Abstract
Understanding how people in any given population think about and experience their sexuality is fundamental to developing and implementing good health policy, research, and practice. Yet despite several decades of focus on sexual identity and HIV risk within health research, gay men as a category are often treated in an uncomplicated way. This article reports on focus group discussions held with 45 gay and other men who have sex with men in New Zealand to identify how they talked about issues of gay identity and gay community/ies. The men negotiated and renegotiated their gay identity and being gay was reported as just one part of most men’s lives. Many men did not like to be labeled as gay and downplayed aspects of their gay identity. Only a few men proclaimed being gay. Men reported very mixed experiences with the gay community/ies. Understanding how men experience being gay, provides information vital to enhancing policy, research and practice responses to gay men’s health issues. A major challenge for health service provision to appropriately engage with men who have sex with other men but resist being labeled as gay was identified.
Introduction
Health for gay and other men who have sex with men has often been focused on sexual health, and mostly on HIV/AIDS. However, in recent years there has been an increasing focus on examining health more broadly and particularly on the disparities between gay (and lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer) and the general population (Clarke, Ellis, Peel, & Riggs, 2010; Institute of Medicine, 2011; Meyer & Northridge, 2007). Increasingly seen as important to understanding health inequalities for gay men are approaches which incorporate the social determinants of health which recognizes that sexuality along with other determinants such as race/ethnicity, income and education mediate people’s experiences of health and illness (Adams, Braun, & McCreanor, 2012; Adams, McCreanor, & Braun, 2013).
Adopting a broad social of determinants of health approach makes it crucially important that the sexual identities of groups within the population are understood by those working across all spheres of health policy, service provision, and practice if the health needs of gay men are to be adequately addressed. Without knowledge about how a population understands and experiences their sexual identities, policy and practice operate in a vacuum undermining their efficacy. Failure to address disparities is an issue of health equity (Braveman & Gruskin, 2003) that undercuts public pretensions to social justice.
On the surface, including gay men when investigating health issues appears an undemanding task; after all as Patton (2010 ) noted, most people know if they are gay, heterosexual, bisexual, or bicurious, and if approached appropriately, many people will share this information. However, asking questions about sexuality (and sex and gender) is not an uncomplicated endeavor and, in much health research, universal and discrete categories for sexuality are used (Treharne, 2011). The dominant descriptor often used for male same-sex attraction/behavior is “gay.” On inspection there are wide variations in definitions of what gay means; and terms like gay, men who have sex with men (MSM), and homosexual are often used interchangeably particularly in health research (Sell, 2007; Sell & Petrulio, 1996) and by professional, government, and community organizations interested in health issues for these men. So, despite several decades of research focusing on sexual identity and HIV/AIDS risk, gay men as a category continue to be largely treated in a simplistic and unrefined way. One result of this is that different approaches to addressing gay men’s health issues have been conceptualized and operationalized in the literature.
The first way involves including gay men in gender-based (i.e., men’s health) explorations of health. However, the effect of adopting a men’s health approach is to assume all men have similar needs, meaning the specific needs of gay men as a minority in relation to heterosexual men are diluted to the point where they can be largely ignored. In the United States, for example, the mainstream Healthy People 2010 (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2000) initiative was critiqued as not meeting the needs of sexual minority populations resulting in the production of a companion document that contained relevant research, described barriers to health, and recommended changes to overcome them (Gay and Lesbian Medical Association and LGBT Health Experts, 2001). In Australia, the lack of consideration of gay men within the government’s Men’s Heath Policy has also been identified (Filiault, Drummond, & Riggs, 2009).
A second strategy ignores issues of sexual identity altogether and focuses on sexual behavior. In relation to men, the term MSM is often used. However, although MSM is a supposedly neutral term (and WSW, women who have sex with women), Young and Meyer (2005) have noted that its use works to “obscure social dimensions of sexuality; undermine the self-labelling of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people; and does not sufficiently describe the variations in sexual behavior” (p. 1144). One example of how the use of MSM obscures sexuality provided by Young and Meyer is a research study that recruited men from predominantly gay venues, and many enrolled in the study for altruistic reasons such as “helping stop the AIDS epidemic” and “giving to their community” (Koblin et al., 2003, p. 928). Young and Meyer (2005) noted that although these authors stressed the importance of “sexual self-identification, affiliation with the gay communities, and perceived community norms are important factors in HIV prevention . . . the authors referred to respondents as MSM and provided no information on self-identification or sociosexual affiliations” (p. 1147). The important point being made here is that sociocultural factors related to HIV prevention need to be fully considered within public health research.
A third strategy is directly inclusive of gay men but appears to assume that gay men are a homogeneous group and treat them as if their needs are known and fixed. One outcome of this is the health issues of a dominant group (typically White middle-class men) are overrepresented in gay men’s health research (Clarke et al., 2010; Flowers, 2009). As the sentinel group within the gay male population, their needs are those best known by those developing policy and, therefore, the most likely to be the focus of service provision. Research in this domain might fail to provide detail on ethnicity or socioeconomic status of respondents or explore the impact of these. One example of this is Drummond’s (2005) report on body issues with gay men aged 18 to 25 years, where the only demographic information provided is that 11 of the 14 men were university students. Failing to provide detailed characteristics of the sample obscures potential heterogeneity within that sample.
The final approach considered here offers the most nuanced way gay men’s health issues are addressed. Nuanced approaches recognize the complexity of gay as a descriptor, and bring to the fore groups of gay men who are often overlooked in health services. An example of this is research from the United Kingdom which acknowledged the importance of investigating health issues for gay men who have often been excluded from research and conducted studies on groups of men often overlooked, namely, migrant, working class, and ethnic minority gay men (Keogh, Dodds, & Henderson, 2004a, 2004b; Keogh, Henderson, & Dodds, 2004).
Running across these approaches is a fundamental debate underpinning the usefulness of gay as a category. In recent times, the term has been subject to strong critique by queer theorists, who have challenged the gay/heterosexual binary and the implied fixed meanings for these categories. It is argued that gay does not account well for those who claim or manage multiple identities (Frable, 1997), or for fluidity and flux in identities (Oakes, 1995; Watson, 2005). Indeed the term queer is explicitly advanced as it disrupts the tidy boxes of sexuality, challenges the homo/heterosexual binary as an organizing principle of society, and argues that sexual identities around this binary are inherently unstable and not “fixed” (Gamson, 1995; Roseneil, 2000). Without doubt these approaches to understanding sexuality are in contest, with enduring tensions (Hegarty & Massey, 2006; Lovaas, Elia, & Yep, 2006; Slagle, 2006). Nonetheless both approaches are in use and are useful at different times. The use of gay has often been argued on tactical grounds. Cass (2005) discussed these issues:
Critics often point to the destructiveness of fixed and unambiguous sexual orientation identities, and it is true that this has often brought negative attention to those calling themselves lesbian, gay and bisexual. Nevertheless, it is also true that the presence of groups of individuals identifying themselves as lesbian, gay and bisexual has also made it easier to achieve legal reforms. (p. 51)
The tension between gay and queer has also been discussed by Clarke and Peel (2007) who noted “both the strategic importance of identity categories and the need to undermine those categories” (p. 31).
Given these ongoing issues the focus of this article is to understand gay and other MSM’s reported experiences of “living homosexually” or “doing gay” (Hurley, 2003; McInnes, Bollen, Couch, & Dowsett, 2001). The aim of this is to understand how these men discuss their relationships with each other and wider social networks better, so that approaches to improve health can appropriately incorporate their health needs. The men’s lives are investigated at both individual (gay identity) and group (gay community) levels as identity and community can be considered as interconnected: “The concept of gay identity is central to any understanding of gay community, and particularly to the exploration of the importance of gay community in gay men’s lives” (Grierson & Smith, 2005, p. 54).
Method
Theoretical Orientation
The study is situated within the emerging field of critical lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, and queer (LGBTQ) health psychology (Peel & Thomson, 2009). Within this field gay men’s health is investigated in its own right, without research on heterosexual people being taken as its benchmark (Harrison & Riggs, 2006; Riggs, 2005). The research is informed by a critical realist position (Willig, 2001), which theorizes people’s accounts as constructed, yet at the same time accepts them as descriptions of events and personal experiences that have some basis/meaning in reality. This means men’s talk is not treated as representing their inherent attitudes or beliefs, nor is it treated as “just talk.” Instead, these data are (semi) public accounts that report, at least to some degree, men’s understandings of what it means to be gay and what gay identity means to them, and understands these as shaped through (New Zealand’s) socially available meanings and constructions related to masculinity and sexuality.
Design
A qualitative design with focus groups and thematic analysis was used. Focus groups were selected as they provide an environment for open discussion among participants, and are an excellent method for obtaining cultural discourses and shared cultural information (Colucci, 2007; Wilkinson, 1999, 2003). A semistructured guide was developed to ensure consistent coverage of topics across all groups.
A total of 45 gay and other MSM were involved in 11 focus groups held in Auckland and Christchurch, New Zealand’s two largest cities by population, to discuss issues related to identity, community, and health. Recruitment was through publicity in the gay press, posters at gay bars and sex-on-site venues, and notices on various websites seeking gay men to join focus group discussions. Four participants agreed to host a focus group and recruited other men to take part; 17 men were recruited this way. The focus groups ranged in length from 75 to 150 minutes. All focus groups were recorded with the consent of the participants. Ethical approval for the research was granted by the University of Auckland Human Participants Ethics Committee; written informed consent was obtained from each participant.
Participants
Participants ranged in age from 24 to 64 years, with a median age of 37 years. Nearly all identified as gay; others as homosexual or queer (see Table 1). The sample achieved some ethnic diversity, including: New Zealand European /Pākehā (n = 29), Māori (n = 2), Indian (n = 2), and Chinese (n = 2; some men did not report ethnicity). Although data were not directly collected about socioeconomic status, during the focus groups the men identified a range of educational qualifications, and most were employed in technical and professional occupations. The men lived in many parts of both cities, and in Auckland they did not just reside in those neighborhoods known to have a high concentration of gay men and colloquially known as the “gay ghetto” (Hughes & Saxton, 2006; Stevens, 2004).
Focus Group Participants Demographic.
Note. NZ has been used to group a number of different labels, including European, Caucasian, Pākehā, New Zealander. M = some values missing as age, ethnicity, and identity not always provided; I = in some instances multiple identity labels were provided.
Data Analysis
The data set consisted of transcripts (and audiotapes) of the focus groups. An orthographic transcription which preserves all the words spoken (Wilkinson, 2003) was provided by a professional transcriber, and rechecked by the first author for accuracy. NVivo software was used to manage the coding of the data set.
Thematic analysis was used to identify repeated patterns of meaning across groups. The specific approach to analysis was an inductive and data-driven one, focusing initially not only on the semantic content but also on the latent constructs informing, and articulated through, participants’ talk (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The process of analysis involved the first author repeatedly reading the transcripts, and coding the entire data set, which resulted in a demarcation of common themes. Provisional themes were reviewed and discussed by all authors, and further refinement of the coding and analysis was undertaken until the salient patterns repeated across and within transcripts were identified and agreed on (Braun & Clarke, 2006). All names used in quoted material are pseudonyms to maintain confidentiality, and other minor details have been changed if potentially identifying. The quotes presented have been edited slightly with some punctuation added to facilitate reading.
A number of measures were taken to ensure research quality, in addition to the noted strategies of using a standardized moderator’s guide and agreement among authors. The principles advanced by Yardley (2000) to guide the quality of a qualitative study were taken into account. In particular, fit between theory and method, awareness of the literature and previous empirical work, and methodological competence and skill in the research team were high. A clear documentation of the research and analytic processes was maintained. Finally, the researchers were reflexive on how their assumptions and views particularly in relation to gay community’s/ies’ experience, exposure, and practices may have affected the research and regularly discussed these (Adams, 2010). In particular, as the lead author identifies as a gay man, his insider status with the participant group, due to his sexuality, may have facilitated the recruitment of participants through making explicit the research team had insights that went beyond empathy (Ryan, 2006 ). However at times, together with the other authors, he was an outsider to the participant group with respect to ethnicity, location of residence, age, occupation, and role in the research process. Overall, this resulted in a mix of insider knowledge and outside professional distance being applied.
Results
This article focuses on issues of identity and community. Patterns across the men’s talk about three dimensions are reported: (a) adopting a gay identity, (b) living as a gay man, and (c) experiences of gay life.
Adopting a Gay Identity
Nearly all the men in the focus groups self-identified as gay—both through their talk and in the demographic questionnaires completed before the focus groups. However, the importance ascribed to a gay identity varied among the men, for example:
Do we all call ourselves gay?
I do.
I would be interested to know if we do that or not, you do?
Yeah.
I definitely call myself gay, I mean what else?
[laughter]
Who cares I like being gay.
I just don’t like labels.
It’s great being gay.
Why do we need to label some things when we know what we are, I’m not going to run around with a big fluorescent sign saying I am gay, aren’t labels for pickle jars, not people.
Why not claim it—it’s fabulous being gay.
Um I mean I don’t know about that, I probably wouldn’t go out to people and say “hi I am gay.”
Hi I’m gay.
I would not deny it if somebody asked me. But at the same time I am not going out to tell the world that I am gay because I don’t at the end of the day expect other people or heterosexual people to come out and say I am heterosexual, why should it be any different for me?
The responses to Charles’s questioning illustrate tensions in the group between individual and social identity, between personal and political identity. Graham’s repeated unequivocal claims (e.g., “It’s great being gay”) mark not only a positive personal incorporation of being gay in his individual identity and a positive political identity but also an unwavering position in the discourse that contrasts with the more reflexive exploration of the issues pursued by others in the group. Younger participants in particular (Aaron and Deepak were in their 30s, Graham was 53) articulate nuanced, flexible positions. Although Deepak is quite definite in his identity, he indicates that this may be by default—as there are no other suitable alternatives and denies that it is a proclaimed identity. Both Deepak and Aaron claimed that they are not going to tell others that they are gay, although Deepak elaborates to say that he would not deny being gay if asked. This is a profoundly apolitical account of gay identity that contrasts markedly with Graham’s self-determining stance. Deepak’s account turns on a claim of equity or equivalence that emphasizes his right to disclose or conceal his identity in the same way that other members of society can and do. This offers him the potential to consider being gay as only one (perhaps minor) part of his identity in a way that engages with Aaron’s objections to the notion of labelling, expressing his discomfort with his identity being “pigeon-holed” and categorized as gay. These comments suggest that neither Aaron nor Deepak, although they acknowledge an individual gay identity, claim a social and political identity as gay men, which appears consistent with normalization discourses of homosexuality (Hurley, 2003; Seidman, Meeks, & Traschen, 1999). In contrast, Graham’s account reflects gay liberation discourses of homosexuality (D’Emilio, 1998; Jagose, 1996) possibly reflecting his experiences of homosexuality in New Zealand being decriminalized and legal protections against discrimination on the basis of sexuality being established.
A queer identity was claimed by only a few men.
I liked the label queer for a while because it meant something other than heterosexual, and it could mean I was gay, it could mean I was bi if I wore that label. Don’t forget from my perspective well it is a bit different because I have been out for 16 odd years, so it is a bit old hat to me. But I have always sort of seen it as not a label, I mean I say that I am gay and that is fine, but it is not something that, um it’s something that the straight world puts on me, they call me gay, or they call me poofter, or they call me queer, or they call me homosexual, or so it is something the straight world puts on me.
Daniel suggests he does not need to find a stable identity which evokes the ambiguity and fluidity around identity possible when invoking a queer identity (see e.g., Jagose, 1996). In stating that the identity he inhabits is “old hat” he signals that the labelling which was possibly useful at earlier stages of his life is now of less salience. The repair in the third to last line appears to cover a construction like “. . . it’s not something that um [matters to me, but] . . .” In this he resists the heteronormativity and the marking of difference in labelling, and constructs these categories as socially and outsider imposed, rather than (gay) community/ies driven or developed.
While labels for sexual/social identity are disputed, contested, and complicated by many, a certain utility in them was identified by some participants:
I think the label gay, it’s the way I, it is the best label I could have to explain my sexuality to my straight peers I guess because that is the best way they can construct their world and label them I guess. But I don’t see myself as gay or homosexual it is just this is who I am and this is who I choose to love.
Although Ravi acknowledged the benefits of the use of the label gay as a useful (shorthand) way to describe his sexuality to his heterosexual peers, he simultaneously claims that he does not see himself as gay or homosexual—“it is just this is who I am.” Similarly, Daniel reported he was “boring old me.” For many of these men, a separate core or individual identity is described/constructed that is “beyond” or “before” their sexuality. In this framing, sexual identity is at best woven into but often layered on top of (almost imposed on) the men’s sense of self by others, or society, or necessity. And it makes sense, in their accounts, within a heteronormative framework—it is a way for straight people to understand gay men’s (sexual) identity. Again, it is framed as an outsider label that has been imposed, not an insider label that was chosen.
Other men articulate various nuances of the resistance to using the label gay:
I suppose it is kind of difficult because I don’t really think of myself as I don’t go “oh I am a gay man” I go “oh I hope he is” but I don’t really.
Well I suppose I suppose not to be treated differently than everybody else, be accepted as a person as opposed to you know based on your sexuality, so I suppose that’s important.
Yeah.
Which is what you are saying really; that you don’t see yourself as anything different.
These men resist a gay identity/label in various ways. Shane resists the identity “gay man” ascribed to him, by stating he does not think of himself as a gay man. Howard supports this and outlined that acceptance as a person—not as a gay person—is important, as is being treated the same as anyone else. This is a position that values a human rights discourse, which takes as a starting point that human rights are universal and inalienable for all people regardless of class, race/ethnicity, sex, and sexuality (Ellis, 2004). At the same time it draws on a normalizing discourse that not only recognizes that a person has rights as a “different sexuality” but also asserts that these rights are not different to those of people of other sexual orientations. Martin concurs with such interpretations, and reiterates that these men do not see themselves as anything different (from the “norm”), providing a route to assimilation into the dominant heterosexual culture through stressing “the ‘normality’ of gayness” (Peel, 2001, p. 52). The rejection of labels by participants represents a challenge to the reliance on the salience of sexuality as an identity category, or at least that it need not be a defining characteristic in identity. A context for understanding this position (and the resistance) is provided by a consideration of heteronormative assumptions of society where, for example, it would be seen as unacceptable and transgressive for people to be constantly labeled as straight. The resistance described is therefore simultaneously apolitical and speaking to a social change agenda of sexual/social liberalism—where being gay is unremarkable and “OK.”
Living as a Gay Man
For a gay man to live openly he typically must come out to himself and publicly, as there is often no way to know (for sure) who is gay except through self-disclosure (Safford, 2002). For gay men coming out involves a recognition of otherness and difference from the dominant group (of heterosexuals; Brown, 1989; Markowe, 2002). It involves making sexual and emotional relationships with other gay men highly visible to others (Roseneil, 2000). While many gay men may have an initial coming out event, and remember this as particularly significant, it may better be accounted for not as a one-off event, but as an ongoing series of multiple acts of public self-identification (Rendle-Short, 2005; Rivers & Gordon, 2010; Valentine, 1998).
For the men in the focus groups, the idea of “coming out” was talked about at both an abstract (metaphorical) and experienced (embodied) level, with many examples given of how men handled their disclosure of a gay identity. One of the chief strategies reported by participants was nondisclosure, along with a minimizing or downplaying of aspects of gay identity.
Well I guess I am not really out. I mean I have gay friends and that so I mean I don’t hide the fact that I’m gay, but I don’t I certainly don’t advertise. I have never actually told anybody, I guess I just want to be treated as part of mainstream society, I guess that is important.
Howard’s reticence at being “really” out is consistent with his report of an apparently careful, considered management of this position: While he does not hide the fact he is gay, he does not “advertise” the fact that he is gay. Thus, he does not deny people the possibility of assuming that he is straight (Bacon, 1998), so leaves open the possibility of “passing as heterosexual” (Herek, 1996). His statement that he “want[s] to be treated as part of mainstream society,” is an articulation of a view that gay men are “outside” the mainstream—a position that is consistent with dominant heterosexist assumptions within society (Chirrey, 2003; Speer & Potter, 2000). However, as Howard reports, he does not deliberately hide the fact that he is gay; he, therefore, leaves open the possibility that he may confirm or disclose his sexuality (i.e., come out) in some situations. Thus, the notion of coming out he articulates is a restricted and limited one; a position where you might tell people you are gay, versus a position of being out (and living openly as an out gay man). Coming out in Howard’s account refers more to the limited disclosure of his sexuality to others, rather than “coming in to an existing gay milieu” (Connell, 1992, p. 744). In this account he downplays his sexual orientation and difference (from heterosexuals), which suggests that for him public expression of being gay and claiming a political identity is relatively unimportant, or not possible given the implications for him in his current social context.
“Being gay” was something some men appeared to compartmentalize. One reported way of doing this was for a man to view sexuality as just one part of his life, such as who you sleep with:
I think for me being gay is just part of my life. I probably went through a very radical phase, but for me, being gay is just the part of who I go to bed with and I do a whole pile of stuff in my life and I’m gay.
See I always believe I’m Tom first, and I’m gay second, because I think a lot of people become gay and then they become whoever they are first. I think that’s very clear if you look at some of the young people that might be coming out and stuff. They are so caught up in being gay and being beautiful and all that sort of thing and then there’s the time, I don’t know when you hit 25 or something might be different for different people, you wake up.
Darren talks about his identity in two different and contrasting ways—“a very radical phase” and another implicitly more “reasonable” phase associated with sexual activity rather than identity politics. Darren specifically weighs a minimized sexual part of his identity against the “whole pile of stuff in my life,” presumably activities which are ordinary, commonplace, and unremarkable. The different ways that Darren talks about his identity also points to the notion that identity is fluid, and forms gradually over time (Connell, 1992) and that it may be influenced by historical, social, and economic circumstances (Clarke et al., 2010). For example, for some (older) men in New Zealand involvement in gay community’s/ies’ responses to HIV health promotion in the mid-1980s was a time gay men were involved in grassroots activism (Lindberg & McMorland, 1996; Parkinson & Hughes, 1987). Tom endorses a chronological and developmental element, and reiterates that being gay is just one part of life, which is a strong iteration of the sovereign, argentic neoliberal subject. He positions “gay” as having an oppressive, normative character, especially for young people coming to terms with their sexuality. Both Darren and Tom position themselves as “normal” (gay is just a part of me), rather than “radical” gay men. Other writers have critiqued the authenticity of such positioning in terms including being gay, but not too gay (Kates, 2000), or as being “gay” but not “Gay,” 1 or, perhaps, “part-time gays” (Dowsett, 2001), living a “life with gayness” rather than a “gay life” (McInnes et al., 2001). Gay men who more or less conform to the norms of heterosexuality, for example by being “straight-acting” or “straight-looking,” can be described as “good gays” (Taulke-Johnson, 2008), which contrasts with “bad gays” who may for example be “politically active and culturally assertive” (Epstein, Johnson, & Steinberg, 2000, p. 19).
Experiences of Gay Life
Two broad, differing views on living a gay life were discussed by participants: one political, the other highly individual:
I wonder if you could tell me if you think there’s anything unique about being a gay man as opposed to being a straight man?
Well I think for me it’s about an absolute, I think it’s imperative, that I’m probably much more politicised, I’m much more aware of the implications of being a gay male living in an heterosexist world, at times of having had to fight for my rights. I’ve had extremely negative experiences because of being gay and as a younger man I was probably more inclined to internalise that and not fight back. As an older more mature adult male hopefully I’ve learned to develop a more synthesised view of who I’m as a gay male in the coming out process.
See for me I haven’t felt it a problem at all. I think I’m more real more in touch with who I’m. Well that’s my experience of it.
Evan’s politicized account, which identifies a heterosexist society as having negative impacts, and Tom’s personalized account, are in contrast and represent a divide between a social level of analysis/meaning and personal level of analysis/meaning. However, despite his political analysis, for Evan, being gay (or queer) was not always an issue in his life:
I don’t think my queerness is an issue all the time in my life but when it is it is you know. The majority of my life my working life, my home life, I pay the mortgage, go to work, feed the cats, see my fella, you know do all those things, get the car serviced, pick up the dry cleaning, if you are out of potatoes or toothpaste do you know what I mean, just normal life. But sometimes when it is an issue, I think it becomes like an issue, and it requires a lot more attention and commitment and energy and stickability I think to fix it.
Here Evan’s account points out that a gay man is not just gay—a range of experiences affect his life (Keogh, Dodds, & Henderson, 2004b). He invokes a claim of “normalization” for many aspects of his life: mundane tasks that are not any different to tasks performed by heterosexuals (Clarke & Kitzinger, 2004).
The social lives of the men were usually talked about in relation to levels of engagement with the gay community/ies. Typically a very broad and inclusive description of gay community/ies was proffered and any notion that this collective was a cohesive grouping was challenged:
Well it depends on how you define the community I mean like Flesh [gay bar] filled with twinks [young attractive gay men] and everything I don’t think there is any such thing as a cohesive community within the gay community. The gay population, my flatmate, who is also gay, we always sit around wondering where are all the normal you know just regular gay guys and then we come to the conclusion they’re doing exactly what we are doing, sitting at home watching a DVD.
Accounts such as this directly confront fundamental assumptions of community, where unity is privileged over difference (Young, 1990). The ideological dimensions of the communitarian claim are contrasted with a banal reality. Diversity of engagement was also discussed in relation to how men are involved with the gay community/ies:
The gay community is incredibly diverse . . . it’s really hard to actually pitch your whole life at the gay community isn’t it . . . Being gay for a lot of people now is just simply who I perceive who they go to bed and who they go to bed with. I think that the community, you see a lot of people that aren’t in the community that are gay, you see a lot of people that are really active in the community, you see a lot of people that just go out and do the sex scene. You see so many different groups of people and I think that it’s very hard to pigeon hole what the actual community is any more.
Here, Darren articulates a notion that gay community/ies is not a complete context for all of life’s aspirations. He identifies different ways men are involved in the community which justifies a claim that it is “hard to pigeon hole” (define/describe) what the actual community is. Citing diversity is presented as a potent argument against any monolithic definition of gay community and the temporal element (“any more”) suggests that it is a “thing of the past.”
When community/ies was discussed in the groups it mostly related to traditional physical forms of community, rather than (online) virtual communities. However, in a few groups the concept of the Internet as a form of community was raised. One key use of virtual communities was providing a place, to meet people for social and sexual purposes:
I found my partner on the Internet. We were both out gay men at the time, so my experience is that the Internet has obviously made some change to my life. A second role of the Internet was as a (safe) space for me to explore their sexuality:
A lot of people that know they are gay they are stuck in a straight relationship and on the internet they’re safe because they don’t have to tell you who they are.
The Internet was also discussed as particularly useful for men who were unsure of, or exploring, their sexuality (Brown, Maycock, & Burns, 2005; McKenna, Green, & Smith, 2001; Pingel, Bauermeister, Johns, Eisenberg, & Leslie-Santana, 2013). Although not specifically mentioned, the Internet reduces a number of barriers (such as geography, ethnicity, age) and can be a safe and convenient way to contact others. The example provided in the extract was that it was an alternative way to find sexual partners rather than the more “historic” practice of public cruising. The Internet has also been found to be especially useful for same-sex attracted youth (Hillier & Harrison, 2007; Hillier, Kurdas, & Horsley, 2001; Pingel et al., 2013) and for migrants (Henrickson, 2006, 2007) to make social contact with others and without the need to self-identify.
In relation to men’s experiences of gay community/ies both positive and negative aspects of it were raised, for example:
I think it [gay community] is like a network really, it is an establishment that you can go to and feel safe in and socialize with people of your own kind, places you can go where you know you are not going to get judged and you know you can just be yourself, you don’t have to worry about what anybody thinks of you type of thing. I think it is quite important for gay people to surround themselves with people who understand them because a lot of straight people don’t get gay people, they just don’t understand what they are all about and why they would choose to be gay because that is generally people choose to be gay, so yeah, that is what the community is for me really, somewhere you can go and feel like you know you are not different.
Well by the same token I know a lot of gay men that choose not to immerse themselves in the gay community at all and if they use it they may use it as a release valve you know to come in and just blow out some of the pressures of work and they might not even come back for another six months or a year. I know people like that that I only see at the Big Gay Out [gay fair]. I may only see them every second Big Gay Out, they don’t see a need to live in that culture, we do and we really like it, all three of us in this room, we really enjoy the gay community because when we came out I think we are all quite young and we used it as a tool to help ourselves become more comfortable with ourselves and each other, certainly I did you know.
In this extract, both Bob and James point out positive features of gay community/ies—as a refuge from heterosexism and facilitated socialization and as a resource in times of stress or identity change. James’s and Bob’s accounts of the scene (and Andre’s elsewhere in the group’s discussion, not presented here) are consistent with other research which reports that the gay scene is considered “a place to escape and feel freer” (Ridge, Plummer, & Peasley, 2006, p. 505) and where men can be “captivated by the celebratory atmosphere” (Ridge et al., 2006, p. 505). However, negative features of gay community/ies were also raised. For example, a tendency for gay men to “turn on their own” was discussed:
The disappointing thing a . . . I see it just as community whether it be gay or whatever, that we want to be tolerated and liked and respected and given all our rights and the same with others and everything, but the disappointing thing for me is that in a sense that within our community there’s the lack of tolerance of others within the community.
The “lack of tolerance” within gay community/ies is highlighted as a hypocrisy comparable to that of heterosexism. In another group, issues of superficiality were raised:
You have to be witty if you’re not handsome you have to be smart if you’re not handsome, you have to have you know you have to there has to be something there that you can
Yeah unless you’ve got a big dick
[laughter]
Andre’s account is an example of shallowness and superficiality in gay men’s personal relations, where beauty (good looks and body) is a valued characteristic (Robinson, 2008; Siconolfi, Halkitis, Allomong, & Burton, 2009). Earlier and other data presented suggest normative pressure (Tom), narrow focus (Darren), diffuseness (Darren), and a certain exclusiveness (Bill) as other downsides to engagement with gay community/ies. The outward public enactment of these features in social situations, such as at bars and clubs, suggests that for some men gay community/ies might be insular and scary places (Valentine & Skelton, 2003).
Discussion
Data from the focus groups were used to examine men’s reported experiences of being gay in order to provide the context and understandings of gay men’s lives necessary for investigating gay men’s health. While the concept “gay men” is often talked about in simplistic terms (Keogh, Dodds, & Henderson, 2004b), the analysis of these data reveals an inherent complexity with it. These gay men negotiated and renegotiated their gay identity. Many did not like being labelled as gay, only a few were likely to proclaim their gayness, and many used a strategy of minimal disclosure to control or downplay aspects of their identity. For many men, being gay was viewed as being just one part of their lives and not the most important part. The men reported widely different views of being gay, which suggested that a gay identity is not a singular or uncomplicated category (Keogh, Dodds, & Henderson, 2004b; Shiu-Ki, 2004).
Dowsett’s (2001) observation that there is no consensus on what “gay” is was borne out by the data. While a few men lived “out and proud” beyond the closet, many more reported being out but keeping it quiet—more like being “out with a whisper.” Complex accounts of gay identity challenge those who might wish to use these categories of identities (or descriptors) uncritically, as this may result in these categories not matching individual gay men’s understandings or relate to their actual experiences (Moon, 1995).
Varied understandings of sexuality descriptors have implications for health (and other) research into gay community/ies (Hughes & Saxton, 2006). High-quality research will ensure this multiplicity and complexity are recognized and accounted for so these data can provide adequate understandings to meet gay men’s health needs, challenging conceptions of the gay male population held by health promoters and policy makers (Dowsett, Bollen, McInnes, Couch, & Edwards, 2001), and ensuring more gay men can be represented in health and related policy, not just those that are assumed to be “properly” gay (Keogh, Dodds, & Henderson, 2004a). One example of high-quality research available to inform the HIV prevention efforts of the New Zealand AIDS Foundation in New Zealand are the Gay Auckland Periodical Sex Surveys (Saxton, Dickson, & Hughes, 2010) which specifically seeks to include gay, bisexual, and other MSM with different levels of social (and sexual) engagement with other men. It is also important to be clear about how policy makers and others talk about and understand “sexuality,” as it has real-world implications and depending on which component of sexuality (sexual/romantic attraction, sexual behavior or sexual identity) is being used then “different conclusions can be drawn about the prevalence rate, etiology, and mental health profile of homosexual populations” (Savin-Williams, 2006, p. 43).
The complexity of labels and their meanings and men’s interactions with gay community/ies makes the effective addressing of health issues for gay men all the more of a challenge—the outcome of a simple strategy of treating gay men as one group will be to downplay the nuances and diversity, and prioritize certain commonalities (based on sexuality). Conversely, focusing on smaller groups, and responding to the specificities of each group would likely provide logistic and feasibility challenges which might stymie effective health promotion and service delivery. However, as pointed out earlier, there remains a need to acknowledge the diversity of gay men. Understanding the complexity of gay lives is vital in the development of policy, the provision of service, and the undertaking of research, to ensure that all gay men’s health needs can be represented. If this is not done there is every chance that the needs and aspirations of some gay men will be excluded from consideration, or sidelined and subsumed into general concerns about men’s health, with issues of identity overlooked.
Limitations and Future Research
As with all research, there are limitations to this study. As is often the case with qualitative research, participant involvement required men to initiate contact with the research team, producing a self-selected sample. Although the study was advertised widely to recruit diverse participants many potential participants will not have seen the advertising and promotional material, especially those men who do not access gay community media, and many more will have either chosen or been unable to take part: for instance, men who felt uncomfortable taking part in a group discussion. Although the research reflects the views of those men who took part, it will not have captured all their views; only those offered. Nonetheless, the research reported here offers a rich, in-depth, and complex account of a sample of gay men’s views about the linkages of health with sexuality, and their constructions of health.
As this project focused on gay men who had a degree of community involvement, future research could usefully involve gay men not attached to gay community/ies. The research could also be extended to provide an increased participation of gay men from minority ethnic groups, and men with disabilities, as well as MSM but do not identify as gay. To enhance the participation of such men, alternative data collection methods, such as online real-time (synchronous) interviews (or focus groups), which have been successfully used in research with hard-to-reach groups of MSM (Adams & Neville, 2009, 2012), may be useful.
Conclusion
The aim of this research was to provide an account of how some gay and other MSM (in New Zealand) talk about identity and their experiences of living gay. The research has provided information with the idea of alerting researchers, policy makers, planners, and those delivering health services to some of the complexities around issues of gay identity. In particular, the overriding challenging issue for health service provision is how to engage appropriately with men who have sex with other men but resist being labeled as gay. Although the sample is not large, the links and continuities with research about identities from other countries, as already noted, suggests that the results may be relevant outside the New Zealand situation, as well as applying to wider communities of gay men in New Zealand. If the results are acknowledged they may well challenge views held by others and may also have the potential to ensure more responsive and nuanced health research, policy, and service provision for the health and wellness needs of gay men.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed the receipt of financial support from The University of Auckland (Doctoral Scholarship and grants for research costs, conference attendance and fees) and a BRCSS (Building Research Capability in the Social Sciences) Doctoral Completion Award for the research, authorship, and /or publication of this article.