A neighborhood, originally safe haven for queer men has now became a booming entertainment district that “…sells straight women a gay lifestyle of fun fashionable drinks in stylish surroundings… offers a place for women to escape straight clubs’ ever-present possibility of violence” (ORNE 23). However, this disneyfication of Boystown as a playground, has led to the transformation of spaces and has led to the rise in heterosexual women appropriating bars and social apps designed to meet the needs of gay men in the Gayborhood.
Orne describes how heterosexual women on safari in the gayborhood have a “tourist gaze” and expect gay men to become their gay best friend for the night and for a specific set of events to occur for it to be considered an authentic experience. This is especially true when a woman used the Hole as a space to stare at the gay men having sexual encounters, rather than respecting and appreciating the purpose of the space. Specifically, Orne writes, “… so she walked over and stuck her head in, again giggling at what was happening inside. Marcus came over and explained the area was for sex. If she wasn’t going to be having sex, she shouldn’t go back. Five minutes later, she was at it again, poking her head around the corner. Marcus, ever patient with customers even he could be stern, told her to stay out” (ORNE 31).
This quote prompted my question which asked if there is a way for sexiness and sexual intimacy to be reintegrated into the community undisturbed. We touched on how the gayborhoods are projecting watered down versions of themselves to accommodate for the rise of non-queer people occupying queer spaces. For instance, originally a day to celebrate the anniversary of the Stonewall riots, pride day has become a day when heterosexual men and women take part in the festivities, because it is the “cool” thing to do. Heterosexual couples even bring their children which results in the sanitation of sex from the original sexy culture in Boystown. This is one of the main drawbacks of a postmodern urban society, because the space utilized is taken for granted and turned into a spectacle by those who the space wasn’t intended for.
Throughout the text, Orne suggest that the original safe space provided by Boystown can only be rehabilitated through sex and sexual intimacy-without it, Boystown would be lost. This led to my question of it being impossible to reintegrate sexiness now that heterosexual women on safari have become interwoven into the culture of Boystown. In the class discussion, I wanted to focus on the idea of reintegrating sexiness into the community even though heterosexual women currently have a strong market relationship in Boystown. One option is to completely ban women from entering these spaces, however, it is illegal to ban a group of people unless there is a clear and violent threat. Also, Boystown relies on the huge economic presence of the women, as they throw bachelorette and birthday parties and convene there for fun nights with friends and to socialize with others.
I think your last point which stressed the economic benefit heterosexual women give Boystown plays a large role in your question. Business owners will continue to encourage bachelorette parties to go out in Boystown since they are looking to spend money on expensive drinks and travel in a large group. Their sole purpose in the environment is to use the resources of Boystown. Whereas, the original occupiers of this space have other desires which could hinder their consumption.
On the other hand, it seems very unrealistic to ban women from Boystown due to their economic benefits and the current state of the United States. The gay men could invest in their own space where they can make the rules and therefore, can reclaim this space by creating a new space which could be very sexy.
However, I also wonder about the owners of specific spaces. It seems many spaces are temporally owned. Could it be these spaces were once needed due to the conditions in America and now due to the progress that has been made members of the heterosexual community no longer feel the need to be separate? Yet, it is problematic the gay men feel they cannot express their desires as openly as they would if they weren’t in the presence of a bachelorette party. Additionally, I would argue that technology has probably played a large role in the intimacy of many bars and clubs because people are finding each other on dating apps who solely want intimacy or go to a club with someone in mind because they met them online.
Ultimately, it is gay men who hold the power in the space they are in when these bachelorette parties come in. It does not seem realistic to ban these women from entering these spaces. Therefore, maybe there needs to be a movement towards reclaiming these spaces as sexy because the business owner’s surely do not want them to leave.
While I also agree queer people should not exclude women from these public social spaces, I do still think it’s important for queer people to have their own space. Reading about how these women used these queer social spaces to basically treat their queer people and their sexual encounters as forms of entertainment really got me angry. By viewing and laughing at their gay friends and the ways that they hook up, the women give off the assertion that they treat these encounters queer people experience as something not legitimate or as something secondary. They essentially disrespect them by not giving them their privacy. I want to correlate it with experiences of marginalized students at Bowdoin. While student affinity, religious, and sexuality groups aim to help these marginalized students cope with being at a primarily white and heteronormative college through creating a community of similar members, these groups also aim to educate the overall campus of stories that define their experiences. Through a series of various events opened to the public, these groups bring light to the issues marginalized students face and these groups give more power to these students voices in which they are seen as the minority. That being said, these students also need a space to get away from mainstream Bowdoin and feel comfortable in their own shoes. Not all events that LASO, ASA, MSA, etc host are opened to the public, but only mentioned through specific groups emails or through word of mouth. That is done to protect our space without being judged through another lens. That is why I can see the crucial value for “exclusive” areas in these Gayborhoods. While I don’t have the solution to the influx of straight people moving into these Gayborhoods and claiming the space to their needs, is having the queer people gatherings in spaces like living rooms, or in the home a potential solution to prevent straight people from following their queer friends? Perhaps moving towards the underground economy could be a move? (ex. a hidden queer club running in someone’s back yard). While educating these women about the value of privacy seems like the ideal solution, what if that doesn’t work out?
I also agree that the influx of women in the Gayborhood is problematic. However, their presence and consumption of goods in the neighborhood alone is not the issue. Rather their “tourist gaze” and the way it transforms the actions of the surrounding gay community is the issue. With that being said, I agree with Cesar that there may be potential benefit from educating newcomers on the culture and value of exclusive spaces. While good intentions don’t excuse the newcomers’ appropriation of space within the Gayborhood, for the most part it is clear that the women’s actions are not malicious. Therefore, I think that education efforts would be well received by these newcomers and could have positive effects. Unfortunately, I don’t think that education will be sufficient in combating the Disneyfication of the Gayborhood. I think Cesar’s idea of underground institutions is interesting and could potentially be beneficial. However, even the basements and areas of the clubs which require certain dress codes, which are a similar attempt to create an exclusive safe space for the gay men looking for a sexy space, have been misused. Even those spaces have begun to be appropriated and turned into a spectacle, as mentioned in the original post. How can this be combatted? If the argument is centered around the fact that women are trying to escape the ever present possibility of violence in heteronormative clubs, would the creation of female safe spaces and bars help relieve some of Disneyfication of places like The Hole? Or would these spaces be understood and utilized in a different, ineffective way?
Just like those who have commented previously, I too, have issue with heterosexual participation in certain, sexual spaces – but I think it’s important to do some parsing out at what the differences may be. For instance, if we were to use the Bowdoin context, I think the most visible/established site of queer establishment is quinner – Thursday night dinners at 24 college. Even though that’s a queer space, it’s very open and accepting to all, and encourages any and all to attend. This open door attitude very much can mirror what exists in the real world when straight people frequent the restaurants, shops, and places of culture. But that’s not what is at stake here when it comes down to it. Anyone who has seen Queer As Folk knows what the back of a gay bar can be like – and I argue that isn’t a community space that is trying to serve the public. That, like other spaces that exist in society restricted to function and/or certain groups of people, is irreperably changed when any and all can attend. That is unfair for those who wish to keep those spaces sacred, and in keeping so, should remain closed to the general public.