1. “WHERE ARE ALL THE HOMOS?”
An Ethnographical Study of Gay and Bisexual Men at the University of Redlands
Joe Bruner
Thesis Adviser: Sawa Kurotani
Readers: Daniel Kiefer, Bill Rocque
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR
PROUDIAN INTERDISCIPLINARY HONORS
University of Redlands, Undergraduate Honors Thesis
Proudian Interdisciplinary Honors Program
April 19, 2016

2. 1
Introduction: The Personal to the Ethnographic
This project really started four years ago. It started the moment that I set foot on campus
in the fall semester of my freshman year (2012). At the time, I scarcely had any idea who I was,
or who I was going to become in the next four years. My sexual orientation was barely on my
radar at the time. I remember thinking that summer, after graduating high school, maybe I should
tell one my friends, and I had a specific friend in mind to tell first, maybe I should tell my friend
that I think I might be gay. Up until that point I had only considered my sexuality to be bisexual.
It’s a stereotype – and a bad one at that – and I fit right into it: “oh, bi is just a phase. You’ll
decide what you are later down the road.” The theoretical fieldwork behind that subject is
fascinating, yet slightly tangential to this project.
Like I say, this project really started the moment I set foot on campus four years ago. I
remember I passed by the stand for the Pride Alliance Club at the Involvement fair and thought,
maybe I should go. No, I’m not ready. But I kind of want to. No, it’d be too embarrassing. I don’t
want to be branded as gay yet. Am I gay? Can I really be gay? I ended up forgetting to show up
the first week anyway. So, still in need of friends the following week, I decided to go. The
environment was welcoming and warm, and quite a few people were there. Among those people
were fellow freshmen who invited me to hang out with them afterwards, and ever since then,
have been my best friends. I met my closest friends in college at a Pride Club meeting, and it can
be easy for me to forget that.
After that, it didn’t take much to convince me to keep returning to the club week after
week. I learned more about sexuality and LGBTQ+ issues faster than I ever thought possible,
which may not be saying much given my total lack of exposure to those issues in high school.
About a month into school, another Pride Alliance club member asked the club to show a

3. 2
documentary: Prayers for Bobby. It was the most heart-wrenching movie I had ever watched, the
first time I came that close to crying in a film, and was such an inspiring and transformative
moment, that I came out for the first time in my life, 24 hours later.
My life continued on the fast track. A week later I told my next friend, and gradually
throughout the semester and year, everyone who mattered to me on a daily basis knew about my
sexual orientation. I never really stopped to think if that pace was necessarily healthy: it was
exciting; it was liberating; it was freedom. It was a new part of me that even I was discovering
alongside my freshly made friends in college.
From there, the problems began to emerge. At one point, coming out started to edge
ahead of me. In one particular week, there were two near-misses of others gossiping about my
sexuality, and one unfortunate experience of coming out, which included being screamed at in
the library, uncontrollable laughter, a pair of shoes thrown against a wall and this guy walking
out in frustration. Not to worry, he ended up being one of my best friends throughout college,
and one of the most supportive of my sexual orientation. But then other factors emerged too. I
wanted a boyfriend; I wanted a relationship; I wanted to establish an intimate connection with
someone, someone who could help me understand the things I was feeling, the things I was
thinking. My friends were great and all, and while I was relating to them personally, as friends
do, I couldn’t relate to any of them on the basis of both gender and sexuality, either because they
were straight, or because I was a man.
In this time, I created new friendships, attached personal feelings to them, and as quickly
as they arrived, those friendships were gone, and it felt like bridges were being burned. At this
moment, I realized that I was not going to have a support network on campus of other men. I had

4. 3
no idea where to look. Pride Alliance was great, but it was mostly women. The men were
invisible, and I felt alone, truly alone, for the first time in my life.
I grew frustrated with this sense of isolation, and it was at this point I stagnated. Years
passed; my questions of where the other men were, left unanswered. My frustrations at feeling
alone festered. I left to study abroad in the fall of my junior year (2014), which is where the seed
for this project was planted.
By this time, I was already a couple courses into the Proudian Interdisciplinary Honors
Program, and knew that an Honors Thesis was awaiting my return from abroad. One
conversation in particular sparked the idea. I had come out to my class early on the trip, knowing
I wanted my sexuality to fuel my creative writing over the semester. They asked me about my
home school, University of Redlands, and I was explaining to them the situation that gay men
were invisible on campus, and that I knew of maybe six or seven of them, and was only friends
with one. They were flabbergasted. Most of them were from the east coast; they knew dozens on
their campuses. Some were flamboyant, others reserved, but they were there, and they were
visible.
Now it was my turn to be blown away. I asked them further questions: yeah, they were at
liberal arts schools, yeah, they were at small sized schools, yeah, they mostly had more women
than men at their institutions. It made me ask, why is Redlands so different? Is it that men are
afraid to come out here? Is it that we just don’t have gay men on campus?
The kindling that had been my emotions and questions of the last three years had finally
met their flame. I came back and took a class on Gender and Sexuality that examined a couple
ethnographies, and I knew what my project must be. It would be the answer to my four year long
search for why I was alone, and why, despite my intense desires, was I failing to make

5. 4
meaningful connections to other men like me. I wanted to know what the social experience of
other gay and bisexual men on campus was, because I wanted to know if I was actually as
isolated and lonely as I felt.
The title of this thesis pokes fun not just at this question of isolation and loneliness I set
out with on this project, but also the answers that I found along the way. The title, “Where Are
All The Homos?” is a direct quote from one of the participants. He made this statement in jest as
we were discussing how few openly gay and bisexual men we knew around campus. The deeper
I went into this project, the more this joke seemed to hint at the heart of what the findings were
all about. There are possible concerns to sensitivity, as “homo” has never been a flattering word
to describe gay men, and I want to be clear the participant used the term humorously towards
himself and others like him, and combined with the relevance to the findings, it makes an
appropriate and humorous title for the project.
It is important to understanding the history of the project, which includes the
development of my sexual orientation while in college, because without that development, this
project would not be possible. To address the research goals of this paper however, I will
introduce my research question as well as my argument that I put forward.
Originally, my research question started out vaguely as: what is the social experience of
gay and bisexual men living at the University of Redlands? Progressing through the project, and
especially after interviewing several men, I realized there was an underlying assumption to that
question and this project as a whole, which is, that most of the gay and bisexual men on this
campus are not out about their sexuality. Realizing I was making this assumption, the question
shifted to why. Why are these men in the closet? The more men I interviewed, however, I
realized this assumption was not totally true, and so the question shifted one last time, and this is

6. 5
the question that the paper seeks to explore. Why is this particular student demographic so
invisible on this campus?
The argument this paper puts forward is: there are multiple tensions between these men’s
perceptions of campus life and other students, their own identities and the communities to which
they belong within this campus. It is within these tensions that I look to, to explore what the
social reality is for gay and bisexual men living on campus at the University of Redlands. What I
discovered is that masculinity seems to be a significant yet subtle force at work. It is subtle,
because as gay men, especially white gay men, have been increasingly accepted into mainstream
society, there has been less overt pressure to marginalize gay men. In other words, a subtle force
is at work doing two things: influencing men’s perceptions of other students on campus, and
guiding their own actions regarding their sexual orientation. In some ways, this subtle force even
governs their own understanding of what they want or need, and how they might express that
need, or if they even can. It is also the men’s own personal interest and lack thereof for some
issues such as dating and hooking up that helps drive a lack of community among gay and
bisexual men. Ultimately it is this sense of a lack of community between gay and bisexual men,
which is most prominent to their experience, and the passive complacency to this reality of
campus life, that ensures the cycle of silence continues.
Literature Review
My project started with the fairly vague question of, what is the social experience of gay
and bisexual men on the University of Redlands campus. By social experiences, I wanted to
understand to what extent these men’s sexual orientations were involved in their daily lives, and
what kind of reactions to their identities they experienced, mostly from fellow students. An

7. 6
abundance of literature existed speaking to collegiate experiences: experiences of discrimination,
of coming out, studies and books examining masculinity and athletics, and social hierarchies that
exist in the college campus; others describe the sexual arena found within a residential campus,
similar to that of the University of Redlands. To focus on my specific question about social
experiences however, I first needed to understand what aspects of college life exist within a
theoretical framework, and what has already been studied that speaks to students’ social lives.
An article by Wilkerson, Ross and Brooks focuses on the social constructions that influence
identity development for gay and bisexual men, as well as institutional controls. The social
constructions they list include: heteronormative culture, campus culture and hegemonic
masculinity. Among institutional controls, they listed: family of origin, race and ethnicity, and
religion. (Wilkerson, Ross and Brooks 2009) This article served as the initial basis for my
research, and beginning to understand how I would focus my original research question: what is
the social experience of gay and bisexual men living at the University of Redlands? After a
detailed, though not comprehensive, examination of studies conducted on social areas of a
college campus, I compiled a list of different identities in my literature review: campus
climate/culture, heteronormative culture regarding athletics and masculinity, Greek Life on a
college campus, the dating scene, sex/hookup culture on a college campus, disclosure of sexual
orientation (also called “coming out”) and students’ sense of belonging at college. I did not use
this list to strictly write my paper, but it served as the literature backdrop to this project and
helped me formulate the interview schedules of what I wanted to talk about with the men I
interviewed.
Numerous studies I found were dedicated to examining campus climate. What does
campus climate even mean? It is a combination of several factors, according to Kristen Renn’s

8. 7
essay on higher education. “Campus climate: Studies of LGBTQ people’s perceptions and
experiences, others’ perceptions of LGBTQ people, and policies and programs related to
LGBTQ people or issues” (Renn 2015, 141). The most interesting part to my research was of
perceptions that gay men have of campus life, and indeed, this was the aspect my research
question revolved around. Renn’s essay was a summary of existing literature, noting that campus
climate studies were notably the largest base of studies conducted about college campuses (as
opposed to what she calls visibility studies or LGBTQ identity studies). She also notes that the
1990s was a period of time when a plethora of campus climate studies appeared, though she did
not explain why that particular decade was so abundant with studies on collegiate sexuality. My
literature review discovered this as well, though for the sake of avoiding outdated data, I
generally used studies produced in the mid-2000s and later, though some of those older studies
provided useful models, especially for coming out, which I will discuss later. One of her findings
in examining existing literature found the general campus climate is still not particularly
accepting. “Campus climate for LGBTQ students, faculty, and staff remains chilly, if not
downright hostile. LGBTQ students, faculty and staff report harassment and discrimination”
(Renn 2015, 149).
As for why this is, Donald Hinrichs and Pamela Rosenberg (2002) suggest the size of the
school might be a factor. They say that student bodies of small liberal arts colleges are usually
far more homogenous than large universities, and therefore might reflect a more homogenous
way of thinking. Second, they also say that individual attitudes may reflect whatever the
prevailing attitude of the college is, since these types of schools are relatively small communities
(Hinrichs and Pamela 2002).

9. 8
Since the University of Redlands is a small, private, liberal arts school, this attribution
became of great interest. While my study was not comparing different schools, the question was
still raised whether or not students would tend to share similar views and attitudes, or if there
would be a wide variety, and if the men perceived if others had generally similar views or
diverse views.
Aside from school size, student’s varying social identities could also be significant. Renn
(2015, 149) describes intersectionality of identities saying, “College students’ LGBTQ identities
intersect in meaningful ways with racial, ethnic, religious, gender and other identities.” On a
small campus, it would make sense that these intersecting identities would play a significant role,
because social networks would be smaller, and students more likely would encounter each
other’s varying identities based on different social contexts.
As for the perceived positivity or negativity of campus climate by the gay or bisexual
men, it is partly determined by how open each individual gay male student is. In a study on
campus climate, Tetreault et al. (2013) found that “the students who were more open and who
had experienced discrimination were more positive about the climate than were students who hid
their identity and had not experienced discrimination.” Unsurprisingly, students who are more
publicly out about their sexuality tend to experience more discrimination, because others are
more likely to be aware of their sexuality to discriminate against them personally. What is more
surprising, and what Tetreault et al. found, is that those who are more open, were more likely to
perceive the campus climate as positive towards sexuality. This suggests that those who choose
to live out of the proverbial closet, are less intimidated by the microaggressions or other
discriminatory comments other students might express towards gay and bisexual men. This is

10. 9
likely because they do not have the added pressure of being afraid that others might find out their
secret.
Another avenue for a sense of positivity or negativity on campus is each student’s sense
of belonging in college, within the student community. Strayhorn (2012), who conducted
research on how students of different social identities and involvement on campus affected
students’ sense of belonging, said, “Students who report being frequently involved in meaningful
college activities, also tended to report a greater sense of belonging in college”. It should be
noted that while this is not necessarily causal, it is correlated. This greater sense of belonging can
include any number of activities in college, but it is particularly true of students that join athletic
teams, because these are environments that foster a more intimate community. “Involvement in
campus sport-related activities was also positively correlated with sense of belonging in college”
(Strayhorn 2012). This is true for all students, even gay or bisexual men. However, the
involvement in the sport-related activity must be perceived as being positive. Competing in a
negative environment by one’s own teammates will do far more harm than good. Essentially,
those who spent more time in recreational facilities on campus or got involved in a team sport
experienced a stronger sense of belonging in college.
As athletic teams can contribute to a sense of belonging, due to its nature of developing
close connections, Greek Life is similar as well, in that it creates a sense of belonging to a group
and creates a clear distinction of the in-group and the out-group. This does not account for
students who choose to leave the team, or students who fail to make it through the indoctrination
process associated with many Greek organizations, which would be useful for future studies to
examine. Greek Life creates more than just a sense of community however. The concept of
Greek Life attracts certain types of students, and schools with Greek communities reflect that. In

11. 10
a study on attitudes towards gay and lesbian students at a Liberal Arts school, Hinrichs and
Rosenberg (2002) found, “Both males and females at campuses without Greek organizations are
significantly more tolerant than their counterparts at campuses with these organizations. This
leads to the suggestion that college type, considering both the atmosphere as well as the type of
students different types of colleges attract, rather than membership, leads to the difference.” In
other words, predicting if students were more likely to hold more conservative views towards
gay and lesbian students would be more reliably based on if the school either has a Greek
community at all or not, rather than if the student specifically is a member of Greek Life or not.
They add here, “Though members of Greek letter social organizations tend to be less tolerant
than non-members, when considering only campuses with Greek organizations, Greek members
are not significantly less tolerant than non-members” (Hinrichs and Rosenberg 2002). This
comes full circle to Hinrichs and Rosenberg’s point suggesting that schools that have any kind of
Greek Life system, whether local or national, are more likely to attract the type of students who
hold more conservative views on gays and lesbians.
Aside from campus organizations, other socially constructed factors come into the picture
as well: deciding how and when to come out, masculinity, the dating script on college campuses,
and the hookup culture of campus. To start, coming out is defined as, “The process of disclosing
one’s sexual orientation; it begins with self-acknowledgement and expands outward to others”
(Rhoads 1995, 67). In his study on the process of coming out, Robert Rhoads (1995) also notes,
“closeted lesbian, gay and bisexual college students are at a point in their lives when self-
disclosure becomes a paramount issue” (67). For many students, college represents the first
significant move away from home and parents, and the first time they must choose when or if,
and how to come out to peers independent from their social support they grew up with. At the

12. 11
same time, Rhoads’ study conducted in 1995, is a prime example of how certain studies’ results
can start to appear dated. His model for coming out is still reliable, gay and bisexual men still go
through the same stages of coming-out as they did a couple decades ago, but the age group he
associates this model to, has shifted to a younger demographic now, due to social progress in the
US for the last 20 years.
In another study regarding family and friend support and acceptance to coming out, Guy
Shilo and Riki Savaya (2011, 319) note, “recent students, however, reveal that nowadays LGB
youths disclose their SO [sexual orientation] at an earlier age and to both friends and parents at
about the same age. These changes are usually explained by the increased visibility of LGB
persons and improvement in societal attitudes towards sexual minorities in recent years.” This is
hardly surprising, if it really is linked to the increased visibility of LGB people. In 2015, the
Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) officially affirmed the unconstitutionality of any
kind of ban for same-sex marriages. In the weekend following, the internet was swathed in
rainbows and colors, and messages of embracing love, making itself remarkably visible to any
students with smart phones or internet connection in general. Both what Shilo and Savaya are
saying and what Rhoads is saying is useful however. While the average age for coming out to
friends and family has lowered, college is still a significant adjustment period for students and
personal development, and certainly the decision to come out based on finding an accepting
group or not is no less significant, because as Shilo and Savaya (2011) note, “For sexual
minorities, social acceptance of their SO is yet another important component of social support”
(320).
One primary issue in navigating coming out is masculinity, because “accepting a gay or
bisexual identity appears to require some reconstruction of their understanding of masculinity to

13. 12
allow for homosexuality” (Wilkerson, Ross and Brooks 2009, 83). This is because gay men are
subordinated to heterosexual men, in terms of their masculine identity (Connell 1995). Connell
continues saying, “Gayness, in patriarchal ideology, is the repository of whatever is symbolically
expelled from hegemonic masculinity, the items ranging from fastidious taste in home decoration
to receptive anal pleasure” (Connell, 1995). In other words, identifying as gay automatically
associates men with feminine qualities such as home décor or receiving anal sex, and so when
men come out, they must navigate this association that some will make, especially those who
subscribe to hegemonic masculinity.
To do this, Wilkerson, Ross and Brooks (2009) suggest that “some may respond by
committing to the acting out of a hegemonic masculinity and rejecting the idea that
homosexuality is in opposition to masculinity. Others may attempt to reclaim lost social power
by reconstructing a gay or bisexual male identity that is different from the hegemonic construct”
(83). The former is likely to be found in athletes who identify as gay or bisexual, but continue to
prove to match the masculine necessities of their sport, to prove that they are still masculine.
People in the latter category may attempt to show they are still masculine, but through
establishing their own portrayal of masculinity, rather than conforming to the hegemonic
standards. Either case can be relevant among college student male populations.
The last two areas, relevant to my question about gay male students on campus are dating
scripts and hookup culture. When it comes to research on dating scripts, there is a dearth of
information about the social processes that take place for gay men, specifically on college
campuses. Most research covers the heteronormative experience of opposite sex couples from
dating to hooking-up. Kathleen Bogle (2008), who wrote a book on the historical transition from
dating culture to hookup culture wrote, “Men and women in the hookup scene seem to have to

14. 13
work harder to build a relationship of any kind. Thus, to the extent that relationship formation is
a goal, dating offered a better script for doing this” (164). Given the nature of hookups and one-
night stands, this would make sense, whether for straight or gay couples, and suggests that those
who are looking for a relationship specifically, might be less inclined to hookup.
Sex is largely influential in gay men’s lives, because of the perception that men are
constantly and frequently looking to have sex (Bogle 2008). This perception is particularly
evident among gay men, who describe the hypersexual culture amongst gay men (Wilkerson,
Brooks and Ross 2010). Wilkerson, Brooks and Ross (2010) write, “For Bruno and the other 11
men, the hypersexual CGBM (collegiate gay or bisexual men) cultural scenario had influenced
their sexual beliefs and behaviors. By accepting and acting out the hypersexual CGBM cultural
scenario, they had experienced intrapsychic conflict” (292). According to Wilkerson, Brooks and
Ross, as men start to gain more and more sexual experiences, that intrapsychic conflict
disappears, which then increases men’s increased sense of belonging to other gay and bisexual
men. In this way, the more sex that gay and bisexual men have with each other, the more
comfortable they become identifying as gay and bisexual men. This is to say, the more sex (that
is, sex with other men) that gay and bisexual men have, the more comfortable they are taking on
this marginalized identity, which is similar to masculinity being boosted in heterosexual culture,
when men have more sex, and are able to talk about it.
On top of the perception of the hypersexual culture, given the presence of online apps
such as Grindr, it becomes pretty clear that there is a specific place for hookup culture among
gay men. Grindr is a commonly known smartphone app among gay and bisexual men. Its
original intent was to be used as a location based dating app, but from the onset of its inception,
it has been used to hook up with nearby men. Amount of sexual experience plays a role in this

15. 14
culture as well. “In contrast to the men with less sexual experience who had hooked up only after
meeting their sexual partners in real life, some of these men had met potential sex partners
online. This difference suggests that with increased sexual experience and comfort with the
CGBM in-group, men may become more comfortable using the Internet to meet men and to hook
up” (Wilkerson, Brooks and Ross 2010, 290).
Many men are aware of the hypersexual culture among gay men, and even more aware of
the technology that makes that culture more easily available to them. In David Gudelunas’
(2012) research into social media and gay sex, he wrote, “many respondents… said that they
belonged to at least one social network that was primarily designed to facilitate sexual
encounters. In fact, this was the single most mentioned primary use of a SNS (social networking
site) among respondents and a key use of all SNSs among gay men” (356).
Another factor influencing students in general as well are peers. Bogle (2008) writes,
“during college, men and women are highly aware of what their peers are doing sexually. Much
of the hookup script, from the initial signaling of interest to pairing off with someone, is enacted
publicly. At parties students watch one another, the next day they gossip about each other, and
while socializing with close friends, they ask about their sexual and romantic relationships” (73).
Between the online presence and availability, and the social observations and interactions of
friends who are engaging in relationships and/or sex, gay men, whether they choose to
participate or not, have no choice but to be surrounded by a highly sexualized culture, especially
on a college campus.
To account for gay and bisexual men’s experiences at Redlands, I looked at a variety of
factors relevant to college-aged and college-located students including campus climate, sense of
belonging, campus and LGBTQ+ organizations, the process of coming out, and dating and

16. 15
hookups. Each of these, in a way, tug on students’ identities and persuade them to fall in and out
of various communities as they go through four years of college. My project seeks to take all
these components and understand how they influence men’s sense of identities regarding their
sexual orientations here at the University of Redlands.
Design and Methodology
In preparing for a Proudian Interdisciplinary Honors Thesis, as opposed to a
Departmental Honors Thesis, I had several factors to consider before I could actually begin
designing the project. The first and primary concern being which field of study I wanted to
approach the topic from. Based on that conversation I had while abroad, I already knew I wanted
to pursue the topic of men and homosexuality, specifically on the campus of University of
Redlands. In order to conduct the research, I considered either an Ethnographic Study based in
sociology or a literary journalistic piece, which would be more in the field of investigative
journalism. The difference to me was the intent, and ultimately I decided I wanted the paper to
contribute to sociological research about campus.
Upon deciding to work within a sociological framework, I immediately began conducting
a literature review, unearthing dozens of articles in journals researching social or personal
experiences of collegiate gay and bisexual men. Having no idea what I was particularly looking
for, I researched every aspect of a college student’s personal and social life that I could: family,
religion, race, ethnicity, Greek Life, athletics, campus involvement, masculinity, sex, technology,
dating, coming out, and high school experiences. Conducting this month of research produced
my initial framework for the project, and assisted in preparing my interview schedule for the

17. 16
subjects. I formulated three identities I was considering in the interviews: their personal
background, their collegiate identity, and their sexual identity.
Personal background included experiences the students would come to college with or
facts they could not change about themselves: their family, their family’s attitude towards
homosexuality, religiosity, family’s religiosity, race, ethnicity, and high school experiences, and
high school extracurricular activities. Collegiate identity included on-campus involvement and
interactions: Club or Organizational involvement, Residence Life, Work Study, Athletics,
Johnston Center, or general discrimination. Their sexual identity includes: sexual orientation, age
of coming out, to whom they have disclosed their sexual orientation, their views and desires on
dating and on having sex, and their relationship to technology such as the app Grindr. By
gathering the information from all three of these topics, I hoped to compile a somewhat
comprehensive picture on each subject, how they were involved socially on campus, and the
factors that might influence their social experience on campus. It was after this preliminary
literature review that my research question was formulated: what is the social experience of gay
and bisexual men on University of Redlands’ campus?
The initial plan was to interview a set number of men, between 9 and 12 ideally, and
analyze their responses for patterns that might suggest possible answers to the research
questions. For this paper, I ended up interviewing 11 men, ten of them in person and one via
email due to his convenience and preference. This process was a learning experience just about
every step of the way. I had some prior experience recording interviews and transcribing them
for the purpose of researching for a paper during my semester abroad, but it was a relatively new
skill, and unrelated to my major of study: creative writing. As a result, with each passing
interview, I took stock of what went well, and what I might learn to improve. The string started

18. 17
off successfully, with the first two subjects being naturally conversational and eager to respond
to my questions and anticipate follow-up questions. In fact, the first 6 interviews, which I
conducted before Winter Break, were all more or less identical, as I began my search for
patterns. Some were better and some were more awkward, though generally I improved my skills
of asking follow-up questions along the way.
Over break, I made my first attempt to analyze the six transcripts that I had. This attempt
was nothing short of disastrous. In retrospect, the most egregious mistake I made was looking for
patterns where I expected to find them. I was interested in finding similarities in their
experiences with their families as well as coming out with their sexuality, as a couple examples. I
applied my intended technique of highlighting, giving a color to each topic (one color to family,
one color to coming out, and so on). Unsurprisingly this technique offered no patterns that were
evident to me. I was also reminded with only six interviews, it is not surprising to find few
significant patterns.
At this point, I also had to make another decision regarding the design of the project. I
originally planned to send out an email survey addressing issues of coming out, campus climate,
and personal comfortability. Over winter break, a conscious decision needed to be made: to send
out the survey to all the men on campus in the hope of supplementing the study with a more
representative sample of students, or to set aside the survey and focus on understanding the
stories that I did receive, and turn the project more into a narrative of these specific gay men’s
experiences. I decided on the latter, feeling skeptical that a survey would really have added
enough value to the sample to make the effort worthwhile. Also these interviews felt so personal,
to attempt to quantify the experiences in any kind of method felt disingenuous.

19. 18
In the interviews after break I began to learn more quickly how to improve the interview
experiences. It was a result, in part, of my watching LGBTQ+ movies on Netflix. I started going
through them one after the other, and very quickly, I got the sense that my questions regarding
the men were missing something. After watching over two dozen movies, I realized that I was
neglecting to inquire about their emotional experiences. I was so wrapped up in perception of the
campus environment, that I was foregoing the question “and how do you feel about that?” –
though asked far more eloquently.
One of the first significant moments was my interview with Chris, the eighth interview,
when after getting several short answers, I asked him what was frustrating about being gay on
campus. He paused to think about the answer for a moment, which was unusual. This question is
significant not because it was the first question I left open for the interviewee to interpret, but the
first time I became conscious of focusing the discussion on what the students wanted to talk
about, rather than entering the interview with my preconceived notions of what I thought would
be most interesting to discuss. As a consequence, I consciously shifted some questions in the
remaining interviews, which resulted in more meaningful answers in questions I originally
received shorter answers for. By the time I held the last in-person interview, I felt comfortable
asking follow-up questions, recognizing vague answers and pressing for details and getting an
engaging account of the student’s experience of living on campus.
When it came time to analyze the transcripts, I met with my advisor to learn a more
appropriate technique to analyze the transcripts. To help, I was instructed to send excerpts I
thought were related to each other. I had just talked to the third athlete in the study, as well as a
Johnston student who associated his campus experience with athletic culture, and realized this
was one potential pattern beginning to be evident. I decided to send all the passages that

20. 19
mentioned athletics and masculinity. In this meeting I learned that analyzing was not just reading
paragraph by paragraph trying to find big ideas, but rather, it requires a closer reading to find out
what the similarities and the differences between the men’s statements were. I also learned that
the similarities might come across as differences at first and that may not be the whole picture
when you look deeper.
With this new understanding of analyzing, I jumped headfirst into the transcripts. What
helped to start with were questions that had been asked between students verbatim (several
questions got asked slightly differently due to the context of the conversations). I quickly found
connections between views of campus climate, views of community, and personal openness on
campus regarding their own sexuality. I realized that the interactions between perceptions and
experiences were much more complex than I first assumed they would be. For example, as I
started to uncover the apparent contradiction of men expressing positive views of campus life,
but a reluctance to share their sexual orientation openly, I realized that my understanding that
this is indeed a more conservative campus than many students give it credit for was correct.
However, this sense of conservatism was not as politically conservative as I originally attributed
it to be, and operated far more subtly than right-wing politics. Consequently, I created a visual
map to help me physically chart out the connections between students, what was similar and
what was in opposition. As I analyzed the transcripts and found a new topic that shared several
connections, I would assign that topic a color, so I could easily locate the topic in each transcript.
On the map, each color corresponded to the coding on the transcripts, so I could easily identify
each topic mapped out. This part of the project was the most fascinating to me personally,
because I could begin to visualize some of the contradictions that came up between students, and
even within each student himself. From creating this web, analyzing the statements became a

21. 20
task of merely compare and contrast, and casting my own personal interpretation on the stories or
the beliefs, and how they fit into the larger picture of all the other men. What resulted was an
immensely fascinating story that shows the perception that men have of campus life here at the
University of Redlands may not be all that it’s cracked up to be.
Lastly, in creating this paper, changes were made along the way. Originally to create an
interdisciplinary project, I was going to incorporate fictional vignettes at the start of each section
to artistically capture the spirit of that section somehow, and at the end, I would place a review of
literature – some fictional work – to compare the reality to the story world. I decided to eliminate
the fictional vignettes, because as I wrote this paper, they felt inauthentic and distracting from
what the most important parts of the project were. While the fiction reviews turned into the
concept of film reviews as I watched those movies that inspired the interviews with the men, I
ultimately set that aside too, for a different project, due to the time constraints to complete this
thesis and working to make each aspect of this paper authentic.
While writing this paper, I took it upon myself to read C.J. Pascoe’s, Dude, You’re a Fag,
for ideas on how to more appropriately write an ethnography such as this. It provided immense
inspiration to the revisions of this paper, and how I aimed to tell the story of these men that I
interviewed.
Interviews
In this section, I take the opportunity to provide a brief profile of each student to help the
reader keep track of who is who, as I tell the story in the next section, Personal Narratives: What
keeps gay men invisible on campus?

22. 21
Andrew (Junior, CAS)
Andrew is a junior and a science major. He has been involved in various clubs around
campus including both L.U.S.T. and Pride Alliance club, though he admits he does not get super
involved in those organizations he takes part in. He grew up with two brothers, and hence, has
been aware of masculinity from an early age in his life, realizing that he was never going to be
“one of the bros,” which contributes to his identity as a gay man. He officially came out to his
family when he was 18, and preparing to head off to college. At the time of this study, he is
currently dating an older man off campus, in part because he is not interested in dating any gay
or bisexual men on campus that he knows about.
Daniel (Senior, CAS)
Unlike most of the other men, Daniel had recently just come out to a friend for the first
time, about a month before the interview, so his openness to discuss sexuality was a little
surprising. Daniel is a science major as well at Redlands, and describes his commitments on
campus as being all over the place. He is involved in multiple honors societies on campus,
though he admits he does not go to clubs any more, in particular L.U.S.T. (Listening and
Understanding Sexuality Together) because it takes place late in the evening and Pride Alliance
club, because it was no longer enjoyable going to it. While he is not necessarily afraid to disclose
his sexual orientation, Daniel is still mostly in the closet on campus, and so he finds it
comfortable just to have certain friends know about his sexuality. He identifies as a gay, asexual
man, though someone who hasn’t thought too much about his sexuality or sexual orientation in
college.

23. 22
Kevin (Junior, CAS)
Kevin is yet another science major. He describes himself as someone who is not
proactive in getting to know other men, and often perceives others as inaccessible and that you
need to really wheedle information out of them, especially topics such as sexual orientation.
Regarding his family, he has not told them about his sexuality, as he really sees no need to. He
identifies as bi, at least that is what he tells people when he comes out to them, though he
clarified this as roughly 80% gay and about 20% straight, saying he would prefer to settle down
with a man, and as long as he can be happy and live in peace, why wouldn’t he? His involvement
on campus is somewhat limited to service organizations and focusing on his science studies.
While he had been to L.U.S.T. he expressed a discomfort with going, being surrounded by rather
intimate stories of others’ personal lives.
James (Sophomore, CAS)
When initially coming to campus, James was an athlete on the tennis team. He took a
leave of absence after a year and a half, partly due to stresses of being on the team, and
identifying as a gay man (among other factors). Now, he is determined to get back into college
and have the experience he wants to have. James hopes to try out for the tennis team again, but
for now is focusing on his schoolwork and graduating from the University. As a sophomore, he
enjoys the hookup culture that can be found around college campuses, as well as going to parties
and dancing with friends. He came out to his family when he was 16 or 17 years old, in the
middle of high school.

24. 23
Ethan (Sophomore, Johnston)
Ethan describes pansexuality being the closest label to his sexual orientation, in that he
has no natural attraction for strictly men or women, but rather the individual. His mother knows
about his sexuality, and she reacted positively, though he has not told his father yet, simply due
to course of events, and he sees no need to press the issue unless it becomes relevant in the
future. Ethan is heavily involved in the Johnston Center, of which he is particularly fond of. This
is because he feels free to be comfortable with his masculinity, and can therefore explore pushing
the boundaries, such as wearing a dress at certain social events, and then being able to laugh
about it with others down the road. His involvement on campus the semester I interviewed him is
a little lighter than usual, due to his studying abroad in the spring. Mostly he has been focusing
on Outdoor Programs and the Johnston Community as two major sources of friends and support
he receives on campus, and listing both as more intentional, caring communities.
Liam (Junior, Johnston)
Liam expressed intense emotion towards the subject matter, discussing sexuality on
campus and in wider society, voicing his great frustration towards the masculine attitudes that
pervade campus, citing the source as the patriarchal practices of wider American society. Both a
Johnston student and an athlete, he described the masculine entities on campus: identifying both
athletics and Greek Life. This was the only interview that Greek Life made a significant
appearance in discussions of masculinity. In regards to his involvement, the Johnston Center is
important to him, as is his membership of the swim team. As a junior, both of these clearly
provided different sorts of community to him. He expressed significant dissatisfaction towards

25. 24
the swim team, though admitted that he loves the guys, even if they may say or do things that
come across as insensitive to Liam, who identifies strictly as gay.
Jonathan (Sophomore, Music)
Jonathan is a sophomore, and expressed an interest in this school in particular because he
knew it was social justice oriented all over campus, and would therefore not have to suffer
through a homophobic student body on campus. He believes that it can be fairly obvious that he
is gay, and he identifies as such. As for his involvement on campus, he admits that music
students sometimes struggle to get involved, as they like to stay within their buildings
(Watchhorn Hall and the Fine Arts building) and support each other. He is involved in CDI
(Center for Diversity and Inclusion) however, as a desk sitter, which according to him, surprised
Zack and Leela who run the center, when he told them he was a Music Major. Like most of the
other men, he is out to his parents back home, and while he had emotional moments, his family
has accepted his sexuality by this point.
Chris (Sophomore, CAS)
Chris is a sophomore on the swim team, which keeps him fairly busy, especially in the
spring semester, so he doesn’t have much time for other involvements on campus. He described
his schedule to me, which includes classes during the day, practice in the late afternoon, getting
off from practice to grab dinner and do homework in the library, and then go to bed the next day.
It is not that he is necessarily trying to avoid other commitments, but his involvement on the
team is so significant, he chooses to devote all his energies during swim season to studying and
performing for the team, which reflected in his attitudes about not wanting a relationship or

26. 25
dating in general. Chris identifies as gay, and fully came out to his family about a year and a half
before the interview, though he had known since junior high school.
Scott (Freshman, Johnston)
Scott is a freshman who is extensively involved in the Johnston Community, and indeed,
tries to get involved a lot with various aspects around campus. He is involved in ASUR, the
student government (typically considered serving CAS students more than Johnston, in part due
to participation), the theater department, taking a prominent role in the fall production Little Shop
of Horrors, and took on the role of Johnston Admissions Host, student workers who give campus
tours and host prospective students overnight. Scott identifies as gay, and like most of the other
men, described a period of adjustment between him and his parents, mostly his dad, after coming
out. At this point his family is completely accepting of his sexuality.
Keith (Sophomore, CAS)
Keith is a sophomore, and recently came out publicly: about two months before
participating in the study, which is when he came out to his mother. He offered unique insights
into meeting other gay and bisexual men around campus because he could speak to the
expectation that he would meet more men after coming out, and pointed out that indeed he only
met one new gay friend after coming out. Much like Kevin, when he comes out to other people,
he identifies as bi, but recognizing that he is about 98% gay. He identifies as bi because of past
attractions he’s had towards women. Much like Chris, Keith is kept fairly busy, though it is
because of his work study job as an employee in the Commons, the school cafeteria. He wishes
he could be more involved in the club BLACC (Brilliant Leaders Advocating Color

27. 26
Consciousness) but acknowledges his busy work schedule often prevents him from going to
meetings and thereby be more involved in the black community on campus than he already is.
Johnson (Junior, CAS/Johnston)
.
Johnson, while not an athlete, is an athletic worker. He works as an assistant to athletic
trainers, and so is in daily contact with athletic life on campus. As a result, he feels very strongly
that there is an athletic culture on campus, and he feels that needing to navigate masculinity
when talking to athletes can be particularly annoying. In trying to talk to men about sexuality, he
will sometimes have to secure complete privacy before the other party is willing to talk. This
frustrates Johnson in turn, that he has to go through all these hoops just to talk to people he
would potentially like to date. Considering his other involvements, he has been involved in the
Johnston Community, and the diversity brotherhood Rangi Ya Giza (RYG). Johnson identifies as
bisexual, and talks about dating and hooking up with both men and women.
Personal Narratives: What keeps gay men invisible on campus?
What resulted from the interviews was a complicated web of contradicting statements
between the perceptions of others and the men’s own sexuality. I found it helpful to consider the
men’s experiences through three different factors: personal views, perceptions of others and
experiences. Sometimes these factors agreed with each other, but more often than not, the men’s
experiences or their personal views of themselves were at odds with what they perceived the rest
of campus to be like. While those factors are not divided explicitly as their own categories in the
paper, it will become clear, and I will discuss extensively the role these factors play in the men’s

28. 27
lives, as this is often where tensions and conflicts occur between social norms, their own beliefs,
and their experiences and decisions.
Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
One Sunday afternoon, Andrew and I met to get brunch at the school cafeteria, in a
private corner where we could talk without being interrupted. We were discussing the project; I
was telling him a little bit about it, what I had found, and asking him a few follow-up questions
from his initial interview. I was quite glad we took the time out to meet, as both the interview
and the scenery (observing students walking by) provided interesting insights into some of the
findings we were discussing. As with many of the interviews, one particular point we were
discussing is the low numbers of gay or bisexual men the interviewees were aware of on campus.
Ironically, as this conversation was going on, Andrew pointed out no less than seven gay or
bisexual men to me, as they walked past the window we were seated next to. Of the seven we
saw, only two of them were walking together, no one else was even walking with anyone for that
matter. The others all walked alone, with their faces down, quickly making their way to the next
destination, wherever that may be.
Clearly, despite the shared impression between the men I interviewed that gay men are
invisible and unknown on this campus, within the space of a few minutes, we saw over half a
dozen walking around Hunsaker Plaza. It was interesting to note that as some of the men passed
each other, there was no sense of recognition or familiarization that they were passing other gay
or bisexual men. As we were observing this, another question popped into my mind, which led to
an interesting discussion. As we were talking about the invisibility of men on this campus, we
were also talking about the acceptance of LGBTQ+ students among the student body, and how

29. 28
this campus is open-minded. I was struck by the odd paradox: if this campus is really so open-
minded and accepting of gay and bisexual men, then why are we discussing how invisible they
are on this campus? I raised the question to Andrew then, what is good? If we equate open-
mindedness and acceptance from the student body as good, then what satisfies the requirements
of good? Is it that students must express open-minded and accepting beliefs? Or is it more simple
than that and they just need to not express negative sentiments? In my own personal beliefs,
good is not just the absence of bad. Others, as I discuss below, seem to disagree with me.
One of the most common responses I received during the course of the interviews was
how open and accepting the campus is. A variety of reasons were stated, a common one being
the fact that it is 2016, and subsequently that U.S. society has made a lot of social progress,
particularly in LGBTQ+ issues over the last few decades.
When I asked Andrew whether or not it had been frustrating trying to build a support
network on campus, of people he could talk to about his sexuality, his response was, “On this
campus specifically, no. I feel like we are a very liberal campus and I feel like we have a very
small population of individuals who aren’t at least– who are not accepting. I think that’s mainly
due to the time in which we live. I feel like if this happened 20 years ago… there would not be as
much support.” Andrew also cited the fact that the Supreme Court earlier in 2015 had declared
that any kind of ban on same-sex marriage across the nation was unconstitutional and that he felt
like society in general was much more accepting, and the campus reflects that majority
population. His comment regarding the Supreme Court is an assumption Andrew is making that
the more visibility and positive perception LGBTQ+ people get in the national spotlight reflects
positively on campus, and therefore when the issue of same-sex marriage got such a huge
blowout in the media as a positive message, more students are made aware of the issue and how

30. 29
important it is to some people. Therefore, according to Andrew, with more positive media
coverage, more students on campus in turn are accepting. This connection is supported by the
fact that so many of the students expressed similar views on the acceptance by the student body
of LGBTQ+ people.
Daniel shared a similar sentiment saying, “If someone has a problem with it, it’s 2015.”
This response was prompted by a similar view of support networks as well. Daniel who is not
publicly out, does not feel like he has a strong support network, but believes many other men do.
“Most of them have great support systems; most of them are very in tune with who they were to
begin with.” Part of the reason he distances himself from others is he never really thought about
his sexuality extensively until he came to college, by which point he felt that most other men had
established comfort with their sexuality and their own support networks.
Another common notion of University of Redlands’ campus community being
particularly open and accepting was it being due to geographic location. Ethan, a sophomore in
the Johnston Center, said that he had not really thought about if or how to come out in college,
coming down to Redlands. “I mean, obviously it’s Southern California.” When I pressed him for
more details, whether or not Southern California met his expectations, he said, “California is a
very liberal place, and I know I wanted to be in a liberal place, and we’re in a Liberal Arts
school, for goodness sake!” He did admit that it’s not San Francisco, where he would see gays
left and right, especially in the summer during the Pride celebrations.
Chris, a sophomore, also brought up Southern California. When I asked him if he had
noticed any discrimination on campus towards gay men, he said, “I haven’t really seen anything.
I think that’s just because we’re in Southern California, and it’s a Liberal Arts school.” Chris
specifically brought up religious and athletic friends on campus, referring to social arenas

31. 30
stereotypically known for their conservative attitudes towards sexual minorities. “I know people
who are Christian and who are fine with it, and fine with me. I haven’t really noticed any
discrimination. Even with me being on the swim team.” What stood out to me in his response
was that he immediately assumed that this discussion would cover religion and athletics without
being prompted, even though religion was not a part of his family life. Just the awareness of
prejudice from this demographic meant Chris remained mindful of religion even though he felt
no discrimination from religious friends on campus.
As I was sifting through my notes, I felt a little frustrated trying to figure out how to tell
the story of this perception, after all, it is primarily about this vague sense of “others” on campus,
which refers to the student body at large. What is significant in the responses I’ve been
discussing is that they all lack specificity. This is all perception, not experiences. None of the
men told me a story about a positive encounter they had regarding their sexuality. And indeed,
the few I followed-up with confirmed that they did not have any specifics that came to mind, but
rather just a general sense of acceptance. For most of these men, it strikes me as being based on a
lack of experiencing discrimination, rather than any kind of support from the student body at
large (meaning students that extend beyond their close group of friends).
While others were discussing how open and accepting the student body is on campus, I
was intrigued by a sentiment Liam, who is a junior Johnston student as well as an athlete,
expressed. He has friends who are willing to ask questions about his sexuality, but who then
immediately ask to not get into any details, which makes Liam feel like he cannot be open
entirely about the things he thinks and feels. He said, “The mindset I think today, is right now,
great for being you, you do what you want to do, just don’t talk to me about it. It’s sort of like
don’t ask, don’t tell.” Liam feels the restriction that while he can be public regarding his

32. 31
sexuality, he cannot openly discuss the details of it. In other words, he feels safe enough and
accepted to the point he can disclose his sexuality to others, but not discuss it with them. Don’t
ask, don’t tell, which Liam compares his social experience on campus to, refers to the U.S.
military’s policy on allowing gay men to serve only if they kept their sexual orientation secret. If
gay men made the mistake of “telling” they were discharged. It is not so much the fear of
breaking that rule (of not telling) that Liam is comparing his experience to, but rather the
oppressive feeling he experiences, feeling like he is not allowed to talk about a significant part of
his identity. This type of microaggression falls under the discomfort or disapproval of LGB
experience, according to Kevin Nadal in his book on microaggressions and the LGBT
community. “A microaggression in this category consists of instances in which a heterosexual
person, whether aware or unaware, shows her or his displeasure or apprehension toward
nonheterosexual people” (Nadal 2013, 63).
Liam is an outlier however. Others, who had more liberal views of campus, also had
more open beliefs in sharing their sexuality, which might suggest that this sense of “don’t ask,
don’t tell” might be more of a result from Liam’s specific friend group, rather than a widespread
sense on campus.
Andrew, who feels that the campus is very open and accepting, says, “I’ve kind of had
this policy of openness as much as possible since coming out.” Except for professional instances,
he will tell anybody who asks him about his sexuality. He reports that he has never had any
negative experiences disclosing his sexual orientation, and has never been asked to limit his
disclosure. Part of that may be due to his specific selection of friends on campus compared to
Liam’s friends. The other part may be that he has not experienced the same type of
microaggressions. “Microaggressors may not be forthright in their dissatisfaction, shock, or other

33. 32
negative reactions to the same-sex couples showing affection toward each other; however, their
stares, glares, laughter and facial expressions (which may or may not be conscious) may convey
their discomfort with LGB people while also having a detrimental impact on the couple who
experience [it]” (Nadal 2013, 64). In Andrew’s case, he may surround himself with friends on
campus who may not engage in such aggressive behaviors, even subconsciously, leading to his
perception of acceptance by other students on campus.
As a result, it has not been hard for Andrew to feel like he is able to build a support
network on campus. “I associated myself with individuals who are ok with it and who are
accepting of it.” This suggests that he has selectively navigated the social sphere on campus to
create a friend group that knows about and is ok with his sexual orientation. One reservation he
threw out there raised red flags in my mind however. “So my world is very accepting, but I can’t
speak to the whole campus.” Like Liam, he is also limiting the capacity to which discussing
sexuality may be permissible, but rather than expressing a general sense of ‘don’t tell me details’
he says it may come down to certain types or crowds of people instead.
Now, the reason some men may feel like there is a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ atmosphere on
campus may not just be heterosexual students generally expressing a desire to not hear details. It
may also come down to how the gay or bisexual men socially navigate themselves around
campus. What I mean by this is portrayed in a prediction that Ethan made, which Andrew shows
can be true. Ethan said, “It’s rare that a gay or bi person, especially a man, is going to go put
themselves in a situation or a group of people where they’re not sure if they’re going to be
accepted or not.” This point is a critical viewpoint for the gay or bisexual men on campus. Chris’
quick assumption in our interview that we would discuss athletics or religion when talking about
discrimination shows an understanding of this social navigation on some conscious level. That

34. 33
gay or bisexual men may choose to place themselves in groups of comfort on campus, or even
college in general, also speaks to the reasoning the men used in being comfortable coming to the
University of Redlands: that it is in Southern California, and it’s a Liberal Arts school, both of
which, stereotypically speaking, are more liberal and accepting spaces. On top of all this, it is
precisely how Andrew described his experience of finding acceptance on this campus, and
reluctance to speak for the students outside of his friend group.
When I asked James, a sophomore who had just returned from an extended leave of
absence, about coming out and if he had experienced any negativity on campus in regards to
disclosing his sexual orientation, his response was, “I navigated myself so that I am not setting
myself up for that.” His freshman year he was a player on the tennis team. As a result of his
negative experiences being on the tennis team, he was acutely aware of negative reactions and
his mannerisms that provoked them. He maintained a careful watch for who he associated with
on campus, to make sure he did not endure any more negativity. While he did not need to
necessarily police his actions, he grew more aware of his behaviors and the reactions they
provoked. This did not affect his view of campus however, stating that he believed campus, as a
generalization, was open-minded and accepting.
The contrast is striking: from expressing the general sense of acceptance on campus to
consciously (and carefully) navigating who they associate with, this tension between these two
suggests that perhaps the campus is not quite as accepting as the gay and bisexual men want to
believe. James’ perspective also speaks to the findings by Tetreault et al. that the more open gay
or bisexual men are on campus about their sexual orientation, the more likely they are to hold a
positive view of campus climate. If the men limit themselves within the comfort of the small
group, their perception of the campus generally is likely more negative. In James’ case, he

35. 34
participated in the tennis team, and if he had left it there, he would have had a significantly
negative experience, but looking beyond just trying to find a place on the team, and being open
in other areas of campus as well, increased his positive interactions on campus.
Considering this contrast of statements however, it does not account for the few
experiences of discrimination and homophobia that some of the men do feel. This contrast is not
unique to the University of Redlands. A study that Michael Wilkerson, Michael Ross and Ann
Brooks conducted on the social constructions and institutions that influence gay identity
development, documented the same phenomenon when looking at campus climate. “Despite the
heterosexist and homophobic incidents, students at UU mostly felt safe and believed that the
campus was an accepting environment. ‘The campus is open and people are really accepting,’
said Brian, an undergraduate student. ‘You’re going to have a very small percentage of people
that are outright rude or disrespectful because you’re gay’” (2009, 75). This is precisely the same
contrast that the men I interviewed expressed. Brian’s description of UU could just as easily have
been one of the descriptions of the University of Redlands, among many other places perceived
as being open-minded and accepting.
Discrimination
To help me write this paper, I read C.J. Pascoe’s ethnography of high school
masculinities, Dude, You’re a Fag. In it, she tells the story of how teenage boys, both
heterosexual and homosexual navigate through high school, paying special attention to the label
“fag” that gets assigned. The metaphor is imperfect however, because the difference between
high school and college must account for age, maturity, life experiences and greater freedom in
personal identity.

36. 35
As I read the work, I was particularly interested in this concept she writes about, that the
“fag” identity can be temporary or permanent. In the cases where it is temporary, it often comes
up as a joke, and then what she describes as a “hot potato”, it gets shifted onto someone else, by
showing your manliness – or masculinity – and how the other is not, and so the cycle continues.
“Fag” as a joking matter is not taken very seriously by those who are given it, as long as they can
pass along the hot potato, nor is it taken very seriously by those who give it either, because what
is most significant is that they managed to successfully pass it off to someone else. Describing
this constant shifting, Pascoe said, “Fag is not only an identity linked to homosexual boys but an
identity that can temporarily adhere to heterosexual boys as well” (2007). The joking nature of
the “fag” identity does not reduce the importance of that identity. Rather, Pascoe is suggesting
that these heterosexual men are brought into this game of hot potato, and while the joke is how
the identity is passed around, the emasculating consequences are significantly negative to the boy
who fails to pass the identity to the next person.
The reason I open this discussion of discrimination on campus with Pascoe’s story of
“fags” in high school is because at the University of Redlands, labels tend to stick more
permanently rather than constantly shift. In many ways the school is perceived as being high
school-esque due to the cliquish nature of the student body. Several students described an
interesting phenomenon that takes place in the Commons. Keith in particular, a sophomore
student worker in the Commons, said that athletes will sit in the back, where two TVs are posted,
which are always airing sports games. Jokingly, he said that back corner of the cafeteria is
known among the workers as a notorious space to clean, because the athletes are particularly
messy compared to other students. Other men I interviewed identified other parts of the cafeteria,
such as “the fishbowl” – a circular offshoot to the main area with wide windows that resemble

37. 36
sitting in a glass fishbowl – as the space where Johnston students will sit. Yet other students
specified which tables certain sports teams sit at. While this kind of categorization of students in
the cafeteria may sound stereotypically like high school, the social interactions, especially
around labeling others as “fags,” are a bit more serious, and less frequent, though still visible.
When I asked all the men if they had either experienced or were even aware of discrimination
towards gay or bisexual men on campus, most responded with either no, or it is mostly just small
comments you might hear from certain individuals.
Interestingly, the one instance where men specifically brought up the label “fag” came of
stories about the Johnston men. According to them, there is this apparent stereotype on campus
that all men in the Johnston Center are gay, and therefore fags. In Pascoe’s ethnography, she
documented that “fag” can have multiple meanings. She writes, “When a boy calls another boy a
fag, it means he is not a man but not necessarily that he is a homosexual. The boys at River High
knew that they were not supposed to call homosexual boys fags because that was mean” (Pascoe
2007). This comment is particularly interesting to me, because it does not appear to be the same
at Redlands.
Scott, a Johnston freshman, shared this story of discrimination he had heard from others:
Five Johnston males, none of which I’ll name, but all upperclassmen were walking
back from a party off campus in someone’s house, that goes to Redlands. This was on
Halloween and on the way between walking from the house back to complex, there were
two guys from the University, obviously drunk, and they were following them and
shouting and screaming at them and calling them Johnston faggots, because apparently
there’s some weird stereotype that everyone in Johnston is gay… The entire way back
these two guys were screaming at them and calling them gay and faggots and Johnston
faggots and they were like ‘what are you gonna do? Are you gonna fuck tonight?’ and
just screaming all these weird things at them and getting so aggravated and frustrated,
like so focused on the idea they’re Johnston and they’re gay.
Unlike in River High, where boys would label others as “fag” just as something
embarrassing or at the very least emasculating (without implying homosexuality necessarily), in

38. 37
this particular story, the drunk students harassing the Johnston men were clearly equating the
“faggot” identity with being gay and having gay sex.
Ethan shared a similar story of when he and his friends were walking across campus one
afternoon, after I asked him about witnessing discrimination on campus. “I don’t know about
discrimination, but ignorance and you know, non-acceptance definitely. But again, I think that’s
much more interpersonal than institutional.” When I pressed him for specifics, he shared one
story. “I’ve heard, ‘oh, there go those Johnston fags’, or something like that before. And we
actually kind of stopped and were like, ‘wait, we’re hippies and we’re gay now? Get your guys’
story straight.’” He speaks to another stereotype that exists, that all men in Johnston are hippies.
What is interesting to note is that both of these stereotypes that exist speak to the emasculation of
men who are visible members of the Johnston Community, regardless of their sexual orientation,
or even ways they might be viewed as more masculine (e.g. participating in sports, etc.).
As for why this stereotype might exist, one big factor for Ethan is that men are
underrepresented. When describing that Johnston has more of that open dialogue about sexuality
he wishes the rest of the campus had, he says men are still underrepresented. Statistically
speaking, there are more women than men in the Johnston Community. “I think that’s kind of
part of what the problem is like with Johnston. I feel like there is more of a dialogue about it. I
still think men are underrepresented in that dialogue… men in general are underrepresented in
Johnston, not just gay men or bisexual men.” When the perception of the Johnston Center is that
it is mostly women, and there is “such a strong queer community in Johnston,” according to
Ethan, then it makes sense that the other men who are visible in the community get emasculated,
and stereotyped to be a part of that queer community as well.

39. 38
For men outside of the Johnston Community however, a slightly different story persists.
Without the “guilty by association” sentiment the Johnston men expressed of being labeled as
“fags” just for being men within the Johnston Center, other males students outside of Johnston
experience discrimination through a different means, namely their behavior and mannerisms, and
how those are perceived by others. As Robert Rhoads notes in his study on the coming out
process, the more open students are about their sexual orientation, the more discrimination they
experience (Rhoads 1995). James’ experience on the Tennis team speaks truth to this claim.
James joined as a freshman recruit, and after his year on the team, is aware of how male
sexuality influences group dynamics and how his feminine mannerisms (or perception of) affect
his performance and interactions with his teammates. He felt singled out frequently, and received
a lot of comments about his femininity. “I was competitive with them, they would be
homophobic, they were scared of a gay guy doing better than them…. I thought people were
pinning me up against people, and I had gotten a spot on the line-up and was three minutes late
to practice and got kicked off the line-up. So I thought that was very disrespectful because the
other players were showing up late, and I thought that I was being singled out.” He additionally
got picked on for the way he hit the tennis ball, saying that he was definitely hitting it the
feminine way and others would be the first to call it out if he was beating them. In James’ case,
using masculinity was a tool to maintain a social hierarchy on the team, and make it clear to
James that the others were still above him, even if he was a better player, because he was
different and alone from all the rest of them.
This use of masculinity as a tool doubled as a tool to silence James as well. In his study
of gay athletes in heterosexual athletic culture, Eric Anderson (2005) writes, “Although gay male
athletes do not encounter the same threat of institutionalized legislation (criminalization of

40. 39
homosexuality), they do encounter a great deal of covert institutional and cultural heterosexual
hegemony that curbs them from speaking as freely about their homosexuality as heterosexuals
do” (112). Confronted with this silencing, conforming to the other players’ masculine standards
became a necessity. When I asked James if he felt like he wasn’t getting respect from the team,
he answered saying, “I had to fight a lot harder for it, mentally. It was mentally draining. They
naturally could go out and hit the ball and not be critiqued. I would hit the ball, ‘yeah, James,
nice shot,’ or spank, you know, do stuff like that, try to bond with me in the way they thought
was appropriate.” James added, “I let that slide, but at the same time, I’m like ‘you know that’s a
little weird, you’re going out of my comfort zone.’” When I asked him if he thought that this
behavior was due to his sexual orientation, James said it was not his orientation but rather this
type of response was due to his feminine behaviors, or even just the perception of them. In this
particular case, breaking the gender performance and portraying feminine qualities was more
critical to his negative treatment on the team, than was his actual interest in men as romantic or
sexual beings.
James has also had unpleasant experiences on campus besides just the tennis team. The
semester he returned from his leave of absence, he aimed to take Finite Math. However, the tutor
he had for his class did not have a very positive reception to him. “I had a tutor for Finite.
Football player, very masculine, very homophobic. I came in, ready. You know, very ready to
begin tutoring. But he wasn’t having any of it. There was no tolerance for my personality. He
could just tell I was gay, it’s just the vibe was so bad; I said I had to leave. And I was just like
‘no,’ I’m not sitting through this, because you don’t have the right attitude, and I can sense it.”
James admits that he has feminine qualities, including mannerisms, which likely suggests how
the football player knew, or at least made stereotypes, about his sexuality. James told me that

41. 40
being an athlete, specifically a tennis player, he is trained to watch body language, which he said
gives major clues when someone is not comfortable around you.
James’ experience certainly goes along with Rhoads’ comment about students who are
more open about their sexuality experience more discrimination. A study by Tetreault et al.
determined there is more to this picture than just openness and discrimination. “The students
who were more open and who had experienced discrimination were more positive about the
climate than were students who hid their identity and had not experienced discrimination”
(Tetreault et al. 2013, 961). I, however, found no real correlation in my study. Only one man I
interviewed, Daniel, was largely still closeted about his sexual orientation, and he perceived that
the campus was generally open. Likewise Liam, who is generally open about his sexual
orientation, feels like groups that he is involved with are not as understanding of his position as
he feels they could be. Among the men I interviewed, the perception of negativity seems to be
more related to individual personality than any kind of widespread sense of discrimination
against LGBTQ+ students.
Code of Silence
As we continued our way through brunch Sunday afternoon, Andrew and I started talking
about patterns I had noticed in the research. Without sharing any personal comments, I
mentioned one common factor that had come out was this conversation about the numbers of gay
men visible around campus. It was around this time that Andrew started keeping count of all the
men that walked by, but he agreed. In fact, he went on and told me that it felt almost as if there
was this “code of silence” that all gay men knew about and mutually agreed upon. It is as if we

42. 41
know each other are all around, and we may or may not know if we are talking to each other, but
especially if we do, it will be left unsaid and we all agree to this unspoken community.
While this concept is similar to the don’t ask, don’t tell policy that Liam was describing,
it is not quite the same thing. What Liam described was this sense that he couldn’t necessarily
disclose his sexual orientation, and when he could, felt limited in what he could discuss about it
with others on campus. In this case, Andrew was describing a sense that men internal to
themselves choose not to disclose their sexual orientations, even if they know doing so might
help them find other gay men if they are interested in that. In other words, the gay and bisexual
men are internalizing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” social policy and enforcing it on themselves.
Keith, who identifies as black and bisexual, expressed a sense of community within the
African-American students on campus as a comparison to a lack of community among gay and
bisexual men. When I confirmed that he did feel like there was a community among African-
American students on campus, he said, “I just went to see the black history month museum thing
at Hunsaker. And that was really nice to see…a lot of friends, like my roommate, who go to see
BLACC a lot. I know tons of people in it.” To avoid skewing his answer, I simply asked him,
without skepticism, if he feels like there’s a similar kind of community for gay men. Even so,
his answer was much more reserved. “I know… the African-American community pretty well
here, but in terms of the LGBT community on campus, I don’t feel like I really know them… I
know people individually, but as a greater whole, I don’t know at all.” He goes on to describe the
lack of community as, “no one seems to really be like ‘oh you know you should get in touch with
so and so.’ No one really invites, I guess, to the community, which gives off the fact that maybe
there isn’t one, that maybe everyone is just sort of doing their own thing. Which you know, come
be that, that’s fine, I don’t really care.” His last comment about community interested me. “I feel

43. 42
like in the months since I’ve come out publicly, I have not necessarily… in my mind, if I come
out suddenly, not that boys will come flying, but I’m saying like in the sense of it will be easier
to make friends who are like that, because now I’m not trying to hide that or whatever. And I
have, literally probably only made one new gay friend.” Keith assumed it would be easier to
meet more men on campus coming out, but it appears that one’s public status as gay, bi, or
closeted has no impact on knowing other gay men on campus. The code of silence evidently
succeeds in preventing gay or bisexual men from meeting each other, even in spite of the
moment when one male student does decide to publicly come out.
As for why this code of silence persists, there are several factors. One is that students
may choose not to be proactive in approaching other men. This is certainly the case for Kevin.
When I asked Kevin if he thought that men were generally open on campus about their sexuality,
he denied that claim. “Mmm, no. I feel like the people I’ve become friends with and talked to are
open. But people in general, you have to either draw it out, or it has to be relevant to the
conversation. Or you have to open up to them first. I’m not proactive; I don’t really talk to men,
so I wouldn’t know.” It seems that men are not willingly open about disclosing their sexual
orientation, but rather are willing to share it if approached. A little bit later, I delve into
masculinity and the role it plays in the code of silence, and I will discuss why it is that men do
not willingly discuss their sexual orientation.
In the meantime, Chris provides a good example for that mindset of waiting to tell others.
I asked him when he arrived at Redlands, if he was thinking about if or how to come out to
people at all on campus. He had no intention of going out of his way to tell people. “No, I was
just going to, like when the subject came up, I’d have been like, ‘yeah, I am’.”

44. 43
Jonathan shared a nearly identical perspective, when I asked him the same question,
saying, “If someone were to ask, I’d tell them. But I’m not actively running around like ‘I’m
gay.’ Not in the sense that it’s my own business though… [trails off]”.
What is odd about this perspective is that it suggests comfortability, that the men have no
problem discussing their own sexual orientation when it comes up, but at the same time, it is
almost as if they are afraid to bring up the topic on their own, for fear how they would come
across to others. It is even in the way Jonathan talks about it that he is not “running around”
telling it to other people, not even in the same way that straight men might talk to each other
about their own sexual encounters.
Ethan expressed a similar view as Jonathan and Chris as well, and he even ties back to a
point Daniel made about being grounded in confidence coming to college. “I knew that the
Johnston Center is a very inclusive place, so I wasn’t worried about that. But it also wasn’t a
huge concern of mine, because, I don’t know, because I knew I was confident enough in my
identification that people who would need to know would know.” The comment that those who
would need to know would know, is precisely the same passive attitude others hold regarding
opening up about their sexual orientation. No further effort needs to be put in. Ethan also
mentions the difficult balance of telling people without coming across as self-interested. “I think
it’s a very tricky thing to do, and like a tough balance of course, to again not be imposing on
people, but not be silent.”
Anderson notes that gay athletes said the same thing. “Rob’s use of the phrase forcing my
homosexuality to describe a simple affirmation of his sexuality, and Sotia’s phrase the gay thing,
illustrates the power inherent in stigmatizing an identity. In this case, the verbal recognition of
heterosexuality is considered ‘just’ and ‘right’ and never scrutinized, but the mere mention of

45. 44
homosexuality is perceived as being inappropriate” (Anderson 2005, 113). In Ethan’s case, along
with the other men who share the same or similar concerns, the fear of imposing creates a
silence, and that silence is clearly dominating on campus. Despite the perception that campus is
open and accepting, the men seem reluctant to be the ones to put their foot forward and instead
wait to be approached about the topic, suggesting the power given to the normal group over the
stigmatized group, as Anderson suggests. There is a desire to not impose their sexuality on those
who do not want to discuss it; the question is, however, does this also end up preventing
discourse between gay and bisexual men, for those who wish there were a larger community?
Anderson thinks so saying, “Jason, a high school cross-country and track athlete illustrates the
implications of covert mechanisms that deny gay athletes the creation of a gay subculture”
(Anderson 111). And some of those covert mechanisms might be the microaggressions that
Nadal discusses. In the case at the University of Redlands, the social environment subtly
stigmatizes gay and bisexual men, which some of the men seem to sense, though they do not
clearly express it. Scott also raises another factor: “Do I care about being friends with someone
just because of their sexuality?”
Another reason the code of silence might persist is students have a lack of interest in
forming a community among gay or bisexual men on campus. Kevin proclaims that he neither
has a support network on campus, nor does he need one. When I followed up and asked him if
that was frustrating, to my surprise he said no. He elaborated saying, “No, I’m a distant person in
general.” Kevin explained that he has social anxiety and worries that others are judging him all
the time, and this makes him reluctant to approach others with problems. This description of his
involvement with others on campus matches his description of family life. “My parents and my
brother, they would just get into fights, and I would feel isolated… I just got progressively

46. 45
further and further from my parents.” One thing Kevin made clear was that he is intentionally
distant, and when it came to any kind of communal connection with other gay men, he had no
interest. He had no interest in attending the Pride Alliance club on campus, and had attended
L.U.S.T. once, but was turned off by it because it was so overwhelming. Other men in the study
mentioned L.U.S.T. as well; several said the openness of sharing personal sexual encounters was
too much for them, though they respected the group for creating the open environment where
people could feel comfortable.
Others expressed more interest in community among gay men than Kevin however,
stating the need for more dialogue or openness on campus. Ethan for example, when I asked him
if he felt there was an open dialogue on campus about issues of sexuality, he said, “It’s more
taboo for men to talk about their sexuality than women. I think that men are made more
uncomfortable more easily about that kind of talk. … I think in terms of dialogue, there’s not
enough dialogue on campus.” Ethan is a sophomore in the Johnston Center, and for him,
masculinity is crucial to this discussion. It is, “I would say, at the root of the issue that you’re
looking at, in terms of men and sexuality.”
Let’s take a step back and examine Ethan’s comments, because one comment needs to be
clarified, and regarding the other, his comment is consistent with existing analysis as well as my
own observations. First, his comment that men are made uncomfortable in talks about sexuality,
he is specifically referring to homosexuality, that men are made uncomfortable around
discussions of male homosexuality. His second comment that masculinity is at the root of the
issue, is, again, consistent with existing literature as well as my observations; masculinity is a
major force driving this code of silence that Andrew speaks of, and similarly this lack of
dialogue that Ethan himself refers to. To address both of Ethan’s comments, I want to point out

47. 46
what Michael Kimmel elaborates on: “Other men: We are under the constant scrutiny of other
men. Other men watch us, rank us, grant our acceptance into the realm of manhood. Manhood is
demonstrated for other men’s approval. It is other men who evaluate the performance” (Kimmel
1994, 214). Evidently peer pressure is a powerful force for men, if they are being so constantly
monitored. Kimmel makes another statement that “homophobia is a central organizing principle
of our cultural definition of manhood” (Kimmel 1994, 214). This is because of the current model
of hegemonic masculinity, which seeks to reject anything that is feminine within men. In light of
Ethan’s comments about the lack of dialogue, and the careful social navigation that so many of
the men expressed, it makes sense then that this code of silence exists. Given that men are so
carefully monitored by others, and part of the monitoring is the disapproval of gay men, those
gay male students are not going to be quick to share their sexual orientation, thereby allowing the
code of silence to reign. Additionally, as awareness of this monitoring grows, men will begin to
self-monitor to make sure they do not portray anything that others might criticize as feminine or
weak. This is especially true the more men buy into hegemonic masculinity, and the norms it
imposes.
James shared a different point of view on why men are not talking, though masculinity
plays just as big of a role. “Most of them [gay men] are studious on campus, and they’ve got a
competitive edge, like everyone does being here.” He frequently discussed competition and
competitiveness when bringing up other students or campus climate. Critiquing his own
statement about the competitive and studious nature of other gay men on campus, he added, “I
think there just needs to be more of an openness in getting to know one another.” Ultimately
James agrees with Ethan that there is a lack of dialogue and openness around men’s

48. 47
(homo)sexuality, and that there needs to more dialogue, but to him the competitive nature of the
students plays a big role.
What stood out here is that these two students, one an athlete and one in Johnston seemed
to be picking up on a similar train of thought, if from two different angles. Ethan views
masculinity to be an issue of utmost importance on this campus, in that men are not really talking
about homosexuality because they are not comfortable talking about it. In a paper on sexuality
and gender, Philaretou and Allen (2001) write, “Under this psychosocial environment of
heterosexual dictatorship, gay and bisexual sexual orientations tend to be ridiculed and
considerably denigrated by being relegated to inferior pathological statuses because they fail to
provide opportunities for male dominance and female submission during the enactment of their
associated sexual acts.” It is because this sexual orientation is so frequently degraded and
demeaned, it makes sense that no man would want to talk about it, especially in an environment
where they are made to feel this shame or humiliation. The current image of hegemonic
masculinity encourages this refusal to discuss gay male identities. Take a moment and remember
what other men were doing: expressing a reluctance to bring up their own sexuality and rather,
saying they prefer for others to approach the subject for them. What this indicates is that maybe
the environment is not a homophobic one, but for some reason men do not feel comfortable
discussing their sexuality whenever they think it might be relevant without being prompted first
in this environment. Indeed, I think masculinity and perceptions of masculinity held by both the
gay and bisexual men as well as their fellow heterosexual students are working in far more subtle
ways, encouraging the men to stay silent about their gay sexuality, rather than come out and
openly talk about it.

49. 48
The reason I suspect masculinity is part of what is going on here, as opposed to
religiosity for example, is how the men compared the visibility of gay men to the visibility of
lesbians on campus. The general sense is that gay and bisexual men are invisible, particularly in
comparison to lesbian couples. Chris said, “I do see a lot of lesbian couples walking around. I
don’t see very many male couples, but I think that’s just because how our society is portrayed by
men and masculinity.” Chris attributes the visibility of lesbian couples on campus to the
understanding that women are typically less stigmatized for their homosexuality, and men who
are more stigmatized, are less likely to show that affection publicly on campus.
Scott made a similar comment. “I feel like there’s lots of gender things happening on
campus, especially in Johnston. And I feel like I know one million lesbians on campus.” If the
cause were religious, this gender divide would make less sense, but if this reluctance to speak of
sexuality was because masculinity is pressuring the men specifically to conform to
heteronormative standards, then I would expect to find precisely what the men are saying, that
they feel like they are part of an invisible group of students, while women enjoy far more
visibility around campus.
On a different approach however, James discussed competitiveness among the students at
University of Redlands, and I argue that competition is inherently tied to an athletic way of
thinking, because competition is a cornerstone to all organized sports. James believes that men
are competitive on this campus not just athletically however, but also academically. It is this
drive to be studious and to compete with everyone else on campus, other gay men included, that
is being focused on rather than creating an openness to get to know one another.
When I asked Chris, who is on the swim team, if there was anything that frustrated him
about being a gay male on campus, he paused for about a minute. Given his usually quick

50. 49
answers, the hesitation surprised me. His answer was, “I feel like there are a lot of guys who are
out there, that aren’t saying anything, I guess. And I feel like if we had a bigger base of men who
were, I feel like it would be a more open environment than it already is. Like if guys on the
football team, golf team, baseball team, like breaking those types of stereotypes, then it would be
way more open than it already is.” Another athlete, he also connected the lack of community to
the athletic nature on campus. In other words, from Chris’ perspective, if certain athletic teams
were more open to discussing sexuality, the effect would be that gay men could be more open in
discussing their sexuality than they currently are. Chris attributed it specifically to the football,
golf and baseball teams. What struck me as really similar, however, was James’s comment about
there needing to be more openness in gay men getting to know each other, which implies that
that openness does not currently exist. Chris believes there are a lot of guys out there not saying
anything, which speaks to that lack of gay men getting to know one another.
There is one last factor that likely plays into the code of silence, that begins before any of
the men set foot on this campus, and that is when men come out. As Shilo and Savaya noted in
their study, men are coming out at earlier and earlier ages. This is true for many of the men.
Eight of them were already out to their parents at the time of the interviews, and all but one had
come out to someone in high school. What happens when these men come out earlier, is they
have more time to process the identity and come to terms with it, and are more likely to have
come out to others and start establishing a social support network either among friends and/or
family. As a result, the men come to college, often with months or years of getting used to the
idea of their sexuality and they do not necessarily come looking to talk to each other or to others
for acceptance and support. To them, there is a less perceived need to break the code of silence,
from the stance of seeking acceptance. With factors both internal and external, the code of

51. 50
silence bears down upon these men, often wrapped up in masculinity, playing into what they feel
like they need and don’t need.
Tensions between Sexual Identity and Community Belonging
To be fair, when I discuss this “code of silence” that these men share in regards to
disclosing or discussing their sexual orientations, it is not a total blanket policy with zero
exceptions. There are brief moments where the silence is broken, and gay men may find freedom
to engage with others, specifically as gay men. In Pascoe’s ethnography, she noted that the
theater was a safe haven from the “fag” identity. “Drama is notoriously a fag space in high
schools. The ironic result of this connection is that the insult disappears. Not only does the insult
disappear, but drama becomes a space where male students can enact a variety of gender
practices” (Pascoe 2007). This made me think about something Scott had told me, with his
involvement in the theater department. Of the male cast in the theater production for Fall 2015,
half of them were gay. In a school where invisibility of gay and bisexual men is pervasive, and
there’s this described “code of silence”, to have a fifty-percent rate of known gay men in one
space (and cohesive group: that last longer than one singular event) is astronomically high.
I asked if they, as a group, were aware of this fact while they rehearsed for the play, and
if they ever talked about it. He said that by the end they knew, and it was not a source of constant
conversation, but a space was created. One of the straight men apparently commented on his
horrible “gaydar” – the supposed skill of being able to guess a man’s orientation simply by
looking at him – and Scott said they would talk about things like who they found attractive, who
they would want to have sex with, both gay men and straight, and that they could joke about such
things. He told me, “It felt normal. Or rather, it felt like the normal I wish was on the rest of