ABSTRACT PARTYING WITH A PURPOSE: FINDING

ABSTRACT PARTYING WITH A PURPOSE: FINDING MEANING IN AN ONLINE “PARTY ‘N’ PLAY” SUBCULTURE By Brian J. Frederick December 2012 The Internet has long been utilized by gay men and men who have sex with men (MSM) as a space for the seeking-out of deviant behaviors such as condomless sex and the use of popular "party drugs.” Within criminal justice, however, there is a tendency to separate such deviant sex- and drug-related behaviors from culture; thus, these behaviors often become criminalized without recognizing the meaning they may have for the “offenders”; meaning that, in addition to being borne out of oppression and marginalization, is also bome out of stigmatizing experiences. Through an exploration of gay culture, this thesis explores the underlying meanings of a subset of drug-seeking gay men who “party and play” (PnP). Such an analysis is important not only for criminal justice, but also for the field of cultural criminology, which seeks to inform both the criminal justice system and law enforcement professionals of the need for cultural sensitivity.

PARTYING WITH A PURPOSE: FINDING MEANING IN AN ONLINE “PARTY ‘N ’ PLAY” SUBCULTURE

A THESIS Presented to the Department of Criminal Justice California State University, Long Beach

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in Criminal Justice

Committee Members: Dina Perrone, Ph.D. (Chair) Charles Bozza, Ph.D. Henry F. Fradella, J.D., Ph.D. Robert Schug, Ph.D. College Designee: Henry F. Fradella, J.D., Ph.D.

By Brian J. Frederick B.A., 2010, California State University, Fullerton December 2012

UMI Number: 1522571

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

UMI D is s e r ta t io n P u b lis h in g

UMI 1522571 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code

Pro ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 481 06- 1346

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First, I would like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to my thesis chair, Dr. Dina Perrone, who introduced me to the world of cultural criminology—thus forever changing my perspective on crime and deviance. Dina taught me the importance of answering the “so what?” question in my research, and has proven to be the most straightforward tutor from whom I have ever had the honor to learn. Not only did she challenge me in areas that no one had ever challenged me, she gave me permission to stop trying to save the world. Instead, she taught me to seek to understand it—indeed, a far nobler calling. I would also like to thank my thesis committee, Dr. Hank Fradella, Dr. Charles Bozza, and Dr. Robert Schug for their patience, as well as for their time and effort in shepherding me through the thesis process. Through their selflessness, they provided me with the direction that helped turn a potential failure into a glowing success. For this reason they are as much the creators of this body of work as I am. As Winston Churchill once said, “success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.” Because of them, I remain enthusiastic about my potential to effect change in the world. I would also like to thank my graduate advisor, Dr. Connie Ireland; were it not for her suggestion that I might be critically oriented, I would not have started down the path that has led me to where I am today. As well, her concern for me above and beyond that of a graduate advisor gave me the first taste of what it was like to have a true colleague in academia. I trust she knows that her efforts were not in vain.

I am also deeply grateful for the love and support of my parents, Marlene and Larry, and their partners, Paula and Barbara. It cannot be easy to watch your adult child re-experience issues surrounding self-esteem and self-worth; and yet, they too kept their faith in me throughout both my undergraduate and graduate studies. I am eternally grateful for their unconditional love; I know that it will be a significant source of nourishment as I enter the next phase of my education: doctoral studies. Last, I am thankful for the examples set by my brilliant younger siblings Chad and Hillary. Their ability to balance the commitments they’ve made to their education and their professional lives with their responsibility to their families has taught me an important life lesson that I will not soon forget. This thesis is dedicated to all gay men who party with a purpose—whether they are aware of that purpose or not. It is also dedicated to the memory of my friend, Adam Faust, whose life was cut short as the result of a drug overdose not long after I completed the final draft of this thesis; Adam’s death has given my work a bittersweet sense of personal meaning and purpose. It has also inspired me to continue working in this area. Finally, I dedicate this thesis to my dear friend Jonathan Lochrie, whose penchant for partying inspired me to initially tackle the topic of drug use in the gay community, and whose decision to stop partying continues to inspire others.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................

iii

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................

vii

LIST OF FIGURES..........................................................................................................

viii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................

1

What is “PnP”? ..............................................................................................

3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .....................................................................................

8

Cultural Criminology..................................................................................... Presenting the S elf.............................................................. Subcultures...................................................................................................... Gay Culture..................................................................................................... Gay Subculture............................................................................................... Conclusion......................................................................................................

9 12 17 30 55 62 64

3. METHODOLOGY.............. Research Design............................................................................................. Virtual Field Sites.......................................................................................... Sample Selection............................................................................................ Data Collection............................................ Coding............................................................................................................. Data Measures: Demographics....................................................................

64 66 70 71 73 78

4. FINDINGS.............................................................................................................

80

Demographics................................................................................................. Presentation of Self........................................................................................

81 82

v

CHAPTER

Page

5. DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................

89

89 An Overview.................................................................................................. Implications.................................................................................................... 96 Limitations ........................................................................................... 97 Conclusions.................................................................................................... 100 APPENDICES........................................................................................... A. TABLES................................................................................................................

10 104

B. FIGURES................................................................................................................ 110 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................

vi

139

LIST OF TABLES TABLE

Page

1. PnP-Related Drug Argots and Slang..........................................

105

2. Presentation of Self: Subdomains and Points....................................................

106

3. Examples of Harm Reduction..............................................................................

107

4. Deviant Sex Behaviors..........................................................................................

108

5. Demographics.......................................................................................................... 109

vii

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE

Page

1. Notes taken from the virtual field........................................................................ I l l 2. Ad that uses drug argot (i.e., “PNP”) in a “No PNP” context........................... 112 3. Craigslist ad that represents a complete “personal front” ..................................

113

4. Craigslist ad in which the poster lists his “setting” (i.e., “i am hosting)

114

5. Craigslist ad in which “appearance” is listed as “I can contribute” ..................

115

6. Craigslist ad in which the poster lists “manner” as “TOP” ............................... 116 7. Craigslist ad that includes information from all of the four domains............... 117 8. Pie chart showing percentage of PnP ads, by region.........................................

118

9. Craigslist ad in which the “setting” is listed as a hotel......................................

119

10. Craigslist ad in which height is listed but not weight......................................

120

11. Craigslist ad in which letters are used to list weight........................................

121

12. Craigslist ad using alphanumeric characters to list height............................... 122 13. Craigslist ad using letters to list height and w eight.........................................

123

14. Craigslist ad in which the poster specifies that he can “provide” P n P

124

15. Craigslist ad featuring PnP-related argots.........................................................

125

16. Craigslist ad in which “T” represents crystal methamphetamine...................

126

17. Craigslist ad in which a capital “G” is used to denoteGHB or G B L..............

127

18. Craigslist ad with inconsistent usage of ellipses............................................... 128 viii

FIGURE

Page

19. Craigslist ad in which poster admonishes unknown PnPer............................

129

20. Craigslist ad in which oral sex is sought..........................................................

130

21. Craigslist ad in which a top seeks a bottom.............. .....................................

131

22. Craigslist ad in which a bottom seeks a top..................................................... 132 23. Craigslist ad in which poster seeks masturbationonly.................................... 133 24. Craigslist ad in which group sex is sought........................................................

134

25. Craigslist ad in which group sex is an option...................................................

135

26. Craigslist ad in which only “PnP” is mentioned................................................. 136 27. Craigslist ad wherein poster offers to page for “Tina” ....................................

137

28. Craigslist ad wherein poster seeks a “party planner”.......................................

138

ix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION For just at the very moment when many gay men feared that AIDS would dispatch the movement into the same oblivion that had swallowed up the Beats, hippies, and other social rebels, there appeared a new generation of intense, often angry, young homosexuals who were determined to salvage the movement and press it forward into new and as of yet unimagined territories. (Browning, 1993, p. 7) In the past few years, law enforcement agencies in the United States have attempted to clamp down on the buying and selling of illicit drugs on Internet sites such as Craigslist (e.g., ABCLocal, 2011; Bresswein, 2012; News-Record, 2012). Yet, Internet drug seeking has soared (e.g., Klein, 2011; Bumm, 2011). This is particularly the case with methamphetamine even though the behavioral sciences have stressed the dangers of using illicit party drugs (e.g., Drug-addiction-help, n.d.; Gee, et al., 2012; Solomon, Halkitis, Moeller & Pappas, 2012, p. 12). Similarly, despite the efforts of public health agencies and AIDS service organizations (ASO) to encourage safe sex through safe sex ads and health promotions, “bareback” sex (i.e., condomless sex) is on the rise (e.g., Carballo-Dieguez & Bauermeister, 2011). All of these behaviors (i.e., buying, selling, and trading party drugs on the Internet; condomless sex; party drug usage) are associated with the “party ‘n’ play” (i.e., “PnP”) subculture, which—as with the examples given above—is also engaging in these behaviors with more regularity (e.g., Blackwell & Dziegielewski, 2012; Kelly, Carpiano,

Easterbrook & Parsons, 2011; Nanln, Parsons, Bimbi, Grov & Brown, 2011). Nonetheless, the criminal justice system, in addition to the fields of public health, psychology, and addiction science continues to "strip" PnP of its subcultural features by criminalizing, medicalizing, and pathologizing its attendant behaviors. It is not surprising, then, that it has been so difficult to create effective policies to address PnP. Cultural criminology holds that deviant or “criminal” behavior is typically subcultural in nature in that it is collectivized and begins with subcultural groups (e.g., Ferrell, 1995; Ferrell, Hayward & Young, 2008). For this reason, cultural criminologists (e.g., Carney, in press; Hayward, 2011; Wender, 2004; Young, 2011) direct others to be mindful of, for instance, H.S. Becker’s (1963) stance on the concept of deviance as being borne in authoritative institutions through a process of affixing labels such as “suffering from addiction” (Kerlikowske, 2012); or, experiencing “internalized homophobia” (Shemoff, 2006); or, having a “twisted moral code” (Cameron, 2011, para. 26). According to Sulkonen (2009), contemporary society is obsessed with the regulation of life and “lifestyles” (p. 1). This supports H.S. Becker’s (1963) notion that those who engage in deviant lifestyles are “treated in accordance with the popular diagnoses] of why [they are] that way” (p. 34). These treatments inevitably translate into policies that, for instance, require state legislatures to criminalize the transmission of HIV (see Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resource Emergency [CARE] Act of 1990), and ultimately may contribute to the production of more deviance (H.S. Becker, 1963), such as the anonymous seeking of illicit drugs on the Internet.

2

Specifically, this thesis will provide a context in which to explain why these men use Internet spaces to find sex and drugs, why they engage in sexual behaviors that could potentially harm them, and why stripping them of their culture makes it much harder to create effective policies to address their true needs. Without an understanding of their culture, their rituals, and the ways in which they present themselves—indeed, without understanding the members themselves—it is easier for criminologists, criminal justice practitioners, public health administrators, and behavioral health scientists to continue to criminalize them, to medicalize them, and to pathologize them. What is “PnP?” Within the “Men Seeking Men” section of Craigslist.org, a popular Internet bulletin board, men post messages, anonymously if desired, with the goal of finding another man with whom they can meet for a sexual encounter. Ads are posted 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, all year-round. Some ads feature pictures, most consist of only a few easy-to-read lines of text, some creative, some straightforward. Others, though representing only a fraction of the overall postings, are characterized by poor grammar, unusual capitalization, incorrect or excessive punctuation, and/or words that are neither recognizable nor used conventionally. Where pictures are included, they often depict graphic or grotesque sexual images. To the normal browser, these “other” postings might be immediately dismissed as nonsensical or unappealing. Yet, there are those who seek only these ads for the surreptitious drug-related messages they contain—messages that express the poster’s desire to engage in sex with illicit “party drugs,” or, where sex is not the desired

3

outcome, their need to buy, sell, or trade these drugs; in other words, these messages are loaded with meaning. For this group of men, the drug experiences solicited often involve the use of crystal methamphetamine (crystal meth, or “Tina”), gamma-hydroxybutyric (“GHB” or “Gina”), or one of the GHB prodrugs (i.e., y-butyrolactone [GBL] and butanediol [BDL]); though on occasion, 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA or “ecstasy”), ketamine (“Special K”), and marijuana are sought, as well. These men engage in “party ‘n’ play,” or simply, “PnP,” a form of recreational drug use that is particular to the gay community (Lee, Galanter, Dermatis & McDowell, 2004), and that is characterized by Bacchanalian-style sex parties, the use of illicit drugs and the practice of bareback sex. Cabangum (2006) states, the terms “party and play” and “tina” refer to slang words used in the gay community to discreetly describe crystal meth [s/c] use. “Party”—meaning, smoke, inject, or snort meth, and then “play”—meaning engage in sexual intercourse. “Tina,” short for Christina, is [also] derived from crystal meth. (p. 25). But, PnPers are more than their penchant for drugs and sex; there are other distinct similarities in the ways in which these men present themselves—the ideals they espouse, the preferences they convey, and even the symbols and words they use and how they construct them as a form of dialogue—that suggest they have more in common. In fact, cultural criminologists would argue that many of them share a common bond or a collective experience and that, much like the gay men who engaged in civil disobedience during the late 1960s and throughout the 1980s, their saturnalia also has meaning—they are a subculture with rituals, norms, and argots (e.g., Ferrell et al., 2008). Furthermore,

4

they are a subculture that formed in reaction to stigma both within and outside of the gay community. Most of the evidence suggests that PnP is a gay phenomenon and that the origin of this subculture can be traced back to the early years of the AIDS epidemic (e.g., Green & Halkitis, 2006; Kurtz, 2005; Shemoff, 2005; Westhaver, 2005), out of which many gay men, whether affected or infected by HIV/AIDS, emerged stigmatized (Botnick, 2000). Research has even found that gay men who engage in “high risk” drug and sex behaviors (like PnP) are likely to have feelings of shame, guilt, or sadness associated with having placed themselves (or other men) at risk of HIV-infection (e.g., because they engaged in condomless sex) or, because they feel “survival guilt” over having outlived the epidemic (e.g., Botnick, 2000; Davis, Hart, Bolding, Sherr & Elford, 2006; Mimiaga et al., 2008). Sources of this stigma can be found in the ubiquitous messages of safe sex and clean, drug-free living—messages that originated in the gay community and that continue to be promulgated by public health agencies, HIV/AIDS service organizations, healthcare providers, community leaders, family, friends, and others (Botnick, 2000). The stigmatizing effects of having been criminalized, medicalized, and pathologized can also be linked to the use of the Internet as a means by which this subcultural group can remain anonymous and thus hide its seeking out of certain high-risk drug- and sex-related behaviors (e.g., Grov, 2010; Grov, 2011; Grov et al., 2007); it also allows them to evade detection from law enforcement and others who might also stigmatize them. Given that the PnP subculture has moved to the Internet, a virtual ethnography of 189 PnP personal ads from the “Men Seeking Men” section of Craigslist’s Los Angeles

5

portal was conducted to describe that PnP subculture. In doing so, it also addresses the following research questions: 1. What is the nature of PnPers’ common bond and/or what types of collective experiences might they share? 2. What, if any, are the subcultural characteristics and rituals associated with PnP? 3. How is Craigslist used as a social space by PnPers seeking drug-driven sexual experiences with other men? How do they present themselves? These questions differ from those normally asked by criminal justice practitioners— or by researchers in the field of public health or the behavioral sciences— in that they do not seek answers regarding frequency, effects, consequences, or predictability. Instead, cultural criminology challenges us to ask questions that provide a better understanding of the meanings underlying their behavior. In addition, it insists that we give individuals the opportunity to answer these questions themselves. To understand this PnP subculture on Craigslist, a theoretical framework was constructed that was comprised of the works of well-known cultural theorists Clifford Geertz (1973), Erving Goffman (1959, 1963, 1966) and James P. Spradley (1973), subcultural deviance theorists Howard Becker (1963) and Dick Hebdige (1979), labeling theorist Edwin Lemert (1951), and select readings from the realm of cultural criminology (e.g., Ferrell, 1995; Ferrell et al., 2008; Ferrell, Hayward, Morrison & Presdee, 2004; Groombridge, 1999; Hayward, 2004). An exploration of gay culture and subculture, as well as an analysis of the characteristics of those who “party ‘n’ play” was also performed. These characteristics were assessed by examining how PnPers present

themselves in their personal ads (e.g., self-description, pictures, underlying themes, types of sex sought), how they communicate with each other (e.g., signs, symbols, and argots), how they negotiate risk and reduce harm, and the types of deviant drug- and sex-related behavior in which they seek to engage. A review of the literature on stigma as it is experienced by the gay culture (generally), and the PnP subculture (specifically) was also performed to provide an overall understanding of the emergence of this subculture. Gay cultural and subcultural rituals as expressed through celebrations such as parades and dance parties, not to mention the use of drugs and sex among gay men is explored to describe the foundation of the meanings attached to PnP. Finally, this research is cast upon the backdrop of over 40 years of gay history, including the gay liberation movement, the impact of HIV/AIDS, and the advent of computer-mediated communication (CMC)—beginning with the development of the bulletin board system (BBS). A description of the methods employed will be provided, as well as a discussion of the relevant findings and their implications for policy.

7

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW For some, being HIV-positive is a devastating blow (medically and psychologically) to one’s identity, for others it is an entree into the mainstream of gay culture—an identity affirming state (Botnick, 2000, p. 72). In this chapter, several key theoretical and methodological concepts from the fields of cultural criminology and subcultural deviance theory will be presented. These will be supported by past and current studies in order to acquaint the reader with two distinct bodies of thought that, while seemingly extraneous to criminal justice, are nonetheless essential to its continued existence in that they present alternative viewpoints for approaching criminal justice topics—alternatives that may assist criminal justice professionals and policymakers in finding more effective and long-lasting solutions. As well, a review of the relevant literature concerning the drug- and sex-related behaviors particular to both the gay community and the PnP subculture will be presented. This chapter will also explore the characteristics of gay culture; beginning with a brief overview of the gay rights movement, and followed by a description of gay signs, symbols, and language. Gay rituals will also be examined, including the gay community’s penchant for parades and parties, its use of drugs, its diverse sexual characteristics, and last, its presence online. This will be followed by an exploration of gay subcultures and the PnP subculture, as well as an examination of gay subcultural expression as a counterconstruction of the dominant gay culture.

Cultural Criminology Whatever one’s mother tongue, however one chooses to dress, for whomever one votes, or whom one loves, indeed, whichever drug she or he chooses to take or the type of sex one prefers to have, it is important to be mindful of the role of meaning as a motivating factor for both cultural and subcultural behavior (Ferrell et al., 2004). According to Alexander & Roberts (2003), “culture refers to a way of life ... [it is] an instrument of expression” (p. 3). Culture has thus been used to describe certain fads or activities that, while perhaps not achieving mainstream popularity, are widespread enough to suggest mainstream acceptance, for example, “eating out culture;” “coffee culture;” even, “drug culture.” Subcultures, on the other hand, often form in reaction to these larger cultural norms. Essentially, all human behavior is embedded in and emerges from cultural norms and expectations, even if the behavior is criminal or otherwise deviates from those norms (Hebdige, 1979). Although cultural criminology has been (and continues to be) influenced by many academic disciplines, H.K. Wright (1998) locates its theoretical underpinnings as being bome out of the Chicago School, which combined theory and empiricism in the study of “anything having to do with urban structure, life styles, communities, and urbanism as such” (as cited in Short, 2002, p. 108), and the UK’s Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (BCCCS), which is considered by many as the first site of organized cultural studies (H.K. Wright, 1998). Both institutions played important roles in the rethinking of criminological theory, and both were instrumental in the formation of subcultural theories of deviance.

9

By applying a cultural framework awareness to the study of crime and deviance, cultural criminologists often present a different perspective on the role of collectivized experience, which, in turn, makes it more difficult to criminalize individual behavior or otherwise attach medical or pathological labels to those who “offend” (H.S. Becker, 1963). What is more, cultural criminologists also consider the interplay of such factors as race, class, and gender (Ferrell et al., 2004), which challenges the criminal justice system to explain phenomena such as male criminality—without also examining female criminality; to focus on inner city crime—without including analyses of crimes in rural areas; and, to explain juvenile delinquency—without exploring the entire life course (Braithwaite, 1989). According to cultural criminologists (e.g., Ferrell, 1995; Ferrell et al., 2008; Hayward, 2004), such considerations can only be made through ethnography and its process of inference. Only then can researchers begin to uncover the complex, subjective meaning systems that different groups of people use in order to make sense of themselves and others (Geertz, 1973; Spradley, 1973). And, only then can criminologists, cultural or otherwise, make recommendations for policies that address all the factors related to such problems as crime, drug usage, and the transmission of disease. Geertz (1973) held that culture was an amorphous, semiotic construct that was inseparable from its signs and symbols; in fact, he believed that culture and meaning were one in the same. These “systems of meaning,” in essence, “constitute culture” (Spradley, 1973, p. 5), and are typically communicated through the use of language, which includes signs. Geertz (1973) and others (e.g., Ferrell et al., 2008; Young, 2011) argue that the classic experimental design, with its focus on predictability, is ill suited for

10

studying these aspects of culture, namely, the role of subjective experience; thus, the researcher must embark on ethnography. This method is perhaps the hallmark of cultural criminology—as with Ferrell’s (2004) exploration of the urban trash scrounger in Fort Worth, Texas—but has also been used to study crime by researchers in other disciplines, as well: anthropology (e.g. Conley’s [2011] study on African tribal justice), critical criminology (e.g., Whittemore’s [2008] critical critique of female parolees in the state of Texas), and sociology (e.g., Lyng’s [2005] exploration of the sociology of edgework as risk-taking), to name a few. Ethnography typically begins with fieldwork, an often lengthy process that involves the observation of social discourse (Geertz, 1973); it can be conducted virtually anywhere culture exists, including criminal subcultures: in crack-houses (e.g., T. Williams, 1992), in nightclubs (e.g., Perrone, 2010), even in “virtual space” (M. Williams, 2006). These observations are inscribed (i.e., written down) and become part of the researcher’s field notes; the more detailed or thick (Geertz, 1973) the researcher’s descriptions, the better prepared he or she will be to later “shape, challenge, reproduce, maintain, reconstruct and represent... the selves of others” (Coffey, 1999, p. 8). Through thick descriptions the culture can be understood, the subculture can be understood, the meanings attached to the behaviors and rituals of that culture and subculture can be understood, and the ways in which members of the culture and subculture present themselves can be understood. This thesis combines two ethnographic methods that are commonly used by cultural criminologists. The first is ethnographic content analysis—a method that

11

“situates textual analysis within the communication of meaning” (Altheide, 1987, p. 68). Different from conventional content analysis (in that it does not measure “static content within media texts;” Ferrell et al., 2008, p. 188), ethnographic content analysis acts as a cultural tracker by “following traces of cultural forms, activities, and histories” (Acland, 1995, p. 19). The second, instant ethnography (also known as the “ethnography of performance;” Ferrell et al., 2008, p. 180), counters the claim that an ethnographer must spend considerable amounts of time “inside a group or situation” (Ferrell et al., 2008, p. 179), and, instead, allows him or her to view “crime, criminality, and criminal justice as a series of [instant] contested performances undertaken in dangerous little everyday theatres” (Ferrell at al., 2008, p. 181). This combination provided a structure that allowed for an analysis of the underlying meaning of PnPs subcultural forms and activities, as well—in particular, PnPers’ “dangerous” performances through their online personal ads—and allowed for an exploration of the links between their performances and their histories. Presenting the Self Although not an ethnographer himself, Erving Goffman (1922-1982) was a sociologist who took great interest in human social interaction, focusing primarily on the face-to-face exchanges that occurred between individuals and groups. In his book, The Presentation o f Self in Everyday Life, Goffman (1959) used dramaturgy to both describe and explain these exchanges, and he provided detailed examples of the various techniques people used when attempting to control the impressions they made on others, which he referred to as a “performance.” Goffman’s work has several implications for

12

the study of crime and deviant subcultures. Indeed, Goffman’s thesis has been used to explain, for example, the self-presentation of female gang members in New York City (Campbell, 1987), African American lesbian gangs in an urban public high school district (Johnson, 2008); the yakuza gang members in Japan (Raz, 1992); and, online sexual deviance (e.g., Jenkins & Thomas, 2004; Jewkes, 2002). Researchers have also studied the presentations of those who engage in stigmatized behaviors such as drug use (e.g., Leary, Tchividijian & Kraxberger, 1994) and condomless sex (e.g., Nodin, Valera, Ventuneac, Maynard & Carballo-Dieguez, 2011; Poland & Holmes, 2009). Controlling impressions happens all the time and everywhere; through our presentations we seek to control the impressions given to others within and outside our cultural or subcultural groups. Controlling impressions is particularly important for deviant groups who seek to remain undetectable or hidden from rule enforcers, but distinguishable to others in the deviant group— gang tattoos (e.g., Phelan & Hunt, 1998) and gang symbols (e.g., U.S. National Institute of Justice, 1993) are good examples. Many who post anonymous drug- and sex-related messages also seek to control the impressions they give off to members of the conventional class and even law enforcement, but they still seek message responses from others. Thus, to control impressions, scripts emerge for the performance. Goffman (1959) explained that because impressions are scripted, the receiver of the impressions (i.e., the audience) would know how to react (individual variation aside, of course). For example, scripted performances mediate interactions within criminal enterprises, such as to control drug transactions

13

between buyers and sellers on the street, or between sex workers and their solicitors. They hope that others are unaware and uncertain of the activities. However, some performances also occur in the presence of potential audience members—for example, people who are present, but who are not the “knowing” receivers of impressions until either their interest in the performance is piqued or the performance is directed at them. Several scenarios come to mind: “gypsies” largely go unnoticed on the grounds of the Louvre, especially amongst “new” audience members (e.g., tourists), until someone cries, “thief!” People searching online ads such as those found on Craigslist may pay little or no attention to ads that mention drugs, until one day their interest is piqued by a photograph of an attractive poster. Performance Parts Goffman (1959) labeled each part of a performance using terms commonly associated with stagecraft. He started with “front,” which he conceived as the actual place in which the performer(s) and the audience meet, in other words, front defined the impression, and it dictated where and how the impression was made. Front also included all of the performer’s basic tools and techniques, the “expressive equipment of a standard kind” (Goffman, 1959, p. 22), which were used throughout. Front was split into “setting” (Goffman, 1959, p. 22), which signified all of the characteristics of the performer’s physical space (e.g., scenery, props, and other ornamentations), and “personal front” (p. 22), which denoted the personal characteristics of the performer (e.g., physical statistics such as height, weight, hair and eye color; as well as age, race, gender, pitch and diction of speech). According to Goffman, a

performer's setting was typically stationary in that it rarely followed the performer, unless he or she held some esteemed office and was thus not limited to one setting, or was a member of the “peddler class” of travelling performers who were too “profane” (p. 22) to have their own fixed setting. However, because people were naturally expected to adjust themselves according to the situation, personal front followed the performer “wherever he [went]” (p. 24). This perhaps explains how individuals can “front” a deviant or criminal lifestyle in one situation and a conventional life in another. Finally, personal front also consisted of “appearance” and “manner” (Goffman, 1959; p. 35). Appearance (as in, “keeping up appearances”) signified all of the traits that provided information about a person’s social status. This is very important among criminal subcultures in which personal appearance, such as wearing name brand clothes and expensive jewelry, having a particular car, or even carrying a gun, connotes power and deserving of respect (e.g., Anderson, 1994). Personal appearance also might convey that the performer was at work or at play; if at play, it would differentiate between that which was formal (e.g., participation in a national golf tournament) and informal (e.g., playing a round of golf with friends). A person’s manner, however, referred to the role that an individual wanted to be perceived as portraying—this included the roles that others understood or expected him/her to play in different situations and environments. For example, a haughty, aggressive manner may give the impression that the performer expects to be the one who will initiate the verbal interaction and direct its course. ... A meek apologetic manner may give the impression that the performer expects to follow the lead of others, or at least that he can be led to do so. (Goffman, 1959, p. 24)

15

Miller (1995) elaborates on Goffman’s (1959) description of appearance and manner, and states that people are constantly struggling to portray a manner that is “acceptable,” “entitled,” “morally ... unblemished,” and, possessing “certain kinds of expertise” (Miller, 1995, para. 4). He states, most of the time, we interact in a cosy [s/c] conspiracy in which it appears as if everyone knows what they are talking about, can remember the names of those who they're talking to, and has an appearance and presence which is pleasant and unexceptionable. In this sense, our “selves” are presented for the purpose of interacting with others, and are developed and maintained with the cooperation of others through the interaction. (Miller, 1995, para. 4) At first glance, Miller’s description paints a rather auspicious picture of pleasant people going about their lives imparting primarily positive impressions upon others. A careful read, though, reveals the truth about the pretentious quality of interactions that occurs when impressions, rather than relations, are prioritized. True, social interaction can often be made more pleasant by the manner in which the participants present themselves; however, pleasantries are not a required component of social interaction (nor are they always useful or desirable, such as the interactions of rival street gangs), and all presentations are not unexceptionable. Performance Teams Another way in which individuals interact and or cooperate with each other is when they band together as a “team” for the purpose of staging a specific type of performance or “routine” (Goffman, 1959, p. 85). Routines can range from the mundane (e.g., assembly line workers working in tandem) to the entertaining (e.g., a group of friends staging a surprise “going-away” party for another friend); and, as long as they do not rely too heavily on “other means . . . such as force or bargaining power” (p. 85), 16

routines can even involve less socially acceptable activities, such as the commission of crime (e.g., a jewelry heist, a prison escape, “gangbanging”) or the expression of deviant or criminal behaviors (e.g., drug, sex, conversion parties). Discrepant roles. Regardless of a team’s objective, Goffman (1959) believed that the camaraderie that often developed among team members allowed them to share and keep secrets. Thus, to Goffman, access was not so freely given to strangers as Geertz (1973) may have implied; rather, it could be “controlled . . . in order to prevent the audience from coming into a performance that [was] not addressed to them” (p. 238). Goffman referred to this type of nondisclosure, or concealment, as a “discrepant role” (p. 241), and he outlined the types of secrets that were held, as well as the reasons for such. Two that are germane to this thesis are “dark secrets” (p. 241), in which disclosure of such would disaffirm the appearance the team is trying to present, and “inside secrets” (p. 242), in which secret information known only to the team members is communicated for the sole purpose of identifying each other. In addition to its application among deviant subcultures, this particular type of group dynamic is also found in criminal enterprises such as gangs (e.g., Fong & Buentelo, 1991), drug traffickers (e.g., Maffei & MerzagoraBetsos, 2007), and even corrupt police units (e.g., Skolnick, 2002), where for instance, the omission of information is as important as its presence. Subcultures Unlike cultural studies, which has largely rejected grand theories of culture (e.g., Geertz, 1973; Spradley, 1973), subcultural theories have been created to explain many of the causal mechanisms leading to subcultural formation, in general (H.S. Becker, 1963;

17

Lemert, 1951; Hebdige, 1979), as well as to explain the behaviors or conditions associated with criminal and deviant subcultures, for instance, delinquency and opportunity among juvenile gang members (e.g., Cloward & Ohlin, 1960), gang violence (e.g., Miller, 1966; Ferracuti & Wolfgang, 1967), gang codes (Anderson, 1994), symbolism (Lerman, 1967), and illicit drug use (e.g., Golub, Johnson & Dulap, 2005; Gourley, 2004; Perrone, 2010). Given that subtle nuances can exist across definitions, subcultural theory building can be challenging in that even seemingly insignificant differences can alter a researcher’s understanding dramatically. Take for instance, Herzog, Mitchell, & Soccio’s (1999) description of subcultures: groups that are perceived to deviate from the normative standards of the dominant culture,. . . variously defined according to age, sexuality, and taste in economic, racial, and gendered terms. Subcultures are often positioned socially and analytically as disenfranchised, subordinate, subaltern, or subterranean. (Herzog et al., 1999, para. 2) Now, compare the above description to the definition constructed by Ferrell et al. (2008): [Subculture is]... clearly linked to the notion of culture developed within social and cultural anthropology—that subcultural responses can be thought of as jointly elaborated solutions to collectively experienced problems. Deviant behaviour is [thus] viewed as a meaningful attempt to solve the problems faced by an isolated or marginalized group, (p. 34) Although both definitions acknowledge deviance, only the second acknowledges the role of meaning as a motivating force behind deviant activity; the first simply refers to a deviation from a normative standard. Both raise the issue of unequal treatment, however, the first definition frames the activity within primarily political terms (i.e., disenfranchisement, subordination), while the second seems more far-reaching and allows for the inclusion of other forms of societal disaffection. Additionally, the second

18

definition offers hope in that it describes deviant behavior as an outward attempt at finding a solution to the problems associated with marginalization; this does not appear to be an option for the subcultures in the first. As with trying to define culture, it is simply not possible to attach a single definition to all subcultures, it is perhaps better to first look for their commonalities with respect to collectivized strife and the deviant quality of their actions. It is also important to consider other factors, such as their use of language, their ritualistic behaviors, and the factors that lead individuals away from the dominant subculture, such as labeling (e.g., Lemert, 1951; H.S. Becker, 1963), institutional segregation (e.g., H.S. Becker, 1963; Berger & Luckmann, 1966), and stigma (Goffman, 1959). Subcultural Language Certain criminologists stress that language denotes power (Hagan, 1989; Murray, 2006; Madoc-Jones & Parry, in press). And, Spradley (1973) stressed the importance of understanding the ways in which language was used to communicate cultural and subcultural knowledge. Indeed, Lerman (1967) proposed that groups that failed to “provide evidence of special language usage, however distinctive they may appear, could not be considered subcultures” (p. 211). This is perhaps most important for understanding subcultural communication (i.e., impressions), as subcultures tend to utilize language in deceptive, but creative ways. One way that language is used by subcultures is when it is spoken in an indirect or “tacit” manner (Spradley, 1973, p. 18). Even in situations where an ethnographer and his or her informant speak the same language, “semantic differences [nonetheless] exist” (p.

19

18) that can sometimes alter the meaning that is inferred. Spradley (1973) cites the following example: My informants referred to themselves and others like them as tramps; one topic of conversation was making a flop. I thought I understood these English words but I also recognized them as interesting words with slightly different usages. As the months passed, my tramp informants taught me more and more, helping me to understand the subtle meanings attached to these terms. It was as if they were leading me into a strange new world, (p. 18) Lerman (1967) acknowledged that difficulties might arise when trying to establish criteria that could distinguish standard (i.e., mainstream) from non-standard (i.e., subcultural) language; one such difficulty was related to the tendency for “yesterday’s deviant speech [to become] today’s ‘standard’ vocabulary” (p. 210). He articulated three forms of deviant speech: colloquialisms, jargon, and argot. Argot referred to the language of deviant groups who were “legally proscribed” (p. 211), such as gang members, burglars, and drug users. When used by drug users and drug subcultures, argots function primarily to “maintain secrecy so as to hide subculture communications from outsiders” (Johnson, Bardhi, Sifanek & Dunlap, 2006, p. 46), especially law enforcement. Furthermore, the “words or terms themselves—constitute important verbal threads that effectively connect participants” (p. 46). In fact, in their study of a marijuana subculture in New York City, Johnson, et al. (2006) held that even the words and terms that comprise the argots of a drug subculture are, in effect, “symbols that are highly expressive of how participants feel and think about [drug] use” (p. 46). Moreover, these symbols “describe the rituals and conduct norms that define . . . and constitute . . . the subculture” (p. 46) itself. These

20

symbols give meaning to their deviance or criminality. Thus, to subcultures such as these, breaking the law is more than breaking the law—it is purposive and expressive. Language not only functions as a mechanism by which members of a subculture can communicate with one another, it is also important for criminal justice policies such as delinquency prevention programs, drug prevention programs, and gang intervention and/or prevention programs (Milanovic, 1997). Such programs need to be crafted using language that will reach participants, which means that the policies need to be both credible and comprehensible. If the language is perceived as elitist or as coming from law enforcement or others who are thought to not understand the population they seek to reach, the possibility exists that the policy will be ignored (Marlatt, 1996). For example, one policy that stresses the importance of language—harm reduction—is described as “a ‘bottom-up’ approach based on addict advocacy (rather than a ‘topdown’ policy established by addiction professionals; Marlatt, 1996, p. 779). In fact, harm reduction instructs those in need to “come as you are” (Marlatt, 1996). Rituals When imagining rituals or ritualistic states, there is a tendency to equate them with religion; however, Kreinath (2005) states, “rituals cannot be related primarily or exclusively to religion, insofar as religion is considered a system of symbols or a web (or texture) of meaning” (p. 101). Kreinath cited the work of cultural theorists during the 1970s, many of who challenged the previously held notions of rituals. One of these theorists was Geertz (1973), who reconceptualized ritual as the symbolic fusion between

21

a person’s “underlying attitude towards themselves” (p. 127) and the way they believe things truly are—“their concepts of nature . . . self. . . and society” (p. 127). Geertz (1973) also described rituals as the manifestations of “cultural performances” (p. 13), in which the performer experiences the convergence of his- or herself and the world. This description obviously expands the previously held religiousbased notion. To Geertz, religion encouraged suffering, thus, the only way in which people could endure such “a type of anxiety or unease” (p. 104) was through ritual. It follows then, that people who are induced to suffer, for example, through a stigmatizing experience perpetrated by a dominant culture, or by the failure of that culture to provide them with institutional protections, might also engage in the practice of ritual to alleviate the associated pain of such an experience. H.S. Becker (1963) stated, “since the activities of homosexuals, drug addicts, and criminals take place without benefit of institutionally locked doors or guarded gates, they must devise other means to keep them hidden” (p. 169). Those who engage in behaviors that are not culturally sanctioned may even have to resort to clandestine measures in order to ensure their safety when performing rituals. This is also common with gangs, drug dealers, members of organized crime syndicates, and even automobile thieves (e.g., R.T. Wright & Decker, 1994; Decker & van Vinkle, 1996). Subcultural secrecy serves an additional function: it protects the subculture from being found out, stigmatized, and punished. In this regard, Hebdige (1979) suggested that consumption was yet another ritual employed to alleviate collectivized suffering, and he held that much of the secrecy of a subculture lies in its consumption of style (Hebdige,

22

1979). Hebdige did not use the word “style” in the popular sense. Rather, most of Hebdige’s writings on the subject concerned the processes “whereby [any] object [is] made to mean . . . again as style [emphasis added]” (p. 3). Hebdige continues, we are intrigued by the most mundane objects - a safety pin, a pointed shoe, a motor cycle - which, none the less [sic]... take on a symbolic dimension, becoming a form of stigmata, tokens of a self-imposed exile.... for those who erect them into icons, who use them as words or as curses, these objects become signs of forbidden identity, sources of value, (p. 3) Hebdige (1979) argued that through a subculture’s deviant actions, appropriation of cultural signs, and “distinctive rituals of consumption, through style” the subculture reveals its ‘secret’ identity and communicates its forbidden meanings” (p. 103). He believed that even “the most taken-for-granted phenomena can function as signs” (p. 13) of the meanings of the subculture. He also suggested that subcultural expression began with the rebellious act of re-appropriating one or more of these signs, which he held led to the creation of systems of meaning that were, charged with a potentially explosive significance because they are traced and re­ traced along the lines laid down by the dominant discourses about reality, the dominant ideologies. They thus tend to represent, in however obscure and contradictory a fashion, the interests of the dominant groups in society. (Hebdige, 1979, p. 15) Cultural criminologists such as Hayward (2004) and Ferrell, et al. (2008) remind criminologists that the consumption of such things as drugs or space (e.g., homeless persons sleeping on park benches) has meaning for “offenders.” Thus, in order to understand subculture, we should focus less on the subculture itself (and certainly not on the subculture alone), and more on the negative discourses that arise over the defining— and redefining—of these “mundane objects.”

23

Deviant Behavior Subcultural theorists have often attributed the deviant behaviors of subcultures to the effects of “labeling” (e.g., Lemert, 1951; H.S. Becker, 1963). While these theories may seem unrelated to subculture, they have vast implications for explaining subcultural migration in that they provide an important link: subcultures are comprised of individuals who commit deviant acts even prior to their identification with a subculture. And yet, the members of subcultures usually do not have a role in the construction of the rules that define their actions as such (e.g., H.S. Becker, 1963; Berger & Luckmann, 1966). These theories also help us to understand what happens to subcultures that are labeled deviant or criminal and that are heavily policed, medicalized, and/or ostracized. H.S. Becker (1963), himself a sociologist, criticized sociology’s view of deviance as being mistakenly concerned with the individual when it asked, “Who breaks rules?” (p. 8). He argued that the source of deviancy was most likely society itself. To Becker, society labeled deviant behavior, the “deviant” merely wore the label by which he was subsequently judged. Becker stressed that the “judgers” (e.g., the law, the mainstream) entrenched the deviant in deviant behavior (cf., Braithwaite, 1993), and some experience “institutional segregation” (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 80)—or, being “isolated or marginalized” by societal institutions (Ferrell et al., 2008, p. 34). An extensive body of research describes the additional consequences of the formal and informal sanctioning of deviant behavior (as distinct from criminal behavior; e.g., H.S. Becker, 1963; Spitzer, 1977; Wacquant, 2008).

24

H.S. Becker (1963) was also one of the first to suggest that individuals who shared a common bond of deviance had a tendency to band together. In his book, “Outsiders,” Becker detailed three such groups: marijuana users, dance musicians, and homosexuals. Berger and Luckmann (1966) also explained how the ostracizing of whole groups of people could eventually lead to their forming a “sub-universe” (p. 104), complete with its own values and norms. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that the constant fear of being excluded or “cast out” of society would eventually (if not immediately) affect the quality of a person’s relationship with society. This, in turn, could alter his or her willingness to commit to society’s rules. In addition to the fear of exclusion, the actual isolation and segregation experienced, for example, by residents of the inner-city (as a result of economic deprivation) gives rise to this lack of commitment (e.g., Anderson, 1993; Sampson & Wilson, 2003). In other words, when individuals do not have a conventional commitment to society, they will not be otherwise assuaged from acting on unconventional impulses to break its rules (H.S. Becker, 1963). Similarly, Berger and Luckmann (1966) alleged that an individual’s willingness to conform to social norms was predicated on his or her level of involvement in the construction of those norms. Yet, laws and norms are often made against a group to separate or to identify the acceptable (e.g., criminalization of gay sex, criminalization of drug use, criminalization of drug-using mothers). This new generation of discontents was theorized to pose “problem(s) of compliance,” which, in turn, justified “the establishment of sanctions” (Berger and Luckmann, 1966, p. 80; see also Spitzer, 1977).

25

Stigma Whereas Becker focused on the process of labeling, Goffman (1959) concentrated on the effects of labeling in general, including the effects of labels associated with attributes that were out of a person’s control (e.g., disease, disfigurement, race, gender, sexual orientation). Goffman held that these types of labels not only changed a person’s self-conception; they risked damaging his or her total identity. Such stigma could lead to deviance or a variety of other consequences. In his book, “Stigma,” Goffman (1963) explains that individuals who possess an undesirable attribute, for example, a moral “failing,” are often “reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one” (p. 11). This occurs even within subcultures, for instance, when drug users consider their usage to be moderated while perceiving others as using too much (e.g., Perrone, 2010), or when shoplifters judge those who steal from “Mom and Pop” stores (e.g., Weaver & Carroll, 1985). Regardless of whether that person truly possesses such an attribute, the assumptions others make about them (i.e., their “virtual identity’) and the attributes the individual believes he or she truly possesses (i.e., their “actual identity”) must agree, otherwise stigma can occur, especially if others discover the actual stigma immediately (Goffman, 1963). Yet, even if others did not discover the stigma immediately, it could still result in the self-perception that one would be discreditable in the event anyone were to ever discover it (Neale, Nettleton, & Pickering, 2011). A stigma, then, is any attribute that has a discrediting effect.

26

Although Goffman (1963) did not elaborate, he expressed particular concern when a stigma defined the relationship between attribute and stereotype. Goffman detailed three types of stigma, the first two of which are germane to this thesis. The first, “abominations of the body,” refers to physical deformities; however, this category includes all conditions of health, seen and unseen. Next are “deformities of character,” such as when a person was thought to have a “weak will” or “unnatural passions” (p. 13); Goffman listed “traits” such as drug addiction or homosexuality in association with these deformities. Last was the “tribal stigma of race, nation, and religion” (p. 13), which Goffman held was “transmitted through lineages and equally contaminate[d] all members of a family” (p. 13). Goffman continued, [i]n all of these various instances of stigma, however, including those the Greeks had in mind, the same sociological features are found; an individual who might have been received easily in ordinary social intercourse possesses a trait that can obtrude itself upon attention and turn those of us whom he meets away from him, breaking the claim that his other attributes have on us. He possesses a stigma, an undesired differentness from what we had anticipated, (p. 13-14) When stigma is attributed to “abominations of the body” a spoiled identity can emerge. Goffman (1963) believed that individuals who were at risk of disease, or who had health problems, could experience stigma related to feelings that their identity—who they were as a person—had been “tainted” (p. 11), and were thus spoiled. If left untreated, this spoiled identity could result in a more “totalizing spoiled identity” for some (Neale et al., 2011, p. 5; see also Bunton & Nettleton, 1995), such as the mainstream belief of “once a criminal, always a criminal,” or “once an addict, always an addict.”

27

Given the fact that Goffman (1963) never actually defined “spoiled identity,” there has been some confusion over how to conceptualize a “totalizing” spoiled identity (Neale et al. 2011). Neale et al. (2011) contended that, first, people who are stigmatized cannot be separated from the seemingly non-stigmatized, because, “all individuals have some experience of one sort of stigma or another and nobody can be perfectly ‘normal’” (p. 5). Second, they point to Goffman’s (1963) assertion that, “the issue [is] not whether a person has experience with a stigma of his own, because he has, but rather how many varieties he has had his own experience with” (p. 154). A totalizing spoiled identity, then, refers to how many “aspects of their social identity—that is aspects of the multiplicity of selves they present to the world—can be damaged or discredited at particular moments and in particular situations” (Neale et al., 2011, p. 5). Stigma and spoiled identities can be created and perpetuated through health promotion and prevention program if social inequities, subcultural language, norms, and rituals are not considered. Bunton and Nettleton (1995) explain that social inequities are rarely considered when designing campaigns intended to encourage healthy living. In fact, they found that the designers of such campaigns were often, “white, middle class, and . . . work[ed] within sexist, racist and homophobic value systems” (p. 45). Stigma and substance use. According to Neale et al. (2011), those who drink and use drugs can also perceive themselves as having a “spoiled identity.” Difficulties in moderating usage or maintaining abstinence can create the potential for the identities of these individuals to be totally and irretrievably spoiled; alcohol and drug usage can indeed affect all areas of a person’s identity.

28

Interestingly, in a process similar to the way in which health promotion is stigmatizing, the institutions and organizations that avail themselves to persons for whom alcohol and/or drug use have become problematic impart the same type of stigma on users and drinkers. The experience of those who attend 12-Step programs such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Narcotics Anonymous (NA), and Crystal Meth Anonymous (CMA) might attest to this: no matter how long an individual maintains sobriety, if, for some reason, they relapse (i.e., the individual has an alcoholic drink, or uses an illicit drug), they must re-identify as a newcomer. Additionally, members are given books and other materials that reinforce the “once-an-addict-always-an-addict” mentality: Sure enough, one [drink] would not be [a problem]— for the average person. But our experience with a drinking problem shows us what one supposedly harmless, fateful drink would do to us unaverage [sfc] people. Sooner or later, it would persuade us that one more could do no damage, either. Then how about a couple more? (Alcoholics Anonymous, 1975, p. 43) Thus, no matter how long an individual abstains from alcohol or drugs, and despite how successful they are at restoring their once-spoiled identity; one drink or one hit of a drug will always lead to two drinks or two hits of a drug. Harm Reduction/Risk Negotiation One method of addressing drug use and addiction—harm reduction— seeks to move away from the traditional stigmatizing notions that drug use is immoral, criminal, or that addiction is the result of disease (Marlatt, 1996). Currently, the majority of substance use programs and services in the U.S. (e.g., 12-Step programs) are “highthreshold” programs (Marlatt, 2012, p. 364), meaning that complete abstinence is the

29

desired outcome. Although the harm reduction movement acknowledges “abstinence as an [emphasis added] ideal outcome” (Markham, 1996, p. 779), it also promotes “lowthreshold” (p. 299) approaches, such as moderation or harm reduction in itself as effective alternatives. As previously noted, harm reduction sets out to initiate an approach that is based on a “bottom-up” (p. 779) approach, in other words, addicts and users acted as advocates for other addicts and users, while striving to move away from “top-down” (p. 779) policies that were devised by addiction, behavioral health, and law enforcement professionals. There is even evidence that these approaches, though still highly controversial, are gaining popularity worldwide; indeed, several international agencies “have all recently recommended comprehensive harm reduction packages affecting policy, prevention, intervention, community-based education, and advocacy efforts” (Marlatt, 2012, p. 5). Gav Culture As with other dominant mainstream cultures, LGBTQ mainstream culture is characterized by a diverse membership of people of all ages and from all walks of life: class, creed, ethnicity, nationality, race, religion, and political affiliation. Even multiple genders are recognized. These categories are further broken down into belief systems, mores, tastes, and values that are unique to each person. Though some still regard the general community of gay men as a subculture of the hetero-normative American mainstream, in his book, The Culture o f Desire, Frank Browning (1993) suggests that, towards the late twentieth century an actual gay urban

30

culture, “comparable to other ethnic and racial cultures—black, Jewish, Latin, Asian” (p. 1), had begun to surface. He describes the impetus for this movement as stemming from generations of gay men who had witnessed firsthand, “the unwinding and reformulation of gender, the dissolution and reconstruction of the family . . . and an emerging reconciliation with death” (p. 1). This movement has been pushed forward, halted, weakened and invigorated as gays and lesbians and their sexual behaviors were criminalized through legislation, medicalized by the public health and mental health sciences, and marginalized by the mainstream. Criminalizing Homosexuals Hall (2003) states that, “throughout history . . . queers of various sorts have existed,” and . . . they have often been “individuals who have challenged openly or simply lived abrasively toward notions of the sexual and social norm” (p. 21). Historically, these sexual and social norms have even led to the criminalization of several behaviors—sexual and nonsexual—associated with being gay. According to Bernstein (2003), [i]n 1960 every state in the United States had a sodomy law that banned certain consensual sex acts between adults in private. In addition to anal sex, the sodomy statutes, either by express statutory language or judicial interpretation, generally prohibited any oral-genital contact, (p. 353). Until the 1960s, sodomy laws “facially applied to both heterosexuals and homosexual, although the targets of prosecutions were usually homosexuals . . . and judicial construction of the apparently gender-neutral statutes was often targeted at homosexuals” (Fradella, 2002, p. 281). The sexual revolution of the 1960s and 1970s, however, caused a number of U.S. states to modify their sodomy laws to decriminalize 31

heterosexual acts of oral or anal sex between consenting adults, thereby leaving sodomy laws applicable only to same-sex acts (e.g., Eskridge, 1997; Fradella, 2002). Thus, these laws establish gay men and lesbians as a legally distinct “other.” Gay sexuality is proscribed as criminal whereas similar conduct between heterosexuals is permitted. Thus, whereas the woman who performs fellatio is expressing herself sexually, the man who performs fellatio is a felon, subject to fines and imprisonment. By their clear text, these statutes set up gay men and lesbians as a criminal class. (Leslie, 2000,p. I l l ) The U.S. Supreme Court reinforced the stigma associated with LGBTQ sexuality when it upheld the constitutionality of sodomy laws over a due process, privacy-based challenge in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986). In doing so, the Court relied on the long history of legal prohibitions against sodomy, stemming from Biblical times through the 1960s. But this focus on history to limit fundamental rights was widely criticized by scholars (e.g., Eskridge, 1997; Fradella, 2002; Leslie, 2000). Indeed, the editors of the Harvard Law Review (1986) deconstructed the logic of Bowers in this way: Relying on history involves a value choice in that the Court selects which history it will base its decision on. The Court could have decided to rely on recent history: for example, a majority of states no longer outlaw sodomy, and homosexual leaders now occupy prominent positions in local, state, and federal elective office. The historic persecution of homosexuals should not have been used to deter the current societal trend of recognizing that individuals have a fundamental right to define their own sexual identities. Such reliance on past discrimination to justify future discrimination harkens back to the days when historical tradition was used to justify long since condemned laws supporting slavery and the so-called separate but equal treatment of blacks, (pp. 218-219) Bowers’ stigmatizing effects on LGBTQ sexuality remained good law in the United States until it was overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Lawrence held that all sodomy laws targeting private sexual acts between

32

consenting adults were unconstitutional. Between the time that Bowers and Lawrence were decided, 11 states had decriminalized sodomy (Fradella, 2003). Still, 14 states continued to have criminal statutes outlawing sodomy at the time Lawrence was decided, some of which continued to refer to the crime by such terms as “buggery” and the “infamous crime against nature” (Fradella, 2003). Sodomy laws, which were intended to prohibit “nonprocreative [sz'c] sexual activity,” have instead been used to arrest gay men in “undercover sting operations in gay bars and cruising places, as well as in hotel rooms and their own bedrooms” (Gay & Lesbian Pacific Archives of the Northwest, n.d., p. 355). Indeed, the Supreme Court held that such laws imposed a stigma upon gay men that was not “trivial” (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003, p. 560) and thus made a ruling in favor of due process rather than equal protection, because “its stigma might remain even if it were not enforceable as drawn for equal protection reasons” (p. 575). Indeed, the Lawrence decision noted that sodomy laws “have more far-reaching consequences” than merely criminalizing particular sex acts; rather, they touch “upon the most private human conduct, sexual behavior, and in the most private of places, the home,” and, in doing so, “seek to control a personal relationship that. . . is within the liberty of persons to choose without being punished as criminals” (p. 567). Notably, Lawrence did not eliminate the stigma associated with LBGTQ sex. “The Court could have clearly announced that the right of consenting adults to engage in private, sexual acts was a fundamental right—a decision so private that is should generally be beyond the regulation of the government,” but it did not do so (Fradella,

33

2003, p. 603). This failure has palpable consequences for LGBTQ people. Indeed, Fradella (2003) predicted that the continued refusal of the Supreme Court to put discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation on the same level as gender or racial discrimination may result in far more defeats for gay rights cases in the future since the lowest form of judicial scrutiny, the rational basis test, may continue to be used for years to come in both Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause gay rights litigation, (p. 606) Sadly, this has been the case, as evidenced by judicial decisions concerning samesex marriage, child custody placements, and the validity of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” before its repeal (e.g., Eskridge, 2004). Consider, for example, that in spite of Lawrence, the U.S. Code of Military Justice still criminalizes sodomy under certain circumstances {United States v. Marcum, 2004) and a handful of states, such as Virginia, Oklahoma, and North Carolina, have attempted to preserve criminal punishments for acts of sodomy by arguing that these acts, such as acts of oral sex between minors, lie beyond the mandates of Lawrence (Allender, 2009). Criminalization of HIV transmission. The criminalization of LGBTQ sexuality took another form in the wake of HIV/AIDS. By 2010, 36 states had criminalized the transmission of HIV; as a result, at least 80 “HIV-positive people have been arrested and/or prosecuted for consensual sex, biting, and [even] spitting” (The Center for HIV Law & Policy, 2010, para. 1; see also Galletly & Pinkerton, 2004; Kaplan, 2012). Kaplan (2012) notes, “Since the onset of the AIDS epidemic, the very idea of HIV has shaken Americans’ sense of security and fostered deep fear and distrust of people with HIV” (p. 2). As a result, dozens of state legislatures were invariably pressured to enact legislation that “protects” the “partners of HIV-positive individuals by punishing those 34

who know their HIV-positive status but do not disclose it to potential partners” (p. 3). According to Waldman (2010), some states have used their current penal statutes to criminalize transmission (e.g., aggravated assault); however, “others have created a separate crime of intentional HIV exposure, passed statutes that enhance criminal penalties when someone who is HIV-positive commits a crime, or applied general sexually transmitted infection statutes to HIV exposure” (pp. 553-554). Burris, Beletsky, Burleson, Case and Lazzarini (2007) point out that the supporters of such laws argue that, for persons who are aware that they are HIV-positive, exposing others is “indefensible conduct. . . negligent at best and homicidal at worst” (p. 40); and that punishing these individuals well deter others from engaging in similar behavior. Ironically, this does not appear to be the case. Interestingly, in their study of those who were either HIV-positive, or who were at risk for HIV infection (e.g., MSM, injection drug users), Burris et al. (2007) concluded that these laws did not seem to influence sexual behavior for individuals residing in states that criminalized transmission. In fact, they found that such laws could, in fact, hamper the task of public health administrators because they could either stigmatize HIV positive individuals into seeking out anonymous sexual encounters (in which they are not pressured to disclose), or, they could elicit fear of stigmatization in those who may have been infected such that they avoid seeking assistance from law enforcement (Burris et al., 2007; see also Frost, Parsons & Nanrn, 2007). These fears are echoed by others, including former and current heads of state, who hold that such policies are ultimately ineffective, and “a costly distraction from programs that we know work—programs such

as effective prevention, protection against discrimination, reducing stigma . . . and providing access to testing and treatment” (Cameron, 2009, p. 63). Others contend that HIV criminalization laws are not narrowly defined enough, nor do they take into consideration the wealth of knowledge surrounding HIV (e.g., Cameron, 2009; Kaplan, 2012), such as advances in HIV drugs (e.g., Smith, 2012) or pre-exposure (PrEP) and post-exposure (PEP) treatments (e.g., Landovitz et al., 2012). Medicalizing and Pathologizing Homosexuals In their landmark book, Deviance and Medicalization, Conrad and Schneider (1992) reveal the historic process whereby the simultaneous criminalization, pathologizing, and medicalization of homosexuality, while seemingly “contradictory,” gave “rise to [the] dominance of different institutions of social control” (p. 182). In particular, they detail how one such institution—psychiatry—came to dominate the “definition and treatment of this ‘condition’” (p. 185). In fact, the first edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) categorized homosexuals as sexual deviants whose “condition” fell under “the more general psychiatric category ‘Sociopathic Personality Disturbance’” (Conrad & Schneider, 1992, p. 193). Diagnoses often led to “treatments” that included “hormone therapy, aversive conditioning using electric shock and drugs, electroshock therapy, lobotomy, and ‘therapeutic castration’” (Katz, 1976, pp. 129-207). Unlike the pathologizing of other deviants, such as “alcoholics” or those addicted to drugs, “it appears that only in the case of homosexuality do we find a clear challenge to basic assumptions of the medical model itself’ (Conrad & Schneider, 1992, p. 193).

36

Indeed, some physicians began discussing homosexuality as a “congenital (inborn) pathology” (p. 193); others held that it was congenital, but that its expression was the result of pathology. Still others in the medical establishment and additional disciplines spoke openly against the continued medicalizing and pathologizing of homosexuality. British psychiatrist Alfred C. Kinsey (1948), after conducting a sexuality study of over 10,000 men and women, concluded that departures from sexual norms (such as homosexuality and bisexuality) were not symptomatic of “neurosis or psychosis” (p. 201). Conrad and Schneider (1992) point out that, “rather than being ‘objective’ bystanders,” historically, many sociologists were “active participants” in the challenging of designations of deviance (p. 274); certainly, H.S. Becker’s (1963) description of the mid-twentieth-century homosexual is one example. As well, anthropologists such as Devereaux and Malinowski questioned the abnormality of homosexuality on the grounds that its existence in social life was perhaps more normal than had been previously thought (as cited in Conrad & Schneider, 1992). Then, in 1956, clinical psychologist Evelyn Hooker (1957) released the results of her study in which she presented a panel of psychiatrists with two groups of men: one comprised of homosexuals and the other comprised of heterosexual controls. The panel was unable to definitively tell the difference between the two groups. Studies such as Hooker’s contributed greatly to the eventual decriminalization of homosexuality in both England and the United States, as evidenced by England’s Wolfenden Report (1963) and the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, and were instrumental in paving the

37

way for the eventual declassification of homosexuality by the APA in 1974. Nonetheless, the memory of such policies left an indelible imprint on how others viewed gays, which continues to affect how gays see themselves [(e.g., internalized homophobia) see Herek, 2004], Moreover, reparative therapy for homosexuals continues to be administered throughout the United States. California is the only state that bans gayrepair therapy for minors (Buchanan, 2012). Re-medicalization. Several years after the de-medicalization of homosexuality, gay men once again felt the effects of institutionalized medicine; however, this time it came in the form of a physical diagnosis: HIV positive. Not long after the discovery of the HIV virus, the first antibody test—the Western Blot—was developed. With this test, gay men were assigned to one of two hierarchal statuses: positive or negative. Out of these new identities, discriminatory language such as “clean,” “healthy,” and “safe” was used by HIV-seronegative men to describe themselves to potential partners (Botnick, 2000, p. 62-63); conversely, HIV-seropositive men were regarded as “dirty,” “infected,” or “unsafe.” In addition to the stigma felt and perceived by outsiders, now there was a new source of stigma: the gay community itself. Surprisingly, Adam et al. (2011) concluded from a qualitative study that seronegative men were neither aware of HIV-related stigmatizing behavior within the gay community, nor were they aware of the effects of such behavior on seropositive men (as well as on men who were uncertain of their serostatus, but who were fearful due to their sexual activities). Furthermore, they reported that many in the survey agreed that there was not enough dialogue in the

community to ensure greater awareness of the fact that HIV-seronegative men stigmatize HIV-seropositive men. Ironically, a significant source of stigma—for both HIV-seronegative and HIVseropositive men alike—was (and is) found in the ubiquitous messages that are intended to promote physical and mental health—through safe sex and a drug-free lifestyle. In much the same way an anti-drunk driving ad depicting an empty wheelchair can stigmatize those who must use wheelchairs (Wang, 1992), safe sex ads that prey upon gay men’s feelings of guilt, or that try to frighten them into a more health-conscious way of living can often stigmatize them, regardless of their HIV serostatus. One ad, in particular, features the image of an HIV virus particle with a gift tag attached that reads, “To: Adam, From: Eric.” At the bottom of the ad reads a simple but terrifying message: “Nobody wants to get HIV” (Quebec Ministere de la Sante et des Services sociaux, 2007). The push for condom usage in the wake of the AIDS epidemic was perhaps also stigmatizing for gay men. According to Botnick (2000), condoms were only intended to be a “stopgap measure” (p. 52) until a better solution came along; instead, ASOs resorted to “good fag/bad fag” (p. 52) scare tactics, such as maintaining a “high risk” warning on sexual acts that other countries had only considered risks in theory (e.g., oral sex without a condom). Still, ASOs continued to try to “scare the shit out of gay men” (Botnick, 2000, p. 52) by increasing the rhetoric in safe sex advertising. In his book, Bearing Witness, Philip Kayal (1993) echoes this sentiment:

39

The idea that gay men would readily adapt to condoms, ignore or fail to recognize their limitations—indeed, according to many educators, have fun with them—and feel shame and guilt for not using them is rooted in homophobia. Homophobia lies in the feelings, often unconscious or unspoken, that gay sexuality is not ‘real’ sexuality, that it is not humanly important, and, not uncommonly, that it probably should not be going on anyway, (p. 3) Interestingly, despite the efforts that had been poured into these types of safe sex promotions, there was overwhelming evidence that gay men had begun to “relapse” (i.e., they had stopped using condoms), and that seroconversions were actually on the rise (Botnick, 2000). Internalized homophobia. Epstein (1987) notes that, while homosexual acts occur throughout the world, they are nonetheless “socially threatening” such that, “a special stigmatized category of individuals is created so as to keep the rest of society pure” (p. 16). He cites McIntosh’s (1968) work on the homosexual role, in which she stated that, for homosexuals, a “clear-cut, publicized and recognizable threshold is immediately threatened with being labeled a full-fledged deviant: one of ‘them’” (p. 182). Epstein (1987) thus holds that a person identifies as homosexual, not because of the sexual acts in which they engage (Lemert’s primary deviance), but rather in reaction to their having been described thusly, as well as “through the internalization of the imposed categorization (‘secondary deviance’)” (p. 16). Consistent with H.S. Becker (1963) and Lemert’s (1951) assertion that deviance precedes subcultural identification, Meyer (1995) holds that the same type of process also occurs with homosexuals during their self-realization process. Meyer describes internalized homophobia as the “direction of societal negative [anti-homosexual] attitudes toward the self,” and holds that these attitudes are often internalized “long 40

before [a person] begin[s] to realize their own homosexuality” (p. 40). Subsequent to the first signs of same-sex attraction, yet before “coming out,” a process of self-labeling occurs—similar to that in which some people are labeled as mentally ill— in which “roletaking abilities enable individuals to view themselves from the imagined [negative] perspective of others” (p. 40). This affects the otherwise healthy sexual adaptation of individuals, and can also manifest as a form of “secondary deviance” (p. 40) that is often characterized by harmful mental health issues. In addition to stress, the individual is often plagued by “self-hate, ingroup [s/c] aggression, and/or extroverted mechanisms, including shyness, obsessive concern with the stigmatizing characteristic, and rebellion” (p. 40). Marginalizing Homosexuals In the U.S., over the past three decades, the LGBTQ community has also challenged societal norms by fighting for the reversal of laws that have legalized discrimination; by appealing the reversal or removal of marriage rights at the city, state, and federal level; and, by successfully overturning the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy banning gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military service (10 U.S.C. § 654 [1994]; also see Drescher, 2012; Klarman, 2012). Still, homosexuals do not have the same rights and legal protections throughout the United States. Same-sex marriage is legal in Washington, D.C. and only 8 of the 50 states. A same-sex partner who is not receiving Medicare or Medicaid is able to receive hospital visits from his or her partner in only 24 states and Washington, D.C. Same-sex couples can jointly adopt a child in Washington, D.C. and 18 states. Only D.C. and 19 of the 50

41

states prohibit employment and housing discrimination based sexual orientation and specifically forbid discrimination and bullying based on sexual orientation in elementary and high schools (Guardian, May 8, 2012). Throughout the U.S., many in the LGBTQ community continue to experience discrimination, harassment, inequality and marginalization. Gav Signs and Symbols Ever since the beginning of the gay liberation movement, activists have declaimed on how homosexual people must [nonetheless] invent their own lives, fabricate their own families, [and] stylize anew the rituals of mateship. These are the acts of counterconstruction, rebellions in which style is integral to action and performance. (Browning, 1993, p. 68) Hebdige (1979) explains that subcultural groups tend to re-appropriate signs, symbols and styles to resist the attempts to criminalize, marginalize, and pathologize. Culture is inextricably intertwined with its signs and symbols (Geertz, 1973), and throughout history, homosexuals have, in fact, invented and counter-constructed several signs from various dominant cultures. Some examples of these are the pink triangle, (reappropriated from the pink triangle that was sewn to the clothing of homosexual concentration camp internees), the lambda (“X” [adopted by the Gay Activists Alliance in 1970’s New York City and worn as a lapel pin or silkscreened onto t-shirts), and the familiar rainbow “freedom flag” (now officially recognized by the International Congress of Flag Makers; Gage, Richards & Wilmot, 2002). Gav “sign” language. Similar to visible signs, Berger & Luckmann (1966) held that spoken language is also a sign; in fact, they described language as a “series of vocal [emphasis added] signs . . . with the explicit intention [of serving] as an index of 42

subjective meaning” (p. 50). Many groups have used language in this regard, including homosexuals. Indeed, according to Sonenschein (1969), homosexuals were actually "bilingual" (p. 282) in the sense that their decision to use slang or “Everyday English" (p. 282) was dependent upon whether the individuals or environments concerned were also homosexual. This is typical of subcultures, as discussed by H.S. Becker (1963) and Johnson, et al. (2006), for instance, when referring to the subcultural argots employed by marijuana users. Sonenschein, however, held that homosexuals employed their language not to communicate about the physical act of sex, but rather, to communicate about homosexual “social and sexual relationships [emphasis added]” (p. 284), and he postulated several processes of “verbal distinctions” (p. 282) that were characteristic of the language itself. The first, “effeminization” (p. 283), referred to the manner in which a homosexual gay man affected the style of vocal delivery, such as using a lisp, to present himself as more feminine. The second, “utilization” (p. 283), occurred when homosexuals borrowed the slang terms of other groups, but kept the “form and meaning” (p. 283) intact. An example of this would be the term “Miss Thing” (Urbandictionary, n.d.), which originated as a term used by black women, but that is now utilized by gay men. The third, “redirection” (Sonenschein, 1969, p. 283), was similar to utilization, except that the meaning of a word was changed from a heterosexual to a homosexual import. The last, “invention” (p. 284) referred to the practice of giving words “new and unique meaning[s], the use of which in a slang sense was not to be found outside the homosexual circle” (p. 284). A good example of this would be the word “drag” (as in “drag queen”).

43

Gay men have also used items such as an earring in their right ear to signify their sexual orientation (Adams, 2011) or colored handkerchiefs to communicate their sexual preferences (e.g., Kates, 2002; Kulick, 2000), both of which originated in the 1970s [interestingly, the use of an earring in either ear has since been coopted by the heterosexual mainstream culture such that a single earing in any ear has meant nothing for many years now (R. Becker, 2006)]. The counterconstruction of cultural signs such as the earrings, handkerchiefs, the pink triangle, the lambda, and the freedom flag, as well as the re-invention of language through the processes described by Sonenschein (1969) are all indicative of the homosexual “struggle” for signification or “possession” (Hebdige, 1979, p. 17) of the heterosexual mainstream’s signs (i.e., language). Hebdige likened this to signs being “stolen” and then used in such a manner as to construe a secret meanings. According to Hebdige, this struggle is a form of resistance “to the order which guarantee[d]. . . continued subordination” (p. 18). Yet, while this reappropriation of signs may, indeed, grant the subculture power, these signs can also keep them subordinated from the mainstream. This is not only a phenomenon that occurs within the LGBTQ community, such as when an automobile is vandalized because it bears a “rainbow flag” bumper sticker, but also among criminal groups such as gangs, whose use of dress and tattoos identifies them more readily to the outsider. Symbolic language has also been a source of invention among gay men. In their study of the inner-city gay dance culture in Sydney, Australia, Lewis and Ross (1995) spent a considerable amount of time analyzing party patron interviews in an effort to decode their use of symbolic language. Although largely searching for the meanings of

argots related to sex, Lewis and Ross discovered that the argots served a “number of significant functions” (p. 162). For instance, they found that body image was used most often, and that, by using their “sculpted bodies as . . . mirror[s]” (p. 171), party patrons were able to convey their preference in sexual partners. In his book, Behavior in Public Places, Goffman (1966) states, when individuals come into one another’s immediate presence in circumstances where no spoken communication is called for, they none the less inevitably engage one another in communication of a sort, for in all situations, significance is ascribed to certain matters that are not necessarily connected with particular verbal communications. These comprise bodily appearance and physical acts: dress, bearing, movement and position, sound level, physical gestures, (p. 33) This is perhaps similar to the ways in which gang members use their bodies—tattoos, hair styles, even the way they stand to signal to other gang members (e.g., Hughey, 2008)—or the types of communications that occur between drug dealer and buyer in street-level drug dealing (e.g., Collins, 1999). Goffman (1966) described symbolic body language as “an idiom of individual appearances and gestures that tends to call forth in the actor what it calls forth in others” (p. 33). He contended that both parties were obliged to “convey certain information when in the presence of others and an obligation not to convey other impressions” (p. 34). While Goffman (1966) acknowledged that “no one in society [was] likely to be in a position to employ the whole expressive idiom . . . everyone will possess some knowledge of the same body symbols” (p. 35). Thus, while meaning is understood within the culture or subculture, outsiders, such as law enforcement or even criminologists may not always understand it.

45

Gav Rituals For quite some time, the LGBTQ community has been known for organizing parties, pageants, and parades for a host of reasons, although many of these events seem focused on memorializing important events in gay history (e.g., the Christopher Street Liberation Day commemorates the Stonewall Riots; the Gay Men’s Health Crisis Mourning Party remembers Fire Island residents who had fallen victim to AIDS; and, the Fire Island Invasion celebrates the rising up of drag queens at a gay bar in the Pines), or to raise money for AIDS research and/or ASOs (e.g., Nashville’s “Dining Out for Life,” the “San Franciso AIDS Ride,” the “Bunnies and Bowties” event in Billings, Montana, and the numerous nationwide “AIDS Walks”). These events were inspired by the actions of the gay liberation movement that emerged in the late 1960s. They are not only celebrations, they act as the symbolic expressions of a community that is no longer tolerant of being marginalized or oppressed. Gav pride. The same year as Sonenschein’s thesis on gay language, 1969 was also a watershed year for gay rights; in fact, it has been called “The Year of Gay Liberation.” Prior to that year, the Mattachine Society of New York an organization that was part of the homophile movement that had materialized around the end of the Second World War, had quietly and secretly advocated for the extension of equal rights to homosexuals (Conrad & Schneider, 1992). However, the stigmatizing effects of the June 1969 “public morals” raid (L. Wright, 1999, para. 5) of the Stonewall Inn in New York City’s Greenwich Village, not to mention the riots that followed immediately thereafter, angered gays and lesbians in New York City to the point of organizing themselves into

more radical groups, such as the Gay Liberation Front and the Gay Activists Alliance (Conrad & Schneider, 1992). One year after the Stonewall Riots, gays and lesbians in New York City converged on Greenwich Village once again, this time to memorialize the riots and to celebrate the genesis of the gay rights movement with a “public parade . . . from Sheridan Square to Central Park, in which several thousand homosexuals and their supporters participated” (Conrad & Schneider, 1992, p. 203). Today, numerous annual parades (with and without festivals), street fairs, circuit parties, and “balls” celebrate the accomplishments of the global LGBTQ community, as well as acknowledge and honor politicians, celebrities, and community heroes who have committed themselves to LGBTQ equality. Pride festivities, in particular, are the LGBTQ community’s “largest social event and . . . its most significant contribution to public life” (Kates & Belk, 2001, p. 393). Kates and Belk (2001) state, these gay-pride celebrations possess a decidedly syncretic nature and may be usefully viewed as public camivalesque festivals, culturally shared rites of passage, forms of politically motivated consumption-related resistance, and magnets for commercialization within the context of the festival, (p. 393) Many who attend these celebrations undoubtedly do so for the fun and frivolous social experiences they create; others may attend as a means of honoring the struggle of the LGBTQ community—there are perhaps as many reasons for attending as there are people who attend. Whatever the reason, it is important to remember that many of these celebrations began as commemorative events, full of meaning that was often borne out of tragedy or stigma. These events also act as symbolic auto de fes in that they are the expressions of the LGBTQ community’s faith that its continued visibility will one day bring about its true liberation. 47

Circuit parties and drug use. Browning (1993) describes a very different kind of gay cultural event that began to emerge in the late 1980s, one that seemed to be less focused on gay pride. In fact, not long after gay men had liberated themselves in the late 1960s and early-to-mid-1970s, many began to re-enslave themselves to a cult of masculinity (Signorile, 1977). Such a cult denied membership to gay men who were not physically flawless, and it laughed at the gay mainstream’s long-held ideals of chastity and compunction. These notions, according to Signorile, were not welcome among members. The patrons of these “invitation only” events— impeccably dressed, wellgroomed, physically stunning gay men—suggests that the gay solidarity movement that had been previously established had shifted sharply and was beginning to unravel. This obsession with personal beauty has been theorized as being largely responsible for causing many gay men to neglect other areas of their lives (e.g., Kurtz, 2005; Green & Halkitis, 2006). Although Browning does not offer a reason for this, Lewis and Ross (1995) contend that these types of events are both intrinsically and extrinsically important to a “significant subset of inner-city young gay men,” because they provide an “alternative social structure and . . . [a] sense of pride in belonging to a minority group” (Lewis & Ross, 1995, p. 34). Similarly, Westhaver (2005), who attended 35 circuit parties between 1998 and 2002, concluded that the circuit party centers on “friendship, community, and bonding” (p. 352), and that, for many of the men who attend such events, the circuit party allows them to “differentiate themselves from a larger heterosexual order . . . it is a

48

means by which a sense of community is made possible and where a stigmatized identity is confirmed through celebration” (p. 352). In general, circuit parties are “large-scale social events targeted at gay men . . . [where] participants congregate in settings such as nightclubs, warehouses, or outdoor open-air spaces, with loud dance music and light shows” (Lee et al., 2004, p. 48). Lewis and Ross (1995) continue: the inner-city gay dance party . . . may afford many gay men with a social safetyvalve where they can escape their everyday reality and dissipate their accumulated existential anxiety by using mind-altering drugs or dancing through the night to non-stop music with thousands of patrons in a similar state- and context-dependent condition. This alternative reality may serve an important socio-psychological function by offering some of these stigmatized party patrons a symbolic universe where their gay identity (including their HIV serostatus) is authenticated or validated as a member of a significant subculture by contrast to their everyday lives, (p. 164-65) Today, circuit parties are held all over the world and include the “White Party” (Palm Springs, South Beach), the “Black & Blue Ball” (Montreal), the “Mourning Party” (Fire Island, NY), “Southern Decadence” (Atlanta), the “Circuit Festival” (Barcelona), and numerous others. Goffman’s (1966) thesis on public gatherings can perhaps be used to explain the behavior of the attendees of circuit parties in that he suggested that a “rule of behavior” applied at such gatherings: attendees are obliged to “fit in” (p. 11). At the very least, they must “keep within the spirit or ethos of the situation; [and they] must not be de trop [emphasis in original] or out of place” (p. 11). Goffman believed that an individual complied with his host’s de facto demand, “because of [a] felt pressure of propriety” (p.

49

11)—propriety in the sense that he should conform to a higher sense of moral judgment regarding the situation: the archetypal “when in Rome.” This rule of behavior might also explain the widespread use of party drugs at circuit events, a fact that has been well documented in the literature (e.g., Lewis & Ross, 1995; Green & Halkitis, 2006; Berg, 2008; Kelly, Bimbi, Izniecki & Parsons, 2009; Solomon et al., 2011). One of the first, and perhaps most comprehensive accounts of circuit party drug usage (Lewis & Ross, 1995) was conducted in Sydney, Australia. There, researchers discovered that a majority of the party patrons (73%) had used MDMA or ecstasy while at the party, and that others had used amphetamine or “speed” (64%), marijuana (61%), LSD (39%), and finally, cocaine (19%); ketamine and dmethamphetamine hydrochloride (“ice”) were also reported, but only by a handful of attendees. Three years later, at a circuit event in New York City, researchers (Lee et al., 2004) also found that a majority of the patrons were consuming MDMA (71%); however, it seemed that the ranking of party drugs had shifted considerably from when Lewis and Ross conducted their study in 1995. For example, in New York City, the use of ketamine was found to be the second most ingested drug (53%) next to methamphetamine (31%), followed by cocaine (19%), and GHB (12%). Similar to H.S. Becker’s thesis on deviance, Goffman (1963) held that the study of “situational [emphasis added] improprieties,” such as drug usage at a circuit party, tended to examine “the offender rather than the rules and social circles that are offended” (p. 3); were this tendency reversed so that situational impropriety was the actual offense, a refusal to conform would be the true punishable offense. Goffman contended, then,

that there exists a higher moral sense that informs us in such situations, and that, for some, acts that are “approved” by our peers, our families, and our social circles cannot be “improper” (p. 4). In this regard, circuit party patrons wishing to “fit in” would be more susceptible to a “felt pressure” to experiment with, to continue, or even to increase their usage of drugs, especially if they felt that the gay dance culture approved of such behavior, or if they perceived that a refusal to participate would be an offense. This is an important point made by cultural criminologists: whereas epidemiology studies provide useful information about rates, trends, locations, and the psychological factors leading to usage of drugs such as crystal methamphetamine, few good programs are ever developed. Instead, such studies lead to the enacting of laws based on perceived harms without a complete understanding of the culture, and hence, the meaning of that behavior. Studies of crystal methamphetamine use by gay men are probably the best example of the absence of any attention to the meaning of its use (e.g., Kurtz, 2005; Green & Halkitis, 2006; Kelly et al., 2009; Kelly et al., 2011; Grov, 2010; Carpiano, Kelly, Easterbrook & Parsons, 2011). Crystal methamphetamine usage within the gay community is 20 times higher than that of the general population (Mimiaga et al., 2008). And, a recent study of crystal methamphetamine use by gay men found that, for those living in gay enclaves (i.e., “gay ghettos”), there is a “293 percent increase in the odds of use” (Carpiano et al., 2011, p. 82). Most of these studies found that these men often used meth “to enhance mood and counteract depression, to boost confidence and concentration, cope with HIV/AIDS, and negotiate internalized homophobia” (p. 318.). Other research has concluded that gay men who use crystal methamphetamine are bored

51

(Chaney & Blalock, 2006); fatalistic (Berg, 2008); less educated (Kakietek, Sullivan & Heffelfinger, 2011); panicked (Davis et al., 2006); burned-out, fatigued, and overwhelmed (McKiman, Houston, & Tolou-Shams, 2007); lonely, or suffering from age-related image-consciousness or sexual inhibition (Kurtz, 2005); and stigmatized (e.g., Courtenay-Quirk, Wolitski, Parsons, Gomez & the Seropositivity Urban Men’s Study Team, 2006; Frost et al., 2007; Adam et al., 2011). Self-esteem, a significant focus of these studies, is also found to be a causal mechanism of higher-than-normal levels of drug usage for gay men (e.g., Davis et al., 2006; Green & Halkitis, 2006; Grov, 2010; Kelly et al., 2009). Green & Halkitis (2006) note that for the majority of these studies of crystal methamphetamine usage by gay men and MSM, “the disciplines of psychology, medicine and epidemiology have taken [the] lead” (p. 318). Thus, these studies have focused primarily on “individual-level” (p. 318) causal factors, which while yielding useful information, ultimately, fueled an education campaign that continues to pathologize, marginalize, and criminalize many in the gay community. Instead of understanding the social context in which these drugs are used, instead of focusing on the meaning of drug use among these men, and instead of investigating the macro-social factors that affect the use of these drugs among these men, these studies depict these men as diseased, ill, weak, mentally unstable, or even criminal. The Virtual Gav Community Though circuit parties occur in physical spaces, research has shown that, similar to the “escape” experienced by party attendees, gay men and MSM online have reported

52

using the Internet as an escape, as well (e.g., McKiman, Houston & Tolou-Shams, 2007). Indeed, much of the research concerning the online interactions of gay men and MSM has focused on the psychosocial aspects of these discourses, as well as the Internet’s use as a positive source of social support among same sex attracted individuals—a fact undoubtedly experienced by other marginalized groups, as well. For instance, in a study of the age differences of gay men and MSM online, researchers found that young men were more likely to use the Internet for social support during their “coming out” phase than older men, who had already experienced coming out (Baams, Jonas, Utz, Bos & van der Vuurst, 2011). Ashford (2009) notes that, for sexual minority groups, the use of such e-based mediums as, “bulletin boards, chat rooms, [and] profile based sites” (p. 299) has grown exponentially. Indeed, his study found that virtual/online environments are even beginning to encroach upon traditional brick-and-mortar spaces (i.e., bars and nightclubs, and that online environments are significantly more likely than physical spaces to be the environment in which gay men meet their first sexual partner. Similar to the physical space of the circuit party, the virtual space of gay-online communities has also been used as a source for gay men seeking illicit drugs—a fact that is also well documented in the literature (e.g., Carpiano et al., 2011; Golub et al., 2005; Green & Halkitis, 2006; Berg, 2008; Grov, 2011). In fact, the use of the Internet as a marketplace for drugs, pharmaceuticals or otherwise, has also grown at an alarming rate. According to Walsh (2012), “facilitating consumerism, the Internet is a medium through which ‘white,’ ‘grey’ and ‘black’ drug markets flourish, with the boundaries between

them shifting and amorphous, fluid and arbitrary” (p. 56). Although the present study is concerned with the use of online men seeking men environments as spaces to acquire and distribute illicit drugs, many public health studies have found associations between men who use the Internet to find sex with men and the use of illegal drugs. Most of the research has focused primarily on the public health consequences of these interactions, in particular, the role that internet-based communication plays in the transmission of HIV (e.g., Davis et al., 2006; Grov, 2011). Studies such as these, neglect to acknowledge how these men use the Internet to resist the stigma of HIV and drug use; rather they continue to pathologize gay drug users Internet use among the gay community essentially began when the gay community was starting to feel the full brunt of the AIDS epidemic and the technology sector had begun to market more affordable personal computers (Elliott, 2011). The market grew even more rapidly when hobbyists combined technology such as the “Smartmodem,” created by Hayes Microcomputer Products, with software they had developed that would enable individuals to connect their computers to new bulletin board systems (BBSes; Oxford, 2009). In addition to providing a new mode of electronic communication for people in general, BBSes featured local and national news, software downloads, private messaging between members, and a public bulletin board that members could use for buying and selling goods and services. BBSes have helped to restore a sense of identity and dignity (Baams et al., 2011) for formerly social gay men who could not (or would not) leave their home, whether stemming from a fear of contracting HIV, or because they had already begun to show the

54

first signs of infection. Conrad and Schneider (1992) note, “medical work can lead to the creation of new medical norms, whose violation is deviance” (p. 23); thus, it is not surprising that “the advent of widespread e-dating coincide[d] with the advent of another ‘technology,’ HIV treatment, and the emergence of a ‘post-crisis’ sensibility among communities affected by the epidemic” (p. 458). Gay men who had experienced HIV/AIDS-related stigma, regardless of their serostatus, continued to seek out sex partners in the spaces where they felt safest. This time, they did so from their own homes by perusing the profiles of online members on gay BBSes and other online social networks [OSNs]. Gav Subculture Not surprisingly, when performing a Google search for the terms “gay” and “subculture,” 2.7 million results are returned. However, one quickly finds that page after page of results are filled with discussions about the LGBTQ community as a whole a subculture of the straight mainstream. Where examples are given, “dykes on bikes,” drag queens, and leather men invariably top the list; no references are made to the fact that, since the AIDS epidemic numerous sexual subcultures have emerged from the gay mainstream, many of them, it seems, more focused on the counter-construction of gay symbols than trying to offend heterosexuals with cross-dressing and motorcycle-riding lesbians. These subcultures are an important topic of discussion because the manner in which they have counter-constructed gay signs and symbols has much to say about who they are, how they differ from other subcultures, and the meaning underlying their behaviors. Indeed, a variety of subcultures exist within gay culture—some have formed

in response to gay mainstream cultures and others in response to the dominant culture. Green and Halkitis (2006) note that there is even a normative pattern of sexual interaction among gay subcultures, and that a better understanding of this interaction could give rise to more effective policies to address their specific sex- and drug-related behaviors. Bourdieu (1986) was the first to introduce the notion that people could trade culture—language, taste, style, grace—or, as he referred to it, “subtle modalities in the relationship to culture and language” (p. 82), and he identified three types or forms: those found in the body and mind, those inherent in the institutionalized state (e.g., education), and those representing an objectified state, such as in artwork, books, relics, and access to the theatre (Bourdieu, 1986). Ultimately, cultural capital was owned and controlled by the dominant culture (Hebdige, 1979); however, individuals could acquire cultural capital in the form of fame, power, and prestige, which they could then covert into some sort of transactional equity. For those outside the mainstream, who did not possess an education, or the ability to read or write, or some form of talent that was consumable, without the benefit of economic capital to fall back on, they were as set apart from society’s institutions as were any other marginalized group. Considering that mainstream gay culture emerged alongside the “shop ‘til you drop” mentality that arose out of the postWWII era, many aspects of contemporary gay culture seem to be focused on trying to “fit in” with the heterosexual mainstream, especially with respect to consumerism, a move that has upset many in the LGBTQ community (Silverstone, 2012). In her critique of gay pride, Silverstone (2012) discusses a wave of “gay shame” that began in London in the late 2000s and has since swept through the United States

56

(e.g., Brooklyn, Santa Cruz) and other countries (e.g., Canada, Sweden). These events are promoted as creative rebellions, much the same as has been orchestrated in the past as protests over the continued stigmatization and marginalization of the LGBTQ community. However, the gay shame movement is more of a response to the “banalities of the mainstream Gay Pride festival and [as] a satire on the commercialization [s/c] of our community” (p. 67). Several of these projects are produced by gay subcultures (e.g. “Kaffequeeria,” “Get Bent Festival”) that serve to criticize the new culture of corporate consumerism adopted by the gay mainstream. Silverstone describes one such event, “Duckie Gets Macho,” held at the Coronet Theatre in London’s Waterloo district. Upon entering, attendees are given “queer dollars” with which to purchase goods and services from a number of different “straight vendors”: Inside the venue, clubbers were confronted with what Duckie, the event’s producing company, describes as an “interactive nightclub-theatre with the aesthetics of a giant fucking mini-cab office: sticky, brown, stained, a bit pongee and distinctly lacking a feminine touch.” As detailed in the programme we could visit “The Straightening Salon” . . . which promised that participants could become heterosexual with this reprogramming treatment”; subject ourselves to ... “hazing, fagging and cruel schoolboy rituals” in “Jobs for Fags”; and attend [the] “Real Man Workshop,” which ordered a “life-changing 15 min men-only workshop” investigating what “homosexual [can] learn from the unreconstructed old-fashioned male.” (p. 62) Silverstone (2012) points out that while capitalism has proven to be quite beneficial for the LGBTQ community, “these opportunities are not evenly distributed and the opportunities for agency [may have been] heavily circumscribed” (p. 67). Silverstone states, [a]s identities and communities start to solidify they can be niche marketed, exemplified by the concurrent rise of the phenomenon of niche marketing alongside the emergence of social movements of the 1960s.. . . The marketing 57

and associated products in turn work to iterate and then calcify certain conceptions of identity to the necessary exclusion and marginalisation of others, highlighted by the extent to which gay marketing has focused on what Penazola describes as pervasive images of white, upper-middle class, ‘straight-looking’ people at the expense of those more distanced from threatening to the mainstream, such as the poor, racial / ethnic / sexual minorities, drag queens, and butch lesbians. (Silverstone, 2012, p. 67) Hence, even the commercialization of gay culture, which may seem to be a move towards the normalization of gay culture within the larger heterosexual mainstream, has also led to the creation of gay subcultures. Gav Subcultural Rituals Like the LGBTQ mainstream culture, LGBTQ subcultures have created their own ritual; however, as suggested by Hebdige (1979), these rituals are typically modifications of the larger culture’s rituals. LGBTQ subcultures have formed around style and gender images, such as the “Emo” movement, which challenges the “hegemonies of fictionalized [and/or] fetishized masculinity within the gay community” (Peters, 2010, p. 129); the “lesbian chic” image, described as a “rejection of typically feminine or effeminate styles for something both tougher and more comfortable” (Queerty, n.d., para. 3); and the heteronormative “Str8-acting” movement, “which participates in reductive typologies of gay masculinity” (Payne, 2007, p. 525). Other subcultures have formed around sex, such as barebacking (Kelly et al., 2009), fist-fucking (Zizek, 2004), and PnP (this thesis). In fact, in recent years, numerous websites target MSM seeking highly specialized sexual scenes such as “hardcore sex,” “bareback sex,” “watersports,” and “fisting” (e.g., “BarebackRT,” “NastyKinkPigs.”). Ashford (2009) notes that, for sexual minority

58

groups, the use of such e-based mediums as, “bulletin boards, chat rooms, [and] profile based sites” (p. 299) has grown exponentially. Gav drug argots. Many of the studies on gay argots, drug or otherwise, are seriously outdated (e.g., Haertzen & Ross, 1979; Sonenschein, 1969). The few current sources that do mention drug argots are qualitative studies concerning either the experiences of PnPers themselves or those who engage in PnP-like behaviors (e.g., Berg, 2008; Cabangum, 2006; Green & Halkitis, 2006; Grov, 2010). In addition to the use of argots such as “party” and “PnP,” these narratives also included other commonly-used PnP argots such as “Tina,” (i.e., crystal methamphetamine) and “favors” (commonly used among PnPers to refer to the actual possession of party drugs, as in, “Bring your own favors”). Additionally, studies such as Cimino’s (2005) collection of stories of active and recovering gay methamphetamine users often revealed the contexts in which PnP argots are used online. For example, one young man who went by the name “Corey,” had this to say about his online experience, I would bump off from guys I met either on the Internet, or the bathhouses. I found that it is much easier to meet guys when you advertise yourself up front that you are into meth. I would put “looking to party,” “chemical friendly” on my personal ad the way others would put “gym 4x a week. (Cimino, 2005, p. 182) Cabangum points out that gay men who use the Internet to search for drugs and sex also make use of displaced capital letters, such as the “T” in the word, “parTy” (p. 25) when referring to crystal methamphetamine. This use of capitalized letters has also been documented by non-academic online sources. For example, on “Ranker” (n.d.), an article entitled The Beginner’s Guide to Anonymous Craigslist Sex features a list of 10 “how-tos and don’t-dos” (para. 1) for those wishing to understand how to interpret the 59

subtext of Craigslist ads. The third tip, “Avoid PNP Listings” (para. 16) states, “Anyone using a random capital letter T in an ad is looking to get high” (para. 23). The following example is given: “leT's have fun TonighT= let's get high and screw all night” (para. 24). It is presumed that the same type of capitalization may also be used for other party drugs, such as the GABA analogues; however, no sources, academic or otherwise, could be found. Several comprehensive, up-to-date dictionaries of slang terms or argots for the drugs used by gay subcultures like the PnPers are easily accessible online through sources such as Urban Dictionary (Urbandictionary, n.d.), a compendium of hundreds of thousands of slang words (not simply drug slang), and Erowid’s Drug & Slang Terminology Vault (Erowid, 2012), which lists only drug-related slang words. Each dictionary lists words alphabetically and then provides either a definition, as is the case with Urban Dictionary, or, as with Erowid, a link to a page that provides detailed information on the specific drug of which the slang word is used to refer. With respect to Urban Dictionary, entries can be made by anyone visiting the site; in fact, Urban Dictionary states under the “Add a definition” page, “All the definitions on Urban Dictionary were written by people just like you. Now’s your chance to add your own!” (Urbandictionary, n.d.). Those wishing to post a slang word can then enter a slang word, its definition, and then at least five “synonyms, antonyms, related words and misspellings,” also known as “tags,” that will allow browsers to click through to other pages featuring related slang words (though this is not required). Browsers of the site can

60

then assign a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” rating based on their knowledge of the word, or their belief or disbelief in the veracity of its usage and/or meaning. A search of “crystal methamphetamine” on Urban Dictionary produced 32 pages and 227 entries ranging from “crystal meth” to “meth’d out,” with definitions for each. Take for instance the definition for the first entry, “crystal meth,” posted by the user “voiceinsideyou,” which had 194 “thumbs up,” and 96 “thumbs down” ratings: Commonly used term in the later 1990's for "Crystal Methamphetamine", also known as "Meth", "Methamphetamine", "Pure", "P". Occurs in crystals, measured by the point, which although theoretically is euqla [s/c] to 1/1 Oth of a metric gram, usually ends up being closer to l/20th and you getting Owned [s/c] for teh [s/c] drug money. Commonly smoked with a glass pipe, and highly addictive. Note close relation to the meth fiend, a crazed, agitated addict roaming around trying to get teh [s/c] cash for teh [s/c] crystal meth. (Urbandictionary, 2003) No tags were assigned to this entry; however, the third entry, “the bitch,” posted by “zeeke,” and defined as “Slang for crystal methamphetamine,” had 11 tags: “tina,” “teena,” “Christina,” “chrissy,” “meth,” “crystal,” “ice,” “crystal,” “methamphetamine,” “methamphetamine,” and “drugs” (Urbandictionary, 2006). Erowid’s Drug Slang & Terminology Vault (Erowid, 2012), although not a dictionary based on user contributions, is similarly constructed, however, it is not possible to search for a specific word; rather, users must click on a letter from a row of letters, “A-Z,” which will then take them to a page of slang words beginning with the letter they selected, all listed in alphabetical order. For example, by selecting “C,” the user is taken to a page that lists 638 slang words beginning with “C,” the first of which is “C” (defined as “Cocaine”), and the last is “Crystal T” ([defined as “PCP”] Erowid, 2012). 61

Conclusion Cultural criminology, a subdiscipline of criminology, challenges criminologists to focus on the cultural meanings inherent in behavior that is labeled either deviant or criminal. People express cultural and subcultural meanings, either as individuals or groups, and present themselves through various performance parts, as well as coordinate these performances with others. This can be seen in their language (e.g., sign, symbols, argots) and rituals, which, for the deviant or the criminal, are a means for alleviating the collectivized strife from oppression or marginalization. Both subcultural norms and subcultural deviance tend to emerge in response to various forms of stigma and labeling. The LGBTQ community has experienced a history filled with oppression and marginalization through the various systems of social control: the criminal law, the medical profession, public health, and the behavioral sciences. The reaction to these stigmatizing experiences has lead to the emergence of various gay cultural and subcultural groups. To mend and empower, gay subcultures engage in reappropriations of style (e.g., signs, symbols [flags], rituals [pride events and circuit parties]). Even the use of sex and drugs, both in “real-time” as well as in virtual reality, have meaning. Yet, while these behaviors seem to disregard the norms and values of the larger gay mainstream, they are nonetheless the meaningful expressions of those who have been criminalized, medicalized, and pathologized. This thesis will now uncover the underlying meaning of the behaviors of a gay subculture: those who PnP using Craigslist. Similar to the formation of other subcultures generally, and gay subcultures specifically, the deviant and sometimes criminal behavior

62

associated with PnP is often subcultural expression borne out of stigmatizing experiences related to marginalization and oppression. The acknowledgment of these experiences and the meanings this subculture attaches to them can lead to the creation of more appropriate, more effective, less stigmatizing, less marginalizing, and more culturally sensitive policies.

63

CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Design This thesis uses a sample of Craigslist personal ads from the greater Los Angeles County area over a 10-day period commencing 12 April 2012, and ending on 21 April 2012. Initially, Craigslist was chosen as a source for data because its boundaries are not closed and restrained—anyone can access its features. Like any virtual space, Craigslist is not a space that is “detached from any connections to ‘real life’ or face-to-face interaction” (Hine, 2000, p. 64). Many of the ads that are posted—whether announcing the performance of a live band, advertising for an apartment to rent, or trying to find a romantic or sexual partner—result in a face-to-face interaction. The people who use Craigslist thus create boundaries or connections that are made between the virtual and the real. These connections are typically arranged through e-mail, unless an ad poster has listed his or her telephone number; furthermore, connections can be made in real-time and, where both parties are so willing, they can even be instantaneous. Prior to the data collection period, several weeks were spent becoming familiar with popular gay OSNs and Smartphone applications, also known as “hookup sites.” These sites were located using a Google search for the phrase “gay hookup site,” which produced a list of specific gay OSNs, as well as several independent “ranking sites.” One ranking site, “Gawker” was selected because it contained a section entitled “What does 64

your gay hookup site say about you?” (Gawker, n.d.), that, upon further inspection, was found to list the most popular gay hookup sites according to membership numbers. Gawker’s list is subject to change throughout the year, based on the changing popularity of sites. At the time of the search, two websites, “Adam4Adam” and “Manhunt,” and two Smartphone applications, “Grindr” and “Scruff,” were listed as the most popular sites and Smartphone apps among gay men. Next, a “scoping phase” (Gottschalk, 2011) was conducted, in which almost 2,000 member profiles were observed using the four sites/apps. An electronic log was kept so that notes could be taken alongside the actual profiles; these notes detailed such things as peculiarities within the text of profiles, the use of drug argots, the times and days of highl­ and low-volume traffic, and the ways in which members presented themselves to others and reduced harm (Figure 1). In addition to the sources used to determine the drugrelated argots used for this study, the scoping phase made it possible to determine how argots were used, and within which contexts they were employed. It was noted that several argots seemed to be used repeatedly (Table 1). Additionally, there seemed to be a disproportionate usage of two capitalized letters—“T” and “G”—regardless of their placement within a word (e.g., “parTy,” or “lookinG”), which seemed to be correlated to the individual’s search for crystal methamphetamine (“T” for “Tina”) and/or one of the GABA analogues (“G” for GHB or GBL). Though, for obvious reasons, it was fruitless to search for these two individual letters using Craigslist’s search function, special attention was paid to this capitalization scheme in the ads that were located using drug argots.

65

Virtual Field Sites Communication within virtual space is complex and occurs in a multitude of settings. Hine (2000) also points out that because of the mobile and multi-sited characteristic of computer-mediated communication (CMC), the concept of field site is often brought into question. Unlike the typical face-to-face ethnography, which has a specific location in space and has more “tangible boundaries,” virtual ethnography focuses on “flow and connectivity” (p. 64). When conducting virtual ethnographies, then, the researcher should leave the boundaries open and unrestrained. As Hine (2000) states, “the challenge of virtual ethnography is to explore the making of boundaries and the making of connections—especially between the ‘virtual’ and the ‘real’” (p. 64). Online Social Establishments In his dramaturgy on human behavior, Goffman (1959) uses the art of theatre as a metaphor for face-to-face interaction. For example, he defines a performance team as, “any set of individuals who cooperate in staging a single routine” (p. 79). Consequently, a social establishment is, “any place surrounded by fixed barriers to perception in which a particular kind of activity regularly takes place” (p. 238). It is here that we also find our team of performers, cooperating with each other to, “present to an audience a given definition of the situation” (p. 238). Despite its existence as a virtual environment, for this thesis, Craigslist is our social establishment and field site. Likewise, all PnPers who interact with one another on Craigslist are the members of our performance team. Craigslist. Globally, Craigslist is the largest Internet source for both classified ads and “help wanted” ads. Each day Craigslist serves over 30-million page views and

66

receives requests for over one million classified ads. Craigslist’s only source of revenue is generated through its job ad listings, which cost $25-$75 depending upon the city in which the job ad is posted (Buckmaster, 2008). Craigslist is neither exclusively gay, nor does it cater only to those looking for sex. The site is broken down into geographic areas in or around large cities in the U.S. and abroad, and then further categorized by sections such as “Community,” “Housing,” “For Sale,” “Services,” “Jobs,” “Gigs,” etc.). Craigslist also features a “Personals” section, which is categorized by all possible one-onone sexual combinations (i.e., “women seeking men” [and vice versa], “men seeking men,” “women seeking women”), and several categories involving combinations of more than two persons that vary by gender. These categories are also found within the site’s other personal ad sections (i.e., “Strictly Platonic,” “Casual Encounters,” “Misc. Romance,” and “Missed Connections”). Craigslist was selected as a virtual field site for several reasons. First, it is the modern-day version of the dial-up BBS. As one of the earliest forms of mass CMC, BBSes were numerous; they varied in scope; and they targeted or attracted different audiences. Some BBSes served as virtual “matchmakers” and were thus used by people of all sexual orientations. This is important because it leaves open the possibility for a history of online subcultures to be reconstructed at a future time. Second, Craigslist is public and thus does not require login credentials—anyone can post or read personal advertisements, regardless of where they are physically located (e.g., a person in New York can peruse apartment listings in Los Angeles). This is relevant in that it could affect the manner in which people present themselves, especially if they include

photographs and/or intimate information about themselves. Third, Craigslist is free in that it does not charge to place a personal ad—anyone with access to the Internet can participate. This could allow for a richer mixture of people who use the site. Fourth, Craigslist is user-moderated, thus, those who use its services are encouraged to “flag” inappropriate content. This could affect the amount of freedom experienced by those who post ads. Last, Craigslist is global; there are portals in over 450 cities in 50 countries (Buckmaster, 2008). This allows for the sharing of ideas, information, and culture heritage. Prior to posting an advertisement in any of the personal sections, posters are taken to the “Warning & Disclaimer” page (Craigslist, n.d.), where they must warrant that they are at least 18 years old; they understand that the personal ad section may contain adult content; they agree to “flag” advertisements containing prohibited material such as illegal solicitations or violations of Craigslist’s terms of use; and, they release Craigslist from any liability that may result from their use of the site. Last, for those who are unclear, there is a safe sex message with a link to the San Francisco City Clinic (which is provided regardless of where the user is located), as well as a notice that Craigslist has implemented the Platform for Internet Content System (PICS). PICS is “a set of technical specifications that help software and rating services to work together” (W3C, n.d., Platform for Internet Content Selection). PICS “enables labels (metadata) to be associated with Internet content,” and, “was originally designed to help parents and teachers control what children access on the Internet” (W3C, n.d.). A link to a site containing more information on PICS is provided; however, a message at the top of that

page informs the user that PICS has been superseded by the Protocol for Web Description Resources (POWDER). It is unknown whether Craigslist has implemented the new protocol. In order to post an advertisement in any of Craigslist’s personal sections, posters are required to first accept Craigslist’s “Terms of Use” (TOU), which states that all users are responsible for the content that they post (Craigslist, n.d.). While Craigslist does prohibit illegal (or content related to illegal goods or services) and offensive content (which includes pornographic images), one only needs to peruse the personal ads section to discover that the TOU is enforced lackadaisically, if at all. There are no prohibitions against specific words, and the TOU makes no mention of prohibited images (with the exception of the “offensive content” clause). Men seeking sex with men on Craigslist. Data were obtained from the Los Angeles portal of Craigslist’s “Men Seeking Men” section, one of several personal ad sections that provide a space for men to post messages and pictures for other men to see. Craigslist’s personal section is extremely popular, as evidenced by the large volume of ads placed on any given day—almost 4,000 “Men Seeking Men” ads (includes PnP and non-PnP) on one Friday alone distributed across four sections (i.e., “Men Seeking Men,” “Casual Encounters,” “Miscellaneous Romance,” and “Missed Connections”). Still, it would not be possible to obtain an accurate count of the total number of ads posted, as individuals can remove their ads at any time without any trace. This causes the number of ads on Craigslist to grow and shrink at various times throughout the day. To illustrate, on one Saturday (12:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.), 847 (includes PnP and non-PnP)

69

advertisements were posted throughout the entire day in the “Men Seeking Men” section, spanning six regions of the Los Angeles portal (i.e., “Westside-Southbay,” “San Fernando Valley,” “Central L.A.,” “San Gabriel Valley,” “Long Beach/562,” and “Antelope Valley”). The days of the week that experienced a higher volume of ad postings varied. Intuitively, one would expect more ads to be posted on a Saturday or Sunday (12:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.) than on weekdays. Yet, on one Wednesday, approximately 1,200 total ads had already been posted in the “Men Seeking Men” section prior to 3:00 p.m. Additionally, individuals sometimes posted the same ad more than once, or they posted a new, different ad, when they had not removed their other ad(s). Sample Selection While the activities of PnPers online might be relatively easy to observe, they are still considered a “hidden population” offline (Faugier & Sargeant, 1997, p. 790). Thus, in order to obtain a sample of PnPers for this thesis, a purposive sampling method, in which only PnP personal ads were analyzed, was used. In order for a Craigslist “Men seeking Men” PnP ad to be included for analysis in this thesis, it had to first contain at least one of three PnP-specific drug argots: “party,” “PnP,” or “Tina.” These were determined to be the most widely used argots among PnPers—gleaned from both the scoping period, as well as from the literature that was reviewed (e.g., Berg, 2008; Cabangum, 2006; Cimino, 2005; Green & Halkitis, 2006; Grov, 2010). Secondly, these argots could not have been used within a “No PnP” context, meaning, upon analysis of each ad, if the poster specified, “No PnP,” or “No partying,” it was determined that the

70

argot was not being used in furtherance of a PnP experience, but rather to signify the poster’s dislike or distaste for PnP (Figure 2). Using Craigslist’s search function (located at the top of each section), the keywords (i.e., “Party,” “PnP,” and “Tina”) were entered during three separate searches, performed each morning, between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. (the reasons for this particular period of time are articulated in the next section). It should be noted that many more argots than these were found within the ads themselves, some were recognizable from the literature review, others from the scoping phase. Still other drugrelated keywords were recognizable from sources such as Erowid (2012) and UrbanDictionary (n.d.). A list of these argots (with frequencies) can be found in Table 1. Data Collection The ads were obtained between 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. from April 12, 2012 and April 21, 2012 with the last ad being posted at 6:58 p.m. on April 21, 2012. April was chosen because it is one of the only months with no bank holidays, and it followed the 2012 Easter holiday. Thus it was assumed that any ad postings would not be influenced by holidays or Easter-related vacations, such as time off from employment or school. Despite the time of day in which the ads were reviewed and collected (between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. each morning), it is important to consider that the ads themselves could have been posted at any time during that day (prior to 1:00 a.m., of course). This time of day was chosen after a test run of the data collection process discovered that there were fewer ads posted than were anticipated when collecting data at mid-day or early evening. Despite the late hour, this was an optimum time to search for

PnP ads, as there seemed to be an increase in ad placement (perhaps due to individuals returning home from the bars or nightclubs). Upon closer inspection, it also became obvious that posters would sometimes place an ad, but then later in the day, it was no longer visible. It was determined that the ad was either answered (i.e., there was no longer a need for it to remain posted); the poster had changed his mind and removed the ad; or, the ad had been flagged and removed due to content. From the search results, all of the ads that had been posted during the preceding day (12:00 a.m. to 11:59 p.m.) were then selected. Any ads that were placed during the 2-hour data collection period were also selected. Duplicate ads (i.e., ads that were placed more than once, but at different times) were not included in the final analysis unless there appeared to be different information in each ad. In some cases, individuals re-posted their ads without removing their previous ads, perhaps to gain more exposure or because they were unable to see their original ad and believed that it had been removed by Craigslist monitors. The resultant ads (n = 189) were saved as individual “.pdf’ files and then printed for later review. Although the temporality of bulletin boards meant that the ads would not be experienced in the same manner as the posters or browsers had experienced them, according to Hine (2000), no two individuals would experience a message board in quite the same way. Thus, the ads were arranged chronologically, and not, for instance, starting with the most recently placed ad, as they would appear to the regular browser.

72

Coding In qualitative studies, particularly those in which an open-ended interview format is employed, coding refers to the process whereby the transcripts of interviews are broken down into measurable pieces of information that can be statistically analyzed (Maxfield & Babbie, 2011) or otherwise used to show patterns or themes among the sample (e.g., Basit, 2003; Guetzkow, 1950). Although there are numerous methods for coding data, the process typically involves the grouping of data into categories and subcategories that makes sense to the researcher and his or her audience (e.g., Basit, 2003; Guetzkow, 1950). For example, a coding scheme can be heuristic, wherein the researcher starts with a few general codes and then builds upon the schema as variables emerge from the data; or, it can be theory driven, allowing the researcher to identify specific theoretical concepts in the data, or broader themes across cases. Regardless of which method is used, the researcher eventually analyzes all of the coded categories, concepts and themes and then draws inferences from what is revealed. For this thesis, a variation of Spradley’s (1973) recommendations for coding ethnographic interviews was utilized—a method useful for spotting holes or gaps in the data collected (Spradley, 1973). Theoretical Codes and the Coding Process The coding scheme created for this thesis allowed for the articulation of several subcultural concepts of which the theoretical framework was comprised. In particular, ads were reviewed for commonalities in the ways in which PnP ad posters presented themselves (i.e., front, personal front, setting, appearance, manner, and teamwork/ discrepant roles), their techniques for reducing harm, the usage of subcultural

73

communication (i.e., argot and slang), and the types of deviance in which they sought to engage. Beyond these general categories, a heuristic approach to the data was taken in order to create sub-domains based on the variables that emerged, and that would ultimately give these concepts physicality and substance. A point system was devised, not to quantify the data, but to note instances where an ad poster had divulged information about himself that seemed to conform with the characteristics sought. A total of 11 points were allotted if, in fact, all of the domains were coded. Due to researcher subjectivity, and in order to maintain reliability of data, two additional researchers coded random samples of 10% of the ads. A 90.2% level of inter-rater reliability was reached, thus coding bias was minimized. Presentation of Self The domain “presentation of self/front” consists of four subdomains—“personal front” (Figure 3), “setting” (Figure 4), “appearance” (Figure 5), and “manner” (Figure 6)—and was considered to exist only if the poster had provided information—in the form of ad text—that satisfied the four subdomains (see Figure 7 for an example of an ad in which a majority of the domains, including subdomains and tertiary domains, were coded). A point was given to each of the tertiary domains; at first this was done to merely keep track of the codes; however, it soon became apparent that comparisons could be made across ads, based on the detail of coding that was found in each. Thus, combined, the subdomains of “presentation of self’ were worth a total of six points (Table 1).

74

Personal front. “Personal front” was constructed to code whether the poster’s listed his natural endowments: “size” (i.e., “height” and “weight”), “looks” (some examples of descriptions poster’s listed were “clean-shaven,” “beard/moustache,” “hot/stud/jock,” “muscular/worked-out,” “overweight,” thin,” or “slender”; and “race” (i.e., “Asian,” “Black,” “Hispanic,” “Native American,” “White,” “other,” and “unknown”). A point was given for each subdomain of personal front that was coded, for a total of three points. Setting. Next, the code “setting” was created to capture the different locations in which ad posters listed as their preference for meeting potential mates. These included whether or not the poster was “hosting” or “travelling,” and, more specifically, whether the poster preferred to meet at a “hotel/motel,” “bathhouse/sex club,” “public space,” or “other” (i.e., an unspecified location). Where the poster did not specify his preferences, “no preference stated” was recorded. As setting did not have any subdomains, the presence of information specifying a location was given one point (“no preference” was not given a point). Appearance. The code for “appearance” was used to describe a person’s social status, and was conceptualized as his ability to afford to buy drugs— listed as “drugs” (i.e., “buying,” “selling,” “trading,” “sharing,” “bring your own”). One point was given for the presence of this code. Manner. “Manner” was coded to refer to the roles in which gay men who seek drug and sex experiences might wish others to perceive of them as portraying. This was broken down into subdomains based on preferred “sexual role” (i.e., “top,” “versatile

75

top,” “versatile,” “versatile bottom,” “bottom”). Where a preferred role was specified, one point was given. Discrepant Roles Last, a code was created for the subdomain “discrepant roles,” which was used to code instances where posters had omitted certain information about themselves. The subdomains constructed for “discrepant roles” included “no height (listed)” “no weight (listed),” “no age (listed),” “no ethnic/racial information (listed),” and “no HIV status (listed).” These codes were thought to capture instances of information omission, which, it was thought, if not an oversight on the part of the poster, was perhaps an intentional move on the part of the poster to, for instance, hide his age, his weight, his race or ethnicity, or his HIV status. This subdomain was not scored because almost every ad was found to have missing information in one form or another. Harm Reduction To capture the existence of behaviors related to harm reduction, codes were constructed to identify the possible ways in which ad posters conveyed these through their ad text—they include “incompatibilities,” “emailed picture/physical statistics requirements,” and “drug requirements.” The presence of any one of these techniques was sufficient to satisfy this domain (Table 2). The first, “incompatibilities,” referred to a poster’s stated preference for the type of sexual mate he sought and/or was not interested in meeting. These included “age requirements” (e.g., “No one under 25”), “HIV requirements” (e.g., “disease free,” “no bugs”), “physical requirements” (e.g., “no one under 5’6””, “smooth only”), “racial

76

requirements” (e.g. “no Asians,” “Black only”), “personality requirements” (e.g., “don’t be a freak”), and “sexual role requirements” (e.g., “tops only,” “no bottoms”). “Emailed picture/physical statistics requirements” measured whether the poster required that the respondent include his picture and/or physical statistics in an initial email. Specific requirements listed by posters varied but commonly related to face pictures, penis pictures, and body pictures, and when the poster required that the respondent specify his age, location and/or physical description (e.g., height, weight). “Drug requirements” was created to capture instances where the poster specified that the respondent should have his own drugs, or if the poster would accept some sort of remuneration (monetary or otherwise) for the use of his own personal supply. A point was given for each tertiary domain that was coded, for a total of three points. Subcultural Communication Hebdige’s (1979) thesis on the re-appropriation of style was listed as the domain “subcultural communication,” and was converted into a coding scheme that was used to measure language and/or signs and symbols thought to be reappropriated, or, at the very least, used in otherwise nonconventional ways. “Semiotics” thus includes the subdomain “language” (i.e., “Are there argots, slang, and/or other words that could realistically possess a double meaning?”) and “signs and symbols” (i.e., “Are certain letters capitalized?”). A point was given for each tertiary domain that was coded, for a total of two points.

77

Rituals: Deviant Behaviors Last, the domain “rituals: deviant behavior” was created to measure the types of activities the poster sought. This domain includes “sex behaviors” and “drug behaviors,” the types of observations of which are listed in Table 4. No points were given for this domain because, by virtue of having a PnP ad posted, it was assumed that deviant behavior was sought by each of the posters. Data Measures: Demographics Recalling that this thesis is neither a probability study, nor does it seek to predict some type of behavior according to its protective or risk factors, data were also coded according to obvious demographic categories (e.g., age, weight, height). With the exception of age, height, weight, date/time, and the number of pictures posted, these codes and their attributes are listed in Table 5. An Example of Ad Coding The first ad, “curious skaTer for skinny parTy boi,” (Figure 7) was placed on April 12,2012 at 3:14 a.m. “Personal front” was found to partially exist because the ad poster describes himself as being “white,” and “20 years”; however, he does not list his size (weight or height). Two points are given. “Setting” was found to exist because the poster listed his preference for hosting— another point was given. One point was also given for “manner” because the poster described himself as a “curious skater,” who is “totally masculine,” “chill,” and someone with whom another would find easy to “kick it with” (i.e., relax). Likewise, one point

78

was given for “appearance” because the poster offered to share his “party favors” with a sexual partner. “Harm reduction” was given three points because the poster specified that he did not want to meet someone with a “crazy agenda,” or who might seek to pressure him (“just looking to go with whatever vibe we get at the time” [one point]). He also mentions his personal preference for a “skinny boi,” who is “25 AND UNDER ONLY” (one point), and, because he states that he does not wish to meet any “stocky guys,” or “chubs,” or “creepers” (one point). Through the poster’s usage of the capitalized “T,” as well as his use of such PnPrelated argots as “blow some clouds,” “parTy favors,” and “pnp,” it is determined that the poster employs two forms of “subcultural communication” that are recognizable to other PnPers; thus he receives two more points, for a total of 10 points overall.

79

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS Within Craigslist’s “Men Seeking Men” personal ad section, ads first appear as a list of hyperlinked “headlines” that typically provide a brief glimpse of what to expect in the full text, such as type of sexual scene sought, preferred sexual position, and age. Ads are arranged in chronological order according to the hour and minute of the day, and are arranged in groups of 100 per page, with the most recent ad placed at the top. Geographic information (provided by the poster when creating the ad) is listed in parentheses to the right of the headline, as well as a yellow “PIC” icon to indicate that the poster has included a picture (or pictures). Persons browsing through the ads merely click on the hyperlink, and they are taken to a new page with the full text of the ad. Now, the reader will be afforded with an analysis of the 189 personal ad postings of PnPers on Craigslist. Based on the theoretical codes, this discussion of the findings will describe the PnPers and show their personal fronts, manners, appearances, argot, rituals, settings, and discrepant roles. Essentially, it will provide a context for the PnP subculture on Craigslist that has depth and physicality. Demographics Some very simple demographic frequencies were measured for this thesis, however, it is important to note that, for one reason or another, ad posters do not always list all of the information one might expect to find in a personal ad, and so any reporting 80

of averages must take this fact into consideration. The information that was coded, however, is listed in Table 5. Six posters did not list their age; however, of the 183 that did (96.8%), the average age was found to be 33 years of age, with a median age of approximately 34 years of age. In terms of location of the ad posters, 37.6% of the posters listed their area as “Central Los Angeles” (n = 71), 12.2% listed “Long Beach/562” (n = 23), 6.9% listed the San Gabriel Valley (n = 13), 22.2% listed the San Fernando Valley (n = 42), 7.5% listed “Westside/South Bay” (n = 14), and only one (0.52%) poster listed that he resided in the “Antelope Valley” (Figure 8). In an effort to compare some of the findings with Grov’s (2011) MSM Craigslist study, the ads were divided into two time blocks, “daytime” (8:00 a.m. to 7:59 p.m.) and “nighttime” (8:00 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.). Interestingly, when comparing the data from Grov’s study with the present study, there appeared to be an inverse relationship; Grov’s study showed a majority of the ads placed during the nighttime (59.8%), while the present study showed the same majority of ads (also 59.8%) as being placed during the daytime (n = 113). Likewise, Grov’s study showed 40.2% of the ads placed during the daytime, while in the present study, the same percentage of ads (40.2%) was placed during the nighttime (n = 76). Of the ads posted (and remembering that two Thursday, two Fridays and two Saturdays were included in the final analysis), 29.1% (n = 55) of the ads were placed on the two Fridays (22 on the first Friday, and 33 on the second Friday), 28.6% (n = 54) were placed on the two Saturdays (26 on the first Saturday, and 28 on the second

81

Saturday), 6.9% of the ads were placed on a Sunday, 1.6% of the ads were placed on Monday (n = 3), 5.3% were placed on a Tuesday (n = 10), 15.9% were placed on a Wednesday (n = 30), and 12.7% (n = 24) of the ads were placed on the two Thursdays (6 on the first Thursday, and 18 on the second Thursday). From the data, it would seem as though Friday was perhaps the busiest day in terms of PnP ad postings. With respect to sexual orientation, most (89.9%) of the ad posters did not list their sexual orientation (n = 170), 11 posters (5.8%) listed their orientation as “bisexual,” four posters (2.1%) listed their orientation as “gay,” and three (1.6%) listed their orientation as “straight.” One poster listed that he was a cross-dresser. HIV status was also measured, however, of the 189 ads posted, 149 (78.8%) did not list their status, leaving only 21 (11.1%) of the posters reporting their HIV status in their ads. Of those listing, two (9.5%) listed their status as HIV seropositive, and 19 (90.5%) listed their status as HIV seronegative. Presentation of Self The text of each ad was analyzed to determine whether each ad satisfied the dramaturgical elements of Goffman’s (1959) “presentation of self/front,” the elements of which consisted of “setting,” “personal front,” “appearance,” and “manner.” Several of these subdomains were comprised of tertiary domains, as explained in the methodology. Of the 189 ads that were analyzed, it was determined that 66% contained all of the elements offront (n = 125).

82

Setting Seventy-five percent of the ads (n = 142) mentioned or described a setting preferred by the ad poster. There was a fairly even split, with 79 posters preferring to host (42%) and 85 posters preferring to travel (45%) to a prospective mate’s location. It was inferred that those wishing to host perhaps did so because they did not wish to travel with drugs on their person, or because they were intoxicated and chose not to drive, or due to a lack of transportation (or sufficient funds to afford public transportation or a taxi, for example). Those wishing to travel might have preferred this due to their living situation (e.g., living with a partner, roommate[s], or family), or because they did not have a home or other location in which they could host, or because of the remoteness of their location (e.g., they did not wish to inconvenience another to have to travel the distance). Twenty-five posters (13%) expressed no preference. Two ads listed a hotel as the location, with both ad posters requesting that a potential mate travel to them. One example is listed in Figure 9. Personal Front The majority of ad posters (74.6%) satisfied all three of the tertiary domains for personal front (n = 141). When reporting size, 57.6% (n = 109) reported both height (average height of 5’8”) and weight (average weight of 171 lbs.). The remaining 25.4% of the ads (n = 48) listed either height or weight, or did not list either. For ads listing either height or weight, it was found that more posters (52%) chose to list height (n = 98) rather than weight (46%, or n = 87; see Figure 10).

83

Though the reasons are unclear, 5.8% of the posters (n = 11) chose to list their weight with letters, such as “one seventy” (Figure 11) rather than numbers (e.g., “145 lbs.”). Similarly, nine posters (4.7%) chose to list their height as letters, such as “five foot eight inches,” rather than numbers (e.g., 5’8”), while four posters (2.1%) listed their height using a combination of alpha and numeric characters, such as “six feet 2”” (Figure 12). Figure 13 shows an example of a poster that has spelled both his height and weight using letters instead of numbers. Nothing could be found in the literature to describe this pattern, however, further research may be warranted. For the tertiary domain “looks,” a large majority (78.8%) of posters (n = 149) included descriptors. Some used “very good-looking,” “masculine,” “hot,” or “workedout” to describe themselves. Others posted “average body,” or “lean.” Still some posters described themselves as “overweight,” or “chubby.” These descriptors were often included whether or not the posters had chosen to list his size and weight. The tertiary subdomain, “race/ethnicity” was listed in only half (47.1%) of the ads (n = 89); of those listing this information, 41.6% of the ads listed “White” (n = 37), 39.3% listed “Hispanic” or “Latin/o” (n - 35), 11.2% listed “Black” (n = 10), and five ads (5.6%) listed an ethnicity that was recorded as "other.” Last, only three (3.4%) listed *

their ethnicity as “Asian.” Appearance For the subdomain “appearance,” only 39% of the ads satisfied this subdomain; 42.8% of the ads (« = 81) mentioned that the poster had party drugs (Figure 14), typically expressed as “(I) have favors,” and/or that they were willing to share drugs with a

84

prospective mate, which was typically expressed as “will share,” “willing to share,” or, “I’ll take care of you,” to cite a few examples. This was interpreted to mean that the poster was economically viable enough, at least for the day in question, to purchase enough drugs to share. Manner Recalling that “manner” referred to the preferred sexual role listed by a poster, a conservative majority (60.3%) of the ads listed the poster’s preference in this regard (n = 114). Of those ads listing a sexual role preference, then, 35.1% listed “bottom” (n = 40), 7.9% listed “versatile bottom” (« = 9), 15% listed “versatile” (n = 17), 6.1% listed “versatile top” (n = 7) and 35.1% listed “top” (n = 40). Approximately 40% of the ads did not list a preference at all (n = 75). Discrepant Roles Thirty-nine percent of the ads failed to list information in at least one of the tertiary domains. Based on the information gleaned from the percentages of ads reporting, a majority of the ads did not list HIV status (78.8%), and most did not include a statement that they had drugs that that they were willing to share (57.2%), suggesting that they were either unwilling to share, did not have drugs to share, were unwilling to disclose this information, or had neglected to include it due to oversight. Last, 52% of the ads did not list weight, and 50.8% of the ads did not list race or ethnicity. The “Typical” PnP Profile Though the present study used a nonprobability sample, a typical profile of a Los Angeles county Craigslist PnPer emerged, based solely on the averages of the coded data

85

herein. For example, this user was White, 33 years of age, 5’10”, 172 pounds, either “top” or “bottom” (as these categories produced equal values), and with no HIV status listed. Furthermore, he placed his ad on a Friday in the Central Los Angeles section; he preferred to travel; he reported that he was physically attractive (e.g., “very goodlooking,” “handsome”), and, he did not list whether he had illicit drugs that he was willing to share. Subcultural Language. Signs and Symbols Many of PnP ads analyzed for this thesis featured drug argots that could have been used in such a way as to distort the meaning and ensure that the message was delivered to a very specific audience—as with the ad featured in Figure 15 (see also Table 1). Invention, as postulated by Sonenschein (1969) seemed to be the key component in the creation of argots (e.g., “cloud,” or “dragon” are both terms used to refer to the smoke that is exhaled from a crystal methamphetamine pipe). For other ads, the use of capitalization schemes, such as using a capital “T” to represent crystal methamphetamine (Figure 16), or a “G” (Figure 17) to represent GHB, were employed as well. As well, a disproportionate number of ads featured an unusual punctuation structure, such as the spacing between periods or comma (e.g., one, two or three spaces), fewer or greater than the standard three “periods” used to denote an ellipses (e.g., “....,” “..... ,” etc.), or ellipses that used commas instead of periods (e.g., “,„”). Figure 18 shows an example of an ellipsis scheme that could be used to convey a phone number, for instance. Though the reasons for their doing so are unknown, it is nonetheless interesting

86

to point out that a large majority of poster’s ads (81.5%) featured a peculiar usage of punctuation (n = 154). Harm Reduction In addition to specifying the type of partner and the type of sex one prefers, some ads also mention the poster’s preference for individuals who are “easy going,” “chill,” “down to earth,” or “drama free,” to name a few examples. One ad (Figure 19) was posted solely to admonish someone for having “used” them for drugs as well as to warn other potential respondents that this would not be tolerated. Pictures In all, 133 of the 189 ads featured a picture (70.4%). The subject matter of the photographs was varied, but typically consisted of semi-nude photographs—most of them showing a close-up image of either a penis (n = 65, or 34.4%) or buttocks (n = 50, or 26.5%). Only two photographs showed the poster’s face (1.1%). Ten ads (5.3%) featured photographs of group sex (seemingly lifted right out of the frames of a gay pornographic movie). Only one ad (0.5%) featured a totally nude picture (without face). Interestingly, the choice of picture seemed to be related to the type of sex or “scene” that was sought. For example, if oral sex was sought, at times, the ad featured a picture of a penis; or, if anal sex was desired, a picture of buttocks or of a sphincter was sometimes displayed. The caveat here is that, whether these were pictures of the actual individual who placed the ad cannot be verified. Examples of photographs are not shown because of the sexually explicated nature of the photos.

87

Deviant Behaviors and Rituals: Sex and Drugs Approximately 88.4% of the ads (n = 167) mentioned drugs (mostly crystal methamphetamine [using argots], but in a few cases, GHB or one of the GABA analogues) and/or sex. With respect to drugs, 92.6% of the ads (n = 175) mentioned drugs using argot or symbols (e.g., “T” or “G”). No ads mentioned a drug by its chemical came (e.g., crystal methamphetamine or GHB). Additionally, 77.2% of the ads (n = 146) mentioned a specific sexual act, typically expressed using slang. Some common examples of sex acts sought were fellatio (e.g., “blow job, “looking to get blown,” “need oral bottom”; see Figure 20), anal intercourse (e.g., “looking to fuck,” “hot bottom needed,” “bottoms apply”; see Figures 21 and 22), mutual masturbation (e.g., “looking to kick back and stroke”; see Figure 23), or group scenes (e.g., “3way,” “group action”; see Figures 24 and 25). Other ads stated that the poster was simply looking to “PnP” or “party” (Figure 26). Buying, selling, trading. Only two of the ads were explicit solicitations for buying drugs—one featured no other information (Figure 27), the other was a very descriptive ad (Figure 28). None of the ads were explicit solicitations for the selling of drugs. However, two ads did mention that the poster was willing to share if the respondent had money to offer him. Last, only one ad poster offered to trade sex for the use of a respondent’s drugs.

88

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The gay world has two distinctions: it is almost universally stigmatized, and no one is socialized within or toward it as a child. (Warren, 1974, p. 4) An Overview The Internet has long been utilized by gay men and MSM as a space for the seeking-out of deviant behaviors such as condomless sex and the use of popular "party drugs.” Within criminal justice, however, there is a tendency to separate such deviant sex- and drug-related behaviors from culture. Thus, these behaviors often become criminalized without recognizing the meaning they may have for the “offenders;” meaning that, in addition to oppression and marginalization, is often borne out of stigmatizing experiences. Because PnP online personal ads tend to be somewhat concise, at first it was thought that a large number of ads would need to be observed and analyzed before a rich, thick description could be made; this was not the case. Although other Internet sources, such as gay profile-based OSNs, offer their members a host of options for communicating with other members (e.g., chat rooms, instant messaging, internal email clients, webcam connections), the simplistic nature of bulletin boards such as Craigslist provides access to a more unrefined social interaction. Men post messages and wait for a response, as if to send a proverbial “message in a bottle.”

The collective stigma experienced by gay men in general, as well as those experienced by certain gay subcultures, such as PnP, was perpetrated by both mainstream heterocentric America and the gay mainstream in the form of safe sex ads, serostatus hierarchies, and drug-free health promotions. These experiences may have helped to form the common bond H.S. Becker (1963) believed existed between subcultural members. Though referring to crime (of which PnP is engaged), Braithwaite (1989) notes that, while the “potent shaming” (p. 4) of criminals is a useful mechanism for lowering the crime rate, shaming could be “counterproductive when it pushes offenders into the clutches of criminal subcultures” (p. 4). The stigmatizing of deviant behavior has an equivalent effect. Stigma might have brought the drug- and sex-related rituals associated with some gay cultures and subcultures (e.g., circuit parties, sex parties, bareback sex, party drugs) to bear. Personal computing (in particular, the creation of gay BBSes and OSNs) has affected these rituals, and it has even facilitated the formation of new ones, including the anonymous posting of PnP ads, which allows PnPers to hide, to be free from detection, and to be safe from stigma and all its accompaniments. The ways in which PnPers present themselves online, how they communicate and negotiate risk and/or reduce harm to themselves and others, and the types and reasons for their engagement in deviant behaviors, such as illicit party drug usage and condomless sex, do have meaning; however, it was determined that this meaning is not necessarily apparent through the ads placed by PnPers on Craigslist. Recalling the explanations for subcultural secrecy given

90

by Goffman (1959), H.S. Becker (1963), and Hebdige (1979), this was not a surprising finding. Traditional epidemiological studies and “dispositional theories of crime and deviance” (Hayward, 2007, p. 233), of PnP and its attendant behaviors often result in the stripping of “offenders” of their culture, and that, as a result, it is much more difficult to create effective policies to address their true needs. Similarly, until such a time as PnP is acknowledged as a subcultural milieu, any resultant policy will continue to criminalize them, to medicalize them, and to pathologize them. Indeed, as Braithwaite (1989) predicted, such policies will even continue to push stigmatized gay men into subcultures such as PnP. In his book, HIV as ‘The Line in the Sand’, Botnick (2000) provides a comprehensive account of how the gay community was not only stigmatized, it was divided by the impact of the AIDS epidemic. According to Botnick, the spread of AIDS caused gay men to think negatively of themselves and to denounce their “free, open, exuberant, and celebratory” (p. 44) attitudes about sex. Neighborhood gay bars set the stage for heated debates—all speculation—over what types of intimate activities were safe or unsafe. Each new case of infection elicited gasps of fear and revulsion, causing those who suspected they were sick to feel the first signs of stigma; indeed, this caused many to wait until it was too late to seek treatment (Shifts, 1987). As the death toll rose, gay pride was given over to a collective shame and sorrow. For several years, scientists struggled to locate the cause (Shifts, 1987); meanwhile, with the etiology of the illness still unknown, who-had-it and how-it-was-spread remained

91

mysteries. Before long, previously popular public spaces such as bars and nightclubs fell empty and quiet, the bathhouses were closed and condemned, and the ghettos became ghost towns (Botnick, 2000). This stigma was only further compounded by reports that the disease had spread beyond the walls of the “gay ghettos” of “The Village” (New York, NY), “The Castro” (San Francisco, CA), South Beach (Miami, FL), and “WeHo” (West Hollywood, CA), and was beginning to infect hemophiliacs and children— “innocent victims” (Botnick, 2000, p. 57). It is thus not surprising, then, that HIV/AIDS-related stigma has been found to be negatively associated with good health and mental wellbeing in HIV-seropositive men (Frost at al., 2007), and has been reported to cause higher anxiety, depression, feelings of loneliness, and even suicidal ideations in both seropositive and seronegative men alike (Courtenay-Quirk et al., 2006). Because HIV-seropositive men often risk rejection each time they disclose to a potential new partner, and, because this information—absent an understanding of the underlying meaning—can quickly be used to stigmatize, medicalize, or criminalize their behavior, the resultant stigma of disclosing HIV status could even cause them to seek encounters where they would be free to engage in condomless sex without feeling the need to disclose (Bird & Voisin, 2010). Recalling that more than three-quarters of the ads analyzed in the present study did not list HIV status, it is perhaps wise to consider that a gay man’s perceived stigma over disclosure, whether he is positive and does not wish to distance himself from negative respondents, or vice verse, could affect his decision whether or not to divulge this information.

92

The literature is rife with studies that examine the relationship between stigma and being gay or HIV-seropositive, as well as stigma’s effects on both physical health and mental wellbeing (e.g., Chaney & Blalock, 2006; Davis et al., 2006; Berg, 2008; McKiman, Houston, & Tolou-Shams, 2007; Kakietek, Sullivan & Heffelfinger, 2011). Before AIDS, gay men were stigmatized, even criminalized for engaging in nonprocreative, same-gender sex. Since the emergence of AIDS, however, this dialectic has attached lethal consequences. In addition to the threat of being arrested for transmitting the HIV virus, gay men lived with the stigma of the “safe sex” messages that had become the gay community’s de rigueur, and, that were once promoted with a zealousness that seemed to blind even ASO educators to the grim truth that these promotions were ineffective and that HIV infections were actually on the rise. Only recently has attention turned towards the gay community as a source of HIV-related stigma. One such consequence has been the reluctance of HIV-seropositive men to disclose their serostatus before having sex, either due to stigmatization, or because they fear criminal sanctions. For would-be PnPers, then, the sweeping changes that were promoted in the face of the AIDS epidemic—the renouncement of unprotected sex, the disavowal of party drugs, and the pressure to disclose one’s HIV status—were likely perceived as stigmatizing admonishments (e.g., Adam et al., 2011). As a result, it is perceivable that these changes may have caused some to feel pressure to either modify or abandon behaviors that, for some, were used as coping mechanisms (Grov, 2010)— something they may have been unprepared or unwilling to do (e.g., O’Malley & Valverde, 2004); thus, they continued to engage in behaviors the mainstream had decried

as unhealthy or dangerous. Perhaps responses based on harm reduction, with its ‘bottomup” language, could address the further stigmatization of gay men by their own. When discussing deviance such as PnP, and then drawing comparisons from the cultural expectations and social roles typically associated with the life course for heterosexual men, the life course for gay men is often quite different. It is possible, then, that for some gay men who PnP, a “relatively limited attachment to conventional [straight or gay mainstream] societal roles” (Golub et al., 2005, p. 211) might exist. Surely, the fact that some PnPers engage in behavior that is known to go against social norms, at the very least, might suggest such a limited attachment. Recalling that most of the ads analyzed mentioned were posted in pursuit of drug-driven sexual experience suggests that, at least for some of these men, societal norms with respect to drug usage and sex-ondrugs are, at least temporarily, disregarded. Still, most PnPers who post on Craiglist recognize the potential harms of being discovered for violating social norms. Thus, they seek to avoid detection (from the mainstream, from law enforcement, from other gay subcultures) by anonymously posting on Craigslist to partake in the soliciting or offering of drugs and sex. The fact that all of the ad posters used PnP-specific argots, and that none mentioned party drugs by their chemical names (e.g., crystal methamphetamine, gamma-hydroxybutyrate) suggests an attempt at secrecy. Hence, they are able to engage in these behaviors without being stigmatized and labeled. They can “safely” circumvent the medicalization and criminalization of their behavior.

94

While it may not be possible to determine the exact origins of PnP, the emergence of behaviors that are now closely associated with this subculture, in particular, bareback sex, have been well documented and may offer an explanation for the “P” and “P” connection. Perhaps, for some gay men, these activities embodied what it meant to be “gay”; then, at some point, these men began to discover each other and realized they, indeed, shared a common fate. Regardless, their actions (indeed, reactions!) ran counter to mainstream cultural norms; they can even be interpreted as a demonstration of their resistance to the larger gay culture’s call for safe, drug-free sex. Similar to the subcultural transformations of style Hebdige (1979) described as going “against nature” (p. 18), their actions could also represent a form of speech that would most likely be perceived as offensive to outsiders (e.g., some non-PnP ads were found to contain language such as “No PnP,” or “No tweakers”), or “the silent majority” (p. 18), which, while one might interpret this majority as being comprised of heterocentric mainstream America, in this case, also includes the LGBTQ community. Cultural criminology points out that, all too often, mainstream criminologists and criminal justice practitioners conduct studies that seek to influence policy and/or lead to the creation of laws that seek to control deviant behavior; however, because these studies do not also seek an understanding of the purpose or meaning that a particular behavior (or set of behaviors) has for a group, the policies and laws, in effect, criminalize, medicalize and pathologize behavior and/or groups. They make others believe that these groups are diseased or criminals that should be demonized, ostracized, and institutionalized. Yet, most of a subculture’s purposes and meanings seek to provide them with power and/or

resistance from the laws, from the stigmatization, and from the medicalization that are derived from mainstream societal norms both within and outside gay culture. Implications This study focused primarily on understanding how one causal mechanism of subcultural migration—stigma—was and is perhaps most responsible for the emergence of PnP and its continuance. It is imperative that those wishing to address either the behaviors of those who PnP or PnP as a whole acknowledge the fact that even a wellmeaning gesture of support or a message of health promotion can be misconstrued as casting blame. It is also important to note many “gay people are now . . . AIDS affected, grief affected,” and have “fatalistically changed identities]” (Botnick, 2000, p. 51). As a result, they may respond differently to messages regarding safe sex, HIV, and drug usage—based on who they perceive themselves to be. The future of safe sex ads and promotions should thus take into consideration the populations that will respond favorably to these messages and those that may perhaps rebel. User-based solutions are another solution. In a study that addressed the “[drug] user side of harm reduction” (Friedman et al., 2006, para. 1), researchers focused on early intervention efforts in the cities of New York, Rotterdam, Buenos Aires, and others areas throughout Central Asia and found that the efforts of drugs users were actually helpful in curbing HIV infection. They concluded, Drug users are active agents in their own individual and collective behalf, and in helping to protect wider communities, and that “harm reduction activities and research should take note of and draw upon both the micro-social and formal organizations of users.” (Friedman et al., 2006, para. 1)

96

While it is important to acknowledge the use of illicit drugs by gay men, this thesis focused primarily on the use of crystal methamphetamine and the GABA analogues, “party drugs,” by gay men who “party and play.” With respect to the drugand sex-related services available to gay men, one study noted that it is quite possible to find large gay urban enclaves where the number of gay men and gay couples is high, but where institutions of support (e.g., LGBTQ community centers, counseling centers, gay and gay-friendly churches and synagogues) do not exist (Carpiano et al., 2011). This is an area that needs further research; that is, what institutions, agencies, and/or services are necessary to provide a social support system, other than bars and gay-owned retail businesses, for the growing population of gay men, in general, but also for the men who use illicit drugs and engage in “risky” sex? Finally, personal advertisements on such sites as Craigslist.com should be studied further. These ads represent a form of the online formations and expressions of deviant subcultures. They may even provide a glimpse of the past events that gave rise to their present-day behaviors. Limitations In her book, The High Life, Perrone (2010) states, “Like many . . . whose own life experiences, such as their living arrangements, conveniently provided them with access to drug users or dealers, my early life experiences supplied me with an entire entree into the lives of drug users” (p. 10). Indeed, my own early life experiences also afforded me introductions to the lives of drug users; however, in addition to my living arrangements, these experiences were also found within the social spheres (e.g., nightclubs, bars, circuit

97

parties, fundraisers, pride parades and festivals) and social circles (e.g., acquaintances, coworkers, friends, partners, even family) that were inextricably tied to my identity as a gay man. Thus, while I do not perhaps identify as a PnPer, I share much in common with these men, as well as gay men in general, at least in terms of my beliefs and attitudes towards the criminalization, marginalization, medicalization, and stigmatization of the LGBTQ community. Coffey (1999) discusses at length the importance of the self in fieldwork, noting that it had become, “increasingly fashionable for individual researchers to ‘personalize’ their accounts” (p. 1). I have thus far tried to avoid being “fashionable” in this regard. Nonetheless, Coffey holds that “it is totally necessary and desirable to [also] recognize that we are part of what we study, affected by the cultural context and shaped by our fieldwork experience” (Coffey, 1999, p. 37). In other words, when we perform fieldwork we quite often work on our own identities, as well. For this reason, it was difficult to not take a biased stance on an issue that is so elegant in its simplicity, but that is made so complex by the neglect of criminal justice practitioners, criminologists, and behavioral and medical health professionals to consider these men (and their behaviors) as subcultural phenomena. And yet, through a careful selection of a thesis committee comprised of members to whom I felt comfortable disclosing my sexual orientation, as well as an intensive research assistantship in a community-based HIV/STD clinic that treated gay men (including self-disclosed PnPers), I was able to maintain an objective perspective on the facts surrounding PnP, as well as in my interpretation of the data. According to Geertz (1973) only a “native” is qualified to make first order interpretations

of his culture, because “it’s his culture” (p. 15). Still, because I am a gay man, and because I hope that my research will address a significant issue in my community, I feel that it is prudent to present these facts as potentially serious limitations. This thesis is also limited in that only a content analysis of PnP ads was conducted. While it would have been preferable to conduct open-ended interviews with PnPers, the considerable amount of time and expense necessary for such an undertaking was not possible. Certainly, interviews would have allowed for the discussion of unknowns; as well, through an open dialogue with interviewees, further variables would have undoubtedly sprung forth. Other personal ad sections on Craigslist are frequented by gay men and MSM (e.g., “Casual Encounters,” “Miscellaneous Romance”), and in which PnPers are also known to post messages. PnP is certainly not specific to Los Angeles County, or California, or even the United States—it occurs across the globe. Thus, this thesis cannot be generalized outside of Los Angeles; indeed, it most likely cannot be generalized to even the group that was sampled. Last, the methodology is limited inasmuch as the sampling time frame was brief, and thus did not account for all the of the ads that may have been posted during each 24period that was sampled. Future studies of this sort should attempt to gather as many ads as possible, either through an automatic collection, or by utilizing more collection periods each day. As noted by Steinmetz (2012), there are inherent problems with virtual ethnographies that utilize online message boards. In addition to the inability to confirm

99

identities, the boundaries of space are difficult to replicate and temporality makes it difficult to experience the data in real-time. For instance, the sample is not representative as it is likely that those who posted after 3:00 a.m., and then removed their ad hours later had no chance of being in the study. Nonetheless, this thesis did not seek to compare sections of a website or one website with another website. The purpose was to articulate the similarities in the ways in which one subculture of PnP in a single metropolitan area (i.e., the greater Los Angeles area) presented themselves online, the types of drug argots they used, the information they disclosed (or did not disclose, either due to oversight or omission), and the ways in which they reduced harm to themselves in an effort to link the behaviors to their presumed underlying meanings. Conclusions Despite the paucity of PnP-specific research, there are countless studies of similar drug- or sex-related behaviors; these neither mention PnP specifically, nor do they elucidate the collective experiences of gay men who use illicit drugs and/or engage in condomless sex (see Carpiano et al.’s [2011] study of the role of neighborhoods and networks in drug use among gay men; or, Kelly et al.’s [2009] study of stress and coping among HIV-positive barebackers, as examples). Rather, the available research on the combining of drug- and sex-related behaviors by gay men, including qualitative studies from the disciplines of cultural studies (e.g., Green & Halkitis, 2006) and sociology (e.g., Davis et al., 2006), and quantitative findings from the fields of addiction science (e.g., Lee et al., 2004; Klein, 2011), epidemiology (e.g., Carpiano et al., 2011), and behavioral

100

health (e.g., Berg, 2008) has focused on the individualized psychosocial and healthrelated consequences of these behaviors. This is not surprising given that most of this research has been initiated by researchers in the fields of public and behavioral health, in other words, researchers who are more concerned with the epidemiological consequences of combining drugs and sex (i.e., “high-risk” behavior), particularly among individual gay men. Typically, these studies “strip” these men of their cultural identities, such that they become “men-who-have-sex-with-men” or “MSM,” as opposed to “gay,” a term to which no culture is attached, and which has the potential to further stigmatize. Still, and obviously, there is considerable interest in the high-risk drug- and sexrelated behaviors of these men; and, there have been countless attempts to study these behaviors when developing policies, promotions, and strategies for addressing their epidemiological consequences. For instance, Davis et al. (2006) examined gay “edating” in an effort to understand the interplay between HIV transmission and the Internet; Solomon, et al. (2011) examined the attendance and behavior of young MSM at sex parties in New York City; and, Grov (2010) looked at the risky sex- and drug-seeking behaviors of MSM using Craigslist’s online bulletin board. Most of these studies, albeit providing useful information on the consequences of high-risk behavior, neglect to acknowledge the subcultural milieu that exists among gay men who “party” and “play.” They fail to consider that the behaviors of those who PnP may have an underlying meaning that is not uncovered using conventional, quantitative research methods, but that is nonetheless important to a deeper understanding of these men and their actions. Typically, quantitative studies are unable to say much about the

actual nature of behavior—especially where cultural or subcultural expression is concerned. For example, studies of methamphetamine use among gay men have a tendency, to leave the symbolic and interactional spheres under-analyzed, including the meanings sexual actors attach to these event as special instances of sexual sociality, the interactional norms and pressures that circulate in these milieu, and how these may work in tandem to shape drug-taking motivation and behaviour. (Green & Halkitis, 2006, p. 319) Such an understanding could potentially lead to responses and policies that are more effective, more personalized, and ultimately, more meaningful. As long as researchers remain focused on individual-level factors, such as “self-esteem and social awkwardness” (Green & Halkitis, 2006, p. 317), the importance of social context will continue to be overlooked and the “interactional pressures attendant to . . . gay sexual subculture[s]” (p. 317) will not be addressed. This thesis has thus described one such subculture, and it has given reasons underlying the meaning of its deviant behavior. It is hoped that this critique will inform criminal justice, public health, and the behavioral science that the perpetuation of stigma in this group of men (e.g., by criminalizing and pathologizing them) will not cause their behaviors to abate; it may actually create new ones. For this reason, new approaches are warranted. Approaches that continued ethnographies continued cultural examinations would no doubt bring to bear.

102

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A TABLES

104

TABLE 1. PnP-related Drug Argots and Slang Number of times used

% of ads (N= 165)

PNP/pnp/PnP/Pnp/Pnp-ing

162

98.2

Parti/Party/Party and play/Party play/party n play/parTy/partying/ partying & looking 2 play/party ing/partied/partied up/partying it/ Pnplay up/PRTY Favors/faves/favs/partyfaves/party favors/fVrs Blow/blow clouds/blow some clouds/blowing/ blowing clouds/ clouds/t-clouds/white clouds Chill/chill out PnP friendly Tina/tina Long session/slow fun/slow play/sex act for hours Supplier/supplies/supply Connect/connection Smoke/smoke out/smoke some Tina/smoking Kick it/kickin in/kik it Ski

104

64.8

35

21.2

31

18.7

28 20 19 14

17.0 12.1 11.5 8.5

9 6 6

5.5 3.6 3.6

5 5

3.0 3.0

Gt/G-tee/T&G

3

1.8

420 420 friendly

16 11

9.7 6.7

Drug Crystal methamphetamine

Slang/Argot

Gammahydroxybutyrate Gamma-butyrolactone Butanediol Marijuana

105

TABLE 2. Presentation of Self: Subdomains and Points Subdomain

Tertiary Domains with Codes Size Height, weight

Personal front

1

Looks Clean-shaven Beard' moustache, scruffy Hot, stud Jock, muscular, worked-out Overweight, thin, slender Race Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, Other, Unknown

Setting

Appearance/Drugs

Manner

Points

Hosting Travelling Hotel/motel Public space Other

1

1

1

Buying Selling Trading Sharing Bring your own

1

Top, Top/Versatile Versatile Bottom, Bottom/Versatile Bottom

Total points

106

1

6

TABLE 3. Examples of Harm Reduction Subdomain

Incompatibilities

Picture/Physical Statistics Requirements

Observations Age requirements (e.g., “No one over 25 ”) Drug requirements (e.g., “Must have own drugs ”) HIV requirements (e.g., “HIV negative only) Physical requirements (e.g., “No one under 5 ’6 ”) Personality requirements (e.g., “D on’t be a fre a k ”) Racial requirements (e.g., “Blacks only”) Sexual role restrictions (e.g., top, bottom) Face picture required Penis/buttocks picture required Physical statistics required

Drug Requirements

Respondent must have own drugs Respondent must provide monetary compensation

Reputation Concerns

DL or “down low ” Must be discrete

107

TABLE 4. Deviant Sex Behaviors Observations

Domain

Sex behaviors

Feminization BDSM (bondage & discipline and/or sadomasochism) Group / Orgy Breeding Underage (fantasized, not actual) Sex trade Bareback sex Public sex Carnival (e.g., kink, nasty, perv, pig, raunch, uninhibited)

108

TABLE 5. Demographics Variable

N = 189

% of ads (N= 189)

Location Central Los Angeles Long Beach/562 San Gabriel Valley San Fernando Valley Westside/South Bay Antelope Valley

71 23 13 42 14 1

37.6 12.2 6.9 22.2 7.5 0.52

Hours o f ad placement 8:00 a.m. -7 :5 9 p.m. 8:00 p.m. - 7:59 a.m.

113 76

59.8 40.2

Days o f week Friday (2) Saturday (2) Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday (2)

55 54 13 3 10 30 24

29.1 28.6 6.9 1.6 5.3 15.9 12.7

Sexual orientation Gay Bisexual Straight Not listed

4 11 3 170

2.1 5.8 1.6 89.9

HIV status Seropositive Seronegative Not listed

2 19 149

9.5 10.1 78.8

109

APPENDIX B FIGURES

110

Offline

^COKM M M It|t|: itomn

Itario - Toronto ~ Downtown Toronto

Contact

^Cowwwat g b

v*g*»

Working for it, means working with it 29, 5 ' t V \ Xfiatb, 32**. Athletic, Shoved Hair, Smooth, Slack, looking for Friendship. Got a lot to work with, looking for something to work for in common with it. Canrt chat what it is,,.DON’T ASK WHAT I m&&I™OFF£St WHAT YOU HAVE TO WORK w*th and trust me to know amafc I am working wsth ....What I seek is not something you look for or fmd...like most thing unknown it has to be discovered, you know its yours when it discovers you, Movies with g 'e a : daiog action and surprise, I jCookmgf from, a picture of prepare. Sexy :bodies with a person inside. Travel and b e ^ g k?anapped; by a good book or a decent man!

j™

llllllj

Ijjjji &Savte»*rg sftacbga