'Straight Acting' and the Everyday Gay: An analysis of the represented masculinities of Only Lads...

7/23/2019 'Straight Acting' and the Everyday Gay: An analysis of the represented masculinities of Only Lads users.

1/51

Media & Cultural Studies

Pietermaritzburg Campus

Honours Research Project

2014

Straight !cting" and the #$er%da% a%' !n!nal%sis o( the Represented Masculinities o(

Only Lads)sers*

Student +umber' 211,4-.4/+ame' aric 3ones

ate o( Submission' 561162014

I declare that this research is my own work and that all the sources I

have used to prepare it have been properly acknowledged.

Signed:


2/51

Contents

Introduction:_____________________________________________ 3

Literature Review:________________________________________ 5

Methodology:____________________________________________ 20

Data Analysis:___________________________________________ 25

Findings and Conclusions:_________________________________ 2

Acknowledgements

!t the end o" long# but incredibly rewarding $onours e%perience# it seems appropriate

to give thanks to those who made this "inal research pro&ect possible. 'o (iona# "or

your guidance# patience and support# and "or trimming the unnecessary "rills ) thank

you. 'o my "amily# who have endured more than their "air share and remained

positive ) thank you. 'o the "riends who have certainly seen the e""ects o" sleep

deprivation in action ) thank you. 'o *ed +ull ) "or that late night motivation# thank

you. !nd to ,skom# "or keeping the power on long enough "or me to "inish this "inal

write up ) thank you.

2


3/51

Introduction

'he study o" masculinity is one that has been widely criticised by scholars in

neighbouring "ields# particularly those o" gender and -ueerness +easley# 2005/# "or its

apparent "ocus on white# middleclass heterose%uals. Indeed# comparatively there are

"ew scholars in this "ield# and "ewer still who have "ocussed on the speci"ic sub&ect o"

gay masculinity. 1uestions regarding the speci"ic norms and construction adopting

the assumption that gender is socially constructed# "or purposes o" this study/ o" gay

masculinity and the translation o" this onto particular social media plat"orms remain

somewhat une%plored.

'he very nature o" online dating is one that has "uelled much debate regarding online

identity construction# speci"ically with regards to the way individuals represent

themselves and that "act that anonymity may allow this representation to be non

linear to real world representations/. 4nly ads in particular is a somewhat generic

e%ample o" a site that "uses online dating with social networking. It is one o" the most

popular -ueer dating sites in South !"rica# having been originally developed in the

67 by *ocketware imited# it has spread steadily through much o" South !"rica8s gay

community. Its popularity is particularly due to the "act that# unlike many sites o" its

kind# the ma&ority o" the "eatures it o""ers do not re-uire a paid membership.

4nly ads# like may social networking site on the internet to one degree or another/#

utilises the idea o" an 9identity menu8 asking users to describe themselves in a series

o" dropdown menus. 4n 4nly ads# these menus ask "or in"ormation ranging "rom

the ethnic origins o" users# right through to their se%ual orientation# 9role8 and penis

si;e. It is# however# not a necessity to "ill in all o" these "ields. 6sers may also upload

a pro"ile picture and cover photo# and are given a "air bit o" space to describe

themselves and# in a separate "ield# what they seek in their potential partners.


4/51

upload. 'he combination o" these identity menus# descriptive paragraphs and pro"ile

pictures should provide material that suggests a number o" things about# at the very

least# the way in which each user constructs his own masculinity and identity. 'his

analysis can be "urthered# however# so as to include the analysis o" the values and

societal norms that are present in the construction o" masculinities and identities o"

4nly ads8 users.

'he latter part o" this analysis will re-uire a strong theoretical component# comparing

the "indings o" this research with similar studies# and applying these "indings to

relevant theoretical ideas that would "urther an e%planation o" the data collected. 'he

theoretical backdrop will rely on masculinity studies paying particular attention to

ideas o" hegemonic masculinity# as well as alternative masculinities/# -ueerness#

identity construction and social identity theories all in the conte%t o" new media

theory. 'he nature o" the study itsel" is -ualitative and somewhat e%ploratory# with

little research into the speci"ic niche that is the representation o" masculinities on

-ueer dating sites.

Subse-uently# the research -uestions that came o" these initial investigative

hypothesises "ocussed on the represented masculinities o" Only Lads users. 'hey

highlight the aim o" the pro&ect# and have been provided below:

=. $ow do users o" 4nly ads in the South !"rica represent themselves# visually

and verbally# on 4nly ads>

2.


5/51

Literature Review

In the analysis o" the represented masculinities o" 4nly ads users# a number o"

theories must be considered to o""er a balanced and insight"ul reading. 'his pro&ect

will make particular use o" theories surrounding hegemonic and alternate

masculinities and their construction. It will also# however# utilise theory regarding the

construction o" identity and masculinity on the internet# paying particular attention to

the use o" social media and dating sites and previous studies in this area/# and

conte%tualise these theories within a gay and South !"rican conte%t. (inally# it will

look to the conceptual "ramework laid out by ?astells surrounding identity building to

make in"erences regarding how users o" 4nly ads choose to represent themselves.

'he ,volution o" @asculinity Studies

'he study o" masculinity is certainly one that has attracted its "air share o" criticism

over the years. It has been argued to be rooted in the past# many theorists insisting that

it is vague and insu""iciently concrete +easley# 2005: =AB/ too much so to have

any real resonance among the popular postmodern age o" identity research.


6/51

above others. 'he idea o" universali;ing characteristics o" men was not new to

society psychological and sociological studies had recogni;ed the social nature o"

masculinity ?onnell and @essershmidt# 2005: B3=/ as early as the late 508s. It

wasn8t until the A08s when a "lurry o" writings on the male role emerged# criticising it

as the source o" oppressive behaviour by men ?onnell and @essershmidt# 2005:

B3=/. $egemonic masculinity began to be understood as a the maintenance o"

practices that institutionali;eDdE men8s dominance over women and is constructed in

relation to women and to subordinate DotherE masculinities ?onnell# =CBA: =B5BF/.

@asculinity as a "ield o" research has "lourished considerably in recent years# despite

"acing criticism "or essentiali;ing the characteristics o" men. ?onnell and

@essershmidt 2005/ argue that the study o" masculinity has done so well precisely

because the underlying concept is not rei"ied or essentialist B3F/. 'hey continue#

suggesting that masculinity as a contemporary study# must be recognised not as a

"i%ed entity embedded in the body or personality traits o" individuals but as

con"igurations o" practice that are accomplished in social action B3F/. !s such#

masculinity is not limited to hegemony# nor as recent scholars have argued/ is it a

concept utterly bound to gender ) but rather a set o" varying practices that uphold

social hierarchy.

Gespite its social nature and impact on society# the "ormation o" masculinity among

young boys the transition "rom boy to man has received little attention until very

recently. In her study# which "ocussed primarily on the "ormation o" masculinity

among teenage boys particularly those who partook in 9gang8 activity/# ?hopra

2000/ suggests that learning masculinity is not simply a linear process# but rather one

that constantly changes and adapts as it8s in"luenced by class# age# gender and social

relationships. She suggests that boys are 9shaped8 into men# by other men 2000/.

'o similar e""ect# Sharon +ird =CCF/ suggests that throughout men8s lives hegemonic

masculinity norms are# and always have been# maintained by homosocial

relationships where homosociality is de"ined as the nonse%ual attractions held by

men or women/ "or members o" their own se% +ird# =CCF: =2=/. +ird uses ideas

originally theorised by ipman+lumen =CAF/ that suggest that homosociality

F


7/51

promotes clear distinctions between women and men through segregation in social

situations +ird# =CCF: =2=/.

4ver time# the study o" masculinity has developed signi"icantly. Indeed# traditional

notions o" hegemonic masculinity argue that masculinity itsel" is largely about

dominance. +ut the continued study o" masculinity and gender has led contemporary

scholars to suggest that gender itsel" is a hierarchical relationship that involves men8s

dominance +easley# 2005: =C0/. In recent years this has been re"ined and e%panded

with pro"ound congruence# suggesting instead that masculinity should be understood

as involving oppositional relations to and dominance o"# women and men +easley#

2005 ?hopra# Gasgupta and Hane&a# 2000/. ?hopra# Gasgupta and Hane&a# in their

study o" Indian masculinities# caution against the myth o" a single# unitary#

homogenised masculinity =F0B/# one that is seen only in opposition to "emininity

through a lens o" violence and oppression# and suggest that such ideas should be

rendered obsolete.

'his is not at all to suggest that hegemonic masculinity itsel" is obsolete but rather

that it must be understood as a comple% collection o" social in"luences that are culture#

race and time speci"ic. 'his is to say# with congruence among various international

studies# that there is no one unitary "ramework "or hegemonic masculinities there are

many# and they vary by race# class# culture and generation. ?ases o" particular interest

in ?hile aldJs and 4livarrKa# =CCB/# Hapan Ishii7unt;# 2003/ and @e%ico

Lutmann# =CCF/# countries recognised "or their stringent cultural homogeneity#

convey that homogenised ideas o" masculinity# while not at all dispelled# still vary

across social and economic class.

Lutmann8s ethnographic study o" @e%ican 9machismo8 =CCF/ is particularly uni-ue

in that it studied the varying masculinities at work in a working class settlement its

conclusion went as "ar as to suggest that amid a move towards nationalised @e%ican

identities# the masculinities o" participants were peppered with con"lict between social

divisions# and were renegotiated on a daily basis. Lutmann8s research in particular#

has moved "urthest "rom traditional notions o" essentialised hegemonic masculinity

his results speak to the emerging idea that the construction o" masculinity with

particular re"erence to homogenised ideals/ is "ar more comple% than originally

A


8/51

anticipated. 'his line o" -uestioning re-uires pushing beyond the boundaries o"

normative hegemonic theories# which are argued to be constructed against gay

masculinities +easley# 2005: 2=2/ It is necessary# within the conte%t o" this study

that masculinity be seen as multiple and nonhomogenous# with the construction o"

masculinity viewed as "ar more personalised and identity based ?onnell# 2000/.


9/51

!lternate constructions o" masculinity# although being the newer and more comple%

component within the sphere o" masculinity studies# have received the bulk o"

research in the "ield in recent times.


10/51

particular# that aim to reproduce a social order but# this is not necessarily always to

the de"ence o" patriarchy.

$egemonic masculinity itsel" is "ar more nuanced than most scholars in the past have

acknowledged and# as scholars have begun to suggest# is not always based on real

men. In her study on the psychology o" men# Mancy ?hodorouw =CAB/# "irst hinted at

the idea that masculinity in developing teens was based "ar more on cultural

stereotypes o" the masculine role than their individual but absent "athers Lardiner#

20=3: ==/. ?onnell and @essershmidt# too# talk to the idea that the practice o"

masculinity is a""ected by the circulation o" models o" admired masculine conduct#

which may be e%alted by churches# narrated by mass media# or celebrated by the

state ?onnell and @essershmidt# 2005: B3B/.


11/51

like the South !"rican !ssociation o" @en S!!@/ has included restoring male

authority @orrell# 2005: 2B2/ and restoring the tattered remains o" the male image

@orrell# 2005: 2AA/.


12/51

are "aced with gender an%iety in a nonse%ist environment# as well as a clash o"

developing cultural ideals in the construction o" their masculinities. 6sing the partial

trans"ormation o" Oulu masculinity# or ubudoda# as an illustration# one gets an idea o"

both the adaptive nature# and stubborn resilience o" masculinity# particularly within a

South !"rican conte%t.

'he "irst o" these masculinities and the oldest/ represents the traditional !"rican

gender order $emson# 200=: 5B/ placing value in physical prowess# courage and

endurance $emson# 200=: 5B/# associated with ideas like Ozinyathi Dmen like

bu""aloesE and manliness.


13/51

that 9alternative masculinities8 are o"ten subdued and marginalised by their hegemonic

counterparts. Lay masculinities have# "or a great deal o" time# been considered an

alternative masculinity as a whole. $owever# in recent times# this view has been

altered in a great number o" ways.

$egemonic masculinity was originally theori;ed alongside the idea o" 9emphasised

"emininity8 which "oregrounds utter compliance by women with patriarchal society/#

but has since begun to be understood as multiple and varying.


14/51

South !"rica8s progressive constitution is theori;ed to have actually hampered the

emergence o" a public -ueer community. !lthough there is evidence that this is slowly

changing particularly as gaypride "estivals become more popular/# it is also

suggested that this division is why so many gay# bise%ual and 9curious8 men have

turned to the internet.

?onstructions o" Identity and Lay @asculinity on 'he Internet.

It is important to brie"ly acknowledge -ueer theory# the study o" di""ering se%ualities#

be"ore progressing "urther. !lthough a rather minor and technical matter# it is

bene"icial to understand that an individual identi"ying as gay or straight is not

necessarily use"ul# arguing instead that most people "all somewhere on a continuum

between 9gay8 and 9straight8 not a view 4nly ads8 dropdown 9identity menu8

appears to coincide with/. Se%ually identi"ying one8s sel" is not necessarily a -uestion

o" normalising monose%ual identities !le%ander and Pescavage# 200C: 50/. !s the

authors suggest# many men who identi"y as straight but harbour samese% "antasies

are not considered gay or even bise%ual# and do not identi"y as such# but nonetheless

would "it somewhere on the spectrum between gay and straight. $ere# then# it is

important to categori;e the men that appear into the two categories that 4nly ads

o""ers# gay and bise%ual# but recogni;e that these may not necessarily represent the

actual se%uality o" each user.

@asculinity studies and -ueer theory converge on the idea that particularly with

penetrative se%# but also in terms o" intimate relationships# certain roles are o"ten

adopted by individuals. 'raditional notions o" hegemonic masculinity suggest that

within a heterose%ual conte%t# penetrative se% is associated with the enactment o"

male dominance Stoltenberg# =CC=# in +easley# 2005: 205/. 1ueer theory and

alternative masculinity theory# then# suggests that men and women/ should be able to

choose the role they pre"er "ul"illing# allowing men# too# to be both the penetrator and

the penetrated ) enacting both traditionally male and "emale roles.

Identity theory is di""icult to isolate on its own# in that it is such a blanket term

regarding the way humans socially construct themselves. (or purposes o" this study#

identity is largely covered by ideas such as masculinity# gendered roles and sel"

=


15/51

presentation painting identity as more o" a varying network o" sel" construction#

rather than a "i%ed term. It is argued to be a re"le%ive evaluation Solomon# =CB3:

32=/# that relies &ust as steadily on our understanding o" who and what we are# as it

does on how we anticipate others will view us. 'his understanding o" identity

incorporates to a somewhat lesser degree/ the idea o" social identity theory which

suggests that the core o" an identity is the categori;ation o" the sel" as an occupant o"

a role# and the incorporation# into the sel"# o" the meanings and e%pectations

associated with that role Stets and +urke# 2000: 225/. It suggests that assuming

certain roles in society is intrinsic to the way in which we construct our identities# and

like -ueer theory# suggests that gender and se%uality are perhaps more about the

per"ormance o" roles re-uired to "it within an 9ingroup8. 'his is not only suggestive

o" the per"ormance o" certain roles# but the alteration o" one8s sel"presentation# so as

to be identi"ied as part o" a certain group.

$owever# with regards to the Mew @edia aspect o" this study# identity becomes

somewhat more di""icult to pin down# despite the "act that no aspect o" online social

li"e has received as much attention as identity +aym# 200F: =/.


16/51

be composed o" many di""ering ideas o" who an individual thinks they are @arkus

and Murius# =CBF/ ) these 9possible selves8 are suggested to be no less authentic than

one centralised sel" representation. 'his would re"lect a more disembodied online

identity# "ocussing on multiplicity and "antasy. $owever# many theorists also argue

that anonymity# and its associated lessening o" social risk# may allow people to be

more honest and take greater risks in their sel"disclosures +aym# 200F: =/.

*esearch by 'urkle =CC5/ and $ardey 2002/ go so "ar as to suggest that virtual

reality is itsel" an edited re"lection o" o""line reality# and that o""line and online

identities have the ability to in"luence each other. 'his line o" research re"lects a "ar

more embodied notion o" online identity# "ocussing "ar more on maintaining

authenticity in sel"representations.


17/51

'his particular study "inds great relevance in the conceptual "ramework o" @anuel

?astells with regard to online identity construction# in which he makes a clear

distinction between 9role8 and identity 200C/. ?ertain roles impact identity

construction# but their relative weight in in"luencing people8s behaviour depend upon

negotiations between individualsQ institutions and organisations ?astells# 200C: A/.

$ere# ?astells does not denounce the impact o" roles on identity "ormation# but rather

suggests that their in"luence is "ar less direct and immediate. 'he highlight o" his

argument however and a central concept in this pro&ect/ is ?astells8 induction o" three

di""ering "orms o" identity building: legitimi;ing identity# resistance identity and

pro&ect identity.

egitimi;ing identity acts to con"irm one8s place in society# legitimising cultural and

societal norms# where resistance identity is essentially an identity constructed in

opposition to these norms essentially# as ?astells describes it# 9trench war"are8/.

Nro&ect identity# though# is when this resistance moves out o" the trenches# so to speak

it is the mobili;ation o" an identity aimed at promoting social change.


18/51

heterose%ual and homose%ual men# but instead raises a number o" -uestions about gay

masculinity ?larkson# 200F/.

Studies o" the personal advertisings o" gay men have repeatedly shown them to stress

their own masculinity above the associated "emininity that saddles notions o"

homose%uality Sanche; et al# 20=0: =05/. Narticularly in online dating# there is a

recogni;ed tendency "or gay men to emphasise interests# characteristics and interests

that are traditionally deemed masculine.


19/51

have a tendency to reenact hegemonic masculine ideals that men and boys cling to as

protection against gender an%iety and "eelings o" powerlessness ?onnell and

@essershmidt# 2005: B2/.

'o ?onclude

In the analysis o" relevant literature# this study has seen an argument "orm "rom the

use o" theories surrounding hegemonic and alternate masculinities# and their

construction particularly within a South !"rican conte%t/. It has also looked to theory

surrounding online identity construction within the "rame o" social media and dating

sites# using previous studies within these "ields to suggests how participants choose to

represent themselves o"ten making in"erence to why/. 'he progression o" this

argument centres on the research -uestions that this pro&ect aims to answer those

regarding users visual and verbal representation# and the values and norms that may

be in"erred "rom this analysis.

=C


20/51

Methodology Chapter

In an attempt to analyse the presented constructions o" -ueer masculinities on 4nly

ads# this pro&ect "ocuses primarily on issues surrounding hegemonic ideals o"

masculinity# alternative ideas o" masculinity and online identity construction. It is

important "or a psychosocial study# to clearly address the conte%t in which this

research pro&ect is situated.

?onsidering the interpretive nature o" this pro&ect# the methods used can be

considered -ualitative research.


21/51

analysisQ cannot make sel" assertions about the intentions o" a te%t8s producer# nor

can it validly in"er the impact o" the te%t on readers# viewers or listeners. Geacon#

200A# =BC/


22/51

menus8 regarding orientation# role# relationship status# age# height# race# body type#

and even penis si;e. 6sers may also decide to "ill out the adult section detailing

what they seek in a se%ual partner/# as well as sections that allow users to select what

they seek in potential partners and describe themselves in their own words. 4nly ads

is entirely uni-ue as a case study# in that it is the only popular gay dating site that

makes use o" a dropdown menu "or users to select distinct characteristics to describe

themselves ) o""ering an insight# perhaps# into the valued character traits among gay

and bise%ual men in South !"rica. 6sers can# however# choose to leave all the

in"ormation menus blanks# as well as the descriptive "ields even uploading a pro"ile

picture is optional. 4nly ads# though# di""ers distinctly "rom (acebook in that it is

aimed speci"ically at gay and bise%ual men# and "unctions as a dating site.

6n"ortunately# upon closer inspection# =5 o" the original B0 pro"iles contained too

little in"ormation to be use"ul ) having "illed in neither descriptive "ield and uploaded

no pro"ile picture a trend among some users seems to be to leave almost every

in"ormation "ield blank/. It is important that such pro"iles be discarded "rom the "inal

analysis signi"icantly lowering the number o" pro"iles to be e%amined to a "ar more

manageable number. 'he basic in"ormation o" these pro"iles# however# was still

recorded# and in"erences may still be drawn "rom this data. !nalysis o" the remaining

pro"iles will begin at a conte%tual level# regarding the in"ormation they provide in the

dropdown menus available. $ere# pro"iles were separated and categori;ed based on

commonalities in their selected role and orientation# be"ore a content analysis o"

all the in"ormation provided in the dropdown menus# and a brie" te%tual analysis o"

the accompanying photos was per"ormed. 'hen# this pro&ect speci"ically analysed the

words 4nly ads members used to describe themselves in the descriptive "ields on

their pro"iles in relation to the in"ormation they provided via dropdown menus#

regarding orientation and 9role8/# and the pictures that accompany them# utilising the

di""ering "orms o" discourse analysis detailed below. In this case# the combination o"

content# te%tual and discourse analyses should highlight the norms and values

implicated in the construction o" the masculinities o" each user.

4" the methods o" te%tual analysis# this pro&ect has relied on discourse analysis# "or its

ability to deconstruct and highlight sometimes comple% structures and connotations

within a te%t. Giscourse analysis# though# is incredibly comple% in itsel"# relying on

22


23/51

more than one aspect in dissecting a te%t this particular pro&ect "ocussed more on the

idea o" per"orming an ideological analysis which# as +rennen 20=2/ suggests# should

have identi"ied the dominant ideologies o" individuals# groups or communities. In this

case# an indication o" the norms and values implicated in the construction o" the

masculinities o" each user should be a""orded# as well as a suggestive spectrum o" the

di""erent norms and values at work in the construction o" masculinities on 4nly ads.


24/51

'he second o" these concerns the 9digital divide8 the impact o" socioeconomic

"actors in limiting access to technology# which is o" prevalent concern# especially in

!"rican countries and suggests that the ma&ority o" workingclass South !"ricans do

not have internet access due to a lack o" resources# government in"rastructure and

educational discrepancy/ and are perhaps not as e%posed to notion o" a -ueer

community# online or o""line.

Lraeme *eid suggests that despite South !"rica8s progressive constitution# ideas o"

homose%uality are seen to threaten traditional values# ideals and practices. 'he idea o"

being 9out and proud8 is not a lu%ury a""orded to many -ueer !"rican men in small

town communities *eid# 20=3/.


25/51

Data Analysis

Nrevious chapters have looked to establish a theoretical "ramework "rom which to

base analysis# one that has outlined the comple% and multi"aceted nature o"

masculinity and identity construction. 'his chapter will "ocus primarily on previous

studies that have analysed the rerepresentation o" gay identities on online dating

sites# *aewyn ?onnell8s reevaluation o" masculinity and ?astell8s theoretical

"ramework "or identity building# and applying these to the data collected. 'o do this#

the data has been split into di""ering categories: a rough statistical overview# the

9looking "or8 descriptive "ield# the 9about me8 descriptive "ield# the pre"erred 9type8 o"

each participant and the pro"iles pictures that accompany pro"iles.

Gemographics

able !"! addresses the racial demographic o" all B0 o" the 4nly ads pro"iles

collected# the blank pro"iles are represented by the red additions.


26/51

this ma&ority is only 53T. In addition to this# 2C T o" the pro"iles collected are

attributed to black South !"rican men# despite un"avourable preconditions. !sian men

make up a "urther C T# and those o" mi%ed race the "inal C T.


27/51

participants o" mi%ed race# the proportion o" men who consider themselves to be gay

is "ar greater than those who selected bise%uality. Interestingly enough# o" the pro"iles

o" mi%ed race men# si% listed themselves as bise%ual and only one described himsel"

to be gay. 'his may well be a misrepresentation in the sampling group# as there is no

discernable cultural phenomenon that speaks to the cause o" such a statistic.

*egardless# "urther research would be needed to reassess this data# and i" the anomaly

persists ) perhaps to investigate it "urther.


28/51

#ra$h !"% illustrates a summative view o" the general desires o" each age group

while this does not isolate speci"ic instances# it gives a general "eel "or the di""ering

aims o" each age group. !mong bise%ual men# these trends are rather distinct.

"asic In#ormation! and the Multiplicity o# Chat$

'he ma&ority o" 4nly ads8 bise%ual users seem to seek "riendship and chat with

other men who "eel samese% attraction. ?hat# can be broken down into three

subcategories: when paired with "riends# one assumes it centralises on the idea o"

"riendly communication# the e%change o" banter with the possibility "or "riendship

and perhaps more# as many users stipulate/ when alone# it suggests the maintenance

o" distance# taking on discreet or covert connotations ) perhaps to sate a vague

curiosity# or a se%ual one and when used in con&unction with == !ction# however#

the implications o" chat become "ar more se%ual# as the possibility o" physical

interaction emerges. 'he combination o" all three chat# "riendship and == action/

opens up a myriad o" possibilities "or the user# suggesting an openness to whatever

may pi-ue their interest whether they choose to "ollow through on this interest is

another matter.


29/51


30/51

'he ma&ority o" these pro"iles# however# those that select 9== !ction8 or 9Lroup

!ction8# e%ist within the realm o" the hypermasculine# where social and se%ual

dominance oo;e "rom the 9ooking (or8 descriptive "ields. Gemands are curt# and a

seemingly palpable need "or physicality is somewhat evident ) certain "ields

consisting o" only monosyllabic desires: MS! Giscreet=# 32/# or twinks ?odi#

25/. Some needs are so urgent that they perhaps bypass those negative traits# like

racism# associated with traditional notions o" South !"rican hegemonic masculinity

Swart# 200=# ?ocks# 200=# @orrell 200=# *eid# 20=3/: any race# but good looking

please Mtoka# 2F/. In total# o" the participants who listed == and Lroup !ction as

their desired activities whether alone or in other combinations/# eighty percent

e%hibited one or more characteristics associated with hegemonic South !"rican

masculinity in the 9ooking (or8 descriptive "ield speci"ically: racism# anti

e""eminacy# overt se%ual desire# se%ual prowess# homophobia# rein"orcing social

superiority through status# diminutive language and opposition# and "inally the

repression o" "eeling and homose%ual desire/.

'here is# however# the odd propensity "or a""ection# "or tenderness amid such raw

physicality.


31/51

It is possible to detect# here# between the presented hypermasculinity and the brie"

"lirtation withfeeling# a "ear among Only Lads users. It is almost certainly the "ear o"

identi"ication# o" social e%posure# and perhaps something more ) the "ear o" lost

privilege. ,ight o" the total 2 bise%ual pro"iles use pictures that include their own

"aces ) only "our o" these are unobscured. 'he concept o" discretion# o" being

9straight acting8 is incredibly common here# =B pro"iles re"erencing it in one "orm or

another. 'his is in line with ?onnell and @essershmidt8s 2005/ suggestion o" the

continuation o" homose%ual guilt# the sel"reproach o" se%ual abnormality that drives

men to adopt traits synonymous with hegemonic masculinity. Straightacting is the

term most o"ten used by gay# bise%ual and curious men "or this normality# and it is

certainly one that will be "urther discussed. 'he overcompensation o" men with

samese% desires is consistent with suggestions that the establishment o" the sel" as

hypermasculine is a de"ence mechanism to ward o"" gender an%iety and "eelings o"

powerlessness ?onnell and @essershmidt# 2005/.

#ra$h!" the desired activities o" gay men# paints a very di""erent picture. !mong all the

options o""ered# the most desired activity is the establishing o" a relationship# across

all ages "riendship is a close second# and chat is third.


32/51


33/51

degree. ,ither# these pro"iles e%hibit a strong desire only "or the immediate# to "ul"il

the meantime# or they turn their ga;e to the hori;on in short# the divide here is

between the search "or immediate se%ual "ul"ilment and the desire "or long term

a""ection.


34/51

Gue to the sheer volume o" material# it is impossible to o""er an in depth analysis o"

each individual pro"ile.


35/51

relies on cultural and societal hegemony to determine e%actly what straight men act

like and as we8ve already seen# masculinity# what it is to be a 9manly# is incredibly

di""icult to isolate and de"ine.


36/51

!s ?astells 200C/ suggests# legitimi;ing identities are constructed around e%isting

cultural and societal norms# o"ten actually lending support to whatever systemic

practices or belie"s may e%ist there. In line with this# the straight acting identities

presented have a tendency to portray racism as utterly acceptable# so long as people

are reasonably polite about it: regretQ 4MP


37/51

!"rica. It is no surprise# then# that a great deal o" the pro"ile pictures on Only Ladsare

o" muscled# bare torsos. Neacocking# is a term that seems ideally suited to this

phenomenon: 9look at how strong I am8# 9look at how much work I put into my body8#

9look at my raw se%uality8. It seems &ust as much about advertising about instilling

desire in the onlooker ) the purpose o" appearing on Only Ladsis# a"ter all# to attract

and meet other men# "or whatever desired outcome. 'here is# however# a certain

degree o" vulnerability to these users. 4" the shirtless photographs# two members

show their "aces# the rest make sure to maintain their anonymity and all o" these

photos# without e%ception# are 9sel"ies8. 'here8s a degree o" isolation to the 9sel"ie8#

especially when it is within the enclosed walls o" the toilet stall. 'his could possibly

speak more to the tension and otherness gay and bise%ual men and certainly their

displays o" a""ection or desire/ e%perience at the hands o" their heterose%ual

counterparts# more than a pure e%pression o" physicality and se%uality. @ost likely#

these photos represent a comple% interaction between all o" these "actors an area that

would re-uire "urther in depth study to better understand.

(lippy# 22/ Nlesierspier# 23/

Slightly aside "rom this tendency# but no less popular# is that o" the discreet pro"ile

picture. ! "ew o" these are merely 3rdparty photographs pictures o" cars# landscapes#

"ootball teams or something humorous. 'he aim o" these photographs is -uite

obviously the maintenance o" discretion# something their descriptions mention# and

perhaps stem "rom a lack o" con"idence in their appearance# or a combination o" the

two.


38/51

pro"iles must rely on their descriptive "ields ) and sometimes o""er up more

in"ormation to compensate# as we have already seen "rom these two:

!ustin# =C/ Stegman# 20/

'he third and "inal category o" pro"ile pictures# is that o" the "acial picture. 'hese are

not always# however# as e%posing as this category may suggest. @any users add

partial "acial pictures the top o" their heads# an ultra closeup o" their mouth# a slight

"acial pro"ile "rom behind or perhaps simply obscuring their "eatures with props and

"ilters. Nartially obscured "acial photographs are most common among participants

re-uesting discretion. 6nobscured "acial photographs# are not uncommon among gay

pro"iles less so among bise%ual men/# and are most common among those who

display resistance and pro&ect identities.

4ra# 22/ ?upraboy25# 2F/

Nro&ect

Identities and

the ,veryday

Lay.

3B


39/51

'he di""iculty with socially constructing an identity is that there are always binaries to

consider# subconscious relationships between how people act and who they are. 'o be

9normal8 is to situate onesel" within the 9in group8# established by detecting how 9they8

operate. 'o be original is to be new# une%perienced by the world# undoubtedly aside

"rom both 9we8 and 9they8. 'he problem here is that originality is practically

impossible ) it8s not how humans "unction ) to choose to be distinct within the in

group is to risk e%isting without the in group. 'his is the line that the largest

proportion o" Only Ladsusers tread with e%treme caution.

'hey do not describe themselves as straight acting# but aim instead to be nothing

e%ceptional ) to embrace normality and "ly under the veritable radar. 'he most

common sel"attribution is the idea o" normalcy# o" commonality. Gown to earth#

simple oke# normal guy and countless variations on theme e%ist across both gay

and bise%ual men. !s ?larkson 2005/ and Nayne 200A/ suggest# and as previously

discussed# there is a tendency among gay and bise%ual men to shield themselves "rom

the an%iety# tension and otherness they e%perience at the hands o" heterose%ual men

by adopting 9straight acting8 personas. ?larkson and Nayne also recognise that being

straight acting seems to go hand in hand with the complete normali;ation o" one8s

persona. 'his is a normali;ation in the sense that the image o" normality# o" the

everyday man# is evoked as a shield o" sorts ) protection "rom the critical ga;e o"

society.

'his study did not so much "ind that the two went hand in hand# but rather that the

overwhelming ma&ority o" pro"iles e%hibited this evocation o" the everyday man.


40/51

?astells8 theory surrounding resistance identity building is probably what resonated

most with this kind o" masculine construction.


41/51

bitch 4ra# 22/# also stipulating his noncon"ormity# the other approaches the entire

process o" creating a pro"ile on Only Ladswith a sense o" humorous criticism:

/0iggs rimming tight+ firm buttock holes""" here seems to be a ton load of

11real+ honest+ straight acting+ etc11 guys around here+ these are bo2es we

confine oursel-es in+ all in the name of finding someone to fuck""""busy

im$ressing one another with lies"""" 3when in 4ome"""""""""""""""""""5

'he e%tract provided# while certainly containing a sense o" humour# conveys a -uiet

sense o" resignation ) the opinion o" the veritable 9they8# looking in on the 9we8. $e#

although rather crudely# accurately points to the "laws he spots in the use o" Only

Lads# and o" contemporary constructions o" gay and bise%ual masculinity in general.

'he only choice he can spy# is to &oin the "lock# to engage in the pretence.

=


42/51

Findings and Conclusions


43/51

cannot 9be8 the part. 'his is not to suggest that participants who identi"y as straight

acting necessarily want to be straight# but rather that i" they cannot repress their

homose%uality# they can smother themselves in masculinity.

Straightacting# when identi"ied in this particular pro&ect# seems to be an ode to

hegemony# to the dominance o" heterose%ual notions o" masculinity. (or the men who

use it to describe themselves# it seems to be to rea""irm their own masculinity# and

their power within society. 4"ten# it is paired with words that rein"orce the dominance

o" the author# over both men and women# cementing his place within the realm o"

hegemonic masculinity. Nerhaps# as Nayne and ?onnell and @essershmidt suggest# it

is an attempt to reclaim the privilege that comes with being a heterose%ual man

particularly in the conte%t o" white South !"ricans/# perhaps it is simply the desire to

"it in. *egardless# the term seems to "unction as a de"ence mechanism# distancing the

author "rom the e""eminate gay stereotype# and aligning him with a masculinity that is

"ar more com"ortable within the "rame o" hegemonic notions o" male identity.

Surprisingly# it is not the most popular term among the sel"descriptions o"

participants though it is the most popular trait that is sought a"ter by users. 'his can

perhaps be posited to a slightly di""erent understanding o" the term ) in the description

o" 9others8# where straightacting is selected "rom a dropdown menu. 4ne could

instead suggest that it is understood here as a blanket term "or being 9normal8 and

"itting in especially where among the alternative suggestions there is nothing that

implies the 9ordinary8/# instead o" within the sel" descriptions ) where it is active# and

o"ten en"orced with traces o" the "orce"ulness and overt physicality o" hyper

masculinity.

!t the opposite end o" the spectrum are those who openly disregard the conventions

o" orthodo% masculinity# or at least show an understanding o" how they aren8t letting it

in"luence them. 'hese aren8t necessarily users who display traditionally "eminine

-ualities# as a "ew e%amples show# although the ma&ority o" these pro"iles e%hibit such

behaviour. 4"ten# these pro"iles are -uestioning o" the behaviour o" their peers#

-uestioning o" society at large ) con"used as to what is e%pected o" them. Some ask

rhetorical -uestions# or openly oppose themselves to the cultural conventions o" being

a man the uniting trait o" these pro"iles# however# is their acknowledgement that they

3


44/51

do not "it the mould. 'hey have no desire to 9act8 as heterose%ual men do# and they

have no desire to be 9normal8.

Surprisingly# and somewhat opposed to the studies that have gone be"ore it# the

overwhelming tendency among South !"rican users o" Only Ladsis to represent

themselves as entirely une%ceptional. 'he con&uration o" the ordinary# o" the

9everyday man8# is evident in close to seventy percent o" the pro"iles collected. (or the

sake o" convenience# within the established spectrum o" masculinities# these pro"iles

are placed between straightacting participants and those who show disregard "or the

conventions o" hegemonic masculinity.

'he adoption o" the ordinary "unctions much like the use o" 9straightacting8: as a

shield against the critical ga;e o" heterose%ual peers# as a barrier between the author

and the e""eminate stereotype. 'his social camou"lage does not go so "ar as to

legitimi;e hegemonic notions o" masculinity in that it is not active in its support

rather# it is a silent resistance ) trench war"are# as @anuel ?astells puts it when

describing this "orm o" resistant identity building.

'he implications o" the 9everyday8 pro"iles# o" the keywords in their sel" descriptions

down to earth# normal# average guy/# is that there is still great di""iculty in

e%pressing gay identity in South !"rica.


45/51

within the process o" this study to re"rain wherever possible "rom instances o" weak

analysis# sweeping generalisation and researcher bias. !side "rom this# the relatively

small sample group is a limitation ) and "uture research could certainly bene"it "rom a

larger data pool.

In terms o" ascertaining an understanding o" how users represent themselves and their

masculinity# the actual plat"orm on which this study was conducted# Only Lads# could

be considered a limitation. 'he site itsel" is limited in its drop down menu selection#

not allowing "or the selection o" orientations other than gay or bise%ual.


46/51

@any participants are not hesitant to show their "aces in their pro"ile pictures# and the

pictures used by the 9everyday8 men# while never too "lamboyant or consistently

unobscured# are indicative o" a desire "or both openness and anonymity. It is perhaps a

con"used narrative# but one that speaks to the personali;ation o" authentic identity and

the pro&ection o" e%actly what is re-uired by societal convention. Nro"iles on Only

Ladsare no doubt about advertising the sel" "or whatever aim/# and so these pro"ile

pictures o""er enough to be o" interest# but not enough to stand outside o" the norm o"

masculine behaviour.


47/51

"i+liography

!le%ander# H. and Pescavage# 7. 200C/ W'he Scholars (ormerly 7nown asQW:

+ise%uality# 1ueerness and Identity Nolitics. In Li""ney# M. and 48*ourke# @.

,ds/ 200C/ he Ashgate 4esearch Com$anion to 6ueer heory. Surrey#

!shgate Nublishing imited.

+audrillard# H. =CBB/ 'he ?onsumer Society. In @. Noster ,d./#7ean 8audrillard9

(elected Writings. ?ambridge# Nolity Nress.

+aym# M. 7. 200F/ Interpersonal i"e 4nline. In ievrouw# . !. and ivingstone# S.

,ds/ 200F/ he :andbook of ;ew Media< U$dated (tudent =dition" ondon#

Sage Nublications.++? 200F/ 9Ouma !pologises (or Lay ?omments8#88C ;ews. !vailable online at

http:RRnews.bbc.co.ukR=RhiR53BC3AB.stmaccessed @ay 5# 20=/

+easley# ?. 20055 #ender and (e2uality< Critical heories+ Critical hinkers.

ondon# Sage Nublications.

+erger# !. !. 2000/Media and Communication 4esearch Methods9 An .ntroduction

to 6ualitati-e and 6uantitati-e A$$roaches 3%rd=d"5" 'housand 4aks#

?ali"ornia# Sage Nublications.

+ird# S. =CCF/ inks and 6ueens. Hohannesburg# Hacana.

?astells# @. 200C/ he ?ower of .dentity 2nd,d/ Susse%#


48/51

?larkson# H. 200F/ ,veryday Hoe versus Nissy# +itchy# 1ueens: Lay @asculinity

on Straight!cting.com. In he 7ournal of Mens (tudies# ol. =# Mo. 2# =C= )

20A.

?ock# H. 200=/ Lun iolence and @asculinity in ?ontemporary South !"rica. In *.

@orrel ,d./ Changing Men in (outhern Africa"Scottsville# 6niversity o"

Matal Nress.

?onnell# *.


49/51

Hankowski# M.


50/51

@orrell# *. 2005/ @en @ovements and Lender 'rans"ormation in South !"rica. In

4u;gane# . and @orrell# *. ,ds./African Masculinities. Mew Pork#

Nalgrave@acmillan.

du Nisani# 7. 200=/ Nuritanism 'rans"ormed: !"rikaner @asculinities in the

!partheid and Nost!partheid Neriod. In *. @orrell ,d./ Changing Men is

(outhern Africa. Scottsville# 6niversity o" Matal Nress.

SXnche;# (. H.# ilain# ,.#


51/51

ey hemes and ;ew 0irections.

?ambridge# Nolity Nress.

Purchisin# &.#

'Straight Acting' and the Everyday Gay: An analysis of the represented masculinities of Only Lads...

Documents

Transcript of 'Straight Acting' and the Everyday Gay: An analysis of the represented masculinities of Only Lads...