked in a large government complex, and 9,000
(6%) were self-employed. The area is heavily industrial, with 37,000
workers (25%) employed in manufacturing industries. Table 1 shows the
occupational distribution of employed persons in the SMSA, and compares
this with the national averages. The over-all distribution of occupa-

tions in Midwest City is very similar to the U.S. average; Midwest City

44

45

Table 1.--Percentage of Employed Persons by Occupation, Midwest City
SMSA, 1970, and National Average, 1970 Census.

Occupations

 

White-collar Workers
Professional, Technical & Kindred
Managers and Administrators
Sales Workers
Clerical Workers
Blue-collar Workers
Craftsmen and Foremen
Operatives
Transportation Equipment Operators
Non-farm Workers
Service Workers
Private Household Workers
Farmers and Farm Laborers
TOTAL
N

Midwest City

 

51.7%

 

17.5
6.7
7.4

20.1

32.8%

 

12.8

13.4
16.7
3.3

3.3

12.8
13.5
0.7

2.0

100.0%
149.000

U.S. Average

 

48.3%

 

14.2
10.5
6.2
17.4
35.3%

 

12.9

17.7

4.7

12.4

4.0

100.0%

78.627.000

has a slightly higher proportion of white-collar workers and a slightly

lower proportion of blue-collar workers and farm workers than the U.S.

average.

The per capita income of the Midwest City SMSA averaged

$4,500 in 1970; this translates into about $11,000 per worker in 1970.

The national per capita income in 1970 averaged $3,911, so the Midwest

City SMSA had a significantly higher average income than the rest of

the nation.

had risen to $6,400.

By 1976, the per capita income of the Midwest City SMSA

0f the 116,000 housing units in the SMSA, 72 percent were family

46

homes, while 13 percent were apartments, and the remainder were mobile
homes and all other types of housing units. Seventy-one percent of the
housing in the tri-county region was owner-occupied in 1970. By con-
trast, 57 percent of housing in all of the SMSAs in the U.S. in 1970
were owner-occupied. The average number of persons per household in
the Midwest City SMSA was 3.10 (this compares with 3.14 for the national
average).

Of males aged fourteen years and older, 64 percent were married or
widowed in Midwest City SMSA in 1970. Although the gay male community
is not restricted to single and divorced males, nevertheless it is of
interest that the total SMSA contains 48,000 single and divorced males
of fourteen and more years of age. This is 13 percent of the total
population in the SMSA.

The medianage of the population in the SMSA of Midwest City in
1970 was 23.6 years of age. This is significantly younger than the
national average of 28.0 years (U.S. Census, 1970). Of those 25 and
more years of age, the median school years completed by those residing
in the SMSA was 12.4 years; 63 perCent had completed high school or
more, while 15 percent had completed four years of college or more. Of
the total population in the SMSA, 140,000 were currently enrolled in
school (at all levels) in 1970.

Of the 378,000 population in the Midwest City SMSA, about 9,000 (2%)
were foreign-born, 15,000 (4%) were Black, and 8,000 (2%) were persons
of Spanish language. These three groups are underrepresented in compar-
ison to the national average (for example, 4.7% of the national popula-
tion was foreign-born in 1970, and Blacks comprised11.1% of the U.S.

population). Most of the Blacks and Spanish language perSons reside in

47
distinct neighborhoods in the central city. The remainder of the pop-
ulation is in a diversity of ethnic groups, no one of which is visibly
dominant in the city. However, Midwest City has Italian, Greek, German,
Chinese, and Mexican restaurants, and there are other ethnic service
outlets (e.g., ethnic food outlets).

Geographically, Midwest City has large factories located on the
west and north sides of the city, the government offices are primarily
in the downtown area, apartment buildings are found in the downtown and
on the east side, while the wealthier suburbs are on the eastern and
southern outskirts of the city. Expressways link the central city across
farmland with the neighboring SMSAs and the large metropolis.

Although many SMSAs of the size of Midwest City may be economically
dominated by one industry or one major corporation which serves as the
primary source of employment, Midwest City and its surrounding territory
is unusual by having three different major sources of employment: Indus-
try, government and education. This means, for example, that a strike
in one area of employment is not terribly disruptive of the economy of
the area, unlike cities with one large employer. In this regard, Mid-
west City is perhaps not typical of its size. In other respects, it
appears to be typical, for example in occupational distribution and
average number of persons per household.

Techniques

The main method used in this study is participant observation. It
is supplemented by interviews (some tape recorded or written during the
time, and some covertly written afterwards, being disguised within
conversations), by recordings of the interaction networks (using table

diagrams and matrices to show which persons were involved in what

48
activities on given observed dates), and by a testing instrument. The
instrument is the semantic differential to get at the cognitive mappings
of the social world.
Fieldwork

In December, 1971, I learned that the network of friends who had
regularly been eating supper in the College Center cafeteria were gay.
(It was not then known that the building has a wide reputation among
students on campus as being a homosexual meeting place.) From 1971
until August, 1976, I ate supper in the cafeteria daily during the week
and would study in the College Center Lounge or Grill until closing time.
This became my habitual hangout on weekends also. This was done to
make my own usual daily round of activities place me in locations known
to be frequented by gay males.

From September, 1972 until April 1976, a two-bedroom apartment was
shared with a succession of four gay male roommates. This was done as
a deliberate research strategy as it allowed meeting gay friends of the
roommate and also increased my legitimacy in the several networks (e.g.,
"Oh, he's Bob's roommate.").

I usually tried not to reveal that I am Astraight" until I was fairly
good friends with a gay male. In itself, this was not difficult to do:
On being introduced to a stranger, one usually does not directly announce
one's sexual orientation anyway, but I went further than this and Often
implied that I was gay. For example, if the topic of the conversation
in the group was a gay one, to which the person new to me responded,
then I deliberately tried to imply that I was also gay, for example, by
talking about the last time I was in the gay bar, or mentioning my gay

roommate.

49

During those years of most intensive participation (1972-1976), that
is, during the time with a gay roommate (who knew that I defined myself
as 'straight'), I was for many other gays, in effect, "passing" as gay.
In other words, I tried alternatively to define myself to close friends
as straight, and to pass among acquaintances as gay. Several friends,
at different times, expressed great tolerance of my self-definition in
front of those acquaintances. A few friends expressed the idea that I
would eventually "come out," and define myself as gay. For example,
one evening I sat in the Lounge with Joe, Tom, Karl, and a young adult
male I didn't know. Joe said: "Oh, I saw a guy in a bar in [the large
metropoliS] that looks just like you. But he had his hair cut fairly
short and had his beard trimmed. He looked real good. (RCO starts
laughing at the implicit teasing of RCO's appearance.) Rich, you're
going to come out one of these days. (To the others:) Didn't you know
he is straight?" (No answer from the others.) RCO (laughing): "Maybe
so." Joe: YYeah, you'll come out. It might take twenty years but it
will happen. I believe it.f RCO (laughing loudly now): PDoes it show?
How can you tell? What did I do to give myself away?" (Notes recorded
March 20, 1974). Another good friend became fond of saying: "If you
walk like a duck, and talk like a duck, and are seen with ducks, then
you must be a duck.f These examples illustrate that there was no role
available to play, comparable to Humphrey's "watch queen? or Carol
Warren's and Anne Bolin's tfag hag," other than to pass as gay. Although
as indicated above, some of "passing as" or "being? gay rely on verbal
statements, other subtleties are beyong verbal description, as they are
body motion tcues,“ such as a slightly different motion with the arm

and elbow.

50

This passing as gay while revealing my straight orientation to more
intimate friends and roommates occasionally led to awkward moments. For
example, at dinner with several gay males one evening, I became bored
with the conversation and began to watch a waitress. Jef noticed the
direction of my repeated glances and said, "Richard, you're not going
straight on us, are you?f Someone else at the table said, "He is_
straight" and they laughed, as both Jef and I sat feeling uncomfortable
at the knowledge, which had not been revealed to him during the six
months that we had eaten dinner together in the group.

On another evening over dinner, I sat with my roommate (Bruce) and
another gay male, each of whom recounted their coming out experiences.
Thereafter, Ken turned to me and asked: "When did you come out?" I
sat dumbfounded for a moment, and then replied: "I'm not out yet.9
Ken (incredulous tone): "You mean you're straight?" RCO: "Yeah."

Ken: tOh, wow! That just blows my mindlf RCO: "Well, I told you I'm
trying to do my dissertation on gays, didn't 1?? Ken: PYeah, but you've
just been sitting there day after day taking it all in. What do you
really think of gays?" RCO: "Oh, that's hard to answer." Bruce: "Well,
you know some straights are okay." Ken: “Yeah, I guess so, but I

usually don't like them.f (Recorded August 22, 1974).

These awkward moments of revelation of my self-definition were rare.
Because I tried not to mention, for example, difficulties with a girl-
friend and other bits of information that would emphasize my 'straight-
ness," many who knew, seemed to forget that I was not gay. Hence, on
several occasions, I was privy to statements such as,.tThere are no
straights that I like" and "I wonder why straights decide to get married.t

It was difficult to keep track Of just who I had told that I was straight,

51

and of course, I could never be certain who had been told by others
and who did not know my sexual orientation. Ultimately, it did not seem
to matter.

Because I have been aged twenty-nine to thirty-four during the par—
ticipant observation, I fit into the cliques Of gay males as a somewhat
older male student. My age was an advantage because the preferred sex-
ual partner is usually in late adolescence (about eighteen to twenty).
This means that I tended not to be viewed as an interesting sexual ob-
ject for those who did not know my sexual orientation. This made me
more comfortable in the groups, of course, but also meant I rarely had
to be concerned with the ramifications of declining a sexual proposal
on my participation. It also meant that I tended not to be viewed as a
serious sexual competitor (again, only for those who did not know my
sexual orientation).

The friendships formed in the College Center building were the ba-
sis Of other kinds of participation in the gay networks. I sometimes
went to the gay bar, sometimes to tstraightf bars, and sometimes to
other activities, such as movies and restaurants. For several years,
nearly all of my own entertainment in public places was done in the
company of gay males.

My activities in the networks of gay males were not limited to din-
ner and entertainment.. The initial gay male roommate and the three sub-
.sequent ones were found within the networks of gay friends in the College
Center. Also, at one point, I bought a car from a gay friend, and later
was offered another car for sale. One Thanksgiving vacation, I helped
a gay male drive his car to Connecticut and back. At one point, I bor-

rowed a total of about forty dollars from nearly a dozen gay friends,

52

and at other times loaned money. My participation was intensive and
multifaceted, extending over a long period of time.

Throughout the participation with gay males, I have been limited to
a certain segment of the gay community, primarily college-aged and
slightly Older gay males -- that is, the age range of late adolescence
and early adulthood (twenty's). But, with the exception Of a few Older
gay males who ate regularly in the cafeteria, and a few who frequent the
bars regularly and know many collegesaged males, the networks of friends
simply did not connect with the networks of gay males who are: 1) In
their thirty's and beyond, and also 2) in stable gay male couples. Also,
the networks of young adult gay males did not connect with lesbians. The
few lesbians that have been interviewed in order to contrast with the
,gay males were met quite fortuitously and completely independent of the
.gay male friends. Perhaps primarily because of the_age-range of the
segment of the community studied, very little of the participant obser-
vation included entertainment in private homes and apartments, such as
dance parties and cocktail parties.1

The participation in the networks of young adult gay males had a
quality of emotional gregariousness to it. Individuals were generally
very friendly and open to new friendships. Early in the research, I
reciprocatedthis friendliness and was glad to be treated as a friend
by so many males. After some time, it began to dawn on me that I was
spending a considerable amount of time in the College Center and at the
bar simply saying "hello“ to dozens of males. By the Summer of 1975,
this open friendliness became oppressive, as I continued to meet more
and more gay males. For long periods during the Summer and Autumn,

1975, I began to withdraw from "the field" because of a feeling of

53

desperation for friendship that I began to detect. As I came to think
of it as a "desperation for affiliation,t I recognized that it was also
a sexual feeling, much like Rechy's (1963) Asexhunger.t By then I knew
over a hundred gay males, at least enough to say thello” to them, and
yet, I got caught up in the desire to know even more people, as if there
were not enough friends to satisfy a longing. Part of this desperation
is due to the males being unattached and searching for sexual partners;
that is, foruisingf and saying thellot to friends are connected.

Besides the above form of participation, a half dozen meetings of
the Gay Liberation Movement(GLM) were attended, as were two of their
dances, and during the few months of its Operation in 1972, I went to
the gay community center (a rented house) frequently.

Based on data from participation in the networks, a network analysis

 

has been made showing the extent of time and involvement of individuals
in certain activities shared with other gay males. The most extensive
and systematic set of data on this is the recordings made of which gay
males ate dinner with others in the College Center cafeteria from Jan-
uary 1974 to August 1976. This data is based on three hundred eleven Ob-
servation days of a total of one hundred fifty-six people who were seen
to eat at several tables in the cafeteria. People were included in

the recordings if they were lesbians or gay males or were seen to eat

at the tables with gay males in the cafeteria. (The cafeteria can seat
two hundred diners_simultaneously, so most diners were not gay.) During
the period of observation, thirty-two people (including RCO) were ob-
served to eat in the cafeteria seven or more times. Of these, twenty-
nine were gay or bisexual males (two explicitly presented their iden-

tities as bisexual to the groups) and two were straight females. Hence,

54

one hundred twenty-five other people were observed to eat with the reg-
ulars, but less than seven times during the three-year period. Of these
one hundred twenty-five people, fifty were males known to be gay (i.e.,
known by their conversation or from statements by the regulars), eleven
were females known to be gay or bisexual, eleven were males known to be
straight, and seven were females known to be straight. There were
thirty-seven males who were seen to eat with gay males at least once

but their sexual orientation was not ascertained, and seven females were
also observed whose sexual orientation is unknown. One married couple
was friends with a gay male and were seen to eat with him on two occa-
sions. Hence, of the total of one hundred fifty-six people, one hundred
twenty-nine were males while twenty-seven were females, which shows that
the groups were predominantly male, both among the regulars and the less
frequent participants. There were ninety people known to be gay, while
twenty-two (including RCO) were known to be straight.

Table 2 shows the mean numbers of people observed per day for three
month intervals over the period of observation. The observations were
limited to weekday evenings; the cafeteria is open only at noon on Sun-
days during the weekends, but gay males did not regularly attend the
Sunday dinners. Likewise, although the cafeteria also served luncheon
during the week, they were not regularly attended by gay males. The
average numbers of participants in table 2 include myself, not only
because I necessarily had to be present to make the Observations, but
also because my regular presence became increasingly important in main-
taining the groups as the numbers of gay males in the cafeteria declined
during the later period of observation. By the time I left the city

towards the end of the Summer of 1976, the cafeteria was no longer being

55

Table 2.--Mean Numbers of People Per Day Eating in_the College Center
Cafeteria Who Defined Themselves as Gay or Ate With Gay Males

 

 

 

Mean Number of Number of

Time Interval People Per Day Observed Days
Jan. 24, 1974 - Mar. 31, 1974 5.1 8
Apr. 1, 1974 - June 30, 1974 8.1 27
July 1, 1974 - Sep. 30, 1974 5.8 24
Oct. 1, 1974 - Dec. 31, 1974 5.9 23
Jan. 1, 1975 - Mar. 31, 1975 4.8 31
Apr. 1, 1975 - June 31, 1975 5.9 28
July 1, 1975 - Sep. 30, 1975 4.5 21
Oct. 1, 1975 - Dec. 31, 1975 3.9 31
Jan. 1, 1976 - Mar. 31, 1976 5.3 54
Apr. 1, 1976 - June 30, 1976 4.5 37
July 1, 1976 - Aug. 20, 1976 3.1 __2_7_

Range: 3.1 to 8.1 Total: 311

used as a regular meeting place by gay males. It is now no longer used
regularly as a gay place by gay males. It is not clear why the groups
disintegrated during the Summer of 1976.

On the other hand, the cafeteria served as a gay meeting place and
the groups existed before the period of recorded observations. I had
been sitting with the groups regularly for two years before beginning
the systematic recordings, but the groups' existence predated my joining
them. The numbers of gay males using the cafeteria when I began the
participant Observation were roughly similar to the numbers of parti-
cipants in the early period of the recordings, that is, early 1974 in

table 2.

56

The network data from the College Center cafeteria will be consid-
ered further in chapter 5 along with the sociable, non-sexual ac-
tivities in the College Center. Certain points should be clear from
the description presented which will be important for the later analysis
and discussion. There were large numbers of gay males interacting with
each other in the cafeteria. However, only about thirty formed a core
of regular participants in the cafeteria setting. Further, the networks
were Open; new and occasional participants, sometimes acquainted with
only one regular member, were welcome to join the groups. In their
openness, the networks of gay males allowed entrance by male and female
heterosexuals to the groups; this means that they were not really "sec—
retive" gay groups, even though the presence of a heterosexual at a
table sometimes affected the content of conversations. Rather, the gay
participants interacted in view of heterosexuals, both those sitting
elsewhere in the cafeteria and sometimes also those sitting among the
groups as occasional participants. The functions of the dinner groups
will be considered in chapter 5. Also later, a network analysis of
the data will be made; this will include considering the total frequency
of appearance of each of the regular participants, and the clustering
of paired appearances of regular participants who represent for others
(the low attenders) the core group within the College Center.

In addition to the recordings of the cafeteria seating patterns,
some less systematic recordings of interaction patterns have been made
in other areas of the College Center and at the gay bar. Together with
the cafeteria observations, these data yield networks of individuals
involved in these activities. These data are augmented by short inter-

views to determine the extensiveness (as, the amount of time per week)

57

Of other non-observed but shared activities in the networks, so as to
suggest the degree to which the subjects' lives are shared with others
who are gay. This data will be considered further in chapter 5.

Interviews

 

Interviews were always arranged with people with whom I was already
somewhat acquainted, not strangers. Sixteen formal interviews have been
conducted; fourteen of these were in depth (over an hour in length) and
eight of these were tape recorded. Of these sixteen interviews, three
were with women (two lesbians and one bisexual woman) for purposes of
contrast. 0f the thirteen male interviewees, one was primarily into
the "leather" scene, one into "drag," and one was an elderly "chicken-
hawk."

The interviews, in retrospect, were apparently seen as part of the
acquaintance process by the interviewees, so that ofter the interviews,
the people interviewed were more friendly. This had a non-sexual quality
to it. This greater friendliness after the interviews is because some
of the topics covered in the interviews (such as one's “coming out" ex-
perience) would often be part of the acquaintance process between gay
males becoming friends. Hence, the interviews usually promoted quite
close friendships. Also, sometimes the person interviewed told others
in the clique that I had interviewed him, as if I had "honored" him es-
pecially by listening to his life-story.

The thirteen male interviewees can be viewed as key informants be-
cause most of them were interviewed more than once. Besides the inter-
views, conversations with and among them were also recorded after the
fact (that is, covertly). This was also done with about fifteen other

male participants over a series of different conversations. Sometimes

58

these covert recordings were made of typical cafeteria conversations,
others dealt with problems and solutions in gay life, and still others
dealt with some of the topics of the interviews, such as "coming out"
and the person's career into homosexuality.

The Instrument

 

The semantic differential was used to make a cognitive mapping of
the "social world" so as to indicate the degree of shared cognitive
orientations. The nine scales of the semantic differential (as initially
employed by Bryan, 1966) were used to give a cognitive mapping of the
categories of the social world, including the objects: Gay males,
lesbians, men in general, women in general, and the self. The responses
of a sample of fifty gay males to this paper-and-pencil test will be
compared to the responses of fifty "straight" males on the three dimen-
sions Of the semantic differential (evaluation, activity, and potency)
in chapter 4. A significant difference between the two samples would
lend support to the idea that there is a gay subculture with a distinc-
tive view of its social world. If, however, gays on the average do not
answer differently than straight males, then one would conclude that,
at least on this measure, gay males do not view the social world any
differently than conventional males, and one would infer that there is
little content to a gay "subculture" in a moderate-sized metropolitan
area.

Estimates of the Gay Male Population in Midwest City

In chapter 1 the concept of "institutional completeness" (Breton,
1964) was briefly mentioned and will be elaborated in the next chapter.
The degree of institutional completeness of a community tends to vary

by the numbers of members in the community. The demography of a city

59

can be important to the degree of institutional completeness of a com-
munity within the city because a larger city is likely to attract and
contain more members of the community. This would more often be true
of a community based on stigmatized behavior than an ethnic community.
A "critical mass" of members (Fischer, 1975) concentrated in a recog-
nized territory are part of the necessary criteria for a "gay ghetto"
(Levine, 1977). This raises the importance of the question of the num-
bers of gay males in Midwest City.

Any estimate of the number of gay males in an area (or contained
within a larger population, as a city) is highly sensitive to the def-
inition of gay male that is used. For example, Kinsey used a measure
which takes into account the variation in an individual's sexual out-
lets during the person's lifetime. He estimated that four percent of
males are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives, while eight
percent (twice as many) are exclusively homosexual for at least three
years of their lives after the age of sixteen (1948, p. 651). This is an
estimate based on sexual behavior, and not on the person's sexual or-
ientation identity. As Humphreys showed (1970), some males define them-
selves as heterosexual, even though they engage in homosexual acts in
tearooms (i.e., those he calls "trade"). An estimate that relies on a
definition of homosexuality based on self-identity would be expected to
vary considerably from Kinsey's figures.

Some (such as Delph, 1978; cf. Omark, 1979) have emphasized the im-
portance of sexual fantasy to sexual orientation identity. Apparently,
it is possible for some heterosexually married males to maintain a homo-
sexual identity even though their predominant sexual outlet is with

their wives. It is maintained by their homosexual fantasies during

60

heterosexual intercourse (Miller, p. 243 in Levine, 1979).

Three different estimates will be presented of the numbers Of gay
males in Midwest City. The first is the estimate made by several of
the gay male respondents in the area; this approach avoids the whole
issue of a rigorous definition of the commonality of the people included
in the estimate because the estimate has self-defined face validity.

A second estimate can be made on the basis of Kinsey's percentages
(1948). A third estimate is based on a social organizational definition
of male homosexuality: How many males were Observed in the several ex-
plicitly gay settings in the metropolitan area? The third approach has
the same problem considered with the data on participation in the College
Center Cafeteria: Some are regular and frequent participants in the
setting, while others are infrequent and marginal to the groups.

Five sexually active gay males were asked the question: What is your
estimate of the number of gay males who are sexually active in this area?
Among them, the minimum estimate was one thousand and the maximum men-
tioned was ten thousand. David, who is active in the tearooms, esti-
mated that there are two to five thousand, while Bob 8., who claims to
have had over a thousand different male sexual partners (primarily but
not exclusively found in Midwest City in the eight years that he has
been "out") most of whom were met in the gay bar, estimated that there
were a minimum of four thousand and a maximum of eight thousand "who
are active and out." Brad estimated a minimum of one thousand and a
maximum of five thousand. A bisexual male, Leo, first said that he had
personally met more than three hundred, so he placed his first estimate
at a minimum of six hundred; of these, he estimated that eighty are

"steady bar goers" and twenty are recognized by him in the College Center;

61

however, thereafter, he raised his estimate, saying that there must be
ten thousand gay males, of which one thousand are active sexually.
Finally, Jef, a "leatherman“ who participates on weekends in the leather
bars in the large metropolitan area eighty miles away, said, "Kinsey
said one in seven males are gay, but that is high because Midwest City
is not a major metropolitan area. SO, perhaps one in ten males are gay.
The 'sexually active' are aged fourteen and above and less than eighty-
two years Old." RCO said: "In the 1970 Census, there were forty thou-
sand unattached males aged fourteen and above." Jef: "That is the prime
population but not all would be gay. Also, some may be married but also
gay. Ten thousand is probably too high. But there must be more then
one thousand at the bars, and so on."

Kinsey's study (1948) can also be used to estimate the numbers of
homosexuals in Midwest City. At all ages past adolescence, single males
have a higher incidence of homosexual experience (including those with a
sexual history of only oge_homosexual experience to orgasm) than married
males. Kinsey reports that fifty percent of single males have had at
least one such homosexual experience by the age of thirty-five (p. 625),
and from age twenty up to thirty-five, the percent rises from about forty
percent up to fifty percent of the single males (Figure 156, page 625).
Using the Census figure for the Midwest City SMSA in 1970 of forty-five
thousand single males and three thousand divorced males aged fourteen
and older, these figures mean that between nineteen thousand and twenty-
four thousand single males in the SMSA have had at least one homosexual
experience. However, Kinsey notes that those rated as five or six, with
more or less exclusively homosexual experience throughout their lives
average less than twenty percent of all single males for all age groups

after the onset of adolescence (Figure 166, page 645).

62

Kinsey estimates that about ten percent of all males are more or
less exclusively homosexual in their reactions and experience (i.e.,
rated five or six) for at least three years between the ages of sixteen
and fifty-five (page 651). Because the total number of males aged
fourteen and older in the 1970 Census for the SMSA was one hundred
thirty-four thousand, this means that about thirteen thousand males
would be expected to have more or less exclusively homosexual experiences
for three years of their lives. Of these, Kinsey estimates that four
percent have exclusively homosexual experiences throughout their lives

(page 651), which translates into about five thousand males in the met-

 

ropolitan area. Based on the Kinsey figures, the latter figure can be
taken as the very minimum number of exclusively homosexual males in
the metropolitan area. It should be revised upward to include those
who are predominantly but not exclusively homosexual for some period of
their lives. Hence, at any one time, an estimate based on Kinsey would
perhaps roughly be ten or fifteen thousand males in the SMSA.

This minimal figure closely approaches the maximum estimate given
by the respondents, which indicates that the respondents' figures are
by no means exaggeration. On the contrary, the respondents' estimates
appear to be based on the numbers of males that are regularly seen in
the gay settings of the metropolitan area. One would not expect all gay
males, even those who have exclusively homosexual experiences, to appear
regularly in the gay settings in the area. Bell and Weinberg, for ex-
ample, report that only two-thirds of the white homosexual males in
their sample of gays in San Francisco had sought partners in bars or

nightclubs at least once during the past year (1978, p. 75). 0f the

 

homosexual males who did cruise in any setting in the last year,

63
one-fourth did so on the average of once a month or less, and only about
two-fifths had cruised at least once or twice a week over the year
(1978, page 75). One may suspect that gay males cruise more Often in
a large city like San Francisco, which has more Opportunities, than in
Midwest City.

The third way of estimating the numbers Of gay males in the metro-
politan area is based on the numbers of participants in the gay settings
in the area (Becker, 1970, pp. 35-37 in Habenstein). (These settings
are described in the next chapter and only the estimates of the numbers
of participants in them will be considered here.) As indicated pre-
viously in this chapter, twenty-nine regular participants in the College
Center cafeteria were self-defined gay (or bisexual) males; in addition,
fifty infrequent participants were self—defined gay males, while thirty-
seven other males were seen in the gay groups in the cafeteria but whose
sexual orientation is not known. There were about fifty other gay
males who came to the College Center during the three years Of observa-
tions but were not seen in the cafeteria. As will be described, the
bar system expanded in 1976 from one gay and one mixed bar to two gay
and one mixed bars. The first gay bar has a legal capacity of one hun-
dred seventy-five but usually had at least twenty-five women (mostly
lesbians) in it. The mixed bar is small, and never had more than fifty
gay males in it at one time. The new gay bar has a legal capacity of
two hundred and when filled, would have perhaps fifteen women in it.

The Adult Movie Theater and Adult Bookstore in the vicinity of the gay
bars are frequented on weekends mostly by gay males who also attend
the gay bars, but might attract fifty gay males who do not attend the

bars. Likewise, most gay males who enter the College Center also

64

frequent the gay bars; perhaps fifty do not attend them. Also, perhaps
fifty self-defined gay males cruise in the tearooms in the area without
also frequenting the gay bars. These numbers yield an estimate of about
five hundred thirty-five different participants during any one week.
(This estimate contrasts sharply with the assertion by Bob 8. that

"The bars on a good Saturday night have a thousand gay males in them."
This estimate is much too high because the bars are active for only about
three hours on a Saturday night and this short time span allows very
little replacement of participants.) Using Bell and Weinberg's estimate
that two-fifths of gay males cruise an average of once or twice a week
yields a total of 1,337 gay males, including both those who cruise and
do not cruise regularly.

This estimate (1,337 gay males) is considerably lower than the other
two estimates, and there is some evidence that it is too low. For ex-
ample, Bob B.'s assertion (based on personal records) that he found over
a thousand different male sexual partners, primarily from the bars in
the area over the eight years that he has been "out," indicates that
there must have been considerably more than that many gay males to
appear in the gay bars at least once during the eight years. At the
same time, Jef's statement that the Kinsey percentages are too high be-
cause Midwest City is not a major metropolitan area is valid to the
extent that some gay males are attracted to the institutionally more
complete gay communities in the largest metropolitan areas, and so,
some gay males leave Midwest City for the larger cities. (For example,
four of the twenty-nine regular cafeteria diners permanently moved to
large cities during the three years of observation.) Hence, the esti-

mate based on participants in gay settings is too low, while the estimate

65

based on the Kinsey percentages is probably somewhat high. (The con-
clusion seems warranted that Midwest City has about five to ten thousand
gay males sharing predominantly homosexual experiences.

The problem of interest is not really in estimating the actual num-
bers of gay males in the area, but rather with estimating the potential
numbers. The latter is important to the generality of the findings in
the dissertation. Because of the numbers of self-defined gay males in
the different gay settings in the area, a minimum estimate of self-
defined gay males is at least one thousand. Great confidence can be
placed in the reliability and validity of this and the other findings
of the dissertation for this community, but this does not allow one to
generalize to other, especially larger cities. Of course, it is pre-
sently virtually impossible to estimate the numbers of people in a pop-
ulation with a potential or propensity to engage in homosexual acts.

One could consider a "true homosexual" or a person who has fully "come
out? as having: 1) A propensity to engage in homosexual acts, 2) actual
engagement in homosexual acts by the person, and 3) self-identification
as gay or a homosexual. However, this convergence of the three elements
to define one as a homosexual is not sufficient, as one may have a self-
identity as gay without yet having any interpersonal sexual experiences.
Also, some people who both practice gay sex and call themselves gay
never felt that they had a Apropensity" because they felt that they were
gay from birth. Convergence of the three elements, however, is an an-
alytic distinction that still includes bisexuals, who also identify as
heterosexual and act with the opposite sex as well. This issue will be
examined again in the next chapter along with the process of "coming

out? as a stage in the career of becoming a member of the gay community.

66
Footnote to Chapter Three

As Carol Warren says, "Younger gay people [males] do a lot of their
socializing in gay bars; when they get older they entertain more in
their own homes" (1974, p. 29). Although a “trick" or “one-night
stand" may easily be brought home, the home is rarely used to enter-
tain a group of gay friends, and hardly ever as the setting for a
planned event (this does not apply to younger lesbians, but only
younger gay males). The home may be used to play a record or watch
television with one or two gay friends, but such events would be
impromptu and not organized in advance. This in itself sharply dis-
tinguishes the present study from Carol Warren's ethnography, with

its emphasis on home entertainment by middle-aged gay males.

CHAPTER FOUR. THE CONCEPT OF THE GAY COMMUNITY

Introduction

This chapter will be concerned first with the criteria that members

use to determine membership in the community. Related to this is a

 

concern with entrance into the community and the stages connected with
a "social career" in the community. This set of concerns is interre-
lated; the criteria used to determine the membership of others in the
gay community are the same as the criteria necessary for one to become
a member. Because the meaning of the term, “the gay community" as it
applies in Midwest City, has not yet been delimited, a phrase such as
"becoming a member of the gay community" should, for the time being,
be understood to mean: Becoming recognized as appropriately present
in a gay context (as, at a gay bar) by others present in the setting.

The chapter will later consider the institutions, the major seg-

 

.ment§_of the community based on sex (being male or female) and age,

and the ecological settings (Agay placest) of importance. The ethno-
graphic description of the gay community in Midwest City will be con-
cerned with its institutions, segments, and the-ecological settings of
importance because the community is neither a clear, territorially de-
marcated unit (such as the "city limits"), nor does it have an adminis-
trative central authority (such as a mayor) which would set and maintain
the territorial limits of the community and define membership within it.
Rather than explicitly defined geographical boundaries and centralized
authority, the behavior of individuals, acting in concert and repeating
their actions in a patterned way, is what gives substance to the gay

community. It is behavior that determines the boundaries of the

67

68

community, and behavior that leads one to see institutions; the amounts
of interaction give substance to the segments observed in the community.
Behavior unique to the community takes place in only certain ecOlogical
settings which are dispersed and not geographically centralized in one
particular district or neighborhood. As will be explained later in the
chapter, the institutions Of the gay community in this moderate-sized
city are only "quasi-institutions," which cannot completely encapsulate
the members within them; these quasi-institutions are dependent on the
larger city for their continuation.
"Coming Out" and Membership in the Community
Several authors have been concerned with the process of "coming

out" as the initial stage in becoming a member of the community. These
studies will be considered shortly. However, a problem that has to be
addressed first is the problem of "reification" of the identity based
on sexual orientation (that is, reification of the identity of homo-
sexual or heterosexual), As Erich Goode writes (1973),

"Reification means, quite simply, an inappropriate

concreteness. It is thinking of something which is

actufilly a concept as if it were a hard, definite,

concrete object. Reification is a basic fallacy.

It occurs by taking something with which one is fam-

iliar, giving it a general name, and assuming that

everything called by that name shares the same basic

characteristics.... Reification is the imposition of

an artificial ineVitability and inexorability upon’

a reality which is, in fact, far more variable and
kaleidoscopic" (pp. 36-7, emphasis in the original).

 

 

 

Common speech patterns in our society reify the identity associated with
sexual orientation. That is, even though many recognize the range and
mixture Of sexual behavior between the extremes from completely hetero-
sexual tO completely homoseanl behavior (first pointed out by Kinsey,

1948), people still commonly assume that a person has a sexual identity

69

of heterosexual or_homosexual. Some evidence for this will be presented
in the next chapter when the problematic nature of the presentation of
a bisexual identity is examined.

It is clearly separate issues to ask if the history of one's sexual
behavior has been predominantly heterosexual (or homosexual or bisexual),
or if one's identity is heterosexual, homosexual or bisexual. It iS‘
the self-definition of seXual orientation identity that tends to be re-
ified in our society. People appear to assume that selfedefined iden—
tity is fixed for life, inevitable, and shared with others with the same
self-defined identity. It is not. Reification has been neglected by
most writers on homosexuality, with the exception of Sagarin (1976), who
addressed the issue in somewhat different terms. For example, Sagarin
wrote "we speak of people peing_certain things when all we know is that
they do_certain things. The result is an imputed identity, or rather a
special kind of mistaken identity" (1976, p. 25). And further,

"The 'inheritedéabnormality' idea has been long
abandoned but in its place there has appeared
something equally resistant to change -- the
idea of identity. The idea presumes that one
realizes what one is, that one discovers an
identity rather than becoming it through be-
havior? (1976, p. 26).

One should continue to recognize the reification of the identity in
considering "accounts? (in the sense defined by Lyman and Scott, 1970)
of taking on the identity of homosexual. One would not expect a person
who holds the identity of homosexual to be able to texplaint or account
for the process Of taking on the identity any differently than explana-
tions commonly held in the larger society. Indeed, the question, "Why

are you a homosexual?" is as baffling as the question, "Why are you a

heterosexual?" It is not a question often asked. Respondents tend to

70

be confused and bewildered because the identity connected with sexual
orientation has been reified, and thereby, "mystified" (Goode, p. 37).
There is no Ultimate explanation that can be given other than those
commonly held and having a currency in our society.

Of course, an individual may give an "account" which answers ho!_he
arrived at his current self-definition (rather than why), and this chap-
ter will shortly be concerned with just such accounts by respondents.

An account answering ho!_the person "discovered" his identity as a
homosexual is one way of failing to recognize the indeterminancy of the
identity. The respondent typically tells his Astoryt - "this happened,
and then that happened, and so now I am a homosexual." Gay males (as
well as lesbians) have a variety of such stories which are all tales
describing events leading the person to "come out“ (gay argot for taking
on a gay, that is, a homosexual identity at certain times and places).

One can consider such accounts within the framework of a “social
career," in that such accounts clearly present a series of stages and
contingencies leading up to and including the event designated by the
term "coming out." The key event in coming out is sometimes taken to
be the first homosexual act. but this is not invariably so. Some re-
spondents report several (and sometimes even many) sexual acts with
partners of the same sex (i.e., homosexual acts) before they "came out."
The latter respondents usually refer to their past, before coming out,
as a "closeted“ or "closet queen" past, and view their coming out in
social terms, such as first entering a gay bar and making friendships
with self-defined homosexuals for the first time. Hence, as will be
seen, the accounts of events and of stages connected with the result of

coming out are by no means uniform.

71

This lack of uniformity to the accounts is as one would expect with
the reification of the identity connected with sexual orientation. The
variations in accounts of stages toward the "discovery" of the identity
of homosexual, as well as the variations in the meanings assigned to
"being" a homosexual are all glossed over, so as to affirm the unitary
nature of the reification. In this sense, one sees a cultural myth
shared not only among homosexuals, but among heterosexuals as well. This
myth serves several functions, perhaps the most important of which is to
promote and make more rigid the dichotomy between homosexual and hetero-
sexual (or, in gay argot, between tgayf and "straight").

Few respondents in the gay community question their sexual orienta-
tion identity. Of course, continued participation in homosexual acts
in gay places, as well as friendships with other homosexuals promote
this stability of identity. The myth of the reified dichotomy between
homosexual and heterosexual itself, however, is an important source Of
stability of the identity of homosexual.

Because the larger society stigmatizes the self-identity of homo-
sexual, rather than that of heterosexual, the fear in the larger society
is of homosexuality.1 The stigma attached to the self-identity of homo-
sexual if revealed to heterosexuals (that is, as a discreditable iden-
tity) promotes gay friendships, homosexual acts in gay places, and the
gay community itself. Hence, the reified dichotomy of identity cate-
gories of homosexual and heterosexual are not equal in their consequences.
Yet, the functions served by the myth of the reified dichotomy operate
equally for both homosexuals and heterosexuals; both homosexuals and
heterosexuals tend to view their self-identity of sexual orientation as

stable and not likely to change.

72

Berger and Luckman (1966) considered the transformation of subjective
reality, whereby the individual "switches worlds" (p. 157). They note
that the most important social condition is the availability of an "ef-
fective plausibility structure” (p. 157), which can be mediated to the
individual by means of significant others. They say,

"The most important conceptual requirement for

alternation is the availability of a legitimating

apparatus for the whole sequence of transformation.

What must be legitimated is not only the new real-

ity. but the stages by which it is appropriated

and maintained, and the abandonment or repudiation

of all alternative realities.... The old reality,

as well as the collectivities and significant others

that previously mediated it to the individual,

must be reinterpreted within the le itimating ap-

paratus of the new reaiity" (p. 159i.
And finally. they say, "Prealternation biography is typically nihilated
ip_toto by subsuming it under a negative category occupying a strategic
position in the new legitimating apparatus..." (p. 160). One should nOte
that the category of "closet queen" serves as the "negative category" in
the legitimating set of ideas toward "coming out." The identity cate-
gory of “closet queen," along with the several other identities in ad-
dition to that of "gay male" will be considered in greater detail in
the next chapter.

The point to be stressed is that sets of ideas about the nature of
the identity of sexual orientation (heterosexual or homosexual) have
currency in our society, and these sets of ideas reify and make more
rigid the identity connected with sexual orientation than one would
otherwise expect it to be. For example, a person can take on and give
up the identity of student in cycles: A person can be an undergraduate
student, graduate and work several years, and later decide to enter a

university_again to study for a Master's degree. In such a case, the

73

person takes on, gives up, and again takes on the identity (and role)
of student. Another example would be a heterosexual male who marries
and has children, gets a divorce, re-marries and has children in the
second marriage; both the identities of husband and father are taken
on, given up, and taken on again. Because the identity categories of
heterosexual and homosexual are a reified dichotomy, many people believe
that alternation between the two categories of sexual orientation iden-
tity is not similarly possible. Furthermore, examples of those who,
in fact, have alternated between the two categories during their life-
times are not visible: A person who becomes gay for a time and later
becomes straight, would tend to give up his gay acquaintances in the
process of identity change so that the latter (the gay acquaintances)
do not have the example Of alternation available to them. Also, the
person who alternated the identity from gay to straight would not likely
reveal the past identity of gay to a heterosexual audience because of
the stigma, and because he would fear that they would take the past
identity of gay as still relevant. Hence, alternations back and forth
between the two categories (heterosexual and homosexual) are not re-
vealed to either a gay audience or a straight audience. This helps to
perpetuate the myth connected with the reification of the identities
of homosexual and heterosexual.

Gebhard (1966) appears to be the first to consider Acareer stagesf
in becoming a homosexual and becoming a member of the gay community.
He notes that some "may sample community life and then drop out for
various reasons" (p. 1029). He suggests that gay community members who
reach middlesage may decrease and even completely stop their participa-

tion (p. 1030). Further, he notes that "community membership makes for

74

increasing homosexual commitment and almost precludes a change toward
heterosexuality" (p. 1029).

Curiously, more recent authors who have concerned themselves with
the process of "coming out? and taking on both a homosexual identity
and membership in the gay community have ignored the opposite process
of taking on a heterosexual identity after extended participation in
the gay community with a gay identity (see, for examples, Dank, 1971,
1972, and 1974; Thomas Weinberg, 1976, 1978; Warren and Johnson, 1972;
Farrell and Nelson, 1976; Monteflores and Schultz, 1978). These studies
(especially Dank, 1971, 1972, and Weinberg, 1978) have taken samples of
self-defined gay males and asked about their retrospective interpreta-
tions of the process of coming out. Dank (1971), for example, summarized
data on coming out from a sample Of 180 self-defined gay males and re-
ported that the average when the questioning of a possible gay identity
began was at age thirteen and the process of accepting a gay identity
took six years, so that the average age for the sample when they_gon;_
sidered that they came out was nineteen years old (p. 183).

The problem inherent in such studies as Dank's should by now be Ob-
vious; he selected a sample of people who had undergone the process of
identity alternation and asked a series of questions which fit within
the framework of the common conceptions of the reified identity. For
example, to ask a self-defined gay male just when he began to think of
himself as a homosexual is a question that fits within the framework of
the reified process of "discovery" of the Ptrue" self. To ask a self-
defined gay male twhen did you stop thinking of yourself as a hetero-
sexual?f does not escape the same problem. A question such as fWhat

would be the rewards and penalties for giving up a gay identity and

75

becoming straight?9 is a question outside the framework of the concep-
tions about the reified identity; such a question tends to leave most
interviewees momentarily speechless, followed almost immediately by the
assertion that the question is hypothetical and implausible. It is im-
plausible precisely because Of the reified conceptions of the sexual
orientation identity held in the larger society. For most gay males to
consider tbecoming straight" is usually framed as a question about
"going back into the closet" (the negative category), which is not the
equivalent of Abecoming straight" at all.

The following definitions and accounts Of tcoming out" provide a
sense Of the range of experiences covered by the term as used by re-
spondents in Midwest City. In contrast with such studies as Dank's
(1971, 1972, and 1974) and Weinberg's.(1976, 1978) which had large
samples, the present study of coming out is limited to sixteen inter-
views and recordings of some conversations. The material is presented
here only to illustrate the range of definitions and accounts that are
used. ‘

David gave a two-part definition of coming out: 1) Being

“willing to talk to other gays in public, like when
we talk in a large group in the College Center
Lounge; also feeling free to look at people who you
think are attractive and not care too much what
others who see you look, think of your looking;“

and 2)

"accepting yourself a getting rid of the fear of
what you are" (Interview, June 7, 1973).

The latter element, self-acceptance of one's homosexual desires rarely
forms the core of the definition of coming out. Self-acceptance by it-

self was given as the definition of coming out by only one respondent

76

(Tony, interview, July 8, 1978). In contrast, several respondents gave
definitions and accounts of coming out that emphasized the social ele-
ment of associating with other gays in a gay context.

Joe gave an account of his experience:

"'I remember when I came out. I was twenty-one;
I turned 21 on a Thursday and on Sunday night,
I went to a gay bar.‘
RCO: 'Did you go by yourself?’
Joe: 'Yes.‘
RCO: 'How did you know where it was?‘
Joe: 'Well, you know, friends would say things
about certain bars as we drove by them before
I turned 21.‘
RCO: 'DO you mean straight friends?‘
Joe: 'Yeah, they would make comments about the
bars that were gay, and I noticed which ones
they were, so I waited until I was 21 and then
went in. I was real nervous the first time I
went.... But I hardly talked to anybody the
first six months that I went there - I mean I
hardly picked up a trick - I had tricked a few
times before I turned 21 b picking up people
alon (a main street] in (ghe lar e metropolitan
area where I cruised Evith a carjciJ - and hardly
got to know anyone socially. But after about
six months, I met a few people, who were friends
- you know, they were real friendly and nice to
me and would pay my way in and buy me drinks and
all, so it didn't cost me anything, and they
weren't after sex, but were genuinely friendly,
and anyway, they started introducing me to their
friends in the bar and it seemed like all of a
sudden I got to know a lot of people, and they
were all friendly to me, and it has been that
gay eve; since'" (recorded conversation, January
. 1974 .

An important element in the above is the willingness to go to an ex-
plicitly gay setting and to make friends with gays in the setting, that
is, "coming out" is a social act. A similar social element is seen in
the following accounts. Bob B. had a number of homosexual experiences
extending over years, but "coming out" for him was his first trip to the

gay bar. with a friend who had recently revealed himself as gay to Bob.

77

Bob said,."That was when I came out; I started hanging around with other
gays then" (conversation, December 8, 1973). Here one sees the implicit
use of a completely social definition of coming out. The same is seen
in an interview with a lesbian.

RCO: "'What does it mean to say that you came

out last week? I knew you last week. What

happened last week?’

Mary: 'Well, I decided that it was time, or I

finally got it together enough, to be able to

allow myself to come in contact, or t§y_to come

in contact with, hum, other gay women. Up to

this point, I hadn't known any'" (taped inter-

view, October 4, 1973).
For her, coming out meant going to her first meeting of an organization
of self-defined lesbians. One sees the social element again, being
willing to associate with other people who define themselves as gay,
but of course, one reason for associating with others who are gay can
be to find suitable sexual partners.

John's definition of coming out focused completely on the first
homosexual act, without regard for sociability with other gays. John
defined coming out as "the first gay sexual experience, and the decision
to act on one's desires." In his own account, there was a "gradual ac-
ceptance of sexual desires as legitimate and worthy of gratification,
plus the decision to act on them" (Interview, June 11, 1973). In the
interview, John viewed homosexuality as an innate condition that one
simply got used to and accepted in oneself, while coming out was the
first homosexual act. After his first homosexual act at the age of 23,
he found the mixed (gay and straight) bar by phoning the crisis inter-
vention telephone service, and eventually got to know other gay males

as friends, but in his view, this was after he had come out, and not

an aspect of it.

78

Ken's definition of coming out combined both the sexual and social
elements when he said:

"'Two categories: Physically and socially. The
physical is the first sexual experience with
another guy; socially is getting into the active
gay crowd, parties, and such.‘

RCO: 'How old were you when you came out?‘

Ken: 'Thirteen on the physical and 23 on the
social, ten years in between.‘ (When 13, he had
started having sex regularly with a neighborhood
boy of the same age.)

RCO: 'What happened when you were 23?‘

Ken: 'Well, usually you get to know somebody and
he introduces you to others, but that didn't
happen with me. I walked into a bar by myself and
made my own introductions on my own.‘

RCO: 'How did you find out about the gay bar?‘
Ken: 'Straight friends called Wentworth, the old
gay bar downtown, and Carl's bar, 'queer bars,’

so that is how I found out about them, but I
thought they were filled with dirty old men so I
wasn't interested in oing in. I finally went in,
and Christ! half the Trollege campus was there.'"
(Interview recorded, August 1 , 1973; Ken was aged
28 at the time of the interview).

The definition of what coming out means to a person tends to be
directly related to the person's own experience in forming a social ca-
reer in gay contexts. A person with extensive homosexual experiences
before contact with a gay setting would tend to emphasize the social
aspects of getting to know other gays. On the other hand, a person with
a biography that did not include any (or only very few) homosexual ex-
periences would tend to emphasize the importance of the sexual experience
itself. The term "coming out" is used flexibly to relate to one's own
experiences and sexual biography. In that sense, the term is a gloss
for a range of behavior that does not have a great deal in common, ex-
cept for beginning a career as a member of the gay community (that is,
being recognized by others in gay settings).

The interviews quoted show one or more of three elements: Engaging

79

in sexual relations with others of the same sex, Yself acceptance" of
the gay identity, and associating sociably with others in gay settings
(as, the gay bar). The above discussion has considered the progression
in terms of a social career. However, the processual ordering of the
elements used in the quoted definitions and accounts is not the most
important, nor the most useful way of conceptualizing this material.
Rather, as suggested in the last chapter, one can make the analytic
distinction that a ttrue homosexual,9 as one who has fully come out,
has a potential or propensity to engage in homosexual acts, has actually
engaged in homosexual acts, and has a self-identification as gay. This
analytic distinction, however, overemphasizes the centrality of the
homosexual act. The social element of first entering a gay setting
(as, a gay bar) and being willing to associate with gays in such a set-
ting, which was emphasized by respondents in most of their definitions
of coming out, is not directly nor necessarily causally connected with
any homosexual act. The sociable element is, however, obviously impor-
tant because one would tend to be more stable in an identity if one
shared that identity with others in settings where the corresponding
role is salient.

The flexible use of the term, coming out, to relate to one's own
biography makes the study of coming out difficult. For example, Dank
says "The term 'coming out' is frequently used by homosexuals to refer
to the identity change to homosexual" (1971, p. 181). Presumably in
Dank's view, the person coming out changes his identity'from_hetero-
sexual. Dank elaborates,

"The fact that an actor continues to have homo-

sexual feelingsand to engage in homosexual
behavior does not mean that he views himself as

80

being homosexual. In order for a person to

view himself as a homosexual he must be placed

in a new social context, in which knowledge of

homosexuals and homosexuality can be found; in

such a context he learns a new vocabulary of

motives, a vocabulary that will allow him to

identify himself as being a homosexual" (1971,

pp. 182-3).
Evidence from interviews has been presented which shows that these
statements apply to only some gays, and not to others. Some homosexuals
do not_use the term to refer to a change in identity (as, from hetero-
sexual to homosexual) at all. For some gay males (as, John, quoted
above), having a homosexual experience itself is sufficient for him to
say that he has “come out," while for others, coming out means finding
and becoming friends with other gays, especially in a gay context, as a
gay bar or gay organization. It is not at all clear that a new vocabu-
lary of motives is necessarily learned by befriending other homosexuals.

Tom Weinberg (1978) considered the relation between sexual behavior

and taking on a homosexual identity. He found several patterns for males;
the moSt common pattern was for the men in his study to first engage in
homosexual relations, then begin to "suspect" that they were gay, and
finally accept that they were gay. A second pattern which was common was
for the men to suspect that they were gay, then engage in sexual rela-
tions with other men, followed by accepting the label of gay. He iden-
tified two other patterns (other combinations of suspicion, homosexual
acts, and accepting the identity of gay) as well. This perhaps gets
better at the complexity of the different sequences toward taking on the
identity of gay, than Dank's study. Weinberg's study, like Dank's, how-

ever, fits within the reified conception of the homosexual identity ~

that is, that one "discovers" his sexual orientation identity, and this

81

is considered to be a one-way process of "discovery." One need not be
concerned that the "discovery" is a false one, nor that the person can
revert back or change to a successful heterosexual pattern, after coming
lout and accepting the self-identity of homosexual. The reified nature
of beliefs about coming out and accepting the label of homosexual is
crucial to membership in the gay community because the beliefs imply
that the person who has come out will be stable in the identity and
therefore, membership in the community is believed to be continuous from
that point of fdiscoveryf onward for the individual. Because the per-
son who is active in gay places and knows a number of other gay males
sees examples of those who have come out since he did, while the person
does not_see anyone undergo the Opposite process (becoming straight af-
ter defining oneself as gay), the beliefs about the one-way nature of
coming out are seen as verified by individual experience.

In the process of befriending other gays, one takes a position with-
in gay contexts (that is, one goes to gay settings on some repeated
occasions) and is recognized by others in those contexts upon the person's
return again to the gay setting. This is all that is meant by a "social
career? as a homosexual; by repeatedly going to some gay settings and
being recognized by others in those settings, one becomes a member of
tthe gay community.t The term, coming out, is important because refer-
ence to it by an individual in a gay setting (or with gay friends) is
sufficient to frecognize" the individual as a member of the group. The
assertion by an individual in a gay setting that he came out some time
in the past is sufficient to grant him legitimacy in taking a place in
the setting. In some settings, as the gay bar, where everyone present

assumes that all others share a gay identity, an assertion that one has

82

got come out would be highly anomalous. (Some evidence for this was
seen in the last chapter in the description of the participant Obser-
vation; several examples were given there of conversations among gay
males, in which I was asked when I came out, and my reply, "I'm not out
yet? was taken as a statement that I am straight, rather than gay, and
was reacted to with incredulity.)

The assertion that one "came out" some time in the past is equiva-
lent in function to the assertion that "I am gay" (or, "a homosexual").
Both are statements in the present implying a motive (desire) to pursue
certain sorts of sexual relations in the future (that is, homosexual re-
lations). Such statements are important, not for any potential sexual
relations, but rather function to indicate membership in a gay group.
Statements about one's coming out experience and statements such as "I
am gay" were never seen to be disputed nor challenged by another member.

Becoming a member of the gay community can be viewed as a Vsocial
career" in the community. Because of the reification of the homosexual
identity, the person forming a career within the gay community tends to
re-interpret his past biography so as to see his participation in the
community as inevitable and "fated." Taking the step of becoming a mem-
ber in the community is subjectively viewed as the most important as-
pect of the social career, while membership itself does not necessarily
imply any further steps to complete the career. In this sense, the
social career of membership in the gay community is not like a bureau-
cratic career Pin which the steps to be taken for advancement are clearly
and rigidly defined, as are the prerogatives of each office and its place
in the official hierarchy" (Hughes, 1937, p. 140). However, the reifi-

cation of the initial step in the career (coming out) and its "fatefulness"

83

is captured by Hughes,

"It may be that there is a tendency for our

social structure to become rigid, and thus for

the roads to various positions to be more

clearly defined. Such a trend would make more

fateful each turning-point in a personal

career" (1937, p. 140).
One reason for the extensive research that has been done on "coming
out" is a reaction to the importance attached subjectively by gay
members to that stage in their careers. Yet, the subjective importance
usually attached to that biographical point for the individual member
comes precisely from the reification and the "fatefulness“ of the ‘
process of coming out. That is, if people did not believe in the rigid
dichotomy between the identities of heterosexual and homosexual, then
the importance attached to coming out and its fatefulness would be
subjectively felt as less important than it is presently taken to be

by members of the gay male community.

Quasi-institutions, Major Segments,
and Ecological Settings

IntrOduction

 

Membership in the gay community has been considered with the process
of coming out. Further aspects of the community will now be examined.
As previously indicated, the gay community in Midwest City is neither
a clear, territorially demarcated unit, nor does it have an administra-
tive central authority (such as a mayor) which would set and maintain
the territorial limits of the community and define the membership within
it. The institutions of the gay community in this moderate-sized city
are really only "quasi-institutions," which cannot completely encapsulate
the members within them.

The ratiOnale for this approach is seen in the contrast made by

84

Meyer Fortes and E. E. Evans-Pritchard ("Introduction" to African Polit-

 

cal Systems, 1940; reprinted in M. Fried, 1959) between African societies

 

with a centralized administrative system and authority (that is, a gov-
ernment, as among the Zulu) and societies which lack government (as the
Nuer and Tallensi). In the first group of societies that Fortes and
Evans-Pritchard consider, the administrative unit is a territorial unit
and political rights and obligations are territorially delimited. The
chief, as the administrative and judicial head of the given territorial
division is vested with final economic and legal control over all the
land within its boundaries. The right to live in the area can be
acquired only by accepting the obligations of a subject.
In the second group of "stateless" societies, the lineage principle
(including fictional and adoptive relationships) takes the place of po-
litical allegiances, and the interrelations of territorial segments are
directly co-ordinated with the interrelations of lineage segments. In
such stateless societies,
“divergence of interests between the component
segments is intrinsic to the political structure.
Conflicts between local segments necessarily mean
conflicts between lineage segments.... and the
stabilizing factor is not a superordinate juridi-
cial or military organization, but is simply the
sum total of inter-segment relations." (1959,
p. 287).

Further,
"members of an African society feel their unity
and perceive their common interests in symbols,
and it is their attachment to these symbols which
more than anything else gives their society cohe-
sion and persistence. In the form of myths, fic-
tions, dogmas, ritual, sacred places and persons,
these symbols represent the unity and exclusive-
ness of the group which respect them." (p. 290)

The symbolic serves to maintain the social structure.

85

Finally, they say

"In societies lacking centralized government,
social values cannot be symbolized by a single
person [the chiefl , but are distributed at
cardinal points of the social structure. Here
we find myths, dogmas, ritual ceremonies, mys-
tical powers, etc., associated with segments
and defining and serving to maintain the re-
lationship between them.... Ritual powers and
responsibility are distributed in conformity
with the highly segmentary structure of the
society." (1959, p. 294.)

Sociologists and anthropologists studying an administratively de-
limited community readily consider the social institutions found within

it (the Lynd's Middletown, 1929, is perhaps the classic institutional

 

analysis of an American community). Each institution (religion, economy,
politics, education, and the family) is then described in terms of its
roles, norms, values and assumptions, as these are delimited by standard
(recognized) markers Of_age, sex, status, prestige and positions of some
kind. A complete institution would have formal organizations, leaders,
clients; and_age, sex, and class segments distinguish the qualities of
participation in the social institution.

In this chapter, one cannot consider such complete social institu-
tions because they are not to be found in gay communities within moderate-
sized cities. Instead, there are "quasi-institutions," which are partial,
submerged, and not independent of the larger city and its institutions.2
One can say that the larger city has completed institutions, so that an
individual can be encapsulated in his interpersonal relations within the
city's boundaries. For example, the economy of the larger city includes
many organizations in which an individual takes a position as worker,

client, or consumer of its products. The work world of members of the

, gay community necessarily includes positions within the institution of

86

the economy of the larger city. At most, only a half dozen members of
the gay community can find positions of employment gjthin_the quasi-
institutions of the gay community, primarily as bartenders in the gay
bar. For most members of the gay community, the gar bar serves as just
one among many recreational settings and not also as an employment set-
ting, so that they must seek employment in the larger economy of the
city. It is in this sense that the institutions of the gay community
are only quasi-institutions; they do not serve to completely encapsulate
the members within them, and members must necessarily take positions in,
and rely on the completed institutions of the larger city.

One could argue that recreation, at least, forms a completed insti-
tution within the gay community, but here again, this is not the case
at all. A gay male may choose to go to the gay bar for entertainment
and recreation, but then again, he may choose to go to a movie theater
or restaurant, and as a patron in such a setting, is not explicitly
defined as a gay member of the city, but rather one among the many other
citizens using the movie theater or restaurant. Behavior and interaction
in such nonegay places may lead the person to be recognized as gay, but
this is not assured, nor is it necessarily desired by the gay patron.

Although the partial and submerged ”quasi-institutions" of the gay
community clearly serve needs of members of the community, they are not
independent of the larger city and its institutions. This should be
clear by comparison with Raymond Breton's study of the "institutional
completeness" of ethnic communities in Montreal (1964; also see Harry
and DeVall, 1978, pp. 134-6; Lee, 1978b, Chapter 3; and Roberts and
Boldt, 1979). Breton suggests the range of social organization and

institutional completeness of urban ethnic communities:

87

“At one extreme, there is the community which con—
sists essentially of a network of interpersonal
relations; members of a certain ethnic group seek
each other's companionship; friendship groups and
cliques are formed. The immigrant who is a member
of such a group will establish all his institu-
tional affiliations in the native community since
his ethnic group has little or no organization of
its own" (p. 194).

On the other hand,

"Institutional completeness would be at its extreme

whenever the ethnic community could perform all the

services required by its members. Members would

never have to make use Of native institutions for

the satisfaction of any of their needs, such as

education, work, food and clothing, medical care,

or social assistance" (p. 194).
Most important to his definition of institutional completeness is the
presence of formal organizations serving the needs of the ethnic group
members. Although a great range of formal organizations could have been
considered, Breton limited his study to churches, welfare organizations,
and ethnic newspapers; that is, the latter serve as an index of insti-
tutional completeness for each ethnic group. From the ethnic groups
(with a range of institutional completeness from high to low) a sample
Of respondents were asked if they had visited others, gone out for en-
tertainment with others, or met co-workers socially during the previous
week, and if so, what the other person's ethnic membership was (same
as respondent, other ethnic group, or native group). Breton's most
startling conclusion is that

"A drastic expansion occurs when the ethnic

community ceases to be an informal system and

acquires some first elements of a formal struc-

ture [an organization]. This expansion con-

tinues as the formal structure develops but in

increments smaller than the initial one" (p. 201).

The proportion of individuals with a majority of in-group relations

88

increased substantially if the ethnic group had at least one ethnic
church, or one ethnic newspaper, or one ethnic welfare organization,
regardless of whether or not the individual himself belonged to the
ethnic church, subscribed to the newspaper, etc. Breton explains

"once a formal structure has developed it has

the effect of reinforcing the cohesiveness of

already existing networks and of expanding these

networks. This expansion is achieved mostly

by attracting within the ethnic community the

new immigrants. A community with a high degree

of institutional completeness has a greater ab-

sorbing capacity than those with a more informal

social organization" (p. 202).

A comparison of the gay community in Midwest City with a large ethnic
neighborhood in a metropolis like Montreal or Chicago would show how in-
stitutionally incomplete the informal networks of gay friends in Midwest
City are. A gay person cannot live his life exclusively with other gays.
In this sense, the quasi-institutions of the gay bar, gay couples and
Gay Lib (a student political organization) are all dependent institutions.
That is, as organizations, they depend for their continuation on the
larger city, and they are dominated by heterosexual interests and themes.

In the same sense, a gay career cannot be enacted completely within
.gay institutions. One can be a gay lawyer or gay barber, but the person
cannot go to a gay law school, nor have a completely gay clientele.
Again, this contrasts with an ethnic professional in a large city who can
indeed have an ethnically homogeneous clientele (see, for example, Solomon,
1961; and Lieberson, 1958). It also contrasts with a gay professional
in the largest cities.

It should be recalled at this point, that the main interest of this

dissertation on the gay community Of Midwest City is precisely in the

lack of studies done on gay communities in moderate-sized cities. In

89

an interesting discussion of the social organization and institutional
completeness of gay communities as they vary by city-size, Harry and
DeVall (1978) note that 74% of the 98 cities of 100,000 to 250,000 pop—
ulation have at least one gay bar, while all 55 cities of 250,000 and
above have at least one gay bar; of course, cities of less than 100,000
tend less often to have even one gay bar (p. 137). They note that

"Gay life in [small towns] appears to be largely

lacking in specialized gay institutions. Such

communities are at the opposite pole of social

organization from that of institutional com-

pleteness" (p. 140).
Further,

"due to the lack of exclusively gay settings and

institutions in smaller towns, most gay social-

izing occurs either in the anonymity of public

settings, such as parks or beacheS, or in private

settings, such as private parties" (p. 141).
However, when a gay bar Opens in a nearby city, gay residents of the
smaller towns quickly acquire the habit of visiting the bar on weekends
(p. 142). The opposite extreme, as they note, is the "gay ghetto"
(Levine, 1977), found in a few of the largest cities, and characterized
by social isolation from the larger city, residential segregation, and
the development of a special subculture. Levine, as well as Harry and
DeVall, note a number of traits found in the gay ghettoes of West Holly-
wood and Castro Village, such as the local gay newspaper, predominantly
‘gay residential neighborhoods, gay-owned stores with window signs using
‘ gay argot, gay-oriented movie.theaters, gay churches, restaurants whose
owners and patrons are predominantly gay, concentrations of gay bars,
gay travel agencies organizing gay tours, as well as welfare organiza-

tions catering to male homosexuals, and even gay caucuses of the Demo-

cratic party(Harry and DeVall, p. 145; Levine. PP. 12-14; also see

90

Lee, 1978a). Harry and DeVall suggest that once gays have aggregated
together in sufficient numbers in a residential area of the largest
cities, the set of gay institutions approximate to institutional com-
pleteness (p. 151). This is much like the "critical mass" suggested by
Fischer (1976). A gay member in such a complete community could be en-
capsulated in it. By contrast, the community in the moderate-sized city
under study here does not have such institutional completeness in its
quasi-institutions, and a member cannot be encapsulated within it.

Even though the gay community is highly segmented (as will be de-
scribed) and its institutions are dependent and really only quasi-
institutions, this shoUld not lead one to conclude that norms of behavior
and symbols are unimportant. Members in the setting know and abide by
the rules of the game of interaction (Bailey, 1969, p. 1).

"Research has uncovered and made sense of so- ‘
cieties which haVe no authorities and are not
states and yet enable their people to live
orderly lives. 'Furthermore, given the anthro-
pologist's strong interest in small communities
encapsulated within larger societies....who seem
to operate fiolitical structUres in spite of the
fact that t e State authorities are only occa-
sionally involved, he has no choice but to con-
sider these as political structures, which are
partly independent of, and partly regulated by,
larger encapsulating political structures"
(Bailey, 1969. p. 12).

It is precisely because the gay community has only a few quasi-
institutions that symbolic interactional cues given in certain known
ecological settings are more crucial for participants than for hetero-
sexuals, who live their lives in the completed social institutions of
the city. Further, it is because of this that one can consider the re-
lations between the gay community and the larger city as asymmetrical:

A gay person can and does (indeed, has to) participate in "straight"

91

institutions, but the gay bar and other gay scenes are "cool" to in-
vasion of the ecological settings by straights (who are viewed at least
at the bar, as ttouristsf).

Even though the gay quasi-institutions are dependent and submerged,
the heterosexual institutions of the larger city encourage overlap be-
tween the institutions, especially in the amount Of information about
the gay quasi-institutions. For example, in one interview, a respondent
who travelled a great deal, said he relied on cab drivers to find the
‘gay bars in a strange city. He would simply order a cab and tell the
driver to take him tto the best gay bar in town," directions which no
cab driver apparently ever failed to fulfill. (Taped interview, July
16, 1978). Also, periodically the city newspaper has revealed where the
.gay bar is located. Such revelations (usually written as exposes of
"sin strip?) are not appreciated by many of the regular bar patrons be-
cause such articles tend to increase the numbers of heterosexual Ptour-
istsi in the bar for a period. Nevertheless, in this way, knowledge
about the gay bar and its location becomes common knowledge.

This chapter will describe the segments of the community, at least
those in terms of sex and age, and the quasi-institutions (the gay bar,
the quasi-familial relations, and the quasi-political organizations).

A segment can be defined much as Theodorson and Theodorson define role
insulation:

"A state of relative isolation of the occupants

of a role that results from the tendency for

persons occupying a given role...to have more

informal social interaction with each other than

with persons occupying other roles. This tends

to reinforce their own particular role perspec-

tive and decrease their understanding of other
points of view“ (1969..P. 355).

92
A segment is seen in the relative amounts of interaction; those in one
segment tend to have much greater interaction with each other than with
those in other segments. The cognitive reality of the sexual segments
will be shown using data from the semantic differential. Thereafter,
the ecological settings will be described.

The Segments

 

The most basic division of the community is between men and women.
This division was expressed by Al, a bisexual male:

"A penalty [pf coming out] is that in exclusively
gay situations, you never associate with females
at all - I don't like cutting off 50 percent of
the population. I don't do it. It's like I have
two lives: One with no women; the other, I have
female friends and go to straight parties, and so
on. I would like there to be an integration of
the two." (Interview, February 8, 1974).

This basic division is seen in different activities engaged in by
males. For example, the pattern of eating supper in the College Center
cafeteria shows the sexual segmentation in that it was primarily a male
activity, with a few "straight" women occasionally present. With the
exception of one woman who knew many gay males and occasionally ate
with them (a bisexual woman), other women such as lesbians did not reg-
ularly eat in the cafeteria.

Again, cruising in the College Center and seating in groups in the
College Center Lounge in the evenings showed the same pattern; gay males
sat together. Women were rarely present and those who were, tended to
be "straight" friends, not lesbians.

In the bar, men sat and talked together in small groups or wandered

around individually. The women in the bar (that is, lesbians) usually

sat together, pushing several tables together to make one large table.

93

Sometimes, the numbers of lesbians in the bar reached a sizeable number
(up to about twentyhfive on a Pgoodf weekend evening), but they always
constituted a small proportion of the total number of people in the bar.
Hence, the lesbians tended to all be acquainted with each other, while
this clearly was not true of the males. Further, the lesbians danced
with each other, and the men danced with each other in the bar. It was
rare to see a male and female dance together, although nobody would re-
mark on it when it did occur. Occasionally, a gay male would be seen
to talk with a lesbian at the large table, but such conversations were
brief, with the male standing while talking with the seated lesbian.
Although a gay male might be acquainted with one or two lesbians, it
would be rare for him to know more than that many. For example, in one
interview, Tony, a gay male, was asked:

"'00 you know any lesbians?'

He replied: 'Not really. Not on a close basis.

I know a couple of them by name.‘ (He had dif-

ficulty recalling their names!)

RCO: 'But they're not really friends?‘

He replied: 'No, I don't associate with them.'"

(Taped interview, July 8, 1978.)
Further, the impression remains that some gay males do not know gny_les-
bians.

Most gay males are not adverse to friendships with women; on the con-
trary, most gay males are acquainted with several, and sometimes form
close friendships with them. However, these are with straight women and
not with lesbians. Hence, it is not unusual to see a woman sitting with
a group of gay males, at dinner in the College Center, in its Lounge, or
even at the gay bar (that is, brought to the bar by a gay male). Such

friendships are viewed as inconsequential for sexual intimacy. The role

of a straight female in a gay male group (as "fag hag" or "fruit fly")

 

 

Eel

94

is the basis of the participant observation studies reported by Carol
Warren and Anne Bolin.

To some extent, the sexual division of the gay community is the re-
sult of closure by some lesbians against forming friendships with men,
including gay males. Lesbians tend to be strongly oriented to the
WOmen's Movement, and some have taken the ideological position of "sep-
aratism," wishing not to have any relations with men. Hence, rather
than emphasizing the similarity with gay men (shared sexual orientation),
lesbians tend to emphasize their dissimilarity from gay men, as men.
Further, gay males sometimes expressed contempt and stereotypical images
of lesbians, thereby verbalizing this basic division in the community.

Data from the semantic differential collected from fifty gay males
shows that they view gay males and lesbians very differently (see table
3). Lesbians are viewed by gay males as the least "good, kind and val-

uable" of the four groups on the evaluation dimension, while they view

_gay males and men in general as equally good, kind and valuable. Women

in general are viewed as the most good, kind and valuable of the four

Igroups. Lesbians are viewed by gay males as very similar to men in gen-

eral on the dimensions of activity (fast, active and sharp) and of po-
tency (hard, large and strong). .Again lesbians are viewed very differ-
ently than women in general, who are seen as the least active and potent
of the four groups. Lesbians are especially viewed differently than gay
males on the dimension of potency (being viewed as harder, larger, and
stronger than gay males). From this data, one can see that the dis-
tinction between gay males and lesbians has a cognitive reality for gay

males.

95

.mzoeum use .mmemp .ugm; "mew mopmum mg“ eo mucm m>vuwmog one .m
.aemzm ecu .w>wpom .pmmm ”mew mmpmum on» mo mncm m>vpvmoa we» .N

.mpomapm> new .ucwx .coom "use mopeom one eo mucm m>Ppwmoa use .H

 

 

 

m~.e am.m om.m mm.e mc.m ma.m teem

mm.m Sm.e me.m em.m eH.e m~.m Feeoeom e? ease:

em.e Hm.e mo.m ma.e ee.e oo.m Peteeom e? co:

mo.e Hm.e wo.e Nm.e ee.e ea.e meeeomoo

ee.m He.m em.m mo.e ~m.e mm.e nope: see

mxmqmmmm wxmmmmmmm Heoeeoepe>m mxmqmmmm mammmflmmm. Heeeeeepe>m wmmmwmq
mo_ez enmeeeom _NMHmauxmm

mafia: unmwmcum may?“ one mops: haw hymen mo Fewpcoemmmwo owpcmsom ecu co mmmcoqmmm cmmztu.m mpnmh

96

The responses on the semantic differential of fifty straight males
differ most sharply from those of gay males in the average scores on
the objects of gay males and lesbians. In particular, the straight
males gave significantly loger_scores on the evaluation, activity and
potency dimensions of the objects gay males and lesbians. Straight
males score women in general higher on the evaluation dimension, but
the other scores for women in general and men in general do not differ
between gay and straight males. The self score on potency is higher
for straight males than for gay males, but the scores on the other two
dimensions for the self do not significantly differ between gay and
straight males. Because the objects men in general and women in gen—
eral are scored similarly by both gay and straight males, one can say
that gay males share their evaluations of men and women with straight
males, and in this regard do not appear to differ in their evaluations
from males in the larger society. Hence, the sharpest cognitive dif-
ferences of gay males from straight males (and presumably from the
larger society) are precisely in those cognitive areas which are more
salient to gay males.

The gay community is also segmentalized by age. Both men and women
in the gay bar were usually in their late teens, twenty's and early
thirty's. It was rare to see either a gay male or lesbian in the bar
who was in the forty's or beyond. Part of this is explained by the
heavy emphasis in the gay bar on youthfulness when seeking a sexual
partner. For example, one evening three of us took Pete, a sixty-four-
year-old male to the bar. At the bar, the latter complained that he
doesn't like the way young people at the bar act towards him. He pointed

out that the guy at the door who collected our dollar entrance fee knew

97

him, but had said "hello" to each of the three of us, but not to him.
(Field notes, November 25, 1977). In an interview, Tony (a 27-year-old
gay male) claimed that he knew only one gay male who was beyond forty
years old, but he was met in the College Center cafeteria, and not at
the bar. (Taped interview, July 8, 1978).

In the College Center cafeteria, several of the gay male frequenters
were in their fifty's and sixty's, and the younger males were acquainted
with them in that setting. Although these Older gay males were accepted
in dinner conversations, where they sometimes 'flirted' with younger gay
males, they were not seen to cruise for sexual partners nor to sit in
the groups Of younger gay males in the College Center Lounge after
supper, nor to visit the bar regularly.

There are other segments in the community besides those based on sex
and age, but these depend on elaboration of the gay male self-identity,
and the description of these will be deferred to the next chapter, which
will consider the range of kinds of identities to be found within the
community.

The'Quasielnstitutions ~

 

Three sorts of organizations can be viewed as quasi-institutions:
The gay bar, the stable couples, and the student political organization
(Gay Lib). The next chapter will consider the continuum and the differ-
ences between the gay bar as public, while the couples tend to be private
and concealed. Here the history of these quasi-institutions will be

considered.

98

1. Gay Bars

 

Achilles (1967) considers the gay bar as an "institution" because it
is a system that supplies goods and services, as well as social inter-
action. Like any other bar, it provides alcohol and entertainment as a
leisure-time activity. Until very recently (July, 1976) there was only
one gay bar in the Midwest City area, but it has not always been the
same bar. During the 1960's, the gay bar was the Wentworth, located
in the downtown area, but it was torn down by urban renewal around 1970.
By 1971, the Man's Place on East State Street became the gay bar. But
in June, 1972, the owner decided to make it into a topless bar and lit-
erally kicked the gays out. During that Summer, some gays began going
to Ray's bar on East State Street, and it has subsequently gained a rep-
utation as a tmixed? (both gay and straight) bar; it has also been im-
portant as the bar regularly featuring drag shows, which are entertaining
to both a gay and straight audience.

Also, during that Summer of 1972, Carl encouraged gays to come to
his bar, also located on East State Street. Being larger than Ray's
bar, it was the preferred bar until the Summer of 1976. But the two bars
are located within two blocks of each other, so they both often enjoyed
the patronage of the same participants in an evening. During this period
of 1972 to 1976, tthe bar? was always understood to be Carl's bar. As
with other leisure-time bars, it was most crowded on Friday and Saturday
evenings, even though it was only on those evenings that there was (and
is) a nominal cover charge to enter.

Located in the block of East State Street called tsin strip? by the

city paper because of its several adult bookstores, Carl's bar was

99

inconspicuous. It was marked only by a small neon sign advertising
Adrinks and dancing.t Although quite inconspicuous at street level
with an unmarked door as entrance, the owner nevertheless advertised
it, using match covers, as tthe gayest spot in town.9 Finally in 1977,
the owner put a permanent sign next to the door. The bar's physical
arrangements will be described in the section on ecological settings.

In the Summer of 1976, a second bar Opened on Psin strip? as a gay
bar. For several months, Tom's bar attracted most of the customers
away from Carl's bar. However, since Tom's initial opening, both bars
are adequately supported by patronage, especially on Friday and Saturday
nights, when both have a cover charge. On the weekends, one is free to
go between the bars (that is, one is allowed back into one bar after
paying the initial cover charge), and as they are only a few doors away,
many do change bars during the course of an evening.

Gay bars differ from straight, leisure-time bars as to when partici-
pants plan to Ago to the bar." Most gay bar frequenters do not arrive
at the bar before eleven or eleven-thirty on weekend evenings. Whether
one is interested in meeting friends or picking up a sexual partner for
the night. the person is not likely to go to the bar before eleven be-
cause there likely will be very few people present. This means that
both sociability and seeking for a sexual partner occur during the rel-
atively brief period from eleven to two in the morning, when all bars
are required to close.. This may in itself partly explain why relatively
little drunken behavior is to be seen in a gay bar in comparison to a
straight bar, although the importance of Aappearance" for cruising in
the bar is probably a more important factor. One other striking dif-

ference from many straight bars is the almost total absence of fights

100

and violence to be found in a gay bar.

2. Stable Quasi-familial Relations

 

There are several different sorts of quasi-familial relations. One
can distinguish roommates, superior and subordinate relations, and equal
relations (“couples"). The category of roommates does not differ from
its counterpart in the larger society; norms include equal sharing of
household expenses and duties, and norms concerning privacy. The lat-
ter is seen in the desirability of having one's own bedroom, so that
sexual partners can be brought to the home; one would expect non-
interference in such sexual activities by a roommate. Reciprocation of
obligations between roommates must usually be in kind, rather than a
more complex reciprocation with other services. "Having a roommate"
implies that there is no sexual relation between the household partners.

Any departure from an equal sharing of household duties and expenses
usually requires an explicit agreement between the roommates. For ex-
ample, when John moved in with Bill A., the former agreed to pay less
rent because he had the smaller bedroom; nevertheless Bill eventually
complained that John was a poor roommate because he was "too sloppy."
When Tony and Marty agreed to get an apartment, Tony got the use of the
carport "because" Marty wanted the larger bedroom. David was glad when
he found out that his roommate, Steve, planned to move away, and listed
several complaints against him: 1) David had to pay the full deposit
on the apartment, 2) David thought it was unfair that he had to complain
to induce Steve to clean up the cooking pots; and 3) David sometimes
bought food, which was not reciprocated by Steve (recorded conversation,
November 12, 1978). As a potential roommate is usually selected from

one's network of friends and acquaintances, there is usually some

101

overlap of friends between the roommates.

Superior and subordinate sexual relations usually result from a dif-
ference in age between the partners. For example, Don (a hustler) formed
a relation with Robert, a law professor (aged 47), when he was seventeen;
he moved in with Robert, several hundred miles away, and tried to "play
Susie Housewife" for several months, while Robert continued his career.
(Recorded conversation in the bar, October 18, 1978.)

Another example of an unequal sexual relationship was that between
Pete, a self-defined "chickenhawk," and Frank. When Pete was about
fifty years old, he got to know Frank, who was sixteen. Pete owned a
house, which he shared with his sister. About six months after he in-
itially met Frank, the latter moved in with him, and they lived together
for five years. During that time, when Frank was working, he would put
in money for groceries, but he often was not working and would then
"borrow" money that was not expected to be re-paid. According to Pete.
"the sex had been primarily one-sided. He [Frank] had never really re—
ciprocated, too much." During those five years, Frank had sexual rela-
tions both with a girlfriend and with guys his own age, but Pete only
had sexual relations with Frank until he found out that Frank was
"tricking out" with other guys. (Taped interview. July 16, 1978.)

Equal relations can be distinguished by the degree of intimacy and
commitment between the partners, but the terms to designate the degree
of commitment do not differ greatly in meaning from those used in the
larger society. Most important are the distinctions among a "date,"
an "gjjair," and a "goggle," A Adate" is an arranged meeting between
two men who have in the past had sexual relations, and they expect to

have sexual relations repeated again during the arranged time, which

102

may also include other forms of entertainment as going to a movie, out
to a restaurant, etc. For example, at the bar, Brad joined me, and I
said I was surprised that Bob 8., a mutual friend who lives near Brad,
wasn't also in the bar.

Brad: "'He had a date tonight; also last night.

RCO: 'Anybody I know?‘

Brad: 'No. He's 19. Somebody new that Bob met

in the.College Center. Bob is the first guy

he's done it with. He's really not out. He has

a girlfriend in Kalamazoo and was going to see

her this weekend but he decided he had too much

studying to do, so (laughs) he's at Bob's both

nights this weekend.'" (Conversation recorded,

Saturday, April 26, 1975.)

Some prefer net to designate such arrangements by the term "date,"
but there does not seem to be any alternative term. The use of the term,
"date," sometimes causes semantic confusion. For example, after Tony
and Marty (roommates) and I went out to eat at a restaurant, Marty left
to go in the College Center to cruise, while Tony and I returned to
their apartment. In the apartment, Tony repeatedly looked out the win-
dow, and expressed some worry that Marty would bring a trick home (ne-
cessitating different behavior for Tony). Tony was Obviously relieved
when Marty got out of his car alone. Marty reported to the two Of us
that the College Center was nearly empty, that he only briefly talked
with one person, a previous trick, who was going on a date and just
passing through the College Center. RCO: "A date? What does that
mean?" Marty: "With a fish [girl] ." (Recorded November 11, 1978.)
The confusion in the use of the term here was precisely in whether it
designated a homosexual or heterosexual relationship; significantly,
Marty used a gay slang term to clarify that a heterosexual date was meant.

An "affair" implies more emotional involvement and commitment

103

between the partners than a "date,“ but like a date, it also implies
that the two males are living separately and getting together only at
pre-arranged times. For example, Brad (aged 31) described his third
affair, with a guy (aged 24) who lives a block away. They talk on the
phone regularly and go out to a movie or dinner about once a week.
After three months, Brad reported that the affair was "developing grad-
ually"; there were no commitments about fidelity, but Brad saw some
minor symbolic increases in involvement, as when the other left his
record collection with Brad. Brad initially met the person in the
College Center:

"I took him home with me, and we exchanged

phone numbers. That is quite unusual. I

explained to him that I was leaving in a few

days for a week and a half in Dallas. But

when I got back, I called him, and we got

together again. And we've been getting to-

gether about once a week ever since then.“
Significantly, Brad had ended his second affair which had lasted a
couple of months when the partner had tried to insist on complete fi-
delity. Even though Brad is evidently faithful now, there is no agree-
ment, and so Brad feels free to cruise, or to Atrick out,“ if he wants
to. (Recorded conversation, August 20, 1978.)

Having a flovert or being in a couple generally implies that the
two men are living together. However, it does not also imply that the
two are sexually "faithful? to each other. Rather, there is a norm of
open relations, where the person is allowed to "trick out" with other
sexual partners. This is usually a formal agreement between the part-
ners, and it usually includes the agreement that the sexual activities

outside the couple relationship will also take place outside the shared

living space. For example, David and Gary lived together for a year

104

and a half; when they started living together, they agreed that it was
okay for David to continue to have oral sex with partners in public
washrooms. (Taped interview, July 10, 1978). Bill C., who has been
living with his lover for a couple of years, regularly comes through
the College Center looking for someone to Ptrick with," and this is
considered okay with Phil, his lover. (Recorded conversations, March
20, April 6, and May 4, 1974.) Larry, who has lived with his lover
for six years (both are aged 34 now) has an agreement with his lover,
Edward, that either partner may Ptrick out? but there is a tacit agree-
ment between them that they will not bring a sexual partner to their
home. In other words. it is okay to have a sexual relationship with
someone else in a one-night stand or in a short-term sexual relationship
that does not interfere with their long-term relationship. Both Larry
and Edward have regularly been seen at the bar, both talking separately
with friends, and each cruising for a potential sexual tone-night stand."
(October 7 and 13, 1978). Such an agreement clearly contrasts with the
relationship between roommates, who each have the Fright? to bring sex-
ual partners into the shared residence.

Because of the potential stigma from the larger society on having
a homosexual lover and living together, lovers are often-"hidden? and
appear disguised as roommates. Sometimes, this is done deliberately;
for example, David often implied to other students that Gary was his
roommate. and not his lover. (Taped interview, July 10, 1978.) This
means that there is a certain amount of ambiguity, even when two guys
present themselves as roommates. For example, Tony was invited to
sleep with Charles and his roommate in the same bed. while spending

the night at a mutual friend's apartment. TOny was reluctant and

105

repeatedly refused until Charles explained that they were "just room-
mates," and not lovers. The next day, Tony explained to me that "I
wouldn't have done anything with him [Charles] if they were lovers be-
cause that is too important." (Conversation recorded February 12,
1977; this example will be described more fully in the next chapter.)

Because long-term sexual relations are somewhat unusual among young
adult gay males, one can ask how couples start their relations, and if
there is a difference from the usual, casual "one-night stand." It
appears that it does not start any differently than a one-night stand,
except that one partner expresses some interest in seeing the other
person again at some future time. For example, Brad started his "affair"
with the exchange of phone numbers, which he indicated "is quite unusual."
David was introduced to Gary by a mutual friend, they went to dinner
and to the bar in a larger group, and then the two of them went home to
Gary's apartment where they had sex; in the same evening, they agreed
to meet the next day. (Taped interview, July 10, 1978.) Except for
agreeing to see the other person again in the near future, there is no
difference from a one-night stand. This implies that one does not know
if the next trick will lead to a long-term relation.

Support for this idea. that a long-term relation does not start any
differently than a casual sexual encounter, is seen in data collected
by Randall Jones (1978) on twenty-eight gay male couples in Indiana
(personal communication). The question he posed was: Where did you

first meet your lover?

106

Table 4.-—Where Lovers First Met

fflggg;
University Union (coffee area) =
In a park =
On the street =
A bar =
School, or a class =

A party =

01thwa

Through friends =
A restaurant = 1
A tearoom (public washroom) = 1

Total 28 couples

Source: Randall W. Jones (personal communication, August,
1978.

Table 4 shows that meeting a lover through friends or at a party
(presumably given by mutual friends) accounts for the start of seven of
the 28 couple relationships. On the other hand, meeting one's future
lover in a public place, such as a park, on the street, in a bar, a
restaurant, or bathroom, that is, places which are usually used for
casual sexual encounters, account for the initial meeting of half of
the couples.

Although one “never knows" if the next trick will lead to a long-
term relation, in fact there are a number of constraints actingagainst
the likelihood of forming a long-term relationship. One sort of con-
straint is in the notion of "a trick“: When the sexual encounter is
expected to be casual and to end, then neither partner looks for the

encounter to develop any further than that. Most sexual relations

107

formed in the bar are defined by both partners as "one-night stands"
and so that is how they are likely to result. Further, some gay males
delight in "keeping score" and racking up "numbers" of sexual partners
(cf. Rechy, Numbers, 1967). Those interested in scoring numbers of
partners are ultimately playing a game against themselves, that is,
seeing if they can get more partners than they did in the past. (Re-
corded conversation with Bob 8., January 13, 1974.) However, this
"game" in itself can cause some depression, as one "goes through" and
"uses up" potential sexual partners, who are ultimately not important
to the self except as momentary gratification. (Recorded conversation
with Bob 8., April 20, 1974.)

Such impersonal sexual relations are not the most important aspect
of cruising and searching for a sexual partner. Rather, interest cen-
ters, as one gay male expressed it, "in the hunt? - another male is
more exciting if he is thard to get" or if one has to Vwork“ to get
the person. This will be developed later when the art Of "cruising" is
considered. In the hunt, heterosexual males are considered "fair game,"
as in the expression, "most straights can be had." For example, one
evening after Joe, a gay auto mechanic, had worked on my car, we went
to a straight bar for a drink. Joe said that the straight bar is quite
cruisy, and that when he sits at the bar, there is a lot of “eye con-
tact,f and at 2:30 in the morning (i.e., when the bar closes), it is
easy to pick a guy up, especially when he hasn't picked up a chick by
then.

RCO: (agreeing) "'Yes, the problem Ear straight
merfl is that the girls in Ehis towrfl are so
prissy.‘

Joe: laughed, agreed and then said, 'What the
straight guys want is very different than what

108

gays do together. The straight guys just
want to get their rocks off and don't really
care how they do that.'“ (Recorded conversa-
tion, January 14, 1974.)

Heterosexual males are believed to be interested only in "getting
their rocks off" and not in reciprocating sexually, but there is always
a potential that the person who defines himself as straight will change
sexual orientation. Ultimately, this commonly held notion rests on the
indeterminacy of sexual orientation as an "identity." Sexual orienta-
tion as an identity tends to be stable until change is brought about
with a different cognitive interpretation of the self.

In this context, the possibility of sexual relations with friends
should also be considered. Several authors, such as Leznoff and
Westley, have asserted that gay male friends do not have sexual rela-
tions together, and have posited a mechanism comparable to an "incest
taboo." Some respondents would agree with this assertion that friends
cannot have sexual relations together. For example,

Jef: "'You know, like if I go down there [to

the gay bar], I talk to Bill A., I talk to Dwight,
Bob 8., I talk to the same people we talk to

at dinner. You know, this is just a circle of
friends. I wouldn't think -- I wouldn't gO to

bed with him oints to a gay male friend

sitting on ano her couch in the lounge]. First
we'd probably giggle.‘

RCO: 'It would seem silly to...’

Jef: 'Even attempt it with a very good friend.‘
RCO: 'Yeah.'

Jef: 'Hum, and the people I go to [the gay bar]
and chat with, none of us would go to bed. Un-
less it started from a relationship of the bed,

to friendship.’

RCO: 'Yeah, okay.‘

Jef: 'Like it happened with one person downstairs
[in the cafeteria]. I met him at the bar; we
went home and we fucked all night; and we did that
for about three weeks running. Then it kind of
developed into something bigger, and now it's

109

become friendship. When we go home and go
to bed, we slee .'" (Interview, taped
March 14. 1974.

Another example makes the same point.

Brad: "Cruising has some funny things about
it. Like there's a guy, Robert, who's in
here Eche College Centefl sometimes... I find
him attractive but we're friends now so no-
thing could happen between us. If I went up
to him and asked him if he wanted to do some-
thing Eexuafl , then I would feel so rejected
if he said 'no' that it would screw up the
friendship. And he would probably feel so
embarassed toward me after that, that it would
be difficult to stay friends. So, people who
are strangers are more likely to make it
together. That seems kind of strange to me."

However, some gay males would disagree with this.

David: "'It's something that just sort of
happens. I met a person once at the College
Center and went with him to another building
for sex and went out to dinner after and then
we went back to his apartment and had sex
again. And we became very close friends and
periodically, you know, we would have sex to-
gether.‘

RCO: '8ut he wasn't a lover?‘

David: 'He didn't like the term lover, so I
won't say that he was.'" (Taped interview,
July 10, 1978.)

A better example follows:

David: "'I had a friend when I was an under-
grad that I had sex with on occasion during my
senior year. We started out as a friend rela-
tionship before we had sex. In fact we didn't
know that the other one was gay.‘

RCO: 'And you became friends?‘

David: 'And we became friends. We were both
in music and the subject just sort of came up
and a few nights, weeks or whatever later, we
had sex together and had sex every once in a
while. “

And further,

"'The one friend that I've known for about seven

110

years, I've had sex with once... And with Steve,
Oh, maybe four or five times in five years.’

RCO: 'Why is it so infrequent?‘

David: 'I don't know. It's this bit about spon-
taneity, I guess. I mean you just have to be in
the right mood and the situation (emphasized), you
know. If you're putting someone up and you have
one bedroom and one bed, there's more opportunity
to just do_things. (laughs)'

RCO: 'Would it usually pe like that where it would
start purely phySiCally emphasized rather than

somebody saying, et 3 go_to bed together'?‘
David: 'Yes.‘

RCO: 'You'd start touching each other.‘
David: 'Yeah. That's good enough, I think.‘
(Taped interview, July 10, 1978.)

Obviously, there is great variability in the verbalizations of
different respondents in the possibility of having sexual relations with
a friend. It should be clear that for some, especially those into
Ascoringt and "racking up numbers" of impersonal sexual partners, the
challenge Of "the hunt? including getting a strange male into bed is
viewed very differently than friendships, which are perhaps, more im-
portant to the self. In any case, it should be clear that some gay
males want and desire a long-term sexual relationship, while others do
not want any relationship that limits or restricts their continuation
of impersonal sexual encounters. I
3. Political Quasi-Institutions

Gay Lib began as a student organization in the Spring, 1970. In
1971, Radical Lesbians was formed as a separate organization, but it
existed in name only, So that Gay Lib had both sexes in it. In the
Autumn, 1973, the women organized an active group called the Lesbian
Feminists, that met completely separately from Gay Lib, which became

exclusively for gay male students. But during 1973 and 1974, both or-

ganizations cooperated in certain joint ventures, including co-sponsoring

111

gay dances for Halloween and Valentine's Day.

During this early period, Gay Lib was involved in a variety of
activities. One Of the most important and most time—consuming for mem-
bers, was giving "panels“ to classes and to interested students on the
college campus. (Several members together would talk about their "com-
ing out" experiences and such, and answer questions about their homo-
sexuality.) Another activity was gay "counseling," especially over
the phone; several members received training from people at the tele-
phone crisis intervention center, and would counsel people who called
the Gay Lib Office with questions about their own sexual feelings. Also,
Gay Lib was heavily involved in city council meetings in Midwest City;
this activity resulted in the passage of a gay rights ordinance in
Midwest City in 1973.

During this period, Gay Lib took an "activist" stance and sought
publicity for the organization, for example by "zapping" straight pub-
lic establishments in the metropolitan area. (For example, on February
20, 1974, fourteen members went to the South Seas Bar and were evicted
when they tried to dance together in gay couples). One other organized
activity was the renting of a gay "community center" (a house in Midwest
City), which began in August, 1972. The community center rented rooms
to Gay Lib members and tried to organize a coffee-hour for the after-bar
crowd on Saturday nights, but eventually it went broke and had to close
in January, 1973. Also, in June 1972, Gay Lib organized the first Gay
Pride Week to commemorate the Stonewall events in New York City in June,
1969. This has become a tradition which continues and includes an or-

ganized picnic in a public park.

112

The six organizational meetings of Gay Lib that were attended in
1973 and 1974 were small, with from eleven to nineteen males present
(including myself). However, some of the sponsored events during this
period were very popular, such as the Halloween dance held in the
American Legion Hall in Midwest City in 1973, which had more than 40
people present. During this early period, many gay males were repulsed
by Gay Lib's activist stance and publicity-seeking and did not attend
any of its meetings.

By 1975, the organization had evolved through replacement of early
members and leaders, into a more conservative and respectable student
organization. One of its main activities became discussion groups on
specific, announced topics (such as "homosexuality and religion," the
“drag queen," etc.). These were well-attended; for example, the meeting
on drag queens in November, 1975 had 25 people (of both sexes) present.
The organization continued some of its earlier social activities, such
as sponsoring dances (e.g., a dance sponsored in a church in Midwest
City in March, 1975 was well attended again), while its political ac-
tivities have become unimportant. However, even by just advertising
its social events, such as discussion groups and dances on campus, it
continues a political purpose of presenting a respectable front to het-

erosexual students on campus.

The Ecological Settings

The general point of view being developed is that social organiza-
tion of the community can best be understood as situationally created
in interaction and is not a static thing. Coordinated collective ac-

tivities and sequences of action are started or "touched off" by the

113

presentation of identities and responses to the presentations in spe-
cific ecological locations. Here will briefly be described the ecol-
ogical settings of importance. These are: The College Center building,
the bars, public restrooms, adult bookstore, adult movie theater, gay
baths, and private areas (individuals' homes and apartments).

The College Center

 

The College Center building can be considered as divided into dif-
ferent areas, which have different uses. The College Center cafeteria
has a conventional use for gay males, and serves as a meeting place
among friends for supper during the week. The lounge area, composed of
many chairs and couches not only serves as a meeting place for gay
friends, but also to some extent as a "cruisingf spot to look for sexual
partners in the evenings. The area directly in front of the College
Center bookstore (the trunwayt) is more advantageous as a Vcruising"
spot because one can sit in front of the bookstore and see who comes in
the building and also who goes into the first floor men's washroom.
However, because the first floor washroom has so much traffic, at least
at certain times of the day and evening, one often attempts to get the
partner to follow one to a washroom on another floor. The sexual ac-
tivities in the men's rooms are always oral sex (or rarely masturbation),
but are not always limited to two males; occasionally, other gay males
may walk into a washroom "in use" and join the pair.

"Cruising" in the College Center building is not limited to the
Objective of oral sex. When a gay male cruises another male for anal
sex, then (as with the public washrooms), one follows the other and

attempts to get the other to follow, thereby expressing an interest in

114

Figure 1.--Floor Plan of the First Floor of the College Center

333m «or» u

a... 3i: 42¢

 

 

 

 

ENTRANQ'

 

 

 

 

AND STARS W
077151 Fume:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aroma. .
vm moans W. M.
W , Fuel N H
WET” e w.
E M u. .333 E
.. S W 0
9.9.33» alt “dizuv m M m
w
N¢23Ql~ 1m w R: M
.99
:2: ><344<I
$35.3 at: Tutsi _mm 92:. Nuidwm
t§\kru(3 . 5 A§§m
matte... 38436 \ 3w.
Laureate E. «(as GIN \ twang”
ngu 060mm \k. 383m.
u... A...
3666 “Min buikb
mdquv‘g
Page..." 4.31
outgrew

115

the stranger. For anal sex, eventually one person must suggest going
to his home. (The same suggestion may also be made for oral sex, for
greater privacy.) Hence, a large area of the College Center building
is used for this "following? and tbeing followedt behavior, to ascer-
tain an interest by the other. Two males may be seen, one discreetly
following the other, walking up or down stairs, into and out of wash-
rooms, and sometimes out of the building.

The College Center building is also used for meetings of Gay Lib,
although the organization has an office in another campus building.
Such meetings are announced ahead of time in the college newspaper,
and are held once a week in a particular, scheduled room.

By 1974, the reputation of the College Center building as a meeting
place for gay males was so well established, that it was listed along
with the gay bar as a gay place in a national directory of gay places
(Damrun's Guide). Over the years, the management of the building has
attempted to suppress the sexual use of the building by gay males by
requesting uniformed and non-uniformed police to patrol the washrooms,
but law enforcement has been sporadic and quite ineffectual. When
patrols become more regular, a rumor starts that somebody has been ar-
rested, and individuals then become more careful in their "cruising"
for a while.

It is somewhat difficult to estimate the number of gay males to be
found in the College Center building at any particular time. Part of
the problem in making such an estimate is that the building has a rep-
utation on campus, so that a number of male college students who would
not call themselves fhomosexual" come to the building and participate

with gay males in sexual activities in the washrOoms. From January,

116

1974-through July, 1976, the numbers of gay males observed to eat in
»the cafeteria averaged between three and eight, but ranged with wide
fluctuations, up to 16 on some evenings. Except for a Gay Lib meeting.
it would be unusual to expect even two dozen gay males to be in the
whole building at any one time. AboUt half of them would be students.

The College Center, unlike gay bars and gay baths, of course is not
an exclusively gay setting. Just as the College Center cafeteria always
had many more non-gay diners (many being retired elderly people from
the community rather than students or faculty from the College) than
.gay diners during the weekday evenings, the other areas of the building
also Often have large numbers of non-gays in them. The lounge and
. grill are both used by students during the weekdays and evenings as
places to study, to discuss school work, and to otherwise socialize in
small groups. Hence, the lounge and grill tend to be scattered with
male and female students sitting alone reading and also small groups of
males or females or mixed groups. The basement of the building has
bowling lanes, rooms with pool tables and pinball machines, and a bar—
bershop, all of which are popular and attract students to the building
for considerable periods of time. It is only later in the evening, as
these others leave the building, that the building may have a majority
of gay males in it. Even this is not likely except occasionally.

The building is also used extensively both by groups having formal
permission to use designated facilities, and sometimes by groups not
having such permission from the building's administration. In partic-
ular, the second and third floors have many small and large rooms used
for meetings of various sorts. Because the building has a central lo-

cation on campus, it is used extensively by many different student

117

organizations, both during the day and also in the evenings. Hence,
Gay Lib is just one of many student organizations using the building's
meeting rooms. In addition, these rooms are frequently rented and

used by non—university groups; for example, several high schools in
Midwest City annually rent one of the two large ballrooms on the second
floor for their proms. Likewise, one ballroom is used annually for the
Israeli Independence Day celebration and is annually picketed by the
campus Arab Student Organization. Especially in the Spring and Summer,
areas of the second floor may repeatedly be used for wedding receptions.
A few times during the year, most of the first and second floors are
used for artfairs and display artwork such as paintings, pottery, and
home-made jewelry. During the Autumn, the first floor often becomes
quite crowded after football games with people from out of town.

The groups described above are scheduled to use the particular fa-
cilities by the building's management. In addition, other groups that
are not affiliated with the College often use the building without per-
mission from the management. For example, for several years different
fundamentalist religious groups of young people (e.g., the Children of
God) would enter the building and individually or in small groups ap- '
proach individuals sitting in the lounge, on the runway, or in the
grill to proselytize and to distribute their literature. Although the
religious groups were perhaps the most frequent of the non-student
, groups informally using the building for their own purposes, occasionally
. groups with political purposes also used the building informally (e.g.,
Communist and Socialist Party members requested signatures on petitions).
Likewise, student political organizations found the building a popular

place to distribute literature. (HOwever, the latter political

118

organizations could get permission for their activities just by asking
because they were registered student organizations.)

From this description, it should be clear that gay males sometimes
constitute only a small portion of the people in the building. However,
from the perspective of gay males sitting in the leunge or runway, the
non-gays appear to just be passing through the building as they go to
their meeting room and later are seen to leave the building again. The
‘ gay males who frequented the building regularly were quite aware of
these other activities in the building, but exhibited little interest
in those activities and their participants. Likewise, these other par-
ticipants appeared to be oblivious to the presence of gay males in the
building. Of course, the gay males were usually not recognizable as
such except by verbal statements or behavior (e.g., cruising, to be
described in the next chapter). Becuase most of the gay males were
young adults, others probably assumed that they were college students,
although only about half of them actually were.

The College Center is unusual and is perhaps unique in Midwest City
because of the many different groups potentially occupying the same pub-
lic space, These different groups have only a minimum of shared agree-
ment about conduct in such a public place (Douglas, 1971, pp. 226-43;
also cf. Goffman, 1963). One would perhaps expect a great deal of
mistrust, fear of crime, and misunderstandings between strangers in
such a setting as a potential consequence of the minimum of shared stan-
dards and norms between the groups. However, rather than conflict oc-
curring, individuals and groups appeared to uphold their own group's
norms and standards of conduct and seemed to be quite oblivious to the

different standards and purposes of other individuals and_groups in the

119

setting. Being oblivious to the different norms and standards of con-
duct of other groups in a public setting is one way of avoiding a fear
and mistrust of strangers.

The Gay Bars

 

Until the Summer of 1976, fthe bar? was always understood to be
Carl's bar. It is divided into two parts: One side has a dozen booths
along one wall, a few small tables, and a long bar; the other side has
a small dance floor (accomodating at most, two dozen dancers) with a
jukebox and a couple of dozen small tables. As mentioned earlier, the
lesbians typically form a large table from several small ones and sit
together on the dance floor side. The gay males tend to distribute
themselves on both sides of the bar. A gay male who is alone and not
in a group Of friends will typically stand or sit at the bar, but as
the bar gets crowded (especially after eleven on weekend nights), there
is considerable "milling? and movement of males back and forth between
the two sides. As the entrance to Carl's bar is on the side with the
bar and booths, one entering the bar will move through the bar side
to the dance floor side and perhaps back again to join friends at a
booth or to sit alone at the bar. But the "milling? extends further
than this because many individuals leave their table of friends to
cruise, to get a drink from the bar, or to join another table of friends.
On a typical weekend evening after eleven, most tables and booths are
Occupied and those entering later may stand or walk around the rest of
the evening. The most popular spot to stand (besides at the bar itself)
is in the large doorway between the two parts of the bar; from here,
one has the vantage of most of the bar. On a good weekend evening at

its peak, the bar may have 125 gay males and 25 lesbians in it. (It's

120

Figure 2.--Floor Plan of Carl's Bar.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I

FIR-MT
summer

 

 

, 83m amaze 352.3323 3:. «23... 923 w
.h N 9332. 438“ Nigmtk. mu: m
.56 exam 1 \ 33:: mi.
. . SE arm J .
gflfluufiulluuilll >(3Y‘g .rl , a.
29.6 2 Sit... v.5 «Ad in h
.6.
M E
M c R
m muse...» 35.8 M. w
u. D. L
a F
m
r _IJ
a»
x .0»
we

 

nae-m
A

121

legal capacity is 175.)

Although Carl's bar is poorly lit, it differs from gay bars in the
large cities in that (with the exception of minor touching, kissing,
or "groping“) no sexual behavior as such takes place in the bar. Per-
haps surprisingly, this is also generally true of the men's washroom
in the bar.

Tom's bar Opened in the early Summer of 1976, having been redecor-
ated by new owners from its previous state as a topless bar. At that
time, there was some confusion by its former patrons, who could still
see the neon sign advertising it as ttopless.9 Eventually, the new
owners posted a little sign on the door, which read ”this is not a top-
less bar.f Tom's bar is much larger and for the first year was better
lit than Carl's bar. It is roughly divided into three rooms: One en-
ters one end of a very long room with a long bar facing a large mirror
on the wall and many small tables; a second room is a large dance floor
with a strobe light in the ceiling which serves as its only lighting;

a third room is composed completely of small tables; a large open area
in the very center of the bar separates the three rooms and has a large
round bench seating a dozen on it. In addition, there is a stairway to
a small room in the basement which has a few pinball machines and a few
other mechanical games and cigarette machine.

During the Summer of 1976, the lesbians took over the room with the
small tables in it, and it became informally reserved for them. Except
for the dance floor room, which might have both gay males and lesbians
dancing in it, the bar is roughly divided into the room for lesbians
and the much larger room with the long bar for gay men. (In 1977, most

lesbians returned to Carl's Bar and pinball machines were installed in

122

Figure 3.--Floor Plan Of Tom's Bar

wmww TI 8001'!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 ms IJHERE'AGHYPLAYS
gasengl ( scans, DISCO STYLE
1 l
m m
" ' TABLES
DANCE ..
FLMR “i“ /’—‘ NORTH
kl
. d
j h—rm
cf':: :5
ICIGMWEETVEF
MACHiflc—a]
s ‘3 d ..
J: <
s a
Ih-I—uin fi m 5
Juli: ‘4 E
TABL: SLTflaLS 80x
TABLES 33$ 3'
(kaneiw «:7 f:
UMWAWD _. a,
’ «4
Lu
\1
no
q.
(a
r—.

 

E WNCE

123

their former room.) Tom's bar could legally hold two hundred, but it
did not usually appear to be filled to its capacity. (This evidently
did occur for a while on weekends during the first Summer that it opened,
before many returned to Carl's bar.) As mentioned previously, the two
bars are only a few doors apart, and it is common for one to go to both
bars during the evening, no matter whether one is looking for a particu-
lar friend or looking over the possibilities for a sexual partner for
the evening.

Public Restrooms

 

The male public washrooms in the College Center building and their
use have previously been described. Other public washrooms in the met-
ropolitan area are also popular for impersonal oral sex. One of the
most popular is the rest stop on an expressway on the edge of the city.
Although some gay males report deliberately driving out to it, its use
is not very frequent.

"Sin Strip"

 

Located in the same block as the two gay bars are a number of bus-
inesses that give the block its reputation, as reported in the city
newspaper, as "sin strip.9 These include an adult movie theater which
shows heterosexual pornographic films, a massage parlor, and several
adult bookstores, which each charge a dollar entrance fee. Of these,
only the movie theater and one of the bookstores are known as gay sex-
ual places, that is, as places where gay sexual encounters are possible

on the premises.

124

Adult Movie Theater

 

The movie theater shows films continuously from 1:00 P.M. to
1:00 A.M., and for the entrance fee, one is allowed to leave and re-
enter the premises during that afternoon and evening. (This means that
one might go to the movie theater for awhile, then get something to eat
in a nearby restaurant, go in one of the gay bars, and again later re-
turn to the movie theater.) The only homosexual acts in the movie
theater involve oral sex. According to Pete, a sixty-four-year-old in-
formant, the theater tends to attract quite an age range of males (woe
men are rarely present). A male who is interested in giving oral sex
(a "blow job") will sit in the back row of the theater. A male inter-
ested in receiving oral sex will walk behind the last row of seats,
remain standing and perhaps lean against the back wall. The male sit-
ting in the last row would turn around and unzip the pants of the
standing male. Apparently, some oral sex also takes place in both
washrooms of the movie theater. (The women's washroom door locks from
the inside, so it is sometimes preferred for greater privacy by two males.)

Adult Bookstores

 

Although all of the adult bookstores on "sin strip" sell some gay
pornography, only one bookstore holds the possibility of a gay sexual
encounter within it. In the Summer of 1977, this bookstore put in a
row of ten "booths," each about the size of a phone booth. Each booth
shows a half-minute segment of a pornographic film for a quarter. Each
booth can show either of two films, depending on which of two slots one
deposits the quarter. The titles of the two films for each booth are
displayed on the wall Opposite the row of booths. The last two booths

in the row (numbers 9 and 10) both show only gay pornographic films,

125

while the other booths only show heterosexual pornographic films. In
the wall between booths 9 and 10 is a "glory holed at waist height of
about four inches in diameter. This hole-in-the-wall allows two gay
males to engage in oral sex while watching the pornographic films. As
a light comes on above each door visible from the hall outside the
booths saying fin use" when a quarter is deposited and a film is being
shown, a gay male would know when one of the gay booths is occupied.
However, he would not necessarily know anything about the occupant of
the booth, unless he saw the other person enter the booth. Hence, the
oral sex Obtained through the "glory hole" can be quite impersonal and
anonymous.

For a short time, Midwest City had its own gay movie theater, when
a small theater on the far north side of the city began showing gay
films. However, it apparently was not an economic success, perhaps be-
cause it was located so far from both the campus and "sin strip." In
any case, after a few months, it reverted to its former fare of hetero-
sexual pornographic films, and is not now known as a gay place.
Gay Baths

The Midwest City area has never had a_gay bath. However, the large
metropolis (85 miles away) has several, and most Midwest City gay males
are familiar with them, having gone in groups of friends on weekends to
visit them. A gay bath typically has the minimum of two sorts of areas:
Small, private rooms with a covered table like a bed in each of them;
and a large, dimly lit "steam room." Impersonal sex (either oral or

anal) may be had in either sort of room.

126

Private Areas

 

8y private areas is meant an individual's house or apartment. These
are necessarily distinguished from the above Vpublic" settings because,
Of course, entrance to another's private area is effected only by invi-
tation. As indicated when describing some of the public areas above
(such as the bars), private areas are often important for consummating
a sexual act after a partner has been selected in a public setting.
Although sexual activity in a private area such as one's home may imply
a high degree of intimacy to most readers, nevertheless the male sex-
ual partners often remain quite impersonal, as in the lone-night stand."

Summary

With this list of ecological settings as gay sexual places, one
begins to see the centrality of the sexual act. With the exception of
the gay bars, there is considerable overlap of heterosexual and homo-
sexual interest in the places; that is, both gay males and heterosexual
males are likely to be in the same places at the same time. This is
true not only of the College Center building, but also of the adult
bookstore, movie theater, and public washrooms. Even the Vprofoundly
heterosexual? institutions of the larger city encourage the overlap;
this implies that information about gay places is compatible, and not
sharply demarcated from the heterosexual institutions. One example
is knowledge of gay places conveyed in the city newspaper, while an-
other example is the use of the telephone crisis center and cabdrivers
to initially locate the gay bars.

Also, with the list of gay ecological settings, one begins to see

the significance of impersonality in the gay community. For sexual

127

acts in public places, there is only at most a facade of intimacy. The
impersonality of many gay sexual acts is important to explaining just
why so many of the gay places are public. Both the impersonality of
the sexual acts and the public nature of the gay places insure redun-
dancy of information about the places. That is, everything is consis-
tent with the message that "this is a gay place." Knowing that a pub-
lic place is a "gay place? assures that other things will follow, and
one knows what to expect in the setting.

But again, it should be emphasized that symbolic interactional cues
are crucial to the interaction in the ecological settings. Before con-
sidering this aspect of the gay community in chapter 5, it will be nec-
essary to elaborate on the different identities to be found in the gay
community because each identity is consistent with the self-presentation
in the ecological setting. Hence, the next chapter will consider the
several gay male identities and the ceremonies and rituals connected
with these identities.

This chapter has attempted to show the nature of the gay community
in one medium-sized city. The community is not capable of encapsulating
its members because the social organization of the community is best
described as composed of quasi-institutions which are poorly developed
and dependent on the completed institutions of the larger city. The
chapter has also shown the two most basic divisions in the community:
Those segments based on sex and age. Crucial to the sense of community
are the ecological locations that are recognized as_lgay places.t As
shown, most_tgay places" are in public; from this, one sees that most

_gay sexual acts are impersonal.

128

A major implication of the impersonality of sexual acts is that this
shows why the standard ecological theories (such as Fischer, 1976) and
the social career theories (which reify the sexual orientation identity)
do not fully reveal the basis for the use of the concept of community.
The sense of community is embedded in processes and relationships, and
so, it is fragile and resistant to static, structural explanations.

The next chapter will consider how intimate sexual relations are formed.

129

Footnotes to Chapter Four
One common view is that the stigmatized identity category of homo-
sexual is "contagious." For example, this seems to be the fear of
gay school teachers expressed by Anita Bryant (cf. Schur, 1965,
p. 107, who considers "contamination" of the public). Because the
identity category of homosexual rather than heterosexual is stig-
matized by the larger society, the greater fear (in the larger
society) is that one will "catch" the homosexual identity by con-
tact with those who have the identity. Although it is rarely con-
sidered a possibility, obviously the converse "contagion" is also
an inherent (logical) aspect of the myth; that is, those with the
identity category of homosexual may also "catch" the heterosexual
identity by contact with heterosexuals. The fact that gay males
in a moderate-sized city must necessarily participate with known
heterosexuals (usually without revealing the discreditable iden-
tity) in their round of daily activities, and are nevertheless
stable and usually unquestioning of their sexual orientation after
"coming out" belies the myth and the fear of "contagion."
The term, "quasi-institution," was selected because it implies that
the organizations and structures to be considered under the term
could potentially develop into completed institutions under certain
conditions (in particular, the growth and territorial segregation
of the gay population in the city). The term is preferable to
Hughes' "bastard institutions," under which he subsumes either the
illegitimate distribution of goods and services or the distribution

of illegal or disreputable goods and services (1951. pp. 99). In

130
this connection, Schur writes, "Above all, it is the very nature of
their particular deviance for homosexuals to be drawn into interac-
tion with one another. The 'services' the homosexual demands can,
it is true, sometimes be provided by nonhomosexuals, but this will
not always be a fully satisfactory solution. In any case, the homo-
sexual cgn_find a solution among like-minded individuals.... The
homosexual is, in a sense, the source of supply as well as the
locus of demand.... It is partly this particular type of supply-
demand nexus, then, that generates the homosexual community" (1965,
p. 86). Schur, like Hughes, is only considering the supply and
demand of sexual services by homosexuals. While some of the organ—
izations to be considered, such as the gay bar, are important in
the supply and demand of sexual services, others, such as Gay Lib,
are not directly concerned with supplying sexual services. Besides
being pejorative, the term, fbastard institutions" does not satis-
factorily emphasize the differences among sets of institutions in
their ability to encapsulate members within the institutions. The
term, lquasi-institutions," nicely contrasts with the concept of
finstitutional completeness? (Breton, 1964). which will be examined

shortly.

CHAPTER FIVE. INTIMATE SOCIAL STRUCTURES:
IDENTITIES AND ACTIVITIES

Introduction

In the last chapter the quasi-institutions and the most important
ecological settings of the gay community in this moderate-sized city
were considered. Now those will be viewed as background in which cer-
tain identities are presented or displayed. At this point, a more sym-
bolic frame of reference is needed to provide a vocabulary. The prin-
ciple sources for the symbolic frame of reference to be used are Burke
(1945), Stone (1962), Goffman (1959), and Gouldner (1957). One valuable
way of viewing the present endeavor is based on K. Burke's discussion
(1945) of the ratio among scene, act, and agent. The act can be de-
fined as what was done, while the scene is when or where it was done,
and the agent is who did it (Burke, 1945, p. XV). The last chapter
was concerned primarily with the scenes (ecological settings) and acts
(what was done), but now the focus will be changed to concentrate on the
,agent and act. That is, in the last chapter it was emphasized that the
act is consistent with the scene; as Burke says, "Both act and agent
require scenes that 'contain' them? (p. 15). We have looked at the
scenes, while now the focus will be on the agents and their acts. Later
in the chapter, these will be put together to analyze the interaction
in terms of the public and private places (that is, the settings again)
and identities.

In this chapter, a description Of the kinds of identities to be found

within the community will be presented. This will be followed by an

131

132

ethnographic description of activities in the public settings (the
College Center, the bar, the slave auction, and drag shows) and private
settings (parties, dates, and couples). The ethnographic description
will necessarily assume an understanding of the identities; that is,
the ethnography is concerned, in Burke's terms, with the agent-scene
ratio, rather than the scene-act ratio. Finally, the chapter will con-
sider the implicit gay annual calendar of ceremonies and their rituals
as these relate to the identities that are to be found in the community.
Presenting an Identity and Segments
Certain crucial concepts organize the chapter. This starts with a

quote from William James:

"A man has as many social selves as there are

individuals who recognize him and carry an

image of him in their mind... But as the indi-

viduals who carry the images fall naturally into

classes, we may practically say that he has as

many different social selves as there are dis-

tinct groups of persons about whose opinion he

cares. He generally shows a different side of

himself to each of these different groups"

(1890. p. 294).
To "show a different side of himself" can be taken as the same as pre-
senting an identity, in that information about the self is selected,
and only some information is included in g_presentation, while other
information is excluded from that presentation. Some aspects of pre-
senting an identity are nonverbal cues; some of these cues are subtle
and not easily controlled by the actor. Goffman suggests that cues
that are not easily controlled by the individual are nevertheless
easily recognized by others, and are therefore taken (by the others) as

more important in conveying information about the self (Goffman, 1959,

Chapter 1). But also, "each participant is allowed to establish the

133

tentative official ruling regarding matters which are vital to him but
not immediately important to others, e.g., the rationalizations and
justifications by which he accounts for his past activity" (1959, p. 9).
The initial presentation of identity (or, social self), as Goffman em-
phasizes (1959, p. 4), is crucial to the responses others make, and may
be crucial to achieving the goal or plan that the individual brings to
the interaction, so that joint action can be built up by the co-
participants. Goffman says "The individual's initial projection commits
him to what he is proposing to be and requires him to drop all pretenses
of being other things" (1959, p. 10), but this should be understood as
occuring with EEED presentation in each encounter, and one would expect
the individual to select and present other definitions of the self in
other encounters with other individuals. So, some aspects of the self
become relevant when an identity is presented, while other aspects drop
out of relevance to the presentation. Presenting an identity (or social
self), then, is a dramaturgical problem for the individual because the
person wants and looks for confirmation and acceptance of the proffered
self from the others present (the audience to the proffered self), in
order to achieve his goals in the group.

Just as the individual actor recognizes different audiences and
"shows a different side of himself to each of these different groups,"
so also does the individual (as an audience to the presentation of self
by others) recognize and act on the types of self-presentation made to
him. In this sense, social organization as coordinated behavior between
actors is based on the cognitive knowledge of types of available iden-
tities. Identities are the cognitive "keys" used by actors to construct

a social structure.

134

It is perhaps obvious that the power and effect of a deviant label
originating in the larger society, as well as the fear of its applica—
tion, are more determinant of behaviors and self—identity than the gay
community. Ironically, because the gay quasi-institutions are more
limited in this moderate-sized city than in a larger city, this makes
them mo§e_crucial for maintaining a gay identity. This chapter will
again use the concept of segment, but now, it will not just refer to
the amount of interaction (that is, greater interaction within the
segment than outside), but also to the kinds of identities, which will
be used to further distinguish the segments in the community. The chap-
ter will not be concerned with the degree of total segmentalization of
the community because this could only be ascertained by comparison with
other communities. Rather, the point is that the segments are a sub-
jective reality because they are based on a shared self-concept and iden-
tity. Because of the subjective reality of the segments, one cannot use
census-type data in an ecological approach, such as constructing an in-
dex of segregation. Instead, one can only use the concept of segments
as rough clues to the construction of the social organization of the
community. If one could do comparative ecological research, then one;
could develop rules of thumb, like Harry's (1974) study relating the
size of cities with specialized bars (e.g., lesbian bars, leather bars,
drag show bars, etc.). However, an implication (or hypothesis) of the
ethnographic description of identity segments in this medium-sized city
is that, with larger city size, each.identity segment would become
more segregated from other identity segments, and hence, the individual
would be more lencapsulated" within the segment (LOfland, 1969, pp. 50-
60).

135

Nadel (1952) has suggested the significance of the multiple deter-
minants of identity (i.e., any position is multivalent), so that sanc-
tions against some behavior in, for example, politics is likely to be
linked with sanctions in the family, religion, and so on. This is not
true of gays in segments (except for arrests and subsequent public ex-
posure) because there are separate hierarchies in, for example, work,
church, and the gay world, and the cOnsequences of some behavior are
not equally important. Behaviors in different spheres of an individual's
activity are segregated both in time and space, and this is as true of
gay activities as of other activities. Contrary to Nadel, one would not
expect a uniform effect on the individual from participation in all of
the institutions of the city. That is, because the gay community has
quasi-institutions which are dependent and the gay community is segmen-
talized, one would not infer an effect from participation in some as-
pect of the gay community on other aspects of the individual's life;
for example, a successful lawyer may also be a tleatherman,9 but par-
ticipation in each area may not have any effect at all on the other
area of his activity.

In the last chapter, it was suggested that the sharpest division in
the community was between gay males and lesbians. As each of these is
also a subjective category of self-identity, as well as exhibiting high
amounts of interaction within the category and low interaction between
them, different criteria are not being used here than previously by re-
ferring to each of them as a segment of the community. Previously, it
was emphasized that the distinction between gay male and straight male,

or between lesbian and straight female, is less sharp than the division

136

between gay males and lesbians. This implies that even though sexual
orientation is shared between these two segments, the respective iden-
tity of male or female is more important than the identity based on
sexual orientation (see Omark, 1978, for an extended argument on this
issue).

Stone says that lOne's identity is established when others place him
as a social object by assigning him the same words of identity that he
appropriates for himself or annOUnCes“ (1962,p. 93). Presenting an
identity for affirmation by an audience is the dramaturgical problem
for the actor, but just as Burke emphasizes the three elements of agent,
act, and scene, one shoulangain notice the importance of the scene to
the actor and his act; that is, the presentation of an identity is al-
ways situated in some scene. A particular kind of audience is likely to
be found in only certain settings, and so an identity can only (approp-
riately) be announced in certain settings. The congruity of these ele-
ments is important. This raises the question of the extensiveness of
the settings in which an identity can be presented.

When the identity is relevant to the situated interaction (i.e., to
interaction in a certain setting), this can be called a "salient" iden-
tity, following Gouldner (1957, p. 284; also see McCall and Simmons,
1966, p. 67, and Brittan, 1973, pp. 149-50), while the identity category
would be "latent" if the identity is not relevant. With this distinc-
tion, a segment could be defined simply as composed of people who share
a salient identity, except that this needs to be qualified yet further.
Becker and Geer (1960) extended Gouldner's initial distinction by re-

lating manifest and latent identities to manifest and latent cultures;

137

they say that manifest culture results

"from the common assumptions for adjusting to

similar problems and contingencies faced by

the group members. It is a culture that grows

around the roles and identities relevant to

the specific setting, rather than those that

are irrelevant or inappropriate" (p. 306).
Further, they suggest that an informal group may tend to cluster around
a latent culture, the members of which share a latent identity (p. 310).
~This means that.members of an informal group in a setting could share a
manifest identity (appropriate to the setting), but further share a la-
tent identity (i.e., the setting is one in which it is not viewed as
appropriate to announce the second identity). This reiterates the
question of the extensiveness of the settings in which a particular
identity can be presented.

One implication of the above set of concepts has to do with role be-
havior. With an analysis of salient and latent identities, one would
expect that the different segments would have different role behavior
associated with the salient identity of the segment, even when the dif-
ferent segments are in the same ecological location. For example, gay
males and lesbians, being in different segments, would have different
role behavior, even when both are in the same gay bar.

The Identities

Besides the identities of male, gay male, female and lesbian that
were considered in the last chapter, several other identities are to be
found in the community.1 (Gay males may also have the identity of drag
queen, leatherman, Gay Lib member, chickenhawk or chicken, hustler, bi-

sexual, or closet queen. Just as a person can have both the identity of

male and gay male (the latter identity having fewer settings in which it

138

can be presented than the former), so also, a gay male could present the
identity of drag queen, leatherman, Gay.Lib member, etc. However, some
of these identity categories appear to be mutually exclusive in practice.
For example, the identities of leatherman and drag queen apparently are
never held by the same gay male. Also, the identity of closet queen pre-
cludes having any of the other identities. Finally, one should note that
a gay male need not have any of the additional identities listed above.
One issue considered in the introduction with regard to these iden-
tities is the issue of the extensiveness of the settings in which any
one of these identities can be presented. Presenting an identity for
affirmation by an audience is necessarily situated, to the extent that
an appropriate audience tends to be found in only certain locations.
To see in more detail how social organization can be considered by the
categories of a person's identities (i.e., identities as a key to social
structure), an analysis of the identity of "drag queen" will first be
considered. Thereafter, the other seven identities will be considered.

1. Drag Queens

 

For most gay males who in addition have the identity of drag queen,
the latter is only a part-time identity and activity. (For an excellent
description of the life of the full-time professional female imperson-
ator, usually found only in cities larger than Midwest City, see Newton,
1972.) However, as will be shown, a "part—time" identity simply means
that the identity is usually latent, and so the identity can neverthe-
less be important in informal groups (Becker and Geer, op. cit.). For
example, the part-time drag queen may go to the bar tout of drag,t but
at the bar nevertheless spend most of his time talking with other drag

queens, who are themselves either "in drag" or "out of drag." In this

139

case, one would say that the person with the "latent? identity of ldrag-
queen-out-of—dragV is participating in the drag queen segment at the bar.
Two elements of "play“ (Stone, 1962, p. 109) are seen clearly in the
(part-time) drag queen: 1) That the player leave himself behind (e.g.,
from an interview: lWhen I get fed up with just being a guy I'll cross-
dresst; fIt's just that I'm sick of playing Harry for about a month and
I want to play [acfl Helen for a change"; and "to get out of my every-
day man lifef); and 2) the element of non-serious fun in play (e.g.,
lWe were just carrying on [in drag . Having fun, you know; looking for
a laught; or
"... see what kind of fun I can have. You
know, if I can pass |'_as a woman], or if
people are going to realize I am gay, that
I'm a guy in women's clothing, or what. And
if they realize that I'm a guy in women's
clothing then I give 'em a show, you know."
(Taped interview, May 17, 1975.)
Clearly, some of the "fun" involves seeing the response of an audience.
Unlike the spontaneous play of children, going out in drag (either
to the gay bar or in the straight public) is planned - usually a week
ahead. Plans involve primarily the preparation of prOps: What to wear,
hair style, and other elements of appearance that need be prepared. The
props are all signs and symbols usually associated with the socially de-
fined category of "woman? in our society (Newton, 1972, p. 5). Except
for show performances, yhen_the drag queen decides to go out is usually
independent of anyone else - he decides and goes out alone usually.
Where_he decides to go out in drag indicates what kind of audience

he wants for his "fun." It is clearly most easy to go to the gay or

"mixed" (both gay and straight) bars in drag, alone. In an interview,

140

one drag queen said, 'y'I started going to places that were in [straight]
public but I realized gay people were going to be there and that I
wouldn't feel scared.i Later, fall of a sudden I realized I've got this
courage within me that I can go places in drag? (taped interview, May
17, 1975). It takes tcouragel to go out in (non-gay) public because the
reactions of the audience are always uncertain. With a strange gay aud-
ience (e.g., in the gay bar), he can count on their responses being at
least indifference or tolerance, rather.than hostility or outrage.
Where_he goes out in drag implies the kind of audience and this im-
plies the likely responses Of the audience to his appearance. Stone
says (1962, p. 93) that "identity establishes yhgt_andlghere_the person
is in social termsf; i.e., with an identity, the person is "situated."
Further, "one's identity is established when others place him as a so-
cial Object by assigning him the.same words of identity that he appro-
priates for himself orannouncest (p. 93). The fact that the drag queen
chooses the general type of audience by selecting where to go in public
means that he can calculate in advance the likelihood of his announced
identity being confirmed by others. When the drag queen goes in the
(straight) public, the response of the audience is uncertain; they may
think he is a woman (i.e., he passes), or that he is a man in women's
clothing. or gay. Only two of these match what he thinks his appearance
announces about his identity. But in a gay setting, others place him in
the same identity category that he announces, that is, 9a gay man in
women's clothing." But the collusion found in play is also involved
here; a gay acquaintance will address Harry as fHelenl (at least, this

is preferred by the drag queens). Two men in the gay bar could say to

141

each other "oh, there's another drag queen," but still would likely ad-
dress him as "her"; certainly, another drag queen would use feminine
words of address. Such interaction clearly is pretend play.

When one speaks of the "latent identity" of the drag queen, this
means that his membership in the category of gay males who cross-dress
is not salient to the situated interaction (Gouldner, 1957, p. 284).

At work, Harry would have two latent identities (i.e., two of interest
in this context): Gay male and drag queen. If a gay acquaintance came
into his place of work, his own identity of gay would no longer be la-
tent, but his identity as drag queen might still remain latent. But if
he started talking with his friend about a drag show, then neither
identity would any longer be latent. When Harry is dressed up in drag
with a gay audience, neither being gay nor being a drag queen is latent,
but the audience responds as if his appearance is his real identity
(i.e., the audience pretends with him that he is a woman).

However, the drag queen complains that the audience does not respond
to him sexually (i.e., does not find him to be interesting sexual object)
- from the point of view of the audience, this is precisely because he
appears to be a woman. (Several gay males have said of sex with a drag
queen, TIf I wanted sex with a woman, I'd get a real woman.t) Further,
the drag queen does not find other drag queens interesting sexually be-
cause he wants a “real man." The best way to eXplain these curiosities
is to look at the identities "gay" and tdrag queen? as separate. Al-
though everyone knows that the term "drag queen? (as distinct from the
more general term "transvestite“) is included yithin the set of objects

designated by the term "gay males," the complaint of the drag queen can

142

be viewed as a complaint that his identity of "gay male" is viewed as a
latent identity while he is in drag. (While he is in drag among a gay
audience, his appearance as a well-dressed woman, that is too well-
dressed to pass as a woman, makes his manifest and salient identity that
of "drag queen.“)

In this kind of analysis of the drag queen, one sees that he takes
on the appearance of a woman using props at a certain time, goes to a
certain ecological location of his choice, to present his appearance of
self to an audience, in order to get a response from the audience con-
firming his presented identity. One also sees the mixture of pretend
("woman") in the presentation and audience response, and the real,
though weak association between the two identities, "drag queen" and
"gay male."

With this model of salient and latent identities, the social organ-
ization of the gay community can be described, at least at one level,
as composed of “segments" of interacting people sharing salient iden-
tities. E.g., there would be a leather segment, drag, GLM, chickenhawk,
and so on, each identity being bounded as to time and place for its sal-
ience. These segments could be, and sometimes are in the same general
ecological locations; e.g., "regular" gay males, drag queens, and chick-
enhawks can all be in the gay bar at the same time, but one would expect
as an implication of this line of analysis of salient and latent iden-
tities, that the different segments would have different role behavior
associated with the salient identity of the segment, even when in the
same ecological location. (It is only in a much larger city that the

segments could segregate themselves into separate ecological locations,

143

as a drag show bar, a leather bar, a lesbian bar, and so on.)

2. Leathermen

 

Gay males who in addition have the identity of lleatherman" are
usually in one of the two gay male tleather and western? clubs in the
large metropolitan area. Hence, being a Yleatherman" tends to be an
organizational identity, as these clubs have formal membership require-
ments. To become a member, one must file an application which includes
the signature of five current members, acceptance by a membership com-
mittee, a three month probationary period for the new member, after
which all members present at a club meeting vote on the probationary
candidate, and also payment of dues. One club recognizes associate
membership with lesser dues for those who live at a distance from the
large metropolitan area, such as members living in Midwest City, be-
cause they are presumed to participate less Often in club activities.
Each club has "its own bar," but this just means that the bar owner
allows and encourages club meetings and other events in the owner's bar.

In some respects, the leather and western clubs have been modeled‘
after heterosexual motorcycle clubs, both in clothing worn (to be dis-
cussed) and in certain nomenclature. For example, a Arun," originally
meaning an organized race or hillclimb in which cyclists from different
clubs compete, now means an organized weekend, advertised to leather
clubs in other large cities, of a package of activities including dinner,
drinks in a gay bar, the use of one floor of‘a gay bath, and other ac-
tivities for registered guests who are met at the airport, housed for
the weekend, and otherwise catered to.‘

Most of the participants for organized events, Such as the Slave

144

Auction (to be described), the Do-A-Fool "run" (so named because the one
club that organizes it, has it near the April First weekend; the name

is a pun: To "do someone" is to have sex with him), and organized par-
ties in members' homes are members of the two clubs or members in leather
and western clubs from other large cities.

The typical dress of a club member at a club meeting, organized
party, "run," or the Slave Auction is modeled after members Of a motor-
cycle club: A black leather jacket often decorated with silver studs
in it, jeans and engineering boots. Alternatively, a member may choose
to go "western," with a leather vest over a shirt, black leather chaps
tightly worn over jeans, and cowboy boots, often complete with small
spurs (no cowboy hats were seen). From this, one can see that the em-
phasis is on appearance or image of a particular masculine role - indeed,
one member in an interview did not Object when these were referred to
as "costumes." Quite incidental to membership is either ownership of a
motorcycle or love of the feel of leather in general.

Certain other "costumes" are to be seen in the leather bar such as
cloth Uniforms which look much like some kind of military cadet (sans
insignia) and others look like a police uniform (but again, without
badge, insignia, or gun holster). Two club members were seen wearing
light blue uniforms with gold braid; these uniforms belong to the club
and are used only for official functions.

However, a good club member need not necessarily wear nor even have
a costume. For example, one interviewed member (Jef) does not have a
uniform or other costume and goes to all club functions in slacks, sport

shirt, and loafers. The basis of good membership is cordiality and

145
friendship with other club members and enjoyment of club activities,
which include for some the wearing of male costumes, as well as the en-
joyment Of homosexual activities. When interviewed, the associate mem-
ber from Midwest City (but active in the club and its bar on weekends)
said that membership made him feel that he was in a select, "elite
group" within the gay community, but he emphasized that his friendships
with many in the club extended back to a couple of years before the club
was formally organized about 1970.

Some (e.g., Townsend, 1972) claim a direct connection between an in-
terest in leather (as defined above, that is, being a "leatherman") and
homosexual interests in bondage and/or sado-masochistic practices. In
an interview, the leatherman disputed this, claiming that many members
had quite ordinary homosexual practices, and yet he was able to describe
the elaborate, symbolic dress code involving wearing key rings from one
side of the belt or the other. A key ring worn on the right indicates
that one is a masochist, or "bottomman"; while on the left indicates a
sadist, or "topman", and colored handkerchiefs worn visibly from one or
the other back pocket (dark blue in the right pocket indicates that one
likes to be fucked in anal intercourse, and in the left, that one likes
to fuck; red indicates that one is into fist fucking, with the left
pocket indicating that the person likes to do it to the other; light
blue in the left pocket indicates that the person prefers to blow the
other in oral intercourse, while in the right pocket, that one prefers
mutual, simultaneous oral sex; and finally, yellow indicates "water-
sports" or urination, with the left pocket indicating that the person

likes to be urinated on).

146

In this connection, Joe, who had been "sold" as a slave in the

annual Slave Auction, was asked what had happened after he was sold:

"Not much. We went to the baths, and he put

a dog collar around my neck. I got pretty

nervous and said I wasn't into S & M. He

said, 'Yeh, I know.’ He screwed me once.

Then I screwed him.several times, and then

we went to sleep. In the mornin he re-

leased me. And that was all.” Recorded

conversation, December 1, 1975.)
One can see in this interaction that the dog collar is at least symbolic
bondage, even though the sexual preferences of Joe had been described by
the auctioneer before he had been "sold," as simply a preference for
anal intercourse.

Some of the explanation for the costumes and elaborately color-coded
handkerchiefs is made plain by Townsend: "... your success in attracting
the partners you seek will depend on how well you manifest the charac-
teristics of the other guy's fantasies" (1972, p. 128). Apart from the
various esoteric preferences in sexual activities which all members do
not share (in any case, many with peculiar preferences are flexible with
a partner and his preferences anyway). the emphasis in the leather and
western clubs is on images of hyper-masculinity and authority.

. The uniform and other costumes are props for a dramaturgical presen-
tation of the self, which have the "play" and pretend elements in common
with drag. As with the props of the drag queen, the costumes of the
leatherman are a considerable financial investment. As explained in a
conversation by two club members from Midwest City, one usually begins
with western style clothing becaUse it is cheaper and much of it commonly

is already owned, eig., jeans, a western sports shirt, and perhaps a

pair of boots. One of these members (who was, however, fairly new to

147

the scene) said he would stay with the western style because he felt
"comfortable" in it. A third, peripheral member revealed that his

black leather motorcycle jacket cost $110. When asked if he ever wore
it to work in an office, he looked disgusted with the question and an-
swered snidely, "of course not." Because this is undoubtedly true with
the other elaborate costumes as well - where else could one wear leather
chaps and spurs besides to the leather and western bar? - one sees that
there is an "ecological clustering" of identities and their presentations.

Leather and drag are similar in terms of wearing costumes, but are
opposite in emphasizing pretended masculine or feminine roles. In both
the leather scene and drag shows, what is shared is in addition to sex-
ual orientation. Although membership in a leather club or in a friend-
ship network of drag queens may make the member feel that he is in a
select and “elite" group within the gay community, both are better con-
sidered as being on the periphery of the community because of the special
elements (props) and interests added to sexual orientation.

At this point, it should be emphasized that these two public identi-
ties of leatherman and drag queen, one associated with a formal club,
the other with informal friendship networks, are not completely closed
in their membership. Also, neither group recruits new members in a for-
mal sense. It is true that one need go through a formal process to join
the leather club, but "their" bar, the Slave Auction, and some of their
parties are open to the public. It is also true that one would have to
be fairly well known to other drag queens to be invited to appear in
one of theirdrag shows.

(However, any gay male can "try out" one of these identities just by

148

taking on the associated props. For example, one gay roommate (Bruce)
played at being a leatherman one evening by going to the bar in Mid-
west City dressed in a vest, black pants, cowboy hat, and handcuffs
dangling from his belt. He said that it was fun to see the many stares,
shocked_looks and avoidance that he got at the bar. Again, this merely
illustrates the dramaturgical problem of presenting an identity in an
ecological location, but here, the roommate chose a bar that does not
serve to present an identity of leatherman. (At the leatherman's bar
in the large metropolitan area, he would likely have received scorn

for his amateur efforts.) In much the same way, one could "try out"
going to the bar in drag by assembling the necessary props. Although
one person could "try out" both identities, they are viewed as anti-
thetical by the two groups: The drag queen is shunned and avoided by
most leatherman, while a drag queen would taunt the apparent super-
masculinity of a leatherman, for example by addressing him with a fe-
male's first name (e.g., at one point, Harry, a drag queen, insisted
that Bob B.'s name was really Betty, at which Bob walked away, showing
signs of disgust and anger.)

3. Gay Lib Member

 

The identity of Gay Lib member is an organizational identity, sal-
ient primarily in organizational meetings and with other organization
members. Like the other identities considered here, it is in addition
to the identity of gay male, and would be more limited in situations
where it is salient than the identity of gay male. Membership in Gay
Lib is fairly fluid and open. In any one year, probably not more than

a dozen males could be considered active members, although many more

149

could show up for a scheduled meeting and many more would show up for
a sponsored dance. Most of the latter would not consider themselves,
nor be considered by others as members of Gay Lib.

4. Chickenhawks and Chicken

A "chickenhawk" can be defined as a gay male who is interested in
having sexual relations with teensaged boys; the latter are “chicken."
The sexual exchange between them may involve the payment of money by
the chickenhawk to the boy, but this is not invariably the case. When
money is exchanged, then the boy could be called a "hustler,“ but the
latter term is usually used for the older (post-teen) male who engages
in sexual relations for money.

Contrary to the article by Reiss (1961), the boys do not necessarily
define themselves as heterosexual. The sexual orientation of the boy
can only be determined by a self-referring statement (i.e., VI am gay,"
or 91 am straight"). For example, Leo, who now defines himself as a
bisexual chickenhawk, described learning from other boys how to hustle
when he was fourteen years old in New Orleans; at that time, he con-
sidered himself to be gay. (Notes at the bar, October 28, 1978.)

A chickenhawk defines himself as gay (or sometimes bisexual). He
is. for example, likely to frequent the gay bar, but is not particularly
likely to find someone there as sexually desirable because potential
partners there are usually viewed as too old.

As Reiss (1961) has described, the sexual exchange between the
chickenhawk and chicken is usually effected in public. For example,
Pete, a 64-year-old chickenhawk was asked:

"'How would they (chicken)makes themselves
available? '

150

Pete: 'Either they would be hitch-hiking in
those particular areas (of the city) as you

came along, and you could stop and pick them

up and in] certain other areas if you'd park,
they d practically come over and talk to you,
particularly if you noticed them...‘

RCO: 'You would drive your car to X Park and
suppose you saw a young man, or somebody 16 or
17, how would you do it? What would you do?‘
Pete: 'Oh, (laughs) there's all sorts of things,
you could just set there. They paraded, a lot
of them would walk around and around. If you
stayed parked in your cars, they'd walk around
the sidewalk...‘

RCO: 'The sidewalk to the park?‘

Pete: 'Around the sidewalk of the park, a block
square. And as they came by they would eye you
and if you eyed them, then probably the second
time around, they might come over and ask for

a light or a cigarette or something and maybe
ask if they could get in and sit down a minute
or-something like that, and then you made the
arrangements...’

RCO: 'What would be a typical kind of...‘

Pete: 'Well, I'll tell you. One kid, an ex-
ample of one kid that I picked up one time. He
was hitch-hiking through that part of town, I
came along the park, stopped, and I picked him
up and asked him where he wanted to go, and he
just had some time to kill and was out to ride
around. And so I said that's more or less what

I was doing and we rode for a ways. He was
wearing short-shorts and I sort of eyed over
towards him eventually.‘

RCO: 'Toward his pants.’

Pete: 'Toward his pants, yeah, his crotch, which
I knew he would catch. And then a little bit later
I rubbed myself like this (his own crotch) and just
zingo - he was over starting to open my pants.
(Taped interview, July 16, 1978.)

The chicken may make himself available by standing on the street
near the gay bar, or at the exit to nearby public parking areas, or also
in a nearby restaurant. For example:

"'There was a spot in Ehe large metropolis]
called the Hub Restaurant, which is now a parking

lot. And that used to really be the, oh, those
too young to go to the bar used to go to the Hub...

151

Here was the Hub, here was a black bar, there

was a white bar, and there was another white

bar. Um, all three of these were gay. You

could either go down to the Hub, or, almost
anywhere within a two block area.‘

RCO: 'So, you used to go regularly to the Hub?‘
Jef: 'That would be one place. You know, uh,
that was the only one that I was familiar with...’
RCO: 'You never did it twice with the same person?‘
Jef: 'No.'

RCO: 'Why not?‘

Jef: 'Because I never developed a relationship.
You know, I was in looking for somebody to suck my
cock, and you know...‘

RCO: 'Was that what happened consistently?‘

Jef: 'Yeah.'

RCO: 'Did you ever reciprocate?’

Jef: 'Um, no. (pause) I was still chicken and
considered desirable. Cause the Hub used to be,
um, a place where people, you know, those who were
interested in chicken, used to go. It used to be,
you know...‘

RCO: 'Oh, I see. It was always older men, then.‘
Jef: 'Right.‘

RCO: 'I see, I see. It wasn't teen-agers doing it
to themselves.‘

Jef: 'No.'
RCO: 'I see. Did they ever pay you?‘
Jef: 'No.' -

RCO: 'Did they ever offer you money?‘

Jef: 'Not that I remember.‘

RCO: 'Did you know the other teen-agers?'

Jef: 'I knew about four of them, you know, enough
to chat with them.‘

RCO: '8ut you never talked to them about what you
were doing sexually?’

Jef: 'No.'

RCO: 'They'd never tell you anything like, 'Stay
away from that guy, he's, he wants to do something
strange' or anything like that?’

Jef: 'Not that I remember.‘

RCO: 'Were you fairly sure that the other guys were
doing the same thing?‘

Jef: 'Yeah.'" (Taped interview, respondent is 30 years
old, March 14, 1974.)

The chicken may make himself available by standing on the street
near the gay bar, but there are many other locations that can be used.

For example, one fourteen-year-old has "his" place in Midwest City in

152

the men's washroom in a busy shopping mall; presumably, most men would
not recognize just why he stood at the sinks nor notice how long he
stood there.

Such relationships are not only developed in public places, however.
For example, Jef was asked:

"'What happened when you were fourteen?‘

Jef: 'The neighborhood queer. Didn't every
neighborhood have their own, you know, have
their queer? A married man who used to like
to see. who used to be a chicken queen and try
to grab everybody.‘

RCO: 'What do you mean, that's what happened
to you?‘

Jef: 'Yeah.'

RCO: 'That you met...‘

Jef: 'The neighborhood queer. A nice, old
married man who used to like to suck (me)...'
RCO: '...how long did he suck your cock?’
Jef: '...over a time span of four years.’
(Taped interview, March 14, 1974.)

It is clear that only some chicken are organized into groups where
everyone knows everyone else in the group; this tends to be the case
whenever the chicken congregate in a certain public area, such as a
parking lot near the bar, or a restaurant.

The Chickenhawks are more often and more clearly in a segment of the
(gay community in the sense that they tend to meet and talk together, for
example, in the gay bar, or also in their homes. For example,

"RCO: 'I guess what I'm really interested in
trying to ask you, you know there were other
people, like at the bar, who were also interested
in chicken. And I was really curious: Did you
have friendships with them?‘

Pete: 'Some of them. I had friendships (in the
gay bar) with ones who were not interested in
chicken. Sometimes we'd trade information on
chicken. Other times, we wouldn't - be very
closed mouthed about it.’

RCO: 'Ah. would you exchange pornography on
chicken?‘

153

Pete: 'Sometimes. Sometimes to a certain
extent.‘ (Taped interview, July 16, 1978.)

Another example from the same interview, Pete was asked:

"'While you were going to the bar, to the
Wentworth, and picking up chicken, going out
for chicken (RCO laughs), did you know other
people who were chickenhawks?‘

Pete: 'Oh, yes, a lot of them by sight.‘

RCO: 'At the bar?‘

Pete: 'Some went to the bar, sure. I knew a
lot of them by sight. But very few of them by
name.‘

RCO:. 'You mean, you would see other people
regularly at X Park, driving around?’

Pege: "Yes. There were some I knew by name,
an ...

RCO: 'How would you know them by name?‘

Pete: 'Well, at the bars, got acquainted with
them, and so on. There was one fellow, who was
very much so (chickenhawk), had an apartment.
We used to have some little sessions there. He
had a stud house full of kids running around the
place.’ (Taped interview, July 16, 1978.)

Another example is from fieldnotes at the bar. I sat with David,
Leo and Pete (the latter two are chickenhawks). Pete told Leo about a
film of three boys that he had recently bought. Leo said he would never
buy any films without using a credit card to insure that he got the film.
Pete agreed that that was a good idea, but that the best films now are
coming from Holland and Denmark, and one can't use a credit card to buy
them. Leo indicated that he had never bought a motion film but would
consider it, and wondered why he had never bought a film projector.
(Conversation recorded November 25, 1977.) This example shows that in-
formation is exchanged between chickenhawks who are acquainted.

Although some chickenhawks do not know others (as presumably was the
case with the married "neighborhood queer" above), others do know each

other, greet each other, and talk in the gay bar and in their homes.

154

Although chickenhawks do not seem to be as extensive (nor as recognizable)
as the drag queen.segment, chickenhawks nevertheless form a segment of
their own, based on interaction with a distinct self-identity and a par-
ticular sexual preference which sets them apart.

5. Hustlers

 

Hustlers can be distinguished from chicken in that they engage in
sexual relations with a partner for.money. The term, hustler, is de-
fined as a sexual relationship within the gay community. This differs
from the larger society, where "a hustle" or "to hustle" merely means

that one has a way of making money. Unlike Rechy's City'of‘Night

 

(1963), most in the gay community appear to assume that a hustler is
gay, rather than straight.

It is unusual for an older male in Midwest City to try to survive
just by being a hustler; hence, there is some confusion between chicken
and hustlers. For example:

RCO: "'How usual was it for these guys, kids,
the chicken, to be hustlers? I think a hustler.
to me. always means that they want some money.‘
Pete: 'A good share of them were, who were
making themselves available.‘

RCO: 'In the 1950's and 1960's.'

Pete: 'Yeah. But very cheap hustlers.’ (Soft
laugh.)

RCO: 'Like?’

Pete:' 'Well, the $5 type, at the most. And
usually less. Some of them, and as I say, some
of them were and some of them weren't...‘

RCO: 'Some of them didn't ask for any money?‘
Pete: 'Yeah. The ones that didn't ask for any
money were usually the ones that were very ready
to reciprocate.‘

RCO: 'Oh, so there was a difference in sexual

ractices, then?'~
Pete: 'Ouite often with the hustlers there are.
Because while many of them are basically gay and

will end up being gay, when they start out they
are telling themselves they are doing it only for

155

the money, and it's all one-sided. You can
suck them off or they'll fuck you, or some-
thing of that sort, but no reverse on it...‘
RCO: 'But there were still a number of
chicken, some would not charge, some would.
reciprocate.‘

Pete: 'And some would still want to charge,
that would-reciprocate, too. The price varied
with what they did. They had a price schedule
on everything.‘

RCO: 'Oh? How did that work?‘

Pete: 'Well, okay. If you were going to suck
them, this was one amount. If they would fuck
you, this was another amount and then if they
were expected to do anything in return, why,
that was much.hi her.‘

RCO: 'Hum, but 5 was tops.'

Pete: 'Well, no, usually if they put out a
price schedule like if they were to be fucked,
it would be $10, or if they sucked you off,
they'd want $15 or $20. That would be the
asking price. Usually they'd go for much less.‘
(Taped interview, July 16, 1978.)

Hustlers, usually being a little older than chicken, can sometimes

be found in the gay bar. For example:

Pete: "Oh, occasionally I would pick up

people at the bar, but they were_again

usually gays who were on the hustle a bit.

At the old Wentworth, they used to, some of

them, get in there before they were 21, too.

They were tolerated a little bit!’ (Taped

interview, July 16, 1978.)
Another example makes the same point: Don (aged 19) had been a hustler,
hitch-hiking on the street beginning about the age of fourteen. I asked
Leo (aged 33) how he had met Don: He met Don at Carl's bar while playing
pinball. Don had joined him and "I let him pick me up. He went to a
motel, and he's very good (in bed)." I had to probe to get Leo to say
that he paid him, he thought, $30, adding that the minimum price is
usually $20. Leo said he could trust Don not to rip him off, and usu-

ally avoids hustlers (for that reason?). He said Don has "a good mind,

156

at least when he wants to use it." Leo said he has subsequently gone
to bed with Don three or four times, usually paying him. Leo explained,

"That's how he makes his money, and he's good.
We are friends now and I probably wouldn't have
to pay him, but if you have a friend who sells
shoes, you don't expect him to give you the
shoes. He usually needs the money, and if I
have it, I don't mind giving it to him."

Leo said he thought Don wanted to pick him up tonight, by his affec-
tionate behavior in the bar. (Field notes, July 30, 1978.)

Don, Harry, and some of the other drag queens sometimes hustle out-
side the gay bar in drag; this means that they pretend to be female
prostitutes, when in drag. Sometimes they also hustle in male clothing,
or at least try it. Hence, there is sometimes an overlap between being
into drag and hustling.

Hustling is also something that can be done on the spur of the mo-
ment as a way of de-personalizing a sexual relationship. For example,
Bill C. (an executive in an insurance company and aged about 28 or 30)
said one day,

"'Oh, I made ten dollars this week' (he smiles).
RCO: 'What? Oh, no! You didn't!' (We both
laugh.)
Bill C.: 'Yeah, I did. See, there's this guy,
Dan, who I never met, and he calls up, he's been
calling up for a year or two, and beats off on
the phone while telling me all the things he
would like to do.'
RCO: 'Nait. You never met him?‘
Bill C.: 'No, I never met him. It was getting
so that he would call up in the middle of the
night, and I would say 'hello, Dan' and set the
phone down and go back to sleep. After a while,
the beeping of the phone would wake me up and I'd
hang it up. Anyway this last week, I told him,
'You can't go on phoning like this. -He never
(go out, or anything.'~ So, he said 'Okay, let's
meet at the post office.’ Hell, I didn't have
anything to do and I was going out shopping any-
way, and Phil (his lover, who he lives with) was

157

out. So, I drove by, and here's this guy
walking up and down. He looked like a mess -
well not really a mess, but not all that good.
Anyway, I call out 'Dan?' and he jumps in

» and wants to go to his place. Just as we got
there, I said to him, 'You know, this is the way
I make my living.‘ And he says, 'Oh, I wouldn't
want it any other way,‘ and pulls out a $10 bill
from his pocket and hands it to me. So then
I went in and put it all on like I was a hustler.
I stripped all my clothes off right away, and
leaned against the bed (gestures, with his hands
on his waist, posing). It was really fun.'"
(Conversation recorded, December 5, 1974.)

6. Bisexuals

 

As an identity, a "bisexual" is not likely to present the identity
to others in the gay community, except to those who are good friends.
That is, a person with a bisexual identity is not likely to tell others
that he or she has a bisexual identity. This is so because others are
likely to view the assertion as a "cop-out,“ or to assume that the
person has only recently come out and has not yet fully accepted his
(or her) identity as gay.

7. Closet Queens

 

Being "out" (or having Ycome out") usually means being willing to
present a gay identity in certain ecological settings, making oneself
available for homosexual relations, and being willing to have friends
who share a homosexual identity in the setting. Because of the inter-
section with the straight world and the potentially discreditable na-
ture of the presentation of a homosexual identity in the public domain,
some gay males choose to make their identity presentations in only
some, and not other, locations. Some prefer to Ycruise" (to look for
a sexual partner) only at the gay bar because they can assume that

most others present are also gay, and, if successful in cruising, go

158

to a private space for actual sexual relations. Others avoid the gay
bar and prefer the greater subtlty and anonymity of cruising in the
College Center, even despite (or in some cases, because of) the risk
of police apprehension in the public washrooms. In this varied sense,
a "closet queen" (a derogatory term rarely applied to the self) is one
who has adopted a strategy toward the ecological locations where a gay
identity may be presented.

Unfortunately, the term Hcloset queen? is used by gay males to des-
ignate anyone who has not Ycome out,§ as defined above. Hence, someone
who has had some incidental homosexual experiences and may think of him-
self as possibly having a bisexual or homosexual identity, but does not
know about the several ecological settings for presenting a homosexual
identity and forming friendships with homosexuals, would be called a
'closet queen? by gay males. This is not a conscious strategy of
avoidance, but rather ignorance. Also,_gay males in conversations some-
times refer to ftrade'(Humphreys, 1970) as closet queens, and occa-
sionally imply that most males in society, or particular prominent
males, are 'really? closet queens. Such a view by gay males is self-
serving, by asserting that the homosexual minority is really a majority.
This misperception is also seen in Gay Lib posters in the College Center
advertising their dances with the slogan, "Come out of the closet.' A
closet queen (in their terms) would not have enough social contact with
.gay males to know what the slogan means! Hence, there is an identity
of fcloset queen? but it is not claimed nor presented by anyone as an
aspect of the self.

Having considered the several identities that comprise segments of

159

gay male community, activities in the public and private settings will
now be considered. The several identities were considered first because
some of these identities become salient with some activities in public.
In particular, the annual 'slave auction? which is organized by one of
the leather.clubs will be described. Also, drag shows and drag contests
have greater salience to those with the identity of drag queen. The
consideration of activities in public places will begin with the activity
of Pcruising,' which can simply be defined as the public searching for a
sexual partner. This will be done because cruising can be viewed as the
"central event? (Agar, 1973, p. 21; also see Lee, 1978a) of gay male
sub-culture not only for gay males with one of the several additional
identities which have just been considered but for "regular" gay males

including those in couples as well.

Activities in Public:
College Center, Bar, Slave Auction, and Drag Shows

1. Cruising in the College Center

Cruising for a sexual partner is done somewhat differently in the
various public domains (College Center, bar, and public washrooms). As
described earlier, following and being followed by another in the Col-
lege Center building are important aspects of cruising, prerequisite to
actual sexual behavior. However, usually one would not follow another
(nor be followed) without initial "eye contact? or some other minimal
expression of reciprocated interest. These preliminary expressions are
usually very subtle and go completely unnoticed by a naive observer.
In fact, the cues at the initial stage of cruising another male are so
subtle that errors in perception often occur even among those with

great experience in cruising. A gay male cruising a strange male in

160

the College Center does not.know the sexual orientation nor sexual in-
terests of the stranger, but because the gay is hoping for an initial
expression of interest from the other, he can mistake this in the blink
of an eye, and subsequently follow the other around the building fruit-
lessly. A straight male often does not even recognize that a sexual in-
terest is being expressed in him when he is initially "being cruised"
and so he often does not respond in‘a fashion that could be taken by a
gay male as a cue reciprocating interest.

As mentioned, "eye contact“ is the usual initial cue in cruising.
Straight males who are strangers to each other often glance once at each
other, thereby acknowledging the other's presence. Eye contact is simply
a somewhat longer than normal glance which is repeated. At the same time
it is not staring into the eyes of the other for a prolonged period
(Ashcraft and Scheflen, 1976, pp. 28-30, note norms against staring).
Rather than staring, one cruising would typically try to establish eye
contact several times over a few minutes. (Lee, 1978b, p. 54, also
briefly mentions the importance of repeated glancing to cruising.)

This, of course, means that the male cruising has to situate himself
so that he can make repeated glances at the other, hoping for the more
prolonged and repeated eye contact from the other. .At the same time,
he must situate himself close enough to the other to be sure exactly
where the other's glance is directed, and within the other's field of
vision to hope to "catch the other's eye." Obviously it would be rare
to try to cruise another person across a large room.

One typical pattern in the College Center building occurs in the

Lounge, a large room (about one hundred feet long) filled with chairs

161

and couches. On a typical evening the room may have a couple of dozen
people in it, sitting scattered about the room. Some of them would be
small groups of men or women or mixed groups, typically studying to-
gether, while others would be sitting alone, reading. A gay male, for
example, Bob 8., would enter the Lounge carrying a newspaper or book,
and would look all around the room, as if looking for a friend. If in
fact, he sees a friend and joins him, then he is no longer cruising.
More likely (even if Bob does see a friend, whom he does not join), he
will select a possible lone male to cruise, and he will sit down in a
chair or couch which faces the stranger. The chair selected may not
place him directly in front of the stranger, but this does not matter
as long as Bob is within the other's field of vision. The chair se-
lected would usually be outside the boundary of the personal space of
the other, and this distance prevents any conversation between the two
while they remain sitting (cf. Sommer, 1969, p. 27). (Bob might not
look directly at the other as he sits down, but instead would open his
newspaper, thereby establishing his legitimate purpose in sitting there.
Indeed, if the other acknowledged Bob's presence as he sat down, for
example by a nod or a fhellof this would probably be taken as a bad
sign, as the other may be straight or too friendly. Bob, facing the
other, would open his newspaper or book but would hold it below the
line of sight of potential eye contact.

Cruising can also be effected while sitting down, while the other
is walking by, but again, initial eye contact (the prolonged glance) is
the crucial thing. In either case, the initial objective is Pgoodf eye

contact, which means frequent prolonged glances which “catch the eye"

162

of the other briefly.2 A subtle way of expressing greater interest af-
ter good eye contact has been established (that is, subtle to an ob-
server), is, while the other looks at Bob's eyes, Bob would glance down
at the other's genital area and then quickly back to the other's eyes.
This is an expression of sexual interest communicated to the other only
if the other sees and recognizes where Bob has.glanced. If the other
breaks eye contact during the glance.at his genital area, then either
communication of sexual interest has not been made, or the other may
not be interested in a sexual encounter. During this process of re-
peated prolonged glances over several minutes, one or both males may
unintentionally exhibit signs of the development of an erection beneath
(the clothing. If this occurs in the other, it would be taken as a fav-
orable cue to the one cruising, but is not viewed as a necessity for
subsequent events. Good eye contact in itself justifies following the
other if he gets up from his seat. The cruiser may get up from his
seat and leave the Lounge area in order to see if the other will follow
him; this may merely amount to getting up to get a drink of water at a
fountain near the Lounge.‘ If the other does not follow but eye con—
tact has been "good," the cruiser would likely return to his seat and
continue the repeated prolonged glances. Eventually, one or the other
must get up and be followed to effect a subsequent sexual encounter.

If this does not occur (typically) within a half hour, the cruiser is
likely to leave and go to another area of the building to cruise some-
one else. No conversation with the other during this cruising would
usually occur because the two would maintain distance between each

other so that the personal space of each is not violated, and this

163

distance precludes conversation.

Once one is being followed or following, walking in the building,
the choice to be determined is whether to have oral sex in«a washroom
or to go to one's home, typically for anal sex. (Inviting someone home
does not exclude the possibility of oral sex there as well. Some simply
prefer the greater comfort and privacy of the home for oral sex. It
should be emphasized that most gay males are fairly flexible in their
repertoire of sexual acts with a partner.) Certain contingencies should
be obvious at this point.‘ For example, the one being followed may go
into a washroom in the building, and the follower will either follow him
into the washroom with the objective of having oral sex there (if the
washroom is not occupied by others, or waiting until others leave), or
the follower will walk around outside the area of the washroom. The
follower may follow the other into the washroom just to continue to ex-
press a sexual interest. If the choice is to have sex in the washroom,
very little if-anything will usually be said (cf. Humphreys, 1970, and
Delph, 1978).

If the objective is to take the other home for a sexual encounter
of an hour or two, the cruiser must have a car or live nearby. Once
sufficient interest through eye contact and following by the other has
been expressed, an invitation home is easily made, for example, by in-
viting the other home "for a drink." Even then, the exchange of bio-
,graphical information is usually minimal, often limited to the exchange
of first names. The relative anonymity of the one—night stand is typ-
ical, not only (as Humphreys, 1970, has suggested) to forestall the

possibility of blackmail and extortion, but more importantly so as not

164

to shatter any fantasies about the other that are possibly present (on
the importance of fantasy in a silent sexual encounter, see Delph,
1978, pp. 26-8). For example, one male who regularly cruised the Col-
lege Center lounge, although not particularly muscular, enhanced the
masculinity of his appearance by typically wearing tight jeans and a
black leather jacket. For him to reveal that he works in a suit in an
office could shatter fantasies that his partners may have about him,
and destroy the possibility of the sexual encounter before it took
place (Delph, 1978, pp. 26-7 gives a similar example). There is little
reason to exchange biographical information after the sexual encounter
in the one-night stand, unless one of the partners wants to repeat the
performance at a later time. In that case, phone numbers are all that
need to be exchanged.

The preliminary expressions of interest toward a stranger are us-
ually, but not always, very subtle, and are not always non-verbal. For
example, I sat in the lounge with a drag queen (Harry) and a gay friend
of his. Harry noticed Rick (an acquaintance of mine, who I knew was
straight) and started making quite loud comments, like "oh, is he nice
looking." When Rick walked by us, Harry invited him to join us. (Harry
did not know that Rick and I were acquainted, so Rick was not reluctant
to join us.) Rick learned that Harry is a drag queen, which he found
interesting. Harry (to Rick): "Why don't you come home with me and
I'll tell you all about it?" Rick replied: "No, I can't. I have to
meet my girlfriend in here in a few minutes." Harry exclaimed immed-
iately, "0h, ditch her!" At that point the other gay male and I were

laughing uproariously at Harry, who turned away from Rick and toward

165

us, and hid his face in his hands dramatically for a few seconds.
(Field notes, December 13, 1974.) However, this example is by no means
typical cruising - indeed, most gay males would find Harry's behavior
to be very obnoxious exhibitionism typical only of a drag queen. Harry
was, in effect, putting on a show for his friends, the two of us sit-
ting with him. His attempt at verbal cruising could have succeeded,
and in that sense, it was not pure theater for our amusement. However,
he would not likely have exhibited such unsubtle behavior if we had

not been present.

One could say that cruising in the College Center building has a
norm of non-interference by other gay males, except that it is referred
to only in its breach, which occurs fairly frequently and leads to an-
tagonisms between gay male acquaintances. For example, one gay male
may sit down near a stranger to cruise him, and another gay male may
not recognize the situation and sit down nearby and also cruise the
stranger, seeking eye contact. If the latter gay succeeds in getting
eye contact, and perhaps subsequently is followed out of the building,
the first gay male is likely to complain to friends that the other gay
male Yinterferred," and the offender may be avoided for some days. Al-
though some of this finterferencef may sometimes be competitive or be
a consequence of lack of other interesting strange males to cruise in
the building at the_moment, more often it results by mistake in per-
ceiving the ambiguity of the seating arrangement and the subtlty of
cruising itself.

A norm of non-interference also applies to following someone into a
washroom (which can occur without preliminary eye contact). This situ-

ation is more complicated, however, because even when one has established

166

eye contact with a stranger and is following him into the washroom,
another gay male may already happen to be in the washroom and also find
the stranger interesting. In such a situation, it is possible for both_
gay males to view the other as interfering. Some gay males, upon en-
tering a washroom being used for sexual purposes by two males will
quickly and discretely leave; this will sometimes not disrupt the action
if he is recognized by one of the participants as being gay. (Field
notes, November 14, 1975.) Yet another although apparently rare pos-
sibility in the washrooms is for several males, each entering separately,
to join together in an orgy of mutual masturbation in a chain. I have
only heard of one time when six males happened into the same washroom
(some presumably following others into it), but believe that three par-
ticipants together might be somewhat common; but again, the latter holds
the possibility of being viewed as interference.

2. Non-sexual Activities in the College Center

 

Before considering cruising at the bar and behavior at the annual
Slave Auction, other sorts of non-sexual activities originating in the
College Center building should be mentioned at this point. Besides
cruising, a great amount of time is spent by gay males in talking with
each other in the College Center building. In my efforts to both study
and participant observe gay males, I spent many hours reading in the

College Center Lounge or Grill. In fact, many students study in the
1 building, but the assumption seemed always to be made by gay friends
that my reading was not a serious activity and could be interfered with
freely. Over and over again, I found myself sitting on a couch reading,

and having a friend join me, a friend of his join him, and so on,

167

until I looked up from my reading to see six or eight gay males sitting
and standing around me all talking to each other, but not all known to
me nor each other.

While talking in groups (from two to larger numbers) in the College
Center, cruising may still be going on, and one may leave the group to
follow a strange male, perhaps later returning to the group and report-
ing what if anything transpired (Field Notes, November 14, 1975). Also,
members in the group indicate their cruising by commenting on strange
males walking by. This commonly takes the form of a question to the
group: YHey, look at that one. Do you know him?9 Of course, such a
question can be and often is asked in any group about a stranger. The
answer from one in the group is usually identity attribution to the
stranger: that is, a member of the group attributes an identity of rel-
evance to the group to the stranger. 'The answers given in the groups
of gay males in the College Center about a stranger were usually rel-
evant to cruising because the answers (that is, when someone in the
. group recognized the stranger) tended to be of sexual relevance. For
example, a fairly common answer was, "I think I've seen him down at
the bar,Y which would lead the questioner to conclude that the stranger
is most likely also gay.

Before considering other forms of non-sexual sociability in the
College Center and their functions for gay males, a network analysis
of the groups eating in the College Center cafeteria will now be made.
The first aim here is to show the frequency of appearance of the reg-
ular members in the dinner groups, and second, to look at the clustering

of paired appearances. The analysis is not sociometric because the

168

ghgjgg_of partners to eat with in the cafeteria could not usually be
assumed by the participants; that is, one bought dinner in the cafeteria,
thereby committing oneself to that line of action, before knowing which
gay friends were already eating in or would shortly come to the cafe-
teria. (However, sometimes gay friends would meet before dinner on the
runway or in the lounge.) Rather, the point to be established on an
individual level is that there was a core of gay males who regularly
ate in the cafeteria and who appeared with other gay males. Because of
the regularity of the appearance of a core group of gay males in the
cafeteria, the core group came to represent for others (the less fre-
quent gay male diners) a gay presence in the cafeteria and in the Col-
lege Center in general. In this way, even though most people in the
cafeteria were not gay, the cafeteria became established as a gay
place and the identity of gay male was made salient, even for those who
attended only infrequently. However, what is important to establish
in the present context is the nature and functions of the gay cafe-
teria networks.

Table 5 shows those diners in the College Center cafeteria who
were observed seven or more times in the cafeteria during the three
year period of 1974 to 1976. (In other words, the table excludes
those who were seen less than seven times in the cafeteria.) As was
seen in chapter 3 (table 4 on page 55), the average numbers of partic-
ipants fluctuated somewhat, averaging 3.9 to 8.1 participants for three
month intervals over the period of observations, until they declined
to an average of 3.1 participants (including RCO) during the Summer of

1976. However, table 5 makes clear that there was considerable change

169

Table 5.--Frequency and Per Cent of Appearance of Participants Who Ate
a Total of Seven or More Times in the College Center Cafeteria, By Year,
and Per Cent of Total Frequency.

 

 

h-b-hO’iO‘ON-bwwm

Per
Pgr§9g_ Year Total Cent
L921 24; .1215. 24; 1.915. 24;
RCO (days observed) 82 111 118 311 100.
def 55 67.1 76 68.5 32 27.1 153 49.
Michael 26 31.7 53 47.7 .58 49.2 137 44.
Doug 19 23.2 50 45.0 65 55.1 134 43.
Curtis 4 4.9 63 56.8 3 2.5 70 22
Bob 8. 40 48.8 21 18.9 2 1.7 63 20.
Bruce 43 52.4 14 12.6 _a - 57 18
David 3 3.7 2 1.8 49 41.5 54 17.
Kitty (female) 1 1.2 1 0.9 36 30.5 38 12.
Mark 30 36.6 1 0.9 - - 31 10.
Bill A. 22 26.8 8 7.2 0b 0 3o 9.
George 3 3.7 16 14.4 11 9.3 30 9.
Leo 1 1.2 2 1.8 23 19.5 26 8.
Brad 6 7.3 13 11.7 4 3.4 23 7.
Marty 8 9.8 4 3.6 11 9.3 23 7.
Bob D. 15 18.3 7 6.3 0 0 22 7.
Colin - - 1 0.9 20 17.0 21 6.
Peter (Black) 3 3.7 17 15.3 - - 20 6.
John 17 20.7 - - - - 17 5.
Duncan 1 1.2 1 0.9 15 12.7 17 5.
Dwight 16 19.5 - - - - 16 5.

H

(Jim-hm

170

Table 5.--Continued.

 

. Per

Person_ Year. Total Cent
_IBZAEEZEE £916.24.

Brian 1 1.2 9 8.1 5 4.2 15 4.8
Jill (female) - - - - 15 12.7 15 4.8
Karl 11 13.4 - - - - 11 3.5
Sam 0 O 7 6.3 4 3.4 11 3.5
Joe 10 12.2 — - - - 10 3.2
Al 10 12.2 - - - - 10 3.2
Tom 7 8.5 1 0.9 - - 8 2.6
Sean 6 7.3 2 1.8 - - 8 2.6
Tod 6 7.3 1 0.9 - - 7 2.3
Halter (Black) 7 8.5 - - - - 7 2.3
Glenn 3 3.7 4 3.6 O O 7 2.3

Total Participants: 32 (all are white males, except as indicated)

a. A dash (-) indicates that the person moved away from the city.
b. A zero indicates that the person was known to be in the area,

but was not seen in the cafeteria during the year.

in the composition of the regular participants, as some moved away from
the area and others began or increased their participation. Those who
are known to have moved away from the city are indicated in table 5 by
a dash, but the precise dating of their move from Midwest City (when

it was accurately known and recorded, which was not always the case),

is not always apparent in the table. For example, the table seems to

171

show that Tom ate in the cafeteria seven times in 1974 and once in 1975,
during which he moved away from the city. In fact, Tom ate in the
cafeteria six times from February until April, 1974, when he joined

the Navy; he returned once more to the cafeteria in 1974 while on shore
leave. He returned to the cafeteria once on a visit to Midwest City

in 1975 after he was released from the Navy for "homosexual tendencies."
Although Tom was only seen on 2.6 percent of the observed days over the
three year period, his participation in 1974 (seven times) constitutes
8.5 percent of the observation days for 1974. Participation in the
cafeteria groups by the members in table 5 tended to be on a fairly
regular basis and was often more concentrated in time than is apparent
from the summary figures for each participant by year. The yearly

time intervals in table 5 (as in table 4 on page 55) are not equal
because the observation for 1976 came to an end in August; yet, the
numbers of observation days are greater in 1976 (118 days) than 1975
(111 days) and than 1974 (82 days). The figures by year in table 5

are just a convenient way of summarizing the participation of the
regular diners.

Table 5 shows that twenty of the thirty-one regular participants
(excluding RCO) attended the cafeteria dinners on more than five per-
cent of the observed days. Seven of these twenty regulars were no
longer attending the dinners or had moved away from Midwest City by
1976, while only one (Colin) began attending the dinner groups after
1974. However, as seen in table 5, some (such as Doug, David, Leo,
and Duncan) increased their participation in the later period.

Table 6 simply re-organizes some of the data from table 5 to dis-

play it more graphically. In particular, table 6 shows the percent of

172

Table 6.--Diners Attending the College Center Cafeteria More Than
Ten Per Cent Per Year (the "High Attenders"), by Year.

1215_
Jef
Bruce
Bob B.
Michael
Doug
Mark
Bill A.
John
Dwight
Bob 0.
Karl
Joe

Al

Per Cent

67.1
52.4
48.8
31.7
23.2
36.6
26.8
20.7
19.5
18.3
13.4
12.2
12.2

1915. Per Cent
Jef 68.5
Bruce 12.6
Bob 8. 18.9
Michael 47.7
Doug 45.0
Curtis 56.8
Peter (Black) 15.3
George 14.4
Brad 11.7

1976 Per Cent
Jef 27.1
Michael 49.2
Doug 55.1
David 41.5

Kitty (female) 30.5

Leo 19.5
Colin 17.0
Duncan 12.7

Jill (female) 12.7

173

attendance of those who were observed to eat in the cafeteria on ten
percent or more of the observation days in any one year. These will be
referred to as the "high attenders." Just as was seen in table 5, the
composition of the high attenders in the cafeteria changed considerably
over the course of the three years. Thirteen gay males attended on ten
percent or more of the observed days during 1974, but only five of them
continued to participate at such a high level during 1975, while four
other gay males joined the five in being observed in the cafeteria

more than ten percent of the days during 1975. None of the four new
high attenders of 1975 continued eating in the cafeteria at such a high
rate during 1976, and only three of the original high attenders from
1974 and 1975 continued to attend so frequently during 1976. However,
in 1976, six others also became high attenders in the cafeteria; of

the latter, two-were straight women. The table shows that even the
most frequent of the core set of participants was in considerable flux.
Also, the core set of high attenders decreased from thirteen in 1974

to nine in 1975 and 1976.

Table 7 considers all of the participants ever observed in the
cafeteria by year, and groups them by the amount of attendance per
year. The high attenders, as previously defined, attended ten percent
or more per year. The medium attenders appeared in the cafeteria on
three to ten percent of the observation days per year, while the low
attenders appeared in the cafeteria on less than three percent of the
observation days in any one year. As in table 6, table 7 shows that
the number of high attenders decreased from thirteen to nine from 1974

to 1975 and 1976, but it also shows that the average amount of

174

participation of the high attenders did not change appreciably among the
three years, averaging between twenty-nine and thirty-two percent per
year. The average participation of the medium attenders also_did not
vary greatly from year to year (averaging between 5.7 percent and 5.3
percent per year), but it is clear that the numbers of medium attenders
dropped significantly from twenty in 1974 to seven in 1975 and ten in
1976. 'The variation in average rates of attendance of the low attenders
is also not great between years, averaging between 1.3 and 1.1 percent
of the observation days per year (this average is just barely more than
'oge_appearance in the cafeteria per year). The numbers of low attenders
show considerable variation from year to year, ranging between thirty-
seven and fifty-seven people per year. The table shows that the num-
bers of both high and medium attenders declined from 1974 (thirty-three
participants) to 1975 (sixteen participants) and increased only

slightly in 1976 to nineteen participants. (It should be noted that
there is considerable overlap of the total participants between years,
just as was seen among the high attenders in table 6. The total par-
ticipants observed over the three years totaled one hundred fifty-six
different people.) The most important conclusion from table 7 is that

a majority of the participants were low and very infrequent attenders.
This indicates that the groups of regular participants in the cafeteria
were very open to admission of new participants. Hhile sitting with
high and medium attenders in the cafeteria, it was usual to meet and

eat dinner with a new person every few days.

175

Table 7.-~Average Per Cent Attendance Per Year of Participants in the
College Center Cafeteria, by Year.

1974 N_ 1975 N_ 1976 .N

High attendersa 29.4% 13 32.3% 9 29.4% 9
(10%+ per year)

Medium attenders 5.5 20 5.7 7 5.3 10
(3 to 10% per year) 1

Low attenders 1.3 42 1.2 37 1.1 57
(less than 3% per year)

Total participants per year 75 53 76

a. Excluding RCO.

In tables 8, 9, and 10 (in the appendix), column A (number of pairs)
shows the total number of pairs (including RCO) that the high attender
was actually in during 1974. Column 8 (total with high attenders) is
the total number of times that the person was paired with other high
attenders. Column C (% B/A) shows the total paired with high attenders
(B) divided by the total number of pairs that the person was actually
in (A), expressed as a percent; in other words, column C gives the pro-
portion of the person's actual pairs that were with other high attenders.
The number of possible pairs‘(column D) is the same as the total number
of other people (that is, other gay males and those who were observed

to eat with gay males) who were present in the cafeteria on the days

176

when the person was in the cafeteria. Because everyone did not sit at
one table, the number of possible pairs is always higher than the total
number of actual pairs for each high attender. Column E expresses the
total number of pairs that each high attender was in as a percent of
the number of all possible pairs (i.e., column A divided by column 0,
expressed as a percent). The last column (E) of percents expresses how
inclusive the groups in the cafeteria were. For example, in table 8
Michael was paired with only 35.1% of the possible pairs because he and
Doug tended to sit alone together. In contrast, Jef was paired with
76.6% of the possible pairs because he tended to sit with most of the
people, other than Michael and Doug.

Tables 8, 9, and 10 show that the high attenders in each year tended
to be paired with the other high attenders a very high proportion of the
time (column C). In other words, the high attenders tended to eat
dinner with each other frequently. The tables also show that the actual
paired dinner relations of the high attenders were a high proportion
of all of their possible paired relations (column E). This indicates,
not only that the high attenders tended to eat with each other, but
that the medium and low attenders tended to eat dinner with the high
attenders as well (i.e., the dinner groups were open to being joined
by new people; for example, a high attender could and often did bring .
a friend to his dinner group and this was acceptable to others in the
group). However, the numbers in column E dropped steadily over the
three years; the average percent for 1974 was 66.2%, for 1975 it was
60.4%, and for 1976 the average dropped to 45.0%.

From tables 5 through 10, it should be clear that there were a

177

number of gay males who frequently ate dinner together in the College
Center cafeteria. The core group among them (the Nhigh attenders")
tended to eat together often, so the same people were seen frequently
(i.e., the high attenders tended to eat with the other high attenders).
Although the core group was in some flux from year to year, nevertheless
they represented for others (the low attenders) a core gay group in the
College Center. Moreover, the networks of friends who ate in the
cafeteria clearly formed an open rather than a closed system; hence,

one of the functions of the core group in the cafeteria was a shared
interest in meeting new people.

Internally, the continuity of participation in the group served
several functions for the individual member. Generally, the continuity
of participation allowed friends to provide emotional and other support
and information. For example, one typical evening, eight of us sat
together (Jef, Bill A., Bob 0., Bruce, Leo, and Michael,.who introduced
his new acquaintance, George, to the rest of us). During the course
of the dinner, Jef asked Bob 0. about the chair that Jef had given him
to be repaired and Bob_0. told him that it would be too expensive to
fix. Bob 0. talked about a class that he was teaching at a community
college. Michael talked with Bill A. about how to get his damage de-
posit returned (both had recently moved out of the same apartment com-
plex). Jef said that he and a friend planned to see a (heterosexual)
pornographic film later that evening. Leo talked about the classes he
was taking at the College. Finally, the conversation ended with a
discussion among Bill A., Bob 0., Bruce, Leo and RCO about the threat

of loss of ozone in the atmosphere. (Field notes, January 30, 1975.)

178

Except for a couple of jokes, the conversations on most evenings did
not emphasize gay topics. Rather, as seen above, the topics often
focused on work and classes, and also included frequent exchanges of
information (such as damage deposits) and exchanges of favors (such as
repairing a chair,above).

The continuity of participation allowed individual members of the
. groups to receive assistance from others. One could bring personal
troubles and embarrassments that are not particularly gay to the group.
For example, it was common for someone to have forgotten to bring money
for dinner and the money would be readily loaned. Many of the students
regularly borrowed small amounts of money, usually from those who were
working full-time. The money was not always borrowed for only a short
period of time; for example, in 1975, RCO borrowed a total of forty
dollars from eight different people in the cafeteria for a three-week
period. Early in 1975, several of the high attenders each decided to
buy a new car because of manufacturers' rebates, and they compared
cost, performance, extra features, and so on, of the cars that they
looked at; this exchange of information became the main topic of the
dinner conversations for a couple of months until three members had
made their decisions. Hence, the dinner groups had a consistent and
strong moral dimension, providing a place for personal troubles and
embarrassments as well as emotional support and the exchange of infor-
mation and of favors that did not have to do with a uniquely gay
lifestyle.

Gay topics of course were also introduced in the dinner conversa-

tions. Some of these also were introduced for emotional support and

179

information. For example, Joe told of meeting an attractive male who
said he was fimpotent,i and Joe asked the group to eXplain what that
meant. Jef told the group to look at the new Playgirl, which had a
nude male centerfold, when it first appeared on the newsstand (recorded
conversation, February 6, 1975). Also, members in the dinner groups
sometimes commented on attractive strange males walking by or sitting
elsewhere in the cafeteria, with the question, "Hey, look at that one.
Does anyone know him?f As with groups sitting in the lounge, the
question indicates verbalized cruising. In the cafeteria, if someone
knew the strange male and he was sitting alone, it was not unusual for
the stranger to be invited to join the group.

Having examined the nature of the networks of gay males who ate in
the College Center cafeteria, attention will now turn to some of the
other non-sexual activities of gay males in the College Center to show
the nature of the networks. The College Center building is a good
place to go after suppertime and before the bar becomes active during
weekday evenings, just to see fwho is around,f as well as possibly for
a sexual encounter. It is also a good place to meet friends on weekend
afternoons and evenings. Because I was so regularly in the building.
several gay males came to rely on me to tell them if I had seen a
particular friend (e.g., in, Richard. Hey, have you seen Bob in here
tonight??). This sort of question could of course be asked of any
other friend as well. The point is that gay friends use the building
for a meeting place in two different senses: a) To talk with whatever
friends happen to be in the building, and b) to meet particular friends.

Most activities in groups of gay males involve talking, usually

180

biographical (about work, school, perhaps problems with one's personal
life such as looking for another apartment, and so on), but also in—
clude politics and world events, books, and any number of other topics.
Hence, most of the talk has little to do with homosexuality, though
each conversation may have at least a few homosexual anecdotes (some-
thing that happened at the bar, a strange ftrick,i etc.). Because
these groups tend to be open and fluid, with some leaving the group
and others entering the building and joining the group, it seems that
a gay topic is sometimes brought up just to ftestf if strangers in the
group are themselves gay.

Only very rarely does a group of gay males do something as a group
in the building other than talk (or eat in the grill). On one occasion,
someone in the group of about six or eight in the lounge suggested
playing charades. A few chairs and couches were pushed around a bit
to make two rows of seats facing each other, and people sitting in the
opposite row had to guess the person, place, or quote being acted out
by the person from one's row. While the game was in progress, three
or four more gay males entered the building and, recognizing a friend
among the players, joined the game. However, such activities are very
rare.

In 1976, a color television was added to the lounge. Occasionally,
one will see a few gay friends sitting together watching the television,
but it has, if anything, decreased the sociability among gay males in
the lounge because the television can be heard throughout the lounge
area. Hence, gay groups are recently more likely than previously to

form in the grill or on the runway.

181

Sometimes, a group of several gay males has been seen to eat in the
cafeteria together, sit together afterwards in the lounge or on the
runway, and still later be together at the bar (field notes, May 28,
1975.) However, it is rare for a group not to lose or gain members
through an evening. An important point here is that the College Center
is a place to go before the bar becomes active, and it is used like
the bar, for both sociable and sexual purposes by gay males in the
evenings and on weekends. It is rare to see more than a few gay males
in the building during the week day, as many are not students and are
at work.

A group in the College Center may decide to go to a movie, to
dinner in a restaurant, or to a straight bar. Occasionally, these may
involve plans for the future, e.g., to see a particular movie on a
certain evening in a few days, but such planning would be rare. Like-
wise, the composition of the group depends on who is present in the
College Center at the time the decision is made to undertake the ac—
tivity, and invitations might be made to others in the building to join
the group. In such a situation (departing from the College Center), it
would be exceedingly unusual for one to phone someone else at home to
invite him to join the group in the activity. (Of course, friends
phone each other at home for such activities also, so that a pair or
group of friends may arrange, usually that same day, to meet at a cer-
tain place in public for an activity. None of this would be called
a Ndate.f)

Two examples here may suffice to show the fluidity and openness of

the networks of friends that assemble in the College Center for

182

activities outside the building. (Bott defines a social network as a
"set of social relationships for which there is no common boundary" and
considers the mesh of the networks as Nclosely-knit," where many mem-
bers have direct contact, or "loosely-knit,f where few members have
direct contact, 1957, p. 59. An open network here means the same as a
loosely-knit network. See, also, Stebbins, 1969; and Noble, 1973). One
evening, RCO sat in the lounge with Joe, Tom, Karl, and a male whom
RCO did not know, when David (who did not have a car) came up and said
he was going to the airport to meet Steve. RCO was surprised that
Steve was outside the city as his absence had not been noticed. RCO
asked David where Steve was flying in from, what he had been doing in
the other city, and how long he had been gone. Eventually, all present
(except RCO) decided to meet Steve at the airport, going in Joe's car.
Presumably, Steve had just asked'gne_person to meet his flight and
bring him back to the city; yet, he was met by a carload of people,
not all of whom knew him, because going to the airport was Nsomething
to do.f (Field notes, March 20, 1974.)

Another example, in which RCO was more centrally involved, makes
the same point about the open networks.. Joe, a_gay auto mechanic, did
a great deal of work for friends on their cars just for the cost of
parts, after-hours in the garage of a large chain store. One noon soon
after Joe did considerable work on my car, it was two miles from the
College Center in the parking lot of a restaurant popular in the evenings,
and the car would not start. I waited until the evening when I Nran
into" Joe in the College Center, and he suggested we use his car to

push mine out to his garage to work on it further. I explained that

183

the particular parking lot would be very crowded and we would have to
hand-push the car around the lot to get it into a position where his
car could get behind it. We decided that we needed a few other people
to help hand-push the car. I asked Bob 8., who drove somebody else in
his car, and I asked Jane, a bisexual woman, who drove several gay
males that she knew. Joe also asked one or two people who asked others.
Ten minutes later, four or five cars converged on the parking lot with
more than a dozen people ready to push - in the snowball of friend
asking friend, too many people had been asked! (Field notes, March 15,
1974.) A week later, a strange male walked up to me in the gay bar and
asked if my car was running again. With surprise, I asked how he knew
that I had trouble with it, and he.explained that he had helped push

it out of the parking lot (field notes, March 21, 1974).

The College Center building then, serves a multitude of functions
for the open networks of gay friends: One can find a sexual partner,
get something to eat, talk with friends and meet new people (friends of
friends), borrow money, buy a car, find a roommate, get advice for an
emotional problem, watch television, read discarded newspapers, and go
out for entertainment elsewhere with friends.

Because the sexual acts performed in the building's male washrooms
and sexual acts at home with a partner met in the building are between
relative strangers and usually are not repeated with the same person
(again, it is clear that the open networks of gay friends who meet and
talk in the building are the basis of the non-sexual sociability.
Hence, the friendship networks exhibit little, if any, envy and jeal-

ousy (except when the norm of non-interference has been broken).

184

Although some of the conversations between friends may include anecdotes
about recent sexual partners ("tricksY) or about current "affairs,"
status distinctions are not made on the basis of sexual prowess. Also,
although distinctions are recognized between the friends in their pref-
erences for particular sexual acts (that is, some are known. for example,
to like to give blow jobs in the building's washrooms, while others pre-
fer the variations on anal intercourse with partners who are taken home),
and indeed, some conversations between friends include such statements
of preferences in sexual acts as well as preferences in various physical
qualities desired in sexual partners, nevertheless, none of these are
used in making status distinctions among friends, and none of these are
used as the basis of the friendship networks. 1

In fact, it must be clear to some gay males that others are more
often successful in cruising and obtaining sexual partners from observing
the others in the building. Yet, being known a5'399_successful in
cruising can lead one to some'lg§§_of status in the friendship groups
because one may then be referred to, in his absence, as a Ywhore." For
example, friends could say of an acquaintance who cruises too success-
fully as iwhoring around too much" with the implication that the person
. gossiped about does not exercise enough discrimination in selecting a
sexual partner.
I Other sorts of possible status distinctions that could be made in
the friendship networks also do not seem important. For example, dis—
tinctions in terms of age (that is, among the young adults), income,
student versus non-student, and race are not used as the basis of the

friendship networks. Hence, the open friendship networks in the

185

building tend toward equalization of statuses. Perhaps the only dis-
tinction of any importance in the friendship networks is that between
drag queen and leatherman. The latter tend to look down on and avoid
the former, so that gay males with one of these two additional iden-
tities tend not to be close friends. However, these two identities are
latent when gay men with these additional identities are in the building;
for example, it is very unusual for a drag queen to enter the building
dressed up in drag. (This was observed only once, when two drag queens
came in the building after a drag context at the bar, still in drag.
Observed February 2, 1975.) Although usually not close friends, drag
queens and leathermen who frequent the building often, become acquain-
tances, so that even these latent identities are not important criteria
for making status distinctions among friendship groups in the building.

Perhaps the only distinction of importance has to do with frequency
of presence in the building and type of participation in sexual acts.
As mentioned previously, a number of male college students who do not
consider themselves to be homosexual know the reputation of the building
as a gay meeting place and occasionally come to the building to receive
a "blow job." Although some of these males are considered to be attrac-
tive as sexual partners, they are never included among the gay male
friendship networks. Although they participate in homosexual acts,
they do not consider themselves to be homosexual and do not seek
friendships with either their sexual partners or other gay males in
the building.3

Hence, the open networks of gay male friends are not based primar-

ily on sexual acts between the friends. Sexual acts tend to occur

186

between strangers, one of whom may not define himself as gay, while
friendships share the common denominator of a gay self+identity, but
only rarely also_gay sexual acts.

However, one should note that there is a borderline of ambiguity be-
tween stranger and friend which contains the potential for a sexual re-
lationship. Two gay males who are only slightly acquainted because
they are in different friendship networks in the building (or one of
the two is rarely in the building) are potential sexual partners, as
well as potential friends. More than any other factor, this potential
for either a sexual partnership or a friendship among these who are
only slightly acquainted best explains why the friendship networks are
so open and why regular participants in the building tend to be so
gregariously friendly toward bare acquaintances.

3. At the Bar

 

At the bar the objective for most gay males, including most sitting
in groups of friends, is to find someone to take home or go home with.
It is of course true that not all the males there are cruising, but
most are. The bar is not only a sexual marketplace because one can go
with or meet friends there (i.e., there are mixed motives). The sex-
ual objective means that, even in conversation among friends, there is
a preoccupation with looking around at others and especially with
watching to see who will next enter the bar. Because of this, conver-
sations tend to be flight? and often truncated by the distraction of
someone else sitting or walking nearby. It is possible to find a sex-
ual partner at any time during the evening (initiated again, usually

by repeatedly "catching the eye" of the stranger; in this connection,

187

see Delph, 1978, p. 124). However, the probability increases as closing
time nears. Indeed, the casual observer in the bar can often see the
increase in the frantic milling and searching as 2:00 A.M. approaches.
It is more likely that someone will be "found" the closer it gets to
closing time, as people become less particular then, feeling that it
will be then or not at all for that evening. Also, other motives, such
as visiting with friends or drinking, become less important at closing
time.

Although clearly not preferred by most gay males, the approaches
made near closing time tend more often to be very direct and without
the preliminary "eye contact." For example, while sitting at the bar
near closing time with a gay male friend, Ron, another male who had
not previously been "seen," walked up to him and asked, "Would you
like to do something this evening?" (Field notes, December 27, 1974.)
However, it is not always so obvious that arrangements for an assign-
ation have been made, as the two may not leave the bar together, nor
even at precisely the same time, and instead may choose to meet out-
side the bar or in the parking lot across the street from the bar, so
that friends in the bar do not see them together, and so, have nothing
to gossip about.

As in the College Center, the possibility of mistaken perception is
high. One may only have established eye contact with the other, and
upon following him outside, discover that it was not defined as an ex-
pression of sexual interest by the other at all. Even when arrangements
have been made (e.g., "I have a blue Plymouth. Follow me home in your

car."), mistakenly following the wrong car or getting lost in traffic

188

occurs. Even when directions are explicit, one person may change his
mind or "lead on" the other without communicating this.

As in the College Center, there is also concern about Ninterference"
in the bar. For example, Harry, a drag queen, described what he con-
sidered to be interference at the bar. (Harry was not in drag on this
occasion at the bar.)

"'I saw a neat guy at Carl's [the bar] the other
night, and another guy was with him but kept on
leaving and I wasn't sure if they were really to-
gether or not. So, I bought him a drink. And
Mark pointed me out.‘

RCO: 'What? What did Mark do?‘

Harry: 'He told him who the drink was from.‘
RCO: 'Oh, Mark was bartender.‘

Harry: 'Yeah, he was working as the waiter. And
I don't believe in horning in on somebody, but
Betty [Bob 8.3 does, and he just went right up to
him and started talking to him. And a slow number
came on the juke box and I thought about asking
him to dance, but then Bob did. I was so angry!
Later, I went into the john, and he [the neat
guy] followed me in and we talked. I expected
him to thank me for the drink, but he didn't. He
did say something (pause) like 'did you buy me the
drink?‘ and I said 'yeah.' And he said Bob had
told him I was a drag queen, so I said he [Bob]
was the biggest whore around, and he could choose
between a drag queen and a whore, and which did
he want? (pause) Later I saw him and Bob leave
together and get in Bob's car.'" (Conversation
recorded December 20, 1974.) '

Achilles (1967) considered the gay bar as an finstitution" because
it serves the sociable and leisure-time activities of members of the
community, permitting but still controlling the formation of sexual re-
lationships. Further, she says that, because the bar is open to the
public, it is fboth the center of the private activities of the Commun-
ity and its liaison with the larger society? (1967, p. 232). Although

she implies something important here, the quote is misleading: As

189

seen in chapter 4, the bar is by no means unique as an ecological setting
for forming sexual relationships, nor is the bar the EEDEEE.°f the pri-
vate activities of all segments of the gay community; gay male couples
living together should better be considered as the most private and con-
cealed aspect of the community. Although (as Warren, 1974, has noted)
members of a gay male couple may on occasion frequent the bar (or the
College Center) as individuals, it is somewhat unusual to see a gay

male couple together at the bar. In fact, seeing a gay couple together
in the bar might raise suspicions that they were present to jointly

pick out someone for a ithree-way" sexual encounter.

Because the bar is so important for forming short-term liaisons,

a couple would not come to the bar together for fear that one partner
might find an interest in a stranger there, thus producing jealousy
in the partner. For example, when Brad started an affair with a
young college student who he met in the College Center and who had
just lcome out," Brad was deliberate in not taking him to the bar.
When the young student asked about the gay bar, Brad told him, "Oh,
you wouldn't want to go there," even though Brad was going regularly.

A sexual encounter in a public washroom (as in the College Center
building) is certainly more public than a homosexual couple (which is
often concealed as roommates), but nevertheless less public than the
bar. Achilles is correct in pointing to the bar as the liaison with
the larger society. Further, because the gay bar is open to the pub-
lic, it mediates between the gay and straight worlds. As a quasi-
institution, the gay bar grows out of contact with the straight world.

The bar represents the gay world to straights. Behavior in the bar

190

is played out in public, in at least potential view of the straight
world, and this in itself partly explains the emphasis on dress and
appearances in the bar.

Further, one sees again one of the major dilemmas of male homosex-
uality found in the settings of public washrooms and gay bars: The
settings are the nexus of public and private spaces. Seeking for a
sexual partner is done in public, even though sexual behavior as inti-
mate behavior is considered to be a private matter between two indi-
viduals, and normally to be reserved for a private Space. Cruising
for a sexual partner at the bar, as well as in the College Center
building, is a public searching for intimacy.

4. The Slave Auction

 

The public domain also includes the annual "slave auction" in the
leather bar in the large metropolis eighty-five miles from Midwest
City. It is perhaps the extreme of sexual exchange: It is buying and
selling sex as a commodity. Sex as a commodity to be sold is the moral
organization of the auction. However, as was noted in chapter 4, most
of the people who attend the auction are spectators, and neither
"slaves? nor bidders. In one slave auction, fifty-one males were reg-
istered to bid, but many of them never made a bid during the evening.
In that auction, about a dozen fslavesf were isold" for between $45
and $125 (the money going to a charity); only one of the "slaves" was
from Midwest City. As there were somewhere between two hundred and two
hundred and fifty males in the audience (only two females were present
in the bar during the evening), it should be clear that the auction
is better seen as a kind of show for most people present, and not a

sexual exchange, even though the sexual exchange is the moral

191

organization for the focus of attention for the spectators.

In one auction, the focus of interest of the audience initially was
on looking at the "slaves? being auctioned, with individuals standing
on their toes and creening their necks for a better look over the heads
of those standing in front. There were repeated calls to the I'slave"
on the fauction block? (a raised stage area) to take his shirt off,
which some "slaves? obliged. Later on, the focus of the audience
shifted to an interest in how high the bidding would go for each Nslave."
Throughout the auction of three hours duration, there was much milling
about by the audience, with small groups of friends forming and re-
forming. Friends talked among each other about the slaves: 1) The
physical attributes (e.g., 20h, he's cute.f), 2) if known, about their
personal qualities (e.g., the works as a model; and was the star of
Ice Capades."), and 3)comments on the description and preferences of
each fslave? which were read from a card by the auctioneer (tape
recorded, November 28, 1975). Because the Tslave" and the bidding are
so much of the audience's attention, the auction is not a good time to
cruise for a sexual partner - the bar has a different meaning for the
audience than on other occasions, as they watch the formation of an
impersonal sexual exchange between slave and bidder.

The Slave Auction is organized by one of the two gay male leather
and western clubs in the large metropolis. These clubs have formal
membership requirements as described in chapter 4. Many in the audience
for the Slave Auction are members of the two clubs or members in
leather and western clubs from other large cities. However, the Slave

Auction is open to the public for a nominal admission fee. This means

192

that some in the audience would not have the identity of "leatherman“
nor be a member of one of the clubs. However, it is difficult to es-
timate what proportion of the audience was "into leather."

5. The Drag Show

 

As with the Slave Auction, one cannot easily cruise at a drag show
in the bar. The drag show is a form of entertainment. Visually, it
typically resembles a night club show: The lights are dimmed and a
"female" (the drag queen) walks onto the dance floor which serves as a
stage, dressed in an elaborate gown with a fancy hair-do; a spotlight
may be turned on "her,f and “she" appears to sing several songs (actu-
ally, “she” mouths the words to a recording by a female singer). Sev-
eral variations on this are possible: The performer may also dance;
"she" may do a number accompanied by other drag queens or by a male;
or "she? may appear as a very poorly dressed woman and/or pregnant
for a humorous number. The show usually consists of several drag
queens who each do several numbers in succession. The show is put on
for an audience usually consisting of gay males, but may also include
lesbians and also (if held in the "mixedf bar) heterosexual couples,
who sit watching the show and applauding at the conclusion of each song,
much like in a night club show. I

Drag shows are announced ahead of time by posters in the bar, us-
ually listing the Nstar? of the show, who organizes it and asks typ-
ically two to four other drag queens to also do numbers in "her? show.
A Yset? of a dozen numbers by the several drag queens may take an hour
or an hour and a half, and is usually repeated a second time after an

"intermission" of an hour. The participants are paid only a nominal

193

fee ($15 to $20 in 1975) by the bar owner, but are also tipped by mem-
bers of the audience who do this by walking forward during a number and
handing a dollar bill to the performer. Because the shows are adver-
tised by posters in advance, those who like drag shows or who are
friends of the drag queens are more likely to be in the bar for the
drag show.

The songs in a drag show usually focus on forming, or problems in
maintaining a heterosexual relationship (fromthe perspective of the
female singer). Some also make fun of sexual relationships; for exam-
ple, one song with the refrain that Nmy lover has left me? was pre-
sented by a drag queen with a mophead for a hair-do, in a dirty dress,
and appearing to be very pregnant. Hence, because the lyrics of the
number focus on sexual relationships (as most popular songs do), they
are not just making fun of female sexuality or parodying women. How-
ever, because the number in the drag show does not focus on sexual
orientation, the drag queen can be considered peripheral to the gay
community. This in itself partly explains why many heterosexuals find
amusement and entertainment in drag shows and the female impersonator,
and why the "mixed" (gay and straight) bar hosted so many of the drag
shows ever the last several years.

The identities of leatherman and drag queen are perhaps the most
specialized identities to be found in the community because they can be
acted out in such limited places and times. Although it has been argued
that they are both peripheral to the community, they nevertheless very
clearly show the dramaturgical problem of seeking intimate sexual re-

lations in public places.

194

One further point should be made concerning identities in the public
domain, before turning to identities and activities in the private do-
main. As previously asserted, there are ecological clusterings of iden-
tities in the College Center building, the public washrooms, and the
bars and these settings mediate between the gay and straight worlds.
Behavior in the College Center, the washrooms, and the bars are played
out in public, in view of the straight world, but the intersection of
(gay and straight worlds is sometimes more profound than a gay actor
dramaturgically presenting his identity before a straight audience.

As indicated at several points above, interaction of a gay actor is
often with a straight actor: The individual being cruised in the Col-
lege Center Lounge is sometimes straight; some straight male students
seek out a quick and impersonal fblow job" in the washrooms of the
College Center (in Humphreys' terms, they are itradef); and some of

the audience of a drag show (especially in the mixed bar) is often
composed of heterosexual couples. Although most gay males prefer the

, gay bar to the mixed bar as a location for cruising because they can
assume that all present are gay, even in the gay bar, a heterosexual
couple has occasionally been seen to mistakenly enter (usually with-
drawing rapidly). This intersection and sometimes interaction with the
straight world in the public domain makes the dramaturgical presentation
of the gay male identity and its several possible additional identities
of leatherman, drag queen, etc., even more problematic than the simple
dilemma of public seeking for private intimacy. These identities are
discreditable of the self when disclosed to the wrong audience, even

when presented in the “right" ecological setting.

195

Private Domain: Parties, Dates, and Couples

1. Parties and the Home

 

Among young adult gay males,.parties are rare. They are much rarer
than heterosexual student drinking and dancing parties. Apparently,
the segment of drag queen friends frequently had parties in drag, to
which a few gay males and straight women were invited, but information
on these is quite indirect. Over several years, only one gay party
was attended, and only very rarely was reference made by young adult
, gay males to going to a gay party in town. One could be tempted to
explain their rarity by the limited facilities of the small apartments
in which most young adult gay males live, except that similarly situ-
ated heterosexuals seem to manage them so frequently. A more likely
explanation is in the notion of a gay_party. Young adult gay males
hold parties to celebrate the common house (apartment) warmings,
birthdays, etc. but invite co-workers and straight friends, rather than
having a gay_party. One explanation for this relative lack of gay
parties is in the openness of the friendship networks, so that many
strangers would likely come to an announced party, and the related
relative anonymity of some friendships, which reduces responsibility
for behavior and raises fears of theft and such. Also, unlike a het-
erosexual party with its emphasis on Ngetting to know" members of the
opposite sex, a gay party tends to take the form of cruising, but even
a relatively well-attended gay party would not hold the possibilities
for cruising comparable to the gay bar on a weekend evening.

By contrast, lesbians hold and attend large numbers of gay (that

is, lesbian) parties and dances. This difference between few parties

196

for gay males and many for lesbians reflects their different behavior in
the bar, where males cruise strangers while alone or in small groups of
friends, whereas the lesbians sit at one large table and are well known
to each other. Also, the relative instability of young adult gay male
couples in contrast with the relative stability of lesbian couples
(including living together with a lover) may contribute to the relative
frequency of giving parties in the home by lesbian couples.

In contrast with the rarity of a planned gay male party, it is
very common for gay males to use the home for informal and unplanned
activities by small groups of gay male friends. Inviting a gay friend
or several gay friends to One's home for some activity (besides "for
a drink,? although in fact, drinks may be furnished, or purchased on
the way there) does not carry sexual connotations.. The commonly held
stereotype (mentioned by McIntosh, 1968) of gay males being sexual
in relations to all men is quite misleading. But the opposite notion
(suggested by Leznoff and Westley) of the equivalent of an "incest
taboo? among gay friends is also too extreme.” It would be rare for two
gay friends to go home and have sex, as explained in chapter 4.

The sorts of activities two or more gay friends can engage in at
one's home are too many to cover completely; listen to a new record,
watch TV or a particular TV program, play card games and other board
(games, occasionally share a dinner, hold an extended conversation, see
one's new apartment or new furnishings, look at one's pornography col-
lection barely start the list of possible activities.

The number of friends who assemble in one's home varies greatly,

but invitations are made quite spontaneously, usually in the context

197

of a conversation in public, and in this sense they are very different
than a planned party. If some members of the assemblage are not well-
known to others, a sexual relationship is a possibility.

For example, Bob B. sometimes played card games and board games in
his apartment with Brad, a gay friend who lives across the hall in his
apartment building, and two other gay friends, Dean and Charles, who
are roommates in a small town near Midwest City. One Saturday evening
about 6:00 P.M., RCO ran into Bob 8. and Tony in the College Center
and Bob invited both of us to play the games at his place two hours
later. Tony and I went in his car to Bob's apartment, where Tony had
been once before; on the way, we stopped to buy some beer and wine.
Neither Tony nor I knew Dean nor Charles, although Dean looked famil-
iar to us both (from the bar). Everyone began both playing and drink-
ing seriously. About 11:00 P.M., Charles asked "how many have plans
to go to the bar?", but surprisingly everyone wanted to continue playing,
drinking and talking. Bob said he had been to the bar the evening be-
fore and didn't want to go again that weekend. During the games, a
great deal of humor was expressed. Because both Tony and Dean are
Polish, the rest of us tried out our repertoire of Polish jokes at their
expense. A lot of the humor was camp: Charles was exaggeratedly upset
whenever Bob attacked him by a move in the game, and said "Oh, you
bitch!" and called Bob, "Betty"; the two of them horseplayed like adol-
escent boys, jabbing and poking each other in the ribs and once wrest-
ling briefly onto the floor. Also, Charles teased Brad by trying to
squeeze his nipples through his shirt with his fingers, saying "oh,

titties!", especially whenever it was Brad's turn at the game.

198

About 2:00 A.M., Tony asked me if I wanted to go (as we had both
come in his car), but I said I was having too much fun. About 3:00 or
4:00 A.M., Brad went home. About 6:00 A.M., we slowed down, and Dean
and Charles asked if they could stay and sleep in Bob's apartment, to
which he agreed, offering them his bedroom while Bob would sleep on his
couch. I indicated to Tony that I wanted to leave and sat with my coat
on, waiting, but they went on talking lightly. Bob got out extra bed-
ding, I layed down on the couch and Bob on his floor. Charles told
Tony that he could join him and Dean in the bed as it was a king-sized
bed, but Tony declined and layed down on the carpeted dining room floor,
with all of the lights out. Shortly, Charles came out from the bedroom,
and Tony went in and had sex with Charles.

Throughout all of this later part of the evening, I had been con-
fused why Tony did not want to leave (having his own apartment in town)
and how it came about that he ended up having sex with Charles, who
had directed most of his comments and humorous barbs at Brad and Bob,
and had said little to Tony.

The next day, Charles and Dean had left, Bob was asleep in his own
bed, and Tony was awake, laying on the bedding on the living room floor.
Tony and I left together for breakfast in the College Center. Tony
spontaneously started talking about the previous night, apparently in
explanation or apology for why we had not left when I had wanted. He
explained that Charles and he had been playing "footsie" (touching feet
and legs with the feet) under the gaming table most of the evening.

When Brad had left, Tony had moved to sit next to Charles, and they had

"felt each other up" with their hands, again unobserved under the table.

199

While the games were being played, nothing flirtatious had been said
nor even eye contact had gone on between Charles and Tony.

Over breakfast, Tony explained that he had initially refused to
join Charles and Dean in bed because he thought they might be lovers
and said 91 wouldn't have done anything with him if they were lovers
because that is too important.f (In other words, he feared having sex
with Charles might break up their relationship.) Tony explained that
he went in the bedroom only after Charles came out (nude) and explained
to Tony that he and Dean were not lovers and that he had talked it over
with Dean, who said he really did not mind if they had sex in the same
bed with him.

Tony explained that Dean appeared to sleep through all the noise,
which was audible throughout the apartment.

" ’ RCO: "'Who did what, to whom?'e

Tony: “'First, I screwed him, and then he screwed

E80: 'Oh, then it was reciprocated; that was nice.’

Tony: 'Yeah. Usually I don't like to get fucked

and just like to fuck, but I figured that he was so

nice, that I would let him do it. He asked me later

if Bob had my phone number and I said I wasn't sure

but that Brad had it. But Charles said, 'oh, I

wouldn't ask him.'“
Tony said he thought he liked Charles but he thought that Charles was
not taking it (the sexual relationship) seriously, and he wondered if
Charles would call him.

Importantly, Tony said he really enjoyed the evening because that
was the first time that he had done anything like that [playing games]
in a group of gays. RCO expressed surprise at this and asked: NDidn't
you ever go to a gay party?N Tony replied, "Well, I went to a_gay

party once, but there it was just dancing, and everyone was trying to

200

pair up and that was all.§ (Field notes, February 12, 1977.)

This example is unusual in that it extended over so many hours and
so many people ended up sleeping in the one bedroom apartment. It is
not unusual in that two strangers ended the evening having sexual rela-
tions together, with the others accomodating them so much. It is also
not unusual in the flexibility of sexual performances over a clear sex-
ual preference, as expressed by Tony.

On another occasion, I sat talking with John in a straight bar when
we were joined by a gay acquaintance of mine (but not known to John).
The acquaintance, Ron, invited us to his room to look at his pornography
collection, where we talked and drank and looked at the magazines a
couple of hours. I became engrossed in some of the literature but no-
ticed that the two of them sat together on the bed touching each other.
When Ron suddenly turned out the light, I swore vehemently and awkwardly
found the door. The next day, Ron made it clear that I should not have
made such a fuss about leaving.

The sexual relations described above occurred between relative
strangers, and this element is usual. When several gay males who are
all friends of each other get together for any one of many possible
announced purposes at the home of one of them, there is little potential
for any sexual activity. Bringing and drinking beer or wine would be
usual, but the content of the ensuing conversation is quite variable,
from "camping" humor to serious discussions and arguments. Such infor-
mal get-togethers of groups of gay male friends more often occur on
weekend evenings after supper, and often last until the group goes to

the bar at 10:30 or 11:00 P.M.

201

In summary, the home is used frequently for relatively unplanned
activities by groups of variable size of gay males, typically for var-
ious non-sexual activities, in contrast with the rare, planned gay male
party. Unplanned activities of many other sorts are also done by groups
of gay males, but these take place in public settings, as already de-
scribed.

2. Dates and Couples

 

As explained in chapter 4, both a "date" and an "affair" imply that
the two gay males are living separately, while the terms, gay "lovers'I
or gay 9couple" usually imply that the two gay males are living together.
All of the terms (date, affair, lover, and couple) share the implication
that partners engage in sexual relationships in the context of an on-
going relationship and the sexual activities occur in private places
(such as a residence). The contrast term is a itrick," which implies
an impersonal and usually anonymous sexual engagement with a stranger
which may occur in a private space, as the home of one of the partners,
and often literally means that the two men spend the whole night to-
(gether, having sex and then sleeping together. For example, one could
say that he picked up a trick in the bar and took him home for a one-
night stand. (Trick is also a verb form, e.g., NI tricked in the john
this afternoon.f Trick does not imply any particular ging_of sexual act
by itself, in either the noun or verb form, but rather the kind of re-
lationship with the partner.)

As was indicated in chapter 4, a "date" is not identical in meaning
with the heterosexual usage because a date is an agreement or arrange-

ment for the future between two males who have already engaged in a

202

sexual act with each other. (A heterosexual "date" is ambiguous with
regard to any previous sexual acts between the partners.) The implica-
tion of this socio-linguistic analysis is that a "date" is made between
two males who have “tricked" together; that is, a trick can be trans-
formed into an on-going dating relationship simply by agreeing to meet
again in the future. The agreement to meet again in the future always
implicitly means that an agreement has been made to engage again in a
sexual act, but in a private place. (For example, it would violate the
verbal rules of gay argot to call an agreement to meet a washroom trick
again in the washroom in the future by the term, fdate.") A date can
include other activities besides the sexual act, and these other act-
ivities may certainly take the partners into public places; for example,
a date could include going to a restaurant (or meeting in a particular
restaurant) for supper, before going to the residence of one of the
partner's for the sexual act. Also unlike heterosexual usage, a Ndate"
between two men does not necessarily imply that the two do anything
else besides have sexual relations in private. This was seen in the
last chapter in the example where Brad, at the bar, said that Bob 8.
had a date with a young man two evenings in a row on the weekend, and
this meant only that the man had come over to Bob B.'s apartment, where
they presumably had sexual relations each evening. They did not have
to go Tout? to any public event or public activity for their time to-
( gether to constitute a "date.9

This perhaps also explains another distinction from heterosexual
usage in the term icouple." Having a date with another man does not

mean that the two constitute a couple at all. Heterosexuals on a date

203

constitute a couple for the duration of the date (at least), while a gay
couple is understood to be two men who are living together (or plan to
move together in the near future) and are having sexual relations on a
regular basis with each other.

The Annual Gay Calendar

Like the ritual ceremonies among segments of the Nuer, where each
lineage celebrates its own ceremonies, the several segments of the gay
community each have their own ritual ceremonies, especially as between
the drag and leather segments. A ceremony can be defined as a formal,
established sequence of behavior, that is, a standardized series of
ritual acts, that symbolically expresses the importance of a particular
event or occasion. Not only does the segment have Tit's own? ceremony,
however, because the ceremonies associated with the segments define
and serve to maintain the relationship between the segments (Fortes
and Evans-Pritchard, 1940,_p. 294 in Fried). That is, a ceremony
iforf one segment distinguishes it from the other segments and thereby
demarcates its relationship to the other segments.

Ritual ceremonies make a calendar that embodies a social memory.
Hughes argues that there is a direct connection between the ritual cal-
endar of a group, and problems of the life-cycle of the individual
(1950, pp. 128-9), and gives examples of ceremonies and rites connected
with birth, puberty, marriage, retirement, and death. For him (p. 128),
a rite is set off by a ftrigger? (an event), and to observe it is to
know that the event may happen_again in the future, as it has in the
past. That is, the problem in the life-cycle of the individual is not

unique. and is bound to be repeated by others.

204

One would expect that the calendar and ceremonies of the larger so-
ciety are recognized by those within the gay community, while other
ceremonies are unique to segments within the community. Just as the
quasi-institutions of the gay community in this moderate-sized city
are only poorly developed and dependent on the larger city, so also,
the ceremonies unique to the gay community are not the only ones rec-
ognized by its members. Rather, there is considerable and varying
overlap between the calendar and ceremonies of the larger society,
and those recognized within the gay community. It is not an accident
that Gay Lib has annually scheduled and advertised a Gay Valentine's
Day Dance. (Often, it occurs days or even weeks after February 14th,
but is advertised thus, anyway). A gay couple or gay roommates would
be more likely to deliberately choose to have a dinner or party for
invited (gay) guests on Christmas or on New Year's Eve (or, as will be
discussed, Halloween). Perhaps most extreme is the occasional wedding
between a gay male and a lesbian, attended not only by their beaming
parents and relatives, but also by their good friends from within the
gay community - who conjecture about the motives involved, even while
the legal marriage ceremony takes place. (As a bisexual woman said of
her lesbian lover's marriage to a gay male, with considerable irony,
"I am to be the maid-of—honor tomorrow at my best bed-partner's wed-
ding.")

This should make clear that the ceremonies and ritual calendar of
the larger society are often transformed and "used" among gay friends
to make an explicitly gay occasion. However, the obverse is more often

true: For many of the holidays (such as Christmas, New Year's, Easter),

205

gay males, especially those in the younger segment, are likely to visit
relatives or straight friends, rather than doing anything with other
gay males. Then, the ritual calendar of the larger society does not
have a special meaning among gay males and does not indicate special
events or rituals unique to gay males. In fact, it would be a "special
case" for the calendar of the larger society to be transformed into an
explicitly gay occasion, and in this sense the calendar of the larger
society dominates and pre-dominates over the meagercalendar unique to
the gay community. Although the annual calendar of major holidays has
been considered, the same is true of the 9minorf ritual ceremonies.

For example, in an interview, Tony described going out drinking at a
particular bar with most of his seventeen co-workers every Friday
afternoon ("T.G.I.F.,?common among many work groups). Although he
suspected that two or three of the co-workers were also actively gay
males, the drinking ritual represented a ceremony for the work group
and did not have anything to do with the gay community and its unique
calendar. His sexual preferences and activities were not made relevant
nor explicit in the drinking group of co-workers. (Taped interview,
July 8, 1978).

There is nevertheless an implicit gay annual calendar of ceremonies
and rituals in the area.. These are: Memorial Day, Gay Pride Week, the
Miss Midwest City Drag Pageant, Halloween, and the Slave Auction. The
Memorial Day weekend is generally recognized as the best weekend (or at
least the first good weekend) to go to the gay resort town, located
about 150 miles away. Although only a few may go from Midwest City in

any given year, plans for the weekend are discussed and arrangements

206

made weeks ahead of time, and accounts of the weekend are often re-
peated for weeks afterwards. Plans for the weekend have to be made
ahead of time, so that transportation and housing can be reserved. Not
only is the bar of the resort considered to be good for cruising during
the evenings of the weekend, but one can cruise for sexual partners on
the beaches and in the woods near the area. (Events in the resort town
were not observed.)

The Miss Midwest City Drag Pageant was first organized as an event
for Gay Pride Week (commemorating the Stonewall rebellion of 1969 in
New York City) in June, 1972;' It was held_again during Gay Pride Week
on Sunday, June 17, 1973. But by 1974, it was no longer held during
the same period, and instead was held on a Sunday in late September.

In 1976, it was held in late July, and in 1978, in September.

Anyone can enter the drag pageant simply by filling out a printed
application form available in the bar. This means that many contestants
who enter are less well-known drag queens who are not involved in the
regular drag shows. Indeed, most of those who enter the contest hope
later to be asked to participate in the regular drag shows (recorded
conversation with Harry, September 27, 1974). The winner of the con-
test often becomes important in organizing shows for the rest of the
year. In 1972, the winner (Aretha) participated in the Gay Pride par-
ade in the large metropolis. Unlike participants in regular drag shows,
the contestants are not paid by the bar owner for their performance.

In the Pageant in 1973,there were eleven contestants, and in 1974,
fourteen contestants. Both.years, the Pageant was held on a Sunday

afternoon (when the bar would not normally be busy); and each time, the

207

bar was crowded with people to see the show. Each year, the "mistress
of ceremonies" was the winner from the previous year. About five judges
selected the winner and the runner-up. Except for the large number of
contestants, the Pageant is much like a regular drag show: Each con-
testant comes out onto the "stage? area (in Carl's bar it is the dance
floor in the bar), the lights are dimmed and a spotlight is shown on
"her.9 A popular recording by a female vocalist is played and the con-
testant pretends to sing the song into a microphone. During pauses in
the singing of the record, the contestant may dance around the stage
area. During the performance, individuals from the audience may approach
the stage area and hand dollar bills to the contestant, as in regular
drag shows. The Pageant differs from drag shows in that each contestant
only performs one number. The Pageant is a topic of discussion among
(gay male friends, both before it takes place (especially as to when it
will be held) and afterwards, especially about who won the contest and
whether it was justified by the performance.

The association between Gay Pride Week and the Miss Midwest City
Drag Contest only lasted for two years (1972 and 1973). Gay Pride Week
is still commemorated by Gay Lib members with a picnic in a public park
during the week in June. The picnic is advertised in the school news-
paper, so that many gays who are not regular members of Gay Lib are also
likely to go to the picnic. (It was not observed.)

With the expansion of the bar system from one gay and one Nmixedf
(gay and straight) bar to two gay and the one mixed bars, the Miss
Midwest City Drag Pageant may be held during the Summer in any one of
the bars. Besides the Miss Midwest City Pageant has been added a

208

series of drag contests, each held in each of the different bars on an
annual basis, but without an unvarying date for the contest. Now a
drag queen can win in one bar and would be known as the Miss (name of
the bar) of 1977, 1978, etc. The only regional drag contest in 1978
took place in a gay bar in a city one hundred miles away. Some drag
queens from Midwest City are likely to enter it; however, again, that
contest does not have an exact annual day that does not vary from year
to year.

The three bars are each separately owned but there is not usually
any competition between the bars concerning the drag contests. For
example, the second gay bar opened on June 30, 1976, and it prominently
displayed a poster announcing the Miss Midwest City Drag Contest in
the mixed bar on July 25, 1976.

Halloween has added significance, beyond what it means to the gen-
eral population, because it is a popular time for costume parties, and
especially for gay males to go to parties or to the bar in drag. For
many gay males, this is the only time in the year when they will be
seen in drag. Often on this weekend, the parties are held early in the
evening, and the participants later 90 down to the bar from the party,
still in their costumes. As with the Drag Pageant, discussion often
centers afterwards on what one did on Halloween. Perhaps surprisingly,
nothing unusual was normally scheduled at the bars on Halloween weekend
— people in drag or other costumes merely went to one of the bars. For
example, there was no contest for costumes at any of the bars.

In both 1974and 1975, a “drag ball" was held on Halloween in the

Midwest City Civic Center. (This event was not observed.)

209

On the Halloween weekend (Sunday evening) of 1978,‘bgth_gay bars
scheduled their own Miss 1978 drag contest at the same time. In add-
ition, the newer gay bar scheduled a costume contest. This, of course,
put them in direct competition with each other for customers. The cos-
tume and drag contest were observed in the newer gay bar, Tom's. A drag
queen (Miss Midwest City of 1973) was the fmistress" of ceremonies for
both the costume and drag contests. Directly before the costume contest,
Yshe? introduced another drag queen, who did one number. The "mistress"
of ceremonies then announced each of the costumes and the person in cos-
tume walked across the istagef (one end of the bar which was well-lit
and had a curtain across the wall behind the area) for about two minutes,
exhibiting the costume. There were 22 costumed entrants in the contest.
These included a medeival King or Prince, one male with a silver cape
and nothing under it except a silvery g-string, one dracula, one Martian
master chained to his slave, 2 white furry things with carrot noses (a
guy and girl), one black pretending to be Joanne Little being raped,
with torn blouse (this may have been a black male), and several contes-
tants were males in drag but wearing either moustaches or beards.

After the costume contest the "mistress? of ceremonies introduced
Miss Tom's of 1977, and ishef sang two songs.

Eighteen had entered the female impersonation contest and each was
judged by fmodeling,? just walking across the stage area and back, and
then the top five finalists were selected to each do a number, from
which the winner was selected. The winner, thereafter known as Miss
Tom's of 1978, was given a prize by the bar owner. The judges for the

drag contest included a drag queen and the owner of‘a gay bar located

210

in a medium-sized SMSA a hundred miles away.
Like the Drag Pageant, the annual Slave Auction has been organized
for only a few years. It takes place in a gay bar in the large metrop-
olis eighty-five miles away on the Friday evening after Thanksgiving.
The particular bar is, as previously described, the center for meetings
of a male homosexual Vleather club.“ The club organizes and publicizes
the Slave Auction every year, and it is open to anyone who wants to
attend, for the price of admission. A person volunteers to be a slave,
and to do the bidding of the Ymaster" for the night and the next day.
One can.bid for a slave by showing identification to club members who
register the bidders. (In 1975, fifty-one people registered to bid.)
To avoid the metropolitan prostitution laws, the club collects the
money paid for the slaves and contributes it to a charity. Hence, a
successful bidder knows that what he pays to Nbuy“ a slave is a legit-
imate tax deduction. In addition, the club members provide a dinner in
a restaurant to each master and slave at the end of their 24 hours.
Apparently to avoid the possibility of the master and slave having in-
compatible preferences in sexual acts, the sexual preferences of the
slave are elaborately described by the auctioneer during the bidding.
For example, the auctioneer read from a card:
"This is Steve. He wants to stay new to the
scene. No heavy stuff. Depending on what you
do, he does. He likes to get fucked."

A second example is:
"He's known as T.J.'s Sunday night regular, and
you know that he has been around here for a while.
at least T.J. has. He likes to cook, so if you
have any baking to do (pause). He likes Saran

Wrap, and plastic, and rubber. He likes clothes."
(Recorded November 28, 1975.) ‘

211

Most people attend the Slave Auction to watch the presentation of
the slaves and the bidding. {Because this event takes place at a con-
siderable distance, the amount of participation of people from Midwest
City (as slaves, bidders, club members, and also as spectators for the
auction) is rather limited. Nevertheless, the upcoming Slave Auction
is a topic of conversation during November, with most gay males quite
aware that it will take place. Also afterwards, those who attended
and watched, or those who were slaves, are likely to describe the
event to others who did not attend.

Of course, gay males in Midwest City share with the larger society
many other holidays (Christmas, New Year's, Easter, etc.), but these
do not have a special meaning among gay males and do not indicate
special events or rituals unique to gay males. For many of these hol-
idays, the gay males are likely to visit relatives, rather than doing
anything with other gay males. Hence, the five events described above
constitute an implicit annual gay calendar of special events. (The
annual gay calendar is implicit in that nobody refers to it as such.)
It should be noticed that the events appeal to different segments of
the gay community: People into leather would not likely wear leather
to the bar during the drag pageant (if they did attend), and drag queens
would not be welcome to the metropolitan bar in drag during the Slave
Auction.

Conclusions

This chapter has considered the several identities, in addition to
that of gay male, that are to be found in the gay community in this
medium-sized city. It was seen that these identities are important to

the social organization of the gay community because some of them are

212

the basis of segments. Drag queens, leathermen, and chickenhawks (and
less clearly, chicken and hustlers) form distinct segments. These
segments of the community are more than just a differential rate of in-
teraction (i.e., more interaction among those within the segment than
with those outside it) because the segments are a subjective reality,
being based on a shared identity, in addition to the more general
identity of gay male.

The chapter presented an ethnography of cruising in public places,
contrasting cruising in the College Center and the gay bar. Cruising
is a subtle art. The possibility of error and the misperception of
cues is fairly high in both settings. In contrast with the bar, a
male cruising another in the College Center cannot usually assume the
sexual orientation and sexual interests of the other. Hence, cruising
in the College Center is both more subtle, relying more on eye contact,
and also more elaborate, with much walking and following of the other
after the initial eye contact and before any verbal exchange, than in
the bar. In contrast, a sexual assignation may be arranged by quite
direct verbal statements in the bar, especially as closing time
approaches.

Most sexual relations among young adult gay males tend to be among
strangers or acquaintances rather than friends. However, evidence from
interviews was presented showing that some gay friends do have sexual
relations on a continuing basis without defining the relationship as
one of ilovers." This qualifies Leznoff and Westley's study (1956),
which posited a mechanism comparable to the "incest taboo.§ Such a

taboo among gay male friends is not universal and should be discarded

213

conceptually. Sexual relationships among gay male friends, while cer-
tainly not impossible, are nevertheless rare for two reasons: 1) As
expressed by at least some respondents, there is more sexual excitement
and a greater challenge in cruising and ultimately getting a sexual
partner who is unknown ("the hunt"), and 2) friendships are often very
important for emotional and other support and may be jeopardized by a
sexual proposal. Those gay males who are barely acquainted are in an
ambiguous position, as there is a potential for either a sexual rela-
tionship or a friendship. This ambiguity seems to be one basis of the
"gregariousness" of gay males with each other and of the openness of
the gay male friendship networks.

A pair analysis of gay male diners in the College Center cafeteria
showed that there were core groups of very frequent attenders who reg-
ularly ate together (the "high attenders"). They represented for
others (the medium and low attenders) a gay presence in the cafeteria
and in the College Center in general. The fact that there were so
many low and medium attenders who occasionally ate with the core mem-
bers shows that the gay friendship networks were open to new partici-
pants, rather than closed and secretive. This is a behavioral indi-
cation of "gregariousness."

The dinner groups served several functions for the regular members
besides a setting for meeting new people. They were a source of emo-
tional and other support, and relayed information of practical impor-
tance to the individual members. Exchanges of favors and services
were common among the regular members. The dinner groups provided a

place for members to bring personal troubles and embarrassments.

214

The chapter contrasted behavior in public and private settings.
Besides cruising for sexual partners in the two public settings, the
chapter also described behavior in drag shows and in the leather club
Slave Auction. Behavior in private settings that was described in-
cluded gay parties, tricks, dates, and couples.

Finally, the chapter considered the implicit gay annual calendar
of ceremonies and their rituals. The calendar is implicit in that
nobody refers to it as such, but includes Memorial Day weekend as the
best time to go to the gay resort town, Gay Pride Week, the Miss
Midwest City Drag Pageant (which for a couple of years was deliberately
planned to coincide with Gay Pride Week), Halloween, and the Slave
Auction. It was emphasized that several of these ceremonies have spe-
cial significance for some of the identity-segments within the gay male
community. In particular, Gay Pride Week is now associated with Gay
Lib; the Midwest City Drag Pageant and Halloween have great significance
for the drag queen segment; while the Slave Auction is an event of
greatest interest to the leatherman segment. However, the annual cal-
endar of holidays observed in the larger society tends to dominate
over the meager calendar of gay ceremonies; most holidays, such as
Christmas, New Year's and Thanksgiving are usually celebrated with rel-
atives or straight friends by young adult gay males, rather than being
transformed into a gay ceremony. This indicates that, although there

is some content to a gay subculture in Midwest City, it is meager.

215

Footnotes to Chapter Five

On distinctions among lesbians, the interested reader may want to
consult Barbara Ponse (1978).

Lee mentions that one who is uninterested in the other would delib-
erately avoid eye contact, that is, after the first glance (1978b,
p. 80).

Although they would be called "trade" by Humphreys (1970), this
term was never used in conversations about them; rather, they were
referred to as “closet queens.f In fact, it is fairly common to
hear an anecdote about a sexual act with a male who never before
had a homosexual experience. Although such men may eventually
icome out" and begin to consider themselves as gay and thereafter
form friendships with gay males in the building, this is exceptional.
However, Tom described his "coming out? and subsequent (hetero-
sexual) divorce because of sexual participation in the College
Center in just such terms; after beginning to regularly "trick"
with others in the building, HI had to admit to myself then that I
was gay. For a long time I had thought maybe I was but wasn't

sure" (recorded conversation, January 21, 1974).

CHAPTER SIX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This dissertation has shown that the gay community in Midwest City,
even though it does not have a shared residential territory, is never-
theless a community. The dissertation has also shown that there are
limits to the ecological explanation for community. The most crucial
limitations come from the variables of city size and "critical mass"
(Fischer, 1976) of membership in the community. Unlike the "institu-
tionally complete" (Breton, 1964) gay neighborhoods and gay ghettoes
that are found in the largest metropolitan areas, it was shown that
the gay community in Midwest City is institutionally rather underde-
veloped. It was for this reason that the concept of "quasi-
institutions" was introduced so as to emphasize that the two gay bars,
the several forms of dyadic sexual relations, and Gay Lib are only
poorly developed as institutions and that gay males live out significant
portions of their daily and weekly rounds of activities, not within the
gay quasi-institutions, but rather in the completed institutions of the
larger city. One can say that the gay organizations and gay dyads are
dependent on the larger city for their continuation. Clearly, the less
developed and less institutionally complete the gay community within a
city, the less fully can the lives of its members be encapsulated within
the community. At the same time, it was seen that information about
certain ecological locations ("gay places") is compatible with, and not
sharply demarcated from the developed heterosexual institutions of the
larger city; for example, knowledge about gay places is periodically

conveyed in the city newspaper, as well as by cabdrivers and by the

216

217

telephone crisis intervention center.

Two interrelated processes were examined: How ecological settings
contribute to the sense of community (or more generally, how structure
contributes to perceptions) and how cognitive labels (as, "gay commun-
ity") contribute to the perceived salience of certain territories and
places. The main argument was that the label of "gay community" is
most powerful in certain ecological settings. "Gay community" as a
label contributes to the perceived salience of certain territories
and locations. Some places within the city come to be known as "gay
places" even though most of these places are in public, and hetero-
sexuals may also be present. This liminal aspect of some of the places,
such as the College Center with its plurality of groups, requires
further actions by gay males to transform such places into gay places.
The interactions in public places that are required for the transform-
ation of the public place into a gay place are either subtle cues be-
tween strangers (as seen in eye contact in cruising) or verbal interac-
tion between gay friends and acquaintances. The places can be trans-
formed only with sufficient gay male participants; for example, the gay
bar is perceived as a gay place without further action for its trans-
formation, but it serves as a gay place only late in the evenings when
sufficient gays are present. (That is, it is not recognizable as a gay
bar on any afternoon when few people are present, and most of those
present are not gay.) Other places, such as the College Center, are
perceived as gay places only in the evenings and on weekends, but are
rarely completely transformed into gay places because of the plurality

of different groups with different purposes in the settings.

218

A gay male is quite limited in the numbers of gay places where this
identity can be presented in Midwest City. The formation of intimate,
sexual relations is limited and tied to certain public ecological set-
tings. This means that location has a direct effect on intimacy. Be-
cause gay places are perceived by members as places that are relevant
to a gay identity, it is clear that ecological location preconditions
the behavior to be found in the setting. That is, an ecological set-
ting is perceived and acted on by gay males to transform it into a
igay place.f With interactional cues, sexual relations are made pos-
sible and legitimated by the setting. This is like an information
ered-back loopf: A place is perceived as a gay place, so the actor
emits gay cues to others present, and by their responses, the percep-
tion of the place as a “gay place" is affirmed.

With repeated interaction between gay males in an ecological set-
ting, a location comes to have a reputation as a Hgay place." When
this has been established for the participants in the location, not
only is the perception of the place as a gay place affirmed, but sim-
ultaneously, the salience of the gay identity of the participants to
the place becomes established. The gay place then preconditions further
interaction. In this way, sexual relations that are built up in the
location with interactional cues come to be legitimated by the setting.
Further, regular participants in the setting tend to be recognized by
each other as having a gay identity. Information in the place about
its nature as a gay place then is redundant. Several different sorts
of messages assign meaning to the place as a gay place where a gay

identity is salient. In this sense, the_"gay community," as a set of

219

gay places where a gay identity is salient, is constructed and re-
constructed by the repeated interaction of the participants in the
places.

The focus of the ethnography has been on the interactional patterns,
the criteria of membership in the group, and the extent of shared cog-
nitive orientations. It was seen that the interactional patterns are
complex because there are several segments in the community. The
sharpest divisions in the community are based on sex (being a lesbian
or gay male) and age (fer males, being below or above approximately
thirty or thirty-five years of_age). Many gay males are further seg-
mented into the identity-segments of drag queens, leathermen, chicken-
hawks, and Gay Lib members, while chicken, hustlers, and bisexuals
(who also have distinct identities) are less clearly in interactional
segments. Except for the last three, it is clear that the segments
have higher interaction among the members within the segments than out-
side them. Hence, these segments are important to the social organi-
zation of the gay community. However, just as cues and interactions
are required to transform a place into a Ngay place,f so also, these
segments become visible to observation only by the behavior of those
in the segments. One expects drag queens, leathermen, and chickenhawks
to act differently from each other and differently from "regular? gay
males. Also, the identities of drag queen, leatherman, chickenhawk,
and Gay Lib member can only be displayed in rather limited sets of
places. At the extreme, for example, Midwest City does not have a
single gay place where the identity of leatherman can properly be dis-
played, and a gay male with the additional identity of leatherman must

travel to the large metropolis eighty-five miles away to find an

220

appropriate place to present the identity. In Midwest City, the friend-
ship networks of leathermen can come together, for example for dinner

in the cafeteria of the College Center, but the identity of leatherman
is then-a latent aspect of the interaction.

One comes to be recognized as a member of the community by being
seen by others in gay places and by emitting gay cues toward others in
the places (e.g., by cruising). In some places such as the gay bar,
individuals assume that all other males present are also gay. In con-
versations, one can assert that one is a member of the gay community
by the statement that one has “come out" or that one is fa homosexual."
These two statements are functional equivalents; either statement is
accepted by others as equivalent to membership in the community. Such
statements were never observed to be challenged by another member, as
if the assumption is made that a person would never lie about being
gay or having come out.

It was argued that the identity categories of homosexual and heter-
osexual have a social reality but are "reified" and viewed as inevitable
and "fated.i For example, one is said to “discover? his sexual orien-
tation identity, and many believe that alternation between the identity
categories is impossible. Many gay males believe that once a male has
"come out" and discovered his “true“ identity, changing to a hetero-
sexual identity is impossible. Semantically, gay males verbalize this
belief by referring to this change in identity as igoing back into the
closet," which is not equivalent to heterosexuality at all. The nega-
tive identity category of “closet queen" is used by some gay males to
refer to their past biography before they facceptedf the homosexual

identity. In a similar way, gay males refer to some other males, who

221

define themselves as heterosexual, as Areallyi being closet queens who
just cannot Yadmit" their homosexuality. This set of beliefs in itself
tends to promote stability of the gay identity for gay males. The be—
liefs about "coming out? are also important in promoting stability of
membership in the gay community, even though such beliefs gloss indi-
vidual differences in the meaning assigned the term and its application
to the individual's experiences.

The extent of shared cognitive orientations in the gay male commun-
ity was also examined. Evidence from the semantic differential showed
that gay males are similar in their views of the social world (i.e.,

( gay males, lesbians, men in general, and women in general) and differ
from heterosexual males in this regard. In particular, gay males did
not significantly evaluate the objects men in general and women in
general significantly differently than heterosexual males, but did
significantly differ in the evaluations made of gay males and lesbians.
This suggests that gay males do not differ from males in the larger
society on cognitive categories relevant in the larger society, but do
share distinctive views of cognitive categories that are of greater
salience within the gay community. This provides partial evidence that
there is content to the concept of a gay "subculture.f

Other evidence bearing on a gay subculture was seen in the implicit
(gay annual calendar of ceremonies. Events in the implicit calendar were
more relevant to some identity-segments of the community than to other
segments. For example, the annual Miss Midwest City Drag Contest and
Halloween are of greater interest to the drag queen segment, while the

annual Slave Auction is of greater interest to leathermen. However,

222

the calendar of ceremonies is meager, and most holidays are shared with
the larger society and are not transformed into gay holidays. Hence,
some evidence was found that cognitive orientations and elements of a
subculture are shared and underpin interaction, even though the commun-
ity is structurally weak and fragile and only has quasi-institutions.
Because sexual relations among most young adult gay males are usu-
ally with relative strangers and tend not to be repeated, friendship
is important to the social organization of the community. A pair an-
alysis of the dinner groups in the College Center cafeteria showed
that there were core groups of very frequent gay male diners. However,
because many other gay males occasionally joined the core groups,
these groups were by no means closed and secretive. Examples of the
Nopenness? of the gay male friendship networks were given for other
activities as well. The open networks allow meeting new people who may
become either friends or sexual partners. The friendship groups served
many functions for the core members besides a setting for meeting new
people, including a place to bring personal troubles and embarrassments
and a source of emotional and other support, such as exchanging favors
and services and obtaining practical information. These functions have
little to do with homosexuality.

,Although some young adult gay males have "affairs" and flovers,f
and a rare few may have sexual relations with friends, the most common
form of sexual relationship is between relative strangers. For this
reason, cruising for sexual partners in public settings was examined
in detail. The metropolitan area has only a limited number of public

places that may be regularly used for cruising. Besides certain public

223

washrooms, these are the College Center, the two gay bars, an adult
bookstore, and a movie theater. Cruising in these different settings
is done somewhat differently. The desire for new sexual partners
makes the interactive boundary of the community more problematic than
it would otherwise be.

Of course, cruising can be done only in public settings because
the interest is in meeting a new sexual partner. The public settings
for cruising have different qualities to the interaction than behavior
in private settings. As seen in cruising, the type of response of the
unknown other (as, eye contact and following) are crucial. The public
settings for cruising are very important for searching for sexual in-
timacy. A dilemma of male homosexuality is this public searching for
private, sexual intimacy. It is the dramaturgical problem of seeking
intimate relations in public places. This is perhaps one basis of
moral objection to male homosexuality in the larger society. Yet, it
highlights the importance of the public ecological settings for under-
standing the social organization of the gay community.

This study has shown some of the limitations on the ecological ap-
proach to community. At the same time, it has shown the fallacy of
just using the actor's perspective, such as his assertion of the pre-
sence of a gay community. An implication of the present study is that
the setting of a gay community in a city of a particular size affects
the social psychology of the individual actor. One would expect dif-
ferent consequences for the structure of the gay community in cities
of different sizes. In cities having gay communities which are larger

and more elaborately structured (approaching institutional completeness),

224

the social psychology of the individual actor and interactional cues

would be less important than in medium-sized cities like Midwest City.

APPENDIX

225

“.mv mm H.No mm mm F<

 

 

 

e.me Hm o.mm ea mm eon
m.me ma o.om ms om Fang
e.aa mHH e.mm me mm .9 son
«.05 HoH m.m~ mm an sewage
m.ma HNH m.ow mm mm ence
N.ea , NeH N.om am HNH .< a_em
e.ga cam ~.mm awn as” sea:
“.mm ans m.ma He mm mace
“.mm Ha“ m.m~ Be on Facade:
a.ea emu e.ma eefi aw“ .m com
c.0a Hem o.wa emfi com aoscm
eo.ma Hum RH.~m NON .oem ewe
amumqw waves a_sammoa ~¢\mva memeempa< new: spa; as_aa waves to a mcmeemaue cm.z
m o u m <

.eamfi .mceaa mpnammoa _apoe use maven Peach co moapam we atonemep< cue: co m2.aa co mems_a=<--.m apnea

226

m.o~ Hm H.mm Hm mm teem

m.e¢ Hos m.om mm as mucosa
m.om mm m.me cm as canoe
“.mm oaN e.mm mmH maH meacso
H.Hm sew e.Hm HHH emH mace
e.em saw m.Hm NNH mes _aaeoez
m.es em m.em mm as .m som
¢.Hm oa «.ma me am agate
ao.em amm ao.¢m sma mHN - ewe

 

 

 

~o\<v& maven apnemmoa A<\mvx mgmucwup< guy: sprz maven maven mo * . mgmvcmpp< saw:
u o o m <

.mamfi .mcaaa apnemmoa Peace new waved Peace co scream we maaeempp< ems: co mesa; co mems_ac<--.m apnea

227

«.mm
m.mm
N.wm
m.me
m.am
a.ae
m.ee
o.me

ao.a¢

Nom<v&

u

no

em

HmH
mofi
om”
mam
on
efim
moH

m.em
e.om
o.em
m.~a
a.em
m.om
m.oa
m.ma
ao.-

mm
mm
mm

Ho
om
No
mm
mm

am _Peo
am cmoczo
om cepoo
mm om;
Nu suave
ac“ cesao
a mefl mace
mmH Facade:
om emu

 

 

 

mecca a_aemmoa A<\mva mameemppe 5mg: 38.; means means as a acmeeaee< new:

a

o

m <

.oamfl .mceaa a_aemmoa _mpoe eea scene _apoe co moapam as acaeeaau< gov: co means co memspa=<--.ofi apnea

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Achilles. Nancy.
1967 "The Development of the Homosexual Bar as an Institution."
Sexual Deviance. J. Gagnon and W. Simon, Eds. Harper
and Row. New York. Pp. 228-44.
Agar, Michael.

1973 Ripping and Running: A Formal Ethnography of Urban
Heroin Addicts. Seminar Press, New York.

Ashcraft, Norman, and Albert Scheflen.

1976 People Space: The Making and Breaking of Human Boundaries.
Anchor Books, Garden City, New York.

Bailey, Frederick G.
1969 Strategems and Spoils. Schocken Books, New York.
Becker, Howard S.

1963 Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Free
Press, New York.

1970 "Practitioners of Vice and Crime." Pathways to Data.
Robert W. Habenstein, Ed. Aldine, Chicago.

, and Blanche Geer.

1960 "Latent Culture: A Note on the Theory of Latent Social
Roles." Admin. Sci. Quart. Vol. 5 (September), pp. 304-13.

Bell, Alan P.

1974 "Homosexualities: Their Range and Character." Nebraska
Symposium on Motivation, 1973.’ James Cole and Richard
Dienstbier, Eds. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.
Pp. 1-26.

228

229

, and Martin Weinberg.

1978 Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and
Women. Simon and Schuster, New York.

Berger, Peter, and Thomas Luckmann.

1966 The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor Books, Garden
City, New York

Berry, Brian, and W. Garrison.
1958 "Alternative Explanations of Urban Rank-size Relation-
ships." Annals of the Assoc. of Amer. Geographers. Vol.
48 (March). pp. 83-91.
Bolin, Anne E.
1974 God Save the Queen: An Investigation of a Homosexual
Subculture. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology,
University of Colorado at Boulder.
Bott, Elizabeth.

1957 Family and Social Network. Tavistock Publications,
London.

Breton, Raymond.
1964 "Institutional Completeness of Ethnic Communities and
the Personal Relations of Immi rants." Amer. J.
Sociology. Vol. 70 (September . pp. 193-205.
Brittan, Arthur.
1973- Meanings and Situations. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.
Browning, Harley, and Jack Gibbs.
1961 "Some Measures of Demographic and Spatial Relationships
among Cities." Urban Research Methods. Jack Gibbs, Ed.
D. Van Nostrand, New York. Pp. 436459.

Bryan, James H.

1966 "Occupational Ideologies and Individual Attitudes of
Call Girls." Soc. Problems. Vol. 13, no. 4 (Spring),
pp. 441-50.“

Burke, Kenneth.

1969 A Grammar of Motives. University of California Press,
(1945) Berkeley.

230

Dank, Barry M.

1971 "Coming out in the Gay World. " Psychiatry. Vol. 34
(May), pp. 180-97.

1972 The Development of a Homosexual Identity: Antecedents
and Consequents. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Sociology, University of Wisconsin.

1974' "Symbolic Interactionism and the Homosexual Identity.“
Presented at meetings of the Amer. Sociological Assoc.

Delph, Edward W.

1978~ The Silent Community: Public Homosexual Encounters.
Sage, Beverly Hills.

Douglas, Jack D.
1971» American Social Order. Free Press, New York.
Dubin, Robert.
' 1956 "Industrial Workers' Worlds: A Study of the 'Central
Life Interests' of Industrial Workers. " Soc. Problems.
Vol. 3, pp. 131- 42.
Evans-Pritchard, E. E.

1969 The Nuer. Oxford University Press, New York.
(1940)

Faris, J. C.

1973‘ "'Occasions' and 'Non-Occasions'." Rules and Meanings.
Mary Douglas, Ed. Penguin, England. Pp. 45-59.

Farrell, Ronald, and James Nelson.
1976 "A Causal Model of Secondary Deviance: The Case of
Homosexuality. " Sociological Quarterly. Vol. 17
(Winter),p pp 109-20.
Fischer, Claude S.

1975' "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism." Amer. J.
Sociology. Vol. 80 (May), pp. 1319;41.

1976- The Urban Experience. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.

231

Fortes, Meyer, and E. E. Evans-Pritchard.
1959 "Introduction" to African Political Systems. Readings
(1940) in Anthropology. volume II. Morton Fried, Ed. Thomas
Y. Crowell Company, New York.
Gagnon, John, and William Simon.-
1973 Sexual Conduct. Aldine, Chicago.
Gans, Herbert.
1962 "Urbanism and Suburbanism as Ways of Life: A Re-evaluation
of Definitions." Human Behavior and Social Processes.
Arnold M. Rose, Ed. Houghton, Mifflin, Boston. Pp. 625-
48. -
Gebhard, Paul H.

1966 "Homosexual Socialization." Proceedings of the IV World
Congress of Psychiatry, (September), pp. 1028-31.

Gibbs, Jack, Ed.
1961 Urban Research Methods. 0. Van Nostrand, New York.

Goffman, Erving.

1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday,
Garden City, New York.
1961 Asylums. Doubleday, Garden City, New York.

1963 Behavior in Public Places. Free Press, New York.
Goode, Erich. .

1973 The Drug Phenomenon: Social Aspects of Drug Taking.
Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis.

Goodenough, Ward H.

1969 "Rethinking 'Status' and 'Role': Toward a General Model
‘ of the Cultural Organization of Social Relationships."
Cognitive Anthropology. Stephen Tyler, Ed. Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, New York. Pp. 311-30.

Gouldner, Alvin W.
1957 "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Toward an Analysis of Latent

Social Roles - I". Admin. Sci. Quart. Vol. 2 (December),
pp. 281-306. ‘

232

Harry, Joseph.

1974 "Urbanization and the Gay Life. " J. Sex Research. Vol.
10 (August), pp. 238- 47.

, and William DeVall.
1978 The Social Organization of Gay Males. Praeger, New York.
Hatt, Paul.

1961 "The Concept of Natural Area." Studies in Human Ecology.
G. Theodorson, Ed. Row, Peterson, and Co., Evanston.
Pp. 104-8.

Hillery, George, Jr.

1968 Communal Organizations. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.

Hoffman, Martin.
1968 The Gay World. Basic Books, New York.
Hooker, Evelyn.

1967 "The Homosexual Community." Sexual Deviance. J. Gagnon
and W. Simon, Eds. Harper and Row, New York.

Hughes, Everett C.

1971 The Sociological Eye. Two volumes. Aldine, Chicago.
(1937) HInstitutional Office and the Person.f Pp. 132-40.
(1945) PDilemmas and Contradictions of Status.f Pp. 141-50.
(1950) PCycles, Turning Points, and Careers.i Pp. 124-31.
(1951) fBastard Institutions.“ Pp. 98-105.

Humphreys, Laud.

19701 Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Aldine.
Chicago.
1972 Out of the Closets: The Sociology of Homosexual Liber-

ation. Prentice-Hall, New JerSey.

James, William.

1890 The Principle of Psychology. Volume One. Henry Holt
and Company, New York.

233
Jones, Randall, and John Bates.

1978 "Satisfaction in Male Homosexual Couples." J. Homo-
sexuality. Vol. 3, No. 3 (Spring), pp. 217-24.

Kinsey, Alfred, W. Pomeroy and C. Martin.

1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. W. B. Saunders,
Philadelphia.

Lee, John A.
1978a ’ "The Gay Connection." Presented at the conference on
New Directions in Structural Analysis, University of
Toronto. Forthcoming in Urban Life.
1978b Getting Sex. Musson Book Co., Don Mills, Ontario.
Levine, Martin P.
1977 "Gay Ghetto." Presented at meetings of the Amer. Sociol.
Assoc. Gay Men: The Sociology of Male Homosexuality.
Martin Levine, Ed. 1978. Harper and Row, New York.
Pp. 182-204.
Lewis, Oscar.
1965 "Further Observations on the Folk-Urban Continuum and
Urbanization." The Study of Urbanization. P. H. Hauser
and L. Schnore, Eds. Wiley, New York. Pp. 491-503.
Leznoff, Maurice, and William Westley.

1956 "The Homosexual Community." Soc. Problems. Vol. 3, No.
4 (April). pp. 257-63.

Lieberson, Stanley.

1958 "Ethnic Groups and the Practice of Medicine." Amer.
Sociol. Rev. Vol. 23. Pp. 542-9.

Lofland, John.

1969 Deviance and Identity. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
New Jersey.

Lofland, Lyn.
1973 A World of Strangers. Basic Books, New York.

234

Lyman, Stanford, and M. Scott.

1970~ A Sociology of the Absurd. Appleton-Century-Crofts,
New York. ‘

Lynd, Robert, and Helen Lynd.

1956 Middletown. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York.
(1929) -

McCall, George, and J. L. Simmons.
1966 Identities and Interactions. Free Press, New York.
McIntosh, Mary.

1968 "The Homosexual Role." Soc. Problems.' Vol. 16, No. 2
(Fall), pp. 182-92. ‘

Mileski, Maureen, and D. J. Black.

1972' “The Social Organization of Homosexuality." Urban Life
and Culture. Vol. 1, No. 2 (July), pp. 187-202.

Miller, Brian.
1979 "Unpromised Paternity: The Life-Styles of Gay Fathers."
Gay Men: The Sociology of Male Homosexuality. Martin '
Levine, Ed. Harper and Row, New York. Pp. 239-52.
Miller, Delbert C., and William Form.

1964 Industrial Sociology. Second edition. Harper and Row.
New York.

Monteflores, Carmen de, and Stephen Schultz.

1978 "Coming Out: Similarities and Differences for Lesbians
and Gay Men." J. Social Issues.‘ Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 59-72.
Nadel, S. F.
1952 "Social Control and Self-Regulation." Soc. Forces. Vol.

31. PP. 265-73.
Newton, Esther.

1972 Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America. Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

235

Nicholas, Ralph W.

1965 "Factions: A Comparative Analysis." Political Systems
and the Distribution of Power. M. Banton, Ed. Tavistock,
London. Pp. 21-61.

Noble, Mary.
1973- “Social Network: Its Use as a Conceptual Framework in
Family Analysis." Network Analysis: Studies in Human

Interaction. J. Boissevain and.J. Mitchell, Eds. Mouton,
The Hague. Pp. 3-13.

Omark, Richard.
1978 "On the Sexual Scripts of Gay Males and Lesbians." Pre-
sented at meetings of the Assoc. for Humanist Sociology.
Forthcoming in The Gay Community. Lawrence Davis and
Alice Moses, Eds. Mosby, St. Louis.
1979- ‘ Review of The Silent Community: Public Homosexual
Encounters by Edward Delph. J. Sex Research. Vol. 15,
No. 2 (May). p. 168.
_Park, Robert.
1969 "The City: Suggestions for the Investigation of Human
(1916) Behavior in the Urban Environment." Classic Essays on
the Culture of Cities. Richard Sennett, Ed. Appleton-
Century-Crofts, New York. Pp. 91-130.
Park, Robert, E. Burgess, and R. McKenzie.

(1967) The City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1925

Ponse, Barbara.

1978 Identities in the Lesbian World. Greenwood, Westport,
Conn.

Psathas, George, and James M. Henslin.
1967 "Dispatched Orders and the Cab Driver: A Study of L0-
cating Activities." Soc. Problems. Vol. 14, No. 4
(Spring), pp. 424-43.
Rechy, John.
1963 City of Night. Grove Press, New York.

1967 Numbers. Grove Press, New York.

236

Reiss, Albert J., Jr.

1961 "The Social Integration of Queers and Peers." Soc.
Problems. Vol. 9, No. 2 (Fall), pp. 102-19.”

Roberts, Lance, and Edward Boldt.
1979 "Institutional Completeness and Ethnic Assimilation: A
Research Note." Presented at meetings of the Midwest
Sociological Society. Fortthming in J. Ethnic Studies.
Sagarin, Edward.

1976 "The High Personal Cost of Wearing a Label." Psychology
Today. (March), pp. 25-6, 30-1.

Schur, Edwin M.

1965 Crimes Without Victims. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
~ New Jersey.

Simmel, Georg.

1969 "The Metropolis and Mental Life." Classic Essays on the
(1905) Culture of Cities. Richard Sennett. Ed. Appleton-
Century-Crofts, New York. Pp. 47-60.

Solomon, David N.

1961 "Ethnic and Class Differences Among Hospitals as Con-
tingencies in Medical Careers." Amer. J. Sociology.
Vol. 66, pp. 463-71. '

Sommer, Robert.

1969 Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Spradley, James.

1975 "Adaptive Strategies of Urban Nomadsz. The Ethnoscience
of Tramp Culture." City Ways: A Selective Reader in
Urban Anthropology. John Friedl and N. Chrisman, Eds.
Thomas Crowell, New York. Pp. 111-385

Stebbins, Robert A.
1969 "Social Network as a Subjective Construct: A New Appli-

cation for an Old Idea." Canadian Rev. of Soc. and Anthro.
Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-14.

237

Stone, Gregory P.

1962 "Appearance and the Self." Human Behavior and Social
Processes. Arnold Rose, Ed. HoughtOn Mifflin, Boston.
Pp. 86-118;

Stoneall, Linda.
1978- Is Z a Community? Ph. D. dissertation, Department of
Sociology, Michigan State UniverSity. Chapter One,
"Theoretical Perspectives on Community. "
Suttles, Gerald D.

1972- The Social Construction of Communities. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.

Theodorson, George, and Achilles Theodorson.
1969 Modern Dictionary of Sociology. Crowell, New York.
Toennies, Ferdinand.

(1963) Community and Society. Harper and Row, New York.
1887

Townsend, Larry.
1972. The Leatherman's Handbook. The Olympia Press, New York.
Tyler, Stephen 5., Ed

1969 , Cognitive Anthropology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York.

Warren, Carol A. B.
1974, Identity and Community in the Gay World. Wiley, New York.
',~and John M. Johnson.
1972 "A Critique of Labeling Theory from the Phenomenological
Perspective. " Theoretical Perspectives on Deviance.
Robert A. Scott and Jack Douglas, Eds. Basic Books,
New York. Pp. 69- 92.
Weinberg, Martin, and Colin Williams.

1975, "Gay Baths and the Social Organization of Impersonal Sex."
Soc. Problems. Vol. 23, No. 2 (December), pp. 124-36. “

238

, and Alan Bell.

1972 Homosexuality: An Annotated Bibliography. Harper and
Row, New York.

Weinberg, Thomas.
1976 Becoming Homosexual: Self-DiscoVery, Self-Identity, and
Self-Maintenance. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Sociology. University of Connecticut.
1978 "On 'Doing' and 'Being' Gay: SeXual Behavior and Homo-
sexual Male Self-Identity." J. Homosexuality. Vol. 4,
No. 2 (Winter), pp. 143-56. '

Wirth, Louis.

1956 The Ghetto. University of ChiCago Press, Chicago.

(1928) ‘

1964 "Urbanism as a Way of Life." On Cities and Social Life.

(1938) Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Ed. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.

Zorbaugh, Harvey.

1961 "The Natural Areas of the City." Studies in Human Ecology.
(1926) G. Theodorson, Ed. Row, Peterson, and Co., Evanston,
Pp. 45-49.