INFORMATION TO USERS

This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.

1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find ja good image of the page in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced.

5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received.

University Microfilms International 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 USA St. John’s Road, Tyler's Green High Wycombe, Bucks, England HP10 SNR 77-8275

CONRAD, James Rogers, 1937- BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE AND SUBCULTURAL LEXICAL CODES: LANGUAGE AS A DEFENSIVE STRATEGY.

The American University, Ph.D., 1976 Anthropology, cultural

1 Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan48ioe i

0 1976

JAMES ROGERS CONRAD

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BOUNDARY MAINTENANCE AND SUBCULTURAL

LEXICAL CODES; LANGUAGE AS A DEFENSIVE STRATEGY

by

James Rogers Conrad

Submitted to the

Faculty of the Anthropology Department

of The American University

in Partial Fulfillment of

the Requirements for the Degree

of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Anthropology

Signatures of Committee

Chairperson:

Dean of the Collwe of Arts and Sci^ces or. 17. liU Datre

1976

The American University

Washington, D. C. 20016

THE iMÉEICM OSIÏEBSITÏ LIBEiSY

S'XS‘1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Grateful acknowledgement must be made to Dr.

William L. Leap whose steadfast conviction that a study of this nature was possible helped make its completion a reality. His wise counsel through the difficult periods of conception and design and throughout the time of execu­ tion helped me to realize the full nature and scope of this study. Without him to guide me, the study would not have been possible.

I must also thank Dr. Geoffrey Burkhart whose patient discussions led me to understand the importance of group structures and social mechanisms. If there is a sense in this study that it involves real people acting in real social situations, the credit must go to him.

I would like to thank Dr. Harvey L. Moore whose eleventh hour addition to the list of "readers" made things much easier; and Dr. George Harris for his calming, stead­ fast influence over the whole project. Both these men took the time to patiently read and correct the manuscript— for this I am grateful.

Further I would like to thank Ms. Cheryl Hammer and Mrs. Gladys Shimasaki for variously editing and typing the manuscript.

ii Finally, I must thank the men of the coffee house. My association with them over the last two-and- one-half years has been a rewarding and enriching experience. Their fine personal qualities gives the lie to many of the negative stereotypes associated with gay people. They are the true authors of this study.

Ill TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Chapter

I. HOMOSEXUALS ...... 4

II. THE COFFEE HOUSE ...... 28

III. BOUNDARIES...... 44

IV. METHODOLOGY ...... 56

V. THE DATA ...... 93

VI. SUMMARY ...... 186

REFERENCES...... 200

XV INTRODUCTION

My interest in the language of gay men in America began with a study I did with William More in the fall of

1974 (Conrad and More, 1976) on the existence of a homo­

sexual code or "argot." We concluded from this study that

such a code did not exist, at least not in the form sug­

gested by some researchers in the field. This question

led me to look to the larger question of ethnic minorities.

These groups, which are usually geographically based,

share kinship ties and cultural traditions which make

them easily recognizable and separate units and have been

studied extensively as such in anthropology. This, in

turn, led me to wonder whether or not gay men should be

considered as an ethnic group, or as some other kind of

societal unit, and consequently, if the same rules applied

to them insofar as language use is concerned, especially

as it relates to the question of boundary behavior. I wondered if it would be true that homosexuals use language

to delineate boundaries (or to cross them) in the same

manner as ethnic groups using codes. This research is

an effort to explore some dimensions of this question.

To do it, I will look at the language usage patterns of

a group of gay men in a student coffee house of a large

eastern university. 2

The question of why it is important to raise the issue of boundary behavior relates specifically to how people look at their world. It tells us how they see the world and how the world sees them. In the case of the

20,000,000 homosexuals in the United States, their world is everybody's world. In talking about the coffee house, of course, we are talking about a very small corner of it.

I will not, therefore, generalize from that small part of the world to our society as a whole as too many writers have done previously. Boundaries are barriers. This study seeks to explore in some detail the nature of only one of these boundaries, that between the gay men of the coffee house and the heterosexual world they live in. To do so involves other questions. Some of these questions are very complex. Much of this research involves breaking new ground. As a consequence, to treat them as fully as they deserve would take us far beyond the central focus of this study. We cannot do all these questions justice.

We can only suggest some areas for investigation. I do not believe, for example, I can adequately cover the question of exactly what kind of group it is we are deal­ ing with when we talk about homosexuals. What I can do, and have done in that respect, is to look briefly at some of the designations used by other writers (community, subculture, etc.) and suggest reasons why I think one designation better than others. Also, I cannot adequately 3

discuss what is meant by "homosexual." This general point, however, must be made: they are diverse in back­

ground, education, occupation, outlook etc. Therefore,

I will not try to discuss such complex issues as "quality

of life" or "what it feels like to be gay." I am only

interested in these questions insofar as they relate to

the men of the coffee house experiencing the boundaries of

their world. I would like to begin by looking at the question of who it is that is homosexual. CHAPTER I

HOMOSEXUALS

General Perspectives

Who are homosexuals? No writer has expressed the difficulty involved in categorizing homosexuals better than C. A. Tripp in his book. The Homosexual Matrix;

. . . the difficulty in viewing homosexuality is that it is largely amorphous— a behavioral category of individuals who are about as diffusely allied with each other as the world's smokers or coffee drinkers, and who are defined more by social opinion than by any fundamental consistency among themselves. And since homo­ sexuals differ at least as much from each other as they do from heterosexuals, it is not feasible to divide them into "types" (1975:127-8).

Warren (1974) notes there is no word for "homosexualizing."

Words for engaging in homosexual relations are not spe­ cific to homosexual activities, but could be applied to heterosexual activities as well. One who performs homo­ sexual acts is "a homosexual." But, as Kinsey (1948) has shown, commitment to the homosexual act is a highly variable thing. Kinsey originally sought, in his re­ search, to use a simple polar designation, "homosexual, non-homosexual." This proved, however, to be inadequate

(Churchill 1967:36). It became necessary to create a six part scale ranging from exclusively homosexual, both 5 psychically and in terms of sexual acts performed, to exclusively heterosexual. What lies between are five different levels of commitment to either homo- or hetero­ sexuality. "... 37 percent of the adult male population had at least some homosexual experience to the point of orgasm" (Fisher 1972:254). These persons— the 37 percent— may be considered homosexuals, for at least part of their lives. The question then becomes, what do these people have in common? Is there something about homosexuals that makes them more similar, less of an "amorphous" category, than Tripp suggests? Martin Hoffman, speaking as a homo­ sexual, finds only diversity:

What kind of men are these homosexuals? What do they look like? How do they act? To these questions one can only give the most general (and unsatisfactory) answer, namely, that these people run the entire gamut from the swishy faggot who can be identified a block away to the husband, son, or brother whom even the fairly sophisticated persons would not suspect of any homosexual interest. They include people who are handsome, clever, and rich, those who are ugly, stupid and poor, and all combinations and gradations between. Homosexuality penetrates into every conceivable socioeconomic, religious and geographical classification (Hoffman 1968:32-3).

What account then can be made of sexual interest?

Does wishing to have sex with a person of the same sex in any way significantly link persons into a group about which generalizations can be made? "... perhaps only one characteristic that is found commonly— though not necessarily regularly— among individuals with a history of homosexuality in our culture: [is] a sense of guilt" 6

(Churchill 1967:42). Scholars writing from a psycho­ logical perspective are less cautious about such a generalization: "Were it not for their sense of sinful­ ness and rejection, and their heavy burden of guilt, many homosexuals would function better ..." (West 1967:

102). However, in the nearly ten years since these words were written, the gay liberation movement has done much to remove this sense of guilt. Its persuasive powers have helped, for example, to convince the American Psychiatric

Association to change its designation of homosexuality from a "sickness" to a "disturbance," during its conven­ tion in the summer of 1975. And many young activists talk about freeing from guilt all homosexuals. If, in fact, there is one major difference between the secret homosexuals in Warren's sample, and the men of the coffee house, it is the degree to which they feel guilt over being homosexual. As one subject put it:

I felt very guilty about my homosexual desires. Then, one day, Frank Kameny came to speak at school. He talked about the guilt— it was like a catharsis— I was so happy, when I left the lecture-hall, I went down to the bathroom and cried. All those years, I felt so rotten— he made me realize I didn't have anything to feel guilty about (private conversation).

Attempts to find unifying criteria by which homo­ sexuals can be universally judged have thus far failed.

This does not mean, however, that such a criterion does not exist; it simply means that to date, one must be 7 content to consider homosexuals as having one thing in common, sexual orientation.

What kind of group are homosexuals? How is the anthropologist to consider homosexuals when treated as a subject population? Are they a statistical group, ethnic group, community or subculture as some writers have sug­ gested? Some discussion of these questions is necessary to put the question in perspective. Any discussion of boundaries must perforce include some notion of the unit of analysis. Are we speaking here of simply a statistical group? An ethnic group? Or a community? Is this perhaps properly considered a sub-culture? I will try to show why

I believe it is the latter.

Certainly, if homosexuals in the United States are considered only a statistical category, then no discussion of boundaries is appropriate. That there is "something more" may be evidenced by the fact that most writers on the subject, while disagreeing on most other aspects of homosexuality, do agree there is such a thing as the "gay experience." Some call it that, others refer to it as

"what it's like to be gay," or as one writer would have it, "the gay mystique" (Fisher 1972). This agreement is true of both gay ideologues and academic researchers. For example, Carol A. B. Warren, writing as an academician, speaks of the gay experience throughout; "The gay world

. . . is usually experienced with others. . . . This book is about the gay world as a general experience. ..."

(1974:3-4). Pete Fisher, writing as a gay ideologue 8 makes assumptions that suggest a commonality of experience:

"Many people avoid identifying themselves as homosexuals as long as possible . . . [or] The typical hustler thinks of himself as straight" (Fisher 1972:11, 57). Even writers taking a primarily statistical approach to their subject assume this same unity of outlook. Thus, Weinberg and

Williams make statements strongly suggestive of the same assumption:

The most covert [homosexual] may primarily confine his homosexual contact to sex and make use of public restrooms and steam baths, relatively anonymous settings in the homosexual world. . . . The homosexual world . . . allows for a range of ways of being homosexual (1974:11).

Most writers assume a common pattern of experiences which

they seek to explicate for their readers. It is true also, however, that many of these same writers will dis­

avow a universality of experience by pointing to the highly complex nature of "the homosexual world." Faubian

Bowers speaking for the rest, puts it with particular

elan:

The universe of homosexuality is so extraordinary that to know all its birds with their widely different plumage is to unknow it. . . . homosex exists in an overwhelming array of constellations and configurations. It defies logic, the way reason capitulates before love (1972:134).

In language less flowery and more to the point, "Homo­

sexuality penetrates into every conceivable socioeconomic,

religious and geographical classification" (Hoffman 1968:

32-3). Such a range of persons (including, as it does

by some estimates 20,000,000 persons (Kinsey 1948)/ 9 is as multifaceted and complex as American culture itself.

How then may we speak of homosexuals in groups?

Is it proper to see them as a community as some writers do (Hooker 1967, Leznoff and Westley 1956, and Warren

1974)? One scholar of the "community school," Carol A. B.

Warren, in her book. Identity and Community in the Gay

World deals with this issue in the following way:

A community is an idea, as well as a group of people. The essence of the idea is psychic; those who form a community whether it is one of tradi­ tion, ethnicity, or sexuality, have a sense of one­ ness, of brotherhood or sisterhood. But people in relationships, live out the idea of community. The people who formed the gay community I studied lived in a particular place . . . (Warren 1974:13).

But,

. . . the gay community is not bounded by places and times because gay people do not have to live together to feel a sense of community (Warren 1974:13).

Is community a place? Is it an idea? Warren further confuses the issue by suggesting it may be a code word for experience:

The gay world itself is not a community of people, a set of relationships, or a spatial entity, although it is usually experienced with others, in special relationships and in particular places (Warren 1974:3-4).

These quotes suggest a twofold use of the term community.

She uses it first to mean a group of people with some­ thing in common, and secondly as a group of people in a particular space experiencing common events and inter­ relationships, depending on purpose. This latter is the 10 conventional use of community in the social science

literature, especially in her own academic tradition

(sociology). As defined by the sociologists Wrong and

Gracey, "communities are populations that occupy a common

territory and gain a living from the environment through

their cooperative efforts (1972:288)." This definition, which is typical in the literature, does not speak to the notion of community as idea sharing. Such is the vernac­

ular use of the term and is of limited helpfulness in

light of the diversity of the gay world. Warren does

study a community, however, in the sense that the people who are her subjects may all be found in one space which

she calls Sun City. This community is limited in its patterns of acceptance and does not represent the range

of the homosexual world. The community she studies is a

community of middle-aged, middle-class, secret gays who

do not smoke marijuana, carry placards or "come out" in

public. These obviously are only a small part of the

totality of homosexuals. In fact, community seems to be

simply a convenient word and the overwheIming impression

one is left with is that the term clique might be more

appropriate. "Sociability is the main activity of the gay

community. . . . The main group sustaining community in­

teraction is the clique [her emphasis] . . ."(Warren

1974:76-7). A community of cliques? The answer to that

question is obscured by the fact that she refuses to

give demographic data. 11

other sociologists have asked me why I didn't get demographic data from my members: age, income, education, parents' income, and so on. The answer is that the content of sociability does not provide factual answers to these kinds of question: demography is more likely to be used as just another aspect of the presentation of self (Warren 1974:5-6).

We are never told the boundaries of her community. In

fact, we must take it on faith that there is such a community.

I kept no count of the people I knew scarcely, quite well and closely; there might be several hundred mere acquaintances, eighty known at the level of sociability, and several dozen who have been (and some who still are) close friends . . . (Warren 1974:13-4).

We are, in any event left without convincing proof that homosexuals should be viewed as a community. If com­ munity has any special meaning outside of the ecological

one, it is that persons within the given space can be

expected to have a special kind of interaction which sets

them apart from members of other communities. Warren

does not show this. In fact her main argument is that of

the gay ideologues, that gay people are just like straight

people:

In interaction, gay people experience different types of social relationship. Some members of the gay community are distant acquaintances, some are friends, some are lovers, and some are nameless strangers encountered once in a brief sexual act. Not just anyone, moreover, is con­ sidered eligible for a given type of relationship; like members of the straight world, gay people have social class, racial, ethnic, religious, and cosmetic stereotypes and prejudices. . . . (Warren 1974:69).

If her population really is "like members of the straight 12 world," then they have no distinguishing characteristics to set them apart as a community. Interaction is averred, but not demonstrated.

A second well-known study, Leznoff and Westley's

"The Homosexual Community," falls into the common pattern of assumption without making much of an effort to prove that a community does exist. Here, the authors are less diffident about exposing the parameters of their data group: "This report is based upon an intensive study of

60 homosexuals in a large Canadian city" (Leznoff and

Westley 1956:257). The concept of community is quickly reified, however, by immediately switching to a psycho­ logical argument.

The primary function of the homosexual group is psychological in that it provides a social context within which the homosexual can find acceptance as a homosexual and collective support for his deviant tendencies (Leznoff and Westley 1956:258).

Testimony from interviews is adduced to support this claim. Within this community there are two types of groups, the secret and the overt. The glue which binds these two groups into a community is casual sex:

Thus, it is the casual and promiscuous sexual contacts between the members of different categories of evasion (that is, the secret and overt) which weld the city's homosexuals into a community (Leznoff and Westley 1956:263).

Nowhere in the report, however, is evidence brought forth— despite some impressive charts on occupational statuses— that members of group A interact with members 13 of group B— secret and overt. (No mention is made of those persons who have enduring relationships either.)

Without interaction, one cannot speak of an overall community. Hooker, alone of the writers who use the term community, does not invest the term with a false concreteness (1967:27-28).

The whole issue of the use of community as a con­ cept around which the category homosexual fits best, rests on the type of research done by advocates of this approach. It is up to them to show 1) the existence of

"a homosexual community," and 2) the usefulness of the concept. They do not attempt to prove the former, but merely assert its existence. As for the usefulness of the concept, that is also yet to be proven. Either these researchers are unwilling to test their notion by using some very standard social science procedures, or they must accept the conclusion that the community concept is merely an assumption that does not really apply to homo­ sexuals. Perhaps C. A. Tripp, who prefers a neutral term like "matrix," has put his finger on why:

For instance, a person may conduct his homo­ sexual life as a loner, making only fleeting contacts simply because he is too fearful or too hesitant to do otherwise . . . a loner may be a man so thoroughly devoted to his career— or to his wife and family— that he much prefers to satisfy his homosexual needs with quick, transient contacts that do not divert him from the mainstream of his life (Tripp 1975:142).

Loner and community describe poles of social experience.

Any taxonomic unit that would encompass both would doubtless be too broad to be of much heuristic value. 14

I know of no writer that treats homosexuals as an ethnic group. Nevertheless, the question of its appropriateness remains. Should, for the purposes of study, homosexuals be treated as an ethnic group? What does "ethnic group" mean as used in the anthropological

literature? Frederick Barth, who is considered one of the major theorists in the area, not only of ethnic groups but boundary behavior, sees four major characteristics which must apply to a given population before it can be con­ sidered an ethnic group;

. . . [It] is largely biologically self-per­ petuating 2. shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural forms 3. makes up a field of communication and interaction 4. has a membership which identifies itself, and is identified by others, as constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same order (Barth 1969:10-11).

Homosexuals do not constitute a biologically self- perpetuating group; they do, however, share fundamental

cultural values (i.e., experience) on some levels and may certainly be said to have "a membership which

identifies itself, and is identified by others as con­ stituting a category. ..." The "fit" between homo­

sexuals and the ethnic groups described by Barth, is perhaps best seen in the following:

It is important to recognize that although ethnic categories take cultural differences into account, we can assume no simple one-to- one relationship between ethnic units and cultural similarities and differences. The features that are taken into account are not 15

the sum of 'objective' differences, but only those which the actors themselves regard as significant. Not only do écologie variations mark and exaggerate differences; some cultural features are used by the actors as signals and emblems of differences . . . (emphasis mine) (Barth 1967:14).

In other words, homosexuals may properly be seen as a unit by the investigator because homosexuals themselves are willing to do so. What homosexual actors themselves regard as significant is their sexuality. Warren has seen this point clearly:

. . . our cultural message about homosexuality is that people who do those kinds of things are that kind of person. In our society one can "play golf" or "be a golfer" depending on time involvement or preference, but there is no linguistic differ­ entiation between "doing homosexual" and "being a homosexual." As a stigma, gayness is a master status (her emphasis) (Warren 1974:147).

I take "master status" here to mean an over-riding category which pervades the entire range of other statuses. In other words, one can be a student, son, musician, but above all one is homosexual. Gayness from the homosexual's point of view is the category that makes the difference. Being gay is said by Warren to be that which gives homosexuals a sense of common identity— rather like having belonged to the Marine Corps. It is alto­ gether dubious whether or not this is so; or whether it is as true for all homosexuals as it is for her "sample."

She does not attempt to demonstrate the truth of this position; she merely asserts it. My experience with the men of the coffee house would tend to reinforce her 16

evaluation. Whether or not it is truly a "master status,"

it is clear that the men of the coffee house see "being

gay" as very important. Certainly, it is the position

of the gay idealogue when he says that the problems of

homosexuality lie in the prejudice of the heterosexual

society. The prejudice of the majority gives the minority

group pariah status. "These groups actively rejected

by the host population because of behavior or character­

istics positively condemned . . . as breakers of basic

taboos . . . [are] rejected by the larger society" (Barth

1969:31). This has the effect of creating the illusion,

perhaps, of an ethnic group. Moreover, Bart cautions:

Despite these formidable barriers, such [pariah] groups do not seem to have developed the internal complexity that would lead us to regard them as full-fledged ethnic groups; only the culturally foreign gypsies clearly constitute such a group (Barth 1969:31).

He is not talking about homosexuals, although he

might well be. The truly problematic dimension of

Barth's criteria lies in point number three. Homo­

sexuals, considering point number two, can be said to

share some fundamental cultural values as they relate to minority-majority group relations, and considering point

number four, to identify themselves and (where indi­

viduals conform outwardly to stereotypes) are identified

by others as constituting a distinguishable category.

But what about point number three, "a field of communica­

tion and interaction?" We have seen that writers using 17 the community concept found that a major stumbling block.

If, perhaps, interaction ( as between secret and overt groups) cannot be demonstrated on the physical level, what about verbal communication? Certainly, as I have suggested before, some writers assume such a field. Is there a separate in-group jargon, a gay "argot?" Farrell, writing about what he calls a "homosexual argot," feels that that is so: "... in the homosexual subculture we find an argot which deals primarily with the social types of homosexuals, the ways of making sexual contacts and varieties of sexual acts" (1972:98). There are no cautionary statements here about "some homosexuals" or

"a few" or "a specific group," but he speaks of "the homosexual subculture" in terms that imply all homo­ sexuals. He lists 233 items as the lexicon of the homo­ sexual subculture. Another attempt at a lexicon. The

Queen's Vernacular, also makes the same claim: "It is . . .

[a] compendium of the current 'slanguage' of a very large group of people who are members (part-or fulltime) of the homosexual community" (Rodgers 1972:9). However, Conrad and More in a joint paper (1976) have shown through the use of gay and straight respondents that some randomly chosen lexical items from both Farrell's and Rodgers' lists were almost equally recognizable to both groups; homosexuals, when asked to define terms from the lists of so-called homosexual argot, scored no higher on any item save one. The inescapable conclusion is that 18 lexical specialization among homosexuals may not be assumed to be universally shared. Some members of the group, as data below will indicate, evince considerable virtuosity in the use of special items and others not only restrict their use of such terms, but do not even recognize them. To date, there is scant reason to assume any special field of communication or interaction among homosexuals, at least, not in the sense of a secret code,

"argot" or a 12,000 item collection of exotica.

What is left to us in the use of ethnicity as a defining concept for homosexuals in groups is the idea of ethnic units as "culture-bearing units" (Smith 1974:82).

As Barth says, "If one chooses to regard the culture- bearing aspect of ethnic groups as their primary charac­ teristic, this has far-reaching implications (1969:11-2).

One implication is that, if the researcher uses such objective criteria, then he can measure objectively the degree to which a group exhibits the relevant character­ istics. One need not fall back on concepts such as

"experience" or "community," both of which remain con­ venient abstractions which, if reified, lead their user into a tangle of unproved substantiations.

Now, although Barth seems to open the door to such a use, I will not characterize the homosexuals studied here as an ethnic group. Rather, I prefer the term subculture. The use of the taxonomic rubric "ethnic" implies too much about homosexuals that is not true. 19

There remains the question of reproduction, as well as questions concerning the degree to which fundamental cultural values expressed in language and interaction are shared throughout the entire homosexual group, and uniquely by that group. What remains is to narrow the scope of our study and define the limits by clearly delineating the group to which one gives reference. For this purpose we may view the men of the coffee house, who are the subjects of this study, as a subculture (within a subculture, re; homosexuals) wherein shared values and patterns of inter­ action can be demonstrated.

A subculture has as many definitions as does culture (see Kroeber and Kluckhohn 1952), since a sub­ culture is a smaller separate division with a culture.

Culture,we may define following Herskovits' definition as "... a construct that describes the total body of belief, behavior, knowledge, sanction, values and goals that make the way of life of any people" (1948:625).

Using this definition as a guide line it is possible to retain Barth's notion of "culture bearing units" without the encumbrance of notions of reproduction or thoughts about "a field of communication." Further, such an approach leads us to direct our attention to the "culture of the group" without the suggestion that all homosexuals fit into the same mold. Finally, since the group is identifiable through self-definition, there need be no mystery concerning exactly who is in the group. 20

To recapitulate the argument above: community and ethnic group as descriptive classifications for homosexuals are inadequate, as in the case of community where interaction cannot be demonstrated and the notion of a physically based group defies demonstration, save in certain limited cases, or in the case of ethnic group which assumes biologic reproduction and a field of shared communication. Because of this I am going to focus on a specific group of gay men who meet once a week at a

"coffee house" in a large eastern university. By looking at this specific group and concentrating on its language behavior, it should be possible to show how one subculture, using language, deals with the question of boundaries.

Homosexuals: A Specific Group

Two characteristics that distinguish the men of the coffee house as a group are the fact that 1) they are all "out" (publicly declared homosexuals) to various degrees, and 2) they belong to friendship networks that are formed around the coffee house itself (about which

I will have more to say below). I gathered no socio­ economic data, or biographical data on these men, and will make no assumptions based on such data. If anything at all characterizes these people it is that they are mostly young male college students and may be expected to have all of the peculiarities associated with that group. A smaller proportion than might be expected 21 are black, however, certainly less than 10%. Being college students, they may be more verbally articulate than non-college students. They may be more receptive to ideas, and my impression is that they are more willing to listen to arguments than their contemporaries outside of the university. What they are not, is liberal or less prejudiced than their compatriots. The Gay Student

Alliance is not a hotbed of radical activity. There is little talk of left-wing politics at the coffee house.

Indeed, in three years of attendance in the coffee house,

I can remember only one serious political discussion, and it was participated in by only five members. The tone of the coffee house is rather too frivolous for such weighty matters. If there is a predominant topic of conversation it is more likely to be music or sex, than politics. Generally, conversation within this group is what one might expect. Mundane matters predominate.

The subjects for this research are fifteen of the coffee house men who were selected according to the criteria presented in the chapter on Methodology. Below

I give a brief sketch of each of these subjects. These sketches show what I believe is the most striking thing about each of them; they are my impressions of the subjects as persons that I interacted with for the last three years. Because they were chosen to represent the range of attendees at the coffee house the sample may not be said to be statistically typical of the total coffee house membership. 22

A Description of the Subjects

#1. Daniel is a very "straight" middle class

fellow from New Jersey who is pursuing a career as an

"academic" musician. He plays the clarinet. He and

Joseph have been living together for about a year. Their

life-style indicates that they both appreciate the

domestic virtues. Daniel is extremely easy-going, and

likable is the word that most readily comes to mind when thinking of him.

#2. Joseph, Daniel's lover is also from New

Jersey. In fact, they knew each other when they were

both of grade school age. They did not acknowledge their

gayness at that time. Joseph and Daniel are so similar in

appearance that people frequently take them for brothers.

Joseph is a decorator for a large store in the area. He

is quite good at his profession. He has acknowledged his

gayness much longer than Daniel but does not necessarily

function as the dominant person in the relationship. If

Daniel can be characterized as easy-going, Joseph, although

not less so, is more serious.

#3. Walter is John's lover. A tall somewhat

effeminate, rather complex person, Walter is considered

by some people to be strikingly attractive. He is pur­

suing a career as an artist, but will probably not succeed

because he lacks the ability to sell himself. Walter

reads a lot and has profound respect for artistic and

intellectual things. He and John have recently purchased 23 a house on Cape Cod, where they will work as waiters to make a living. Usually, where ever they go, they let people know about their relationship, although it is by no means monogamous.

#4. Douglas is a seriously troubled young man as is evident in the interview. He is very effeminate, and may be said to be a 'recognizable homosexual.' He is, at least, aware that people generally so classify him. He is currently under psychiatric care. His homosexuality is a serious burden to him at the moment.

#5. George is extremely articulate for a person of his age. One suspects that his parents are academics from the way he speaks of them. He is very much "into" gay liberation. He is a reasonably attractive fellow, but his social success is hampered by his stature. He is the sort of person who would be described as "cute and cuddly," being only a little over five feet tall. His most striking characteristics are a ready smile, and a good command of the language.

#6. Dale is a good friend of Douglas. Dale, however, although he is more effeminate than Douglas is not troubled by that fact. Rather, he flouts his effeminacy and calls himself "the queen of queens."

As the interview shows he is also very articulate, and may be said to have "a way with words." Of all the subjects he was the most personable, and the easiest to interview. 24

#7. John is Walter's lover. It can be said of them, that two people could not be more different. Whereas

Walter is a lover of artistic matters, John prefers bowling and fishing. Walter is tall. John is short. John is extremely pragmatic, and may be said to be the one in charge of dealing with practical matters. It was he who managed all of the affairs relating to the purchase of the house. A further example, John owns a car which

Walter will not even drive. John's primary interest in life outside of Walter is the world of biology. He has excellent collections of insects from this area of the country. He was pursuing an academic career in biology, but was forced out when he failed to make a good presenta­ tion in his oral examinations.

#8. Nelson is a very serious person, who may be said to be a man of the world. A former foreign service officer, he gave it up because it restricted his oppor­ tunities to express his gayness. He now is happy "living like every one else" as a teacher. Nelson generally appears straight, especially with strangers, but will betray a touch of "campiness" every once in a while. He takes an active interest in gay organizations, especially as they relate to religion.

#9. Paul is a construction worker, with a definite preference for young men. He is very masculine in appearance which makes it easy for him to move from the gay to the straight world. Paul is somewhat difficult 25

to deal with as a person because he has a definite prefer­

ence for the private. He told me things in the interview,

he says, that he has never told anyone else, but that may

simply be a fabrication to further insure his privacy.

He seems to delight in confusing people by sending out

contradicting signals. His fellow workers don't know what

to make of him.

#10. Art is a doctor and may be said to be very

straight. If it were not for the fact that he and Lance

are lovers, one would not suspect his homosexuality. Like most medical doctors he works very hard and long hours.

He owns a house in a fashionable area of the city, and

has a few intimate friends from his profession. He prefers

the company of intellectual people, especally if they are

conservative in their political orientation. I was very

surprised he consented to be interviewed.

#11. Henry is a young high school teacher whose

most striking characteristics are, in order, his good

looks, a fact which makes being gay easier for him than

for most other subjects, his social pleasantness (in the

interview his statements concerning the necessity to be

kind to others were genuine), and his unbelievable

loquaciousness. He is in most ways the very sort of

person whom the straight world would never suspect of

being gay.

#12. Lance is Art's lover. Being Art's lover

is not always easy for Lance to cope with. He feels, at 26 times, that he is living in a shadow. He tries to compensate by being "in the know" about a lot of things.

He is especially interested in gossip about people in positions like faculty members. It gives him, apparently, a sense to self importance to know things that Art does not. Because Art's circle of friends are older gays, 40 plus, Lance tends to take on some of the characteristics of that group. He does, however, have his own friends of a younger age group, although they tend to be female.

#13. Robbie is the life force behind the coffee house. Getting an interview with him was something of a coup, since he could not be contacted outside the coffee house, and was very busy while at the coffee house ar­ ranging for cokes, music, etc. He may be said to "be" the coffee house, since only he will take the trouble to ar­ range for the room, etc. He sees much of his gay identity within the coffee house, and is very flattered to be identified as the force behind it. He is, however, get­ ting, "a little old" (a fact accentuated by his receding hairline) and feels uncomfortable when age is mentioned.

For him, now a graduate student, leaving the university may be something of a trauma.

#14. Ken is a newcomer to the coffee house, having recently transferred from another university. He gives one the first impression of being very shy. He speaks very quietly with a diffidence uncommon these days. He is not, however, shy at all. The fact that he is quite 27

aggressive without appearing to be so, makes him rather

successful in sexual pursuits, especially in places (i.e., with straights) that one would not expect. The other

important factor about Ken is his intelligence. He does

extremely well in school with next to no effort.

#15. Harry is a quiet, modest, rather shy person whose most striking characteristic is his averageness.

He is something of a Walter Mitty as the interview shows.

He wears an ill fitting wig and works as a second in command in the college bookstore. Harry is very polite

and very kind. The night I interviewed him, he insisted

on giving me supper, which he went to great lengths to prepare. Harry is not aware that he would be "spotted"

immediately as a gay. He does not think he is effeminate,

but is.

As stated above, these men may not represent a

statistical sample of the total coffee group, but they

do represent the full range of coffee house persons.

These fifteen men, who are the subjects for the interviews which are the core of this research, it is here averred,

are part of a group which would be most properly seen as

a subculture. In the next chapter I would like to examine

that notion. CHAPTER II

THE COFFEE HOUSE

The Coffee House as a Subculture

A. A note on method: My interest in the coffee house grew out of acquaintances I had with several of the founding members. I knew them for some time before I began to have this "research interest." Beginning in the late spring of 1973, I began attending meetings of the coffee house regularly. So total did my involvement become that during the summer of that year I was elected vice- president of the parent political group— the Gay Student

Alliance. This gave me a total view of the organization and a chance to know all its members. My membership in the organization was purely voluntary. I had no "ulterior" motives such as conducting research. It was about this time that I became interested in the language of homo­ sexuals through Donald A. Farrell's (1972) article on homosexual "argot." I was particularly interested in what the existence of covert codes could tell us about the relationships obtaining between social groups. I began at this time to make notes on gay language, and came across the only other available lexicon, Rodgers' The Queen's

Vernacular (1972). Immediately I set out to prove that

28 29 the whole question of a gay code was dubious (see Conrad

and More 1976), since my experience with the men of the

coffee house was that they knew few of the exotic terms

and expressions introduced by these authors. After com­ pletion of that study, I determined to explore as thor­ oughly as possible, with this group, the relationship between the code and boundary maintaining, boundary

crossing behavior. My method in this early phase of the research was the classic "participant observation." I interacted with the men of the coffee house, sharing their leisure activities and interests, meeting them at times outside the coffee house for social activities.

I made notes and kept logs of these meetings. Later (see below p. 56 ) I began to conduct specific interviews

designed to look closely at the question of language and boundary.

B. The Coffee House: The coffee house grew out

of an idea that occurred to three people, two women and

one man in November, 1970.^ These three people lived on

"the farm," a collective living arrangement for two male

and female couples, one male-male, and one female-female.

The two women and first one male and later the second male of the homosexual couples expressed to each other

^The following discussion concerning the early history of the coffee house was given to me in conversa­ tion with two of the original seven founders. They are also subjects of this study. After 1973 my own involve­ ment gave me first hand information on the subject. 30 the feeling that their lives had been largely enhanced in a positive direction by their open style of living, a style which they felt could be exported. They had been receiving publications from other university gay organiza­ tions and the idea arose that perhaps it was time for

Eastern University to have a homophile group. An ad­ vertisement announcing the formation of the Gay Student Group, as it will be called, was taken out in the school newspaper and two weeks later the first meeting was held at the farm. Meetings moved after this to the stu­ dent union building. At first the organization envisioned by the founders was mainly political. After a period of a few months, however, meetings became less political and more social in nature. Because of this duality, it was decided to hold political meetings on one night and social meetings on another. Friday night became the social meet­ ing night. This session got referred to, in the jargon of the times as "the coffee house."

There were seven people in attendance at the first meeting. Three of the members of that nucleus were female and four were male. Of these seven people, three (all male) still attend the coffee house frequently. The women do not attend largely because there are alternative women's groups (all female) for them to attend. This pattern of decreasing female attendance is generally reflected throughout the five year history of the coffee house.

During the first two years of existence of the group. 31 the president of GSG was a female, and women constituted roughly half the membership of the group. By the close of the second year, however, the men "took over" the coffee house, and women stopped coming. The women com­ plained "Why come when there are only men here. I come here to meet girls and lately there haven't been any to meet" (conversation). The early days of the gay movement

(before the formation of the National Organization of

Women with its openly favorable policy toward lesbians) saw efforts to bring the men and women together in united gay organizations, especially on college campuses.

C. A Typical Evening: Since our effort here is to understand the coffee house has a subculture, it seems appropriate to give some notion of what a "typical even­ ing" at the coffee house is like. I hasten to point out that this evening is "typical" only in the sense that it was chosen from a collection of logs I kept of some twelve evenings. I chose this one simply because it was the middle one. There is also, however, nothing "atypical" about it. Because it is an actual log of a randomly chosen evening, the reader should not be dismayed that certain persons who appear in the interview data are not mentioned in the log. They simply were not there that evening.

What follows is a log kept for the night of

February 6, 1976. It is presented as a typical evening at the coffee house: 32

7;41 Jason (black) is sitting outside the coffee house

door on one of the couches in the hallway. He has

engaged a young janitor in conversation. I nod to

Jason and move on.

7:45 Nancy and Gracie are also waiting outside the

door. Gracie is playing the flute. They are not talking to Lou who now is alone. I sit next to

him. He is slow to pick up my opening conversa­

tional gambit. I talk with Gracie, Nancy and Dale.

7:55 Robbie and the woman from the front desk arrive.

He opens the door. Every one moves inside. Jason

and I sit at one of the round tables.

8:00 Robbie, using a very stern voice, "volunteers"

Dale, who protests loudly, to help bring up the

coke. Gracie continues to play the flute. Milton

arrives and joins me and Jason and Robbie at the

round table. Milton who is stoned engages me in a

conversation about Bigridge (gay camp ground). He

is generally loud and offensive. Robbie comes

and goes from the table as his duties warrant.

8:15 Douglas arrives and another nucleus forms at the

other round table. He is joined by Dale, Gracie,

Nancy and occasionally by Robbie who is into

playing "hostess" for the evening.

8:20 Two women arrive with a small child. They seem

to know Dale, Gracie and Douglas and join them

at their table. 33

8:21 A person named Bob arrives. He is known to Milton

who introduces him to us. He is new to the coffee

house— asks questions of the "what's it like"

variety.

8:35 12 people present. The music has not arrived

(stereo) but Robbie is constructing a makeshift

system out of a portable radio and some speakers

owned by the coffee house. Douglas has gone off in

the corner with the young child. People seem to be

moving around in little knots waiting for something

to happen. The consensus is that this is going to

be a "slow night."

8:40 Nick (the dealer) arrives. Everyone knows him.

He sits at our table. More people filter in.

9:07 Twin brothers Davey and Milo arrive. They talk

with Robbie and settle down at the other table.

Because they are attractive and relatively new,

their coming generates much interest.

9:25 Gracie, Nancy, Dale and a friend are talking

outside the coffee house near the drinking

fountain. As I walk by, they introduce me. In

the coffee house, no one is dancing although the

makeshift music is playing. People seem very

interested in conversation. There are 21 people

present. 34

X X X X X X

X X X X

9:45 Jason brings out a pornographic book from his book

bag. It is passed around the table. A blond

fellow comes in looking apprehensive and stands by

himself against the wall. He stands there for about

three minutes. The other new guy, Bob, invites him

to our table. He accepts and sits between Jason

and Bob. Jason immediately takes over and monopo­

lizes his attention.

9:50 Milton and five other people leave to go to the free

campus movie. Davey and Milo are both dancing

with partners.

10:00 Two cleaning ladies come in the coffee house, and

sit by themselves quietly in a corner.

10:08 Two male-female couples arrive. The men seem gay.

Conversation at the table turns to speculation as

to whether or not they are. The mystery is solved

when one of the men dances with Robbie. 37 people 35

are now in the room. Those not sitting at either

of the two tables are standing in groups around

the refreshment table.

10:20 The music, which is coming from a radio, becomes

"torchy" which seems to fit people's mood. A

few couples are dancing slowly, but most just

talking. Jason and the new blond fellow (David)

go off to the bathroom, I suspect to smoke a joint

since that is what they have been discussing for

quite a while.

10:30 The music has had a definite dampening effect.

People are starting to leave. Alston, who is very

effeminate, is going from table to table handing

out invitations to his lease breaking party. He is

being very bitchy about who gets them. He seems

to be taking much delight in "cutting" some people.

10:35 Davey and Milo leave. Comments at the table, most

of them rude. Jason and David return from the

bathroom. Comments are made concerning their absence.

10:57 A big party leaves for the bars. 18 people left.

A definite damper on things.

11:03 Sam shows up. Has business with Robbie and someone

whom I don't know. He spots me. Waves. Talks to

a few other people (he seems to know everyone) on

his way over. We chat. He is breathless with the

news that he is going to another city where he hopes

to start a gay group. He has a book which he gives 36

to Alston to deliver to a friend.

11:30 Things are very quiet. 12 people remain. They

are all talking in small groups. No one is

dancing, or attending to the music.

11:35 Robbie begins to clean up the mess at the

refreshment table.

11:37 Jason and David leave together. I offer to give

Robbie a hand.

11:45 The man from the cleaning crew comes in with his

warning that it will soon be closing time. Robbie

take the empties and leaves.

11:50 I am the last person here.

What provided that attraction in the first two years of the coffee house was the gay liberation move­ ment. As things settled down and the issues of liberation became less forcefully present, the group became less political and more social. Gradually, by the end of 1972 and early 1973, most political interest had vanished and the Wednesday night political meetings stopped. The coffee house continued because it was a place where one could dance and meet friends without going downtown to the bars. Efforts to revive the political side of the group in the summer of 1973 failed through lack of issues and apathy of the membership. By the end of 1973 the coffee house became largely a male social club. It remains so.

The number of persons that may be expected to 37

attend on any given Friday night varies from a low of 12

on a night when the weather is inclement and school is out

of session, to a high of eighty for those nights when a

dance is advertised in the local bars. These fluctuations

in attendance should not obscure the fact that on an aver­

age, one may expect to find some twenty of the same people

just about any Friday night. The average attendance is

forty-five. These twenty or so persons constitute the

"core" of attenders and are the people who run the coffee house, and for whom it is run. Robbie, the current "leader"

of the coffee house is one such person. His devotion to

the coffee house is measured by the stories that circulate

to the effect that he entered graduate school at Eastern

University just to be near the coffee house for another

two years. In fact, he only provides the effort to keep

the coffee house going by seeing to it that the room is

rented, the coffee ordered and other refreshments pur­

chased out of the weekly collection funds. Of these core

people (eight of whom are interview subjects), all know one another by their first names. Of this group, on any night, three or four will go off to the local bars together.

Some know each other outside of the coffee house and

share network groups with them. Some few even know each

other from local high schools.

These men are slightly older as a group than

"college age" (18 to 22) since several are graduate

students, and some have graduated from college although 38 they still attend. In fact, their ages range from 14

("Little Jimmy" who first started coming in 1971 when he was 14) to 42 (Art, the doctor who used the coffee house as a way to come out)— the average is 25. Age has never in my observation caused dissension in the coffee house.

The younger members seem to accept gracefully the presence of older men.

As suggested above, the coffee house seems to attract fewer than its expected complement of blacks or

Spanish surnamed persons. The reasons for this elude me.

I have not witnessed any special hostility toward minority persons. And there are some blacks who come regularly and are well known, and seemingly well liked by most of the men. It is possible that the high visibility of belonging to the coffee house coupled with the relatively small number of blacks on the campus combine to make it very difficult for blacks to come out in this way. Interest­ ingly enough, none of the black regulars lives in the dorm. Jason, who is mentioned in the log, is one such person. It may well be that black students prefer the anonymity of the bars to the high visibility of the coffee house. In any event, an informal check of one month

(November, 1975) yielded the following count: 128 persons attended (average 32 a week); of these, seven were blacks and two were Hispanos.

Women do not attend the coffee house because there are so few that do attend. What this means is, since 39

part of the social function of the coffee house is

meeting other people, and since women are primarily

interested in meeting other women, and since there are

so few women in attendance on any given night, few women

are drawn. In other words, it becomes known among the

lesbian subculture that the GSA coffee house "is mostly

guys." This causes fewer women to come, making it true

that only men go to the coffee house. Occasionally, a

group of four or five women will show up, stay for a while and leave. Currently, there are two women. Gracie

and Nancy, who are sisters and come on a regular basis.

Gracie comes because Douglas and Dale are good friends of

hers and Nancy comes because she is "little sister." In

any event, the attraction for women is low and stays that

way as the result of a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy.

D. As a subculture; This phrase— subculture— is

meant to convey the notion of a group of otherwise diverse

persons who share certain behavior patterns which set them

apart from the rest of the culture. Above, to define

culture, we appealed to Herskovits' (1948) definition,

"... a construct that describes the total body of

belief, behavior, knowledge . . . that mark the way of

life of any people." I need only modify this definition

to read "... a construct that describes a set of

beliefs . . . that mark[s] the way of life of any people,"

to make it serve for the sense in which I am using sub­

culture. The sense is that of "Groups with common play. 40 age, vocational, sexual, habitational, or other interests

[which] evolve behavior patterns that differ from those of other groups and from society's conventions" to use the definition given in The Encyclopedia of Sociology (1974:

289). There is only one thing that brings the men of the coffee house together, and that is their common sexual orientation combined with the willingness or desire to express this orientation outside the standard gay setting of bars, baths, etc. All these men are "out"; that is, they have declared by their coming to the coffee house that they are willing to reveal their sexual orientation to others. It is not true, however, that all the men of

the coffee house are "out" to an equal degree. Lance,

Paul, Walter and John are aggressively homophile. They have marched in the Christopher Street parade, have been officers in the political arm of the coffee house (the

GSA) and will wear buttons in public proclaiming their

gayness. In other words, they are liberated gays. Others,

like George, Dale and Douglas, are just now coming to grips with this question. They do not deny, nevertheless, the

desirability of expressing their gayness in public. For

the moment, they are having difficulty finding the courage

to speak out in public, although all have done so by joining

the coffee house. That is their common bond— their common

idea. They are the opposite number of Warren's subjects whom she describes as "secret gays" (1974). They do not

succumb to the "seductions" of secrecy (1974:6). The 41 relevance of this approach to boundary crossing should

at once appear evident. Clearly, the men of the coffee

house see the question of boundary less sharply, less

concretely than Warren's subjects. And the life of

secrecy or openness is largely a matter of choice. How­

ever, the coffee house, because it is open, provides us

a chance to document the change in attitude about bound­

aries by looking at the members from the perspective of

age. Older subjects are more like Warren's in that they

see boundaries more concretely than do the younger members.

E. Friendship Networks; Although the coffee

house can be seen as a unit under the rubric subculture

(distinguished, of course, from the larger subculture

homosexual), even it cannot be seen in monolithic terms.

Its members come from various socio-economic backgrounds,

various geographic beginnings and are of various ages.

More than that, however, is the fact that the coffee house

itself is organized around informal friendship networks.

These networks cannot be said to be stratified into a

hierarchy of groups. They represent, rather, congeries

of individuals who as a first choice would select each other

as good friends in preference to others. It does not mean

that there is any animosity between groups or particular

persons within groups. It does mean only that they are

seen in each other's company most often, and are most

likely to socialize outside of the coffee house. The

isolation of these groups is purely judgmental on my part. 42 No formal sociometrics were administered on the grounds that to do so would sufficiently change the nature of my relationship in the group and make it impossible for me to continue to function as a member. Only when I started to administer the interviews was I at the position where

I was willing to end my role as a full participating member of the coffee house and take on the role of someone who was studying them.

Figure 1 represents a diagram based on friendship nuclei of persons who are subjects in the interviews. Only the persons interviewed are listed in the chart which means that some groups are incomplete. Thus the group that in­ cludes Walter and John would also include me and several others who are not interview subjects.

Daniel and Walter and Joseph John

Harry ^

Nelson Art and Lance

Ken

Fig. 1. Relationships among the subjects.

1. Groups within circles are very close friends.

If the circles touch, that means that members from each of the touching groups socialize outside the coffee house 43

2. If they are lovers their names are connected

with "and."

3. Arrows indicate friendship on a sometime

basis.

No special claim is made about the existence of

these networks other than the obvious point that people who interact frequently are more likely to share knowledge,

impressions, and, in this case, language. They have not

been used as analytical units, and should be taken only

as part of the descriptive material concerning the coffee

house. CHAPTER III

BOUNDARIES

Some General Questions

The purpose of this research is to inquire into the use of language as a device employed by a small group of homosexuals to facilitate passage back and forth across the boundary between the homosexual and heterosexual worlds. As such, it might be appropriate first to look into the situations when homosexuals might find a need for such skills and the reasons why such skills are necessary.

It is a given fact that homosexual behavior is not positively valued by most persons in this society; such behavior is subject to criminal sanction in all but seven of the fifty states. Because this is so, anyone wishing to engage in such behavior must be particularly careful in crossing the boundary between the gay and non­ gay worlds. He must construct a means that will allow him to be "known" if appropriate, if the object is himself homosexual, and not found out if he is not. Also, he must cross a line that is not simply one of social disap­ proval, but even criminal.

The Situation

Traditionally, in social science there are two

44 45 ways of treating the question of boundary. The first may be called the Barthian approach which relies for its focus on the concept of ethnic group. Homosexuals, as we have seen above, are not classifiable as an ethnic group (nor for that fact are the men of the coffee house). Rather than try to impose our data on his criteria, it might then be best to look at the second approach, which we may call the Goffman approach. This analytical perspective places its emphasis on groups as subcultures while looking to the situational component. Coffman's work is important because it attunes the researcher to the cultural dimen­ sions of boundary behavior by emphasizing the role of social groups. These groups can be occupational, status or cultural groups. His analysis focuses on the situation the actor finds himself in: what types of mechanism(s) does he use, and how does he use them. One such mechanism is "role distance."

Role distance provides the actor, who shares a culture with other actors, a way of separating himself from his fellows. Consider:

. . . The term role distance is not meant to refer to all behavior that does not directly contribute to the task core of a given role but only to those behaviors that are seen by someone present as relevant to assessing the actor's attachment to his particular role and relevant in such a way as to suggest that the actor possibly has some measure of disaffection from, and resistance against, the role (Goffman 1961:108).

In other words, Goffman provides the valuable insight that actors can do more than just put on a role; they can 46

use it so well that they can sense distance and express

their removal from it. Goffman cites the following

example ;

One [example of role distance] can be found in medical etiquette. This body of custom requires that the surgeon, on leaving the operation, turn and thank his assistant, his anesthetist, and ordinarily his nurses as well. Where a team has worked together for a long time and where the members are of the same age-grade, the surgeon may guy this act, issuing thanks in what he expects will be taken as an ironical and farcical tone of voice: "Miss Westly, you've done a simply wonderful job here"(Goffman 1961:119).

In this example the doctor, by using irony humorously,

is able at the end of a demanding task to reduce the

accumulated tension and send all the actors off with a

positive feeling. Other functions of role distance

relate more directly to the question of boundary mainten­

ance. Goffman gives the example of an intern who, because

of the routine nature of his task, may make errors, such

as handing a scalpel to the chief surgeon in the wrong way, thus causing him to cut himself. The surgeon replies

flippantly, "If I get symphalis [sic] I'll know where I

got it from, and I'll have witnesses" (Goffman 1961:122).

Goffman says this is done "to prevent the full weight of

his role from frightening or freezing subordinates ..."

into panicky mistakes or inaction. The social boundary

between doctor and intern is maintained and kept in

functioning order, not by insisting on compliance in

an authoritarian manner, but by playing at informality

to reduce tension. To achieve this level of sophistication 47

in role performance, the doctor must have some distance

from it. Such a Janus-like use of role is also required

by the subjects of this study, not to reduce tension, but

to prevent unwanted exposure of their sexual preference, while making contact with their fellow homosexuals.

Another example of such role distancing is provided

by John, Subject #7:

I : What would you do if at work someone accused you of being gay in front of others? S. I'd say, "That's right!" I: You would go along with it? You wouldn't feel it a threatening situation at all? S : No . . . ah, maybe threatening, but I wouldn't feel it so threatening that I'd have to deny it. If it was brought up in a hostile situation, I would feel uneasy, to say the least, but I wouldn't find any advantage to deny it. (Subject #7, interview)

What John does is "play it straight." He avoids respond­

ing in such a way as to confirm the accuser's charge by

being flip. The important point, as he sees it, is not

to let the accuser freeze the accused into guilt. The

role from which distance is established is "guilty person."

This role has nothing to do specifically with being homo­

sexual, except that in this case the weight of the

charge is a function of the degree to which the accused

is willing to accept the connection. John's "that's

right" comes so quickly and so flippantly (that is,

apparently without reflection) that onlookers are left

wondering at the sincerity of the response— especially

if the accused responds with a smile. Such expressions

as "butch it up" or "play it straight" are also markers

for such role distance. 48

Subject #6, Dale, provides a further example of role distance taken from the interview data:

I . Ah what would you say to a gay person if you felt he was acting too gay or swishy in the presence of straight people? S : (Pause, laugh) Ah, I would not use any, ah, I would probably not think that to begin with, ah, if I thought, if I well, actually, the only place I would ever do that would be if say I thought somebody I knew like relatives was around, ah in which case I would just say, "Douglas," if it were Douglas, "Douglas, cut it out, O.K.? (Laughs) Just cut it out." Ah . . . I: In front of straight people? S : Oh, oh dear, I didn't know they were right there. I thought they were in the vicinity. You mean right in front of the person? I: I think the challenge is to communicate . . . S: . . . the situation in line, ah I'm there, and a friend of mine say Douglas is there and Douglas is being very, very gay. He's really camping it up, and there's somebody with us a third person who is straight— and I don't want him, and I don't want him to camp it up in front of this straight person, for one reason or another. I would probably, ah, I would still say, I would probably still say, "Cut it out" or "Stop it" or just laugh and say, "Douglas, you're too much tonight" or "You're too much today," or "That's enough." I: Do you think he would understand you if you said that? S: Yah.

The interesting thing to note about this example is that

Dale joins in the camp by saying, "You're too much tonight." When Dale related what he would do, what he said was, "You're t-o-o-o much tonight" in an exaggeratedly effeminate voice accompanied by a flip of the wrist. By so doing he establishes his own distance from the role of

"gay person camping" by mocking (camping) camp. This mocking, or as here, establishing role distance, changes the nature of the situation. To use another term from 49

Goffman, Dale is changing the "keying" of the situation

(1974) . Keying is the process of defining the nature of the situation that goes on in interaction, a jockeying back and forth between participants in a social interac­ tion, to give the definition of the situation. As

Goffman puts it:

I refer here to the set of conventions by which a given activity, one already meaningful in terms of some primary framework, is transformed into something patterned on this activity but seen by the participants as something quite else (1974:44).

In the terms in which this idea was introduced, the boundaries are shifted from one level of understanding to another.

The concepts face work, role distance and keying are invoked here to help clarify the types of behavioral sets, the mechanisms, used by homosexuals in their defensive boundary strategy. The suggestion here is that although word manipulations function as the focus of, or center of these interactions (as I hope to show below), for the moment it is necessary to isolate the framework within which these lexical items occur. To put it another way, a word could be used to establish role distance as with Dale's "you're to-o-o much!" or, one may "do" face work by hutching it up, both of which are examples of keying the situation to one's liking. It is important to understand that these are the types of behavioral patterns being acted out,^ and that they are part of

^This is not to imply that such behavioral 50 the gay person's social repertoire. J. R. Ackerley, speaking of another time and place, describes how he managed to cross boundaries while doing face work through the use of role distance and keying:

The taint of prostitution in these proceedings nevertheless displeased me and must, I thought, be disagreeable to the boys themselves, accept it though they did. I therefore developed mutually face-saving techniques to avoid it, such as standing drinks and giving cash at once and, without any suggestive conversation, leaving the boy free to return home with me if he wished, out of sexual desire or gratitude, for he was pretty sure to know what I was after. . . . A similar but more self-restrained and hazardous form of procedure was to treat the soldier, if he was particularly attractive, to a pleasant evening's entertainment— cinema, supper— give him a present at the end of it when he had to return to barracks, and leave it to him to ask, "When can I see you again?" Thus, by implying that it was more his society then [sic] his body that interested me, did I hope to distinguish myself from the other 'twanks' (as guardsmen called people like myself) and gain his respect. . . . These methods had another advantage: they disarmed, or could be hoped to disarm, any tendency the guardsman might have to robbery or violence ( emphasis mine) (1968:136).

What is involved then is that the homosexual is required to manipulate his social persona so as to be transparent to some and opaque to others. He is under patterns are not employed by non-homosexuals. One may suppose that almost everyone in the society learns to employ these strategies. The question here is, what situations are they used in? If they are used to maintain or cross boundaries where sexual identities are involved, then the application is most likely to involve homosexuals. 51 a double threat, that of being found out and of exposing himself to the wrong person. For some who fit the popular stereotype (by being effeminate) this is not a problem.

Such persons are generally "out" to everyone at all times.

For the majority of homosexuals (who can pass) such is a matter of what Goffman calls "face work";

Every person lives in a world of social encounters, involving him either in face-to-face or mediated contact with other participants. In each of these contacts, he tends to act out what is sometimes called a line— that is, a pattern of verbal and nonverbal acts by which he expresses his view of the situation and through this his evaluation of the participants, especially himself. Regardless of whether a person intends to take a line, he will find that he has done so in effect. The term face may be defined as the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by a line others assume he has taken during a particular contact (emphasis mine) (Goffman 1967:5).

Gay persons must "take a line" in their daily interactions that will or will not disclose their homosexuality as they direct. Gay liberationists notwithstanding, most gay people continue to do this with varying degrees of skill all their lives. This study seeks to say something about the degree to which the men of the coffee house, as a group of homosexuals, use language in pursuit of this face work.

The Language

That language is a medium through which "the line" is conveyed to others has been demonstrated abun­ dantly in the literature. Barber, to name just one example in her article "Trilingualism in an Arizona Yaqui 52

Village," (1973:295-318) shows how code choices are made by persons who are trilingual and the criteria upon which they are made. That such criteria involve taking a line or face work can be adduced in the following:

The presence of outsiders may temporarily upset the patterns present in a household when out of politeness Spanish may be used if Mexicans are present, or even English, if the people in the conversation understand it. . . . (my emphasis) (1973:307).

Politeness is a matter of projecting an image (taking a line) that says something about the speaker. If, in this case, the speaker wishes to appear polite he will resort to a language in his repertoire that will convey that desire. What is involved is a practice referred to in linguistics as "code switching." Bolinger explains the process :

We turn now to communities that people can more or less voluntarily join. The language variety here can be properly called a code, though the term is loosely used of any variety . . . that a speaker feels free to adopt for a particular purpose. . . .

A speaker may change styles— "switch codes"— to put himself closer to his hearer. His purpose is to get all the obstacles out of the path of his message. . . . But not all instances of code switching are aimed at clearing the channel. Some may actually obstruct it. . . .(his emphasis) (1975:257, 340).

Although I will argue below that perhaps code is too strong a word for the list of terms that some authors

(Farrell 1972) identify as such, for the moment it is useful to so see them. The following is an example of a situation in which code words were used to maintain the boundary: 53

S; Well he was standing behind the counter and I was leaning on it. There were quite a few people around trying to sell old textbooks. I spotted this really fabulous guy and was looking at him. Harry saw me looking at him. Then he looked at the guy, and turned back to me and smiled. I smiled back. That meant "isn't he groovey?" Harry said, "Yah, he's in here every day. Drives me wild." I said, "Do you think?" to which Harry said, "A brother." I said, "Well, I'm gonna find out," and went off to cruise him. I: Was he? S: I don't know. I tried to make eye contact with him but couldn't. Maybe he just didn't like my looks (Lance, interview).

In this situation, Harry and Lance communicate through exchanging looks and using code words. First Harry sees

Lance staring at the customer. Through his smile to

Lance, Harry is able to communicate the notion that he understands what is going through his mind. This is rein­ forced by Lance's question, "Do you think?" The question is meaningless unless it is followed by the use of the code word brother. Harry said, "A brother." Those stand­ ing around, presumably were not able to understand this interaction.

In another example. Subject #5, George, tells about trying to find out if someone he is talking to is gay:

I: What did you do to broach the subject? S: I accidentally, on purpose, dropped a pack of matches from the Play Pen [a gay bar]. He didn't react, so I sort of waved them in his face, and I said, "You ever been here?" He said, "No." I felt really frustrated so I said, "You should go there, it's a really cruisy place." 54

I: Did he understand you? S: I'm not sure 'cause he stopped talking altogether. (George, interview).

In the example above the code word is cruisy. If the

object of George's wouldbe attention were gay, presumably

he would have picked up on it. It is also possible that

he did understand the word and (being straight) was

offended, or he understood and (being gay) rejected the

advance. In any event, George attempted the use of a

code word to cross the boundary.

In order to elicit such responses I devised five

situations which I thought might put the homosexuals in a

circumstance where his identity would be threatened. Each was a situation where a boundary had to be maintained or

crossed. The five situations were:

1. What would you say to a gay person if you

felt he was acting too gay (swishy) in the presence of

straight people who were your friends?

2. How would you ask another gay person if someone

else in your presence was gay without the person finding

out?

3. What would you do if a straight person came

to an all gay party you were giving?

4. What would you do if at work someone accused

you of being gay in front of others?

5. What would you do if you were thrown together

with another person, say in a dentist's waiting room,

and you wanted to know if he was gay? 55

In each case, the subject was requested to imagine himself in that situation or to recall a time when he was in a similar situation. His responses were watched closely to see if they yielded data of the sort cited above. CHAPTER IV

METHODOLOGY

The Subjects In order to gain further clarification on the question of the role of language, I decided to do a series of interviews. The subjects for this research were chosen on the basis of 1) their length of association with the coffee house, 2) their relationship to the func­ tioning of friendship networks in the coffee house, and

3) their willingness to be interviewed. It was my inten­ tion to get some subjects who had long acquaintance with the coffee house (#s 3, 7, 9, 11 and 13) some who were very new to the coffee house (#s 8, 10, 14, and 15) and some whose acquaintance was longer than one year but did not go back to the founding days (#s 1, 2,4, 5, 6 and 12). Also, I wanted to include people of importance to the coffee house, like Robbie and Douglas, George and Dale, who form a new network nucleus whose centrality to the coffee house is evident. Another point in the selection criteria was attendance. I wanted high attendees and some who were casual. Blacks and females were not included for reasons which have already been explained. For the moment, I wish only to point again to the fact that they represent a very small percentage of those who attend the coffee house,

56 57 which is primarily a white male organization. Finally, no selections were made on the basis of socio-economic variables. The coffee house, in its checkered career has attracted people whose only income was hustling (prostitu­ tion) and one person who was a highly placed diplomat

(not, incidentally. Nelson). In the sample, with the ex­ ception of Art who happens to be a practicing physician and Nelson and Henry who are school teachers, all are college students. With obvious within group distinctions, all are middle class.

Interviewing

The scope of this research is limited. Because its purpose is to look closely at one small part of the gay world with the object of saying something about how a few gay people handle the problem of being homosexual in a homoerotiphobic world, I could have perhaps used a more direct method of investigation such as intensive interviews directed specifically to the subject of boundaries, using biographical data and psychological profiles, etc. which would have yielded, no doubt, excellent data. I felt, however, that short structured interviews because they would be backed up by observa­ tion focusing on something other than the specific questions at hand, providing, as it were, an area in which the subject could bring up what was important to him while telling me something about an aspect of gay 58

life, concerning which more than a few false assumptions are made, would be superior in its ability to "unlock"

information than the more traditional structure. Talking

about words can be fun. "Being fun" I felt would free

the subject from any anxieties he might have concerning what is a serious question to homosexuals. Secondly, it

would get the subject to talk in an area which is central

to the question of boundary crossing. This study assumes

that people use words to manipulate the parameters of

their world, words that can be used as identifying signals,

identifying their user as a person having a certain status,

or intention. Such words are called code words. It will

be shown below that this assumption is not valid for all

the men of the coffee house, but is specific to a given

generation.

The procedure for this study involved interviewing

fifteen subjects in half-hour to forty-five minute ses­

sions. I took special care that these interviews be

conducted under controlled conditions, either in the

subject's home or in a room away from the coffee house

where we would not be disturbed. Each subject was then

asked about twenty-three words and expressions from the

lexicons devised by Farrell (1972) and Rodgers (1972).

In addition, each subject was asked to speculate on

what his behavior might be in the five aforementioned

situations. Each interview was taped with the knowledge

and consent of the subject. The tape was then fully 59

transcribed retaining as much of the character of the orig­

inal as possible. Interpellations, pauses and ambiguities were all retained. Some minor changes are made in the

texts quoted for the sake of clarity and readability. This

is necessary because speech which is clearly perceived by the speakers present, may not seem so when reduced to written text. For example, when subject 6 was asked to say what he thought of when he heard the word "cruise," he replied:

I think of what most gay people, most gay men at any rate do, including myself, do all the time, most of the time, ah, I think that it has the strict meaning of looking for sex, although to me when I think of cruise, I generally think it just means, I think when most people, they're just looking at and smiling at or licking one's lips at, or whatever one does at any particularly attractive man or woman who presents him or her­ self, ahm, that's usually what I think of as cruise. . . (Subject #6, interview).

Not all interviews, however, produced such unfortunate results. One interview transcription is reproduced in full and appears on page 62. Generally, the schedule was adhered to. But, in cases where to do so would have meant interrupting the "natural flow" of the subject's response,

I felt it best to forego some items. For example one item, hustler, seemed to provoke in some respondents a chain of thought that led them to relate their experiences with hust­ lers in some detail. To have interrupted them at that point would have been to make the subject feel a formality about the interview that would perhaps have put him on guard.

I preferred to have a freer flow of conversation within which the subject would be more likely to use words from gay vocabulary in a natural way. 60

Some terms, as the data below will show, seemed to have a high information yield, while others, because they were not recognized or had produced negative reactions to which I was not sensitive, yielded little in the way of response and were, therefore, dropped. The terms in question were, dinge queen and R. M. (for real man). Since the list was overly long to begin with, no new terms were introduced. Another change that was necessary had to do with the questions I asked each respondent. I began by asking each subject the following questions about each item; do you recognize the term?, what is its meaning?, do you use it?, do people you know use it?, where (when) did you first hear it?, do you think it is an exclusively gay term? and do you think it is a new or old term? I quickly discovered that subjects became impatient after four or five terms with this structured procedure. This led me to try to develop a more conversational tone. Also,

I dropped questions relating to the age of the term (how old?) and when the subject first heard it. These I found put the subject on the defensive, or at the least caused an embarrassing string of "I don't knows" from the sub­ ject. I retained these questions only when I felt there was some hope of getting a positive reply. Lastly, in this respect, I found it necessary to inform subjects that they were not being tested, that there was no right answer to the questions. All these changes resulted in 61 making the interviews more informal and the subjects more comfortable.

In the course of the interviewing, I became a subject of interest to some persons in the coffee house who felt being interviewed carried with it a certain status of "being important." People volunteered to be interviewed. In one case, I interviewed a "female member" because failure to do so would have caused a touchy situation. I thought it best not to point out that I was interviewing only males because this might be inter­ preted as "male chauvanist" on my part and arouse the hostility of a very central person in one of the friendly networks. Also, interviewing her helped break the ice with that particular group who, as a relatively new but important group, was rather unknown to me at the time.

What follows is an example of one such interview.

It is reproduced in full to retain the full character of the original. My reasons for choosing this particular interview out of the fifteen was not its "typicalness," since none of them can be said to be typical of the whole, but due largely to the fact that of all the subjects

Nelson, having had some linguistic training, was the most articulate. He is decidedly atypical in his ability to say exactly what he means and he is older than the average of the sample. I, nevertheless, decided to choose this over a more "average" interview on the grounds that it would say more about how an ideal interview would 62 proceed. Nelson quickly understood what I wanted to know from him and gave it to me, where he could,

A Sample Interview

I: Subject #8, a Caucasian male, gay, how old are you? S; 31. I: 31 and ah can you tell me how long you've been out? S: Depends on what you mean by out, O.K. I; What do you mean by out. S; (Laughs) I ah - I had my first gay sexual experience about ten years ago, I guess. But, due to force of circumstances, I ah within a few months of that, went abroad with the foreign service, and thereafter all the years I lived overseas I had gay sexual intercourse obviously, but I was not gay from the point of view that I did not participate in the gay life-style which was impossible in the underdeveloped world that I lived in. Ah I only came out in terms of accepting that I was gay, and wanting to be gay as opposed to anything else, almost three years ago when I returned to the United States, and could immerse myself in a gay sub-culture. I : Ah, what does it mean to you to come out . . . you talked about living a gay life-style, what does that mean? S: Well, having gay friends, going to places fre­ quented by gays for example the bars, and just generally wanting to be gay and not resenting it as I did for so many years. Certainly, while I was overseas where it was extremely dangerous for me to be around anyone who was even suspected of being gay, you know for security reasons, ah I tended to avoid anybody who was even suspect, so in other words I was not out. I; So ah you sort of, sort of, by being out then you mean being in constant contact with gay people letting other people know you're gay S: Except where it is obviously a disadvantage for example in a job . . . I: Fine, ah, let me ask you now about some words and I want to ask you something about each one of these words. Ah - mainly I want to know if you recognize it. Ah faggot, you know what that means? S; Right. I; What do you take to be its meaning? 63

S: I think there are a couple of possibilities there with faggot, it depends on who is using it, ah if a straight person uses faggot then its a derogatory term for any homosexual, period, no matter what type of homosexual that person is. If another gay person uses it, again it depends, if some gay people use it, the more masculine ones would say something like I may be a homosexual but I'm not a faggot. Faggot to them being an effeminate type. Ah, very often gay people will use the term almost in affection, if I like you very much and we're very good friends, I might joke with you and say, "Oh you faggot." I think there's a range of possibilities there. I; Ah, . . . now, I wonder, as you're talking there if the analogy to nigger might not be appropriate. S: Ah, yah, except where it is a term of affection, although I guess, blacks sometimes call each other nigger, ah . . . I: . . . it's my understanding . . . S: . . . yah. It would be a correct analogy then I think. I personally don't like the word. I think it is something that evolves out of the straight experience and is a term that is rather derogatory. I; Does that mean you don't use it? S; I never use it. I: How about your friends, do they use it. S: Ah yah I hear some people using it. I: Would a person stop being your friend if they used it? S: No. I; Now I'm going to ask you about some of these words. I know this is going to be kind of difficult, but if you can think back, if you can help me a little bit on this, ah, think back, do you remember the first time you heard that word? I think basically what I want to know, did you know the word before you came out? S; Oh yah, I ah, the word faggot goes back to at least when I was 13, I can remember the first time I understood what a homosexual was, in any sense, I think I must have been around 12, and I think when I was around 13 that's the time when high school kids you know freshmen year start using words like that for anybody they don't like basically, not just somebody who's gay. I; Ah, O.K. now if we added something to that word, if we, if we called somebody or used the term piss elegant faggot what does that mean to you? 64

S: I'm not sure that piss elegant faggot is part of my productive vocabulary. Ah piss elegant to me is basically a New York term. I grew up in New York and there are some words I do use, but I'm always surprised how many people here in Washing­ ton have never heard it and I have to explain the term. I; But you've heard it before and you use it. S: Yes, but not with the word faggot, ah. I use it in the terms, for example I might go into a little bar here or restaurant that might be sort of a red neck place or lower class or whatever it is but they've really, really have outdone themselves in trying to make it very fancy yet they succeed in terms of taste. It's just not in good taste. That to me is piss elegant. You say this bar is piss elegant, but I've never heard it used with the word faggot. I: Uh huh . . . ah . . . S: I think I could interpret . . . I: O.K. why don't you. S: I take it, if I, I, I heard you say so-and-so is a piss elegant faggot, I would assume without knowing, I would assume that it's somebody who is trying to act very superior, perhaps, ah, on buying very expensive clothing and trying to live in a very expensive apartment, etc., ah . . . I; Someone that puts on airs? S : Yah, from a very poor background that you could term lower class, and does not have a professional job, that kind of thing. In other words somebody who's really trying to achieve a great deal of status. I: O.K. Ah, how about amyl, does that mean anything to you, amyl? S: Yes ah, amyl nitrate, you mean, the . . . ah, poppers. I ; Poppers S : Yah right. I: What can you tell me about poppers? What do you know about poppers? S; Well, I've used them. I; You've used them, ah so you use the term. Do you use the term poppers or amyl. S; Poppers. I've never heard anybody just say amyl. I've just heard amyl nitrate. I; Ah, and your friends use the term, I take it. S: Uh huh . . . I; Ah, do you think - that, ah - if you said that to a straight person do you think that straight person would understand it? S: — Ah, probably not, but I never really thought about it, but I tend to think that it is mostly within the gay experience, that one knows 65

about poppers, except for those straight people who use it for angina which is what it is meant for . . . 1• • • • yah • • • S: . . . although I doubt that they would use the word popper, I imagine they would use the chemical term. I: When did you learn about poppers? S: I had heard about poppers probably as far back as, ah, seven or eight years ago, but again I was overseas and I had always thought that poppers were pills. I never made the association directly that you had to pop something you know, and while I was in Africa which was my last tour, I was with an American w h o . . . you know while we were having sex, put this thing in my nose and the room was dark and I hadn't seen him and I felt very threatened because of the dreadful chemical odor and ah it made me a little panicky, and I asked him what that was, and he told me poppers. I wasn't really prepared for it. I: O.K. Ah . . . what about tubs? S: Ah, that's the synonym for the baths. I: Ah, what other, do you associate any other words, do you use any other words, besides, ah well first of all what do you call it tubs or the baths? S: I would call it the baths. I ; The baths. S: But it's not a big part, because I've never been here. I've been in Amsterdam, Brussels. . . . I: You don't regularly frequent the baths. S: No, I've never been to them in the States. I: Ah, . . . what, what about your friends, do they use the term? S: I've heard the term, there is a fellow who lives around the corner, and he always refers to them as the tubs, and he's a real patron, he goes there every single week-end, spends the entire week-end there. Ah, I've heard a few other people use it, but my impression is that about 90, 95% of the time you'll hear the word, the baths, as opposed to the tubs. I; What about the vapors, would you recognize it as that if I said, I went to the vapors? S; No. I have no idea what that is I've never heard the term. I: In fact that's a British, ah use of the word . . . S; For the baths? I: Uh huh, ah I think I maybe heard it once here in this country. Ah t you,ah - can't think of any other terms that people use an besides the tubs. S: No I don't believe so. 66

I; Ah, again, let me ask you ah if you ah mentioned that in front of a straight friend do you think he would know what you were talking about? S: Baths? I: Yah. S: I would doubt it. I: You would doubt it. S; Yah, again it is not part of my own experience. I just don't know, but I can't imagine why the average straight person would know something like the baths. I: Do you have any straight friends that know you're gay? S; Ah just one and it's very recent that I told her, it's a girl who lives in New York that I've known for many years. I; Uh huh . . . let me ask you about an expression now, buddies to the end have you ever heard that expression? S: No. I would assume it means people who would always be good friends but, I can't say that I've actually heard it. I: Putting it in a gay context can you imagine a meaning for it? Specifically gay. S: I would assume two lovers who will never separate but. I, I just never heard the term, it doesn't mean anything to me . . . I: What about asshole buddies? Does that . . . S: Ah, I think I have heard it maybe once or something but, I don't, I assume it's just sort of a playful way of saying people are good friends. I: It doesn't imply a physical sex relation to you . . . S: No it doesn't. I would take it to just mean friends and nothing else. I: Ahm, how about trick? S: Yah, a trick is somebody you've just slept with that you don't you know have any sense of commitment to, are not terribly interested in seeing again. I: You wouldn't call your lover a trick. S: Definitely not, it's basically derogatory. I: It's derogatory? S: The average person who uses it may not think so because it has been over used . . . I; Does that mean you wouldn't call somebody a trick to their face? S; Yes. I would never call anybody a trick. I can still recall the first time somebody called me a trick and it went through me like a knife. I: Hmmm. Ah,can you remember when you first heard that term? S; Yah, it was, ah I returned from Africa in '72, that's almost three years ago now, and the very first person I met, it was about a week after I 67

got into the country, and I wound up in his apartment in Hightown for the night, and the phone rang early in the morning and he got up and went in to the foyer and answered it and he said no I'm sorry I can't I have a trick here, and ah it reminded me that I had heard the word about a year and a half earlier in Iran and I knew a couple of gay men there, American gays who had used the term and I had never heard it before so they explained it to me and I had the feeling it was sort of a bad word you know, and I remember when he used it, I had only been in the country about a week and felt kind of hurt. You know, I wouldn't want to be referred to as a trick even though, even though I may be one (laughs). I: Without trying to psychoanalyze you, why do you suppose, outside of the transitory nature of the relationship, ah is there any other reason you can think of for reacting negatively to that word? S: Well, I just think it has to do with the fact that it is a transitory relationship. The average person we go home with from the bar is the sort of person who is not interested in a commitment or anything, it's just a matter of getting his rocks off on a Saturday night. It indicates let's say a lack of respect for the individual. I: Ah do you think it's only a gay word. S; Ah, I understand that in the straight life prostitutes use that term, for a man that they've just, you know, been to bed with, gotten paid for it. So apparently, I assume it's a word used among prostitutes and men who frequent prostitutes, but I would not assume that the average straight person has that in his vocabulary. I: O.K. ah, what about a number? S; Ah as a verb or as a noun? I: Ah as a noun. S; As a noun, O.K. (laughs) I was thinking of to do a number O.K.? I: Well that may be the same thing. S; (Laughs) A number to me is basically the same thing as a trick. I think the word has not been used as much so I would not find it as offensive, as . . . I: Do you use it? S: Yes. I; How do you use it? S: I tend to use it in a verbal expression, I ah, for example, but again I think it's fairly recent in the English lexicon. I've only been using the term for about four or five months. I'm quite aware of this and several of my friends comment 68

on it, to me from time to time. I'll say something like ah, I was with so and so last night we did a number. I have a friend with whom I have sex occasionally, there's nothing romantic, we're just good friends. When we're together I '11 say to him do you feel like doing a number. You see, and that to me is sort of a euphemism for do you want to go fuck or something. It's a more polite way of saying it, let's put it that way. I: You don't refer to someone as a number. S: Ah, I - I ah, sometimes I do it jokingly, like I have a very good friend Dave, we're very good friends, we've never had sex, and ah, if I'm criticizing him jokingly to another friend, and the three of us are together I might say, "Oh, you know what this number did last night?" There's obviously a certain amount of affection there, but it can also be used when you feel hostile to someone. To me I think it's basically a synonym for trick. I would not want to be referred to as a number anymore than I would want to be referred to as a trick. I: Uh huh . . . ah, again do you recall when you first heard that term? S: I would say it's quite recent. Where the word trick has obviously been around a long time my impression is that number or at least my use of number dates back to ah I'd say maybe last spring. Let's say the last six months or so. I: And you, you ah, what I'm trying to get at, you learned this from your friends? S; I guess, yah. I: Or ah, some people tell me for example they learned words when they started going to bars or ah . . . this place or that place. S: Number specifically I think I picked up from one of my two roommates. He used the term. Now how long he's used it I don't know. He's been with me here since January so let's say, let's say it goes back that far. I : He's gay? S: Yes. I; Uh huh, ah, as you about two together now, this is a compare and contrast question. Brother, a brother and a sister. Can you explain to me what this connotes to you? S ; A brother I don't know I would take it quite literally. If somebody, a guy, said to me this is my brother, I would certainly assume that was his natural brother. Ah a sister to me indicates ah, for example I just mentioned my good friend Dave, I could say Dave and I are sisters meaning that 69

we are just friends but never have sex with one another. It's not part of my vocabulary, I never use the term, but I do understand it when I hear it. I : What about your friends do they use it? S; No I can't say that they do. I have the feeling, I don't know why, I have the feeling that maybe it's a word that was used a lot more a few years ago. It is perhaps disappearing from our lexicon. I: Do you have any negative feelings about it? S: Uh - yah, I think I do, not serious ones. I don't find it terribly objectionable, like the word trick, ah, but I think basically it might indicate a certain effeminacy. It doesn't neces­ sarily, and I understand that but just the fact that it is a word used usually to refer to women, ah, and I don't like that, I don't like things like, so many gay people will always refer to somebody as "she." You know and that's why I object to the word sister. I wouldn't be a big thing, but basically, I would have somewhat of a reaction. I: What about now? If someone was referred to as a brother, for example, let's say I asked you in reference to someone else is he a brother? Would I communicate anything to you, would you understand? Let me put it this way what would you understand? S: I think what I would understand, er ah, your way of finding out from me if he were gay. But ah, again I just had to really think about it now, you know, I mean I don't think it's something that would have hit me immediately. I; If I asked you, moving on to the next expression, is he a member of the club, ah would you find that easy to understand. S: Yes, I've heard that term, again not terribly often. I've only heard it a few times. I; Can you tell me something about who you've heard it from? S: I heard it ah, and I think it would be interesting for your project as a matter of fact. I heard it about five or six months ago, I was having dinner down in Newton, in the home of a sort of friend whom I only see perhaps a couple of times a year because he's an extremely busy individual, and, he is a personal aide to a V.I.P., and he had a friend there who had just retired from this sort of thing. This guy had been the right hand man for about 35 years in business, an older man well into his fifties, to one of the top V.I.P. I remember they were talking and the older gentleman tended to use a lot of fairly archaic vocabulary, you know because my background 70

is very much in English and linguistics and I tend to pick up those things. And I remember every time that ah this older gentleman would refer to someone, for example he was giving us some inside stories on Hoover and all the stories about Hoover being gay . . . I: . . . J. Edgar? . . . S; . . . yah, and he never came out and said Hoover was gay, he just said he was a member of the club. You see and I immediately understood it, you see, I don't know if I ever heard it before, but I had no problems understanding it. I; Well, you've gotten right to the heart of the matter as far as that's concerned because, it is true I feel some of these expressions are used by people of different generations. And ah certainly I think that's one that goes with an older genera­ tion. Have you ah, heard, can you think of a younger person, say a person of your age or younger say it? S; No and I would doubt if anybody my age would say it. I; Ah. How about a friend of Dorothy's? Have you heard that expression? What does that conjure, if anything, to you? S: Gosh, nothing at all, it doesn't sound even vaguely familiar, a friend of Dorothy? I ; Yes. S: How would you use it? I: He's a friend of Dorothy, or he's not. S: No it doesn't mean a single thing to me. I would take it very literally and I would ask, who's Dorothy. I; Uh huh, and if I said it was Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz? S; Oh well, of course. I'm familiar with, no I wouldn't ah . . . I; The association with Judy Garland, does not . . . S; Well, of course, Judy Garland, is sort of a fag hag you know, well she's big in the gay community, let's put it that way. They seem to have a particular reverence for her, so perhaps that's the way of saying somebody's gay, I don't know . . . I: Certainly, you wouldn't instantly recognize that. S; No and I wouldn't think of Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz. I would just take it to be somebody living around here named Dorothy. (Laugh) I; (Laugh) O.K. Ah, how about hustler? S: Hustler to me is a man who ah, a male prostitute. He sleeps with another man for money. I: Does he have to be male? S; Does a hustler have to be male. I believe it's a word that originated with prostitutes, female prostitutes. I believe that it is used in straight 71

life to refer to ah women, but certainly not with the frequency that we use it. We don't have any other word for it in the gay lexicon, whereas in straight life you can refer to a woman as a pros­ titute or a whore and any other number, so I would suspect that in straight life hustler is at the bottom of the ladder whereas with us it's on the top. We really wouldn't say "he's a male prostitute" . . . I: Oh I see . . . S: . . . we would say he's a hustler. I: How would you ah, how would you know a person's a hustler? S: Ah, I'm not terribly good at it. I have been to bars with people who will point out certain indi­ viduals as a hustler, and I've asked well how do you know, and they always tell me you can tell by the look and all that. I think I now recognize the look but I certainly would not ever be certain in my own mind that someone was a hustler. But I think basically it tends to be a guy maybe, you know under 20 or under 21 something like that, usually quite good looking with good body. They tend to be dressed badly from what I've seen, you know from the point of view of a t-shirt, jeans. Let's put it that way, not perhaps a clean as one would like. They do stand out, let's say from the collegiate type. I: Your friends all use that term, I take it. S: Hustler? I: Yah. S: It's popular. I: Ah, can you think back when you first heard that? When you became aware of the idea of hustler, and the term and so on? S: Well again all of the things I've ever heard tend to go back less than three years because again all of my adult life was spent in the underdeveloped world so I suppose that's in a sense a unique situation, you know. I: Well you're giving an international flavor to my data so, it's perfectly all right. S: (Laughs) - Ah, for example, going back abroad, I don't suppose I ever heard it overseas I can't remember, but ah it would be the last few years, I really don't remember the exact circumstances. I suspect it has something to do with somebody telling me about the Greyhound station and New Avenue, and that's where there are hustlers. I; Hustlers hang out there? S; Yah, and as a matter of fact I went to a bar for the first time last week that deals exclusively with hustlers and that's the Jewell right next door to the Greyhound station. I ; Ah, is that the only place? 72

S; That I know of yah. I; Ah, let's get back to an expression now, tell me if you've heard it, come off it Camille. S: I would assume, I think I can interpret it, I would assume that ah Camille would just be a word there that you would call somebody, you know a man obviously in this case, even though it's a woman's name who was probably being very very dramatic, as per the movie Camille and you'd be telling her you know stop being so dramatic. I: And, ah you're telling me you have not heard this expression. S: Never. I: Ah, how about gang bang. S: Ah yah a gang bang is ah I guess an orgy you know. Well I guess an orgy is a more general word. An orgy could be a lot of people say all over the apartment whereas a gang bang I think is everybody in the same bed together. In other words, you know multiple sex. I; Uh huh. Ah, is a gang bang exclusively gay? S: Umm, I wouldn't think so except that I suppose a grouping situation tends to be more dominant in the gay world than the straight. I'm not sure but I , I would suspect that the word gang bang is definitely understood in straight circles, let's put it that way. I: Ah, O.K., when you're talking about it now in reference to the gay world, does it imply the notion of rape or force? S; Gang bang. Ah - no,I don't think I get that feeling, maybe it's even optional, maybe it could be but, I get the feeling it's a voluntary thing like an orgy. I: Uh huh . . . S: I don't think one hears the term all that much. I: You, are you telling me you don't hear it that much? S: No, I mean I have, but I, if I had to guess, I would guess I haven't heard it in the last couple of years. I don't remember the last time I heard it in fact. I; Ah, do you associate in your mind, through your own experience, do you associate this word exclusively with gayness. S ; No. I: No? S : No. I: In other words it's a word, or an expression you might have learned had you not been gay. S: Yah, because I think I knew the word gang bang even when I was in college. An I an had never had a gay experience then, so to me it could be just a group sex thing. 73

I: I want to talk about three terms together here, with a view to the contrast involved, queen, gay, and straight. Tell me what these words connote to you. S: Queen, gay and straight. Ah - queen - it depends on who's using it. Ah - again, I think if a straight person were using it, who, if he were particularly anti-homosexual would refer to all homosexuals as queens. I; Excuse me. Do you think straight people as a rule either know or use that term? S: I think they know it. I don't think they would use it as often as the gays would, but I think the average straight person would know it. And he'd certainly understand it even if it weren't part of his productive vocabulary. Ah - so that an anti-homosexual straight person might refer to all gays as queens because an awful lot of straight people think all gays are extremely effeminate. I don't like the term myself because I think that the queen tends to be a very feminine person in the gay community. For example,I do remember almost three years ago talking to a friend and ah, I forget what it was we were joking and I said something to him that he was a queen and you know, I did it deliberately because I knew he was not in the sense that he's a very masculine appearing indi­ vidual, you know he could pass in any place and nobody would even suspect. And I remember him saying I might be gay but I'm not a queen. You see which is exactly how I feel about it. To me it's a, for example,I would use it in terms of somebody who had ah bleached hair and very feminine clothing and that kind of thing. Now gay to me is a word that encompasses all aspects of the homo­ sexual community, everybody from the butchest leather number, to ah somebody who's super nelly. And straight is to me anybody who's not homosexual or not gay. I: Ah gay I have the feeling is tied up with the natural second word that comes with that and that's liberation. Ah and I sometimes have the feeling that it implies to people ah the notion of political activity or some kind of - do — you think of it in that way, gay and proud, something of that sort. S; Well when you talk about gay liberation and politics, I think that's perhaps a little too narrow from the point of view that, I think an awful lot of gay people, you know they say I'm all for gay liberation but that's certainly not that they're involved in any political part of it. I mean they may be out, but what does that mean, maybe it just means that they go to the bars at 74

night, et cetera, but they're still scared to death that their boss will find out that they're gay. Well, of course that's not a very political form of behavior is it? I: Ah what makes you decide for example ah to use gay instead of homosexual? S; I think probably it's just the fact that it's a more popular term. I do use the word homosexual but certainly not with the frequency that I use the word gay. I; You think of yourself as gay? S; Yah, but also as homosexual. To me they're the same. I: What about straight? Can a homosexual person be straight? S; A homosexual person may have straight . . . I: . . . I think you just described someone as straight - ah, no. I'm sorry, you called him butch. What's the difference. S; Well, again in the gay scene butch being someone who ah let's say the type you might see down at The Anvil, you know in his jeans. Very masculine appearing, I mean and definitely not in any sense acting nelly or effeminate, you know that's butch. I : That's not straight? S: No because he's still there for homosexual activity whereas straight definitely indicates you know a person that is heterosexual. I; Ah, what I'm trying to get at, is there a sense in which you would be inclined to use the word straight to mean simply dull or unhip, or square or something like that. S; I don't use it but I know it's been used a little more frequently in the last couple of years. I don't take that to be so much a gay term though. I tend to think of straight people saying, ah "My teacher's real straight." Meaning ah. You know that he's not ah, he's sort of square* You know,be careful what you say. As a matter of fact I can think of when it was used with me. Ah, last spring I was ah, I had been teaching all last year the first year because I had just left the foreign service. And I was asked to address the faculty once at a faculty meeting, and ah the whole place was hysterical throughout the whole talk I gave and I hadn't intended to be terribly funny, I was giving a lot of examples of the problems of foreign students have when they come to the United States from a cultural point of view so these teachers would be more sensitive to it. And some of the incidents I recounted were rather funny. Later on my chairman told me, you 75

know, he said, "God you know you're the talk of the whole school, everybody's been laughing at how funny the whole thing was, et cetera, and here I had always thought you were straight." And, ah, what that meant to him was, I go in there, in that whole year I'd never really developed any close friends with anybody in the office. I just sort of tend to come in and do what I have to and that kind of thing so I tended to look more serious than I was and he was not prepared for my being humorous. That's what it meant to him. But I don't use it in that turn and I don't think most gay people do. I: Uh huh, ah, camp, what does that mean to you? S : Verb or adjective? I: Ah - whatever. S; (Laughs) I'll explain both then. Ah, well as an adjective, uh, like you say, "Bette Davis movies are camp." You know, meaning, ah, perhaps they were very serious when they were made, and today we look at them and they're almost amusing, they have a certain outrageous quality about them. I; What else is camp in that line? Let me stop you for a moment. Follow the track. What else is camp? Bette Davis movies? S : Uh huh. I; What else? S; Well, Judy Garland music for example, that's camp isn't it? Something that is taken out of the con­ text that it was originally intended for, and today does perhaps have an outrageous quality and something that kind of titillates us. I say it's camp. I: Old horror movies? S: Yah, old horror movies. I guess it's part of the whole nostalgia kick, that we're into. I imagine that's where it originates. I'm not sure. Ah, but as a verb, as to camp it up. Ah - well I have a black friend who's gay for example, and because of his job and everything he's extremely closety. Ah, he lives in Georgetown for example, and he wouldn't be seen dead in The Mill, you know, his students might see him coming out and that kind of thing. So, he acts as straight as he possibly can and consequently I think a lot of the tension builds up in him and sometimes if I'm alone in his apartment having dinner or something, ah, he camps it up. He just starts acting acting extremely nelly and things like that, you know. Ah, and I think, essentially that's what camping is. I: Can you describe it in greater detail to me? You said he acts nelly? 76

S: Yah, where for example if he were sitting with you here and I tell him that you are gay and I didn't tell you he was gay you would never suspect. There is nothing about him that would even indicate. He appears quite serious and comes across very well, sophisticated and that kind of thing* Ah, but then for example if I said, "Look we're all gay here, let's you know all have a good time," and if a real rapport built up between the three of us, within minutes his hands would be flying all over you know ah, and he'd be making some very exaggerated gestures, ah and rolling his eyes about in his whole head and maybe even jumping up and down off the chair as he would tell a story. Ah, and you know, change the pitch of his voice, make it very high, that sort of thing. That to me, you know, what I would say. I, I, I, if some­ times he really gets to me. This can really get heavy and I'll say something like stop camping so much. I; Do you camp? S; Ah, on occasion, but not with the frequency that he does. It's not something that I think comes across well with me in the sense that when I do it it's not terribly funny, but there are some people who are very, very funny when they camp. I; Ah, does camping imply wittiness? S: Yah,I would certainly say wittiness is involved sure. You wouldn't camp about something serious, it wouldn't come across, it has to be something funny. I; Ah and what about your circle, your friends, ah - is camping frowned upon or is it accepted? S: I think it depends on where one is. Ah, in the privacy of my home I really don't care what anybody does. But a perfect example is, I was walking down Gordonson Avenue three days ago with a friend of mine who bumped into two friends of his, whom I recognized but had never actually talked to, ah and they were camping so outrageously on Gordonson Avenue that I felt rather embarrassed because I think that draws attention to us in a very negative way and I think straight people see some gay person who acts that way and it's in such poor taste especially the way these people did it, ah that ah, it's very bad for the image. I: Did you say anything to them at that time? S: I didn't say anything to them because, you know it isn't my business to tell people how to act, on the street, but I did say to my friend later on that I had not liked their performance, because it was really screeching and howling and carrying on, you know just something really terrible that everybody was watching. 77

I; You mean people passing by on the street? S: Yah, that kind of thing. And I don't particularly like being picked out for anything in public, and I did tell him later on, I said, "I really don't know why it is that you like to hang out with people like that," and I said. Ah, for example those are the type of people that I would never acknowledge if I went into a bar or any place else, even now that I've been introduced to them I wouldn't say hello to them unless they came up and talked to me. But I basically don't like being around people who do it, who camp let's say out of a sense of rebellion, frustration or the desire, you know, to attract a great deal of attention in public. I : What would you do in that situation, if ah, somebody very important to you, an employer, or somebody like that was headed your way, you saw him down the street, you're standing with these queens carrying on, what ah, what would you say to them? S: Well, since I didn't know them it would probably not have been possible for me to say anything, blit had I had any relationship with them before, you know, if I'd know them at the time, I must just very quickly whisper, "Look this could get me into a lot of trouble* Please, please cool it." But I imagine I would just sort of suffer through it. I would . . . I: O.K. Ah, here's a word you've used already, and I want to ask you about it in connection with some other things, ah nelly. Can you think of any synonyms? S; Very feminine. I; Do you use the term femme? S; Ah, for example, he's nelly, he's femme? I wouldn't use it but I have heard it. It's not part of my active vocabulary. I; How about puff? S: Ah, I don't think I've heard of it* Now I've heard fluff. I think I would recognize puff but I don't recall ever hearing it. I; Any other words of that type come to mind? S: No. I: Ah, nelly, that's the word you prefer to use. S; Yah. I: Ah, have you used that a long time, have you known that a long time? S: Last few words certainly. I'd say since coming out three years ago. I have the feeling it has been around a long time. I don't know why I have that. I think even years ago, before I did come out, I prob . . ., I cer . . . , I think I would have recognized it. 78

I: Uh huh, ah, oh I just thought of another one. What about a word like pansy? S: Ah, gee I haven’t heard that term in years, but now that you mention it, I certainly knew what a pansy was say even as a teen-ager which is way before I ever had homosexual activity . . . I: . . . uhhuh - Does anybody you know use pansy? S: No, as I said, as soon as you said it, it brought me back many years when it seemed to have been a very common word, and I haven't thought of it in many years. I: O.K. Ah, again this is another word we've talked about, but I'd like to talk about it in more detail, butch. Ah, butch does not mean straight you said, you associated it with the leather scene . . . S: . . . but not necessarily. Again it's just a man who looks masculine. I; Ah huh, so a gay person can be butch. S: Surely. I: Ah, and, ah, is that the word you use to indicate that sort of thing with your friends? I take it you do because you have used it. S; Yah, I think I use it quite a bit- For example, ah, I can remember very recently somebody called me twice, ah and had wanted to go out with me. The first time I had not met him, he had only seen me someplace. I would not accept a date like that- And then I did meet him at a party- He called me after that ah a mutual friend of ours was I guess sort of interceding or something you know feeling out the situation and at the same time, that I had liked the individual . . . — TAPE CHANGE— ah, I indicated to him that I ah had liked the individual at the party, we had a lot to talk about and I would certainly be interested in a friendship but, that sexually, I was more attracted to people that were butch, and that this person did not fit the bill. I: uh huh . . . then you would describe him as too nelly? S: He was not nelly, nelly is kind of extreme I think. He was somewhere in between, I guess, you know . . . I: Do you think straight people know what it means to be butch? S: . . . Ah, I don't suppose that the average straight person uses the word, but I suspect butch would be part of the straight person's recognition vocabulary let's say, as opposed to productive, you know. He may not be able to articulate what he means by the word butch, but if I were talking 79

to a straight person and used the word and said, you know I met somebody really butch. I certainly think that person would understand. I; Would you ever, would you ever use an expression like butch it up? Or have you heard it used? S: I've heard it used, but I would not use it, meaning don't be so camp or don't be so nelly or something. I: How about dinge? S: Never heard it. I: Never heard it! Ah - (long pause) how about cruise? S: Yah well, it means to move about either by foot or in a car some sort of vehicle looking for a sex partner. I; Ah, O.K. tell me how you do it. S: How I cruise? I; How one cruises. S : How one, . . . I: How you cruise, what ever. S : It depends on where one is. I could be in gay bar and cruise simply by standing in a place trying to make eye contact with somebody that interests me. Ah, if I make that initial eye contact I might make it a point to move closer to him, or pass him on the way to the bathroom, or something that would be cruising. Now if you go down to the block for example . . . I: . . . where is that? S: East Side. It's a street, Columbian, it's ah very, very cruisy. I: You see because where I come from, the block means something entirely different. S: O.K., here it's, here it's always referred to as the block. I : Uh huh. S: A lot of people would know, the block, and not know Columbian as a matter of fact, ah. Ah, there it's done two ways, you walk around the street, around the block, ah and as you're walking there are certain people just standing there, and you cruise that way than by eye contact, on the other hand there are cars that circle the block and they are also cruising. I. O.K. how is the contact made. Let's say you're walking down the street and someone is standing there, ah, you look at him and he looks at you in the eyes, then what happens? S; Well, it depends. I'm not good at cruising myself, I tend to be very timid, so I prefer to explain how somebody else might do it. Somebody else might be walking down the street and make the eye contact and just immediately say, "Hi" or "Nice night isn't it," or some 80

such thing. Anything to strike up a conversation, you know, "What time is it?" or "Do you have a light?" or something like that. I: Then what. S; Then it's just chit chat about, small talk about nothing terribly important, and if ah, there's no particular interest on the part of one person or the other that person might just find a reason to go on, just like continue walking. Or if he's interested ah, something may come up in the con­ versation ah, that sparks more conversation. A perfect example I met someone in a bar from New Zealand it turns out that we, ah both, former foreign service diplomats who had resigned for pretty much the same reason, so that was something kind of heavy to talk about. We spent a great deal of time talking about that. I: Did it lead, did it lead to ah, ah - as they used to say in the old day an assignation? S: (Laughs) Yes it did. I: How did it. I'm interested in knowing, you've got me up to the point where you're talking to the fellow and you say hello, you chit chat, but then you went immediately on to the rejection, I, take me to the acceptance phase, how does that work? S: Ah, anywhere, be it a bar or anything, you start picking up vibes from the person, you, you sort of have an instinct for whether the person is interested in you or is not. The instinct is never foolproof, but generally speaking it works. And ah, someone, if you're enjoying each other's company, that person might even touch you, in conversation very innocently brush against you you know, or put his hand on you or . . . I: But, but I take it, it's not really innocent? Is that what you're saying? S: I, I think it's just a way of feeling out the situation because once it gets to, you've done it few times, and the other person is not really interested, perhaps he'll find a reason to walk away. Ah, if he is interested, you know he's just a little bit more encouraged if you do that. I: Uh huh . . . S: . . . and I suppose generally speaking a refined unquote way of making your pitch for the night is to say, "would you like to come back for a drink?" It's about the most common way of doing it I guess. I; How do you know the guy's not a cop? S: You don't. I : There's no way? 81

S: I think that there's a sense of, I think most people feel, here in town, that it doesn't happen with cops anymore. There has been greater liaison let's say between the police community and the gay community, and words been out that cops are not really entrapping so much as they used to . . . I: Uh huh . . . S; Now incidentally, I think one of the things that a lot of people know although a lot don't if you ask somebody to go home for a cup of coffee or a drink that's a perfectly innocent thing, it would be alright, even if he's "a cop," there's nothing he can do about that. If you actually say, do you want to go home and have sex then you're soliciting and that is breaking the law. I: O.K. Ah, so the core of what it means to cruise is to establish, usually through eye contact of some kind, a connection with this other person. S: Right. If the person is interested he makes the eye contact, if he's not he looks away. I: You talked about the block which is a heavily frequented place . . . S : . . . yes . . . I; . . . and you mentioned bars, ah - have you ever picked up a person in a place you didn't expect to? S; Yah. I : Can you tell me about that? S; It hasn't happened that often, it's only happened a few times, but I can think of three times that I met someone on the street, when I wasn't even looking for sex, I was just walking to the store or something and I remember another time it happened in Foodway. I; . . . tell me in as full detail as you can how it happened . . . S: . . . It's always eye contact, it's always the eye contact, you know you're walking towards each other on the street. I : What caused you to try to make eye contact in the first place? S: . . . I don't think anything forces you* I think as you're walking down the street you just sort of notice people walking towards you. And if another gay man is walking towards you and is attracted to you, ah your eyes just sort of meet. I: It wasn't that this guy was particularly attractive, in other words. S: Oh no, I never go to bed with anybody that I don't find attractive, I have been cruised many times on the street by people I did not find attractive so I did not continue the cruising. 82

I: But this guy in the Foodway, you spotted him and you said to yourself there's somebody who's good looking and you went after him? S; I didn't go up to him exactly. I remember when that happened, I guess I was on the line paying the bill and I happened to look behind me and he was the third or fourth person and there was no mistaking the look he gave me and there, you know, and then as I got out, he came up and just found some reason to start talking. Another perfect example is a few weeks ago I drove down to the new Bridgeport area to have dinner at a friend's house, as I got out of the car, I noticed a very attractive fellow carry groceries into the same building I was going to, and he happend to look back and ah, again I couldn't mistake the look in his eyes. He didn't realize I was headed for the same building so he walked right out on the street corner, and as I passed him on the steps he said, "Good evening" and I said, "Hi." That was that. I : Are there any outward symbols, let's say you saw a person and ah you make eye contact with that person, are there any symbols that might clinch your belief that this person is gay? S; What do you mean by symbols? I; Well, some way he dresses or some way he moves or . . . S: I think that is usually part of it although not necessarily. There are some people who look perfectly straight to me, or I might not be sure, but certainly there may be a way of dressing that's perhaps more indicative that he's gay, there may be certain gestures or effeminancy or something like that. I: How about, how he dresses. S: Ah, again, you know perhaps pastel colors if he's particularly feminine let's say or attracted to the type of colors that we associate with women and with very nelly homosexuals. But that certainly isn't always the case, it could be somebody wearing blue jeans and a white t-shirt. I : Uh huh - - O.K., ah, let me ask you about some situations you might find yourself in - and what you would do in them. Now we've already talked about one, ah, I want to go over it again and give you a more stringent qualification this time. This is ah, you're with a gay person, and you feel this person is acting too gay or swishy xn the presence of straight people who can see you they can hear you ah, is there some way you have of telling that gay person ah to cool It? Without playing your own hand . . . 83

S: . . . but ah . . . I: . . . without giving yourself away . . . S; . . . You see, I think the situation you describe is imperfect though because it isn't clear to me from the situation why I would want him to stop. I: Because the str . . . I'm sorry you're right . . . S; . . . am I holding, am I in some way . . . I: . . . no, no, I usually, well when I made up this ah situation what I had in mind was, let's say you're in the foyer of the Music Center between acts, ah you've gone with a buddy of yours who's gay and ah, unfortunately for you you run into your boss, let's say you're still in the foreign service or something like that. It's a very threatening situation for you. Is there anyway you could signal to him without tipping your own hand/ without you conveying to your boss that you're gay. S: So I have to signal to the guy who's acting too camp? I : Yah. S: I would probably ah. I'm not sure how I would do it. I would probably look, -“do something with my eyes to make me look very serious, at the same time go like this with my finger, bring it up to my mouth to say "Be quiet," something like that, maybe even go like this with my hand, maybe even pushing him away. I : You mean hold your palm out in front of you? S; Right. I: Ah, that is a very difficult situation, ah, this one is a lot more fun. I don't know if it's any easier: Let's say you're with a friend of yours and a third person walks up that he knows, and you want to know from your friend who is gay, if this third person is gay. Is there some way you can ask him in the presence of that third person without again tipping your hand? S: I wouldn't do it. I : You wouldn't do it. S: No. I: Why? S: Ah, number one it wouldn't be important enough to me and number two, I would not want to do anything that would embarrass the third person. Ah there would be, there's a possibility that the guy might be straight and I might be trying to find out that he's gay in a way that might be a little bit crude and make him feel threatened or even feel that we're talking about him, so to me it just wouldn't be worth it, I think I would just, look for the signals, you know to see what the story was and at the first opportunity when he was not around, you know when he excused himself 84

to go to the bathroom, would ask. I; What kind of signals could he give you? S: Well, ah, I would just be waiting for him to say something that might indicate he's gay, you know, ah he might use some of these vocabulary terms ah we're discussing, or he might say "Oh I was at the Grand Palace last night," or ah, "I was with my lover," you know, if he's very out, let's say or very open about it. I; Ah let's make it hard on you now, the guy is extremely attractive, and you're having a kind of Proustian moment when you cannot bear it, you absolutely have to know, would you ah, for example strike out and find some occasion to mention the Grand Palace yourself? S: No that's not my style but I do know people who would do it very definitely. I've seen it done, in a sense, I suppose I admire people who can do it but I am too timid by nature. I just wouldn't . . . I: Uh huh - what if the guy was wearing a Lambda pin? S: Ah (laughs) I guess, but I don't think that would prompt me to action, no. Now if he came in wearing a real Anvil outfit like the blue jeans and the ah handkerchief sticking out of his pocket and stuff like that then I would certainly ah . . . I: . . . What does that mean handkerchief sticking out of his pocket. Which pocket. S: Well, it depends. I : On what? S: (laughs) Ah, as I understand it, I don't know if I can reconstruct it, people are forever arguing about what these things mean, as I understand it, if you have ah a what is it, a blue handkerchief in your left blue jean pocket it means you want to be active in the sex relationship. If you have a blue in the right one you want to be passive • If you have a red handkerchief in your left pocket it means that you like to fist fuck, and if you have a red handkerchief in your right pocket you like to be fist fucked, and if you have keys dangling from the left side it means you're the aggressor sexually, and if you have the keys on the right side you're passive. And I think if I saw that type of person in the presence of a friend of mine, I would certainly work on the assumption that he was probably gay. I : Uh huh - ah, are there any other things like this? S: I'm told an earring indicates the same thing, you know whether it's on the right side or the left side of the face, and that ah the anvil pin . . . 85

I; . . . ah active or passive, is that what you're saying? . . . S: . . . well, not that many men wear earrings so . . I; . . . but you're telling me only gay men wear earrings? S; I don't think only gay men, but again if you're only associating with gay people, you know if I have a very good gay friend who happens to be with someone dressed like that, I would certainly work on the assumption that he was gay . . . I; The reason I asked is because I'm under the assumption that gayness is indicated by an earring on the left. And ah, straight guys wear theirs on the right. S: Now that I haven't heard. I suspect that in the Anvil syndrome, that's not so, though I could be wrong, it's been told to me in terms of left and right, and same thing when they wear their Lambda pin, if it's on the left lapel or the right lapel. But ah I ah, just don't know because people are forever disagreeing on this sort of thing. I: Have you ever been fooled by any of these things? Have you ever had an occasion when you thought sure a guy was gay and ah, because some of these symbols and you found out you were wrong? S: No. I: In other words, you rely pretty heavily on them do you? S: I would but my contact with people in that, let's say, whole Anvil thing is rather limited. I: Uh huh, you're associating this only with the ah Anvil? S: Yah because I think that's where people go to utilize these symbols, they don't go to the average gay bar, or they may just say on their way back from the Anvil stop in one of the discotheques, and do some dancing or something like that. Generally, people who are very obvious about their symbols tend to hang out only at the Anvil. There they're communicating with other people who understand what the symbols are all about. I: Uh huh, - ah, - O.K., ah, - let's go back to the situations again. What would you do if you were giving a gay party, an all gay party, and a straight person came to the door, and this is a person who could potentially cause you trouble, let's say an employer or a fellow employee who might be in a position to gossip about you after this or something of that sort, what would you say to him? 86

I would find a reason not to let him into the house. Can you - let's say I'm the fellow. Knock, knock. "Hi, how are you?" What are you going to say? I would say, "Gee, I'm sorry I can't talk to you now. I'm very busy." And I say, "Well, look, I just dropped by, I was in the neighborhood and I thought I'd drop by and see how you are. Sounds like you have a party going in there." S; (Laughs) It's obviously very difficult. Could I expand from that and give you something that did happen to me about a year ago? I ; Sure. S: I don't know that it's exactly analogous, but. . . I; I was just trying to force you into a little role playing here. S: Yah, let's see how this works, if not we can get back to it. Ah, when I was still. I'm trying to think if I was still with the government or not, ah, yes, yah O.K. I was still a foreign service officer and I had a regional position. I traveled between South America and the United States back and forth. I'd be in South America two months and be here two or three weeks, and I had two lovers taking care of the house for the time I was gone, and we got along well the two or three weeks I was here you know between trips. But, ah, one night they were giving a party I guess and, ah, that was a Saturday night and I tend to get up early in the morning, so I got up and had breakfast Sunday morning and a good friend of theirs who lived too far to go home that night stayed and I forget what his name was but anyway he came down because he couldn't sleep. We had breakfast together and sat in the living room for a couple of hours, and he is a very nelly individual. He's really feminine and has bleached blonde hair, you know the whole trip. Well, all of a sudden a ring, you know the door bell rang, and I looked you know because I wasn't expecting anybody and I was absolutely aghast to discover that it was my ah former boss in Africa who is a very important foreign service officer. And he's a very friendly individual and I had seen him various times, you know had lunch and dinner, those things, and he was with another American friend of ours, whom I had known in the Congo and who I had not seen in a couple of years. And I, ah, just didn't know what to do because on top of it I was wearing a bathrobe (laughs) and, ah, they had seen me through the glass door so I couldn't pretend I wasn't home etc., etc., so I 87

just sort of yelled out to this other guy, "Please be careful what you say, because this is a former boss and he's big in my agency etc." Well he came in, and they knew my address, but he had lost my phone number and that's why they dropped by and he wanted me to see this mutual friend who's only going to be here a day, etc., etc. But ah, little things came out like this guy who was here was very nelly so it was hard to miss that, and when my boss did the correct thing by saying what kind of job do you have this guy answered he was a hairdresser (laughs). So I don't believe there was any doubt as to what happened and as I said both of us were sitting around in pajamas and ah bathrobes and all that and there was really absolutely no way on earth that I could prevent him from coming in. I mean I could just not have done it. I : And you very strongly felt the clash there between

S: Yes. I felt extremely uncomfortable. I also had to keep it in mind that ah, this former boss could get me into a great deal of trouble with the secur­ ity people, you know I did have a security clear­ ance, had he chosen to. I didn't think he would because I knew him personally. He was an extremely kind individual, and I didn't even see any reason to communicate this to him at all. But, I, I, must admit I felt extremely uncomfortable. I: Which sort of brings us up to the next question, that follows logically; ah what would you do if you were in the work situation, and let's use the government service as long as long as it's so handy here, what would you do if you were in a work situation and someone accused you of being gay, in front of other people? S: Ah would that be an official accusation like the security people bringing me into the office . . . I: No, no, no. Ah, ah, let's imagine for example a cocktail party and ah, someone, for example has too much to drink and they go - or whatever, and he starts blurting out in front of people that are important to you calling you a faggot or queer or something like that. S: My nature would require me to play it very low key and say, "You've had much too much to drink and I'm not really going to discuss this with you," and walk away. I: Ah, - would you try to cover yourself after that, would you talk to the people who are around? S: Only to the extent that they would talk to me about it, but I would not expect anybody to say, "Is what he said accurate?" I don't think the average person would say that. I would let them draw 88

their own conclusions. I either was or was not, but it was not something that needed to be discussed. I; Would you find it a terribly threatening situation? S; Yes, I'd be terribly afraid. And one learns to be that way in the foreign service there is no doubt of it because I've seen cases where they've absolutely destroyed someone when they discovered that he was gay, you know and ah a lot of it is a generational thing if you've got a kid who's twenty-one who is part of the whole liberated generation that we have today, that person could react very differently and not feel really threatened you know and just go to the security people and say, you know, "If you don't like it then' then get rid of me." But I didn't come from that type of generation. I came from a generation that required that you be extremely closety. I: How do you feel now, are you more liberated? S: I'm very liberated now, except that, and I've learned to be while here in the United States, unlike some foreign service officers who won't step foot in a bar, have gay friends or anything. I did it all along the two years I was with the government and I just always had it in the back of mind, they might catch up with me, but I'll deal with it when it happens. Now I ah - the thing is I'm a teacher now so I have that to contend with, that could also be a very serious problem. Teaching you know, you sort of leave in the afternoon and you don't have any more connec­ tion with the whole thing, and ah I don't think of it as much in a teaching job, as I did with the government where, you know, my phone could be tapped or other people could report on me, or certainly in the overseas environment where everybody deals with you daily, also at cocktail parties and things like that. It's not a 9 to 5 job, it goes on all day long. I; Do you run into fellow teachers in bars? S: I've never run into a fellow teacher, but (laughs) I did run into ah, as a matter of fact, I started teaching a year ago this month, and I guess it was a month later I was at the Bid-A-Wee one night, one of the bars here, and somebody was cruising me, again the eye contact and I am one of those people who is notorious forgetful, I might see you a week, I could snub you a month from now not meaning to, just not recognizing you. But he came over and started talking to me and said, "Haven't you got a Spanish name? And I said "Yes," and I was kind of surprised, because I didn't recognize him. Well as we got into it 89

turns out he was the guy who hired me, for the job and I almost died right there on the spot. I; I thought you were going to tell me you saw one of your students. S ; No. I: Ah, O.K., thank you very much.

Survey of the Data My observational experience made it possible for me to select terms based on three perspectives. The first was whether or not the term was a bit of in-group jargon such as, leather, queen, amyl or tubs. The function of this type of term is fairly obvious: it establishes the user as a person of special knowledge and pins on him the badge of being "in the know." It is generally supposed that the user of such terms is a homosexual, and can, therefore, be trusted.

The second criterion isolated terms having subcul­ tural significance. Such terms as, a friend of Dorothy, come off it Camille, and piss elegant faggot direct atten­ tion to its user as a member of the gay subculture. It shows a knowledge of cultural artifacts shared by that culture almost exclusively (camp is an exception). It is not an "inside" term as with those above since the symbol may be known to the entire population. A reference to

Dorothy is simply data about a character in a movie; a reference to a friend of Dorothy conjures up a host of associational figures such as gay men confessing to one another that they were deeply impressed with Judy Garland's performance in that movie. It is the implication of the 90 term then, which, if shared, makes it a boundary term.

Subject #6 Dale, gives an example, with another term, of this sort of transvaluation of meaning:

I: How about come off it Camille, does that mean anything to you? S: Yah. Uh, that's something I've just recently picked up. I think it refers to Camille being sort of a person who loves to tell sob stories or else goes on about sad affairs, and her unhappy love life . . . I: You actually use that expression? S: No, I use Camille, - but I've never actually said, come off it Camille because I love to listen to other people's sad stories.

Thirdly, there are the terms known to both gays and straights. Such as queer, gay, straight which may also function as boundary markers, depending on how they are used. Straight, for example, can mean not high on drugs, very square (straight laced) or simply not homo­ sexual. Gay men apparently find little confusion when speaking of straight even in a drug using session. They mean, first and foremost, heterosexual, as will be shown below. Heterosexual men of the same age and economic background give "not high" as their first response. People who use straight to mean heterosexual may not always be homosexuals, but a group of men who may begin to assume one another is gay, would have further "evidence" for so supposing if such were taken to be the accepted usage.

Also, in this connection, persons sensitive to the derogatory nature of the term queer (very few Americans use it to mean odd or unusual) are more likely to be homosexual than not. 91

All three types of terms will be surveyed below for common themes and for what they reveal about boundary behavior. I thought it necessary in this respect to give reference in some cases to Farrell's (1972) and

Rodgers' (1972) lexicons for their use of the term to highlight either differences as they may occur, or similarities in definition. Most often, such comparisons indicated a universality of the use of the term not expected. Even when Farrell, for example, gave definitions not generally agreed to by most of my subjects, usually one or two would mention it as a second choice. Such comparative material has as its advantage a deepening of the analysis along geographic and, possibly, generational lines. In the case of this survey the former is held constant by the nature of the group, located as they are in the same place, and the latter is left open.

The question of boundary is explored by asking the subject to concentrate on those areas where the division between gay and straight is most evident. Thus, the subjects were asked in each interview to discuss the five situations discussed above, p. 54. Also, they were asked about words that were thought to be boundary rele­ vant. A term like brother, for example, used in one way

("All gay brothers") has a boundary defining function; used another way (male sibling) it may be said to be part of ordinary language. In another example, a term like trick (where the object is partner of the same sex) 92 can be said to function specifically to boundary defini­ tion by labeling its user a person belonging to the gay minority by knowledgeable other members of that minority.

The survey below is designed to uncover such distinctions.

In some few cases, where relevant, etymologies will be discussed. CHAPTER V

THE DATA

This study is primarily exploratory in nature; what follows is expatiative and is meant to give the full range of responses rather than to fit them into restrictive categories. Since I am primarily looking for clues as to how words are used for boundary main­ tenance, definition and crossing, I will not attempt to codify the data. I will discuss each term in the order in which it was asked, presenting the material as I have an impression of it. The overriding goal is to present a full and careful characterization of the material from the subject's own mouth where possible.

To this end I have taken the liberty to quote some passages at considerable length.

Faggot

Farrell (1972) defines the word as follows :

"Faggot, (n.): A male homosexual, especially a very effeminate or 'swishy' individual; usually derogatory"

(1972:101). Rodgers gives a much fuller description along with some related terms:

93 94

fag/got/ /var; agfay, faggart; faggert; faggit/ (pej., WWI si fag=cigarette, because cigarettes were considered effeminate by cigar-smoking he-men; ^ Brit schoolboy si fag=inferior to older students; ^ ME flaming faggot=heretic burned alive; ^ Charles Dicken's character Fagin in Oliver Twist=man who teaches boys how to be dishonest) male homosexual: That faggot is such a dirty thing— she's always looking up men's dresses (1972:77).

The related words he discusses are faggot beater, faggot's finishing school, faggot-killer, faqgotry, faggoty, fag hag, fag joint, and fag workers.

My reason for choosing this word, and for starting with it, were these: I suspected it would be universally recognized. No subject in fact said he had never heard

the term and most who were asked suggested that they knew the term before they came out. Secondly, I chose this term to contrast it with piss elegant faggot. I

felt that faggot was a general ternv-especially if derogatory, as both authors suggest that could be

expected to be recognized by both gays and straights

alike. Indeed as Conrad and More (>197-6) have shown

this is true. I felt, however, that piss elegant faggot was a gay term in the sense of being in-group jargon.

I also felt that starting with the word faggot would

give the subjects something to discourse on at the beginning. If the subject is forced to begin by saying

he does not recognize a term, he might feel a bit de­

fensive. This would be true especially for those sub­

jects who felt that the interview was somehow a test 95 or otherwise threatening. In fact, all subjects did recognize the term, but not all agreed on what was important about it. Subject #8 summed up the range of opinion:

I think there are a couple of possibilities there with faggot. It depends on who is using it, ah, if a straight person uses faggot then it's a derogatory term for any homosexual, period, no matter what type of homosexual that person is. If another gay person uses it, again it depends; if some gay people use it, the more masculine ones would say something like, "I may be a homo­ sexual but I'm not a faggot.” Faggot to them being an effeminate type. Ah, very often gay people will use the term almost in affection. If I like you very much and we're good friends, I might joke with you and say, 'Oh you faggot!' I think there's a range of possibilities there (Subject #8, interview).!

The key point here that most respondents felt it was necessary to make is the notion that the speaker is important. As subject #5 puts it:

I think it's a derogatory term if it is used by a straight person at a gay person in a negative way, then it's derogatory. But when it's thrown around among gays just like the word nigger would be thrown around among blacks, it's not necessarily taken as derogatory (Subject #5, interview).

In light of the above, it is interesting to recall that both Rodgers (1972) and Farrell (1972) state that the term is derogatory. They also both claim the word exclusively refers to an effeminate person. More than

Although Subject #8's interview has been reproduced in its entirety, rather than send the reader searching for relevant passages I will quote them again in the appropriate places. 96 half of the subjects did not mention that they thought the term implied necessarily, someone who was effeminate.

At least one subject, #6, said he did not think the word had any such special connotations. That is, he did not believe that faggot meant exclusively effeminate.

What appears to be the particularly offensive nature of the term may have to do with the history of the term. Most informants suggest the following: there is, first of all, the medieval connotation which refers to treating homosexuals as "faggots," to light the fires of witches (Churchill, 1967:203). Since they were burned while still alive one may surmise that they screamed with pain, thus, screaming faggot. This is not to be taken, however, as authoritative. I suspect, rather, it is a product of a later age (post-medieval) which felt open enough to talk about the subject and speculate on its history. The other etymology suggested by both Rodgers

(1972) and some of my informants has to do with the slang expression for cigarette: fag. Here, more clearly, the reference seems to be to the accepted use of the term meaning a bundle of sticks meant for burning. A cigar­ ette may be easily likened in this sense to a faggot, or in its shortened form fag. Rodgers (172:77) suggests that the association with homosexuals comes through the historical fact that men in the late 19th century who smoked cigarettes were considered effeminate. While it is true, no doubt, that some effeminate men smoked 97 cigarettes, it must be remembered that cigarette is the diminutive of cigar, and its chief attractiveness lay in the fact that it could be consumed more quickly than cigars, as between the acts of a play or opera. By the first world war, cigarettes were in general use and all connotations of effeminacy, if ever there were any, were lost (viz "The Marlboro Man"). The idea persists, I suspect, simply because of the similarity in terms.

The one subject who said he was not offended by the term gave what must appear to be an idiosyncratic reason:

S: . . . incidentally, it's not an opprobrious term to me. That is, the term faggot doesn't bother me. I find it amusing. I: And why? S: Ah, it's hard to say— ah, for two reasons. One, in general, I suppose, ah as I mentioned, I don't find it opprobrious and it's a term which all through school was used in probably a denegrating manner. The other is just because years ago, I was walking hand in hand out of a gay bar in X . . . and a car load of sailors came roaring by and leaned out the window and yelled faggot (subject laughs) and I laughed at them and waved back. I don't know why it strikes my funny bone, at any rate it does (Subject #10, interview).

The other subjects, nevertheless, indicated that it would be precisely this type of situation that causes the offense. It is in this respect that the term takes on its analogy to "nigger."

The analogy is continued by the fact that subjects point to the fact that the term can be used with affection or, at least, with small risk of offense 98 between gays. It is in this point alone that the subjects most fully expressed a sense of solidarity.

Subject #11 suggests the term implies a sense of camaraderie. What is especially curious about this is the fact that the word "gay" does not evoke the same sense of solidarity (see Gay below). One informant said:

I used to hate the term faggot. It really humiliated me. It was certainly something I did not think of myself as. After coming to the coffee house and getting involved in the gay movement, however, it didn't seem so bad. I heard other gay people use the term and laugh. Now I accept the word. I even think of myself as a faggot. I now like the sound of the term and use it to describe myself (informant conversation).

Subject #5, during the interview was wearing a T-shirt with the word "Faggot" emblazoned across the chest.

I asked him about wearing the T-shirt:

I: What kind of reactions do you get from wearing that shirt? S: This is only the second time I worn - ah wore it. The first time was down at one of the bars and, ah, I didn't get a hell of a lot of reaction the ah - when I walked in the guy at the door said ah - something about, get in there faggot, or something like that. Ah, some people ask me where did I find the shirt. Other people said they liked it and that was about it. I: What about straight people, have they ah? . . . S: I haven't worn it around ah - well, no I've shown it to straight people and the general thing is people crack up. Friends of mine who know I'm gay they think it's pretty funny. No one has ever said that's disgusting or anything like that (Subject #5, interview). 99

The shirt was purchased at a shop catering to gay people, and may be considered the badge of an activist.

That is, someone who aggressively asserts his homo­ sexuality. Most gay people would not think of wearing such a T-shirt— even to a gay bar. The term is unde­ niably a badge of identity which homosexual men (at least those sufficiently liberated) use to establish a group connection and sense of belonging. In this sense it is very much like "nigger." Also, like nigger it may only be used by those within the group, otherwise it becomes an insult.

The term is used in the following way: as a salutation; "Hi fag." "See ya around fag"; in a question: "Who is that fag over there?"; jokingly, in a group of gay men, "What'a you some kind of fag or somethin'?"; Or in toilet graffiti. "My mother made me a fag." "If I gave her the yarn do you suppose she'd make me one?"; and, importantly, as an identification: speaking of a T.V. star, "Mary, if he isn't a faggot, I don't know who is." In none of the above cases may the word be interpreted pejoratively unless used by a non­ homosexual. This word appears to accomplish what gay activists thought gay would do.

The term faggot is not particularly well suited for boundary crossing since it is used by both gays and straights. It is, in other words, too well known to have much value in this respect. Also, as indicated 100 above, some gays feel the term is derogatory to them, and its use is not welcome under any circumstances. Cen­ trer ily, however. Subject #5 by wearing the word em­ blazoned on his T-shirt, suggests an attempt to reverse the derogatory nature of this term by adopting it as an acceptable term. This process is not unknown in our culture, e.g., the adoption of black as the accepted term replacing negro in the Afro American civil rights move­ ment.

Piss Elegant Faggot

As I suggested above, these first two terms were included for their contrastive ability. Faggot is a general term. Piss elegant faggot, it was believed, is an in-group term. Only one subject, #4, did not know the term. Three others, #s 5, 7, 9, said they did not know the term, but when asked to speculate gave defini­ tions fully in accordance with all other definitions.

Farrell defines it as follows;

PISS ELEGANT (adj.): A term used in referring to homosexuals who appear to have an abundance of refined graces and richness, but in reality have very little and are usually quite obviously homosexual; persons who are materialistically pretentious (1972:105).

Rodgers^ definition is:

piss elegant /PE, pissy/ fussy, respectable, proper, overly preoccupied with one's conception of correctness. Syn: chi-chi (she'-she, ^ Fr chic=fashionable). faggot/queen/ 1. one equating wealth and style with real achievement; one who lives in 101

sham elegance 2. jealous reference to a rich homosexual. Syn. cold cream queen ('72=one concerned with purchasing name products); "eclair queen; grand bitch/lady, one, woman/; Prunella (=pompous fellow; "Prunella can't stand Oakland— she says the sky's unshaven.") (1972:149).

The synonyms given by the subjects covered a very wide range: snooty, bitchy, feminine, theatrical, overly dramatic, very materialistic, bourgeoisie, very gentle, spiffy, clean, neurotic, 1950's fag, flaunting. It can be used to refer not only to gay people, but also to some straight people (although this is not coirmion) , or to bars, stores and restaurants. And generally speaking, the subjects agreed with the citations above. Subject

#11 was most thorough:

I: O.K. now if I said to you piss elegant faggot, ah what does that mean to you? S: Piss elegant ah, once again is a term I associate with probably being gay because I ran into so many piss elegant people. I'm sure there are just as many piss elegant straight people. If I were to stereotype the piss elegant gay. I'd be using it in reference to a person who is bourgeois for example ; into material goods, maybe of the old order of thinking, unliberated think­ ing, you know. I sort of associate that with the accumulation of all those things— any way to the level of piss elegance just a concern for impressing friends who might enter their apartments. Ah, it's almost neurotic to me. Piss elegance . . . I : Means neurotic? S: Doesn't mean neurotic, but I, but 1 , 1 would say it's ah, it could be a type of neurosis for me for someone to, to go that far out. Now I would use the term to describe someone who is obsessed, you know with lavish material belongings, and I just personally feel that obsession with elaborate material possessions is a form of neurosis. Anyway, so I will use the term piss elegance if I want to be campy about it (Subject #11, interview). 102

Subject #11 adds a dimension to this term neglected by both Farrell and Rodgers. He implies that the term is appropriate to camp. This may be so, since most subjects did not feel it was a term used by straights or comprehensible to them (although, it could apply to them). The term can be used as follows : "Oh look at that lady, isn't she piss elegant;" "I mean, his apartment was so piss elegant, I could hardly keep from laughing-— it looked like a branch of Levitz's warehouse." To refer to someone or something as piss elegant has, generally a pejorative connotation. But not all subjects, agree that it is. #15 sees it differently.

I: Do your friends use that word? S; On occasion, yah. Generally, again as a slur to an individual, or ah if you go to a party that is ah very sophisticated, like I went to a party a few, ah probably six months ago at a very posh home on Madison street. Ah - it was totally furnished in antiques and china and valuables. And there were about fifty extremely well dressed men there and a rented bartender and ah very piss elegant affair, which I would, that's how I refer to it (Subject #15, interview).

The word then can sometimes be used as a compliment

(also see below #10).

Subject #10 asks where does the piss come in?

Why "piss" elegant? I have yet to come across an informant who has so much as an idea. My own feeling is that it may have something to do with the contrastive nature of the terms, piss and elegant. Piss (ingj 103 being a low, inelegant function of the body, and elegant being a general adjective for things refined.

Such contrastive pairs are sometimes used for humor.

Moreover, the expression may not originally have been a gay term. Subject #10 does not think so:

. . . I understand the word to mean, that one goes to a piss elegant party or some such thing, and incidentally, that's not an exclusively gay term. Piss elegant is one that is used, I can remember, certainly when I was in college just to describe very elegant affairs (Subject #10, interview).

Much more than faggot, piss elegant faggot is a boundary defining term. Its use, although not restricted to gays, does establish one as a member of the in-group.

Now when you say straight friends. I'd have to qualify it because, one, I wouldn't use it with some straight friends. The other straight friends I would use it with are very aware of the gay scene. So which group do you want to talk about? (Subject #12, interview).

Subject #12 sees clearly a boundary here, between those those persons with whom he can use the term and those with whom he cannot. Subject #2 also suggests in this connection, "I don't think a straight person would be aware of the term." I quizzed three straight, "hip" informants about this matter. None could say he had heard the term (all were under 25). In this respect,

#12 may be correct. Subject #10, as we saw above, does think it is a term straight people use. I sus­ pect what is behind this confusion is, again, genera­ tion. Subject #10 is 42, while Subject #12, who. 104 incidentally is his lover, is 27. This indicates to me that this is a term that has "drifted" from the straight world into the gay, and become an exclusive part of the letter's vocabulary. As we will see below, the same may be true of trick.

Amyl If piss elegant faggot may be said to be a gay in-group term, amyl is even more so. Technically, the term relates to amyl nitrite (not nitrate as some subjects identify it). Farrell (1972) does not identify the term. Rodgers lists it under several synonyms including its most used one, poppers ;

popper amyl nitrite ampule, see "amyl "If you ever get one of those faggots who bellyaches about gettin' fucked, just shove a popper halfway up his nose and watch those legs fly up." "What's 'an intercourse'? That's two poppers up the ass" (1972:152).

The synonyms listed by Rodgers are: amies, banana splits, crackers, pearls. Rice Crispies, and snappers (1972:220).

These terms refer to either the smell (banana splits) or to the sound of the ampule as it is broken open

(crackers. Rice Crispies, etc.). Poppers are rarely sold in that form anymore, however. Nowadays, amyl nitrite is usually sold in liquid form and is generally referred to by the brand name. Locker Room. I am not sure whether Locker Room is really amyl nitrite or just an imitation, but I suspect it is the latter since it 105

is for sale openly in gay baths and novelty shops without a prescription.

Of all the subjects interviewed, only two recog­

nized the term of amyl, but all recognized it as

poppers. It should be pointed out, also, that once

it became clear what we were talking about, most subjects

recognized the connnection. For example, subject #15

had trouble with amyl, but understood poppers :

I: Ah, how about amyl? S: A-mull? I : Amy l . S: Don't know it. I: Let me spell it for you, a-m-y-1. S: Nothing. I: What if I said amyl nitrate? S: I would assume that it's some sort of drug or chemical, I don't know. I; O.K., what if I said poppers? S : Uh h u h . I: You know what poppers are? O.K. S: I've never tried them, but I know them (Subject #15, interview).

Poppers then may be said to be the term by which amyl

is best known. Again, older informants, more readily

recognized amyl right off, without having to be told

it was a synonym for poppers.

It is interesting to note that all subjects save

one (#11) did not know the term until coming out. Subject

#8 gives an example:

I: When did you learn about poppers? S: I had heard about poppers as far back as, ah, seven or eight years ago, but again I was overseas and I had always thought that poppers were pills. I never made the associa­ tion directly that you had to pop something, you know while we were having sex, /he/ put this thing in my nose and the room was dark 106

and I hadn't seen him and I felt very threatened because of the dreadful chemical odor and ah it made me a little panicky. I asked him what that was, and he told me poppers. I wasn't really prepared for it (Subject #8, interview).

Subject #12 tells the same story in more detail:

I: When did you first hear that word? S: I guess about the same time I came out. I was 16. I: That was part of your initiation, was it? (Nods yes.) How did you learn about poppers? S: Ah, let's see, when I came out, it was through another kid in high school. 'Been out before, 'been coming downtown for an awfully long time and knew a lot of people, old established, ah, how would they be referred to, trashy gay set, in the city. Ah, looking for invite to the bars alot, but they were older, ah were the down, not really down and out, but the kids that were living on H street in the downtown area. Not the elegant or mature or respectable gays, these were the street gays . . . I : . . . 0. K.... S: . . . and Sammy, Sam was probably 30 at the time, unemployed and ah was big drug user and had anything you want. I : He told you about this? S: Yah . . . I: Did he use any other term besides poppers or amyl nitrate for that? S: Referring to the same thing? I: Yah. S: Uh huh (negative) (Subject #12, interview).

These and other stories imply that amyl, or poppers is exclusively the province of the gay subculture. It can be seen as part of the gay lore, something one learns about the gay world. However when asked, 8 of the 15 subjects said they thought amyl would be known (as poppers) to the straight people they knew, and two subjects suggested that use of poppers might be part of the drug sub-culture in general, rather than just 107 exclusively gay. There are other indications that this may be so. Advertisements for amyl nitrate or products purporting to be amyl nitrate are beginning to appear in publications that cater to a nearly exclusively heterosexual population. All this points to the fact that poppers would not make a good boundary term. None of my informants, when asked, said they would use it to draw out a person they hoped would be gay. All volun­ teered the information that they thought "most probably" the term would not be known only by gays, or that "it was conceivable" that straights would know the term.

Subjects #11 and #15 both point to first hearing about poppers (through detecting the smell which is quite strong) in public bars both of which are frequented by straights as well as gays. However, in both cases the bars are frequented by almost exclusively young people as well. The suggestion, and my feeling here, is that the term more nearly distinguishes age groups rather than sexual orientation groups. Certainly, the data indicate that where they come together in the modern disco-bar the term is known to both gays and straights.

Tubs, Baths, etc.

A place where gays and straights do not.come to­ gether is the homosexual steam bath, knowledge of which is virtually unknown in the straight world. Gay baths are a product of the current, mutually tolerant relations between gays and police. They are places where, by agreement. 108 behavior which is deemed unlawful takes place; not with official sanction, but with official tolerance. The pur­ pose of the baths may be said to be indulgence in exclusively homosexual sex. It is strictly a sexual marketplace, contact frequently taking place without so much as a single word being spoken. Such behavior has no appeal, one may assume, to straights. Entrance to the bathhouses is gained through membership which is suffi­ ciently expensive to deter idle on-lookers. Also, with the exception of New York City and San Francisco, baths do not list their telephone numbers in the directory and advertise only in gay publications. Finally, baths are almost never identified as such on the outside of the building. Taking two towns on the eastern seaboard for example, in one the bath is located in the warehouse district, and in another an abandoned gas station may be said to be its "front.Knowledge of, and location and workings of gay baths, like poppers, may be said to 2 be part of the "gay lore" that "initiates" must learn.

They are, in other words, well separated from the straight world.

The striking exception to this is The Continental Baths in New York City which features among its other amenities live entertainment. As such, it has launched the careers of several well-known stars. Bette Midler is the best known example. The Continental notwith­ standing, most baths prefer anonymity.

2 See Hoffman (1968:46-50) for further explication of the working of the gay bath. 109

Subject #9 gives us a striking example of what some gay people believe to be true about the baths:

I: You don't go to the baths? S: Never been. I: Never been. S: I've been tempted a couple times but - but I always chickened out. I: What do you think, what do you think the baths are, what do you think . . . S : I would imagine they're a very desperate place. I : A desperate place . . . S : A place where the majority of people that go there are desperate, and the others go there probably to be adulated. Adored. I: Why do you say that, what goes on in the baths. S: They, ah just what I've heard. I: Which is? S : Exactly what I just said. The majority of people are older they go there, and then there are a select few they like to be . . . I: What goes on inside the baths? S : A great deal running around chasing, I don't know for sure, but that's what, that's the impression I got, now I don't know if it's been given to me in those terms or whether it's the opinion I've developed over hearing it said. I: How long have you known about the baths? About the existence . . . S: I would say probably '71 or '72 because I had a friend I went out with quite regular and ah after we separated he started going to the baths and when he came back he told me about it. And ah, yah I would say '72, probably. And the Continental Baths, I've heard of that. They sound interesting. I don't think I'd mind going to the Continental. That's in New York City. I: Why is that? S: Why, there's a bar atmosphere there which I don't find all that attractive, but . . . I: How did you know about the Continental? S: I think Dennis and John were telling me. We were talking about Bette Midler, and they referred to the fact that she got her start with gay people and performing in the Continental Baths and they went on to tell me there was actually a swimming pool there, a bar and all sorts of things. It sounds like there could be something there interesting. If you didn't 110

like it you could leave. Whereas the baths down in — — , (laughs) I think you'd go there for one reason. I: What makes you think they don't have a swimming pool there? S; I don't know. I think I asked somebody one what was there and they said a sundeck and an orgy room (laughs) which I can't imagine what goes on, an orgy room . . . I; You don't know, you know what an orgy is. S: (Laughing) Yes. I know what goes on in an orgy room (Subject #9, interview).

Linguistically, the term baths functions very strongly as an in-group marker. Several subjects indicated that along with the names of certain gay bars, indications referring to the baths would be one way to "feel a person out" concerning his gayness. This process is called "pin-dropping," and it involves turning the conversation around so that the name of a bar, or the baths can be mentioned. When we discuss cruising below, we will have more to say on this subject. For the moment, it should suffice to point out that the covert nature of the gay baths is sufficient to guarantee its use as a boundary marker. It is, since they are unknown to even some gay people, a marker that could miss the target, however. There is no guarantee that if a person does not recognize the hint that he is not gay. As the subjects indicated, all did not know of the baths until after coming out— some very soon after, some much later. All the subjects did indicate, however, that they did recognize the term, even if, as in the case of subject #9, they had never actually been to the baths. Ill

Terms used for the baths were restricted largely to just that. I asked, in the interviews, if the sub­ jects recognized the term tubs. Only one subject (#14) did not recognize the phenomenon by the term tubs and had to be told that it meant the baths which he then recognized. Synonyms were rare but where they occurred they occurred concurrently with age. The oldest subject,

#10, gave two synonyms for the baths; vapors (which he then pronounced in French, vapeur) and sauna. Sauna is, as far as I can gather (so subject #3 avers) the Canadian term for baths. Farrell (1972:109) lists, gay stream

(steam?) and vapors. Rodgers (1972:28) lists several synonyms : church; den (of sin); flesh factory; hygiene hall; skin room; and whorehouse. For related terms he lists, Bathsheba, Our Lady of the Vapors, crib,

Dorothy Lamour terry-cloth mini (a small bath towel), ghost (a bath ghost), sarong (a large bath towel), steam daddy (or queen) and seat-room fairy. With the exception of Our Lady of the Vapors (see below) my informants did not recognize a single one of these terms.

I believe, however, that much of Rodgers' lexicon can be attributable to local (i.e., San Francisco) usage only.

Subject #12 introduces an idea in connection with the baths that is fairly common in gay language, and that is the campy, mocking of two institutions at once. In this case, equating the baths with a Catholic church; thus the expression, "Our Lady of the Vapors": 112

S: The other thing, you know, the fact that. Our Lady of the Vapors. I: Our Lady of the Vapors, what does that mean? S: I don't know, it's just describing the baths when you're trying to talk with, either you know, you may be worried that somebody may be hearing ah, or it's just a way of kidding around, the same as saying you know, "I'm going to the club, the Club East, the tubs . . . "I'm going to midnight services at Our Lady of the Vapors." I: I see. It doesn't mean a bath queen does it? A tub queen would be. Our Lady of the Vapors? S; No, I didn't think of it that way (Subject #12, interview).

In fact, other informants have assured me that an expression like, "Our Lady of the ..." can be used to refer to someone who could also be called a something- queen, such as "Our Lady of the Tearoom," is a frequenter of public restrooms, and would be called a "tearoom queen."

Buddies to the End

This expression was given to me by an informant who suggested its meaning to be, two fellows who engage

(with one another) in anal intercourse. The sardonic implication is intended. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be a general term, since only one of the 15 subjects (#14) recognized the item. When asked, only one subject (#6) could imagine a gay connotation for the term although he did not get it exactly right. With subject #8, however, I followed up buddies to the end with the synonymous asshole buddies. This latter was recognized by all subjects (#8 through 15) who were asked about it. Subject #4 gives a typical non-recognition 113 response:

I: How about buddies to the end? Have you ever heard that expression? S : No, I haven't heard that one either. I: Does it sound like a gay expression to you? S : No, I've never heard that. I think I know a lot, I hate to use the word typical (laughs). I know a lot of people who have been out for a long time, and I've never heard them use that. What is it, can I ask? I: Oh, sure. The way I understand it, it means, it's a way of saying that these two guys are lovers in front of somebody that you don't exactly want, you don't exactly want them to know what you're saying . . . S: That would be one of the type of passing phrases they use in front of straights or something? I: Yes (Subject #4, interview).

Subject #6 shows how some of the speculation ran:

I: Ah, now this next one is an expression, ah buddies to the end, does that mean any thing to you? S : Mmmm, no I'm afraid it doesn't. I can think of all kinds of double meanings for it, but . . . I: Well, what? Let's speculate on some of these. S : Well, the obvious idea of end being ah, ass, or something like that. That's the only thing that I can tell, but no,I have never heard the term, so I have no idea whatever meaning . . . I: So if you hear two guys described as buddies to the end . . . ? S : I might speculate that it meant exactly what it sounded like, that they were not lovers. Or if it were used jokingly then I would think perhaps that they were pederasts, but I think seriously, ah, my guess would be that they were very close friends, and not lovers (Subject #6, interview).

The indication is very strongly that, if one were to use this term as a boundary term, say in a situation where one wished to describe two persons as gay lovers in front of straight people, one would encounter just as much lack of understanding from the gay person as from the straight. 114

With subject #8 I introduced as a synonymous expression, asshole buddies. This drew responses of recognition from all the subjects to whom it was intro­ duced. Subject #9 gives a typical response:

I: What about asshole buddies? S : Hmmm, I've heard that one. I: And what does that mean to you? S: Guys that are having sex together. Ah, I found that word in the service. I: In the service. Before you came out? S : Yah, before I . . . I : Bed buddies? S: Bed buddies . . . I: Uh huh . . . S : . . . which is the same connotation to me. I: Did you hear that in a gay context or a straight? S: No, straight. A joking context (Subject #9, interview).

As nearly as I can figure out the expression asshole buddies is somehow connected with the Second World War.

One informant suggested that he first heard the term from James Jones' From Here to Eternity (1951), but

I have been unable to find it in that source. It may well be, as subject #9 suggests, that the term is more appropriate to a straight code than gay. It is interest­ ing that neither Farrell (1972) or Rodgers (1972) lists either term. Generally, we may conclude the term is not much in use in this group.

Trick

This along with the next term, number ranks very high for familiarity. All the subjects knew the meaning of the term right off. None expressed any hesitation or difficulty with this term. I chose the term because 115 its reference gives gay people a chance to talk about the quality of their life style, which would give them, in turn, an opportunity to use gay terms in their natural context. I felt it was, in other words, a good term to use to "get the subject talking." This seems to have worked since none of the subjects expressed much unwillingness to discourse on the meaning of this term, and some "opened up" for the first time. Subject #6 gives what must be considered a typical response:

I: O.K. Ah, - what about trick? What does that mean to you? S: Ah, trick I would think of someone who is picked up ah anywhere actually, ah, when I think of the word trick I usually think of either a one night stand, or a very brief affair certainly not - well, I suppose it could develop into an affair couldn't it? Ah but when I hear the word trick my immediate reaction is that it was very brief, one day, what ever someone picked up for sexual purpose only— probably forgotten thereafter. I: Ah - how long have you known this word? S: Ah, as referring to prostitutes a good long time perhaps five years. Referring to gay people ah, maybe two, one and a half. I: So you wouldn't say it's only a gay word then? S: Oh no, I believe it's used by prostitutes also to refer to clients. I: I'm sorry, did I ask you do you use the term? S: Yes I do, in referring to the sort of thing that just was being talked about. Occasionally, I would say, perhaps picking up a trick or something. I: Uh huh, and your friends use the term? S: Yah. I: They would know what you're talking about. Do you think a straight guy would know what you were talking about? S: Again I can say ah you mean just any random straight person on the street? I: Well, a friend of yours. S: Well, if he was a friend of mine (laugh) he probably would. 116

I; He probably would? (Laughs) S: Yah. (Laugh) I'm not too inhibited . . . I: Do you think straight people use that term? Ah - I'm sorry, outside of prostitution? Do you think guys for example would refer to girls as tricks? S: I kind of doubt that they do. I'm not familiar. I'm really not that familiar with straight ter­ minology, but I would say probably not (Subject #6, interview).

Subject #8 points to what he feels is the derogatory implication of the term.

I: Ah, how about trick? S: Yah, a trick is somebody you've just slept with that you don't you now have any sense of commitment to; are not terribly interested in seeing again. I: You wouldn't call your lover a trick? S: Definitely not. It's basically derogatory. I; It's derogatory. S: The average person who uses it may not think so because it has been over used . . . I: Does that mean you wouldn't call somebody a trick to their face? S; Yes. I would never call anybody a trick. I can still recall the first time somebody called me a trick and it went through me like a knife. I: Hmmm • Ah, can you remember when you first heard that term? S: Yah, it was, ah I returned from Africa in '72, that's almost three years ago now, and thevery first person I met, it was about a week after I got into the country, and I wound up in his apartment in Hightown for the night, and the phone rang early in the morning and he got up and went into the foyer and answered it, and he said, "No I'm sorry I can't, I have a trick here," and ah it reminded me that I had heard the word about a year and a half earlier in Iran and I knew a couple of gay men there, American gays who had used the term and I had never heard it before so they explained it to me and I had the feeling it was sort of a bad word you know, and I remember when he used it, I had only been in the country about a week and felt kind of hurt. You know, I wouldn't want to be referred to as a trick even though, even though I may be one (laughs). 117

I: Without trying to psychoanalyze you why do you suppose, outside of the transitory nature of the relationship, ah is there any other reason you can think of for reacting negatively to that word? S: Well, I just think it has to do with the fact that it is a transitory relationship. The average person we go home with from the bar is the sort of person who is not interested in a commitment or anything, it's just a matter of getting his rocks off on a Saturday night. It indicates let's say a lack of respect for the individual. I; Ah do you think it's only a gay word. S; Ah, I understand that in the straight life prostitutes use that term, for a man that they've just, you know, been to bed with, gotten paid for it. So apparently, I assume it's a word used among prostitutes and men who frequent prostitutes, but I would not assume that the average straight person has that in his vocabulary (Subject #8, interview).

It is clear that the derogatory nature of this term stems from its association with the use of the term by prostitutes. The functional nature of that relationship, although money is not usually exchanged in these transitory gay relationships, continues to be a part of it. As subject #11 puts it, " . . . one is certainly out for a personal gratification." Farrell's definition emphasizes the transitory nature of the relationship; "TRICK (n., v.): (n.) A 'trick' is a sexual partner, usually for casual and transient rela­ tions; 'one night stand'; (v.) to 'trick' is to 'cruise' some one for ' a one night stand''! (1972:108-9). Rodgers

(1972:200) adds little to this, except for some exotic synonyms : 118

floater (because he floats in and out of one's life); live one (especially used for one who pays); personal party; pichon (pe-chon'f ^ Sp[anish]=pigeon); pickup ("Let's play $52 pickup!"); Trixie 2. a turn "I missed a trick on that."

For related terms he lists : trick-cyclist which is

British, trick-out (to be unfaithful), trick-room (for one's tricks), trick-sheet (meaning any small paper on which a trick's name is hurriedly written such as a matchbook cover), trick-suit (easily discarded clothes), trick-towel (used for cleaning up afterwards). Inform­ ants were quizzed about some of these terms with the result that not one recognized or would admit to using a single one of these terms.

As a boundary term, trick is less than ideal, due largely to the fact that its meaning is not obscure to the straight population. Should the word be directed to a male by a male thus establishing the gay connotation, the full meaning could be easily perceived by anyone in ear shot. Subject #10, for example, surprised me with the following:

I: . . . do you think that's an exclusively gay word? S : No, again that term I first heard from my mother (laughs) ah . . . I: Would you mind explaining that? S : (laughs) She used to refer to you ladies, you men as a cute trick. A small boy. "That's a cute trick." I'll bet that term goes back to the day one. . . (Subject #10, interview).

Subject #10 assured me that his mother is not an especially knowledgeable or hip woman. 119

Number

Number, which I felt was probably basically a synonym for trick, was chosen 1) to see if this was true, and 2) to see if any special meanings for it could be uncovered. Most subjects defined it as did #1:

I ; . . . what does it mean? S; Oh, number . You're standing around a bar with a friend, you poke him, you look, and you say, "Gee, that's a cute number standing over there by the juke box." It's ah, a potential trick, a number I guess is a potential trick (Subject #1, interview).

Number is almost always used with the connotation of good-looking.

S : To me it means a person, and I think this is the general meaning, a person and to me, and I suspect to most gays it means an attractive person. I ; Uh huh. S : Unless you specify an awful number, but to say number to me carries the idea of attractive (Subject #10, interview).

Number can be used with adjectives:

I: Well, ah, do you ever use this term with an adjective? S: Like a hunky number or, ah,nice number? I've heard this word. I've never used this word to refer to someone that I get together with. I can't imagine referring to people I get together with as a hunky number. I'd rather say they's a hunky friend or something (Subject #11, interview).

And :

I: Uh huh, ah what kind of ad;fectives would you use with that? Ah, you said it possibly could have a negative meaning. What would be some of the negative . . . S: Well you'd say that good-looking number, or that charming number, or that honey of a number, ah something like that. Ah, just number without any of those adjectives would have very much the same meaning to me (Subject #15, interview). 120

Number can be used interchangeably with trick, and carries for some subjects the same depersonalized connotation: S: To refer to somebody as a number I think is as rather depersonalizing as one can be. To me it means you're seeing the person as a number, like a social security number, you know, just they're there like a piece of meat priced per pound to be, you know, valued or judged, is this one going to do?, is this one going to be my trick? Once again, "like all these numbers I have to choose from, which one's gonna be the lucky number? Which one's gonna be the trick?" I see the word on that level (Subject #11, interview).

Finally, subject #8 points to the fact that number can be used as a verb or a noun.

I: O.K., ah, what about a number? S: Ah as a verb or as a noun? I: Ah, as a noun. S: As a noun, O.K. (laughs) I was thinking of to do a number O.K.? I: Well that may be the same thing. S: (Laughs) A number to me is basically the same thing as a trick. I think the word has not been used as much so I would not find it as offensive, as . . . I: Do you use it? S: Yes. I: How do you use it? S: I tend to use it in a verbal expression, I am, for example, but again I think it's fairly recent in the English lexicon. I've only been using the term for about four or five months. I'm quite aware of this and several of my friends comment on it, to me from time to time. I'll say something like ah, "I was with so and so last night we did a number." I have a friend with whom I have sex occasionally, there's nothing romantic, we're just good friends. When we're together I'll say to him, "do you feel like doing a number?" You see, and that to me is sort of a euphemism for do you want to go fuck or something. It's a more polite way of saying it, let's put it that way. 121

I; You don't refer to someone as a number. S: Ah, I - I ah, sometimes I do it jokingly, like I have a very good friend Dave, we're very good friends, we've never had sex, and ah, if I'm criticizing him jokingly to another friend, and the three of us are together I might say, "Oh you know what this number did last night," but there's obviously a certain amount of affection there. But it can also be used when you feel hostile to someone. To me I think it's basically a synonym for trick. I would not want to be referred to as a number anymore than I would want to be referred to as a trick (Subject #8, interview).

Farrell (1972:105) agrees substantially, but sees only the positive aspect of the term. He gives foxey lady as a synonym. Rodgers (1972:142) points to a meaning not mentioned by the subjects. The sense is to do a number on someone, that is, to use physical or verbal violence on someone against whom you had a grudge, to "read him out" or "chew him out," not to have sex as suggested by subject #8.

Subjects, when asked if they thought number was an exclusively gay term, unanimously expressed the belief that it was not. It was even suggested by some that it was probably a straight term before gay people started using it. As such, along with trick, it does not function well as a boundary term, unless, of course, the object is specified. Straights, in other words, do not specify same-sex persons as numbers, except derogatorily. (There is a further exception, that of children who may be referred to as numbers, "cute number, etc."). 122

Brother, Sister These items, taken from liberation "rhetoric,"

I thought might be especially appropriate to the coffee house. All but one subject (#14) recognized brother as having a liberation movement connotation, such as

"Brothers in the struggle." None, however,would admit to using it that way.

I: O.K. - How about, how about a brother? S: A brother? Well a brother I guess would be ah gay friend or even a gay stranger you might consider your brother— some people do— I guess I would— I rarely use that word. That's what I think of. I : Would you use it around a straight person? S; Oh yah, I think I would. I'm close to very few straight guys. I have ah a lot of straight acquaintances. Yah there people I might consider a brother, I can't— it's a word I just don't use much, but I consider them a brother in the same way if I used the word. I : Do you know people who use it? S: Someone from the coffee house, I don't know who printed up a letter and they wrote at the end of the letter, "Love your gay brothers and sisters." I don't hear people use— it's sort of a— I'm sure we probably got that word from blacks. I think it's a word that's used so much among blacks now that it sounds like such a cliché to use it that any— not that I don't like the word because blacks use it I'm not prejudiced but I don't hear people use it much, when— maybe more in writing, see articles in papers and things like that. There I see it used a lot. I : What kind of person do you think would be likely to use it? S; I think a person who wants to ah really unify I hate to say "the movement" the gay movement but just ah to really bring gay people together I think a lot of us are ah are very alienated from one another not so much like a group in this coffee house but, but ah out in the quote real world, I think we're very alienated from one 123

another, highly, well I think of the word romantic as an sentimental and ah I don't know, idealistic type of ah to think of all of us to ah, you know being brought together . . . I; Do you think a political person . . . S; . . . Oh yah, I think political people use that word a lot. I : Ah . . . S: I've always wanted to be— like that— I: You've always wanted to be? . . . S: Yes not radically (laugh) political, but I'd like to do more than come to this coffee house and socialize (Subject #4, interview).

Subject #4 is typical in the respect that he recognizes the use of brother as having political implications, but he does not use it that way. A more common use of brother relates to the idea of brother as simply a fellow gay.

I: Ah, under what conditions do you use it? When you do . . . S; Ah - oh, occasionally if you're with somebody and you see someone who you think is gay, you might refer to tiiat person as a brother. I ; In other words you might say . . .? S : He's a brother (Subject #7, interview).

I will have more to say about this below when I discuss boundary.

As for the use of sister, there was not much agreement on how this term should be used. Subject #6,

for example felt it was the equivalent of brother for

lesbians. Subject #2 sees sister as a derogatory term

for an effeminate gay. " . . . ya know, she's a sister kind of thing— it's just a little catty, and refers to

somebody who's irresponsible and flighty, like you know,

Mary she's a sister kinda. ..." Subject #7 sees the 124 term as appropriate not only for persons who are ef­ feminate, but also "closety."

S: I think, for some reason, I would tend, if I thought [about it, to] find the person very closety. I; O.K., ah, so let me get this straight. A sister is a brother who's in the closet? S; I might use it in that term, I might use it for someone who's very effeminate [also] (Subject #7, interview).

A sister can even be a straight female friend:

I: Ah, how about a sister? S : Same thing on the female level. A sister could be ah - you know actually, now that I think about it, a sister, like I consider Steve's sister-in-law a sister, because she's straight but she's very aware of your gayness and very accepting and very, you know she doesn't love either of us any the less because we're gay. So she's part of the crowd so to speak, she's a sister of the faith . . . (Subject #15, interview)

There is then, no real agreement on the use of these terms. Subjects did not agree on when one person re­ ferred to should be gay, or even whether they should be male or female. Because of this confusion, one might suspect such a term would not make a good boundary term.

It does convey the idea, however, of a fellow gay as suggested by subject #7 above. Subject #8 agrees:

I: What about now, if someone was referred to as a brother, for example, let's say I asked you in reference to someone else is he a brother— would I communicate something to you? Would you understand? Let me put it this way, what would you understand? S : I think what I would understand, er ah, your way of finding out from me if he were gay. But ah, I just had to really think about it now, you know. I mean I don't think it's something that would have hit me immediately (Subject #8, interview). 125

Subject #10 is much more sure of himself on this matter:

S : Brother, ah one who has a blood or kinship relationship. And in modern usage, ah if I say one of the brothers to my gay friends, it's kind of an elliptical expression for someone who's gay. I: Is that generally used? S: I have a lot of friends who use it that way, especially in mixed company (Subject #10, interview).

My observation suggests that #10 is correct. The item has, simply, the best chance of being understood by the person to whom it's directed rather than the other persons in "mixed company" of any term on the list.

Sister stands out too much. It would not make a good boundary term. Referring to a male as my sister would stand out and be noticeable to the straight people within hearing distance. Brother, because of liberation move­ ments in the United States, presents such a wide possi­ bility of interpretations, that only those persons who are sharing a "secret" could expect to convey the same meaning. The two speakers, in other words, must know one another as gay, and it must be made manifest that this is the overriding concern. Frequently then, an exchange - of the sort described by the subjects above, is preceded by a knowing exchange of glances from the subjects

(speakers) to the objects (persons spoken about) and back again to the subjects which conveys the meaning that this person is attractive, and that it is desirable that he be gay. This provides a context for, "Is he a brother?" 126 which invests it with a communicable meaning. Otherwise, the question has too many possible meanings to communicate without risking ambiguity.

Farrell brings out an interesting dimension not

covered by the subjects in the coffee house. "Sister (n.):

. . . May be two homosexuals 'brought out' by the same

'mother' (a more experienced homosexual)" (1972:107). I have observed the use of mother to connote an overbearing,

sometimes protective older homosexual in situations away

from the coffee house (specifically bars), but never in

the coffee house. When quizzed, subjects could come up with no other meaning for mother than the traditional

child bearer, or as antecedent to fucker as in mother

fucker. Such shortened use of the term, mother (as in

"He's a mother") carries the full connotation of motherfucker. Rodgers' definition reinforces this idea

and is worth quoting in full:

mother 1. homosexual mentor; one who introduced another to homosexual activity. Syn: gay mother: guide guiding light; his protective­ ness; mother hen 2. (pron) first person singular "Jass your mother's been remade-up for the television crew." "Don't worry, mother knows what she's doing." — gaga (dated '40s) snooping gossip. — of pearly (exclam) used in place of "!Madre de Dios!" — Parker tough queen. Syn. Hard-Hearted Hannah. — Superior 1. social "matriarch" 2. a blow-hard Syn: mother hollyhook (1972:138).

When I read the above to some of the subjects in the

coffee house, they were amused, but not a single one 127 admitted to having any familiarity with any of the uses for the term suggested by Rodgers.

A Member of the Club

This expression was known to about half of the members of the subject group; the other half indicated they did not recognize it at all. Subject #1 gives a typical response for those who recognized the item;

I; All right, here is another expression, a member of the club, does that mean anything to you? S; Yah. I: How would you— what would you say that word means? S: Again, it means that, ah, it refers, ah says the guy that lives up stairs. I think he's a member of the club, that means that he's gay (Subject #1, interview).

Most subjects who said they had not heard the term before, when asked, correctly guessed the meaning and said they would understand it in a boundary context.

Subject #8 gives an example of how it's used;

S: I heard it about five or six months ago, I was having dinner down in Newton in the home of a sort of friend whom I only see perhaps a couple of times a year because he's an extremely busy individual and he is a personal aide to a V.I.P., and he had a friend there who had just retired from this sort of thing. This guy had been the right hand man for about 35 years in business, an older man well into his fifties, to one of the top V.I.P. - I remember they were talking and the older gentleman tended to use a lot of fairly archaic vocabulary— you know because my background is very much in English and linguistics and I tend to pick up those things. And I remember every time that ah this older gentleman would refer to someone, for example, he was giving us some inside stories on Hoover and all the stories about Hoover being gay . . . 128

I: . . . J. Edgar? . . . S: . . . Yah, and he never came out and said Hoover was gay, he just said he was a member of the club. You see, and I understood immediately— understood it you see. I don't know if I ever heard it before, but I had no problems understanding it (Subject #8, interview).

Subject #8's comment suggests that member Of the club is, first of all, fairly persistent as a gay term since the people he was talking to were all older (50 to 65 years old) than the fellows in the coffee house, yet most of the latter were able to recognize the meaning of the term in a boundary context even if they did not use it.

It was, in fact, the one term that invariably brought the idea of boundary maintenance to the mind of the subject after a moment of reflection. In other words, it appears to have the highest recognizability factor of all terms directly relating to boundary, although it appears not to be used much. Subject #7 gives a suggestion that may explain;

I; First of all, have you heard the expression? S; I think yah. Again, rarely. I; What do you take it to mean? S; Someone who's gay.

I; You don't use it. Ah can you imagine a situation under which it might be used? S; That it might be used, or that I might use it? I; Either, doesn't make any difference. S; I don't think I'd ever use it because I prefer the term brother rather than, I think, you know, if I wanted to indicate somebody who's gay, I think I'd use the term, use brother (Subject #7, interview).

The implication, although the subject does not explicitly state so, is that member of the club is rather old 129 fashioned, and brother is much more up-to-date.

The other side of the coin is that member of the club is used in the straight world to mean 1) a person who literally a member of the same club, 2) or a like-minded person (which is the sense in which gays use it). This ambiguity gives this expression high potential as a boundary term. Should the need arise for a return covert behavior among gays, it seems quite possible that this term would come into general use.

A Friend of Dorothy

A much more exotic expression is, a friend of

Dorothy. This term was given to me by an older informant and revealed some interesting points concerning the changes that have taken place in gay language over the last two generations. First, however, I would like to discuss the general subject response. Of the 15 subjects, only two, both older (one 27, the other 42) subjects said they recognized the term (#3, 10). However, when pressed to speculate, five subjects came up with the right answer (#s 1, 2, 7, 12, 15). Two thought it referred to drag queen, one suggested it might have to do with the practice of some gay men using feminine names.

I; Uh huh, ah, if I said, he's a friend of Dorothy would that mean anything to you? S: I've never heard the expression. I: Uh huh, what do you suppose it might mean? Can you guess? 130

S: Friend of Dorothy ah - I can, I can ah - I: Who do you suppose the Dorothy would be? S: (pause) - I've heard ah - (pause) just ah a drag queen. It just seems like gay people have ah, a lot of terms which they'll use women's names in front of adjectives and associate some being gay . . . (Subject #14, interview).

I: How about a friend of Dorothy. Does that mean anything to you? S; No, nothing. I: Can I have your speculation? S: Ah, I don't really have any. I'm familiar with the use by gay people of feminine names, but I have no - no particular - nothing comes to mind with a friend of Dorothy (Subject #6, interview).

Subject #13 brought to light an interesting factor in this connection:

I: If I, if I said, "Is he a friend of Dorothy," what would that mean? S : I have no idea. I: No idea? S: I imagine it would mean, another of the same thing, but . . . I: Can you figure out the context, let's say it does mean the same thing, why Dorothy? S: I don't know. I know that in X , around here a year ago, in fact I guess I still know people, ah, who would say, "Does he know Lucy Fisher?" I: What does that mean? S: The Lotus Flower.1 I: Aha: I see, yah. Does he know Lucy Fisher. Is there a let's see, is there a Gertrude Prince from . . . S: Grande Palace? No. I haven't even heard Lucy Fisher in a while. Rarely. It used to come up, and maybe it still does, with people I knew were Navy, being very discrete while at work. "She goes to Lucy Fisher's," or "He goes to Lucy Fisher's" (Subject #13, interview).

^The name of a local gay bar. 131

How general the use of "Lucy Fisher" is I cannot say.

Subject #13 is the only person I've ever heard use it.

Upon asking other members of the coffee house later, however, there seemed to be a rather high recognition factor to it. (I will have more to say on this subject below in the section on Codes and Symbols.)

This term, more than any other perhaps, brings into focus the question of generations. Subject #10 suggested that the reference could be to Dorothy Parker.

In the informal follow up study most of the younger respondents did not recognize Dorothy Parker at all.

One knew her as someone having to do with literature, and another suggested (facetiously) that she might be a person for whom a type of dinner roll was named!

Older informants outside the coffee house (in bar settings) knew of Dorothy Parker and brought her name up in connection with a friend of Dorothy. Subject

#12 is the one who brought up Fag Hag in connection with

Dorothy in the following manner:

I : A h , a friend of Dorothy. S: I've never heard the expression, but I assume it means the same thing. I: How, why, what, what about it would make you assume it was the same thing? S: Because you just asked (laughs) the way it . . . I: . . . O.K. If we could take it out of this context . . . S: . . . yah . . . I: . . . if we were walking down the street and I asked you about someone, "Is he a friend of Dorothy?" you would look at me? S: I would wonder who was Dorothy, and I guess I would go on to "The Wizard of Oz," Judy Garland, maybe by a long route get to "Oh is that what you mean? Why the hell," you know . . . 132

I ; Uh huh. S: Ah, I don't know if that's what— Dorothy to Judy Garland— it's certainly a strange way to get to it, but . . . I : That is, in fact, the context in which I've heard the term, but, what has Judy Garland got to do with any of this? S; Well there are an aw, a lot of guys who've made Judy Garland an idol or something. Judy Garland fans, just like Barbara Streisand fans. Is there a term for that? Are these women Oh, the fag hag. They're fag hags? Yah except ...... it's sort of reversed isn't it ...... there are several versions used, with the word fag hag, because, I just sort of use it in a kidding way and that's the only way I use it, you know with very close friends, and "Ah, you're nothing but a fag hag" (Subject #12, interview). What is interesting here is the reversal of fag hag from one who likes gay men, to one who is liked by gay men.

Discounting the possibility that #12 is simply confused, this could tell us something about the way language changes. A different type of reversal occurs with #4 who says that it might be " . . . possibly a gay man who likes women. ..." In this case the reversal involves the object (all women) being liked by the subject (a gay man). It is also interesting that, although I have observed this many times, and it is part of the straight stereotype of gay men (to wit: that they prefer the company of women), there is really no term for this in the gay lexicon, subject #4 notwithstanding.

The closest expression I have heard is, "Oh Hank, he's just one of the girls." The last "error" is drag queen, a response given by three subjects, #'s 4, 14 and 6. #14's response was: 133

I: Uh huh, ah, if I said, he's a friend of Dorothy would that mean anything to you? S: I've never heard the expression. I: Uh huh, what do you suppose it might mean? Can you guess? S: Friend of Dorothy ah - I can, I can ah - I : Who do you suppose the Dorothy would be? S: (pause) - I've heard ah - (pause) just ah a drag queen. It just seems like gay people have ah, a lot of terms which they'll use women's names in front of adjectives and associate some being gay . . . (Subject #14, interview). and, #6; I: How about a friend of Dorothy, Does that mean anything to you? S: No,nothing. I: Can I have your speculation? S: Ah, I don't really have any. I'm familiar with the use by gay people of feminine names, but I have no - no particular - nothing comes to mind with a friend of Dorothy (Subject #6, interview).

In both these examples we can see what is meant. Some gay men, especially, those into camp give each other feminine names, usually mirroring their masculine names, such as Robert, which becomes Roberta, or Michael which becomes Michele. (Rodgers calls these camp names, 1972:40.) Subject #6 is referring to this.

Subject #14 may be referring to the practice of drag queens taking on feminine names (Newton, 1972: vide passim) sometimes of the persons they imitate. Current favorites seem to be Liza Minelli and Diana Ross. It was the feminine name that triggered the subject's response in these cases, and not the first half of the expression. About as many subjects gave wrong responses 134

as guessed correctly. Only two got it "correct" the

first time. Reversal and response to a general pattern

(feminization of names) characterize the so-called

incorrect response. All of this suggests that either

the term never was in general use, or it is declining in

use. Discussions with older informants give credence to

the belief that it is the latter. Rodgers does not

give a friend of Dorothy, but does list two entries;

"Dorothy (rare) vocative used before a lecture, comparable

to the "Buster" of an irritated New York cab driver."

And, more to the point:

Dorothy and Toto 1. gay boy and his dog 2. dominating effeminate homosexual man with his paid-for escort 3. extended to any male couple whose effeminate partner is in command "When's Dorothy and Toto getting here with the chest of drawers?" (1972:66).

The reference here is clearly to "The Wizard of Oz"

because, Dorothy's dog in that movie was named Toto.

What is telling about Farrell's definition, is the

assumption that Dorothy and Toto will be understood.

Just as the Dorothy in a friend of Dorothy is understood.

The one thing that all informants agreed on, when con­

fronted, was Judy Garland/The Wizard of Oz and the

character of Dorothy all had (have?) a very special

meaning to gay men. The question of tense is important

because some informants spoke of the phenomenon in the

past, by saying such things, as "Yah, Judy Garland was

this great thing to so many gay people ..." (Subject #10). 135

We may conclude from the responses that a friend of Dorothy may be a generation based response. It would not function well as a boundary term for that reason.

Come Off It Camille

An even more exotic term is come off it Camille, sufficiently exotic that only one respondent claimed to recognize it, and none said they used it. I put this term in intentionally because it is one I heard almost twenty years ago. It was used by a man associated with the theatre, whom I now realize was gay. It was an expression he used frequently. The interesting thing about the subject's responses was that all who were asked were able to imagine a use for the term that con­ formed well with the way it was used when I first heard it. Subject #8's response is typical in this respect;

I: Ah, let's get back to an expression now, tell me if you've heard it, come off it Camille. S: I would assume, I think I can interpret it, I would assume that ah Camille would just be a word there that you would call somebody, you know a man obviously in this case, even though it's a woman's name who was probably being very very dramatic, as per the movie Camille and you'd be telling her you know stop being so dramatic. I: And, ah you're telling me you have not heard this expression. S: Never (Subject #8, interview).

Several subjects equated the name Camille with Mary as it is currently used in the coffee house:

I: O.K. - now we're going to go back to another expression, come off it Camille. 136

S: Ah, I can just hear some gay queen say to one another ya know just Camille being a campy sort of name ya know sort of, come off it Camille, "who you kidding Mary" kind of a slang . . . I: How would you say it? S: Ah I could just ah ya know come off it Camille. You know like a I went to bed with a four truck drivers last night, and somebody out front saying come off it Camille, who you trying to kid Mary? I: You don't know anybody who uses that expression? S: Mmm— I don't think so (Subject #2, interview).

Again Rodgers' definition while not exactly similar makes the same assumptions;

Camille homosexual who goes from one tragic love episode to another. Most often sar­ castically directed at one who over-exaggerates and therefore, perhaps, delights in his mis­ fortune "That one's a real Camille, never has one happy thing to talk about." Related term: pull a Camille to lapse into deep, sullen melancholy; to "suffer" usually alluded to one feigning illness; to gain sympathy. Also those who pretend to have financial or personal injuries to delay paying bills or fulfilling obligations (1972:40).

The Camille one may assume is Dumas' "Lady of the

Camillias" as portrayed by Greta Garbo in the Hollywood version. That overacting is what is referred to, may be adduced by the entry under:

Greta/Garbo/ . . . 3. (kwn SF [San Francisco], important; when used of a person however, the importance becomes an idle wish outweighed by self-esteem "Come off the throne, you're not as greta [sic] as you stink" (1972:100).

Come off it Camille is a logical follow up.

What is indicated by these two expressions

(a friend of Dorothy and Come off it Camille) is the variability of gay language especially as this 137

variability involves geographical location. Rodgers'

primary source of detail is San Francisco circa 1960's

and early '70's, and comes from informal informant

contact, as Douglas Mount makes clear in his foreword.

It admittedly random, passionately gathered and meticulously collated compendium of the current "slanguage" of a very large group of people who are members (part-or fulltime) of the homosexual community. It is the result of years of interviews with hundreds of in­ formants whom Bruce Rodgers sought out in bars, steam baths, dance halls, public johns and on street corners. He did not have at his disposal a team of field workers or researchers or editors, nor did he have a foundation grant or under­ write his labors (Rodgers 1972; no page number).

It is not then a scientific work. We must cautiously

take what Rodgers gives as examples of his experience.

That then is the point. The experience of the researcher

is restricted to his time and place in the world barring,

of course, vast resources. Knowing this, however, I

am amazed how easy it has been to find something in

Rodgers that relates to the expressions I chose from

Farrell's list. This implies a universality of experience

as well as in-group communication that is one of the

basic rationales for this study; it implies that language

variability may be superficial. What, possibly is

involved is a core of experience which produces common underlying patterns of linguistic behavior which mirrors what we may call "the gay experience." Subject #6

shows this "universality" by equating the expression 138 with a "sob sister."

I; How about come off it Camille, does that mean anything to you? S: Yah. Uh, that's something I've just recently picked up. I think it refers to Camille being the sort of person who loves to tell sob stories or else go on and on about sad affairs, and her unhappy love life, I use her as a man, ah, and her unhappy love life, it's ah— command sort of to say, "Oh cut it out we're tired of hearing about that same tired story." I: You actually use that expression? S; No I use Camille, I have used Camille but I've never actually said come off it Camille because I love listening to other people's sad stories . . . (Subject #6, interview).

As a boundary term, come off it Camille is limited due to the necessity for a specific situation in which it is used. It is however, as the above indicates, a component of gay language which may mark one as a homosexual. Its use, along with other expressions could be taken as a "further indicator" from the per­ spective of the speaker's total range of vocabulary; part, as it were, of a total package. I will have more to say about this later in the summary chapter.

Gang Bang

The rationale for choosing this term lies in its non-specificity as either a gay or straight term.

I first came across the expression in a straight context

(see Last Exit to Brooklyn, 1964). I wanted to see if gay people would claim the term as their own, or disavow any use of it. In fact, the men in the coffee house, saw it as both a gay and straight term (several claimed 139 to have heard it in a straight context first) and were preoccupied with the violent connotation attached to it, to wit; gang rape. Of the eight subjects (1 through

8) who were quizzed on this matter, only three saw gang bang as a voluntary sex act in which the "victim" willingly acquiesces. The other five (#s 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) mentioned that they felt rape was implied. Obviously, both connotations have validity. My impression is that the voluntary, staged type of gang rape connotated by gang bang may be more prevalent among gay people than straights, especially as it is much a part of the "S & M scene" (Fisher 1972;93).

Farrell includes it in his lexicon making it, by implication, an exclusively gay term. His definition is as follows ; "GANG BANG (n.) Group sex, usually with one individual receiving anal intercourse from several other males" (172;103). One can read into this defini­ tion the connotation of voluntary participation. Rodgers' definition raises the question of prison behavior that several coffee house subjects saw as an integral part of the definition.

gang-bang [-shack, -shag, -shay (fr-cher in Fr. coucher=to lay down)-splash] 1. several men taking turns fucking one who is held down; mass rape. Usually used of prison assaults 2. (camp) homosexual orgy (1972;92).

Subject #7's response is typical in all these respects: 140

I: Ah - how about gang bang, what does that mean to you. S: Ah a lot of people essentially raping someone. I: It connotes the idea of rape? Ah is that ah, do your friends use that term at all? S; Occasionally. I; To mean rape? S; Ah— essentially to ream mape, mean rape but with two different, in other words if it was heterosexual, you know to mean out and out rape the way we, the way society normally associates rape you know talks about rape— ah— in gay terminology I still associate with a certain amount of force, I don't necessarily associate a unwillingness on the rapee's position, ah or a resistance on the rapee's position . . . I: You're suggesting the person getting raped might enjoy it? S: Right. I; And and go along with it. S; Right. I : Ah . . . S: . . . possible, not necessarily— in other words if it was in prison I'd say no, but . . . I: Ah - when did you first hear this term? S: Mmmm— again long before I came out. Association with straight rape, with guys going out and finding a chick . . . I; Your first, your first association with this word was . . . S: Totally straight (Subject #7, interview).

Gang bang has no force as a boundary term unless the object is clearly a male. I suspect, however, that by the time one gets to discussing such matters as gang bang. the sexual preference of the speaker is already clear.

Gay, Straight, Queen, Queer

Originally, I had intended to investigate these terms separately. The subjects, however, kept bringing one term up in conjunction with another to the extent that I thought it best to treat of them all at once. 141

All subjects after #3 were asked to discuss the four words by comparison and contrast; I let them speak of them in the order they thought best. Obviously, in some cases I had to remind the subject that he left out one or another. With the above I will try to discuss the terms separately.

Gay. My original intention in asking this term was to test the degree to which 1) it was associated with liberation concerns, and 2) the degree to which it might function, if at all, as a boundary term. The subjects tended to define gay as the opposite of straight even if they amended the statement later by adding other definitions of straight. Subject #10 gives a typical example; "I; What about gay now? S; Gay is more acceptable— to the gay community— modern term for male homosexual." Subject #5 puts it most directly "... gay and straight are opposites." #5 however, goes on to amend that judgment;

S ; Ah mm, they denote homosexual, heterosexual at the same time gay to me means more than just homosexual, to me it means a willingness to say if I don't want to fit a particular sex role I will not. And ah, the desire to live the way you want to and do what's best for yourself and not care what the hell anybody thinks about it. Just be happy with yourself. And ah, a desire to see people more out of the conventional sex roles, that they have been assigned to and be willing to more freely express themselves outside of their assigned role. Straight is the opposite of that I guess, it can mean heterosexual but it doesn't— straight doesn't necessarily mean that ah— that 142

ahhh— it has various connotations. Straight can mean first of all heterosexual. It can also mean an un r- a very conservative person who is unwilling to accept anything outside of his own little realm of beliefs. He is a very close minded person. It can mean someone who is not drunk, as opposed to being drunk or being stoned or being high on something. Ah. mm^ I guess basically I associate those three meanings with it. I. Can a gay person be straight? S. (Laugh) Yes! A gay person could be straight could either mean ah he's a very conservative person, or he's not ah on drugs or anything. I sort of consider myself a straight gay person. Ah, I'm liberal minded in my views as far as politics and so on and fitting into sex roles and so on I think there is a hell of a lot of change to be made. In the same time in the respect that I don't like fucking up my mind, ah— I consider myself straight in that aspect, you know because I guess that's looked upon by some people as being rather straight type of thing (Subject #5, interview).

So, although gay is the opposite of straight in some circumstances, a gay person can be straight in other senses of the term.

According to some subjects, gay can also mean bi-sexual. Subject #11 explains what he means;

S ; 'K. gay once again I feel is a term to mean a person who is either bi-sexual or exclusively homosexual gay to me, even though it's used with homosexuals ah, usually people mean that I guess, it, a bi-sexual can also be gay. The gay liberation movement tried to define the term to mean complete sexual freedom. I'm not sure if I can, you know match those two up or use those two interchangeably, gay equals complete sexual freedom. When I hear the word gay I think of, my first gut reaction was people who have sex with members of the same sex. Gay and bi-sexual seem to be two different terms. I; Well, do most of the people you know use gay to refer to bi-sexuals? 143

S: No they call them bis, I think it's a copout, ah people are either gay or they're bi it seems. I rather use. I'd like to see the word gay used to refer to anybody who's not hung up on just having sex with the opposite member, but it's not that way at all. Through usage it sounds like gay means more or less homosexual where as bi means more or less ah bi-sexual (Subject #11, interview).

Although, subject #11 admits that his use of the term is somewhat idiosyncratic (much less so than he thinks, since 4 subjects specifically mentioned that as a meaning for gay), he could not be led into equating gay with political liberation as almost all of the subjects did.

Rather he interpreted it to imply sexual liberation.

It was perhaps one of the most surprising findings of this study that the men of the coffee house did not see themselves as particularly playing liberated roles.

At least, their code repertoire was not associated in their minds with liberation. Subject #15 explains in some detail what he means by gay and liberated;

I; Ah well, now let's contrast that with gay. Ah, I notice you use gay most of the time. S; Gay has a much more positive meaning. It's much, it's, I think it's probably the most universal word that a gay person could use to describe a fellow gay. I; Well, because you use gay does that mean you consider yourself liberated? S; I don't really consider myself liberated. I do in the gay world. Even, not even totally in the gay world. In my own gay world of the Y------bars, I guess I would consider myself liberated, although not even strongly there. Certainly, comparing myself to three years ago. I'm the most liberated man in the world (Subject #15, interview).

Anyone then who is sexually liberated, that is, who 144 does not feel the need to conform to strict sexual role playing is, in the view of most of the men in the coffee house gay.

Gay is obviously a central term in the lexicon.

It is a word, one may assume that all homosexuals will recognize and many heterosexuals as well. To date, a thorough etymology has not been done on this term.^

This is not the place to do it; however, some few comments may be in order, especially as they relate to its use as a boundary term. No one seems to know for sure when or how gay came to be synonymous with homosexual. What is clear is that sometime since World War II (in the U.S.) gay began to be used as a code word, the use of which

identified its user as a homosexual. It was used in the

following manner; two men who are unsure of one another, but interested in making sexual contact (on a street corner, or in a park) will find occasion to drop in conversa­ tion something like, "This ain't a very gay place," or

"Do you know where the gay spots are around here?" The

context mattered much less than the dropping of the word

gay. Gay, although semantically correct in the above

expressions, sounds a bit awkward or dated. Before gay

came to mean homosexual, it was common in English to

speak of a place as being gay, but not of a "gay place."

Expressions like "this is a gay park" sounded awkward in

^Although Weinberg (1973) claims to do that. 145

American English, but much less so today now that the association (gay=homosexual) seems irrevocably associated in the public mind. It was possible for the naive to assume that the speaker of the phrase was simply being stilted or that he "talks funny." If the listener was aware of the code, he then could indicate so by saying something affirmative in response as, "No this park isn't gay but Park is." This does not clear away the ambiguity completely, but it does give the reason to continue dropping hints. Nowadays such a ploy, if inadvertently used on a heterosexual, might draw a response like, "Whata you cornin' on to me, man?" or simply, "Sorry, I'm not gay." In other words, the term has sometime in the late 1960's lost its subtlety as a code word. Now it is the term preferred by homo­ sexual liberationists who find the term homosexual too clinical. Some, like Weinberg see it as centrally important to liberation:

In effect, the word "gay" has survived and taken on a new meaning in the last ten years. Fortunately, words like "queer" and "freak," both still sometimes used even by homosexuals to mean homosexual, have not done nearly as well. This is a testimony to the selective process going on in the minds of many homosexuals who are deciding on self­ referent words (1973:121).

Interestingly enough, this vacuum has not been, to my knowledge, filled by any other term. It may be assumed that this is because there is no need for such a word.

Straight. Straight as indicated above, is 146 generally considered the opposite of gay, with some reservations. Straight can also mean not high on drugs, an expression common especially with younger persons.

Subject #6 gives what was by far the most common answer;

I; Do you think a straight— ah, gay person can be straight? S: Ah, I would never refer to a gay person as being straight. Uh, I understand— I believe that there's another use for straight meaning a person who doesn't take drugs and things like that, but I never use it, and I don't know anyone who uses it, and when I use straight I mean heterosexual (Subject #6, interview).

Subject #12 sees it as a context problem. He uses it one way with straight people and another with gay people.

He also seems to see it as a derogatory term;

I; O.K. Ah, now straight gets into this too. What do you mean by straight? S; Mmm, O.K. heterosexual orientation— you can go all, from just that, it's you know, straight is now used for somebody who is conservative, not with it. The other day, Harry referred to Murry as "Christ he's really straight." I; Meaning? S; That he went to a dance and had on wing-tips, and a skinny tie and a white shirt. I; Square. S; And Murry grew up in E . . . no. I'm sorry, P . . and is just as straight in my sense of the term you know, neither one of them, I guess straight could also involve whether you use drugs or not. Straights versus heads. Ah— "Are you straight today?" It's a very general term. I; Ah, how do you tend to use it? I noticed you gave sexual orientation as the first meaning, is that, is that the way you usually use it? S; Ah, it would depend on the context of you know, well when I go into P - S or something and Louie comes in stoned or something I say, "Are you straight today?" I; Would you call a gay person a straight person? I'm asking about how you use the term. 147

S: Yah, I guess it's a way of kidding with somebody. "Ah you're nothing but a straight fascist pig." Ah, you know, "Boy for somebody who's gay, you sure have a straight outlook," meaning not heterosexual, meaning conservative, using it that way (Subject #12, interview).

Subject #12's response, I must emphasize is not typical.

The use of straight in the manner of the subjects suggests that, although many of them are still very much in the youth culture, they respond in terms of what they see as most important, i.e., their status as homosexuals.

It is very possible here, that such a response could be

"contaminated" by the structure of the interview. I made a point, therefore, to check this term and my experience has been that this is consistently the way the term is used by the coffee house men, in their informal conversa­ tion. Even in sessions that involved smoking marijuana, where talk turned to drugs, straight was still largely reserved for designation of heterosexuality. Most inter­ estingly, confusion was never expressed over the two uses of this term. Subjects felt the context was sufficient to make clear the intention of their comment. Also, no synonyms for heterosexual (het, norma normal, baby maker) were ever used in my hearing. #10 was the only subject to suggest a synonym: Straight arrow, which he described as a "rectitudinous type."

Queer. Queer is a derogatory word for homosexual used most often by heterosexuals as a "put-down." Subject

#15 gives the response that best sums up the general 148 feelings about this word:

I: O.K. Well what about queer? How does that differ from queen? S: Queer is very general, generally a negative term that a straight person would use for a gay person. And ah, of course it has a lot more meanings than just gay meanings also. Anything odd or unusual or apart from the norm, in the straight sense of the word. I : Do you ever use the word that way? Odd? S: Very seldom. I think because of my own self- consciousness about the word, perhaps. And, actually I don't hear it that often anyway, except in written word it occurs quite regularly, novels and things. I: Ah, if a straight . . . S: . . . it's falling out of place in jazz, generally, as a general word. Because, perhaps as the gay movement tends to get into more people's minds they tend to think of queer as a more negative thing. I: uh huh. If a straight person said, "Gee you're awfully queer," you would think he meant homo­ sexual rather than odd. S: I'd think I had been found out (laughs) (Subject #15, interview).

In this derogatory context queer was equated by several subjects with "nigger." Subject #7 explains how gays can use queer, in much the way that blacks use "nigger."

S : Well, queer, I usually associate that with "nigger. Virtually regardless who uses it. I: You associate it with "nigger" . . . S : As opposed in other words calling a black a "nigger," I associate the same thing, as calling a homosexual queer. You know and if a black calls another black a nigger, the same thing for queer, if a gay person calls another a queer I associate it basically in the same connotation, basically an insult. You know, a somewhat friendly insult. Ah faggot can be a put-down depending on who uses it, but in general I don't associate it as a put-down even if straight people use the term, you know. I'm generally not put off by it. I: O.K. ah, now what's the difference between gay and homosexual, if that's what's left here? S: O.K. a homosexual ah, I associate more as a behavior in other words, while gay I associate 149

almost, you know with acceptance. Someone can be homosexual and not out, and I don't consider them gay (Subject #7, interview).

Queen. Queen is one of the most complex words on the list. Its use involves sometimes great subtlety and variety. Rodgers (1972:164) devotes a whole page to its definition and related terms. Farrell (1972:106) includes it on his list. However, there seem to be two basic uses of the term which subject #4 explains.

I: What does a queen mean to you? S : Well, I think it's a much looser term than it used to be, everybody— practically everybody is called a queen now— I ah, I don't consider myself to be a queen— in the ah old sense of the word. Ah . . . I: What's the old sense of the term? S: . . . very very effeminate, I suppose. I know I am effeminate but I, this is the way I've always been even before I knew I was gay. I'm not a person who tries to be gay, look gay, tries to be stereotypic, in other words used by some people I know use it is in the old sense of the term, but now I know it's used very loosely by some people for any gay person, any gay male usually, then women have their other words like ah . . . I: So you could be a queen and not be effeminate? S : Nowadays the way it's used yah . . . (Subject #4, interview).

Queen then can be either an effeminate male or any homosexual even if he is very masculine appearing:

I: So if a guy was very masculine, you would still call him a queen? S: I've called my roommates queens before, and I've had some very masculine roommates. So to me the word, you know, it has no real significance; it can mean somebody gay or any situation referring to a gay person (Subject #9, interview).

Subject #9's allusion to "any situation" brings up the most complex use of the term, that is, the use of queen 150

with a preceding adjective. In other words, a "something

queen." Subject #9 was asked about chicken queen;

I: O.K. what's a chicken queen? S: A chicken queen, a ah gay person that enjoys people under the age of 18 which is where I draw the line between chicken and adults. I; Uh huh. Does everybody draw the line there? S; No, I've gone out with people 22, 23 and been accused of going out with chickens. (Laughs) I don't know where some people draw the line, I can. I've known people that were 16, 17 that were more mature than most of the adults I know, so how do you say what's chicken and what's not. I; Are you a chicken queen? S; Hmmm, I enjoy young people but I'm not exclusively hung up on that. There are times when I go out exclusively with the purpose of finding a person desirable to me of a young age . . . I: Would you object to be called that? S; I've been called that for the last 10 years (laughs) . . . I: And you don't object? S: No . . . I; In other words I'm trying to find out if there's anything derogatory about that. S: Depends on who you are. I imagine the police might think so. (Laughs) (Subject #9, interview).

Chicken queen is only one of the most common uses of

the term. It denotes a sexual preference for young boys.

Another common sexual preference term is leather queen.

Subject #15 explicates the subject well;

I: What about ah, what about a leather queen? S: A leather queen is generally actually physical characteristics don't have a lot to do with it because there are very small fragile leather queens as well as there are large beefy football type leather queens. It's just someone who's trying to be very butch, very masculine generally in levis and leather. But it's a • • • I: Why ah, why . . . S: The classic leather queen is Peter Burin, Peter Berlin, you know him? I: Oh the actor, yes I do know who you mean. He's been in a couple of movies. Ah, well, why would 151

a person do that? Why would a person dress up in denim or leather? S; To make themselves appear more butch than they really are. I; Well do they engage in a special kind of sexuality? Or do they ah . . .? S; A lot of true leather queens I suppose are into sado-masochism. Whips and chains. I : Do you think there are a lot of leather queens who aren't true leather queens? S: A lot of leather queens I think just like the costume. I like levis as far as that goes as does half the world. I : Yah that's why . . . S: . . . three-fourths of it. But ah, a leather queen would have to have more in denim than just their jeans, they'd have to have a jacket and maybe a cap, the boots the whole bit. I: A leather jacket? S; Leather or denim. I: Ah with leather queen, are there any other kind of queens you can think of? S: When, just hearing the queen, the word alone I generally think of ah, in fact, quite often I would put the word queen on a, a ah transvestite or ah you know someone who dresses in woman's clothing. I: Ah, would you call a guy who was into ah, motorcycles a motorcycle queen? S: I wouldn't . I: Ah, would you call a guy who was into gardening a garden queen? S: Uh huh [Negative] (Subject #15, interview).

Other such terms are, brownie queen, dinge queen, feltch queen, green queen, pound cake queen, rim queen, shrimp queen, snowball queen, spit queen, size queen, tearoom queen, toe queen, suck queen and virgin queen as reported by Farrell (1972:97-109). Each gives reference to some sexual preference associated with the person involved. Thus a green queen prefers to have sex in the park or some wooded area, a shrimp queen likes kissing the toes (which are said to look like shrimp) of his sexual partner and a virgin queen prefers to kiss but nothing 152

else. The most commonly used of these terms is size

queen which appears to be rather universal throughout

the gay subculture. A size queen is one whose interest

in his sexual partners is restricted to appreciation of

the largeness of their sexual organ. The size queen will describe a person in these terms usually leaving

other characteristics out or raising them as after

thoughts.

There is another way in which queen is used.

It is exemplified in terms such as dizzy queen, nelly

queen, or tacky queen. In this category one finds such

apparently contradictory terms as butch queen, or

muscle queen to refer to very masculine homosexuals.

As with the sexual preference categories, here the

adjective explains what is meant. The second terms

designate homosexual. This is a very common manner of

speaking. The most common expression in this group may

be screaming queen, which subject #10 explains is one who "wear[s] make-up . . . who's very flamboyant . . .

[and] effeminate."

Thus far the impression is that queen is an

effeminate homosexual with certain sexual preferences,

or outlandish character traits, but a queen can also

be a straight person.

I: . . . can a straight person be a queen? S: I've used the term queen to refer to straight people, when I think of a straight person, a person who is straight lets say a closet case, ah I don't know how to put this into words — - too well, a closet case who is probably gay but 153

is not and will not admit it to the end, I'd refer to as a queen just to blow their game . . . (Subject #11, interview).

In fact, so general has the use of this term become that within the gay subculture, almost anyone can be construed to be a queen whether gay or not. I've heard of President Ford, the president of the university and

Senator Henry Jackson all referred to as queens. This practice is especially prevalent as in the latter case where persons are disliked by gays. Senator Jackson is known at the coffee house as a bitch queen because of his strong anti-homosexual stand.

This last quote from subject #11 brings up what is perhaps the best known and most used of the terms both inside and outside the gay subculture; closet queen.

Farrell defines a closet queen as, "A male who is very concerned with concealing his homosexuality (1972:100)."

In fact this term has been relexified in the straight culture to be used as for example closet candidate, a closet musician or a closet Baptist. The term has come to mean generally anyone who is reluctant to admit an interest in, or preference for something. Its use is rather general throughout the news and entertainment media.

Within the gay subculture a highly recognized form is drag queen. All the subjects from the coffee house recognized this term. Speaking of queen with its adjectives, subject #9 said: 154

S; A reference to a gay person that likes a certain thing. I; A gay person that likes a certain thing? S: Now if you refer to a drag queen, then that, obviously, means someone that enjoys dressing up like a woman . . .

In other words a transvestite. Subject #12 believes this phenomenon is less frequent than it used to be. A drag queen is not to be confused, however, with a female impersonator who is generally a professional.^ A drag queen is any male (gay or straight) who likes dressing up in female clothing. Subject #12 explains:

I: So getting dressed in, in drag means what. S: Dressing as a woman . . . I: A woman? S : . . . Yah, I don't think there's a sexual thing to it but I'm not sure. Yah, I've never had any big talks with people about, "What are your emotions when you dress as a woman." I think it's done sort of, you know going to the hair dressers' ball or something or going to a bar, to show off, and to have attention paid to you. And that has really fallen out. I don't think, you know, I can remember going into Tommies in '67, '68, '69 every night there were a lot of drag queens in there. And now you go into a bar and, it's just, you know it's just fallen off. And I think it's only the older people that are still getting dressed in drag. Well, ya, far more the older people are still doing it than the younger although there are still some gays who, you know, and I would use the term, younger queens, because you know, it's a queen that gets dressed in drag (Subject #12, interview).

Note: this judgement is at variance with Esther Newton's otherwise excellent study. Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America (1972:3). Not only is it not true that all female impersonators are homosexual, but drag queens should be distinguished from female impersonators who are essentially pro­ fessionals rather than persons who cross-dress for pleasure. Also, it must be noted that most drag queens are in fact heterosexual. (Related to me in private conversation with G. Eric Hansen who has done a to date unpublished study of the phenomenon.) 155

There are various stages of drag, from high drag which involves total disguise in female clothing to, casual drag which may mean simply wearing a rather feminine scarf, touch of make-up, female wig, or simply any accustomed costume. Drag can be, in other words, leather drag, denim drag, military drag or any article of clothing a person wears with regularity. Recognition by others of this type of affectation could be expressed as follows; "Oh dear, there's Janice in her denim drag," which was a remark I heard at the coffee house. The

"Janice" in question was a person named Jason who was never seen without a highly stylized blue denim outfit consisting of jacket and trousers and usually a T-shirt.

He expressed to me, when I confronted him with the fact that he seemed to wear that outfit quite often (indeed,

I had never seen him without it) that he felt it made him attractive. Leather drag refers to the clothing worn by leather queens (available from specialty shops) which can range anywhere from leather boots, to full

leather outfits, pants, shirt, and even underpants, all of which give either a western or motorcycle type appear­ ance to the wearer. Such persons are very inclined to gather at special bars where their interests are shared by other personnel. None of the men at the coffee house

could properly be described as a leather queen.

Drag has one other dimension that should be mentioned in passing. That is the notion of drag as a political statement, which was expressed in the 156 gender-fuck or radical drag (Warren 1974:108) movement current in San Francisco in the early seventies. Young men, not necessarily homosexual, would intentionally dress in mixed modes (that is in obviously supermasculine and feminine mixtures such as levis and rhinestones) the

expressed purpose of which was to confuse the observer.

The avowed political purpose is to mix the symbols of

gender which in our society are seen as oppressive. One

subject (#6) has taken on some of the modes of dress associated with the movement, but when I confronted him with the political philosophy behind what he was doing he said he had never heard of it. His reason for wearing a woman's blouse was, he said, "... because I like them."

To sum up, queen can be used in three basic ways: first to describe a sexual preference such as chicken queen, toe queen, etc., and secondly to describe roles in the gay subculture, closet queen, butch queen

and queen mother. Special roles like drag queen and

leather queen are known to all the men in the coffee house,

and one suspects to almost all homosexuals. The third way in which queen is used, with non-sexual preference denoting adjective such as, motorcycle queen, or poetry queen, is the most specific to group and generally the least used. During the period of this

research I made note of any such terms I heard at the

coffee house. I counted only five: greaser queen

(for a Latin looking person), sparkle queen (a person 157 into glitter), party queen (one who gave and went to many parties), dinge queen (one who prefers blacks as sexual partners) and golden shower queen (one who likes to be urinated on). I have heard the latter two in contexts outside the coffee house.

Nelly, Femme, Puff, etc.

Originally, I sought in this section to tap the use of adjectives for effeminate. Curiously, what I found was that very few are used and that femme is the preferred form despite the fact that Rodgers (1972:141) refers to it as dated. Nelly is the next most used form, and effeminate is the third. Both Farrell and Rodgers give definitions for nelly:

NELLY (adj., n.); Used in referring to a male homosexual who behaves like a young lady who is infatuated with herself, as in "He is really nelly." Sometimes used as a noun, as in "Be real, Nelly" (Farrell 1972:105).

nelly [nilly] outrageously effeminate; coy, silly "Nelly is a man with a school girl's esprit de corps" [sic].

Related term: nell ( ^ colloq nervous nelly) overly effeminate male "Those hyenas sound like a gaggle of nells" (Rodgers 1972:141).

Some subjects said they had heard of puff #s 9, 10 and

15 (all over 27) and when asked to supply other terms were unable to come up with a single one.

This is very much at variance with much that is written about homosexuals. Even sophisticated writers like C. A. Tripp, who suggests that effeminacy 158 is rare among homosexuals (1975:171), devote an entire chapter to its psychology and role in the gay subculture and suggests that gays are preoccupied with it. He

lists four types of effeminacy:

Four basic kinds of effeminacy need to be distinguished: Nelly, Swish, Blase, and Camp. . . .

[Nelly} Used as an adjective to describe effeminate males, implies that their predominant mannerisms, often including their whole behavioral style, are quite purely feminine. . . . Nell implies a spontaneous, casual femininity. . . .

[Swish] The exaggerations of swishy effeminacy— the same ones that can make it look like caricature by somehow being more feminine than femininity itself— are the result of rounded animated motions being transposed into the more muscular aggressive repertoire of the male.

[Blasé] Although every effeminate person is somewhat hypersensitive— that is, overat- tentive to what goes on in his environment— there are other solutions to this problem. One is to adopt a posture of studied indifference— to rise above seductions to his attention, act as if he is oblivious, thus becoming blasé in his attitudes, his physical postures, or both (Tripp 1975:177-82).

Leaving the fourth type, camp, aside for the moment,

the above are three of the four definitions (terms)

that Tripp gives for effeminacy. He cautions that,

"... homosexuals themselves are none too careful in

their use of terms for effeminacy . . . (1975:178)."

I never heard blas^ used once in two-and-a-half years

at the coffee house. Nelly was used in accordance with

Tripp's definition. Subjects, when asked, said they would reject the use of swish because "... that 159 sounded like what a straight guy would say" (subject

#14, informal conversation). One member of the coffee house confided to me that he didn't like the term because his father used it to describe gays. This is not the place to examine the psychology of effeminacy;

I wish only to show that my experience is such that

I have come to believe that homosexuals are not as preoccupied with effeminacy as some experts believe.

Certainly, if the rule of linguistic proliferation applies (i.e., preoccupation with a subject means a great number of terms with varying shades of meaning), one may conclude that the men of the coffee house are not overly concerned with this subject. As one respondent from the coffee house put it, "Some guys are femme and some aren't." (

Butch

The same may be said for the opposite extreme, super-masculinity. At the coffee house there is currently one synonym for butch and that is hunky.

Subject #7 gives a rather thorough description of the term:

I: O.K. what about butch. S: This is someone who appear ***TAPE CHANGE*** I: Butch, we were talking about butch. S: Someone who portrays a masculine image. A - well rugged, someone who's - usually I associate it with someone who is also good- looking " I associate it with good-looking, I don't think I'd ever call someone who I didn't find, someone who looks alright I'd probably call butch. but someone who did not 160

look good-looking at all, you know, could be linebacker for the Colts and I still probably apply the term butch to him. I; Do you think most people make that distinction? S; Also sexy, also think, sexy in a masculine way, it sort of has a sexy connotation to it for me. I: Do you think most of your gay friends make that distinction? S: I think so, I don't know about the good-looking though, the good-looking distinction but I think they make the sexy distinction. I; Uh huh - ah - do you have to be male to be butch? S: No. In other words, you can refer to (laughs) I never thought of that, well, yah masculine appearing or acting women. I would refer to as butch. but for some reason I just don't use that term that often to describe women, but I would recognize it, you know, what someone meant if they said she's butch (Subject #7, interview).

Aside from simply good looking and athletic , some subjects associated the term with leather and S&M;

I: What about butch? S; That's your - to me the really best example of a butch would be the people who go to a bar like the Anvil and dress in either leather or denim, but ah, no those are the extremes there are some men who are butch who aren't that extreme. Some are muscle builders some are - also I think the more butch a person is the more, this is really unfair for me to say and I don't really like saying it; I would tend to think they are the type people that are more into sadism and masochism— for some reason don't ask me why. As a matter of fact. I'm not into that at all but because of my ideas on accepting all people I'm not against it (Subject #4, interview).

Of the subjects who responded to this question, four suggested it might have something to do with "the leather scene."

The only synonym that came up was hunky.

Subject #15 describes what he means by hunky: 161

I; Yah. You used an interesting word there when you said; a hunk? S : Uh huh. I; What does that mean? S ; A hunk is ah - someone I 'd like to get my hands on. A real, ah and it has nothing to do with sexual dimensions in my mind anyway. I; The size of his penis? S: Right. But it's just someone with an exceptionally good-looking body or at least portions that I can see and visualize the rest. I; He's got a good build S: A good build right. A hunk is a good build. I; Who's hunky? S: Steve's ex. Before or after me (laughs). I: What did he look like? S: He looked like what he was, which was a champion swimmer? Ah, an exceptional build, but not like a, not a weightlifter build. Ah smooth lines, heavily, well, he was very well muscled but not ah heavily muscled not weightlifter muscles. I : Could he be a weightlifter and be hunky? S: I am sure you could but generally people that are weightlifting champions or whatever are over-developed. I: Uh huh, what about Mark Spitz. Is he hunky? S : No. I: No? He's a swimmer. S: He's, he's very nice looking, but he's not, he's not really hunky in my, he's not . . . I: . . . Who's famous that's hUriky so I can get some idea? S: Well, he, ah I don't consider him terribly attractive, to me personally, but Peter, Peter Lupis would be built in a hunky way. I would never refer to him as a hunk. Ah,, O.K. I know who, one I mentioned earlier. Jan Michael Vincent is a hunk. I; He's a hunk? S: Yah he's a hunk, (laughs, shows me a picture) I; O.K. A picture is worth a thousand words (Subject #15, interview).

Farrell, as does Rodgers (1972:39) interestingly enough, defines butch primarily in terms of the female gay.

BUTCH (n. adj.): (n.) Usually a female homosexual who is the more aggressive and masculine partner in a social or sexual relationship; a female homo­ sexual who assumes the responsibilities of the husband; a male homosexual who appears to be masculine; the opposite of 'fem'. Some male 162

homosexuals may assume the 'butch' role to conceal their homosexuality from heterosexual friends. (adj.) Masculine or mannish (1972:99).

None of the respondents at the coffee house gave priority to the lesbian dimension of this term. In fact, only one respondent (#3) volunteered the application of this idea to females. Other subjects when asked said they believed it could be applied to women.

Farrell, as a corollary to the above, brings up the verb form of the term, butch it up.

BUTCH IT UP (v.): To behave in a masculine manner. For a male homosexual to appear 'straight'; for a female to be aggressively mannish (1972:99).

Although none of the subjects offered this use of the term in the interviews, I heard it often in their conver­ sation. It is especially important with respect to boundary definition since it is usually used in the following manner: (Upon leaving a car to enter a restaurant) "Butch it up girls, we're back in their world" or, (speaking of his college advisor), "The nice thing is, I don't have to butch it up around her, she knows my scene." The implication,of course, in both cases is that there is a special way of acting for certain people (i.e., heterosexuals); one must adjust and shift one's behavior for certain situations.

The term does not necessarily function to make covert boundary crossing easier, since, as several subjects believe, straight people are not unfamiliar with the 163 use and meaning of this word. Only one subject (#6) said he did not think straight people would understand the term. Subject #3, who is a decorator for a depart­ ment store, took great delight for several weeks in relaying to me, occasions when he heard straight people at the store use butch. One example was the occasion when a buyer described the new fall line as, "Very butch." Another instance recalled by subject #3 was the time that the store manager instructed the employees in the men's accessories department to emphasize that

"jewelry for men is butch." Unlike nelly and femme, which may be taken as gay lexical markers, butch has entered into some areas of the majority society's speaking habits.

Camp, Camping, Camping It Up

There are two basic (not necessarily exclusive) approaches to the question of camp; The first is camp as an art form, and the second is camp as gay in-group behavior. Both frequently lap over into the other. Both display the same characteristics, a characteristic, C. A.

Tripp (1975:184) calls "stacking." His argument is roughly that camping is a clustering or bringing together or stacking of something, just as a nudist camp con­ centrates (stacks) nudists in one place. The origin of the word comes from the 1930's when young homosexual actors clustered in "camps" (shared apartments) in New 164

York's Greenwich Village to save money while studying or trying out for parts. The behavior of these people

(which has its roots in persons like Oscar Wilde) became known as camp.

Camp usually displays an obvious effeminacy (in body movement it always does), but clearly effeminate or not, it invariably contains or implies a duplicity . . . A campy gesture may couple a loose, oversensitive animation with an aggressive, pointed emphasis of some kind. In speech, the swishy male's "It's so hot in here" in camp becomes "It's s-o-o-o hot in here"— both the affectedness and the vigor of the response are increased, but the point that the listener no longer believes the reaction (or suspects, probably correctly, that the complaint has nothing to do with heat), thus the duplicity (Tripp 1975:185-6).

An example of this "exaggeration that has been caught in isolation" given by Tripp is from the life of Oscar

Wilde:

Oscar Wilde used a simple but intense form of camp when, on being asked how he spent the day, said, "I was working on the proof of one of my poems all morning, and took out a comma. In the afternoon, I put it back again" (1975:186).

Although they could not perhaps express themselves as well as to what camp is, I believe the men of the coffee house would agree with Tripp's explication. All the subjects recognized camp as being something that has to do with being gay. Not all, however, said they did it.

In fact, 10 of the 15 subjects said that they thought it inappropriate for them, but found it amusing in others— in most places.

A definition of camp: 165

I: . . . ah what does that mean to you, camp it up? S; To act very homosexual and I, I suppose that could be taken to mean kissing and hugging and holding hands and all that with other men. Although, that's not the way I think of it. I think of it as being very effeminate, being, being a super queen. The qu-e-e-e-n of queens, ah, in front of people who are not, well, not gay - in front of strangers (Subject #6, interview).

Subject #7 has a particularly insightful way of expressing what he means by camp:

I : What do you have to do to camp? S : Ah, I think, adopt a very 1950's stereotyped gay role - that's sort of basic, there's variations on it. Ah, sort of like, you know, you have black soul humor, well, this is sort of gay soul humor . . . I: Can you give me an example? S: Ah, something very simple you know, referring to someone as Mary and making a comment about it, you know, putting on, sort of changing one's voice so it gets a sort of tight violiny sound - gestures, limp wrist and the swishing, mincing around . . . (Subject #7, interview).

Subject #11 points to the component of femininity in camp:

I: What do you mean by camp? S: Camp is just the obviously gay I guess and once again, obviously gay usually in terms of what straight people perceive gays to be, straight people perceive gays to be, to camp is just to ah maybe accentuate certain behavior patterns to almost the point of acting and playing roles, people just really carry on, people that are camping are usually screaming ah all these oohs and aahs, and playing roles, insulting each other, bitchyness, ah some people do it as a way of life actually. But camping I think is, is ah just playing an obvious role really accentuating the obvious, those qualities which obviously pinperson, ah pinpoint one as a gay person. 166

I: Well, does that mean that it's a parody of femininity? S: In a sense it probably is, it takes the ah it's not femininity I won't, feminine is not the same thing as camp, ah to ah to exaggerate feminine ah the feminine qualities I think is a very good thing in terms of myself because I associate gentleness and sensitivity with feminine, you know for example my own personal taste I really enjoy people that are you know ah masculine in their appearance but yet feminine, have feminine traits as well, I think that the perfect person probably has feminine and masculine traits, very natural traits, very normal traits, but to take effeminate now, a different word, implies a role and it's almost a neurotic role to me, it's that dizziness that has been asso­ ciated with women. In our culture women have been labeled the feminine role. Feminine is not the same thing as effeminate. I'm trying to make that clear (Subject #11, interview).

Finally, #12 gives an example of subjects who saw camp first as an artistic question:

S: . . . it's sort of put-on, well maybe it just means put-on. I: A put-on of femininity? S: Well, a put-on of anything. There's camp art, where it's pop art and camp art it doesn't have to be femininity. Somebody putting a light bulb photograph on a wall with a pull chain attached.

Subject #11 attempts to describe to me how one camps :

S: . . . when you camp you're being effeminate, not feminine you're taking that . . . I: . . . how do you do that? S: You might flit your wrist in the air, you might, you might ah be flippant, your nose up in the air throw little body barbish comments back and forth at each other, ah, just, this is the form of you know like ah neurotic carrying on. I: Do you do this? S: Very rarely. I don't like, I done it more in the past than now, it depends on who I'm with and sometimes I throw out a comment which is a campy comment, but I don't really camp, you know • • • 167

I: . . . can you think of one for me? S: A campy comment ? I: U huh. S: Like "Oh Mary?" something along . . . I; Oh Mary. S: "Listen girl," or "Listen honey," these are, these are ways you know to begin a bitchy line listen honey and you know hand on the hips and stick your nose up in the air and some barbed comment. I: Do you change your voice at all when you do that? S: You might make it more pointed, you might maybe raise it a little bit, ah you don't have to. Ah, it would just, you would just accentuate the bitchyness this ah the ah I can't think of 'the word for it.' It's sort of a narrow-mindedness, a sort of unbendingness coming across you have no tolerance the whole thing indicates a lack of tolerance you know this is the way it is dear and it's the way it's gonna be and and you can just take your whatever and some insulting comments and names and things like this and I will respond back, "Well! Listen to her!" and this can go on back and forth, back and forth and they can make a whole scene out of it if you want to. Some people are more into it than I prefer to. I think people depend on it as a way of enter­ taining their friends ought to think about it a little bit, but it's all right to play around with once and a while. I tend to get into those kinds of moods when I get drunk, ah you know. I'll start say screaming and carrying on sometimes and I'11 surprise my friends, and they'll say, "I never saw you like this before." But it's just something I do in various situations, and the fact that I keep it rare like that, I enjoy it more when I do it. I don't take it seriously at all (Subject #11, interview).

Synonyms for camp given by the coffee house men are, swishing, dishing (gossip), putting on a show, being a super queen (star, bitch) and acting trashy. The word can also be used as an adjective, "That camp."

As for boundary behavior, camp or camping is especially crucial. Certain camp gestures, vocal or physical, sometimes very subtle, can serve to identify 168 a person as a homosexual. This became clear to me in

the following situation: One evening while shopping with some fellows from the coffee house in a local

shopping plaza, one (subject #2) spotted someone he had

seen around, found attractive and naturally wondered if

he was gay. He found it difficult to tell however, because he only saw the person at work and his work

required him to wear a uniform and to act straight.

Seeing the person at his leisure was particularly reveal­

ing to #2 because the person was displaying certain campy

artifacts that helped subject #2 identify him as

"potentially gay." These artifacts were a shoulder

bag, scarf around the neck and six or seven bracelets,

along with platform shoes. None of these could be taken

directly as signals of effeminacy, but the total picture was of one "too much in fashion." 2's comment was, "Oh will you look at that queen; I wondered, and now I know."

Two, who was dressed very "butch" in levis and a T-shirt,

found himself wanting to send a signal to this person.

He did so by camping. He ran up to a display counter

(with dishes on it) and said to the rest of us who were

some 20 feet away, "Oh-h-h, my favorite pattern!" in a

voice loud enough to be heard by the object of his inter­

est. The performance, because #2 was out of costume

and drew too much public attention to it, miscarried.

The object of the performance took it (or so it appeared)

as a parody of himself. He responded by fleeing with a 169 rather stricken look on his face, leaving 2 feeling, as he explained, quite foolish.

This incident is especially revealing because it shows how camp relies on an environment within which it is considered appropriate. All persons, the camper and his audience, must know what is going on. There are, in other words, many places where camp is quite inappro­ priate. Camp, because it is a parody, is never appro­ priate in places where seriousness is expected such as at funerals, in court, or in tender loving moments.

Camp is not appropriate with children, judges or police­ men. It can, however, be used as a device to communicate across a boundary, as the situation above (despite the fact that it miscarried) shows. Subject #6 gives an example; he was asked what he would do if he was in a dentist's office and he was attracted to the person across from him:

S: Ah, oh my god. I, uh, that would depend on what he did because I'm not very aggressive. I would just keep on grinning at him until he did something about it. Or, I would— what I would do is make some overtly effeminate, oh I forgot to mention this is what I would have done before also while smiling I would do something overtly effeminate. I would cross my legs very ostentatiously and wave my hands around which I do anyway. But, I mean I would do it intentionally, right here sort of saying, "I'm gay honey are you?" (Subject #6, interview).

Subject #6 would, in other words, do what he does a lot, camp it up, in this case for an audience of one. When he talks about it, it all rather sounds much like the comic (and camp!) ploy of dropping a lace handkerchief. 170

If camping can be a weapon to attract, it can also be used to repel people as subject #9 shows;

You camp? How? Just being a fool (laughs). A fool. How do you be a fool? I can't imagine you a fool. S: Acting effeminate, lisping, in front of people who would be offended by it. I: In front of people who would be offended? S: Straight people, in the East Side especially, when they start staring.

The locale of the East Side is important here because many gay people feel that they can do things there that they cannot elsewhere; that the East Side is "open turf" and any straights are either hip enough not to be offended or hicks whom it is a pleasure to shock (I will have more to say about locale below in the discussion of cruising and hustlers). Many gay persons feel this as part of the stigma of their pariah status.

I: Do you think that straight people know about camping? S: Yah, and I think that straight people don't like it. I think this is what turns them off about gay people. Most of the people I know have said, I guess gay people are all right but what turns me off about them is their being effeminate, and I think it's looked down upon in the straight world (Subject #5, interview).

It is the social equivalent of the leper displaying the sores in public.

Camp and camping are central to the gay world.

Although many gays do not camp, nearly all recognize it.

It is, however, I believe, dying a slow death. Of the subjects who were asked, three-fourths said they did not 171 camp. In fact, only those who were naturally effeminate

(#s 4 and 6) of the under 27 group admitted to camping.

For many it is a symbol of gay oppression. As Rodgers puts it, "... today's generation of homosexuals is not as eager to emulate camp personalities as their predecessors"(1972:41). In a conversation with Jim Owles

(who was then president of New York's Gay Activist

Alliance), as far back as 1973 it became clear that persons who felt themselves "liberated" found camping an example of behavior characterizing oppression.

Hustler

Any subcultural designation as large as homo­ sexual may be expected to have within it such a variety of behavior modes that one may properly speak of as subculture within subcultures. Within the gay subcul­ ture, there is the world of the hustler. In the gay world, the linguistic term for prostitute is hustler.

According to Farrell a hustler is, " . . . (n.): A

'heterosexual' male who has sexual relations with homosexuals for pay or gifts"(1972:103). All the coffee house subjects gave approximately the same definition of hustler; all recognized the term. Rodgers also equates hustler with prostitute and suggests that the origin of the word is German, husselen, meaning to shake; he then gives two full pages of synonyms (1972:111-12). (This may be taken as an indication of the accuracy of 172

Rodgers' work: shake in German is schütteln, rütteln; erschüttern: shake down is herunterschütteln. In fact, the word for hustle is (^) rempeln; stossen; drangen.

A standard Langenscheidt (1970) does not yield an entry for husselen which is an improbable spelling in

German anyway.)

Curiously, this particular term caused several subjects (9, 11 and 15) to suddenly begin speaking almost in monologue at great length. Subject #9, who had been rather difficult throughout the entire interview, became very talkative and something of an ideal subject.

This is only slightly less true of #11 and #15. Subject

#15, because he discoursed so well, will be quoted at length below. For the moment, I would like to draw atten­ tion to a distinction he makes which may fairly be con­ sidered part of gay folk beliefs:

I: How about hustler? S : Hustler. It's a person that does favors for money. I: Prostitute? S : Yah. I: Male only? S : No, I think male and female prostitutes. I would mainly, I would never refer to a female as a hustler, but I've heard them referred to that way. I: What interests me is how one recognizes a hustler. S : I was told once that you can tell a hustler by his eyes. I don't know how true that is, because they have cold empty eyes. I: Cold empty eyes. S: A real hustler. There are people that hustle, that aren't hustlers. I: Oh? Hows that? S: People that go to bed with someone and take the money but get a great deal of satisfaction out 173 of it. To me a hustler, an honest to goodness hard core hustler is a person that goes to bed with someone formoney with the idea in his head that he's not getting any enjoyment out of it, he's just doing it for the money. So in other words he tries to convince himself that he gets no satisfaction out of what he does. That's a hustler. I: In your definition do you know any real hustlers? S: I have in my time yah. I; They are straight guys? S: I would not consider them straight. I would consider them very messed up. (Laughs) I: Do they consider themselves straight? S; Yah, I would say the majority do. I don't think they refer to themselves as being gay in front of somebody. Anybody that knew them (Subject #9, interview).

The idea behind the distinction between hustlers and

"real" hustlers is that anyone who engages in a homosexual act, no matter how passively, is really a homosexual.

The implication is that homosexuality is as irresistible to the hustler as it is to his client. Hoffman does not think so;

Although certain psychoanalysts have claimed that all male prostitutes whose clients are men are "really" homosexual, it appears that most con­ temporary students of the subject have concluded that there exists a significant number of these male prostitutes who .are not basically gay, but who are nevertheless capable of achieving an erection and orgasm if sufficient physical stimulus is applied to the genitals (Hoffman 1968:149).

Regrettably, he does not give the source of these con­ clusions. In any event, the subject is endlessly debated in the gay subculture and will probably only be settled when an adequate definition of homosexuality is devised. For the moment, it is a distinction that has much currency among the men of the coffee house and is a perennial subject of conversation. 174

The next most vital question, after that of the distinction between real and non-real hustlers, is the question of their recognizability. Crossing the boundary here can be most serious, as Laud Humphreys

(1970) has shown. It is crucial that one be able to distinguish between a real hustler and a member of the vice squad or someone who is simply out to "get queers."

Subject #15 tells in detail about one encounter with a hustler.

I: Well, what about a hustler. Tell me about hustlers. Some people tell me they can always spot a hustler, do you believe that? S: I always think I can. I: What is it you see when you're spotting a hustler? What's a hustler look like? S: Ah, the majority of my experience with hustlers has been in bars, it's primarily with people who are standing around with apparently nothing to do on street corners, somewhere or other. I: Particular street corner? S: Particular areas, ah the meat rack or Earnest Avenue or places such as this, and the corner of the street on occasion. Damn it you were coming over (laughs). I'm not, I don't think he was hustling. I don't much go in for hustlers although I've done it on one occasion. I; What I'm trying to get at, what I'm trying to find out is, what it is about a hustler, what it was about that guy on the corner tonight, the guy that you did pay, what about them that made them hustlers? How did you know they were hustlers? S: Probably the first consideration is where they are. I know there's a lot of hustling going on in that area. Secondarily the fact that they were maybe out of place. They really had no purpose, just standing around at an area that was not a bus stop or a place where people do normally stand around. Just standing around in the middle of nowhere with apparently nothing to do. Not in a particularly residential area where they're out to get some fresh air, they didn't seem to have any other purpose. 175

I: Uh huh. S: Other than to be standing to wait for someone to ask them what they are doing, until they can say, "Oh nothing in particular what do you want to do?" or whatever. I: Is that what you do, you go up and ask them what they're doing? No. S: No. I don't. Well, I have, not often. I: You go up and say "What you doin'?" S : I've never done it with someone who I thought was hustling when I was also walking. I : Uh huh. S: Never. It's always been when I was in the car and they were on the street. I: And what do you do? S: You just pull over near-by and wave or make some sort of indication and see what they say. I: Uh huh. S: And nine times out of ten they're after money and I say that's not my bag and that's it. And that one time he was too good to turn down. I: Well can you, can you tell me, in some detail, I don't mean to pry. I'm interested in knowing what happened. You . . . S: . . . the one instance? . . . I: . . . Yah. Was it in a car? S : I was in a car. It was in summer, he was blonde, good-looking, had on very short-short cut-off j eans . . . I: . . . Was that an indication to you that he was a hustler? Sz Ahf • . . I ; . . . Would you expect a hustler to dress that way? S: I would always hope that ah people always walked around that way. Yah it's an indication but it's not the only indication, because I've seen some pretty slovenly people that I was pretty sure, slovenly in their dress, not in their physiques. Ah, well, most hustlers would dress to accentuate what they had, it would seem, but I've seen a number of people that I'm sure were hustling that were dressed in fairly baggy unrevealing clothing, apparently thought that their face was good enough to make the trick or what all. I: So, ah, what happened? The guy was standing there and you were attracted to him. S; I think one of the main reasons I was attracted to him was, was, he was playing his own little game too. For the most part the hustlers I've gone after to the point of finding out they wanted money have been very matter of fact and you know, "who ever gets me first can have me" no real 176

challenge to it. But this guy seemed very interested when I passed him, waved as I recall, and I went around the block again and as I got near by he started to walk away which made it more attractive because then it was a challenge. I followed him very slowly for almost three blocks . . . I: . . . in the car? . . . S: . . . Yah. As he walked waving his ass at me all the way and ah finally he stopped and I stopped the car and had the window down because it was warm, and asked him what was happening, what was going on, whatever. I; Now wait a minute, that's what I want to know, if you can recall exactly what you said to him. S: Probably said, "Hi! What's happening!" and he said, "Nothin' much." And I was scared as shit. I ; Really? S: He was, he was very good looking, but he was much larger than I was. He seemed pleasant, but you can't always tell from first glances you know. And he was. The fact that he was going away from me, and looked back on occasion to make sure I was still following, or to check me out to see if it was all right or whatever, so I was a little uptight, plus the fact that he led me into a very dark area, where I didn't, didn't feel totally familiar anyway. And so he said that he wasn't doing anything much and I said ah, "would you like to turn five bucks?" And he said ah, I think he almost acted as if he didn't hear me. And I do tend to talk fairly low some­ times so ah, we talked for a couple more seconds, I can't really remember what the exchange was, but ah it was just some inane dribble, it didn't mean anything. And then I said, "Would you like a blow job?" and he said "Sure." And immediately opened up the door and got in. And I said, something, let's see I said, once he got into the car, "You sure gave me your run for my money or whatever," I said. "I didn't know if you were going to stop or not." He said, "Well, I wasn't sure what you were after, and I wanted to make sure that ah, you know," he says, "sometimes these people are pretty strange, are after some flaky things, I just wanted to check you out a little bit or whatever." And he turned out to be a football star on the Parsons High School football team - built like a brick shit house, very, very enjoyable. Claimed to be straight, may have been, enjoyed every minute of it though (Subject #15, interview). 177

That was a good situation. #15 hasn't always been so lucky.

S: But 1 just know deep down inside that I hit it very lucky. I wouldn't expect to be so fortunate again. In fact, I picked up ai hùStler on one other occasion. He didn't mention a word about money, nor did I when I picked him up, and ah, he was very interesting, there was something about his personality almost from the first time, the first minute he got in the car that I didn't like but I couldn't tell you why at first. We got back in the wilderness somewhere back by the harbor somewhere, I don't know exactly where I was, and ah, I proceeded to go down on him, and then he said, "How much you gonna give me?" and I got back off of him and said ah, "Nothing." As a matter of fact, I don't think I even had any money with me. And he says, "Well, I can't do this for nothing." I said, "Well I guess then I'll have to drop you off." So we went back toward Earnest Avenue, this was in that area so, and ah, we got to prank Street which was fairly dark and he said turn right here, and Earnest Avenue was another block up. I said, "No, I'll take you on up to the avenue," it's normally crawling with police and it's much lighter and I felt more comfortable up there so I took him up and he says, "Come on man you went down on me that's worth at least five isn't it," he says, "I normally charge fifteen to come." And I says, "No way." I says, "You can do anything to me. I'm not going to give you anything." And ah, he was bigger than I am as most people are. And I am very timid, I am not a fighter. Ah but he's ah - let's see - before we got to Earnest Avenue, we were still on the block between Frank Street and Earnest Avenue, he reached down and very stupidly reached for my, I have a floor shift, reached for my gear shift and pulled it into low. Now if he'd really been smart, else he was trying to act smart without damaging the car he would have pushed it into reverse, but he pulled it the wrong way. And so I say, "O.K. that's it," and I put my hand on the gear shift put it back into drive, drove around the corner and stopped and he says, "I'm not gettin' out until you give me some money." And he reached into his pocket, he had a jacket on, as if he might have had something in it, and ah, I was so calm and so cool until after he got out of the car at least, I couldn't believe it. It's amazing to know how you do react sometimes. You never know how you're going to act in a stress 178

situation until you're in one. But, two years at least before this, I had been in a gas station, and they were, you know, how they give away premiums, usually glasses or whatever, well this particular gas station gave me a steak knife. And I threw it into the console and had forgotten that it was there, for some reason it flashed through my mind that it was there. I reached in and low and behold it was right on top. Lord knows how after two years. And so I held his hand off with my right hand, reached into the console with my left pulled out the knife and held it like this (threateningly) then reached across the seat and opened the door for him, and said, "Well, I got a few tricks up my sleeve too." And he got out and ah spit on the car as I recall and yelled something about "Damn faggot," or whatever and left the door hanging wide open. So I just started up the car and of course, the impulse of the starting closed the door. That was the last time that I attempted anything on the famous Earnest Avenue strip (Subject #15, interview). #15's decision not to pay the second hustler is what caused the trouble. What is important here however, is that he correctly identified the man as a hustler— and the only identifying characteristics he could give were that the man was in a certain location, and secondly, that he appeared to have nothing to do. It is the matter of location that appears to be the most crucial in the issue of boundary crossing, as we will see in discussing the final term.

Cruise, Cruising

These are central terms in the gay experience and speak to the core of what it means to be gay. As subject #4 puts it, "It's a word I use a lot." Not only did all subjects know the term, but all spoke with some authority on what it "really means." This is not to suggest that there is something mysterious about 179 cruising, indeed in some ways it is the least mysterious of activities. It means rather that the experience is so central to the gay experience that every gay person has his own perspective on what cruising means and how it is done.

The central distinction seems to be around the question of where one is cruising. Subject #8 explains;

S: It depends on where one is. I could be in a gay bar and cruise simply by standing in a place trying to make eye contact with somebody that interests me - now if you go down to the block for example - there it's done two ways, you walk around the street, around the block, ah and as you're walking there are certain people just standing there, and you cruise that way by eye contact. On the other hand, there are cars that circle the block and they are also cruising (Subject #8, interview).

The central point is that cruising in a gay bar means cruising in a safe place. This brings up the notion of "gay turf"— the idea that certain places are safe.

One may presume in a gay bar, for example, that all patrons are gay; most people at the Friday night coffee house may be presumed gay, as well as people in the baths.

Such places are not considered dangerous (i.e., they contain few or no "outsiders") and all persons there are fair targets for sexual advance. In this connection certain spots are said to be cruisy, that is, yield a high possibility of having some persons who still respond to one's cruising. One of the things I found remarkable in the responses of the subjects was the high degree to 180 which these places were known as well as the rather

great number that are known— not only in the home city

but in others as well. Thus places in Banok, , Piers

Park, Marge Square (known as "the meat rack") and

Reede street were so identified. In Weston, Dexter

Street (known as "The Block") and the Innver Memorial were most frequently identified. Some subjects mentioned

the somewhat mythical (campy) Over Street beach (a

public swimming pool actually) as a very cruisy place.

These places, during certain hours are considered "gay

turf," and all persons there who are male are considered

fair targets. One's identification as gay is especially

enhanced during these times by wearing some outward

symbol of being gay. Cruising on "the block" is a little more dangerous requiring, as it does, some overt signal

of similar intention from one's contact such as a meeting

of the eyes. Subject #8 is very detailed in his approach

to this subject. Although, I have quoted him entirely in

Chapter IV, I would like to quote him at length again:

I: Can you tell me about that? S: It hasn't happened that often, it's only happened a few times, but I can think of three times that I met someone on the street, when I wasn't even looking for sex, I was just walking to the store or something and I remember another time it happened in Safeway. I: . . . tell me in as full detail as you can how it happened . . . S: . . . It's always eye contact, it's always the eye contact, you know you're walking towards each other on the street. I: What caused you to try to make eye contact in the first place? 181

S: . . . I don't think anything forces you, I think as you're walking down the street you just sort of notice people walking towards you. And if another gay man is walking towards you and is attracted to you, ah your eyes just sort of meet. I: It wasn't that this guy was particularly attractive, in other words. S; Oh no, I never go to bed with anybody that I don't find attractive. I have been cruised many times on the street by people I did not find attractive so I did not continue the cruising. I: But this guy in the Safeway, you spotted him and you said to yourself there's somebody who's good looking and you went after him? S: I didn't go up to him exactly, I remember when it happened, I guess I was on the line paying the bill and I happened to look behind me and he was the third or fourth person and there was no mistaking the look he gave me and there, you know, and then as I got out, he came up and just found some reason to start talking. Another perfect example is a few weeks ago I drove down to the new Bridgeport area to have dinner at a friend's house, as I got out of the car, I noticed a very attractive fellow carry groceries into the same building I was going to, and he happened to look back and ah, again I couldn't mistake the look in his eyes. He didn't realize I was headed for the same building so he walked right out on the street corner, and as I passed him on the steps he said, "Good evening" and I said, "Hi." That was that. I: Are there any outward symbols, let's say you saw a person and ah you make eye contact with that person, are there any symbols that might clinch your belief that this person is gay? S; What do you mean by symbols? I: Well, some way he dresses or some way he moves or . . . S; I think that is usually part of it although not necessarily. There are some people who look perfectly straight to me, or I might not be sure, but certainly there may be a way of dressing that's perhaps more indicative that he's gay, there may be certain gestures or effeminacy or something like that. I; How about, how he dresses? S: Ah, again, you know perhaps pastel colors if he's particularly feminine let's say or attracted to the type of colors that we associate with women 182

and with very nelly homosexuals, but that certainly isn't always the case, it could be somebody wearing blue jeans and a white t-shirt (Subject #8, interview).

Eye contact seems to be the central element in cruising.

It is based on the assumption, as one informant told me, that "men just don't look into each other's eyes."

If they do, presumably, that means something.

Cruising then, is an exchange of symbols. It may be verbal symbols, such as those described by #10:

S: I picked up somebody at the airport once. It's really not too difficult because it's like any diplomatic negotiation, ah maybe as in this case you're at the newstand looking at the newspapers and you might say, "Oh ..." some perfectly harmless type of thing, and then you start talking, and ah . . . I: So you're talking about history books - so what happened. S: Right, well, this whole thing about gay special knowledge comes into play (incomp) you might ask him where he went to college, or what he thinks of Tennessee Williams as a writer, so many cues thrown out. Two people on the same wave length, are total strangers,are not sure - I: I'm really interested in what those clues might be. S: Ned Rorem, ah . . . I: He was a musician, isn't he? S: Yah but he wrote his diaries. I guess he's the first - gay. Ah Gore Vidal. I: Truman Capote? S: Yes. Truman Capote is so obvious that, it's lacking in finesse. Too much specificity. Ah, so you might mention a writer like that or, well you want examples but suppose somebody said, "Oh I'm from W." And you might say, right off the bat, "Oh I've been in W a number of times it's a very nice city, do you ever go out there?" And he says "Yes there's any number of nice bars," - so many gambits there. And of course, ah if you're both gay and you're both seeking to find out if the other, then that will lead to a much more overt and - very 183

rapidly get together ^ I: What about music now, what could you say in that area? S; Well, let's see, these things always come up in particular cases, well, "Let My People Come" which is a gay musical, there's . . . (Subject #10, interview).

Or it might be the exchange of symbols, physical signs of identification:

I: Ah - are there any symbols or signs you could wear that constitute cruising? S : Ah - there are but now it's so hard to tell, there was always a ring on the small finger, but half the straight people wear rings - their girl friends again hopefully, if you had enough symbols on, it would be beyond coincidence. If you had a ring, you know a pinky ring, some keys dangling from your belt somewhere, dressed in denim, corduroy or you know some such outfit, and tight clothes on, you know a combination of all these (Subject #7, interview).

In response to this question I was recently handed this card which serves as an advertisement for a movie theatre:

The S & M Hanky Color Code

Color Left Right

Red First Fucker Fast Fucker Mustard Wants Big One Has 8" or More Robin's Egg Blue 89-er Anything But 69 Navy Blue Fucker Fuckee Light Blue Expert Cock Sucker Needs CS Orange Anything, Anytime Nothing, Now Yellow Golden Shower, Passer GS, Receiver Drab Olive Army Or Marine Corps Likes Same Green Hustler, Selling Trick, Buying Brown Shitter Shittee White Masturbater, Self Same, Others Grey into Bondage Desires Bondage Black Whipper What else? Whippee! 184

I suspect this represents an overelaboration. Few subjects when asked, could come close to reproducing so much as two categories from this Color Code, and those who professed to have heard something of it, came up with ideas that were not the same as those on the card. Keys are perhaps the best known symbol and indicate a preference for S&M (sado-masochistic sex).

Those who are into S&M frequently wear keys hanging from their belts. On the East Coast, keys worn on the left indicate a preference for sadism, while those worn on the right indicate a preference for masochism. On the West Coast the reverse is true (Fisher 1972:89).

The Lambda is the most recent and most obvious of the cruising symbols. The Greek letter lambda is said to represent the principle of life and has been adopted by gay organizations as a logo for the movement. Originally, wearing a button with the lambda inscribed represented a liberated homosexual. Now, however, gay leaders complain that its use (and now pins can be purchased in gold and silver) is primarily for persons wishing to cruise other gays who may be expected to recognize the symbol.

The final "symbol" may be said to be one's total look (appearance) which brings us to what I call the

"myth of recognizability." Despite the vehement avowal that stereotypes do not fit in the gay world, practically all the men of the coffee house suggested that they could recognize another homosexual. When pressed, however, few could produce a single outwardly recognizable sign of 185 one's homosexuality. I was told that one could "see it in the eyes," that "the mouth gives you away," and that "gays have a look of fear." All these suggestions are patently ridiculous and their adherents, when pressed admitted that they could not be supported from experience.

The myth, however, persists. As subject #2 suggested above, the total appearance— of "being too much in fashion" can sometimes give one away. Obviously, however, not all gays pay much attention to fashion. The myth I believe is internalized from the straight world and constitutes, in a subtle way, part of the negative stereotype homosexuals have as oppressed persons

(Weinberg and Williams 1974:18-20, 165-176). In any event, it is this myth which gives some gays, at least, the courage to cruise in places that are not considered

"gay turf." CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY

This research involves the relationship between language and behavior. Although this relationship is taken as axiomatic by most linguists, it is frequently not possible to draw direct one-to-one correlations between verbal usage and isolated behaviors. The conclusions drawn from such studies frequently involve "indicators" or

"suggestions" rather than causal relationships. Such has been the case with this study. I have investigated a series of lexical items associated with some homosexual men and have produced some "indicators."

The reasons why only indicators are possible may be worth looking at: primarily, the nature of the group under study is problematic due to the great number of variables that must be controlled. Although I have sought to obviate most of these questions (i.e., those problems attendant on generalizing from a population of 20,000,000 spread over the entire U.S.) by focusing on a small pattern of friendship networks, we are left even here with a bewildering array of possible "contaminating" variables. One such is socio-economic background and status. Such patterns as they relate to class status

186 187 are the subject of considerable research by Labov

(1970:66-84) and Fischer (1958:47-56) to give just two examples. In these studies the number of subjects was such that they could be chosen for these factors. Since

I was looking for a population of homosexuals who knew one another, I was not able to control for socio-economic variables within the population of the coffee house. To do so, would have restricted my data base to a population of probably fewer than five. Instead, I restricted the population in other ways choosing only white males (who comprise the vast majority of coffee house attendees).

In one case I pretended to interview a woman for the sake of avoiding conflict with a friendship network of which she was a part. This network is central to the coffee house, and she is central to the network. As for the question of race, it seems best to assume, at the present, that black persons who are gay may use code items that reflect both their racial backgrounds as well as their sexual orientation. The point is that inclusion of these people (blacks and women) would confound the results in such a way as to be nearly useless for purposes of generalization. The result of this structuring is a population of 15 subjects who are white, male and because most have something to do with the university, may be presumed to be largely middle-class. The group does include a doctor, but he was chosen for other reasons. 188

Another important factor, in addition to that of

sex and racial differences, that this study did not

explore was the question of geographic location. I was unable to control for geographic effect both as to origin of speaker, or present location of speaker. That it is

an important variable is suggested by the work of Farrell

(1972) and Rodgers (1972). For example, the exotic nature

of Farrell's lexicon may be due to the place where it was

gathered— but he does not say where that is! One may pre­

sume, since he lists Utah State University as his institu­

tion, that it is there. When confronted with his list,

the men of the coffee house generally found it interest­

ing and almost totally foreign. Rodgers' (1972) lexicon

is also geared toward exotica. Again, the locale of the

collecting is not always known (see p. Ill above). In

the case of some items he identifies the locale of the

source; in others (where not specified) one is led to

presume San Francisco is the place of origin. Many items

of his evoked the same type of response from the men of

the coffee house as did Farrell's. Indeed, after ex­

amining his entire corpus, one must conclude that if he

had a group of informants they must have been persons

very interested in collecting terms. I suspect that

certain terms are fairly universal throughout the gay

subculture. Words such as hustler, cruise and drag queen

can probably be used with confidence in all three loca­

tions. I am not sure, however, that the use of (may ahn) 189 as reported to me by Robbie (subject #13) would be understood very well beyond the confines of the coffee house. Certainly, geographic variability in gay codes is a subject worthy of research.

One of the surprising things to emerge from this study was the effect of age. It was my intention to introduce as wide a range of ages as were offered by the coffee house. This produced a span of ages from

17 to 42, which may be considered roughly two generations.

One naturally would have liked more. I do not believe, however, that such would be easily obtainable within the framework of friendship networks. The purpose for this orientation was a suspicion that older subjects would be more language conscious, especially in matters relating to boundary questions. The data appear to bear this out. The underlying hypothesis of this idea is that oppression leads to covert patterns of behavior which will be expressed in "secret" codes. To put this proposition another way: persons who were older would more strongly perceive the existence of a boundary and have means for crossing it. This was shown by Art,

Paul, Nelson and Harry, the oldest of the sample. They most readily acknowledged the existence of "two worlds" the gay and the straight.

One possible variable left out of this per­ spective has to do with the question of how long the subject has been "out." It might be argued, for example. 189

as reported to me by Robbie (subject #13) would be

understood very well beyond the confines of the coffee

house. Certainly, geographic variability in gay codes

is a subject worthy of research.

One of the surprising things to emerge from this

study was the effect of age. It was my intention to

introduce as wide a range of ages as were offered by

the coffee house. This produced a span of ages from

17 to 42, which may be considered roughly two generations.

One naturally would have liked more. I do not believe,

however, that such would be easily obtainable within

the framework of friendship networks. The purpose for

this orientation was a suspicion that older subjects would be more language conscious, especially in matters

relating to boundary questions. The data appear to bear

this out. The underlying hypothesis of this idea is that

oppression leads to covert patterns of behavior which will be expressed in "secret" codes. To put this

proposition another way: persons who were older would

more strongly perceive the existence of a boundary and

have means for crossing it. This was shown by Art,

Paul, Nelson and Harry, the oldest of the sample. They

most readily acknowledged the existence of "two worlds"

the gay and the straight.

One possible variable left out of this per­

spective has to do with the question of how long the

subject has been "out." It might be argued, for example. 190 that the three least boundary conscious persons, Douglas,

Dale and George were also the ones who most recently came to the coffee house. Their network, though central in many ways to the working of the coffee house, was also the newest. It seems reasonable to argue in this light that the longer one has been out, the more situations one would encounter for reinforcement of the notion of boundary. In other words, as one experienced the range of the gay world the more one would also experience the boundaries of that world. This experience would also be confounded by the fact that one's gay vocabulary would grow (conceivably) during this time. How much this is true for the subjects of this study, it is difficult to say. Again, any future study should control for these variables.

What this study did show is that language is used, in varying degrees by the men of the coffee house in the defining, maintaining and crossing of boundaries.

That is;

A) Boundaries are defined by terms like brother where it is used to mean in-group solidarity. Subject

#4, Douglas, it may be recalled said he believed the type of person who would use the term would be one who wishes to "unify the movement." In other words, he would define the world as a place with "us and them," gay and straight, homo and hetero, etc. Other respondents saw a brother as anyone sympathetic to gays. That is, not in "us and 191 them" terms. Terms like nelly or butch also serve this function (of boundary defining) by perpetuating the notion of social type. There are butch types and nelly types, but they are all gay.

B) Boundaries are maintained by terms like gay, straight and queer. These are terms shared with the non-gay society. Gay is a self-determined identification for homosexual, in the same way that black is for negro.

With some terms like queer its emotional context depends on who uses it. Used by a straight person, the term becomes a derogatory item; used by gays it is neutral.

The term is boundary maintaining because it is used by both gays and straights. In other words, both groups accept a division and use the terms to maintain that division.

C) Terms such as a member of the club or a friend of Dorothy can be used along with other less obvious ones to cross boundaries. Language, however, as the data above show, is not used extensively by any except the older person as a boundary crossing device.

Although "pin dropping" is used, for example, with the name of a gay bar, younger informants found either little need for being cautious at the boundary, or relied upon non-verbal symbols such as eye play (cruising), use of certain types of clothing, or being in the right place.

This "being in the right place," which I have referred to above as the concept of "gay turf," brings us 192 to a second major indicator of this study. The men of the coffee house all spoke of and could identify

"safe" areas known variously as "the meat rack" or

"the block" (see p. 179 above). In these areas all persons were considered fair game for sexual advances.

This is especially true, of course, of the gay bar and the baths. Nothing else could more nearly demark the existence of boundary. Even the most die-hard holder of the position that a boundary does not exist, admitted when asked, that he would exercise caution in approaching someone in a place not defined as "gay turf." "Gay turf" extends not only to the idea of a place for sexual contact, but may be seen as applying to any place where being gay is appropriate. Subjects, who denied the exist­ ence of boundaries, when asked, said they would "feel threatened" if accused of being gay on the job, or they would feel it a problem if a straight person came to an all gay party they were giving. - The point here is that although some informants denied it explicitly, they ended up confirming the idea of a boundary by expressing behavioral responses which clearly showed their feelings of anxiety. This boundary is met, of course, at those places where the gay and straight world collide; where the gay person finds his face work threatened, where role distance cannot be employed, or where the keying of the situation cannot be changed. In short, anywhere that is not gay turf. 193

* * *

The broader implications of this study have to do with boundary theory, language and socio-cultural change.

A. Boundary theory

This study has essentially become a confirmation of Barth's view of boundary. Although I have rejected the use of ethnic group to designate the men of the coffee house, much of the theory of boundary behavior posited by Barth could apply to what I term subcultures. Consider;

. . . Boundaries are maintained in each case by a limited set of cultural features. . . . most of the cultural matter that at any time is associated with a human population is not constrained by this boundary; it can vary, be learnt, and change without any critical relation to the boundary maintenance of the ethnic group (1969:38, italics in original).

Thus, it is that homosexuals are everywhere integrated in the society fulfilling roles which are available to

everyone; that is, of course, unless they become known

as homosexuals. Then a great many roles are closed to them, but even here the process is not automatic. Re­ cently, for example, the police chief of San Francisco

invited his officers who were gay to declare publicly

that they were so in order that they might feel freer

(Washington Post 1976:A2). It becomes clear when looked at from this perspective why so many writers in the past have had difficulty dealing with the phenomenon of homosexuality. The pariah status attached to 194 homosexuals implies, on the part of society, that to be homosexual means that a person is something— something totally pervasive throughout one's persona, which is different from that of other persons. Such a judgment, which these writers appear to accept, is holistic. It seems rather that the reason so many homosexuals are able

"to pass" is because they are sexual only some time, and the rest of the time they cannot be identified by stereo­ types. In Barthian terms, one's sexuality is a "limited cultural feature."

Another insight which further clarifies the boundary between the gay and straight world is Barth's observation that:

Where pariahs attempt to pass into the larger society, the culture of the host population is generally well known: thus the problem is reduced to escaping the stigmata of disability . . . (1969:31).

He suggests this can be done by " . . . dissociating with the pariah community"(1969: 31). The homosexual's problem is not grounded in his lack of knowledge of the culture of the heterosexual world. Indeed, a seemingly endless topic of conversation among homosexuals has to do with misadventures before coming out, in that world.

The stories are usually humorous and usually involve, not a lack of knowledge of what is proper, but an unwillingness to conform to it. As for dissociating with the pariah community, as often as not, the problem is finding the community. Again, stories abound 195 concerning the subject of discovering the gay world;

"The first time I heard Frank Kameny speak ..." or "I walked into this bar which had only men in it . . ." are the sorts of themes one hears frequently in a gathering of gay men. The discovery that "... there are other people like me . . ." is frequently re­ counted in great detail and is considered a "red letter day." The problem for gays is finding that there is a subculture of homosexuals. Unlike Barth's ethnics, the gay subculture has very low social visibility.

Indeed, it is a moot question whether subculture is a proper term for this group. As long as we speak of the men of the coffee house, such terms as friendship net­ works and even in some cases primary group are adequate.

However, when speaking of homosexuals, the situation is such that some new term may be necessary. Notwithstanding that fact, Barth's overall views of boundary are supported here through the realization that gays (pariahs) function within the society of straights (the majority) through knowledge of that society which is part of everyone's cultural repertoire, while making a decision to become part of (or not) the "subculture" of homosexuals within that society.

B. Language patterns

Here the major indication of this study is that the use of this particular code is not automatic; the men of the coffee house do not slip into code in a 196 boundary situation as a reflex reaction to that situation in the simplistic way suggested by Farrell

(1972) and implied by Rodgers (1972). Rather, code terms are used in varying degrees according to selection variables related to age, length of time out and view of the reality of boundaries. When and where code words will be used, if at all is a function of these variables and perhaps others such as race and geography. The total effect is one of blurring; in fact, the concept of code may not be appropriate at all here. Code, implying as it does something rather more systematic than was shown, may be an inappropriate designation. The suggestion is that a new term may be needed.

Another suggestion made by this study is that the blurring of the gay code, at least in the last generation could partially be a result of the proliferation of "hip culture" (the sense of one who is current with the latest social trends) through which gay terms may be said to

"leak" to the straight culture. An indication of this is the once nearly exclusive use of amyl (nitrate) by the gay community as a sexual stimulant. Now amyl is known to hip straights and gays alike (see pp. 104-107).

There is suggested here a pattern through which a gay term passes through the hip culture to the straight culture. Gay, which was once exclusively used by homosexuals, is now shared by everyone in the society.

It was passed to straights through the hip culture 197

(which is straight but tolerant of gays) by gays who were in both worlds. Homosexuals in contact with the hip culture insisted on the use of gay as a mark of courtesy.

These hip straights then passed the term on to the rest of society where it has come into general use. I must emphasize again at this point the hypothetical nature of this idea. The suggestion is that there is a kind of social pathway through which terms pass, as a regular occurrence. Such a pathway (or anything similar) has not, to my knowledge, been suggested in the literature. It deserves further investigation.

C. Socio-Cultural change

If there are any broad social indicators in this study, they must lie in the area of generational differ­ ences. That perception of a boundary varies with age seems strongly indicated by the data. The reasons for this appear to be a product, not of age itself, but of social changes occurring in the society-at-large. The mass media are full of stories about "the gay life."

Whether it is the evening news WMAL-TV, "Shades of Gay"

(February, 1976), The Washingtonian magazine (March, 1976), or the latest soap opera craze, "Mary Hartman, Mary

Hartman" (WBAL-TV, May 25, 1976), more and more informa­ tion is available on the subject of homosexuality. Because of this exposure, the subject is being de-mythologized to a certain extent, with the result that people in the current college-aged generation find it less threatening 198 than those of a generation before. Older homosexuals grew up in times that were frankly more repressive to their particular orientation. The development of the gay liberation movement on the pattern of other civil rights movements has had the effect of getting people to come forward in the public sector even from such previously sacrosanct areas as professional sports.

This is attested to by the public declaration of football star Dave Kopay (Washington (D.C.) Star, 11 December 1975) of his homosexuality. These facts, along with many more that could be adduced to this point, suggest that a change toward greater tolerance of homosexuals, such as experi­ enced in Holland and the Scandinavian countries, may be expected in the future. A reversal is also possible.

However, given the thesis that gay language is a function of repression, it seems entirely possible should that repression end, "gay language" will disappear entirely. REFERENCES CITED

Ackerley, J.R. 1968 My Father and Myself. New York; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Barber, Carroll G. 1973 Trilingualism in an Arizona Yaqui Village. In Bilingualism in the Southwest, P. R. Turner, ed., pp. 295-318. Tucson; University of Arizona Press.

Barth, Fredrik 1969 Ethnic Groups and Their Boundaries: the Social Organization of Culture Difference. Boston; Little Brown and Co.

Bolinger, Dwight 1975 Aspects of Language. 2nd ed. New York; Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Bowers, Faubian 1972 Homosex: Living the Life. Saturday Review. February 12:23-28.

Churchill, Wainwright 1967 Homosexual Behavior Among Males; a Cross- cultural and Cross-space Investigation. Englewood Cliffs; Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Conrad, James R. and William W. More 1976 Lexical Codes and Sub-cultures; Some Questions. Anthropological Linguistics 18:22-26.

Dushkin Group, The 1974 The Encyclopedia of Sociology. Guilford; The Dushkin Publishing Group.

Farrell, Ronald A. 1972 The Argot of the Homosexual Sub-culture. Anthro­ pological Linguistics 14:97-109.

Fischer, John L. 1958 Social Influence on the Choice of a Linguistic Variant. Word 14:47-56.

Fisher, Peter 1972 The Gay Mystique; the Myth and Reality of Male Homosexuality. New York; Stein and Day.

200 201

Goffman, Erving 1961 Encounters; Two Studies in the Sociology of Interaction. New York: Bobbs-Merrill Co., Inc.

1967 Interaction Ritual. New York: Doubleday Anchor.

1974 Frame Analysis. New York: Harper and Row.

Herskovitz, Melville J. 1948 Man and His Works. New York: A.A. Knopf.

Hoffman, Martin 1968 The Gay World; Male Homosexuality and the Social Creation of Evil. New York; Bantam Books.

Hooker, Evelyn 1967 The Homosexual Community. ^ Sexual Deviance, J. H. Gagnon and W. Simons, eds. New York: Harper and Row, Inc.

Humphreys, Laud 1970 Tearoom Trade; Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Chicago ; Aldine.

Jones, James 1951 From Here to Eternity. New York; Charles Scribner's Sons, Inc.

Kinsey, A. C., W. B. Pomeroy and C. E. Martin 1948 Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia; W. B. Saunders.

Kroeber, Alfred and Clyde Kluckhohn 1952 Culture; a Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Anthropological Papers of the Peabody Museum, no. 47. Cambridge, MA.

Labov, William 1970 The Study of Language in its Social Context. Studium Generale 23:66-84.

Langenscheidt 1970 New Pocket German Dictionary, s.v. "Hustle" and "Shake."

Lee, Richard 1976 Inside the Gay Community. The Washingtonian, March;110-218.

Leznoff, Maurice and William A. Westley 1956 The Homosexual Community. Social Problems 3:257-263. 202

Newton, Esther 1972 Mother Camp: Female Impersonators in America. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Rodgers, Bruce 1972 The Queen's Vernacular: a Gay Lexicon. San Francisco: Straight Arrow Press.

Rosellini, Lynn 1975 Homosexuals in Sports. The Washington Star, 9 December, sec. D, p. D1.

Selby, James 1964 Last Exit to Brooklyn. New York: The Grove Press,

Smith, M. Estellie 1974 Portuguese Enclaves; the Invisible Minority. In Social and Cultural Identity; Problems of Persistence and Change, T. K. Fitzgerald, Southern Anthropological Society, Proceedings, No. 8. Athens, GA; University of Georgia Press.

Tripp, C. A. 1975 The Homosexual Matrix. New York; McGraw-Hill Book Co.

Warren, Carol A. B. 1974 Identity and Community in the Gay World. New York; John Wiley & Sons.

Washington Post 1976 San Francisco Police Invited to 'Come Out,' 16 May, Sec. A, p. 2..

WBAL-TV 1976 Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. 2 June.

Weinberg, George 1973 Society and the Healthy Homosexual. Garden City, N.Y.; Doubleday Anchor.

Weinberg, Martin S. and Colin J. Williams 1974 Male Homosexuals; Their Problems and Adaptations. New York; Oxford University Press.

West, D. J. 1967 Homosexuality. London; Gerald Duckworth.

WMAL-TV 1976 Shades of Gay. 9-13 February.

Wrong, Dennis H. and Harry L. Gracey 1972 Readings in Introductory Sociology. 2nd ed. New York; The Macmillan Co.