PL  |  NL  |  FR  |  ES  |  PT  |  IT  |  DE  |  DK  |  NO  |  SE  |  FI  |  GR  |  JP  |  CN  |  KR  |  RU  |  AE

  Report this article

More information

Coming Out and Positive Images

Private Employment

Public Accommodations

The Lesbian and Gay Family

Housing ~ the rights of lesbians and gay men

EARLY HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVISM IN THE UNITED STATES

GAY AND PSYCHOTHERAPY IN THE TIME OF AIDS

Society Security and Senior Citizens

The Challenge of a Generation

Why volunteer in Costa Rica

Experience the Mayan culture while volunteering in Guatemala

Collective effort of ASEAN and Major Power (India and China) can restore democracy in Myanmar

Critical Review of the Movie Black Rain

The Social Impact of Slavery in the Sulu Sultanate

Leisure has a significant role to play in the development of identity, as it offers opportunities for freely performed behaviour which can have positive influences on self-perception (Haggard and Williams 1992; Wearing and Wearing, 1992). A number of studies have shown how young gay and lesbian people, in particular, have used leisure to negotiate their understanding of themselves; leisure offers choice about who to socialize with (Kivel, 1994; Kivel and Kleiber, 2000). Some, however, have reported difficulties and how the choice of leisure activities had been constrained through fear of exposure or of homophobia (Johnson, 1999). Both positive and negative experiences applied to adult gays and lesbians too (Jacobson and Samdahl, 1998; Markwell, 1998). The leisure sphere of bars and clubs may be particularly important for gay and lesbian identity formation, at least for those old enough to frequent them. Gays are socialized into new sub-culture through bars and clubs – these fulfil a function of creating a sense of community (Haslop et al., 1998).

Gay space is generally characterized as a concentration of bars and clubs, but also saunas, cafes, shops, residences and public space (streets, parks, squares, etc.) for social interaction (Hindle, 1994). It is also popularly referred to as the ‘gay scene’. Gay space, whatever form it takes, is of great significance for gays and lesbians. In a heteronormative world, gay space provides the opportunity to relate to other homosexuals and to validate one’s own identity. It also enables gays and lesbians to ‘be themselves’, so that behaviour can change between gay and straight places.

It brings a sense of belonging to a community and confers a sense of empowerment. It is also where gays and lesbians can hopefully be safe from physical and verbal abuse: ‘queer spaces create a strong sense of empowerment that allows men to look past the dangers of being gay in a city and to feel safe and at home’ (Myslik, 1996, p. 169). Gay space has historically, formen at least, been associated with public ‘cruising areas’ of parks, beaches and public toilets (Humphreys, 1970; Higgs, 1999b). These were particularly important meeting places for participation in casual sex before the development of the commercial gay scene and the legalization of homosexual sexual activity. Despite such changes, many gay men continue this challenge to heteronormative values of the use of public space; it not only facilitates physical gratification but also contributes to a sense of community (Markwell, 1998; Howe, 2001). In parts of the world where such developments have not occurred, cruising areas retain a special importance.

Place and space are considered to play an important role in the construction of identity (Forest, 1995). Most public space is masculine- and heterosexual-dominated, something that is so deeply ingrained that it is not seen by most (Myslik, 1996). Public space is kept free of passion or expressions of ‘abnormal’ sexuality. Most issues to do with sexuality are associated with private sphere – the home – and homosexuality is tolerated only if it remains in private (Duncan, 1996; Brickell, 2000). Public space is a place of tension and conflict; it potentially becomes a site for opposition where non-heterosexuals can claim space for themselves (Valentine, 1996; Pritchard et al., 2002; Rushbrook, 2002). Heterosexual residents of Le Marais district in Paris have expressed their opposition to the development of gay space there (Sibalis, 1999, 2004). There is a desire to create spaces in which non-heterosexuals can give expression to their sexuality; these spaces are usually leisure spaces (including tourism) (Visser, 2002). Young people in a study in Birmingham (UK) regarded the local gay scene as a space in which they could be ‘authentic’; it was considered liberating, tolerant and open (Holt and Griffin, 2003). They did recognize, however, that inclusion was related to clothing, class, age and ethnicity and, as a result, many gays and lesbians who did not ‘conform’ could feel excluded. Young people may turn to the gay scene rather than to family in order to establish their own identity. Gay space (or gay scene) can play a crucial role in this, though it may also be ‘risky’ space in that often represents a particular gay or lesbian identity to which somemay have difficulty relating (Valentine and Skelton, 2003).

Though gay space can lessen isolation, can contribute to identity and a sense of community and can confer strength and protection, it does also project a particular image of gays and lesbians. Newton (1993), for instance, held that Cherry Grove contributed to an image of gays as young, white, male, promiscuous, artistically inclined and middle class. Sibalis (1999) has argued that gay space can create a separatist homosexual identity and discourage integration; the cost is isolation from the rest of society.

The emergence of Le Marais as gay and lesbian space in the 1990s is considered to have contributed to a sense of gay identity in France (Sibalis, 1999). This, like much of gay space in the UK, is predominantly commercial rather than community-based or residential. In the USA, in particular, some gay spaces cover large geographical areas, to encompass residential areas and towns that are not confined to the leisure-related gay scene (Sibalis, 2004). Cherry Grove on Fire Island (off the south coast of Long Island, New York) was, from the 1920s, one of the first communities where it was possible to be openly gay, though initially confined to a limited, relatively wealthy, segment of society. The Grove is a summer vacation destination but a gay and lesbian residential (though often seasonal) population was soon established. It, along with neighbouring Pines, became dominated by gay and lesbian tourists and residents by the 1960s.

It is estimated that gays and lesbians comprised 30–40% of the population of West Hollywood (California) when it became incorporated as a separate municipality in 1984 (Forest, 1995). This ‘independence’ lent legitimization to gay identity and, indeed, the gay press had been at pains to project an image of the city that drew on ‘desirable’ qualities of a gay person (qualities such as creativity, progressiveness, responsibility and orientation towards entertainment and consumption). Perhaps one of the best-known gay and lesbian neighbourhoods is the Castro district of San Francisco. This residential area has, since the 1970s, become an area where the homosexual population outnumbers that of others. An infrastructure of gay- and lesbian-related and owned businesses and leisure venues give the neighbourhood a distinctive character. Rainbow flags along the main street, Castro Street, are clear signifiers of the area’s character. It is argued that ‘urbanisation is a precondition to emergence of a significant gay subculture’ (Sibalis, 1999, p. 11). The opportunity to adopt a gay or lesbian identity may be restricted in rural areas for many reasons, including the limited prospects of encountering other gays and lesbians and a less liberal attitude towards non-heterosexuality (Kramer, 1995). Large towns and cities have the advantage of a large population where a diversity of experiences exists and is tolerated and the possibility of adopting anonymity in relationships, especially when developing one’s own sexuality. They offer a wider selection of partners and the potential to break free from restrictions. Casual sex, as well as community, is typically more likely in cities (Knopp, 1995; Bouthillette, 1997; Aldrich, 2004). Cities have been such key sites in developing the modern concept of the gay identity that this identity has become associated with becoming a ‘sophisticated’ urban dweller (Binnie, 2000).