This article revisits the concept of (virtual) cruising with the purpose of uncovering an often-disregarded fact in queer theory: that cruising is equally about rejecting as it is about welcoming others/otherness. With the help of two critical conceptual tools, community and immunity, that I borrow from Italian philosopher Roberto Esposito, this paper discusses how a particular Geosocial Networking Application, Hornet, both enables and undermines the emergence of a virtual community in Istanbul, Turkey. While defying heteronormativity, Hornet reproduces violence in the shape of homonormativity, endangering what it claims to offer originally: community. By addressing cruising in relation not only to community but also immunity, this article makes an intervention in queer theory’s tendency to reduce cruising to a universal welcoming of otherness. This paper aims to revisit both the communitarian potentials and immunitarian risks of cruising in the light of a rather politicized analysis grounded in the everyday experiences of ordinary people.
AlburyK andByronP (2016) Safe on my phone? Same‐sex attracted young people's negotiations of intimacy, visibility, and risk on digital hook‐up apps. Social Media + Society2(4): 1–10.
4.
AtukT (2019) Comrades-in-[each other’s]-arms: Homosociality, masculinity, and effeminacy in the Turkish army. Men and Masculinities. Epub ahead of print 1 August 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1097184X19866874.
5.
AtukT (2020) Cruising in the research field: Queer, feminist, and cyber autoethnography. International Review of Qualitative Research 13(3): 351–364.
BereketTAdamBD (2006) The emergence of gay identities in contemporary Turkey. Sexualities9(2): 131–151.
8.
BerryCMartinFYueA (2003) Introduction: Beep—Clink—Link. In: Berry C, Martin F and Yue A (eds) Mobile Cultures: New Media in Queer Asia. London: Duke University Press, pp. 1–20.
9.
BersaniL (1987) Is the rectum a grave.October43: 197–22.
10.
Bersani L (1996) Homos. Revised edn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
11.
BersaniL (2002) Sociability and cruising.Umbr(a): Sameness1: 9–23.
12.
BerubeA (2011) Class dismissed. In: D’Emlio J and Freedman E (eds) My Desire for History: Essays in Gay, Community, & Labor History. Chapel Hill: UNC Press, pp. 233–258.
13.
BeymerMRWeissREBolanRK, et al. (2014) Sex on demand: Geosocial networking phone apps and risk of sexually transmitted infections among a cross-sectional sample of men who have sex with men in Los Angeles County. Sexually Transmitted Infections 90(7):567–72.
14.
BlackwellCBirnholtzJ andAbbottC (2015) Seeing and being seen: Co‐situation and impression formation using Grindr, a location‐aware gay dating app. New Media & Society17(7): 1117–1136.
15.
Bonner-ThompsonC (2017) ‘The meat market’: Production and regulation of masculinities on the Grindr grid in Newcastle‐ upon‐Tyne, UK. Gender, Place and Culture24: 1611–1625.
16.
BullSSMcFarlaneM (2000) Soliciting sex on the internet – What are the risks for sexually transmitted diseases and HIV?Sexually Transmitted Diseases27(9): 545–550.
17.
ButlerJ (1990) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York & London: Routledge.
18.
ButlerJ (2004) Imitation and gender insubordination. In: Salih S and Butler J (eds) The Judith Butler Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 119–137.
19.
CallanderDHoltMNewmanCE (2016) ‘Not everyone’s gonna like me’: Accounting for race and racism in sex and dating web services for gay and bisexual men. Ethnicities16(1): 3–21.
20.
CallanderDNewmanCEHoltM (2015) Is sexual racism really racism? Distinguishing attitudes toward sexual racism and generic racism among gay and bisexual men.Archives of Sexual Behavior44(7): 1991–2000.
21.
CampbellT (2012) “Enough of a Self”: Esposito’s impersonal biopolitics. Law, Culture and the Humanities8(1): 31–46.
22.
Carballo-DiéguezADowsettGWVentuneacA, et al. (2006) Cybercartography of popular internet sites used by New York City men who have sex with men interested in bareback sex.AIDS Education and Prevention: Official Publication of the International Society for AIDS Education18(6): 475–489.
23.
ChanLS (2018) Ambivalence in networked intimacy: Observations from gay men using mobile dating apps. New Media & Society20(7): 2566–2581.
24.
ChowJYKondaKACalvoGM, et al. (2017) Demographics, behaviors, and sexual health characteristics of high risk men who have sex with men and transgender women who use social media to meet sex Partners in Lima, Peru.Sexually Transmitted Diseases44(3): 143–148.
25.
ConnellRW (1992) A very straight gay: Masculinity, homosexual experience, and the dynamics of gender. American Sociological Review57(6): 735.
26.
ConnellRW (2005) Masculinities. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
DavisMFlowersPLorimerK, et al. (2016) Location, safety and (non) strangers in gay men's narratives on “hook‐up” apps. Sexualities19(7): 836–852.
29.
DeanT (2009) Unlimited Intimacy: Reflections on the Subculture of Barebacking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
DelanyS (1999) Times Square Red, Times Square Blue. New York: NYU Press.
31.
Dhoest A and Szulc L (2016) Navigating Online Selves: Social, Cultural, and Material Contexts of Social Media Use by Diasporic Gay Men. Social Media + Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305116672485
32.
DugganL (2003) The Twilight of Equality: Neoliberalism, Cultural Politics, and the Attack on Democracy. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
33.
DuncanD (2010) Embodying the gay self: Body image, reflexivity and embodied identity. Health Sociology Review19(4): 437–450.
34.
EspinozaA (2019) Cruising: An Intimate History of a Radical Pastime. Los Angeles, CA: The Unnamed Press.
GudelunasD (2012) There’s an app for that: The uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture16(4): 347–365.
42.
HakimJ (2016) ‘Fit is the new rich’: Male embodiment in the age of austerity. Soundings: A journal of politics and culture61(1): 84–94.
43.
HalberstamJ (1998) Drag kings: Masculinity and performance. In: Female Masculinity. Durham: Duke University Press, pp. 231–266.
44.
HanA (2014) I think you’re the smartest race I’ve ever met: Racialised economies of queer male desire. Critical Race & Whiteness Studies10(2): 1–15.
45.
HillierLHarrisonL (2007) Building realities less limited than their own: Young people practising same-sex attraction on the internet. Sexualities10(1): 82–100.
HobbsMOwenSGerberL (2017) Liquid love? Dating apps, sex, relationships and the digital transformation of intimacy. Journal of Sociology53(2): 271–284.
48.
HoltM (2011) Gay men and ambivalence about “gay community”: From gay community attachment to personal communi- ties. Culture, Health & Sexuality13(8): 857–871.
49.
HullPMaoLPrestageGet al. (2016) The use of mobile phone apps by Australian gay and bisexual men to meet sex partners: An analysis of sex-seeking repertoires and risks for HIV and STIs using behavioural surveillance data.Sexually Transmitted Infections92(7): 502–7.
50.
KaosGL (2015) 2014 Yılında Türkiye’de Gerçekleşen Homofobi ve Transfobi Temelli Nefret Suçları Raporu (The Report of Homophobic and Transphobic Hate Crimes that Occurred in Turkey in 2014). Available at: http://www.kaosgldernegi.org/resim/yayin/dl/2014_nefret_sulari_raporu.pdf (accessed 3 April 2016).
51.
KimmelM (2011) Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In: Ore TE (ed) The Social Construction of Difference & Inequality: Race, Class, Gender, and Sexuality. Dubuque: McGraw-Hill, pp. 135–151.
52.
KongTSK (2019a) Be a responsible and respectable man: Two generations of Chinese gay men accomplishing masculinity in Hong Kong.Men & Masculinities. Epub ahead of print 4 July 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1097184X19859390.
53.
KongTSK (2019b) The pursuit of masculinity by young gay men in neoliberal Hong Kong and Shanghai. TheJournal of Youth Studies 23(8): 1004–1021.
LanzieriNHildebrandtT (2011) Using hegemonic masculinity to explain gay male attraction to muscular and athletic men.Journal of Homosexuality58(2): 275–293.
57.
LemkeR andWeberM (2017) That man behind the curtain: Investigating the sexual online dating behavior of men who have sex with men but hide their same‐sex sexual attraction in offline surroundings.Journal of Homosexuality64(11): 1561–1582. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1249735.
58.
LewisNBauerGColemanT, et al.Community cleavages: Gay and bisexual men's perceptions of gay and mainstream community acceptance in the post‐AIDS, post‐rights era. Journal of Homosexuality62: 1201–1227.
MaskovskyJ (1999) Do we all “reek of the commodity”? Consumption and the erasure of poverty in lesbian and gay studies. In: Lewin E and Leap W (eds) Out in Theory: The Emergence of Lesbian and Gay Anthropology. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, pp. 264–286.
61.
MowlabocusS (2007) Gaydar: Gay men and the pornification of everyday life. In: Nikunen K, Paasonen S and Saarenmaa L (eds) Pornification: Sex and Sexuality in Media Culture. Berg: Oxford, pp. 61–72.
62.
Mowlabocus S (2010) Gaydar Culture: Gay Men, Technology and Embodiment in the Digital Age. Farnham: Ashgate.
63.
MowlabocusSHaslopCDasguptaR (2016) From scene to screen: The challenges and opportunities that digital platforms pose for HIV prevention work with MSM. Social Media + Society2(4): 1–8.
64.
MuniesaFMilloYCallonM (2007) An introduction to market devices. The Sociological Review55(s2): 1–12.
65.
MuniesaFMilloYCallonM (2007) is not cited in the text. Kindly provide or delete the reference from the list.]
66.
NashCJGorman‐MurrayA (2014) LGBT neighbourhoods and ‘new mobilities’: Towards understanding transformations in sexual and gendered urban landscapes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(3): 756–772.
RaceK (2015a) “Party and play”: Online hook‐up devices and the emergence of PNP practices among gay men. Sexualities18(3): 253–275.
69.
RaceK (2015b) Speculative pragmatism and intimate arrangements: Online hook‐up devices in gay life. Culture, Health & Sexuality17(4): 496–511.
70.
RaceK (2018) The Gay Science. 1st ed. Abingdon: Routledge.
71.
RafalowMH andAdamsBL (2017) Navigating the tavern: Digitally mediated connections and relationship persistence in bar settings. Symbolic Interaction40(1): 25–42.
72.
RajS (2011) Grindring bodies: Racial and affective economies of online queer desire. Critical Race & Whiteness Studies7(2): 1–12.
ReynoldsR (2008) Imagining gay life in the internet age or why I don’t internet date. International Journal of Emerging Technologies & Society6(1): 2–13.
75.
RheingoldH (2000) The Virtual Community : Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
76.
RoachT (2015) Becoming fungible: Queer intimacies in social media. Qui Parle: Critical Humanities and Social Sciences23(2): 55–87.
77.
RodriguezNSHuemmerJ andBlumellLE (2016) Mobile masculinities: An investigation of networked masculinities in gay dating apps. Masculinities & Social Change5(3): 241–267.
78.
RosserBRSWestW andWeinmeyerR (2008) Are gay communities dying or just in transition? Results from an international consultation examining possible structural change in gay communities.AIDS Care20(5): 588–595.
79.
RothY (2016) Zero feet away: The digital geography of gay social media.Journal of Homosexuality63(3): 437–442.
80.
RoweMS andDowsettGW (2008) Sex, love, friendship, belonging and place: Is there a role for “gay community” in HIV prevention today?Culture, Health & Sexuality10(4): 329–344.
81.
SánchezFJGreenbergSTLiuWM, et al. (2009) Reported effects of masculine ideals on gay men.Psychology of Men & Masculinity10: 73–87.
82.
ShieldADJ (2017) New in town: Gay immigrants and geosocial media. In: Dhoest A, Szulc L and Eeckhout B (eds) LGBTQs, Media and Culture in Europe. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 244–261.
StempfhuberMLieglM (2016) Intimacy mobilized: Hook‐up practices in the location‐based social network Grindr. Österreichische Zeitschrift Für Soziologie41(1): 51–70.
85.
TangWBestJZhangY, et al. (2016a) Gay mobile apps and the evolving virtual risk environment: A cross-sectional online survey among men who have sex with men in China. Sexually Transmitted Infections92(7): 508–514.
86.
TangWTangSQinY, et al (2016b) Will gay sex-seeking Mobile phone applications facilitate group sex? A cross-sectional online survey among men who have sex with men in China.PLoS One11(11): e0167238.
87.
Wang H, Zhang L, Zhou Y, et al. (2018) The use of geosocial networking smartphone applications and the risk of sexually transmitted infections among men who have sex with men: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health 18: 1178. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-018-6092-3
88.
WinetrobeHRiceEBauermeisterJ, et al. (2014) Associations of unprotected anal intercourse with Grindr-met partners among Grindr-using young men who have sex with men in Los Angeles.AIDS Care26(10): 1303–8.
ZablotskaIBHoltM andPrestageG (2012) Changes in gay men's participation in gay community life: Implications for HIV surveillance and research. AIDS and Behavior16(3): 669–675.
