Abstract
Research concerning masculinities and homosexuality reveals contradictory findings, with inclusive masculinity theorists uniquely declaring the declining significance of homophobia in sports. To examine these contested findings, we interviewed straight and gay rugby union players to understand how they reflect on issues of homosexuality and negotiate the associated complexities in changing times. Our findings showed signs of greater acceptance of diverse sexualities yet we still found continued use of homophobic slurs and, at times, overt examples of homophobia. We concluded that the rugby players were subject to competing discourses of homosexuality. On the one hand, they were broadly aware that overt homophobia was now frowned upon and they were accordingly careful to not present themselves as homophobic. On the other hand, many still distanced themselves from homosexuality to ensure that they were not perceived as gay, as they still believed that homosexuality was stigmatised. In discussing our results, we raise critical concerns with inclusive masculinity theory, and illustrate that homophobia still presents as a serious social problem that impacts the health and well-being of queer people yet, at the same time, social change towards greater acceptance of diverse sexualities is an apparent trend.
Introduction
Recent research concerning masculinities and homosexuality has revealed sets of seemingly contradictory findings. In the last two decades, Diefendorf and Bridges (2020) claim the emergence of a ‘methodological paradox’ (1264), with quantitative evidence tending to reveal rapidly decreasing rates of homophobia but qualitative research illustrating homophobia as an enduring social injustice problem. 1 McCormack (2020), however, illustrated that a relatively small body of qualitative research has also found decreasing rates of homophobia amongst straight men. This body of research is underpinned, almost exclusively, by Inclusive Masculinity Theory (IMT) and has tended to examine masculinities in sporting contexts.
The findings concerning the examination of diverse sexualities within sporting contexts are, however, unusually fractured (see Storr et al., 2022). Within the sub-discipline of sport sociology, for example, a systematic review of literature on negative attitudes toward diverse sexualities, by Rollé et al. (2022), found that half (N = 19) of the 38 publications revealed inclusive attitudes amongst sport participants, whereas the other half found that homophobia was still problematic. Through a closer examination of these publications, we found that all of the 19 articles that revealed low or non-existent levels of homophobia were also underpinned by IMT. The other 19 publications, that found homophobia to be a persistent problem, drew on a diverse array of methodologies and social theories.
In contrast to the divided findings within the sociology of sport, there is broad agreement within the sub-disciplines of sport medicine and sport management that stigma, continued use of homophobic language, and heteronormative sport cultures remain current problems and act as primary barriers to participation for gay and bisexual boys (DeFoor et al., 2018; Denison et al., 2021; Greenspan et al., 2019; Shaw and Cunningham, 2021). This relatively clear set of findings underpinned the formation of a position statement from the American Medical Society for Sports Medicine (AMSSM), which detailed how gay youth are being harmed by the abuse and harassment they experience in sport and, as a result, are missing out on the range of social, developmental, and health benefits that could be gained from being able to participate in a sport in a supportive environment (Reardon et al., 2109).
The divergent findings illustrate the complexity of attempting to understand the changing relationships between masculinities and homophobia in sport contexts. They also illustrate that differing research approaches and social theories can produce different sets of understandings. This recognition is a cause for consideration as policy development needs to be based on clear findings. These divergent findings, accordingly, demand critical examination and further research. We were, therefore, inspired to examine how straight and gay sportsmen reflect on issues of homosexuality and negotiate the associated complexities in changing times. Moreover, to understand how the findings from IMT researchers contrast with broader conclusions, we explored masculinities and gender relations within rugby union (hereafter known as rugby): a sporting code that has been widely examined by IMT researchers (e.g., Anderson and McGuire, 2010; Gaston and Dixon, 2020; Muir et al., 2020).
Our paper begins by introducing IMT and associated research findings. We then provide a review of the literature concerning rugby and masculinities that illustrates changes over time and conflicting findings in relation to differing theoretical frameworks. This is followed by a description of our methods and a discussion of our findings.
Inclusive masculinity theory
Anderson (2010) developed IMT in response to qualitative research findings about sportsmen that revealed that social relationships were ‘not predicated on homophobia, stoicism or a rejection of the feminine’ and that many sportsmen have gay friends and renounce violence. He concluded that gender and sexuality dynamics had changed and suggested that ‘hegemonic masculinity could not account for the social dynamics of these male peer groups’ (547). Hence, IMT was developed as a replacement for the concept of hegemonic masculinity.
IMT rests reductively on the argument that homophobia is the ‘most important policing agent of masculinity’ (Anderson, 2010: 8). Homophobia is, accordingly, regarded as pivotal in the production of traditional or ‘orthodox’ masculinities that renounce expressions of femininity and revolve around hypermasculine displays and compulsory forms of heterosexuality. This circumscribed focus, according to Pringle (2010: 322), ‘neglects the social importance of gender as a relational concept (e.g., masculinities and femininities) and other important social variables (e.g., globalization, capitalism, governmentalities) that shape how men understand themselves and socially interact’. IMT's focus on homophobia is, nevertheless, buttressed by the key precept that within homophobic contexts, men allegedly fear being identified as homosexual: Anderson calls this fear ‘homohysteria’ (8). The concept of ‘homohysteria policing’, accordingly, relates to men surveying their behaviours to ensure that they could not be identified as homosexually oriented. Yet he argued that the conditions that once produced homohysteria have abated so that orthodox masculinities are no longer dominant, and men do not fear being ‘homosexualised’. The hegemonic form of masculinity, in the contemporary context is accordingly deemed by IMT theorists to no longer be culturally ascendant. In contrast, Anderson (2012: 40) claimed we are witnessing the rise of an ‘inclusive’ form of masculinity, which permits heterosexual men to engage ‘in an increasing range of behaviours that once led to homosexual suspicion, all without threat to their publicly perceived heterosexual identities’.
IMT researchers have presented results illustrating that homophobia has declined to such an extent that sportsmen can now habitually hug and kiss each other (Anderson et al., 2019) and sleep/spoon each other without fear of being homosexualised (Anderson and McCormack, 2015). Further results illustrate that sportsmen gain status from being identified as homosexual (McCormack, 2013) and have sexual relations with other males with little concern about stigmatisation (Scoats et al., 2018). Other IMT researchers have illustrated that an increasing number of straight cisgendered sportsmen are emotionally expressive, intimate with male friends, happy to appear feminine, and are gay friendly (e.g., Bush et al., 2012; Cleland et al., 2018; Magrath et al., 2015; McCormack and Anderson, 2010).
IMT offers a more positive portrait of sportsmen than research underpinned by the concept of hegemonic masculinity and has gained sizeable research attention. Magrath (2021), a researcher who draws on IMT, alleges that it has ‘developed into the most prolific theory in framing contemporary masculinities’ (416). Yet IMT has also engendered considerable critique. IMT has been declared as ‘underdeveloped’ (De Boise, 2015), not ‘wholly coherent’ (Pringle, 2010: 322), ‘overly optimistic (and perhaps phantasmatic)’ (Storr et al., 2024: 2), and ‘ahistorical and essentialist’ (Diefendorf and Bridges, 2020: 1303). Somewhat oddly, given that the concept of masculinity is a relational term, O’Neill (2015) and Waling (2019) have also raised concerns that IMT ignores women and gender relations. In addition, De Boise has pointed out that rates of homophobic bullying remain high and, as such, homophobia remains a persistent problem. Relatedly, epidemiological research reveals that rates of suicide and self-harm amongst gay men have not changed in three decades (Painter et al., 2018) and that these issues relate directly to homophobic experiences. Lastly, there is an abundance of sport research that reveals that LGBTQ+ discrimination is variable but still prevalent across different contexts (Denison et al., 2021; Herrick et al., 2024; Kavoura and Kokkonen, 2021; Rollé et al., 2022; Vilanova et al., 2024).
In relation to these critiques and counter evidence illustrating that homophobia remains a significant problem, IMT has been labelled as ‘dangerous’ (Pringle, 2024: 71) as the leading proponents of IMT actively campaign against efforts to protect people from homophobia in sports. For example, the UK Parliament launched an Inquiry into Homophobia in Sport in 2016. In a formal submission to this inquiry, IMT scholars
Rugby, masculinities and diverse sexualities: Changing dynamics in changing times
Rugby had its ‘genesis in the unique all-male environment of the nineteenth-century British public schools’ (Young, 1988: 275). The sport soon developed a collection of somewhat unique cultural characteristics based on the violation of taboos ‘regarding violence, physical contact, nakedness, obscenity, drunkenness, and the treatment of property’ (Dunning and Sheard, 1973). Drinking to excess was common in postmatch functions, as was the singing of obscene songs. The central themes of these songs, according to Dunning and Sheard (1973), revolved around ‘the mocking, objectification and defilement of women and homosexuals’ (7). Young (1988) argued that the vilification of homosexuals could be understood ‘as an attempt to off-set the extensive amount of close physical contact amongst males’ within the sport itself and the common off-field antics that involved player stripteases, bathing or showering together, and other acts of nudity. Whereas, Dunning and Sheard argued in the early 1970s, from a figurational perspective, that the vilification of women and homosexuals was to ‘bolster up their threatened masculinity’ given the changing dynamics in gender relations and the need to prove masculinity in the growing face of feminism and diverse sexualities.
Homonegativism remained a key aspect of rugby, and other competitive sport cultures throughout the 1980s and 1990s. In this time period, Connell's (1995) concept of hegemonic masculinity gained ascendancy in theoretical and empirical explorations of masculinities. Messner (1995), drawing from Connell, concluded from his interview study of straight sportsmen that ‘boys learn early that to be gay, to be suspected of being gay, or even to be unable to prove one's heterosexual status is not acceptable’ (34). Anderson (2012), correspondingly reported that very few gay athletes were ‘out’ during the 1980s and 1990s. Schacht (1996) further concluded from his ethnographic study of two North American rugby clubs that rugby was a masculine ritual within which the players would use numerous techniques to relationally distance themselves from the feminine. These techniques primarily focused on misogynistic interactions with women yet they also used homophobic slurs to establish ‘boundaries of what masculinity was not’ (559). Rugby culture was deemed to be a producer and reinforcer of a hegemonic form of masculinity. Similar findings were reported by Muir and Seitz (2004), who noted that rugby players would taunt their opponents by calling them faggots or queer.
Pringle and Markula's (2005) examination of rugby masculinities in Aotearoa/New Zealand drew on Foucauldian theorizing, rather than the more established concept of hegemonic masculinity, as they were concerned, in part, that the concept unduly focused on negative outcomes associated with the reproduction of gendered inequities. Their results found that ‘although rugby provided an influential context in which the interview participants negotiated formative understandings of masculinities and self, these negotiations did not result in the clear affirmation and reproduction of dominating discourses of masculinities’ (491). In contrast, the interviewee's negotiations were undertaken in relation to the risk of injury and an array of other discourses (e.g., discourses of health, ethics, violence and feminism) that resulted in the performance of ‘an inconsistent range of practices in relation to rugby that simultaneously disturbed and supported dominating discourses of masculinity’ (491).
A range of evidence, since the early 2000s, has illustrated an increased acceptance of homosexuality, particularly within the United Kingdom. Anderson and McGuire (2010), for example, further questioned the veracity of the concept of hegemonic masculinity when they observed a more inclusive and respectful culture within the English university rugby club that they examined. They reported that the male players did not ‘degrade women or gay men in any measurable manner’ and they were ‘emotionally supportive of each other when ill or injured’ (249). Anderson and McGuire suggested that the concept of hegemonic masculinity could not explain these progressive findings and a new way of theorising masculinity was needed. Of which, they promoted IMT.
Price and Parker (2003) examined the Kings Cross Steelers, which formed in 1995 as the world's first gay and inclusive rugby club. The club was formed as gay players were either closeted or felt alienated in mainstream sport teams. The club initially played friendly matches as ‘straight’ teams preferred not to play against them. Yet the Steelers now play in a mainstream competitive sport league, which reflects an increased acceptance of diverse sexualities (Muir et al., 2021). The continued growth in the number of gay rugby teams led to the formation of the International Gay Rugby Association and Board (IGRAB) in 2001 and World Rugby, in 2015, showed support for gay rugby by signing a memorandum with IGRAB to promote the elimination of homonegativism. Muir et al. (2021) recent examination of inclusive rugby clubs in the UK found that gay men no longer joined gay rugby teams ‘to escape homophobia’ but ‘to gain social capital within and beyond the gay team’ (338). Gaston and Dixon (2020: 517) similarly found ‘a broader diminished cultural homophobia’ as straight rugby players openly accepted the gay players.
Yet not all recent rugby research paints a picture of men acting in a softer or more inclusive manner. Giazitzoglu's (2020) ethnography of an Australian rugby club revealed that the rugby players performed hegemonic masculinities in different ways in the differing spaces of the rugby environment. In understanding that ‘hegemonic masculinity is unfixed, subjective and fleeting’ (69), Giazitzoglu examined the player's understandings of ‘what sort of man’ they were on the field of play, in the clubhouse, and in the changing rooms. Despite a degree of fluidity in their performances, which allowed them to perform caring masculinities within home environments, the results illustrated an adherence to traditional notions of hegemonic masculinity within the rugby spaces.
The case of Australian rugby player, Israel Folau, further indicates the existence of a persistent form of homophobia within Australia. Folau's multi-million-dollar contract with Rugby Australia was terminated in 2019, after he publicly proclaimed that homosexuals would go to hell. This unleashed a human rights debate across Australia that centred on the issue of whether sport stars should have the freedom to publicise their religious beliefs even if they are homophobic. Folau received considerable support from crowdfunding campaigns and even the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who supported the right for religious groups to espouse homonegative sentiments (Tong, 2019). Folau's case reflected that although there may be evidence of greater acceptance of diverse sexualities, public opinion is still divided.
Although there is greater acceptance of diverse sexualities, the use of homophobic language, such as ‘that's so gay’ or ‘fag’ is also still prevalent in rugby and other sporting contexts (Denison et al., 2021; Greenspan et al., 2019; Hartmann-Tews et al., 2021; Pringle and Denison, 2024). Yet there is debate as to whether this language use reflects continued homophobic abuse. McCormack (2011) argued that the use of so-called homophobic slurs should not necessarily be regarded as homophobic unless they are used with pernicious intent, and they have a negative social effect. He claimed that many rugby players used homosexually-themed language as a form of social bonding rather than attempts to denigrate queer people. He further argued that there is a need to examine the context of the environment and the intentions of the sportspeople before concluding whether particular phrases, such as ‘no homo’, are homophobic or not.
Given the disparate findings in relation to different theories, methods and contexts, we examined how rugby players were adjusting to changing times and the challenge of accepting gay players within subcultures that are traditionally known as hypermasculine. We also compared our findings with similar studies that have been underpinned by IMT to gain an understanding associated with the division of research findings and the unique claims of IMT that homophobia has declined in social significance.
Methods
Data was collected through in-depth semi-structured interviews with three currently active rugby coaches (a heterosexual female coach of an Under 18 boy'’ team, a heterosexual male coach of a gay/inclusive team, and a heterosexual male coach of a senior team) and focus group interviews with male rugby players from 9 teams to examine their understandings and attitudes towards homosexuality. We were cognisant that the apparent trend towards greater acceptance of homosexuality is often attributed to ‘older, less tolerant generations being replaced by young cohorts who are more inclusive and open-minded in their attitudes’ (Janmaat and Keating, 2019: 44). In this respect we conducted focus group interviews with two colts’ (under 18) teams and seven senior teams (ages ranged from 19 to 42) to ensure a range of ages. The colt's players were all aged 18 at the time of interviews and, therefore, were regarded as adults from an ethical perspective.
Our review of the literature hinted that British rugby players may be more accepting of sexual diversity than players from Aotearoa/New Zealand or Australia. Relatedly, Anderson et al. (2012) contended that it is now common for English heterosexual male students to kiss each other, yet we were unaware of this being a trend in Antipodean countries. Hence, we wanted to examine players’ experiences from these three countries to understand if there were cultural differences in attitudes towards sexual diversity. We also wanted to understand the experiences of gay and bisexual rugby players, so that we could understand their insights concerning inclusivity and homosexually-themed language. Overall, we conducted focus group interviews with two senior English clubs (n = 5, 6), two English Colt's (under 18) teams (n = 5, 5), two senior clubs from Aotearoa/New Zealand (n = 3, 4), a senior Australian team (n = 3) and an Australian (n = 5) and English (n = 6) gay and inclusive team. In total, 42 players were involved in the focus group interviews.
Initial contact with the rugby clubs was through coaches or club presidents via phone or email. Coaches/presidents who were amenable forwarded research invites and explanatory statements to team members. All interviews were conducted by Richard Pringle, the lead author, and took place in changing rooms, the side of rugby fields or, more typically, in the clubhouse. The critical advantage of the focus groups was that we could witness how the players socially interacted with each other (Smith and Sparkes, 2017). The interviewing process was aided by Pringle's cultural knowledge and playing experience of rugby. With a degree of cultural capital, as an ex-provincial rugby player from Aotearoa/New Zealand, he was able to ‘talk’ rugby in-depth in relation to various aspects of the game. At the outset of the interviews, Pringle positioned himself as a straight cis-gendered man who was interested in understanding the contemporary performance of masculinities in rugby and the changes that had occurred since he had last played over three decades ago––particularly in relation to the growth of women's rugby, violence and the apparent increase in acceptance of homosexuality. Erik Denison, the second author, identifies as a gay cisgendered man and is also an ex-rugby player. He has a vested interest in challenging homophobia in sports.
A conversation style was adopted during the interviews and questions were asked about the team culture, what they enjoyed about rugby, their attitudes towards female rugby players and feminism, violence on the field, injury and pain, and alcohol consumption. Specific questions were asked about the possibilities or realities of having a gay teammate or coach, the use of homosexually themed language, showering practices and experiences of kissing, hugging or sleeping with other male players/friends.
Interviews were transcribed verbatim and printed on paper. The transcripts were read and re-read and comments were made in the margins with respect to the themes of conversation. For this article, we focused our analysis on topics that IMT researchers had specifically examined with respect to diverse sexualities, these included the use of homosexually themed language and homophobic policing practices as associated with showering and kissing. Foucault (1972) used the term discourse in reference to social practices that regulated the formation and circulation of statements and perceptions of reality. In this light, we were interested in identifying the discourses that formed or underpinned the rugby players’ views on homosexuality and homophobia. As an example, in responding to an interview prompt, ‘so a gay player would feel welcome in your team?’ Dazzer (England, seniors) replied: ‘I’d like to think so. I’d like to think anyone would …Our world's a different place than it was 10, 15, 20 years ago’. We, accordingly, interpreted that homophobia was discursively known as ‘outdated attitude’ and this discourse justified Dazzer's statement of welcoming anyone into his team. Our broader interpretive task was to reveal the workings of discourse within the player's conversations and to provide the reader with ‘thick descriptions’ of these conversations so that they could make judgements about our interpretations (Holstein and Gubrium, 2013).
Discussion of results
Our discussion of results is divided into three sections. In the first section, we focus on the use of homosexually themed language and the players’ understanding of why this language was used and its impact. In the second section, we focus on the players’ attitudes towards showering with each other in the clubrooms and whether they would be concerned about showering with a gay teammate. In the final section, we focus on the players’ attitudes and experiences of hugging or kissing their male teammates or friends. We focus on these three topics to illustrate how the players reflect on issues of homosexuality and how they negotiate the associated complexities. In addition, these three topics have been broadly explored by IMT researchers and, therefore, we can more directly compare our results.
Homosexually themed language
Our findings showed many signs that the rugby players and coaches had greater acceptance of homosexuality in rugby clubs. The majority indicated, when first questioned, that they would be happy to play with an openly gay teammate and they believed that a gay player would be broadly welcome in their club. These results lend some support to earlier findings concerning a progressive shift in the acceptance of diverse sexualities in sporting contexts (see Magrath, 2017; Magrath et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2017). Our interviewees legitimated, in part, their increased acceptance by acknowledging that the times had changed. They were, accordingly, aware that they would appear somewhat outdated if they gave the impression that they were homophobic. As such, the majority of our interviewees were reluctant to acknowledge that homosexually-themed language was still used within their clubs. Yet we became aware this language was still relatively common.
Through coaching a gay and inclusive team, Robbo (Australia) realised that there was a lot of hidden, and not so hidden, homonegativity that surrounded the team: Some of these guys, they’ve never had an opportunity to be part of a team or a team culture. Because of the fear of being outed as a gay. And those who had played team sport, invariably had never been openly gay in their team. That the death by 100 cuts of being called a fag, a queen, a poof, was there. And that we’re in a situation where silence actually just allows the homophobia to continue. And for them to feel … everything's in a negative. So, every connotation, somebody making a statement is negative. And if you continually put somebody down, it's not going to make them feel good.
Some of our interviewees defended their use of homosexually-themed language by suggesting that they were not using it homophobically. Freddy (England, Colts) defended the use of ‘that's so gay’ by saying that the phrase had lost its meaning: ‘It's not used as homophobic… whereas ‘bender’ and stuff still hold to the (idea) you’re saying that to insult them for their sexuality’. Yet this team of Colt's players still reported that this type of language was relatively rare in their rugby club. They agreed, however, that it is heard more in football culture where Lenny (England, Colts) reported that footballers would commonly say ‘Come on stop being a faggot, go and do it. Don’t be a pussy’. In this way, they acknowledged that the language was still common but distanced themselves from such usage.
Another colt's team from England, was also reluctant to acknowledge that they used homonegative slurs. Den (England, colts) simply said, ‘we don’t use those words’. Yet Mark (England, colts) stated, ‘I personally say yes, I’ll be honest, not as in I just say it randomly but even if I just get homework I’ll be like, “oh this is so gay”, to mean it's shit’. Mark added, ‘Yes, I admit now that I say it in comparison to that is “shit’. It makes me sound homophobic (laughing), but I am not homophobic, disclaimer, that's not how I want to come across (others laugh)’. Mark was aware that by conflating the terms ‘shit’ and ‘gay’, that this could be understood as a negative framing of homosexuality. Pete (England, colts) added, ‘we wouldn’t say to someone who we know was gay, say words like faggot. Yeah people say it in the team, but I don’t think anyone would say it to a gay person, you know, homophobically’. In this confession, Pete acknowledged that he knew that words, such as ‘faggot’ or ‘bender’, could cause offence to gay people, yet he thought it was okay to use these words in the club, as he suspected (perhaps naively) there were no gay people in the team. Pete further said, We turn a blind eye to its use on the field, you know, if someone calls someone on another team a faggot or something like that, but then if someone on our team was gay and they said it to the gay person that would be different.
In this respect there appeared to be a contradiction with what the players were saying: on the one hand, they were saying that these words were no longer used in a homophobic sense – yet on the other hand, they knew that this language could still cause offence, so they policed their usage accordingly.
In contrast to the English players, the Australian and Kiwi interviewees more readily acknowledged that homonegative slurs were somewhat common off the field of play. Fetu (NZ, seniors), ‘Our team say a lot of that stuff, “Oh gee that was gay!” or “Oh, you’re gay”’. Jamie (NZ, seniors) similarly reported that his football (soccer) playing friends taunted rugby players by saying, ‘Oh, you like touching boys all the time, that's why you play rugby’. Being accused of being ‘gay’, in this respect, was still a put-down. Jamie said that the typical retort to being accused of being ‘gay’ by footballer friends, was to emphasise how masculine rugby was when compared to football. Performances of toughness and strength were still valorised and used as proof of heterosexuality.
The players from the Australian and English ‘gay and inclusive’ rugby clubs reported that they still heard homonegative slurs on the field and although they were not commonly heard, they were still upsetting. Riley (Australia, seniors), for example, said ‘I get really pissed off when I hear those words….let the rugby do the talking, people who have to bring it up, race or sexuality, it just pisses me off’. Brad (England, seniors) relayed the following vignette: Two weeks ago we played a team here who were a very good team, very friendly with us, we’ve played them a long time… We scored and we were lining up for the conversion. The opposition had come together in a huddle behind the posts and said, “We’re not going to let those faggots cross the line again.” (lead author): So how does that make you feel if you hear a team saying, “We’re not going to let these faggots beat us?” Alan (England, Seniors): You gotta beat them. I guess… The best kind of comeback to that is just to be better. No, it doesn’t like wound you. It strikes you as just dumb. For god’s sake, like, idiots. Brad (England, Seniors): We have more concerns now about this use of language and what the impact is on the next generations going forward…. I think it puts people off. I think you need visible, you need role models, but you also need to feel safe. At that age and as you’re coming to terms with your sexuality is such a delicate time for people. You want to surround yourself with… You don't want to feel any more uncomfortable than you already do feel. So, if you hear it there, then it’s really tough…. It boils down to, it’s kids’ lives. It’s suicide rates and the harming rates are just terrifying. And ignore everything else, ignore beliefs and ignore religion and ignore homophobia. It’s about, there are people out there hurting themselves because of this, so what do you do to stop that?
The players in the gay and inclusive teams overwhelmingly supported the notion that such language was harmful as it ‘othered’ them, dissuaded younger players from joining teams and was connected to self-harm practices. These findings are in opposition to McCormack (2011) who argued that if homophobic language is used without pernicious intent and if the context is not homohysteric, then we should conclude that the language will not have a negative social effect. Our results, as in agreement with the recent findings of Vilanova et al. (2024), counter McCormack's contention by illustrating that the use of such language was still perceived as harmful to gay players.
Homohysteria in the showers?
Within ‘homohysteric’ cultures, the fear of being perceived as gay, according to Anderson and McCormack (2018), is theorised to restrict masculine gender performances, so that men will act in a circumscribed manner to prevent perceptions that they are potentially homosexual, feminine or soft. In this manner, we were interested to understand whether players would be happy to shower nude with a gay teammate. We correspondingly witnessed a range of seemingly fearless and fearful responses. On the positive side, there were several senior and colts players who reported that they would have little hesitation to shower with a gay player, as the following conversation reveals: XXXX (lead author): So, if you had a gay guy in the team, and you’re showering together, does this make a difference? Mex (England, colts): No Ollie (England, colts): No Lenny (England, colts): No Mex: It’s just, obviously, we don’t have anyone on the team that’s gay, so I can’t really say from experience wise. Den (England, colts): If he’s looking at me, he’s looking at me. I don’t have a problem with it, maybe I would ask him to not do it though. Mick (England, colts): I think it would be awkward if anyone was looking at you in the shower. I wouldn’t want anyone looking at me you know.
Jamie (NZ, seniors) also thought it could be ‘awkward’ to have a gay guy in the team, yet he tried to express this feeling carefully to not offend: I’m not saying it wouldn’t be awkward for me … but, obviously he likes guys, so he’ll look at you differently. Sport is still one of those places where … the acceptance is hard cause, you know, you’ve got changing rooms and you’ve got all sorts of interactions. And, of course, if you have a player in your team, a person of the same sex, there is a chance they might be sexually attracted to you.
With respect to showering with a gay teammate, Jack (NZ, seniors) hinted that there was also a ‘risk’ of being ‘turned’: ‘There are especially that teenage period … that period of experimentation and I’d say formation and some people might … question, they start to question themselves’. Jaime and Jack relatedly detailed that the team did use homonegative slurs and this would work to police behaviour, ‘They’d always say those kind of things, like question whether people are such and such, you know, one kid did something, the certain way he looks or plays. Might say, he could be or he's gay’ (Jaime, NZ, seniors).
This fear of being thought of as homosexual underpinned why both colt's teams in England showered in their underwear. The players initially suggested that they would shower with their underwear on for various reasons, including: ‘Privacy’ (Pete, England, colts); ‘People like to shower in their privacy’ (Joe, England, colts) and ‘comfort maybe?’ (Den, England, colts). Yet then Joe added: ‘I don’t particularly want to see it, you know (laughing), frankly, I don’t need to see it’’ The ‘it’ referred to a penis. In this manner, Joe's assertion that he did not want to look at a ‘penis’, positioned him as straight and homosexuality was ‘deployed as a crux for humor predicated on sexual othering’ (Ralph and Roberts, 2020: 92). Maliki (England, colts) confirmed that ‘people think it's weird, people make fun of people who shower together, I’ve seen it happen … now that I look back it would be homophobic comments’. They’d say, ‘that's a bit gay they are all showering together’. Maliki's assertion was followed by general agreement from his teammates. Of interest, both Joe and Pete (England, colts) commented that their fathers, although from an older generation, thought it was weird that they showered in their boxers. Joe even said that his father ‘makes fun of me’ because of this.
Theo (England, Seniors) acknowledged that as a teenager he feared male nudity: ‘I remember when I was 17, 18, playing with adults I was a bit like “Whoa!” Everyone just literally after the match, everyone just dropped their pants. Literally, I was so scared, I felt so scared’. Luke (England, Seniors) was similarly apprehensive about male nudity: ‘Even when you go to the gym for the first time and you’re in there and there's all the adults in there and they get their cocks out, and you’re just like, “Oh, fuck, you know”’. He added: ‘When you’re 15 in the gym, you’re totally just changing in the corner’.
In this light, it was apparent that some of the colt's and senior players were fearful of male nudity or being perceived as gay if they showered in the nude with their teammates: homohysteria still circulated in the culture of the colt's teams. We contend, that given that homophobic language is increasingly policed, the colt's players could not overtly use such language as a ‘masculinity resource’ (Messerschmidt, 1999) to prove their heterosexuality and, relatedly, felt uncomfortable showering with other men in the nude.
Homosocial acts of intimacy: Kissing and hugging your mates
A prime tenet of IMT is the assertion that due to the alleged decreasing levels of cultural homophobia, there has been a ‘loosening of the restricted physical and emotional boundaries of traditional heteromasculinity’ (Anderson et al., 2012: 421). In other words, it is speculated that men are increasingly allowed to hug and kiss their male friends with little concern about being stigmatised as being gay. Results from Anderson et al. (2012) interview study with 145 British male university and sixth-form college students, supported this contention by revealing that ‘89% have, at some point, kissed another man on the lips’ (421) and 37% acknowledging that they have had protracted kisses with male friends. The kissing was reportedly non-sexual but revealed a close bond of friendship and they concluded that this was ‘an effect of decreasing levels of homophobia’ (Anderson et al., 2012: 428). Correspondingly, we were interested in examining whether the rugby players had kissed or hugged their male friends and if so, what were the players’ understandings of these intimacies.
All interviewees acknowledged that they had, at times, given their male friends a pat on the back and, for some, a hug or slap on the bum. Many of the English rugby players also acknowledged that they had kissed their male friends on the cheek or forehand and some on the lips. In contrast, none of the Australian or Kiwi interviewees acknowledged that they had kissed a male friend and many were surprised to hear that it was allegedly a somewhat common practice within England. Indeed, they thought it abnormal. There appeared, accordingly, no loosening of restricted homosocial intimacies associated with kissing amongst the Antipodean players.
The kissing that the UK players talked about occurred, however, when the players were drunk, as a joke, or in celebration of winning a game or scoring a try. When asked about whether they kiss other men, Pete (England, colts) reported ‘Yeah, that's just a joke, I would probably do that’. Den (England, colts) furthered, ‘if we are all drinking, you know, like a lot of bottles’. Yet Michael (England, colts) added, ‘even when we are not drunk, we still slap each other's bums’ and ‘we kiss each other's head when we score a try and say I love you (Den, colts)’.
Dazzer (England seniors) reported ‘I’ve definitely kissed a few of my teammates. That's definitely happened, yeah. When I’m drunk’. His teammate ribbed him, ‘We’ve figured out its 1.3 beers (laughter from teammates)’. Unlike the colts, some of the senior players reflected that they had kissed on the lips. Yet they resolutely declined to state that the kissing was romantic. Bert (England seniors) categorically reported: ‘there's nothing sexual or anything romantic about it’. He added, ‘there's someone I definitely wouldn’t kiss. Because I know he's been a bit conflicted in the past’. In this light, Bert was highlighting that kissing with homosexual desire would be problematic for him.
Players from another English colt's team reaffirmed that kissing would only happen when drunk and without any hint of sexual attraction. Ollie (England, colts) stated ‘On New Year, I’ll give my mates a little peck … I’m drunk, oh well’. When asked if they use any ‘tongue’ in the kiss. Ollie said, ‘No, it's just a little peck’ And, Lenny (England, colts) said ‘that's a bit too serious. I’m not going to have him smooching my neck in the middle of the party’. Two of the players then felt the need to affirm that they were not homosexual: ‘I’m not gay. I don’t really feel that way’ (Lenny). And Ollie said ‘I know I’m straight, that I’ve got a girlfriend. It's I don’t want anything romantic with another boy’. The conversation provoked these players to actively distance themselves from homosexuality.
The distancing from homosexuality was more violently expressed by Kieran (England, seniors) who affirmed that a kiss would only happen, ‘at night when you’re absolutely hammered. If you’re like paralytically drunk at uni’. When asked how he would feel if a mate kissed him on the lips and indicated sexual attraction: ‘I’d be like, ‘what the fuck’, I might punch you’. He reiterated later in the conversation, ‘if someone tried kissing me, cor, you’re getting punched in the face’.
The conversations concerning kissing other men revealed that it was unique to the English clubs and that these actions, for the overwhelming majority of the men, were still subject ‘to homohysteric policing’ (Ralph and Roberts, 2020: 16). Similar to Ralph and Roberts (2020), we agreed that the increased acceptance of kissing between men does not necessarily provide ‘evidence of declining homohysteria’ (16), in contrast, the findings suggest that ‘homosocial intimacy remains governed by homohysteric sentiment’ (16). Moreover, the threat of homophobic violence towards queer men was still evident within the clubrooms, as demonstrated by Kieran's (England, seniors) threat to punch a mate if he indicated sexual attraction.
Conclusions
In this study, we sought to understand whether, as inclusive masculinity theory proposes, homophobia had declined and, correspondingly, whether the performance of masculinities has changed in a way that allows for the rugby players to be more emotional, supportive, tactile, and intimate with each other. Our findings showed many signs that the rugby players and coaches had greater acceptance of homosexuality in relation to earlier rugby research (e.g., Price and Parker, 2003, Schacht, 1996; Young, 1988). Our interviewees legitimated, in part, their increased acceptance by acknowledging that the times had changed.
Yet there were also clear signs of homohysteria and, in some cases, overt homonegative attitudes. Consistent with the findings of McCormack (2011) and Magrath and Stott (2019), we found homonegative slurs were still heard in clubs. Also consistent, we found that such slurs were rationalised as not being homonegative, as the meanings had reportedly changed. Yet, in contrast, the players were broadly aware that such slurs were offensive and derogatory to gay people. Hence, they were aware that such slurs still held homonegative connotations, and their regular use created a heteronormative and abusive sport context. Indeed, they attempted to legitimate their continued use by disingenuously declaring that their club did not have any gay or bisexual players so therefore the comments were not harmful. Even with the threat of penalties on the field of play, the slurs were still used.
While McCormack (2011) contends that this language is harmless, given it is not used with any deliberate intent to express homophobia, this view was not supported by gay rugby players. These slurs were of great concern for these players, who had heard them on the field of play and were aware of how such slurs could dissuade younger gay players from participating and enhance the risk of mental health issues.
The colt's players would not shower in the nude as some were fearful that they might be perceived as gay. Homosocial intimacies, such as lip kissing, were also still governed by fears of being perceived as homosexual. In using Anderson's (2010) term, these fears revealed that ‘homohysteria’ actively policed the performance of masculinities in rugby clubs. These fears could also be regarded as a regressive shift in queer politics, as rugby players from the 1970s and 1980s were well known for bathing and showering together (Dunning and Sheard, 1973). Yet in this earlier time period, displays of overt homophobia could be drawn upon, as a ‘masculinity resource’ (Messerschmidt, 1999) to prove heterosexuality.
Our aim in undertaking this qualitative study was not to get a representative sample of players to draw broad conclusions, nevertheless, we were interested in considering differences in age (e.g., colts vs. seniors) and cultural context (Australia, Aotearoa/New Zealand and England) with respect to attitudes towards homosexuality. We found little difference between the colts and senior players, and the performance of rugby masculinities was remarkably similar irrespective of geography, with the exception of the English players’ attitudes towards kissing their friends. Nevertheless, the fear of being homosexualised still policed all of our interviewees’ performances.
We conclude that the rugby players were subject to competing discourses of homosexuality. On the one hand, they were broadly aware that overt homophobia was now frowned upon and they were accordingly careful not to present themselves as homophobic. On the other hand, there were many who wanted to distance themselves from homosexuality to ensure that they were not perceived as gay, as they still believed that homosexuality was stigmatised, mocked and marginalised. In this context of competing discourses, we stress that the apparently greater acceptance of diverse sexualities does not equate with the eradication of homonegativism, or the associated forms of stigmatisation or acts of violence that still cause harm (Rollé et al., 2021). The gay rugby players were well aware and troubled by the undercurrent of homophobia that existed within the culture of rugby in Australia and England.
Our concerns rest with the continued impact of homophobia on gay men. A longitudinal study of the mental health outcomes of youth and young adults (Painter et al., 2018) illustrated that the higher rates of self-harm and suicide amongst LGBTQ + youth have not changed in over three decades and that these rates can be explained in relation to negative life experiences (e.g., bullying, taunting, marginalisation, violence). These findings counter the narrative of linear and steady progress towards acceptance of diverse sexualities. O’Neill (2015) claimed that this mythical narrative ‘is central to Anderson's critique of hegemonic theory’ (110). We relatedly concur with Caudwell (2015) who argued that the narrative of apparent progress is not only too simplistic but can also be dangerous as it detracts from the difficult work of challenging aspects of homophobia and can hide a raft of serious problems. Rather than accepting that there has been a linear trend in the acceptance of diverse sexualities, our conceptualisation of competing discourses of homosexuality allows us to understand that in contemporary times, ‘gender and sexual inequality are often simultaneously being challenged and reproduced’ (Diefendorf and Bridges, 2020: 1279).
Our findings lend little support to the research underpinned by IMT. We suggest that the difference in our conclusions rests on the possibility that the optimistic theoretical tenets of IMT (i.e., that levels of homohysteria are now low) work in a circular fashion to shape the conclusions that are drawn. Spivak (2018), for example, argued that the social theories that researchers use change their thinking and interpretations. She reported, ‘theorizing is a practice. It becomes internalized. You are changed in your thinking and that shows in your work’. With respect to the interpretations drawn by IMT researchers, de Boise (2015) asserted that ‘there is a notable analytic bias around what is labelled as “homophobic” and “non-homophobic” behaviour’ (332). He added that these researchers ‘document the presence of behaviour which may be construed as homophobic; however, they take respondents’ interpretations of whether they consider their behaviour to be homophobic at face value’ (232). Moreover, given that many people no longer want to be identified as homophobic, it is unsurprising that research participants would claim that their frequent use of homophobic words, such as ‘fag,’ was not homophobic. Relatedly, de Boise suggested that IMT researchers broadly draw the uncritical conclusion that levels of homonegativity are low.
Our concern with IMT theorising is that the related research findings suggest little need for ongoing activism to challenge homophobia, particularly in sport contexts. Yet in the face of Trumpism and other regressive shifts in gender and sexuality politics, critical research and political activism are still warranted. In contrast to IMT, we advocate post-structural theories, as particularly related to feminist adaptations of Foucauldian (e.g., Markula and Pringle, 2006) or Deleuzian/Guattarian theorising (e.g., Hickey-Moody et al., 2019) for examining gendered subjectivities and the workings of power. The advantage of these theories, in contrast with tentatively post-structural theorising – such as the concept of hegemonic masculinity or IMT – is that they are not based on pre-conceived ideas of how gender relations are ‘structured’ and, therefore, interpretations of data are not haunted by these pre-conceived ideas. Yet they offer useful tools for understanding the production and performance of masculinities and the associated sets of gendered power relations, that allow for understanding the dynamics of social change and the apparent ambiguities and contradictions of social life. Our study, accordingly, allowed us to understand that homonegativism still presents as a serious social problem that impacts the health and well-being of queer people yet, at the same time, social change towards greater acceptance of diverse sexualities is an apparent trend.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful for the support of Rugby Australia, Rugby Victoria and Salesforce in undertaking this research.
Consent to participate
Informed consent to participate was written.
Data availability
At the time of writing we are still drawing on data for further publications and it is therefore not currently available.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval for the collection of data in Australia and England was approved by the Monash University Ethics Review Manager (2024-21742-102233) and the data collected in Aotearoa/New Zealand was approved by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee (reference number: 016649).
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was conducted with the financial and in-kind support of Rugby Australia, Rugby Victoria, and Salesforce.
