Narratives of Racial Sexual Preference in Gay Male Subculture
Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation
Authors Crockett, Jason Lee
Publisher The University of Arizona.
Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Download date 24/09/2021 21:20:10
Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/204275
NARRATIVES OF RACIAL SEXUAL PREFERENCE IN GAY MALE SUBCULTURE
by
Jason Lee Crockett
______Copyright © Jason Lee Crockett 2010
A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
In the Graduate College
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA
2010 2
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE
As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Jason Lee Crockett entitled Narratives of Racial Sexual Preference in Gay Male Subculture and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
______Date: July 20, 2010 Erin Leahey (Co-Chair)
______Date: July 20, 2010 Stephen T. Russell (Co-Chair)
______Date: July 20, 2010 Ronald L. Breiger
Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate‟s submission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College.
I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
______Date: July 20, 2010 Dissertation Co-Director: Erin Leahey
______Date: July 20, 2010 Dissertation Co-Director: Stephen T. Russell
3
STATEMENT BY AUTHOR
This dissertation has been submitted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Arizona and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the Library.
Brief quotations from this dissertation are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the copyright holder.
SIGNED: Jason Lee Crockett
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This dissertation greatly benefited from the many graduate student colleagues who read and provided feedback at various stages in this research and/or provided invaluable friendship and moral support. Particular thanks to Kelly Bergstrand, Cindy Cain, Karen Gordon, Katie Hoegeman, Monika Ulrich, Scott Savage, Jennifer Schultz, Sarah Strand, Monica Whitham, Megan Wright, Seth Wright as members of various dissertation reading groups. Special thanks to Monika Ulrich for unwavering friendship, and for being a constant cheerleader and sounding board. I have also benefitted from my committee members‟ constant support and advice on this research and in other studies and endeavors. Ron Breiger has provided constant inspiration and challenge, particularly in the areas of social theory and cultural analysis. Stephen Russell has been a role model for me both as a sexualities scholar and a queer academic and never lets me undervalue myself or my work. Erin Leahey has been a mentor since my very first day of graduate school. I count myself very fortunate to have been assigned to her for my first graduate assistantship, as her guidance and good humor have been invaluable as I have moved through my graduate studies and into the start of an academic career. I am especially grateful to my husband and life partner Allen Crockett for emotional, domestic, and every other type of support. He has been along for the entire journey, for better and for worse. I am thankful for his presence and appreciative of his patience. Thanks also to our many friends and neighbors at StoneCurves co-housing community and Rincon Congregational United Church of Christ, who have been constant sources of support and encouragement in the dissertation and job seeking process. Financial support came from a Dissertation Research Grant from the Social and Behavioral Sciences Research Institute at the University of Arizona and assistantship funding by the Department of Sociology at the University of Arizona. Finally, thanks goes out to all the interviewees who took the time to share with me about an intimate part of their lives.
5
DEDICATION
To my mother,
for starting my university experience at the age of five
– an experience that never really ended.
To my grandparents,
for believing in the value of education and for believing in me.
To my husband and life partner Allen,
for coming with me when I chased a dream and for sharing in all the ups and downs that come with pursing a doctorate degree. 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………………....8
LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………………..9
ABSTRACT ……………………………………………………………………………10
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………….. 11 Overview ………………………………………………………………………. 11 Background ……………………………………………………………………. 12 Statement of Purpose and Research Questions ………………………………... 13 Methodological Overview ……………………………………………………...14 Researcher Perspective ………………………………………………………... 16 Assumptions …………………………………………………………………… 17 Significance …………………………………………………………………….18 Chapter Outline ………………………………………………………………... 19
CHAPTER 2: “DAMN, I‟M DATING A LOT OF WHITE GUYS”: GAY MEN‟S INDIVIDUAL NARRATIVES OF RACIAL SEXUAL PREFERENCE DEVELOPMENT...……………………………………………………………………. 21 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 21 Background and Previous Research .…………………………………………... 21 The Current Study ……………………………………………………………... 33 Data and Methods ………………………………………………………………36 Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………... 39 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 53
CHAPTER 3: BLACK AND WHITE MEN TOGETHER: THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING ORGANIZATIONAL NARRATIVE OF RACIAL SEXUAL PREFERENCE ………………………………………………………………………... 60 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 60 Background and Previous Research .…………………………………………... 61 Data and Methods ……………………………………………………………... 69 Results and Discussion ………………………………………………………... 71 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 83
CHAPTER 4: USING RACIAL SEXUAL PREFERENCE TO CRITIQUE CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF THE NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SEXUAL DESIRE …………………………………………………………………….. 88 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 88 The Problem of Racial Exoticism and Eroticism ……………………………… 90 The Nature of (Racial) Sexual Desire …………………………………………. 97 Dynamical Systems of (Racial) Sexual Development ………………………...105 7
Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………. 111
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………. 114 Major Themes and Findings ………………………………………………….. 114 Limitations and Future Research ……………………………………………... 117 Final Remarks …………………………………………………………………120
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT ……………………………………... 122
REFERENCES ……………………………………………………………………….. 130
8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 – Gay Slang Terms for Racial Preferences …………………………………. 58 Table 2.2 – Interview Participant Demographics ………………………………………59
9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1 – Change in Discussion of Racial Sexual Preference over Time in Black and White Men Together Archival Materials ……………………………………………… 87
10
ABSTRACT
My dissertation uses multiple methods to introduce the novel concept of racial sexual preference – individuals‟ preferences for a sexual or romantic partner based on race. This project builds on an insight from Daryl Bem‟s “Exotic Becomes Erotic” theory of sexual development: a diverse set of sexual preferences exists beyond gender. I argue the very real social consequences of race make preferences in regard to it (sexual or otherwise) an important area for systematic study. I focus on gay male subculture, which has uniquely developed a terminology for expressing racial preferences. I investigate how racial preference is understood and organized within this subculture by collecting gay men‟s sexual history narratives of cross-race preferences through interviews, as well as collecting archival materials from the national organization Black and White Men
Together (BWMT) that pertain to racial sexual preference. I find that racial sexual preferences are experienced early in the life course and are consistent over time, similarly to experiences of gendered sexual orientation, though generally less exclusive. Unlike gendered sexual orientation, identities are unlikely to form in relation to racial sexual preferences because there is little ideological structure to support expression of cross-race racial preferences. Even within the organizational structure of BWMT, founded to support racial sexual preferences, over time I find a decrease in discourse and identity related to racial sexual preference (in favor of a colorblind ideal of preferences). I end my study by using the concept of racial sexual preference, supported by the findings from interviews and case study, to build on and challenge the theoretical work of Daryl Bem,
Lisa Diamond, and James Giles in the area of sexual development and desire. 11
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Overview
This dissertation explores the phenomenon of sexual or romantic preferences based on race, or “racial sexual preference,” specifically focusing on preferences for a different race. The purpose of this study is to introduce this new idea of racial sexual preference, explore the structure and content of individual narratives regarding such racial preferences, and explore how such preferences are understood and organized by gay male subculture. In addition to gaining insight into this specific phenomenon, the findings from this inquiry contribute new insights into sexual development processes more generally and suggest new directions for sexuality research.
I employed a qualitative multi-method approach primarily focused on interviews and document review, with some secondary supplementation through participant observation. Participants in the interviews were a purposefully selected group consisting of thirteen self-identified gay men who reported a preference for dating men of a different race. This group included four men who were members of Black and White Men
Together (BWMT), a gay multiracial organization founded as a way to meet other men already in or interested in pursuing interracial relationships. Document review involved examination of twelve boxes of BWMT archival material, with over 300 pages of archival documents dealing with racial sexual preferences selected for analysis.
I introduce this study by outlining the background that provides the theoretical impetus of the study. Building from this background, I present the statement of purpose 12 and the research questions that provided the conceptual framework for the study.
Following this I include a brief overview of my methodological approach. I also give a short synopsis of my perspective as an investigator as well as my starting assumptions. I conclude the chapter with a discussion of the significance of this study and an outline of the remaining chapters.
Background
“Gentlemen prefer blondes.” Using this colloquial example, Bem (1996) suggests that in a non-gender-polarized society, men and women might organize their sexual preferences around blondes of any sex. The underlying acknowledgement here is that some individuals already prefer their sexual or romantic partners to have blonde hair.
While gender preferences may fade in importance over time, hair color preferences will not necessarily disappear as well. This is a specific illustration of Bem‟s more general assertion that in a culture not polarized by gender “erotic and romantic preferences
[would] crystallize around a more diverse and idiosyncratic variety of attributes” (1996:
332). Here, then, is recognition of something that most research on sexual orientation and development ignores: erotic and romantic preferences are based on many dimensions, not just gender. My research examines one of these dimensions: race. Race presents an interesting case, since (like gender) it plays a fundamental, if notorious, role in social classification and power (Barnard 2004, Moran 2001). The very real social consequences of race suggest that preferences in regard to it (sexual or otherwise) should not be easily written off as “idiosyncratic,” but instead should be systematically studied. 13
Although a person may have multiple sexual preferences, they are generally understood to have only one sexual orientation, and that is in regards to gender. The special status accorded to gendered sexual orientation is reflected in the fact that much of the academic literature on sexuality focuses gender-based sexual behavior, attractions, and identities. This is particularly the case in regards to the sexual development literature
(e.g., Diamond 2008, 2003a; Savin-Williams 1998; Savin-Williams and Diamond 2000).
However, this study problematizes the assumption that orientation equals gender by examining to what extent the lens of sexual orientation is useful with regard to race.
While there are arguably good reasons to afford gender a special status in regard to sexual attractions, race‟s role in social classification and power (Barnard 2004, Moran
2001) suggest that preferences in regard to it should not be ignored. Therefore, this research seeks to shed light on the sexual development of racial sexual preference by using a sexual orientation development perspective. In turn, the findings from this research build on and challenge existing theory on sexual development and desire.
Statement of Purpose and Research Questions
The primary purpose of this study is to explore with thirteen gay men their perceptions of their development of cross-race racial sexual preference, as well as how such preferences are understood in the organization Black and White Men Together and the larger gay community. Specifically, I seek to understand the structure and content of individual narratives regarding cross-race racial sexual preferences, as well as how gay male subculture organizes and ascribes meaning to such preferences. It is anticipated that 14 a better understanding of how racial sexual preferences are experienced and understood by individuals and their communities will in turn reveal a greater understanding of sexual development more generally.
The research question that guides this project is: What are the individual narratives (life and sexual histories) of cross-race racial sexual preference among gay men, and how are such preferences understood in gay male subculture? Breaking the question down into its more detailed, constituent parts:
1. Are there narratives of cross-race sexual preference? If so, what are the narratives
of cross-race sexual preference? What experiences and beliefs are held by people
who prefer to date and have relationships with persons of a different race? How
consistent are narratives across cases? Does the narrative structure of one‟s
development of cross-race sexual preference correspond in any way to that of
gendered orientation?
2. How is cross-race racial sexual preference understood and organized by gay male
subculture? Are broader cultural narratives consistent with individual narratives,
or are different narratives told? How consistent are these cultural narratives?
How are understandings of racial sexual preference influenced by beliefs related
to gendered sexual orientation and interethnic relations?
Methodological Overview
With the approval of the University‟s Institutional Review Board, I employed a qualitative multi-method approach including interviews, document review, and 15 participant observation. In-depth sexual history interviews were the primary method of data collection. I studied the experiences and perceptions of thirteen self-identified gay men, including four men who were members of the social movement organization Black and White Men Together (BWMT). These men all preferred to date men of a different race and/or were in an interracial relationship because of such a preference. A comprehensive review of the relevant literature shaped the sexual history interview instrument. Members of BWMT were asked supplementary questions dealing with the organization and its relationship with the wider gay community. Five interviews were conducted via instant message system with a verbatim transcript, four interviews utilized a typed real-time transcription during the interview, and four interviews utilized written notes that were typed up immediately after the interview. Each interviewee was identified by a pseudonym.
In addition to the interviews, twelve boxes of BWMT archival material were examined, and over 300 pages of archival documents dealing with racial sexual preferences were selected for further analysis. These documents were transcribed for coding. I was also a participant observer during the 2009 BWMT annual national convention in Philadelphia, PA. The multi-method nature of the study allowed me to achieve triangulation of data. I was able to compare descriptions of experiences and beliefs around racial sexual preference across interviews, archival material, and observations. I was also able to compare descriptions of the role of racial sexual preference in BWMT across member interviews, archival material, and participant observations. Coding categories were developed and refined on an ongoing basis, guided 16 by the study‟s conceptual framework. In addition, I used strategies including intra-rater reliability in the coding process, identification of discrepant evidence, and peer review at different stages as the study progressed.
Researcher Perspective
Although my own sexual preferences are not organized around a cross-race preference, my status as a gay man as well as doctoral candidate and instructor specializing in the study of sexuality gave me some preliminary knowledge and insight into how racial sexual preferences are understood within gay male subculture. In addition, I had prior knowledge of the Black and White Men Together organization through interactions with members of a local chapter while volunteering with an LGBT community center in a previous city of residence. I was also aware of the organization through my study of social movements.
At the same time, my status as a white, middle-class, 30-something gay male likely affected what venues I could effectively recruit in, who felt comfortable being interviewed, and what the interview responses were (Taylor, Gilligan, and Sullivan
1995). In particular, my status as a gay man may have allowed increased rapport with gay male interviewees given the sexual history subject matter. (Indeed, the most common question interviewees asked me was not about my racial sexual preference but whether I was gay.) However, this increased rapport may also bias my judgment and interpretation of findings. I dealt with this possibility by identifying my perspective and assumptions at the beginning of the study, engaging in ongoing critical self-reflection, 17 and dialoging with professional colleagues and advisors. Strategies of identification of discrepant evidence and triangulation of data also strengthen the credibility of the research process.
Assumptions
Based on my experience, background knowledge, and review of the relevant literature, I made five primary assumptions regarding this study. First, narratives of racial sexual preference are widely divergent compared to narratives of gendered sexual orientation. This assumption is based on the premise that narratives of racial sexual preference are less culturally widespread and consistent than narratives of gendered sexual orientation, and thus there is not consistent cultural narrative to serve as a resource for creating an individual narrative. Second, some elements of the narratives of racial sexual preference are borrowed from narratives of gendered sexual orientation. I base this assumption on a premise related to the first: narratives of gendered sexual orientation are more developed and culturally consistent, and thus can serve as a resource for creating a narrative for a less developed and related narrative. Third, racial sexual preferences will be less exclusive and more mutable compared to gendered sexual orientation. This assumption is based on the premises that race is less strongly dichotomized than gender and that race awareness is more discouraged than gender awareness (Barnard 2004, Moran 2001). Fourth, awareness of racial sexual preferences occurs later in the life course than awareness of gendered sexual orientation. This assumption is based on the premises that narratives of gendered sexual orientation are 18 more widespread and thus available to integrate as part of an identity, race awareness is more discouraged than gender awareness, and race is less strongly dichotomized than gender. Fifth, older men are more likely to use labels or self-identify based on racial sexual preference. This assumption is based on the premises that identity is more likely later in the life course (Savin-Williams and Diamond 2000) and that older persons are less likely to avoid race-related identities due to differences in cultural norms over time
(Moran 2001).
Significance
I contend that studying racial sexual preference and its intersection with gendered sexual orientation sheds additional light on racial, gendered, and sexual processes. For example, information about development of racial sexual preferences can inform broader theories of sexual development. It can demonstrate how gender-centered developmental steps apply (or don‟t apply) to non-gendered cases, how sexual development occurs in the absence of identity, and to what extent apparently “gendered” attractions may actually be dependent on other social categories such as race.
Also, while race and gender are not interchangeable symbolic systems, a greater understanding of sexual dynamics in a multi-racial (if, at least in the United States, still largely conceptualized as dichotomous “black and white”) system may be able to ground speculative theory around sexual dynamics in a multi-gendered society (that is, a society 19 that recognizes gender identities beyond male/female or man/woman) as explored in the works of Butler (1999, 1993) and Fausto-Sterling (1993).1
Chapter Outline
Chapter 2 primarily addresses the first part of my research question through analysis of individual narratives of cross-race sexual preference development elicited through one-on-one semi-structured interviews. To begin the chapter I present background on the relationship between racial sexual preferences and interracial relationships, provide further information about the status of racial sexual preferences in the gay community, and discuss the narrative approach in sexual development literature.
With this backdrop, I examine the similarities and differences between these men‟s accounts of their gendered sexual orientations and their racial sexual preferences, as well as other beliefs and experiences these men had in relation to their racial sexual preferences. I end the chapter with suggestions for future directions of research into individual narratives of racial sexual preference (as well as other non-gender-based desires).
In Chapter 3 I turn my attention to the second part of my research question, applying the questions to the case of the organization Black and White Men Together and in particular the findings from my document review. In this chapter I provide a more in- depth history of the organization and analyze its complicated relationship with interethnic
1 Gender theorists such as Butler and Fausto-Sterling have proposed that moving from a dichotomized men-women gender system towards a multi-gendered society would change the basic sexual dynamics of society because gender is reduced in significance as a classification system. Bem‟s Erotic-Becomes-Exotic theory of sexual development makes similar claims, as outlined briefly in the first paragraph of the Introduction. 20 ideologies (in general) and racial sexual preference (specifically). I also suggest future avenues of data collection that could shed more light on this interesting organizational case.
Chapter 4 brings together findings from the interviews and document review and examines how they resonate with and problematize three contemporary theoretical viewpoints on sexual desire and development: Daryl Bem‟s “Exotic Becomes Erotic”
(EBE) theory of sexual development, James Giles‟ theory of the nature of sexual desire, and Lisa Diamond‟s dynamical systems theory of sexual development. The discussion also applies to interracial relationship theory. I end by proposing some specific areas for future research to productively build and test theory in this theoretical area using the concept of racial sexual preference. In particular, I advance the need for an intersectional perspective on sexuality that moves away from considering “gendered” attractions in isolation from other social categories.
21
CHAPTER 2
“DAMN, I‟M DATING A LOT OF WHITE GUYS”:
GAY MEN‟S INDIVIDUAL NARRATIVES
OF RACIAL SEXUAL PREFERENCE DEVELOPMENT
Introduction
Although the literature devoted to understanding sexuality has grown significantly in the past 20 years, it has focused almost exclusively on the development and expression of erotic attractions and responsiveness based on gender. Although there is acknowledgement in the literature of diverse erotic and romantic preferences, less attention has been paid to other ways sexuality is organized. This research examines the development and expression of racial sexual preferences (that is, erotic attractions and responsiveness based on race). Race presents an interesting case because, like gender, it plays a fundamental, if notorious, role in social classification and power. While there are arguably good reasons to afford gender a special status in regard to sexuality, the role of race in social classification and power suggest that preferences in regard to it should not be ignored.
Background and Previous Research
The existence of sexual and romantic partner preferences that take race into account is itself established. In analogy to a predominant focus on explaining same- gender rather than opposite-gender attractions, preferences for a different race are more 22 likely to be noticed and accounted for because they fall outside of social norms (Cutrone
2000). Therefore I focus my attention on cross-race attractions and interracial relationships as an initial approach to investigation of racial sexual preferences.
Although interracial relationships do not necessarily imply racial sexual preferences, studies of interracial relationships sometimes touch on the existence of race-based preferences as one reason for their existence. In addition, studies of gay male subculture have noted existence of terms referring to racial sexual partner preferences as well as historical existence of a handful of organizations for men who prefer interracial relationships. Finally, while the literature on sexual development does not directly deal with racial sexual preferences, its treatment of gendered sexual orientation provides theoretical insights and a methodological model to aid in their investigation.
Interracial Relationships and Racial Sexual Preferences
Research on interracial committed relationships has tended to focus on how racial and gender inequalities and prejudices affect mate choice. Interracial relationships make up only six to 12 percent of all married and cohabiting couples, in part because a “unitary system of heterosexual same-race marriage [has] been assiduously maintained since colonial times” and has only recently begun to “fray” (Rosenfeld and Kim 2005: 559).
Law, custom and “traditional” beliefs, residential segregation and suburbanization, and direct interventions by communities and families have all historically supported this system. 23
A popular explanation for the phenomenon of interracial relationships (usually focusing on the case of black-white relationships) has been based on exchange theory, in which whites of low socioeconomic status marry blacks of higher socioeconomic status in exchange for an improvement in racial caste position. However, Rosenfeld‟s (2005) recent critique of this theory uses demographic data to demonstrate that status homogamy is the norm among interracial couples. His conclusion resonates not only with what we know about relationships in general, but also with a long history of ethnographic findings
(DuBois 1899; Porterfield 1978; Root 2001; Spickard 1989) that interracial relationships are based in “solidarity and affection and personal choice, not…exchanges” (Rosenfeld
2005: 1320).
Long before Rosenfeld, Freeman (1955) interviewed University of Hawaii students who expressed preferences for dating and marriage partners outside of their own race or ethnicity. More recent studies of interracial relationships also frequently acknowledge that such relationships are not always simply “happenstance” but often the result of racial preferences (see, for examples: Chow 2000; Cutrone 2000; Lockman
1984; McDermit 1980; Scott 1994; Twine 1996b). While racial partner preferences in interracial relationship studies are only sometimes explicitly about sexual desires, at least one study confirms that racial sexual preferences do exist. Kaplan (2004) found that high ratings of “typical” physical attractiveness for another racial category predicted an interracial dating history.
What is considered attractive is influenced by the racial hierarchy. At best, minorities (and particularly blacks) may be seen as “inappropriate” dating and marital 24 partners; at worst, they may be seen as dangerous and deviant (Frankenberg 1993; Twine
1996a; Yancey 2003). The “natural” superiority of White characteristics is so culturally dominant that standards of physical beauty in the U.S. tend to be Eurocentric even within minority communities. The association of light skin with attractiveness within the
African American community is well documented (Esmail and Sullivan 2006; Hill 2002;
Ross 1997). Chow (2000) found that physical characteristics more common to Whites were favored even among those who preferred relationships with other Asians, while those expressing a preference for White spouses felt more identification with European
American culture and were more likely to overtly racialize personality characteristics of the opposite gender. An example of such racialization is characterizing White men as
“confident” and “giving,” (versus Asian men as “insecure” and “selfish”), or White women as “outspoken” and “vivacious” (versus Asian women as “submissive” and
“shy”).
These gendered interactions with racial beliefs may be evocative of ways in which gendered sexual orientation in turn affects experiences and beliefs around interracial dating and racial sexual preferences. For example, whereas a cultural belief about gender
“inversion” exists around same-sex attraction (e.g., the stereotyped feminine gay male
“queen” or masculine “butch” lesbian), gay Asian men may also be particularly seen as overly feminine and exotic in part due to racialized beliefs (an idea that finds support in
Han 2006). However, although there are several studies which address the experience of
LGBTQ racial and ethnic minorities more generally, and some may briefly address interracial relationships, McDermit‟s (1980) small study of five white men and 25
Lockman‟s (1984) exploratory survey of twenty-seven black and white men involved in black-white relationships appear to be the only social science research that explicitly focuses on interracial same-sex relationships. Therefore, whether persons of different gendered sexual orientations have different experiences and beliefs around interracial dating, as well as how they experience racial sexual preferences, are questions that remain largely un-addressed.
There is also little data on the prominence of race-based attractions. There is no clear way to measure cross-race sexual preferences in the general population, but using interracial relationships as a proxy (although those with a cross-race preference may not necessarily have interracial relationships, and those in interracial relationships may not necessarily have a cross-race preference) demonstrates the likelihood that this is a small population of interest. The rate in the United States in 2000 was about 6 percent for married couples, and between 10 and 12 percent for unmarried partner households including opposite and same-sex couples. For the West region, however, numbers jump to approximately 11 percent and 16-20 percent (Simmons and O‟Connell 2003). In one of the few studies that examine same-sex dating patterns alongside opposite-sex dating patterns, Phua and Kaufman (2003) found that men seeking men through online personal ads were more likely to request a particular race than men seeking women, supporting the possibility that gay men may be particularly likely to express racial preferences in romantic and sexual relationships. This suggests that a strategic area to begin exploring racial preferences may be among gay men and gay male communities.
26
Gay Male Subculture and Racial Sexual Preference
There are additional reasons to believe there is a noteworthy link between sexual orientation and racial sexual preference. Scholars of linguistics, folklore, and sociology have documented the development of terminology based on racial sexual and romantic partner preferences since at least the 1970s, largely originating in gay male subculture
(Goodwin 1989; Hom and Ma 1993; Lockman 1984; Long 1996; Newall 1986; Stanley
1970).2 Examples of such terminology can be seen in Table 2.1 (p. 58). No specific explanations are offered for the appearance of these terms, but the appearance of a wide variety of sexual slang terms as well as an elaborate “handkerchief code” (symbolically indicating a variety of sexual interests) during that same period reflects development of a complex sexual taxonomy within gay male subculture.
The terms reflecting racial partner preferences are more commonly used and critiqued in cultural studies literature since the mid-1990s, reflecting an increasing interest in intersections between categories of race and sexuality. Although the earliest documented terminology has clearly derogatory overtones (“dinge queen” for white men who prefer black men), and later terminology plays on stereotypes and notions of exoticism (for example, “rice queen” for non-Asian – especially white – men who prefer
Asian men), there are also connotations of irony and (self-)parody (Hayes 2000). These
2 Exceptions where terminology has referred primarily to mainstream, heterosexual contexts include “jungle fever” – meaning white preference for black partners – used in Spike Lee‟s 1991 film Jungle Fever, and “rice king” – meaning a white man with a preference for Asian women (Holmlund and Wyatt 2004). It seems likely the latter was constructed as an analogue to the gay subcultural term “rice queen.” “Nigger lover” is a long-standing derogatory term that bears a relationship with these other terms, but carries connotations much broader than sexual or romantic preferences. 27 labels not only imply stable patterns of attraction but also raise the possibility of identities
(or at least proto-identities) around racial sexual preferences; and, if it is not merely a linguistic accident, the development of terminology within gay male subculture suggests that understandings of racial sexual preference may be inflected by gendered sexual orientation. In other words, the experiences of gendered sexual development by gay men and/or community interactions among gay men appear to be a contributing factor in the unique attention paid within this gendered sexual orientation group to racial sexual preference.
[TABLE 2.1 HERE]
Another demonstration of gay male subculture‟s unique attention to racial sexual preference is the formation and sustained existence of the social movement organization
Black and White Men Together. Michael J. Smith, a white man who preferred interracial relationships with black men, founded BWMT in 1980 as a way to meet other gay men already in or interested in pursuing interracial relationships. The organization currently lists 14 active local and regional chapters across the United States. Although not the first gay organization founded around interest in interracial relationships (short-lived support groups popped up in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Milwaukee), it was the first to be more than a local or transient phenomenon. The group currently defines itself as a “gay multiracial, multicultural organization committed to fostering supportive environments wherein racial and cultural barriers can be overcome and the goal of human equality realized” (National Association of Black and White Men Together 2008b). However, a major impetus for membership in the organization is “interracial orientation” and/or the 28 desire to “find that „someone‟ of a different race” (NABWMT 1993). This and similar terminology make comparable implications to the “queen” terminology while moving away from stereotype and closer to language used around gendered attractions.
Concurrently, BWMT itself evokes the possibility of community around the idea of racial sexual preference.
Narratives of Gendered Sexual Orientation and Sexual Development
Studies of narratives of gendered sexual orientation only rarely address race directly. Instead, I draw upon them as a model for understanding sexual development of racial sexual preferences. Studies of sexual development now generally agree on a set of common components that make up the process of sexual development for same-sex attracted individuals. These typically include: feelings of “differentness” that may be associated with sexual feelings or gender-atypical behavior, appearance, or interests; preoccupation with or sexual attraction toward one or more members of the same sex; realization of a predisposition towards sexual and/or affectional feelings towards the same sex; experimentation or initiation of sexual behavior; conscious questioning of sexual identity; seeking information about others with similar attractions; adoption of a sexual identity; disclosure of sexual identity to others; and involvement in a same-sex romantic relationship. Although at one time conceptualized as linear stages, it is now recognized that there is diversity in terms of the presence, timing, and order of these components in individual experiences of sexual development (Diamond 1998, Dubé 29
2000; Rosario, Schrimshaw, and Hunter 2008; Rosario et al 2009; Russell, Clarke, and
Clary 2009; Savin-Williams 1998, Savin-Williams and Diamond 2000).
Although there is recognition of diverse pathways, males are more likely to experience feelings of “difference” in early childhood compared to women and, on average, experience most other milestones at an earlier age than females (Diamond 2000,
Savin-Williams and Diamond 2000). Males also typically experience stability of attractions by late adolescence or early adulthood, while women are somewhat more likely to experience fluidity in their attractions as adults (Diamond 2000, 2008). This basic set of concepts and patterns is useful as a reference point for investigation of the presence or absence of similar milestones in the case of racial sexual preference. The acknowledgement of diversity also indicates a need to examine to what degree development of racial sexual preferences follows a similar or different track to gendered sexual orientation for individuals, and to what degree milestones of racial sexual preference development tend to vary in their presence, timing, and order across individuals.
As well as describing the trajectories of experience of sexual orientation and identities, sexual development literature also theorizes regarding the nature or origins of sexual desires (and, in particular, gender-based desires). One such theory which may bear particular relevance to study of cross-race attractions is Bem‟s (1996) “Exotic
Becomes Erotic” (EBE) theory of sexuality. Bem suggests that generalized arousal in childhood towards peers who are dissimilar or exoticized (but not too exotic) becomes associated with eroticization of that same group of dissimilar peers. While this theory 30 was created as a way of dealing with the question of gendered sexual orientation, I argue that the theory can be generalized to existence of sexual desires based on perceived difference in the form of race. Themes of difference or exoticism in the context of race, then, should be of particular interest in attempting to understand development of racial sexual preferences.
Narratives of Sexual Development as a Methodological Approach
Research on gendered sexual orientation analyzes narratives in the form of retrospective questionnaires and interviews asking about childhood, adolescent, and earlier adult experiences. This is a core methodological approach of sexual development literature (see, for key examples: Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith 1981; Diamond
1998; Dunne, Bailey, Kirk, and Martin 2000; Isay 1989; McDonald 1982; Phillips and
Over 1992, 1995; Savin-Williams 1996, 1998; Savin-Williams and Diamond 2000).
Most of these studies take the approach of asking discrete, closed-ended, questions about developmental milestones and related beliefs and behaviors (e.g., “When did you first experience sexual attraction?” or “When did you have your first homosexual relationship?”) and reconstructing a generalized developmental path from the answers.
Several of these developmental milestones can be usefully translated into a study of racial sexual preference.
However, Horowitz and Newcomb (2001: 15) level a relevant criticism of such studies for focusing too much on identity as “the only legitimate and valued outcome” or endpoint in a way that essentializes sexual identities. Because “identity can only arise in 31 those societies in which [a categorization] is acknowledged” and because “there is no necessary relationship between a particular pattern of sexual behavior and taking a sexual identity,” they recommend separating out models of desire, behavior, and identity (15-
16). They also note that because sexual development is an “ongoing process” there is
“no true endpoint” (4). This is a valuable perspective from the point of view of investigating racial sexual preferences because identities regarding such preferences may be rare. In a culture that does not commonly recognize the existence of racial sexual preferences and is disapproving of racial preferences in general there would seem to be little cultural space for the creation of (at least a positive) identity around race-based desires (Barnard 2004; Moran 2001). Also, in a society that continues to be socially segregated along lines of race, particularly in the realms of romantic love and sexuality, desires and behaviors may also not necessarily align.
In contrast with the closed-ended questionnaire approach, some have employed a more open-ended narrative approach in which the respondent is asked to reconstruct their own history in a qualitative, elaborated, integrated, process-oriented way. Although some early qualitative work is based on psychological or psychoanalytic patient studies
(e.g., Isay 1989), most modern research from the qualitative, integrative narrative approach utilizes one-time face-to-face semi-structured interviews focused around personal histories of sexual attractions, behaviors, and experiences of identity (Diamond
1998; Savin-Williams 1996, 1998). Whereas more quantitative research tends to focus on generalizable stage theories leading to identity, as a general rule qualitative research has tended to give more attention to differential developmental trajectories across 32 subgroups. In other words, rather than assuming a set of milestones and the ability to construct a singular sequencing of those milestones, the open-ended narrative approach allows for the possibility that not all milestones are shared and gives attention to variability in both presence and sequencing of the milestones.
That said, like the quantitative studies, these studies also tend to focus on identity as an ultimate outcome. However, in her longitudinal study of women‟s sexual development, Diamond (1998, 2003b, 2005) has notably challenged this assumption by including those not adopting a sexual identity label, as well as by studying the phenomenon of relinquishing identity labels. Like Horowitz and Newcomb, her approach recognizes that because sexual development is an ongoing process, there is not one set “endpoint.” Therefore, Diamond‟s work provides a particularly relevant model to borrow from for study of racial sexual preferences.
Given that most studies of sexual development are based on retrospective reporting, another critique has been that the data represents a “reconstructed past” (Boxer and Cohler 1989; Phillips and Over 1992, 1995). In response to these critiques a few prospective studies have been conducted, while other researchers have responded to the concerns by selecting younger cohorts of teens and young adults, thus narrowing the window of time in which events can be distorted or forgotten. However, while supporting the need for more prospective studies, Diamond (2006) cautions that neither prospective data nor the approach of selecting younger cohorts escapes the problem of the “reconstructed past.” A closely related concern is that longitudinal research may itself influence or create developmental processes, as asking individuals to regularly 33 account for their attractions, behaviors, and identities may itself influence said attractions, behaviors, and identities.
Instead of trying to determine “true” accounts, Diamond suggests asking: “What is it about this particular scenario or memory that has given it such prominence as a core feature of this individual‟s narrative sense of self?” (478) and “How do individuals craft developmentally specific, goal-relevant interpretations of their own erotic subjectivity in the service of maintaining a comfortable, coherent, and socially meaningful sense of self?” (482). To help answer these questions, she references four types of self-event relations: “explain/ illustrate relations, in which an event is described as exemplifying an existing trait or characteristic; dismiss relations, in which an uncharacteristic event is discounted; cause relations, in which an event is portrayed as instigating change in the self; and reveal relations, in which an event prompts discovery of a hidden truth about the self.” (Diamond 2006: 483)3
The Current Study
As demonstrated in the previous section, what is known about the phenomenon of sexual and romantic partner preferences based on race suggests that such preferences influence who a person falls in love with or has close emotional attachments to, has sexual desires for or fantasizes about, actually has sex with, has romantic or sexual relationships with, how a person identifies, and/or in which communities a person spends time or feels most comfortable. Race-based desires, if paid attention to at all, are often
3 Diamond derives these self-event relation types from Pasupathi, Mansour, and Brubaker‟s (2007) work. 34 explained as fetishism (that is, an objectifying desire focused solely on sexual behavior and gratification). Yet the description offered of racial sexual preferences seems more analogous to the meanings usually ascribed to the concept of “sexual orientation”
(Diamond 2003a; Klein, Sepekoff, and Wolf 1985; Sandfort 2005). However, the concept of “sexual orientation” is limited to an understanding of sexuality that is gender- centered. While it is acknowledged that a person may have multiple sexual preferences
(in the broadest sense of the word), they are generally understood to have only one sexual orientation, and that is in regards to gender.
A significant body of academic literature addresses the interactions between gender and (gendered) sexual orientation. Research and theory work on sexual development has indicated a link between childhood gender non-conformity and adult same-sex sexual orientation (Bailey 1996; Bem 1996, 2000; Dunne et al 2000), although it is also clear that some gender-typical children grow up to be homosexual and some gender-atypical children grow up to be heterosexual (Bailey 1996; Fausto-Sterling 2007,
Sandfort 2005). There is also empirical evidence that sexual development trajectories differ for men and women (Diamond 1998, Savin-Williams and Diamond 2000).
No doubt the discourse positing a special (and perhaps unique) link between gender and orientation is related to beliefs and supporting research indicating that at least some aspects of gendered sexual orientation develop early in the life course and tend to be consistent over time (especially if these findings are seen as indicative of essential difference). A focus on orientation in the context of monosexual exclusivity may also be a factor, since “preference” suggests more choice or at least “middle ground” in 35 attractions. However, it is unclear that these factors do not apply to any other sexual preferences, including those in regards to race.
Therefore, this study questions the assumption that orientation equals gender by examining to what extent the lens of sexual orientation is useful to examine racial sexual preference. While there are arguably good reasons to afford gender a special status in regard to sexuality, race‟s role in social classification and power suggest that preferences in regard to it should not be ignored. For that reason, this research seeks to shed light on the sexual development of racial sexual preference by using a sexual orientation development perspective. Nevertheless, I use the term “racial sexual preference” rather than “racial sexual orientation” both to minimize confusion among terms and because the status of race as a shaping influence in sexuality remains to be established and verified
(although this study takes a significant step in that direction).
This narrative study of racial sexual preference brings new perspective to the sexual development literature in several ways. First, unlike gendered sexual orientation, categories around race-based sexual attractions are not as commonly recognized in our society, and so while the possibility of individuals creating identities or proto-identities should not be ignored, it presents an interesting case for applying Horowitz and
Newcomb‟s critique of focusing on identity as an endpoint. Second, it may shed some light on the extent to which gender differences in gendered sexual orientation trajectories are generalizable to other sexual development processes. In other words, can similarities be found between development of racial preference and gendered orientation, and are differences in racial sexual preference development related to differential patterns of 36 gendered sexual orientation development? Finally, in relation to Diamond‟s observations around consistency and authenticity, an examination can be made of how narratives of sexual development are (re)constructed in a case where there are few guiding identities and cultural narratives. If existing identities and cultural narratives are not themselves prominent or necessarily consistent, this might shift how individuals produce consistency and a sense of self in relation to their sexual preferences.
Thus, this paper addresses the following questions:
1. What are the narratives of cross-race sexual preference? What experiences and
beliefs are held by people who prefer to date and have relationships with persons
of a different race? How consistent are narratives across cases?
2. Does the narrative structure (for example, the presence and sequencing of
milestones) of one‟s development of cross-race sexual preference correspond in
any way to that of gendered sexual orientation?
Data and Methods
Participants
Participants include 13 gay men who have a sexual or romantic preference for a different race. This study focused on gay men because of the apparently unique awareness, terminology, and community building around racial sexual preference in the gay male subculture, including slang terminology and the development of the Black and
White Men Together organization. Because the project focuses on comparison of narratives and includes investigation of identities of racial sexual preference, identity was 37 the key component of gendered sexual orientation that was used to determine what category a person fell within. Therefore, men had to self-identify as gay in order to participate in the study. A list of the participants along with basic information on their racial sexual preferences and demographics is presented in Table 2.2 (p. 59).
[TABLE 2.2 HERE]
I sought to locate individuals who were diverse in terms of racial identity, primary race preference, and geographic location. A primary goal in this regard was to select equal numbers of white men and men of color; my sample is 54% men of color. Previous similar studies that have intentionally recruited with an eye to racial diversity had difficulty in reaching levels of participation at even 20-30% of the overall sample
(Diamond 1998; Savin-Williams 1998). Higher participation by racial minorities could reflect the fact that the research explicitly focuses on race. It is also possible that this ratio reflects a lower likelihood for white men to express a cross-race preference. I did not actively recruit with an eye to social class diversity, and as with similar studies the sample is largely middle-class and relatively highly educated.
Recruitment methods included posting flyers on university campuses and at non- profit agencies and businesses targeting the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer
(LGBTQ) community. Advertisements were also posted on online bulletin boards, forums, and advertising sites such as craigslist.com. I also recruited directly by presenting flyers at the Black and White Men Together organization‟s 2009 annual conference in Philadelphia, PA.
38
Procedures
I conducted semi-structured interviews face-to-face and via the Internet.
Interviews ranged from one to four hours in length. Face-to-face interviews were conducted in a university office or a location of the participant‟s choosing. Five interviews were conducted via instant message system with a verbatim transcript, four interviews utilized a typed real-time transcription using a notebook computer during the interview, and three interviews utilized written notes that were transcribed into an electronic format immediately after the interview. Transcribed data were edited to remove all personal identifying and contact information and pseudonyms were used for participants.
Semi-structured interviews were selected both because individual narratives are a conceptual focus of the study and because interviews have the potential to elicit rich, thick descriptions. In addition, this type of interview gave me the opportunity to ask for clarification and to probe for additional information. Because of the sensitive nature of the study, discretion as to question wording and timing helped to keep interviews informal and unthreatening to respondents, while also allowing exploration of unanticipated statements relevant to this relatively unexplored area of study (Singleton and Straights 1999).
Qualitative interviews are used to attempt to elicit the participants‟ points of view, the meaning of their experiences, and understandings of their lived world (Kvale and
Brinkmann 2009). This provides a good fit with the intent of gathering personal narratives, because these are stories that make meaning from a person‟s life and point of 39 view. This is also consistent with the goal of giving voice. Borrowing from the structure of interviews designed to elicit narratives of gendered sexual orientation development
(Diamond 1998; Savin-Williams 1996, 1998), my research questions grounded the development of my framework of interview questions. The schedule worked well with initial interviews; as themes emerged, in subsequent interviews they were incorporated into the structure of the instrument. A final interview schedule is included as Appendix
A (p. 121).
As a mode of data collection, interviews do have limitations. First, they depend upon the cooperation, motivation, perception, truthfulness, and articulateness of the interviewee. Second, they depend upon the knowledge and interviewing skills of the researcher, including knowledge of the topic, structure of the interview, clarity of questions, and sensitivity in speaking and listening.
Results and Discussion
Comparing Gendered Sexual Orientation and Racial Sexual Preference
Like gendered sexual orientation, racial sexual preference appears to develop early in the life course. Almost all participants experienced cross-race attractions very early in their lives – often at the same time they started noticing same-sex attractions.
Typically this started with crushes or infatuations on classmates. David, a white man, explained that he “had a nebulous attraction” to a black classmate in his mostly white school which he described as “a little bit of a crush, a big desire to be his friend.” This experience of cross-race attraction occurred in fifth grade and predated his awareness of 40 sexual attraction to boys more generally a year later. Similarly, Jerome, a black man, first experienced same-sex attractions at age 13 through crushes on other boys in his classes. Although he attended a racially blended high school, the two boys he remembers liking “in particular” were white. Edward (white) explicitly connected the two budding attractions himself: “My attractions to Hispanic men were simultaneous with my attractions to men – I certainly remember from junior high school.” The most striking example of this early onset of a pattern of racial preference may be from Craig (white), who not only established a pattern of attraction remarkably early, he also acted on this attraction:
“Well I first started to realize I liked boys very, very young. I was about 5 years old when I kissed a boy at school, we were both shepherds in the school play… [His] race was… half Argentinian. I know that one thing I notice looking back and also seeing my tastes now in men, Latin men have always been my preference.”
Craig‟s quote also demonstrates a related similarity – the language used to describe this early onset of cross-race attraction is reminiscent of that used in gay narratives. Just as gay men commonly report they were “always” attracted to men when describing their memories of childhood and adolescence, it was common for those interviewed to state that race had “always” been a factor in their preferences. Even one interviewee (Paul, white) who did not establish a firm racial preference until late high school reported that he was “always aware of [his] sexuality in terms of race” because the racial diversity of his hometown gave him cause to think of men of different races as
“different sexual „types.‟” This similarity in language is perhaps unsurprising given how intertwined the two experiences were for many of these men. However, it is remarkable 41 that among these interviewees they were more likely to use this “always” language explicitly in regard to their racial attractions than their gendered attractions. Bill (white) takes this similarity one step closer by explicitly connecting his beliefs about his racial preferences with the common belief that same-sex attractions are inborn:
“It does seem to be bred into me from the get-go, much like I feel homosexuality was always a part of me, as opposed to a specific incident or relationship that set me on that path of attraction. It just feels right to me, like breathing.”
Bill does not quite make a genetic argument, suggesting that there is a spiritual element, and that he is even tempted to believe a friend‟s argument that “it has something to do with a past life.” Nevertheless, he clearly uses the language of innateness used to discuss gendered sexual orientation, indicating it has influenced his thoughts and language use around his racial sexual preferences.
Three of the five oldest interviewees (late forties and older) had somewhat differing experiences. These men spent most of their time as children and teens in segregated, relatively racially isolated communities. The youngest of the five (Lavon, black) reported growing up in a somewhat segregated environment, but moved to an integrated neighborhood at the age of 12. Edward (white) is in this age range as well, but the primary racial/ethnic line in the community he was raised in was not Black/White but rather Latino/White and was not subject to residential and educational segregation.
However, the three other participants, who experienced the strongest levels of racial isolation, nevertheless recalled childhood and adolescent experiences of attraction for persons who were racially or ethnically distinct from themselves: 42
“My first attraction may have happened in 1st or 2nd grade. My best friend was black because of the one drop rule but „high yellow‟ or mulatto – he could pass for white. We had a very close bond.” (Kenton, black)
“Where I grew up was very segregated, there were no blacks in town or at the university… A friend in high school would talk to me about the Italians in town, an ethnic minority. There was an exoticness to it growing up in an all-white area.” (Michael, white)
Although these men lived in communities that were understood to be racially uniform, they nevertheless perceived racial differences that translated into attraction. So, even these men see an early development of their racial preferences in their life story.
As with gendered sexual orientation, attractions are not only reported to develop early on, but to be relatively consistent or stable over time by the onset of early adulthood. Craig, as noted above, had stable racial attractions since age 5, Edward and
Kenneth since junior high school, and David since early high school. Five of the men‟s narratives indicated attractions had not varied since at least age 17-18. Four men reported a steady pattern of attractions since at least their early twenties. Those whose narratives indicated relatively later consistency seem to reflect later sexual experiences with persons of their preferred race and/or later sexual experiences with men in general.
Sexual behavior in general is also generally consistent with stated preferences.
All but two of the participants reported that a majority of their sexual partners were of their preferred race. Both of the exceptions were White men whose largest number of sexual partners was other White men, and both explained the discrepancy in terms of relative availability or access to partners of their preferred race. It seems unlikely to be coincidence that these exceptions were the oldest and youngest members of the sample. 43
In the case of Michael, segregation was a factor, while David had had relatively few sexual partners and was raised and went to college in a mostly white environment in an area with a small black population.
Despite this consistency of attraction, participants most often reported that they were not conscious of this pattern of attractions even well after this consistency had emerged. For example, while Craig reported very early attractions to Latinos, he also reported that “it was something that I didn‟t even really take full note of as a full on preference till about the age of 22.” In his case, he noticed that his pornography collection consisted almost entirely of Latino men. “I had known I found them sexy but that really confirmed it for me… when I‟d go to purchase a video or something I‟d notice I always picked that up first.” More commonly this awareness grew out of the interviewees‟ dating histories:
“I just never really thought about it. I have had Hispanic boyfriends, but it was always just a boyfriend as far as everybody was concerned.” (Edward, white)
“I think my process began when I realized that, even though I was growing up and coming out in large cities, each with a small universe of queers of all ethnicities, I had to stop and think, „Damn, I‟m dating a lot of white guys.‟ (Terell, black)
“…I had eight relationships – it was significant that only one of eight was a black guy.” (Kenton, black)
Here, then, is a marked difference from themes commonly found in gendered sexual orientation narratives. Unlike this apparent gradual consciousness of a confirming racial pattern of dating, dating or even just showing interest in dating the same sex is typically found to be immediately remarkable both to the persons involved and those around them. 44
It would perhaps be more common in gay narratives to have reports of disconfirming long-term dating patterns (e.g., consistently dating women and becoming conscious of preferences for men because they found those relationships unfulfilling).
One possible explanation for this difference is that racial sexual preferences among the men I interviewed are less exclusive than their gendered sexual orientations.
Nine of 13 men interviewed reported exclusive day-to-day physical attractions to men
(range: 90-100%), whereas only one of 13 reported exclusive day-to-day physical attractions to other races (range: 50-100%). Similarly, six of 13 men reported exclusive same-sex sexual behavior (range: 87.5-100%), whereas only one of 13 men reported exclusive sexual behavior with other races (range: 45-100%). Emotional attractions of romantic love or attraction were the least exclusive in respect to both race and gender, but even here four of 13 men indicated exclusive emotional attractions to men (range: 50-
100%), versus only one of 13 men indicating exclusive emotional attractions to other races (range: 50-100%). This relative lower level of exclusivity might make the experience more similar to a bisexual person becoming aware of their relative preference for men versus women. For example, as part of a person‟s initial awareness of their bisexual attractions, they might have some idea of whether they tend to be more typically attracted to men or women (or have an equal attraction to both), but they might also draw such a conclusion by reflecting upon their long-term dating history (e.g., Rust 2000).
However, I argue that non-exclusivity is not adequate as a stand-alone explanation. I believe this phenomenon is also related to another major difference between gendered sexual orientation and racial sexual preference in the area of identities. 45
Although all interviewees had firm gay and/or queer identities (expected given the criteria for inclusion in the study), only two considered themselves to have an identity in terms of racial sexual preference. Directly connecting this to the finding of non- exclusiveness, four (Edward, Lavon, Kenton, Michael) did not see an identity as relevant because their attractions were not exclusively for their preferred race. They emphasized that they were attracted to “many different types of men” or at least that their primary racial preference does not mean they are not ever attracted to men of other races.
However, again, non-exclusiveness does not seem a fully adequate explanation given that people with bisexual (non-exclusive) attractions may have a sexual identity, or even people who identify as gay or lesbian may in fact have non-exclusive attractions (as, in fact, some of the participants in this study themselves reported).
I assert an additional factor in the rarity of racial sexual preference identities
(which, in turn, delays consciousness of racial attractions) is normative beliefs about race and racism in the United States, and particularly “colorblind” ideology. Recognition of racial differences as well as preferences based on race are taboo topics. Several of the participants discussed trying to reconcile their experience of race-based attractions and their beliefs about race, and expressed feelings of being conflicted, embarrassed, and hypocritical. For minorities who were attracted to white men, in particular, they commonly expressed a belief that their attractions were based at least in part on white men being at the top of the racial hierarchy. Says Jeff, “White men symbolize success, beauty, popularity, good, and what to aspire to become.” From that point of view, then, following those attractions equates to participating in one‟s own oppression. Terell 46
(black) held strong beliefs about racial justice and stated, “I want to think that my views on race…would‟ve led me away from interracial dating ever.” He goes on to say that they didn‟t and at this point in his life stopping would be “ridiculous.”
It was not only minority men who held this awareness and concern. David
(white) sums up almost every conflict mentioned in one discussion:
“Those are loaded terms when directed around and directed at yourself. Higher tolerance or acceptance of different behaviors in different races… I didn‟t want to like it because it was a little bit embarrassing – the whole thing about being attracted to other races is sort of an embarrassing thing. I think part of it for me, the bottom line, it is nicer to have the whole „you‟re colorblind‟ but not everyone is the same, there are these clear delineations and I notice them. Positive stereotypes are still stereotypes, are still views. I mean, there is also the… I don‟t know, I think there is some truth, I think I have had some conflicted notions.”
Here David expresses an inclination towards colorblind ideology, but also explains how his race-based attractions do not conform to this ideology. Stereotyped notions of racial appearance and behavior are part of his attractions for other races. They are positive stereotypes in that he prefers a partner that displays those traits, but he nevertheless believes it is ideal not to stereotype based on race. Therefore, for David it would be difficult to build a racial sexual preference identity given that he sees it as in conflict with his view of himself as a person who does not discriminate and believes in colorblindness.
Perhaps because of this dissonance around race-based attractions, there are few terms available to describe racial sexual preferences. Three participants (David, Edward,
Alex) were not familiar with any labels for racial sexual preference, while two others
(Jerome, Jeff) were aware of terms but did not see them as relevant to their particular experiences of racial attraction. With no term to help articulate their experiences, it is 47 arguably more difficult to build an identity. Says David, “If I were aware of terms I might use one. I‟m not fundamentally opposed to the distinction [of a racial sexual preference label].” This suggests that if David were aware of a term that had positive connotations (and could perhaps help him resolve the conflict between his attractions and ideology) he might adopt it as part of his identity. He simply does not know of any such term. Those terms that are most widely known carry negative connotations. Five participants (Craig, Terell, Lavon, Michael, Bill) were aware of terms such as those listed in Table 2.1, but found the terms mildly to strongly offensive, and thus did not identify with them. These participants described such terms as used to “incite,” “deflate,” “be derogatory,” “belittle,” and “put down.” Michael compared them to names straight men call out to gay men on the street. The four interviewees who were members of Black and
White Men Together further corroborated that use of such terms was discouraged within the group. Interestingly, while a separate line of archival research on BWMT revealed that a number of terms have been proposed to describe the phenomenon of racial preferences, none of the interviewees from the organization were aware of or recalled any of these terms. That none of the terms took hold in a group formed around cross-race preferences is perhaps a strong indicator of the influence of colorblind ideology, since it suggests even a community with an interest in deliberately creating a label or identity may have been stymied in its efforts by the norms against racial preferences.
Not everyone in the sample rejected a racial sexual preference identity. When asked if he had an identity, Bill responded, “Yes, although I do find some white men attractive, I identify myself as being primarily attracted to African-American men.” In a 48 sense, he was not so different from the other participants. He affirmed a diversity of attractions in the same breath as he affirmed his particular preference, and he did not have a particular label for his identity. If a difference can be found, it may be in this statement:
“I think it would be great if more people had a „colorblind‟ ideology in general social terms, but when it comes to taste or preference in a partner, it really is as individual as taste in food, etc. People like what they like, often without reason.”
Unlike other participants quoted above, Bill seems to have worked out a system of belief that reconciles his experience of race-based attractions with a broader ideology that calls for race-neutrality. Arguably, this is parallel to the solution represented by those holding both to a general social belief in gender-neutrality and an allowance for the experience of explicitly gendered sexual attractions.
Paul had both a racial sexual preference identity and a label to go along with it
(“rice queen.”) In this case, he explained that he took on this label precisely because “it‟s not „PC‟, so to speak.” He reveled in the “taboo-breaking fun” of his attractions, which he felt were just enhanced by “studying cultural studies and becoming sort of consciously anti-racism.” Another aspect of this, which also put him at odds with the other study participants, was his view of his attractions as a form of fetishism.
“My social/political affinities can be seen as at odds with my „fetish.‟ But I definitely think I have more fun thinking of myself as a rice queen now. And the fun is a sort of taboo-breaking feeling of fun.” (Paul)
His difference from the other members may stem from this view of his attractions as a fetish (although not only a fetish), or perhaps his particular educational background in postmodern cultural studies which emphasizes irony and play/disruption/subversion 49
(Kellner 1995, Samuels 2009, Weinstock 2008), or perhaps both in that his view of attractions as a fetish may interact with and/or be a product of his postmodern studies. In any case, the difference appears to stem from a different relationship with colorblind ideology.
The Content of Racial Attractions
The predominant aspect reported as attractive was physical characteristics. Eight
(Jerome, Craig, Edward, Jeff, Lavon, Kenton, Bill, Kenneth) mentioned skin color or complexion. Six (Paul, David, Alex, Jeff, Lavon, Michael) mentioned aspects of body size such as height or musculature, while five (Edward, Terell, Jeff, Lavon, Kenton) mentioned hair color and five (Jeff, Lavon, Kenton, Bill, Kenneth) mentioned eye color.
Other physical characteristics mentioned included body hair (David, Craig, Alex, Bill), other facial features (Jerome, Edward, Bill), and penis size (Paul). Some of these interests seem to be expressed in a relatively “deracialized” way. For example, while
Terell found racial preference terms offensive, he did call himself a “redhead-seeking missile.” This seems similar to the phenomenon that discussions of preferences for blonde, brunette, or redheaded women are relatively socially appropriate. Although there are clear correlations between race and hair color, hair color does not designate race per se so it is deemed more acceptable.
Other characteristics were also mentioned, including attitude/personality (Paul,
Jerome, Craig, Lavon, Kenton, Kenneth), difference (Craig, Edward, Lavon, Kenton,
Bill, Kenneth), gender roles (Paul, David, Alex, Jeff, Kenton), culture (Jerome, Craig, 50
Edward, Lavon), intelligence (Terell, Lavon), friendship (David, Kenton, Kenneth), power (David), language/speech (Paul, Jerome), and smell (Kenton). Culture and culture-related factors are, unsurprisingly, particularly cited by those attracted to Latino and Asian men, groups where a difference in culture is arguably most salient.
Themes of difference or exoticism were common in the interviews, which would seem to fit with Bem‟s Exotic Becomes Erotic theory of sexual attraction. However, some of these cases seem to conflict with Bem‟s theorizing about same-sex attracted individuals. Bem suggests that those who are same-sex attracted may be so because they feel alienated from their own assigned gender group and thus see them as exotic. David,
Jerome, Terell, Jeff, and Kenneth all describe alienation from their racial/ethnic reference group as part of the reason for the development of cross-race attractions. David describes growing up hating the “rich, white, yuppie, clean-cut, all-American cliché.” Jerome,
Kenneth, and Terell described rejection from same-race peers, Jerome and Kenneth because of their mixed racial heritage and Terell because of his perceived femininity/homosexuality. Jeff did not identify with what he saw as the stereotypical gay
Latino man. However, in all of these cases disidentification is part of their narrative of cross-race attractions rather than same-race attractions. This difference of alienation not resulting in eroticism may be due to differences between gender and racial dynamics or due to differences in life course timing of the experience of alienation (early childhood versus late childhood or adolescence).
Another aspect of racial attraction is the occurrence of attraction to multiple racial types among some of the interviewees. For example, Paul explains that he is generally 51 attracted to dominant, masculine, physically large men of color, but in the case of Asian
(his primary attraction), he is additionally attracted to submissive, feminine, smaller men as well. He believes this is because “it‟s already an established „type‟ for Asian men.”
David describes a similar set of types, preferring physically large, masculine, dominant
Black men, physically smaller, feminine, submissive Asian men, and either extreme for
Latinos. Alex did not report any different personality preferences, but liked different physical types: hairy, muscular white men and smooth, “twinkish” (slender) Latino men.
Most participants did not report typologies but this may nevertheless reveal that racial preferences more generally are shaped strongly by pre-established cultural stereotypes
(which may vary across location, generation, etc). Another way this may be revealed is in the way the participants talked about racial categories. One participant basically spoke of race in terms of Black and White (with Latino individuals being treated as a particular ethnicity subsumed into or a combination of these categories), while all of the rest discussed Asian, Black, Latino, and White. Some also added to these groupings: Eastern
Indian, Middle Eastern, and Native American as additional categories. In addition, a few discussed finer gradations of categories, such as “Mediterranean” Whites versus other
Whites.
A related observation in regard to the content of racial attractions is in terms of exclusions. Of the four major racial/ethnic groups focused on in this sample, Asians were most likely to be specifically mentioned as a group a respondent was “not very attracted” to and were rarely mentioned as sexual partners. A particularly striking example here is that one respondent reported having over 1000 sexual partners and specifically reported 52 only one of them being Asian. Given that Asian men and non-Asian men primarily attracted to Asians are under-represented in the sample, this may indicate that attraction to Asians tends to occur along a different dimension than attraction along a black-brown- white continuum. This may be due to stereotypical perceptions of Asians as a particularly “exotic” racial group, or may be due to more specific cultural beliefs that stereotypically ascribe femininity to Asian men more commonly than members of other racial groups (Han 2006). Black men were also less commonly mentioned as sexual partners among those who did not have a primary racial sexual preference towards black men. This may be a reflection of the fact that blacks are more likely to prefer same-race partners and that blacks are perceived as being the lowest status in the United States race hierarchy (Phua and Kaufman 2003).
A final concern in terms of content of racial attractions is fetishism. As discussed earlier, most of the participants rejected the notion that their experience of racial preference constituted racial fetishism. However, this does not necessarily mean they rejected the notion of racial fetishism. For example, Kenton explains that he sees in the gay community that white men in particular are likely to view men of different races as sexual objects, and he calls this objectification fetishism. He then goes on to explain how his expression of racial preference is different:
“Something happens when there is a sincere attraction. The whole person goes with that, you get to know the person. There is a desire to know the person beyond the attraction. You are open to venues to get to know each other – understand their different culture and economic situation.”
53
The distinction, then, is between treating the other person as an object versus a subject.
Other respondents expressed their opinions on fetishism similarly. For example, David stated, “I don‟t call it a fetish because it is something that is not innately sexual… but
[rather] I am still attracted to the individual.” Craig likewise explains that he sees a fetish as “something more frivolous” while his attraction “has gotten much deeper… I think maybe through all the compounded experiences both sexual and just day to day life as partners.” Craig‟s narrative suggests that his preference started out as “merely” a fetish, but over time developed into something else.
Conclusion
This study reveals some striking similarities between narratives of gendered sexual orientation and racial sexual preference. As with their same-sex attractions, these men commonly experienced cross-race attractions at an early age and on a consistent basis over the life course. Even those men who grew up in segregated societies recalled being attracted to other boys who they perceived as racially distinct, although understood to be part of their racial “in-group.” Several of the men described their racial attractions using a language of innateness similar to that commonly used for gendered sexual orientation. The similarities between the two narratives evoke the possibility that a variety of sexual preferences, not just gendered sexual orientation, can be profoundly influenced in early childhood and adolescence. This may be because the mechanisms that shape sexual desire allow for a diverse set of attractions to form during that period of the life course or because gendered sexual orientation development is open to association 54 of gendered desires with other characteristics. Borrowing from Bem‟s EBE theory, which assumes the former view but could be consistent with the latter view, it may be that cultural factors and social interactions that emphasize racial difference create arousal to differently raced peers in a way that eroticizes them to some individuals.
Despite having some remarkable similarities with gendered sexual orientation, these narratives of racial sexual preference also reveal some important differences. For one, “racial sexual preference” seems like a suitable term for these attractions for most of the men interviewed. Although it may be a product of the fact that this was a sample of gay men (and thus a sample of relatively strong, mono-gendered sexual orientations), most of these men reported their race-based attractions were less exclusive than their gender-based attractions. Presumably, then, gender was at least as strong (and generally stronger) a factor as race in dating and mating choices for most of the men.
Another difference is that the men were unlikely to have an identity related to their racial sexual preference, in some cases including a distancing from the possibility of an identity by emphasizing the inclusiveness of their attractions. This suggests that racial preferences are experienced differently not only because of differences in gender-based versus race-based interactions, but also specific ideological beliefs about race and racism.
In particular, the configuration of beliefs about race makes it very difficult to establish identities based on racial sexual preference because racial preferences in general are seen as unacceptable. An exception to this might be a racial solidarity ideology within minority groups, but cross-race attractions also violate this norm. 55
However, the exceptions to the pattern of non-identity also suggest some ways identities might develop based on racial sexual preference. One way is in drawing a parallel with gendered sexual orientation. Our culture does allow for gendered preferences in sexual desire while still holding to gender-neutrality in other areas, and a cultural exception for racial sexual preferences could be acknowledged by analogy.
Another is through a postmodern worldview that takes a pose of ironic contradiction, simultaneously affirming antiracism and reveling in racial preference in the form of sexual desires.
Race-based beliefs also shape the content of racial attractions, as well as particular configurations of racial preference. The content of racial attractions are primarily physical, although those interviewed express that other elements of attraction are also important, particularly in moving beyond a “racial fetish” paradigm of racial preference that is only about sexual gratification. However, moving beyond a racial fetish paradigm does not necessarily mean moving beyond racial stereotypes. The interviews demonstrate evidence that cross-race attractions are influenced by cultural stereotypes based on race (examples include the stereotyped hypermasculine black man or feminine Asian man). These types also reveal that, at least among these gay men, racial desires are not independent of gendered beliefs. This may be additional evidence of the primacy of gender in attraction. On the other hand, these findings may simply serve to point towards the fact that gender-based beliefs are influenced by gender stereotypes and gendered desires may be inherently raced. 56
A clear set of potential future areas of research present themselves based on this research. First of all, collection of interviews about cross-race racial sexual preference could expand to include other gender and gendered sexual orientation groups. For example, do heterosexual men (who commonly have had to reflect less on their sexual development and thus may have less structured gendered sexual orientation narratives) tell similar narratives of racial sexual preference or are their narratives more variable without another structured narrative to borrow from? Do women‟s narratives vary in similar ways to the variation seen between men and women‟s gendered preferences? Do women experience more fluidity in their racial sexual preferences? Of particular theoretical interest may be bisexuals, who like other sexual minorities are likely to have a gendered sexual orientation narrative, but whose experience of sexual desire may be less centered on gender (if gender-based at all). A related area of inquiry may be whether a non-specificity of gendered attractions for bisexuals translates into a non-specificity of racial attractions. A second direction for future inquiry could be other forms of racial sexual preference, particularly same-race attractions. Studying same-race preferences may be particularly difficult both because of their normalization and insofar as they may interact with racial nationalist ideologies. However, it could be a particularly important area for examination of interactions between gender and race since racial homogamy in romantic relationships does tend to be treated as customary and is generally unexamined for its racial content. Finally, a contribution of this research is that it demonstrates the potential usefulness of adopting the narrative methodological approach used in studies of gendered sexual orientation development to study other aspects of sexual desire and 57 preference. Therefore, this research could in turn be used as a model for studying other sexual desires, preferences, and practices that are not directly related to gender.
58
Table 2.1: Gay Slang Terms for Racial Preferences
Preferred Race Asian Black Latino White Chocolate Queen, Dairy Queen, Cross-Race Rice Queen, Bean Queen, Coal Queen, Potato Queen, Preference Yellow Fever Salsa Queen* Dinge Queen Snow Queen Same-Race Sticky Rice Double Chocolate Refried Beans Mashed Potatoes Preference
* These terms may less frequently be used to refer to gay Latino men themselves.
59
Table 2.2: Interview Participant Demographics
Primary Location Participant Racial Racial (State/ (by Pseudonym) Identity Preference Country) Age Education
P1 (Paul) White Asian Korea 23 Bachelor‟s Some P2 (David) White Black Arizona 20 college Graduate P3 (Jerome) Black Latino Arizona 33 degree Graduate P4 (Craig) White Latino California 30 degree Some P5 (Edward) White Latino Arizona 50 graduate Some P6 (Alex) Mixed White/Latino Arizona 25 college
P7 (Terell) Black White Wisconsin 38 Bachelor‟s Some P8 (Jeff) Latino White Arizona 27 college Some P9 (Lavon)* Black White Arkansas 47 college Graduate P10 (Kenton)* Black White Florida 51 degree Graduate P11 (Michael)* White Black Florida 64 degree Some P12 (Bill)* White Black Pennsylvania 49 college Graduate P13(Kenneth) Multi White Arizona 44 Degree
* Black and White Men Together member 60
CHAPTER 3
BLACK AND WHITE MEN TOGETHER: THE CASE OF THE DISAPPEARING
ORGANIZATIONAL NARRATIVE OF RACIAL SEXUAL PREFERENCE
Introduction
In the previous chapter, I examined individual narratives of racial sexual preference development – how individuals understood their experience of attractions primarily or exclusively for persons of a different race. In particular, I paid attention to the influences of gendered sexual orientation narratives and identities, as well as broader cultural ideologies of race, on individual‟s understandings of their racial sexual preferences.
In this chapter, I turn to a more contextual approach by examining the narratives and discourses of racial sexual preference in the social movement organization Black and
White Men Together (BWMT). Founded as a way to meet other gay men already in or interested in interracial relationships as well as to fight racism, homophobia, and related issues, the organization presents a unique case for examining understandings of racial sexual preference as well as the trajectory of racial sexual preference‟s institutionalization (and, as I will argue, deinstitutionalization) as an identity and a basis for community. An analysis of BWMT contributes to the overall understanding of racial sexual preference as a case revealing how the concept of racial sexual preference can play out in a communal context. Specifically, interactions revealing similarities and differences among individuals in dealing with racial sexual preference should give deeper 61 insight into how cultural ideologies regarding sexual orientation and race influence understandings of racial sexual preference. Thus, this chapter addresses the following questions:
1. What experiences and beliefs do the members of BWMT have about racial sexual
preference? How is cross-race racial sexual preference understood and organized
by BWMT? How consistent are the members‟ views?
2. How are the cultural understandings of racial sexual preference within the BWMT
organization influenced by understandings of gendered sexual orientation? How
are they influenced by interethnic ideology?
I studied the archives of this organization with a focus on documents related to gay men‟s sexual or romantic preferences based on race, and sought to verify themes and trends through informal observations at the 2009 annual conference of the organization. I begin this chapter by conveying some background information on the history, purpose, and activities of Black and White Men Together and providing theoretical background relevant to my analysis. This is followed by a more in-depth explanation of my methods of analysis and discussion of the understandings of racial sexual preference in the organization.
Background and Previous Research
Black and White Men Together
The social movement organization Black and White Men Together (BWMT), founded in 1980, is the first national-level gay organization to be formed around 62 interracial relationships and issues. Prior to BWMT, there were a few local, short-lived organizations with related foci. Knights of the Clock was founded in the early 1950s in
Los Angeles for the purpose of promoting gay interracial employment services and housing. Support groups for interracial couples also popped up briefly in Chicago in
1964 and Milwaukee in the late 1970s (Marks 1986).
BWMT started in 1980 in San Francisco. Founder Michael Smith ran an ad in the
January issue of the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate asking about interest in forming a group for black and white gay men who were “interracially oriented.” Initially the organization was fashioned as a newsletter group, but soon thereafter a meeting was planned. The first gathering in May 1980, had 70 attendees. The organization quickly spread across the country, with chapters forming in such places as Boston, Chicago,
Cincinnati, Detroit, Kansas City, Los Angeles, New York, North Carolina, Philadelphia,
Phoenix, South Florida, and Washington, DC within the following year. Because of this widespread interest, in June of 1981 a convention with 300 attendees was held in San
Francisco. Such remarkable growth within a single year, both in terms of chapter formation and attendance at the first convention, implies that the group identified a well- established interest. The International Association of Black and White Men Together
(later to become the National Association or NABWMT) was created at the first convention. The group declared itself to be “a Gay interracial organization committed to fostering supportive environments wherein racial and cultural barriers can be overcome and the goal of human equality realized...[and engaging] in educational, political, cultural and social activities as a means of dealing with the racism, sexism, homophobia, and 63 heterosexism in our communities and in our lives.” Since the organization‟s founding, it has required racial parity in its leadership. The national organization and local chapters are required to have two chairpersons, one black (later changed by some chapters to non- white) and one white. At the height of its activity, NABWMT sported 40 chapters with ten to over a hundred members each (Marks 1986, NABWMT 2009).
On a local level, chapters are primarily organized around social events, support, and consciousness-raising. Chapter activities provide a supportive atmosphere for interracial relating, providing an environment conducive to formation of interracial friendships and dating relationships as well as support for long-term relationships.
Chapters also have periodic rap group sessions that discuss various issues related to race and sexuality, ranging from the serious (e.g., “racism in the gay community”) to the more light-hearted (e.g., “alternatives to vanilla sex”) (Marks 1986, NABWMT 1999).
Local chapters also are involved in political issues, with guidance from the national organization. Early in its history, BWMT chapters became well known for attacking racist practices in queer communities. For example, several chapters documented the different types of identification bars required before allowing white and non-white would-be patrons to enter, and used this information to exert public pressure
(and, in some cases, to pass changes in local ordinances) to change those practices.
Chapters also initiated high-profile challenges to discriminatory employment practices in queer businesses in Philadelphia and San Francisco. In 1984 BWMT first published
“Resisting Racism: An Action Guide,” a book targeted at helping queer organizations combat racism in their communities. In the latter half of the 1990s the Multiracial 64
Multicultural Institute was created as part of BWMT and travels around the country conducting a series of workshops (e.g., “Finding the „I‟ in the Middle of Racism,”
“Learning to Walk the Talk: Mobilizing Your Organization to Do Long-Term Anti-
Racism Work,” and “Looking Beyond the Single-Issue Lens: Understanding the
Intersection of Oppressions”) for civic groups and academic forums as a means of combating racism (Marks 1986, NABWMT 1999).
Following the rise of the HIV/AIDS crisis in the early 1980s, BWMT increasingly shifted focus to work on issues surrounding the epidemic, particularly in relationship to the fact that people of color are disproportionately affected. In some communities early in the epidemic BWMT was the only gay organization with access to blacks and often played the role of mediator between white social services agencies and minority populations. As far as its own activities, the organization has primarily played a role of educational outreach to people of color. For example, in the late 1980s BWMT received funding from the CDC for the first-of-its-kind “Hot, Horny, and Healthy” HIV/AIDS education program for ethnically diverse men who have sex with men (and soon thereafter BWMT was the focus of national controversy as conservative organizations and pundits objected to the content of the program) (Burris 1993; Marks 1986,
BWMT/Los Angeles 1987).
The name and purpose of the organization has been a constant source of controversy, both external and internal to the group. BWMT has faced criticism from the
(gay) black community, which has accused the group of being colonialist, believing it serves as a venue for older white men to sexually exploit younger black men (e.g., BLK 65
Magazine 1990; Pegues 1992a, 1992b). Members of BWMT have openly challenged these accusations and defended the group (e.g., Bean 1990b, Green 1992, Knight 1992,
Wiggins 1992) – members have also criticized the organization‟s relationship to the black community (e.g., Smith 1987) – but the organization has also made some attempts to dialogue, inviting critics to attend meetings and speak at its conventions (NABWMT
1990). Perhaps because of these efforts, criticisms seem to have faded over time, with little evidence of ongoing or vocal criticism of the group after the early 1990s.
The strongest controversies, however, have been within the group. As early as
1983 (and perhaps before) there were calls within the organization to change the name to
“Men of All Colors Together” (MACT) or “People of All Colors Together” (PACT) to broaden the inclusivity of the group towards Asians, Latinos, and women. Some members also believed those who wanted to change the name of the group were motivated by a desire to shift the focus of the group away from interracial attractions and towards a focus on anti-racism and related issues. The issue came to a head in 1987, which resulted in a change in the wording of the purpose of the organization from
“interracial” to “multiracial,” with the compromise that the national organization would retain BWMT while individual chapters would be allowed to rename themselves to
MACT or PACT. The founder of the organization, Michael Smith, was a strong advocate for retaining the original name. After his death in 1989, the early 1990s saw a renewed call by some members to change the name, but the compromise remained in place, likely in part due to the conditions of a large trust fund Smith left to the national organization
(i.e., that access to the funds was contingent on keeping the name BWMT) (Gibson 66
2000). Since that time there have been a relative few murmurings about the name change issue, but it apparently continues to be a source of tension within the organization: it was a subject of discussion at the 2009 convention (field notes).
The national organization currently lists 14 official local and regional chapters
(the majority of which are called MACT/PACT but based on convention attendance and discussion apparently continue to be a predominantly black and white male membership), and defines itself as “a gay, multiracial, multicultural organization committed to fostering supportive environments wherein racial and cultural barriers can be overcome and the goal of human equality realized… in educational, political, cultural and social activities as a means of dealing with the racism, sexism, homophobia, HIV/AIDS discrimination and other inequities in our communities and in our lives” (NABWMT 2010a, 2010b).
Because race and anti-racism are core concerns of the BWMT organization and because ideas about race and anti-racism are likely to influence views on racial sexual preferences, I paid particular attention to the ideals held by members of BWMT in regard to how members of different racial and ethnic groups should interact. Therefore, I turn to a discussion of different types of interethnic ideologies and BWMT‟s relationship with each type.
Interethnic Ideology
An interethnic ideology is a belief system that structures an approach to management of relations between ethnic groups (Bonilla-Silva 2003; Ryan, Casa, and
Thompson 2010). There are four interethnic ideologies discussed in the literature: 67 assimilation, colorblind, multicultural, and segregation (Brug and Verkuyten 2007; Ryan,
Casa, and Thompson 2010; Ryan et al 2007). Assimilation ideology manages relations between ethnic groups through attempts to create one common culture. Specifically, members of ethnic immigrant and minority groups are urged to adopt the cultural practices of mainstream society (Ryan, Casa, and Thompson 2010; Verkuyten 2005). A variation of this idea is the “melting pot,” which leaves room for a two/multi-way cultural fusion rather than a one-way absorption in dominant society, but the goal is still creation of a single culture without group differences (Brug and Verkuyten 2007). Colorblind ideology manages relations between ethnic groups through attempts to play down differences. All members of society are urged to adopt the stance that differences associated with race and ethnicity are superficial and unimportant, and thus people‟s race and ethnicity should be ignored (that is, people should be judged as individuals rather than as members of a particular race or ethnicity) (Purdie-Vaughns et al 2008; Richeson and Nussbaum 2004; Ryan, Casa, and Thompson 2010). Multicultural ideology manages relations between ethnic groups through attempts to embrace differences. All members of society are urged to adopt the stance that differences associated with race and ethnicity should be understood, respected, and celebrated (Purdie-Vaughns et al 2008; Richeson and Nussbaum 2004; Ryan, Casa, and Thompson 2010). Finally, segregation ideology manages relations between ethnic groups through minimizing contact between ethnic groups. All members of society are urged to associate primarily with their own ethnic or racial group and to stay apart from other groups (Berg and Verkuyten 2007). 68
Although segregation ideology has officially fallen out of favor in most institutions, racial homogamy in dating and marriage practices continues to be the norm rather than the exception in the United States. The rate of interracial relationships in the
United States in 2000 was about 6 percent for married couples, and between 10 and 12 percent for unmarried partner households including opposite and same-sex couples
(Simmons and O‟Connell 2003). A significant portion of the external criticism of
BWMT has been based on segregation ideology. For example, black nationalist gays have criticized interracialist gay blacks as disloyal or foolish (BLK Magazine 1990,
Green 1992, Pegues 1992a). BWMT, then, clearly stands against segregationist romantic practices. Given its emphasis on cross-cultural education, it also rejects at least a straightforward assimilation model, although some members may embrace the “melting pot” cultural amalgam ideal. However, there are strands of both multicultural (e.g.,
Brown 1992, Gibson 2000) and colorblind (e.g., Bradley 1992, Brownscombe 1998) ideologies present in the organization. This is perhaps unsurprising since various studies have shown different socialization strategies and attitudes among Blacks and Whites
(e.g., Harrison et al 1990; Judd et al 1995; Ryan et al 2007; Ryan, Casa, and Thompson
2010; Schofield 2001). Specifically, these studies find as an overall pattern that Blacks are more likely to be aligned with a multicultural ideology and Whites are more strongly aligned with a colorblind ideology.
When different interethnic ideologies present different models for relations across ethnic groups, there is the potential for conflict. This would presumably include the specific case of romantic and sexual relations across ethnic groups. That said, Ryan and 69 colleagues (2007, 2010) have found that colorblind and multicultural ideologies, while distinct, are not necessarily perceived as conflicting. BWMT presents an interesting case study for examination of how interethnic ideologies play out in relationship to understandings of racial sexual preference.
Data and Methods
Sample
The archives of Black and White Men Together were chosen to study because of the organization‟s unique role in community building and dissemination of terminology around racial sexual preference. The sole criterion for selection of documents for analysis was that it dealt in some way with gay men‟s sexual or romantic preferences based on race. I located archives for the National Association of Black and White Men
Together and the local San Francisco chapter at the GLBT Historical Society in San
Francisco, California (nine boxes). All these materials were examined for relevance. In addition, I was able to locate archives for local chapters including Boston at Northeastern
University (three boxes), Milwaukee at the University of Wisconsin (two boxes), and
New York at Cornell University (four boxes). Of these, I was able to examine the three boxes of materials for the Boston chapter. Funding limitations did not allow me to travel to examine the other boxes of materials. However, I believe the contributions of the other archives would be minimal because the national archives included newsletters and other materials from each of the local chapters, 90% of the relevant materials from the
Boston chapter‟s archives were represented in the national archives, and an outline of the 70 contents of the New York chapter are available online and also appears to contain few materials that were not present in the national archives. Therefore, while I did not examine all available archives, I believe I achieved good representation of a diversity of perspectives within BWMT along lines of race and location.
In total, the relevant archives were represented in approximately 300 pages of photocopied material. I estimate this to be equivalent to approximately 1/8 of 1 box, or about 1% of the total materials surveyed. At first glance, this may seem surprisingly low for an organization founded based on cross-race attractions. However, this can be explained by several factors: (1) the largest portion of the archives focused on the business side of the organization (membership rolls, treasurer‟s reports, meeting minutes) that held little or no material relevant to the research question at hand, (2) another significant portion of the archives focused on HIV/AIDS information and prevention, which emerged as a major health concern particularly for gay men and men of color soon after the establishment of the BWMT organization, (3) similarly much of the archival material dealt with common gay male concerns or sexual and gender minority concerns more generally and so were not specifically relevant to racial sexual preference, (4) a lesser but still significant portion of the archives were personal photographs, which had potential for analysis, but there were no apparent patterns relevant to the research question. Items most likely to be relevant were: (1) articles, letters, and organizational reports dealing with the history and purpose of the organization, (2) articles and letters addressing the general topic of race and racism, (3) articles and letters addressing the topic of interracial relationships, and, of course, (4) articles and letters specifically 71 addressing the issue of race-based attractions and racial preferences in sexual and romantic relationships.
Procedures
The focus of the document review was to examine cultural narratives of racial sexual preferences in gay male subculture through the organizational discourse of
BWMT. In the case of BWMT, I skimmed archival records seeking items which directly or indirectly addressed the issue of race-based attractions and racial preferences in sexual and romantic relationships. Relevant materials were photocopied and transcribed into a digital format for analysis. I sought to identify experiences and beliefs in regard to racial sexual preference, the role of sexual and romantic relationships, discussion of reactions and understandings of gay men who do not share a racial sexual preference, and mention of cultural objects that were seen as important in relation to racial sexual preference. I also sought to verify themes and trends through informal observations at the National
Association of Black and White Men Together 2009 annual conference. Since my semi- structured interviews included some Black and White Men Together members, these also serve as a source of verification of my findings.
Results and Discussion
BWMT’s Discourse on Racial Sexual Preference
In many ways the members of BWMT do share a common understanding of racial sexual preference. There is general agreement that (1) racial sexual preferences exist and 72 everyone has one (even if it is a “colorblind” preference), (2) racial sexual preferences share some similarities to gendered sexual orientation but also some important differences, and (3) racial sexual preferences are strongly influenced by racist ideas.
The first common understanding (that racial sexual preferences exist and everyone has one) may seem unsurprising, but may be a necessary foundation for development of discourse and identities around any type of sexual preference. For example, prior to the late 19th century, gendered sexuality was primarily thought about in terms of behaviors and practices. It was the new idea that individuals might be sexually predisposed towards particular genders that allowed the invention of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual identities. In a similar way, BWMT members talk of encountering people who ask them to account for their interracial preference but are unaware of their own.
When we‟re challenged, why not turn the question around: “Aren‟t you aware of your own racial orientation?” As your listener sits there dumbfounded, explain: just as most people are gender-oriented in a continuing spectrum (from gay to straight), so most people are racially-oriented. It may be a more fluid orientation than gender, but it‟s there. We‟re just not so aware of it. I mean, do Whites who like Whites or Blacks who like Blacks questions this orientation any more than straight people question theirs? Of course not. But maybe they should. Suggest to them, “Unless [the race distribution of your bed partners matches that of the general population], you have a racial preference whether you realize it or not.” I guarantee you it‟ll give them something to think about. (Smith 1987)
This quote from the founder of BWMT points out that, just as homosexuality was made to be accounted for before heterosexuality, so non-normative interracial racial preferences are noticed before normative intraracial preferences. 73
Beyond agreement that racial sexual preferences exist, there is also general agreement that such preferences are analogous to gendered sexual orientation in some ways. For example, the development of racial preferences, at least initially through childhood and adolescence, is understood to not be chosen:
If we tell straight people that we didn‟t choose to be gay, it just happened, dare we apply the same rationale to the specifics of our orientation? Why are we attracted to one guy and not another, to one race and not another? I think we can apply this rationale. (Anonymous 1983)
In relationship to that claim, there is the more general understanding that the exact origins of interracial attractions are complex and/or idiosyncratic. Smith explains in the BWMT
Quarterly publication the generally held understanding that “the origin of racial/interracial attraction may be just as mysterious as the origin of homosexual orientation” and that there are even both “biological/genetic theories” and “environmental theories” of racial attraction (1982b).
However, there are also common limitations to the analogies that are drawn between racial and gendered attractions. Smith brings in a third type of attraction, based on age, to explain one important difference. He argues that there are few people for whom age (for example, preferring an older partner) is more important than the gender of the partner and (although he notes elsewhere that he has met people for whom racial attractions were primary) the same could be said for race in comparison to gender, while age and race are “probably more equal contenders” (1982b, 1989). BWMT members agree that at least for most people racial preferences are secondary to gendered orientation. Further, the first quote from Smith notes that racial preferences tend to be 74
“more fluid.” This may be understood by some as unconscious shifts due to sexual or general life experiences, while others may understand this as the ability to consciously change or exercise choice in racial preferences once one is aware of them as an adult, but there seems to be general agreement that racial preferences are not as fixed as gendered orientation.
A third area of agreement is that racial attractions are heavily influenced by racist ideas that permeate the culture. As one member puts it, “The physicality of attraction is weighted with racism… The modes of imperialism in all its manifest forms are the accepted rules of accruing one‟s desires. Security, experience, or money for one and sex and power for the other” (Halliday 1992). The association of racial stereotypes with racial attractions is very commonly discussed; however, it is important to point out that not all such discussions assume stereotypes are the origin of the attractions. Instead, for example, stereotypes may be understood to adhere to existing attractions. Former national co-chair Charles Stewart explains, “When we add our own interpersonal needs to these cultural images we cannot help but approach each other with a set of conditioned expectations; BWMT is a seething cauldron of such expectations” (1988).
Beyond these basic agreements, there is a great deal of disagreement and diversity regarding beliefs about the origins and meaning of racial sexual preferences. Although members agree the origins of racial preferences are complex, they disagree on the specifics. According to various archival materials, members variously believe racial preferences are due to: aesthetic tastes, cultural preferences, spiritual higher purposes, race of neighbors and friends growing up, unresolved self-esteem issues (for whites), 75 desire to move up in class (for minorities), self-hatred, role-playing desires, and/or stereotyped beliefs about race/raced bodies (e.g., Bean 1990b, Brown 1992, Bush 1982,
Halliday 1992, NABWMT 1989, Smith 1987, Stewart 1988). No doubt in part because of these different understandings of the roots of racial sexual preference, BWMT members do not wholly agree about what is to be done about racial sexual preferences.
Next, then, I examine the conflicts within the organization related to this lack of agreement.
The Politics of Interracial Sex, Dating, and Relationships
Given the beliefs that everyone has a racial sexual preference, that said preference is influenced by racist ideas, and that BWMT is an anti-racist organization, it follows that some form of action should be taken by BWMT and its members to deal with the racist aspects of racial sexual preferences. Here again the organization‟s membership finds some common cause, at least in its broad strokes. However, as will be seen, the details reveal a deep conflict within the membership.
First, the organization presents itself as a model for how to pursue interracial relating that is not simply about sexual exploitation. The latter is talked about as “racial sexual fetishism” – that is, having solely or primarily sexual relationships with people of a different race – and is something that the organization clearly defines itself against.
BWMT supports interactions that are not simply sexual, but include friendships, dating, and relationships across races. Early versions of the Chapter Development Manual of
NABWMT explain: 76
“In a sense, the organization could not exist if there were not among our members a special attraction for the opposite races. And yet to write off NABWMT as a group of racial sexual fetishists would be completely wrong… People who join BWMT just to indulge a sexual racist fantasy will be disappointed. Getting to know people as individuals with real personalities takes time, dedication, and personal growth” (1989, 1993).
The last sentence appears to be both a statement about BWMT‟s ideal for all personal relationships and the specific investment BWMT members feel is needed to faithfully build cross-race relationships.
Many of the external criticisms of BWMT (including those commonly leveled by gay blacks) challenge this self-definition, referring to the organization as an “(interracial) sex club.” Some members acknowledge that there is a problem in that some people do attend meetings for the purpose of finding interracial sex, but most of what is written by the membership directly challenges such statements. One newsletter article explains, addressing a series of commonly held non-member beliefs, “BWMT is a sex club.
FALSE! Our activities are social, cultural, recreational, educational, and political…designed to support our members‟ interests. We like sex. You might find it.
But it‟s not our party” (BWMT/Atlanta 1998). Another approach by the group has been to simply let their actions speak for them. In a newspaper interview former co-chair
Michael Warner explained, “Our interaction with the gay community over the past ten years is breaking those misconceptions down” (Bean 1990a). As the BWMT/Atlanta article attests, the “sex club” perception persists in some quarters of the GLB community, but a decrease in tensions between BWMT and the black gay community after the early nineties suggests that Warner was largely correct. 77
Beyond this somewhat defensive posture of the organization, the second broad approach of the organization to dealing with the problem of racism and racial sexual preference goes beyond simply supporting the development of interracial dating and long-term romantic relationships into critique and improvement of those relationships over time. An essay by one member explains the challenges BWMT wants to address:
“[Many] interracial relationships have problems of their own… Many of these relationships are not equal partnerships. Whites are often the power broker, making economic and social decisions. In many relationships, White culture dominates. Many Blacks enjoy such an atmosphere and do not want to relate to other African-Americans” (Green 1992).
Therefore, the goal is to work towards relationships that do not intentionally or unwittingly fall into racist, colonialist stereotypes. One chapter summarizes the approach thusly: “Our true principles call for…a haven and a home for Black and White men to pursue relating to one another, and [commitment] to making that relating healthy, free, and non-exploitive” (BWMT / Los Angeles 1987).
However, because of disagreements about what exactly is racist in regards to interracial relationships, this goal has become a sticking point between two different subsets of the membership. One subset understands racial sexual preferences to be, in and of themselves, not racist (though they may be consequences of living in a racist society), in a similar way that gendered sexual orientations are not considered sexist. The voice of this group is particularly strong in the first decade of the organization‟s existence. “BWMT‟s name and existence so far have come to be associated with the position that ethnic preferences, like sexual preferences, are O.K.” (Gibson 1983). As a result, this group views the goal of anti-racism as inclusive of supporting people with 78 racial sexual preferences in making their preferred form of relationships healthy and non- exploitive.
In contrast, a second subset understands racial sexual preferences to be racist because they rely on reference to group differences. Says one member, “The terms
„Black‟ and „White‟ create separation where none, in reality, exists... The concept of an identifiable “black people” and a “white people” is itself the invention of racism”
(Brownscombe 1998). Exclusive attractions are held to be particularly troublesome, as expressed here by former co-chair Mitchell Karp in an interview:
If I meet a white man who is exclusively attracted to black men, I get a little angry… We all have preferences. There are people who would not be attracted to me for any one of a thousand reasons. Attraction for me is complicated. But where there is a motion that either mirrors or inverts social attitudes, I think it should be questioned (Mulroy 1983).
This subset, then, views the goal of anti-racism as inclusive of moving away from racial sexual preferences, especially exclusive manifestations of preference. The voice of this group becomes more dominant over time. There is common cause with the first group insofar as this group also supports making interracial relationships healthy and non- exploitive, but part of such a goal for this subset necessarily includes moving to a place where such relationships “just happen to be” interracial. Such a set of objections might seem odd for members of an organization named Black and White Men Together, but as mentioned in the background of the organization, the name of the group has been an ongoing source of disagreement and controversy among the members. I turn now to the name controversy as a key point of insight regarding issues of identity and racial sexual preference. 79
The Rise and Fall of Racial Sexual Preference as a Basis for Identity and Community
The founder of BWMT, Michael Smith, clearly falls within the first subset of the membership, which does not see racial sexual preferences as inherently racist. Smith‟s initial ad which eventually formed the group used the phrase “interracially oriented,” drawing apparently deliberate parallels between gendered sexual orientation and racial sexual preference. The ability and willingness to draw this parallel appears to provide the cultural space to build an identity based on racial sexual preference. In the first decade of
BWMT‟s existence, Smith and other members of BWMT commonly used the terms
“interracialist” and “interracialism” as parallels in meaning to “homosexual” and
“homosexuality,” suggesting both the importance of the parallelism in creating the cultural space as well as exemplifying an attempt to create a positive identity based on cross-race sexual preferences. The parallelism between the two types of attraction may also explain the lack of outreach to heterosexuals with cross-race attractions and/or relationships. In fact, in an interview, “interracialist pride” is compared to Black pride or
Gay/Lesbian pride (Smith 1982b), and this phrase is echoed elsewhere (e.g., Bean
1990b). Smith states that “we interracialists are an entity as real and sincere as any other” (Bean 1989). Other terminology was also invented to describe cross-race preferences, such as “heterogenist” (Kavanaugh 1992).
This perspective on racial sexual preference is an apparent source of at least part of the conflict over the name of the organization. For some of the members, the name
“Black and White Men Together” served as a reflection of self. One member argues, 80
“BWMT is more than a political statement – it is an identity. It explicitly takes into account that many people have an ethnic as well as a sexual preference in the choice of a partner” (Gibson 1983). Another explains, “I was delighted and entranced that my sexual identity – or preference if you will, as opposed to orientation – had been institutionalized” (Cochran 1997). “People of All Colors Together” is argued to separate the organization from racial sexual preference – it is a name that would be suitable for any sort of anti-racist organization. Members objected that this moved away from the original purpose of the group:
…those who would have us change our name seek to abandon [our] fundamental principle… We are about the business of supporting the healthy coupling of Black and White men, and about fighting the racism (both internal and external) that serves to hinder that coupling, or at least makes the coupling unhealthy. (BWMT / Los Angeles)
And, of at least equal importance, a more inclusive name also represented a shift in identity: “Had the name been something less specific (more inclusive)… I would in all probability not have become involved because I would have sensed no indication that I would find my identity in a MACT or PACT chapter” (Gibson 1986).
On the other hand, members who supported a name change did not all explicitly oppose racial sexual preferences (or identities based on them). Some simply felt the organization‟s name should be inclusive of Asian, Latino, Native American, and lesbian members, including racial sexual attractions possessed by and/or oriented towards members of those groups. One chapter that decided to change its name explains, “We have always been a group which is dedicated to the eradication of racism in the gay community, and that is supportive of interracial relationship between men of color and 81 white men. In our minds, men of color is not simply black men…” (MACT /
Connecticut). A member echoes this sentiment, “I propose that this racist exclusion be amended to incorporate all people concerned about racism as well as interested in building interracial relationships” (Halliday 1992). However, both of these quotes are perhaps revealing in that they mention the fight against racism as the first purpose of the group.
Whatever the intent of those calling for a name change, the net effect on the organization over time has been a shifting of purpose. Although the name change debate reached a stalemate in favor of keeping the BWMT name (at least on the national level), the discourse of the organization has apparently shifted towards the second subset‟s viewpoint. One sign of this shift is in the number of documents found in the archives discussing racial sexual preference in some capacity. As can be seen in Figure 3.1 (p.
87), for the first three five-year periods of BWMT‟s organizational life, I found 47 documents (1980-1984: 14; 1985-1989: 15; 1990-1994: 18), while for the next two five- year periods I found only 7 (1995-1999: 4; 2000-2004: 3). Yet the total documents in the archives for later years were comparable to those of the earlier years. After the early
1990s, on the whole the organization simply stopped talking about race-based attractions, and this appears to be best attributed to a shift in the dominant ideology (at least among the leadership).
[FIGURE 3.1 HERE]
Evidence for this shift can be found in revision to the Chapter Development
Manual. The original manual, written in 1989, states that: 82
…the initial, driving motive of the founder(s) [of chapters] is most frequently a desire to create a space in which interracial, homosexual attraction can be expressed without the homophobic and racist clutter…usually it comes from interracial-attracted people who are single and tired of looking in all the wrong places. (NABWMT 1989)
The manual also includes in its list of reasons for why people join NABWMT: “For an opportunity to find that „someone‟ of a different race,” includes in a list of questions for potential founder(s) to ask themselves: “Are you comfortable enough with your own sexual and interracial preferences?”, and in its discussion of BWMT‟s mission an history talks about “the reality of gay interracialism” (NABWMT 1989). A revision in 1993 is essentially identical on these points, but includes some added history and information.
However, the 1999 revision makes several revealing changes. First, the manual explains common initial motives for starting a chapter somewhat differently:
…the initial, driving motive of the founder(s) [of chapters] is most frequently a desire to create a space in which interracial relationships can be expressed without the homophobic and racist clutter…usually it comes from interracial- attracted people who are single and tired of looking in all the wrong places. (NABWMT 1999) [emphasis added]
Although interracial attractions are still mentioned, there is a slight shift away from attractions and towards “relationships,” and the new wording does seem to open up space for the second subset‟s beliefs about attractions. In and of itself it is perhaps not particularly remarkable; however, there is also no mention of finding someone of a different race or of gay interracialism. The question for the founder(s) is also reworded to say, “Are you comfortable enough with your own sexuality and interracial beliefs?”
(NABWMT 1999). This newly worded question could be interpreted in very different 83 ways from the original question. All together, I argue this represents a shift by the organization away from racial sexual preference as a basis of identity or community and towards emphasis on anti-racism and support of interracial relationships.
Conclusion
The parallel of racial sexual preference with gendered sexual orientation, along with an accompanying creation of a positive identity based on racial sexual preference, was one of the keys to BWMT‟s early growth and development. As the organization evolved, however, disagreements began to develop over the place of racial sexual preference within the organization. This conflict has never been fully resolved, but the overall recent effect has been the virtual disappearance of racial sexual preference from the organization‟s discourse.
It is my contention that this shift in utilization of racial sexual preference in the discourse of BWMT represents a shift in the dominant interethnic ideology among the leadership of the organization. Early in the organization‟s life, the dominant ideology was a multicultural ideology. Members were encouraged to (literally) embrace difference and develop a better understanding of other cultures (especially their partner‟s cultures).
A positive identity based on racial sexual preference is culturally intelligible in a multicultural ideology since such an ideology allows for recognition of physical and cultural differences, and for assigning that difference a positive association. The organization also tried to avoid the potential pitfalls of multiculturalism by emphasizing the need to value person‟s as a whole, not just for their difference. 84
Interestingly, the most outspoken members utilizing multicultural ideology appear to be White. This is contrary to most findings about relative prevalence of ideologies along racial lines. However, Ryan et all (2007) find that among White who did endorse multiculturalism more strongly than colorblindness were less ethnocentric and less stereotyping of Blacks, so this may be a reflection of the likelihood that Whites joining
BWMT are more culturally sensitive towards Blacks than the general population.
Later in the organization‟s life, the dominant ideology appears to have shifted towards a colorblind ideology and away from a multicultural ideology. It is unclear exactly what precipitated this shift, but Michael Smith‟s death (and thus the death of a highly influential member who advocated a multicultural perspective) cannot be discounted. The shift may also reflect a gradually more colorblind-oriented society.
Ryan and colleagues (2007, 2010) have noted that although multicultural and colorblind perspectives are often seen as incompatible or oppositional, their findings indicate that individuals may hold both ideologies simultaneously, so this shift may also indicate not so much a decrease in multicultural influence as an increase in colorblind ideology‟s influence, or even a shift in the logics that individuals use to maintain both perspectives.
Whatever the case, there was a push to make fighting racism the primary cause of the organization, and one method proposed for eradicating racism was doing away with labels based on race. The groups making up the very name of the organization began to be challenged by the membership. The disappearance of talk about racial sexual preference is a sign of this shift. A positive identity based on racial sexual preference is 85 culturally unintelligible using a colorblind ideology that ignores or downplays race and ethnicity.
This shift may also explain the overall apparent decline of the BWMT organization. The group‟s active chapter affiliates have dropped from 40 at its height in the mid and late 1980s to only 14 currently, and the vast majority of the membership are long-time members who are over 40 (for example, the “under 40” age caucus at the 2009 convention was not attended by any active BWMT members, but rather a handful of affiliated observers and volunteers). Perhaps half or more of those over 40 are retirement age (65 or older). Concern about the long-term viability of the organization was a primary discussion point at the 2009 convention (field notes). As a group organized around the novel concept of “interracial orientation,” BWMT formed a niche that could attract people to its membership and join those members in common causes. Some members apparently developed new identities for themselves simply through encountering the group‟s name, which arguably solidified their loyalty and participation.
Although it never formally changed its name, by becoming a “multiracial organization for all people,” inclusive of everyone, and at best half-heartedly acknowledging the formative role of racial sexual preference, BWMT arguably lost both its niche attraction and the organizing/staying power of an identity associated with the organization.
A couple of potential future avenues of research present themselves. One is to collect specific information on membership numbers and budget/resources on the national organization and/or chapters to further examine patterns of rise and decline.
This information might be analyzed in combination with specific information related to 86 name changes, chapter creation, and chapter demise (or disaffiliation). In close relation, another possibility could be to gather additional information about individual chapters.
Do local chapters tend to be more homogenous than the national organization in terms of ideology? Are chapters from particular regions more alike in their ideologies? Another line of inquiry concerns how much the archives actually reflect the thoughts and concerns of the general membership versus the leadership and particularly engaged members.
Interviews with current and former members and leaders dealing with subjects of interethnic ideology and racial sexual preference identities could shed light on this, as well as giving further clarity to the dynamics of ideology over time and at the present. 87
Figure 3.1: Change in Discussion of Racial Sexual Preference over Time in
Black and White Men Together Archival Materials 88
CHAPTER 4
USING RACIAL SEXUAL PREFERENCE
TO CRITIQUE CONTEMPORARY THEORIES
OF THE NATURE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SEXUAL DESIRE
Introduction
In the two previous chapters I have examined narratives of racial sexual preference among gay men. I have paid attention to individual retellings of the development and understanding of race-based attractions as well as more public, community-embedded discourses surrounding race-based attractions within a gay organization created to support interracial relationships. My analysis explores how cross- race preferences are experienced individually and communally, how such preferences interact with narratives and identities related to gendered sexual orientation, and how these preferences relate to cultural ideologies of race.
In this chapter I (re)turn to some of the theoretical interests that have provoked an interest in the investigation of the concept of racial sexual preference. In addition to shedding light on a little known and little understood phenomenon, I have also been interested in how understanding racial sexual preferences may increase our understanding of development and expression of erotic attractions. The field of sexuality and sexual development has focused its study almost exclusively on the gendered nature of sexual desire. While scholars of sexuality have rightly identified gender as a central dynamic in sexuality, focusing solely on gender-based attractions may limit understanding of sexuality and thus development of theory in important ways. 89
In this chapter I present three major viewpoints on sexual development and desire that have contemporary standing: Daryl Bem‟s “Exotic Becomes Erotic” (EBE) theory of sexual development, James Giles‟ theory of the nature of sexual desire, and Lisa
Diamond‟s dynamical systems theory of sexual development. Bem‟s theory and
Diamond‟s work on gendered sexual development and desire were both formative influences of my research into the phenomenon of racial sexual preference. EBE is one of only a few relatively detailed and comprehensive theories explaining individual sexual orientation development using a combination of biological, psychological, and sociological factors. Although focused on explaining gendered sexual orientation, EBE‟s emphasis on attraction developing from feelings of exoticism or difference seemed to have strong potential in application to the case of cross-race attractions, particularly given cultural beliefs that exoticize racial difference. Similarly, though also focused on gender‟s role in sexuality, Diamond‟s work has been influential both in its narrative methodology and in its questioning of dominant understandings of sexual development
(for example, challenging the applicability of the gay male “master narrative” for women and challenging the notion of sexual orientation is always fixed). In particular, her work on sexual fluidity, which suggests that gender isn‟t necessarily “hard-coded” into at least all forms of sexual desire, suggests a point of relevance in relating her theories to racial sexual preference.
I did not encounter Giles‟ work until after having developed my research on racial sexual preference. However, I was likewise impressed with his attempt to create a comprehensive theory of individual sexual orientation development based on exoticism, 90 and also respond to his work here because he directly addresses the question of whether gender is central to the experience of sexuality. While he answers in the affirmative, of the three theorists he spends the most time examining the case for a non-gender-centric form of sexuality, thus opening up space for dialogue on the relevance of racial sexual preference to his arguments. I demonstrate some ways in which my findings both resonate with and problematize the viewpoints of Bem, Giles, and Diamond, then propose some specific areas for future research to productively build and test theory in the area of sexual development and desire using the concept of racial sexual preference.
The Problem of Racial Exoticism and Eroticism
An understanding of the nature of racial sexual desires is closely related to
(though not identical with) an understanding of interracial relationships. Literature and theory on interracial relationships is relatively extensive compared to that dealing with racial desire specifically, so I start here by exploring how interracial relationship theories might be used as one starting point to build a theory of racial sexual preferences. First I present an overview of the major theories of interracial relationships, focusing on those particular theoretical viewpoints (particularly dealing with exoticism) that show promise for the building of a theory racial desire. I go on to examine the interconnections between interracial relationship theory and theory dealing with sexual development and to put forward problems and critiques. Finally, I suggest future directions for research and theory development. 91
The literature on interracial relationships presents four theories accounting for the dynamics within these relationships: exceptionalism, romanticism, pluralism, and exoticism (Moran 2001). Exceptionalist or exchange theory focuses on white-minority relationships and explains these relationships in economic terms: whites exchange access to white privilege in return for some valued status (for example, economic security) possessed by an exceptional ethnic minority individual through a marriage relationship.
At least for the white partner, this theory does not imply (and thus cannot explain) race- based attractions so much as it suggests an overlooking of race. While this theoretical viewpoint has had a long history in interracial relationship literature, recent demographic research by Rosenfeld (2005, 2007) also demonstrates only weak support for the theory.
Romanticism takes the approach of eliding race in its explanation of interracial relationships even further. Compatible with a colorblind, individualistic ideology, romanticism suggests romantic love is the primary determinant of romantic partners, and therefore interracial relationships are created by people who don‟t care or think much about racial characteristics or differences of their partners (or, perhaps, deliberately downplay such differences) (Buttney 1987; Moran 2001). While this theory may explain some interracial relationships, it does not account for structural factors that may limit encounters and development of relationships between people of different races and
(again) cannot explain relationships in which race is a clear factor of attraction.
Pluralism borrows its name from the broader ideological approach. As with pluralist cultural approaches, pluralism explains intermarriage as a result of relationships in which people have a mutual interest in the culture and heritage of their partners. 92
Again, this theory may explain some interracial relationships and appears to have some strength in explaining race-based attractions insofar as they may reflect a more general pluralist orientation (in fact it looks a lot like the ideals of interracial relating conveyed in my interviews and in the archival materials of Black and White Men Together).
However, it tends to idealize relationships insofar as it overlooks the everyday challenges of couples in dealing with racial conflicts and assimilationism, as well as ignoring the ways in which difficulties faced by interracial couples are caused by broader cultural norms and structures that do not reflect a pluralist ideology (Moran 2001). Also, because adherence to pluralist ideologies does not appear to be sufficient or necessary to have race-based attractions, it cannot completely account for such attractions.
Exoticism, unlike the other theories, directly tackles the question of race-based desire or attraction. From this point of view, racial difference is a source of sexual desire.
This viewpoint has the possible added benefit of being compatible with Bem‟s (1996)
“Exotic Becomes Erotic” theory of sexuality. Bem suggests that generalized arousal in childhood towards peers who are dissimilar or exoticized (but not too exotic) becomes associated with eroticization of that same group of dissimilar peers. While this theory was created as a way of dealing with the question of gendered sexual orientation, on the face of it the theory appears to be generalizable to existence of sexual desires based on perceived difference in the form of race. Exoticism may be uniquely useful among the interracial relationship theories as an explanation of race-based attraction, but the theory is critiqued as less able to deal with the existence of interracial relationships (Moran
2001). That is, it is argued to be better at explaining interracial lust than love and 93 commitment. However, I question whether this is necessarily the case. Moran argues that “the ephemeral state of lust is not considered a satisfactory basis for the permanent commitment of marriage” and that therefore “exoticism leaves little room for intermarriage to become an everyday pheonomenon” (115-116). She maintains that exoticism provides a basis for “sexual experimentation” of a “forbidden nature” but not
“steady love and companionship” (116). Yet if, as Bem asserts, exoticism is in fact the basis of gendered desire, then this suggests that such sexual desires can indeed be the basis for romantic love and long-term coupling.
Certainly the “content” of exoticism matters here, and is likely to be different from that of gender. Race-related social dynamics and interactions are different from gender-related dynamics and interactions. However, the idea that, for example, another gender is something mysterious and not completely understandable is commonly reflected in popular culture, as reflected by such cultural phenomena as the bestseller
Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus. Gender can be objectified and fetishized
(and indeed such a premise is the basis of much scholarship in the areas of gender and sexuality) and this may be more or less likely depending on individual and cultural beliefs about gender. Yet a gendered sexual orientation is not thought to create only the possibility of objectification and fetishization. Likewise, then, the creation of race-based sexual desires through a mechanism of exoticism should not be presumed to create only the possibility of objectification and fetishization.
Indeed, this is precisely the experience conveyed by my interviewees and by the
BWMT organization. While there was recounting of experiences of racial sexual 94 preferences as an exercise in objectification (both objectifying and being objectified), most of the men strongly objected to their overall current experience as being based on objectification, instead reflecting deeper emotional connections. Likewise, one of the major purposes of the BWMT is to counter treatment of cross-race partners as sexual objects and to develop meaningful, non-exploitative relationships. My research provides solid evidence, then, that racial attractions can function similarly to gendered attractions as a basis for loving, companionate relationships, at least given the presence of an ideology that supports such partnering. This may be particularly likely among sexual minorities, since it may be that the experience of marginalization based on gendered sexual orientation provides a basis for reflexivity regarding sexual desires that facilitates deliberate development of such a supportive ideology.
Conversely, taking the mode of skepticism Moran directs towards race-based desires and applying it to the case of gendered orientation could also be a productive elaboration of theory. Gender-based desires, particularly heterosexual desires, are commonly presumed to be a component necessary to romantic love and long-term committed relationships. Treating gender-based desires as a form of fetishism brings this association into question and importantly reveals the ideological underpinnings that connect gendered sexual desires, romantic love, commitment, and intimacy.
One way forward in developing theory is to examine ways to integrate an exoticism and pluralism perspective (and perhaps also parts of a romanticism perspective, for example insofar as it is compatible with the colorblind perspective offered by a subset of BWMT). It seems unlikely that pluralist dynamics in interracial relationships are 95 universally motivated by visceral racial sexual desires. Rather, a pluralist cultural approach seems to offer ideological support to long-term, committed interracial relationships for persons who experience race-based attractions. Ideological
“stabilization” of race-based desires results from the presence or creation of an ideological system dealing with race that provides a framework for relationships beyond a “forbidden” or “experimental” sexual encounter – as evidenced in my analysis of interviews and archival materials. In other words, pluralism provides an ideological foundation that can yield a relationship-oriented structure similar to that available to gender-based attractions. Exoticism, on the other hand, offers one answer to the “why” of what may motivate interest in another culture (and is an answer that may tend to de- idealize such relationships). Charles Stewart, former co-chair of BWMT opines, “We are committed to resolving the issues that separate us because we can‟t abide being separated” (quoted in Rich 1982). The perspective of exoticism may also offer a new avenue for exploring the everyday struggles of interracial couples who hold to pluralist ideals, as with BWMT members who discussed struggling with racist baggage attached to their attractions and thus influencing their relationship dynamics.
Furthermore, exoticism understood from the perspective of racial sexual preferences suggests the need to investigate dynamics that lead to same-race sexual preferences (just as theories of gender sexual orientation must account for both same- gender and cross-gender desires). This may help a pluralism/exoticism perspective move towards an interrogation of the status quo by, for instance, pointing out that beyond structural barriers to cross-race relating, relationship homogamy may also be a function 96 of directed desire. Much theoretical work would seem to be needed here, if only because a parallel dynamic to Bem‟s explanation of homosexuality seems unlikely to fit in a racial explanation. For example, at least for whites it seems implausible that attractions directed at whites would generally be the result of perceiving one‟s same-race peer group as exotic.
Observations made in interviews and in the archival material present a similar problem from another angle. While exoticism was a common theme describing cross- race attractions, another common theme from the interviews and essays I collected
(particularly but not only from minority men) was a feeling of difference, alienation, and/or rejection from same-race peers. Using Bem‟s gendered sexual orientation model, this is the sort of report we would primarily expect from same-race attracted persons (in analogue to the process proposed for homosexual orientation). This suggests that the relationship between racial attractions and exoticism has divergent dynamics from gender, that timing of experience of difference in the life course may have different results, or that Bem has left out some aspect of sexual development as it relates to exoticism. Further study of race-based attractions focusing on people with same-race attractions should be a productive approach in answering these questions.
One area that Bem does not explicitly take up is the question of the relationship between gendered and racial attractions. His system seems to assume that, while potentially diverse, sexual desires develop similarly regardless of the characteristic or category in question. His system also seems to assume that development of one type of sexual desire is not necessarily dependent on or influenced by any other (for example, 97 that same-gender attractions do not influence racial attractions, or vice versa). Interracial relationship literature, largely focused on heterosexual relationships, does observe the influence of racial stereotypes in describing the attributes of potential same-race versus cross-race partners (e.g., describing White women as “outspoken” or “vivacious” and
Asian women as “submissive” and “shy”) but does not specifically take up the question of the nature of gendered, racial desires (Chow 2000, Namoto 2005). I turn, then, to two different theories of sexual development that treat gender as a “special case” central to understanding sexual desire in order to see if and how recognition of the existence of racial sexual preferences might build on or refine the theories in informative and productive ways.
The Nature of (Racial) Sexual Desire
James Giles presents a phenomenological theory of sexual desire and love in the aptly named Nature of Sexual Desire (2008). Here I present the core points of his work, some ways in which it may link with previously mentioned work, and some relevant critiques and weaknesses of his arguments from the point of view of sociology of sexuality. I also examine his work in light of my research on racial sexual preferences.
Finally, I suggest some ways in which how future work in the area of racial sexual preference may test and/or elaborate on his theories.
Giles defines sexual desire as the desire for “mutual baring and caressing of bodies between oneself and at least one other person (real, fantasized, or symbolized)”
(93, emphasis his), as a form of desire for bodily or physical vulnerability and a response 98 of physical care. In related but slightly more complex fashion, romantic love is defined as the desire for mutual psychological or emotional vulnerability and care; that is, desire to display vulnerability towards the other person so that the other person can show care, desire for the other person to display vulnerability so that care can be shown, and desire that the other person have these same desires.
Both sexual desire and romantic love are argued to have gender as a core component. In other words, gender is a fundamental attribute in experiences of sexual desire and love:
Now although persons come with a variety of features, the crucial feature that enables them to become objects of sexual desire…is their gender. That is, in having sexual desire toward someone, the person‟s gender enters my awareness as that which feeds my desire, that which pulls me toward her [sic] in my craving for our mutual baring and caressing. Further, not only does the person of my desires have a gender, but I too, the one who bears the desires, likewise have a gender. Indeed, it is just my having a gender that gives this crucial meaning to her gender… (93)
It could be argued that a softer case is made for romantic love in that gender is simply argued to be “never a matter of indifference” (141) in comparison with liking. However, in both cases gender is argued to be essential to the experience because it provides the motivation. That motivation is the experience of an incompleteness of one‟s own gender, which exoticizes the other gender as something that can fulfill one‟s gender (in the case of heterosexuals) or which exoticizes the same gender as something that can fulfill one‟s gender (in the case of homosexuals). In this respect, his arguments are similar to those of
Daryl Bem‟s (1996) “Exotic Becomes Erotic” theory of sexual development, which (as explained above) proposes that gendered eroticism is based on childhood experiences of 99 gender-grouped peers as exotic. However, it may bear subtle but important differences in suggesting a specific way in which exoticism is qualitatively experienced (i.e., as a lack or incompleteness) in order for it to be linked with the erotic.
One place where Giles‟s argument becomes problematic (and a way in which it differs from Bem) is in his universalism of hegemonic Western ideas about the sex/gender system and, not entirely separately (but perhaps more problematically), his equation of gender with genitals. The understanding of gender presented in The Nature of Sexual Desire is one that neatly groups humanity into males and females. This viewpoint overlooks cultures with institutionalized genders beyond male and female
(e.g., Jacobs, Thomas, and Lang 1997; Nanda 1986), but also discounts the existence of intersexed individuals (e.g., Fausto-Sterling 1993, 2000). To his credit, Giles does discuss the existence of intersexed persons (as well as transsexuals and transgender/genderqueer persons), but his discussion has the purpose of discounting the existence of such persons as so rare as to be inconsequential to his theory. This is particularly disappointing (and seemingly inconsistent) in that Giles elsewhere uses exceptions to general observations as a method for showing the falsity of an assumption or universalized hypothesis.
The argument that gender is equivalent to genitals is based upon the demonstrated pervasive belief that genitals are the defining characteristic of whether one is male or female (e.g., Kessler and McKenna 1978), and in this case Giles marshals the experiences of transsexuals, which focuses on appearance of genitals. However, Giles‟ account is problematic because of his unsatisfactory discussion about where these ideas come from. 100
For example, Sandra Bem (1994) rather elegantly demonstrated that, at least among children in the United States, gender schemas are primarily based on cultural cues rather than genital cues, and that genital-based understandings of gender come later. In other words, children appear to be socialized into reproducing a culturally created set of categories rather than innately recognizing and sorting genitals into two categories. Yet
Giles uses Bem‟s findings that a minority of three-to-five year olds can make the connection between gender and genitals to support the notion that gender equals genitals!
While he rightly notes that in other cultures where children are more likely to observe other children‟s and adults‟ exposed genitals the connection between gender and genitals may be more direct, given his intent to create a universal theory it is problematic to discount the many exceptions, especially when those exceptions arguably reveal a shared social process that occurs even within countries that display more exposed genitals.
Giles likewise problematically confronts the issue that genitals are rarely on display as adults. Clothing is only noted as something that conceals the body, which ignores the ways in which clothing can be used to accentuate secondary sex characteristics and/or send culture-based messages about the gender of the wearer. Other culturally gendered aspects of presentation (such as makeup) are not discussed at all in the context of this discussion. While acknowledging that in everyday interaction secondary sex characteristics are more likely to be noticeable, he argues that they represent only part of Gestalt which assumes genitals as its center. Again, Giles may be correct in the sense that this is the most common way people are oriented to gender in 101 society, but his account is problematic in assuming that this is simply the essential nature of understandings of gender rather than something that is socially learned.
Despite these issues with Giles‟ understanding of gender, his larger point may remain. That is, even if gender is experienced as a continuum and/or is learned through cultural symbols and socialization, it may be that sexuality is fundamentally grounded in gender. The core of Giles‟ argument with regard to the relationship between gender and sexuality is that (gendered) sexual orientation is essential to the experience of sexual desire:
…sexual desire always takes place within the context of a person of one gender desiring sexual interaction with a person of another (or the same) gender, where the gender of the participants is the basis for the meanings ascribed to the desired activity. That is, the gender of both the person who has the sexual desire and the gender of the person toward whom the sexual desire is aimed are fundamental to the structure of sexual desire. It is this feature of sexual desire that is often referred to as sexual orientation. (108)
Certainly there is wide agreement among the public and within academia that gender has a special status with regards to sexual desire and romantic love. In laying out his support for this claim, Giles strongly argues that even persons with sexual desires primarily towards objects have attractions based on the gendered symbolism those objects represent for them (ironic, given his discounting of such symbolism in discussion of gender as genitals).
However, he runs into some difficulty in the case of bisexuality. Giles rightly points out that bisexuality is not a problem in his formulation if understood as an interest in “both” genders rather than one gender. In other words, an understanding of bisexuality as someone who is both heterosexual and homosexual in their desires is still consistent 102 with the idea that gender is central. However, it is a problem if bisexuality is understood as a form of sexual desire in which gender plays only a secondary or even no role. There is strong evidence that some, and perhaps the majority of, bisexuals experience bisexuality in line with the first explanation. However, there is also evidence that at least some bisexuals (or, perhaps more accurately, pansexuals given rejections by some of a gender binary) do not see gender as a factor in their attractions (Ault 1996, Diamond
2008; Horncastle 2008, Rust 2000). Giles‟ solution is to again gloss over this apparent exception to his theory by assuming that in fact all bisexuals actually pay attention to the gender of their partners.
The existence of racial sexual preferences is also a potential challenge to Giles‟ formulation of gender as central to sexuality. Similar to the second understanding of bisexuality, sexual desires based on race reveals a form of sexuality in which gender could play either a secondary or non-existent role. For example, in an interview Michael
Smith, the founder of Black and White Men Together, claims to have met people “who prefer other races regardless of gender” (Bean 1989).
Still, the mere existence of racial sexual preferences does not automatically exclude the possibility that gender remains central to sexuality. My interviews of men who identified as gay regarding their understanding of their racial sexual preferences revealed that for most of them gender was the more important factor in identifying romantic and sexual partners. The majority of the interviewees were exclusively attracted to men (unsurprising given the selection criteria) while only a single respondent was exclusively attracted to people of a different race. On the other hand, another 103 interviewee indicated his attractions were more race-based (90% cross-race) than gender- based (75% same-gender). This brings us back to the critique of the centrality of gender to sexuality from the point of view of bi/pansexuality. If, in fact, there are people who have (more) exclusive attractions based on race than based on gender, or perhaps even have racial preferences but not gender preferences, this implies that gender may not be central to the experience of sexuality for some people.
However, another set of findings from the interviews (and corroborated by the discourse of BWMT as well as other studies of race and sexuality) suggests it may not be quite that simple. Several of the men interviewed indicated their attractions were to racial types – that is, their racial preferences were strongly shaped by pre-established cultural stereotypes such as the large-bodied, hypermasculine Black man or the small, feminine, submissive Asian man. Wilson et al (2009) have similarly found within a sample of men seeking men for sex via the internet that there were within-and-between- racial group stereotypes regarding approach to sexual encounters (passionate, aggressive, reserved, top/bottom), gendered disposition (macho, dominant, submissive, feminine), body build, and penis size. It is important to note the presence of a gendered component in these types. Given that (at least some) attractions based on race are also apparently attractions based on gender (albeit a gender of presentation rather than genitals – at least conceptualized as male versus female genitals), then this complicates assertions of the nature of attractions as being gender-centered as opposed to race-centered. This observation accords with queer and feminist theoretical observations that argue for the
“inseparability of the supposed constituents of a particular identity” (Barnard 2003). 104
Instead these findings suggest that a more intersectional understanding of sexual desire is called for. That is to say that, in addition to understanding how categories based on gendered sexual orientations (such as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or heterosexual) interact with other social categories, there is a need for further investigation of how the interdependency of social categories affects the nature of sexual desire itself. For example, what does it mean for a person to rank their sexual desires as “white men, then women of all races and „other‟ men, then [same-race] men,” as one of the interviewees explained their attractions? It strongly indicates that gendered attractions cannot be understood apart from racial attractions for this individual. If Giles is correct that the motivation of sexual desire is commonly an experience of an incompleteness of one‟s own gender, then a study of bisexuals with cross-race sexual preferences would present a strategic way to further examine how experiencing exoticism translated into sexual desire
(in this case focusing on racial desire) might be experienced as separate from gender or experienced in an intersectional way that includes but is not exclusively about gender.
On the flip side, awareness of same-race sexual preferences could also present an opportunity to develop theory in regard to the nature of sexual desire. Again, if sexual desire is commonly based on experience of incompleteness, this raises questions about the nature of sexual desire when what is eroticized is apparent sameness. For example, do same-race attractions operate in a similar fashion to that proposed by Giles for homosexuality? That is, do feelings of an incompleteness of one‟s own race/racial identity motivate eroticism focused on one‟s own race? This could be interpreted as a quite different and more plausible proposition than the idea of same-race white eroticism 105 being motivated by exoticism, per Bem. Alternatively, does preference for the same race reflect an intersectional preference for a particularly gendered racial type, thus actually accentuating a particular type of gendered difference? Contra both Bem and Giles, if this is the case gender cannot be considered separately from race even (or perhaps especially) in the case of racial homogamy and what is missing from their analyses is an unspoken element of racial homogamy.
Dynamical Systems of (Racial) Sexual Development
As part of her book Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire,
Lisa Diamond (2008) presents another theory of sexual desire and love, largely based in evolutionary psychology. Here I begin by laying out an outline of her theory, which focuses on explaining shifts in gendered attractions (particularly among women). I present some areas where my work on racial sexual preference apparently accords with her theory, suggesting it may be useful in building a more general theory of sexual desire and development. Finally, I put forward a critique of her ideas based on my findings.
Unlike Giles, who tries to create a unitary theory, Diamond breaks sexual desire and love into several constitutive parts. First, sexual desire is actually understood as two different phenomena: proceptivity and arousability. Proceptivity is understood to be an
“automatic, intense, sex-hormone-driven form of sexual motivation,” while arousability is the “capacity to become aroused once certain triggers, cues, or situations are encountered (Diamond 2008: 202). Romantic love is also broken down into two aspects: passionate and companionate love. Passionate love defined as a “state of heightened 106 interest and preoccupation with another person,” which includes the desire for “closeness and physical contact” as well as experience of “excitement and euphoria” when receiving affection or attention from that person (216-217). Companionate love is also defined as
“pairbonding,” characterized by desire for closeness (but with less urgency than passionate love) as well as feelings of “security, care, and comfort” (216-217).
In addition, Diamond argues that there is not an identical relationship between gender and each of the components. Only proceptivity, the sex-seeking hormonal motivation, is argued to have gender as a core component, and this is explained as due to its evolutionary role in reproductive sexual activity. Arousability, the sex-facilitating situationally-dependent awakening of interest in sex, is argued to not be intrinsically related to gender in the same way:
But what about arousability? Is it also intrinsically oriented? In all likelihood, no. As long as our ancestors‟ proceptive desires were directed toward reproductive (that is, other-sex) partners, there would be little adaptive benefit to orienting arousability as well. After all, the cues for arousability that our ancestors frequently encountered were undoubtedly other-sex cues, give that humans in preindustrial societies were typically steered toward other-sex relationships very soon after sexual maturation. Accordingly, there would be little need for arousability to be “gender targeted” in the same manner as proceptivity. (p. 210)
Likewise, love is considered to be governed by a separate set of “brain circuitry” that is not intrinsically oriented by gender. This assertion is supported both by evidence that loving attachments appear to be based on the same system as infant-caregiver attachments, which are not gendered, and by evidence that romantic infatuations are not gender-exclusive nor necessarily connected with a desire for sex with the object of infatuation. 107
That said, Diamond also argues that there are connections between the different systems. Experiences of sexual desire (as well as norms regarding adult interactions) influence feelings of romantic attachment to form primarily towards the gender of one‟s sexual orientation, while feelings of infatuation or deep emotional attachment may create a situation where some people experience sexual desires towards people other than the gender they are usually attracted to. (The focus of Diamond‟s argument is on how biological and social factors make the latter relatively more likely for women.) More expansively, Diamond makes the case that sexual development may be best understood using a dynamical systems approach, in which “a person‟s initial traits and subsequent environments are in constant, mutually influential interaction with one another, and that they come to progressively influence on another over time” (240). Influences on sexuality include “individual and contextual factors…genes, hormones, maturational state, personality traits, situational factors, interpersonal influences, and cultural norms”
(239). However, Diamond is careful to make the case that this does not mean people are capable of choosing who they are attracted to.
Diamond‟s theory of sexual desire seems compatible with my interviews and analysis of discourse surrounding racial sexual preference in several respects. First and foremost, a dynamical systems approach seems compatible with the multiple attributions made in regards to the origins of racial sexual preference. Diamond argues that development of sexual desires cannot be traced back to any one singular cause and that multiple factors may interact to allow two people to reach similar outcomes through different pathways. Her theoretical orientation to sexual desire is also compatible with 108 reports of relatively stable attractions over time. While a major strength of dynamical systems theory is its assumption of capacity for change, it is also compatible with stability. Over a long period of time, dynamical systems theory expects stable patterns to emerge due to “a variety of constraining influences ranging from genes to cultural norms to simple habits” (244). In a related fashion, this approach supports the experience of racial sexual preferences as beyond the ability to consciously choose or modify (for example, among those who strongly adhere to a “colorblind” ideology in other spheres of life). While experience and interactions have a cumulative effect that may result in change, their accumulation also supports an existing pattern – it may be difficult or impossible to “unorganize” a long pattern of psychological, biological, and cultural processes. Diamond‟s argument that it is probably easier to add or expand attractions may even partially explain the typical non-exclusivity of race-based attractions and behaviors.
Despite these places of agreement, racial sexual preferences also present some potential challenges to Diamond‟s work. Although Diamond‟s arguments support the idea that at least some people‟s gender-based attractions are not at least wholly biological, her arguments (especially in regard to proceptivity) support the point of view that mono-gendered desires are primarily driven by a biologically coded mechanism.
However, racial sexual preferences throw Diamond‟s assumption of gender-coded proceptivity into question. Sex-hormone-driven proceptivity is presumably the mechanism through which, for example, gay and lesbian teens recognize their sexual attractions are not the same as the majority of their peers. However, my interviews with 109 cross-race-attracted men revealed that most of them had very early experiences of racial sexual attraction, often concurrent with their first recollection of gendered attractions.
Since few would suggest proceptivity has a racially coded component, this suggests proceptivity may also not be specifically gendered in its coding.
On the other hand, an argument could be made that this concurrence of cross-race attractions is a reflection of an arousability association caused at least in part by the experience of proceptive desire directed towards a person of another race. In other words, that the racial preference was not simultaneously revealed with gendered orientation, but rather an early experience of gendered desire created an association of sexual desire with race. However, this explanation does not seem wholly satisfactory given the data from interviews and BWMT. As an illustration of the difficulty here, arousability is used by Diamond to explain the phenomenon of “falling in love with a person” regardless of their gender. Many of the men I interviewed as well as several of the archived articles and letters from BWMT suggested a goal of “falling in love with a person” regardless of their race, or as a means of getting beyond their race. Yet it was a stated goal because it was not where they were currently or because it was a long-term, generally ongoing process. Likewise, one interviewee described his rare attractions to same-race men in parallel terms to those used by some women in Diamond‟s research
(having to “really be into” them in terms of having an emotionally close relationship already established before attractions can develop). In contrast, typical descriptions of cross-racial attractions sound more like Diamond‟s descriptions of proceptive desire: automatic, lusty, instense, and sex-seeking. Interviewees describe how they sought out 110 cross-race or interracial pornography. Minority men described experiences of sex with white men who devalued them as people and did not interact with them outside of sexual activity. One of BWMTs major goals (and struggles) was to move away from a vision of interracial sexuality that was merely about sex. All of this strongly suggests that, at the very least, proceptive desires are subject to modification by experiences of situational arousal and cannot neatly be reduced to gendered sexual orientation. If such is the case, this also suggests the assumption of gendered coding of proceptivity cannot itself be taken as a given.
A more general study of the experiences of intense, sex-seeking responses to characteristics other than strictly gendered characteristics (for example, hair color) could also be informative in creating theory about the relationship between proceptive desires, gender, and other characteristics. Insofar as this might be understood as an investigation into the nature of “sexual types” it seems likely to build productively on Diamond‟s work by moving beyond a focus on gender, while keeping an eye to how types relate to gender provides a connection to current core theories of sexual desire and development. Little work has been done in this area, with the notable exception of the exploratory study by
Whittier and Simon (2001) which provided descriptions of the “types” reflected in interviews with four gay men including such things as age, class, temperament, build, hair, and, yes, race/ethnicity. Of course, as reflected in this listing of types, my current work as well as any future work on racial sexual preference can itself be seen as a specific extension of research on sexual types. Here again, then, a study of bisexuals with racial sexual preferences might be a more specific way to create additional 111 understanding of these phenomena in that it may be able to tease apart the content of proceptivity in cases where gendered “coding” is varied and/or perhaps non-existant.
However, other groups could also potentially provide insight in this area. As another example, again, a study of persons experiencing same-race attractions may be revealing.
Sexual types include “same” or “similar” types and study of these, for example, may particularly reveal whether/how such types depend on difference or even “create” difference through association of a social category or physical characteristic with other characteristics.
Conclusion
As stated in the introduction, the academic discourse on sexual development is currently focused on gendered sexual orientation. Although gender is certainly an important shaper of sexuality, race presents another interesting and little-studied influence on sexual desires. Cross-race sexual desires in particular, though apparently a rare phenomenon, offer straightforward parallels to gender-based theories of sexual desire based on exoticism and difference given the prominent cultural practice of exoticizing racial difference. At the same time, gender and race dynamics are not identical and thus race-based attractions offer a new way to think about sexuality.
My research on racial sexual preferences suggests that applying the concept of exoticism from Bem‟s “Exotic Becomes Exotic” theory to the case of race-based attractions provides some new ways forward in understanding interracial relationships by moving beyond simplistic “racial fetishist” formulations of cross-race attraction. 112
However, attempts to fit reports of the development of racial sexual preferences to EBE theory raises questions about the applicability of EBE theory to the case of race. The interviewees‟ reports of their experience of difference and its relationship to feelings of eroticism are more complex than a straightforward EBE account would suggest. I suggest an EBE account would likely be even more problematic in the case of same-race attractions. EBE‟s lack of ability to deal with these cases, as well as apparent differences in understandings of exoticism when comparing with Giles‟ theory, lead to the conclusion that at the very least more specificity in the meaning(s) of “exoticism” is needed.
It is also important to reiterate here that the literature on interracial relationships has a strong skepticism of exoticism (understood as a form of fetishism) as a basis of romantic love and commitment. My research, in light of EBE theory, demonstrates how racial ideologies can create a space for the compatibility of racial exoticism and relationship commitment. However, conversely, this skepticism also reiterates the need to interrogate the relationship between gender-based desires, exoticism, and romantic love and commitment. Rather than being assumed as the natural and necessary basis of pair-bonding, gender-based desires as “fetish” highlight the need to understand the role of cultural beliefs in connecting sexual desire, love, commitment, and intimacy.
Giles and Diamond privilege the place of gender in sexual development and desire, a privilege that the existence of racial sexual preferences calls into question. The problematization of the assumed centrality of gender in experience of sexual desire is particularly strong when paired with a critique from the point of view of bi/pansexuality. 113
Although I found no one in my research that claimed gender played a negligible role in their sexuality (unsurprising given its focus on self-identified gay men), from the archival materials and interviews it is apparent that race is of equal or even primary importance for some people. Given these findings and the resonance between bi/pansexual and racial sexual preference critiques, a study of racial sexual preferences among self-identified bi/pansexuals is a strategic future step for sexuality theory development.
Alongside the line of critique that presents the possibility of “genderless” desire, I offer that “gendered” attractions themselves need to be reexamined from an intersectional perspective, perhaps borrowing from the idea of “sexual types.” An intersectional perspective indicates that even if gender is central to sexuality, it shouldn‟t be evaluated in isolation other social categories, such as race. In particular, awareness of racial sexual preferences offers (as a starting point for this form of analysis) an understanding of attractions as always already raced. Given that even those who acknowledge cross-raced attractions tended to deracialize the content of their desires (for example, focusing on hair color preferences or emphasizing inclusivity of desires), it may be that racing of attractions most commonly occurs in unspoken ways. The obscuring of race seems all the more likely in the case of homogamous, hegemonically consistent patterns of desire, particularly among majority whites. This being the case, same-race desires (again, perhaps particularly among whites) offer a potentially potent new area for study as well.
Racial sexual preference, then, represents not only an interesting and apparently unusual phenomenon, but may be a commonly applicable concept that can help refine our understanding of human sexuality. 114
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION
In the previous chapters I have addressed racial sexual preference from several perspectives. First, I have analyzed racial sexual preference from the point of view of individual retellings, beliefs, and experiences of gay men. Second, I have also analyzed racial sexual preference from the point of view of public, contested discourses within a gay organization. Finally, I have in turn used racial sexual preference to analyze and critique (social) scientific theories dealing with sexual desire and development. Here I bring my analysis to a close by summarizing the major contributions of this research as well as suggesting areas of limitation and areas for future research, and reemphasizing the overall significance of the study.
Major Themes and Findings
It seems fit to use the original research questions as a guide in providing an overall picture of this study of racial sexual preference. What are the narratives of cross- race sexual preference? This study finds that they are in many ways similar to the narratives of gendered sexual orientation. Although beliefs about the “root cause” of their racial sexual preference were more variable, cross-race sexual preferences among gay men are experienced early in life, coincident with gendered attractions, relatively stable over time, and strongly influence sexual behavior. Many interviewees and BWMT members speak of racial and gendered attractions in parallel terms, including the 115 assertion by BWMT that everyone has a racial preference. However, compared to gendered sexual orientation, racial sexual preference tends to be less exclusive, and to enter conscious awareness at a later age and after a longer dating history consistent with the preference. Also unlike gendered sexual orientation in these men, it was unusual to have an identity related to racial sexual preference.
Beliefs and experiences of men with a cross-race sexual preference that were not specifically sexual influenced their narratives and understandings of racial sexual preferences. Racial stereotypes influenced notions of attractiveness (perhaps not all that differently than gender stereotypes influence notions of attractiveness), an aspect that
BWMT openly acknowledged and combated. Perceptions of exoticness or difference in relation to the race of primary attraction and feelings of alienation from one‟s own racial peers seem to influence cross-race attractions in ways reminiscent of Bem‟s “Exotic
Becomes Erotic” theory of gendered sexual orientation development. Beliefs about racial relations and romantic relationships in general influenced interviewees and members of
BWMT away from relating to racial preferences in a fetishized way that only focused on sexual gratification.
The lack of a racial sexual preference identity among most participants is perhaps the most complex case of belief influencing experience of attractions. Most of these men were anti-racists and held either a colorblind or pluralist ideology. I argue that these larger ideologies (and societal norms in general) emphasize rejection of racial preferences and left little cultural “space” for development of an identity based on a (sexual) form of racial preference. The main exception is those individuals who drew a direct parallel to 116 the exception of monogendered sexual orientations not being considered sexist. The case of BWMT lends support to this argument in that discourse on racial sexual preferences
(including identities based on such preferences) in the past seemed to be a key element of the organization, largely based on this parallelism paired with a pluralistic ideology.
However, this discourse has faded over time with the apparent shift towards a dominant organizational ideology of colorblindness that sees racial sexual preferences as, at the very least, a product of a racist society and therefore something to downplay or develop past rather than make an exception for. All together, these findings strongly suggest that understandings of racial sexual preference largely derive from beliefs about gendered sexual orientation and interethnic relations.
This research also makes contributions from the point of view of critiquing theories of sexual development and desire. While showing the potential for interaction between pluralism and exoticism, my findings also draw attention to the need for more specificity in what types of exoticism or difference lead to eroticism. These findings also point to the ongoing need to question the ideological underpinnings that connect gendered sexual desire to notions of romance and commitment rather than taking the connection for granted. Finally, the existence of racial sexual preferences simultaneously points to the possibility of sexual desires unstructured by gender (and thus the possibility that gender is not necessarily “coded” into sexual desire) and to the possibility that gendered desires are themselves structured in an intersectional way such that they are always already also raced (and likely also influenced by other social categories).
117
Limitations and Future Research
The primary limitation of the interview portion of the study is the limited scope and size of the sample. The study was limited to cross-race attractions among gay men, and thus cannot speak to other forms of racial attractions or to the experience of cross- race attractions among other sexual orientation populations. More conservatively, it can be said to be most accurately reflective of gay men with cross-race attractions that are expressed primarily through dating and romance, and who are willing to speak to a researcher about their sexual lives. Although the size of the sample was relatively small, this belies the fact that the interviews were in-depth and the individual narratives carries strongly consistent themes (which were also in agreement with the BWMT-related materials). As with most studies of sexual minorities, here a truly representative sample is at the very least impractical, and such a sample was not the goal. Instead, I purposively sought out a diverse sample of cross-race attracted self-identified gay men, using this diversity to strengthen arguments that common themes identified across participants represent generalizable patterns among this population. A particular strength of the sample is its representation of minorities as a percentage of the sample. However, the sample lacks any representation from Asian men and includes only one man primarily attracted to Asians, which necessitates the caveat that different themes may emerge with better representation of those groups. Specific goals to include these groups will be part of future research efforts.
The primary limitation of the BWMT archival document review portion of the study is its reliance on historical cultural objects. As such, I am principally able to draw 118 conclusions based on what was deemed recordable and worthy of preservation by group members. Given the diversity of documents available in the archives, including many personal letters, this does suggest that nonetheless the sample is not simply reflective of
“front stage” public debate or some other limited aspect of the organization. Also, observations at the national convention were congruent with what was learned from the archives. On the other hand, it is possible that the articles and letters are primarily representative of organizational leadership. Certainly the change in the discourse of the organization over time suggests a shift in leadership and/or the beliefs of the leadership.
It may be that different patterns and themes would be found among the general membership and/or that they would simply have little to say about racial sexual preferences. Observations at the national convention cannot necessarily allay that problem since attendees at the national convention are likely to be members who are the most engaged in the group.
Directions for future research are partially influenced by these limitations. The most specific and concrete steps for future research would involve expanding the research on BWMT. In particular, expanding research into the chapter level could lessen concerns that patterns and trends reflect only the organizational elite. The opportunity to interview people involved on a local level, and perhaps also community members aware of but not directly affiliated with the group, would give a broader organizational picture. Also, collecting general organizational information such as membership numbers and budget/resources could give a more general picture of organizational “health” apart from leadership opinion (though, of course, leadership may affect membership and budget 119 numbers). In addition to lending additional understanding of the role of racial sexual preference in BWMT, such research might also be useful for improving more general understandings of the role of ideology and/or leadership in social movement organizations and for examining patterns of affiliation and interaction in organizations that involve local charter groups under a national umbrella group.
Another relatively specific and concrete step for research on racial sexual preferences is to collect interviews from other gender and gendered sexual orientation groups. Interviews with heterosexual men and women could lend insight into how influential narratives of gendered sexual orientation development are in understanding racial sexual preference, since those groups are less likely to have reflected on their sexual development. Women‟s narratives could reveal whether there are gender differences in narratives in similar ways that variation is seen between men and women‟s gendered preferences, including the possibility of greater fluidity.
This line of expansive inquiry also suggests future research that could be driven by broader theoretical interests. A related expansion of inquiry into the experience of racial sexual preference by bisexuals could reveal similar non-specificity of racial attractions, but could also be an opportunity to study a form of sexuality that is not primarily gender-centered and may not be gender-related at all, providing a strong challenge to sexual development formulations such as those of James Giles and Lisa
Diamond, as discussed in Chapter 4. Likewise, expansion of study of racial sexual preferences into the area of same-race attractions has readily apparent applicability 120 beyond a new understanding of that phenomenon. Specifically, it may be a strategic way to reveal how apparently unraced, “default” gendered attractions are in fact raced.
Finally and perhaps most broadly, this research demonstrates the usefulness of a narrative methodological approach to study aspects of sexual desire and preference other than gendered attractions. Therefore, this research could be used as a model for studying other sexual desires, preferences, and practices that are not directly related to gender.
Future directions in this area could also parallel previously mentioned efforts. For example, analysis of characteristics considered culturally “frivolous” could provide opportunity to identify sociological significance such as social category coding (e.g., the case of hair or eye color which apparently serves as code for race).
Final Remarks
The study of sexual desire and development has been dominated by a focus on gender. This research represents an important corrective in that it provides an in-depth examination of the concept of racial sexual preference. A better understanding of the phenomenon of cross-race racial sexual preference and giving voice to those who experience such preferences are important aspects of this work. However, the significance of this study goes beyond of this specific scope.
In the conclusion of Daryl Bem‟s article outlining his “Exotic Becomes Erotic” theory, he suggests that in a “non-gender-polarizing culture…[people‟s] erotic and romantic preferences would simply crystallize around a more diverse and idiosyncratic variety of attributes” (1996: 332). With this study I have shown that erotic and romantic 121 preferences are already more diverse, and that we do not need to wait for nor should we wait for a non-gender-polarizing before studying them. Indeed, it may be that through studying these diverse attractions that we come to a deeper, more accurate understanding of what we call “gendered” attractions.
122
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW INSTRUMENT4
Basic Demographics
As of today, how old are you?
What is your current level of education?
--Have you completed high school?
--Are you currently enrolled in college courses? Undergraduate or graduate?
--Do you currently have a college degree? What is your degree?
Do you have any religious or spiritual beliefs?
--How would you say you identify in terms of religion or spirituality?
How would you describe the community you were raised in?
--How about your neighborhood?
--Would you say your neighborhood was lower class, working class, middle class,
or upper class?
--What was the racial makeup of your neighborhood? Was it mostly your own
race? How about your school?
How would you describe the family you were raised in?
--What kind of work does your mother do? Your father?
--What is your parents‟ marital status?
How do you identify in terms of race?
4 Given the semi-structured nature of the interviews, this instrument is provided as a general outline of the key topics discussed via a set of sample questions and possible follow-ups (indicated by “--”). 123
--Examples might include American Indian, Asian or Asian American,
Black or African American, Latino or Hispanic American, White or
Caucasian or European American, as a mixed heritage (more than one of
these), or something else.
How do your parents identify in terms of race?
Has anyone (else) in your family ever had an interracial relationship?
How do most of your friends identify in terms of race?
--How about your co-workers?
--Have any of your friends had interracial relationships?
Sexual Orientation and Preferences Assessment and Brief Sexual History
[I will have a blank pie chart divided into 16 equal regions available as a visual reference for the next set of questions.]
Can you give me a ballpark estimate of the percentage of your day-to-day physical attractions that are directed to men versus women? So, for example, 100% would mean you were ONLY attracted to men, 0% would mean you were only attracted to women,
50% would mean you were attracted to men about as often as you were attracted to women. [If the interviewee is unsure what “physical attractions” mean I will ask them what they think it means, and if necessary provide the following definition: By physical attractions I mean sexual arousal or desire.]
How about a ballpark estimate of the percentage of your day-to-day emotional attractions that are directed to men versus women? …[repeat explanation if needed] [If the interviewee is unsure what “emotional attractions” mean I will ask them what they think 124 it means, and if necessary provide the following definition: By emotional attractions I mean love or affection.]
How about a ballpark estimate of the percentage of your overall lifetime sexual behaviors that have been with men versus women? …[repeat explanation if needed] [If the interviewee is unsure what “sexual behaviors” mean I will ask them what they think it means. If necessary, I will provide the following definition: By sexual behaviors I mean some variety of genital contact by at least one of the people involved.]
How do you identify in terms of sexual orientation?
--Examples might include bisexual or pansexual, gay or homosexual,
heterosexual or straight, queer, more than one of these, or something else.
Can you give me a ballpark estimate of the percentage of your day-to-day physical attractions that are directed towards people of other races versus your own race? So, for example, 100% would mean you were ONLY attracted to people of other races, 0% would mean you were only attracted to people of your own race, 50% would mean you were attracted to people of other races about as often as you were attracted to those of your own race.
--Thinking about this further, of those attractions to people of other races, what
percentage are [American Indian, Asian, Black, Latino, White, or
something else]?
How about a ballpark estimate of the percentage of your day-to-day emotional attractions that are directed towards people of your own race versus other races? …[repeat explanation if needed] 125
-- …[repeat explanation if needed]
Can you give me a ballpark estimate of the percentage of your overall lifetime sexual behaviors that have been with people of your own race versus other races? …[repeat explanation if needed]
--Thinking about this further, of those sexual behaviors with people of other races,
what percentage are [American Indian, Asian, Black, Latino, White, or
something else]?
Do you consider yourself to have an identity in terms of sexual attraction by race?
--How do you identify?
How many total people have you had sex with?
--How many men have you had sex with?
--How many of those were of the same race?
--How many of those were of a different race?
--How many were [American Indian, Asian, Black, Latino, White, or
something else]
--How many women have you had sex with?
--…[repeat same questions about racial breakdown outlined under men]
Sexual Narratives
Please tell me, in as much detail as you can remember, the process through which you first started questioning or thinking about your sexuality in any way.
--How old were you at that time? 126
--Was that the earliest you can remember being attracted to the [same, different,
etc] gender?
--Was that the earliest you can remember being attracted to someone of a
[different, particular, etc] race?
--Was that the earliest you can remember having a sexual encounter with the
[same, different, etc] gender? By sexual encounter, I mean some variety
of genital contact by at least one of the people involved.
--Was that the earliest you can remember having a sexual encounter with someone
of a [different, particular, etc] race? …[repeat explanation if needed]
--Were there any other encounters before those that you would consider sexual,
but that fall outside of my definition?
--Was that the earliest you can remember identifying yourself as [gay, bisexual,
heterosexual, queer, etc]?
--Was that the earliest you can remember identifying yourself in terms of sexual
attraction by race?
--If not, when was the earliest you can remember?
--Did you feel different as a child?
--In terms of gender?
--In terms of race?
--Do you remember the first time you felt an infatuation for someone? Can you
tell me the story of that experience?
--Where did you meet? 127
--Who was this person to you?
--Did anything happen sexually?
--What happened sexually?
--How did you feel afterwards?
--Did this affect your sense of [identity/attractions]?
--What was this person‟s race?
--Do you remember your first orgasm? Can you describe the situation that let up
to it and how you felt about it?
--Were you alone or with another person?
--Who was this person to you?
--What happened sexually?
--Were there further contacts?
--What was this person‟s race?
--How did you feel afterwards?
--Did this affect your sense of [identity/attractions]?
--Are there any books, movies, or websites that you feel influenced your
attractions to a different race?
Thinking back again to your first interpersonal sexual encounter [recount details from above if needed – use the following questions to fill in missing details]:
--Where did you meet?
--Who was this person to you?
--Who initiated the sexual interaction? 128
--What happened sexually?
--How did you feel afterward?
--Did this affect your sense of [identity/attractions]?
--Were there further contacts?
--What was this person‟s race?
Tell me about the next person you had a sexual encounter with.
-- …. [repeat probes as needed]
[repeat until sexual history is repeated]
Now, thinking about romantic relationships, were there any relationships that you have not mentioned before because they did not involve sexual encounters? Tell me about those.
--Where did you meet?
--Who was this person to you?
--Who initiated the romantic interaction?
--Did this affect your sense of [identity/attractions]?
--If the relationship has ended, how did you feel after the relationship ended?
--Were there further contacts?
--What was this person‟s race?
[repeat until relationship history is completed] 129
Have you ever had a friendship that was, or started out, totally platonic [non-sexual], but where emotional feelings were strong enough that it was almost like a romantic relationship? Tell me about that experience.
--Where did you meet?
--Who initiated the interaction?
--Did anything ever happen sexually?
--What happened sexually?
--How did you feel afterwards?
--Did this affect your sense of [identity/attractions]?
--What was this person‟s race?
[if more than one, repeat until history is completed]
What is your personal theory about why you prefer men of a different race?
How do you feel about the term “fetish” used in relation to racial attractions?
How would you rank racial categories in terms of your preferences?
130
REFERENCES
Ault, Amber. 1996. “Ambiguous Identity in an Unambiguous Sex/Gender Structure: The Case of Bisexual Women.” The Sociological Quarterly 37(3): 449-463.
Bailey, J. Michael. 1996. “Gender Identity.” In Ritch C. Savin-Williams and Kenneth M. Cohen (Eds.), The Lives of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals: Children to Adults (pp. 71-93). Ft Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Barnard, Ian. 2004. Queer Race: Cultural Interventions in the Racial Politics of Queer Theory. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
Bean, Thom. 1990a. “A Matter of Personal Pride: A Conversation about Black and White Men Together.” Outlook (San Francisco) 3(Summer): 70-71.
Bean, Thom. 1990b. “A New Gay Society.” Quarterly Interchange. Fall.
Bean, Thom. 1989. “Interview – BWMT Founder Michael Smith.” Quarterly Interchange. Vol I, Issue VI.
Bell, Alan P., Martin S. Weinberg, and Sue Keifer Hammersmith. 1981. Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Bem, Daryl. 2000. “Exotic Becomes Erotic: Interpreting the Biological Correlates of Sexual Orientation.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(6): 531-548.
Bem, Daryl. 1996. “Exotic Becomes Erotic: A Developmental Theory of Sexual Orientation.” Psychological Review 103(2): 320-335.
Bem, Sandra Lipsitz. 1994. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Black and White Men Together / Atlanta. 1988. “BWMT Fact or Fiction.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Black and White Men Together / Los Angeles. 1987. “LA Chapter Letter” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
BLK Magazine. 1990. “Black Gay vs. Gay Black.” BLK Magazine 2:6. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society. 131
Bonilla-Silva, Eduardo. 2003. “Racial Attitudes or Racial Ideology? An Alternative Paradigm for Examining Actors‟ Racial Views.” Journal of Political Ideologies 8(1); 63-82.
Boxer, Andrew M. and Bertram J. Cohler. 1989. “The Life Course of Gay and Lesbian Youth: An Immodest Proposal for the Study of Lives.” Journal of Homosexuality 17: 315-355.
Bradley, Richard. 1992. “What‟s In a Name: Some Reflections on Brotherhood.” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Brown, Bob. 1992. “Beyond the Joys of Black and White.” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Brownscombe, Richard. 1998. “Caucuses at the National Association of Black and White Men Together: A Vestige of Racism.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Brug, Peary and Maykel Verkuyten. 2007. “Dealing with Cultural Diversity: The Endorsement of Social Models Among Ethnic Minority and Majority Youth in the Netherlands.” Youth Society 39(1): 112-131.
Burris, Scott. “Education to Reduce the Spread of HIV.” In Scott Burris, Harlon L. Dalton, Judith Leonie Miller, and the Yale AIDS Law Project (eds), AIDS Law Today: A New Guide for the Public (pp. 82-114.). New York: Yale University Press.
Bush, John E. 1982. “Color and Mate Selection.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Butler, Judith. 1993. Bodies That Matter: on the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge.
Butler, Judith. 1999 (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity, 10th Anniversary Edition. New York: Routledge
Buttney, Richard. 1987. “Legitimation Techniques for Intermarriage: Accounts of Motives for Intermarriages from U.S. Servicemen and Philippine Women.” Communication Quarterly 35(2): 125-143.
Chow, Sue. 2000. “The Significance of Race in the Private Sphere: Asian Americans and Spousal Preferences.” Sociological Inquiry 70(1): 1-29. 132
Cochran, Brian. 1997. “NABWMT: Together at 17.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Cutrone, Christopher. 2000. “The Child With a Lion: The Utopia of Interracial Intimacy.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 6(2): 249-285.
Diamond, Lisa M. 2008. Sexual Fluidity: Understanding Women’s Love and Desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Diamond, Lisa M. 2006. “Careful What You Ask For: Reconsidering Feminist Epistemology and Autobiographical Narrative in Research on Sexual Identity Development.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 31(2): 471-491.
Diamond, Lisa M. 2003a. “What Does Sexual Orientation Orient? A Biobehavioral Model Distinguishing Romantic Love and Sexual Desire.” Psychological Review 110(1): 173-192.
Diamond, Lisa M. 2003b. “Was It a Phase? Young Women‟s Relinquishment of Lesbian/Bisexual Identities Over a 5-Year Period.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84(2): 352-364.
Diamond, Lisa M. 1998. “Development of Sexual Orientation Among Adolescent and Young Adult Women.” Developmental Psychology 34(5): 1085-1095.
Dubé, Eric M. 2000. “The Role of Sexual Behavior in the Identification Process of Gay and Bisexual Males.” Journal of Sex Research 37(2): 123-132.
DuBois, W.E.B. 1996 (1899). The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Dunne, Michael P., J. Michael Bailey, Katherine M. Kirk, and Nicholas G. Martin. 2000. “The Subtlety of Sex-Atypicality.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(6): 549-565.
Esmail, Ashraf and Jas M. Sullivan. 2006. “African American College Males and Females: A Look at Color Mating Preferences.” Race, Gender and Class 13(1-2): 201-220.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2007. “Frameworks of Desire.” Daedalus 136(2): 47-57.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 2000. “The Five Sexes, Revisited.” The Sciences July-August: 19-23.
Fausto-Sterling, Anne. 1993. “The Five Sexes: Why Male and Female Are Not Enough.” The Sciences March-April: 20-24. 133
Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White Women, Race Matters: The Social Construction of Whiteness. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Freeman, Linton. 1955. “Homogamy in Interethnic Mate Selection.” Sociology and Social Research 39(6): 369-377.
Gibson, Colin. 2000. “An Anthology of the Abolition of Race: NABWMT as a Parody of Itself & A Millennium Manifesto for BWMT.” NABWMT Records, GLBT Historical Society.
Gibson, Colin. 1986. “Memorandum RE: Editorial by Bernard Sinkler in BWMT/San Francisco Newsletter of April 1986.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Gibson, Colin. 1983. “Memorandum RE: Changing Name of IABWMT.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Giles, James. 2008 [2003]. The Nature of Sexual Desire. New York: University Press of America.
Goodwin, Joseph P. 1989. More Man Than You’ll Ever Be: Gay Folklore and Acculturation in Middle America. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Green, Leonard. 1992. “Jungle Love.” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Halliday, Mikey. 1992. “A Response from a Gay White Male: Comments on „An Open Letter to Gay White Men.‟” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Han, Chong-suk. 2006. “Being an Oriental, I Could Never Be Completely a Man: Gay Asian Men and the Intersection of Race, Gender, Sexuality, and Class.” Race, Gender and Class 13(3-4): 82-97.
Harrison, Algea O., Melvin N. Wilson, Charles J. Pine, Samuel Q. Chan, and Raymond Buriel. 1990. “Family Ecologies of Ethnic Minority Children.” Child Development 61(2): 347-362.
Hayes, Jarrod. 2000. Queer Nations: Marginal Sexualities in the Maghreb. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 134
Hill, Mark E. 2002. “Skin Color and Perceptions of Attractiveness Among African Americans: Does Gender Make a Difference?” Social Psychology Quarterly 65(1): 77-91.
Holmlund, Chris and Justin Wyatt. 2004. Contemporary American Independent Film: From the Margins to the Mainstream. New York: Routledge.
Hom, Alice Y. and Ming-Yuen S. Ma. 1993. “Premature Gestures: Speculative Dialogue on Asian Pacific Islander Lesbian and Gay Writing.” In Emmanuel S. Nelson (Ed), Critical Essays: Gay and Lesbian Writers of Color (pp. 21-51). Haworth Press.
Horncastle, Julia. 2008. “Queer Bisexuality: Perceptions of Bisexual Existence, Distinctions, and Challenges.” Journal of Bisexuality 8(1):25-49.
Horowitz, Janna L. and Michael D. Newcomb. 2001. “A Multidimensional Approach to Homosexual Identity.” Journal of Homosexuality 42(2): 1-19.
Isay, Richard A. 1989. Being Homosexual: Gay Men and Their Development. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Jacobs, Sue-Ellen, Wesley Thomas, and Sabine Lang (eds). 2007. Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Judd, Charles M., Bernadette Park, Carey S. Ryan, Markus Brauer, and Susan Kraus. 1995. “Stereotypes and Ethnocentrism: Diverging Interethnic Perceptions of African American and White American Youth.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3): 460-491.
Kaplan, Adam M. 2004. “Factors Predicting Whites‟ Involvement in Interracial Relationships.” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: Sciences and Engineering 65(12): 6656-B.
Kavanaugh, John. 1992. “In Search of Who We Are and What We‟re For: Developing a Vocabulary and Sociology of Homosexual and Interracial Loves.” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Kellner, Douglas. 1995. Media Culture: Cultural Studies, Identity, and Politics Between the Modern and the Postmodern. New York: Routledge.
Kessler, Suzanne J., and Wendy McKenna. 1978. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 135
Klein, Fritz, Barry Sepekoff, and Timothy J. Wolf. 1985. “Sexual Orientation: A Multivariate Dynamic Process.” Journal of Homosexuality 11(1-2): 35-49.
Knight, Sam. 1992. “Still Dealing With Small-Minded People in 1992.” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Lockman, Paul T. 1984. “Ebony and Ivory: The Interracial Gay Male Couple.” Lifestyles: A Journal of Changing Patterns 7(1): 44-55.
Long, Daniel. 1996. “Formation Processes of Some Japanese Gay Argot Terms.” American Speech 71(2): 215-224.
Marks, Jim. 1986. “Black and White Men Together: Fighting Racism and the Forces of Separatism. “ NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
McDermit, W. Craig. 1980. “White Men Loving Black Men: An Explication of the Experience Within On-Going Erotic Relationships.” Dissertation Abstracts International, B: Sciences and Engineering 41(12): 4676-B.
McDonald, Gary J. 1982. “Individual Differences in the Coming Out Process of Gay Men: Implications for Theoretical Models.” Journal of Homosexuality 8(1): 47- 60.
Men of All Colors Together / Connecticut. 1987. “MACT/Connecticut Name Change Position Paper.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Moran, Rachel F. 2001. Interracial Intimacy: The Regulation of Race and Romance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mulroy, Brad. 1983. “Interview with James Credle/Mitchell Karp.” New York City News. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Nanda, Serena. 1986. “The Hijras of India: Cultural and Individual Dimensions of an Institutionalized Third Gender Role.” Journal of Homosexuality 11(3&4): 35-54.
National Association of Black and White Men Together. 2010a. “About Us.” http://www.nabwmt.org/aboutus.html (retrieved May 25, 2010)
National Association of Black and White Men Together. 2010b. “Local Chapters.” http://www.nabwmt.org/chapters.html (retrieved May 25, 2010.)
National Association of Black and White Men Together. 2009. “The Past as a Blueprint.” NABWMT Convention 2009. A Blueprint for Change: Yes, We Can, Together! Philadelphia. pp.39-42. 136
National Association of Black and White Men Together. 1999. Chapter Development Manual: March 1, 1999 Revision. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
National Association of Black and White Men Together. 1990. “NABWMT 10th Anniversary Convention: Workshop Companion.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
National Association of Black and White Men Together. 1989. Chapter Development Manual. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Nemoto, Kumiko. 2005. “Race, Romance, and Desire in Interracial Relationships: Asians/Asian Americans and White Americans.” Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences 65(9): 3584-A.
Newall, Venetia. 1986. “Folklore and Male Homosexuality.” Folklore 97(2): 123-147.
Pasupathi, Monisha, Emma Mansour, and Jed R. Brubaker. 2007. “Developing a Life Story: Constructing Relations between Self and Experience in Autobiographical Narratives.” Human Development 50: 85-100.
Pegues, Conrad. 1992a. “An Open Letter to Black Gay Men.” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Pegues, Conrad. 1992b. “An Open Letter to White Gay Men.” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Phillips, Gabriel and Ray Over. 1995. “Differences Between Heterosexual, Bisexual, and Lesbian Women in Recalled Childhood Experiences.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 24(1): 1-20.
Phillips, Gabriel and Ray Over. 1992. “Adult Sexual Orientation in Relation to Memories of Childhood Gender Conforming and Gender Nonconforming Behaviors.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 21(6): 543-558.
Phua, Voon Chin and Gayle Kaufman. 2003. “The Crossroads of Race and Sexuality: Date Selection Among Men in Internet „Personal‟ Ads.” Journal of Family Issues 24(8): 981-994.
Porterfield, Ernest. 1978. Black and White Mixed Marriages. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Purdie-Vaughns, Valerie, Claude M. Steele, Paul G. Davies, and Ruth Ditlmann. 2008. “Social Identity Contingencies: How Diversity Cues Signal Threat or Safety for 137
African Americans in Mainstream Institutions.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94(4): 615-630.
Rich, Adrienne. 1982. “Address Presented Before the Second International Convention of Black and White Men Together: Washington, D.C., June 19, 1982.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Richeson, Jennifer A. and Richard J. Nussbaum. 2004. “The Impact of Multiculturalism Versus Color-Blindness on Racial Bias.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40: 417-423.
Root, Maria P.P. 2001. Love’s Revolution: Interracial Marriage. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Rosario, Margaret, Eric W. Schrimshaw, Joyce Hunter, and Anna Levy-Warren. 2009. “The Coming-Out Process of Young Lesbian and Bisexual Women: Are There Butch/Femme Differences in Sexual Identity.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 38:34-49.
Rosario, Margaret, Eric W. Schrimshaw, and Joyce Hunter. 2008. “Predicting Different Patterns of Sexual Identity Development Over Time Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youths: A Cluster Analytic Approach.” American Journal of Community Psychology 42: 266-282.
Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2007. The Age of Independence: Interracial Unions, Same-Sex Unions, and the Changing American Family. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rosenfeld, Michael J. 2005. “A Critique of Exchange Theory in Mate Selection.” American Journal of Sociology 110(5): 1284-1325.
Rosenfeld, Michael J. and Byung-Soo Kim. 2005. “The Independence of Young Adults and the Rise of Interracial and Same-Sex Unions.” American Sociological Review 70(4): 541-562.
Ross, Louie E. 1997. “Mate Selection Preferences Among African American College Students.” Journal of Black Studies 27(4): 554-569.
Russell, Stephen T. , Thomas J. Clarke, and Justin Clary. 2009. “Are Teens „Post-Gay‟? Contemporary Adolescents‟ Sexual Identity Labels.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 38: 884-890.
Rust, Paula C. 2000. “Two Many and Not Enough.” Journal of Bisexuality 1(1): 31-68. 138
Ryan, Carey S., Juan F. Casas, and Bobbi K. Thompson. 2010. “Interethnic Ideology, Intergroup Perceptions, and Cultural Orientation.” Journal of Social Issues 66(1): 29-44.
Ryan, Carey S., Jennifer S. Hunt, Joshua A. Weible, Charles R. Peterson, and Juan F. Casas. 2007. “Multicultural and Colorblind Ideology, Stereotypes, and Ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 10(4): 617-637.
Samuels, Robert. 2009. New Media, Cultural Studies, and Critical Theory After Postmodernism: Automodernity from Zizek to Laclau. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Sandfort, Theo G. M. 2005. “Sexual Orientation and Gender: Stereotypes and Beyond.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 34(6): 595-611.
Savin-Williams, Ritch C. 1998. …And Then I Became Gay: Young Men’s Stories. New York: Routledge.
Savin-Williams, Ritch C. 1996. “Memories of Childhood and Early Adolescent Sexual Feelings Among Gay and Bisexual Boys: A Narrative Approach.” In Ritch C. Savin-Williams and Kenneth M. Cohen (Eds), The Lives of Lesbians, Gays, and Bisexuals: Children to Adults (pp. 94-109). Ft Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Savin-Williams, Ritch C. and Lisa M. Diamond. 2000. “Sexual Identity Trajectories Among Sexual-Minority Youths: Gender Comparisons.” Archives of Sexual Behavior 29(6): 607-627.
Schofield, Janet Ward. 2001. “The Colorblind Perspective in School: Causes and Consequences.” In James A. Banks & Cherry A. McGee (eds), Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives, 7th Edition (pp. 259–283). New York: Wiley.
Scott, Darieck. 1994. “Jungle Fever? Black Gay Identity Politics, White Dick, and the Utopian Bedroom.” GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 1: 299-321.
Simmons, Tavia and Martin O‟Connell. 2003. “Married-Couple and Unmarried-Partner Households: 2000.” Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Singleton, Royce A., Jr. and Bruce C. Straights. 1999. Approaches to Social Research, Third Edition. New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Michael. 1987. “Letter: Black and White Men Together (BWMT) or Men of All Colors Together (MACT).” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society. 139
Smith, Michael. 1982a. “Interview – Craig McDermit.” Quarterly, Fall. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Smith, Michael. 1982b. “Letters.” Quarterly 14, Summer. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Spickard, Paul. 1989. Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth- Century America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Stanley, Julia P. 1970. “Homosexual Slang.” American Speech 45(1-2): 45-59.
Stevens, Flannery G., Victoria C. Plaut, and Jeffrey Sanchez-Burks. 2008. “Unlocking the Benefits of Diversity: All-Inclusive Multiculturalism and Positive Organizational Change.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 44(1): 116-133.
Stewart, Charles. 1988. “Exploitation in B/W Relationships.” NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society.
Taylor, Jill McLean, Carol Gilligan, and Amy M. Sullivan. 1995. Between Voice and Silence: Women and Girls, Race and Relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Twine, Frances Winddance. 1996a. “Brown Skinned White Girls: Class, Culture, and the Construction of White Identity in Suburban Communities.” Gender, Place and Culture 3(2): 205-224.
Twine, Frances Winddance. 1996b. “Heterosexual Alliances: The Romantic Management of Racial Identity.” In Maria P. Root (Ed), The Multiracial Experience: Racial Borders as the New Frontier (pp. 291-304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Verkuyten, Maykel. 2005. “Ethnic Group Identification and Group Evaluation Among Minority and Majority Groups: Testing the Multiculturalism Hypothesis.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 88(1): 121-138.
Weinstock. Jeffrey Andrew. 2008. Taking South Park Seriously. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Whittier, David Knapp and William Simon. 2001. “The Fuzzy Matrix of „My Type‟ in Intrapsychic Sexual Scripting.” Sexualities 4(2): 139-165.
Wiggins, Bernell. 19992. “Open Letter/Closed Mind.” Letters, Summer 1992. NABWMT Records. GLBT Historical Society. 140
Wilson, Patrick A., Pamela Valera, Ana Ventuneac, Ivan Balan, Matt Rowe, and Alex Carballo-Dieguez. “Race-Based Stereotyping and Sexual Partnering Among Men Who Use the Internet to Identify Other Men for Bareback Sex.” Journal of Sex Research 46(5): 399-413.
Yancey, George. 2003. Who is White? : Latinos, Asians, and the New Black/Nonblack Divide. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.