NEO-NORMATIVITY, THE GAY AND MARDI GRAS, AND LATRINALIA: THE DEMONSTRATION OF A CONCEPT ON NON-HETEROSEXUAL PERFORMATIVITIES

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

EDGAR YUE LAP LIU

School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences Faculty of Science University of New South Wales Sydney, Australia September 2008 Declaration

I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge and belief, it contains no material previously published or written by another person, nor material which to a substantial extent has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis.

I also declare that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that assistance from others in the project’s design and conception or in style, presentation and linguistic expression is acknowledged.

Edgar Yue Lap LIU COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation. I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only). I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………......

AUTHENTICITY STATEMENT

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………......

Date ……………………………………………...... Abstract This thesis uses the theory of abjection to understand differentiations in non- heterosexual identity performances in two distinct spaces – the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) parade and its associated press coverage, and latrinalia (graffiti found inside public ). At the same time, this thesis also presents evidence for a new concept of neo-normativity, where the stereotypical is normalised, both internally and externally, and actively reproduced. Neo-normativity, in turn, succeeds in explaining the many abjected relationships that between non-heterosexual communities and the stereotypical and quintessentialised performances. At the 2005 SGLMG parade such quintessentialised (or neo-normalised) performances were treated with both contempt – for being stereotypical and narrowly representative of the very diversity of non-heterosexual communities – as well as a tool for attracting commercial sponsorships which have growingly become an integral part to the continued survival of the annual parade. On a different level, another expression of abject was also revealed when these neo-normalised performances are persistently criticised by academics, news reporting and official photography for being stereotypical and non-representative which in itself are both a recognition as well as an ejection of the non-normative aspects of non-heterosexualities. Such an expression of abject was also evident in latrinalia found in several public facilities throughout Greater Sydney where the interplay of desire and ejection were played out in a more covert manner, all the while highlighting the marginality of non-heterosexualities in these presumably heteronormative spaces. This application of abject theory emphasises neo- normative performances as permanently peripheral, a marginality of which makes these performances (and identities) intrinsically Queer. Table of contents

List of tables iii List of figures v Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Topic selection and development 1 1.2 Aims and objectives 5 1.3 Research approach and thesis outline 6 Chapter 2: Understanding identity construction and politics 10 2.1 The early generalisation of non-heterosexualities in western societies 11 2.2 Beyond dualism – essentialism versus constructivism versus de- categorisation 15 2.3 Performances and their maintenance – Judith Butler 20 2.4 The politics of naming – GLBT versus Queer versus non-heterosexual 24 2.5 Abjection 31 2.6 Non-heterosexual stereotypings and neo-normativity 35 2.7 Conclusion 43 Chapter 3: Sexualities and their spatial divisions 46 3.1 Gendered/sexualised spaces 47 3.1.1 Hetero-essentialism and non-heterosexual acquisition 49 3.1.2 Gay male spaces and patriarchal privileges 53 3.1.3 The invisibles – spatiality of 59 3.1.4 Can we speak of bisexual, transgender, and/or transsexual spaces? 66 3.2 Urban versus suburban verus rural 67 3.3 Public versus semi-public versus private 72 3.4 Conclusion 77 Chapter 4: Methodologies 79 4.1 Location, location, location: three distinctly unique field sites 80 4.1.1 The 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) parade 80 4.1.2 Public parklands 83 4.1.3 University libraries 86 4.2 Analysing non-heterosexual identities: to graffiti or not graffiti 89 4.2.1 Previous researches on graffiti/latrinalia 89 4.2.2 Recognising non-heterosexual latrinalia 93 4.2.3 Analysing latrinalia 95 4.3 Field work and data collection 97

i

4.3.1 Visual materials as field data: collecting photography 97 4.3.2 Studying what you see: collecting through participation observation 100 4.4 Generating usable data from collected field materials: coding worksheets and SPSS 102 4.5 Wading through the data ‘jungle’ in search of meaning: analytical methodologies 110 4.5.1 Statistical analysis 111 4.5.2 Content analysis 112 4.5.3 Narrative analysis 113 4.5.4 Discourse analysis 114 4.5.5 Visual analytical methodologies 115 4.6 Conclusion 117 Chapter 5: The neo-normalising of non-heterosexual identity performances at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 119 5.1 Commercialisation and stereotypical performances at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade 122 5.2 The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, commercialisation and politics 135 5.3 Political activism at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade 143 5.4 Underlying politics of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 157 5.5 A straight-forward relationship between commercialisation and de- politicisation? A case for abjection 161 5.6 Conclusion 166 Chapter 6: The mediated gazes of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade 169 6.1 Neo-normalising through highlighting of the stereotypical 173 6.2 Depiction of place, affiliation and sponsorship 187 6.3 De-politicising the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade 194 6.4 Public space as asexual (or is it heteronormative) space 201 6.5 Neo-normalising through spectator depiction 206 6.6 Conclusion 212 Chapter 7: Public toilets are the new talkback radio: Covert performances of non-heterosexual identities in public spaces 216 7.1 Covert non-heterosexual performances in public spaces: Latrinalia unsettling heteronorms 217 7.2 Find me somebody to love: Sexualising non-heterosexual presence(s) 228

ii

7.3 Neo-normalisation through objectification 236 7.4 Graffiting as highly gendered activity: The absence of lesbian latrinalia 244 7.5 Restoring unsettled heteronorms 250 7.6 Conclusion 263 Chapter 8: Discussion and conclusion 264 8.1 Thesis summary 265 8.2 Deciphering neo-normativity 271 8.3 Where to from here? 277 8.4 Postscript 280 Bibliography 284

List of tables

Table 4.1: University campuses with library facilities in the Greater Sydney region, 2004 88 Table 4.2: Images of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade from external sources 100 Table 4.3: Terms appearing in latrinalia categorised for content analyses 108 Table 5.1: Commercial sponsors of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade 128 Table 5.2: Relationships between financial sponsorship and neo-normativity, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 132 Table 5.3: Pearson’s correlation tests between commercial sponsorship and parade group performances 133 Table 5.4: Evidence on the positive relationship between GLBT organisational sponsorship and neo-normativity 134 Table 5.5: Inverse relationship between financial sponsorship and the level of political militancy at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 137 Table 5.6: Significantly negative relationship between commercial sponsorship and the level of political display, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 138 Table 5.7: Positive relationship between sponsorship from GLBT organisations and the level of political display, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 138

iii

Table 5.8: Relationship between display of overt political statement and status of sponsorship, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March, 2005 139 Table 5.9: Significantly positive relationship between commercial sponsorship and the non-display of overt political statements, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 140 Table 5.10: Negative relationship between commercial sponsorship and the non- display of overt political statements, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 141 Table 6.1: Images of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade from external sources 170 Table 6.2: Images that portrayed stereotypical non-heterosexual identity performances, 2005 173 Table 6.3: Representation of costume elements by source of images, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 177 Table 6.4: Representation of sexualised and/or fetishistic performances by source of image, 2005 181 Table 6.5: Depiction of external organisation affiliation by type of organisation, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 188 Table 6.6: Depiction of sponsorship by type of sponsor, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 192 Table 6.7: Images depicting 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade performances by source and political rating, 2005 197 Table 6.8: Images that did not display overt political statements, 2005 199 Table 6.9: Differences in gender represented in images from external sources, 2005 204 Table 7.1: Latrinalia field samples by field sites, Greater Sydney, 2004 218 Table 7.2: Sexual references in latrinalia by field sites, Greater Sydney, 2004 229 Table 7.3: Objectification through use of terms in latrinalia by field sites, Greater Sydney, 2004 238 Table 7.4: Combining of terms in latrinalia description by field sites, Greater Sydney, 2004 239 Table 7.5: Type of latrinalia by field sites, Greater Sydney, 2004 240 Table 7.6: Objectification through use of terms in latrinalia by field sites, Greater Sydney, 2004 243

iv

Table 7.7: Number of latrinalia collected by gender of toilet, Greater Sydney, 2004 245 Table 7.8: Derogatory, homophobic and anti-homophobic latrinalia by field sties, Greater Sydney, 2004 251 Table 7.9: Homophobic use of the terms “fag” or “faggot” by field sites, Greater Sydney, 2004 253

List of figures

Figure 4.1: The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade route, 2005 82 Figure 4.2: Open plaza of Taylor Square at dusk, Sydney, 9th July 2006 83 Figure 4.3: The four public parklands included for fieldwork 85 Figure 4.4: Locations of university campuses in the Greater Sydney region, 2004 87 Figure 4.5: Follow the lead – the positioning of an initial entry and its subsequent responses, male toilets, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July 2004 94 Figure 4.6: Coding worksheet for the SGLMG parade data set 104 Figure 4.7: Coding worksheet for the latrinalia data sets 107 Figure 5.1: Cross-dressers and transvestites dominate the TV1-sponsored parade group ‘Tranny Nannies’, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 130 Figure 5.2: Logo of New Mardi Gras Inc, which incorporates the silhouette of the Sydney Opera House with an up-turned triangle 142 Figure 5.3: ‘Rainbow’ parents and children, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 145 Figure 5.4: Using children to normalise non-heterosexual family make-ups, Chiefs of Parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 145 Figure 5.5: The all-female group of Arab Dyke Friends and Family, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 147 Figure 5.6: ‘Our Freedom, Their Freedom Too’ protesting against the criminal status of same-sex sexual acts in overseas countries as represented by their flags, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 147 Figure 5.7: Promotion of safer sex practices, Twenty Years of ACON, AIDS Council of Australia, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 149

v

Figure 5.8: Tributes to high-profile AIDS victim , Oz Showbiz Cares, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 149 Figure 5.9: Portraying the Australian Prime Minister as one half of a sado- masochistic same-sex couple, GLAM, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 151 Figure 5.10: Mocking of high profile opposite-sex weddings, The Wedding of Charles & Camilla, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 151 Figure 5.11: A change of attitudes – the role of the NSW Police at the SGLMG parade changed from obstruction to participation, the NSW Police, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th march 2005 153 Figure 5.12: Involvement of other public service authorities, the NSW Rural Fire Service, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th march 2005 153 Figure 5.13: Independent Member of State Parliament and Sydney City Lord Mayor Clover Moore celebrates 20 years of participation in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th march 2005 154 Figure 5.14: The Australian Labor Party showing its support through its ‘Rainbow’ division, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th march 2005 154 Figure 5.15: The Australian Democrats Party has had a long history of supporting non-heterosexual rights in Australian politics, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th march 2005 155 Figure 5.16 Some other, smaller political parties such as the Australian Unity Party also participated in the 2005 parade, Australian Unity Party, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th march 2005 155 Figure 5.17: The environmentally green and politically Left – The Greens at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th march 2005 156 Figure 6.1: An example of the effeminising and objectifying of non- heterosexualities at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6th March, 2005 174 Figure 6.2: A cross-dresser poses with a group of jubilant Japanese tourists, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 176 Figure 6.3: Male nudity was more readily reflected by the media than female nudity, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 176

vi

Figure 6.4: Sequined cowboys, cowgirls and Indians fronting the Sunday Telegraph’s report of the 2005 parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 178 Figure 6.5: Shining glamour taking prime position in news reportage, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 180 Figure 6.6: Scantily-clad Adams and Eves this time not tempted by the Howard serpent, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 181 Figure 6.7: Civilians on parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 183 Figure 6.8: PlaySchool mums and their daughter in everyday clothing participated as the Chiefs of Parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 184 Figure 6.9: Images of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade performances by level of politics displayed, 2005 195 Figure 6.10: Sydney City Lord Mayor participating in the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 200 Figure 6.11: Cropped version of Figure 6.2 reproduced in the print edition of Sun Herald, 6th March 2005 207 Figure 7.1: facilities at Parramatta Park, Parramatta, 2004 220 Figure 7.2: Public toilet facilities at Moore Park, Moore Park, 2004 221 Figure 7.3: Young lust – an example of latrinalia advertising for after school non- heterosexual meetings, Moore Park, 22nd October 2004 222 Figure 7.4: Parramatta Park, 16th October 2004 223 Figure 7.5: Heteronormalising university toilets through latrinalia, male toilet, level 3, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004 224 Figure 7.6: “Steve Phil” – love on the back of a cubicle door, male toilet, level 11, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004 225 Figure 7.7: Placement of non-heterosexual latrinalia in hard-to-view spaces often invisibilises them to may toilet users, male toilet, level 3, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004 226 Figure 7.8: “Seeks regular wank mate” – example of explicit latrinalia, male toilet, level 5, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004 230

vii

Figure 7.9: Gay pride as a challenge to the heteronormative assumption of toilet spaces, male toilet, level 2, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July 2004 231 Figure 7.10: The sunken entrances to Toilet No.2, Parramatta Park, Parramatta, 2005 233 Figure 7.11: The hidden entrances to Toilet No.3, Parramatta Park, Parramatta, 2005 234 Figure 7.12: Graphical depictions of latrinalia, Greater Sydney, 2005 241 Figure 7.13: Dear Miss K – a ‘female’ non-heterosexual latrinalia chain, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July, 2004 247 Figure 7.14: “Dirty Lebanese monkies” – an example of a derogatory latrinalia, male toilet, level 4, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July 2004 252 Figure 7.15: Implicitly homophobic latrinalia, male toilet, level 3, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004 255 Figure 7.16: Admonishing heterosexuals – anti-homophobic sentiments in a male toilet, level 11, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004 256 Figure 7.17: Vandalism as a strategy in (re)establishing heteronormativity, male toilet, level 3, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004 257 Figure 7.18: The painting of dark patches as deterrent in reducing latrinalia inside public toilets, Toilet No. 3, Parramatta Park, 16 October 2004 260 Figure 7.19: Brick stencilled pattern as deterrent in reducing latrinalia inside public toilets, Toilet No. 2, Parramatta Park, 16 October 2004 260 Figure 8.1: The provocative costumes highlighting the Little Britain character Daffyd Thomas’ stereotypical image of male non-heterosexualities 278

viii

Acknowledgement First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr Kevin Dunn, for all his input. Your advice and unending energy has been instrumental to my navigation through the challenges that were present throughout this thesis. Special thanks also go to my co-supervisors – Dr Chris Gibson, Dr Wendy Shaw, and Dr Scott Sharpe – who still provided their invaluable advice through various stages of this thesis while the Geography community at UNSW was experiencing some of its darker periods. The achievements and successes of all those who persevered through will stand testament to this small but tight-knit group. My gratitude goes particularly to Ms Stephanie Bunclark, Dr Rae Dufty, Dr Vidhu Gandhi, Dr Natascha Klocker and Ms Anne Semple for their assistance in field work and data collection. May you always know where (and who) you are with Geography. Special thanks to the staff of WESTIR Ltd. WESTIR became somewhat a refuge from the pressures of postgraduate studies for a large part of my candidature aside from also being a welcomed source of financial support. My particular gratitude goes to Mr Peter Rogers for being a more than understanding boss; to Mrs Barbara Beard for her standing up to the big man, taking charge when I was no longer in a position to do so and her continual contributions to projects large and small; and to Ms Kristine Aquino whose own little adventure into the postgraduate world and regular questions about my experiences allowed me to look back on my own journey with not only amusement but also a sense of achievement. May your data forever run free! Last but not least, to my family and friends who have endured my bad tempers yet still offered their constant companionship and support over the last few years. It would not have been possible for me to survive all these years without your care and nurture. Special thanks go to my parents for putting a roof over my and food in my mouth; to my relatives abroad who opened their homes to me during my round the world sojourns; and to my friends, both in Australia and abroad, for entrusting me with important wedding duties and letting me into your lives as you have enriched mine. May you always find a crutch to lean on in times of need. … a man is not a man until he is able and willing to accept his own vision of the world, no matter how radically this vision departs from that of others.

Baldwin, 1961, page 115 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Topic selection and development

Non-heterosexualities1 have long been a prominent subject for academic study, from early nineteenth century, through the 1950s, and well into the new millennium. The majority of the earliest academic interest with non-heterosexualities stemmed from psychology (such as Freud), where non-heterosexuals were treated as ‘mental patients’, with their non-heterosexualities traced to a variety of psychological conditions. Societies’ general intolerance, and often prohibitions, of non- heterosexualities and non-heterosexuals were reflected in the largely negative portrayals of non-heterosexuals in the mass media since those times. These negative portrayals often depicted non-heterosexuals as demons who preyed on the weak and the innocent, or as sexual perverts with indecent ethics and mores. The level of visibility and positive portrayals of non-heterosexuals have, however, improved over time, and in the late 1990s there emerged a variety of non-heterosexual characters on both movie and television screens. Popular television shows such as Ellen and Will and Grace centred their plots around their main, non-heterosexual characters, often dealing with various aspects of being a non-heterosexual in a modern day (albeit Western, and mostly American) society. Other shows such as Are You Being Served, Frasier, Friends, Spin City, The Practice, The West Wing, Torchwood, and Yes, Minister included non-heterosexual characters in supporting roles (Walters, 2001, page 97). Non-heterosexual actors are also becoming more and more open about their sexualities. Additionally, these openly non-heterosexual thespians are no longer limited to playing only non-heterosexual characters, with recent examples – though mostly limited to openly gay male actors – including John Barrowman playing a bisexual detective on Torchwood, Neil Patrick Harris of Dougie Howser M.D. fame playing a womaniser on How I Met Your Mother, and T.R. Knight of Grey’s Anatomy playing a divorced surgical intern. Even the animated series The Simpsons had a closeted gay character (Waylon Smithers), and in the new millennium one of its recurring characters

1 ‘Non-heterosexualities’ is defined throughout this thesis as inclusive of all consensual sexualities with the exception of heterosexuality(s). Non-heterosexualities thus include the conventional understanding of ‘homosexuality’ (same-sex attractions such as gay and lesbian), bisexuality, transgenderism and transsexualism, and the post-structuralist Queer identities. For a detailed discussion of my definition of non-heterosexualities and my rationale behind the use of this term over others such as ‘homosexual’ and Queer, refer to section 2.4.

1 (Patty Bouvier) was the bride in an ill-fated same-sex wedding ceremony. Non- heterosexual portrayals have also spread into day-time television, with established characters coming out (such as Zarf of All My Children becoming Zoe) or new non- heterosexual characters being introduced. All these reflected the more tolerant attitudes towards non-heterosexualities and the mainstreaming of non-heterosexual portrayals in society. The types of characters portrayed, however, also reflected the very limited identity performances these characters were allowed to portray/be portrayed in. In the case of The Simpsons, for example, Waylon Smithers was a neurotic personal assistant who was effeminised with his collection of ‘Malibu Staceys’, themselves a parody to the anatomically phantasmatic Barbie dolls, while Patty Bouvier was dressed in a tuxedo in her attempted marriage to an über-masculine professional LPGA golfer who, as the episode revealed, was in fact a male pretending to be female. My personal interests in this field for a PhD thesis topic stemmed in part from the popularity of these abovementioned television shows. The individual – or even collective – entertainment values of these shows were often considered to be high, and at times even award-worthy, such as the famous coming-out episode of Ellen. At the same time, they also presented conflicting ideologies that both advanced as well as regressed Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Transsexual (GLBT) and Queer (as united under the term ‘non-heterosexual’ in this thesis) movements and politics. On the one hand, some of these shows dispensed myths and rumours about non- heterosexualities and non-heterosexuals by increasing the variety of non-heterosexual portrayals in the mass media (such as the ‘loud and proud’ Ellen Degeneres, or the lesbian couple in Friends). On the other hand, some shows carry on the tradition of depicting stereotypical non-heterosexual characters, such as the professionally successful but perpetually unlucky in love Will from Will and Grace. The formal repetition of such stereotypes in mass media, and in news reportage and community gossip, often has a homogenising effect – what I have called neo-normalisation – so that gays and lesbians were expected to conform to, as well as themselves actively pursue, these stereotypes. These active pursuits and conformity in turn have the effect of constructing these stereotypical performances as norms. The abundant academic literature on GLBT and Queer topics since the mid-1980s has thus far largely evaded discussion of neo-normativity, the treating of established stereotypes as the new, ‘neo’ norms. This investigation of an under researched topic satisfied a key criterion of any research – to fill a gap in knowledge. At the same time, protests against non- heterosexual stereotypings (from both academia and non-heterosexual communities), as brought on by greater understandings into the differences and uniqueness of the many different types of sexualities, continue to grow. This makes my deconstruction of

2 what I call neo-normativity a contested political intervention, both within and around non-heterosexual communities and academia. Two main case studies were chosen to operationalise my arguments about neo-normativity. Inner-city Sydney plays host to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) parade and festival annually. The SGLMG is also one of the world’s largest Gay Pride events, with participants numbering in the tens of thousands, and spectators bordering the million mark in the late 1990s. This presented the SGLMG as a highly accessible and a highly prominent site for studying non-heterosexual identity performances. A host of academic studies have also debated the roles and impacts of the SGLMG, and specifically its service (or disservice) to GLBT and Queer politics (Carbery, 1995; Faro and Wotherspoon, 2000; Lewis and Ross, 1995; Searle, 1996; Nicoll, 2001). The use of the SGLMG as a case study for my thesis thus would extend the existing discussion over its validity and (dis)service to GLBT/Queer politics, as well as provide a new way of interpreting non-heterosexual identity performances. My use of the SGLMG as a case study for investigating non-heterosexual identity performances involved an examination of the performances of parade groups at the 2005 SGLMG parade. Examinations of the parade performances included the types and styles of costumes and music used; diversity of gender, sexual and racial identities displayed; the presence of sponsorships; crowd interactions as well as crowd reactions. My analyses are informed by the theories of abjection (Kristeva, 1982) and exclusion (Sibley, 1995). These help me to understand how these internally produced stereotypical (neo-normalised) performances are both despised (ejected) and tolerated. These performances were despised for perpetuating non-heterosexual stereotypes but also tolerated for the way they help capture commercial and financial viability for the event. This tolerance has become more apparent when the long-term financial viability of the SGLMG parade became questionable in the early 2000s. From this, then, neo- normativity at the SGLMG parade can be viewed as a political, though abjected, resource to and for the non-heterosexual communities. Non-heterosexual identity performances at the SGLMG parades are relatively public and visible and thus can be more easily observed and analysed. Some non- heterosexual identity performances can, however, be considerably more private and at times even invisible. One less prominent form of non-heterosexual identity performance (and communication) is latrinalia. Latrinalia is the hand-drawn or hand-written commentaries and graphics (therefore, graffiti) that are found inside public toilet facilities. As many researchers have articulated (Bruner and Kelso, 1980; Carrington, 1989; Feraois, 1998; Palmer, 1997), most of these spaces are exclusively single- gendered, and so these latrinalia and graphics are often exclusively aimed at a same-

3 sex audience. Many non-heterosexuals have taken advantage of this unique characteristic to communicate their same-sex erotic and sexual desires in these public toilets in hope of reciprocation. The relative anonymity that these toilet spaces offer also provides a level of protection to non-heterosexuals who fear detection and discrimination, in a way this temporally visibilising their non-heterosexualities in these public spaces. As such, many latrinalia writers were more open and frank in these very literal (and sometimes graphic) expressions of their identities than in open ‘public’ spaces. By the same token, public spaces are often assumed to be heteronormative, with homophobic replies to these homoerotic communications sometimes found in these spaces. These homoerotic and homophobic latrinalia, and the spaces where they exist, thus showcase a contention between heterosexualities and non- heterosexualities, a connection that troubles the presumed incongruity between heterosexual and non-heterosexual spaces. My choices of case studies – toilet facilities in main libraries of Sydney’s2 university campuses and four major public parks – challenge this incongruous presumption and showcase the fluidity between heterosexual and non-heterosexual spaces. Detailed content analyses of these homoerotic and homophobic latrinalia also revealed that the processes of neo-normativity and abjection function very differently to those observed at the SGLMG parades. Graffiti in general is often viewed as out of place, or as vandalism. Homoerotic graffiti breaches the purified heteronormative societal ideals of cleanliness and order, making it an abject. The homoerotic nature of the latrinalia included in this thesis also showed the contention of disgust and desire, particularly towards the more stereotypical, neo-normalised performances. In many instances, latrinalia by males who advertised themselves in more effeminised, passive sexual roles often received higher numbers of positive responses (see Chapter 7). These private expressions of homoerotic desire and stereotypes stand in contrast to the more frequent public ejection of non-heterosexual stereotypes. Discourse analyses showed that management authorities of these spaces often associated the more stereotypical and neo-normalised performances with public inappropriateness. Such judgements of homoerotic latrinalia as unbefitting for ‘public’ spaces may have

2 The geographic area of Sydney discussed in this thesis takes after the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ definition of the Sydney Statistical Division (SD). This Sydney SD consists of 44 Local Government Areas (LGAs) and is bordered by Hawkesbury and Wyong LGAs to the north, Blue Mountains LGA to the west, Sutherland and Wollondilly LGAs to the south, and the Tasman Sea to the east. In 2006, 4.1 million people resided in the Sydney SD in a mix of metropolitan, suburban, and semi-rural areas (ABS, 2007).

4 instigated some drastic regulation measures over these spaces, from complete refurbishment of the public toilet interiors to restriction of access outside of working hours. These heavier regulations over homoerotic latrinalia compared to public toilets with a lesser homoerotic/non-heterosexual presence are evidence of the assumed heteronormativity of public spaces.

1.2 Aims and objectives

The overall aim of my research was the development and demonstration of a concept of neo-normativity. A clear definition and detailed discussion of this concept, concerning mainly the stereotyping and conformity of non-heterosexual identities, is included in section 2.6. The development of the concept of neo-normativity involved the investigating and ascertaining of the presence(s) of neo-normalised identity performances of non-heterosexual communities in Sydney in two spheres, the 2005 SGLMG parade and public toilets of a selection of public parks and libraries of Sydney’s universities. I have sought to uncover the extent to which internal and external processes influenced neo-normative non-heterosexual identity performances. Internal processes include peer pressures within non-heterosexual communities, while external processes include commercialisation. As such, neo-normativity was viewed as a manifestation of both inclusion and exclusion through physical and literal identity performances (Sibley, 1995). This also included the comparison of non-heterosexual identity performances between openly public (SGLMG parade) and more private spaces (public toilets in parks and university libraries), and how identity performances and the processes of neo-normativity differ according to space (Gamson, 1996; Knopp, 1995). A second aim of my research was to explore the application of the theories of abjection to non-heterosexual identity performances. This included the functions and implications of both desires and disgusts, and more specifically how these desires and disgusts manifested through processes of neo-normativity. Accordingly, neo- normativity is understood as an abjected political resource where it is denounced by non-heterosexual communities for its homogenisation and (mis)representation just as much as it is used as a regulatory process that builds and sustains these communities. A third aim of this research was to demonstrate the fluidity and temporality of boundaries. This includes a challenge to the common assumption of mutual exclusivity between heterosexual and non-heterosexual spaces. This is achieved through examining the spatiality(s) of non-heterosexual identity performances, namely at the SGLMG parade and via latrinalia at the abovementioned field sites. The impacts of how these non-heterosexual appropriations of spaces function, where they exist in harmony

5 or in contention with heterosexual performances, were also explored. These harmonies and contentions were heightened by the temporality of the examined case studies, as both the SGLMG performances and latrinalia are relatively ephemeral. The dispersal of the SGLMG crowd post-parade and the constant removal of latrinalia could thus be seen as an act of heteronormative (re)claiming of spaces, highlighting the assumed heteronormativity of spaces, through a kind of ‘hetero-washing’. The assumed heteronormativity of public spaces has also in turn seen many non-heterosexual latrinalia placed in less visible or temporally invisible spaces like behind cubicle doors. A fourth aim of this thesis was to demonstrate the use of alternative data sources, data collection and analytical methodologies. This included my use of graffiti/latrinalia as a data source, and as a signifier of identity performances. This use of graffiti/latrinalia as a data source also required the use of less commonly used collection and more so analytical methods – visual methodologies. While visual materials such as photographs have been regularly used in social science and geographical studies to represent or highlight evidence, the use of visual methodologies called for more post-modernist and post-structuralist approaches in collecting and analysing visual materials (Blunt, 2002). This included the use of a variety of visual materials (photographs and videos, for examples) as well as the incorporation of discourse analysis.

1.3 Research approach and thesis outline

The research undertaken in this doctoral thesis – into the relationships between non-heterosexual identity performances and the spaces and social settings of Sydney – drew upon previous investigations from a range of disciplines. While the fields of Cultural and Social Geography provided the majority of the theoretical bases for this dissertation, other important disciplinary sources included Gay and Lesbian Studies, Queer Studies, Sociology, and to lesser extents, Anthropology and Psychology. These inter-disciplinary influences have strongly shaped the theories applied and literature reviewed. This thesis consists of eight chapters. Following this introductory chapter (Chapter 1), a review of literature is laid out in two succeeding chapters. Chapter 2 focuses on identity, and includes a review of literature on the portrayals and representations of non-heterosexuals, from the early generalisation and pathologisation of non-heterosexualities, through to the more post-modernist and post-structuralist understandings of identity formations, constructions, and maintenance (sections 2.1 and 2.2). This chapter also includes an in-depth review of the works of Judith Butler

6 (1990; 1993), especially her theories of performativity which shaped my post- structuralist approach to understanding non-heterosexual identity constructions and politics (sections 2.3 and 2.4). This is followed by a brief review and discussion of the theories and ideas of abjection and how the theories of abjection informed and shaped my understanding of non-heterosexual identity performances (section 2.5). Chapter 2 concludes with a discussion of a concept that I have termed ‘neo-normativity’. This concept describes the replacement of existing norms with stereotypes so that these stereotypes were in turn understood as the quintessential new, ‘neo’ norms (section 2.6). Chapter 3 focuses on the spatialities of sexualities, and includes sections that discuss the spaces and spatialities of heterosexuals (section 3.1.1), gay males (section 3.1.2), lesbians (section 3.1.3), and bisexuals, transgendereds, and transsexuals (section 3.1.4). This chapter also includes reviews of literature on non-heterosexual spatialities that used case studies in urban, suburban and rural contexts in order to highlight the uneven portrayals of non-heterosexuals in these spaces (section 3.2). Chapter 3 concludes with a review of literature that discuss non-heterosexualities specifically in public, semi-public and private contexts (section 3.3), highlighting the invisibilisation of non-heterosexualities in public spaces. Chapter 4 outlines the data collection and analytical methodologies used in examining non-heterosexual identity performances throughout this thesis. Digital photography and participation observation were used to collect data from the three field sites, namely the 2005 SGLMG (section 4.1.1), toilet blocks of four major public parks (section 4.1.2), and toilets at the university libraries within Sydney (4.1.3). Latrinalia (graffiti found in toilets) were examined as signifiers of non-heterosexual presences and activities and, in cases of discriminatory remarks, homophobic retaliation (section 4.2). Digital photographs of these latrinalia were taken and a worksheet was filled out to document other visual and non-visual attributes such as ambience and perceived patronage (sections 4.3 and 4.4). This chapter concludes with five sections that discussed each of the five analytical methodologies used (section 4.5), namely statistical analysis, content analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, and visual analytical methodologies. Chapters 5, 6 and 7 present the findings from the analyses. Chapters 5 and 6 focus on the SGLMG, with Chapter 5 concentrating on the presence and extent of neo- normativity as visualised in the digital photographs taken by myself (the primary researcher). The investigations also placed emphasis on the effects of commercial involvement and community organisations on the neo-normalisation of performances at this urban, public event (section 5.1). Results suggest that the processes of neo- normalisation were as much internally driven by the GLBT and Queer communities

7 than externally by commercialisation and media (section 5.2). Several critics’ (Chasin, 2000; Johnston, 2003; Seebohm, 1992; Seebohm, 1993) concerns over the prominence of commercialisation over politics were addressed, first at the visible level (section 5.3) then the SGLMG’s underlying, less visible politics (section 5.4). There is also evidence to suggest an abject relationship exists between these neo- normalised/stereotypical performances and the non-heterosexual communities as they were at times ejected but also used to secure the parade’s financial sustainability and to invoke a sense of non-heterosexual authenticity (section 5.5). Chapter 6 presents analyses of photographs of the 2005 SGLMG parade that were collected from secondary sources – newspaper coverage, both in digital and print formats, as well as the digital photographs taken by the official photographer of the 2005 SGLMG parade (MazzImage). The results in this chapter demonstrated that the images chosen for reproduction in news reports are often neo-normative, furthering my argument that neo-normalisation is as likely an internally driven process as it is externally (sections 6.1 and 6.2). Concerns over de-politicisation are also re-visited in Chapter 6, though the focus is shifted to the (non-)portrayal of non-heterosexual politics (section 6.3) and the lack of overtly sexualised or fetishistic performances reproduced in the mainstream media. The non-portrayal of overtly sexualised or fetishistic performances, in particular, prompts discussion of whether public spaces are presumed asexual or heteronormative (section 6.4). The chapter concludes with a discussion of the portrayals of parade spectators and how such portrayals were used to construct acceptable non-heterosexual performances and highlight the temporariness of the parade and ‘non-heterosexualised’ spaces. Chapter 7 presents results of investigation into the latrinalia of public parks and university spaces in Sydney. Results demonstrated that these public toilets are often highly contentious spaces in terms of sexual identity performances (sections 7.1 and 7.5). Detailed analyses of the contents showed the different functions of latrinalia, the most common of which was serving as personal advertisement and arranging erotic encounters, often objectifying the gay male body in the process (sections 7.2 and 7.3). These observations were based on non-heterosexual latrinalia found in male toilets only, as less than a handful of such latrinalia were found in female toilets (section 7.4). This echoed the findings of previous researchers (Bruner and Kelso, 1980; Carrington, 1989; Cole, 1991; Lachmann, 1988) on how graffiting is a highly gendered activity. This chapter concludes with a review of the actions and strategies the managing authorities and some users of these toilets have employed in countering the non-heterosexual presence created by these latrinalia (section 7.5). These actions and strategies ranged from homophobic retorts in the form of a latrinalia reply, to the more drastic measures

8 of repainting the interiors or even restricting access. The final chapter (Chapter 8) concludes with an overview of questions, problems, results and theories discussed in Chapters 4, 5, 6 and 7. Differences between the performances of non-heterosexual identities in these public (SGLMG) and semi-public (public toilets) spaces, and references to the differing levels of neo- normativity and how these neo-normalised performances function to differing capacities are also outlined (section 8.1). Linkages between my two case studies – SGLMG parade and latrinalia – are also explored further in this section. Specifically, the abject relationships between non-heterosexualities and neo-normative performances were reviewed. The selective portrayals by the media were one such form of abjection. The highlighting of the temporariness of both the parade and latrinalia as non-heterosexual performances also emphasised the presumed heteronormativity of ‘public’ spaces. The characteristics, strengths, limitations and applicability of my concept of neo-normativity are also discussed in greater detail, with reflections on how it was applied throughout this thesis (section 8.2). Strengths included their use as a political resource and the creating of a sense of belonging. At the same time, neo-normativity also generates a spectacle of conformity and debates over the legitimacy of the performances of these identities may fracture the community. Consideration is also paid to the potential contributions (academic or otherwise) to knowledge that this thesis has in the studies of gender, sexual identities, and identity performances. My exploration of alternative data sources and analytical methods are also reiterated (section 8.3). Suggestions for further investigations into similar subject matter, such as incorporating qualitative data to explore the intentions behind neo-normative performances, are also provided.

9 Chapter 2: Understanding identity construction and politics The thematic bases of my thesis could be said to cover two main types of concerns – one that focuses on human identities, their constructions and manifestations, while the other focuses on the spatiality of these identities. This chapter focuses on research of the former, particularly non-heterosexual identities, while the succeeding Chapter 3 concentrates on the latter. The study of non-heterosexualities (and non-heterosexual spatiality) became popular in the mid-twentieth century, with the earliest focus on the psychology of non-heterosexuals. Specifically, these early studies tended to study what ‘homosexuality’ was and often pathologised non-heterosexuals as perverse deviants who socialised in secret communities away from mainstream cultures. More often than not these early studies stigmatised non-heterosexualities as the physicalisation of cross-genderism and transvestism. As studies into non- heterosexualities and non-heterosexual identities developed, this early pathologisation slowly waned. Debates instead shifted towards the origins or causes of non- heterosexualities, such as whether they were inherent at birth (essentialism), externally induced after birth (constructivism), or were the constructs of something more radical (post-structuralist de-categorisation). Later studies from the 1990s onwards, such as Judith Butler (1990, 1993), started to question the centrality of heterosexuality(s), with the assumed normality of heterosexual identity(s) slowly queried and decentred. All of these bring into question the performing (and the visualising) of these myriad of sexual identities, non-heterosexual or otherwise. Judith Butler (1990, 1993) provided excellent theoretical background for this doctoral thesis, especially on performances and performativity (the governing rules of identities that are made up of multiple performances). These understandings of performances and performativity in turn proved valuable in my discussions of the different gender and sexual identity performances in relation to heteropatriarchal and heteronormative norms/restrictions. The development of these different sexual identities, particularly non-heterosexual identities, since the 1970s and 1980s showed that categorical classifications were no longer sufficient in effectively (and efficiently) describing and representing this myriad. The new, albeit reappropriated term of Queer was introduced to 1990s non-heterosexual and gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender and transsexual (GLBT) politics. Debates around these identities became rife, with many gays and lesbians choosing to retain the ‘older’ and more categorical terms GLBT while some openly embraced the newly reappropriated Queer. Regardless of which non- heterosexual identity one adheres to, my reviewing of some literature from the mid- to late 1990s, and even some from the new millennia, suggests that, despite claims of

10 openness and inclusiveness, many GLBT/Queer communities apply restrictive rules on the identity performances of their members. There was also evidence to suggest that some non-heterosexuals actively pursue and voluntarily perform these restrictive identities. The result of such restrictiveness was what I had termed neo-normativity: the application of restrictive and stereotypical performances as the quintessential, ‘neo’ norms. This chapter provides a review of these broad literatures which have focused on non-heterosexual identity constructions and manifestations. The succeeding chapter (Chapter 3) focuses on the spatiality of the different non-heterosexual identities and their relationships with heteropatriarchy and heteronormativity.

2.1 The early generalisation of non-heterosexualities in western societies

From the 1950s up until the 1980s, the early years of academic study of sexuality, non-heterosexuals (and non-heterosexualities) were often generalised through a couple of stereotypes. Gay males and lesbians were consistently portrayed as homogeneous communities with traceable personal characteristics. These generalisations inferred the supposed pathology of non-heterosexualities, with descriptions such as mismatches between gender and sexual identities (Shively and DeCecco, 1977). The effeminisation of gay males was a particularly popular stereotype of male non-heterosexualities (Harry, 1976; Nyberg, 1976). Towards the end of the 1960s and early 1970s, some studies began indicating evidence of heterogeneity within non-heterosexual communities. Cass (1979) presented the most convincing early evidence of heterogeneity in non-heterosexual societies, pointing to external social influences that also played vital roles in the development of non-heterosexual identities. A change of tact from the mid-1980s coincided with the onset of the worldwide HIV/AIDS epidemic. The depiction of this widespread HIV/AIDS epidemic as a predominantly ‘gay disease’ had dire implications on both the geography and people’s understanding of non-heterosexuals (Knopp, 1990; Donovan, 1997). The negative portrayal of non-heterosexuals continued despite greater understandings of HIV and AIDS in the early and mid-1990s. Several researchers had linked this epidemic of HIV/AIDS to non-heterosexual hedonistic behaviours, especially through excessive alcoholic consumptions and illicit drug use, as a psychological escape from the harsh realities of illness, death and devastated social circles (Kus, 1990; Bickelhaupt, 1995). All of these negative stereotypes of non-heterosexualities, both in academic studies as well as in popular publications, socially and historically marginalised non-heterosexuals. This section provides a brief overview of these early

11 generalisations of non-heterosexual identities and helps us understand the origins of non-heterosexual stereotypes. Much of the early research into non-heterosexualities stemmed from a psychology background. The most prominent of these psychological studies into non- heterosexualities included those by Sigmund Freud and Alfred Kinsey in the early twentieth century, both of whom proclaimed non-heterosexualities, in particular male same-sex desires, as a psychological condition. Signifiers of such a psychological condition included the reversal of ‘normal’ sexual roles, depression, psychological instability, and cross-genderism. While there are still some who believe non- heterosexualities are a psychological condition, this type of study regarding the psychology behind non-heterosexualities was particularly popular during the 1970s. These studies, such as Michael Shively and John DeCecco’s (1977, page 45), often argued that non-heterosexualities were likely the result of psychological mismatches between an individual’s sexual and gender identities and detection was based largely on “physical attributes, mannerisms, speech, and personality traits”. This mismatch was understood to separate non-heterosexual identities into a dichotomy – those who perform the traditional roles (therefore, masculine males and feminine females) and those who do not (therefore, effeminised males and masculinised females). Couplings were often understood to reflect this conventional, ‘opposite attracts’ ideology so that even in a non-heterosexual couple the traditional masculine-feminine pairing existed. For example, Joseph Harry (1976) reported a host of previous studies (Fenichel, 1945, page 330 and Ferenczi, 1914, in Harry, 1976, pages 143-4) which emphasised male non-heterosexualities as a psychological distinction that was easily displayed through each person’s sex roles. This included the feminine gay male playing the passive, dependent role of the insertee, and the masculine gay male playing the active, dominant role of the inserter. This view was further supported by Kenneth Nyberg’s (1976) research, which not only dichotomised non-heterosexual sex roles but also essentialised gender differences between males and females. The critique of such dichotomisation of male non-heterosexualities was based from a disregard of, first, non-penetrative sex, and second, non-erotic attractions. Studies by Evelyn Hooker (1969) and Martin Hoffman (1968, in Harry, page 144), for example, were some of the earliest research that showed such dichotomisation only applied to a minority of gay males. Results from Charles W. Socarides’ (1968, in Harry, 1976, page 145) study showed that gay males could be both masculine as well as feminine, with the dominance of each characteristic highly dependent on the situation and their partner(s) of the time. Vivienne Cass’s (1979) study in the late 1970s further conceded that there were both internal (psychological, voluntary) as well as external

12 (social, involuntary) factors which influenced the formation of sexual identities. The very dichotomised representations of non-heterosexual identities in these early studies were testament to the confined and restricted academic and popular understandings of non- heterosexual identities and were reflected in popular discourses such as heteronormativity1 and homophobia. These restricted understandings only waned in popularity by the mid- to late 1970s, particularly with critiques from the likes of Hooker (1969) and Cass (1979) which provided contrary evidence. The onset of the 1980s, particularly with the emergence of the HIV/AIDS global epidemic, saw the representation of non-heterosexualities move from psychological pathology to one of demonisation. This type of popular demonisation emphasised the supposed medical deficiencies which many non-heterosexuals, particularly male non- heterosexuals, suffered. These demonisation emphases often advertised non- heterosexuals, particularly males, not only as the main sufferers of HIV/AIDS largely due to their promiscuous sexual activities but also accused them for introducing this ‘gay disease’ into the heterosexual world (Donovan 1997). According to Raymond Donovan (1997, page 34) AIDS prevention campaigns in Australia, the UK and the US provided “practical rationales to demarcate and distinguish homosexual immoralities from the emergent disciplinary regimes which highlighted heterosexual monogamous purities”, thereby centralising the genuineness and righteousness of heterosexuality(s). Non-heterosexualities, meanwhile, were relegated to such negative portrayals as “perversity and death”, albeit slightly “adopted, transposed, reconstituted and re- fashioned” (Donovan, 1997, page 34). The AIDS prevention campaigns marked the beginning of a significant period of homogenising and pathologising non- heterosexualities in western societies. The negative portrayals of the AIDS prevention campaigns had had devastating effects on non-heterosexual geography and sociality. Gay institutions such as gay bars and bathhouses suffered economically as patronage dropped through fears of contracting AIDS during the early years of the epidemic, when methods of transmission were still largely unclear (Knopp, 1990, page 25). The patterns of the so-called ‘pink migration’ were also fundamentally affected, with statistics showing that migration of young gay males from less tolerant societies such as inland USA to the “meccas like ” and New York declined substantially (Knopp, 1990, page 25). Some gay bars and bathhouses in these big cities were, as a result, closed down and later converted into HIV auspices. Knopp’s (1990) recount thus clearly demonstrated the negative portrayals of non-heterosexualities in the 1980s and 1990s western societies,

1 Heteronormativity is the centralising of heterosexualities as inherent and thus ‘normal’.

13 which stereotyped HIV/AIDS as an urban, ‘gay disease’. Lynette Lewis and Michael Ross (1995) discovered, at least in their case study of Sydney, Australia, that many non-heterosexuals turned to alcohol to help them cope with the decimating effects of the AIDS epidemic. By the early and mid-1990s, with greater understandings of HIV/AIDS, alcoholism and illicit drug use had become the new non-heterosexual stereotype of choice. Robert Kus’ (1990) edited volume Gay men of Alcoholics Anonymous: First-hand accounts, for example, was able to include twenty-seven different first-hand accounts of gay men and their abusive alcoholic consumptions. Later statistics point to the likelihood of non-heterosexuals suffering from problematic alcoholic consumption as three to four times higher than compared to heterosexuals (Bickelhaupt, 1995). As such, the negative portrayals of non-heterosexuals had shifted once again from the mid-1990s onwards, away from the disease-ridden HIV/AIDS sufferers of the 1980s and early 1990s to the alcoholic and drugs abusive hedonists. It was clear from the above section that, up until the early 1990s, non- heterosexualities were consistently generalised and homogenised in academic studies. These early generalisations and homogenisations often included pathologising non- heterosexuals as psychologically defective as well as, from the mid-1980s onwards, sexually perverse with the worldwide spread of HIV/AIDS. The arguments of pathologisation had placed their emphases on depression, psychological instability, and cross-genderism. These inferences of pathology were often made without considering the constant discrimination and social segregation that non-heterosexuals suffer in heteronormative societies. The shift of focus from depression and mental instability to alcohol and drug dependence from the 1990s still inferred the mental weaknesses of non-heterosexuals. Despite the negativity afforded to non- heterosexuals and non-heterosexualities by these psychological and social studies, they initiated academic interest in non-heterosexual cultures, particularly to combat such negative stereotypes (see, for example, Gilman, 1985). The approach of the 1990s saw the gradual disappearance of homogenisation and dichotomisation of non- heterosexual identities in sexuality studies in general. This new approach to sexual identity identification and classification, triggered in part by post-structuralism, saw enhanced recognition of other non-heterosexual identities like bisexuality, transsexuality, transgenderism, and most recently, Queer. The implications of expanding beyond the dichotomised understanding of non-heterosexual identities are discussed in the next section.

14 2.2 Beyond dualisms – essentialism versus constructivism versus de- categorisation

The onset of the 1990s brought a new way of studying and understanding identities and their origins. More specifically, through the popularising of post- structuralism, the employment of binaries was realised as insufficient in effectively describing the multitude of identities that were increasingly being recognised, at least in some academic arenas. The focus instead shifted to the origins of identity. Is one born with an inherent identity (biological essentialism), or is one’s identity formation dictated by their surroundings (constructivism)? Each position has its believers as well as a fair share of critics. Some critics have denounced both positions and proposed a de- categorisation in the conventional understanding of identities. The following section examines the arguments of each position and their implications on the understanding of sexual identities. Debates in identity politics have often involved arguments concerning the origins of identity, in particular, across essentialist and constructivist points of views. Essentialism is a philosophical position that holds identity to be traceable to fundamental and inviolable properties (Johnston et al, 2000), and that such properties are pre-determined and immovable. In sexuality studies, the essentialising of identities has included arguments that non-heterosexualities are an error at birth, thereby pathologising non-heterosexuals as abnormal and unnatural. Thus, according to this biologically essentialist assumption, heterosexuality was normalised as the original and the normal, casting non-heterosexuals into subordinate positions. Research that followed biological essentialism was predominantly from a psychological viewpoint, with many of these works pointing to the treatment and ‘curability’ of non- heterosexualities (see section 2.1). A less dominant essentialist viewpoint is that, because they are inherent at birth, non-heterosexualities are, like races, natural variations and cannot, and should not, be ‘cured’. This contradicting viewpoint is more readily subscribed by non-heterosexual communities, although there are also some heterosexuals who see non-heterosexualities from this perspective. The constructivist approach to the origins of identity, on the other hand, holds that identities are characteristics largely accumulated by each individual after birth (Johnston et al, 2000). These characteristic acquisitions could be both voluntary as well as socially pressured. For example, one could potentially have a choice in choosing one’s career path, but there were also familial and social pressures in decision making, for instance the attendance of after-school classes during childhood, thereby restricting the fields of choice through the early limitation on the development of one’s skills. In

15 sexual identity studies, some strands of the constructivist approach, such as Freud in the early twentieth century, assumed that each individual is born a heterosexual with the possibility of various in-born non-heterosexual elements. The development of these non-heterosexual elements was dependent on external factors, such as exposure to other non-heterosexuals, or through self-experimentations. Other strands of the constructivist approach also assumed that each individual is born a heterosexual. Such a constructivist approach also signified the arguments that non-heterosexualities were personal choices of individuals, which carried a medically/psychologically connotation of curability. Regardless of which strand one follows, believers of constructivism assume the normality of heterosexuality and as such subordinate non-heterosexual identities. A shift of focus in identity studies in the late 1980s had seen a movement from essentialism to constructivism, and more specifically the early to mid-1990s, saw a rise in the critique of the employment of essentialism in identity studies. Monique Wittig (1990), for example, criticised the essentialised normality of heterosexuality. Wittig (1990, page 53) commented that heterosexuality oppressed non-heterosexuals “in the sense that they prevent us [non-heterosexuals] from speaking unless we speak in their terms. Everything which puts them into question is at once disregarded as elementary”. The subordination that heteronormativity had on non-heterosexualities, according to Wittig (1990, page 52), had come mainly in the form of psychoanalysis, which dismissed non-heterosexualities as mental illnesses (see section 2.1). This psychoanalysing proscribed non-heterosexualities as an abnormality, or to use Wittig’s (1990, page 53) words, denied “us every possibility of creating our own categories”. This denial of the construction of “our own categories”, as Wittig (1990, pages 54-7) claimed, was signified in the names that had been prescribed to the subordinated identities. Terms like ‘homosexual’ have been used as a form of oppression against individuals who deviate from heteronormativity through connotations of medical deficiencies. In order to move away from such oppressions, then, one must reject the symbolic order of heteronormativity and the “constitution of other” (Wittig, 1990, page 54), which was a political aim of the Queer movement in the 1990s. Wittig’s (1990) criticism of biological essentialism was one of the earliest academic challenges, and indicated the onset of the constructivist approach in sexual identity studies. Following these arguments, I chose to use my own descriptive term of ‘non-heterosexuals’ to describe persons who would conventionally be understood as homosexual, as well as those who self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, as well as queer. While the use of the prefix, on the outset, may look like centralising and normalising heterosexuals, it nonetheless is the most exhaustive term

16 for describing those who have traditionally and conventionally been excluded from the centralised term ‘heterosexual’. With this understanding, then, ‘heterosexuals’ are thus the excluded and de-centralised. The term ‘non-heterosexual’ would also not carry the negative medical connotation that ‘homosexual’ has, distancing ‘non-heterosexuals’ from the early stereotype of psychological mismatches. For a more detailed discussion on the politics of naming, see section 2.4. The construction of non-heterosexual oppressions in everyday life was exemplified by Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s (1990) description and (theoretical) dismantling of the closet. Sedgwick (1990, page 4) explained the notion of the closet as a performance which was initiated by a silencing of one’s true identity. This act of silencing, in turn, highlighted “the fact that ignorance is as potent and as multiple a thing there is as knowledge” (Sedgwick, 1990, page 4). In other words, in coming out of the closet, the knowledge of one’s non-heterosexualities could no longer be ignored, either by the person her/himself, or by those the coming out had been performed to. ‘Coming out’ is a process through which non-heterosexuals specifically announce their ‘abnormality’, thus highlighting the centrality of heterosexuality(s) (heteronormativity). The ‘coming out’ process, however, also emphasises that human identities are constructed concepts, for example, that a person’s non-heterosexual identity is only constructed and announced when s/he comes out. This new identity could be constructed socially (therefore externally) as well as by the self (internally). The construction of this new ‘outed’ identity, as Sedgwick (1990) described, could be a potent process because one always runs the danger of being othered and thus marginalised. At the same time, the constructed ‘outed’ identity it was potent because the constructions and performances of the closet are multiplicitous by nature, such that one person’s closet is different to another’s. Using my case studies as examples, the closet(s) that are present at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade would oppress non-heterosexualities in vastly different ways to the closet(s) that are present at the libraries and parks where my latrinalia were found. The multiplicitous potency of both the closet and identities was also highlighted by Sedgwick (1990). She (1990, page 32) explained this multiplicity of the closet(s) as “a variety of oppressions [which] intertwines systematically with each other”. Heteropatriarchy2 could have the ability to repress certain individuals – say, lesbians – in one way, and privilege other individuals

2 Heteropatriarchy is a combined ideology which not only essentialised heterosexualities as inherent and ‘normal’ – thus heteronormativity – but also centralises the ideas of patriarchy so that maleness and masculinities are valued and privileged over femaleness and femininity.

17 – say, gay males – in other ways. Butler (1990) introduced the phrase ‘heterosexual matrix’ which, as she explained, encompasses all forms of heterosexual oppressions – heteropatriarchy, heteronormativity and so forth – over non-heterosexuals. This ‘heterosexual matrix’ also describes the discursive relationship between sexuality as an activity, a behaviour, a desire, an identity regime, a performance, as well as the ways in which it upholds the regimented performance of gender and sex. This thesis, however, takes after the older, or more simplified, term of ‘heteropatriarchy’ as it is more comprehensive and easily operationalised. Sedgwick’s work thus showcases one of the advantages of understanding human identities through constructivist viewpoints in that constructivism recognised the consequences of external factors on the development of each person’s identity(s). At the same time, the discourses (like heteronormativity and heteropatriarchy) that we are governed by are also acknowledged as influential, such as in the construction of the closet. Through the myriad of external factors, multiplicities in identity development and performances often result. The power of the external determinants of identity performance was increasingly being recognised by researchers using a constructivist approach as the 1990s progressed. Fiona McGregor’s (1995) recount of her own experiences in publishing encapsulated this notion that identity is an externally constructed concept. In her investigation, McGregor (1995, page 33) questioned humanity’s constant need to categorise, and more particularly, the need to categorise exclusively. Her examples included her own experiences in qualifying for a publishing prize on gay and lesbian literature. McGregor (1995, pages 34-9) questioned the definition of ‘gay and lesbian literature’ – whether it included only literature by gay and lesbian writers, literature aimed at a gay and lesbian audience, or literature with main themes on or concerning gays and lesbians, assuming that such themes differed dramatically to those concerning heterosexuals and/or other non-heterosexuals. This constant need to categorise, as McGregor (1995, page 34) claimed, could sometimes be even more apparent in gay and lesbian media. On the one hand, the gay and lesbian media needed to categorise role models who visualise the communities in ‘positive’ manners; on the other hand, the forced categorisation of a person’s sexual identity contradicted the post-structuralist tendances of Queer theory and Queer politics. Not only does categorisation qualify some individuals through their demonstration of certain qualifications, it also at the same time excludes others through the very same qualifications, erecting barriers to those who do not possess, or only partially possess, those qualities (for example, do bisexuals, transsexuals or transgendered persons qualify for ‘gay and lesbian literature’ prizes?). McGregor (1995) advocated that the

18 future of non-heterosexual (or any other) identity politics and activism should rest on the radical de-categorisation of identities and the visualisation of such. The de-categorisation of identities as proposed by Wittig (1990), McGregor (1995) and others followed ‘post-structuralist’ theoretical development on identity. The post-structuralising of sexuality studies was highlighted by Robert Reynolds’ (1993) attempt in drawing relationships between non-heterosexual identities and postmodernism. Reynolds (1993, page 247) believed in the importance of applying postmodernism in explaining (or attempting to explain) non-heterosexual identities, because “postmodernism can ensure that we do not ignore the constructed nature of self and identity”, that non-heterosexual identities (like all other identities) were socially and culturally constructed performances. He went on to explain postmodernism through Henri Lacan’s theory of fragmentation. Lacan’s theory of fragmentation explained that identities were constructed through fragments of everyday life, such that each person is made up of a variety of speech, cultural roles, social roles, and materialism. By focussing on combinations of the fragments one relieved oneself from qualifying for any one unitary identity. Constructing identities through fragmentation also avoids the danger of identity construction through exclusion and repressions, and as such avoids the privileging of the self (Reynolds, 1993, page 247), as these constructed identities, like Sedgwick (1990) has explained, are all inherently multiplicitous. Identity fragmentation could thus be seen as a first step towards de- categorisation because of its absolute refusal to attach oneself to any identity categories. The danger of fragmentation and de-categorisation could be that, however, because the levels of understanding are so remote and detached from the normative and conventional understandings of identities, one runs the risk of losing a sense of self and belonging which could also have fragmenting effects on existing communities. As detailed in this section, each approach to explaining identity formation has their lists of merits as well as criticisms. While essentialism provides a structure that can be easily understood, it fails to recognise the influence of external determinants of cultures and societies. While the employment of constructivism realises this level of recognition, it still nonetheless results in categorisation processes which qualify as well as disqualify individuals through selective inclusions and exclusions. The post- structuralist de-categorisation challenges the rigidity of both essentialism and constructivism, but the subjectivity is so fragmented that individuals are in danger of losing a sense of self and belonging. It is clear from this that a new way of understanding identities and their origins was required, and this new way of understanding should encompass the positives of essentialism (simple structure), constructivism (external determinants), as well as de-categorisation (flexibility). All of

19 these are considered in the studying and understanding of non-heterosexual identity performances of my thesis. This is most noticeable in the flexibility of my use of a formula in studying non-heterosexual stereotypes where each component can be easily amended to reflect contemporary stereotypes (see section 4.4). The qualifying and disqualifying nature of identity construction is also very abject in nature, so that the undesirable characteristics, though always present, are disqualified and excluded. This was particularly apparent in McGregor (1995) who demonstrated how inexhaustive and exclusive a category like ‘gay and lesbian literature’ could be. The ideology of abjection and how it is used to help my understanding of non-heterosexual identity constructions are discussed in section 2.5. Likewise, the rigid categorisation of some non- heterosexual identities, and the processes that maintain these rigidities (such as my concepts of neo-normalisation and non-heterosexuals), are critiqued in section 2.6 of this chapter. Examples and evidence collected from my case studies that illustrate these discussions and critiques are discussed in greater detail in the ensuing result and discussion chapters. First, however, a greater understanding into identity performance is required.

2.3 Performances and their maintenance – Judith Butler

Some of the more influential arguments around sexual identity performances came in the early 1990s, most notably from the works of Judith Butler (1990; 1993). Butler’s arguments centred around the deconstruction of cultural identities, and in particular, the reiterative nature of identity construction and regulation. This section seeks to explore Butler’s understanding of performances and her conception of performatives in detail. This deeper understanding into performances and performatives in turn provides important groundwork for my own concept of neo- normativity, where the stereotypical is pursued and taken as quintessential, consequently replacing the previous set(s) of norms. Judith Butler is a social philosopher who specialises in identity performances, particularly the performances of sexual identities. One of her major contributions in this field is her discussions on the fundamental differences between performances and performatives. She realised the need in distinguishing the two terms because very often they are confused as sharing the same meaning. Butler (1990; 1993) defined performativity as the set of voluntary and involuntary expressions of a variety of personal roles, including gender, sexual, ethnic, and racial, among others. In other words, performatives are the governing rules of identities which incorporate multiple performances. In terms of sexual identities, then, the discourse of heteronormativity

20 could be understood as a performative of a set of heteronorms (the performances). In a performative, its voluntary aspects stem from the freewill of individuals while the involuntary aspects result from the historicity attached to the norms. This attached historicity governs the performance of the norms, applying regulations, such as in the case of heteronormativity, opposite-sex (heterosexual) relationships are naturalised as normal. Furthermore, these regulations are clearly set out and constrained by the names that they were given (see next section, section 2.4, for a discussion on the politics of naming). In other words, the name given to each identity restricts the multiplicity of performances, compelling singularity. Their attached historicities govern, maintain and renew the performance as a norm, highlighting the reiterative characteristic of norms. From this, it could be understood that a performative differs from a performance in that a performative is a continual reiterative practice of performances, which then serves as a citational reference which is maintained and renewed as a restrictive norm (Butler, 1993, page 2). In effect, a performative can replace and become a norm. This distinction between performative and performance provides important theoretical background to my conception of neo-normativity where, as I observed from my fieldwork, some stereotypes (as identity performances) are reiterated, maintained and renewed, eventually replacing an existing norm. These processes of reiteration, maintenance, renewal, and eventual replacement are the performative (unwritten but mutually understood rules) of a neo-norm. Butler’s clear distinction between performances and performatives stem from a constructivist understanding of identities. She claimed that identities were multifarious by nature due to the fact that they were culturally and socially regulated constructs. Furthermore, these constructs are maintained through reiterations of restrictive sets of rules called norms (Butler, 1993, pages 1-2). It could be deduced then, according to Butler’s definition, that norms are a reiterative process where the rules and restrictions are repeated. In each repetition, the rules and restrictions are renewed, and sometimes reinterpreted with minor adjustments, while the gist of the ‘norm’ is preserved. In cases of neo-normativity, however, stereotypical performances are seen to constantly question and challenge this set norm until eventually the ‘true’ gist of the norm is either forgotten or discarded. For a detailed discussion of neo-normativity, see section 2.6. In terms of governing gender and sexual identity performances, the sets of rules were often referred to as heteronormativity. Heteronormativity assumed and attached a sense of naturalness to heterosexual attractions and relationships. Sex is conceived as a biological fact, where each person can be easily classified under the male-female binary. This binary, however, excludes the possibilities of alternative genders, such as hermaphrodites, who present the possibility of neither male nor female, as well as both

21 male and female. The possibilities are further complicated by recent medical advancements, where one can surgically alter one’s biological sex, although mostly on a cosmetic level. Butler (1993, page 2), on the other hand, argued that sex is not a biological fact but a performative which qualifies the body, usually according to the reiterated cultural norms. Under this performative qualification process, sex could no longer be understood as a biological fact, or “as a singular or deliberate ‘act’, but, rather, as the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effects that it names” (Butler, 1993, page 2). Sexual identity is thus, as Foucault (in Butler, 1993, page 2) had termed it, a regulatory ideal. Butler’s discussions on Foucault’s ‘sex as regulatory ideal’ underpinned her critique of heteronormativity. She (1993, page 232) challenged the fixity or universality of gender and sexual identities by questioning the validity of an identity ‘norm’. For a norm to exist, it has to be the commonality of many, but since sex is multifarious by nature, there then can be no one norm which a person can assume. Furthermore, while a norm is a commonality, it is not necessarily a ‘truth’, which very often it is (mis)taken for (1993, page 234). If there is no ‘truth’ (therefore, no fixity) in gender identities, there is no true compliance, thus no right, and no wrong. According to these arguments then, any homophobic remarks where gay males were accused of not being ‘proper’ men, and lesbians were accused of not being ‘proper’ women, are theoretically baseless (1990, page 141; 1993, page 238). Such accusations, while inconsistent with the fictitious nature of identity norms, nonetheless emphasise the reiterative processes of categorising and the potency of norms. The dependent nature of norms is particularly highlighted in society’s emphasis on conformity to norms. Butler (1990, page 17) claimed that, “the ‘coherence’ and ‘continuity’ are not logical or analytic features of personhood, but rather, socially instituted and maintained norms of intelligibility”, where the gist of the norms are continually repeated and often strictly adhered to. Failure to conform or comply with the norms often resulted in alienation, or in the cases for non-heterosexualities, pathologisation (see, for example, section 2.1). According to Butler (1990, page 17), one of the reasons for pathologisation was because of humans’ limited imagination and intelligibility about ourselves – “precisely because certain kinds of ‘gender identities’ fail to conform to those norms of cultural intelligibility, they appear only as developmental failures or logical impossibilities from within that domain”. Monique Wittig (1981, in Butler, 1990, page 21) highlighted this unintelligibility in understanding the diversity of gender and sexual identity performances when she critiqued the frequent universalisation of the gender binary under heteronormativity. Wittig (1981, in Butler, 1990, page 21) believed that gender served as a qualification for each person under the gender binary. Following this, any non-conformity would disqualify individuals in

22 some way that, as Butler (1990, page 17) put it, made them appear “as developmental failures or logical impossibilities”. This disqualification in turn prompted Butler’s (1990) explanation for the pathologisation of alternative sexualities (non-heterosexualities). These explanations of the ‘developmental failure’, however, clearly highlighted the stress of regulating heteronormativity. These stresses of heteronormative regulation are apparent in many everyday situations, such as at the SGLMG parade or in other public spaces like parks or libraries. The more extreme gender-sexual identity juxtapositions, such as transsexualism, are more frequently discriminated against and viewed in a pathological manner. Long term psychological counselling and monitoring, for example, are still mandatory for any Australian resident who wishes to undergo sex change operations. Discussions of the fictitious and dependent natures of norms also emphasised the inherent instability of identity norms in a theoretical sense. Norms, as aforementioned, are socially constructed; their maintenance is, thus, also socially dependent. On the personal level, however, the intent in conforming to such norms differs amongst individuals so that one could purposefully challenge as well as conform to the norms. In terms of gender and sexual identities, challenges to the set rules of heteronormativity could be achieved, though in a more extreme case, through cross- genderism, or drag. Butler (1990, page 137) explained that the performance of drag effectively demonstrated the discrete nature of anatomical sex and gender performances. In fact, she suggested that there are three dimensions of corporeality to each individual’s identity – “anatomical sex, gender identity, and gender performance” (Butler, 1990, page 137). Anatomical sex and gender identities are often (mis)taken as the inherent truths, with an invisible equal sign drawn between the two. This invisible equation unreservedly, according to heteronormativity, linked the performances of each gender to its assigned anatomical sex such that ‘man’ is unreservedly linked to ‘maleness’ while ‘woman’ is unreservedly linked to ‘femaleness’. The performance of cross-genderism/drag, however, “plays upon the distinction between the anatomy of the performer and the gender that is being performed” (Butler, 1990, page 137), and highlights the separateness between the three dimensions, as well as the fictitious, but more importantly the voluntary, nature of identity performance. Moreover, the intentional performances of cross-genderism/drag also unsettle the normative assumption of gender identities by revealing “the imitative [and thus fictitious] structure of gender itself – as well as its contingency” (Butler, 1990, page 137). All these arguments not only emphasise the constructions of identities and norms, but also the problems with their maintenance and the troubled nature of the social insistences attached to these norms. I believe that the performances at the SGLMG parade and via

23 latrinalia effectively demonstrate this constructive nature of identities and the voluntary nature of their performances. Furthermore, departures from the heteronormative identities were often met with resistance, even at such non-heterosexual dominant, and to some extent homonormative, spaces like the SGLMG parade. These resistances, and the continuity and longevity of the SGLMG parade, stand as evidence of the troubles with norms. This section sought to provide some clear definitions and distinctions between performance and performative. According to Butler (1990; 1993), performatives are the governing rules of identities which are made up of many individual performances. With this understanding, I was able to develop and explore my concept of neo-normativity, where the stereotypical is pursued and taken as quintessential. This concept of neo- normativity thus highlights two aspects of Butler’s explanation of identities. First, neo- normativity demonstrates that identities are culturally and socially regulated constructs which one have the freedom of choice in terms of performances. In the case of neo- normativity, these choices amount to commonly recognised stereotypes such as the effeminised gay male or the masculinised lesbian. Second, neo-normativity also demonstrates that identity norms are maintained through reiterations, where minor adjustments are made with each repetition. It is through this process of reiterations – whether through physical manifestations such as observed at the SGLMG parades or through virtual portrayals such as in the media – that the commonly recognised stereotypes are slowly ‘normalised’, eventually accepted as the new, ‘neo’ norms. As evidence of my fieldwork would attest, some of these neo-norms have even been reappropriated as tools in authenticating non-heterosexual politics (see Chapters 5 and 6). The next section examines how appropriately these names (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, Queer) and acronyms (GLBT/Q) reflect the ever changing non-heterosexual communities and politics.

2.4 The politics of naming – GLBT versus Queer versus non-heterosexual

The categorisation of gender and sexuality towards the end of the nineteenth century was the beginning of the naming of a kind of love that, for centuries before, of which no one dared speak of. Non-heterosexual individuals had existed under many different labels. These names have changed with time, reflecting changing social mores. This section explores the origins of labels such as ‘gay’ and ‘lesbian’ that were commonly used to describe non-heterosexuals in the twentieth century. The later development of the Queer identity movement and its associated politics are also discussed in this section. Specific references to my case studies, particularly the

24 SGLMG parade, are made. Specifically, this section compares the implications of non- heterosexual politics under the banners of, first, gay and lesbian, and second, Queer, and the conflicts that exist between the two banners of identities/politics. It concludes with clarifications on my decision to employ the term ‘non-heterosexual’ over ‘homosexual’ and other labels aforementioned. According to Neil Miller (1995, page 358) many of the common labels of non- heterosexual identities had “biblical, legal or clinical origins” and carried heavy negative connotations. For example, the origins of using the terms ‘sodomist’ and ‘sodomite’ in naming male homosexuals were in accordance with the biblical story of Sodom and Gomorrah, where the towns were destroyed because of the sin of male same-sex lust. Clinical associations, on the other hand, originated in the late nineteenth century when psychologists and physicists like Karl Heinrich Ulrichs, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, and Sigmund Freud began publishing the findings of their studies into human sexualities. These publications, in particular Ulrichs’ founding of the world’s first gay rights movement and introducing the term ‘Urning’, proposed the idea of an intermediate (or third) sex, which Freud later popularised. Freud eschewed an essentialist belief that non-heterosexualities were the result of biological degeneracies, but instead inferred a partially constructivist approach in suggesting that “a combination of nature and nurture was responsible for creating gay men and lesbians” (Miller, 1995, page 23). According to Freud’s inference, people of the intermediate/third sex, because of pleasures from their sexual exploits, are cured (heterosexualised in a way) only in rare cases. The idea of curability also normalised and essentialised the position of heterosexuality, in which Freud considered a non-heterosexual as curable only if “vestiges of a heterosexual choice of object” remained in the patient (Miller, 1995, page 24). (Refer to section 2.1 for a discussion on the early pathologisation of non-heterosexualities.) Such pathologisation by Freud nonetheless gave rise to alternative names for non- heterosexualities as signified by his advocacy for the removal of “moral and legal opprobrium from homosexuality and homosexuals” (Miller, 1995, page 24). This gave a boost to early fights for ‘homosexual’ rights and initiated a move towards more positive representations such as ‘gay’. The term ‘gay’ was first used to describe male homosexuals in the early twentieth century, and by the mid-twentieth century it was popularised to not only describe male but also female homosexuals. As Miller (1995, page 358) claimed, the origin of using ‘gay’ to describe homosexuals was unclear, but it had been suggested that it came from the French word ‘gaie’, the feminine form of ‘gay’. This captured the common early misconception of same-sex desire, that it was signified by cross- gendered identity performances. The popularity of the term ‘gay’ increased after the

25 mid-twentieth century as it spread through the English-speaking world, first as a secret identification mechanism amongst homosexuals at the time. As the term became more common and more widely understood its usefulness as a secret language within the ‘gay’ communities diminished. At the same time, along with the rise of the second feminist movement, female homosexuals started to forge their own separate identity, under the term ‘lesbian’, while ‘gay’ went back to mainly describe male homosexuals. The term ‘lesbian’ stemmed from the ancient Greek mythology of Lesbos, an island characterised by its female-only residents and celebration of female same-sex desires. Specialised terms used to describe other ‘alternative’ sexualities – bisexual, transgender, transsexual, just to name a few – followed as academic understanding into sexual diversity increased, and surgical advancement enhanced the possibility of altering one’s biological sex. The relative history of the term ‘gay’ has, however, been more commonly accepted as meaning non-heterosexuals in general, with the other terms such as ‘lesbian’ used mainly in and amongst feminist activists, or others in more specialised and politically correct situations. The diversifying of non-heterosexual identities, however, received varying levels of criticism, both individually and collectively. Individually, gays (male homosexuals) were criticised for being patriarchally-focussed masculinists, while accusations of man- hating lesbians, or the very possibility of a bisexual identity, were both academically and socially debated. Collectively, the identities of ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bisexual’, ‘transgender’ and ‘transsexual’ were criticised for being too diversified to achieve any real gains in political and legal recognitions; thus was born the collective acronym GLBT, or from a feminist viewpoint, LGBT. For ease in argument, the acronym GLBT is used throughout this thesis instead of the lengthier GLBT/LGBT amalgamation. GLBT distinguished the differences of each individual identity but at the same time also recognised the similarity(s) amongst them. This subsequently became a widely used acronym to collectively describe non-heterosexual communities, particularly in the written form. The acronym, however, has also received its share of criticism. From the mid-twenty first century onwards, for example, visibility and representations of non- heterosexuals of non-western backgrounds increased both in the media and on political fronts. Many of these non-western non-heterosexuals, amongst other individuals and groups, questioned the predominantly western (and Caucasian) historicity of the terms ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bisexual’, ‘transgender’, and ‘transsexual’, as well as the acronym ‘GLBT’ (see, for example, Yue’s 1996 discussion of new terms like NESBian that also highlighted the non-western ethnicities of some non-heterosexuals). At the same time, the increased heterosexual support and sympathy towards the non-heterosexual communities was also starting to be recognised. In light of these changes, the five

26 terms and the acronym ‘GLBT’ could no longer effectively reflect the diversity within non-heterosexualities (and supporters). A new term was thus required to refect the multiplicity of ‘gay’,’ lesbian’, ‘bisexual’, ‘transgender’, ‘transsexual’, and ‘GLBT’. Despite this cultural shift, many longer established organisations and events, such as the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG), along with many individuals, continued to use the five terms or the acronym as descriptive of non-heterosexual identities. The post-structuralist turn in cultural and social studies helped bring on the emergence of Queer theory and also the forging of Queer as a collective sexual identity. Annamarie Jagose (1996, page 76) described Queer as “a product … which increasingly structured debates (both within and outside the academy) about questions of lesbian and gay identity.” One of the major advantages for the non-heterosexual communities in employing a Queer identity was, according to Jagose (1996, page 77), that Queer “exemplifies a more mediated relation to categories of identification.” Unlike GLBT, Queer, with its post-structuralist foundation, could be understood as somewhat boundless, consisting of numerous variations of non-heterosexual as well as heterosexual (for example, ‘straight Queer’) identities. As Hennessy (1994, page 94, in Jagose, 1996, page 97) explained, Queer has the ability to, and is commonly perceived as, a challenge to the conventional understanding of identities and their associated categorisations as well as limitations. According to Chris Berry and Annamarie Jagose (1996, page 6), Queer demonstrated the “impossibility of any ‘natural’ sexuality”, overturning essentialism and the normalisation of heterosexuality, as well as reflecting the constructed nature of identities. Furthermore, Queer also questioned the often unproblematised and unchallenged terms of ‘man’ and ‘woman’, thus effectively severing the long simplified associations between sex and gender (masculine male and feminine female). It was clear from Berry and Jagose’s (1996) study that Queer offered a new, post-structuralist understanding on not just human sexuality but also human gender roles. Just as there were criticisms on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, transsexual and GLBT, criticisms of the post-structuralist Queer theory were also common. These criticisms were particularly prominent from the mid- to late-1990s. Tim Edwards (1998), for example, feared that the post-structuralist constitution of Queer created confusion within non-heterosexual populations (as well as the population in general) on what is/are included in the definition. Edwards (1998, page 472) believed Queer’s “distinctly murky” definition was responsible for the reluctance in its acceptance and consumption. This criticism, reluctance in the acceptance and use of Queer, was also the basis of academic criticism. Judith Butler (1990, 1993), for example, had criticised

27 the employment of Queer identity and its associated theory, mostly because of the lack of a precise definition, but also its temporality. Butler (1993, page 223) expressed concerns on the reappropriation – “‘refunctioned’ in the Brechtian sense” – of Queer from a term of degradation and derogatory into “a new and affirmative set of meanings”. Her long list of concerns and questions included

is this a simple reversal of valuation such that ‘queer’ means either a past degradation or a present or future affirmation? Is this a reversal that retains and reiterates the abjected history of the term? … Can the term overcome its constitutive history of injury? … How and where does discourse reiterate injury such that the various efforts to recontextualise and resignify a given term meet their limit in this other, more brutal, and relentless form of repetition? (Butler, 1993, paged 223)

The major concern from these questionings is the distinguishment between the use of Queer in the sense of yesteryears (the pejorative use of Queer) from the resignified use of affirmative Queer, or indeed if the pejorative use of Queer is still present in the contemporary. Apart from the lack of a clear distinction between its pejorative use and its reappropriated, political use, further criticisms of Queer also included claims of impersonality, elitism, and inaccessibility. This claim of elitist theorising in particular, as Sherri Paris (1993, page 988, in Jagose, 1996, page 110) explained, stemmed from the fact that Queer mainly originated from an academic background, resulting in it being

a politics formulated from a point beyond the body by people who are not hungry or cold, people who can theorise in comfort, peering at the world through computer screens, reconfiguring its surfaces endlessly, like a floppy disc”.

Despite its intention of theoretical inclusiveness (Berry and Jagose, 1996, page 6, have discussed the use of Queer “as an umbrella term for a coalition group of anti-normative sexual self-identifications”), Queer nonetheless, as detailed above, has been heavily criticised, not just from various corners of the academy, but also from members of the non-heterosexual communities. These communal criticisms included, to name a few, Queer’s mainly Anglo-Caucasian background, which often excluded non-heterosexuals of non-Caucasian ancestries (Berry and Jagose, 1996). The abundance of criticism, however, is not sufficient to critically dismiss and disregard the term ‘Queer’ and its

28 associated politics and theory as they continue to provide a post-structuralist alternative to ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bisexual’, ‘transgender’, ‘transsexual’, and ‘GLBT’. The internal debate that Queer has created within and amongst non-heterosexual communities, however, led Reed (1993, in Jagose, 1996, page 103) to proclaim the existence of “a gay generation gap”, where in general activists from the earlier gay and lesbian movements were critical of the term ‘Queer’, while many of the younger generations were accepting and had incorporated its use into everyday situations and followed suit with the reappropriations of other (formerly) derogatory terms such as ‘faggot’. Whether non-heterosexual individuals choose to identify themselves as GLBT or as Queer, there are many positive and negative implications of each. After all, as Butler (1990, page 1) illustrated, names of identity are representations – operative terms if you like – “within a political process that seeks to extend visibility and legitimacy” of that particular identity as a political subject. This representation, however, at the same time operates as the spoken and/or written language’s normative function that creates a – whether authentic or distorted – representation of the said subject. Representations are also inexhaustive by nature (Butler, 1990, page 3). Differences in the choice of representations often become the bases of political disagreements. This is well demonstrated by the name changes experienced by the SGLMG. It went from being just the Sydney Gay Mardi Gras in its inception years to the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras since the mid-1980s when Australian lesbian politics demanded greater involvement and representation. Disagreements also result from the assumption that identity associations are innately exclusive, so that, in terms of sexual identity subscription, a Queer individual is commonly presumed to be exclusive from the GLBT circles, and vice versa, even though from a theoretical stand point Queer was meant to be all inclusive. Many of the current debates within non-heterosexual communities are centred on such arguments of exclusivity. This prompted Joshua Gamson (1996, page 395) to ask the question “must identity movements self-destruct” as a direct result of these conflicts and disagreements? There is also criticism of how gay festivals, lesbian festivals, gay and lesbian festivals, as well as Queer festivals, tend to be organised and celebrated independently, and often participated by mutually exclusive crowds (Gamson, 1996). My case study of the SGLMG, however, sits on a peculiar position. While on the outset it posits itself as a ‘gay and lesbian’ festival, with its main drawcard – the parade – nominally ‘gay and lesbian’, its other, smaller subsidiary events such as the Mardi Gras Film Festival advertise themselves as the ‘biggest queer film festival in the Southern Hemisphere’. Is this a sign of role reversal, where Queer is accepted under the ‘gay and lesbian’ umbrella? Does the SGLMG’s

29 detachment from any Queer references serve only to reflect its pre-Queer origins, or does it reflect the organisation’s (and by association, the Sydney non-heterosexual communities’) disapproval of the Queer identity/politics? These are some of the issues that my findings engage. My deliberate use of the term ‘non-heterosexuals’ throughout this thesis is not without its share of dilemmas either. It is foremost inexhaustive and thus exclusive, as it identifies and represents gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, transsexuals, queers, and so forth by excluding and thus disqualifying those who identify, or are identified as, heterosexuals. All of these represent consensual, erotic or otherwise, practices between individuals and exclude non-consensual practices that may at times also be illegal, such as the recent discovery of the Fritzl incestuous relationship in Austria (Associated Press, 2008). The employing of the prefix ‘non’ in front of ‘heterosexuals’ can be interpreted as centralising and normalising heterosexuals and heterosexuality(s). In this case then, an exercise on the studying of non-heterosexual behaviour and geography can theoretically be (mis)read as reinforcing heteronormativity. The use of the term ‘non-heterosexuals’, while not dismissive of the acronym GLBT, its various identity elements, and the term ‘Queer’, has, however, several advantages. First, by not including the term ‘homosexual’, it removes any direct affiliation to the pathologisation of the early studies up until the mid-twentieth century. Furthermore, while the term ‘non-heterosexuals’ is nonetheless still inexhaustive and exclusive as discussed above, it is however inclusive of all sexual identities with the exception of heterosexuals. This posits heterosexuals in the unfamiliar role of Other, a role which for so long non-heterosexuals have been placed in heteronormative societies. Third, it also steers clear of any academic debates, such as questioned by Gamson (1996), over the political uses of ‘gay and lesbian’ and Queer. This leaves any discussions of ‘non-heterosexualities’ solely focussed on ‘non-heterosexuals’ (the people) themselves and not the conflicts over the academic debates and social commentaries behind the use of the other terms and/or acronym. It also makes any discussions of politics pertaining to or reflected by the performances (whether at the SGLMG or in latrinalia) less cumbersome and more succinct. It was from these points of view that ‘non-heterosexual’ was chosen as the operative term for discussing GLBT and Queer identities in this study. This section provided a brief overview of the range of operative terms that non- heterosexuals have attached to, or been attached to, since the nineteenth century. From the time of Ulrich’s intermediate/third sex, through the development of gay, lesbian, and later on bisexual, transgender and transsexual identities, to the introduction of the post-structuralist Queer identity, this section discussed the origins of

30 some of these identities. The focus, however, has been on the implications, particularly the political implications of individuals and public events (such as the SGLMG) that attach to, or are attached to, a particular operative term. Attachment to one particular operative term (such as ‘gay’) or a combination/acronym of terms (such as ‘gay and lesbian’ and ‘GLBT’) might be seen as an act of exclusion to the other identities. The choice by the SGLMG to attach itself to the ‘gay and lesbian’ label has at times been attacked for not fully recognising non-heterosexual identities like bisexual, transgender and transsexual, but also its slow recognition and acceptance of the more contemporary Queer politics. My personal choice of ‘non-heterosexual’ tried to steer away from these conflicts and place the concerned subject (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/transsexual/GLBT/Queer/non-heterosexuals) under an unfamiliar homonormative light, where heterosexuals were for once excluded and Othered. The next section delves more into exclusion, specifically in the form of abjection where exclusion is not only constant but also produced internally.

2.5 Abjection

Abjection is a theory about ambiguous human psychology and signifies our constant struggles between desire and disgust. One of the foremost scholarly works on this subject is Julia Kristeva’s (1982) Powers of horror: an essay of abjection, which discussed in detail both the nature and implications of the abject. By and large, abjection is an act of exclusion that operates through taboo and concepts of pollution (Douglas, 2002). Just as it carries feelings of disgusts, abjects also carry elements of desire. This desire partly stems from human’s fascination with the unknown and the forbidden but also, maybe most importantly, a lost intimacy with which we, whether intentionally or not, had previously ejected. It is this conflicting nature of abjection that makes it one of the more complex and contentious theories in social sciences. My conception of neo-normativity also holds much of this complexity. This section discusses my understanding of the theory of abjection and how it shapes some of the arguments of my thesis. References are made to my two case studies of non- heterosexual performances – the SGLMG parade and latrinalia – and how abject theory may help clarify my concept of neo-normativity. The theory of abjection symbolises a constant struggle between desire and disgust. This struggle between desire and disgust stems primarily from the traumatic moment of childbirth where “the child’s archaic and undifferentiated relationship with its mother” is physically separated for the first time (Macey, 2000, page 1). This physical separation of the child is often likened to other acts of expulsion such as excrement

31 and menstrual blood. Through such actions of expulsion, a boundary between the self or the ego (mother) and the other or the non-ego (the child, excrement, menstrual blood) is established and distinguished. The erection of such a boundary also severs the intimacy between the self/ego and its abjects, making the self/ego forever incomplete as the abjects were once part of the self/ego. It is this incompleteness that often compels the self to seek and desire the abjected. At the same time, the expelled or ejected are often associated with the unclean (excrement for example) and are disgusted for fear of polluting the now purified self/ego by violating the very boundary that the expulsion erected. In other words, the abjected are regularly liked to disorder and uncertainty, a disruption to the system (the purified self). The desire for the oneness that the abjects signify is also thus feared for the potential regression back to the self’s most archaic state where there was no distinction between the self and the abject. An extreme example of such, as Kristeva (1982) put forward, is excrement. It is an abject because it is constantly viewed as dirty and disrupting as it carries germs and diseases. It is, therefore, a disruption to physical ‘health’. Yet in order for us to survive, we must produce these abjected excrements to remain healthy. The desire for the excrement is also feared at the same time as the regression to its most archaic state, therefore a physical consumption of these excrements, is unpalatable3. The common insult of ‘eat shit and die’ exemplifies this disgust and fear of the abjected excrement. We (the self) thus are both the ones who create as well as the ones who eject, other, and exclude the abject (the excrement). The cycle of abjection, as such, is constant and unending. A less physical and more visual example of the abject is the scar. Scars are often results of mishaps and accidents which often invoke unpleasant memories. As such, we often try to cover scars up, obscure them with articles of clothing or make- up, in effect denying that the purified self is penetrable and our personal boundaries are breachable. Yet these scars also serve as marks the progress and develop distinctiveness and individuality. Despite their obvious contributions and sometimes necessities, whether in terms of health, distinctiveness or otherwise, we continue to view abjects as corrupted beings (Kristeva, 1982, page 16) and this interest in or the desire for the abject is viewed as perverse, taboo. Abjects, for these reasons, come in

3 There is a recent report on a Japanese facial treatment, called the Geisha Facial, which uses a mask made with powdered extracts of nightingale excrement (Gardner, 2008). It is said to originate from eighteenth century Japan where “geishas and kabuki actors used the powder to clean heavy white makeup off their faces” and to give “a porcelain white quality to their skin”.

32 many forms and are unique according to each individual’s histories and experiences (Kristeva, 1982, page 68). This theory of abjection applies to my thesis in two specific ways, each to the two main case studies. First, the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG), and more specifically, the presence of what I call ‘neo-normativity’ at the 2005 parade as the abject. Neo-normativity signifies the treatment of stereotypical performances as quintessential. These stereotypical performances, for the case study of the SGLMG parade, often consisted of extreme juxtapositions between ‘conventional’ gender performances and biological sex, such as by some drag performers. My findings will show how neo-normative performances were common place at the 2005 parade (for detailed discussions, see Chapters 5 and 6). These neo-normative performances are frequently viewed with disgust and are historically ejected by heteronormative societies, including Sydney. There is also evidence to suggest that, particularly since the 1990s, such extremist challenges to ‘conventional’ gender performances were also ejected by non-heterosexual communities. These neo-normative performances were disgusted and ejected, first, as they disrupted and ‘corrupted’ heteronormative ideologies where the connections and relationships between ‘conventional’ gender performances and biological sex were dualistic. These neo-normative performances were also disgusted and ejected, second, by non-heterosexual communities, particularly since the 1990s, as they homogenised and insufficiently represented the diversity of non-heterosexual communities. Some of these neo-normative identities are also longer-established performances (such as drag and cross-gender performers) that have historically been stereotyped as perverse. These identities were, then, also feared for a regression back to the older, more physical types of discrimination such as homophobic violence. At the same time, however, these neo-normative performances are also desired. Apart from the spirit of celebrating diversity, there are several reasons for the desire of such neo-normative performances. Historically neo-normative performances present a political challenge to heteronormative ideals, and as such they at times function in an advocacy capacity. Some like Murray (1995) have argued that, for example, drag and cross-genderism still present the greatest challenge to the heteronormative hegemony. In more recent histories of the SGLMG parade, these neo- normative performances were also valued for their ability to gain external financial support as the imageries they project are commonly and easily identifiable (see section 5.2). Such commercial support, some like Fiona Nicoll (2001) claim, are vital for the survival of the SGLMG. The abjected, neo-normative performances are thus condoned for continued survival. I, however, believe that such neo-normative performances are also condoned for a more political reason. As these performances are commonly and

33 easily identifiable within both non-heterosexual and heteronormative communities, they are used by some non-heterosexuals to organise and authenticate their politics as non- heterosexual. Those who do not authenticate through neo-normative performances may run the risk of invisibilisation and be invariably marginalised. The application of abjection to my second case study, latrinalia, is radically different from that of my first in that it exemplifies more the desired nature of the abjected. Latrinalia by nature exists only within the confines of the public toilet, a space which is designed (and thus systematically confined) mostly for the purposes of and (the producing of one type of abjects – bodily wastes)4. Latrinalia, however, is neither urination nor defecation, yet it is another form of abject as, first as graffiti they are constantly viewed as vandalism, a disruption and visual obstruction to the purifying rituals (urination and defecation) of the body, and second as a form of public communication in a place that is often viewed as private (at least when the cubicle doors are closed), clouding the boundaries between public (open) and private (personal). Latrinalia is thus out of place and serves as a disruption to the designated system of the toilets. Furthermore, due to the nature of my investigation – spatial differences in the performances of non-heterosexual identities – my collection of latrinalia focussed on those which contained references to same-sex desire and erotica, including homophobia representations. While I did not ascertain whether the contact details of mobile phone numbers or email addresses were authentic, these non-heterosexual latrinalia nonetheless created a non-heterosexual presence. Public toilets, by virtue of being in the ‘public’ however, are assumed to be heteronormative (for a discussion of the assumed heteronormativity of public spaces, see section 3.3). The presence of these non-heterosexual latrinalia, which signified ‘non-heterosexual activities’, are also thus out of place and serve as disruptions to the (assumed) heteronormativity of these ‘public’ spaces. This disruption is realised at times via homophobic latrinalia and at other times via more drastic measures such as restriction of access (not just to non-heterosexuals or those involved in latrinalia drawing/writing)

4 Many public toilets are now also fitted with syringe disposal bins in recognition of the toilets being used by intravenous drug users. This is another abjected relationship, where used syringes are viewed as dangers to public health and safety, however the small confines of public toilet cubicles serve as convenient and private spaces for ‘shooting up’. The presences of these syringe disposal bins were recorded during fieldwork. These bins, however, were excluded from the discussions of this thesis due to their infrequent presences and the lack of any (direct and indirect) references to drug use in the latrinalia collected.

34 and physical modifications to these spaces such as resurfacing and painting (see Chapter 7). All of these measures signify the fears of these users and management authorities in ‘privatising’ the public but more so the acknowledgement of non- heterosexualities as part of the public. The latrinalia, however, is also desired – particularly by the non-heterosexual graffitists who produce and consume them – as an important forum of communication in the relative privacy of these ostensibly ‘public’ and heteronormative spaces. These non-heterosexual latrinalia are, thus, abjects that are disgusted and desired by two different populations of users of these spaces. Yet the viewing of these latrinalia as abjects, particularly on the parts of the management of these spaces and homophobic users, further marginalise non-heterosexual performances in heteronormative societies. These exclusions are multiple in nature as, first, they restrict the identity performances of these (almost exclusively) male graffitists and, second, restrict these non-heterosexuals spatially on where they could feel private (as signified by the amorous/erotic nature of the latrinalia) and, third, forbade a method of communication, most often between willing participants. All of these signify the spatial contests that continue to exist between heteronormativity and non-heterosexual spatial (re)appropriations. This section explained the premises and likely application of abjection theory. Abjection describes a constant struggle between desire and disgust. The constancy of the abject comes from the fact that as we regularly eject it we also inadvertently produce it, forming an unending cycle. This shapes my concept of neo-normativity, particularly where the political values of neo-normative performances are concerned. These complexities in terms of desire and disgust will be exemplified in my two case studies – SGLMG parade and latrinalia – where both are disgusted as well as desired. These feelings of desire and disgust, though constant, are not necessarily concurrent within the same context or discourse. For example, the non-heterosexual latrinalia included in my case studies are desired and valued by their producers and consumers but are disgusted by those who hold onto the concept that public spaces are heteronormative spaces. The next section explores these complexities further through a more detailed discussion of my concept of neo-normativity.

2.6 Non-heterosexual stereotypings and neo-normativity

Neo-normativity is a continuous process frequently evident in everyday society. It signifies the visual replacement of heteronormative norms by evolving stereotypes. The stereotypes can encompass both audio and visual performances. Examples include the entrance gates at Chinatowns in major cities around the world or, in terms

35 of sexual identity performances, the effeminising of non-heterosexual males. It is a ‘neo’ process because through this process, stereotypes become the expected norms, in effect creating a new set of norms. It is also a continuous process because the neo- normalised images are constantly renewed through the individuals’ continual conformity to – and in many times active pursuit of – the stereotypes. Many studies have discussed aspects of neo-normativity since the mid-1990s, particularly acknowledging the political powers that such conformity (and in a sense homogenisation) holds. Most of these studies have, however, fallen short on the recognition of the internally-driven and self-sustained aspects of the process. It has also never been discussed as a named concept in the manner done in this thesis. Discussions of the political implications of neo-normativity have also thus far evaded examinations. Nonetheless, studies by Cover (2004; 2005), Kirby (1996), Kirby and Hay (1997), Manning (1995), Namaste (1996), Nilan (1996), Nixon (1997), and Willett (2000) had all discussed aspects of what I refer to as neo-normativity. These discussions had referred to the processes of neo-normativity, such as compulsion to behave and dress in stereotypical manners (Kirby, 1996), and the visibilising of unwritten “‘rules’ that govern and operationalise” the discourse of heteronormativity (Nilan, 1995, page 67), or, for example, on the popularisation of stereotypical images through consumer markets (Nixon, 1997, page 294). This section explores these issues in greater detail so as to paint a fuller picture of the processes and implications of what I call neo-normativity. Mass media, in particular advertising, often serves as a catalyst in the creation and maintenance of identity performance norms. As Sean Nixon’s (1997) investigation into the advertising of men’s products showcased, the evolving designs of products as well as the advertising of such products projected new versions of acceptable masculine performances for males to normalise to. Menswear, in particular, was designed to enhance and highlight the traditionally muscular masculine characteristics – “broader shouldered suits … figure-hugging sportswear lines” (Nixon, 1997, page 295) – with the advertisements often portraying males in active roles such as the skipper of a yacht while females were cast in more passive roles such as the passengers. For example, Nixon (1997, page 318-9) claimed that the male characters in (print or otherwise) advertisements often took the position of “the bearer of the look (the active eye) … with the feminine coded as visual spectacle (passive object to be looked at)”. These portrayals of the active males and passive females not only implied heteronormativity but also essentialised masculine characteristics and materiality to male heterosexuality and male heterosexuality only. The absence of male-male (whether in homosexual or homosocial contexts) portrayals in these advertisements

36 inferred the mutual exclusivity between masculinity and male non-heterosexualities, thus essentialising muscular masculinity as signifiers of heterosexuality. Commercialisation, in the form of advertising and intensified through mass media, can thus be seen as a tool that is used in maintaining heteronormative norms and essentialising the centrality of heteromasculine performances within heteropatriarchy, at the same time producing these essentialised heteromasculine performances as the male norm. The maintenance of heteronormative norms relies heavily on the continual misreading of the relationships between gender and sexual identities. Ki Namaste (1996, page 225) commented that there is a general, stereotypical misconception that any effeminate males are perceived to be ‘gay’, thereby conflating their gender performances (masculinity/femininity) and sexual identities. This stereotyping of male effeminacy – and by implication female masculinity – as non-heterosexualities often resulted in the verbal and even physical homophobic discriminations and violence against effeminate males (and masculine females). This stereotyping of effeminising non-heterosexual males were sometimes taken up by non-heterosexual males themselves, believing that in order to be ‘real’ non-heterosexual males they need to deliberately become effeminised in some aspects. The same argument also holds true for masculinising lesbians. This demonstrated one of the limitations of neo-normativity – its failure in acknowledging the possibilities of, as well as its direct dismissal of, the possibilities of multiple gender and sexual identity performances. Under the operations of neo-normativity, variations in masculinities and variations in femininities become constrained. This critique on neo-normativity’s dismissal of multiple gender identity performances was clearly presented in Pam Nilan’s (1995) study. Nilan’s (1995) arguments showed that masculine characteristics are externally appropriated and each individual boy and man experiences these characteristics differently. Furthermore, following Butler’s (1990) and Jackson’s (1990) post-structuralist assessments, since gender identity performances are cultural and social constructions, the existence of unitary identity performances become unfeasible. Effectively, there are more than one ‘true’ type of masculinity and one ‘true’ type of femininity. Following the logic of multiple masculinities and multiple femininities, it is nonsensical to talk about effeminate males or masculinised females, as ‘male effeminacy’ is only a variation of masculinity, while ‘female masculinity’ is only a variation of femininity. Nonetheless, males who depart from the conventional or hegemonic masculine ideals and females who depart from the conventional or hegemonic feminine ideals continue to be stereotyped as quintessential non-heterosexual identities.

37 From the mid-1990s, following many efforts in countering the common ‘effeminised gay male’ stereotype, the neo-normalisation of non-heterosexual males had shifted to a more homo-masculine image. This was exemplified in Dean Kiley’s (in Willet, 2000, page 240) description of the ‘Template Man’, a human template to which gay males are expected to conform. The modern day Template gay men are “young, attractive, short-haired, smooth-bodied, defined, muscular … [and] white” (Willet, 2000, page 240), as opposed to the stereotypically camp and effeminate gay male that was once popularised (and neo-normalised in some senses). This change in the neo- normalised gay male template not only signified the changes in sexual identity performances within the gay male communities; it also inferred, however, the communities’ condemnation and demonisation of some previous sexual identity performances (such as drag). The condemnation and demonisation of drag, for example, were clear, where despite its prominent role in the Stonewall riot (Simpson in Manning, 1995, page 30) and other early political movements (Humphreys, 1972), drag performances had since been relegated to the role of the theatrics, in particular, as spectacle for heterosexual pleasures and reassertion of patriarchy. Drag performances, male-to-female drag more specifically, Manning (1995, page 30) argued, was used by patriarchs to reassert that “men can do anything”, such as in the movies Tootsie, or Mrs Doubtfire, where the characters in drag excelled in their respective careers while pretending to be ‘females’5. From Willet’s (2000) example of the ‘Template Man’, then, it is clearly demonstrated that neo-normativity not only creates new acceptable norms, but also in the process replaces, and in some cases condemns, previous ones. My case study of the SGLMG parade was a space where these contestations over performances and norms were prominent. The masculinisation of the gay male Template, according to Tim Manning (1995, page 30), began soon after the Stonewall riot in the 1970s and continued through the 1980s, 1990s, and into the twenty-first century. The neo-normalisation of Graeme Willet’s (2000) Template gay man was well in progress in the new century, as Brian Thacker’s (2004) light-hearted recount of his volunteering experience at the 2003 SGLMG parade attested. Thacker (2004, pages 117-8) observed that:

5 There is, however, recent evidence of a new breed of drag artistry, where these modern-day cross-dressing performers take on an even stronger, and often more vociferous, political standpoint than their predecessors who, according to Hilbert (1995, page 463), regularly dressed as public icons like Marilyn Monroe or Barbra Streisand.

38 “apparently, there’s a chunk (or hunk!) of the gay community who spend months leading up to [the] big event ‘preparing’ themselves. They double their gym routine, fry themselves silly in the solarium and wax just about everywhere (and everything!)”.

The neo-normalising processes that these gay males go through, to conform to the Template, on the one hand presented a united front prior to and during the parade, but on the other hand also contradicted one of the central premises of the SGLMG parade, which was the celebration of differences and individuality. Neo-normalised performances at public events such as the SGLMG parade, however, could be viewed as serving important political and economic functions. Analyses of my own field data showed that, to some extent, neo-normalised non-heterosexual performances were used to authenticate the performers’ non-heterosexualities as well as to attract lucrative financial support in the form of commercial sponsorships (for a detailed discussion on the political uses of neo-normativity, see Chapter 5). From these studies it could be deduced that processes of neo-normativity are deeply entrenched in modern day societies. Furthermore, these processes of neo-normativity erect restrictions that limited the identity performances of many individuals, particularly those from within the non-heterosexual communities. Rob Cover (2004) further provided some more contemporary examples of the restrictive nature of neo-normativity by analysing the discourse of stereotyping. He explained that stereotypes are “easily communicated and culturally intelligible image[s]” and the outcomes of “symbolic and connotative fixing [of] an image to a set of prescribed behaviours” (Cover, 2004, pages 81-2). In turn, these stereotypes were often later used as the bases in speculating the identities (sexual or not) of others. They are therefore commonly reduced from a set of ideas (of truth or mythology), often only projecting one fixed facet or variation of the truth, and as such frequently resulting in unfounded speculations, causing misunderstandings and discriminations. In other words, stereotypes often set very restrictive limitations on identity performances. Conformity to stereotypes (including neo-normativity) hence simplifies complicated identity performatives into homogenised images, which, in non-heterosexual discourses, were regularly visualised as ‘effeminised’ gay males and ‘masculinised’ lesbians. Alejandro Portes (1998, page 16) further explained that the restrictiveness of conformity sometimes functions to the detriment of excluding and marginalising individuals who were already on the peripherals of the community, including “the [not so self-assured] young and the more independent-minded”. The restrictiveness of conformity, however, is not without its positives. As aforediscussed, homogenised

39 performances often created the illusion of unity, such as the gym-toned and solarium- fried gay males from Thacker’s (2004) personal recount. Cover (2005, page 127) explained this compulsion to conformity as stemming from human’s innate need for a ‘group’ identity which, at times, is approximated as community belonging. Cover (2005, page 115) explained,

Belonging works as an interface between the articulation of an identity and a represented community … the requirement that an intelligible and recognisable sexual identity is performed … [so] that a sense of group affiliation in some format, whether institutionally legitimated or identifiably marginalised, is adhered to.

This approximation of community belonging is an especially important aspect of conformity for those who are culturally and socially marginalised, such as non- heterosexuals as discussed throughout this thesis. The conformity aspect of neo- normativity is thus like a double-edged sword and individuals may struggle to find a fine balance between the restrictiveness of homogenisation and the emotional benefits of belonging. The restrictive characteristics of neo-normativity have been proven to have negative effects on the commercial viability of some aspects of non-heterosexual life. Lynette Lewis and Michael W. Ross’ (1995) investigation revealed that the spread of neo-normalisation through Sydney’s gay dance party scene led to its eventual demise. They discovered that the popularisation of the gay dance parties in the late 1980s and early 1990s brought along a more diversified patronage, which included heterosexuals as well as suburban gay males. At this time, as the formerly ‘underground’ dance party scene was popularised, signs of social division amongst the non-heterosexual patrons appeared. These divisions were most apparent between inner-city gay males and suburban gay males. Lewis and Ross (1995, page 50) noted that suburban gay males were often seen as unwanted outsiders and were referred to as “B and T”, which signalled their main modes of transportation (buses and trains) to the inner-city dance parties. The inner-city gay males’ subordination of the suburban gay males stereotyped male non-heterosexualities as an inner-city phenomenon. Furthermore, the inner-city gay male patrons also did not welcome the new, heterosexual patrons, with alcohol- induced aggression often sited as the major reason for the aversion (Lewis and Ross, 1995, page 49). According to Sorrels and Kelley (1984, in Lewis and Ross, 1995, page 51), the brief success of the large-scale gay dance parties in Sydney was the result of the inner-city gay male communities’ adherence to “prescribed lifestyles [which

40 included] norms and values”. The inability for new patrons to conform (and neo- normalise) to these norms and values separated these new patrons from the old, both in terms of their visual presentation of self (performances) and, as a result, their social mobility within the scene. Lewis and Ross (1995, page 52) explained that conformity to neo-norms were often used by original patrons to inflict “intra-group cohesion by attributing negative characteristics to outsiders” who fail to do so. Interactions with these new patrons were accordingly avoided and minimised. By the mid-1990s, many of these original, inner-city gay dance party patrons had completely removed themselves from the ‘aboveground’ dance party scene, away from the newer “Bs and Ts” and heterosexual patrons, and set up new underground gay dance parties. Through this, two neo-norms were forged, and unlike the ‘Template Man’, these neo- norms were inherently spatially specific, rather than physically or superficially specific. First, inner-city gay dance party patrons were neo-normalised as the ‘real’ patrons; and second, ‘real’ gay dance parties obtained and retained an underground status, one separate from those attended by “Bs and Ts” and heterosexual patrons. The inability of patrons to accept departures from ‘accepted norms and values’ also provided further evidence that processes of neo-normativity existed, and possibly governed, identity performances at Sydney’s gay dance party scene. This restrictive policy for identity conformity, while perhaps acting to ensure social harmony, had devastating financial implications. Forced conformity, in this case, not only divided dance party patrons by their sexuality and area of residence, it also ensured the invisibility of gay dance party, a major form of non-heterosexual commercial activity. While the majority of research on the subject of neo-normativity has focussed on the identity performances of gay males, these processes also affect and are apparent in performances of other sexual identities, whether they be non-heterosexual or not. Madeline Davis and Elisabeth Lapovsky Kennedy (1986), for example, studied some lesbian communities’ strict conformity to the butch-fem dichotomy in the 1940s and 1950s. The pressured conformity to the butch-fem dichotomy was particularly apparent in public, lesbian institutions such as bars, where butch lesbians were expected to provide physical protection for other (especially femme) patrons when unwelcomed homophobic (or at least lesbian-phobic) patrons entered and threatened verbal or physical abuse. Furthermore, these butch-femme roles were often managed by strict dress codes, such as the use of necktie as a butch/masculine signifier (Johnston, 1973, page 160; Creed, 1995, page 87). Non-conformity to these established butch-femme stereotypes often resulted in social alienation, mirroring the type of segregation in the gay dance party scene as discussed in Lewis and Ross (1995). The pursuit of neo-normalised heterosexual identity performances, on the other

41 hand, was highlighted in Stewart Kirby’s (1996) and Linda McDowell’s (1995) studies. Kirby’s (1996, page 87, 101-2) study into gay males’ perceptions of everyday spaces revealed that many gay males actively pursued “what they [felt] to be stereotypically heterosexual ways” in order to avoid being identified as non-heterosexuals. These “stereotypically heterosexual ways” included the removal of signifiers of non- heterosexualities, such as the display of homoerotic interests, as well as acting in misogynistic, or even, homophobic manners. These drastic measures were often performed to avoid verbal and physical discriminatory confrontations, as well as to maintain employment and family and community support. These stereotypical understandings of heterosexual identity performances not only visualised the extent of neo-normativity in everyday society, but they also reinforced the common dichotomous conception of heterosexuality and non-heterosexualities. McDowell’s (1995) study into the merchant banking workplace also revealed the neo-normalising of heterosexual identity performances, not only by non-heterosexuals, but also by heterosexuals. She (McDowell, 1995, page 83) explained that workers (heterosexual or not) were often expected to conform to “an idealised bodily image”, not just to avoid discrimination and ‘suspicions’ of being non-heterosexuals, but also to avoid being reprimanded for not following the workplaces’ respective dress codes, which required female workers to accentuate their femininity through various dress elements such as stockings and long hair. The uniformity of the neo-normalised heterosexual identity performances (‘masculine’ males, ‘feminine’ females) even had the workers likening themselves as clones (McDowell, 1995, page 84), thus highlighting the homogenising restriction of both stereotyping and neo-normativity. The accentuating of female workers’ femininity also emphasised the heteropatriarchy of many workplaces. From Davis and Kennedy’s (1986), Kirby’s (1996) and McDowell’s (1995) case studies, then, while the majority of discussions on what I call neo- normativity has focussed on gay male identity performances, the extent of neo- normative processes extends over many gender and sexual identities as well as in many different social settings, with the neo-normalisation of heterosexual identities being more commonly considered as heteronormativity. Neo-normativity is a process that governs the identity performances of many individuals in society. While stereotypes are continually being renewed and reinvented from generation to generation, as shown in Kiley’s (in Willet, 2000) discussion of the ‘Template Man’, the cultural and societal pressures of conforming to stereotypes persist. What stands the neo-normative processes apart from other identity homogenisation was that, apart from being externally influenced by factors such as popularisation through consumer markets (Nixon, 1997), it was also an internally-driven

42 and self-sustained process where conformity to stereotypical images is actively pursued and often encouraged and insisted (Davis and Kennedy, 1986). Furthermore, this active pursuit of neo-normalised images masks over the diversities and multiplicities of gender and sexual identity performances. This masking of diversities and multiplicities create a spectacle of uniformity amongst members of non- heterosexual communities, which at times is falsely mistaken for unity. Neo-normativity can also pathologise and demonise some non-heterosexual identities, much like heteronormativity. Moreover, while the majority of research on identity performance and conformity had focussed on the neo-normalisation of gay males, it was shown by Davis and Kennedy (1986), Kirby (1996), and McDowell (1995) that these pressures and processes affect other non-heterosexuals and also heterosexuals. The restrictive characteristics of neo-normativity operate to confine the development of individual identity performances. It can also have expensive social costs on the communities, as Lewis and Ross (1995) had pointed out, in terms of division and exclusion. These can negatively affect the long term viability of community events, particularly those run by or for non-heterosexual communities, which are often vital for the survival of many non- heterosexual activities and festivities. The demise of these community events may have significant and lasting implications, such as invisibilisation, on non-heterosexual politics. Despite its obvious restrictiveness and expensive social costs, conformity to stereotypes persists. Cover (2005) explained this compulsion to neo-normalise as human’s innate need for a ‘group’ identity approximates a sense of belonging. This approximation of community belonging is particularly important for individuals who are culturally and socially marginalised such as non-heterosexuals. This makes a concept like neo-normativity a contentious topic of discussion within both academia and the wider society.

2.7 Conclusion

The literature reviewed in this chapter clearly demonstrates that historically non- heterosexual communities and identity performances were stereotyped and neo- normalised into perverted and subordinate roles compared to heterosexuals. These stereotypings and neo-normalisations included pathologisation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and demonisation that followed from the mid-twentieth century onwards. Throughout these pathologisations and demonisations, non- heterosexuals have often been homogenised as indistinct from one and another. It was not until the debate on the origins of identity, whether from essentialist or constructivist viewpoints, that diversity amongst non-heterosexuals and non-heterosexualities was

43 properly recognised. Questions over the assumed centrality and normality of heterosexuality also emerged at around the same time, with Judith Butler (1990; 1993) being one of the early critics. The transpiration of the post-structuralist Queer movement began a new phase of non-heterosexual politics, following on from the earlier gay movement, lesbian movement and gay and lesbian movements. Many, however, remained uneasy with the use of the reappropriated term ‘queer’ as the designated identity of this new advancement in non-heterosexual politics. Combined with recurrent criticisms of elitism and impersonality, the uptake of Queer identities was slow. My use of the term ‘non-heterosexuals’ as an umbrella term that encompasses consensual sexualities that included ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’, ‘bisexual’, ‘transgendered’, ‘transsexual’, the acronym GLBT and the post-structuralist Queer averts from these academic and social debates as well as departs from the historical medical connotation of older terms like ‘homosexual’. At the same time, it also puts ‘heterosexuals’ in the unfamiliar position of the Other by centralising non-heterosexualities. This chapter also introduced my own concept of neo-normativity, the quintessentialising of stereotypes. Studies such as that by Davis and Kennedy (1986) showcased the existence and functionings of neo-normative processes in established non-heterosexual institutions. These neo-normative processes restrict the performances of non-heterosexuals to the extent that non-conformity often resulted in alienation. This highlights the internally driven aspect of neo-normativity. The commonness of neo-normativity within the non-heterosexual communities was well highlighted by Kiley’s (in Willett, 2000) notion of the ‘Template Man’ where members of the non-heterosexual communities aspire to the image of this fictional ideal, an identity performance which changes from generation to generation. The danger and limitation of these neo-normative practices were the false projection of a united front (a spectacle of conformity), and more importantly, uniformity amongst the non-heterosexual communities, which in turn constrains the development and performances of individual identities. The political usages of some of these neo-normalised performances and the fear of regressing to the older stereotypes of perversion and psychologically ill, however, project these performances as abjects rather than subjects. On the one hand, neo-norms like transvestism are regularly and systematically denounced by the non- heterosexual communities, yet on the other hand the very same neo-norms are frequently used to authenticate community events like the SGLMG parade as genuinely non-heterosexual. In my research, I have used two distinct case studies – the 2005 SGLMG parade and latrinalia – to investigate, first, the differences in non-heterosexual identity performances in these different settings, and second, the extent of neo- normativity and heteronormativity that dictates and restricts non-heterosexual identity

44 performances in these social settings. The results of these case study investigations are discussed in Chapters 5 to 7. The following chapter (Chapter 3) provides a review of literature focused specifically on non-heterosexual spatialities and their relations with heteropatriarchy and heteronormativity.

45 Chapter 3: Sexualities and their spatial divisions

Within the field of geography, there has already been much research on identity constructions (if indeed identities are, or can be, constructed) and on how external factors such as the environment and social backgrounds can influence the manifestations of identities. Because it is the field of geography, much of this discussion was written with spatiality in mind, so that these identity constructions and manifestations are inextricably, in one way or another, linked to specific spaces. Geographical studies into the constructions, manifestations and spatiality of non- heterosexuals (and non-heterosexualities) have followed this emphasis. In the studies of sexualities, different sexual identities have been commonly perceived to be associated with different spaces. Furthermore, the spaces of each sexuality were often conceived to be mutually exclusive, but more importantly, physically distant from each other, separated by vast expanses of ‘asexual’, ‘public’ spaces. Many researchers have pointed to the assumption that most spaces are naturally heterosexual. Gay male spaces, lesbian spaces, or spaces of other sexual identities were thus often assumed to result from non-heterosexual spatial acquisitions. The uneven intellectual thinking dedicated to the study of heterosexual, gay male, and lesbian and other non- heterosexual spaces had created a biased pattern, where heterosexual spaces were theoretically centralised and normalised, with some levels of visualisation allocated to gay male spaces, while spaces of lesbians and other non-heterosexuals were mostly invisible, or invisiblised. Arguments and explanations as to why different sexualities were given uneven levels of visualisation also varied. These literatures are discussed in detail in section 3.1 and provide a better understanding of the biased pattern in the spatialisation of various sexualities. There were a host of other academic literatures that dealt specifically with the geography of non-heterosexual spaces. Many of these literatures focussed on urban non-heterosexual communities and spaces, inadvertently portraying non- heterosexualities, particularly male homosexuality, as a predominantly urban phenomenon. Discussions of non-heterosexual communities in non-urban spaces have, however, fast become one of the frontier territories of research into non- heterosexual spaces (see section 3.2). There has also been academic criticism of the common assumption that the display of amorous affections are (and, according to some arguments, should be) contained within ‘private’ spaces only, particularly where the display of non-heterosexual affections are concerned. This containment of the sexual, and particularly non-heterosexualities, into ‘private’ spaces highlighted the

46 common perception that ‘public’ spaces were asexual. Many researchers have, however, argued otherwise, claiming that spaces, whether ‘public’ or ‘private’, were often assumed (and normalised) to be inherently heterosexual. The extent of this heteronormative assumption of spaces often meant, as some research had suggested, that many non-heterosexual identity performances were still constrained even in supposedly ‘private’ and open spaces like their homes (see section 3.3). These issues are explored in greater detail throughout this chapter, providing important background information and theoretical support to the findings of my research.

3.1 Gendered/sexualised spaces Many researchers have presented evidence on the gendered and sexualised nature of spaces, demonstrating the differences (and similarities) in spatial relationships of each gender and sexual identity. These relationships ranged from the essentialised femininity (Best, 1993) and heterosexuality (Bell, Binnie, Cream and Valentine, 1994; Kirby and Hay, 1997) of space, the heteronormative control and regulation of ‘public’ spaces (Woodhead, 1995; McDowell, 1995; Johnston, 1973; Valentine, 1998), spatial distributions of non-heterosexual (mainly gay male) institutions (Castells, 1983; Lauria and Knopp, 1985), as well as the relative invisibility of lesbian spaces and the spaces of other sexual minorities (Johnston, 1973; Davis and Kennedy, 1986; Winchester and White, 1988; Adler and Brenner, 1992; Valentine, 1995). Most of this research painted a relatively distorted image of ‘sexualised’ spaces, and as a result the spaces of some sexual minorities like lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered and transsexual persons were invisibilised or hidden from view. The assumed heteronormativity of spaces, and in particular ‘public’ spaces has, as some argued, allowed for the continued homophobia towards any show of same-sex affections in public spaces. This section explores these arguments in greater detail and provides a summary of these previous works. It also provides indications on how my case studies of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia challenge some of the findings (such as the heteronormative assumption of public spaces) of these literatures. The gendered nature of space was clearly demonstrated by Sue Best’s (1993) discussion of public art pieces. She (Best, 1993, page 28) argued that spaces had traditionally been – and still are – given a feminine connotation (such as ‘mother earth’). This feminine connotation essentialised spaces as feminine objects, and because humans had predominantly simplified the understanding of relationships into dichotomies, the control of spaces had thus been given masculine connotations. This simplified and dichotomous understanding can best be summarised with the

47 assumption of “being space [as female] and having space [as male]” (Best, 1993, page 28). Apart from conceptualising space as feminine, Best’s (1993) work also reflected on the patriarchal structure of societies, where males retain the privilege of control over females. This patriarchal understanding of space is constantly regulated and monitored by social authorities. David Woodhead’s (1995) investigation of the constitution of gender and sexual identities through the use of spaces, for example, highlighted the societal regulations which govern the gendered uses of public space. His (Woodhead, 1995, page 238) case study of public toilets – which he considered to be “private shelter[s] for public use[s]” – demonstrated the controlling aspects of spaces by authorities. Public toilets are often mono-gendered spaces, with male toilets “constituting a male-only space that is quite deliberately void of the feminine”, and vice versa, female toilets are female-only spaces deliberately void of the masculine. The imposed mono-gender characteristic of these public toilets thus control and confine their users to a specific ‘sexed’ group, precluding the other at the entrance. Woodhead (1995, page 238) also envisioned public toilets as “non-inhabited yet colonised space[s]”, designated only to sporadic activities. These ‘sporadic activities’ are typically urination and defecation and less frequently tidying oneself (such as fixing make-up) or, in certain toilets, the taking of intravenous drugs. As my case study of latrinalia shows, however, these ‘sporadic activities’ had also sometimes included anonymous communications and the arranging of sexual encounters. With users of the opposite- sex most likely precluded at the entrance, these arranging of sexual encounters would principally be between persons of the same sex. According to Woodhead (1995), however, the use of these public spaces for same-sex sexual encounters, because of the criminality of performing sexual acts in public but also because of discriminations towards non-heterosexuals, would subject these spaces to further, more restrictive regulations. He explained that,

once the spaces become a forum for sexual expression and freedom it potentially becomes the forum for restraint and control. Involvement in a process of bringing the unspoken world of homosexual activity into public entails the risk of criminality, the risk of further regulation (in its crudest sense) (Woodhead, 1995, page 239).

Some of these further regulations have been as drastic as the removal of cubicle doors to deter graffiting and sexual encounters (Swivel, 1991). The regulating and restraining of sexual encounters in public highlight the public perception that public spaces should

48 be asexual but also, and more importantly, that same-sex sexual encounters, and to a lesser extent same-sex affections, are matters unsuitable for public display. Together with Sue Best’s (1993) explanation of space’s gendered nature, Woodhead’s (1995) discussion highlighted the generally heteropatriarchal understanding and regulation of spaces, where public spaces are assumed to be asexual, and non-heterosexualities should be confined to private spaces. These heteronormative assumptions of public spaces are discussed further in the following section.

3.1.1. Hetero-essentialism and non-heterosexual (re)appropriation A range of studies have exposed the assumed heteronormativity of space, whether public or private. This assumption was widely subscribed and left unchallenged until the 1990s (Bell, Binnie, Cream and Valentine, 1994). The heteronormative assumption of spaces had led to a supposition that non- heterosexualities were inherently spaceless and that any non-heterosexual uses of space were the result of acquisition from previously heterosexual occupation. The presumed heteronormativity of spaces had also caused the ghettoisation of non- heterosexuals into less desirable spaces (Levine, 1979; Castells, 1983; Lauria and Knopp, 1985), often resulting in invisibilisation (see, for example, Winchester and White, 1988). The extent of the influence of heteronormativity spreads far and wide, from open, ‘public’ spaces such as city streets (Levine, 1979), to workplaces (Epstein, 1996; McDowell, 1995), the academe (Taylor and Raeburn, 1995; Valentine, 1998), and even ‘private’ homes (Kirby and Hay, 1997). This widespread influence of heteronormativity not only essentialises all spaces as inherently heteronormative, it also places restrictions on the performances of non-heterosexuals and, at times, other marginal identities. This section explores specifically the influence of heteronormativity on the common perception of spaces as heterosexual. Martin Levine’s (1979) study into San Francisco’s gay villages highlighted this heterosexual assumption of spaces. Levine (1979) was the first to specifically look at the spatial relations of gay communities and their institutions. One of the major findings of this study was that gay institutions and cruising areas formed clusters within the city of San Francisco in the 1970s. Furthermore, Levine (1979, page 370) declared that the boundaries of these clusters – or ‘ghettoes’ – were ambiguous. This point of ambiguous gay ghetto boundaries was also later echoed by Stephen Hodge’s (1995, 1996) studies of gay spaces in inner-city Sydney. According to Levine (1979, page 373), gay ghettoes are areas with high concentrations of gay residents, gay institutions, as well as a locally dominant gay . These areas in general are not physically

49 bounded (Hodge, 1996) but often have an understood boundary by communities that use and know of the ghettoes. In Levine’s (1979, page 375) case study area (San Francisco), three neighbourhoods in the 1970s could be regarded as established gay ghettoes – West Village, Castro Village, and Boy’s Town. Furthermore, according to Levine (1979, page 375), apart from the three established gay ghettoes, there was also a list of other neighbourhoods in San Francisco that could be classified as in different stages of developing into gay ghettoes. These developing gay ghettoes would have characteristics reminiscent of the established gay ghettoes but with a lower concentration of gay population, gay institutions, or a comparatively less dominant gay subculture. Based simply on the possibility of a ‘developing gay ghetto’, it could be deduced, according to Levine’s (1979) study, that all other spaces (particularly public spaces) were believed to be inherently heteronormative. At the same time, the non- heterosexual consumption of spaces was highlighted as a process of acquisition. Analyses of my case studies – the SGLMG parade and latrinalia – problematise these early conceptions of heteronormative spaces by demonstrating how the same space can be understood as both heterosexual and non-heterosexual though at different times. The questioning of the presumed heteronormativity of spaces emerged in the early 1990s. David Bell, Jon Binnie, Julia Cream and Gill Valentine (1994) argued that if non-heterosexual spaces were created through acquisition (such as the ‘pink gentrification’ as described in Castells, 1983 and in Lauria and Knopp, 1985) then the same argument must hold true for heterosexual spaces. More specifically, if a space could acquire a non-heterosexuality then by implication for any space to be deemed heterosexual its heterosexuality must also have been an acquired characteristic. Spaces, thus, should be viewed as inherently asexual rather than heterosexual. In spite of this argument, due to sedimented heteronormative beliefs, the assumed heterosexuality of spaces was often regarded as implicit (thus natural and original) and not externally acquired. The conception that all spaces are inherently heterosexual, however, rendered non-heterosexual spaces as somewhat artificial and subversive (Bell et al, 1994, page 32). The non-heterosexual (re)acquisition of spaces has often included extreme performances like hypermasculinity (such as gay skinheads) and hyperfemininity (such as lipstick lesbians) or through gender/sexual juxtapositions (drag/cross-dressing). More recently, there was also a public celebration of androgyny such as the ‘political lesbian’ described by Alison Murray (1995). These unconventional, non-normative performances all carry significant political values, first by demonstrating the mimicry and multiplicitous nature of gender performances, and

50 second by visualising non-normative gender performances and their associations to the space. These arguments are, however, still very abstract without much veritable evidence as support. Debbie Epstein (1996) and Linda McDowell (1995) offered some real-life examples on the assumed heteronormativity of spaces, particularly in corporate workplaces. Both Epstein and McDowell have found that dress was often used to enforce heteronormativity, and in some cases heteropatriarchy, in workplaces. This has included the emphasis on “an idealised bodily image” (McDowell, 1995, page 83) which highlighted conventional patriarchal performances such as male workers having short- cropped hair or female workers wearing dresses and ‘appropriate’ accessories. The assumed heteronormativity of workplaces was highlighted by one of Epstein’s (1996, page 213) informants, who believed that in order to avoid being exposed as, or being suspected of, being non-heterosexual one had “to be heterosexual in a particular way”. This often meant participation in acts of misogyny, verbal and physical harassment of other ‘suspected’ non-heterosexuals, and shows of interest in ‘stereotypically heteropatriarchal’ activities such as masculine interests in motor mechanics, or for women, a feminised penchant for and jewellery. Non-conformity often meant alienation and discrimination. The case studies of Epstein (1996) and McDowell (1995) not only highlighted the assumed heteronormativity of ‘public’ spaces such as workplaces, they also showcased the gendered nature of spaces. Particularly, workplaces were conceived as heteropatriarchal spaces where males were to appear assertive and in control while females were to appear submissive and inhibited. Similar enforcements of heteronormativity in the workplace were also reported in Verta Taylor and Nicole Raeburn’s (1995) and Gill Valentine’s (1998) accounts of their personal experiences in the academy. While the university environment is often seen as more liberal than the corporate world, where many academics were openly non- heterosexual, the consequences of such openness about one’s non-heterosexualities could also be detrimental. Taylor and Raeburn’s (1995, pages 262-4) case studies, for example, reported a higher likelihood of dismissal, refusal of promotion and difficulty in acquiring tenured positions for openly non-heterosexual academics. Valentine (1998) recounted her own experiences of personal threats, expulsion from the , and even death threats. Such strong acts of discrimination were even circulated throughout the university (Valentine, 1998, page 314), prompting Valentine to interpret the university landscape as an inherently heteronormative one. These four examples show that workplaces, even liberal university environments, are often considered to be heteronormative spaces where the presence (or suspicion) of non-heterosexualities are

51 frequently met with harassments and discriminations. My case study of latrinalia provides further insights into the extent of heteronormativity in university environments (see Chapter 7). These above research highlighted the assumed heteronormativity and at times asexuality of public spaces. There is, then, a common perception that ‘private’ spaces (such as homes) are often free from such heteronormative restrictions. The research of Valentine (1993a) and Stewart Kirby and Iain Hay (1997), however, offered evidence that suggested otherwise. Valentine’s (1993a) investigation, for example, revealed the need for non-heterosexuals to negotiate and manage multiple identities in different spaces and different times, including at home. Her results showed that verbal abuse and physical intimidation was commonly experienced by women who were assumed to be lesbians (Valentine, 1993a, page 240). Because of this, Valentine (1993a) commented that it was more essential and critical for non-heterosexual females to manage multiple identities than non-heterosexual males. The strategies which non- heterosexual females employed in order to successfully negotiate and manage multiple identities in public and private spaces included the separation of geographical spaces that related to their past (closeted) and present (open) identities, and by separating different activity spheres and spaces (for example, the separation of workplace and home), and where separation was not possible, to only display a ‘lesbian identity’ in formal ‘gay spaces’ (Valentine, 1993a, page 243). The selective display of a ‘lesbian identity’ could also be temporal (Valentine, 1993a, page 244). For example, many non- heterosexual females had chosen to not disclose their non-heterosexualities when guests or tradespeople were present (Valentine, 1993a, page 242). The layout and decoration of the home were also sometimes changed to help disguise their non- heterosexualities, such as maintaining a second bedroom to disguise their non- heterosexual partners as roommates or concealing non-heterosexual decorations (such as homoerotic sculptures) when guests visit. Stewart Kirby’s 1997 collaboration with Iain Hay also investigated the assumed heteronormativity of private spaces and concluded with similar findings. Their case study on the gay male population in Adelaide, South Australia, revealed that many gay males, like the lesbians discussed in Valentine (1993a), also altered their homes’ decorations and layout in order to disguise their non-heterosexualities from visitors. Other strategies employed included reluctance in acknowledging their non-heterosexual partners, and settling in culturally heterogenous areas where diversity was commonplace and celebrated (Kirby and Hay, 1997, pages 298-9). These strategies of negotiating and managing multiple identities at different spaces and times signified the assumed heteronormativity of spaces – public

52 or private – and the oppressive influences heteronormativity has on non-heterosexuals, even in the presumed privacy of their own homes. The contrasting of my two case studies – the very public event of SGLMG parade and the more private communication of latrinalia – tested this assumption of differing levels of heteronormativity between public and private spaces. From evidence presented above, it was clearly demonstrated that heteronormativity is often assumed to govern spaces, whether public or private. Bell et al’s (1994) research, by likening their arguments to Butler’s (1990) constructivist approach on human sexuality acquisition, troubled the hetero-essentialism of public spaces by questioning the sexuality of spaces as an acquired entity. Other research like those by Epstein (1996), McDowell (1995), Taylor and Raeburn (1995), and Valentine (1998) presented evidence that demonstrated, in practice, workplaces (as a type of public space) were still widely regarded as heterosexual. Non-conformity to heterosexual norms often resulted in alienation and discrimination, whether in the presumably more repressed corporate world or in the supposedly more liberal academy. Valentine’s (1993a) and Kirby and Hay’s (1997) research demonstrated similar practices of gay males and lesbians in disguising their non-heterosexual identity performances for reasons of protection and avoiding discrimination, sometimes even in their own homes. This shows the far-reaching extent of the assumed heteronormativity of spaces, whether public or private. With the assumed heteronormative conception of spaces established, the next section focuses specifically on the spatialities of gay males (such as through the clustering of gay institutions like the gay bars, or even ventures into local politics) and the influences of heteronormativity on their spatial patterns.

3.1.2 Gay male spaces and patriarchal privileges Gay male spaces have been a prominent focus of the study of space and sexuality for many years. From the use and location of established institutions such as bars, bathhouses, to sporting clubs, the private homes, and workplaces, these have all been focuses of studies on gay male spatiality. Some of these (Kirby and Hay, 1997; Levine, 1979) have already been introduced in earlier sections of this chapter. Other descriptions and discussions of gay males’ uses of spaces often surrounded the cultural and social privileges which most if not all males in patriarchal societies enjoyed (relative to lesbians). These discussions had often assumed mutual exclusivity amongst the spaces of heterosexual, gay male, lesbian, and other non-heterosexual communities (see, for example, Hooker, 1969). With the exception of Manual Castells

53 (1983) and Mickey Lauria and Larry Knopp (1985) in the mid-1980s, the temporal changes in gay male spatiality were rarely discussed. This visualised the early academic homogenisation of gay males and their spatialities as static. This section details the development of studies into the spatialities of gay males, from this early homogenisation through to the portrayals as dynamic communities with self-sufficient local businesses and even ventures into local politics. One of the first investigations into gay males’ use of space was that by Evelyn Hooker (1969). Hooker’s (1969, page 27) ethnographic study into a network of gay males and their use of spaces in the 1960s was sparked by the gay male network’s annoyance with previous academic work on the gay communities, which up until that point had largely assumed the pathology of non-heterosexualities (section 2.1). This network of gay males felt that the pathologising had little or no relevance to their everyday lives as gay males in 1960s , and Hooker (1969) was asked to visualise a different representation of the gay communities. She (Hooker, 1969, page 29) shifted the focus instead to studying the clustering of gay male institutions and residential concentrations and subsequently discovered the importance of the as a gay male space. Hooker (1969, pages 33-4) identified three socially related practical functions of the gay bars: first, they served as communication centres within the individual communities where gossip and stories were exchanged; second, they served as security operations against external discriminations and threats by uniting in numbers and; third, they served as induction, training and integration centres for new members. This training function in particular exemplifies a neo-normative mechanism within the gay male communities where older, more experienced, gay males can provide guidance on the ‘proper’ etiquettes of being gay males. These gay male communities in the 1960s United States were, however, predominantly invisible to heterosexuals, and were commonly linked through shared characteristics. These shared characteristics included common professions and similarity in socioeconomic backgrounds, so that non-heterosexuals of higher socioeconomic backgrounds frequented the same institutions, while non-heterosexuals of lower socioeconomic backgrounds frequented others. Hooker’s (1969) study revealed that, while largely invisible to the heterosexual world(s), gay institutions such as gay bars served important and practical functionalities, functions which included traces of neo- normativity where ‘proper’ performances of gay male identities were passed on through generations. Manuel Castells (1983) gave a more detailed analysis of gay male spatiality using the city of San Francisco as an example. Castells (1983, page 138) clarified his

54 choice of San Francisco as a case study explaining that while offered a “more radical and militant” gay experience, San Francisco was able to build up a unique gay male spatiality through “complex, independent [communities] at spatial, economic, cultural and political levels”. This uniqueness and complexity acted as a strong pull factor for many gay males (and to a lesser extent, other non-heterosexuals) to migrate from other parts of the United States and even overseas. The earliest ‘gay settlers’ to San Francisco (at around 1940s), like in many other cities the world over, settled in bohemian and red-light districts like Tenderloin (Castells, 1983, page 155). These bohemian and red-light districts were believed by many to have been comparatively more tolerant neighbourhoods than many others, partly due to their heterogeneous populations, but also because of their more liberal attitudes toward the unconventional. These ‘gay neighbourhoods’ gradually expanded through the 1950s and 1960s, spreading to nearby areas like North Beach and Western Addition. These areas were often rundown neighbourhoods where housing costs were reasonably cheap. With relatively strong intolerance of non-heterosexuals in other areas, many gay settlers attempted to establish roots in these newly acquired gay neighbourhoods of San Francisco, in the process gentrifying rundown neighbourhoods. By the late 1960s and early 1970s, housing costs in these gentrified gay neighbourhoods began to become unaffordable for many new settlers from other cities, regional and rural areas, and the gay neighbourhoods once again expanded, to South of Market and the Castro District. Settlement into these newer, more affordable gay neighbourhoods also saw the evolution of new sexual identities. According to Castells (1983, page 156), South of Market housed mainly gay male communities that “were generally poorer and less educated [who] evolved new sexual codes, [with] many of them joining the sado- masochist networks. The South of Market became the headquarters of the culture”. The development of these new sexual identity performances significantly altered the social structures of non-heterosexual communities. Contrary to Hooker’s (1969) and others’ observations, the socialising of San Francisco’s non-heterosexuals in the 1950s and 1960s were no longer based on their individual social and economic background, but were instead heavily focussed on the “potency of individualistic sexual pleasure” (Castells, 1983, page 157). This shift of socialising from common socioeconomic backgrounds to “individualistic sexual pleasures” also saw the change of non-heterosexual settlement patterns in San Francisco, which up until then had mostly been economically driven in the form of housing affordability. Castells (1983) thus was able to successfully highlight the change of gay male spatiality, from Hooker’s (1969) invisible communalities based on socioeconomics to a spatial diversification

55 based on identities which carried a heavy erotic overtone. Despite these changes to San Francisco’s gay male spatiality, the political importance of having urban gay male spaces in major cities unified these very diverse gay neighbourhoods during the 1970s. Political icons like Harvey Milk and Harry Britt, for example, successfully utilised the concentration of gay male populations in San Francisco for election to the district office. Milk placed particular emphasis on the spatial concentration of gay male populations as a prerequisite for gay political representation. His successor Britt famously stated that “when gays are spatially scattered, they are not gay, because they are invisible” (Castells, 1983, page 138). It can be seen then from early on in the gay political movement spatial concentration and visibility were seen as strong political leverages. Both Milk and Britt also attempted to reconstruct these concentrations of gay populations from the negative ‘gay ghettoes’ to the more positive and liberal ‘liberated zones’, theoretically transforming them from marginal spaces to normative and progressive. Milk’s emphasis on gay visibility was bolstered by his call to have self-retained and self-reliant gay communities and economies within San Francisco. The importance of gay commerce as a strong political statement was also recognised by many other researchers, for example, Winchester and White (1988). All these efforts by Milk and Britt not only garnered them substantial community support and election to district offices, they also highlighted the importance of gay spaces in terms of building a sense of community and furthering gay politics. The 1978 assassinations of Milk along with his pro-gay mayor George Moscone, however, served as reminders of homophobic backlash and heteronormative assumption of spaces in late 1970s United States (Castells, 1983, page 144). Voting results of the 1975 and 1977 district elections, in which Milk and Britt partook, and as visualised by Castells’ (1983, pages 146-150) thematic maps, showed the growth of, first, non-heterosexual populations and, second, support for gay politics in San Francisco in mid- and late 1970s. These maps also indicated the institutions where gay males frequented and listings of businesses owned and/or ran by gay males, in the process visualising the development of gay male spaces in San Francisco. These maps inferred that gay male residential spaces and socialising spaces, contrary to popular belief, were spatially disparate, with residential populations concentrating in the newer gay neighbourhoods of South of Market and the Castro District while commercial institutions clustered around the older gay neighbourhoods of Tenderloin and North Beach. Furthermore, gay neighbourhoods by the late 1970s were spread across inner San Francisco and intermingled amongst other communities such as Chinatown. Castells’ (1983) work was thus important in recording the development of gay

56 populations, their roles in transforming the spatiality of a city through gentrification, and the associated rise of gay politics in the 1970s. Like Castells (1983), Mickey Lauria and Larry Knopp (1985) also observed the role gay male communities played in urban renewal. Lauria and Knopp (1985) termed these gay male-instigated gentrifications ‘urban renaissances’ as they were often signified by physical and visual beautification of the exteriors of the properties as well as interior up-gradings. They (Lauria and Knopp, 1985, page 153) criticised Castells and Murphy’s (1982) and Castells’ (1983) lack of “development of a theory of the role of gay communities in the ‘urban renaissance’” (original emphasis), having instead focussed on observing the changing patterns of community concentrations over a set period of time. The role of gay male communities in urban renaissance was only briefly touched on in Castells (1983), where formerly bohemian and rundown neighbourhoods such as the Tenderloin became unaffordable as an effect of gay gentrification. Lauria and Knopp (1985, page 159) had instead proposed that these gentrified areas were used “to reflect gay cultural values and serve the special needs of individual gays vis-à- vis society at large”. Such functions of gay spaces included, resonating with Hooker (1969), a gathering place for new ‘gay migrants’ to “escape [to] in order to ‘come out’” or, as Castells (1983) had noted, serving as “bases of community economic and political development”. Gay gentrifications thus not only provided the gay community with financial stability but the gentrified areas also served important cultural and political roles of safe haven for new migrants. The strong linkages between gay spaces and gay politics form part of the focus of my thesis which investigates the performances of different sexual identities and their associations with different spaces. While gay male-instigated gentrification brought about changes to the spatiality of many non-heterosexual communities the world over, particularly in San Francisco as clearly documented, the roles of the many gay institutions cannot be disregarded. Studies by Laud Humphreys (1975), John Alan Lee (1976), and Robert Kus (1990), and Lauria and Knopp (1985, page 157) concluded that many gay institutions such as gay bars were established to serve the purpose of “finding and conducting sexual liaisons”, because in the absence of such formal institutions, “the only places to meet potential partners [would be in] public (e.g., parks)”. In other words, gay institutions such as gay bars were established to provide semi-private spaces for gay male sexual liaisons. The reasons for these institutions to concentrate in urban areas were, however, mainly financial, and to a lesser extent, cultural. Relatively higher concentrations of gay male populations (and populations in general) in the urban area supplied sizeable clienteles to support these institutions. Culturally, however, Dennis

57 Altman (1982, in Lauria and Knopp, 1985, page 158) suggested that the heterogenous nature of urban areas provided the camouflage and distance from the family and neighbourhood that many gay males needed at the time (and, at times, still need) in order to retain some levels of anonymity. In other words, this separation between established gay spaces and their clients’ (possibly closeted) home identities served as a protection mechanism. In the absence of these gay institutions, public spaces such as night time at the parks would be the only places where anonymity could be guaranteed. My two case studies reflect and at times challenge the influences of different spaces over non-heterosexual identity performances, where gay institutions are reflected by the SGLMG parade while performances in public spaces are reflected by latrinalia found in public parks. The multi-functionality of the gay bars, such as listed in Hooker (1969, pages 33-4), visualised a heterogeneity of gay male communities. At the same time, their function as ‘training centres’ for new patrons revealed the processes of neo-normativity that existed within these gay male spaces. The neo-normalisation of gay male communities were further exemplified in Castells’ (1983) and Lauria and Knopp’s (1985) investigations, where each discussed the influence gay male communities had on the inner-city urban regeneration (or urban renaissance) processes in major American cities from the late 1960s to the mid-1980s. Financial unaffordability, resulting from the urban regenerations and renaissances, in turn affected the patterns of gay male spatiality in these urban areas, restricting the neighbourhoods where new residential clusters formed and expanded to. While Castells’ (1983) analyses placed high emphases on the economic factors governing the expansion of gay male residential and institutional clusters, Lauria and Knopp (1985) on the other hand believed social and cultural factors, such as gay males’ high social value for inner-city street lives, were stronger determining factors in gay male communities’ spatial expansions. The disparate nature of these gay neighbourhoods in San Francisco could also be categorised through the many different sexual identity performances, such as the dominance of the leather/sado-masochism culture in the Castro District. The strong spatial connections that these identity performances had to specific neighbourhoods, while on the one hand visualised the diversity and heterogeneity of gay male identities, but also on the other hand highlighted the neo-normative principle of conformity though to a localised scale. The shift from division by socioeconomic status (Hooker, 1969) to division by sexual identity performances (Castells, 1983) facilitated the appearance of unity (at least superficially) in the respective communities, a visual unity (or template) to which one could conform and neo-normalise. The involvement of gay male politics,

58 however, as Castells (1983, pages 138-150) discovered, became a major determining factor in the clustering of gay male spaces in 1970s San Francisco. The successful election of Harvey Milk and Harry Britt visualised both the political and spatial expansions of gay male communities in urban areas but at the same time also highlighted the contemporary homophobia and assumed heteronormativity of space, as in the case of Milk’s assassination in the San Francisco City Hall. All of these literatures highlighted the importance of gay male spaces in providing vital places for not just socialising but also protection of gay male communities. These literatures, however, also highlighted the neo-normative functions of many of these spaces in order to maintain, superficially, an image of unity. My case studies of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia reflect and challenge the influences these spaces have on the performances of gay male identities.

3.1.3 The invisibles – spatiality of lesbians Contrary to studies into gay male spaces, lesbian spaces in academic writing had mostly been described as aspatial or even invisible. This generalisation about lesbian spaces persisted through the 1970s into the 1980s (Johnston, 1973; Davis and Kennedy, 1986; Holcomb, 1986), and it was not until the late 1980s and early 1990s that explanations for the relative invisibility of lesbian spaces were offered (Winchester and White, 1988; Adler and Brenner, 1992). These explanations included patriarchal repressions, inadequate economics and finances and, unlike gay males, lesbians’ supposed lack of an innate need to territorialise (Valentine, 1995). Researchers from the mid 1990s onwards shifted their focus onto the alternative spatial appropriations and constructions of lesbian communities (Forsyth, 1997; Podmore, 2001; Rothenberg, 1995). This section explores these issues in greater detail, presenting the arguments in a chronological order. Research on lesbian spaces first emerged in the 1970s, and up till the mid 1980s, this research had predominantly focussed on the performances of lesbian sexual and social roles in specified spaces such as lesbian bars. Jill Johnston (1973) offered one of the earliest academic discussions on lesbians’ use of space. Reflecting on her own personal experiences in the 1960s American and British lesbian scenes, Johnston (1973, page 150) highlighted the common perception that lesbian spaces are relatively invisible to the general public. She claimed that this relative invisibility of lesbian spaces resulted from the lack of a supportive subculture within the communities and limited the meeting chances of lesbians in general. She also discovered that in lesbian bars – one of the few spaces where lesbians socialised and met other lesbians

59 – sex roles were used to enforce rigid social roles within the communities. These social roles, which included the stereotypical butch-femme dichotomy, were exemplified through the use of dress – “the tie seemed to guarantee my role as a female who would the part of a male” (Johnston, 1973, page 160). This observation demonstrated the neo-normative structures of the 1960s lesbian communities, where lesbians in ‘masculine’ dress were expected to perform the role of butch and vice versa. This neo-normative function of lesbian bars found resonance in a study by Madeline Davis and Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy (1986). Davis and Kennedy (1986, page 8) echoed Barbara Weightman’s (1981) findings and claimed that lesbian bars, like Weightman’s case study of gay bars, acted as the central arenas for lesbians to meet within (and also from outside) their respective communities. Dress codes were again used to devise butch-femme social roles (Davis and Kennedy, 1986, page 8). These butch-femme roles did not necessarily have any relations to masculine/feminine sex roles, but were devised to signify the roles of the protector (butch) and the protected (femme) in situations of confrontation (Davis and Kennedy, 1986, pages 23- 4). These confrontations often resulted when members of the outside ‘hostile world’ entered and threatened the safety of other patrons at the lesbian bars; as such these lesbian bars provided the arena for butch lesbians to perform their protector roles (Davis and Kennedy, 1986, page 8). According to Davis and Kennedy (1986, page 22), these butch and femme roles were devised in the 1940s and 1950s American lesbian bars, and the division between the two had since been vigorously enforced by subsequent communities, with non-conformity often resulting in ostracism. Both Johnston’s (1973) and Davis and Kennedy’s (1986) studies thus provided evidence that lesbian bars are important social spaces for lesbian communities. Furthermore, these spaces were segregated from the rest of the, presumably hostile, society. Processes of neo-normativity in the form of rigid butch-femme roles were also evident from these two case studies. The study of lesbian spatiality became a more popular topic of academic discussion in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Hilary Winchester and Paul White’s (1988) investigation into the spatialities of twelve marginalised – culturally, financially, and/or socially – groups in Paris, France, for example, included the spatiality of lesbian residential and institution clusters. Their study emphasised the relative lack of empirical evidence on the socioeconomic backgrounds of gay males and lesbians. This lack of empirical evidence led to ethnographic work that referenced evidence of gay males being generally more financially and educationally privileged than lesbians. Winchester and White (1988, page 45, 49) explained that gay males’ social spaces were in general

60 contiguous to their residential spaces, while the distribution of lesbian institutions, apart from being less numerous in comparison, more closely resembled the distribution of commercial and leisure institutions for the general public. This close resemblance to general commercial and leisure institutions had an invisiblising effect on lesbian institutions so that the lesbian institutions would appear concealed amongst the more numerous commercial and leisure institutions that catered to predominantly heterosexual or gay male clienteles. Furthermore, the entrances of these concealed lesbian institutions were often discreet, or sometimes even invisible to outsiders (Winchester and White, 1988, page 49). The discreet entrances at the outset acted as a safety barrier to what Davis and Kennedy (1986, page 8) described as the ‘hostile world’. The relative invisibility of lesbian institutions, however, signified the communities’ relative social marginality within heteropatriarchal societies (Winchester and White, 1988, page 49). The limited financial and social mobility of lesbians as a cause for the relative invisibility of lesbian spaces was also picked up by Briavel Holcomb (1986) in her examination into gay and lesbian spaces in 1980s United States. According to Holcomb (1986, page 449), gay men were considered to be more financially and socially mobile, allowing them “to establish spatial communities and upgrade”. These financial and social mobilities that gay men have are partly due to the direct and indirect benefits they (as men) receive in patriarchal societies. From Winchester and White’s (1988) and Holcomb’s (1986) studies, then, it could be deduced that the relative invisibility of lesbian institutions resulted mostly from the heteropatriarchal repressions of women in general, limiting their financial and social mobility, but, as Winchester and White (1988) pointed out, spatial invisibility was also employed by the lesbian communities as a means of survival for a marginalised group in a heteropatriarchal society. Sy Adler and Johanna Brenner (1992) also contributed to the discussion on the relative invisibility of lesbian spaces as a result of heteropatriarchal repression. They explained that heteropatriarchal repressions on women in general had led to lesbians, first as women compared to gay males and, second as non-heterosexuals compared to heterosexuals, having relatively limited financial resources (Adler and Brenner, 1992, page 25-6). This view was in line with numerous arguments in other academic research, such as those by Castells (1983) and Lauria and Knopp (1985), on women’s (and thus lesbians’) comparatively limited financial flexibility. Adler and Brenner (1992, page 26), however, also offered another explanation for lesbian communities’ relative invisibility, in what Gill Valentine (1989, page 389, in Adler and Brenner, 1992, page 26) referred to as “women’s fear of male violence”. This fear, which is a mechanism of

61 heteropatriarchal repression, came in various forms of assault and harassment, and in turn restricted women’s access to public spaces. This female fear of public spaces resulting in limited access was also detailed in Hille Koskela’s (1999) study. The absence of established lesbian spaces, as a consequence of limited finances, would then severely restrict lesbians’ sociability within and outside their communities (Lauria and Knopp, 1985, page 157). This generalised female fear of public spaces would also have forced many lesbian institutions to be invisibilised underground. Adler and Brenner’s (1992) investigation, unlike that of Winchester and White (1988), thus revealed a more negative and repressive view on the reasons for the invisibility of lesbian spaces in comparison to gay male spaces. This difference between gay male spatiality and lesbian spatiality was reflected in my latrinalia case study, where the relative lack of lesbian latrinalia inadvertently invisibilised lesbians in the public spaces of universities and public parks (Chapter 7). Whilst academic studies of lesbian spatiality in the 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s focussed on the relative invisibility of established lesbian institutions to the general public, there is recent evidence to suggest the development and growth of lesbian neighbourhoods in American suburban towns (Valentine, 1995). Valentine (1995, page 99) discovered that, through personal interviews, her case study suburban town, ‘Hightown’, contained a “cluster of lesbian households interspersed with heterosexual homes”. Many of these households were owned and often maintained by one long-established lesbian resident, who purchased and refurbished properties within viewing range from her own home (for reasons of community safety), and subsequently rented the refurbished homes to tenants who were predominantly, though not exclusively, lesbians. The survival of this lesbian neighbourhood, then, relied predominantly on the efforts of one person, who had control over the development of the space and community through her role as the landlord. The lesbian neighbourhood in ‘Hightown’ then challenged Castells’ (1983) theory on gay males’ innate imperatives to territorialise which, as Castells claimed, was lacking in lesbian communities. The continued development of ‘Hightown’ also contested generalisations about lesbians’ limited financial flexibility, as demonstrated through the lesbian landlord’s multiple ownerships within the neighbourhood. While ‘Hightown’ had an established and ever- expanding lesbian population, their residences lacked signifiers which marked them as lesbian. Furthermore, there appeared to be a lack of major lesbian-targeted services in the neighbourhood, or businesses and services that were advertised as lesbian-friendly or lesbian-exclusive. This is likely due to the common perception that “women-only bars are not an attractive commercial proposition because, as numerous studies have

62 shown, gay women consume less alcohol than gay men (Gagnon and Simon, 1967; Rich, 1980; Levi, 1980)” (Valentine, 1995, pages 99-100). This lower profitability often meant that lesbian institutions like bars had relatively short lifespans, further contributing to the lower visibility of lesbian communities (Warren, 1974, in Valentine, 1995, page 100; Achilles, 1967, in Valentine, 1995, page 100; Bell, 1991, in Valentine, 1995, page 100). Lesbian bars, however, were more likely to exist in alternative formats, such as on a one-night per week basis at a hired party space in a heterosexual pub (Wolfe, 1992, page 151, in Valentine, 1995, page 100). This meant that lesbian institutions like bars were temporally less stable than compared to their gay male counterparts. Moreover, other more stable lesbian institutions like support groups often ‘passed’ within the heterogeneous neighbourhoods where they were located by not having any signifiers which marked them as lesbian-friendly or lesbian-exclusive (Valentine, 1995, page 101). This further contributed to the lesbian spaces’ apparent invisibility. Valentine’s (1995) investigation thus highlighted the different patterns of socialising between lesbian and gay male communities, with the general non- profitability of lesbian commercial institutions like bars cited as an attributing factor to the apparent invisibility of lesbian communities. The temporality of lesbian spaces was further explained in Ann Forsyth’s (1997) investigation. She suggested that “lesbians did not form permanent concentrations but rather came together from time to time” (Bernhardt, 1975, in Forsyth, 1997, page 40). This lack of spatial permanence, Forsyth (1997, page 39) criticised, meant that lesbian spatiality could not be effectively reflected in spatial mapping exercises such as those by Castells (1983) and Lauria and Knopp (1985), and to lesser extents, Winchester and White (1988) and Adler and Brenner (1992). In particular, Forsyth (1997, page 40) was critical that these spatial mapping exercises had focussed on ‘established gay urban areas’ such as New York, Paris, San Francisco, and Toronto and ran the risk of over- generalisation. This highlighted the importance of taking alternative institutions and meeting places into account when studying non-heterosexual spatialities. Forsyth (1997, page 43) also argued that these studies failed to acknowledge the attitudinal differences and approaches to visibility between lesbian and gay male communities. She (Forsyth, 1997, page 43) explained that visibility was much more easily afforded to gay males than lesbians as “lesbians have been much more reserved than gay men about producing public directories and other public artefacts”. Her (Forsyth, 1997, page 58) own case study on the lesbian communities in the Valley, Connecticut, demonstrated that following from an expanding lesbian population visibility gradually increased as a result. The development of this population was likely a result of the local

63 university campus, where many lesbians initially gathered for education but had stayed for the lifestyle and culture they discovered. The expanding lesbian population provided opportunities for local lesbian-friendly or lesbian-exclusive entrepreneurial businesses to survive and thrive. These entrepreneurial businesses in turn placed advertisements in the local paper, some of which even became local interest features (Forsyth, 1997, page 57). This further increased the visibility of the local lesbian population. These changes within lesbian communities were, however, seldom discussed in academic investigations. Forsyth’s (1997) research, like Valentine’s (1995) study into ‘Hightown’, documented the temporal changes of a lesbian neighbourhood. It also provided suggestions about the possible attitudinal differences between lesbians and gay males on the visualisation of their respective communities and attitudes towards spatiality. The temporality of lesbian socialising spaces and development of lesbian communities was further highlighted in Tamar Rothenberg’s (1995) study into a lesbian neighbourhood in Park Slope, New York. Rothenberg (1995) discovered that ‘word-of- mouth’ was often employed as the main method in attracting other lesbians into an established lesbian community, a method which was often inaccurate and resulted in misrepresentation. She (Rothenberg, 1995, page 169) commented that, while there was “no census or comparable data to indicate the number of gay women and men in an area”, attraction to a lesbian neighbourhood was often the result of lesbians’ general perception of the place as lesbian-friendly rather than statistical evidence showing population or service concentration. Julie Podmore (2001) explored this perception of space further with her case study of Boulevard St-Laurent in Montréal. From the late 1990s, Boulevard St-Laurent was Montréal’s so-called ‘lesbian precinct’. Its prominence came as the concentration of lesbian businesses and services in the former ‘lesbian precinct’ in an adjacent street dispersed. The historicity attached to this adjacent street, however, had many lesbians of older generations still considering it as the ‘lesbian precinct’ of Montréal even though most lesbian businesses and services had dispersed or no longer existed. Both Rothenberg’s (1995) and Podmore’s (2001) studies showed that visibility of commercial institutions does not necessarily reflect non-heterosexual concentrations. This also reflected Jay’s (1997, page 166, in Podmore, 2001, page 334) criticism that public visibility and collective presence were often taken as prerequisites for political legitimacy and recognition. In the case of the street adjacent to Boulevard St-Laurent, while no lesbian institutions and services were visible from the street, it was still considered – albeit only by a small minority – as a lesbian space because of what once existed. A danger of relying on word-of-mouth advertisement and historical perception for community expansion and spatial

64 construction, however, was the accuracy of information being given out. As Rothenberg (1995, page 173-4) discovered, the inconsistent descriptions of the activities Slope Activities for Lesbians (one of Park Slope’s local lesbian social groups) had often resulted in low attendance and the eventual demise of the group. My case studies aim to contribute to this discussion further by contrasting the construction of non- heterosexual spaces at the outwardly non-heterosexual space of the SGLMG parade with latrinalia in public toilets which, on the exterior, lacked any non-heterosexual signifiers. As studies by Davis and Kennedy (1986), Winchester and White (1988), Adler and Brenner (1992), Valentine (1995), Rothenberg (1995), Forsyth (1997), and Podmore (2001) showed, lesbian spaces were found to be less visible to the public than gay male spaces. While Davis and Kennedy (1986) and Adler and Brenner (1992) believed spatial invisibility was a strategy employed by the lesbian communities for protection from discrimination and assault, particularly from heterosexual males, others such as Winchester and White (1988) believed lesbians were marginalised social groups in the heteropatriarchy, as women and as non-heterosexuals, who were culturally repressed, causing limited financial and social mobility that restricted lesbians’ opportunities in acquiring space. Lesbians’ limited financial and social mobility were viewed to be a direct result of heteropatriarchal repressions, restricting lesbians’ ability to acquire spaces for residence, but more importantly, commercial activities, which both Valentine (1995) and Forsyth (1997) believed were the most frequently used signifiers of lesbian (and gay male as discussed in Castells, 1983, and Lauria and Knopp, 1985) visibility. The temporality of these commercial ventures, however, resulted from the general non-profitability of lesbian-exclusive businesses, partly because of lesbians’ different social behaviours, such as lower consumption of alcohol compared to gay males. These studies, thus, inadvertently neo-normalised lesbian spatiality as non-colonising. Podmore (2001), however, argued that visibility mapping exercises had focussed too heavily on the distribution of lesbian-exclusive institutions and often neglected the actual spatiality of lesbian-friendly spaces. Her investigation on the popularity of lesbian-friendly spaces in Montréal’s Boulevard St-Laurent showed that the inclusion of these spaces is vital in discussions about lesbian identity performances and spaces. This points to the importance of studying alternative social spaces, such as my case study of latrinalia in public toilets, as well as established gay and lesbian institutions such as the SGLMG parade. Whilst the performances of lesbian identities in lesbian-exclusive and lesbian-friendly spaces are expected to differ, in the few lesbian-exclusive spaces such as lesbian bars, processes of neo-

65 normativity existed so that rigid sexual and social roles were prescribed and adhered to (Johnston, 1973; Davis and Kennedy, 1986). My case studies reflect these arguments and critiques, and particularly through the studying of spaces which were presumed to have differing levels of non-heterosexual presences.

3.1.4. Can we speak of bisexual, transgender, and/or transsexual spaces? Studies on spaces of non-heterosexualities, as documented above, had predominantly focussed on the spaces of gay males, and to a lesser extent, lesbians. Geographical research on other non-heterosexualities – bisexuality, transgenderism, and transsexuality for example – are even more limited than those on lesbian spaces. While some academic work, such as those by Clare Hemmings (2002) and David Bell (1994) had discussed the socialities and communities of bisexuality, rarely if ever had any ventured into an investigation of bisexual spatiality. The same argument can be said for transsexual and transgender spaces. While on the one hand the populations of bisexuals, transgender and transsexual persons are significantly smaller than those of gay males and lesbians, certain subsets of the bisexual, transgender and transsexual communities have enjoyed tremendous visibility in Australia and worldwide. The success of transgendered television personalities such as Australia’s Vanessa Wagner and the UK’s Lily Savage, or the African American singer RuPaul are some examples of such. The visibility and success of these transgendered personalities, however, have been limited to the spaces of ‘show business’. Simpson (in Manning, 1995, page 30) explained this popularity of transgenderism in the world of theatrics with examples of Mrs Doubtfire and Tootsie where transgendered identities and performances are reduced to entertainment for, and particularly, ridicule by, a predominantly heterosexual audience. The non-discussion of bisexual, transgender and transsexual spaces, however, has failed to offer evidence, or even speculations, on the existence of such spaces. To resonate with Castells (1983), this failure in discussing – or speculating – prompts the question, “Can we speak of bisexual, transgender and/or transsexual spaces?” This relative lack of a literary background on the geographies and spatialities of bisexual, transgendered and transsexual persons, despite offering an opportunity for others to fill a gap in knowledge, makes it very difficult to articulate an answer. My case studies of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia, for example, were also unable to provide any substantial indication on bisexual, transgendered and transsexual spatialities, with these sexual identities only infrequently represented at the 2005 SGLMG parade and not observed in any of the latrinalia collected.

66 3.2 Urban versus suburban versus rural As already alluded to earlier in this chapter, academic studies into non- heterosexual studies have traditionally favoured urban and metropolitan rather than regional and rural examples. Lauria and Knopp (1995) explained this was likely due to a higher concentration of non-heterosexual communities in urban and metropolitan spaces and the ability of these communities to sustain visible signs of community life such as bars and other commercial activities. Others (such as Joseph Harry, 1974) has critiqued how this biased portrayal of non-heterosexual spatiality has generated a misconception (and neo-normalisation) that non-heterosexualities are a predominantly urban phenomenon. Much of the research reviewed in the previous sections of this chapter (for example Castells, 1983; Winchester and White, 1988) reflects this urban- centric portrayal of non-heterosexual spatialities. In contrast, there have been few studies that focused on non-heterosexual spatialities in suburban or rural areas, with Kramer (1995) and Knopp and Brown (2003) being the notable exceptions. Others (such as Peake, 1993; Valentine, 1993b; and Ingram, 1997) had even argued that many urban spaces, through urban designs, are intolerant of non-heterosexual spatiality. This section aims to explore these issues in greater detail and indicates how my case studies of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia challenge and problematise these misconceptions. Manuel Castells’ 1983 investigation into the social constructions of San Francisco’s gay communities was, as shown in a previous section, by far one of the most comprehensive spatial studies of non-heterosexual performances. Castells’ (1983) study visualised the formation of the inner-city non-heterosexual spaces of San Francisco, especially through the mapping of gay institutions such as bars and clubs, businesses, the voting patterns in the Milk and Britt elections, as well as discussions of the gentrification processes between the 1960s and early 1980s. The constructions and expansions of such ‘gay’ territories reformulated culture and power through their long-term spatial occupation,

“by virtue of an alternative life style in a spatial sub-set of the urban system, a ‘city’ emerges within the city (not outside the existing city and not necessarily against other communities) in a process that transforms established cultural values and existing spatial forms” (Castells, 1983, page 139).

The concentration of gay communities in inner-city and metropolitan areas of San

67 Francisco was a deliberate settlement under prolonged political leadership that advocated a distinct spatiality between the non-heterosexual and heterosexual communities of the city. The politicians (Milk, Britt and associates) and Castells, however, neglected non-heterosexual identity performances in San Francisco’s suburban and rural hinterlands, as well as nearby regional townships such as Berkeley and San Jose. Knopp (1995) attempted to justify this focus on urban non-heterosexual studies by citing population density as a main reason. The higher density of non- heterosexual populations in urban areas, Knopp (1995, page 149) argued, was due to the greater cultural complexities of urban areas of cities, which in turn afforded opportunities for non-heterosexual migrants to these areas, first, providing distance from their hometowns, which minimised the likelihood of exposure at ‘home’, and second, to live in communities such as bohemian or red-light neighbourhoods that might be more tolerant towards non-heterosexuals. The high urban concentrations have, however, also “made it easier [for homophobic and intolerant populations] to both demonise and control [non-heterosexuals] (and to sanctify [the] majority of cultures and spaces)” (Knopp, 1995, page 149). This often involved the demonisation of urban non- heterosexual spaces such as the stereotyping of “gay entertainment areas ... as dangerous sadomasochistic underworlds, [and] red-light districts as threatening to ‘family values’” (Knopp, 1995, page 149). In contrast, non-metropolitan suburban areas are often portrayed as “places of blissful monogamous (and patriarchal) heterosexuality” Knopp, 1995, page 149), thus restricting non-heterosexual activities to the less desirable spaces in metropolitan areas. This segregation by sexuality was likened by Knopp (1995, page 154) to Western town planning of the nineteenth century where “cities were typically segregated by class, race and ethnicity, [and were] characterised by a very traditional gender-based spatial division of labour” (Knopp, 1995, page 154). According to Knopp (1995), then, it was through heteronormative designs that non-heterosexual spatialities were predominantly confined to metropolitan urban spaces, and these urban concentrations of non-heterosexual populations led to the abundance of urban-based studies on non-heterosexual spatialities. This claim of ‘homophobia by urban design’ was further investigated by Linda Peake (1993), Gill Valentine (1993b) and Gordon Ingram (1997). Peake (1993, page 416) argued that the design of urban and suburban areas reflected strongly the dominance of patriarchy. She (1993, page 416) claimed that suburbs were designed to maximise the confinement of women at home; at site where “women perform free domestic and child-care services (Garmanikow, 1978; Markusen, 1980)”. This emphasis on confining women to domestic and familial duties perceives these

68 suburban spaces as not just patriarchal but also heteronormative. In other words, suburban spaces are perceived as heteropatriarchal where non-heterosexualities are often invisibilised and abjected. Peake’s (1993) conclusions thus supported Knopp’s (1995) claim of homophobia (through emphasis of heteronormativity) by design. Furthermore, the suburbs are also neo-normalised as heterosexual spaces, where suburban females were confined to the roles of caretakers of children and performers of household duties, while males were typecast to the role of providers. As such, suburban spaces are constructed as not only heteronormative and heteropatriarchal spaces, but familial spaces where nuclear families are the norm. The presence of non- heterosexuals thus disrupts this supposed heteronormativity of the suburbs. Non- heterosexualities are therefore ejected from suburban spaces and confined to more metropolitan urban spaces, as described in Castells (1983), Knopp (1995) and others. Gill Valentine’s (1993b) article further echoed Knopp’s (1995) view of homophobia by urban design. Valentine (1993b, page 398) claimed that non-heterosexuals also felt out of place in rural areas as a result of its perceived intolerance towards non- heterosexualities. In fact, no places and spaces were specifically designed for non- heterosexual use (Valentine, 1993b, page 397). For example, lesbian household members had reported that they felt uneasy residing in a “modern middle-class housing estate” (Valentine, 1993b, page 398) because they felt the design of the estates was geared towards “asymmetrical [opposite-sex] families” (the number of bedrooms, backyard and playground for children, for example). This sense of unease could also be partly attributed to the perceived level of danger (to themselves as well as to their properties) as a result of “‘standing out’ as an ‘abnormal’ family unit” (Valentine, 1993b, page 398). This view of non-heterosexual families being “‘abnormal’ family units” further highlighted the assumed heterosexuality of suburbia and rural areas by emphasising and normalising the heterosexual utilisations of these spaces. Gordon Ingram (1997) argued that non-heterosexuals, through ‘homophobia by design’, were often discouraged from using public spaces, in particular, urban public spaces. This discouragement from using public spaces is linked with the demonisation and assumed perversity of non-heterosexualities, where non-heterosexual activities should be hidden and invisibilised. My case studies of latrinalia and abjected treatments of the SGLMG parade are examples of these demonisation and invisibilisation. Ingram (1997) argued that homophobia by design had perceivably greater impacts on urban non-heterosexual communities as larger and more compact populations compete for increasingly limited spaces. Non-heterosexual communities were thus increasingly ghettoised into smaller, less desirable urban spaces, spaces

69 which were often associated with perversity such as red-light districts. Some non- heterosexuals had sought these less desirable spaces to gather so as to avoid discriminations. This active search for the less desirable spaces for non-heterosexual gatherings also contributed to the perception of non-heterosexual perversity. This relationship between non-heterosexual spatiality and undesirable spaces could thus be understood as abject as it was the undesirability of these spaces that provided a veil of anonymity and protection that non-heterosexuals desired. This abject relationship is even more pronounced for non-heterosexuals of ‘ethnic’ minorities who often suffer from “hypermarginalisation” which “limited contact to a few hazardous indoor establishments or a small number of risky outdoor sites” (Ingram, 1997, page 114). These “hazardous indoor establishments” and “risky outdoor sites” could include well- known beat areas and public toilets where, as illustrated by my case study, latrinalia is often used as a form of anonymous communication. For cities like Sydney, or Ingram’s case study of Vancouver, with large migrant populations, the ghettoisation – both because of homophobia by design and the hypermarginalisation of ethnic minorities – fracture non-heterosexual communities. These fractures continue to invisibilise ethnic and sexual minorities and highlight common and stereotypical performances. Furthermore, this perception of homophobia in the suburban and the rural reinforces the neo-norm that non-heterosexualities are an urban phenomenon. As such, homophobia by design not only fractures the non-heterosexual communities but also neo-normalises stereotypical non-heterosexual performances. Jerry Lee Kramer’s (1995) chapter in the Mapping Desire collection investigated the identity performances of gay males and lesbians in rural North Dakota. This was one of the few investigations which examined the gender/sexual identity and community performances of gay males and lesbians in a rural setting. Echoing Knopp’s (1995) argument that non-heterosexual populations had concentrated in urban and metropolitan areas because of population diversities and cultural complexities, Kramer (1995, page 205), through his interviews and personal experiences, claimed that gay and lesbian communities in rural areas were comparatively less diverse but at the same time the performances of gay and lesbian identities were also more complex. The relative lack of population diversities in rural areas was highlighted by the limited spaces in which gay males and lesbians could socialise. These spaces generally took the form of stereotypical (or neo-normative) spaces like women’s softball and bowling leagues, or clandestine meetings in public restrooms and parks (Kramer, 1995, page 205). In Kramer’s (1995) case study area of rural North Dakota, no gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender/transsexual/Queer, or even feminist, organisations

70 existed. Given such limited number of meeting places that challenged the hegemonic understanding of gender roles and sexual identities, many non-heterosexuals ran the risk of exposure by meeting at certain heterosexual bars (Kramer, 1995, page 205). The complexity of identity performances was further emphasised by the different, and much more discreet, methods that non-heterosexual rural residents employ to communicate with each other (Kramer, 1995, page 208) such as, by opening post office boxes in nearby towns to receive replies to personal advertisements, or to receive information and publications from gay and lesbian organisations. Kramer (1995) highlighted that non-heterosexual spatialities in rural areas were indeed more confined than their metropolitan and urban counterparts. The element of risk when communicating and socialising in public spaces for non-heterosexuals who reside in rural areas was also comparatively higher than non-heterosexuals who reside in metropolitan and urban areas. These two factors continue to keep rural non- heterosexualities and their spaces relatively invisible. Similarly, Knopp and Brown’s (2003, page 422) informants likened the rural’s invisibilisation of non-heterosexualities as closets. The rural closets, as Knopp and Brown (2003, page 416) discovered, however, could have a freeing effect on rural non-heterosexual performances as they are not as restricted as those performed in ‘established’ gay spaces. This less restricted environment may be due to the absence of established non-heterosexual communities imposing a set rule like neo-norms on rural non-heterosexual performatives. At the same time, while less restricted from neo-norms, these rural non- heterosexuals would be restricted in a different manner, specifically (presumably) heteronormative gazes at heterosexual bars. It could be seen from these two studies that, while non-heterosexual spatiality in rural areas might appear more confined and restricted, in contrast non-heterosexual performatives might in fact benefit from the lack of established non-heterosexual communities imposing set rules like neo-norms on how one should carry oneself. As the abovementioned literatures have shown, the majority of studies into non- heterosexual spaces and spatialities had focussed on urban and metropolitan communities. Investigations into rural non-heterosexual communities, such as Kramer (1995) and Knopp and Brown (2003), started to emerge in the mid-1990s, yet research focussing on urban and metropolitan non-heterosexual communities continues to out- number those on non-metropolitan spaces. While Harry’s (1974) claim of higher urban concentration is one plausible explanation, the neglect of non-urban and non- metropolitan non-heterosexual communities in geographical studies will no doubt continue to neo-normalise non-heterosexualities as a predominantly urban

71 phenomenon, so that non-heterosexual communities and activities in non-metropolitan spaces remain invisibilised. As Kramer (1995) and others have shown, however, this neo-normalisation of non-heterosexualities as urban phenomenon has only partial validity. Furthermore, Kramer (1995) and Knopp and Brown (2003) had found that the more dispersed non-heterosexual spatiality of the rural areas in fact benefited in developing more individual and less confined non-heterosexual performatives. Despite these more recent studies into rural non-heterosexual spatialities, there is still a lack of investigation into non-heterosexual spatialities in the suburbs which, as I have demonstrated in this section (Ingram; 1997; Peake, 1993; Valentine; 1993b), are often assumed heteronormative. My thesis attempts to showcase and contrast a variety of non-heterosexual performances in different social settings, including both inner urban (as via the SGLMG parade) and suburban (through the use of latrinalia) spaces. In the process, the neo-normative notions of ‘gay inner-city’ and ‘heterosexual suburbs’ are challenged and problematised.

3.3 Public versus semi-public versus private Display and performances of sexualities had long been considered private matters and were thus confined to private spaces. The definitions of what constitutes ‘public’ and ‘private’ spaces, however, are somewhat more ambiguous (Tattelman, 1999; van der Meer, 1999). There is also a common perception that sexual encounters in ‘public’ spaces were dangerous, and that opportunities for interactions should be proscribed. Geographical and sociological studies into performances of sexual acts, however, challenged this perception and revealed that such ‘public’ sexual encounters ought not to be considered more dangerous than any other sexual encounters simply because they were performed in ‘public’ spaces (Clatts, 1999; Hollister, 1999). Other researchers have alternatively demonstrated that at times sexual encounters in ‘private’ spaces could prove to be more dangerous, and even fatalistic, than encounters in ‘public’ spaces (Allen, 1995; Hodge, 1998). Through the review of these literatures a greater understanding of what constituted ‘public’ and ‘private’ domains is gained. Concurrently, these literature also served as important backdrop to my investigations into, first, the diversity in non-heterosexual identity performances in different social settings and spaces, and second, the differing acceptability of these identity performances in ‘public’ and ‘private’ domains. Ira Tattelman’s (1999) investigation into gay bathhouses demonstrated that the definition of ‘public’ and ‘private’ spaces did not rely solely on the visual but a combination of all senses. In his case study, Tattelman (1999, page 72) observed that

72 in a space where individual identities were homogenised – “the baths equalise patrons through a uniform dress code: a white towel is distributed at the point of entry” – individuals relied on other senses – kinetic, speech, scent – in communicating desires. While these bathhouses were privately-owned commercial spaces, personal privacy was limited as “the boundaries of the interior spaces … form an exact but incomplete enclosure” (Tattelman, 1999, page 72). These ‘exact but incomplete enclosures’ were most readily signified by the thinness of the walls, most of which did not reach the ceiling. Some cubicles also had doors that could not be closed completely. While the cubicle walls and some closed doors would provide a visually ‘private’ setting, sounds and scents from outside were readily available, and more importantly, unavoidable. It could be argued, then, that privacy yielded not from the visual or any other senses but the responsiveness and of the performers – “if the participants are all consenting to be there with each other for the possibility of sex polymorphic, then they fulfil the criterion of the private in the realm of the sexual” (Mohr, 1996, pages 17-8, in Tattelman, 1999, page 73). This construction of the private based on participants’ consent was further emphasised in Theo van der Meer’s (1999) investigation into arrests for public sex acts in nineteenth century Holland. According to van der Meer (1999), public performances were those performances in which the audience constituted people who were unwillingly exposed to the performances against their wishes. In van der Meer’s case study, several gay males were arrested for performing sexual acts in ‘public’ even though the erotic encounter took place in their ‘private’ homes. These arrests were the result of complaints from neighbours and passers-by who unwillingly witnessed such same-sex intercourses through windows that were either opened or had their curtains drawn back. The accused were eventually let off as they had no intent on displaying their erotica to persons outside their ‘private’ homes. From Tattelman’s (1999) and van der Meer’s (1999) studies then, spaces could be understood as being constituted by a combination of senses, and the distinction between public and private spaces related directly to the level of consented exposure. This muddy distinction between public and private spaces is further demonstrated in my latrinalia case study where I found ‘private’ communications in rather ‘public’ settings. Apart from frequently being considered a private matter, the display of sexuality (between people of the same or opposite sex) in public was also often regarded as dangerous. Michael Clatts’ (1999) ethnographic study into male-male sex in public, for example, revealed the statutory portrayals of public sex as dangerous sex. Clatts (1999, pages 45-6) discovered that public locations where sex acts between males

73 occurred were often within close proximity to, but most often not in, explicitly gay spaces (such as gay bars). These explicitly gay spaces were, however, often used as spaces for establishing contacts and for organising encounters. Many of these encounters were commonly viewed as dangerous because the spaces in which the encounters occurred – for example, the entrance to the basement of a nearby residential building – were often unsanitary, where for example used condoms were not properly disposed of. Apart from the questionable , as Clatts (1999, pages 149-150) argued, the majority of these encounters could not be considered dangerous or risky simply because they were performed in ‘public’. The onset of the AIDS epidemic from the mid-1980s, however, prompted authorities to extinguish opportunities for public sex, thus portraying male public sexual encounters as diseased and dangerous. The personal safety of the participants, though, were often not in jeopardy, as Clatts (1999, page 150) discovered. Many of the participants were regulars who “knew each other on some level and most had some form of ongoing social interaction”, providing each other with protection. The presumed dangers of public sexual encounters were also refuted by John Hollister’s (1999) investigation into highway rest/cruising areas. Hollister (1999, page 61), like Clatts (1999), discovered that many participants at highway rest/cruising areas were often regulars and were familiar with each other. Entrances to these cruising areas were often heavily monitored by the regular participants, with every new entrant approached with caution for fear of police arrests and other dangers such as homophobic attacks. Therefore, from Clatts’ (1999) and Hollister’s (1999) investigations, contrary to common perceptions and statutory promotions1, sexual encounters in public spaces could not be discounted as dangerous simply because they were performed in ‘public’. This perception of danger, however, continues to persist and is at times displayed through latrinalia. The necessity for some latrinalia writers to occasionally use these spaces as a communication forum, combined with the(ir) perception of these spaces as dangerous, highlight the abject relationship that exists between these writers and public spaces. The dangerous perception of these ‘public’ spaces that serves as an element

1 The Summary Offences Act 1988 (NSW), for example, states that offensive conducts can carry a maximum penalty of A$660 or three-month imprisonment. The likelihood that public displays of affection or sexual encounters will be considered as ‘offensive’, as Melbournian clinical psychologist Dr Jan Hall explained, is highly dependent on the environment where such offences were conducted (Deavin 2008), though the nineteenth-century focus on public display of dignity continues to have heavy influence on these interpretations. 74 of risqué also highlight an abject exploration of sexual/erotic desires. Like Clatt’s (1999) discussion of gay bars, latrinalia were most frequently used to set up erotic encounters between (mostly) males as there was little evidence to suggest that these erotic encounters took place at the public toilets where the latrinalia were found. Such an abject relationship between the necessity to use latrinalia as a communication method and this presumed danger of sex in public spaces are discussed in detail in Chapter 7. William Leap’s (1999) study into the public/private dichotomisation of sexual intimacies was similar to those by Clatts (1999) and Hollister (1999). All three researchers argued that public sexual encounters, particularly those between (gay- identifying or not) males, were unfairly perceived and institutionalised as dangerous. Leap (1999, page 116) documented the statutory efforts in which authorities attempted to close down “gay bathhouses, prohibit male sex clubs, police the highway rest-stops, [and] monitor the department store ” in order to eradicate ‘public’ male-male sexual encounters. Furthermore, Leap (1999, page 116) commented that such initiatives indicated the belief that sexual encounters occurring at such places were perceived to be dangerous and risk-taking because they were ‘public’ spaces. The understanding of what constitutes ‘public’, however, varies across different populations. As Leap’s (1999, page 127) case study of a men’s health club demonstrated, some male patrons considered the sauna room a public space, not a private space, thus suitable only for “preliminary erotic pursuit” such as flirtations which would culminate in more erotic forms in more private spaces within the establishment, such as the locker room. Other male patrons who had sexual encounters at the club, however, considered the health club itself – because of its conditions of entry – a private space in which they felt safe to pursue erotica among other things. In other words, given the same space and offer of privacy, the understanding of what constituted ‘public’ and what constituted ‘private’ differed amongst different patron groups. Many gay-identifying males conceived spaces to be private and safe because of the screening procedure offered by the establishments. These case studies showed that conceptions of public and private are fluid, and that they were not tied to specific locations. This does, however, visualise a common perception that sexuality, particularly sexual erotica, is an inherently ‘private’ performance. This fluidity and neo-normative perception of sexualised spatiality is exemplified by my case studies and particularly latrinalia, where private communications are on display in relatively public spaces. In some instances, sexual encounters in ‘public’ could even be viewed as the safer option. Jacob Aronson’s (1999) investigation into the cruising rituals at Hanoi, Vietnam provided evidence to support this assertion. Aronson (1999) commented that

75 many heterosexual intimacies were tolerated in public while non-heterosexual intimacies were not. This indicated the heteronormative perception of public spaces in Vietnamese society, where same-sex relationships remain criminalised and were considered a cultural taboo. The conducting of cruising rituals in open, public spaces such as parks at night where “darkness confers some small shield of anonymity” (Aronson, 1999, page 216) provided non-heterosexual participants/cruisers a level of safety from exposure and also relief from the prying eyes of family members. The dangers of sexual encounters in private spaces were also highlighted in the research on homophobic assaults and attacks (Allen, 1995; Hodge, 1998). Both Allen’s (1995) and Hodge’s (1998) investigations pointed to a common scenario where the victims invited the attackers home having been led to believe the attackers were interested in pursuing sexual intimacies. The victims were often physically assaulted, robbed of valuables, and some times even murdered in their homes. In these cases, performing or organising sexual encounters in ‘public’ spaces most certainly would appear to be a safer option as even in situations of physical attack one could potentially receive assistance from passers-by. Literature on the geographies of fear and violence provide further examples on how the heteropatriarchally disadvantaged (such as non- heterosexuals and women) are more frequently attacked in the ‘privacy’ and ‘comfort’ of their residence than in open, ‘public’ spaces. This conception of safety in public, however, contradicts with the discomfort non-heterosexuals also feel because of heteronormative oppressions associated to these ‘public’ spaces. My two case studies would contrast the performances of both public spaces (SGLMG parade) and in more private settings (latrinalia), providing evidence that clarify this apparent contradiction. This section reviewed literature that discussed the common perception that sexualised performances should be confined to ‘private’ spaces. This perception was based on the presumption that there exists a clear distinction between ‘public’ spaces and ‘private’ spaces. As Tattelman (1999) and van der Meer (1999) have shown, however, this distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ is in fact not clear but ambiguous and fluid. Despite the efforts by researchers such as Aronson (1999), Clatts (1999), Hollister (1999), and Leap (1999), however, sexual interactions continue to be perceived as a ‘private’ matter, with ‘public’ sexual encounters and the spaces of these encounters portrayed as dangerous and unsafe. Allen (1995) and Hodge (1998) have shown that, to the contrary, the ‘private’ could at times be more dangerous than the ‘public’. This fear of danger and violence in the ‘private’ could potentially affect the performances of same-sex intimacies (and by implication, both sexual and non-sexual encounters amongst non-heterosexuals) in public spaces, as Aronson’s (1999) case

76 study of the cruising rituals in Hanoi, Vietnam showed. This contrasts with the neo- normalisation of sexual performances as inherently ‘private’. All of these literatures provide valuable critique on the impreciseness (and perhaps fluidity) of the notions of ‘public’ and ‘private’. Not only are the demarcations between ‘public’ and ‘private’ unclear, the acceptability of the different performances in ‘public’ and ‘private’ spaces are also blurred and become a highly subjective matter. While the literatures reviewed here have used erotic sexual encounters as their main examples, my case studies of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia would propose that public encounters amongst non- heterosexuals of non-erotic nature are as equally restrained by the assumed heteronormativity of public spaces. Evidence from these analyses reveals several abject relationships that exist between non-heterosexual performances and perceivably dangerous public spaces such as a risqué exploration of desire.

3.4 Conclusion In most societies, particularly western societies, heteronormativity dictates the occupation and appropriations of spaces so that heterosexuality is normalised and assumed for most spaces. As some research has shown (Valentine, 1998; Bell et al, 1994; McDowell, 1995), however, heterosexuality(s) of spaces, like human heterosexuality(s) (Butler, 1990; 1993), could, and should, be understood as an acquired characteristic. This puts the current understanding of non-heterosexual spatial acquisitions into question. Nonetheless, with heteronormativity (and heteropatriarchy) firmly implanted in modern day societies, the spaces of non-heterosexuals have taken on very different spatialities so that the majority of the early research focussed on the concentrations of gay male populations in inner-city urban areas of western societies, such as in San Francisco (Castells, 1983). Initial explorations into explaining lesbian spatialities suggested fundamental differences between gay males and lesbians, specifically that gay males were innately territorial, while lesbians were financially and socially restricted by heteropatriarchal limitations so that their spaces appear invisible to the general public (Holcomb, 1986; Winchester and White, 1988). The marginality of other sexual minorities such as bisexuals, transgenders, and transsexuals was further highlighted by the relative lack of research into their spatialities (Bell, 1994; Hemmings, 2002). It was the combination of these social processes, portraying non-heterosexual communities as predominantly metropolitan, perverted, and homogeneous that prompted my investigation. While it is now commonly accepted by many strands of academic study that non-heterosexualities are not pathological or perverted, many still

77 believe that heteropatriarchy and heteronormativity continue to shape the spaces of modern day societies. Specifically, arguments like ‘homophobia by design’ (Knopp, 1995; Peake, 1993; Valentine, 1993b) highlighted the widespread assumption that urban form plays a vital role in the marginalisation of non-heterosexuals to less desirable spaces. Some non-heterosexual communities that are relatively more marginalised have at times chosen to gather in these less desirable spaces for fear of discrimination so that an abject relationship could be said to exist between the two. My case study of latrinalia, where public toilets are used as an anonymous communication forum, exemplifies this abjection. At the same time, another form of abjection exists in the performances of non-heterosexualities in ‘public’ spaces, that of a risqué exploration of desire. The assumed intolerance of non-metropolitan spaces such as the suburbs and rural areas has also been blamed for the invisibilised spatiality of non- heterosexuals in these spaces (Knopp and Brown, 2003; Kramer, 1995). This highlights the neo-normalisation of non-heterosexualities as an urban, particularly inner-city, phenomenon. There were also contestations over non-heterosexual spatialities in public and private spaces. Tattelman (1999) and van der Meer (1999), for example, highlighted the imprecise definition of ‘public’ spaces and ‘private’ spaces. The distinction between ‘public’ and ‘private’ was related more to consent than to the physical location of spaces. The element of exposure in particular is often misconceived as danger, so that erotica in ‘public’ is regularly regarded as dangerous. This neo-normalises sexualised performances, whether in the form of displays of affection or erotic intercourses, as inherently ‘private’. This neo-normalisation of sexual spatiality, I argue however, does not apply to ‘public’ heterosexuality(s) as my case studies of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia attest. Clatts (1999), Hollister (1999) and Leap (1999) have showed that this misconception of ‘public equals danger’ is often used to further marginalise and invisibilise non-heterosexual activities from ‘public’ spaces. The succeeding chapter documents the data collection and analytical methods used in investigating these issues, and operationalises questions brought up in this chapter and in Chapter 2, with the results of the analyses presented in subsequent chapters.

78 Chapter 4: Methodologies

Methodology is not just a matter of practicalities and techniques, it is a matter of marrying up theory with practice (the ‘-ology’ of method). (Shurmer-Smith, 2002, page 95)

Research is an endless, methodological quest with provisional and inconclusive results, because all things more or less hang together: relationism, not relativism. (Naess, 2002, p.14)

This chapter discusses and analyses the methodologies used in the research for this thesis. First, it outlines the methodologies used in collecting field data at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) parade, as well as public toilet blocks of prominent public parks and university libraries that were located within the Sydney region. Then, it examines the usability and validity of graffiti/latrinalia as a data source for studying identity and spaces. Photography was used as the main method of data collection, supported by participation observation. Digital photographs were used to visually capture the parade performances as well as spectator reactions/interactions at the 2005 SGLMG parade. Digital images of latrinalia (graffiti found in public toilets) were also collected from four prominent Sydney public parks and public toilets from 13 university libraries. Non-visual elements, such as the crowd’s reaction, the music played, the ambience of the toilets, were noted in worksheets to complement the photographs. Newspaper reports – from both printed newspapers as well as their associated websites – and official photographs of the 2005 SGLMG parade were also collected and recorded on these worksheets. All recorded worksheets were entered into three separate SPSS databases, one recording the performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade, one recording characteristics and field notes of public toilets visited, and one recording characteristics of the latrinalia collected. All three databases were used in the analytical processes. Data were analysed using methods appropriate for this mix of qualitative and quantitative data, namely content analyses, statistical analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, and visual methodologies. Content analyses were used to assess the presence of relationships between stereotypical performances and selected social discourses (such as commercialisation) in the context of the SGLMG parade. Statistical analyses were used to substantiate these relationships as visualised through some

79 performance elements of the SGLMG parade such as costume and music. Narrative analysis provided insights on the politics that exist in the public and semi-private spaces of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia. These empirical indications also provided further data for use in discourse analyses, which took into account the societal processes and structures such as heteronormativity that are present in the spaces investigated. The chapter concludes with a discussion on a lesser used analytical method – visual analytical methodologies – and showcases its variety, complexity, and potential as a flexible and effective analytical method. The main objective of my thesis was the development of my own concept of neo-normativity, where stereotypical performances are normalised as quintessential. I have chosen to highlight the physical and visual aspects of identity performances over other aspects – such as experiential – for several reasons. I am a person who is more visually inclined than verbally articulate. By focussing on the physical and visual aspects of identity performances, then, I can utilise my strengths (or even proclivity) without running the risk of establishing bad rapport through weaker personal communications, resulting in ineffective, or even inappropriate, data. In place of developing my interviewing skills, I have chosen to explore a relatively newer, lesser- used collection and analytical methodology – visual methodology – and showcase the potential of this methodology through an uncommon data source – graffiti/latrinalia. The use of these newer methodologies and uncommon data sources are complemented with some of the more traditional analytical methods – content and statistical analyses – and the conventional, somewhat non-heterosexual case study of the SGLMG parade. The succeeding section looks specifically into my chosen field sites of the SGLMG, prominent public parklands, and university libraries.

4.1 Location, location, location: three distinctly unique field sites This section details the locations where fieldwork was undertaken. There were two main types of spaces where fieldwork was conducted, and they included the 2005 SGLMG parade as well as the public toilets of prominent Sydney parklands and university libraries. These case study locations were chosen to compare non- heterosexual identity performances in public spaces (the SGLMG parade) with the performances in spaces that were somewhat more private (public toilets).

4.1.1 The 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) parade The SGLMG parade is the premier Gay Pride event in Australia. Its origin dates back to June 1978 where on the ninth anniversary of the Stonewall incident

80 demonstrators and protestors, most of whom where gay men and lesbian women, marched down the streets of inner-city Sydney in protest of discrimination (Carbery, 1995). Since then it had grown from an afternoon-long demonstration to a month-long festival that celebrates sexual diversity. Despite this growth, the highlight of the festival has remained the parade since the early 1980s. It is held annually on the first Saturday of March; in 2005, it was held on 5th March. The parade begins at 7:30 in the evening, starting from the intersection of Elizabeth and Oxford Streets, passing through the so- called ‘gay precinct’ of Sydney, then turns right into Flinders Street before ending at the intersection of ANZAC Parade and Moore Park Road (see Figure 4.1). It is approximately 1.3 kilometres (0.8 miles) long, and depending on the number of participating groups, the parade generally lasts for an hour and a half, with tradition dictating that the group lead the parade, followed by the Chief(s) of Parade as chosen by the organising committee, New Mardi Gras Inc. In 2005, the Chiefs of Parade were the “PlaySchool mums”1. Following the Dykes on Bikes and the “PlaySchool mums” where another one hundred or so other groups. Most of these parade groups had registered with New Mardi Gras Inc prior to the parade and were thus listed in the parade proceedings on the local gay and lesbian weekly publication, the Sydney Star Observer, in the 3rd March edition. There were, however, also impromptu participants who did not pre-register. Paraded groups in 2005 totalled 107. Data from the 2005 SGLMG parade were collected through two main means – digital photography and participation observation. Fieldwork was carried out by two researchers, with me as the main researcher, and Anne Semple, a Geography PhD candidate at the University of New South Wales (UNSW), as an assistant. Both Ms Semple and I were positioned near Taylor Square, where the parade turns from Oxford Street into Flinders Street, as indicated by the white star in Figure 4.1. As Taylor Square was a relatively open area with few obstructions (see Figure 4.2), we were able to look ahead to on-coming parade groups and prepare for photographing. In all, 332 digital images of the parade groups and spectators were taken. The Mardi Gras worksheets (see Figure 4.5) were also filled out on site, with one worksheet for each parade group. These worksheets recorded various elements of the parade performances, including group name(s), costumes, music, and slogan. Experiential

1 The “PlaySchool mums” were a two-female couple that featured in an episode of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s long established children’s program, PlaySchool, in late 2004. The episode showed a young girl playing in a public park while her two mothers looked on. This televisual image of a same-sex family led to wide public debates on educating infants and young children about ‘alternative’ families. 81 data such as crowd reaction were collected through participation observation, in the sense that both Ms Semple and I participated as road-side spectators. In all, 107 worksheets were filled out. These completed worksheets were later cross-referenced with the official participant listing in the 3rd March edition of the Sydney Star Observer to assemble missing details, such as the parading groups’ full name, and the geographical areas they represented. The use of these worksheets is discussed in greater detail in later sections of this chapter.

Figure 4.1: The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade route, 2005

Source: ABS, 2001 Census

82 Figure 4.2: Open plaza of Taylor Square at dusk, Sydney, 9th July, 2006

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL Note: Taylor Square at the intersection of Oxford Street (running across the foreground of the image) and Flinders Street (from the mid-ground of the image), as viewed from the northern (Oxford Street) end of Taylor Square. There are two open, pedestrian-only plazas at two corners of Taylor Square, one of which is pictured here on the right background, approximately 20 metres (67 feet) by 25 metres (83 feet), with bars and cafés that cater mainly to non-heterosexual clienteles lining the western end of the plaza, as shown on the right of this image. The other open plaza is directly opposite this 20 metres by 25 metres plaza, to the left of the photographer. It leads to the Darlinghurst Court House as well as bars and cafés that cater mainly to non- heterosexual clienteles. The so-called ‘Gay Precinct’ of Sydney is west from Taylor Square along Oxford Street, approximately 600 metres (2,000 feet) long. On the night of the 2005 SGLMG parade, we (the researchers) were positioned just south of the Taylor Square signage, approximately where the public bus is pictured in the centre middle distance of the image.

4.1.2 Public parklands Public parklands have traditionally been clandestine spaces where some non- heterosexuals, particularly males, meet for erotic escapades with anonymous 83 strangers. These escapades have been widely acknowledged and discussed (Hollister, 1999). As such, like the SGLMG parade, public parklands are important spaces of non- heterosexual performances. I have chosen to study these non-heterosexual performances as manifested through the not-so-common data source of latrinalia. There are several reasons for this choice. As I have noted in section 3.3, I believe an abject relationship exists between these public parkland cruising grounds and persons who seek erotic escapades at these spaces. While they get pleasure out of the erotica, certain elements of danger (such as physical safety) and unfavourable reputations (such as promiscuity) are often associated with these spaces. My investigation of these performances through latrinalia, itself a marginal and counter-culture performance, thus highlights this abject relationship between person and space. Four prominent Sydney parklands were chosen as field sites for my investigation. These were Moore Park in inner-city Sydney, Parramatta Park in the western CBD of Parramatta, Olympic Park in Homebush, and Penrith Park in the western suburbia of Penrith (see Figure 4.3). These four parks represent vastly different spaces within Sydney. Moore Park is in the inner-city, adjacent to Sydney’s Entertainment Precinct of the former Fox Studios complex (see Figure 4.1), as well as the prominent sporting grounds Aussie Stadium and the . The former Fox Studios complex in Moore Park continues to be a popular entertainment destination of many Sydneysiders, with an array of cafés, restaurants, cinemas, shops, and weekend markets. Aussie Stadium is the home ground to several of Sydney’s National (NRL) teams, a popular football code in the eastern states, for much of the year. Aussie Stadium also hosts international rugby tournaments and serves as the home ground of the professional soccer team Sydney FC during the A- League season. Next door, Sydney Cricket Ground is the home ground of the Sydney Swans during the Australian Football League (AFL) season, which coincides with the NRL season during the winter months, while in summer it hosts national and international cricket tournaments. Moore Park is also the ending point of the annual SGLMG parade, as such it also holds important cultural value to Sydney’s non- heterosexual communities. With all these activities happening in and around Moore Park, a consistent patronage to its toilet facilities is guaranteed. Similarly, Parramatta Park also receives a consistent patronage. It is located on the edge of the Parramatta CBD, adjacent to a number of government office buildings, including the Parramatta Family Court, the Department of Community Services, and a regional office of the Australian Taxation Office to name a few. It is a popular space where nearby office workers go for picnic lunches and lunchtime jogs. Within Parramatta Park sits

84 , the home ground to the NRL team . It also hosts games for the A-League as well as domestic tournaments for other football codes. There is also a popular swimming centre where the NRL players train and the general public goes to escape the heat during the summer months.

Figure 4.3: The four public parklands included for fieldwork.

Penrith Park Parramatta Park Olympic Park

Moore Park

Source: ABS, 2006 Census

Olympic Park is located in the suburb of Homebush, and was a public parkland specially built for the Sydney 2000 summer Olympic Games. It comprises no fewer than five stadiums, including the main one, ANZ Stadium, where the Olympic track and field events and the Opening and Closing Ceremonies took place. Olympic Park is now regularly used by many different sporting events, including the NRL Grand Final. Several of the Sydney Swans’ AFL games are also played at ANZ Stadium during the premiership season. Penrith Park is located in the western Local Government Area of Penrith, about 40 kilometres (25 miles) from the Sydney CBD. It is the smallest of the four parks included for fieldwork but is contiguous to a football oval (Penrith Stadium, home to the NRL team ), a showground, and a public swimming pool. It is also situated across from the shopping centre Nepean Square and one of the largest football clubs in Sydney (Panthers). All four parklands thus would have a

85 consistent and sizeable patronage throughout the year. It is important to stress the consistency of patronage of these parklands because as some writers have expressed (see Rhyne and Ullman, 1972, for example) a sizeable base population is required to provide a representative sample of latrinalia. Because of the varied nature of events that are held at these parks, latrinalia collected is expected to reflect users of these spaces from a wide cross-section of the general public, from families picnicking at the open space, to sporting fans attending the different sporting events. Intensive data collection was completed over two days, Saturday 16th October and Tuesday 22nd October 2005, after the completion of the 2005 NRL season. Like the fieldwork conducted at the 2005 SGLMG parade, digital photography was used as a core method of data collection. Worksheets were also filled out to note non-visual elements, such as ambience, perceived patronage and cleanliness, of the toilets visited (see Figure 4.7). In all, a total of 12 public toilet facilities were located at the four parks. There were four publicly blocks at both Olympic Park and Moore Park, three at Parramatta Park, and one at Penrith Park. Some ethical issues surround the taking photographs in public places, especially in public toilets. There are well- publicised reports of peeping-toms taking photographs in public change rooms and on public beaches using camera phones and small digital cameras (see Lamont, 2004, for example). To avoid any ethical dilemmas, digital photographs of latrinalia were only taken when no other toilet users were present in the same block. I personally inspected the latrinalia in all male and disabled toilet facilities visited and recruited two different assistants, namely Ms Rae Dufty and Ms Natascha Klocker, both PhD candidates from UNSW, to inspect the female toilets. All worksheets recording characteristics of the male toilets were filled out by me, while the characteristics of the female toilets were reported back to me by Ms Dufty and Ms Klocker and the worksheets were filled out on site. A total of 29 images where taken, encapsulating 52 latrinalia. Each latrinalia was later recorded onto separate worksheets for analyses. The results from this data collection are detailed in Chapter 7.

4.1.3 University libraries Toilet facilities in the libraries of the university campuses in the Sydney region were chosen to reflect a demographic that was inherently different to that provided by the public parks field sites. As already stated, given the diverse nature of events held at the four public parklands included in my study, the types of users (and by inference, latrinalia writers) of these spaces are also likely varied. This demographic differs to that of universities in that the population at universities would be much more specialised

86 and homogenous. While university spaces are not exclusive spaces and any members of the public could enter, they are nonetheless spaces with specialised purposes. Apart from academics and students who attend for educational purposes, service providers such as bank staff and cafeteria workers who go for work purposes, very few people would go to a university for a stroll around the quadrangle. People who go to university libraries are, therefore, likely to be in similar age groups (such as young adult students) and of similar educational backgrounds. This provides significant contrast to the very diverse demographic who use public parklands.

Figure 4.4: Locations of university campuses in the Sydney region, 2004

Note: ‘w/’ stands for ‘with’; ‘w/o’ stands for ‘without’ Source: ABS, 2001 Census

Five of Australia’s universities have campuses located within the Sydney region. These included Australia’s oldest university – Sydney University, established in 1850 – to one of the newest – the University of Western Sydney (UWS), dating from an amalgamation of colleges in 1997. Fifteen campuses of these five universities are loca- 87 Table 4.1: University campuses with library facilities in the Sydney region, 2004 Campus Toilets in University Region Date visited suburb library Macquarie University Eastern Sydney Marsfield Yes 29-Jul-04 Sydney University Eastern Sydney Camperdown Yes 23-Jul-04 University of New South Wales Kensington Yes 23-Jul-04 Eastern Sydney (UNSW) Paddington Yes 04-Aug-04 Haymarket Yes 23-Jul-04 University of Technology, Sydney Eastern Sydney Ku-ring-gai Yes 29-Jul-04 (UTS) St Leonards No 29-Jul-04 Campbelltown Yes 29-Jul-04 Kingswood Yes 14-Jul-04 University of Western Sydney Milperra Yes 29-Jul-04 Western Sydney (UWS) Quakers Hills Yes 14-Jul-04 Richmond Yes 14-Jul-04 Rydalmere Yes 08-Jul-04 Werrington Yes 14-Jul-04 ted throughout the Sydney region (see Figure 4.4). I have chosen to focus on the toilet facilities found inside the main libraries of these campuses. University libraries are often the most visited areas of any university campus, whether for coursework, research, or for social meetings. As such, I anticipated the toilet facilities of these main libraries to be some of the most used toilet facilities on campus. These main libraries, however, can also service general discipline areas, such as science and arts. Other disciplines, such as architecture, law and medicine, often have specialised libraries located near their respective departments. Latrinalia found in the main library, thus, are only likely to reflect students of a few selected disciplines. Furthermore, not all campuses contain library facilities. In 2004, only 14 campuses had library facilities, with seven located in the Eastern Sydney region, and seven in the Western Sydney region (see Table 4.1). All but one of these libraries (St Leonards campus of the University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)) had toilet facilities within the confines of the library. These libraries were visited over five days during the winter semester break in July 2004 as well as the beginning of the second semester in August 2004. I chose to undertake the field work during semester break so that the libraries and their toilet facilities would less likely be occupied, reducing the chances of having to revisit and investigate occupied cubicles. This also effectively avoided any ethical dilemmas as discussed in the previous section. Like the public park field work, I visited and inspected all the male and disabled toilets personally, while a female assistant visited and inspected all the female toilets. Two different female assistants took part in the university library field work – Ms Vidhu Gandhi and Ms Stephanie Bunclark, both PhD students from UNSW. Ms Gandhi assisted in all but one of the campus library field works, with Ms Bunclark

88 assisting in the remaining field work at the Paddington campus of UNSW in August 2004. In all, 83 toilet facilities were visited. These included 36 male toilets (including those with disabled facilities), 35 female toilets (including those with disabled facilities), 11 non-sex or gender-specific disabled toilets, and one family room. All unoccupied cubicles were inspected for non-heterosexual latrinalia, and all non-heterosexual latrinalia were photographed using a digital camera. Like the public parks fieldwork, worksheets were also filled out in situ to record non-visual characteristics of the toilets such as location and smell. Non-heterosexual latrinalia were only found in the toilet facilities of five of the libraries visited. In all 51 images were taken of non-heterosexual latrinalia from these university libraries, with 50 taken in male toilets, one in a female toilet, and none in non-sex, gender-specific disabled toilets or family rooms. 86 distinct non-heterosexual latrinalia were identified in these 51 images, with 83 from male toilets and three from female toilets. Each distinct non-heterosexual latrinalia, like those in the public parks dataset, was recorded onto separate worksheets for data generation and analyses. For results of these analyses see Chapter 7.

4.2 Analysing non-heterosexual identities: to graffiti or not graffiti This section examines the use of graffiti/latrinalia as a practical data source for studying non-heterosexual identity performances. It first reviews previous geographical and social research that had used graffiti as a source of data. This is followed by an overview on how I recognised and typologised ‘non-heterosexual latrinalia’. The review of previous research on graffiti also assessed the methodologies of collection and analyses used in these previous studies, such as content analysis, psychoanalysis, and the lesser used visual methodologies. These in turn helped shape my methods of collecting graffiti/latrinalia (through photography) and analysing these collected latrinalia data (through content analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, and visual analytical methodologies). For discussions of these collection and analytical methodologies, see sections 4.3 and 4.5.

4.2.1 Previous research on graffiti/latrinalia Graffiti is often a misunderstood subject. A female respondent to a questionnaire about graffiti, for example, mistakenly defined graffiti as “tiny Italian giraffes” (Bruner and Kelso, 1980, page 242). In a more accurate description, however, the Macquarie Dictionary (Delbridge et al, 1991) has defined “graffiti” as originating from the Italian word graffio and the Greek word grphein, both of which carried the

89 meanings of drawing, marking, scratching, and writing. According to this, graffiti would include any hand-drawn or hand-written material. The modern day interpretation of the term – “drawings or words, sometimes obscene, sometimes political, etc, written on the walls of public toilets but often elsewhere, as on billboards, walls of buildings, etc” (Delbridge et al, 1991) – often associates graffiti with negativity. This is evident in the abundance of works dedicated to the prevention and eradication of graffiti, seeing it as a social problem, a visible obscenity (Mayhew et al, 1978; White, 2001; Wilson, 1987). This negative connotation may explain the relative lack of graffiti as a data source within social science, including cultural geography. For the purpose of this study, graffiti included hand-drawn materials, most often hand-written comments inside public toilet facilities. There has been a limited list of examples of the utilising of graffiti as a data source. This reluctance in studying graffiti may be due to their frequent association with danger. Graffiti writing has been, for example, conceived as acts of self indulgence (Ward, 2001, page 4), relating to youth gangs (Anonymous, 1991, page 17; Ward, 2001, page 4) and other crimes (Mayhew et al, 1978), and often considered as obscenity or vandalism. This makes it a contentious topic that many researchers have been unwilling to explore. Despite this, some researchers have recognised a lineage of graffiti back to cave-paintings, with their main purpose in marking territories (Ward, 2001, page 4). Graffiti in social research contexts, however, is more than just about territoriality. They are also reflections of opinions and emotions. They tend to be concise due to the lack of space, their illegal status in many parts of the world, and because of the limited time frame in which graffiti can be drawn or written. These concise expressions of personal opinion and emotion provide an ideal source of data for social scientific studies, in particular in relation to identity performances. Kerry Carrington’s (1989) research was one social study which used graffiti as a data source. She searched through the toilet blocks of Sydney’s railway stations to identify the gender differences in the topics young graffitists wrote about. The act of graffiting, as Carrington (1989, page 89) discovered, held special meanings to the graffitists that cannot be paralleled through ‘legitimate’ methods of communication such as petitions or letters to magazine editors. This unparalleled communication method makes it an ideal point of investigation for marginalised groups such as the non- heterosexual communities. Several studies (Dundes, 1966; Landy and Steel, 1967; Sechrest and Flores, 1969; Sechrest and Olson, 1971) have shown that latrinalia effectively reflect this clandestine and counter-cultural form of communication amongst non-heterosexuals. Furthermore, Carrington (1989, page 89) discovered that “graffiting

90 is a gendered cultural practice”. This resonates with an earlier study into graffiti by Kinsey et al (1953). The Kinsey et al (1953, pages 673-4) study suggested that the majority of male graffiti are sexual in nature, most of which were same-sex oriented. In contrast, only a quarter of female latrinalia were erotic in nature. In Carrington’s (1989, pages 89-90) study, the major difference between male and female graffiti concerned the expression of emotions. Male graffitists communicated through what is known as ‘rap graffiti’ (such as tagging, where tags are specialised scripting of the graffitist’s name or alias), while female graffitists would be more involved in emotional graffiting, such as statements of who one loves, who one hates, and who one befriends. This gender difference was also supported by the research by Loewenstine, Ponticos and Paludi (1982). It was clear from these studies that graffiti not only reflected the cultural differences between male and female graffitists but also shone light on an often hidden forum of communication between members of marginalised groups (Schwartz and Dovidio, 1984). The use of latrinalia, a private and even sometimes secretive form of identity performance, as a case study for my doctoral thesis would, thus, provide an effective complement to the very public performances of non-heterosexualities as witnessed at the SGLMG parade. Apart from being a very gender-specific activity, there were also notable spatial differences in graffiting. One such major difference, between rap and emotional graffiti, is the location in which they were found. Tags were more likely to be found in more publicly accessible and visible spaces, such as the exterior walls of a toilet block, whereas emotional graffiti were more likely to be found in spaces that were more hidden, such as “inscribed on toilet walls, desks and chairs” (Carrington, 1989, page 89). On the effectiveness of communicating through latrinalia, Carrington (1989, page 98) commented that “toilet walls … provided a convenient, non-threatening, but effective way of” communication. The convenient, but more importantly non- threatening, nature of toilet graffiting provided socially discriminated communities such as the non-heterosexual communities a relatively private method of communicating in public settings. The relative privacy of latrinalia thus provided a shield of protection for some non-heterosexuals so that the performance of identities would likely be less contrived. At the same time, a shield of anonymity makes allowances for the creation of phantasmatic worlds, such as rap graffitists hiding behind tags which often represent their alter egos, or leaving false contact details as a prank. This makes the act of graffiting psychologically and socially complicated. My use of non-heterosexual latrinalia as a case study, however, is not focused on these intentions. Instead, I chose to focus on the spaces that these non-heterosexual latrinalia, whether real or

91 phantasmatic in intention, (re)appropriate through their physical presence. My focus is thus on the final, visual outcome rather than the intentions behind the act itself. The legitimacy of using graffiti as a data source for social research was also explored in Daniel Palmer’s (1997) study. In his study, Palmer (1997) used graffiti from the closed-down Fremantle prison as evidence of the history and experiences of the inmates who once inhabited the facility. The existence of these graffiti, as Palmer (1997, page 105) claimed, provided a sense of humanity to a space that drew heavy connotations with discipline, deprivation and other forms of punishment. The use of graffiti as a data source for social scientific studies, thus, could also provide invaluable spatial as well as historical data on cultural practices that other data sources could not so readily provide or offer. The writing of latrinalia acts as a defiance to the discipline of the space where they exist, and this act of defiance could grow stronger the more these spaces are regulated. The writing of non-heterosexual latrinalia works on a similar level to Palmer’s case study, only it’s the assumed heteronormativity and not prison discipline that it challenges. The use of graffiti offers several advantages over other research materials. Lorri Nandrea’s (1999) study, for example, highlighted the flexibility and post-structuralist nature of graffiti writing. She showed that graffiti were often found on publicly accessible spaces such as walls which are usually not subjected to the same “rigid spatial stratifications” (Nandrea, 1999, page 111) as texts on pages are. As such, this unique characteristic offered new dimensions on the relationship between the space and the writer, where an inscription “can begin and end anywhere” (Nandrea, 1999, pages 111-2). There can be “surprising juxtapositions, layerings, and diagonal relations” (Nandrea, 1999, pages 111-2) which other materials regularly prohibit. Like Palmer (1997), Nandrea (1999, page 112) saw the existence of graffiti on public spaces as the humanising of spaces. Furthermore, graffiti is confrontational. They force us to pay attention to subjects made visible. These subjects could often be ignored if presented in other formats, such as by simply closing a book or turning off the television. Graffiti in public toilets (latrinalia), in particular, are the most confrontational of all, as people generally lack any other reading materials within the small confines of the cubicles unless brought in by the temporary user. If the bringing of personal reading materials into public toilets is uncommon, and that these public toilets were likely to have comparatively high patronage, the latrinalia would then have a high readership. This high readership has been noted as an attractive quality for initiating the writing of graffiti (Wilson, 1987). At times, these latrinalia draw replies. The cubicle walls thus become a space of non-normative communication for the users, be they regular users

92 or occasional passers-by. The use of latrinalia as a case study of my doctoral thesis thus brings in a post-structuralist form of performances that, as Nandrea (1999, page 111) has said, are not subjected to “rigid spatial stratifications”. They also symbolise the marginalised and non-normative status that the non-heterosexual communities alas continue to be branded in modern day societies.

4.2.2 Recognising non-heterosexual latrinalia In order to successfully study the spatiality of non-heterosexual latrinalia one must clearly define what a non-heterosexual latrinalia constitutes. For the purposes of my thesis, I have defined ‘non-heterosexual latrinalia’ as graffiti entries found inside public toilets that have a noticeably non-heterosexual subject matter, be it erotic, romantic, social, or discriminatory in nature. The recognising of these non-heterosexual subject matters would rely highly on the presence of non-heterosexual signifiers. These signifiers could be wide-ranging, from the explicit reference to sexual activities between two (or more) persons of the same sex, to the mere suggestion of same-sex attraction, or in the discriminatory front, those that included homophobic messages. Regardless of their authorship and intent (I did not ascertain the authenticity of any of the contact details such as mobile phone numbers of email addresses), these non-heterosexual latrinalia nonetheless (re)constructed their immediate spaces with a non-heterosexual presence. These latrinalia, taking after John Langshaw Austin’s (1962) explanation of the speech act theory, could be viewed as political acts that would potentially unsettle the assumed heteronormativity of space, in particular, public space whether the described acts were eventually physically performed or not. The choosing of non- heterosexual latrinalia as a case study for my thesis thus provided evidence of varying non-heterosexual identity performances in hitherto unexamined spaces, challenging the assumed heteronormativity of spaces. Defining non-heterosexual latrinalia as only those latrinalia that included expression(s) of same-sex erotica and/or romance or homophobia would, however, not be a comprehensive exercise. For example, a non-heterosexual who wrote a latrinalia entry that commented on a contemporary political climate (therefore, without any reference to same-sex erotica and/or romance) would thus be excluded under the current definition. Likewise, a non-heterosexual who wrote a latrinalia entry seeking opposite-sex erotica/romance – as could be the case for some bisexual and transgendered persons – would also be excluded because it lacked any same-sex erotic/romantic reference. Because of the anonymous aspect of most latrinalia writing, however, it would be difficult to make such judgements of latrinalia that did not include

93 any references to same-sex erotica/romance and/or homophobia. For this reason, the non-heterosexual latrinalia collected and used throughout this thesis would include only those that have references to same-sex erotica/romance and/or homophobia. In effect, the non-heterosexual latrinalia included in this thesis reflects only homosexual and/or homophobic identities. The position of latrinalia in general followed a specific pattern where responding entries followed the flow of their leading entries. As Nandrea (1999, pages 111-2) commented, graffiti/latrinalia entries “can begin and end anywhere”; as such, there were no fixed starting points for any initial entries to begin. The recognition of these initial entries would rely on analysing the content of each entry in relation to others. Figure 4.5 contains three separate latrinalia entries – one initial entry and two responses. Taking the content of each entry into account, the initial entry was then determined to be Entry 1 as it was a general advertisement (found in a male toilet) that sought oral sex from females, where the other two entries (Entry 2 and Entry 3) were short commentaries that responded to this advertisement. The order of the responses can also be determined by their content and flow of the conversation, such as showcased in Nwoye (1993, pages 424 and 430).

Figure 4.5: Follow the lead – the positioning of an initial entry and its subsequent responses, male toilets, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July 2004

Entry 3

Entry 2 Entry 1

Note: Entry 1 reads, “I want head now girls only” Note: Entry 2 reads, “wrong bathroom fruit!” Note: Entry 3 reads, “bad luck” Source: 35-105 mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

In cases where the indistinct content of the responses makes it difficult to determine their order (such as Entries 2 and 3 in Figure 4.5), a different process of determination is required. From my observations, responses in general followed the 94 flow of their preceding entries such that a response generally begins where its predecessor ends, and most likely from a ‘top to bottom, left to right’ manner. Following from this observation, it could be determined that, as shown in Figure 4.5, Entry 2 – because of its very position at the bottom end of its leading entry (Entry 1) and its direct though homophobic reply to Entry 1 – would more likely be the first response to Entry 1 instead of Entry 3 which was positioned to the right of Entry 1 and midway up. Entry 3, on the other hand, could be a sympathetic response to Entry 1 as well as a response in agreement with Entry 2. Thus, Entry 2 has a higher plausibility to be the first response to Entry 1 and was named as such, and Entry 3 was determined to be the third response in that forum of communication. The naming and analysing of the latrinalia for the rest of this thesis followed the same rationale. Most of the latrinalia collected comprised only short forums of conversations that rarely exceeded three ensuing responses. For discussion of the coding and analyses of collected latrinalia, see sections 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5. For results of these analyses, see Chapter 7.

4.2.3 Analysing latrinalia There are two main ways of studying graffiti, as Bruner and Kelso (1980) discovered. The first is a positivist way of understanding the production and uses of graffiti. Positivists were more likely to follow a structuralist school of thought and “devise a set of content categories, and then assign each individual graffito to a category” (Bruner and Kelso, 1980, page 240). This makes the analytical process straight-forward and easy to follow. The downside of the positivist analytical method was the ignorance of the structure and composition of the graffiti themselves, a limitation which could be offset through either the second way of studying graffiti – psychoanalysis – or the employment of visual methodologies. The psychoanalyst method of studying graffiti, according to Bruner and Kelso (1980, page 240), attempts to understand more than the literal and textual components of graffiti; discourse analysis is often applied to interpret graffiti “on a deeper level”. These deeper levels of interpretation, however, were often based on speculations (Bruner and Kelso, 1980, page 240). The intended purposes of the graffiti could, thus, potentially be misunderstood in the psychoanalytic interpretations. Nonetheless, Bruner and Kelso (1980, page 249) saw the act of graffiting as the externalisation of the graffitists’ inner concerns, sometimes initiating a string of conversation on a specified subject, and at times providing valuable responses to others’ concerns and needs. As graffiting on public toilets was mostly understood to be a same-sex communication, the initiations and responses, as Bruner and Kelso (1980) argued, were often used to reinforce the

95 heteronormative and heteropatriarchal ideals, such as through misogynistic and homophobic comments. This is particularly evident within the confines of male public toilets. Bruner and Kelso (1980, page 249) explained, while these conversations were unlikely to have any real effect in altering actual power relations between individuals and social groups, they nevertheless provided an avenue for the psychologic release of heteronormative and heteropatriarchal ideas by their writers as well as the audience’s reception of these ideas, revealing the discourses that operate in these spaces. In most instances, these public spaces were portrayed as either inherently heterosexual or asexual (see section 3.1 for a more detailed discussion on this topic). On the other hand, there were also those who used these spaces to attract same-sex sexual encounters (see, for example, Feraios, 1998, page 427). Thus, as previous research has shown, the spaces that attract graffiti were often contentious, or were made contentious by the presence of graffiti. In this manner, graffiti was then a fundamentally political activity. My chosen methods of analysing my latrinalia dataset partly followed a positivist approach complemented by my exploration of visual methodologies. These methods were content analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, and visual analytical methods. The content analysis used in analysing the latrinalia dataset follows a positivist understanding by categorising the terms used in each latrinalia using a pre- determined list (see Table 4.3). This coded set was in turn used in textual analyses to gauge and speculate the writer’s attitudes towards non-heterosexualities. For example, the term ‘fuck’ is often used. It, however, could be used both positively (such as to denote desire for intercourse) and negatively (such as a profanity). Narrative analysis takes advantage of the forum format of the latrinalia, the communication between initial entries and responses. These communications also were subject to discourse analyses, where wide discourses such as heteronormativity and heteropatriarchy are understood to have oppressed and marginalised many non-heterosexual activities. The counter-cultural activity of graffiting was also affected by other societal processes, such as abjection. Graphics were also prominent in many of the latrinalia collected. In order to effectively analyse these graphics in conjunction with the texts, visual analytical methods were adopted. These visual analytical methods, while until now rarely used in social scientific studies (Blunt, 2002), take into account the form, positioning, colour, size, as well as the discourse surrounding the subject (in this case latrinalia) and their spaces (public toilets). The combination of these different analytical methods gives my thesis a unique perspective on non-heterosexual identities, specifically as performed at

96 the 2005 SGLMG parade and in the form of latrinalia. These analytical methods, along with statistical analyses, are discussed in greater detail in section 4.5. Like visual methodologies, graffiti is an under-utilised data source within social scientific research. As Bruner and Kelso (1980), Carrington (1989), Nandrea (1999), and Palmer (1997) have shown, however, graffiti is not only a legitimate data source, it also holds several advantages over other materials. These advantages include accessibility, the offering of non-normative communication methods, as well as the conveying of political statements. The non-normative communication that graffiti creates was particularly advantageous for the purposes of my doctoral study. The privacy that public toilets offered, though only temporal, provides their users a veil of protection from external discriminations and prejudices, allowing latrinalia writers to communicate without the fear of exposure. This thus reinforces two of the aims of my doctoral study, first, to showcase graffiti as an effective data source, in particular for investigations of identity performances by social minorities, such as non-heterosexual communities, especially in contentious public spaces; and second, to study a variety of non-heterosexual identity performances in a number of different spaces (see section 4.1).

4.3 Field work and data collection Two methods of data collection were used to operationalise the objectives of my doctoral thesis. These were photography and participation observation. Each of these methods possessed unique strengths (and limitations) which made them the most suitable, and more importantly, the most effective for operationalising my theoretical objectives of studying non-heterosexual identity performances and the mediation of these performances. This section outlines these strengths and limitations of the methods used. It also explains how each of the three datasets were compiled. To reiterate, the three datasets consisted of two SGLMG parade datasets (one from the photographs and worksheets I collected, and one from photographs collected from an official photographer and the news media), and one latrinalia dataset from public parks and university libraries.

4.3.1 Visual materials as field data: collecting photography A major method used in the collecting of field data for my doctoral thesis was photography. This visual methodology was both a data collecting method as well as an analytical tool. Visual methodology is one of the least used methodologies in social science, including geography. Alison Blunt (2002, pages 365-6) explained how works in

97 human geography have tended to place too much emphasis on textual and verbal analyses, with many of the method textbooks even failing to acknowledge visual collection and analytical methodologies. This textualisation and verbalisation of the subject matter was also echoed in Thrift’s (2000, page 1) discussion on the cultural turn in geography, where “cultural work too often … turn[s] the world into the word”. In her critique of Iain Hay’s (2000) edited collection Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Blunt (2002, page 366) questioned Hay’s brief discussion on the use of visual images and landscapes as texts. She believed that this risked undermining the uniqueness, credibility and versatility of visual materials, such as digital photography as used for this thesis. The use of photography (and other visual materials such as posters or picture postcards) as field data is not uncommon in geographical studies. In cases where visual materials were used and critically analysed, however, they were often commercially and mass produced products and were rarely collected and produced by the researcher(s). Furthermore, these collected visual materials were often used to visualise and support theoretical arguments rather than being treated as field data (Emmison and Smith, 2000). In my thesis, the majority of the visual materials – in this case, photography – were collected by myself (the researcher). First, digital photographs were taken at the different field sites as aforementioned. The photographing of the field data was not a selective process. For example, at the 2005 SGLMG parade, multiple photographs were taken for each parade group using the ‘point and shoot’ technique, capturing the performances of these groups from different angles as they were approaching, passing through, and departing, all the while focusing on the performances and performers. As such, the consistency of this dataset was ensured. A similar approach was also employed for taking digital photographs for the latrinalia dataset. All cubicles of the public toilet facilities that were within the scope of this study were inspected, and all latrinalia that were deemed to have a non- heterosexual subject matter were photographed. Occupied cubicles were revisited at a later time of the same day to ensure all relevant field materials were captured. This was a comparatively more subjective exercise than that for the SGLMG parade dataset, but as this exercise was carried out predominantly by myself consistency in selection and perspective were maintained. In order to investigate the mediated perspectives of the performances of the 2005 SGMLG parade, photographs, both in digital and print forms, were also collected from external sources. External sources included Sydney’s two Sunday newspapers and the 2005 SGLMG parade’s official photographer. These images collected from the external sources served an important purpose in demonstrating one aspect of neo-

98 normativity, where members of particular communities (in this case, the non- heterosexual communities) were expected to conform to established (and accepted) stereotypes. Examinations of these images provided insight into the bias(es) and intentions (whether discriminatory or not) of the photographers and the reporters. Such biases could include the highlighting of cross-genderism and also publishing censorship as exemplified by the exclusion of nudity. First, digital photographs were downloaded from three different internet websites. These were the websites of the two Sunday newspapers that are published in the Sydney region – the Sun Herald (http://www.smh.com.au) and the Sunday Telegraph (http://www.news.com.au) – as well as the website of the official photographer of the 2005 SGLMG parade as appointed by the New Mardi Gras Inc, MazzImage (http://www.mazzimage.com)2. The websites of the Sunday newspapers were visited the morning after the 2005 SGLMG parade, on Sunday 6th March, while images by MazzImage were viewed and downloaded over several days in December 2005 soon after their release online. In all, 12 images of the 2005 SGLMG parade were downloaded from the Sun Herald website and 98 were downloaded from the MazzImage website; no images of the 2005 SGLMG parade was published on the Sunday Telegraph website. The 98 images downloaded from the MazzImage website were put through a selection process where only the images of the parade performances and/or the images of the spectators’ reactions during the parade were included for later analyses. As such, 15 images of parade officials in preparation prior to the parade or dissipating crowds post-parade were excluded from analyses, bringing the total number of digital photographs used in later analyses to 95 (83 from MazzImage and 12 from the Sun Herald website). Photographs of the 2005 SGLMG parade that were published in the Sunday newspapers were also collected for analysis. As mentioned above, there are two Sunday newspapers published in the Sydney region. The Sunday 6th March edition of each of these two Sunday newspapers were bought, with the reports and photographs on the 2005 SGLMG parade clipped and saved for analysis. Some of these images were also digitally scanned and produced in this thesis. In all, two images of the 2005 SGLMG parade were collected from the Sun Herald and seven images were collected

2 While the Sydney Star Observer, a free weekly newspaper that has a predominately non- heterosexual target audience, also reported on the SGLMG parade, the number images published with these reports were considerably fewer than compared to MazzImage. As such, for its more comprehensive coverage of the 2005 SGLMG parade, I chose to use the images published on the MazzImage website over those published in the Sydney Star Observer. 99 from the Sunday Telegraph, bringing the total number of images collected from external sources and used in later analyses to 104 (see Table 4.2).

Table 4.2: Images of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade from external sources No. % Sun Herald (Online) 12 11.5% Sun Herald (Print) 21.9% Sunday Telegraph (Print) 76.7% MazzImage (Online) 83 79.8% News (sub-total) 21 20.2% Official (sub-total) 83 79.8% Digital images 95 91.3% Print images 98.7% Total 104 100.0% Note: Due to copyright issues, images from the MazzImage website were downloaded for analytical purposes only. None of the images were reproduced in this thesis. The original web addresses were provided for direct references in cases where specific images were discussed in this thesis.

4.3.2 Studying what you see: collecting through participation observation Participation observation was employed as complementary data collection methodology for the case study of the 2005 SGLMG parade. Participation observation, by nature, is one of the most comprehensive data collecting methodologies that a researcher can use. As Katy Bennett (2002, page 139) explained, “this method embraces a range of fieldwork experiences with researchers adopting different roles and levels of participation depending upon the demands of the research context”. The active involvement and participation of the researchers may not always be welcomed and thus are heavily dependent on the reception of the population being studied. There is, however, also the danger of over-reliance on this method, as Bennett (2002, page 140) warned, “too much emphasis on observation might undermine a fuller understanding of the researched”. By implication, one must also be wary of an over- reliance on the researchers’ levels of participation, as over-emphases could lead to personalisation of the subject, which could potentially reduce the credibility of the findings. It was thus important to strike a balance between observation and participation. For the SGLMG parade dataset, emphasis was put on observation as I wanted to study the varied performances of the parade, as well as gauge the reactions, by both the spectators and the media, to these performances. My personal participation at the parade was limited to a road-side spectator, allowing me to view the parade

100 performances in close proximity as well as gain a first-hand observation of other spectators around me. It is important to clarify the role(s) the researchers played while collecting field data as each role can afford the researchers different perspectives and experiences. By participating as road-side spectators, we gained valuable experience in several ways that were beneficial to this study. First, by participating as road-side spectators, we (the two researchers at the 2005 parade – Ms Semple and I as stated in section 4.1.1) were in close proximity to the parade performances and to other spectators. This afforded us a close vantage point which allowed for an accurate gauge of the parade performances as well as the spectators’ reactions to each of the performances. Participation observation, thus, in this context, provided the researchers a sense of immediacy to the research subject as well as access to a relatively large sample size in a relatively small amount of time. This also allowed us to collect non-visual data such as music played, and interactions between parade participants and spectators, all of which are valuable field data. Observation in this case thus presents clear advantages over other research methods, such as large scale surveys and structured interviews. The role of road-side spectators, that we the researchers took, also served multiple purposes, namely to easily identify and classify the different identities being performed, as well as the other spectators’ reactions to these performances. These identification and classification processes included the recording of both visual and non-visual elements of the performances, such as costumes, float decorations, and music used, on a pre-coded worksheet (see section 4.4.1 below). This pre-coded worksheet also recorded other important information that was not strictly related to the performances themselves, such as the ethnic, gender and sexual identities represented, and associated organisations and sponsors, allowing a comprehensive accumulation of the themes and discourses of the performances. Participation observation, while on the one hand, provided the researchers a sense of immediacy to the researched, it, on the other hand, is a temporally constrained process. The data collected only represents a snapshot of the people and incidents present during the research periods, which in social scientific studies, were comparatively short. This could potentially restrict the representativeness of the data collected. In spite of this, given the temporality of the SGLMG parades – that it only runs for a few hours every year – the form of participation observation used allowed the collection of a substantial amount of field data in that finite period of time. My participation as a parade spectator provided opportunities to collect a wide variety of data, including as aforementioned, audience reactions and interactions, as well as

101 photographs for later analyses. Other methods such as questionnaire surveys or interviews could not have collected as wide-ranging and as much field data in such a limited time scale. In other words, the form of participation observation used in this research provided the most effective way of collecting the most amount of data on the temporally restricted research subject such as the SGLMG parade. Alternative levels of participation were considered, but each presented their own sets of disadvantages. For example, I could have participated as a parade official, as in the case of Thacker (2004), or as a parade performer. Participating in the parade as an official would have provided a closer inspection of the parading performers and floats. As Thacker’s (2004) recount of his experience as a parade official to the 2003 SGLMG parade showed, he was able to gain valuable insights into the behind-the-scene preparations and organisations of the parade, as well as getting to personally know some of the parade performers and finding out the reasoning and intentions of their respective performances. My participation as road-side spectator, however, had several advantages. First, many parade officials were generally assigned to specific parade groups and thus would be required to follow these groups as they made their way from start to finish. This would have limited my investigation of the variety of identity performances, as well as the spectators’ reactions to the different groups. Second, in order for all parading groups to be surveyed or interviewed, a very large research party would have been necessary, presenting logistical problems such as recruitment, training, and organisational clearances. Third, the taking on of parade official responsibilities would potentially create unnecessary distractions to conducting the research, and vice versa. These distractions included the dealing with disorderly behaviours, or the so-called “Very Difficult People” (Thacker, 2004, page 121). Similar logistical problems of recruitment, training and organisational clearances would also arise should we have taken on the roles of parade performers. The problem of unnecessary distractions to the research would also emerge. An increased level of participation in the SGLMG by the researchers would thus compromise the time available for the collecting of field data, which would undoubtedly have affected both the quantity and the quality of data collected. My participation as road-side spectator struck the right balance between observation and participation.

4.4 Generating usable data from collected field materials: coding worksheets and SPSS This section discusses the methodology used in quantifying the collected data into usable formats (coding worksheets). Through this exercise, the of certain

102 categories were undermined, while the potential of post-structuralist understandings of identities are also explored. Two worksheets were used for the classification of data in this doctoral thesis. These worksheets systematically recorded elements of the SGLMG parade performances (see Figure 4.6) as well as elements and characteristics of collected latrinalia (see Figure 4.7). These elements and characteristics were chosen to reflect non-heterosexual identities as performed through the SGLMG parade performances and latrinalia. The classifications (and by implication, categorisations) of these elements and characteristics, in particular the necessary creation of additional analytical codes later in the process, in turn undermined the common restrictive categorical understandings of human identities, particularly non-heterosexual identities as studied in this thesis. My coding process responded to the fluidity and flexibility of identities. The following section provides details on what the recorded elements and characteristics comprised, an account of the coding system, the processes of creating new analytical codes, and how these data were used in the analytical processes. Two worksheets were used for the classification process. Both worksheets recorded items and characteristics reflected in the images of the 2005 SGLMG parade and latrinalia. These items and characteristics were coded for use in statistical, content, narrative and discourse analyses, while others served as a basis for further generation of new analytical codes. For the SGLMG worksheet, the elements on the worksheets covered the broad categories of name and order of the parade groups, major theme(s), relative size of the parade groups, various elements of costumes, organisational and sponsorship affiliations, the display of gender, sexuality and ethnic diversity, crowd reactions and interactions, the type of music used (if any), the presence of media representatives, and the slogan(s) on display (see Figure 4.6). Categories that were coded for statistical and content analyses in SPSS included the major theme(s) of parade groups, elements of costume, organisational and sponsorship affiliations, display of gender, sexuality and ethnic diversity, and crowd reactions. Texts relating to the names of the groups, affiliated organisations and sponsors or the groups’ slogans were entered into SPSS as ‘string’ variables for cross-referencing. One worksheet was filled out for each parading group. These worksheets were filled out on site at the 2005 SGLMG parade as each of the parading groups marched down the designated parade route of Oxford and Flinders Streets in inner-city Sydney. Since the parading groups marched down the parade routes at varying paces, with those predominately made up of motor vehicles (such as the Dykes on Bikes) parading at much faster paces than those on foot (such as the large contingent of AIDS Council of Australia), the time available for worksheet completion varied for each group. As a result, the worksheets

103 for those groups that marched by at quicker paces were often filled out with less information than those that marched by at slower paces. To ensure that as much information was available for as many parading groups, each worksheet was cross- referenced with the images taken as well as a listing of all parading groups published in the 3rd March edition of a local GLBT weekly publication, the Sydney Star Observer. This listing provided additional information on each parade group such as their names, organisational affiliation, and sometimes even proposed uses of costume and music. Cross-referencing with this listing also allowed for the identification of any pre- registered parading groups that did not end up participating on the day, as well as the identification of any parading groups that had not pre-registered but instead just turned up and joined the parade impromptu. The worksheets, then, were not only a tool for categorising the various elements of the SGLMG parade that concerned my doctoral studies, but was also a tool for quality assurance in ensuring that only performances and groups that participated were included for analyses.

Figure 4.6: Coding worksheet for the SGLMG parade dataset

This doctoral study also looked into social discourses and relationships of non- heterosexual identity performances that were not, and could not, be understood simply by analysing individual codes categorised in the worksheet. In order to better understand these intricate relationships, some recorded categories from the worksheet

104 needed to be recoded and/or combined. An example of such would be my investigation into stereotypical identity performances, or as I have called it, neo-normativity. For the SGLMG parade dataset, I combined the presences of some elements of costumes with other non-costume based elements to form a new analytical code called ‘stereotype’. These elements reflected some of the most common non-heterosexual stereotypes in contemporary western societies, such as the “Template Man” (Kiley in Willett, 2000) as described in section 2.6. Five costume elements were included in the formation of the new code of ‘stereotype’ – the use of sequin and glitter (‘sequin’), leather (‘leather’), cross-genderism/transvestism (‘xgender’), elaborate costumes (‘elaborate’), and male nudity (including partial nudity, ‘m_nude’). Three non-costume based elements were also included in forming this new code – overtly sexual performances (‘o_sexual’), and the predominance of fit, trimmed (‘sized’) Caucasian bodies (‘white’) in the performing groups. The new analytical code of ‘stereotype’ (‘stereo’) was thus calculated using the following formula after all recorded codes were entered into a SPSS database:

stereo = (sequin = 1) or (leather = 1) or (xgender = 1) or (elaborate = 1) or (m_nude = 1) or (o_sexual = 1) or ((white = 1) and (sized = 0)) where ‘1’ signified the presence of an element, while ‘0’ signified an absence. This new analytical code thus combined material elements such as costume as well as immaterial elements such as ethnic homogeneity to highlight the frequency of the use of stereotypical non-heterosexual identity performances in SGLMG parades. This new code of stereotype would, however, only encompass some of the more common non-heterosexual stereotypes, in particular those concerning non- heterosexual males (such as the Template Man). Some of the other non-heterosexual stereotypes, especially those concerning other non-heterosexuals such as lesbians, bisexuals, transgendered and/or transsexual persons and so forth, had consequently been excluded. In other words, this new code of stereotype is not an exhaustive code that encompasses all non-heterosexual stereotypes. Its value, however, lies in its versatile means of measuring the depth and extent of neo-normative identity performances. Other non-heterosexual stereotypes could be measured by replacing some or all of the elements on the right hand side of the formula. For example, an investigation into the non-heterosexual stereotype of the ‘bull dyke’ would have a formula that resembled this:

Bull_dyke = (sexual = 2) and (sized = 2) and (xgender = 1)

105 where ‘sexual = 2’ signified a lesbian sexual identity, and ‘sized = 2’ signified persons with larger body sizes. The calculations of new analytical codes, while always inexhaustive, possesses the advantage of versatility, where the formula can be adopted and adjusted depending on which non-heterosexual stereotype is being analysed. This also demonstrates that even the use of categorical data such as these SPSS-quantified data need not necessarily be rigid or fixed to (re)generate only static categories. The introduction of additional codes was sometimes required. This could be due to the presence of unanticipated elements. Two additional codes were created for the SGLMG parade dataset, both of which were classified under the costume category. The first of these was ‘rainbow’. This new code recorded the presence and/or the use of rainbow flags as part of the SGLMG parade performances. Its original exclusion from the coding system was due to my underestimation of its political, and more importantly, its social significance. While the significance of the rainbow flag as a symbol of non- heterosexual solidarity is well-known, particularly amongst non-heterosexual communities, it had at times been criticised by academics and social commentators for being over-utilised, particularly in commercial and marketing campaigns, thereby reducing its political value (Chasin, 2000). The flag’s popularity at the 2005 SGLMG parade (rainbow flags were featured as part of the performances in more than one- quarter of all parading groups), however, prompts an investigation into its use as a political symbol. The inclusion of this additional element allowed me to contribute data to the on-going debate on the validity of the rainbow flag as a symbol of non- heterosexual solidarity. The introduction of this new code also provided valuable evidence on the alleged strong association between commercialisation (Chasin, 2000) and stereotypical homogenisation (neo-normativity). The second additional code that was introduced after the completion of fieldwork was ‘themed’. This new code recorded the presence and/or the use of themed costumes as part of the SGLMG parade performances. An example of this would be the group VIC Presence, whose large contingent at the 2005 SGLMG parade was all dressed in cowboy and Indian sequined outfits. The inclusion of this ‘themed’ code was to measure the extent of homogenisation – one characteristic of neo-normativity – at the 2005 parade. As can be seen, the inclusion of additional codes after the completion of fieldwork was used to highlight existing social discourses (such as neo-normativity) and to aid in the analysis of these social discourses, their relations to identity performances as well as differences in their spatialities.

106 The latrinalia worksheet (see Figure 4.7) consisted of two parts. The first part documented characteristics of the public toilets visited, such as the date of the fieldwork; the location, type, and gender of the toilets; their perceived patronage; ambience (lighting, cleanliness and maintenance); the presence or absence of latrinalia; and, the number of images taken. The latter part of this worksheet documented the characteristics of each latrinalia collected, including their form and colour; their attitude towards non-heterosexuality(s); presence of other discriminatory comments such as racial insults; inclusion and the degree of sexual references; and the order of the latrinalia postings. All textual elements of each latrinalia were also entered into SPSS as a ‘string’ variable while other, non-textual elements (such as graphics) were noted in a separate ‘string’ variable called ‘notes’. Like the worksheet used in the classification of field data collected from the SGLMG fieldwork, the classifications in the latrinalia worksheet were by no means exhaustive, and additional codes were included and generated after the completion of fieldwork. These original and additional classifications, however, serve as important avenues for the examining of the validity of latrinalia (and by implication, other types of graffiti) as a legitimate source of field data for cultural, geographical and social investigations, particularly when investigating hidden or repressed identity performances such as the non- heterosexual identities studied here.

Figure 4.7: Coding worksheet for the latrinalia dataset

107 Additional codes were also created to further analyse this dataset upon the completion of fieldwork. These additional codes recorded the use of specific terms (see Table 4.3) and their frequencies for use in content analysis. Only terms that appeared in the collected latrinalia were counted and included for analyses. These categorised terms could be separated into three main types – ‘general’, ‘physicality’, and ‘action’. ‘General’ terms signified the latrinalia as having a non-heterosexual subject matter, and included ‘fag’, ‘faggot’, and ‘gay’. ‘Physicality’ terms described either the latrinalia writer’s own physicality (whether real or imagined) or the physique that s/he desired. This included various descriptions of buttocks (‘ass’, ‘arse’ and ‘bum’), penis (‘cock’ and ‘dick’), and scrotum (‘balls’). No descriptive terms of female physicality was included due to the general lack of non-heterosexual latrinalia that described female physicality. ‘Action’ terms described sexual acts the latrinalia writer would either want to perform to/for others or be performed to her/him by others. For a list of all categorised terms, see Table 4.3 below. Many of these terms have multiple meanings under different contexts, such as the terms ‘fag’ and ‘faggot’ which could be taken as derogatory in some contexts, while in other contexts these terms, like ‘queer’, were disengaged from their derogatory origins and redeployed as a symbol of positivity and solidarity. The intended uses of these terms were analysed using discourse analysis, while frequencies and incidences were analysed using content analysis.

Table 4.3: Terms appearing in latrinalia categorised for content analyses Type Terms  Fag General  Gay  Faggot  Ass  Cock Physicality  Arse  Balls  Dick  Bum  Jerk  Cum  Fuck  Suck Action  Wank  Swallow

Just like the analytical code for stereotypical performances (‘stereo’) for the SGLMG dataset, some of the categorised elements in the latrinalia dataset were combined to form new analytical codes. Specifically, two new analytical codes were created. First, I created the analytical code ‘object’ to showcase the objectification of the human body. This objectification code (‘object’) focussed specifically on the objectification of males as little evidence of female non-heterosexual latrinalia were found. This code was created by combining the terms that described either the latrinalia writer’s own physicality (actual or imagined, for example, “suck my 7” cock”), 108 or the physique of the desired object (“seeking goodlooking young Asian with cute very small dick”):

object = (cock_dick = 1) or (ass_bum = 1) or (balls = 1) where each term signified the eroticised use of the term, and ‘1’ signified their presence. The second analytical code (‘sexual’) was created to showcase the sexualising of these objectified bodies, and was created by combining the terms that described the sexual (inter)actions which the latrinalia writer sought:

sexual = (cum = 1) or (suck = 1) or (fuck = 1) or (swallow = 1) or (jerk = 1) where again each term signified the eroticised use of the term, and ‘1’ signified their presence. These analytical codes, like those for the SGLMG parade dataset, were created to highlight the eroticisation of non-heterosexual identities as visualised in the latrinalia. They measure the objectification and the sexualisation of human identities, and aided in my understanding of neo-normativity and its processes at these spaces of non-heterosexual identity performances. In addition, they also further highlighted the possibility of the versatile uses of quantified categories as each of the elements on the right hand side of the formula, as in the case of the ‘stereo’ code for the SGLMG dataset, is interchangeable to reflect different types of objectification and sexualisation. In both the SGLMG as well as the latrinalia dataset there was a category called ‘order’. This category, for the SGLMG dataset, documented the order of the parading groups as they appeared within the 2005 parade. Unlike the SGLMG parade dataset, the category ‘order’ in the latrinalia dataset documented the sequence of the latrinalia within a conversation string. As many researchers have shown, the writing of latrinalia (or any other form of graffiti) usually was not dictated by rigid spatial stratification (Nandrea, 1999, pages 111-2). On public surfaces such as a wall there were no designated points specified for the starting or ending of graffiti. In other words, while the beginnings and ends of latrinalia could usually be clearly distinguished, in the context of a conversation string, however, there was no strict rule to dictate that the chain of responses should follow a top-to-bottom manner like in a play or a film script. The deciphering of this ‘order’ within a latrinalia conversation string thus became problematic. This issue was discussed in greater detail in section 4.2.2. The inclusion of an ‘order’ element allowed the analysing of an on-going conversation, just as one

109 would analyse the story as told in an interview. These strings of ordered latrinalia were analysed using narrative analysis. As this section has shown, a coding system was established for using data from of two separate worksheets, one for the SGLMG parade dataset and one for the latrinalia dataset. These classifications allowed for the quantification of field data collected at the 2005 SGLMG parade and the latrinalia fieldwork. The creation of additional analytical codes by combining existing categories highlights and undermines the presumed restrictive nature of categories and the categorisations of identities. These additional codes allowed for a more flexible and versatile analytical process. The quantified data along with the additional analytical codes were analysed through a variety of analytical methods, some of which – content, narrative and discourse analyses, visual methodologies – were introduced in this section. The next section discusses each of these methods in greater detail.

4.5 Wading through the data ‘jungle’ in search of meaning: analytical methodologies Five analytical methodologies were used to analyse the collected and quantified data. These five methodologies included statistical analysis, content analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, and visual analytical methodologies. Each of these methodologies was chosen to investigate different aspects of the datasets; each, in turn, provided indications which supported my theoretical arguments on neo- normativity in non-heterosexual identity performances and the abject relationship the non-heterosexual communities have with neo-normalised performances. Statistical analysis, for example, assessed the presence of any relationships between stereotypical performances and selected social discourses, such as commercialisation, in the context of the SGLMG parade. Content analysis, on the other hand, assessed the performances and representations of stereotypical performances in the SGLMG parade through visualised elements such as costume and music. Narrative analysis provided empirical indications on the politics that exist in spaces such as public toilets. These indications in turn established some contextual backgrounds that were used in discourse analysis and assisted in the understanding of these data in view of societal discourses and structures such as heteronormativity. This section concludes with a discussion on a lesser used analytical method – visual analytical methodologies – and showcased its variety, complexity, and potential as a flexible and effective analytical method.

110 4.5.1 Statistical analysis Basic statistical tests were used to analyse the performances of non- heterosexual identities. For the SGLMG parade dataset, this included the use of stereotypical performances in the parade in relation to the groups’ political ratings (for results, refer to Table 5.3); the effects of different types of sponsorship on the display of politics (see Table 5.7), in particular, the display of overt political statements (see Table 5.8); the effects of direct commercialisation on the display of politics (see Table 5.9), in particular, the display of overt political statements (see Table 5.10); the effects of different types of sponsorship on the inclusion of stereotypical performances (see Table 5.11), in particular sponsorship from commercial ventures (see Table 5.12) and GLBT organisations (see Table 5.13). Two types of statistical analyses were used, namely cross-tabulation and Pearson’s correlation. Both of these statistical operations were conducted using the software SPSS, where all data from the recorded worksheets were entered into two separate databases, one for each distinct dataset, therefore, SGLMG parade and latrinalia. Cross-tabulation was first used as a means to establish whether any relationship(s) existed between two categories of recorded elements. For example, a cross-tabulation was carried out between the inclusion of stereotypical performances – a category comprised of two elements (‘yes’ and ‘no’) – and the perceived rating of politics – a category comprised of five elements (‘1’, ‘2’, ‘3’, ‘4’, and ‘5’). This resulted in a ten-cell matrix which displayed the number of groups that included stereotypical performances by their respective political rating, as well as the number of groups that did not include stereotypical performances by their political ratings (see Table 5.3). In the case where a positive relationship existed between an element from the stereotypical performance category (for example, ‘yes’) and an element from the political rating category (for example, ‘4’), the percentage of the corresponding matrix cell would be comparatively high. In the example sited here, the resulting percentage was 88.9 percent compared to 11.1 percent if the stereotypical performance element was ‘no’. Cross-tabulation thus provided preliminary indications as to whether relationships existed between any two elements from within the cross- tabulation matrix. While cross-tabulation establishes whether preliminary relationships existed between elements, a correlation test indicates the strength of these relationships. The correlation tests used in this doctoral thesis were two-tailed Pearson’s correlation tests. The Pearson’s correlation test examined the strength of relationship between two specified elements. Two output indices result from any Pearson’s correlation test – the Pearson’s correlation coefficient P (Rho), and the confidence index. The Pearson’s

111 correlation coefficient P is a number that indicates the type as well as the strength of the relationship between the two specified elements. By type, I mean whether the relationship that exists between the two elements was positive (the presence of one is likely to guarantee or even increase the presence of the other), negative (the presence of one is like to deter the presence of the other), or neutral (no relationship exists between the two elements). A positive number would thus indicate a positive relationship, a negative number indicating a negative relationship, while neutral is indicated by the number zero. The strength of the relationship is also indicated by these numbers. The closer to the extreme, the stronger the relationship, so that the strongest positive relationship between two elements would be indicated by a positive one (‘1’), which implies that the presence of one guarantees the presence of the other, while the strongest negative relationship between two elements would be indicated by a negative one (‘-1’), which implies that the presence of one guarantees the absence of the other. The closer the P is to zero (‘0’), the weaker the relationship. For example, when testing whether a relationship existed between the elements ‘commercial sponsorship’ and ‘no overt political statements’ the resultant P was 0.265. This indicated that a positive relationship existed between the two elements. Given its relative proximity to zero, however, this positive relationship between ‘commercial sponsorship’ and ‘no overt political statements’ could be understood as relatively weak. The second index is the confidence index, which provides an indication as to the accuracy of the accompanying P. The confidence index is also a number, lying between zero (‘0’) and positive one (‘1’), which indicates the probability that the accompanying P could in fact be accurate. For example, for the abovementioned example, the resultant confidence index was 0.006. As this was a two-tailed Pearson’s correlation test, a confidence index of 0.006 would indicate that 0.6 percent of each end of the sample, therefore 1.2 percent of all cases, could be inaccurate. In other words, the user can confidently claim that, in 98.8 percent of the cases, the P of 0.265 would be accurate. Therefore, the closer the confidence index is to zero, the higher the confidence one can have in the accuracy of the accompanying P. These correlation tests thus provided indication on the likelihood of external influences (such as commercialisation) on the de-politicisation and neo-normalisation of the parade performances. For results of these tests, see Chapter 5.

4.5.2 Content analysis Content analysis was used to analyse the frequencies of elements used in the performances of 2005 SGLMG parade and non-heterosexual latrinalia found in some of

112 Sydney’s public parklands and university libraries. The regularity of use of these elements provided indications on the homogenising and neo-normalising influences current social and spatial settings have on the performances of non-heterosexual identities in these public and semi-public spaces. Content analysis was applied to the SGLMG parade dataset on the elements of performances such as costume and music to provide indication on the physical homogenisation/neo-normalisation of non- heterosexual identity performances, and vice versa. These costume and music elements were recorded on worksheets which were entered into SPSS prior to analysing their frequencies (for details on worksheets and coding system, see section 4.4). For example, the frequent use of dance music in the SGLMG parade performances could indicate a reference and highlighting of the dance party sub-culture of non-heterosexual identity performances. This reference in turn inferred the hedonistic and indulgent stereotypes of non-heterosexual identity performances, and particularly gay male identity performances, which were frequently portrayed in the media (see Chapter 2). For the latrinalia dataset, content analyses were used in analysing the frequencies of some common terms used in the latrinalia messages. These common terms, as listed in Table 4.3, were not recorded on the worksheets but were entered into SPSS after the first round of coding. The frequent use of the ‘action’ terms such as ‘suck’ inferred the eroticisation of non-heterosexual identities. These eroticised latrinalia thus resonated the neo-normativity of non-heterosexuals as promiscuous and hedonistic. Furthermore, these eroticised messages often also inferred these erotic encounters occur within the confines of the public toilets (an enclosed but still semi-public space) or in surrounding areas such as in parklands after dark (an open, public space), providing additional indications on the erotic practices of these latrinalia writers, for instance the spatiality of such practices. Content analysis, then, was used to assist in the investigating of the homogenisation and neo- normalisation of non-heterosexual identities in public spaces such as the SGLMG parade and semi-public spaces of public toilets. For results of these analyses, see Chapters 5 to 7.

4.5.3. Narrative analysis Narrative analysis was used to analyse the relationships between the performances at the 2005 SGLMG parade as well as between the latrinalia entries from the public parklands and university library field sites. A narrative is by definition a true or fictitious “story of events, experiences, or the like” (Delbridge et al, 1991, page 1183). A narrative can also be either literal (in the form of a written literature or a

113 spoken speech, for example) or figurative (such as a succession of floats in a parade). As such, a narrative analysis is the examination and evaluation of these stories, the inter-relatedness of these “events, experiences, or the like”. In the case of my thesis, these were the individual and group performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade and their spectatorial interactions, newspaper reportage and editorials on the parade and its performers, and the latrinalia entries and their responses found in the toilets of some of Sydney’s public parklands and university libraries. Narrative analysis slowly gained its popularity since the 1970s (Macey, 2000, pages 264-5). It is often used to provide alternative, experience-focused analytical perspectives compared to other analytical methodologies (Macey, 2000, page 265). Narrative analysis differs from discourse analysis (see discussion on discourse analysis below in section 4.5.4) in that it does not set out to examine the social discourses and structures behind the production, reproduction and maintenance of the investigated subject. Its focus remains on the relationships between and within the investigated subjects themselves. These relationships not only provide us with a sense of scale and continuity, such as the opening and closing performances at the 2005 SGLMG parade, they also provide empirical indications on the politics that sometimes exist, such as the counter- homophobic responses to some of the homophobic latrinalia (for details, see Chapter 7). These results provided contextual backgrounds for the discourse analysis, which is discussed in greater detail in the next section.

4.5.4 Discourse analysis Discourse analysis was used as part of the analytical methodologies for my doctoral thesis so as to facilitate a deeper understanding into the collected data and the underlying discourses which influenced or governed the production of the performances visualised in and through those data. This method became popular in cultural and geographical studies during the so-called ‘cultural turn’, particularly since the 1990s (Macey, 2000, pages 100-101). Unlike content analysis, which is only concerned with physical materials presented such as those detailed in section 4.5.2 above, discourse analysis, according to Waitt (2005, page 154), takes into account the “actions, perceptions, or attitudes” as well as the social discourses and structures (such as heteronormativity) behind these physical materials. Discourse analysis thus takes into account multiple perspectives at the one time. This sets clear advantage over other analytical methods, such as the content and statistical analyses described above, which analyse one element at a time. As such, discourse analysis was a suitable method for analysing data that incorporates multiple elements (such as visual and

114 audio) and perspectives (such as my own, as well as that of the media), and was used widely throughout the analytical processes of this doctoral study. The specific discourses that my thesis focussed on included most prominently heteronormativity, as well as heteropatriarchy, and the perceived influences these discourses have in the confining of sex and eroticism in ‘private’ spaces. Heteronormativity is the normalising of heterosexuality within the current, Western societies. It centralises heterosexuality as the truth and places non-heterosexuals in the peripheral, marginalised ‘other’. Furthermore, heteronormativity normalises heterosexuality as an inherent human characteristic that we (as humans) were all born with. As such, non-heterosexualities are seen as personal characteristics that one acquires later in life. Many researchers have demonstrated that the effects of heteronormativity are widespread. For example, Stuart Kirby and Iain Hay’s (1997) South Australian study revealed that some non-heterosexual males often, though temporarily, alter their private spaces (such as the home) to project a ‘heterosexual image’ on occasions where visitors arrived. This practice, as Kirby and Hay (1997) explained, contributed to the conception that all spaces were inherently heterosexual and that the presence of non-heterosexual persons only temporarily re-appropriates these spaces as non-heterosexual (For a more detailed discussion of heteronormativity, see section 2.1). The discourse of heteropatriarchy also works to a similar effect to heteronormativity in that it not only centralises heterosexuality as natural and inherent, but it also privileges the male sex through its patriarchal principles. This discourse was exemplified in Linda McDowell’s (1995, page 85) study into the performances of sexual identities in the workplace, where patriarchal privileges were afforded to those heterosexual male workers who acted in masculinised manners and female workers (regardless of sexuality) were constructed as inferior (For a more detailed discussion of heteropatriarchy, see section 2.2). The widespread influences of heteronormativity and heteropatriarchy have led to the belief that the display of one’s sexuality, particularly non-heterosexuality, should be confined to private spaces. William Leap (1999) and Theo van der Meer (1999) both provided examples on how sexual activities – in particular sexual activities between persons who were of the same sex – were often confined to private spaces, with widespread demonisations of sexual activities in public areas as dangerous. Discourse analysis thus, served as a major mechanism in which I was able to uncover the influences of heteronormativity, heteropatriarchy and neo-normativity in my data. For results of these analyses, see the following chapters (Chapters 5 to 7).

115 4.5.5 Visual analytical methodologies The use of visual materials as field data was already discussed in section 4.2.1. In most research, visual materials have been translated into text (or ‘textualised’) for analyses. As Emmison and Smith (2000, page 1) observed, this was because there is no general consensus on how the analysis of visual materials should be approached, or how visual materials should be utilised, even though we are confronted by “visual experiences” everyday. They (Emmison and Smith, 2000, pages 4-6) commented that visual materials, in particular photographs, were too often used as storage devices for the purposes of displaying everyday settings. Photographs, for example, are regularly used to visualise rather than being incorporated as part of the argument. This section explores the development and potentials of analysing visual materials ‘visually’, using what Gillian Rose (2001) called visual methodologies. These visual methodologies seek to interpret visual materials (such as photographs) not as amalgamations of textual elements but as visual imageries. The use of visual materials as field data has gained momentum since the cultural shift in human geography in the 1990s, but the development of suitable visual analytical methodologies had been lagging. Visual analytical methodologies differ from content analysis as they study the compositions as well as the contents of the collected images. Using visual analytical methodologies to study visual materials thus provided a deeper level of understanding of the images themselves and the contents, objects and subjects they (seek to) represent. Combined with discourse analysis, these analytical methods could be used to uncover the underlying messages that were conveyed – whether directly or indirectly – through the images. The visual materials collected for my thesis – predominantly digital photographs – were analysed using visual analytical methods as well as the traditional textualisation of imageries. The textualised contents of the images included those recorded on the two separate worksheets (see Figures 4.6 and 4.7) as well as the terms recorded from the latrinalia dataset (see Table 4.3). These textualised contents were analysed using content analysis (for details, see section 4.5.2 above). Compositional analysis was applied to images collected for both the SGLMG parade dataset and the latrinalia dataset. Compositional analysis involves the analysis of the composition of each image and the placements of objects within the image. For example, the focus is regularly placed in the foreground of an image (such as the cross-gendered performer in Figure 6.2) while less important or significant objects are placed in the background or appearing blurry and out of focus (such as the spectators and female performers in Figure 6.2). This analytical method was used widely in analysing images from the

116 external sources. For the SGLMG parade dataset, compositional analysis was used predominantly on the images collected from MazzImage and newspapers to assist in analyses of discourse(s) that influenced the productions of these images. For example, the image depicted in Figure 6.2 was collected from the website of the Sun Herald. It depicted a male-to-female cross-dresser who was surrounded by four spectators of East Asian backgrounds, two of whom were males and two were females. Using compositional analysis, it could be understood that it highlighted the eccentric performances of Gay Pride events, and in this case, the SGLMG parade by focussing on the male-to-female transvestism. This emphasis on the eccentricity of SGLMG performances was further highlighted by the whimsical v-sign gestured by the spectators. By placing the male-to-female transvestite in the centre of the image also centralised the practice of cross-genderism and transvestism at the 2005 SGLMG parade. This essentialised cross-genderism as a common or dominant non- heterosexual performance. This also failed to acknowledge the other non-heterosexual performances present at the 2005 SGLMG parade. For the latrinalia dataset, compositional analysis was used to analyse the relations between graphic and written entries of latrinalia. In latrinalia entries, graphics were sometimes included to give the written messages further emphasis. These entries were frequently sexual or erotic in nature, and the graphics commonly included the male phallus, reinforcing the construction of the sexualised or eroticised non-heterosexual. It was also used in the latrinalia dataset to assist in coding, particularly for determining the order of the entries and the placements within the toilets. For example, high proportions of the latrinalia were found behind cubicle doors, making them only visible when the cubicles were occupied and if the doors were closed. This practice emphasised the marginalised and non-normative status of non-heterosexualities and latrinalia-writing. It also alludes to the overriding influence of heteronormativity in these (semi-)public spaces. Through the use of these visual analytical methodologies, then, their versatility in interpreting and analysing visual materials is demonstrated. For results of these analyses, see the three succeeding results chapters.

4.6 Conclusion Throughout this chapter, a chronology on the collection, generation and analyses of field data from three distinct types of field sites were detailed. These included the collection (photography and participation observation), generation (coding worksheets and SPSS), and analytical methodologies (statistical analysis, content analysis, narrative analysis, discourse analysis, and visual analytical methodologies).

117 From these, understandings on the processes and discourses of non-heterosexual identity performances in public (the SGLMG parade) and semi-private (public toilets) spaces slowly emerged. The use of the methodologies also enabled the achievement of my aims. First, evidence that supports (and at times, refuted) my hypothesis of neo- normative non-heterosexual identity performances in these spaces were collected. Second, explorations into a relatively new analytical method (visual analytical methodologies) provided new ways of interpreting data beyond the conventional, normative way of academic studies. The results of these analyses are detailed in the succeeding chapters. Chapter 5 details the findings of my personal investigations into the performances of non-heterosexual identities in a public space, while the analyses of media representations (whether from the official photographer of the 2005 SGLMG parade or from printed or Internet new sources) of these performances is illustrated in Chapter 6. The use of the less common yet effectual data source (latrinalia) and the results of subsequent analyses are detailed in Chapter 7. Chapter 7 discusses my examination of non-heterosexual identity performances in presumably heteronormative spaces, exemplified by public toilets in some of Sydney’s public parklands and university libraries in this thesis. A discussion on the overall strengths and weaknesses of my theory of neo-normativity in terms of non-heterosexual identity performances is collated in Chapter 8.

118 Chapter 5: The neo-normalising of non-heterosexual identity performances at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras

The life which men praise and regard as successful is but one kind. Why should we exaggerate any one kind at the expense of the others? (Thoreau, 2005, page 19)

Labels are as bad as they are good, and if you took them seriously you’d be very silly. (Mercury, 2006, page 17)

The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) – both as a month-long festival and as a Gay Pride parade – received many criticisms for becoming stereotypical and commercialised. The financial collapse of its original organising committee in 2002 forced it to re-appraise itself and re-focus on its more political past. This chapter begins with a brief review of the academic debate on the merits of the SGLMG (and other similar Gay Pride events) and its long-term as well as present-day significance to Australian non-heterosexual communities. Particular attention has been paid to the relationship between commercialisation and the performances of non- heterosexual stereotypes (section 5.1). This relationship, as observed using data collected from the 2005 SGLMG parade, was examined using an array of methods, including qualitative (discourse analysis) and quantitative techniques (basic statistical analyses). Relationships between political activism and stereotypical performances were similarly scrutinised (sections 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4). Results of these analyses showed complex and uneasy relationships amongst the three factors. I have particularly focussed on an abjected relationship that existed between commercialisation and stereotypical performance (section 5.5). On the one hand, some writers (see, for examples, Nicoll, 2001 and Johnston, 2003) have commented that a certain level of commercialisation was required in order to sustain large-scale events like the SGLMG where important issues such as anti-discriminatory protests and education about HIV/AIDS are visualised. On the other hand, the condoning of stereotypical performances, whether as a means of attracting commercialisation or as contractual requests by sponsors, creates a spectacle of conformity. This chapter examines these issues in detail using data collected at the 2005 SGLMG parade as illustrations.

119 The SGLMG is an annual festival that celebrates non-heterosexualities, in particular, as its name suggests, the lifestyles and cultures of gay males and lesbian females in Australia. From its activist beginnings in the late 1970s, through its internal divergences during the 1980s, to its expansion into an internationally renowned festival, it has received both praise and criticism. Some academic explorations like Bridget Haire’s (2001), Tim Davis’ (1995) and Samantha Searle’s (1996) have commended the political and community developmental roles that some non- heterosexual festivals – including SGLMG – play. Tim Davis (1995, page 284), for example, explained that public demonstrations – such as gay pride parades like the SGLMG – were only one of many strategies that the non-heterosexual communities use to “establish safe spaces, increase gay/lesbian/bisexual political power, and change culture and institution through visibility and education”. Through demonstration in public (and often metropolitan) spaces, non-heterosexual communities can transform, albeit temporarily, perceivably heteronormative spaces into non- heterosexual spaces. These non-heterosexual acquisitions of presumably heteronormative spaces could be symbolically viewed as non-heterosexual political movements that “cut to the heart of heterosexism” (Davis, 1995, page 302). Similarly, Bridget Haire (2001, page 101) praised the Sydney parade as the event that “popularised and galvanised the [gay and lesbian] movement” of Sydney, by continually visualising the complexity and politics of the non-heterosexual communities in the city. Further, Samantha Searle’s (1996) investigation into “queer festivals” concluded that these festivals served important functions in the development and politics of non- heterosexual communities. These “queer festivals” offered non-heterosexual (and to a lesser extent heterosexual) participants the setting and space to socialise (Searle, 1996, page 48). In more recent years, many of these non-heterosexual public demonstrations had slowly evolved from parades that last for hours into larger, sometimes month-long festivals. These festivals often included more than just public demonstration but also the showcasing of the different non-heterosexual community lifestyles and values (Davis, 1986). These expansions, through the involvement of commercial television networks and print media, can provide an avenue for the visualisation and opportunities for commercialisation of non-heterosexual politics. A similar expansion phase, particularly from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, also took place at the SGLMG. Clive Faro and Garry Wotherspoon’s (2000, page 241) recount of the history of the SGLMG outlined how it transformed from its activist beginning in June 1978, through its shift to March in the early 1980s to capture a more celebratory atmosphere by taking advantage of the warmer weather. It was also during this move that internal disagreements surfaced, leading to boycotts by lesbians for a

120 number of years. Concerns over the professionalisation and commercialisation of the Mardi Gras parade also surfaced during the 1980s and carried well into the 1990s. Critics like Kym Seebohm (1992; 1993) were concerned that the “professionalisation, administration and commercialisation of Mardi Gras” (1993, page 216) could potentially lead to the compromising of “a ‘pure’ display of Gay Pride” in favour of commercial profitability. This criticism of profitability over politics was echoed by Peter McNeil (1993, page 223-4) who argued that on the one hand, the SGLMG, as a cultural phenomenon in the late 1980s and early 1990s, offered the opportunity for the non- heterosexual communities in Sydney and Australia to publicly celebrate diversity – and with the aid of costumes – challenge the heteronormativity of spaces; on the other hand, its shifting of focus to celebrations which were predominantly of a “hedonistic nature”, however, decreased and undermined its original political intentions. Some would even argue such a shift in focus had de-politicised the event. Rob Cover (2004, page 81) also raised his concerns by questioning the performances at such pride parades, claiming the costuming, performances and gender-play visualise homogenised group imageries and behaviours. These homogenised group imageries and behaviours were often projected onto and prescribed by other non-heterosexual identifying individuals, and in turn initiate new cycles of what I have called neo- normativity (see section 2.6 for a detailed discussion of this concept). Gay Pride parades across the world, therefore, have been both praised and criticised for the positive (inciting political and societal changes) as well as negative (stereotyping of homogenised images) visualisations of non-heterosexual communities. Other critics have argued that the most negative development of the SGLMG has been its commercialisation. Most of these critics were from an academic background. Edward Ingebretsen (1999) and Baden Offord (2001) believe that commercialisation had diminished the political militancy and activist role that the SGLMG once played. Others (Johnston, 2003) had even claimed that its reliance on the commercial viability of its subsidiaries was the beginning of its early 21st century financial ruin. Only a selected few (Marsh and Greenfield, 1993; Lewis and Ross, 1995; Nicoll, 2001) saw these commercialised developments as vital to the survival of the annual parade by providing much needed revenue. The ensuing section examines whether any linkages between commercialisation and neo-normativity existed at the 2005 SGLMG parade.

121 5.1 Commercialisation and stereotypical performances at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade The previous section outlined the bases of an argument that the commercialisation of many Gay Pride events have led to the homogenising of non- heterosexual performances. This section explores the extent to which the 2005 SGLMG parade has been commercialised. This includes a brief overview of academic and social criticisms on the commercialisation of the SGLMG parade and other Gay Pride events alike, an analysis of its eleven official sponsors, as well as the types of sponsorships each parade group was associated with. The section concludes with an examination of the assertion that commercialisation has led to homogenised performances, including an analysis of the relationship commercialisation has with stereotypical non-heterosexual performances. Commercialisation, whether through televisation or through commercial sponsorships, was seen to have both “direct and indirect economic benefits to many [inside as well as] outside the gay and lesbian scene” (Murphy and Watson, 1997, page 39). This point of ‘direct and indirect economic benefits’ was exemplified in Lewis and Ross’ (1995) investigation into the effects of commercialisation on the SGLMG parade’s expansion into a month long festival in the early 1990s. This expansion into a month long festival, which included an official dance party at the finish line of the parade, further solidified the ascendency of celebration over militancy from the mid 1980s onwards. Along with other unofficial dance parties, Lewis and Ross (1995, page 42) claimed that these dance parties reflected and signified the changing needs and social contexts of Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities over time. The early functions of these dance parties grew out of gay social political movements in the 1950s and 1960s (Wotherspoon, 1991). From the mid- and late-1980s onwards, gay dance parties became places for meeting potential partners, as well as serving as a psychological release in coping with the AIDS epidemic, the spread of which was only first becoming known at that time. The spotlight was firmly planted on gay male communities. Recognising the economic viability of the non-heterosexual market, many gay entrepreneurs established a range of gay institutions (including the gay dance party) to cater for the then relatively closeted gay populations at quasi-underground locations (Lewis and Ross, 1995, pages 42-3). The de-criminalisation of homosexuality in NSW in May 1984 (Carbery, 1995, page 69) also allowed many of the gay dance parties to, for the first time, move above ground and legally operate. Sydney’s first large scale, ‘above-ground’ gay dance party – the Sleaze Ball – was held at the Hordern Pavilion in 1984 as a fund-raising prelude to the then Sydney Gay Mardi Gras, and was soon followed by another one on New Year’s Eve of the same year (Lewis

122 and Ross, 1995, page 47). Carbery (1995) noted that in the subsequent years the organising committees of the Mardi Gras parade had used these dance parties, such as the Sleaze Ball and the parade’s after party, for raising revenue. These gay dance parties, which were once predominantly social events, had thus been transformed (mostly by members of the non-heterosexual communities but also by the organising committee of the SGLMG) into money-making machines1. In the long run, the focus of these gay dance parties were shifted from the creation and maintenance of safe social spaces for non-heterosexuals to ones that were more commercially oriented. These ‘above-ground’ gay dance parties also gained much publicity and popularity in a relatively short period of time. With increased popularity, attendees became more diverse. Lewis and Ross (1995, page 48) reported that some participants travelled from other parts of the city specifically for the parties, and later on, these also included heterosexual party goers. From Lewis and Ross’ (1995) investigation, then, amidst criticisms of professionalisation and commercialisation eating away the ‘pure’ displays of gay pride, the economic viability of the festival, and in particular the SGLMG’s after parties and related gay dance parties, were becoming vital in the survival of the parade and its associated festivities. With commercialisation, these festivals, particularly the SGLMG, also diversified, transforming to events that were no longer exclusively non- heterosexual. Fiona Nicoll (2001) picked up on the commercial viability, as well as the necessity of commercialisation, of the SGLMG. She (Nicoll, 20001, page 190) commented that the significance of the modern day SGLMG parade reached far beyond its political roots, as it generated “in excess of $15 million nationwide … [attracting] the support of both corporate and government sponsors”. The significance of its financial viability is also felt beyond the survival of the parade itself, as many local businesses benefit prior to, during, and sometimes even after the festivities. A study commissioned by the SGLMG Ltd (Marsh and Greenfield, 1993, page 1) confirmed that, in 1993, the SGLMG festivities injected $26 million into the South Sydney and Sydney Local Government Areas alone. A further $12 million of tourist expenditure, such as on accommodation and retail, was directly linked to SGLMG (Marsh and Greenfield, 1993, page 1), with the majority of these tourists (84%) indicating that they

1 The 2006 annual report of New Mardi Gras Inc (2006, page 26) reported that SGLMG- associated parties were responsible for generating A$2,141,740 of revenue, equivalent to 72.5% of total revenue. The profit generated by these parties were more than enough to cover all administrative costs of New Mardi Gras Inc and expenses related to the staging of the fair day and festival launch.

123 would not have visited Sydney in February 1993 if the SGLMG was not held (page 13). A more recent Economic and Social Impact Statement conducted by New Mardi Gras Inc (2006, page 11) indicated that in 2005 the SGLMG festivities was responsible for over $46 million of economic benefits to the NSW economy. On top of these economic benefits, according to Nicoll (2001, pages 203-211), the cultural significance of the SGLMG could also rival that of the ANZAC Day parade2. The subsidiary events of the SGLMG annual festival, like the ANZAC Day parades, each attract thousands of participants (New Mardi Gras Inc, 2006) as well as coverage in newspapers and television news bulletins. Marsh and Greenfield (1993, page 1) claimed that, taking only economic benefits into account, the SGLMG, at least in the early 1990s, provided “one of the biggest economic boosts by any festival, sporting event or special event to any local economy in Australia”, and that it was even more cost-effective (in terms of official expenditure versus economic gain) than other international special events such as the Adelaide Festival of the Arts 1992, Melbourne International Festival of the 1992, Adelaide Grand Prix 1988, and the Phillip Island Motorcycle Grand Prix 1989. The impacts the SGLMG have on not just the Sydney and Australian economies but also national cultures were far and wide-reaching. Craig Johnston (2003) conversely argued that the SGLMG’s reliance on the commercial viability of its subsidiaries, such as the various dance parties, was the beginning of its demise towards financial ruin. While as Lewis and Ross (1995) had argued that the survival of the SGLMG festivities was dependent on the financial successes of its “cash-cows, its two annual mega-dance parties”, the Sleaze Ball and the SGLMG parade after party which attracted “over 15,000 people each” (Johnston, 2003, page 13), their reliability in financing the Mardi Gras festivities slowly diminished towards the end of the 1990s. Johnston (2003, page 13) claimed that towards the end

2 ANZAC Day is Australia and New Zealand’s principal day of World War One remembrance. It marks the anniversary of the first major military action fought by the ANZACs (the Australian and New Zealand Army Corps) in World War One in Gallipoli, Turkey where both the Allied Forces and Turkish resistance both suffered great casualties. It is celebrated in Australia, New Zealand and island nations like Cooks Islands, Niue, Samoa and Tonga annually on 25th April. The ANZAC Day parade in Australian is one of several ceremonies that commemorate the anniversary, with veterans, current soldiers and many of their family and descendents marching down major streets in cities and regional towns (Australian War Memorial, 2008). In Sydney, the parade begins at the Sydney Cenotaph in Martin Place (the city’s financial centre point), through George Street (a major street) and finishes at the ANZAC War Memorial in Hyde Park. Hyde Park is also the starting point of the annual SGLMG parade.

124 of the 1990s, with increased societal tolerance and sometimes celebration of the non- heterosexual communities and cultures, many “chicer, boutique ‘recovery’ and alternative parties like Frisky” provided competition to the attendance of the ‘official’ dance parties like the Sleaze Ball. Furthermore, with the initial Mardi Gras participants and dance party goers – the so-called 78ers as reminiscent of the 1978 beginnings of the Sydney Mardi Gras – aging and slowly retracting from the ‘scene’, the popularity, and thus the commercial viability, of these Mardi Gras-sanctioned dance parties declined further. It was reported that the 2005 Sleaze Ball only had 6,500 partygoers, 2,500 less than the previous year although the 2005 after party still attracted a near- capacity crowd of 16,000 (New Mardi Gras Inc, 2006, pages 14 and 19). Sydney’s hosting of the Gay Games in late 2002 provided tourists (from both within and outside Australia) an alternative attraction in visiting the city while at the same time competed in securing commercial sponsors. This led to a significant decline in the external financing as well as participation of the 2002 SGLMG parade, bringing an end to the then organising committee, the SGLMG Inc. Failed attempts at commercialising the SGLMG forced the new organising committee – New Mardi Gras Inc – into not only reducing the scope of the month-long festival, but more importantly, to refocus on community-based decision making, and facilitating of community events (Johnston, 2003, page 19). The onset of the War on Terror also helped in returning Mardi Gras to its political roots (Johnston, 2003, page 21), as evident in the placards on display throughout the parades from 2003 onwards. The War On Terror, however, also deterred many overseas participants and tourists from attending the SGLMG festivities, inadvertently turning the SGLMG back into a more Australian-focussed event. In the new millennium, it appeared that the commercialisation of Mardi Gras had slowly declined while the prominence of wider political issues had gradually increased (Dow, 2008, page 66). The financial dominance of the SGLMG-associated parties at least was slowly waning. These parties were responsible for 80.4% of total revenue in 2005 (New Mardi Gras Inc, 2006, page 26) and by 2007, they were only contributing 67.0% of total revenue (New Mardi Gras Inc, 2007a, page 22). Despite its changing political roles over time, the SGLMG was still criticised by some as failing to reduce discriminations against and the stereotyping of non- heterosexuals in general. Edward Ingebretsen (1999), for example, commented that the commercialisation of non-heterosexualities in general, and in particular Gay Pride parades, had not been able to diminish homophobia and other forms of sexual discriminations. Statistics from the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board (2001; 2002; 2003; 2004; 2005), for example, reported little change in the number of complaints they received on the grounds of ‘homosexual discrimination’, ‘transgender discrimination’,

125 ‘homosexual vilification’, and ‘transgender vilification’. Recent examples of the commercialisation of Gay Pride – “like condos, mattresses, or automobiles” – often carried little or no symbolic connection with the rhetorics of non-heterosexual oppression or the celebration of freedom (Ingebretsen, 1999, page 127). Further, Ingebretsen (1999, page 127) believed the commercialisation of Gay Pride parades objectified gay bodies, and through this, homogenised and neo-normalised non- heterosexual identities into the stereotypical Anglo, “urban, upwardly mobile, gay-male consumerist mentality”. While non-heterosexual visibility through Gay Pride might also come to serve the purpose of educating the wider society, Ingebretsen (1999, pages 131-4) conceded, the commercial aspects of non-heterosexual visibility, however, weakened or diminished, instead of strengthened non-heterosexual political power. This was particularly the case when energy and resources are diverted into revenue generation rather than organising political movements. Commercialisation has thus, according to Ingebretsen (1999), turned Gay Pride into apolitical celebrations. In the Australian context, Baden Offord (2001) questioned the strategies employed by Australian non-heterosexual demonstrations such as the SGLMG in arguing for equality. In particular, Offord quoted Keck and Sikkink (1998, page x) in claiming that the commercialisation of the SGLMG had led to its failure to:

argue for change, strategise approaches to change, document action and relevant information, lobby political parties, pressure individuals and communities, and complain through, for example, theatrical events, cultural forms, or through analysis and critique (Offord, 2001, page 156).

This failure to ‘argue for change’ is further exemplified by the stereotypical and neo- normalised images and performances that are repeated at each year’s parades. In other words, a parade cannot effectively argue for change if the performances of the parade are not seen as perceptible to change. Furthermore, these stereotypical and neo-normalised images and performances often involve high levels of eccentricity which, as I would argue in a later section, were enhanced by and methodically promoted through commercialisation. While Stephen Hodge (1996, page 79) reported that, because of the parade’s temporality, the non-heterosexual communities could “get away with so much more” during this time and thus tend to make the performances more extreme, Offord (2001, page 156) argued that this ‘licence for eccentricity’ mentality has made the SGLMG unable to successfully serve as a permanent forum for providing accessible (and appropriate) information to both activists and the public in promoting change. Ingebretsen (1999) presented similar arguments in his study which

126 focused on American examples. From Ingebretsen’s (1999) and Offord’s (2001) research then, it could be argued that the diminishing of the non-heterosexual communities’ influence in achieving political and societal change through Gay Pride demonstrations, such as the SGLMG parade, was often associated with processes of commercialisation. The SGLMG could, thus, at times be viewed, with the advent of commercialisation, as a vehicle for promoting the practices of neo-normativity on Australian non-heterosexual identity performances despite its attempts to regain its militancy origins in recent years. The cost of running large-scale public events like the SGLMG parade had increased exponentially since the first few years of the 21st century. These costs included security, venue hire, and the ever-increasing public liability insurance. Commercial activities such as the SGLMG Market Day or the aforementioned Sleaze Ball are thus becoming more and more vital in raising revenues. Revenues were also sometimes raised through direct sponsorship from commercial, and to a lesser extent non-commercial, ventures. With New Mardi Gras Inc reporting the decreasing dominance of SGLMG-associated parties in generating revenues (2007a; 2006), revenues from direct sponsorships became every more important. For the 2005 parade there were eleven official sponsors, contributing A$263,254 (9.1%) of the income of New Mardi Gras Inc (2006, page 34)3. These official sponsors included commercial ventures (for example, JetStar), established GLBT businesses (for example, Sydney Star Observer), as well as a local council (City of Sydney). The full list of official sponsors is shown in alphabetical order in Table 5.1. Many of these official sponsors have played no – or are yet to play any – significant role in the political changes that Australian pride events such as the SGLMG parade are intended to achieve. Only three of the eleven (27.3%) official sponsors had any direct link to the non-heterosexual communities of Sydney, namely DNA (a national monthly magazine aimed predominantly at gay males), GAL (a financial group established by non-heterosexuals which also markets predominantly to a non-heterosexual clientele), and the Sydney Star Observer (a free weekly community newspaper for non-heterosexuals). The City of Sydney, on the other hand, is currently headed by Lord Mayor Clover Moore, who has been a long-term supporter of gay rights and the SGLMG. The lead banner of her parade group at the 2005 SGLMG parade, for example, indicated that she has participated in the SGLMG parade since 1986, equating to a 20-year involvement at

3 Between 2005 and 2007, income from direct sponsorship more than doubled from A$263,254 to A$575,812 (New Mardi Gras Inc, 2007a, page 30; 2006, page 34). Their contribution to the income of New Mardi Gras Inc also increased from 9.1% to 16.0%.

127 the time of the 2005 parade. These four official sponsors showcased very diverse aspects of Sydney’s non-heterosexual lifestyles, from consumption of popular culture (DNA), communality and sociability (Sydney Star Observer), to political support (City of Sydney). In spite of this, the other seven official sponsors seemingly had no direct link to Australian non-heterosexual politics.

Table 5.1: Commercial sponsors of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade Sponsor entity Entity background ColorMaker A specialist paint manufacturer from Brookvale, NSW. Local Government Area of Sydney; expanded to include the former Local Government Area of South Sydney in late 2004. City of Sydney Current Lord Mayor Councillor Clover Moore has been long- term supporter of gay rights and the SGLMG. Am Australian national monthly magazine. Its website boasts it DNA to be “Australia’s Best Selling Gay Magazine for Men” An international agency specialising in advertising, marketing, Euro RSCG recruitment, sales promotion, and health care Worldwide communications. An Australian financial group that also specialises in IT GAL solutions; established by and predominantly marketed towards a non-heterosexual clientele. Budget subsidiary of the Australian commercial airline, JetStar QANTAS Kim Crawford Wines A New Zealand winery A Carlton & United Beverages low-carb beer aimed primarily Pure Blonde at the health, or more specifically body, conscious market. Established in 1979; a reputable (and free) weekly community Sydney Star newspaper catering predominantly towards a non- Observer heterosexual market. An American-established plastic storage container specialist Tupperware famous for their direct selling tactics. Australian Pay-TV channel specialising in “television’s TV1 greatest hits” series.

Source: Sydney Star Observer (2005) Mardi Gras Parade Supplement 2005, Issue 754, 3rd March 2005, page 1; http://www.colormaker.com.au, accessed 22nd January, 2006; http://www.dnamagazine.com.au, accessed 22nd January, 2006; http://www.eurorscg.com.au, accessed 22nd January, 2006; http://www.kimcrawfordwines.co.nz, accessed 22nd January, 2006; http://www.smh.com.au/news/Good-Living/Fizzy- blonde/2004/11/22/1100972317318.html, accessed 22nd January, 2006; http://www.tupperware.com.au, accessed 22nd January, 2006; http://www.tv1.com.au., accessed 22nd January, 2006.

128 Direct links to Australian non-heterosexual communities and politics could not be drawn to the remaining seven official sponsors. Their associations to the 2005 SGLMG parade instead may be understood as suggesting well-known non- heterosexual stereotypes. The specialist paint manufacturer ColorMaker, for example, may be taken as inferring a non-heterosexual – particularly male non-heterosexual – panache for fine interior decorations. This is not only in resonance to what Lauria and Knopp (1985) had termed ‘urban renaissance’ but it is also further epitomised in contemporary popular culture in television shows such as Queer eye for the straight guy. In Queer eye for the straight guy (or Queer eye for short) five openly gay men attempt to improve the well-being of a heterosexual man by focussing on his (usually) stylistically challenged fashion sense, nutrition, residence and so forth. This focus on the contrast of the stylistic fortes between male heterosexuals (portrayed as lacking in style) and male non-heterosexuals (portrayed as abundant in style), whether intentional or not, polarises the two male sexualities. It portrays male non-heterosexuals as flamboyant, a characteristic which often carries a feminine/feminised connotation. The popularity of Queer eye is further proof how deeply entrenched this non-heterosexual stereotype is. ColorMaker’s official sponsorship to the 2005 SGLMG parade contributes further to this effeminise stereotype. Whether ColorMaker had the same stereotyping intentions or effects as Queer eye is, however, debatable as, apart from being listed as part of a full page advertisement in the Sydney Star Observer with the other official sponsors, signage of its actual involvement were not prominent at the parade itself. (I only sighted it on two banners, approximately three metres by six metres, or 10 feet by 20 feet, each part of the official leading and ending parade groups. These banners also included logos of all other official sponsors.) The fact that it is not as well known a brand of paint as Dulux or British Paint, its apparent effect of neo-normalisation may yet be relatively limited. Taking the official sponsorship of Tupperware, an American- established plastic storage container specialist that has a predominantly housewife target market, also into account, these products project an image of domesticity which connotes an image of femininity. The associations of these commercial ventures as official sponsors thus convey and maintain an effeminised gay male stereotype. The involvement of alcohol producers as an official sponsor, on the other hand, serves as evidence to some different non-heterosexual stereotypes. These official sponsors included Kim Crawford Wines and the Carlton and United’s Pure Blonde beer. The associations these alcoholic products had with the 2005 SGLMG parade highlighted and accentuated the hedonistic non-heterosexual stereotype. This particularly resonates with the alcoholic and illicit drug misuses by many non- heterosexuals as discussed in Bickelhaupt (1995), Kominars (1995) and Kus (1990),

129 research on the functions of the gay bar as not just a social space but also a space for maintaining acceptable non-heterosexual identities (Hooker, 1969). This function of the gay bar of identity maintenance was particularly true for gay males as the long term viability of lesbian bars were often comparatively less financially successful (Valentine, 1995) or spatially permanent (Winchester and White, 1988). The official sponsorships from these alcoholic products, especially the Pure Blonde beer, also tapped into the body-conscious stereotype of many non-heterosexual males such as highlighted by Thacker (2004, pages 117-8). The Pure Blonde beer markets itself as a pale lager that has not only a lower alcoholic content (4.6%, compared to the normal 6%) and a lighter palette than other lagers already in the market, it also claims to have 70% less carbohydrates than a regular beer (Forster’s Group Limited, 2006). The highlighting of the body-consciousness of the beer portrays its consumers as superficial. Both the hedonistic and superficial stereotypes thus portray non-heterosexuals in quite negative manners by highlighting the importance of a spectacle of conformity, disregarding any diversity that actually exists within non-heterosexual communities.

Figure 5.1: Cross-dressers and transvestites dominate the TV1-sponsored parade group ‘Tranny Nannies’, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

130 The associations between the 2005 SGLMG parade and the other official sponsors were less obvious. Euro RSCG Worldwide, for example, is an international agency that specialises in advertising, marketing, recruitment, sales promotion and health care communications. Its participation (apart from the financial support), like those of ColorMaker, Pure Blonde beer and Kim Crawford Wines as aforementioned, was limited to their logos being included on the full page Sydney Star Observer advertisement and opening and ending banners. Only three official sponsors were actual float participants of the 2005 parade itself – City of Sydney (via its Lord Mayor Clover Moore), the Australian budget airline Jetstar, and the Pay-TV channel TV1. Jetstar’s appearance in the 2005 parade was simply a banner with its logo followed by a group of participants dressed up in a bright orange and white uniform, as in its popular television and print advertisements of the time with Australian comedienne Magda Szubanski. The TV1-sponsored parade group, the Tranny Nannies, on the other hand, was a large contingent of cross-dressing males and transvestites wearing colourful, sequined blouses, big black wigs, and tight black mini-skirts in reference to the 1990s American sitcom The Nanny (see Figure 5.1). This is understood as homage to Fran Drescher, the actress who created and played the title character of The Nanny and a long-term supporter of gay rights. Aside from the sustained political support from the reigning Sydney City Lord Mayor Clover Moore and as homage to the gay-friendly Fran Drescher, associations between these official sponsors and Australian non- heterosexual communities and politics were not obvious. Their sponsorships might well be mainly commercially driven and follow Chasin’s (2000) discussion on the lucrativeness of the ‘pink’ market by appearing to be in support of such ‘non- heterosexual activities’. Nonetheless, the involvement of these eleven official sponsors portrayed very different aspects of Australian non-heterosexual lifestyles (though some of which are rather stereotypical portrayals of non-heterosexualities such as the transvestite and the flamboyant gay male). To some extent, they also represented the varying role these lifestyles had in Australian non-heterosexual history. From the fact that only three of the eleven sponsors have played long term roles in Australian non- heterosexual political struggles, it appeared that commercialisation, at least as far as official sponsorships were concerned, took a more prominent spot over non- heterosexual politics at the 2005 SGLMG parade. A more quantitative approach was taken when examining the relationships between parade groups and their types of sponsors. First, Table 5.2 shows the results of a cross-tabulation analysis performed on the type of sponsorship received and the inclusion of stereotypical performances by the 107 groups that participated in the 2005 SGLMG parade. This analysis was carried out to establish whether any relationship(s)

131 Table 5.2: Relationships between financial sponsorship and neo-normativity, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 Inclusion of stereotypical performances Total Sponsorship received Yes % * No % * No % Commercial 16 84.2% 3 15.8% 19 17.8% GLBT Organisations 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 5 4.7% Statutory/Governmental 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 2 1.9% Other 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 3 2.8% Sponsored (sub-total) 24 82.8% 5 17.2% 29 27.1% Not sponsored 63 80.8% 15 19.2% 78 72.9% Total 87 81.3% 20 18.7% 107 100.0% Note: * denotes percentage as proportion of sponsorship group total existed between commercial sponsorship and stereotypical performances. Four types of sponsorships were categorised – commercial, GLBT organisations, statutory/governmental, and other. Out of the 107 parade groups, 29 received some form of sponsorship, comprising one-quarter (27.1%) of all parade groups. The majority of these 29 sponsored groups received commercial sponsorships (19, or 17.8% of all parade groups). This resonates my prior speculation that commercialisation has become a focus at the 2005 SGLMG parade. At the same time, 87 (81.3%) of all parade groups included non-heterosexual stereotypes as part of their performances. Out of the sponsored grounds, 24 (82.8% of 29 groups) included stereotypical performances. This proportion was only marginally higher than non-sponsored groups (80.8% of 78 groups). The inclusion of stereotypical performances, however, differed greatly between groups depending on the source of their sponsorship. For example, the number of commercially-sponsored groups that included stereotypical performances (16 out of 19, or 84.2%) far out-numbered commercially-sponsored groups that did not include stereotypical performances (three out of 19, or 15.8%). This suggests that commercial affiliation have likely played a part in whether stereotypical performances would be included in the parade performances. In order to verify this observation, a Pearson’s correlation test was performed between commercial sponsorship and stereotypical performances (see Table 5.3). The positive Pearson’s correlation coefficient of 0.035 suggested that a positive relationship existed between commercial sponsorship and performance of non-heterosexual stereotypes, meaning that commercial sponsorship is likely to have increased the inclusion of stereotypical performances. The smallness of the correlation coefficient, however, indicated that the relationship, though positive, was not strong. The weakness of this relationship was also emphasised by the low confidence level (0.724, equivalent to less than 30% confidence), where commercial sponsorship guarantees the inclusion of stereotypical

132 performances in less than one in three occasions. The link between commercialisation and neo-normativity, in this case then, was not overwhelmingly clear.

Table 5.3: Pearson’s correlation tests between commercial sponsorship and parade group performances Stereotypical performances Pearson's correlation 0.035 Commercial sponsorship Sig. (2-tailed) 0.724 N 107

The number of parade groups sponsored by other external sources (‘GLBT organisations’, ‘Statutory/governmental’, and ‘Other’) was by comparison small and too much should not be made on the relationships between each sponsorship type and stereotypical performances at the 2005 SGLMG parade. It should be noted that, however, all five of the parade groups sponsored by established GLBT organisations (such as the Ankali Project4) included non-heterosexual stereotypes as part of their performances (see Table 5.2). This proportion was the highest amongst all of the different sponsorship types, whereas only one of the two (50.0%) groups sponsored by statutory/governmental sources and only two of the three (66.7%) groups sponsored by ‘other’ sources (such as political party The Greens) included stereotypical performances. This suggests that stereotypical performances are intricately linked with sponsorship from established GLBT organisations. A Pearson’s correlation test performed between stereotypical performances and sponsorship from GLBT organisations showed that a strong, positive relationship exists between the two factors (see Table 5.4). The strength of this positive relationship was stronger than compared to the one between stereotypical sponsorship and commercial sponsorship. The small sample available for this second Pearson’s correlation test, however, resulted in a low significance index of 0.276. This means that the strong, positive relationship that exists between the two factors is statistically unreliable in three-quarters of all occasions.

4 The Ankali Project is a support group for people living with HIV/AIDS, their partners, family members and friends. It was established in 1985 to train volunteers for one-to-one emotion support and counselling. It is a part of the Albion Street Centre which specialises in counselling services for sufferers of HIV/AIDS and Hepatitis C and their families and friends. The Albion Centre is located in Surry Hills in inner-city Sydney, in close proximity to the city’s Oxford Street ‘gay precinct’ (SESAHS, 2007a; 2007b).

133 Table 5.4: Evidence on the positive relationship between GLBT organisational sponsorship and neo-normativity Stereotypical performances Pearson's correlation 0.106 Sponsorship from GLBT Sig. (2-tailed) 0.276 organisations N 107

Analytical results presented in this section showed that commercialisation was highly prominent at the 2005 SGLMG parade. There were eleven official sponsors, ranging from commercial ventures (ColorMaker, Euro RSCG Worldwide, JetStar, Kim Crawford Wines, Pure Blonde beer, Tupperware, and TV1), a statutory representative (City of Sydney), and established GLBT organisations (DNA, GAL, and Sydney Star Observer). Commercial ventures comprised seven of the eleven official sponsors, the majority of which did not play any role in the non-heterosexual histories of Sydney or Australia. On this basis, there is some support for the argument that, as some (Chasin, 2000; Johnston, 2003) had critiqued, commercialisation has taken a more prominent role over ‘traditional’ non-heterosexual politics at the 2005 SGLMG parade. This observation was further emphasised by the strong representation of commercial ventures as sponsors of individual parade groups, comprising two-thirds of all sponsored groups. Through a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, there is evidence to suggest that there exists a relationship between commercial sponsorship and the inclusion of stereotypical non-heterosexual performances. More importantly, a relationship also existed between sponsorship from GLBT organisations and stereotypical performances, and that this relationship was stronger and more significant than that between commercial sponsorship and stereotypical performances. It is, however, unclear whether the groups sponsored by GLBT organisations intentionally included the stereotypical performances in order to attract GLBT sponsorship, if the GLBT sponsors included the stereotypical performances in order for these groups to appear, superficially, as ‘genuine’ non-heterosexuals, or it was simply an unintended coincidence. The same argument could also apply to the commercially sponsored groups. All of these point towards my concept of neo-normativity, where non-heterosexuals conform (or are made to conform) to established stereotypes so regarded as ‘genuine’, or the quintessential non-heterosexual. Such a neo-normative concept resonates with Davis and Kennedy’s (1986) work, where lesbians who did not conform to established stereotypes were met with hostility and alienated by the rest of the community. While no evidence of alienation due to non-conformity was apparent at the 2005 SGLMG parade, I do believe, however, that on some occasions some parade

134 groups included stereotypical performances, one, in order to appear more unified, and two, at times to compete for external financial assistance. These neo-normative processes thus appear to hold both positive and negative influences on the development of non-heterosexual identities and GLBT/Queer politics in Sydney. On the positive side, they create an image of unity and unification amongst the many different non-heterosexual communities and identity sub-groups. How deep this image (or façade) of unification goes beyond the superficial is, however, untested in this thesis. On the negative side, neo-normativity restricts the development of non-heterosexual identity performances by maintaining the visualisation of a very limited number of identities/identity performances. As a result (inaccurate) stereotypes are perpetuated. Cover (2005) also pointed out similar pitfalls of such (whether intentional or not) conformity to a unified or coherent group identity in order to gain community belonging. Seebohm (1993, pages 216) commented that commercialisation of the SGLMG comes at a high expense of non-heterosexual politics, or what he called “a ‘pure’ display of Gay Pride”. The next section examines how commercialisation and (inaccurate) portrayal of non-heterosexualities affects Australian non-heterosexual politics.

5.2 The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, commercialisation and politics The previous section (section 5.1) provided some indication that positive relationships existed between commercialisation and stereotypical non-heterosexual performances. Furthermore, this preference for commercial success has likely taken precedence over non-heterosexual politics at the 2005 SGLMG parade. Many like Chasin (2000), Johnston (2003), Lewis and Ross (1995) and Seebohm (1993) had argued that the commercialisation of Gay Pride parades have led to compromises in their effectiveness in arguing for political and societal changes. Their point was commonly demonstrated through the association of Gay Pride parades with commercial merchandise that had little or no significance to GLBT/Queer politics, such as cars, condominiums (Chasin, 2000), or the American food storage company Tupperware serving as one of the official sponsors of the 2005 SGLMG parade. The commercialisation of Gay Pride was also at times achieved through the commercialising of established Gay Pride symbols such as the rainbow flag (Chasin, 2000) or dance parties (Carbery, 1995; Lewis and Ross, 1995). The commercial appropriation of established Gay Pride symbols such as the rainbow flags or dance parties have led to greater integrations of these symbols into Gay Pride events, or even just everyday streetscapes such as the famous Castro District in San Francisco. The over-application of these Gay Pride symbols could, however, see the diminishing of

135 their political origins, such as the gay dance parties as discussed in Lewis and Ross (1995) with the infiltration of heterosexual patrons. This section examines the relationship between commercialisation and GLBT/Queer politics, and in particular, whether the commercial sponsorships in any way affected the overt display of political messages at the 2005 SGLMG parade5. Section 5.1 established that the majority of the sponsorships to the 2005 SGLMG parade were more readily available from commercial ventures such as JetStar or Pure Blonde beer than from other sources. I have already discussed that, based on the lack of any previous involvement in non-heterosexual political movements, many of the commercial ventures were primarily attempting to appear as ‘gay friendly’ businesses under the premise of tapping into the so-called goldmine of the ‘pink dollar’ without having any real (or ‘pure’, according to Seebohm, 1993, page 216) conviction for sexual equality. This could potentially have detrimental effects on the politics of Gay Pride, including the SGLMG. As Chasin (2000, page 50) argued, “each mention of ‘gay dollars,’ ‘dyke dollars, or ‘pink dollars’ expresses a belief that money can manifest gay identity”. Specifically, this manifestation of one, quintessential gay identity would likely be homogenised to suit marketing niches, compromising “a ‘pure’ display of Gay Pride” (Seebohm, 1993, page 216). This concern is further compounded by Chasin’s (2000, page 24) claim that, especially since the 1990s, identity formation and maintenance had been most effectively driven by market mechanisms and have had a significant influence n the development of conformity. Evidence discussed in this section show that these market-driven mechanisms have had some influences on the display of non- heterosexual politics at the 2005 SGLMG parade. As discussed earlier, some have stated that commercialisation has reduced the level of political militancy of many Gay Pride events worldwide. This accusation of de- politicisation has also been applied to the SGLMG (see, for example, Offord, 2001). This was briefly touched on in the previous section where I discussed the majority of the 2005 parade’s official sponsors played little or no roles in Australian non- heterosexual history or politics. The focus here shifts towards a more quantitative

5 Sections 5.2 and 5.3 discuss only the overt display of political messages such as the participants’ use of placards with particular political intentions. The main reason for highlighting the more obvious displays of political messages in these two sections is due to my desire to concentrate on what lay spectators with no particular experience in ‘non-heterosexual politics’ could easily understand. Other, more underlying forms of performing non-heterosexual politics and the significance of such performances are discussed separately in section 5.4.

136 approach, where I examined the matter using various statistical analytical techniques. A cross-tabulation between sponsorship type and level of political messages on display is shown in Table 5.5. This table provides indications on whether the levels of political messages on display6 were affected in any way by external financial assistance. Nearly two-thirds (63.6%) of all parade groups received the lowest rating of ‘1’, the biggest representation by a wide margin (the next closest, the second lowest rating ‘2’, had a 15.0% share of all parade groups). Comparing the level of displayed political messages of sponsored and non-sponsored groups, a considerably higher proportion of sponsored groups (72.4%) received the lowest political rating than compared to non- sponsored groups (60.3%). This suggests that external financial affiliation may have affected the political values of parade groups. A closer examination into each type of sponsorship showed a drastically different picture. All but one (18 of 19, or 94.7%) of the commercially sponsored groups were in the lowest political rating group ‘1’. Furthermore, the remaining commercially sponsored group was categorised in the second lowest political rating ‘2’. The proportion of lowly rated groups with commercial sponsors was significantly higher than compared to groups sponsored by established GLBT organisations (40.0%) or those with statutory affiliations (50.0%) (see Table 5.5). It appears, then, that commercialisation, at least in the form of commercial sponsorships, had affected the display of non-heterosexual political messages at the 2005 SGLMG parade negatively. In order to look at the relationships between commercialisation and its effects on the display of non-heterosexual political messages more closely, a Pearson’s correlation test was undertaken. This test, much like the ones included in section 5.1, was performed to show the strength (or weakness) of the relationship that existed between commercialisation and the display of non-heterosexual political messages at the 2005 SGLMG parade. The negative R of -0.279 suggests that an inverse relationship existed between the two variables of commercial sponsorships and level of political messages on display (Table 5.6). In other words, the more prominent the commercial sponsorships were, the lower the political rating the groups were categoris-

6 Political ratings were judged in accordance to how controversial the topics were, the amount of political and societal change they tried to achieve, and how visually obvious and clear the messages were. These ratings took into account the placards used as well as the non-textual performances of the groups. Groups were ranked on a scale between ‘1’ to ‘5’, with ‘1’ indicating not political at all and ‘5’ indicating a highly political performance. For a detailed explanation of these ratings, see Chapter 4.

137 Table 5.5: The relationship between financial sponsorship and the level of political militancy at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 Level of politics Total Sponsorship received 1 2 3 4 5 No. % * No. % * No. % * No. % * No. % * No % Commerical 18 94.7% 1 5.3% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 19 17.8% GLBT Organisations 240.0%120.0%120.0%00.0%120.0%54.7% Statutory/Governmental 1 50.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 50.0% 0 0.0% 2 1.9% Other 0 0.0% 1 33.3% 0 0.0% 2 66.7% 0 0.0% 3 2.8% Sponsored (sub-total) 21 72.4% 3 10.3% 1 3.4% 3 10.3% 1 3.4% 29 27.1% Not sponsored 47 60.3% 13 16.7% 11 14.1% 6 7.7% 1 1.3% 78 72.9% Total 68 63.6% 16 15.0% 12 11.2% 9 8.4% 2 1.9% 107 100.0% Note: * denotes percentage as proportion of sponsorship group total ed. This R of -0.279 was also statistically significant at the 0.01 level, meaning that the inverse relati onship between commercial sponsorships and low political display is true in 99.2% of all occasions (as indicated by the significance index of 0.004). Accordingly, commercialisation, in the form of commercial sponsorships, was related to a reduced level of politics in the performances at the 2005 SGLMG parade. In contrast, sponsorships from established GLBT organisations were related to an increase in the political activism of parade groups. Table 5.7 shows the result of a Pearson’s correlation test between sponsorships from GLBT organisations and level of political messages on display. It shows that the test has a positive R of 0.144, indicating that sponsorships from GLBT organisations may have been a contributing factor to the display of political messages at the 2005 parade groups. This positive relationship between the two factors, however, cannot be verified to great effect as the significance index of 0.140 is statistically low. This was likely due to the small number of parade groups sponsored by GLBT organisations. Nonetheless, taking the results from Table 5.6 into account, commercialisation appeared to have played a significant role in the de-politicisation of the 2005 SGLMG parade, while sponsorships from within the community (therefore, from GLBT organisations) likely had the opposite effect of instigating more political displays. A revisit to the images of groups sponsored by GLBT organisations showed that the non-heterosexual stereotypes included were often of cross-dressing transvestites. This observation highlights an abject relationship that exists between these GLBT organisations and stereotypical performances. Specifically, these performances, though stereotypical and are at times criticised (such as discussed in Lewis and Ross, 1995), still possessed the most significant challenge to heteronormative hegemonics. This makes neo-normativity a complicated abject within non-heterosexual communities.

138 Table 5.6: Significantly negative relationship between commercial sponsorship and the level of political display, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 Political (1 5) Pearson's correlation -0.279 ** Commercial sponsorship Sig. (2-tailed) 0.004 N 107 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 5.7: Positive relationship between sponsorship from GLBT organisations and the level of political display, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 Political (1 5) Pearson's correlation 0.144 Sponsorship from GLBT Sig. (2-tailed) 0.140 organisations N 107

A second analytical angle was used to clarify this relationship between commercialisation and reduced display of non-heterosexual politics. Table 5.8 below shows a cross-tabulation between types of sponsorship received and the display of overt political statements7. The majority of parade groups did not overtly display a political statement/placard, and those were all classified in the lowest political rating group of ‘1’. The reason for this classification was because I wanted to highlight the visual display of political activism so to resonate with my focus on physical and visual performances (both in terms of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia which is discussed later in Chapter 7) of non-heterosexual identities. This focus on the physical and visual, however, is not to say that political activisms that were not visually represented on placards are unimportant; these more subtle, underlying politics are discussed separately in section 5.4. Results from Table 5.8 shows that, much like those presented in Table 5.5, a high majority of commercially sponsored parade groups did not overtly display any political statement. This proportion (94.7% of all commercially sponsored groups) was significantly higher than compared to all other sponsorship sources as well as groups that did not receive any sponsorship. This suggests that a strong relationship exists between commercialisation and the non-display of overt

7 This is more so a textual than statistical analysis as only placards with political statements were considered when classifying ‘overt display of political statement’.

139 political statements. In order to verify this observation, a Pearson’s correlation test was performed between commercial sponsorship and the non-display of overt political statements. Results of this test showed that a significantly positive relationship exists between the two variables (see Table 5.9). This was indicated by the positive R (0.265) as well as the very low significance index (0.006), which suggests that such a positive relationship exists between the two variables in 98.8% of all cases. Conversely, there appeared to be a negative relationship between sponsorships from GLBT organisations and the non-display of an overt political statement, suggesting that this type of sponsorship did not detract parade groups from political activism (see Table 5.10). Like the Pearson’s correlation test for sponsorship by GLBT organisations and level of political activism, there were simply too few such sponsorships at the 2005 SGLMG parade to conclude with high confidence the validity of this test result. All the same, there is enough evidence to suggest that commercial sponsorships were related to a decreased display of overt political statements at the 2005 SGLMG parade, while sponsorships from GLBT organisations likely had the inverse effect of inducing political activism.

Table 5.8: Relationship between display of overt political statement and status of sponsorship, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March, 2005 Display of overt political statement Total Sponsorship received Yes No No. % * No. % * No % Commerical 1 5.3% 18 94.7% 19 17.8% GLBT Organisations 3 60.0% 2 40.0% 5 4.7% Statutory/Governmental 1 50.0% 1 50.0% 2 1.9% Other 2 66.7% 1 33.3% 3 2.8% Sponsored (sub-total) 7 24.1% 22 75.9% 29 27.1% Not sponsored 27 34.6% 51 65.4% 78 72.9% Total 34 31.8% 73 68.2% 107 100.0% Note: * denotes percentage as proportion of sponsorship group total

Table 5.9: Significantly positive relationship between commercial sponsorship and the non-display of overt political statements, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 No overt political statements Pearson's correlation 0.265 * Commercial sponsorship Sig. (2-tailed) 0.006 N 107 * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

140 Table 5.10: Negative relationship between sponsorship from GLBT organisations and the non-display of overt political statements, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 No overt political statements Pearson's correlation -0.134 Sponsorship from GLBT Sig. (2-tailed) 0.168 organisations N 107

Since its conception in the late 1970s, the rainbow flag has been a sign of Gay Pride and solidarity. At the 2005 SGLMG parade, it was a relatively popular symbol of non-heterosexual solidarity, featuring in over one-quarter (27.1%) of the 107 parade groups’ performances. This may well represent the participants’ desire for unity and equality after the financial and administration turmoils experienced by the previous organising committee just a few years prior. This desire was further highlighted by the prominent display of rainbow flags at nearby commercial eateries and nightclubs, and amongst spectators along the parade route. Chasin (2000, page 120), however, questioned the modern-day symbolism of the rainbow flag. She claimed that, particularly since the late 1980s, through mass marketing and commodification, the political significance of the rainbow flag may have declined significantly. Its popularity as a commercial product (Chasin, 2000, pages 120-125) – from buttons, pins, to even bath towels and boxer shorts – has reduced it from a symbol of solidarity to a stereotypical neo-norm. For example, the non-display of rainbow flags by some eateries and nightclubs along the parade route could be viewed as a sign of discord. The political significance of the rainbow flag was thus cemented both within and outside the GLBT/Queer political movements, making it a – if not the only – legitimate (and neo-normalised) symbol of Gay Pride. This quasi-forced display of rainbow flags would also go against the flag’s history and significance (which included the celebration of harmony), further compromising its influence in arguing for equality. Unlike Chasin’s (2000) argument of commodification, however, there was little sign of such commercialisation and disharmony at the 2005 SGLMG parade. The majority (if not all) of the rainbow flags included in the performances were in the form of actual flags, instead of flag-shaped commemorative pins, rainbow vest, rainbow outfits or the like. New Mardi Gras Inc also did not include the rainbow as part of its symbol but instead incorporates a white silhouette of the Sydney Opera House with an up-turned triangle onto a black background (see Figure 5.2). This up-turned triangle is a re-appropriation of the repressive pink triangular patch that was once used to identify ‘homosexual’ prisoners during the Holocaust, much in the same way the term ‘queer’ was re-

141 appropriated to become, to some, a term of non-heterosexual solidarity. With the relatively infrequent display and an apparent lack of commodification of the rainbow flag at the 2005 SGLMG parade, it could be argued that some symbols of Gay Pride and some non-heterosexual identity performances at the SGLMG parades remained non-commercialised and still carry some political sentiments and symbology of non- heterosexual solidarity.

Figure 5.2: Logo of New Mardi Gras Inc, which incorporates the silhouette of the Sydney Opera House with an up-turned triangle

Source: http://www.mardigras.org.au, accessed 14th March 2005

Analytical results presented in this section showed that, first, sponsorships had likely decreased the level of politics on display at the 2005 SGLMG parade, and second, that commercial forms of sponsorships had most negatively affected the physical and visual displays of political messages. Unlike the relationships between different types of sponsorships and stereotypical performances as discussed in section 5.1, the associations between increased sponsorship and decreased political activism were significantly stronger but at the same time also more complex. Quantitative methods, namely Pearson’s correlation tests, were used to clarify the strength of these relationships. In contrast to commercially sponsored groups, parade groups sponsored by GLBT organisations, government, and by other external sources did not appear to have as strong associations with decreased political activism and non-displays of overt political statements, with at least half of the groups with non-commercial sponsorship including overt political statements in their parade performances. In fact, sponsorships from GLBT organisations appeared to have increased the display of overt political statements. Concerns by critics like Chasin (2000), Johnston (2003), Lewis and Ross (1995) and Seebohm (1993) over commercialisation compromising the political origins of Gay Pride events such as the SGLMG parade thus appeared to be valid but mostly restricted to the involvement of commercial sponsors. Furthermore, the commodification of established Gay Pride symbols such as the rainbow flag was not apparent at the 2005 SGLMG parade, with the flags being used in a sporadic fashion and mostly in their original form (as a flag) instead of commodified products like commemorative pins. This has allowed the rainbow flag to remain a symbol of non-

142 heterosexual solidarity at the 2005 SGLMG parade without fears of over-application. The next section discusses specifically the political themes that were present at the 2005 SGLMG parade.

5.3 Political activism at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade It was already established in section 5.2 that some levels of political activism were still present at the 2005 SGLMG parade. This was particularly the case with parade groups that did not receive any financial assistance, especially in the form of commercial sponsorship. This was in contrast to criticisms that many Gay Pride events, including the SGLMG parade, have become de-politicised. Such criticisms were particularly rife in the late 1990s and early 2000s (see Johnston, 2003 and Seebohm, 1993 for examples). The presence of some forms of political activism at the 2005 SGLMG parade was especially reflected by the fact that the parade was held under the one political banner of Our Freedom, Your Freedom Too. This was a reflection of wider public debate on the legality of same-sex marriages/civil unions. These debates also included discussions on proposed changes to the Australian Constitution on banning same-sex marriages. This probably generated an increase in the number of parade groups that included overt political messages as part of their performances. This section explores the themes of the political messages present at the 2005 SGLMG parade. By and large themes of political activism have been usually topical to the era of the protests, such as the outcry for decriminalising homosexual intercourse in the late 1970s and early 1980s8. Political themes on display at the 2005 SGLMG parade ranged from the ambient issues of discrimination, homophobia, health and HIV-related issues, to more contemporary issues such as same-sex parenting, the children of these same-sex relationships, and the aforementioned legalisation of same-sex marriages. There were also open and frank mockings of homophobic public figures such as then Australian Prime Minister (PM) John Howard and his close friendship with out-going American President George W. Bush, or prominent and recently retired Sydney AM talk radio host John Laws. This section provides a detailed analysis of the nature and extent of these political themes. Three political themes stood out as the main themes displayed at the 2005 SGLMG parade. Apart from the highly political, anti-discrimination banner of Our Freedom, Your Freedom Too that all parade groups marched under, political themes also covered other aspects that concerned the non-heterosexual communities of Sydney and other parts of Australia. Two of these other prominent themes were the

8 Male-male sexual relationships were finally decriminalised in the state of NSW in 1984.

143 legal recognition of same-sex (and other non-heterosexual) relationships, whether in the form of same-sex marriages or access to spousal benefits, as well as health issues such as HIV/AIDS. Overall, there were 34 parade groups that paraded under these three main themes. The themes of several of these 34 groups extended over more than one of the three main themes. There were, for example, 16 anti-discrimination themed groups, equivalent to 15.0% of the 107 groups that participated in the 2005 SGLMG parade. These groups in general had a medium (3) to high (5) political rating. Recognition of same-sex partnership and ‘alternative’ family configurations were the most commonly protested topic of these groups. These included the nine parade groups of Family First; Rainbow Babies; We Are Family; Just Married (Two Girls); End The Queer Marriage Ban; Adam and Steve, Ada and Eve, n the Garden of Freedom; Marriage For All; You Can’t Legislate Against Love; and White Wedding. The high representation of same-sex marriage/family themed groups was a reflection of contemporary debate on the legal status of same-sex unions both here in Australia and abroad. These debates stemmed from the different political and lobby groups arguing both for and against the banning of same-sex marriages or civil unions. Some of the parade groups that protested against the banning of same-sex unions at the 2005 SGLMG parade focused on highlighting the normality of non-heterosexual family configurations with the inclusion of children as part of the performances, such as the Rainbow Babies and Kids group shown in Figure 5.3 below. This strategy of including children in the parade performance to ‘normalise’ non-heterosexual families was also used by New Mardi Gras Inc, as featured in the official Chiefs of Parade group (see Figure 5.4). The Chiefs of Parade in 2005 featured the Play School mums and their daughter. The Play School mums are a lesbian couple who were embroiled in controversy in late 2004 when they featured in a section of the long-standing Australian children education program Play School (ABC, 2006). The controversy surrounding their involvement was mainly focussed on their lesbian identities and their two-mother family, many proclaiming that such ‘alternative’ family formations should not be publicised but instead the general public (and mainly the consumers of Play School) should have the right to choose when (and if) they educate young children about such ‘alternatives’. This shows that political activism at the 2005 SGLMG parade, as far as anti-discrimination was concerned, reflected contemporary issues that Sydney (and Australian) non-heterosexual communities were facing at the time.

144 Figure 5.3: ‘Rainbow’ parents and children protesting discriminatory legislation regarding ‘alternative’ family formations, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Figure 5.4: Using children to normalise non-heterosexual family make-ups, Chiefs of Parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

145 The unequal legal status between heterosexuals and non-heterosexuals was a common theme for much of the political activism at the 2005 SGLMG parade. Like the non-recognition of same-sex partnerships discussed above, other prominently protested issues included the criminalisation of same-sex sexual interactions in many overseas societies. These groups (Our Freedom, Their Freedom Too, and Arab Dyke and Friends) were mostly represented by non-Caucasian participants. In particular, the latter group – Arab Dykes and Friends – was solely represented by women of Arabic ethnic backgrounds (see Figure 5.5). The Our Freedom, Their Freedom Too group, in contrast, demonstrated a more diverse group of participants. A significant proportion of this group’s participants were Caucasian in appearance, while many of the rest were represented by participants of eastern and south-eastern Asian appearances (see Figure 5.6). As shown in Figure 5.6, each of the participants carried a flag of the country where same-sex sexual acts were still criminalised. The punishments – be it imprisonment or, in the more severe cases, death – were clearly shown on the front of their t-shirts. For example, ‘homosexuality’ is still criminalised in Bhutan (centre- foreground of Figure 5.6), where it carries a punishment of life imprisonment. This Our Freedom, Their Freedom Too group was one of the leading, and one of the largest, parade groups of the 2005 parade, signifying the renewed importance, and more importantly the transnational characteristics, of sexual politics. Other protests concerning the legality of non-heterosexual identity performances questioned the status quo of contemporary non-heterosexual life in Australia. These included protests against discriminatory superannuation laws (We’re Super! Thanks For Asking), as well as a celebration of the lowering of the age of consent for non-heterosexual males in the state of NSW (Sixteen: Never Been Kissed). This change in legislation in mid-2004 meant that the age of consent for all consensual sexual relationships, whether between people of same or opposite sexes, were equalised to 16 years of age. Many of these political protests thus highlighted the marginalised status of non-heterosexuals in many societies, even in a liberal, western society like Sydney.

146 Figure 5.5: The all-female group of Arab Dyke Friends and Family highlighting the ethnic diversity of non-heterosexual identities, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Figure 5.6: ‘Our Freedom, Their Freedom Too’ protesting against the criminal status of same-sex sexual acts in overseas countries as represented by their flags, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

147 Much of the research into ‘non-heterosexual life’ since the mid-1980s had been focussed on the cultural, health and social effects of HIV/AIDS. Despite greater understandings into the transmissions and long-terms effects (whether medically or socio-culturally) of the disease, there are renewed concerns over the rise in the spread of HIV/AIDS in the new millennium. Advancement in medical treatments, along with improved survival rates, has led to many no longer viewing HIV/AIDS as a terminal illness (Munro, 2006). Consequently, there have been recent gradual declines in safe sex practice, particularly in gay male communities, in Australia (Edwards, 2007) and elsewhere (Anonymous, 2002; Bloomber and Frieden, 2007; NYC Heatlh 2007). As such, HIV/AIDS had once again become a central topic of activism at the 2005 SGLMG parade. In 2005, there were nine groups that demonstrated concerns over HIV/AIDS, representing 8.4% of all parade groups. The majority of these groups were deemed to be less political in nature, with six of the nine groups rated in the lowest political category of ‘1’ and two in the second lowest category of ‘2’. The major concern of these groups rested on the prevention of HIV/AIDS, such as through safer sexual practices (Choosing Our Right To Love (Safe Sex Mirrors)). Some others chose to personalise the continued care of HIV/AIDS sufferers (Celebrating 20 Years of the Ankali Project, Twenty Years of ACON, Healing From The Heart, for examples). Many of the parade groups featured or were affiliated to longstanding community organisations such as the AIDS Council of Australia (ACON) (see Figure 5.7), the Ankali Project, and Oz Show Business Cares (see Figure 5.8). By highlighting the long-term care many HIV/AIDS sufferers require these parade groups demystified the now common view that HIV/AIDS is no longer a terminal illness, or that it was just a twentieth-century disease. The long-standing participations of these organisations – ACON, for example, had been involved in the SGLMG parade since 1985 – also highlights the continued (or renewed) need to promote safe sex practice. At the same time, the strong presence of such organisations at the SGLMG parade invariably portrays HIV/AIDS as the stereotypical ‘gay disease’, that the non-heterosexual – particularly gay male – communities as inherently more susceptible to unsafe sexual intercourse and HIV/AIDS. Though this portrayal is true to some extent (gay males continue to comprise around 80% of HIV/AIDS sufferers in Australia), it does serve to link non- heterosexuals back to the old stereotypes of non-heterosexual perversity and promiscuity. It also failed to acknowledge other methods of contracting HIV/AIDS (such as through intravenous drug use). In some ways, this particular politics once again neo- normalised HIV/AIDS as a ‘gay disease’.

148 Figure 5.7: Promotion of safer sex practices, Twenty Years of ACON, AIDS Council of Australia, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Figure 5.8: Tributes to high-profile AIDS victim Freddie Mercury, Oz Showbiz Cares, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

149 Outside of the three main political themes of anti-discrimination, the legal status over non-heterosexual life and HIV/AIDS, there were also other political messages on display at the 2005 SGLMG parade. These political messages were often in the form of social commentary that reflected the more contemporary issues that the non- heterosexual communities of Sydney (and to a lesser extent, Australia) faced. Many took the opportunity to openly mock the seemingly close friendship and camaraderie that the then Australian PM John Howard had with the American President George W. Bush. These open, and at times frank, mockeries of PM Howard and President Bush often took the form of large effigies, with PM Howard or President Bush dressed as bride and groom. One of the parade groups, GLAM9, had even visualised this close relationship as one of a sado-masochistic nature, complete with leather collars and whips, to further ridicule the firm stance against non-heterosexual relationships the two world leaders took (see Figure 5.9). In many of these groups’ performances PM Howard was often portrayed as the more passive character while President Bush was portrayed as the more active character. This satirised the common belief that Australian mainstream politics concerning non-heterosexualities often followed or paralleled those in the US. The basic arguments behind the banning of same-sex marriages in both Australia and the US were based on the Christian tenet that marriages are between persons of the opposite sex despite the fact that neither country has an official religion. Political protests against the banning of same-sex marriages also satirised other high-profile weddings, such as that of Prince Charles and Camilla Parker-Bowles (see Figure 5.10). This was done in protest at the more relaxed legislation towards opposite-sex marriages. Other contemporary issues that featured at the 2005 SGLMG parade were more pop-culture related. There was, for example, a retort aimed at the Sydney talk-back radio host John Laws who made a homophobic comment towards Carson Kressley, the fashion guru of the US version of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Mr Kressley, who is an avid fan of equine sports, was guest of honour to the 2004 Melbourne Cup festival in November 2004. Mr Laws, on his popular radio show, made a homophobic remark against Mr Kressley, referring to him as a ‘pillow biter’. This led to demands for a public apology and threats of civil law suits from prominent local non-heterosexual activists. All of these political protests and social commentaries reflected the SGLMG parade’s more political origins in the late 1970s, an origin which the likes of Carbery (1995) and Seebohm (1993) lamented had been marginalised during the 1990s.

9 GLAM is the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender (GLBT) Australian Services Union Members.

150 Figure 5.9: Portraying the Australian Prime Minister as one half of a sado- masochistic same-sex couple in mockery of their firm stance against legal recognitions of non-heterosexual relationships, GLAM, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Figure 5.10: Mocking of high profile opposite-sex weddings, The Wedding of Charles & Camilla, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

151 Carbery (1995) recounted that the early years of the SGLMG were fraught with obstructions from the Police and other authorities. Since the mid-1980s (particularly since the de-criminalisation of male same-sex relationships) these obstructions had declined and relations between Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities and many government authorities have improved dramatically. Many such authorities now have gay and lesbian liaison officers. Some of these even regularly participate in the SGLMG parade along with their non-heterosexual colleagues. In 2005, the NSW Police (see Figure 5.11) and the NSW Rural Fire Service (see Figure 5.12), for example, marched in the SGLMG parade. Participation of the Police and Fire Services also highlight the greater acceptance of non-heterosexual workers within these statutory agencies that traditionally have a rather macho (and at times misogynistic) image. The fact that some of their non-heterosexuals can now proudly partake in Gay Pride events like the SGLMG without fear of repercussions in the forms of alienation, demotion or expulsion in reference to McDowell’s (1995) examples emphasis the improvements in the acceptability of non-heterosexuals in some workplaces. There is also greater involvement in the SGLMG parade from many political parties and figures. Apart from the continual support from Sydney City Lord Mayor Clover Moore (see Figure 5.13), political parties that marched in the 2005 SGLMG parade included major parties like the Australian Labor Party (see Figure 5.14) which has been in power in the NSW State Government since 1995, as well as a host of other, smaller political parties like the Australian Democrats (see Figure 5.15) which has a long history of supporting non- heterosexual politics in Australia, the Australian Unity Party (see Figure 5.16) which has a central policy of multiculturalism, and The Greens (see Figure 5.17) which has one of the more progressive non-heterosexual policies in Australian politics as well as headed by an openly gay party leader. The involvement of these political parties visualised non-heterosexualities as a socially acceptable identity group. It also highlights how non-heterosexualities remain a politically prominent topic that regularly features in the political agendas of both major and minor political parties.

152 Figure 5.11: A change of attitudes – the role of the NSW Police at the SGLMG parade changed from obstruction to participation, the NSW Police, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Figure 5.12: Involvement of other public service authorities, the NSW Rural Fire Service, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

153 Figure 5.13: Independent Member of State Parliament and Sydney City Lord Mayor Clover Moore celebrates 20 years of participation in the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Figure 5.14: The Australian Labor Party showing its support through its ‘Rainbow’ division, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

154 Figure 5.15: The Australian Democrats Party has had a long history of supporting non-heterosexual rights in Australian politics, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Figure 5.16: Some other, smaller political parties such as the Australian Unity Party also participated in the 2005 parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

155 Figure 5.17: The environmentally green and politically Left – The Greens at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

All these examples demonstrated that the display and inclusion of politics at the SGLMG parade was, contrary to many writers (Johnston, 2003 and Seebohm, 1993 for example), being slowly-reintroduced in the new millennium, once again reflecting the parade’s political origins. Political displays centred around three main themes – discrimination, the legal status of non-heterosexual relationships, and HIV/AIDS. The displays of these political messages comprised around one-third of all performances at the 2005 SGLMG parade. This proportion, however, did not account for the organising committee New Mardi Gras Inc’s aim to inject a more political theme into the 2005 parade. Its overall banner Our Freedom, Their Freedom Too essentially encompassed the political activisms of non-heterosexual communities in Sydney and Australian non- heterosexual communities but also those who continue to face homophobic discriminations and harsh punishments in many overseas societies. The banning of same-sex marriage was a common topic of political protest at the 2005 parade, a reflection of the on-going debates over the legal definition of marriage. Many of these protests came in the form of satire, such as the sado-masochistic coupling of Australian PM John Howard and US President George W. Bush (Figure 5.10). There were also other protests over the unfair conditions in terms of Australian non-heterosexuals’ access to superannuation benefits and other forms of welfare. The practice of safe sex,

156 or lack thereof which has led to recent increased spread of HIV/AIDS worldwide, once again pushed the disease to the forefront of non-heterosexual politics. The strong association of HIV/AIDS at these Gay Pride events, however, runs the risk of further stereotyping HIV/AIDS as a ‘gay disease’ and reigniting the stereotypes of non- heterosexual perversity and promiscuity. The enthusiastic participation of major and minor political parties at the 2005 SGLMG parade puts issues regarding non-heterosexualities, whether it be inequality in terms of same-sex marriages or access to superannuation and other welfare benefits, firmly on the agenda of these political parties. The participations of statutory agencies like the NSW Police or the Rural Fire Service highlight the changed attitudes towards non-heterosexualities, from obstructions in the 1970s to enthusiastic participation in the 2000s. Their participations also emphasised the changed attitudes and political climates within these agencies so that non-heterosexual workers can now march proudly in Gay Pride events like the SGLMG. All of these demonstrated that, though commercialisation was apparent, the political origins of the 2005 SGLMG parade also played a more prominent role. Whilst many of the political issues protested at the 2005 SGLMG parade were contemporary in nature, it nonetheless contrasted arguments such as those by Chasin (2000), Carbery (1995), Johnston (2003) and Seebohm (2003) that SGLMG’s focus on celebration of non-heterosexualities had diminished its political militancy. Such stern criticisms may well have been put forth by the abjections these writers have towards Gay Pride events like the SGLMG (see section 5.5 for a more detailed discussion on abjection at the 2005 SGLMG parade). This section has focussed on the political activisms that were visibly displayed at the 2005 SGLMG parade. The next section shifts focus to discuss the more hidden and underlying political issues behind the performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade.

5.4 Underlying politics of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras The previous section examined political activisms that were on display at the 2005 SGLMG parade. By no means were they the only form of non-heterosexual politics present at the 2005 parade though they were the most visual political performances. This section switches to focus on the more hidden, underlying politics of the SGLMG parade. Discussions on the politics behind the participation of the NSW Police and Rural Fire Service in the previous section had already touched on these hidden politics. These underlying politics discussed in this section also take into account the political activisms that participants and spectators may not necessarily be conscious of participating in. Furthermore, these subconscious activisms at times were

157 multi-fold. They took the form of counter-heteronormative actions, much like the coming out process, on the parts of both participants and spectators. The year 2005 was the eleventh since sodomy was de-criminalised in NSW. Despite protection from various legalities such as amendments to the Anti- Discrimination Act 1977, non-heterosexuals continue to be discriminated against on a daily basis. The wider theoretical implications of such discriminations – such as heteronormativity and heteropatriarchy – were already discussed in Chapter 2. This section focuses specifically on the discrimination and associated politics at the 2005 SGLMG parade. The signing up process of the SGLMG parade, for example, instigates participation as a political act. As a measure of good management and safety, groups who intend to participate in the SGLMG parade are required to pre-register their participation with the organising committee New Mardi Gras Inc using the Parade Entry Kit (New Mardi Gras Inc, 2007b). Allowances are also made, however, for participants who make last minute decisions such as the impromptu parade groups described in sections 5.1 and 5.2. During the registration process, groups (or organisers of the group) are required to fill out several important details, such as contact details, organisational affiliation, approximate size of their group, and overall theme of the float and performance. Some also believed that a declaration of the participants’ sexuality(s) was required as part of the registration (Costello, 2004) though this was refuted by New Mardi Gras Inc (2007a; Meredith, 2007). The Parade Entry Kit, however, does require the groups to nominate whether they were registering as “GLBTQ community” or “GLBTQ business” group (New Mardi Gras Inc, 2007b, page 25). As the previous section showed, the overall theme of the performance may or may not have been overtly political. It was also established earlier in this chapter that the majority of groups that participated in the 2005 parade did not have an overtly political theme. The signing up process, however, could be viewed as a highly political, and at times contentious, public declaration. A declaration of participation in the SGLMG, like coming out especially for groups that registered as “GLBTQ community” or “GLBTQ business”, could be seen as a counter-heteronormative act. It also forces a societal acknowledgement of the existence of the many diverse identities within non- heterosexualities. This public declaration also challenges the heteronormative conception of public spaces and (though only temporarily) (re)appropriates public spaces as non-heterosexual. The SGLMG, especially its parade, compels society to follow suit and voice their approvals or disagreement, thus turning these public spaces into contentious spaces. Contentions over the sexuality(s) of spaces are at times fought out in very public scenarios. Protests by religious groups against the SGLMG parade, for

158 examples, were evidence of the common heteronormative conception of public spaces. In 2005, there were two such protest groups present. One of the most vociferous and regular10 religious protest groups against the SGLMG is headed by the NSW Senator, Reverend Fred Nile, who continually refers to the SGLMG parade as, among other derogatory terms, blasphemous and immoral (Christian Democratic Party, 2006). These groups were often found at the corner of Elizabeth and Oxford Streets at the start of the SGLMG parade route (see Figure 4.1). All parade groups must go past this starting point and witness their antagonisms towards the parade. Many spectators would not have witnessed these religious protests if they, like I, viewed the parade from other parts along the route. There were, of course, other less visible forms of discrimination against SGLMG parade and its participants, such as media editorials (Chapter 6) or latrinalia (Chapter 7), but participation in the parade against such vociferous oppositions, could thus be viewed as a highly political act. It not only redefines and reappropriates the inner-city as a non-heterosexual space (though for only one night every year), it is also a direct act of defiance against such stern oppositions. Unlike claims of commercialisation infringing on the ‘pure’ display of Gay Pride (Seebohm, 1993), in the sense of defying heteronormative conceptions of public spaces, participation in the SGLMG parade was a definitive action of Gay Pride. As quoted in Stephen Hodge (1996, page 79), “during Mardi Gras we can get away with so much more”. The SGLMG parade was the one time of the year where the normally marginalised non-heterosexuals was given free reign to become the majority and turn the tables on the heterosexual minorities. This turn of the tables was no more evident than the confinement of the religious protesting groups to just one corner along the parade route. Whether this confinement of homophobic protests were set up on behalf of the SGLMG by judicial authorities I am uncertain of. It, however, highlights an abjection where the religious groups were advocating the expulsion of something (public non-heterosexualities) that they were at the time fully enclosed by (the parade participants and spectators). The SGLMG parade was thus an avenue for the non- heterosexual communities to (temporarily) normalise and unify non-heterosexual lives. The now regular participations in the SGLMG parade from statutory agencies like the NSW Police and Rural Fire Service emphasise more than just the changed attitudes of these agencies. Aside from highlighting these supposedly ‘macho’ workplaces as tolerant and accepting towards non-heterosexuals, their participation also reflects the overall political climate of the NSW Government, its agencies and

10 The protest group headed by Reverend Nile attends the SGLMG parade annually with placards and loudspeakers in hand to voice their disgust over non-heterosexualities.

159 other professional associations. Participation in the parades, first, highlights the individual commitments of the non-heterosexual workers of these agencies and associations. At the same time, it is also a reflection of the huge amounts of time and effort spent lobbying the respective agency heads prior to each agency’s initial participation or has their participation decreed from the ministerial level. Given that only two notable statutory agencies marched in the 2005 parade, there is no doubt many workers at other agencies like the ambulance services continue to struggle to get the same political recognition that the NSW Police and Rural Fire Service had achieved. The same lack of recognition is also true for many professional associations like the Australian Medical Association, which for three years was headed by an openly lesbian Federal President (Dr Kerryn Phelps). This highlights the prevalence of heteronormativity in many of Australia’s workplaces. Participation as spectators also signifies the changing/changed cultural landscapes of contemporary Australian societies. Once not long ago the display of affection towards people of the same sex was not readily accepted or tolerated. ‘Obvious’ non-heterosexuals were often avoided by others in public. This was reminiscent of many western societies prior to the 1970s and Hooker’s (1969) study serves as one such example. The public display and celebration of non-heterosexual lives, such as the SGLMG parade, not just by non-heterosexuals but also by heterosexuals, are now common place in many western societies, including Sydney. This is evident of the changed public attitudes towards non-heterosexualities. There are no longer risks or shame associated with being seen with (other) non- heterosexuals let alone being photographed with one (or more). In fact, being seen with non-heterosexuals, along with persons of other ethnic and religious backgrounds, is now recognised and glorified as signs of cultural and social progressiveness. The SGLMG parade, for example, regularly attracts participation by Australian and international celebrities, many of whom like singer and international television personality Dannii Minogue are not non-heterosexuals (for a list of celebrities who participated in the 2005 SGLMG parade, please see footnote 5 of Chapter 6). Such drastic changes in attitudes towards the public display of non-heterosexual affections at the 2005 SGLMG parade highlight the very complicated politics of the SGLMG parade. While oppositions, such as from the Reverend Fred Nile and his Party, continue to be stern and determined, there are also signs of changing public attitudes towards the acceptance of non-heterosexuals. The willingness of spectators who continue to show their support of the parade signifies strong personal and societal politics opposed to the discrimination against non-heterosexualities.

160 Though not as visible and evident as placards and messages, the underlying politics of the 2005 SGLMG parade are significant on several levels. First, the temporariness of the parade, that it only lasts for a few hours every year, forces many to take a stand in voicing their frustrations and anger against social injustices. The constant oppositions to the SGLMG parade like that by Reverend Fred Nile act as a catalyst and provide a significant contrast to the public declarations of non- heteronormativity the many parade participants perform. Growing public support from spectators resonates with these public declarations. Second, it also indicates the changing/changed attitude towards non-heterosexualities in public, from almost universal disgust just a decade or two ago to open acceptance in the new millennium. Participations from two statutory agencies, particularly the NSW Police, the same agency which arrested the first Mardi Gras protestors back in 1978, are obvious examples of these changed attitudes. The fact that only two statutory agencies or professional associations participated in the 2005 parade is reflective of the continued struggle many non-heterosexuals face in having their non-heterosexual identities and politics publicly recognised. All of these showcase a very different aspect of non- heterosexual politics to the ones discussed in section 5.3, where placards and slogans forcibly protest against injustice and rally for change. These underlying politics, thus, differ to those discussed in section 5.3 in their subtlety and are at times overlooked.

5.5 A straight-forward relationship between commercialisation and de- politicisation? A case for abjection This section focuses on the political value(s) of neo-normative performances, particularly in relation to the 2005 SGLMG parade. I had previously discussed the homogenising and misrepresentative effects of neo-normativity in section 2.6. Evidence presented in this chapter has pointed to some forms of neo-normalisation in the 2005 SGLMG parade, with stereotypical performances present in the majority of parade groups. These stereotypical performances also appeared to be linked to commercial sponsorship and a lack of political activism, feeding to many critics’ concerns that commercialisation has homogenised and de-politicised the SGLMG. Despite the strong injection of commercial activities, many political themes were still visibly present at the 2005 parade. The effects of how the stereotypical/neo-normalised performances have been used, however, have thus far been excluded from my discussions. This section explores the wider impacts of neo-normativity and the possibility of an abjected relationship it has with non-heterosexual politics. It was established in section 5.1 that commercial sponsorship was linked to stereotypical or, to use the term I conceived, neo-normative performances. These

161 stereotypical performances covered a wide variety of non-heterosexual identities. These stereotypical/neo-normalised performances often consisted of extreme juxtapositions between ‘traditional’, heteronormative understandings of gender identities and one’s biological sex. The ‘effeminised’ gay male, ‘masculinised’ lesbian, the drag queen and the transvestites exemplify this juxtaposition most clearly. Because such neo-normalised performances present such extreme departures to the heteronormative understandings of gender identities, they have often been subjected to the harshest forms of discrimination and pathologisation. As a result, they were frequently a focus of disgust, and historically ejected by heteronormative societies. This ejection and exclusion from heteronormative societies have instigated many ‘effeminised’ gay males, ‘masculinised’ lesbians, drag queens and transvestites to congregate in the more culturally and socially bohemia sections of large cities such as the red-light district. This historical context of non-heterosexual spatial development was already discussed in Castells (1983) and others. More recently, particularly since the 1990s, there is also evidence to suggest that such neo-normalised performances were beginning to be ejected and excluded by many non-heterosexuals, frequently for reasons of homogenisation and misrepresentation. Several high profile non- heterosexual public figures (such as former player Ian Roberts) and numerous reality program contestants (such as the winners of the fourth instalment of The Amazing Race) have publicly declared their desire to ‘break the stereotypes’. Mark Simpson (1994) had also discussed how some neo-normative performances like drag, which once stood at the forefront of non-heterosexual politics and protests such as the Stonewall Riot, were ejected by many non-heterosexuals from the 1970s onwards due to their emphasis on camp and theatricality. It appears, then, performers of neo-normalised identities like those listed above are regularly excluded and ejected by heteronormative societies as well as sections of the non-heterosexual societies. More importantly, these denials and denouncements of neo-normative performances are establishing new boundaries of distinction between ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ non-heterosexualities. Non-heterosexual communities thus are fractured and never whole, contradicting its apparent celebration of diversity and inclusiveness, and the spectacle of conformity that the neo-normative performances visualise. Drag, in particular, serves as an ideal example of this abject relation, itself being an archaic image of the demonised non-heterosexual of yesteryears that is now regularly ejected by contemporary non-heterosexuals. Despite this seemingly gloomy outlook for neo-normative performers, and as I put forward in section 2.5, stereotypical and neo-normative performances may yet hold some political values to the non-heterosexual communities, at least as far as

162 participation in the SGLMG parade was concerned. Section 5.1 showed that neo- normalised performances were included in 81.3% of the 107 parade groups that participated in the 2005 parade (see Table 5.3). Neo-normalised performances, then, appeared to be quite readily accepted in a Gay Pride event where “we can get away with so much more” (Hodge, 1996, page 79), contrary to the regular ejections by non- heterosexual public figures abovementioned. I believe there are two main reasons for this apparent contradiction. First, neo-normalised performances were condoned as they remain the most readily and widely identifiable non-heterosexual identities to both non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals. Inclusion of these performances would, thus, be of favourable market value when persuading commercial ventures to invest and sponsor parade performances, particularly if their businesses aim for a predominantly non-heterosexual clientele. This was likely the case for DNA magazine’s official sponsorship of the 2005 SGLMG parade. In the case of political activism, on the other hand, inclusion of such stereotypical/neo-normalised performances would also immediately identify the protested issues as inherently non-heterosexual. This explains the strong link between neo-normalised performances and sponsorships from GLBT organisations as if the inclusions of such performances authenticate and legitimise these organisations’ non-heterosexualities. Second, these performances were condoned, to some extent, for overtly political reasons. Drag and cross-gender performances, for example, though neo-normative, still present the greatest challenge to heteronormative ideals by upsetting and disrupting the hegemonic masculine- male/feminine-female binaries. Other political non-heterosexual identities since introduced – such as the hypermasculine gay skinheads, hyperfeminine lipstick lesbians and political lesbians – to counter the more archaic stereotypes of drag and cross-genderism have yet to find similar success in challenging such hegemonic ideologies. Murray (1995, page 67), for example, explained that the hypermasculine and hyperfeminine identities were performed not to destabilise heteronormativity but more so to allow non-heterosexuals to ‘pass’ heteronormative gazes undetected. The inclusion of neo-normative performances, particularly drag and cross-gender performers, as a means of authenticating and legitimising the GLBT organisational agenda may well carry some truths as these neo-normative performances continue to prove to be more effective than many other non-heterosexual performances in challenging heteronormative hegemonies. The easy identifiability of neo-normative performances and their continued success in challenging the heteronormative hegemony at the 2005 SGLMG parade, it seems, outweighed the fear of regressing back into the archaic demonisation of non-heterosexualities.

163 The existence of the SGLMG also highlights two other forms of abjections that extend beyond the event itself. First, the SGLMG, particularly its annual parade, is a very temporally limited event that is also highly controlled. As Susan Davis (1986, pages 45-6) explained, public demonstrations like the SGLMG were often controlled, not just by authorities but also by society in general. These controls come in many forms, including the refusal of authoritative permission11, verbal and physical abuse, or even cultural backlashes such as the aforementioned road-side protests by religious groups during the parade, posing physical and symbolic dangers to parade participants and spectators. The accommodation of an event like the SGLMG, even prior to sodomy being decriminalised in NSW in the mid-1980s, may then be viewed as the heteronormative society’s (or at least the governing body’s) compartmentalisation and containment of such a counter-heteronormative performance. These compartmentalisations and containments work in both spatial (a designated route not even one kilometre long) and temporal (a few hours a year) terms. These compartmentalisations and containments, while on the one hand serve as an ideological ejection of non-heterosexualities also, on the other hand, acknowledge their very existence. As the gay character Louis from the Tony Kushner play Angels in America quipped, “If he [former American President Ronald Reagan] didn’t have people like me to demonise where would he be? Upper-right-hand square on The Hollywood Squares” (Kushner, 1995, page 204, original emphasis), referring to President Reagan building his political career out of demonising and excluding non- heterosexuals. This acknowledgement of non-heterosexualities through the compartmentalisation of their performances thus further centralised and normalised heterosexualities, especially in public spaces such as the streets of Sydney. At the conclusion of these few hours, parts of the ‘non-heterosexualised’ public spaces are also (re)heterosexualised, much like the cannibalism of the ejected that Kristeva (1982) had described in her explanation of abjection. Second, the abundance of neo- normativity at the SGLMG parade also provided ample opportunities for academic and social critics like Ingebretsen (1999), Johnston (2003), McNeil (1993), Offord (2001) and Seebohm (1992; 1993) to publicly state a desire to eject and exclude such performances. This is in spite of the fact that many of these critics are themselves non-

11 The early years of the SGLMG parade were run ‘illegally’ without official approvals and were constantly dogged by police interventions and public disruptions (Carbery, 1995, page 12).

164 heterosexuals, highlighting one of many forms of internal homophobia12. These regular ejections of the neo-normalised performances demonise such performances as perverse much in the way non-heterosexualities are demonised by heteronormative ideals. These demonised neo-normative identities also serve as a threat to the boundaries that protect the purified non-heterosexual ideals that the very same ejection had established. Such a scholastic tussle between the acknowledgment and ejection of neo-normative performances embodies the very principles of abjection, much like the abovementioned compartmentalisation had further centralised heteronormativity. It has been shown in this section that neo-normative performances serve several important roles in Sydney’s and Australia’s non-heterosexual politics. Being easily identifiable had allowed these performances to become the signifiers of non- heterosexualities in many commercial promotions or in authenticating some non- heterosexual causes. Furthermore, their historical links with extreme juxtapositioning of gender/sex identities posit them in the forefront of the challenge to heteronormative hegemonic gender binaries, a political role which is still unparalleled by other political identities such as hypermasculinity and hyperfemininity. Yet despite these political roles, many non-heterosexuals continue to distance themselves from such performances, in fear of regression back to these more archaic non-heterosexual identities that were once (and in many ways still are) demonised by heteronormativity. Some have gone so far as denouncing these performances as homogenising and misrepresentative of non-heterosexual diversities despite clear indication that they are very much part of the non-heterosexual diversities. I, therefore, believe that a love-hate relationship exists between neo-normativity and non-heterosexuals. Based on the arguments presented in this section, I believe that some form of neo-normativity, like commercialisation to the SGLMG parade, was required and necessary for the progression of non-heterosexual politics. This love-hate relationship is very much abject in nature. For one, the neo-normalised identities (at least for those who choose to perform them) are self-produced by the non-heterosexual communities. Many other non-heterosexuals have, however, persistently denounced and ejected these performances, demonising them for reasons of homogenisation and misrepresentation. Yet, these denouncements and ejections have also failed to realise how integral these identities are to non-heterosexual life, particularly the political roles (such as their challenges to heteronormative hegemonics) that (some of) these neo-normalised identities play. An abject relationship hence exists between non-heterosexuals and

12 Internal homophobia is defined by Fyfe (1983, page 550) as “internalised self-devaluation by homosexuals”.

165 neo-normativity. A second abject relationship also exists where the SGLMG functions as a space for the compartmentalisation of counter-heteronormative activism. This temporally non-heterosexualised space was then ritualistically cannibalised by presumed heteronormativity of public spaces at the conclusion of each annual parade. Some academics also struggle at times to their internal homophobia and acknowledge the politics of some neo-normative performances by continually denouncing such performances as homogenising and counter-productive in terms of advancing non-heterosexual politics. This highlights the relationships between neo- normativity and non-heterosexualities as intimate and complex, making it an uneasy and contentious topic of non-heterosexual politics.

5.6 Conclusion This chapter focused on the performances of 107 parade groups at the 2005 SGLMG parade. It explored the relationships these performances had with non- heterosexual politics as well as other social discourses such as heteronormativity, de- politicisation, commercialisation and, most importantly, my own concept of neo- normativity. Performances were recorded in two formats – digital photography and field notes – and were analysed using statistical, content and discourse analyses. Many critics like Chasin (2000), Johnston (2003), Lewis and Ross (1995) and Seebohm (1992; 1993) expressed concerns that commercialisation had diminished the activist role of Gay Pride events like the SGLMG parade. Evidence presented in this chapter showed that some forms of commercialisation were present at the 2005 SGLMG parade. More specifically, commercialisation appeared most readily in the forms of sponsorships to individual parade groups as well as to the overall event organisation. Moreover, statistical tests showed that a strong positive relationship existed between commercial sponsorships to individual parade groups and the inclusion of political messages as part of these groups’ performances (Tables 5.5 and 5.6). This resonates with the concerns that were discussed in the abovementioned research. Other researchers like March and Greenfield (1993) and Nicoll (2001), however, argued to the contrary, that commercialisation was necessary for the long-term survival of Gay Pride events like the SGLMG parade. Analyses of the financial statements of New Mardi Gras Inc (2006; 2007) show that its commercial activities like the Sleaze Ball and official sponsorships were largely responsible for keeping the organisation afloat. Staying afloat became more important for the SGLMG after the liquidation of its previous organising committee – the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Inc – in 2002. This restructure in the organisation behind the SGLMG forced it to reassess the festival’s purposes and objectives to re-focus on its political origins after years of rapid

166 expansion. Its recent intentions to downscale its festivities in the near future are clear indications of this stronger political conviction (Gow, 2008). In contrast to some academic critiques, political protests appeared to have regained some parts of the centre stage of the 2005 SGLMG parade. Non- heterosexual politics of the 2005 SGLMG parade were analysed at two levels. First, the visible display of political statements was analysed using statistical and content analyses (Table 5.8). Overt political statements were only part of the performances of less than a third of parade groups. Most of these overt political statements concerned contemporary issues and could be classified into three main themes of same-sex unions, homophobic discrimination and HIV/AIDS. Australian and international debates surrounding the status of same-sex unions at the time prompted this issue to be one of the most commonly displayed political statements at the 2005 SGLMG parade. Protests over homophobic discrimination also had an international focus. Aside from all parade groups marching under the overall 2005 theme of Our Freedom, Your Freedom Too, the official parade group of the same name also visibly displayed the harsh punishment that many overseas non-heterosexuals continue to receive (Figure 5.6). Renewed concerns over the spread of HIV/AIDS also made it a hot topic of protest in 2005. These overt political statements were all displayed prominently on placards by parade participants. On top of these more overtly visual political displays, the underlying politics of the SGLMG parade remain. These underlying politics continue to question the assumed heteronormativity of public spaces by (re)appropriating them for non-heterosexuals. There were, however, also very public reactions, such as the ever- present counter-protests by religious groups headed by Reverend Fred Nile, to these acts of counter-heteronormativity. In spite of this, the overall reception of the 2005 SGLMG parade was positive, with signs of changing/changed cultural landscapes. The intimate contributions by the NSW Police and political parties, who during the parade’s earlier years were strong opponents, were particular examples of such changes in the contemporary Australian cultural landscape. The fact that only two statutory agencies or professional associations participated in the 2005 parade reflects that many non- heterosexuals continue to struggle to have their identities and politics recognised in their workplaces and in public. This emphasises the overriding heteronormative assumptions at workplaces and public spaces. My concept of neo-normativity was also explored in this chapter. Statistical analyses showed that stereotypical performances were present in more than four-fifths of the parade groups (Table 5.2). When presence of stereotypical performances were considered in conjunction with sponsorships, it showed that a very high proportion (also more than four-fifths) of parade groups with commercial sponsorships included

167 stereotypical performances. At the same time, there appeared to be a contrariety between stereotypical performances and non-heterosexual politics. Evidence showed that the inclusion of non-heterosexual stereotypes was more likely linked with non- or less political themes. Combined with my earlier discussion of commercial sponsorships being strongly linked to less political performance, I argue, then, an intricate relationship exists amongst commercialisation, stereotypical performances (neo- normalisation), and de-politicisation of the SGLMG parade. Offord (2001) observed that a narrow presentation of stereotypical and neo-normalised identities cannot achieve political change. These stereotypical and neo-normalised identities, however, also serve several important functions in the continued survival and success of Gay Pride events like the SGLMG parade. Their identifiability, for one, is a strong marketing asset to commercial ventures with a non-heterosexual clientele. This identifiability is also attractive to GLBT organisations, where at the 2005 parade all groups sponsored by GLBT organisations included some stereotypical performances, to bring across issues that are inherently non-heterosexual such as legalised discriminations in terms of unequal marriage rights (Figures 5.9 and 5.10) or superannuation entitlements. At the same time, some GLBT organisations or parade groups could well have been pressured to include the stereotypical performances as a symbol of authenticating their status of non-heterosexualities. I, therefore, argue that an abject relationship exists between many non-heterosexuals and neo-normalised identities. There is no denying that neo-normalised identities realistically represent some non-heterosexuals due to the very diverse nature of non-heterosexualities. These very same neo-normalised identities, however, were also at times (mis)understood as passé or even gimmicky and as such occasionally denounced and ejected by some high profile non- heterosexuals. The use of neo-normalised identities thus both benefit as well as trouble non-heterosexual communities. This makes neo-normativity an uneasy and contentious issue in non-heterosexual politics. These contentions were also played out in the spaces of public media. These are examined, particularly by visual analytical methodologies, in greater detail in the next chapter.

168 Chapter 6: The mediated gazes of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade

Lady Mount-Temple: It’s not whether there is anything wrong, it’s whether or not there appears to be. That’s all people care about. (Wilde the movie, 37th minute, directed by Brian Gilbert)

Grace: All right then, we’re all friends, on the surface, where it counts. (Will & Grace, Season 6, Episode 3 “Home Court Disadvantage”, Scene VIII: The Country Club)

The results discussed in the previous chapter (Chapter 5) established that the processes of neo-normativity, along with evidence of heteronormativity and counter- normativity, were present and pursued at the SGLMG. Stereotypical non-heterosexual performances particularly were noted as having strong associations with processes like commercialisation and de-politicisation, as well as my own concept of neo-normativity. Literatures reviewed in Chapter 2 suggested that neo-normative processes were often influenced and exacerbated by external processes such as through mass media. This chapter explores this supposed association between the media and neo-normativity by analysing materials collected from an authorised source (MazzImage, official photographer to the 2005 parade) and a regulated source (newspapers). Furthermore, this chapter more fully demonstrates the use of a lesser utilised analytical method – visual methodologies. Specifically, section 6.1 examines whether stereotypical performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade were more readily portrayed in the media than as observed by myself as a spectator. The concerns of commercialisation depreciating the political activism of the parade are also re-visited by analysing the media portrayals of sponsorships (sections 6.2 and 6.3). These analyses moreover prompted my concern of social segregation through censoring parade groups affiliated to organisations without a clear non-heterosexual agenda. Selective censorships also minimised the portrayals of the more overtly sexualised and fetishistic performances of the 2005 parade, echoing the arguments of some researchers (Clatts, 1999; Hollister, 1999) that ‘public’ spaces are assumed asexual (section 6.4). Finally, analyses of images that depicted the parade’s spectators led to my observation that both the media and the parade’s official photographer highlighted the temporariness of the parade. In

169 the process, the ephemeral existence of the parade was used to highlight the ideology that public spaces are inherently heterosexual (section 6.5).

Table 6.1: Images of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade from external sources No. % Sun Herald (Online) 12 11.5% Sun Herald (Print) 21.9% Sunday Telegraph (Print) 76.7% MazzImage (Online) 83 79.8% News (sub-total) 21 20.2% Official (sub-total) 21 20.2% Digital images 95 91.3% Print images 98.7% Total 104 100.0% Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; The Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

Materials covered in this chapter were gathered from two main sources – the website of an official photographer, and from both printed and online versions of Sydney’s two Sunday newspapers. As such, the images collected were stored in two different formats – digital imagery, and newspaper clippings. Digital images were searched and downloaded from two internet websites. These were the website of the official photographer for the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) parade as appointed by New Mardi Gras Inc – MazzImage (http://www.mazzimage.com), and the website of the Sun Herald (http://www.smh.com.au), one of Sydney’s two Sunday newspapers. The website of the other Sunday newspaper – the Sunday Telegraph (http://www.news.com.au) – was also researched but it did not publish any photographs of the 2005 SGLMG parade online and have thus been excluded from analyses. Due to copyright issues, images from the MazzImage website were downloaded for analytical purposes only, with none of the images reproduced here in this thesis. In all, 98 images of the 2005 SGLMG parade were published on the MazzImage website, 83 of which depicted the performances of the parade. The remaining 15 images were excluded from content and statistical analyses reproduced for this chapter as they did not depict any of the 2005 SGLMG parade performances. These 15 included images of spectators along the parade route, or the streetscape of the parade route before or after the parade. While they were excluded from content and statistical analyses, these 15 images were,

170 however, taken into account when the full dataset was analysed. Twelve images were published on the Sun Herald website. These images were downloaded the day after the 2005 SGLMG parade, on Sunday 6th March 2005 (see Table 6.1). In all, 95 digital images from these online sources were included for use in content and statistical analyses. In addition to digital images, photographs published in printed formats were also collected and analysed. These images were collected from the printed editions of the Sun Herald and the Sunday Telegraph. Each of these printed newspapers were owned by different media companies, with the Sunday Telegraph belonging to News Limited, one of many companies owned by the Murdoch international media empire. Other Murdoch media companies included the Fox Network, which airs both in Australia and worldwide. Because of its association to the wider Murdoch media network, and its reportage of more gossip-like news such as “Kim Jong-Il gets jiggy with it” (Buchan, 2006), the Sunday Telegraph, its weekday publication (the Daily Telegraph), and their associated news website (http://www.news.com.au) have thus gained a reputation as Sydney’s tabloid newspaper. The Sun Herald, and its weekday publication (the Sydney Morning Herald, or SMH), on the other hand, is owned by Fairfax Media Limited which also publishes the Financial Review and reputable journals such as the BRW. It often prints reports from more reliable sources, such as Reuters and the Associated Press, thus gaining the reputation as Sydney’s broadsheet newspaper. In all, seven images of the 2005 SGLMG parade were collected from the 6th March issue of the Sunday Telegraph, while two were collected from the Sun Herald. Moreover, only two of these nine photographs were colour prints. These two colour photographs were printed on page 13 of the Sun Herald as a news feature. This reflected the relative lack of news- worthiness that the SGLMG was receiving in 2005. This relatively low level of reportage came only days after the Sydney Morning Herald ran an opinion feature which questioned the long term survival of the SGLMG festivities. As already discussed in Chapters 2 and 5, the popularity of the SGLMG had waned in recent years and such opinion features questioning the long term survival of the SGLMG had become common. For example, the Sydney Morning Herald website had again run an opinion poll in February 2006 on the attractiveness of the SGLMG to the general public (Dow, 2006; Tibbitts, 2006). While some respondents replied to the 2006 opinion poll positively, many saw the SGLMG festivities as passé and as a result claimed they were not likely to attend the 2006 parade. The 2006-07 Annual Report of New Mardi Gras Inc (2007, page 15), for example, reported the official attendance of the 2007 SGLMG parade to be just 320,000 spectators, well short of the one million spectators that the parade’s then organising committee reported to have attended in the late 1990s.

171 Unlike the Sun Herald, the photographs published in the Sunday Telegraph were published in two separate sections of the newspaper – both as a news feature (two images) and in the Entertainment section (five images). All seven images were published in black and white. The lack of colour of these photographs generated different and more limited representations of the parade performances. The overall low reportage of the 2005 SGLMG parade in these Sunday newspapers also reflected the waning importance of the SGLMG festivities on the Sydney social calendar despite a relatively more extensive report by the Sunday Telegraph in its Entertainment section. This apparent oversight of the SGLMG parade’s news value was further emphasised by the front page reporting – on both the Sun Herald and the Sunday Telegraph – of the Danish royal visit to Australia, highlighting news-worthiness of celebrity and royalty over a sizable community event such as the SGLMG. Speculations on a royal pregnancy, which was later confirmed, further pulled media attention away from the 2005 SGLMG parade. It was clear from this preliminary analysis that the SGLMG parade in 2005 gained relatively low attention from the wider media. The coverage of the 2005 parade by the official photographer, by comparison, was more extensive. This was because MazzImage was employed by New Mardi Gras Inc specifically to photographically document the 2005 parade1. The database of images from the news sources was thus, by comparison, relatively limited. A revisit to these news sources (both in print and their online websites) the following year, on Sunday 5th March 2006, showed that the overall coverage of the SGLMG in the news media, however, had increased slightly. There were 11 images published on the Sun Herald website, and 12 published on the Sunday Telegraph website. There were also five images published in print in the Sun Herald, and nine in the Sunday Telegraph, on their respective Sunday 5th March 2006 editions. No official photographs of the 2006 parade had yet been released when these analyses were carried out2. I also did not participate in the 2006 parade and thus have no personal images to reflect on changes between the two years. In keeping with data consistency, only images of the 2005 parade published in the news sources were used in the analyses discussed in this chapter. In the following sections, my analyses of the significance and implications of these images – and their publication – in regards to the

1 MazzImage was selected as the official photographer due to its long standing relationships with the non- heterosexual communities in Sydney as well as in London and San Francisco. In 2007 it published a book, You & Mardi Gras, which documents its long association with the SGLMG. 2 MazzImage was not the official photographer of the 2006 parade. It, however, has subsequently published photographs from the 2007 parade on its website, although it made no claim of being the official photographer.

172 portrayal of the performances at the 2005 SGLMG parade are discussed in greater detail.

6.1 Neo-normalising through highlighting of the stereotypical The discussions in this thesis so far had highlighted one aspect of neo- normativity, that stereotypical performances are actively pursued by some non- heterosexuals. This section shifts the focus to another aspect of neo-normativity, the expected conformity to some stereotypical performances. Particularly, it pays attention to how some stereotypical performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade were more readily accepted as the quintessential non-heterosexual performances. These performances were often reflected in selective visualisation by the media.

Table 6.2: Images that portrayed stereotypical non-heterosexual identity performances, 2005 Portrayed stereotypical Total performances images No. % Sun Herald (Online) 9 75.0% 12 Sun Herald (Print) 2100.0%2 Sunday Telegraph (Print) 7100.0%7 News (sub-total) 18 85.7% 21 Official (MazzImage) 71 85.5% 83 Digital images 80 84.2% 95 Print images 9100.0%9 Total 89 85.6% 104 Note: % represents proportion of all images in each of the specified sources. Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; the Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

An initial analysis on images collected from the external sources confirmed that neo-normativity was apparent at the 2005 SGLMG parade. This initial analysis used the same formula as described in section 4.4 (and as already discussed in section 5.1) in determining whether a non-heterosexual performance was stereotypical. Table 6.2 shows that a high proportion (85.6%) of the images portrayed stereotypical non- heterosexual performances. There was little difference in terms of stereotypical portrayals of non-heterosexuals when the images’ source was compared – 85.7% of images from the news media and 85.5% of images from the official photographer portrayed non-heterosexual performers in a stereotypical manner. Interestingly, all of

173 the images from the news media that were published in print contained stereotypical portrayals of non-heterosexuals regardless of whether it was a broadsheet (Sun Herald) or a tabloid newspaper (Sunday Telegraph). There was also no difference in stereotypical portrayal whether these printed images were published as part of a news report or as an entertainment feature. Furthermore, these stereotypical portrayals were more frequent than compared to their actual occurrence (only 81.3% of the 2005 SGLMG parade groups included non-heterosexual stereotypes. See Table 5.2). This heightened emphasis of stereotypical non-heterosexual performances was also observed for images as official photography by MazzImage. It, then, highlights that both the news media and the official photography more readily emphasised the more stereotypical performances at the 2005 parade.

Figure 6.1: An example of the effeminising and objectifying of non- heterosexualities at the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, The Sydney Morning Herald, 6th March, 2005

Source: http://www.smh.com.au, mardi3_gallery__550x391, accessed 6th March 2005

A common visualisation of neo-normativity was through three specific non- heterosexual stereotypes – the effeminised gay males, cross-genderism and objectification through nudity. These performances were specifically reflected in

174 sequined costumes (such as shown in Figure 6.1), cross-dressing performers (see Figure 6.2), and male nudity (see Figure 6.3). Two-fifths (39.4%) of the images, for example, portrayed performances that used sequined costumes, with proportions lower for images from the official photographer (32.5%) than those from the news media (66.7%) (see Table 6.3). Again, the highest proportions of images that portrayed sequined costumes were found in the printed editions of the newspaper (100.0% for images from the Sun Herald, 71.4% for images from the Sunday Telegraph). Furthermore, these images that featured performers in sequined costumes not only received more regular reportage, they were also physically larger than other images such that their presence was more prominent than others on the same page. Figure 6.4 shows one of the five images published as part of a full-page entertainment feature of the Sunday Telegraph. This image was by far the largest image published on this full- page feature, measuring 16 centimetres by 13.5 centimetres (or 6.25 inches by 5.25 inches), and spread two-thirds of the way across the page (the next largest, measuring 10 centimetres by 18 centimetres or four inches by seven inches, portrayed three young females in camouflage bikini tops and short, wrapped skirts). Furthermore, it was also positioned in the top left corner of the Entertainment page above the headline. Since English texts are traditionally read from left to right and top to bottom, and together with its size, this image was thus put in a prime position – as the image that readers first come across when opening that particular page. Directly to the right of Figure 6.4 the image featured a young male and a young female, both dressed in school uniforms graffitied with hand-written messages such as head cheerleader and school captain. Below the headline featured the abovementioned image of the three young females in bikini tops, left of a small image of Sydney City Lord Mayor Clover Moore then the smallest image on the page, two females, as part of the Dykes on Bikes group, fully-dressed as clowns. This further put emphasis on the glamorising of non-heterosexual performances at the 2005 SGLMG parade by highlighting the relative normalcy of all the other images featured on the page. It also effeminised male non- heterosexualities because all performers in these sequined costumes as featured in Figure 6.4 were males. Its caption, “cowboys and Indians-themed costumes were a hit again this year”, underlines the repetitive nature of this effeminisation and the glamorising of male non-heterosexualities, quintessentialising it as a non-heterosexual norm and SGLMG stereotype.

175 Figure 6.2: A cross-dresser poses with a group of jubilant Japanese tourists, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: http://www.smh.com.au, mgdrag_gallery__550x354, accessed 6th March 2005

Figure 6.3: Male nudity was more readily reflected by the media than female nudity, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: http://www.smh.com.au, mgwings_gallery__550x357, accessed 6th March 2005

176 Table 6.3: Representation of costume elements by source of images, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 Sequin/glitter Leather Colourful No. % No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 7 58.3% 0 0.0% 2 16.7% Sun Herald (Print) 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sunday Telegraph (Print) 5 71.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% News (sub-total) 14 66.7% 0 0.0% 2 9.5% Official (MazzImage) 27 32.5% 18 21.7% 13 15.7% Digital images 34 35.8% 18 18.9% 15 15.8% Print images 7 77.8% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Total 41 39.4% 18 17.3% 15 14.4% Cross-gender Size (small) Size (elaborate) No. % No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 4 33.3% 4 33.3% 3 25.0% Sun Herald (Print) 2 100.0% 1 50.0% 0 0.0% Sunday Telegraph (Print) 0 0.0% 3 42.9% 0 0.0% News (sub-total) 6 28.6% 8 38.1% 3 14.3% Official (MazzImage) 31 37.3% 21 25.3% 6 7.2% Digital images 35 36.8% 25 26.3% 9 9.5% Print images 2 22.2% 4 44.4% 0 0.0% Total 37 35.6% 29 27.9% 9 8.7% Nudity (male) Nudity (female) "Normative" No. % No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 4 33.3% 2 16.7% 4 33.3% Sun Herald (Print) 1 50.0% 0 0.0% 1 50.0% Sunday Telegraph (Print) 1 14.3% 0 0.0% 4 57.1% News (sub-total) 6 28.6% 2 9.5% 9 42.9% Official (MazzImage) 29 34.9% 7 8.4% 20 24.1% Digital images 33 34.7% 9 9.5% 24 25.3% Print images 2 22.2% 0 0.0% 5 55.6% Total 35 33.7% 9 8.7% 29 27.9% Rainbow Total No. % Sun Herald (Online) 18.3% 12 Sun Herald (Print) 00.0% 2 Sunday Telegraph (Print) 2 28.6% 7 News (sub-total) 3 14.3% 21 Official (MazzImage) 16 19.3% 83 Digital images 17 17.9% 95 Print images 2 22.2% 9 Total 19 18.3% 104 Note: % represents proportion of all images in each of the specified sources. Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; The Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

177 Figure 6.4: Sequined cowboys, cowgirls and Indians fronting the Sunday Telegraph’s report of the 2005 parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Note: Caption reads, “Wild west: Cowboys and Indians-themed costumes were a hit again this year” Source: Sunday Telegraph, 6th March, 2005, page 112

Cross-genderism and transvestism was regularly portrayed in the news media as a non-heterosexual stereotype. The image reproduced here as Figure 6.2, for example, was published twice by the Sun Herald. It appeared once as part of its online image album while a cropped version (see Figure 6.11) was published as a news report in its printed edition. This highlights the high acceptability of cross-genderism and transvestism, particularly a glamorised male-to-female cross-dresser, as a non- heterosexual stereotype. This acceptability of cross-genderism and transvestism as a non-heterosexual stereotype, as Manning (1995) explained, was due to their theatrics and high entertainment value considered by contemporary societies. Apart from maintaining cross-dressing/transvestism as a non-heterosexual neo-norm, the images collected from the news media and the official photographer also perpetuated the non-

178 heterosexual stereotype of sexualised objects. This was evident in the frequent portrayals of nudity and partial nudity, in particular, of male performers (see Figures 6.1 and 6.2). In all, one-third (33.7%) of the images portrayed performances that included some form of male nudity. There was a higher proportion of images from the official photographer (34.9%) that showed male nudity compared to those from the news media (28.6%), though this difference was only marginal. While the difference in portrayals between the official photographer and the news media were minimal, it, however, still reflected the generally lower acceptance of displaying nudity in mass publications, particularly in print mediums, such as newspapers. Only two of the nine images (22.2%) published in print in the Sunday Telegraph or the Sun Herald portrayed male nudity (see, for example, Figure 6.4), compared to four of the twelve images (33.3%) published online on the Sun Herald website (Figures 6.1, 6.2, 6.5 and 6.6). These images generally showed the male performers bare-chested with their bottom halves scantily clad, such as in short sequined shorts (see Figure 6.1), skin-tight hotpants (see Figure 6.5), or fake leaves (see Figure 6.6). In contrast, only 8.7% of the images showed female nudity (including partial nudity), most of whom were part of the Dykes on Bikes group. Only two of the images collected from the news media (9.5%) portrayed female nudity, both of which were collected from the Sun Herald website, where the female performers were portrayed in bikini tops and bottoms (see Figures 6.5 and 6.6). While the female performers in Figure 6.1 too wore bikini tops, they also wore sequined and were less exposed, thus excluding them from being classified under ‘female nudity’. Seven of the images by the official photographer (8.4%) portrayed female nudity. Unlike those published in the news media, these images in general showed the female parade performers bare-breasted, especially those who were part of the Dykes on Bikes parade group (see, for example, in the MazzImage collection, image 050305-031). The absence of bare-breasted female performers in news publications was likely due to their more stringent publication rules. This reflects the very sanitised conception of public spaces such that the display of sexual organs (which females’ breasts are often considered along with male and female genitals) were prohibited (this notion of sanitised public spaces is discussed in more detail in section 6.4). Despite this visual sanitation, the prominent display of bare flesh, such as by placing them to the front of the image (see Figures 6.1 and 6.4), nonetheless portrayed the performers and performances in an objectified manner by dismantling and fragmenting the focus onto first and foremost the performers’ lack of clothing. The presentation of these dismantled and fragmented body parts sans clothing en masse invisibilises the rest of the performers, making them all one and the same. This “substitution of a part for the whole” (original emphasis), as Stuart Hall

179 (1997, page 266) claims, fetishises the said ‘parts’ (in this case, bare chests and breasts), in the processing making them taboo, abject, though in a celebratory manner. At the same time, the bare-chested male bodies selected for display more than often had well-toned musculature, while the bare-breasted female bodies often had trimmed torsoes and big breasts. These images, thus, (re)created and (re)enforced what is/are desirable.

Figure 6.5: Shining glamour taking prime position in news reportage, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: http://www.smh.com.au, mardi4_gallery__550x389, accessed 6th March 2005

While on one hand the news media had successfully fetishised nudity, particularly bare chests and breasts, it had, however, retreated from publishing and promoting anything of a more fetishistic nature in terms of sexual . This was especially the case if the performances connote a communal understanding of perversity. This was clearly evident in the representation of (or lack there of) the leather subculture in the news media (see Table 6.3) compared to the more acceptable ‘normative’ clothing types like simple t-shirts and jeans, or even the abovementioned acceptable stereotypes like sequined costumes and cross-genderism. This lack of representations in the news media was further contrasted by the leather subculture having a comparatively sizeable participation in the 2005 SGLMG parade (16.8% of the

180 Figure 6.6: Scantily-clad Adams and Eves this time not tempted by the Howard serpent, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: http://www.smh.com.au, mgheads_gallery__550x356, accessed 6th March 2005

Table 6.4: Representation of sexualised and/or fetishistic performances by source of image, 2005 Sexualised Fetishistic performances performances Total No.%No.% Sun Herald (Online) 1 8.3% 0 0.0% 12 Sun Herald (Print) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 Sunday Telegraph (Print) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 News (sub-total) 1 4.8% 0 0.0% 21 Official (MazzImage) 7 8.4% 6 7.2% 83 Digital images 8 8.4% 6 6.3% 95 Print images 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 9 Total 8 7.7% 6 5.8% 104 Note: % represents proportion of all images in each of the specified sources. Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; The Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

181 2005 SGLMG parade groups represented the leather subculture, many of which were quite numerous. See Table 5.2). This considerable subculture, however, was not represented at all in the news reporting of the 2005 SGLMG parade and in only 7.2% of official photography (see Table 6.4). These leather costumes were often very small in size (such as leather bikini bottoms), showing a lot of the performers’ flesh and body parts, and at times included the showing of bare chests and buttocks (see for example MazzImage image 050305-196). Many also included elements of sado-masochism, such as a leather harness or leather whips. This selective representation of non- heterosexual identities by MazzImage indicates an internal abjection with those neo- normalised performances considered to be perverse. The non-representation of these ‘perverse’ performances in the news media, particularly in the print medium, is reflective of the highly regulated nature of ‘public’ spaces, be they physical spaces such as the SGLMG parade route, or virtual spaces such as the Internet, and that only certain identity performances were acceptable in these ‘public’ spaces. In the case of the reporting of the 2005 SGLMG parade, while it was acceptable to represent non- heterosexuals, particularly non-heterosexual males, in an objectified and at times sexualised manner, it was clearly unacceptable – or taboo even – to depict performances which would be suggestive of any non-‘normative’ sexual practices such as the ‘fetishistic’ leather subculture which may, at times, involve elements of sado- masochism. In a sense, this is a reflection of the highly regulated display of sexuality in ‘public’ domains, and how the more fetishistic are deemed unsuitable for public display, with the non-normative regularly and systematically invisibilised. This does not, however, reflect a neo-normative ideology towards public space, but instead points to a very heteronormative assumption that public spaces themselves are devoid of erotica (see section 3.3). In other words, public spaces are portrayed as inherently non-erotic. In the same way that fetishistic performances were censored by the news media, overtly sexualised performances also did not receive accurate portrayals. Overtly sexualised performances (such as the simulation of sexual intercourse or the touching of oneself in an enticing manner) accounted for just 7.7% of the images. These images included one portrayal online on the Sun Herald website (Figure 6.1) and seven on the MazzImage website. Figure 6.1 showed the performers dressed in bright, sequined costumes in the forms of cowboys/cowgirls and Indians/Native Americans. All male performers, whether dressed as cowboys or Indians, were predominantly topless aside from some very thin strips of sequined straps on the occasional performer, such as worn by the male performer in the foreground of Figure 6.1. The female performers, though not topless, were also only scantily-clad in sequined bra tops and chaps. While the abundance of nudity was not evidence enough

182 to qualify these performances as overtly sexualised, it was in the provocative dance choreography, though not effectively portrayed in the still image, that prompted my considering these performances overtly sexualised. Nonetheless, this is an exceptional image in the news media and provides an indication of censorship to what the media consider to be acceptable non-heterosexual portrayals. This also furthers my earlier argument that public spaces are commonly assumed to be inherently non-erotic.

Figure 6.7: Civilians on parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Note: Caption reads, “On parade: Kate Brandon, Sian McLachlan and Isabelle Guillemot.” Source: Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005, page 11

Parade participants in ‘normative’, everyday clothing were less readily censored and featured more prominently in the news media reports. These ‘normative’ non- heterosexual performances were portrayed in more than two-fifths (42.9%) of the images published in the news media. Moreover, the proportions were higher for images published in print (57.1% of images in the Sunday Telegraph, and 50.0% of images in the Sun Herald) than compared to images published online (33.3% of images on the Sun Herald’s website). Figures 6.7 and 6.8 are examples of such ‘normative’ performances. Furthermore, the proportions of these ‘normative’ performances portrayed in the news media were considerably higher than compared to that for images by the official photographer (24.1%). This greater acceptance of ‘normative’ performances by the media reflects its heteronormative assumption of public spaces as

183 these ‘normative’ performers could more readily ‘pass’ as heterosexual. The captions of these images were also less extravagant or dramatic than those of stereotypical portrayals. The caption of the image reproduced here as Figure 6.7, for example, simply stated the names of the three parade performers, while the image reproduced here as Figure 6.4 described the performance as being “wild” and popular (“were a hit again this year”). These captions, thus, stereotyped non-heterosexual performances as persistently “wild”, contrasting the orderly ideal of public spaces. This also further propagandise public spaces as heteronormative, where the temporality of these “wild” non-heterosexual performances should be restricted to just a few hours a year. It was clear that media had control over what the public should consider acceptable and desirable and what Others should be invisibilised from public view.

Figure 6.8: PlaySchool mums and their daughter in everyday clothing participated as the Chiefs of Parade, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Source: http://www.smh.com.au, mgmums_gallery__550x354, accessed 6th March 2005

This favouring of the ‘normative’, everyday clothing than the more fetishistic performances by the news media also emphasised its attempted invisibilisation of (and to a lesser extent overt sexualisation), particularly in public spaces and at public events such as the SGLMG parade. This figurative sanitisation of the public arena, especially of same-sex erotica, echoed the concerns of Russo (1987),

184 Walters (2001) and others that non-heterosexual performances are often portrayed by the media as undesirable/undesired. My above argument of restricting the temporality of “wild” non-heterosexual performances in public is a case in point. This resonates with early media portrayal of non-heterosexuals in the form of tokenism, with non- heterosexual characters, often alone and out of place in amongst the heterosexual characters, having significantly shorter screen time and occupying peripheral storylines. At the same time, however, this invisibilisation of non-heterosexual sexual fetishism and overt sexualisation may be viewed as a counter-normative act, where it both challenges and troubles, first, the heteronormative assumption of non- heterosexual perversity, and second, the neo-normative objectification of non- heterosexuals. While this may seem contradictory to my arguments on the objectification and sexualisation of non-heterosexual performers, these portrayals do demonstrate an unbalanced power relationship between the media and the performances. Likewise, an uneven relationship between the media and its audience, one based on economics (a fear of loss in newspaper sales), is also highlighted. The censorings of the more overtly sexualised and fetishistic performances reflect how the media is often governed by expectations of its consumers and their willingness to consume (therefore, purchase) their products (in this case, newspapers and website hits). The official photographer, on the other hand, took on a very different approach in the sexualising and fetishising of non-heterosexuals at the 2005 SGLMG parade. Unlike the images printed in newspapers and their associated websites, a greater variety of non-heterosexual identity performances – as visualised through the many different costume elements – were represented in the images (see Table 6.3). This different approach to sexualising and fetishising non-heterosexuals was most noticeable in regards to the representation of the performances censored by the news media such as the leather subculture as discussed earlier. The official photographer, however, did not at the same time over-emphasise the overtly sexualised or fetishised non-heterosexual identity performances. In all, only 8.4% of the images by the official photographer portrayed performances that could be classified as overtly sexualised, while only 7.2% could be classified as fetishistic (see Table 6.4). The images that portrayed overtly sexualised performances in general showed the parade performers – usually as individuals rather than in groups – fondling themselves suggestively, such as a woman in a costume of a nurse pulling down her top to expose her breasts (image 050305-152), or a male-to-female cross-dresser licking his index fingers (image

185 050305-418) and then touching his own nipples (image 050305-419)3. All of these actions are suggestive of erotica yet not fetishistic. Images that portrayed fetishistic performances, on the other hand, in general showed the parade performers in leather costumes (image 050305-196), or, mockingly, acting out scenes of sado-masochism (image 050305-378). These images of fetishism referred to very specific sexual practices (such as sado-masochism) rather than seductive actions such as those aforementioned. This prompts an observation that the group of images that were classified as overtly sexualised were mutually exclusive from the group of images that were classified fetishistic. Regardless, it was clear that the official photographer (MazzImage) was more open, unlike the news media, to portraying a variety of non- heterosexual performances. The heteronormative conservativeness of the news media in representing non- heterosexuals as undesirable, or at least less desirable, is also highlighted by the censorship. This echoes Russo (1987), Walters (2001) and others’ concern that non- heterosexual characters, whether in films or on television, are regularly portrayed as undesirable/undesired. The news media’s censorship of the more overtly sexualised and fetishistic performances thus, unlike MazzImage which has a non-heterosexual target audience, reflects its fears of upsetting or offending its (presumably) heterosexual target audience and consumers and, as I had argued earlier, to protect the heteronormative assumption of public domains. This fear of upsetting an existing audience is clearly set out in the form of industry codes of practice which are regulated and maintained through complaints from audience and consumers of these mediums when breached. Legal repercussions of breach could be as severe as the termination of broadcast and publication licences (Australian Communications and Media Authority, 2008). This fear of economic repercussion (such as loss in sales) and, to a lesser extent, breach of the broadcasting code of practice would have prompted the news media to be selective and portrayed the more readily non-heterosexually identifiable non-heterosexual performance (in another word, neo-normative) that would also not easily offend its consumers. MazzImage, however, has a predominantly non- heterosexual audience and consumer (New Mardi Gras Inc employed MazzImage as the official photographer of the 2005 SGLMG parade). It would not upset its existing audience and consumer base by publishing the more overtly sexualised and fetishistic

3 As already noted in Chapter 4, due to issues with copyright no images from MazzImage are reproduced in this thesis. The identifiable numbers of the images discussed, however, are provided for reference. These images can be viewed from the MazzImage website, http://www.paloaltomedia.com/nmg/05_parade/index.htm.

186 performances. It would also have been afforded a wider range of ‘acceptable’ non- heterosexual performances for publication and be less likely breach the broadcasting codes of practice through its more ‘realistic’ portrayal of the parade. The evidence presented and discussed in this section established that media portrayals of non-heterosexuals, specifically those of the 2005 SGLMG parade, often focussed and highlighted stereotypical performances of non-heterosexualities. These stereotypical portrayals included the effeminising of non-heterosexual males, the perpetuation of cross-genderism/transvestism as a non-heterosexual neo-norm, the attempts to invisibilise non-heterosexualities in public spaces (both physical and virtual), and the representation of non-heterosexuals as undesirable/undesired. These often stereotypical portrayals of non-heterosexuals (and non-heterosexualities) provided evidence which pointed to neo-normativity being as much an externally expected phenomenon as an internally driven process. This aspect of external expectation was particularly evident in the photographs published by the news media (both in print and from their associated websites) than by the official photographer. The more heteronormative portrayals of the 2005 SGLMG parade performances by the news media, such as portraying non-heterosexuals as sexually undesirable, reflect its more conservative ideology of sexuality performances and public spaces. I argued that this was due to fears of upsetting its (presumably) heterosexual target audience and consumer, but also a greater economic and legal repercussion in breaching a strict broadcasting code of practice. There was, however, also evidence which suggested the news media portraying non-heterosexualities in a counter-normative manner by challenging the heteronormative assumption of perversity and the neo-normative sexual objectification of non-heterosexuals. The next section examines this complex relationship between neo-normativity, heteronormativity and counter-normativity further through an assessment of the relationships between secondary portrayals and sponsorship.

6.2 Depiction of place, affiliation and sponsorship There has been an assumption that non-heterosexuals and heterosexuals live in socially and spatially distinct communities. This assumption has often led to the portrayals of non-heterosexual communities existing exclusively in the so-called ‘gay ghettoes’. These ‘gay ghettoes’, as many previous research had discussed (Castell, 1983; Hodge, 1995), are often found in the inner-city areas of large cities like London, San Francisco and Sydney. This section explores this assumed segregation of non- heterosexual spaces by analysing the organisational affiliations and sponsorships of the performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade as depicted in the news media and

187 official photography. Organisational affiliation and sponsorship types were categorised into five main types (the same as those used in Chapter 5), namely commercial, GLBT establishments, statutory/governmental, other, and not affiliated. Results from Chapter 5 established that a high proportion of the parade groups in the 2005 SGLMG parade were affiliated to and sponsored by commercial ventures. An analysis of how this relationship was reflected in the news reports and official photography, such as the emphasising of certain sponsorship and affiliation types, provides a sense of whether the news media and the SGLMG sees and depicts the non-heterosexual communities as socially and spatially segregated or integrated. Emphasis on sponsorships from commercial and mainstream organisations, for example, reflects an integration between heterosexual and non-heterosexual societies. This section analyses the organisational affiliations and sponsorship as depicted in these images.

Table 6.5: Depiction of external organisation affiliation by type of organisation, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 GLBT Statutory / Commercial Establishments Government No. % No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sun Herald (Print) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sunday Telegraph (Print) 0 0.0% 1 14.3% 0 0.0% News (sub-total) 0 0.0% 1 4.8% 0 0.0% Official (MazzImage) 0 0.0% 15 18.1% 1 1.2% Digital images 0 0.0% 15 15.8% 1 1.1% Print images 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% Total 0 0.0% 16 15.4% 1 1.0% Other Not affiliated Total No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 2 16.7% 10 83.3% 12 Sun Herald (Print) 0 0.0% 2 100.0% 2 Sunday Telegraph (Print) 1 14.3% 5 71.4% 7 News (sub-total) 3 14.3% 17 81.0% 21 Official (MazzImage) 7 8.4% 60 72.3% 83 Digital images 9 9.5% 70 73.7% 95 Print images 1 11.1% 7 77.8% 9 Total 10 9.6% 77 74.0% 104 Note: GLBT stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Transsexual Note: % represents proportion of all images in each of the specified sources. Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; The Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

188 Chapter 5 established that a sizeable non-heterosexual community (most visibly in the form of, but not limited to, the parade groups) exists in Sydney. It was also shown that this sizeable non-heterosexual community was well supported (both socially and financially) by a variety of commercial ventures, community groups, and, to a lesser extent, state and local governments. How these social and financial supports were visualised and reported in the media and official photography, however, differed greatly. Table 6.5 shows the number of images from the news media and the official photographer that depicted some sort of organisational affiliation. Nearly three-quarters (74.0%) of the images from the news media and official photographer failed to depict the parade groups as having any type of organisational affiliation. This meant that only one-quarter (26.0%) of the images were depicted as having some form of organisational affiliation. This level of depiction was particularly low and unrealistic where 69.2% of the parade groups were affiliated to at least one organisation (see sections 5.2 and 5.3). The non-depiction of affiliation was higher in the news media (81.0% shown as not having any organisational affiliation) than in the official photographs (72.3%). The non-depiction of commercial affiliation, especially, was particularly noted in all images from the news media and the official photographer, with no images depicting any type of commercial affiliation. Depiction of affiliation to statutory or governmental organisations was also low, reflected in only one official image, representing just 1.2% of all official photographs (or 1.0% of all images). The significance of this low level of organisational affiliation depiction was, first, that it gave a sense of (hetero)normative disinterest, that the wider, presumably heteronormative community could not, and would not, be interested in a ‘non-heterosexual’ event such as the SGLMG parade. This depiction of heteronormative disinterest in the 2005 SGLMG parade feeds into the common assumption that the non-heterosexual communities in Sydney were socially segregated communities and that integration with other (presumably) heterosexual communities did not exist. By implication, this social segregation gave heed to the common assumption that heterosexuality and non-heterosexualities are spatially exclusive of each other. With the heteronormative assumption of most spaces taken into consideration, non-heterosexuals are then confined to certain designated, acceptable spaces (the so-called ‘gay ghettoes’) while the rest remained largely heterosexual. Hodge (1995, page 41) was particularly critical of such a characterisation of non-heterosexual space, quipping that it would generate a reality in which “the inner city ‘gay territories’ are the only places where gay and lesbians can truly be ‘out’”. This non-depiction of organisational affiliation also portrayed the SGLMG parade and its performers as disorganised. Without the recognition of any

189 organisational affiliation, the establishment of the parade groups were represented as ad hoc, leaving the whole of the SGLMG parade looking unplanned and unprofessional, though in reality the planning of each year’s parade often takes several months. Marcus Bourget, the current chairman of New Mardi Gras Inc, pointed out that more fundamental changes such as shifting the focus of the SGLMG festival away from the parade even takes years of advance planning and significant community consultation (Dow, 2008). The failure of the news media and to a lesser extent the official photographer in acknowledging the assistance of organisations, whether community-based or professional organisations, inferred the social segregation of non- heterosexual communities. Many of the organisations involved in the planning and staging of the parade, such as the AIDS Council of Australia (ACON), the Australian Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby (GLRL) and the NSW Police, had been long term supporters. The failure to note these partnerships undermined their continued presence and support at the 2005 parade as well as their efforts in bridging the gaps between non-heterosexual and heterosexual communities, particularly in terms of sexual health, equality, and safety. As a result, the SGLMG parade was portrayed not only as socially segregated, but also as an unstable, temporal event with possibly an uncertain future. This inference of the SGLMG parade’s temporality also further highlighted the presumed heteronormativity of public spaces, and that any non-heterosexual (re)appropriations were only temporary and must be ultimately (re)heterosexualised. Fiona Nicoll (2001) commented that external financial assistance was essential to the continued existence of the SGLMG parade. New Mardi Gras Inc’s current chairman Marcus Bourget attributed to the escalating cost of staging the parade as one of the main reasons New Mardi Gras Inc is considering scaling it back rather than other events of the month-long festival (Dow, 2008). In recent years, the staging of the SGLMG parade had most certainly benefited from external sponsors, with their involvement increasingly essential (see section 5.1). These external sponsorships came from many sources but could generally be classified into the four broad categories of commercial, GLBT establishments, statutory/governmental, and other. New Mardi Gras Inc, since taking over as the organising committee after the liquidation of the original SGLMG organising committee in 2002, had to deal with both the loss of financial backers as well as festival participants (Johnston, 2003). As my own research showed (see Table 5.1), the 2005 SGLMG parade had eleven major sponsors. These ranged from commercial ventures such as JetStar and Tupperware, to GLBT establishments such as the Sydney Star Observer and DNA magazine, and even the Sydney City Council. Signage of these major sponsors, along with other ventures that sponsored individual parade groups, was prominently displayed at the 2005 parade

190 (see section 5.1). In the news media and in official photography, however, the display of sponsorship signage was significantly less visible. In excess of four-fifths (84.6%) of the images in the news media or the official photography did not depict any sponsorship signage. More specifically, there was a higher proportion of the images from the news media (90.5%) that did not depict sponsorship signage than compared to the images by the official photographer (83.1%) (see Table 6.6). One explanation of this discrepancy is that the official photographer was employed to represent the parade, its performances and spectators in (presumably) fair and realistic manners. This employment relationship would also contractually bound MazzImage to include photographs of the parade groups that were sponsored and/or affiliated to the major sponsors. A closer analysis of these official images showed, however, of the 14 images that depicted sponsorship signage, only two were of the major sponsors (Sydney City Council, image 050305-175; and TV1, image 050305-264). This low proportion (two of 83 images, or 2.4%) does not support my argument that the official photographer was contractually bound to photograph the major sponsors. A closer inspection of the original image names (such as 050305-264) as appeared on the MazzImage website, however, suggested that not all of the images taken at the parade by MazzImage were published online4. The emphasising of the non-sponsored performances could be seen as MazzImage’s attempt to portray the SGLMG parade more as a community and self- reliant event. Regardless of the intent of the news media and the official photographer, the end results showed that both mediums represented the 2005 SGLMG parade as a socially segregated community event, where not only heterosexual and non- heterosexual interactions were minimal, but also that the ‘heterosexual economics’ and ‘non-heterosexual economics’ (as reflected in the sponsorships) – and by inflection ‘heterosexual spaces’ and ‘non-heterosexual spaces’ – were inherently distinct and separate.

4 Displayed images were numbered mostly in a sequential manner, with some numbers occasionally omitted, or not selected for display. For example, the first photograph displayed was numbered 050305-001, followed by 050305-003, 050305-005, and 050305-006. The last of the ninety-eight displayed online on the MazzImage website had the numbers 050305-806, 050305-807, and 050305-810. This suggests that there were potentially as many as eight hundred and ten images of the 2005 SGLMG parade taken by MazzImage. Yet, only ninety-eight (12.1%) of these images were made available for online viewing. This selective censorship of the other seven hundred or so images probably further contributed to the relatively low level of sponsorship portrayal.

191 Table 6.6: Depiction of sponsorship by type of sponsor, 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005 GLBT Statutory / Commercial Establishments Government No. % No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sun Herald (Print) 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sunday Telegraph (Print) 0 0.0% 1 14.3% 0 0.0% News (sub-total) 0 0.0% 1 4.8% 0 0.0% Official (MazzImage) 4 4.8% 1 1.2% 5 6.0% Digital images 4 4.2% 1 1.1% 5 5.3% Print images 0 0.0% 1 11.1% 0 0.0% Total 4 3.8% 2 1.9% 5 4.8% Other Not sponsored Total No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 1 8.3% 11 91.7% 12 Sun Herald (Print) 0 0.0% 2 100.0% 2 Sunday Telegraph (Print) 1 14.3% 6 85.7% 7 News (sub-total) 1 4.8% 19 90.5% 21 Official (MazzImage) 4 4.8% 69 83.1% 83 Digital images 5 5.3% 80 84.2% 95 Print images 1 11.1% 8 88.9% 9 Total 5 4.8% 88 84.6% 104 Note: GLBT stands for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Transsexual Note: % denotes proportion of sub-total of specified image sources. Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; The Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

Evidence presented in the previous section showed that the news media had in some ways sensationalised the performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade by focussing predominantly on performances that are understood as stereotypical. I have also, in this section, pointed out that, through the non-depiction of organisational affiliations and external sponsorships, the news media and, to a lesser extent, the official photographer portrayed the 2005 parade as culturally distinct and socially segregated. This aspect of social segregation was even more prominent if the reporting (or lack) of the rest of 2005 SGLMG festivities were taken into consideration. As previously explained, the SGLMG expanded into a month-long festival during its hay days in the mid-1990s (Carbery, 1995). This month-long festival now incorporates a range of activities, including an official opening ceremony, a fair day, and a film festival among others, all of which culminate with the parade and after party. Most of these activities attract sizeable audiences ranging in the thousands (New Mardi Gras Inc, 2007a), yet

192 only the fair day received a snippet of television coverage. None of these activities were reported in print or online by the Sydney Morning Herald or the Daily Telegraph. Symbolically, the expansion of the SGLMG into a month-long festival has been seen as an attempt to (re)appropriate (presumably) heteronormative spaces beyond the designated ‘gay ghetto’, an action that “cut to the heart of heterosexism” (Davis, 1995, page 302). The official opening ceremony for 2007, for example, took place at the steps of the Sydney City Town Hall, a place of governance, and attracted well-known celebrities like the stars of the television show Little Britain (Gould, 2007). The fair day, on the other hand, takes place at Hyde Park, a place of community and sociality. The lack of reporting of these activities isolates the parade as a stand-alone event and, I argue, that it ghettoises non-heterosexualities both spatially (to the so-called ‘gay precinct’) and temporally (just one night a year). This further reflects the deeply rooted (presumed) heteronormativity of the news media and its audience-consumers. This isolation of non-heterosexuals was further emphasised by regularly placing the focus of the images on the individual performers rather than the performances themselves (see for example Figures 6.1 and 6.2). At the same time, the website of New Mardi Gras Inc also dedicated considerably less space for the rest of the SGLMG festivities than compared to the parade. Its coverage of the parade was infused with numerous photographs. In contrast, the rest of the SGLMG festivities like the official opening ceremony or the fair day were only briefly mentioned in text. New Mardi Gras Inc, thus, projects a contradictory philosophy where, on the one hand, it attempts to break the heteronormative assumption of time and space by extending the festivities and branching out to spaces outside the ‘gay precinct’, yet on the other hand it has fundamentally failed to acknowledge the success and importance of these activities. In other words, the failure of New Mardi Gras Inc to more fully publicise its SGLMG activities in some ways have reinforced, like the non-depiction of external affiliations and sponsorships by the news media, the notion that public spaces are overwhelming heteronormative. The selective censorship of external sponsorship at the 2005 SGLMG parade by the official photographer and the news media has two contradictory impacts. First, they portrayed non-heterosexual communities in a positive manner by emphasising self-reliance. Second, the selective censorship was also symbolic of the social segregation of non-heterosexuals. The downplaying of external involvements, whether in terms of organisational affiliation or external sponsorship, marked the parade performers as different, separate, and most importantly, excluded. This is a normative process where non-heterosexuals (and non-heterosexualities) are perpetually isolated. This isolation of non-heterosexualities was further emphasised by the non-reporting of

193 other activities of the month-long festival, thus singling the parade out as the quintessential non-heterosexual performance. At the same time, the news reports had, to some extent, sensationalised performances at the 2005 parade by focussing on the more extreme or stereotypical non-heterosexual performances. Such selective portrayals in turn presented only a very narrow cross-section of non-heterosexual life to the wider public and marked these stereotypical performances as quintessential, or by my term, neo-normative. The sponsorship censoring by the official photographer, on the other hand as it supposedly represented the SGLMG and by inflection Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities, could also be viewed as a neo-normative process, that it actively pursued marginality and exclusion. In this sense, the SGLMG was an abject for both the news media and the non-heterosexual communities. For the news media, and particularly in a political climate where there are growing pushes for the acknowledgement of diversity, it continually comes under pressure to recognise the existence and importance of non-heterosexual activities. Yet its distillation of the month-long festival to a street parade that lasts for a few hours confines the SGLMG’s attempt to (re)appropriate presumably heteronormative spaces. This was particularly evident in the Sunday Telegraph limiting its coverage to a half-page news item and a full-page entertainment gossip. The fears of the news media in (re)accepting non- heterosexualities in ‘public’ life and maybe even non-heterosexuals becoming the majority, relegating heterosexualities to the unfamiliar position of Other are thus highlighted. For the non-heterosexual communities, the SGLMG was an opportunity to showcase the diversity and integrations that exist within and beyond. The failures of the official photographer, and to a lesser extent New Mardi Gras Inc, to recognise these diversities have many critics like Seebohm (1992, 1993) and Johnston (2003) who dread the presentation of stereotypical and neo-normative performances. A fear of the overriding heteronormative assumption of space repressing non-heterosexuals to less desirable spaces drives the SGLMG to present itself as a self-sufficient community event. The news media, New Mardi Gras Inc and its official photographer have, thus, together created an uneasy and abject situation of the SGLMG, particularly its parade. It is the abject that cannot be fully repressed and, every now and then, has to be acknowledged and recognised.

6.3 De-politicising the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade The de-politicising of the SGLMG festivities, in particular its parade, had been a contentious topic ever since it was moved from being a winter protest to a summer celebration in the early 1980s. The history and politics of the SGLMG were covered in Chapter 5, but to summarise, the contentions circled the ever-decreasing display of

194 political activism. In this section, an analysis of the visual representations of non- heterosexual politics in the media and official photography is presented. Results of this investigation showed that the depiction of 2005 SGLMG parade performances in the media differed to those gathered from my own on-site experiences, prompting questions on the news media’s and official photographer’s conception of the SGLMG parade as a political event. The significance of this distorted portrayal – its implication on processes such as neo-normativity, counter-normativity and heteronormativity – is discussed here in detail.

Figure 6.9: Images of the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade performances by level of politics displayed, 2005

80.0% 80.8% External sources 70.0% 63.6% Researcher-spectator 60.0%

50.0%

40.0%

30.0%

20.0% 13.5% 15.0% 11.2% 8.4% 10.0% 1.9% 3.8% 1.9% 0.0% 0.0% 12345

Note: ‘External sources’ included images collected from the news media (the Sunday 6th March 2005 editions of the Sun Herald and the Sunday Telegraph in print, as well as images downloaded from these newspapers’ respective websites) and from the website of the official photographer, MazzImage. Note: ‘Researcher-spectator’ included images collected on site at the 2005 SGLMG parade by me, the researcher-spectator, on 5th March 2005. Note: The political ratings below the x-axis of Figure 6.2 correspond with the five political rating categories as described in detail in the first two paragraphs of section 5.2 in Chapter 5. As such, the political rating ‘1’ was the lowest, indicating performances that were not political at all, while ‘5’ was the highest rating, indicating highly political performances.

195 Only a small proportion of the images collected from the news media and the official photographer included performances that could be deemed highly political. Of the 104 images analysed, only four (3.8%) were rated as having a ‘highly political’ rating of ‘5’ (for a detailed explanation of the five political rating categories, refer to the early paragraphs of section 5.2). The majority of the images (84 images, 80.8%) received the lowest political rating of ‘1’, while 14 (13.5%) were rated ‘2’ (for examples of images with low political ratings, see Figures 6.4 and 6.5). Only two images (1.9%) were rated a moderate political rating of ‘3’, while there were no images that were rated ‘4’ (see Figure 6.9). The proportion of apolitical images (rated ‘1’) collected from these external sources (80.8%) was significantly higher than compared to those collected by myself (63.6%), who participated in the 2005 SGLMG parade as a researcher- spectator. While the proportion of the images rated ‘2’ were comparable between those from the external sources (13.5%) and from my own collection (15.0%), the proportions of images from the external sources with moderate (rated ‘3’, 1.9%) or higher (rated ‘4’, 0.0%) ratings were considerably lower than from my own collection (11.2% and 8.4% respectively). This strong representation of apolitical performances reflected the practices – whether intentional or unintentional – of these external sources (both official photography and more so in newspaper reporting) in highlighting the less political and more celebratory nature of the SGLMG. This highlighting of the more celebratory performances could potentially undermine, or even nullify, the counter-normative ideology of the SGLMG parade. This downplaying of SGLMG politics partly lies behind the criticisms of McNeil (1993) and Seebohm (1992; 1993) on the de-politicisation of the SGLMG festivities. A more detailed comparison of the images collected from the different sources reveals the complexity in the downplaying of SGLMG politics in these external sources. There were similarly low proportions of news images (4.8%) and official photographs (3.6%) that depicted parade performances of a highly political nature (rated ‘5’). Images that were predominantly of an apolitical nature (rated ‘1’ or ‘2’) were also well represented in both the news media and in official photography. There was, however, a fine difference in the depiction of non-heterosexual politics between these two sources. A higher proportion of the official photographs depicted performances that were rated ‘1’ (83.1%) than compared to images from news reporting (71.4%). Conversely, the depiction of performances rated ‘2’ was more prominent in news reporting (23.8%) than in official photography (10.8%) (see Table 6.7). This shows that the official photography more readily depicted parade performances that were least visually political. This focus on the less political aspect of the performances put forward two important observations. First, despite the SGLMG parade characterising itself as a political statement as much

196 as a community event, its designated photographer had focussed a far greater deal of its efforts on the event’s celebrations than politics. This reflects the concerns of commercialisation (such as sponsorship, as discussed in section 6.2), professionalism (like the hiring of a professional photographer) and the diminishing of the parade’s activist roots by the likes of McNeill (1993) and Seebohm (1992; 1993). Second, it articulated a representation that Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities and the SGLMG were apolitical, where important political debates were rarely visibilised. This representation was clearly inaccurate when compared to my own assessment of parade performances, which showed consistent proportions of images in the higher political ratings (see Figure 6.9 and Chapter 5).

Table 6.7: Images depicting 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade performances by source and political rating, 2005 123 No. % No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 758.3%433.3%0 0.0% Sun Herald (Print) 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Sunday Telegraph (Print) 685.7%114.3%0 0.0% News (sub-total) 15 71.4% 5 23.8% 0 0.0% Official (MazzImage) 69 83.1% 9 10.8% 2 2.4% Digital images 76 80.0% 13 13.7% 2 2.1% Print images 888.9%111.1%0 0.0% Total 84 80.8% 14 13.5% 2 1.9% 45 Total No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 00.0%18.3% 12 Sun Herald (Print) 00.0%00.0% 2 Sunday Telegraph (Print) 00.0%00.0% 7 News (sub-total) 00.0%14.8% 21 Official (MazzImage) 00.0%33.6% 83 Digital images 00.0%44.2% 95 Print images 00.0%00.0% 9 Total 00.0%43.8% 104 Note: % denotes proportion of sub-total of specified image sources. Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; The Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

The stereotyping of the SGLMG as a community celebration rather than a political demonstration was further highlighted in the placements of the images within the newspapers. As already discussed earlier in this chapter, while the two colour

197 images from the Sun Herald were printed on page thirteen as a news feature, five of the seven (71.4%) images from the Sunday Telegraph were printed in black and white and on page 112, in the Entertainment section of the newspaper. Furthermore, these five images, along with their accompanying story, occupied one entire page (290 millimetres wide by 410 millimetres long, or 11.5 inches wide by 16 inches long) of the four-page Entertainment section. This heavy focus on the SGLMG’s entertainment value, and thus downplaying of its news and political values, was further highlighted by the reputation of the Sunday Telegraph as the tabloid newspaper of Sydney (and the state of NSW). (The Sun Herald, and its affiliate Sydney Morning Herald, are considered the broadsheet newspapers of Sydney and NSW.) The more extensive coverage of the SGLMG parade in the Entertainment section of a tabloid newspaper compared to the less extensive coverage in the news section of a broadsheet newspaper was symbolic of the perceived lower news-worthiness of the SGLMG in 20055. This apolitical representation of non-heterosexual life falls in line with the common stereotype that non-heterosexuals were pleasure-seeking hedonists who are far more concerned about frivolous topics such as fashion and partying than more practical and realistic issues such as equality and health. This emphasis on the hedonistic celebration over the political, thus, showcases a neo-normative process that the official photographer, and to a lesser extent the news media, subscribed. This neo- norm highlighted what a socially acceptable non-heterosexual performance could be. This hedonistic neo-norm has detrimental effects on non-heterosexual performatives, with non-heterosexualities trivialised and not seen as political.

5 This highlighting of the SGLMG’s entertainment value was more apparent in 2006 when the Sunday Telegraph ran a three-page spread, two of which were colour, of the 2006 parade in its Social section. (In 2006, the Entertainment section was reserved for gossip on celebrities while the Social section showcased the party and social scenes of everyday Sydneysiders.) These three pages included a full-page image of the Miss Gay Universe 2006 in drag as a front cover, a half- page colour image of three drag queens in carnival-style bejewelled costumes, three surf lifesavers in rainbow-colour swim caps, as well as two sheep shearers, one carrying the placard ‘This queer can shear’ while the other played a saxophone. The Sunday Telegraph printed all the images of the parade’s celebrity participants in black and white and on a separate page. These celebrity participants included the famous cross-dressing personality Vanessa Wagner, Bob Downe, Australian rocker Jimmy Barnes and his daughter, Kian Egan of the Irish band Westlife, local radio personalities Bessie Bardot and Bianca Dye, singers Tiffany Wood and Jade McRae, and model Lara Bingle. This highlights the relative anonymity (and invisibility) of non- heterosexuals on the social and celebrity scenes (out of all celebrities pictured, only Wagner and Downe are known to be non-heterosexuals).

198 Table 6.8: Images that did not display overt political statements, 2005 No. % Total Sun Herald (Online) 12 100.0% 12 Sun Herald (Print) 2 100.0% 2 Sunday Telegraph (Print) 6 85.7% 7 News (sub-total) 20 95.2% 21 Official (MazzImage) 69 83.1% 83 Digital images 81 85.3% 95 Print images 8 88.9% 9 Did not display overt political statement 89 85.6% 104 Note: % represents proportion of all images in each of the specified sources. Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; The Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

The neo-normalisation of non-heterosexual hedonism was further emphasised by the infrequent portrayal of overt political statements. Overall, more than four-fifths (85.6%) of the images studied did not display any overt political statements (see Table 6.8). The proportion of images from the official photographer was slightly lower with 83.1% (69 of the 83 images) not displaying any overt political statements compared to 95.2% (20 of 21 images) for images from the news media. All of these proportions, however, are higher than the actual proportion of groups that did not display any overt political statement (68.2%, see Table 5.8), providing more evidence on the greater devotion to depicting hedonism over politics. The very limited overt political themes depicted in the official photographs varied from protests against the criminalisation of same-sex sexual practices in overseas countries (image 050305-131), through the participation of political parties (such as Rainbow Labor, image 050305-385; or Sydney Lord Mayor and NSW Member of Parliament Clover Moore, image 050305-187) and religious groups (such as the Anglican Church, image 050305-276; or the Raelien Church, images 050305-446, 050305-448 and 050305-450), to the recognition of same-sex marriages (see, for example, image 050305-306) and families with same-sex parents (see, for example, image 050305-245). The latter theme – recognition of same- sex marriages and families – was the most popular political topic at the 2005 SGLMG parade, and represented in one-fifth of all official images (21.4%). In comparison, the only image from the news media that conveyed a political statement was a black and white image printed in the Entertainment section of the Sunday Telegraph (see Figure 6.10). This image showed the Sydney City Lord Major and NSW Member of Parliament – Councillor Clover Moore – leading her parade group, with rainbow flags and placards advocating for the recognition of same-sex families and other political issues. The

199 majority of these placards that displayed the political statements, however, were not shown in the image that was published in the Sunday Telegraph. This was yet another example of the deliberate downplaying of the political values of the SGLMG parade and its performers, in this case the Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore, and choosing to foreground gossip entertainment instead.

Figure 6.10: Sydney City Lord Mayor participating in the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade, 5th March 2005

Note: Caption of the image read “Rolling in clover: Sydney Lord Mayor Clover Moore was a hit” Source: Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005, page 112

The external representations of the parade performances – in both the news media and by the official photographer – failed to realistically reflect the political themes of the 2005 SGLMG parade. Whilst many (see McNeill (1993) and Seebohm (1992; 1993) for example) had argued that the political nature of the SGLMG parade had diminished in recent years, overt non-heterosexual politics displayed during the 2005 SGLMG parade were mostly, if not entirely, invisibilised in the images reproduced by the these sources. This observation was particularly true for the news media, where only one of its 21 images conveyed some sort of non-heterosexual politics. Even the placards of political statements carried by the performers in this image had been cropped from view. This invisibilisation of non-heterosexual politics reflects what the news media and the official photographer (as a representative of the SGLMG and, by inference, Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities) believed the acceptable non- heterosexual performances, at least in public spaces, to be. These acceptable performances were, as the published images showed, mostly apolitical in nature. Given

200 evidence presented in the previous section and in the previous chapter (Chapter 5), these images from the external sources had also tended to highlight the sexualised and hedonistic performances. The invisibilisation of the political could, thus, be seen as ‘making room’ for the emphasising of non-heterosexual hedonism. This invisibilisation of non-heterosexual politics in public spaces reinforced the heteronormative assumption that spaces are inherently heterosexual, and that any kind of non- heterosexual activities (in this case, non-heterosexual politics) were incongruous and inappropriate. The highlighting of this hedonistic neo-norm also made way for the mistreatment of non-heterosexual issues and politics so that they may not be taken with the same earnestness and seriousness. The ensuing section furthers this discussion of the heteronormative assumption of public spaces as portrayed in the news media and by MazzImage.

6.4 Public space as asexual (or is it heteronormative) space Some of the discussions so far in this chapter had already provided evidence that public spaces are often assumed to be heteronormative. This follows research by Clatts (1999), Hollister (1999) and the like which discussed the demonising of sex and the display of sexualities in public spaces simply because they occurred in ‘public’, painting ‘public’ spaces as asexual (see section 3.3). This was most apparent in my discussion of the symbolic sanitising of public spaces with the non-depiction of overtly sexualised and fetishistic performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade by the news media (see section 6.1). What these dangerous assumptions of the public displays of sexuality failed to acknowledge or consider was other forms of public displays of affections such as holding hands, hugging and kissing. The tolerance over these other forms of public displays of affection also varied depending on the environment they were performed (Deavin, 2008). Further, the public displays of affections between two people of the opposite sex was more readily tolerated and accepted than public displays of affection between two people of the same sex. This points to my observation that ‘public’ spaces are indeed sexed (therefore, not asexual or sexless), and more importantly, heterosexed and heteronormative. This section explores this observation of heterosexed/heteronormative ‘public’ spaces further, through content analyses and visual analytical methodologies, using images of the news media and the official photographer of the 2005 SGLMG parade. A lot of the gay pride events around the world had been touted by many as an opportunity to publicly visualise non-heterosexualities and non-heterosexual lifestyles to the heterosexual world. These events, however, are often confined to designated spaces, such as the so-called ‘gay precincts’ in major cities such as London, San

201 Francisco and Sydney. For Sydney’s SGLMG, each year it parades through 1.3 kilometres (0.8 mile) of the inner-city street of Oxford Street – Sydney’s ‘gay precinct’ – without stretching further into suburbia, a space which had long been presumed heterosexual in nature (for a discussion on the presumed heteronormativity of suburbia, see section 3.2). The constraining of this very public display of non- heterosexualities, and in such a temporally restricted fashion (for only a few hours each year), serves as a reminder of the public perception that heterosexual space(s) and non-heterosexual space(s) are distinct and separate. That is, the performances of non- heterosexual identities was only deemed acceptable at certain spaces – in this case, a section of an inner-city street in Sydney – and only during a designated time – first Saturday of every March. During this time, and at this specified space, non- heterosexuals were encouraged to perform their identities, as Hodge (1996, page 79) quoted a parade performer as saying “we can get away with so much more”. A recent declaration of this ‘gay precinct’ as one of Sydney’s “homophobia-free zones” (Melouney, 2008; Sydney Morning Herald, 2008) by Sydney City Lord Mayor Clover Moore further demonstrates that non-heterosexualities are accepted and normalised in a few designated ‘gay precincts’. Despite this ‘permission’ to freely express their identities, a different set of constraints on non-heterosexual identities in the SGLMG parade was instigated by the news media and by the official photographer – a form of after-the-fact censorship. Images and statistics discussed in section 6.1 provided showed stereotypical portrayals of non-heterosexuals published in the news media and in official photography. These stereotypical performances generally evolved around the cross- dressing and glamorised identities such as the use of sequined and glittered costumes. What were decidedly absent in these published images were the more overtly sexualised and fetishistic performances, such as the leather and sadomasochistic subcultures. Discussions in section 6.2 also showed that the publishing press perpetuated a hegemonic assumption that public spaces are, and should be, asexual, sexless spaces. The sanitising of overtly sexualised and fetishistic performances from public spaces in media reproductions, whether in print or online, is symbolic of the news media’s assumption of this sexless ideal of public spaces. No overtly sexualised or fetishistic images were published in the print or online editions of at the Sun Herald and Sunday Telegraph. Such outlets had, instead, as presented in the previous section, focused on the more celebratory and hedonistic performances of the parade. By depicting only the less- or marginally-sexualised and non-fetishistic performances of the SGLMG parade, the media had thus perpetuated the commonly accepted notion that public spaces were indeed (homo)sexless. This was further emphasised by the

202 relatively infrequent portrayals of nudity and partial nudity, a common performance at the 2005 SGLMG parade (as evidence presented in Chapter 5 attests), in the news media. This is indicative of the lower acceptability of non-heterosexual desirability in public, particularly the more sexual and erotic aspects of non-heterosexualities. This lower acceptance of non-heterosexual sex acts (or the hints of such) in public spaces emphasises the common belief that non-heterosexual attractions are ‘private’ matters and thus should be constrained within ‘private’ spaces. This steers away from a sexless assumption of public spaces but a heteronormative one instead as only non- heterosexual desires are viewed as out of place. This heteronormative assumption was clearly demonstrated by a twelve-page special lift-out in the very same edition of the Sun Herald, profiling the Danish royal visit. This twelve-page lift-out was further accompanied by front page reports of both Sunday newspapers (Anonymous, 2005a; Anonymous, 2005b). This compartmentalised acknowledgment of the SGLMG parade, restricting it in both spatial and temporal manners, and the desexualising of the performances presents public spaces as heterosexually non-erotic. This also highlights non-heterosexualities as an abject to the news media – the expunged non- heterosexual spaces are easily and quickly (re)consumed as heterosexual spaces and headlines like that of the Danish royal visit. This lower acceptability of non-heterosexualities in public spaces was not a notion perceived only by the (seemingly heteronormative) news media. There was also evidence which suggested that the non-heterosexual communities themselves had adopted an assumed heteronormativity of (most) public spaces. The official photography by MazzImage, for example, like its news media counterpart, under- represented the more sexualised and fetishistic performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade despite the fact that it is reproduced solely on a laxer medium (the internet). Furthermore, it was also very aware of the temporality of the SGLMG parade, dedicating six images to post-parade activities. These included images of organising officials and safety officers alike relaxing roadside (images 050305-794, 050305-796, and 050305-797), and aerial shots of the dissipating crowds along the parade route (see images 050305-806, 050305-807, and 050305-810). Two of the three aerial shots of the dissipating crowds were of Taylor Square6 with the remaining one of Oxford Street, all of which are commonly perceived to make up Sydney’s ‘gay precinct’. Furthermore, the focus of these images was put on the parade officials, safety officers

6 Taylor Square is at the intersection of Oxford Street and Flinders Street. It was a rough mid-point of the 2005 SGLMG parade route. See, for example, Figure 4.2 of an image of Taylor Square outside of SGLMG festivities.

203 and the dissipating crowds while the background (the cityscape and Oxford Street) were out of focus and fuzzy. This fuzzy, out of focus portrayals of the space was similar to time-lapse photographs where the focus of the image remained stable and static while time and activities in the background passed by. This created a visual disconnect between the focus (in this case, non-heterosexualities) and the background (public spaces). While these six images did not portray actual performances of the 2005 parade (they were, therefore, excluded as part of the 83 images analysed in other parts of this chapter), they nonetheless highlighted the heteronormativity of public spaces, that even established ‘gay precincts’ are only temporary. This strong awareness of the SGLMG parade’s temporariness was symbolic of the official photography’s perceived heteronormativity of public spaces, and that any non-heterosexual use and acquisition of public spaces is and can only be temporary.

Table 6.9: Differences in gender represented in images from external sources, 2005 Male Female Total * No. % No. % Sun Herald (Online) 10 83.3% 9 75.0% 12 Sun Herald (Print) 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 2 Sunday Telegraph (Print) 4 57.1% 6 85.7% 7 News (sub-total) 16 76.2% 15 71.4% 21 Official (MazzImage) 65 78.3% 39 47.0% 83 Digital images 75 78.9% 48 50.5% 95 Print images 6 66.7% 6 66.7% 9 Total 81 77.9% 54 51.9% 104 Note: * signifies the total number of images of each specified source. The images that represented male performers and female performers are not exclusive and as such do not add up to the total number of images. Note: % represents proportion of all images in each of the specified sources. Source: http://www.smh.com.au, accessed 6th March 2005; http://www.mazzimage.com, accessed 5th December 2005; the Sun Herald, 6th March 2005; The Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005.

Aside from their constant reminders of the temporariness of the SGLMG parade, both the news media and the official photographer also more readily portrayed performances of males than females. This prompts my observation that public spaces are not only perceived to be heteronormative but also heteropatriarchal. Table 6.9 shows the proportion of images that portrayed male and female performers. It was clear that the majority (77.9%) of the images (from both the news media and

204 MazzImage) portrayed male performers of the 2005 SGLMG parade. In comparison, female performers were only represented in half (51.9%) of the images. More specifically, with the exception of images published in the Sunday Telegraph, male performers were better represented than female performers in both print and digital formats (female performers were portrayed in 85.7% of images published in the Sunday Telegraph). This disparity in the portrayals of performers of the two genders was particularly apparent in the images published in the Sun Herald, where both of its two images portrayed male performers only. Concurrently, female performers were less frequently portrayed in the official photography (47.0%) than male performers (78.3%). This was in stark contrast to the strong female participations at the 2005 parade where, by my own count, females were represented in 84 groups (78.5% of the 107 groups that participated), ten of which were female-only groups (see Figure 5.5 for example). Such a male-dominant portrayal of the SGLMG parade performances by these sources reflects the common feminine perception of spaces (such as ‘Mother Earth’) while the control over space were perceived to be a masculine privilege (Best, 1993, page 28). This patriarchal understanding of control over space is also demonstrated in Castells (1983) explanation of the ‘invisible’ lesbian spatiality due to their lack of innate need to territorialise. Others (Forsyth, 1997; Valentine, 1995) have, however, explained this relative invisibilisation of lesbian spatiality as a strategy of protection (see section 3.1.3). This male-dominant portrayal of control over ‘public’ spaces has two implications. First, it visualises the SGLMG parade as a predominantly (gay) male space and event. This draws a noteworthy resonance to a criticism of the SGLMG during the early 1980s when lesbians and other non-heterosexual females refused to participate in the festivities because of the misogynistic ambience of the organising committee at the time (Carbery, 1995). Second, it visualises ‘public’ spaces – as performed through the SGLMG parade – as a patriarchal space. When the subjugations of non-heterosexuals in ‘public’ spaces are also considered, ‘public’ spaces are then regularly perceived as not just heteronormative but heteropatriarchal. Analyses of images of the 2005 SGLMG parade published in the news media and by the parade’s official photographer showed that a heteronormative perception of ‘public’ space exists. This was despite discussions in literatures by the likes of Clatts (1999) and Hollister (1999) which argued otherwise. These images published by the news media and the official photographer failed to realistically represent a very fundamental part of non-heterosexualities – sexual attractions and erotic desires. This omission was most obvious in the news media and the official photographer shying away from publishing parade performances that were of a more overtly sexualised or fetishistic manner. This not only represented non-heterosexuals as (mostly) non-

205 sexual, it also highlighted the norm that public spaces were most often void of sexuality, and particularly the erotic aspect of sexuality. When the non-censorships of heterosexual romanticism and sexualities, such as the extensive coverage of the Danish royal visit, were considered, however, it became clear that public spaces are indeed not void of sexuality. Instead, a heteronormative assumption of public spaces is portrayed. At the same time, ‘public’ non-heterosexual performances were abjected. Constant reminders of the temporariness of the SGLMG parade, such as the official photographer’s inclusion of images that showed the dissipating crowds post-parade, showed that even established ‘gay precincts’ like Sydney’s Oxford Street is only ephemerally non-heterosexual and could quickly (and easily) be (re)heterosexualised. The recent declaration of Oxford Street as one of Sydney’s ‘homophobia-free zones’ further highlights the assumed heteronormativity of ‘public’ spaces. This declaration not only emphasised a physical distinction between ‘non-heterosexual spaces’ and ‘heterosexual spaces’, it also highlighted the temporality of ‘non-heterosexual spaces’, that even an established ‘gay precinct’ like Oxford Street is only ‘non-heterosexual’ during the designated timeframe. Further analyses into the frequency of portrayals of male and female parade performers led to an observation that ‘public’ spaces are not only assumed heteronormative but indeed heteropatriarchal. This is reminiscent of Castells’ (1983) explanation of the relative ‘invisibility’ of lesbian spatiality because of their lack of an innate need to territorialise despite their strong participation in the 2005 parade. Such an inaccurate portrayal of the parade performances could re-fuel concerns of a misogynistic ambience that led to the female boycott of the SGLMG during the early 1980s, fracturing Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities.

6.5 Neo-normalising through spectator depiction This section critically analyses the images of the 2005 SGLMG parade that included spectators and how some stereotypical non-heterosexual performances are neo-normalised. Previously explored themes are also re-examined in these images, with results furthering my argument that these external sources commonly highlighted non-heterosexual hedonism and downplayed non-heterosexual politics as a sign of heteronormativity. Many of the images collected from the external sources, particularly from the news media, often depicted parade spectators. The spectators depicted in these images were in general portrayed as expressing various stages of excitement and joy. Two of the images that depicted spectators in such a jubilant state are shown in Figures 6.2 and 6.5. Both of these images were downloaded from the Sun Herald website on Sunday 6th March 2005. A cropped version of Figure 6.2 was also reproduc-

206 Figure 6.11: Cropped version of Figure 6.2 reproduced in the print edition of Sun Herald, 6th March 2005

Note: Caption of the image (with adjoining image) read “CAMPING IT UP: Comedian Jimeoin flexes for a group dressed as television’s The Nanny and Gene Pool wows the tourists.” Source: Sun Herald, 6th March 2005, page 13 ed in the print edition of the Sun Herald, though most of the spectators were cut from the published image (see Figure 6.11). Figure 6.2 pictured a group of Japanese tourists with a male-to-female cross-dressing performer, Ms Gene Pool. The tourists held up v- signs, a common practice amongst many East Asian youth cultures when participating in photo-taking to make the experience more whimsical, and thus, less serious. The resultant image is therefore at odds with the original political intent of cross- dressing/drag, which according to many (see, for example, Butler 1990; 1993) served as an ideological challenge to the assumed masculine-male/feminine-female duality of human gender roles. The whimsical v-signs depoliticised this particular cross- dressing/drag performance, while the mass publication of this image signified the media’s acceptance and promotion of cross-dressing/drag as entertainment, underrating its political values at the same time. This resonates Tim Manning’s (1995,

207 page 30) point of drag as a form of “heterosexual pleasure”. Figure 6.2, thus, exemplified the news media’s neo-normalisation of non-heterosexuals as cross- dressing hedonists, as well as highlighting spectators’ appraisal of the entertainment values of non-heterosexual performances such as cross-dressing/drag over their original political intents. The significance of reproducing a cropped version on this image in print, however, lies in the deliberate omissions of the whimsical v-signs. Three v-signs were depicted in the digital, online version (Figure 6.2). All but one of the tourists who held up v-signs were cropped from the printed version (Figure 6.11); even his v-signs were cropped from view in this image. This shows the different levels of non-heterosexual acceptability between printed, material spaces (newspapers) and virtual spaces (the internet). Surprisingly, it is the laxer of the two mediums (the internet) that had downplayed the political characteristics of a non-heterosexual performance while the traditionally more conservative medium (newspapers) re-enforced such politics. The printed image re-enforced the non-heterosexual politics of cross-dressing/drag by not only centralising the performer and omitting elements of whimsy, the performer also comprised most of the image. Such a re-enforcement of the centrality of cross- dressing/drag to the non-heterosexual communities was, however, undermined by the size of the image and its accompanying report. The Sun Herald’s report on the 2005 SGLMG parade comprised less than half a page, measuring just 22 centimetres (8.6 inch) wide and 18 centimetres (7 inches) tall. The image of Ms Gene Pool (Figure 6.11) was only reproduced to the size of 9.5 centimetres (3.7 inches) tall and 5.5 centimetres (2.1 inches) wide. This was only one-quarter of the image of the visiting Danish Crown Princess Mary, which measured 21.2 centimetres (8.3 inches) tall and 11.2 centimetres (4.5 inches) wide, published on the front page of the same edition. The relative smallness of this cropped image and its accompanying report, and that it was relegated to page thirteen of the newspaper, show the insignificance of non-heterosexual politics within the Sun Herald. The more whimsical online version of this image is also reflective of the apolitical neo-normalisation of non-heterosexualities, especially in a virtual space like the internet that, now, has a considerably wider, global reach. Aside from an apolitical neo-normalisation of non-heterosexualities, the depiction of spectators by the news media also objectified non-heterosexual performers. Figure 6.5 shows a groups of spectators lining the parade route and watching the parade as performers of the ‘Pump Hard, Play Hard’ group passed by. The costume of this ‘Pump Hard, Play Hard’ group took the form of a cheerleading uniform, with orange pom-poms and silver gym shorts. Female performers were adorned with silver bikini tops while the male performers paraded topless. This

208 abundant display of flesh (both female but more particularly male), and the provocative dancing (only hinted at in the image), objectified the performers as sexual objects. This objectification reduces non-heterosexual relationships as purely sexual, which undermines the existence or possibility of romanticism beyond such animal magnetisms. The fact that the ‘Pump Hard, Play hard’ group was affiliated to an inner- city fitness centre that has a predominantly gay male clientele (though not clearly depicted in the image) further emphasised the (supposed) superficiality and body- consciousness of non-heterosexual culture. This resonates with Thacker’s (2004, pages 117-8) observation that many parade performers “double their gym routines, fry themselves silly in the solarium and wax just about everywhere (and everything!)” every year in preparation for their parade performances. The barricades shown in the right foreground of the image also served multiple purposes. While physically the barricades separated the spectators from the performers for reasons of safety and control, symbolically they divided everyday performances (the spectators and the street life beyond) from the ephemeral (the ‘Pump Hard, Play Hard’ performers). This highlighting of the ephemeral reiterates one of my earlier arguments about public spaces being perceived as heteronormative and that any non-heterosexual appropriation is only temporary (see the previous section). The contrast between the costumes of the (presumably non-heterosexuals) performers and the everyday dress of the (mostly heterosexual, according to Lewis and Ross, 1995) spectators also suggested a divide between the non-heterosexual and heterosexual communities. More specifically, the everyday dress of the spectators appeared more practical, and normative, while the costumes of the performers were less practical and non- normative. Figure 6.5 thus illustrated the news media’s neo-normalisation of non- heterosexuals, namely by objectifying them as sexual beings and underplaying same- sex romanticism. At the same time, it perpetuates the non-normative status of non- heterosexualities in modern day western societies. Furthermore, its showing of the temporary barricades served two purposes – one, that the SGLMG parade was only temporary in nature, thus reinforcing the heteronormative assumption of public spaces. Second, the physical and symbolic divide between the non-heterosexual performers was highlighted, especially through the divergence in their choice clothing, with the costumes of the performers viewed as non-normative while the practicality of the (presumably) heterosexual spectators were viewed as normative. Such a stark contrast between the normality of the spectators and the non-normativity of the performances, along with the physical barricades, thus reinforced the (assumed) divide between non- heterosexual and heterosexual communities. While this physical separation of the

209 performers from the spectators was not instigated by the news media, the inclusion of the barricades in one of its 21 images nonetheless drew attention to such a division. Images collected from the website of the official photographer MazzImage depicted a somewhat different picture. In all, 12 images (14.5% of images from the official photographer) depicted spectators that lined the parade route during the 2005 SGLMG parade. These 12 images did not include the six post-parade images as aforementioned at the end of section 6.4 which showed dissipating crowds post-parade and resting officials. Four of these images were of the Dykes on Bikes (images 050305-061, 050305-71, and 050305-76) and the Sydney Roadrunners (image 050305-089) groups, two of the leading groups of each year’s parade. The focus of these images were on the motorcycle-riding parade performers, resulting in the spectators depicted in the images often appearing fuzzy and out of focus. All of these four images also showed the rainbow flag, a long-established symbol of gay and lesbian solidarity. By deliberately placing the focus on the parade performances, and the rainbow flags used, MazzImage highlighted the political and unifying aspirations of the 2005 SGLMG parade, particularly the performances of the Dykes on Bikes and the Sydney Roadrunners groups by pushing the spectators to the peripheral. This was in contrast to the practice of the news media, where the focus of the images was always on individual performers and spectators rather than the performances themselves. Other depictions of spectators in the images by the official photographer also took on a similar approach in depicting the spectators in positions peripheral to the performances. These images (image 050305-448, 050305-450, 050305-451, 050305- 452, 050305-485, 050305-491, and 050305-500) showed the spectators as backgrounds to the performers. Compared to the images from the news media, the spectators depicted in these images by the official photographer also looked significantly less involved in the celebration. The most joyous – and involved – depiction of spectators by the official photographer was the one in which the spectators cheered on an impersonator of the ‘gay icon’ Cher (image 050305-503). This image, like that shown in Figure 6.2 that was taken from the Sun Herald website, provided an indication as to what the spectators considered acceptable non-heterosexual identity performance – a male-to-female transvestite. This visible acceptance of cross- dressing/transvestism, as Manning (1995) argued, was a reflection on its highly entertaining, and particularly comic, values, contrasting its greater politics of queering and questioning traditional gender identity performances. This challenge to traditional gender identities, however, is often overlooked by those outside the cross-dressing and non-heterosexual communities. This common acceptance of cross- dressing/transvestism as a quintessential non-heterosexual identity performance,

210 seemingly by both the spectators and the non-heterosexual communities (as represented here by MazzImage), thus reflected the neo-norm that cross-dressers, particularly male-to-female cross-dressers, were the more commonly accepted of all non-heterosexual identity performances. The differences in the depiction of spectators between the news media and the official photographer provided an insight into the underlying perception of the SGLMG parade of the news media and the official photographer. While the portrayal of spectators in the images by the official photographer (14.5% of all official images) was slightly more frequent compared to those from the news media (9.5% of all news images), the majority of these images (13 out of 14) depicted the spectators in the periphery, thereby placing the focus on the performers and performances. This suggests that, to the official photographer, the SGLMG parade was an event in which the performers can visualise themselves and their politics (whatever they may be). The SGLMG parade thus, to the official photographer, was a performance-focused spectacle in which issues concerning the non-heterosexual communities – be they political or celebratory – were visualised to be consumed mostly by the (presumably) heterosexual spectators. How much of these issues and politics were consumed is, however, arguable and outside the scope of this thesis. Regardless, the peripheral depiction of spectators also symbolically reinforced the detachments and disconnections between the performances and the spectators, most noticeably visualised in the erection of metal barriers along the parade route so to physically separate the performances from the spectators. This physical (and symbolic) separation of the performers from the spectators is, however, contradictory to one of the original intentions of the SGLMG – acceptance. It can be argued, then, that, at least in the case of Sydney and Australia, non-heterosexual and heterosexual communities are still very much disengaged, as shown through the official photography of the 2005 SGLMG parade. The news media, however, depicted spectators in a different manner. As already discussed above and shown in Figures 6.2 and 6.5, the images published in the news media depicted spectators in more joyous and excited states than those shown in the images by the official photographer. The proximity of the spectators to the performers as depicted in the images from the news media also appeared to be much closer than compared to those depicted in images by the official photographer. The two factors combined convey a sense of involvement – both physical and emotional – on the part of the spectators that was clearly absent in the images by the official photographer. From this, it could be argued that, to the news media, the SGLMG parade was more a society event that placed its focus on the celebration and on

211 inclusion, where spectator interactions and involvements were welcomed. This was despite the physical barriers erected between the performers and the spectators (see Figure 6.5), rendering the parade itself to more of a spectacle than an interactive event. Furthermore, with this heavier focus on the celebration and community aspects, the political aspect of SGLMG parade was also downplayed by the news media. Together with evidence shown in Tables 6.7 and 6.8, where the various news sources were more likely to display images that portrayed lower levels of politics or of groups that did not display any overt political statements, it was clear that the news media were influenced by some processes of neo-normativity. More specifically, the news media highlighted the community aspect of the SGLMG parade by way of invisibilising its politics, rendering the non-heterosexual identities reflected in these images as neo- normative hedonists performing for (presumably) heterosexual consumptions. It was clear from the images analysed in this section that the influences of neo- normativity extend beyond external sources such as the news media or the official photographer of the 2005 SGLMG parade. More specifically, the images highlighted what these sources considered acceptable non-heterosexual performances, namely cross-dressing/transvestism and objectified sexual objects. The positioning of the spectators in these images also gave insights into the different roles the SGLMG parade played as perceived by the news media and the official photographer. By placing a strong emphasis on the performances and leaving the spectators as a background, the official photographer centralised the non-heterosexual performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade, thereby giving visibility to its performances, identities and politics. In contrast, the images from the news media depicted the spectators in close physical proximity to the performances, giving a sense of involvement and thus portraying the SGLMG parade as a society event. The news media’s (predominant) failure in visibilising non-heterosexual politics in the images also added to this ‘society event’ portrayal. The physical barriers that separate the performers from the spectators were prominently on show in some of the images. These barriers suggested a disengagement between the non-heterosexual and heterosexual communities. The everyday clothing of the spectators in contrast to those of the performers also further highlighted the non-normative status of non-heterosexualities, all of which served as reminders of the presumed heteronormativity of public spaces, where non-heterosexual acquisitions are anomalous and temporary.

6.6 Conclusion This chapter focussed on the mediated gazes of the 2005 SGLMG parade. These mediated gazes included those from the news media and the parade’s official

212 photographer. Images collected from these sources, in the forms of digital photographs as well as those printed in the Sunday editions of two Sydney newspapers (the Sun Herald and the Sunday Telegraph) on Sunday 6th March 2005 (the day after the 2005 parade), were analysed using various methodologies, including content analyses, statistical analyses, discourse analyses, as well as visual analytical methodologies. Results from these analyses showed that stereotypical non-heterosexual performances were often highlighted and emphasised by these external sources in their reporting of the 2005 parade. The two sources often portrayed Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities in vastly different manners. For example, the news media was more likely to focus on the more stereotypical non-heterosexual performances of the 2005 parade while the official photography by MazzImage depicted a greater variety. More specifically, the news media was more likely to portray non-heterosexualities in a neo- normative manner, such as in their portrayals of effeminised non-heterosexual males, as well as objectifying the (presumably) non-heterosexual performers as sexual objects. At the same time, the news media’s failure in publishing (either in print or online) any images of the SGLMG parade that were overtly sexualised (such as simulation of sex acts) or fetishistic (such as the leather subculture) was indicative of what the news media considered acceptable non-heterosexual performances (as least as far as public spaces were concerned) and reinforced a heteronormative perception of public spaces. The official photography, on the other hand, represented the parade performances in a relatively more liberal and diverse manner. Its portrayal of non- heterosexual politics was relatively more common than in the news media (where it was non-existent) though still considerably less frequent than I experienced first-hand at the 2005 parade. The non-heterosexual identities portrayed were also comparatively more diverse. This higher diversity in portrayals may be due to the considerably higher number of images that were collected from MazzImage than from the news media. Despite the inclusion of a more diverse identity performance, MazzImage also showed evidence of non-heterosexual neo-normativity. This was particularly evident in its more frequent visualisation of the more overtly sexualised and/or fetishistic (therefore, more perverse and non-normative) performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade. The highlighting of the non-normality of these sexualised and/or fetishistic performances, however, was evident of the influence of heteronormativity in the everyday consumptions of identities. While this concern over the strong representation of sexualised and fetishistic performances by the official photography may seem contradictory to one I made about the under-representation of such performances in the news media, this highlighted the two extremes of non-heterosexual portrayals by the two sources, that neither were fully representative of what actually happened at the

213 2005 parade. Both, then, had in some ways sensationalised the performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade. The news media, in turn, fetishised the performances in a different manner. By continually focussing on the exposed body parts of the performers, the images inadvertently dismantled and fragmented the performances and performers. These processes of dismantling and fragmentation in turn invisibilised the performers, making them one and the same. The use of these fragmented parts to represent (or substitute, according to Stuart Hall, 1997, page 266) the whole performer turns them taboo and abject. The regular and constant reproductions and mass consumptions of these images turn these tabooed abjects into the quintessential non- heterosexual performances, that I have called neo-norms. The abjection of the SGLMG parade extends, however, far beyond just the fetishising of the performers. The news media’s continuous attempt to portray the performances in a hedonistic manner sans politics serves as a recognition of the very existence of non-heterosexual communities. Constant reminders of the separateness between the (presumably non-heterosexual) parade performers and the (presumably heterosexual) spectators (such as the strong presence of the barrier in Figure 6.5) visualised a spatial distinction between non- heterosexualities and heterosexuality(s). The struggle between recognition and invisibilisation made the SGLMG parade a contentious and abject topic of discussion for the news media. There was also evidence on the part of the official photography to suggest an uneasy abject relationship exists between the SGLMG parade and Sydney’s non- heterosexual communities. I have presented evidence which showed that the official photography contained a lot of what I have termed neo-normative non-heterosexual performances. Such an abundance of neo-normative (or stereotypical) performances have caused many critics (such as Johnston, 2003 and Seebohm, 1992; 1993) and members of the general public to question the parade’s intention and effectiveness in celebrating and showcasing the diversity within non-heterosexualities. There is also evidence to suggest that the official photography, just as the news media, is painfully aware of the separateness and temporariness of the parade, such as via its depiction of the dissipating crowds post-parade. This awareness of the parade’s temporariness, in particular, highlighted the heteronormative perception of ‘public’ spaces, that the non-heterosexual appropriations of established ‘non-heterosexual spaces’ like the Oxford Street ‘gay precinct’ are only temporary and must be (re)appropriated as heterosexual at the end of the parade. The predominant failure of the official photography to reflect the politics at the parade and the focus on the more hedonistic performances also resonates with the news media treatment. The result is that defiance of heteronormativity and other political actions are not being treated with the

214 earnestness and seriousness that they deserve. Yet the continual expansion of the SGLMG festivities, now a month-long festival, expresses its desire to challenge hegemonic understanding of non-heterosexual stereotypes and heteronormative conception of public spaces. These apparently conflicting roles of challenging established hegemony and maintaining stereotypes present the SGLMG parade as an abject expression by Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities. Chapters 5 and 6 used the 2005 SGLMG parade as an example to demonstrate the extents of neo-normativity, heteronormativity, and to a lesser extent counter- normativity, that influence identity performances, particularly in the cases of Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities, in a very public manner and in a very public space. The ensuing chapter (Chapter 7) analyses latrinalia (graffiti found in public toilets) to reflect a somewhat more private performance of non-heterosexual identities in public spaces. Particular attentions are paid to the challenges non-heterosexual latrinalia present to the assumed heteronormativity of these public spaces, the different functions that these latrinalia perform (such as personal advertisements), and the abject relationships that exist between their producers, consumers and these public spaces.

215 Chapter 7: Public toilets are the new talkback radio1: Covert performances of non-heterosexual identities in public spaces

The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls. (The Sound of Silence, Simon & Garfunkel, 1964)

The previous chapters presented evidence which suggested that ‘public’ spaces are commonly perceived as heteronormative. These chapters also indicated how some non-heterosexual activities like the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade had attempted to challenge and undermine this heteronormative perception, though such efforts were sometimes counteracted by the highlighting of their temporariness and depoliticised portrayals. This chapter shifts the focus to a less public form of non- heterosexual performance – latrinalia. These latrinalia were analysed using content, statistical, discourse and narrative analyses as well as seldom used visual analytical methodologies like compositional analysis. These analyses disregard the authenticity of the authorship of the latrinalia (therefore the intent behind the action) and instead emphasise the non-heterosexual presence that these latrinalia create in the toilet spaces (the output of the act of graffiting). Results show how latrinalia covertly challenges the perceived heteronormativity of public spaces. The multiple functions of latrinalia were also revealed, including a clandestine form of communication, as personal advertisements, as well as expressions of abject (sections 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3). Such expressions of abject come in many forms, the most visual of which were homophobic remarks and practices that threaten and preclude the performances of non-heterosexual identities through latrinalia (section 7.5). Abjections also exist from within the non-heterosexual communities themselves where certain performances were objectified and neo-normalised (section 7.3). The risqué nature of performing acts of intimacies in ‘public’, especially compounded with the frequent possibility of exposure, present non-heterosexual latrinalia as another expression of abject. These observations, however, were based mostly on latrinalia from male toilets due to a relative lack of non-heterosexual latrinalia from female toilets. This showcases latrinalia drawing and writing as a highly gendered practice (section 7.4). These discussions are

1 Men’s toilet, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July, 2004

216 illustrated with latrinalia collected from public toilets at several of Sydney’s prominent parklands and university libraries.

7.1 Covert non-heterosexual performances in public spaces: Latrinalia unsettling heteronorms Public toilets, with numerous but spatially limiting cubicles designed for the occupation by one individual at a time, are a physically and socially exclusive spaces. This exclusiveness is further highlighted by the common separation of the two sexes, making them highly sexed spaces. Latrinalia, as defined in section 4.2, are graffiti found inside these public toilets. Much research has confirmed that public toilets are often used by some non-heterosexuals as meeting places (see, for example, Hollister, 1999 and Iveson, 2007) with latrinalia a common form of communication, particularly amongst members of marginalised groups (see, for example, Schwartz and Dovidio, 1984). As such, latrinalia could be seen as an activity one partakes in seeking inclusion. These spaces, along with most (if not all) other ‘public’ spaces, are often assumed to be heteronormative or asexual in nature despite their very obvious separations between the sexes. The assumed heteronormativity of ‘public’ spaces was already discussed in detail in the previous chapters. This section instead focuses on how the presence of this covert method of communication – latrinalia – amongst non- heterosexuals unsettles the assumed heteronormativity of these spaces. A total of 135 non-heterosexual latrinalia were collected from the public parks and university library field sites. In all, 49 (36.3%) were collected from public parks while 86 (63.7%) were collected from university libraries. These field sites represent a great cross-section of Sydney’s population, from the more socio-economically privileged North (Epping and Ku-Ring-Gai), the heterogenous inner-city and Eastern Suburbs (Broadway, Camperdown, Kensington, Moore Park and Paddington), to the culturally and socio-economically diverse Greater West (Campbelltown, Homebush Bay, Kingswood, Milperra, Parramatta, Penrith, Quakers Hills, Richmond, Rydalmere and Werrington). The samples collected at these field sites also differed greatly with no apparent geographic pattern to the concentration of non-heterosexual latrinalia at certain sites. The most amount of non-heterosexual latrinalia was collected from the main campus of the University of New South Wales (UNSW) (57, or 42.2% of the sample) followed by Parramatta Park (43, or 31.9%). The number of non-heterosexual latrinalia collected from the other sites were significantly less, with only the University of Sydney (19, or 14.1%) comprising a notable sample. Furthermore, out of the 105 toilets that comprised the field sties, non-heterosexual latrinalia were only found in 17, approximately one-sixth of total sites studied in this thesis. These 17 toilets included

217 four (out of 22) from public parks and 13 (out of 83) from university libraries (see Table 7.1). Only one of these 17 toilets with non-heterosexual latrinalia was female (at the University of Sydney’s Fisher Library), where three non-heterosexual latrinalia were found (for a discussion on the gendered practices of latrinalia writing, please refer to section 7.4). As such, non-heterosexual latrinalia, particularly those found in female toilets, was not a common phenomenon in these public spaces of public parklands and university libraries. The relative silence of non-heterosexual latrinalia in university libraries despite their frequent patronage (non-heterosexual latrinalia were only found in four of the 13 university campuses in Sydney) may, for example, highlight the assumed heteronormativity of university spaces, an presumption highlighted by Valentine’s (1998) reflections of her own homophobic experiences of university life. Despite the apparent lack of a clear pattern in their concentration, the presence of non- heterosexual latrinalia in some public toilets present interesting challenges to the heteronormative presumptions of public spaces. This is particularly the case since latrinalia intrudes and forces itself into the viewing of the users of these public toilets (see section 4.2.1).

Table 7.1: Latrinalia field samples by field sites, Sydney, 2004 Latrinalia Toilet Suburb No. % Visited With * Moore Park Moore Park 6 4.4% 8 2 Olympic Park Homebush Bay 0 0.0% 6 0 Parramatta Park Parramatta 43 31.9% 6 2 Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 2 0 Macquarie University Epping 4 3.0% 17 1 University of NSW 57 42.2% 23 6 UNSW (Main) Kensington 57 42.2% 21 6 UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 2 0 University of Sydney Camperdown 19 14.1% 12 4 University of Technology, Sydney 00.0%100 UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 7 0 UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 3 0 University of Western Sydney 64.4%212 UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 3 0 UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 3 0 UWS (Milperra) Milperra 5 3.7% 6 1 UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 0 0.0% 2 0 UWS (Richmond) Richmond 1 0.7% 2 1 UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 2 0 UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 3 0 Public parks (sub-total) 49 36.3% 22 4 Universities (sub-total) 86 63.7% 83 13 Total 135 100.0% 105 17 Note: * represents the number of toilets where non-heterosexual latrinalia were found and collected

218

One space that is commonly assumed to be heteronormative is the suburbs where many nuclear families congregate. Harry (1974), Kramer (1995), and Knopp and Brown (2003), for example, had discussed how suburban spaces are often assumed to be heteronormative spaces. (For a discussion on the heteronormative presumption of suburban spaces, please refer to section 3.2.) One of my field sties – Parramatta Park – is nestled in the midst of suburban recreational and residential spaces. The suburb of Parramatta also has a culturally heterogeneous population, with two-fifths of its residents born overseas (ABS, 2007). Forty-three non-heterosexual latrinalia were collected from two of the three toilet blocks of Parramatta Park (No.2 and No.3, see Figure 7.1 for locations of these toilet blocks), comprising nearly one-third of all non- heterosexual latrinalia collected. There was also evidence to suggest that these two toilet blocks operate as beats for some local gay men, such as the presence of glory holes2. Many of the latrinalia found at Parramatta Park were also quite explicitly sexual, such as open and frank advertisements for threesomes (see Figure 7.4) or the graphic depiction of oral sex (Figure 7.12f). Other latrinalia advertised social gatherings like “GAY CHRISTIANS MEET AT LAKEMBA 11:AM SUNDAYS Ring Pastor Dave” (original emphasis). Lakemba is another of Sydney’s suburbs located approximately 13 kilometres (eight miles) south-east of Parramatta. It is mainly a residential suburb, most notable for its sizeable Middle-Eastern born population and persons of the Islamic faith3. This abundance of non-heterosexual latrinalia in the toilets of Parramatta Park thus showcases a marginalisation of non-heterosexualities in these suburban spaces. At the same time, such a marginalisation highlights the presumed heteronormativity of suburban spaces. Furthermore, this presumption of suburban heteronormativity, from this initial analysis, did not appear to be related to whether a suburb was culturally heterogeneous (as in the case of Lakemba) or if it was a space of mixed land uses (as in the case of Parramatta). Suburban spaces, then, are in general presumed to be heteronormative.

2 Glory holes are holes in the wall or other partitions made specifically to enable anonymous sexual intercourse. They are often found in public toilets or in established institutions like sex clubs or adult shops where sexual intercourses are likely to take place. They are usually a few centimetres in diameter. To use a glory hole, a man inserts his penis into the hole to receive fellatio, anal intercourse or be masturbated by one or more persons in the adjacent stall. As such the presence of glory holes generally indicate that sexual activities take place in the space. 3 According to the 2006 Australian Census of Population and Housing (ABS, 2007), 42.1% of Lakemba’s population were of Islamic faith compared to the national average of 1.7%. Islam was also by far the most dominant religious affiliation on the suburb, with Catholicism a distant second (16.2%).

219 Figure 7.1: Public toilet facilities at Parramatta Park, Parramatta, 2004

1

2

3

Note: The toilet facilities were numbered in the order that they were visited and no significance to their proximity to any other facilities, such as the main sporting stadium (Parramatta Stadium) and the swimming centre, or the local transport and legislative hub to its south-west. Source: Parramatta Park Trust, http://www.ppt.nsw.gov.au/map_new2.jpg/, accessed 29th May 2008

220 Figure 7.2: Public toilet facilities at Moore Park, Moore Park, 2004

1

2

4

3

Note: The toilet facilities were numbered in the order that they were visited and bear no significance to their proximity to any other facilities, such as the main sporting stadiums (Aussie Stadium, Sydney Cricket Ground), or the local schools. The northern-most toilet block (circled without number) is now disused and permanently locked. It was thus excluded from the field data. Source: http://www.cp.nsw.gov.au/_data/assets/pdf_file/2541?MAP_Aug_05.pdf, accessed 24th October 2005

221 Figure 7.3: Young lust – an example of latrinalia advertising for after school non- heterosexual meetings, Moore Park, 22nd October 2004

Entry 2

Entry 1

Note: Entry 1 reads, “Hey young guy will jerk or suck you off 12.30-2.00 or 3-4 weekdays” Note: Entry 2 reads, “After school OK msn/email me @hotmail.com” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

An inspection of the non-heterosexual latrinalia collected at Moore Park provides a stark contrast to those collected at Parramatta Park. The majority of non- heterosexual latrinalia found at Moore Park were used as personal advertisements where graffitists sought sexual encounters with other non-heterosexuals (for a discussion on these latrinalia personal advertisements, please see section 7.3). The target audience of these personal advertisements, however, differed to those at Parramatta Park. These Moore Park latrinalia often had references to young people or even school children. The proximity of these toilets to two local high schools provides some explanations (see Figure 7.2). Entry 1 in Figure 7.3, for example, was by a “young guy” offering his sexual services. This “young guy” would likely be a student of the local school (Sydney Boys’ High School) as his advertised times were either during an extended lunch break or immediately after school on weekdays (“12:30-2:00 or 3-4

222 Figure 7.4: The blatant advertisement for , Parramatta Park, 16th October 2004

Entry 2

Entry 3

Entry 1

Note: Entry 1 reads, “gay 3some, 2 gay Big + Hairy gay guys WITH giant sized cocks and balls wanted in return for FREE ACCOMMODATION your age 25-46 YO ONLY OK I LIVE ON THE BANKSTOWN LINE ONLY 20 minutes from THE CITY SO IF THIS IS YOU + YOUR NOT INTO DRUGS THEN DO ring me” Note: Entry 2 reads, “Placed here 1-2-04” Note: Entry 3 reads, “bThis MON-Sat ALEXANDER 6:30pm” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL weekdays”). One response to this sexual advertisement (Entry 2) also made reference to after school hours. It also included some details of contact via hotmail – an internet- based emailing website – or msn – an internet-reliant messaging program particularly popular amongst younger people. Non-heterosexual latrinalia from Parramatta Park, on the contrary, lacked any such reference to young or school aged people and instead focussed on older non-heterosexuals (“25-46 YO ONLY”) or sexual subcultures such as bears (“Big + Hairy guys”) or polyamory (“3some full on gay relationships in mind”) (see Figure 7.4). (For a detailed discussion of the latrinalia sexualisations please refer to section 7.3.) This reflects the age of the patronage at the Moore Park public toilets who may be prohibited from entering the nearby non-heterosexual businesses such as bars and night clubs4 because of their young age, leaving latrinalia as their main means of performing their non-heterosexual identities. The absence of such references at

4 Moore Park is the end point of the annul Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras parade. It is also within walking distance to Sydney’s ‘gay precinct’ and ‘homophobia-free zone’ (Melouney, 2008; SMH, 2008) of Oxford Street where many bars and night clubs with a predominantly non-heterosexual clientele are located.

223 Parramatta Park reflects the relative lack of non-heterosexual businesses in the near vicinity5.

Figure 7.5: Heteronormalising university toilets through latrinalia, male toilet, level 3, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004

Entry 2 Entry 1

Note: Entry 1 reads, “I need a big fat stiff cock right up my arse” Note: Entry 2 reads, “a GO TO OXFORD STREET” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

While the case studies of public parks presented a picture where the relative lack of non-heterosexual latrinalia may signify a ready availability of local non- heterosexual services, the relationship between non-heterosexual latrinalia and tolerance towards non-heterosexualities is not so simple. The case studies of university libraries are cases in point. Relatively large samples of non-heterosexual latrinalia were collected at both the main library of UNSW and Fisher Library of the University of Sydney. Both of these universities have prominent gay and lesbian/queer spaces dedicated specifically to non-heterosexual staff and students. Non-heterosexual social events such as casual get-togethers and film viewing are also regular features on the events calendar. Yet this outward tolerance towards non-heterosexualities was not

5 Parramatta only has one ‘gay venue’, the Dolphins Dance Nights (http://www.dolphinsdance.net/) at the Parramatta Golf Club. It runs every first and third Saturdays of each month. The next closest ‘gay venue’ in Western Sydney is the weekly trivia night at the King’s Park Tavern some 10 kilometres (six miles) away (http://www.qow.zoomshare.com/1.html).

224 reflected in the more ‘private’ setting of their respective libraries where, not only some non-heterosexuals choose to use latrinalia as a means of personal advertisement, others who were less tolerant also used these opportunities to voice their disgust towards non-heterosexualities and their heteronormative views of these toilet spaces. Entry 2 in Figure 7.5 is a good example of such. This latrinalia was written in response to Entry 1 in which the writer proclaimed his need to be sexually penetrated by another man. The comment “GO TO OXFORD STREET” (Entry 2) reflects its writer’s heteronormative view of this university space and at the same time compartmentalises non-heterosexualities to Oxford Street, Sydney’s designated ‘gay precinct’. The reassertion of this space’s presumed heteronormativity was further emphasised by capitalisation of Entry 2 as well as its use of a larger font compared to Entry 1. Entry 2 was thus physically and visually more imposing and garnering more prominence than Entry 1. This reasserts a presumed heteronormativity of this ‘public’ space. This also resonates with Valentine’s (1998) personal account of the assumed heteronormativity of and homophobia she encountered in the space of academia where she was made to feel out of place through numerous personal threats of physical harm from other academics.

Figure 7.6: “Steve Phil” – love on the back of a cubicle door, male toilet, level 11, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004

Note: Entry reads, “steve69c (comrade kite) [ScT]PhiL” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

225 Figure 7.7: Placement of non-heterosexual latrinalia in hard-to-view spaces often invisibilises them to many toilet users, male toilet, level 3, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004

Note: Entry illegible. Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

The placement of non-heterosexual latrinalia within the public toilets also provided vital clues on the presumed heteronormativity of these ‘public’ spaces. Most of the non-heterosexual latrinalia collected were found on the back of the cubicle doors (see, for example, Figures 7.3 and 7.6). The back of cubicle doors is one of the most inaccessible spaces within any toilet facilities. It is almost certainly obscured from view when the cubicle is unoccupied and the door is opened, leaving the messages drawn or written on the back of the door temporarily invisibilised and out of sight. Some other non-heterosexual latrinalia were put at hard to view places such as below the dispenser. Placing these latrinalia below or around toilet paper dispensers also makes them difficult to view, especially since most of them were written with fine ball- point pens in very small fonts, such as the one shown in Figure 7.7. This reflects latrinalia, especially ones of non-heterosexual nature, as a less appropriate or acceptable performance for such public spaces. As such, the non-heterosexual latrinalia were often placed in difficult to view spaces like behind cubicle doors, making them a very temporally limited performance, such as when the user of the cubicle alone with her/his privacy. This indicates a heteronormative presumption of these spaces by the non-heterosexual users/graffitists. The actions of drawing and writing such non- heterosexual latrinalia, however, also challenge the common perception that these

226 public spaces are heteronormative by creating a non-heterosexual presence. Furthermore, none of the non-heterosexual latrinalia drawn or written on the back of cubicle doors attracted any homophobic responses. Instead, homophobic responses were only found in highly visible spaces such as the outside of a cubicle wall or above . The placing of non-heterosexual latrinalia in spaces that are often invisibilised also provides the drawers/writers a veil of anonymity and protection from any direct homophobic retribution. This section has shown that public spaces like public toilets are not void of sexualities. The data presented here challenge the common heteronormative presumption of some public spaces where latrinalia (re)appropriate some of these spaces by forcibly creating a non-heterosexual presence. This (re)appropriation was often achieved with high concentrations of non-heterosexual latrinalia, the most abundant examples being found at the main library of UNSW, Parramatta Park, and Fisher Library of the University of Sydney. These latrinalia covered many topics, with a high proportion being personal advertisements propositioning sexual encounters both on- (such as the glory hole example mentioned above) and off-site. Others directed non-heterosexuals to social activities in other parts of the city. Parramatta Park comprised the highest incidence of non-heterosexual latrinalia of my field sites. This observation, together with the relative lack of local ‘gay venues’ like bars and clubs, showcases a marginalisation of non-heterosexualities in suburban spaces. This highlights the presumed heteronormativity of suburban spaces where non- heterosexualities are confined to latrinalia, a performance that is at time invisibilised. The invisibilisation of latrinalia often results from graffitists placing latrinalia in hard-to- view spaces like behind cubicle doors. This practice of placing latrinalia in hard-to-view spaces, first, emphasises the presumed heteronormativity of toilet spaces and, second, highlights the protection that temporary invisibilisation affords the latrinalia graffitists. In contrast, fewer latrinalia were collected from Moore Park, a metropolitan space. This relative absence of non-heterosexual latrinalia could be attributed to the abundance of non-heterosexual services in close proximity in Sydney’s ‘gay precinct’ of Oxford Street. The few latrinalia collected at Moore Park, however, visualised an often forgotten non-heterosexual community – non-heterosexual youths – who, due to their young age and other reasons, were systematically excluded from mainstream non- heterosexual recognition. Latrinalia was thus highlighted as an important method of communications for the more marginalised non-heterosexuals in these supposedly heteronormative spaces.

227 7.2 Find me somebody to love: Sexualising non-heterosexual presence(s) Discussions in the previous section established that public toilets are often presumed to be heteronormative. I have also discussed the importance of latrinalia as a method of communications amongst the more marginalised non-heterosexuals. This section shifts the focus to the contents of these non-heterosexual latrinalia and the spaces where they exist. Specifically, this section explores the latrinalia which served as personal advertisements for their writers. These personal advertisements were often used for propositioning sexual encounters, whether they were to be carried out in these public toilets or elsewhere. These latrinalia not only problematise the presumption of heteronormativity, the sexual propositions that they articulate also challenge the common presumption that erotica should be confined to more ‘private’ settings such as at home. At the same time, these latrinalia also highlight an abject relationship between their graffitists and these public toilets. Specifically, many non-heterosexual graffitists placed their latrinalia in hard-to-view spaces (such as behind cubicle doors as discussed in the previous section). The entrances to the public toilets that had high numbers of non-heterosexual latrinalia were also more likely to be hidden from view (such as behind bushes) or difficult to access. These observations highlight an abject contention between non-heterosexual desire, shame and disgusts shame in public, where the heteronormative presumption of public spaces continue to be prevalent while non-heterosexual performances remain hidden or even invisibilised. One way of determining if a latrinalia was propositioning erotica was by analysing their references to sexual acts. Half (50.4%) of the latrinalia collected contained some form of sexual reference. These included those that were explicit about their search for erotica (see, for example, Entry 1 of Figure 7.5) as well as those who were more indirect or discrete (see, for example, Entry 1 of Figure 7.13). This, of course, was yet to take into account responses to such propositions that lacked any sexual references (see, for example, Entry 2 of Figure 7.8). These non-sexual responses generally comprised contact details or nomination of meeting times and accounted for another 40 entries (29.6%) of the sample. Latrinalia with explicit sexual references (36.3%) were far more common than those that were more discrete (14.1%) (see Table 7.2). At the main library of UNSW, for example, latrinalia with explicit sexual references outweighed those with discrete sexual references three to one. Most of these explicit latrinalia (19 out of 21) were concentrated in just three male toilets. In Figure 7.5, for example, it can be seen that the first entry (Entry 1) – which described the writer’s desire for same-sex anal sex – was much more sexually explicit than the subsequent response, in this case labelled as Entry 2. Entry 1 was deemed sexually explicit because of the very graphic detail the writer gave in describing his desire to be

228 sexually penetrated by another male, that he not only wanted just any kind of anal sex but to be penetrated by a male who was equipped with a sizeable, erect penis (“a big fat stiff cock”), a common symbolism for masculine virility. In contrast to the content of Entry 2 (“a GO TO OXFORD STREET”) which could be interpreted as being either directive or heteronormative in nature (where the writer is trying to contain non- heterosexual activities to the designated ‘gay precinct’), Entry 1 was much more sexually explicit than the responding entry.

Table 7.2: Sexual references in latrinalia by field sites, Sydney, 2004 Non-sexual Explicit Discreet Suburb responses Total No. % No. % No. % Moore Park Moore Park 1 0.7% 2 1.5% 2 1.5% 6 Olympic Park Homebush Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Parramatta Park Parramatta 16 11.9% 5 3.7% 13 9.6% 43 Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Macquarie University Epping 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 University of NSW 21 15.6% 7 5.2% 20 14.8% 57 UNSW (Main) Kensington 21 15.6% 7 5.2% 20 14.8% 57 UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Sydney Camperdown 7 5.2% 1 0.7% 5 3.7% 19 University of Technology, Sydney 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Western Sydney 2 1.5% 2 1.5% 0 0.0% 6 UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Milperra) Milperra 21.5%21.5%00.0%5 UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Richmond) Richmond 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Public parks (sub-total) 17 12.6% 7 5.2% 15 11.1% 49 Universities (sub-total) 32 23.7% 12 8.9% 25 18.5% 86 Total 49 36.3% 19 14.1% 40 29.6% 135 Note: “Total” represents total sample collected at each specified site nominated at the far left column.

This pattern of a sexually explicit initial entry followed by non-sexually explicit responses was observed in many of the personal advertisements in my latrinalia sample. Figure 7.8 is another example of such a pattern. The first entry (Entry 1) showed the writer propositioning himself for regular sexual encounters (“REGULAR WANK MATE”) with other (presumably male) users of the toilet. It was relatively lengthy (it comprised 17 words) and provided a lot of detail on the writer’s ethnicity (“CAUCASIAN”), sexual identity (“BI-GUY”), age, (“19”), as well as his preferred sexual releases (“KISS, HUG, WANK – NIL ELSE”). The two responses to Entry 1, however,

229 were quite succinct. One of these responses (Entry 2) was a positive response to the writer’s search for a “wank mate”. This positive response (Entry 2) consisted of a brief description of the writer’s personal characteristics (“22 Asn boi”), his shared intent (“4 same”) and contact details (his email address). The other response (Entry 3) was homophobic in nature. The strong language used in this homophobic response – “Fag- ass MOTHERFUCKER” – highlights the writer’s heteronormative presumption of public spaces like public toilets. At the same time, it also revealed his perception of acceptable heteromasculine performance. Specifically, this writer believed that ‘real’ men, unlike the “Fag-ass MOTHERFUCKER” who wrote the initial entry, are and should behave in misogynistic manners (“Find real bitches”). The challenges to the heteronormative perception of public spaces that both Entries 1 and 2 present to this public space was further complicated by the explicit (homo)sexual reference of Entry 1. While there was little evidence to suggest that the potential sexual exchange between the writers of Entries 1 and 2 occurred in these public toilets, the explicit sexual references in Entry 1 problematised the common perception that public spaces are non-erotic. These two non-heterosexual latrinalia thus unsettled not only a heteronormative but also the non-erotic perception of public spaces.

Figure 7.8: “Seeks regular wank mate” – example of explicit latrinalia, male toilet, level 5, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004

Entry 3 Entry 1

Entry 2

Note: Entry 1 reads, “MAY 2004 CAUCASIAN BI-GUY 19 SEEKS REGULAR WANK MATE (KISS, HUG, WANK – NIL ELSE) (Asian GUYS OK)”. Note: Entry 2 reads, “May 2004 22 Asn boi 4 same boardies20@hotmail” Note: Entry 3 reads, “Find real bitches you Fag-ass MOTHERFUCKER” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

230 Aside from acting as personal advertisements and propositioning sexual encounters, non-heterosexual latrinalia sometimes also serve as recounts of their authors’ previous sexual encounters. Figure 7.9 is an example of such. The latrinalia depicted in Figure 7.9 recounts the writer’s recent same-sex sexual encounter where he was anally penetrated by an unknown Black man. While it reflected some common sexual stereotypes (Black men with large penises and random public sexual encounters between non-heterosexual men, for example), this latrinalia provided a strong challenge to the heteronormative presumptions of performing erotica in public spaces. Its challenge to such presumptions, I argue, is even stronger than latrinalia that were more propositioning in nature. Many of the propositioning latrinalia studied in this thesis like Entries 1 of Figures 7.5 and 7.8, did not attract replies of any kind. Such an observation of non-reply may suggest, though not necessarily indicate, unfulfilled desires. This suggestion of unfulfilled non-heterosexual desires resonates with the early stereotype where non-heterosexuals were often portrayed by the media as undesirable/undesired (Russo, 1987; Walters, 2001). Latrinalia in the form of erotic recounts, whether genuine or phantasmatic, however, articulate a fulfilled non- heterosexual desire. They also eroticise the spaces where these latrinalia were found, challenging the very presumption that public spaces were devoid of erotica, especially non-heterosexual erotica. The graphic recounts of such erotica also make them hard to ignore or dismiss. Latrinalia like that shown in Figure 7.9 are an abjection, simultaneously generating spaces, such as public toilets, of disgust and of desire.

Figure 7.9: Gay pride as a challenge to the heteronormative presumption of toilet spaces, male toilet, level 2, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July 2004

Note: Entry reads, “DEAR ME, I JUST HAD SOME NEGRO CHAP BUGGER ME IN MY POOPER WITH HIS OVERSIZED ORGAN AND I THINK I LIKED IT!” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

231 It has been established in the discussion of this thesis so far that public spaces are indeed presumed to be heteronormative. The discussions in this chapter specifically have referred to the employment of latrinalia as a discrete method of communication amongst the more marginalised non-heterosexuals such as those who reside in the suburbs or those legally prohibited from non-heterosexual establishments such as bars and clubs. Suburban spaces like Parramatta are particularly perceived to be heteronormative by their very design (Peake, 1993; Ingram, 1997; Valentine, 1993b) and the higher concentrations of opposite-sex families who reside there. Such an overriding heteronormative presumption of suburban spaces explains the need for beats in places like public toilets where non-heterosexual communications and articulation of erotica could be confined. The latrinalia discussed in this chapter so far exemplify these confined forms of non-heterosexual communications and articulations of erotica. Homophobic latrinalia like Entry 2 of Figure 7.5 and Entry 3 of Figure 7.8 serve as reminders that these public toilets are predominantly presumed to be heteronormative. As such, non-heterosexual latrinalia in these public spaces continue to be hidden away. Aside from my observation that many of these non-heterosexual latrinalia being placed in hard-to-view spaces such as behind cubicle doors and temporarily invisibilising the non-heterosexual presences in these spaces, public toilets where large numbers of non-heterosexual latrinalia were found were also difficult to access. I again use Parramatta as a demonstration as the most numbers of non-heterosexual latrinalia were collected there. At Parramatta Park, 26 sexual latrinalia (22 initial entries, four responses) were found in just two of the three public toilet blocks. These were Toilets No.2 and No.3 (see Figure 7.1 for locations of these toilet blocks). Both of these toilet blocks were difficult to access or had their entrances visually obstructed by bushes or other objects. Toilet No.2 is situated directly below the stage area of the Park’s amphitheatre. The entrances to both the male and female toilets faced northwest and away from the stage. Directly in front of these entrances was a paved pathway (approximately two metres wide, or six and a half feet). On the other side of this paved pathway was a retaining wall about three metres (ten feet) tall that sloped away from the toilet facilities. The top of this retaining wall is as asphalt road where lunch time joggers sometimes pass. The image shown in Figure 7.10 was taken from the top of this retaining wall near the southern end of the toilet block. This retaining wall, along with the amphitheatre, keep the toilet entrances below most passer-by’s line of sight, visually obscuring the entrances. Furthermore, this toilet block is also difficult to access. It is physically distant from any main road or frequently-used facilities like Parramatta Stadium or the swimming centre. This physical isolation sees Toilet No.2

232 and its immediate surroundings having minimal pedestrian traffic except during events such as Christmas concerts on the occasional weekends. This combination of physical isolation and visually obstructed entrances provides an ideal veil of protection for its beat users from strangers (Hollister, 1999). The popularity of Toilet No.2 as a non- heterosexual beat was emphasised by the three glory holes found inside its two-cubicle male toilet. These were also the only physical evidence that I encountered at the field sites that non-heterosexual erotica actually occur in the public toilets. Toilet No.2 thus exemplifies the heteronormative presumption of public toilets, that not only non- heterosexual latrinalia but also the physical space where these non-heterosexual latrinalia were found were also isolated and hidden away.

Figure 7.10: The sunken entrances to Toilet No.2, Parramatta Park, Parramatta, 2005

Note: These public toilets are located directly below the stage of Parramatta Park’s amphitheatre. Usage of these toilets would not only be high during public events such as the annual Australia Day festivities, it is also located next to one of the internal roads of the Park. These internal roads are frequented by joggers throughout the day, particularly for early morning jog before work as well as lunch time and after work exercises. The entrance to the male toilet is shown here on the left (southern end) while the entrance to the female toilet is located in the middle of the block. Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

233 Figure 7.11: The hidden entrances to Toilet No.3, Parramatta Park, Parramatta, 2005

Note: This public toilet block is located on the western side of one of Parramatta’s busiest roads (O’Connell Street) but the toilets are only accessible from within the confines of Parramatta Park (therefore, there is no direct access from O’Connell Street). The entrances to both the male and female toilets, though both facing O’Connell Street, are obscured from the street by a metal fence. There is no pedestrian pathway on either side of the metal fence. At the time of fieldwork, the area directly opposite this toilet block was a construction site where foundations were only being laid. As such this toilet block could only be viewed through the metal fence from the narrow footpath outside the construction site, or through the planted garden bed from inside Parramatta Park. Only the entrance to the male toilet, located at the southern end, is shown here in this image. Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Large amounts of non-heterosexual latrinalia were also found at Toilet No.3. Like Toilet No.2, the entrances to Toilet No.3 were also visually obscured. These entrances were, first, obstructed by a metal fence erected between the toilet block and O’Connell Street, a main road of Parramatta (see right mid-ground of Figure 7.11) and, second, by a large garden bed, where tall trees and bushes are planted, between the toilet block and its access pedestrian footpath (see foreground of Figure 7.11). the nearest pedestrian footpaths to Toilet No.3 were located either on the other side of the

234 metal fence (approximately 15 metres, or 50 feet, away) or on the other side of the garden bed (approximately 20 metres, or 65 feet, away). Entry to and exit from this toilet blocks were thus visually obstructed from passers-by. In contrast, there were no visual obstructions to the entrances to Toilet No.1. Furthermore, Toilet No.1 is located adjacent to a café, a parking area, an event centre and a picnic group equipped with children play sets. It thus has a comparatively high patronage than both Toilets No.2 and No.3. This exposure to other toilet users and the lack of visual obstruction to its entrances made it unsuitable to function as a non-heterosexual beat. This was highlighted by the lack of non-heterosexual latrinalia in Toilet No.1, despite the numerous entries found in both Toilets No.2 and No.3. This observation provides further evidence to the heteronormative presumption of public spaces, that any non- heterosexual performances (in this case latrinalia) were marginalised and hidden away. Non-heterosexual latrinalia, as shown in this section, were often used as a tool for propositioning sexual encounters. The propositioning latrinalia challenged the heteronormative presumption of public spaces by creating a non-heterosexual presence in these spaces. Though previous research (see Clatts, 1999 for example), however, has shown that these sexual encounters seldom take place in the same public spaces that they were propositioned and set up. The non-heterosexual presences that the propositioning latrinalia created, especially through graphic recounts of previous erotic encounters, present a direct confrontation to the common presumption that public spaces are devoid of erotica. These challenges to heteronormativity and display of public erotica were, however, relatively covert. The toilet spaces with the strongest challenges, both in terms of the most amount of non- heterosexual latrinalia as well as the most graphic description of sexual encounters, were most difficult to access (such as Toilet No.2 of Parramatta Park). The entrances to these toilet blocks were also often obstructed from open view (such as Toilet No.3 of Parramatta Park) so that the users entering these spaces were relatively out of sight and invisibilised. The abundance of non-heterosexual latrinalia at Parramatta Park, a suburban space, is evident of a less tolerant (and heteronormative) local attitude towards non-heterosexualities. This heteronormative presumption of public spaces had forced the performances of non-heterosexualities to more covert forms (in this case latrinalia) and to marginalised and abjected spaces such as public toilets. The fact that there was little evidence of non-heterosexual latrinalia found at Moore Park, an inner- city area, may highlight its more liberal and tolerant attitudes towards non- heterosexualities. This was possibly due to its close proximity to Sydney’s ‘gay precinct’ of Oxford Street. Analyses of latrinalia found in Moore Park, however,

235 highlighted the marginalisation of under-aged non-heterosexuals who are often precluded from non-heterosexual establishments such as bars and clubs.

7.3 Neo-normalisation through objectification I have established in the previous sections that some public toilets are used as a communication forum for the more marginalised non-heterosexuals in parts of Sydney. The preceding section particularly explored latrinalia’s function in propositioning sexual encounters. At times, such sexual propositions reflect the very marginalised positions of their writers, a marginality which not only may have limited their wider non-heterosexual sociality but also their notions of ‘proper’ non- heterosexual identity performances. Such marginality may be likened to some closeted non-heterosexuals residing in rural areas such as described in Kramer (1995) though to a less dire degree. The notions of what these marginalised non-heterosexuals considered ‘proper’ non-heterosexual identities may be confined to a few selected stereotypes. In Kramer’s (1999, page 210) discussion, for example, some of his informants from rural areas have described “gay men as being effeminate, as being transvestites … as being pederasts or otherwise immoral or deviant”. Throughout this thesis I have termed the maintenance and pursuit of such stereotypes as neo- normalisation. Analyses discussed in this section showed that such neo-normalised identities often manifest as sexual objectification in the latrinalia. Figures 7.5 and 7.9 are two examples of such. The restrictiveness of these neo-normalised performances may well mirror the very discourse (heteronormativity) that their non-normativity intended to challenge and problematise. This section examines the objectification of non-heterosexuals as reflected by latrinalia and their role as expressions of abject through textual and graphic analyses. One common way of objectifying a person is through literal and graphic descriptions of the person’s particular bodily assets or performances. This differs vastly to the visual and discourse analyses that were discussed in the previous chapter, where objectification was often achieved through photographic reproduction where the performances were compartmentalised to a few selected and acceptable body parts/types. In the confined and abjected spaces of public toilets there is little opportunity for such exercises. On occasions where photographing in public toilets has happened there are rules in place for prosecutions (see, for example, Lamont 2004). My personal experiences with photographing latrinalia in public toilets were also less than pleasant. Aside from the difficulty in ensuring the toilet facility be completely free of other occupants prior to proceeding, the small confines of the cubicles also made photographing difficult, resulting in many images being out of focus (see, for example,

236 Figure 7.7). This may be why visual methodologies have not been used in previous research into graffiti and especially latrinalia. The other sections of this chapter continue to explore the suitability and effectiveness of using visual methodologies in studying latrinalia. This section, instead, shifts the focus to analysing the textual and graphic contents of the latrinalia in order to paint a clear picture of non-heterosexual objectifications and neo-normalisation in these toilet spaces. Table 4.3 in Chapter 4 shows a list of 15 terms that were categorised in SPSS for textual analysis. To reiterate, these 15 terms could be broadly divided into three main types – ‘general’, ‘physicality’, and ‘action’ terms. Three terms – “fag”, “faggot” and “gay” – were included under the ‘general’ category and were sometimes used as signifiers of non- heterosexual content. Six terms – “ass”, “arse”, “bum”, “cock”, “dick” and “balls” – were included under the ‘physicality’ category, and they were descriptions of either the writer’s own or desired bodily parts, more specifically sexual organs. Six terms – “cum”, “fuck”, “jerk”, “wank”, “suck” and “swallow” – were included under the ‘action’ category and they were (in most cases) descriptive of the sexual acts that the writer was either offering to perform or have it performed on him. Some of these terms were combined to form new analytic categories such as objectification and sexualisation. For a detailed discussion of these refer to section 4.4. Objectification and sexualisation were a relatively common phenomenon amongst the latrinalia collected for this thesis. In all, there were 24 (17.8%) latrinalia that, for example, included any of the six ‘physicality’ terms. These terms often described very specific body parts, such as the penis and the buttocks (the buttocks were most often described in direct reference to acts of sexual stimulations such as in anal intercourse). The terms “cock” and “dick” were the most commonly used, appearing in 21 of the 24 latrinalia (15.6% of all latrinalia) with both terms used with similar popularity. Direct references to the buttocks (most commonly through the terms “ass” and less often through “bum”) appeared in nine latrinalia (6.7%) while there were just three instances of reference to the scrotum or testicles (“balls”, 2.2%) (see Table 7.3). The popularity of the terms “cock” and “dick” was also highlighted by the fact that they were the only terms used more than once in each latrinalia entry. In all, there were ten instances where “cock” or “dick” was used twice in the same entry. In many instances the terms “cock” and “dick” were used in combination with the other ‘physicality’ terms, such as “ass”, “arse” or “bum” to give a more detailed description of what they were propositioning (see Table 7.4) as in this case of anal sex. By focusing and referring to just these specific body parts each become symbolically detached from their ‘owners’. This symbolic detachment of body parts again resonates with Stuart Hall’s (1997, page 266) understanding of fragmentation and fetishism, the “substitution

237 of a part for the whole” (original emphasis). These fetishised body parts in turn become representative of just the sexual pleasures that they could provide and not the full person or any other kind of meaningful relationships. In other words, male users were objectified as just ‘different cuts of meat’ in the ‘meat market’ that is these public toilets. At the same time, these non-heterosexual encounters were also reduced to pure superficiality, overlooking any interpersonal interactions on a deeper level. This fetishistic reduction reiterates the non-heterosexual stereotypes of deviancy and promiscuity.

Table 7.3: Objectification through use of terms in latrinalia by field sites, Sydney, 2004 Ass / arse / Balls Cock / dick Objectified Suburb bum No.%No.%No.%No.% Moore Park Moore Park 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Olympic Park Homebush Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Parramatta Park Parramatta 5 3.7% 3 2.2% 9 6.7% 13 9.6% Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Macquarie University Epping 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 1 0.7% University of NSW 2 1.5% 0 0.0% 6 4.4% 4 3.0% UNSW (Main) Kensington 2 1.5% 0 0.0% 6 4.4% 4 3.0% UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% University of Sydney Camperdown 2 1.5% 0 0.0% 4 3.0% 5 3.7% University of Technology, Sydney 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% University of Western Sydney 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 1 0.7% UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% UWS (Milperra) Milperra 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 1 0.7% UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% UWS (Richmond) Richmond 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% Public parks (sub-total) 5 3.7% 3 2.2% 9 6.7% 13 9.6% Universities (sub-total) 4 3.0% 0 0.0% 12 8.9% 11 8.1% Total 9 6.7% 3 2.2% 21 15.6% 24 17.8%

The graffitists’ fixation on sexual organs, particularly the penis, was also depicted graphically in the latrinalia studied. In all, graphics appeared in 13 latrinalia (9.7% of all latrinalia collected), with most (nine, or 6.7%) appearing in conjunction with some textual components (see Table 7.5). All but one of these 13 graphics depicted the penis (the only non-penis depiction was the silhouette of a cedar tree in reference to the Lebanon national flag and its associated texts. See Figure 7.12(d)). Many of the 12 penises were depicted as erect and not attached to a body (see Figure 7.12 (a), (e),

238

Table 7.4: Combining of terms in latrinalia description by field sites, Sydney, 2004 'Cock / dick' with 'Cock / dick' with Suburb 'Balls' 'Ass / arse / bum' Total No. % No. % Moore Park Moore Park 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 Olympic Park Homebush Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Parramatta Park Parramatta 8 5.9% 13 9.6% 43 Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Macquarie University Epping 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 University of NSW 3 2.2% 3 2.2% 57 UNSW (Main) Kensington 3 2.2% 0 0.0% 57 UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Sydney Camperdown 4 3.0% 5 3.7% 19 University of Technology, Sydney 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Western Sydney 1 0.7% 1 0.7% 6 UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Milperra) Milperra 1 0.7% 1 0.7% 5 UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Richmond) Richmond 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Public parks (sub-total) 8 5.9% 13 9.6% 49 Universities (sub-total) 8 5.9% 9 6.7% 86 Total 16 11.9% 22 16.3% 135

(f) and (g) for examples). Most suggest oral stimulation, whether through graphics alone (such as Figure 7.12 (f)) or as described by their associated texts (such as Figure 7.12 (a) and (c)). There was one (Figure 7.12 (g)) that used an arrow to suggest ejaculation. There was one textual response to this particular graphic latrinalia (provided in a rotation to the left of the graphic), indicating that the author was interested in pursuing some kind of erotic relationship with the drawer of the penis graphic. This provides an example where sexual propositioning are sometimes depicted graphically in addition to the literal propositions as discussed in the pervious section. This penis graphic was also by far the largest latrinalia found in the fieldwork, covering most of the middle section of a cubicle’s interior wall at approximately 40 centimetres wide and one metre tall (approximately one and a third feet by three and a quarter feet). The sizes of the graphic latrinalia varied more greatly than those that were purely textual. Some were as small as a computer floppy disk (nine centimetres by nine centimetres, or three and a half inches by three and a half inches) while others were as large as the one described above. This observation aligns with Nandrea’s

239 (1999, page 111) study where graffiti did not subscribe to the same “rigid spatial stratifications” as texts on pages do (such as an interview transcript). Such spatial limitlessness may have allowed graffitists to more fully express and perform their identities in some instances. There were also opportunities for fantasies and exaggerations, as Figure 7.12 (g) may have been, for establishing a reputation or to boast one’s own sexual confidence. All these graphic entries, while usually visually discrete (such as on the interior walls of cubicles or behind cubicle doors), depicted explicit sexual acts. These graphic representations of (male) same-sex desires portrayed these relationships as purely sexual, and in the process, objectified non- heterosexual males through the metaphoric detachment of their sexual organs (the penis). This resonates with my earlier argument where the detachment of the penis through the use of terms like ‘cock’ or ‘dick’ fetishised male non-heterosexuals by depicting them as pure sexual objects. The large sizes of some of the graphics may have furthered this objectification and fetishism while the smallness of others (and placement in hard-to-view spaces) reflect the heteronormative presumptions of these public spaces.

Table 7.5: Type of latrinalia by field sites, Sydney, 2004 Text & Text only Graphic only Suburb graphic Total No. % No. % No. % Moore Park Moore Park 6 4.4% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 Olympic Park Homebush Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Parramatta Park Parramatta 40 29.6% 1 0.7% 2 1.5% 43 Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Macquarie University Epping 3 2.2% 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 4 University of NSW 52 38.5% 2 1.5% 3 2.2% 57 UNSW (Main) Kensington 52 38.5% 2 1.5% 3 2.2% 57 UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Sydney Camperdown 16 11.9% 0 0.0% 3 2.2% 19 University of Technology, Sydney 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Western Sydney 5 3.7% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 6 UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Milperra) Milperra 53.7%00.0%00.0%5 UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Richmond) Richmond 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 1 UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Public parks (sub-total) 46 34.1% 1 0.7% 2 1.5% 49 Universities (sub-total) 76 56.3% 3 2.2% 7 5.2% 86 Total 122 90.4% 4 3.0% 9 6.7% 135

240 Figure 7.12: Graphical depictions of latrinalia, Sydney, 2005

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)

(f) (g) Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

The objectification of male same-sex relationships also occurred through the regular depiction of sexual acts. This was often achieved through the use of ‘action’ terms such as those discussed above and listed in Table 4.3. The sexualising depiction of male same-sex relationships accounted for around one-quarter (26.7%, 36 latrinalia) of all latrinalia studied. These often took the form of vivid descriptions of sexual acts (through the use of the six ‘action’ terms as described above). The term ‘fuck’ – a profanity that was often used to describe penetrative (mostly referring to anal) sex – was the most commonly used, appearing in 14 latrinalia (10.4%). The term ‘fuck’ was used twice in one of these 14 latrinalia while in another it was used three times. The

241 terms ‘suck’ (in 11 latrinalia, or 8.1%) – used to describe the oral stimulation of the penis as in the case of oral sex – and ‘cum’ (in eight latrinalia, or 5.9%) – used to describe both the act of ejaculation as well as the ejaculated semen – were also commonly used terms. Neither terms were used more than once in any one entry. The terms ‘jerk’, ‘wank’ – used to describe the offering or receiving of masturbation – and ‘swallow’ – used to indicate the swallowing of ejaculated semen, likely as a result of oral stimulation – were less commonly used terms (one entry each, or 0.7%) (see Table 7.6). Like the use of the terms that focussed on and emphasised the male sexual organs, the constant references that these non-heterosexual latrinalia had to sexual acts objectified male non-heterosexual relationships by simplifying and homogenising these relationships as purely sexual. They also show these relationships in the stereotypical or neo-normative manners of promiscuity and being sexually driven. The suggestion of promiscuity and perversity was also reinforced through references to sexual fetishisms, including suggestions of group orgies and the fetishising of certain minority groups such as ‘Asians’ or ‘bears’ (large, hairy men). These suggestions of fetishisms, along with the ‘action’ terms discussed above, though describing a relatively diverse range of sexual activities, apply the same type of restrictiveness that heteronormativity imposes on identity performances in public spaces by portraying non- heterosexual relationships as first and foremost, if not only, sexual in nature. Such non- heterosexual latrinalia, while having the potential to challenge and upset heteronormative and non-erotic presumptions of public spaces, in turn impose a different set of restrictions (neo-norms). The restrictiveness of the neo-norms can be likened to the restrictiveness of heteronormativity as both set to preserve and maintain a limited array of identity performances. This visualises neo-normativity as an abject to some non-heterosexuals where, on the one hand it has the ability to challenge restrictive heteronorms, yet on the other hand it applies the same restrictiveness in preserving and maintaining certain (often stereotypical) identities. Content analysis, more particularly of the texts than graphics, of the latrinalia collected in the fieldwork showed that the objectification and sexualisation of non- heterosexual males were common practices. These objectifications and sexualisations included both elements of fact (descriptions of sexual encounters that a writer desired) and fantasy (such as the graphic of the metre-long penis, see Figure 7.12 (g)). In most instances these descriptions and graphic depictions were limited to reflecting the common non-heterosexual stereotypes of promiscuity, perversity and superficiality – that it was the physical sex and not meaningful relationships that they were after. Such constant references to established stereotypes hint at the very entrenched neo- normativity that functioned in these marginalised spaces. At the same time, the restrict-

242 Table 7.6: Objectification through use of terms in latrinalia by field sites, Sydney, 2004

Cum Fuck Jerk / Wank Suburb Total No. % No. % No. % Moore Park Moore Park 2 1.5% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 6 Olympic Park Homebush Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Parramatta Park Parramatta 2 1.5% 9 6.7% 0 0.0% 43 Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Macquarie University Epping 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 4 University of NSW 4 3.0% 2 1.5% 1 0.7% 57 UNSW (Main) Kensington 4 3.0% 2 1.5% 1 0.7% 57 UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Sydney Camperdown 0 0.0% 2 1.5% 0 0.0% 19 University of Technology, Sydney 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Western Sydney 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Milperra) Milperra 00.0%00.0%00.0%5 UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Richmond) Richmond 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Public parks (sub-total) 4 3.0% 9 6.7% 1 0.7% 49 Universities (sub-total) 4 3.0% 5 3.7% 1 0.7% 86 Total 8 5.9% 14 10.4% 2 1.5% 135

Suck Swallow Sexualised Suburb Total No. % No. % No. % Moore Park Moore Park 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 4 3.0% 6 Olympic Park Homebush Bay 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Parramatta Park Parramatta 5 3.7% 1 0.7% 17 12.6% 43 Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Macquarie University Epping 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 2 1.5% 4 University of NSW 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 5.2% 57 UNSW (Main) Kensington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 7 5.2% 57 UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Sydney Camperdown 3 2.2% 0 0.0% 5 3.7% 19 University of Technology, Sydney 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Western Sydney 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 6 UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Milperra) Milperra 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 5 UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Richmond) Richmond 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Public parks (sub-total) 6 4.4% 1 0.7% 21 15.6% 49 Universities (sub-total) 5 3.7% 0 0.0% 15 11.1% 86 Total 11 8.1% 1 0.7% 36 26.7% 135

243 iveness of the neo-norms may very well counteract the challenges they were intended to problematise – the restricting discourse of heteronormativity and the non-erotic presumption of these spaces. This creates an uneasy abject relationship between non- heterosexualities and neo-normativity. On the one hand, it was these established ‘protocols’ that (re)appropriate such spaces as (though maybe only temporarily) non- heterosexual yet, at the same time, they confine non-heterosexual performances to a small subset. Furthermore, this small subset primarily consisted of common stereotypes such as promiscuity. Such a process (neo-normativity), for one, is restrictive of the performances of non-heterosexual identities. It also has the potential to push individuals who do not and cannot conform to these ‘approved’ non- heterosexual performances further into the periphery of social marginalisation.

7.4 Graffiting as a highly gendered activity: The absence of lesbian latrinalia Previous researchers (Bruner and Kelso, 1980; Carrington, 1989; Cole, 1991; Lachmann, 1988) found that graffiting is often a very gender-specific counter-cultural activity. More specifically, graffiting was a heavily male-centric activity in which female participation was not only uncommon but also often discouraged (Lachmann, 1988, page 235). Field data collected for this thesis generally confirmed the conclusions of this previous research. Of all the non-heterosexual latrinalia collected, only three entries (2.2%) were from female toilets. Furthermore, they were all collected from the same cubicle and comprised an initial entry and two responses. This relative lack of ‘female’ non-heterosexual latrinalia, and their spatial concentration, pushed forward an important observation – that not only graffiting was a heavily male-biased activity, but that the communications of female non-heterosexualities and between non- heterosexual females differed significantly from non-heterosexual males. This section explores this difference and attempts to provide some explanations. It was clear from the latrinalia collected for this study that there was an apparent gender division in relation to the active participation in graffiti activities. By active participation I mean the drawing and/or writing of graffiti. Of the 135 non-heterosexual latrinalia, only three (2.2%) were collected from female toilets and discussed specifically female same-sex relationships (see Table 7.7). This is, of course, based on the presumption that the toilet facilities visited were used solely by females and that those who wrote these latrinalia were female. This observation provided some elementary evidential support to the studies by Bruner and Kelso (1980), Carrington (1989), Cole (1991) and Lachmann (1989) that graffiting, in general, is a highly gendered activity and that males were more likely to physically partake in graffiting than females. Their observations were, unlike my study, based on a universal collection of

244 latrinalia within specific toilet facilities regardless of topics, while my study focussed solely on latrinalia that expressed non-heterosexual sentiments and at times resentments. As explained in Chapter 4, I recruited some female friends to assist me in collecting latrinalia from female toilets. While I gave specific instruction on watching out for non-heterosexual latrinalia, the general response that I received from these female assistants were that not only did they not find non-heterosexual latrinalia in these female toilets, latrinalia of any kind were also absent in most of these female toilets. The notable exceptions were the female toilets located on the lower floors of The University of Sydney’s Fisher Library. Like the male toilets in the Fisher Library, the cubicle walls of the female toilets were filled with commentaries on local and international politics. Taking the general absence of female non-heterosexual latrinalia into account, the predominance of political latrinalia in these female toilets also resonated an observation by Bruner and Kelso (1980) and Carrington (1989), that when graffiting, males and females draw or write about vastly different subjects. Bruner and Kelso (1980), for example, concluded that latrinalia by males were more likely to be of an erotic nature (whether non-heterosexual erotica or not) or on heteropatriarchal power reassertion such as in the form of misogynistic comments. Females, on the other hand, according to Carrington (1989), were more likely to comment on personal relationships such as their loved ones and their friends. From my own observations and from recounts by my female assistants, such a disparity certainly held true for my chosen field sites. On a few occasions, heterosexual erotic latrinalia were found in some female toilets. Unlike the heterosexual erotic latrinalia found in male toilets, which generally advertised the writers’ own sexual conquests, the few heterosexual erotic latrinalia found in female toilets mainly boasted about the sexual competence of their male partners. There were also a few who joked about their male partners’ sexual incompetence. Overall, erotic latrinalia only comprised a small proportion of female latrinalia observed at the field sties, with most others commenting on local and international contemporary politics.

Table 7.7: Number of latrinalia collected by gender of toilet, Sydney, 2004 No. % Male toilets 132 97.8% Female toilets 32.2% Total 135 100.0%

245 Three non-heterosexual latrinalia were found in female toilets. All three were found on the same tiled wall of an end-cubicle inside the Fisher Library of the University of Sydney (see Figure 7.13). From the text it could be easily identified that one (Entry 1) was an initial entry, with the other two (Entries 2 and 3) being responses and comments to Entry 1. Entry 1 described in length the personal feelings that the writer (on the presumption that it was a female writer) had for the object of her affection(s) who was simply referred to as ‘Miss K’. While these affections that the writer of Entry 1 had for ‘Miss K’ were not explicitly expressed in the latrinalia, the historical concealment of same-sex attractions under the term ‘friendship’ prompted my consideration of Entry 1 as an expression of female same-sex affection. Concealment of same-sex attraction under the guise of ‘friendship’ was a common practice in the early correspondences between gay males and lesbians. The correspondences of writer Willa Cather or former First Lady of the United States of America Eleanor Roosevelt, for example, both referred to their respective female partners as ‘friends’ (Miller, 1995). While the frequency of this practice of concealment had decreased significantly since with the advent of, first, gay and lesbian activism, then Queer and other non-heterosexual political movements, it may still be used by some who, due to various reasons, prefer to keep their non-heterosexualities hidden. This was particularly a more common practice amongst the more marginalised and invisibilised non-heterosexuals whose public acknowledgement of their own sexual identities may still pose physical threats to their well-being. This was evident in the late 1990s publication of the short story Brokeback Mountain, where the two central characters (male ranch hands and rodeo riders) concealed their same-sex relationships by referring to each other as ‘friend’ in both their mail correspondences and in the presence of others throughout their twenty-year long relationship (Proulx, 1997, pages 77-79, 83). My consideration of Entry 1 as an example of this concealment of same-sex attraction was based on the writer’s expressions of a deep level of affection towards ‘Miss K’, such as in the sentence “I care about you so much” (line 6). The data collected for this study showed that this kind of emotional expression, whether it was of the amorous kind or not, was rarely articulated by male latrinalia writers, or at least, latrinalia that articulated the emotions of their writers were seldom found in the male toilets. This difference in latrinalia practice between the two genders echoed Carrington’s (1989, page 89) research that emotional graffiti were more likely to be written by female than male graffitists. At the same time, the need to conceal such a same-sex attraction as a ‘friendship’ in the public space reveals the heteronormativity that operates in these female toilets.

246 Figure 7.13: Dear Miss K – a ‘female’ non-heterosexual latrinalia chain, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July, 2004

Entry 2

Entry 1

Entry 3

Note: Entry 1 reads, “I don’t know if you want to be my friend or not. I get this feeling when I’m around you like you just want me to nick off. But at the same time, Miss K, I care about you so much. I think you are just beautiful. How can I know for sure that you want to be my friend too?” Note: Entry 2 reads, “write her … [illegible] Note: Entry 3 reads, “ask her for it”. Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Apart from the articulation of emotions, another way ‘female’ latrinalia differed to ‘male’ latrinalia is that they were more likely to be advisory in nature. This advisory role that ‘female’ latrinalia played was also noted in Carrington’s (1989) research. Carrington (1989, page 98) also found more examples of such advisory latrinalia at university campus toilets, which she presumed to have users who were of a more middle-class background, than compared to her other field site, railway stations, an even more public thoroughfare than my chosen public parks. Two advisory latrinalia were found at female toilet in the University of Sydney’s Fisher Library as responses to the abovementioned Entry 1 (see Figure 7.13). These two samples thus confirm Carrington’s (1989) observation that advisory latrinalia were more likely found at universities than in public thoroughfares like railway stations or public parks. I,

247 however, disagree with her speculation that it was due to the presumably more middle- class population of universities than thoroughfares like railway stations but instead argue that it was the more stable and regular audience of universities that attracted such advisory latrinalia. While both were out of focus in Figure 7.13, a closer examination of these two latrinalia (Entries 2 and 3) shows the type and extent of advice that they provided. Entry 2 attempted to offer some advice on how the writer of Entry 1 should approach her situation with ‘Miss K’, such as by writing her a love note or letter (“write her…”, line 1). Entry 3 also offered a similar kind of advice but in a more positive manner, by telling the writer of Entry 1 to take the initiative of asking ‘Miss K’ for her ‘friendship’. Both of these entries were very positive in nature in trying to improve the relationship between the writer of Entry 1 and ‘Miss K’, or at least trying to help them establish a relationship. This kind of positivity was less than common amongst the male latrinalia which at times included homophobic threats and taunts (for a discussion of latrinalia homophobia, see section 7.5 below). This showcases female graffitists as a more supportive and sympathetic community than male graffitists. This, however, begs the question of why latrinalia writing is not a more common practise amongst female non-heterosexuals in view of such a supportive and sympathetic audience. The general absence of non-heterosexual latrinalia in the female toilets studied did not necessarily signify the absence of non-heterosexualities in these spaces. On the contrary, female non-heterosexualities may very well be present in these spaces, but they could have been less prominent compared to the presence of male non- heterosexualities as discussed earlier, or that they were invisibilised due to various factors and discourses. What could be confirmed was the practice of latrinalia as a communicative method differed greatly amongst males and females, in effect the presences of female non-heterosexualities in these spaces were visually less prominent. Such invisibilisation of female non-heterosexualities, as I argued previously, reflects the heteronormative presumption of these spaces. The general lack of female non-heterosexual latrinalia especially compared to the vast availability of male non- heterosexual latrinalia, in the university library toilets confirms Valentine’s (1998) observation that, despite their users being more educated and as such presumably more liberal, university spaces were still very much perceived to be heteropatriarchal. A similar argument holds true for the heteropatriarchal presumption of public spaces (as made evident here by the lack of female non-heterosexual latrinalia in public parks). This heteropatriarchal perception of public space is further highlighted by Valentine’s (1989) discussion of women’s fear of public space. Such heteropatriarchal intimidations that females and lesbians feel in public spaces could also partly explain the general

248 failure of lesbian beats in attracting sizeable rations of cruisers like the one documented in Murphy and Watson (1997, page 81). Heteropatriarchal perceptions of public spaces thus confine lesbian spatiality (and the visualisation of this spatiality) in a vastly different manner than on gay male spatiality. The data presented in this section provided empirical evidence that graffiting is a highly gendered activity. Particularly, males were more likely to actively participate in graffiting than females. This confirmed the results of Bruner and Kelso (1980), Cole (1991), Lachmann (1988), but especially Carrington (1989) whose results show that female responses to latrinalia, especially those of a non-heterosexual nature, were more likely to display deeper levels of emotion than male responses. Furthermore, responses to these female non-heterosexual latrinalia were also more likely to be advisory in nature than the responses to male non-heterosexual latrinalia. In addition, this advice was often very positive towards the problems of the initial entry, such as in the example shown in Figure 7.13 where Entry 3 urged the writer of Entry 1 to be less reactionary in her approach to her relationship with ‘Miss K’. This kind of positive advice was seldom found amongst the latrinalia collected from male toilets, be they located in university libraries or public parks. There thus existed fundamental differences between male and female non-heterosexual latrinalia which, in summary, differed in the levels of emotions the latrinalia displayed and/or conveyed. The general absence of female non-heterosexual latrinalia also highlighted the common heteropatriarchal perception of these public spaces. Such an invisibilisation of female non-heterosexualities in these public spaces could be due to various forms of intimidations that female non-heterosexuals face and endure (Valentine, 1989). Analyses discussed in this section revealed how deeply entrenched the heteronormative (and heteropatriarchal) presumptions of public spaces are. This had resulted in non-heterosexual females being doubly invisibilised and marginalised in these public, heteropatriarchal spaces. These invisibilisation and marginalisation were evident in the absence of the counter-cultural performance of latrinalia in most of the female toilets visited. This prompts a question on how other marginalised non- heterosexuals, such as those who are mentally or physically disabled (McRuer, 2003; Samuels, 2003; Ward, 2000), perform and communicate their identities in public spaces. The lack of latrinalia of any kind in the disabled toilet facilities visited provides some indication on the marginalisation of differently-abled non-heterosexuals. Whether such an absence was due to societies’ favouring of able-bodiness or an overriding heteronormative discourse was untested in this research.

249

7.5 Restoring unsettled heteronorms It has thus far been established in this chapter that non-heterosexual presences were regular in some of the field sites visited. On occasion, the abundance of non- heterosexual latrinalia in some spaces may well have signified successful (though only temporarily) non-heterosexual (re)appropriation of public spaces, challenging the common perceptions that these public spaces were heterosexual and non-sexual. These non-heterosexual (re)appropriations were, however, often not unchallenged. There was evidence to suggest numerous attempts by other users as well as the authorities of these spaces in re-establishing and restoring heteronorms. These have ranged from derogatory and homophobic latrinalia6 by other users, improved interiors of public toilets to deter latrinalia writing/drawing, regular removals of latrinalia, to the more drastic measures of restricting access to toilets. This section explores each of these strategies in restoring unsettled heteronorms in the public toilets studied. The use of derogatory and homophobic latrinalia as a means of reasserting heteronormativity in public toilets was not a common practice. In all, only around one- eighth of my sample could be classified as either derogatory (4.4%) or homophobic (9.6%) (see Table 7.8). The incidence of homophobic latrinalia was roughly twice as likely as those that were derogatory in nature. All derogatory and homophobic latrinalia were found in four university libraries. At the Fisher Library of the University of Sydney, in particular, derogatory and homophobic latrinalia accounted for more than half (ten of 19) of the non-heterosexual latrinalia collected for analyses, a far higher proportion than from any other field sites. These derogatory and homophobic latrinalia, in contrast to propositioning latrinalia as described above, were often placed at highly visible places within the toilet facilities. The two latrinalia shown in Figure 7.14, for example, were placed on the outside of a cupboard door in a male toilet in Fisher Library. They were not only visible to all who enter the toilet facilities but were also one of the first features that one comes across upon entering the toilet. Entry 1 was also explicitly racist in nature because of the direct reference it made to a specific ethnic group. It accused the Lebanese non-heterosexual residents of Lewisham as “PAEDOPHILE

6 There are subtle differences between my classifications of what constituted derogatory and homophobic latrinalia. Homophobic latrinalia clearly expressed their disgust towards non-heterosexualities, such as Entry 3 of Figure 7.8. Derogatory latrinalia, on the other hand, may not necessarily articulate such disgusts literally but instead express them in a more demeaning manner. Entry 1 of Figure 7.14, for example, was particularly derogatory and demeaning towards Lebanese non- heterosexual males by referring to them as “DIRTY LEBANESE MONKIES” who fall prey to molestation by “PAEDOPHILE DADDIES”.

250 DADDIES”, inferring that the male members of this community routinely performed legally and morally corrupt acts of sexual intercourse with under-aged individuals. This entry was also inscribed into the door using sharp objects rather than written on using pens or markers. This makes the removal of this entry a difficult task, and may involve the replacement of the door. The physical inscription of this derogatory latrinalia also makes it a more permanent feature in the public toilet than latrinalia that were drawn or written. This relative permanence reinforces the deviancy of non-heterosexualities. Derogatory latrinalia, in this instance, was used to portray non-heterosexualities, particularly those from an ethnic minority background, in a deviant light and positioning them as morally peripheral.

Table 7.8: Derogatory, homophobic and anti-homophobic latrinalia by field sties, Sydney, 2004 Anti- Derogatory Homophobic Suburb homophobic Total No. % No. % No. % Moore Park Moore Park 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 Olympic Park Homebush Bay 00.0%00.0%00.0%0 Parramatta Park Parramatta 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 43 Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Macquarie University Epping 00.0%21.5%00.0%4 University of NSW 10.7%43.0%10.7%57 UNSW (Main) Kensington 1 0.7% 4 3.0% 1 0.7% 57 UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Sydney Camperdown 4 3.0% 6 4.4% 0 0.0% 19 University of Technology, Sydney 00.0%00.0%00.0%0 UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Western Sydney 10.7%10.7%00.0%6 UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Milperra) Milperra 0 0.0% 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 5 UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 1 0.7% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Richmond) Richmond 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Public parks (sub-total) 00.0%00.0%00.0%49 Universities (sub-total) 6 4.4% 13 9.6% 1 0.7% 86 Total 6 4.4% 13 9.6% 1 0.7% 135

251

Figure 7.14: “Dirty Lebanese monkies” – an example of a derogatory latrinalia, male toilet, level 4, Fisher Library, University of Sydney, 23rd July 2004

Entry 1

Entry 2

Note: Entry 1 reads, “TAOUK LEWISHAM FAGGOTS WHO ARE DIRTY LEBANESE MONKIES THAT TAKE IT UP THE ARSE FROM THEIR PAEDOPHILE DADDIES”. Note: Entry 2 reads, “TAOUK SUCKS COCK”. Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

252

Table 7.9: Homophobic use of the terms “fag” or “faggot” by field sites, Sydney, 2004

Fag / faggot Homophobic Suburb Total No. % % * No. % Moore Park Moore Park 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 6 Olympic Park Homebush Bay 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Parramatta Park Parramatta 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 43 Penrith Park Penrith 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Macquarie University Epping 1 0.7% 50.0% 2 1.5% 4 University of NSW 1 0.7% 25.0% 4 3.0% 57 UNSW (Main) Kensington 1 0.7% 25.0% 4 3.0% 57 UNSW (CoFA) Paddington 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Sydney Camperdown 4 3.0% 66.7% 6 4.4% 19 University of Technology, Sydney 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Haymarket) Broadway 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UTS (Ku-Ring-Gai) Ku-Ring-Gai 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 University of Western Sydney 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.7% 6 UWS (Campbelltown) Campbelltown 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Kingswood) Kingswood 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Milperra) Milperra 0 0.0% 0.0% 1 0.7% 5 UWS (Quakers Hills) Quakers Hills 1 0.7% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Richmond) Richmond 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 UWS (Rydalmere) Rydalmere 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 UWS (Werrington) Werrington 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 Public parks (sub-total) 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0.0% 49 Universities (sub-total) 6 4.4% 46.2% 13 9.6% 86 Total 6 4.4% 46.2% 13 9.6% 135 Note: % * signifies the number of homophobic latrinalia that included the terms “fag” or “faggot” expressed as a proportion of all homophobic latrinalia in each specified field site.

Unlike derogatory latrinalia, homophobic latrinalia directed their remarks of disgust specifically towards non-heterosexualities. There were a few commonalities amongst all of these homophobic latrinalia. Nearly half (46.2% or six out of 13 latrinalia, see Table 7.9) of the homophobic latrinalia included the terms “fag” or “faggot”, including one latrinalia where “fag” was used twice. These terms were not included in any of the other latrinalia included in this thesis. This highlights the terms “fag” and “faggot”, unlike the reconstituted term “queer”, remain predominantly derogatory and denigrating towards non-heterosexual males. Apart from the regular use of the terms “fag” and “faggot”, homophobic latrinalia were also commonly misogynistic in nature. Entry 3 of Figure 7.8 is an example of such. The writer of Entry 3 (presumed to be male since it was found in a male toilet) attempted to reassert heteronormativity to these ‘public’ spaces by not only acting in a homophobic but also misogynistic manner. This misogynistic behaviour was highlighted by his reference to females as “real bitches”. In effect, Entry 3 equated ‘real’ masculinity and heteronormativity to misogyny. The

253 aggressiveness of this entry was further emphasised by the use of the term “motherfucker”. While this term was more commonly used as a general insult in contexts that were neither gender- nor sexuality-specific, it nonetheless conveyed a sense of disgust the writer had towards (male) non-heterosexualities. By associating heteronormativity with misogyny, the writer of Entry 3 was also inadvertently linking male non-heterosexualities to femininity (or non-heterosexual males to females in general). This reflects the common effeminising of non-heterosexual males in popular culture and academic studies where non-heterosexual males were often effeminised and positioned together with females (see, for example, Savic, Berglund & Lindström, 2005). Many other homophobic latrinalia were not as direct in terms of expressing their disgusts towards non-heterosexualities. These were often more implicit in responding to the propositioning of non-heterosexual acts. Entry 2 of Figure 7.15 is an example of such. Entry 1 was a typical propositioning latrinalia where its writer advertised his erotic desires (possibly asking for oral stimulations) and leaving his contact details. Entry 2 was a direct response to Entry 1 and expressed the writer’s direct disgust towards non- heterosexualities. His disgust, however, was not aggressively expressed like Entry 3 of Figure 7.8 but more implicitly carried through the description of his physical discomfort with same-sex desire. Whether explicitly or implicitly, these homophobic latrinalia all served to (re)establish the spaces of public toilets as heteronormative by painting non- heterosexual sex acts as deviant. Further, this form of homophobic latrinalia was only found in public toilets where propositioning latrinalia were also found. This highlights the presumed heteronormativity of these public toilets, that even a hint of non- heterosexual erotica must be stamped out with immediate, and often more visible, action. This also marks non-heterosexual latrinalia as expressions of abject. First, the seeking of non-heterosexual erotica in public spaces highlights the abject desire for the risqué. These latrinalia serve as physical evidence of this desire. Second, the expressions of non-heterosexual desires (viewed as a challenge to these heteronormative presumption of these spaces) are either (re)portrayed as deviant (such as Entry 1 in Figure 7.14) or regularly stamped out with homophobic retaliations (such as Entry 2 in Figure 7.15). Non-heterosexual latrinalia that prompted the homophobic retaliations were, however, often not physically removed, scribbled out or defaced in any way. Such inactions towards the existing non-heterosexual latrinalia allow the presence of non-heterosexualities in these public toilets to persist, leaving them as visible evidence of an abject contestation between acknowledgment and disgust.

254

Figure 7.15: Implicitly homophobic latrinalia, male toilet, level 3, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004

Entry 2

Entry 1

Note: Entry 1 reads, “Want some cum? Call 0414920818” Note: Entry 2 reads, “b to get sick” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

It was established that homophobia was a common theme in some of the public toilets studied. Though the homophobic sentiments were strong in some of these spaces, there was also evidence of anti-homophobia. It came in the form of a coloured label stuck to the back of one of the cubicle doors in a male toilet at the University of New South Wales. This label was printed by the UNSW Queer Department, a GLBT/Q social organisation within the university founded for non-heterosexual students and staff, and was directed at the religious vilification of ‘homosexuality’ by the Christian faith. The content of the label sought to satirise the restrictiveness of Christianity and its definition of normative sexual identities by listing the high number of reprimands or “admonishments” that govern heteronorms. This was contrasted with the much lower number that condemned ‘homosexuality’. While strictly speaking this one instance of anti-homophobia was not necessarily a latrinalia (see Figure 7.16), the fact that this label was left complete, intact and free from other graffiti or vandalism7 is reflective of

7 Most other labels found in the same complex, the main library of the University of New South Wales, had either been partially removed or had messages of rebuttal graffitied on it or nearby, such as Figure 7.17. The fact that the label shown in Figure 7.16 was left intact was thus considered a sign of acceptance.

255 the space’s (and its users’) acceptance of non-heterosexualities. This could be a symbolically significant victory in terms of (re)appropriating public spaces as non- heteronormative considering most other labels that were of a similar nature (see, for example, Figure 7.17) were graffitied on or vandalised in one way or another. The fact that this label (Figure 7.16) was found in the male toilet on the eleventh floor of the UNSW main library where it housed only staff offices and no book or journal collections, however, indicates a generally lower usage of this toilet8. This lower usage, particularly by the student population, may have influenced the perception of anti- homophobia of this space and most certainly the visual access to this label. In this instance, non-heterosexualities, in the form of a label by a supportive organisation, were only left untroubled in a peripheral part of the library. This observation is also reflective of the marginal status of non-heterosexualities in ‘public’ spaces like libraries.

Figure 7.16: Admonishing heterosexuals – anti-homophobic sentiments in a male toilet, level 11, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004

Note: Label reads, “THE BIBLE CONTAINS 8 ADMONISHMENTS TO HOMOSEXUALS AND 342 ADMONISHMENTS TO HETEROSEXUALS. THAT DOESN’T MEAN THAT GOD DOESN’T LOVE HETEROSEXUALS. IT’S JUST THAT THEY NEED MORE SUPERVISION” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

8 At the time of field work, access to level 8 or above at the main library of UNSW was either via an external lift which did not stop between levels 2 and 7, or via a flight of stairs between levels 7 and 8. The social and political science collections were housed on levels 3 to 5, and levels 6 and 7 were the law library. The UNSW main library has since gone through refurbishment, with most of its collection reorganised. The law library, for example, was moved into the new Faculty of Law building at the opposite end of the campus. Levels 9 or above, however, remain primarily as library office spaces.

256 Figure 7.17: Vandalism as a strategy in (re)establishing heteronormativity, male toilet, level 3, main library, Kensington campus, University of New South Wales, 23rd July 2004

Entry 1

Note: Label reads, “Gay, bi or curious? groups.msn.com/unswboiz NEW IN 2004 JOIN NOW!!” Note: Entry 1 reads, “I suggest you come and find [illegible]” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

Management authorities of these toilet spaces, in contrast, employed vastly different strategies in (re)heteronormalising these spaces. Some previous research had reported regular cleaning of the toilets, routine check-ups by security personnel, and even as drastic as the removal of cubicle doors to preclude sexual encounters (Swivel, 1991, page 246). While the strategies employed by the public parks and universities were nowhere near as drastic as the removal of cubicle doors, there had, however, been numerous attempts at concealing non-heterosexual presences and (re)establishing heteronormativity. Moreover, the toilets with the strongest presence of counter-heteronormative latrinalia got the most punitive response by these authorities. Many of the public toilets in the public parks, for example, were fitted with lockable gates. Some of these gates remain permanently locked (see, for example, the un- numbered toilet block in the northern end of Moore Park as shown in Figure 7.2). Some others were only opened during the parks’ opening hours, most of which were from early morning (7am) until dusk (6pm). This physical restricting of access to the toilets, particularly during night time, could be seen as a heteronormative measure on the part of the management authorities. Previous research on ‘gay beats’ (Clatts, 1999; Iveson, 2007) indicated that the majority of ‘public’ sexual encounters between men occurred at night and often in dark places such as behind a bush in the park or in public toilets. Restriction on access to public toilets after dark would, then, limit this non-normative

257 social (and erotic) contact amongst local and at times regional users of these spaces. The restricted access was, however, not complemented by the interiors of these toilets which, by and large, remained relatively latrinalia friendly. The major walls were often lightly rendered concrete blocks while the cubicle dividers and doors were made with laminated particle boards. Most of these surfaces were also pale in colour. The relative smoothness of these interior surfaces and the light coloured paints made it possible and easy for graffiting with permanent markers. The majority of the latrinalia in my collected sample were drawn or written with permanent markers. Ballpoint pens and correction pens were also common graffiting tools, particularly at the university libraries and on smoother surfaces such as laminated walls or cubicle doors. The smoothness of some of the surfaces, however, made them easy to clean. As such, they were cleaned more regularly than the rougher, rendered surfaces. My latrinalia collection schedule was, for example, delayed by eight months9 when the graffiti were cleaned off these interior surfaces prior to my original collection period (immediately after the end- of year examinations in 2004). The removal of these latrinalia (which would have included both non-heterosexual latrinalia and latrinalia concerning other subjects) signifies an abject relationship between the management authorities and the act of graffiting. Graffiting, though a common practice amongst many counter- and youth cultures, is perceived as disruptions to the orderly system of the managements. These disruptions were then, through the act of cleaning, purged from these toilet spaces. These acts of cleaning also (re)created new, blank surfaces for new latrinalia to be drawn or written on, continuing a cycle of abjection. This abjection, particularly in spaces where there were strong non-heterosexual presences such as at Moore and Parramatta Parks, emphasised the heteronormative presumption of these spaces by the management authorities. It also highlighted the efforts to (re)establish heteronormativity. Aside from regular cleaning and restricting access, some management authorities also attempted to regulate latrinalia drawing/writing by altering the interiors of these public toilets. The public toilets of Parramatta Park, for example, were the oldest amongst all those included in this thesis. The materials used in building these facilities thus differed to those used at the other facilities. The entire structure of Toilet No.3, for example, was built with brick. This included the structural as well as the interior dividing walls. The roughness of the brick walls, as discussed earlier, made it difficult for graffiting with ballpoint pens, resulting in the majority of the latrinalia found

9 The collection period was delayed eight months until the next semester break (inter-semester break in July 2005) so to allow sufficient numbers of latrinalia be drawn/written on the cleaned surfaces.

258 Figure 7.18: The painting of dark patches as deterrent in reducing latrinalia inside public toilets, Toilet No. 3, Parramatta Park, 16 October 2004

Entry 1

Note: Entry 1 reads, “8” SWALLOW MY FAT COCK HEAD NOW” Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL at this toilet drawn or written in permanent markers (see, for examples, Figure 7.4 and 7.12 (g)). This is in contrast to the laminated or tiled walls of most other toilets, which made the writing of latrinalia in ballpoint pens possible. Due to the relative thickness of permanent markers compared to ballpoint pens, the latrinalia found in the toilets of Parramatta Park were also comparatively larger than those found elsewhere. In order to counter, first, the abundance of non-heterosexual latrinalia (the two toilets of Parramatta Park contributed nearly a third of non-heterosexual latrinalia collected for this thesis, see Table 7.1), and second, their relative size, the management authority of Parramatta Park employed two unusual methods – randomly painting or spraying patches of dark colours on the walls and other interior surfaces (see Figure 7.18) or in multi-coloured brick-patterned stencils (see Figure 7.19). The painting of dark colours not only reduced the size of the surfaces where latrinalia drawers/writers could readily post new latrinalia or respond to existing ones, the varying shades of dark and pale colours in the small confines of a toilet cubicle also made many of the more sizeable latrinalia hard to read, sometimes even illegible. The multi-coloured brick stencilling

259 also worked to a similar effect. New postings were restricted in size by what few plain surfaces were left. The irregular directions of the stencils also made the new latrinalia posts difficult to follow. Both of these methods had worked to a certain degree in reducing the visibility of existing and new (mostly) non-heterosexual latrinalia. These two methods, however, also further highlight the abject relationship management authorities have with graffiting – their disgusts with graffiting was strong but at the same time they were also defacing the same wall surfaces. Despite such efforts in reducing latrinalia-friendly surfaces, the effectiveness of these two abovementioned methods in operation at Parramatta Park could be deemed relatively unsuccessful. Out of all 105 toilets included in this thesis, these were the two toilets where the most numbers of (heterosexual and non-heterosexual) latrinalia were found.

Figure 7.19: Brick stencilled pattern as deterrent in reducing latrinalia inside public toilets, Toilet No. 2, Parramatta Park, 16 October 2004

Source: 35-105mm zoom/digital/exp. auto/EL

260 The ineffectiveness of the dark colour patches and brick-pattern stencils found in the Parramatta Park toilets in deterring and reducing non-heterosexual latrinalia was, however, not enough evidence to suggest that the presumed heteronormativity of these spaces had been completely unsettled. Nor was it evident that the management authority of Parramatta Park was discouraged by these failed attempts in reducing non- heterosexual presences in these spaces. As noted in Chapter 4, the field work for collecting latrinalia was conducted in July and October 2004. Revisits to the Parramatta Park site prior to Christmas 2004, in October 2005, May 2006 and again in August 2008 revealed the operation of a new, more effective strategy. This new strategy involved the complete re-painting of the interiors of the toilets in cream-coloured paint. The complete re-painting of the interiors in a light-coloured paint not only provided the unlit toilets with a greater natural light reflection, it also effectively removed all traces of latrinalia. The implementation of the new strategy of wall painting, together with the stricter observance of the gate locking, had resulted in a significantly reduced number of latrinalia found in these public toilets. In fact, no sign of any latrinalia (non- heterosexual or not) were found in any of the subsequent visits. Since most of the latrinalia found in these two toilets were either used for setting up same-sex erotic encounters or advertising social meetings for non-heterosexuals, the re-painting had thus successfully removed all visible signifiers of non-heterosexual presence(s). In combination with the non-erotic and heteronormative presumptions of (most) public spaces, these acts of removing non-heterosexual signifiers, I argue, are then acts of (re)heterosexualisation. It could be seen from the various (re)establishment strategies employed by the users and management authorities of these public spaces that they indeed presumed these spaces as non-erotic and heteronormative. These strategies, which included homophobic latrinalia, the defacing of wall spaces to deter the posting of new latrinalia, and the limiting of access to these spaces, reduced the non-heterosexual presence(s) in these spaces. These strategies were effective to varying degrees, with limiting access being the most successful. The exclusivity of limiting access not only restricted the use by non-heterosexuals but also removed these ‘public’ spaces out from the public. At the same time it also further entrenched the marginal status of some of the latrinalia drawers/writers of these spaces by removing a social and communicative outlet. These strategies visualised non-heterosexual latrinalia as an abjection, where such non-heterosexual performances were (re)consumed or cannibalised by heteronormativity.

261 7.6 Conclusion This chapter explored how the existence of non-heterosexual latrinalia created non-heterosexual presence(s) in the spaces of public toilets. The existence of these non-heterosexual latrinalia challenged the common heteronormative presumption of public spaces like public toilets. These latrinalia showcased how some spaces could be (re)appropriated as non-heterosexual. Such (re)appropriations, however, were only sporadically found, with the main library of UNSW, Fisher Library of the University of Sydney as well as Parramatta Park being the more notable examples. A great proportion of the latrinalia collected showed that they were mainly used for the purposes of propositioning and setting up erotic encounters. There was, however, only limited evidence to suggest that such erotic encounters actually take place at these public spaces. Furthermore, a lot of these non-heterosexual latrinalia were found in spaces such as behind cubicle doors where they were visually obscured. This highlights the overwhelming presumption of heteronormativity of these toilet spaces that non-heterosexual performances (in this case latrinalia) were restricted to marginal spaces. Examination into who might be drawing/writing these non-heterosexual latrinalia – youths who frequent Moore Park despite its close proximity to the ‘gay precinct’ of Oxford Street, university students of the inner city campuses of UNSW and University of Sydney, or the local and regional non-heterosexuals who went to Parramatta Park – showed that they were all socially excluded within their respective social settings. Non-heterosexual youths, for example, were legally excluded from nearby established non-heterosexual businesses such as bars and clubs, while suburban non-heterosexuals from Parramatta and surrounds may feel out of place in the family-oriented settings of their suburbs. These all highlighted the public spaces of parklands and university libraries as heteronormative, or at least presumably so. Latrinalia and graffiti in general had been commented by some (Nandrea, 1999, for example) as free-form because they are generally not restricted by set boundaries. This free-form nature was, however, not reflected in the strictness of neo-normativity. Non-heterosexualities, through latrinalia, were often objectified and sexualised through regular fetishisms. Same-sex desires were frequently portrayed as promiscuous, perverse and superficial with incessant references to same-sex erotica and the prominent use of terms like ‘cock’ and ‘fuck’. The popularity of such neo-normative portrayals of non-heterosexuals was beneficial in making communications more succinct. It also clearly conveyed a deliberately non-heterosexual presence and as a result problematised the presumption of heteronormativity in these public spaces. The restrictiveness of neo-normativity, however, may counteract such challenges. Non- heterosexual users of these toilets who do not and cannot conform to these strict

262 ‘protocols’, for example, would be pushed deeper into the periphery, and as a result further constricting their social mobility. At the same time, other users as well as the management authorities of these public spaces employed numerous strategies in, one, reducing the non-heterosexual presence(s), and two, (re)establishing heteronormativity in these spaces. These strategies, such as regular removal of existing latrinalia, re- painting wall surfaces to make them less latrinalia-friendly, to the more drastic limitation of general access – worked to differing degrees of success. This strategy of restricting access, in some ways, redefined the status of these ‘public spaces’ by removing the public entirely from them. This may not only further entrench the marginal status of those who used latrinalia as a communication method but the authorities also asserted those latrinalia abject. Specifically, these more drastic strategies were more readily applied to public toilets that had a strong non-heterosexual presence so that it was more a de-‘gay’ing than a desexing, highlighting the presumed heteronormativity of these spaces. The abjection thus expresses the contestation between acknowledgement and disgusts that some users and the management authorities have towards non-heterosexualities.

263 Chapter 8: Discussion and conclusion

In complete darkness we are all the same. It is only our knowledge and wisdom that separates us. Don’t let your eyes deceive you. (Janet Jackson, “Interlude: Livin’… In Complete Darkness”, Rhythm Nation 1826, 1989)

My main concern in this doctoral thesis has been the geography of non- heterosexual identity performances. Specifically, this thesis explored the relationships between space and some non-heterosexual identity performances that we see in the modern day ‘Western’ society of Sydney, Australia. These identity performances were studied from different perspectives: from those of a spectator (myself), to the official photographer (MazzImage) and the news media. Further still, the experiential, visual, textual and graphic evidence representing these identity performances were collected in socially disparate spaces – the 2005 Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras (SGLMG) parade and the public toilets of notable parks and university libraries. These performances were analysed using a variety of methods – statistically, visually, or through their contents or the narratives and discourses they present. These variant sources, perspectives, and analytical methods were all employed to demonstrate what I have called the processes of neo-normativity, a set of unwritten rules that continually strive to maintain commonly accepted stereotypes as quintessential. Section 2.6 explained this concept in great detail, especially the internal drive and self-sustainability aspects which set neo-normativity apart from other theories on identities. This concept of neo-normativity served as the theoretical foundation of my investigations into non- heterosexual performances and the fluidity and temporality of boundaries. This concluding chapter summarises the results presented throughout this doctoral thesis and the associated arguments and discussions on the feasibility of my concept of neo-normativity. Section 8.1 reviews the contributions my thesis makes, both in terms of the introduction of a new concept, as well as the exploration of new data sources and methodologies. This section also further explores the linkages between my two case studies of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia through the application of abjection. Section 8.2 follows and looks more closely at the characteristics, strengths, limitations, and ultimately, applicability of neo-normativity as a concept. This section also offers some explanations for the sustainability of neo- normativity, and its survival of decades of consumption and renewal. Finally, the chapter (and thesis) ends with a casting forward on where research into identity

264 performances, non-heterosexual identities, and the use of alternative data sources such as graffiti and latrinalia may lead (section 8.3). This includes a reflection on the limitations of this doctoral thesis and on developments that have happened since the conclusion of my field research (section 8.4).

8.1 Thesis summary This doctoral thesis explored non-heterosexual identity performances in two distinct spaces – one very public (SGLMG parade) and the other somewhat more private (public toilets) – in demonstrating my concept of neo-normativity. As such, the results can be broadly categorised into two divisions. The first division (Chapters 5 and 6) looked at the public performances of non-heterosexual identities at the 2005 SGLMG parade. The analyses discussed in Chapter 5 used primary data collected on site (by me) in 2005, while those in Chapter 6 used secondary data collected from Sydney’s Sunday newspapers and the parade’s official photographer (MazzImage). The second division looked at the more private (and sometimes invisibilised) performances of non-heterosexual identities by studying latrinalia collected at notable public parks and university libraries throughout Sydney (Chapter 7). Both of these case studies challenged the presumed heteronormativity of ‘public’ spaces. Previous research into this heteronormative presumption of ‘public’ space was detailed in section 3.1.1. The results of Chapter 7, in particular, visualised the very different spatialities of gay males, lesbians and other non-heterosexuals (see sections 3.1.2, 3.1.3 and 3.1.4). These case studies also highlighted the different non-heterosexual spatialities in metropolitan and suburban spaces (see section 3.2) on top of contrasting the differences of ‘public’ and semi-public performances (see section 3.3). My concept of neo-normativity also addressed Butler’s (1990; 1993) discussions of performances and performatives as well as the fictitious nature identities (see section 2.3). This section provides a summary on the findings of these three results chapters, a recount of the linkages between the two case studies, and the contributions of my thesis to the study of identities (and their politics) in geography. The analyses in Chapters 5 and 6 focussed particularly on the portrayal of non- heterosexual performances from the 2005 parade. The results of these analyses showed that, first, commercialisation played a significant part at the 2005 SGLMG parade. Commercialisation came in two forms – through official and individual sponsorships – and could be broadly classified into four main categories: commercial, established GLBT organisations, statutory/governmental, and other. There were 11 official sponsors to the 2005 SGLMG parade, with their products ranging from a budget airline (JetStar), a low-carb beer (Pure Blonde), a paint specialist (ColorMaker),

265 television station (TV1), to long-established GLBT publications (DNA, Sydney Star Observer) and businesses (GAL) to name a few. This array of official sponsors pointed to how essential commercialism has become for the survival of many Gay Pride events worldwide, the SGLMG parade included. This also confirms the early 1990s observations of Marsh and Greenfield (1993) and the later discussions in Nicoll (2001) on the vital role commercialisation plays in the survival of the SGLMG parade. Concerns (from academic, social commentators and the like) over the exploitation of Gay Pride events like the SGLMG parade by commercial ventures, however, remain (Chasin, 2000; Johnston, 2003; Lewis and Ross, 1995; Seebohm, 1992, 1993). This commercial exploitation was particularly evident in associating the 2005 parade with institutions or products – such as the American-established plastic storage container specialist Tupperware or the New Zealand winery Kim Crawford Wines – that seemingly played little or no role in the course of non-heterosexual history and politics. On top of these 11 official sponsors, one-quarter of the parade groups were also financially supported by other sponsors. The majority of these minor sponsors were commercial ventures such as Smart Car or inner-city gyms. Statistical analysis showed that an intricate relationship exists between commercialisation, stereotypical performances and non-political themes. This resonates with many critics who were concerned with increased commercialisation which, some have argued, hindered the pure display of Gay Pride (Seebohm, 1993, page 216), itself an inherently political gesture. Other statistical analyses showed that an even stronger association exists between GLBT sponsorships and stereotypical performances. This served as evidence that supported my argument of neo-normativity at the 2005 SGLMG parade and how it is an internally driven process. This also resonates with Butler’s (1990; 1993) discussions on the fictitious nature of identities and their constant need for reiteration (see section 2.3). The negatives of neo-normativity include the pretence of homogeneity, or a false sense of unity. In essence, the SGLMG parade was visualised as a spectacle of conformity. As a result, only a narrow sub-section of non- heterosexual identities were reflected in the parade performances. The liquidation of the parade’s former organising committee – the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Inc – in 2002 signalled a change in attitude in the role(s) which the SGLMG parade should play within Sydney’s (and Australia’s) non-heterosexual communities. The liquidation forced the SGLMG parade to reassess its purposes and objectives, face its many criticisms and re-focus on its more political origin. The most drastic strategies include plans to scale back the parade altogether to its more political roots (Dow, 2008), a reaction to the constant criticisms of de-politicisation and commercialisation that the parade receives from academia, social commentators and

266 the like. In 2005, however, there were already signs of strong political activism at the SGLMG parade despite commercial involvement being prominent. The debates surrounding the illegal status of same-sex unions at the time most certainly appeared to have acted as a catalyst for the parade organisers and participants, with many choosing to protest against the discriminatory treatment of non-heterosexual unions both in Australia and abroad. Renewed concerns over HIV/AIDS, non-heterosexual rights to parenting, and anti-homophobic demonstrations were other popular political issues on display at the 2005 parade. On top of these overtly visual political displays which were most often in the form of placards, much of the underlying politics of the SGLMG parade such as the non-heterosexual (re)appropriation of public spaces persists. These non-heterosexual spatial (re)appropriations, however, remained largely confined to the so-called ‘gay precinct’ along Oxford Street. This resonates with previous research into the perception of non-heterosexual spatiality as an urban phenomenon (see section 3.2). The temporariness of the parade also offers a stark contrast to the presumed heteronormativity of public spaces that these Gay Pride events intended to challenge. The unshakable road-side religious group protests like the one fronted by NSW Member of Parliament Reverend Fred Nile are extreme examples of such heteronormative presumption of public spaces. In spite of these, there have been signs of a changing/changed cultural landscape, with high spectator enthusiasm and participation from former foes like the NSW Police. These changed cultural landscapes were, however, not readily reflected by the media, or even the parade’s official photographer. Images of participation by the Police and other statutory bodies, political parties or even commercial ventures from these external sources (including the official photographer) were few. Portrayals of spectators were also infrequent, or their participation was rendered peripheral (such as blurred out in the background of photographs). The integration between parade performers and spectators were, thus, downplayed by the news media and official photographer. This visually and symbolically distanced the (presumably) heterosexual communities (in the form of wide commercial involvement, inclusion into mainstream politics, as well as the spectators) from non-heterosexualities and re-enforced the common presumption that heterosexualities and non-heterosexualities (and their associated spaces) were mutually exclusive of each other (see section 3.1). This mutual exclusivity was also emphasised through the very selective portrayals of non- heterosexualities by these external sources, particularly in the newspapers’ failure in publishing (both in print and online) any performances that were overtly sexualised or fetishistic. This re-enforced the common presumption that erotica should be restricted to the private while the public was perceived as non-erotic. This presumption is clearly

267 in contrast with the discussions of Clatts (1999), Hollister (1999) and Leap (1999) who argued that the distinctions between ‘public’ and ‘private’ are unclear and indistinct (see section 3.3). The confinement of erotica to the ‘private’, especially those of a non- heterosexual nature, thus further highlighted the presumed heteronormativity of public spaces. Chapters 5 and 6 revealed several uneasy, abject relationships between some sections of Sydney’s non-heterosexual communities and neo-normativity. Neo- normative identities, for example, were condoned for their easy identifiability. As such some established GLBT organisations and commercial ventures with a predominantly non-heterosexual clientele would have taken advantage of this strong identifiability in ‘authenticating’ the non-heterosexualities of their political demonstrations or advertisements. Parade groups, I argued, were also likely to have included such neo- normative performances so to attract GLBT organisational support or commercial sponsorships to cover the ever-increasing financial costs of participating in the SGLMG parade. These neo-normative performances were condoned despite the homogenising effects of turning the SGLMG parade into a spectacle of conformity, an outcome which many non-heterosexual public figures such as Johnston (2003) had publicly criticised. Neo-normative identities thus served both practical and symbolic purposes in ensuring the survival (at least in terms of securing financial support) of the parade itself as well as authenticating the performers’ non-heterosexualities even though their ‘real’ non- heterosexual identities may in fact differ vastly from those performed at the parade. Yet despite such practical and symbolic roles, neo-normative identities continue to be regularly denounced by academic and social critics alike for their homogenising effects. Neo-normative performances, such as the long-established stereotype of the transvestite, have traditionally received the harshest discriminations and pathologisation. This highlights the very abject relationship non-heterosexual performances have with neo-normative identities, the fear of a reversion back to the very public denouncement and discrimination of non-heterosexualities in times gone by. Non-heterosexual parade groups are thus aware of both the value in financially supporting the parade and ‘authenticating’ their non-heterosexualities through neo- normative performances but also the possibly detrimental effects in homogenising the communities and evoking associations with an oppressive past. The struggle between the persistent denouncement of these stereotypical performances and their practicality in sustaining the SGLMG parade and (certain) non-heterosexual politics, coupled with the fear of reversion to old-style discrimination, underlines this relationship as inherently abject.

268 Two levels of abjection were revealed in the images collected from the external sources. First, the news media’s continued acknowledgement of the SGLMG parade recognises the existence of non-heterosexualities in everyday spaces, but their selective portrayals (by highlighting the hedonistic and largely skipping over the politics) invisibilises the seriousness and legitimacy of both the parade and non- heterosexualities. The consistent portrayal of physical barriers between the performers and audience by both the news media and MazzImage adds to the marginalisation of non-heterosexualities in public spaces. This marginality was also emphasised by the constant reference to the temporariness of the parade, such as through images of the dissipating crowds or distilling the month-long festival to one half-page report. Non- heterosexualities thus was highlighted as an abject for the news media and MazzImage in that the non-heterosexual (re)appropriation of public spaces are only ephemeral and would (and were) quickly (re)consumed as heterosexual. Second, the censorship of the more overtly sexualised or fetishistic performances also highlighted the presumption that public spaces are non-erotic. This was despite the fetishism of fragmented body parts, the “substitution of a part for the whole” (Hall, 1997, page 266, original emphasis) where the exposed flesh of the parade performers served as the main focus in many of the images reproduced in print or online. Such portrayals had the effects of invisibilising the rest of the performers but also objectifying non-heterosexuals. At the same time, by portraying only performers with well-toned bodies, these sources (the news media in particular) (re)created and (re)enforced what is/are desirable non-heterosexual identities, further highlighting the fictitious and iterative construction of identities. All of these feed back to the creation of a spectacle of conformity where neo-normative identities are often concurrently condoned for financial security and denounced for reasons of homogeneity. My second case study – latrinalia – exemplified another set of abject relationships between non-heterosexual performances and public spaces. My sample of 135 latrinalia was collected from public toilets in four of Sydney’s notable public parks as well as 13 university libraries. Analyses of these spaces have shown that latrinalia was not only used as a covert method of communication amongst (presumably non-heterosexual) users, particularly for arranging erotic encounters, they were also symbolic of the non-heterosexual (re)appropriation of public spaces. Such (re)appropriations were often quite effective in some of the public toilets visited where samples of non-heterosexual latrinalia could be found by the dozens throughout the toilet facility. The abjection of such a communicative method lies partly in the placements of these latrinalia. They were most regularly found in places that were often obscured from view such as behind cubicle doors. The invisibilisation of these latrinalia

269 reflects two things: first, the marginality of non-heterosexualities in these public toilets, spaces which are presumed to be overridingly heteronormative; and, second, the marginality of the practice of latrinalia/graffiti writing. These writers thus realise the functional importance of these latrinalia yet at the same time were repressed by the overriding heteronormative presumption of these spaces so that the latrinalia were placed in difficult to view spaces. The observation that a high proportion of my sample was collected from a major suburban park (Parramatta Park) instead of those adjacent to the so-called ‘gay precinct’ of Oxford Street (Moore Park) contests the presumption that suburban spaces are heteronormative. This observation, first, challenges the common perception that suburban spaces are heteronormative spaces (see section 3.2). It also highlights a double marginality that non-heterosexual latrinalia writers experience. This double marginality, first as non-heterosexuals in a presumably heteronormative space and, second, as practitioners of an alternative communicative method, precludes these latrinalia drawers/writers from participating in wider non-heterosexual societies. The marginal status of the latrinalia, however, afforded a veil of anonymity (and, in turn, protection) for these socially marginalised non-heterosexuals and created a covert community away from their ‘normal’ or regular social networks of family and friends. In order to gain access to this covert community, on the other hand, one has to pay a price of conformity and neo-normativity. Portrayals of non-heterosexualities through these latrinalia were often objectified and sexualised, consistent with the well- established stereotypes of promiscuity, perversity and superficiality. Such practices of neo-normativity, on the one hand, allow this form of communication to become more succinct. The restrictiveness of neo-normativity, on the other hand, may well counteract the very heteronormative limitations these acts of non-heterosexual latrinalia have transpired to challenge and problematise. In fact, the constant reference to the perverse and public erotica may even push these already marginalised individuals deeper into the periphery, in turn further confining their social networks and spaces. The numerous strategies employed in (re)heteronormalising and de-eroticising these spaces – such as homophobic latrinalia, repainting of interior surfaces, restricting access or the removal of cubicle doors – are evidence of both the publics’ and management authorities’ disgust towards and ejections of such apparent departures to the assumed ‘normal’ behaviours (heteronorms) (Swivel, 1991). These (re)heteronormalising practices were particularly punitive in toilets with the strongest counter-heteronormative latrinalia (and use). The differing successes of these strategies in deterring non-heterosexual performances, and the (re)appropriation of public spaces for ‘expected’ practices like urination and defecation, only served to

270 undermine the (presumed) inherent distinction between ‘heterosexual spaces’ and ‘non-heterosexual spaces’ by portraying non-heterosexual performances in public as ‘deviant’. Evidence of latrinalia and the SGLMG parade showed that while a distinction between heterosexual and non-heterosexual spaces may on some levels exist, it was not defined by their spatiality but more their temporality so that ‘heterosexual spaces’ and ‘non-heterosexual spaces’ may occupy the same space at different times. These two case studies of the SGLMG parade and latrinalia were intricately linked through my concept of neo-normativity and my application of abjection. First, these two case studies both challenged the heteronormative presumption of public spaces. The performances of this challenge were also particularly visual and served as evidence of non-heterosexual spatial (re)appropriations. At the same time, these non- heterosexual spatial (re)appropriations were also only ephemeral, the SGLMG parade lasting only a few hours every year and latrinalia regularly cleaned up or painted over. Furthermore, both of these non-heterosexual performances highlighted the very entrenched practice of neo-normativity in non-heterosexual communities. These neo- normative practices created spectacles of conformity at both the SGLMG parade and the public toilets where the non-heterosexual latrinalia were found. Such spectacles of conformity confined the performances of non-heterosexual identities and the acceptability of these performances. This homogenising effect, as discussed above and throughout this thesis, has also been valued for its identifiability whether in attracting financial support or in authenticating non-heterosexual politics. The many abject relationships that the non-heterosexual communities (and sometimes the heterosexual communities as in the case of the news media) have with these neo- normative performances as discussed in this section and in this thesis also further link my two case studies. These case studies, however, showcase two very different non- heterosexual spatial (re)appropriations – one very public (the SGLMG parade) and one more hidden (latrinalia) – and two very different subsets of the non-heterosexual communities – one very public and open (the SGLMG parade) while the other more covert (latrinalia). The common performances of neo-normativity in both of these case studies demonstrate how deeply entrenched these performances are within non- heterosexual communities. The next section further explores my concept of neo- normativity, critically analysing its strengths and limitations.

8.2 Deciphering neo-normativity The theoretical development of this doctoral thesis is based around my concept of neo-normativity. Put simply, neo-normativity is the normalising of stereotypes as if they were quintessential. As such, it follows a constructivist understanding of identities.

271 One of my main arguments throughout this thesis was that stereotypes (when considered as neo-norms), like heteronorms, require constant reiterations in order to ensure their longevity. The reiterations of these neo-norms, again like heteronorms, often forced individuals to conform to a strict set of norms, neo- or otherwise. Those who do not conform are thus systematically excluded and ejected. The abject relationships many non-heterosexuals have with neo-normativity were also discussed throughout this thesis. This section further reviews the complexity of this concept of neo-normativity and its implication for the identity performances of non-heterosexuals in a western society like Sydney. Specifically, neo-normativity enables new non- heterosexual community identities and new versions of organised politics. It also offers a sense of belonging to non-heterosexuals who are socially marginalised by heteronormative ideals. The affirmative politics that neo-normativity represents also makes it a more applicable concept than the transformative Queer theory. Similarities can be drawn between my concept of neo-normativity and other social discourses such as heteronormativity. Heteronormativity, like neo-normativity, is a regulatory discourse concerning both the presentation and maintenance of identity performances. There are, however, two fundamental differences between heteronormativity and neo-normativity. First, heteronormativity reinforces long established (hetero)norms which emphasise and, according to some, maintain the (presumed) normality (and centrality) of heterosexuality(s) in everyday lives (see Butler, 1990, for example). On the contrary, neo-normativity regenerates established stereotypes which are treated as if they were quintessential so that these stereotypes, in a sense, become the new, ‘neo’-norms. Second, there are important differences between how heteronorms and neo-norms are regulated and maintained under heteronormativity and neo-normativity. The maintenance of heteronorms (under heteronormativity) is more externally influenced by other members of society. This takes after Butler’s (1990) explanation of identities, heterosexual or not, being as much a performance as well as a mimicry of others. Neo-normativity, on the other hand, is as much an internally driven process as externally influenced. The results of this thesis (see in particular Chapters 5 and 6), along with Davis and Kennedy’s (1986) study into the 1940s lesbian bar scene in the UK and the US have demonstrated these internal dynamics (see sections 2.6 and 3.1.3). This deliberate conformity to stereotypes (or neo-norms) can, at times, especially with certain types of non-heterosexual identities like cross-dressing/transvestism or the ‘effeminised’ males/‘masculinised’ females, appear as a conscious choosing of marginality away from mainstream, heteronormative society. What, then, is the purpose of this conscious choosing of marginality? There are two possible explanations. First, it signifies a move away from

272 mainstream exclusions, where, in the years past and, to a lesser extent, in present day society, non-heterosexuals are discriminated against and marginalised. By consciously choosing a marginalised identity performance, the individuals concerned then actively controlled their own personal identities and the performances of such rather than having their marginality prescribed by others. In other words, it is a political act in (re)constructing one’s own identity(s) by (re)claiming or (re)appropriating identities that are considered marginal under heteronormativity. Second, because of the long established (and commonly accepted) marginalisation of non-heterosexuals, the conscious choosing of this marginality could also be seen as an act to regain a sense of belonging, albeit to a marginalised group, without betraying one’s own distinctiveness. In other words, this conscious choosing of marginality, or neo- normativity, highlights the importance and need for attaching oneself to a community identity. As such, neo-normativity is then a visualisation of avenues by which non- heterosexuals take back ownership to their identities. It functions very much like the Queer movement has in enabling new non-heterosexual community identities and new versions of organised politics. The taking back of identity ownership is one of the many strengths of neo- normativity. At a more fundamental and theoretical level, neo-normativity underlines and highlights a much deeper socio-psychological dilemma of juxtaposing counter- cultural status with conformity, particularly at “specialised” or “specialist” spaces and cultural events such as Gay Pride parades. This leads back to Hodge’s (1996, page 79) comment that non-heterosexuals “get away with so much more” on acting out these stereotyped and neo-normalised identities during the SGLMG parades. This created a non-normative group identity, particularly one that was internally driven. This was well demonstrated in the results chapters, particularly with how the levels of neo- normalisation were more prominent in groups sponsored by established GLBT organisations than compared to those with other sponsors. The neo-normalisation of non-heterosexual identities, however, steeps further and deeper than just the Gay Pride events themselves. Some subgroups of the non-heterosexual communities retain these stereotypical/neo-normal performances in other, less specialised situations. Leather fetishism was, for example, a common element amongst the latrinalia samples discussed in Chapter 7. The networks of businesses like drag clubs or leather bars that cater to the consumption of sub-cultural and stereotypical identities like transvestism and leather, to name a couple, are further examples of such stereotypical performances outside of the ‘specialised’ space like the SGLMG parade. Neo- normativity thus applies to more than just counter-cultural practices at ‘specialised’ and ‘specialist’ public events but also in other, less specialised situations as well. The

273 sentiment of being able to “get away with so much more” (Hodge, 1996, page 79) may, however, highlight or even sensationalise the more outrageous performances and exacerbate the non-normative perception of non-heterosexualities. Identity performances, then, are visualised as temporally and contextually limited constructs. This is particularly reflective of Knopp (1995, pages 87-8) when he asked “how many hyperfeminine 'lipstick lesbians' are 'lipstick' by day and androgenous (or something else – or nothing) at other times?” so that only their ‘public’ performances conform to established and readily recognised non-heterosexual stereotypes. The drawbacks of neo-normativity and its use require further discussion. One drawback, or limitation, concerns the transformation of stereotypes. Section 4.4 provided a short list of stereotypes that were used in analysing performances of the 2005 SGLMG parade. These stereotypes included ‘effeminised’ gay males, ‘masculinised’ females, cross-dressing transvestites, and fetishistic leather daddies. Many of these stereotypes are culturally specific, especially to Western societies like Sydney. The leather subculture, for example, is particularly prominent in western societies, taking after the idealistic/hegemonic ‘masculinised’ identities of the leather- clad bikers popularised post Second World War (Rubin, 2000, page 66). As Gilman (1985, pages 19, 26) explained, the definition of stereotypes and the social system in which they exist are dependent on each other. The stereotypes identified in this thesis are thus culturally specific to a western, Anglo, or even just Australian context and may not apply to other cultures. Furthermore, Gilman (1985, page 18) also made note of a cultural concept called “historical oscillation” in which history itself operates in an oscillate manner so that what is new or novel today may not be by tomorrow. As such, stereotypes are not only culturally specific but also to a specific time period. This resonates with Butler’s (1990) discussion on the continued maintenance of hetero- and cultural norms through reiterations. The stereotypes used in identifying neo-normativity in my case studies accordingly may only be applicable in a contemporary Australian context in the early twenty-first century. My use of a scientific approach (the ‘stereotype’ formulae as discussed in section 4.4), however, offered a flexibility to the analysis so that each (or all) identified stereotype – whether it be the ‘Template Man’ (Kiley in Willet, 2000, page 240), the ‘effeminised’ male or otherwise – could easily be replaced or altered to reflect the specific culture and time. This would also allow for more intimate and exhaustive analyses to suit a wide range of cultural and temporal contexts regardless of stereotype transformation. A drawback of my current application of neo-normativity lies in its reliance on the visual. David Sibley (1995, page 29) warned of the danger of this practice – “a superficial encounter might result in the presumption of knowledge which could be

274 more damaging than ignorance if this knowledge were in the province of state bureaucracies [, media] or academia”. Such a danger lies in the human predisposition to study what is different or ‘abnormal’. Stereotypes by nature are distortions or exaggerations of what departs from the ‘norm’. A situation retold in Harper (2000) best exemplifies this:

“As one lesbian-identified U.S. woman recently put it while discussing her day-to-day experiences with her partner and their two children for Newsweek magazine: ‘One of our neighbours has never spoken to us … When we go out, he goes in. But we don’t know if that’s just the way he is or if it’s because we’re lesbians’.” (Wingert and Kantrowitz, 2000, page 50 in Harper, 2000, pages 643-4)

By relying simply on the visual of their neighbour retuning indoors, this lesbian was not able to determine whether her neighbour’s withdrawal was simply due to the neighbour’s unfriendliness and reclusiveness or if it was due to his (assumed) homophobia. The danger of relying on the visual thus lies in (mis)perceptions. The way that stereotypical or neo-normalised identities were studied in this thesis reflects only the superficial self-representation of these identities and was refracted through to my own personal perceptions of their ‘non-normality’. There was no in-depth (such as through semi-structured interviews with some parade participants or latrinalia writers) data which questioned the intentions behind such performances. The intended politics behind these performances, performances which may have looked stereotypical or neo-normalised, do not simplistically transfer onto the photographs. Taking after Nestle’s (1987, page 104) essay on feminism, the politics of such public performances often lie not in the celebration of the different, perverse, or even the abject but in the public visualisation of these differences, perversities and abjections. A deeper engagement with these intentions, or to use bell hooks’ (1991, page 177) term ‘repositioning’, may lead to “a rejection of a stereotype and a lesser concern with threats to the boundaries of community” (Sibley, 1995, page 29). The studying (and highlighting) of neo-normative identities may inadvertently create tensions between and within communities by associating the stereotypical or neo-normative with negative connotations of conformity and quasi-mainstream (Wright, 1994, page 54). In this sense, neo-normativity departs from Queer by having a more structuralist basis as each stereotype/neo-norm is governed by its own set of restrictions. An in-depth analysis on the intentions behind these neo-normative performances would provide a more detailed explanation to this ideological difference between the two.

275 How productive, then, could a concept like neo-normativity be? For Fraser (1995), a concept like neo-normativity can be categorised as affirmative politics. Unlike Queer Theory, a transformative politics which asks for – and in some ways, demands – the transforming of current or conventional understandings of gender and sexual identities, neo-normativity does not ask for theoretical transformation but an affirmation, and a recognition, of established sexual identities. It, thus, potentially has a wider applicability and acceptance than Queer Theory because, as with other affirmative politics, it is a progressive development rather than a theoretical reinterpretation and hegemonic disruption. According to Fraser (1995), transformative politics like Queer Theory traditionally require a much longer timeframe for uptake because of their very fundamentalist nature in demanding transformations. Affirmative politics like neo- normativity, on the other hand, are not fundamentalist but liberalist in nature, and only “seek to redress end-state maldistribution, while leaving intact much of the underlying political-economic structure” (Fraser, 1995, page 84) and thus are likely to have a higher short-term uptake. Their overall impact on the structure of existing knowledge, such as the conventional understandings of gender and sexual identities, is of course less substantial due to their more delicate approach. Significant changes to the structure of existing knowledge would, then, take much longer to achieve. The applicability of neo-normativity is thus similar to other affirmative theories such as the Black Power movement. One major difference, however, exists between neo- normativity and these other affirmative movements. Neo-normativity reinforces a variety of established stereotypes, whereas other affirmative movements such as Black Power tended to reinforce unitary identities. Moreover, believers of these affirmative movements often unify under a collective name like the reconstituted use of ‘Black’ or ‘Nigger’; there is as yet no equivalent term in neo-normativity (such as ‘neo-normalist’). Apart from this divergence in terms of self-identification, neo-normativity thus has a similar resonance to other affirmative movements like Black Power and as such, its applicability may have similar potentials as these other movements. Non-heterosexuals continue to identify themselves with the more traditional terms of ‘gay’, ‘lesbian’ and, to a lesser extent, the reconstituted term ‘queer’. The fact that the SGLMG remains a ‘gay and lesbian’ festival rather than queer or otherwise exemplifies this lower uptake of transformative theories like Queer. The elitist, male- and Caucasian-centric criticisms that surround Queer theory have also deterred some non-heterosexuals from identifying with the more transformative Queer identity and politics (Butler, 1990; Edwards, 1998). This highlights the failed promises of Queer, at

276 least in the Sydney point of view1. This non-uptake of the more fundamentalist Queer and instead a preference for the more delicate approach of neo-normative performances signifies the marginal status of non-heterosexualities in a western society like Sydney. This way, neo-normativity works similar to the way the hypermasculine gay skinhead and the hyperfeminine lipstick lesbian do in troubling existing understandings of non-heterosexualities. It provides an avenue to a new community identity and sense of belonging but only ever so lightly nudges at the boundaries of gender and sexual identities without upsetting the status quo in any fundamental manner. It empowers non-heterosexuals by offering a different way of ‘passing’ the marginal (non-heterosexualities) as normative in a heteronormative society. This accounts for the large part of the popularity of neo-normativity.

8.3 Where to from here? Throughout this doctoral thesis I have used non-heterosexual identity performances as examples to demonstrate my concept of neo-normativity. The previous section explored further the characteristics, strengths, and limitations of neo- normativity. Outside of the scope of this doctoral thesis, and the examples used here, how else can neo-normativity be applied to other research? Aside from the potential application of neo-normativity, this thesis has also demonstrated other contributions to research such as the use of alternative data sources and analytical methods. This section offers some directions as to where future research could head.

1 Since its birth in the late 1970s, the SGLMG has gone through several name changes, from the initial Sydney Gay Mardi Gras, to the later inclusion of the term ‘Lesbian’ to result in its current title. The organising committee of SGLMG has also gone through numerous name changes, from the original Gay Solidarity Group (Carbery, 1995, page 18) in 1979, through to the current New Mardi Gras Inc. As such, throughout its (as of 2008) thirty-year history, the SGLMG had never adopted the term Queer despite numerous efforts to keep its title up to date. This recoil from Queer was also apparent in the performances of the parades, with performers more often identifying with the more traditional gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual, transgender, and so forth, or other reappropriated terms such as dykes (like the Dykes on Bikes) than with Queer. There was also no evidence of the term ‘queer’ amongst my latrinalia samples.

277 Figure 8.1: The provocative costumes highlighting the Little Britain character Daffyd Thomas’ stereotypical image of male non-heterosexualities

Source: http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40610000/jpg/_40610027_daffyd_203.jpg, accessed 4th April 2008

The use of mainly visual data in this research had limited my analyses to the potentially superficial level of identity performances as observed. As aforementioned, this reliance on the visual may have included some levels of (mis)perception. The ‘behind the scene’ intentions surrounding non-heterosexual performances were thus outside the scope of this doctoral thesis. As explained in Chapter 4, this focus on the visual was partly to showcase a relatively new and under-utilised methodology (visual methodologies) and an uncommon data source (latrinalia) and partly to minimise the risk of establishing bad rapport through weak interview skills. Future studies into identity performances and my concept of neo-normativity may have the potential to include other, more qualitative research methods such as semi-structured interviews to investigate the intentions and reasonings behind these performances. An excerpt from the interview between renowned British television personality Michael Parkinson and the stars of the comedy sketch show Little Britain (Parkinson, 2005) explains some of the possible intentions behind neo-normative performances. In the show Little Britain the character Daffyd Thomas sees himself as the quintessential gay man – perpetually dressed in provocative costumes (see Figure 8.1), regular visits to his local bar, feeling out of place (through his now (in)famous catchphrase “I’m the only gay in the village”) in, what he presumes, is the ‘homophobic’ or heteronormative Welsh village of Llandewi Brefi. Daffyd, at least in his own eyes, thus exemplifies a quintessential (or stereotypical) gay man in modern day United Kingdom. Unbeknownst to Daffyd though

278 was that most of the other characters that he comes across in the village were also non-heterosexual. In the Parkinson interview, Matt Lucas, co-creator and performer of Daffyd the character, explained the intentions behind such a stereotypical portrayal was to, first, parody the heteronormative assumption of regional and rural spaces like Llandewi Brefi but also, second, to satire the assumption and self-mythologising of the coming out process as being fraught with denunciations and rejections, highlighting the isolation the closet creates (Parkinson, 2005). The analytical methodologies used in this thesis were not able to provide any avenues in which these intentions could be measured. The use of qualitative methods would thus complement the visually oriented collection and analytical methods used in this thesis. Aside from the possibility of more in-depth investigation into the intentions behind neo-normative performances, there is also potential in examining identity performances in other types of spaces. All of the visual field data used in this research, for example, was from temporally limited sources, namely the SGLMG parade (only a few hours a year) and latrinalia (some of my fieldwork were disrupted due to periodic cleaning of the public toilets). As Hodge (1996, page 79) has already argued, these performances, due to the brevity of their temporality, may possibly be exaggerated and not realistically reflect the everyday experiences or performances. Outside of these temporally limited spaces, everyday non-heterosexual performances may also be complicated by personal and workplace politics such as pressures to ‘pass’ as heterosexual (see McDowell, 1995, for example). One possible direction for future research thus could include the investigating of more ordinary, everyday settings and spaces where the regulation of non-heterosexual performances is less strictly defined, such as the ‘gay precinct’ outside of SGLMG times or the public toilets in other establishments like suburban shopping centres. There may well be different processes of neo-normativity at play in these different types of spaces. Furthermore, the extent to which each stereotypical identity is neo-normalised could also differ by space, time and possibly even gender. In this thesis my definition of neo-normativity encompassed several, more common non-heterosexual stereotypes in order to test this new concept in a wider, more generalised manner. Most of these ‘more common non-heterosexual stereotypes’ involved the stereotyping of non-heterosexual males, particularly effeminisation or the ‘Template Man’. By investigating each stereotype individually a deeper understanding into the reality behind neo-normativity may be gained. The flexibility of using an SPSS formula to calculate would allow for such an investigation. One of the aims of my thesis was to demonstrate the use of visual methodologies, both in terms of collecting and analysing field data. The previous section already discussed briefly the dangers of relying on visual data, especially that

279 of potential (mis)perceptions. There are several other limitations relating specifically to my research that suggest potential for further research. First, there was the technological limitation of photography. Fieldwork for this doctoral research was conducted from mid-2004 to early 2005 using a digital camera that had a resolution of 3.2 megapixels. At the time of the research a digital camera with a resolution of 3.2 megapixels would have been considered middle of the range, suitable for most everyday uses. Since then, digital cameras have become common everyday personal effects. The growth of their popularity was due to, among other factors, advancement in digital technology, making new digital cameras more compact in size, comprising more functionalities (for example, the inclusion of multi-shot, short video, face recognition, to name a few) and have higher picture resolutions (many compact digital cameras now have a resolution between 6 and 12 megapixels). The very small, confined spaces of toilet cubicles, combined with a relatively low camera resolution, made the photographing of latrinalia difficult. This had resulted in some of the images being blurry, especially when there was limited lighting such as at the Parramatta Park public toilets. This compromise in the quality was largely due to the now superseded technology (most noticeably the lower resolution of the camera). Some of the images reproduced in this thesis were edited using the Microsoft Office Picture Manager to enhance their brightness and sharpness as well as to crop out irrelevant parts of the images2. There are other digital editing softwares in the market such as Adobe Photoshop which allow for more advanced editing. My choice to use the lower-level Microsoft Office Picture Manager was based on its ready availability as well as my desire to preserve the integrity of my images and avoid over-editing. After these digital enhancements, only a small proportion of the latrinalia images, such as Figures 7.7, 7.13, and 7.17, remained out of focus and their contents illegible. The continued advancement in the technologies of digital photography, such as in the quality of digital cameras and digital image editing softwares, would then assist in the future employment of visual methodologies, ensuring a higher quality of field data and further my current demonstration of visual collection methods. The falling prices of digital cameras and video recorders means that a greater proportion of the populace now have access to these technologies. A good quality digital camera, for example, would now only cost around A$300, compared to upwards from A$500 when fieldwork for this thesis was conducted, making them much more

2 Only images taken by myself were edited to enhance their brightness and sharpness. No digital images collected from the external sources (therefore, the news media or MazzImage) were edited or digitally enhanced in any way.

280 accessible. Developments in mobile telephone technologies have also made these devices more portable. With improved accessibility comes greater opportunity to visually record temporally restricted or everyday performances. One of the difficulties I faced, both as comments received at conference presentations and during my analyses of the field data, was the use of photographs taken by myself. The main criticism surrounding the use of self-taken photographs was that the data could easily be manipulated in order to support my argument of the concept of neo-normativity. To resolve this issue of potential manipulation, all care was taken to photograph all the groups that participated in the 2005 SGLMG parade and non-heterosexual latrinalia that were found at each field sites. Such a practice also ensured the quality of the images and minimised bias by having only one photographer. There were, however, other difficulties, especially when it came to analysing these photographs. Unlike using photographs as a secondary data source, such as in Chapter 6 when I analysed photographs collected from various news media products and the parade’s official photographer, where there was the extra dimension of considering the distinct perspective and politics of each data source, I could only rely on my own personal perspective and politics which, as aforementioned, may be seen by some as substantiating my own theoretical arguments; a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts. With greater access to these technologies, it would be easier for any research to collect visual data from multiple perspectives by having a few researchers taking photographs at the same field site and of the same performances. There is also the opportunity to link the photographers and their decisions in capturing or highlighting certain performances. This provides extra dimensions for the intentions of these decisions as well as using visual analytical methodologies to analyse the compositions of these images. The storage of digital images are also much easier than the traditional printed photographs, especially now that mass digital storage devices like high capacity external hard discs are also easily affordable. Some of these external hard discs even offer password protection, ensuring confidentially and security of the data. There are also avenues to introduce new research materials such as digital video to inject new dimensions into well-researched areas such as the SGLMG parade. Another aim of this thesis was to demonstrate the use of a less commonly utilised data sources, namely latrinalia. The strength of latrinalia as a data source for cultural research, particularly of identity and performances, was well illustrated by the results of this thesis. Yet latrinalia, and graffiti in general, remain an infrequently used data source. Some research, such as that by Palmer (1997), was used to divulge the forgotten histories and experiences of important social settings and spaces, while others (for example, Carrington, 1989) showed glimpses of the applicability of latrinalia

281 within cultural and social research. With the abundance of information that I gained from using latrinalia as a data source, I most certainly encourage a wider application of it as research material. Given the nature of it being a more private and concealed performance of identity, latrinalia would likely be most applicable in research into, as the results discussed in Chapter 7 attest, more marginalised communities, including youth, the institutionalised or, as Palmer (1997) has researched, the imprisoned. This research should also reflect on the political nature of the act of graffiting (Bruner and Kelso, 1980). The intentions behind the latrinalia messages, however, as discussed in Chapters 4 and 7, are difficult to ascertain. I concentrated on the non-heterosexual presences that latrinalia create in the public toilets without exploring the intentions behind such performances. Others, such as Carrington (1989), resolved this issue with in-depth interviews. The employment of interviews could, however, be problematic in some instances, especially when latrinalia was used as a covert form of communication as discovered in this thesis. The general use of latrinalia as a data source thus is also an area that requires future research. It was established in this section that there is still much potential in researching the concept of neo-normativity, using newer research methods and alternative data sources that lay outside the scope of the doctoral research covered in this thesis. From expansion of the current research into other types of social settings and spaces, to the questioning of whether particular stereotypes are more readily neo-normalised, these are just some of the many possibilities that I have suggested for future research. In addition, there is ground for further theoretical explorations on neo-normativity itself, particularly its contrast to Queer theory. The current dimension of my concept of neo- normativity drew only from the fieldwork that was carried out for this doctoral thesis, a research bounded by the brevity of the SGLMG parade and my visual perceptions of the performances. There is, therefore, also potential to incorporate qualitative research in analysing the intentions behind the performances.

8.4 Postscript Since the completion of my research and analyses for this doctoral thesis, non- heterosexual identity performances and their portrayals have experienced many more changes. In many Western societies, numerous legislations have been introduced and hotly debated over the subject of same-sex marriages. The list of countries who have legally recognised same-sex relationships (BBC, 2004; 2006) continue to grow, though such recognitions regularly come under the guise of civil unions (BBC, 2005; 2007). Many, however, especially a few notable Western societies like many states in the United States (The Advocate, 2005), France (Anonymous, 2007) and Australia

282 (Humphries, 2006) chose to legally prohibit such unions. These more blatant forms of non-heterosexual discriminations are coupled by the cancellation of iconic shows that centred around non-heterosexual characters (such as Will and Grace) or sexuality in general (Sex and the City). The portrayals of non-heterosexuals in the media, particularly the fictional media such as television drama, on the other hand, are becoming more and more common. Many new shows such as Brothers and Sisters and Ugly Betty base some of their storylines on and around (both stereotypical and non-stereotypical) non-heterosexual characters. Even the longer established shows such as the United Kingdom’s Doctor Who and the United States’ All My Children involve non-heterosexual characters. Furthermore, the portrayals of these non- heterosexual characters are also becoming more and more diverse, and in some instances, less stereotypical or typecast, with some pioneering into previously unexplored territories in terms of non-heterosexual portrayals. The character of Captain Jack Harkness in Doctor Who and its spin-off Torchwood, for example, was bisexual while the character of Zarf in All My Children is featured in one of television’s first storylines that documents the process of male-to-female transgenderism – “Biologically a male, the character Zarf is in transition and will be Zoe, a female by the end of the month, although at soap opera speed” (Hake, 2006). The continued popularity of neo- normative performances in real life provides a stark contrast to the diversifying fictional non-heterosexual portrayals in the media. This makes research into this concept, particularly the intentions behind neo-normative performances, all the more relevant and essential.

283 Bibliography

Adler, S. and J. Brenner (1992) “Gender and Space: Lesbians and Gay Men in the City” in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 16 (1), pages 24-34 Allen, G. (1995) “‘Roll a fag' and go free": Competing discourses of sexuality and sexual identity” in Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Vol. 1 (1), pages 49-56 Anonymous (2007a) “French court strikes down gay marriage” in Sydney Morning Herald, 14 March 2007, http://www.smh.com.au/news/WORLD/French-court- strikes-down-gay-marriage/2007/03/14/1173722503985.html, accessed 20 March 2007 - (2005a) “Life’s a fairytale”, Sun Herald, 6th March 2005, Sydney - (2005b) “Mary’s magic revealed: The diary of a Princess”, Sunday Telegraph, 6th March 2005, Sydney (2002) “HIV rates will almost double by 2005” in The Guardian, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/jan/31/aids.publichealth, updated 31st January 2002, accessed 27th November 2007 - (1991) “Graffiti: public art or public disgrace” in Melbourne Report, Vol. 7 (3), pages 17-8 Aronson, J. (1999) “Homosex in Hanoi? Sex, the Public Sphere, and Public Sex” in W.L. Leap (ed.) Public Sex/Gay Space, Columbia University Press, New York, pages 205-221 Associated Press (2008) “Father confesses to keeping daughter as sex slave in dungeon”, in the Sydney Morning Herald, Tuesday 29th April 2008, http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/dungeon-dad- confesses/2008/04/29/1209234796666.html, accessed 30th July 2008 Austin, J.L. (1962) How to do things with words, Oxford University Press, Oxford Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2006) Play School, http://www.abc.net.au/children/play/, ABC, accessed 24th May 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics, (2007) 2006 Census of Population and Housing, ABS, Canberra - (2002) CDATA2001, ABS, Canberra Australian Communications and Media Authority (2008) http://www.acma.gov.au/WEB/STANDARD/pc=PC_91792, updated 3 January 2008, accessed 22 August 2008

284 Australian War Memorial (2008) The ANZAC Day Tradition, http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.asp, accessed 1 September 2008 Baldwin, J. (1961) “The New Lost Generation” in Esquire, July 1961, pages 113-115 BBC (2007) “Uruguay approves gay civil unions”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7151669.stm, 19 December 2007, accessed 24 March 2008 - (2006) “SA same-sex marriage law signed”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6159991.stm, 30 November 2006, accessed 24 March 2008 - (2005) “Elton celebrates his big day”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4549626.stm, 21 December 2005, accessed 24 March 2008 - (2004) “Canada ‘can permit gay marriage’”, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4082819.stm, 9 December 2004, accessed 24 March 2008 bell hooks (1992) Black looks: Race and representation, Turnaround, London Bell, D. (1994) “Bi-sexuality – a place on the margins” in S. Whittle (ed.) The margins of the city: gay men's urban lives, Area, Aldershot (UK), pages 129-141 Bell, D., J. Binnie, J. Cream and G. Valentine (1994) “All hyped up and no place to go” in Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 1 (1), pages 31-47 Bennett, K. (2002) “Participant observation” in P. Shurmer-Smith (ed.) Doing cultural geography, Oxford University Press, London, pages 139-149 Berry, C. and A. Jagose (996) ‘Australia Queer: Editor’s Introduction” in Meanjin, Vol 55 (1), pages 5-11 Best, S. (1993) “Deconstructing Space: Anne Graham's Installation for Wulla Mulla Park and Jeff Gibson's Screwball” in Transition, Issue 42, pages 26-41 and 66- 67 Bickelhaupt, E.E. (1995) “Alcoholism and drug abuse in gay and lesbian persons: A review of incidence studies” in R.J. Kus (ed.) Addiction and recovery in gay and lesbian persons, Harrington Park Press, New York, pages 5-14 Bloomber, M.R. and T.R. Frieden (2007) HIV epidemiology and field services research unit report, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, October 2007, New York Blunt, A. (2002) “Book review: Qualitative research methods in Human geography” in Australian Geographical Studies, Vol. 40 (3), pages 365-6

285 Bruner, E.M. and J.P. Kelso (1980) “Gender differences in graffiti: a semiotic perspective” in C. Kramarae (ed.) The voices and words of women and men, Pergamon Press, Oxford, pages 239-252 Buchan, N. (2006) “Kim Jong-Il gets jiggy with it” in The Daily Telegraph, Thursday 9 March 2006, http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,18400197-13762,00.html, Sydney Butler, J. (1993) Bodies that matter: on the discursive limits of "sex", Routledge, New York - (1990) Gender troubles: feminism and the subversion of identity, Routledge, New York Buttercup, B. (2007) “Beverly takes on Western Sydney”, in Sydney Star Observer, Issue 891, http://www.ssonet.com.au/display.asp?ArticleID=7269, published 11 January 2007, accessed 30th May 2008 Carbery, G. (1995) A History of the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras, Australian Gay and Lesbian Archives Inc., Parkville Carrington, K. (1989) “Girls and graffiti” in Cultural studies, Vol. 3 (1), January 1989, pages 89-100 Cass, V.C. (1979) “Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model” in Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 4 (3), pages 219-235 Castells, M. (1983) The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movement, University of California Press, Berkeley Castells, M. and K. Murphy (1982) “Cultural identity and urban structure: The spatial organisation of San Francisco’s gay community” in N.I. Fainstein and S.S. Fainstein (eds.) Urban policy under capitalism, SAGE Publications, pages 237- 259 Chasin, A. (2002) Selling out: The gay and lesbian movement goes to market, Palgrave Christian Democratic Party (2006) “God forgive Sydney! – Sydney Mardi Gras”, media release, http://www.cdp.org.au/fed/mr/060304f.asp, updated 4th March 2006, accessed 28th November 2007 Clatts, M.C. (1999) "Ethnographic observations of men who have sex with men in public: Toward an ecology of sexual action" in W.L. Leap (ed.) Public Sex/Gay Space, Columbia University Press, New York, pages 141-155 Cole, C.M. (1991) “Oh wise women of the stalls...” in Discourse and Society, Vol. 2 (4), pages 401-411 Costello, L. (2004) pers. comm., 15 April 2004

286 Cover, R. (2005) “Engaging sexualities: Lesbian/gay print journalism, community belonging, social space and physical place” in Pacific Journalism Review, Vol. 11 (1), pages 113-132 - (2004) “Bodies, movements and desires: Lesbian/gay subjectivities and the stereotype” in Continuum: Journal of Media and Cultural Studies, Vol. 18 (1), pages 81-97 Creed, B. (1995) “Lesbian bodies: Tribades, tomboys and tarts” in E. Grosz and E. Probyn (eds.) Sexy bodies: The strange carnalities of feminism, Routledge, London, pages 86-103 Davis, M. and E.L. Kennedy. (1986) “Oral history and the study of sexuality in the lesbian community: Buffalo, New York, 1940-1960” in Feminist Studies, Vol. 12 (1), Spring, pages 7-26 Davis, S.G. (1986) Parades and Power: Street Theatre in 19th Century Philadelphia, University of California Press, Berkeley Davis, T. (1995) “The Diversity of Queer Politics and the Redefinition of Sexual Identity and Community in Urban Spaces” in D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Mapping Desire: geographies of sexualities, Routledge, New York, pages 284-303 Deavin, G. (2008) “It started with a kiss …” in The Sydney Morning Herald, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/208/06/11/1212863695456.html, updated 12 June 2008, accessed 13 June 2008 Delbridge, A., J.R.L. Bernard, D. Blair, P. Peters and S. Butler (ed.) (1991) The Macquarie Dictionary, The Macquarie Library Donovan, R. (1997) “Queered bodies and straightened borders: natur[at]ed-aids in a present and anticipated plague” in Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Vol. 2 (1), pages 31-47 Douglas, M. (2002) Purity and danger: an analysis of concept of pollution and taboo, Routledge, London Dow, S. (2008) “untitled” in the(Sydney)magazine, Issue 58, February 2008, page 66 - (2006) “Gay abandon” in Sydney Morning Herald, Friday 3 February, 2006, http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/02/02/1138836344921.html, Sydney Dundas, A. (1966) “Here I sit – a study of American latrinalia” in Kroeber Anthropological Society Papers, Vol. 34, pages 91-105 Edwards, M. (2007) “HIV increase blamed on inadequate awareness funding” in ABC News, http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/11/2056321.htm, updated 11th October 2007, accessed 27th November 2007

287 Edwards, T. (1998) “Queer fears: Against the cultural turn” in Sexualities, Vol. 1 (4), pages 471-484 Emmison, M.J. and P.D. Smith (2000) Researching the visual: Images, objects, contexts and interactions in social and cultural inquiry, SAGE Publications, London Epstein, D. (1996) “Keeping them in their place: Hetero/sexist harassment, gender and the enforcement of heterosexuality” in J. Holland and L. Adkins (eds.) Sex, sensibility and the gendered body, St Martin’s Press, New York, pages 202-221 Faro, C. and G. Wotherspoon (2000) Street Seen: A History of Oxford Street, Melbourne University Press Feraios, A.J. (1998) “If only I were cute: Looksism and internalised homophobia in the gay male community” in D. Atkins. (ed.) Looking queer: body image and identity in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities, Harrington Park Press, New York, pages 415-429 Forbes, M. (2006) “Paedophilic ring suspect commits suicide in hotel” in the Sydney Morning Herald, Thursday 17th August 2006, page 7 Forsyth, A. (1997) “'Out' in the Valley” in International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 21 (1), pages 38-62 Foster’s Group Limited (2006) Pure Blonde, http://www.fostersgroup.com/enjoy/beer/D95FC17E050549D78832F6A869F4E 2EC.htm, accessed 22nd January, 2006 Fraser, N. (1995) “From redistribution to recognition? Dilemmas of justice in a 'post- socialist' age” in New Left Review, Issue 212, July/August 1995, pages 68-93 Fyfe, B. (1983) “‘Homophobia’ or homosexual bias reconsidered” in Archives of sexual behaviour, Vol. 12 (6), pages 549-554 Gamson, J. (1996) “Must identity movements self-destruct? A queer dilemma” in S. Seidman (ed.) Queer theory/sociology, Blackwell, Cambridge MA, pages 395- 420 Gardner, T. (2008) “Facial with bird excrement takes flight at New York spa”, http://in.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idINN2542211820080425, updated 25 April 2008, accessed 17 August 2008 Gilman, S.L. (1985) Difference and pathology: stereotypes of sexuality, race and madness, Cornell University Press, Ithaca Gould, I. (2007) “Simplicity a success for Launch”, Sydney Star Observer, Issue 853, http://www.ssonet.com.au/archives/display.asp?articleID=6881, accessed 8 Feb 2008

288 Haire, B. (2001) “Mardi gras” in C. Johnston and P. van Reyk (eds.) Queer City!: gay and lesbian politics in Sydney, Pluto Press, pages 97-111 Hake, R. (2006) “Gender Identity Comes Out of the Closet in NYC” in New York Public Radio, New York, http://www.wnyc.org/news/article/70726?printable, accessed 8 January 2007 Hall, S. (1997) “The spectacle of ‘Other’” in S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices, SAGE Publications, pages 223-290 Harper, P.B. (2000) “The evidence of felt intuition: Minority experience, everyday life, and critical speculative knowledge” in GLQ, Vol. 6 (4), pages 641-57 Harry, J. (1976) “On the validity of typologies of gay males” in Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 2 (2), pages 143-152 - (1974) “Urbanisation and the gay life” in The Journal of Sex Research, Vol. 10 (3), August 1974, pages 238-247 Hay, I. (ed.) (2000) Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, Oxford University Press, Melbourne Hemmings, C. (2002) Bisexual spaces: A geography of sexuality and gender, Routledge, New York Hilbert, J. (1995) “The Politics of drag” in C.K. Creekmur and A. Doty (eds.) Out in culture: Gay, lesbian and queer essays on popular culture, Duke University Press, Durham, pages 463-469 Hodge, N. (1998) “Transgressive sexualities and the homosexual advance” in Alternative Law Journal, Vol. 23 (1), pages 30-34 Hodge, S. (1996) “Fluid or fixed? Theorising and performing the relationship between sexuality and space” in Proceedings of the Institute of Australian Geographers’ gender and geography Study Group Conference, held 19-21 April 1996, Adelaide, South Australia, pages 76-86 - (1995) “'No fags out there': Gay men, identity and suburbia” in Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Vol. 1 (1), pages 41-8 Holcomb, B. (1986) “Geography and urban women” in Urban geography, Vol. 7(5), pages 448-456 Hollister, J. (1999) “A highway rest area as a socially reproducible site” in W.L. Leap (ed.) Public Sex/Gay Space, Columbia University Press, New York, pages 55- 70 Hooker, E. (1969) "Chapter 3: The homosexual community" in R.W. Weltge (ed.) The same sex: an appraisal of homosexuality, Pilgrim Press, Philadelphia, pages 25-39

289 Humphreys, L. (1972) Out of the Closets: The sociology of Homosexual Liberation, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (New Jersey) Humphries, M. (2006) “Same-sex laws face federal resistance” in Sydney Morning Herald, 31 March 2006, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/samesex-laws- face-federal-resistance/2006/03/30/1143441281190.html, accessed 2 April 2007 Ingebretsen, E. (1999) “Gone Shopping: The Commercialisation of Same-Sex Desire” in Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, Vol. 4 (2), pages 125-148 Ingram, G. B. (1997) “‘Open’ Space as Strategic Queer Sites” in G. Ingram, A-M Bouthilette and Y. Retter (eds.) Queers In Space: Communities, Public Spaces, Sites of Resistance, Bay Press, pages 95-125 Iveson, K. (2007) Publics and the city, Blackwell Jackson, J. (1989) “Interlude: Livin’… In complete darkness” in Rhythm Nation 1826, AandM Records Jackson, P. (1991) “The cultural politics of masculinity: towards a social geography” in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 16 (2), pages 199-213 Jagose, A.R. (1996) Queer theory, Melbourne University Press Johnston, C. (2003) “Bursting (Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras) bubbles – or, When 'bigger and better' bites you on the bum” in Word Is Out, Vol. 6, March 2003, pages 13-25 Johnston, J. (1973) Lesbian Nation: The feminist solution, Touchstone Johnston, R.J., D. Gregory, G. Pratt and M. Watts (2000) (eds.) Dictionary of Human Geography, Fourth Edition, Blackwell Publishing Kinsey, A C., W.B. Pomeroy, C.E. Martin and P.H. Gebhard (1953) Sexual behaviour in the human female, W. B. Saunders Company, Philadelphia Kirby, S. (1996) “Gay Men's Perceptions and Experiences of Everyday Space and Place” in Institute of Australian Geographers' Gender and Geography Study Group Conference, Adelaide, South Australia (19-21 April 1996), Institute of Australian Geographers Inc., pages 87-104 Kirby, S. and I. Hay (1997) “(Hetero)sexing Space: Gay Men and ‘Straight’ Space in Adelaide, South Australia” in Professional Geographer, Vol. 49 (3), pages 295- 305 Knopp, L. (1995a) "If you're going to get all hyped up you'd better go somewhere!" in Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 2 (1), pages 85-88

290 - (1995b) "Sexuality and urban space: a framework for analysis" in Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities, D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Routledge, London, pages149-161 - (1990) “Social consequences of homosexuality” in Geographical, Vol. 62 (5), pages 20-25 Knopp, L. and M. Brown (2003) “Queer diffusions” in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 21 (4), pages 409-424 Kominars, S.B. (1995) “Homophobia: The heart of the darkness” in R.J. Kus (ed.) Addiction and recovery in gay and lesbian persons, Harrington Park Press, New York, pages 29-39 Koskela, H. (1999) “‘Gendered exclusions’: Women’s fear of violence and changing relations to space” in Geografiska, Vol. 81 B (2), pages 111-124 Kramer, J.L. (1995) “Bachelor farmers and spinsters: gay and lesbian identities and communities in rural North Dakota” in D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Mapping Desire: geographies of sexualities, Routledge, London, pages 200-213 Kristeva, J. (1982) Powers of horror: an essay of abjection, Columbia University Press, New York Kus, R.J. (1990) (ed.) Gay men of alcoholic anonymous: First-hand accounts, Winter Star Press, North Liberty, Iowa Kushner, T. (1995) Angels in America: A gay fantasia on national themes, Theatre Communications Group Lachmann, R. (1988) “Graffiti as career ideology” in American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 94 (2), pages 229-250 Lamont, L. (2004) “Unhappy adventures of snapper McKenzie end as beach pest loses camera” in The Sydney Morning Herald, Thursday 2nd December, 2004, first edition, page 5 Landy, E.E. and J.E. Stelle (1967) “Graffiti as a function of building utilisation” in Perceptual and motor skills, Vol. 25, pages 711-2 Lauria, M. and L. Knopp (1985) “Toward an analysis of the role of gay communities in the urban renaissance” in Urban Geography, Vol. 6 (2), pages 152-169 Leap, W.L. (1999) “Sex in 'private' places: Gender, erotics, and detachment in two urban locales” in W.L. Leap (ed.) Public sex/Gay space, Columbia University Press, New York, pages 115-139 Lee, J.A. (1976) “Forbidden colours of love: Patterns of gay love and gay liberation” in Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 1 (4), pages 401-418 Levine, M. (1979) “Gay ghetto” in Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 4 (4), pages 363-377

291 Lewis, L.A. and M.W. Ross (1995) “The Gay Dance Party Culture in Sydney: A Qualitative Analysis” in Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 29 (1), July 1995, pages 41-70 Loewenstin, H.V., G.D. Ponticos and M.A. Paludi (1982) “Sex differences in graffiti as a communication style” in The journal of social psychology, Vol, 117 (2), August 1982, pages 307-8 Macey, D. (2000) The Penguin dictionary of critical theory, Penguin Books Manning, T. (1995) “Life's a drag” in New Statesman and Society, Vol. 8 (346), page 30 Marsh, I. and J. Greenfield (1993) The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras: An evaluation of its economic impact, Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras Ltd, Sydney Mayhew, P., R.V.G. Clarke, J.N. Burrows, J.M. Hough and S.W.C. Winchester (1978) Home office research study No.49 Crime in public view: A home office research unit report, Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London McDowell, L. (1995) “Body work: heterosexual gender performances in city workplaces” in D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Mapping desire: geographies of sexualities, Routledge, London, pages 75-95 McGregor, F. (1996) “I am not a lesbian” in Meanjin, Vol. 55 (1), pages 31-40 McNeil, P. (1993) “The Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras party: Masquerade and muscle culture” in R. Aldrich (ed.) Gay perspectives II: More essays in Australian gay culture, Department of Economic History and Australian Centre for Lesbian and Gay Research, University of Sydney, pages 223-244 McRuer, R. (2003) “As Good As It Gets: Queer Theory and Critical Disability” in GLQ, Vol. 9 (1-2), pages 79-105 Melouney, C. (2008) “City of Sydney to introduce homophobia-free zones”, http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24228651-421,00.html, updated 24 August 2008, accessed 24 August 2008 Mercury, F. (2006) A life, in his own words, Mercury Songs Meredith, P. (2007) email (10th December), [email protected] Miller, N. (1995) Out of the Past: Gay and Lesbian History from 1869 to the present, Vintage Books, London Munro, C. (2006) “HIV infection rate rises to epidemic levels in gay community” in the Sydney Morning Herald, 26th November 2006, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/hiv-infection-rate-rises-to-epidemic- levels-in-gay-community/2006/11/25/1164341446659.html, accessed 27th November 2007

292 Murphy, P. and S. Watson (1997) Surface city: Sydney at the millennium, Pluto Press, Annandale Murray, A. (1995) “Femme on the streets, butch in the sheets (a play on whores)” in D. bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities, Routledge, London, pages 66-74 Naess, A. and P.I. Haukeland (2002) Life’s Philosophy: Reason and feeling in a deeper world, translated by Roland Huntford, University of Georgia Press, Athens Namaste, K. (1996) “Genderbashing: sexuality, gender, and the regulation of public space” in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 14 (2), pages 221-240 Nandrea, L. (1999) “Graffiti taught me everything I know about space": Urban fronts and borders” in Antipode, Vol. 31 (1), pages 110-116 Nestle, J. (1987) A restricted country: essays and short stories, Sheba Feminist Publishers New Mardi Gras Inc (2007a) Objects of love: Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 2007 Annual report, New Mardi Gras Inc, Sydney - (2007b) 2007 Parade Entry Kit, New Mardi Gras Inc, Sydney - (2006) Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras 06 Annual report, New Mardi Gras Inc, Sydney New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board (2005) Annual report 2004-05, NSW ADB - (2004) Annual report 2003-04, NSW ADB - (2003) Annual report 2002-03, NSW ADB - (2002) Annual report 2001-02, NSW ADB - (2001) Annual report 2000-01, NSW ADB New South Wales Consolidated Acts database, Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Part 4c, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/aa1977204/, accessed 21 August 2008 Nicoll, F.J. (2001) From diggers to drag queens: configurations of Australian national identity, Pluto Press, Australia Nilan, P. (1995) “Masculinity as social practice and cultural 'becoming'” in Journal of Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, Vol. 1 (1), pages 57-69. Nixon, S. (1997) Chapter Five: Exhibiting Masculinity” in S. Hall (ed.) Representation: Cultural representation and Signifying Practices, SAGE Publications in association with The Open University, pages 291-336 Nwoye, O.G. (1993) “Social issues on walls: graffiti in university lavatories” in Discourse and society, Vol 4 (4), pages 419-442

293 Nyberg, K. L. (1976) “Sexual aspirations and sexual behaviours among homosexually behaving males and females: The impact of the gay community” in Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 2 (1), pages 29-38 NYC Health (2007) “New HIV diagnoses rising in New York City among young men who have sex with men”, Press release, New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/pr2007/pr079-07.shtml, updated 11th September 2007, accessed 27th November 2007 Offord, B. (2001) “The Queer(y)ing of Australian Public Culture Discourse: Activism, Rights Discourse, and Survival Strategies” in International Journal of Sexuality and Gender Studies, Vol. 6 (3), pages 155-179 Palmer, D. (1997) “In the anonymity of a murmur: graffiti and the construction of the past at the Fremantle prison” in Studies in Western Australian History, Issue 17, pages 104-115 Parkinson (2005) Matt Lucas, David Walliams, Gloria Hunniford, Will Young, ITV1 Saturday 15 October 2005, http://parkinson.tangozebra.com/guest_transcript.phtml?guest_id=84, accessed 13 February 2007 Peake, L. (1993) “'Race' and sexuality: challenging the patriarchal structuring of urban social space” in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 11 (4), page 415-432 Podmore, J. (2001) “Lesbians in the Crowd: gender, sexuality and visibility along Montreal's Boul. St-Laurent” in Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 8 (4), pages 333-355 Portes, A. (1998) “Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology” in Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 24 (1), pages 1-24 Proulx, A. (1997) “Brokeback Mountain” in The New Yorker, 13 October 1997, pages 74-85 Reynolds, R. (1993) “Postmodernism and gay/queer identities” in R. Aldrich (ed.) Gay perspectives II: More essays in Australian gay culture, Department of Economic History and Australian Centre for Lesbian and Gay Research, University of Sydney, pages 245-274 Rhyne, L.D. and L.P. Ullman (1972) “Graffiti: A nonreactive measure?” in The psychological record, Vol. 22 (1), Winter 1972, pages 255-258 Rich, A. (1980) “Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence” in Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, Vol. 5 (4), pages 631-660

294 Rose, G. (2001) Visual Methodologies: An Introduction to the Interpretation of Visual Materials, SAGE Publications, London Rothenberg, T. (1995) “'And she told two friends': lesbians creating urban social space” in D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Mapping Desire: geographies of sexualities, Routledge, London, pages 165-181 Rubin, G. (2000) “Chapter three: Sites, settlements, and urban sex: archaeology and the study of gay leathermen in San Francisco, 1955-1995” in R.A. Schmidt and B.L. Voss (eds.) Archaeologies of sexuality, Routledge, pages 62-88 Russo, V. (1987) The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in Movies, Harper and Row, New York Samuels, E. (2003) “My Body, My Closet: Invisible Disability and the Limits of Coming- Out Discourse” in GLQ, Vol. 9 (1-2), pages 233-255 Savic, I., H. Berglund and P. Lindström (2005) “Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men” in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 102 (20), May 2005, pages 7356-7361 Schwartz, M.J. and J.F. Dovidio (1984) “Reading between the lines: personality correlates of graffiti writing” in Perceptual and motor skills, Vol. 59 (2), pages 395-398 Searle, S. (1996) “Film and Video Festivals: Queer Politics and Exhibition” in Meanjin, Vol. 55 (1), pages 47-59 Sechrest, L. and L. Flores (1969) “Homosexuality in the Philippines and the United States: The handwriting on the wall” in The journal of social psychology, Vol. 79, pages 3-12 Sechrest, L. and A.K. Olsen (1971) “Graffiti in four types of institutions of higher education” in The journal of sex research, Vol. 7 (1), February 1971, pages 62- 71 Sedgwick, E. K. (1990) The epistemology of the closet, Penguin, London Seebohm, K. (1993) "The nature and meaning of the Sydney Mardi Gras in a landscape of inscribed social relations" in R. Aldrich (ed.) Gay Perspectives II: More Essays in Australian Gay Culture, Department of Economic History and Australian Centre for Lesbian and Gay Research, University of Sydney, p.193- 222 - (1992) "Contested terrain in the urban landscape: Homosexual space in inner- city Sydney", Proceeding from the Inaugural Joint Conference New Zealand Geographical Society and Institute of Australian Geographers, University of Auckland, 27-31 January 1992

295 Shively, M.G. and J.O. DeCecco. (1977) “Components of sexual identity” in Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 3 (1), pages 41-48 Shurmer-Smith, P. (2002) “Methods and methodology” in P. Shurmer-Smith (ed.) Doing cultural geography, Oxford University Press, London, pages 95-98 Sibley, D. (1995) Geographies of exclusion: Society and difference in the West, Routledge, London Simpson, M. (1994) Male impersonators, Routledge South East Area Health Service (2007a) Ankali, http://www.sesahs.nsw.gov.au/albionstcentre/Ankali/index.asp, updated 18th November 2007, accessed 18th November 2007 - (2007b) Welcome to Albion Street Centre, http://www.sesahs.nsw.gov.au/albionstcentre/, updated 18th November 2007, accessed 18th November 2007 Swivel, M. (1991) “Public convenience, public nuisance: Criminological perspectives on ‘the beat’” in Current issues in criminal justice, Vol. 3 (2), November 1991, pages 237-249 Sydney Morning Herald (2008) “Protection for Oxford Street gays”, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/protection-for-oxford-street- gays/2008/08/23/1219262631362.html, updated 24 August 2008, accessed 24 August 2008 Sydney Star Observer (2005) Mardi Gras Parade Supplement 2005, Issue 754, 3rd March 2005 Tattelman, I. (1999) “Speaking to the Gay Bathhouse: Communicating in Sexually Charged Spaces” in W.L. Leap (ed.) Public Sex/Gay Space, Columbia University Press, New York, pages 71-94 Taylor, V. and N.C. Raeburn (1995) “Identity politics as high-risk activism: career consequences for lesbian, gay, and bisexual sociologists” in Social Problems, Vol. 42 (2), pages 252-273 Thacker, B. (2004) The Naked Man Festival and other excuses to fly around the world, Allen and Unwin The Advocate (2005) “Grassroots efforts grow to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage in Idaho” in Advocate, 19 April 2005, http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid15683.asp, accessed 20 March 2007 Thoreau, H.D. (2005) Where I lived, and what I lived for, Penguin Books

296 Thrift, N. (2000) “Introduction: Dead or alive?” in I. Cook, D. Crouch, S. Naylor an J.R. Ryan (eds.) Cultural turns/geographical turns: Perspectives on Cultural Geography, Prentice Hall, Harlow, England, pages 1-6 Tibbitts, A. (2006) “Does Mardi Gras work as an arts festival?” in Sydney Morning Herald, Thursday 2nd February, 2006, http://blogs.smh.com.au/entertainment/archives/003485.html, Sydney Valentine, G. (1998) "Sticks and stones may break my bones": a personal geography of harassment” in Antipode, Vol. 30 (4), pages 305-332 - (1995) “Out and about: Geographies of lesbian landscapes” in International journal of urban and regional research, Vol. 19 (1), March 1995, pages 96-111 - (1993a) “Negotiating and managing multiple sexual identities: lesbian time- space strategies” in Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, Vol. 18(2), pages 237-248 - (1993b) “(Hetero)sexing space: lesbian perceptions and experiences of everyday spaces” in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 11 4), pages 395-413 - (1989) “The geography of women’s fear” in Area, Vol. 21(4), pages 385-390 van der Meer, T. (1999) “Private Acts, Public Space: Defining Boundaries in Nineteenth-Century Holland” in W.L. Leap (ed.) Public sex/gay space, Columbia University Press, New York, pages 223-245 Waitt, G. (2005) “Doing discourse analysis” in I. Hay (ed.) Qualitative research methods in human geography, Oxford University Press, pages 163-191 Walters, S.D. (2001) All the rage: the story of gay visibility in America, University of Press, Chicago Ward, J. (2001) “Editor's viewpoint: The writing's on the wall, and we want it off” in American City and County, June 2001, page 4 Ward, R. (2000) “Waiting to be heard – dementia and the gay community” in Journal of dementia care, Vol. 8 (3), May/June 2000. pages 24-25 Weightman, B. (1981) “Commentary: Towards A Geography of the Gay Community” in Journal of Cultural Geography, Vol. 1 (1), pages 106-112 White, R. (2001) “Graffiti, crime prevention and cultural space” in Current issues in criminal justice, Vol. 12 (3), pages 253-268 Willett, G. (2000) Living out loud: a history of gay and lesbian activism in Australia, Allen and Unwin Wilson, P. (1987) “No. 6 Research brief: Graffiti and vandalism on public transport” in Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, Issue 6

297 Winchester, H.P.M. and P.E. White (1988) "The location of marginalised groups in the inner city" in Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, Vol. 6 (1), pages 37-54 Wittig, M. (1990) “The Straight Mind” in R. Ferguson, M. Gever, T.T. Minh-Ha and C. West (eds.) Out There: Marginalisation and Contemporary Cultures, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass.), pages 51-57 Woodhead, D. (1995) “‘Surveillant gays’: HIV, space and the constitution of identities” in D. Bell and G. Valentine (eds.) Mapping desire: geographies of sexualities, Routledge, London, pages 231-244 Wotherspoon, G. (1991) City of plains: History of gay sub-culture, Hale and Iremonger, Sydney Wright, J. and G. Clarke (1999) “Sport, the media and the construction of compulsory heterosexuality: A Case Study of Women's Rugby Union” in International Review for the Sociology of Sport, Vol. 34 (3), pages 227-243 Yue, A. (1996) "Colour me queer: Some notes towards the NESBian" in Meanjin, Vol 55 (1), pages 87-99

298