OPINION
LAMBDA - Volume XXVIII - Issues 1&2
To Come Out or Log On?
Why gay male infatuation with online culture may harm the LGBTIQ community
By Trevor Hoppe
So much ado has been made in the
past several years over the potential of
the World Wide Web to bring people to
gether as never before. In particular, gay
men have latched on to the Internet as a
means to meet new people. Unfortunate
ly, the toll that this massive logging on is
taking on LGBTIQ physical communal
spaces remains unexplored. Increasingly,
mainstream research is showing that the
Internet fails to live up to its promise for
community-building, but a parallel investi
gation into the effects the Internet is hav
ing specifically on LGBTIQ communities
has yet to occur.
I’m not one to say that the Internet is
without merit for LGBTIQ people. For
young people with few resources in their
communities, it is remarkably useful, and in
my experience, a remarkably positive way
to talk to other non-straight people. At 13
I obtained access to the Internet and dis
covered that there were quite a few people
out there who were also attracted to peo
ple of the same gender. I was able to meet
people across North Carolina through a
now little-used chat protocol called IRC
(Internet Relay Chat). This gave me a com
munity to access when there was certainly
no peer support in middle school or, later,
high school.
The prospect of being able to anony
mously connect to other same-gender-lov-
ing men with the click of a button is cer
tainly enticing. After all, if you’re just going
to the bar to find a hookup, then why not
cut the bar out of the picture? It’s also po
tentially relieving to people who might not
be as outgoing and who have a hard time
meeting people in crowded social situa
tions such as bars. But perhaps the great
est appeal comes from the fact that coming
out may no longer be as relevant for users.
Why come out when you can log on?
However, these seemingly tantalizing
qualities about Internet communities have
come with unintended consequences. As
more and more men log on and log out of
LGBTIQ physical spaces, the communi
ties that have been built over the past few
decades pay the price. Sociological research
shows that people who use the Internet
habitually opt out of community networks
and are less dvicaUy engaged. In short,
some LGBTIQ-owned businesses, friend
ly spaces, and organizations may eventually
have to close shop.
Another such unintended consequence
that hasn’t been as well explored is the
hyper-race-conscious environment that is
created on services likeGay.com. It seems,
initially, that race might be less important
due to the anonymity of online chatting.
If you can’t see someone, it’s hard to de
termine their skin color. However, Gay.
com users have “profiles,” in which the
user’s race or ethnicity is among the first
features listed, and can also post pictures
that appear next to their name in the chat
room. This enables other users to “screen”
people out based on demographics. Some
individuals even choose to declare what
race(s) they are interested in, and it is not
uncommon for people’s “bioline” (which
appears next to their screen-name in the
chat room) to say things like “White male
looking for other white men ONLY” or
“Asians A+.”
This self-imposed limiting of dialogue
has made race a deciding factor in the
conversations that take place online, to
an unparalleled degree. In physical spaces
like bathhouses and bars, people are much
more likely to engage others across these
barriers simply because race isn’t so easy
to “determine” when there’s no box to be
checked.
And it isn’t just race that is brought into
the limelight - similar effects can be seen
You don’t have
to spend much
time online to
know that people
prefer that users
choose a side
(top or bottom)
and stay there.
in regard to age, bodies, and sexual pref
erences. Often the most important infor
mation other chatters seek is whether you
prefer to penetrate, be penetrated, or both.
A whole range of colloquial language has
appeared to describe people’s preferences:
top, bottom, versatile, pitcher, catcher, and
switch-hitter. You don’t have to spend
much time online to know that people pre
fer that users choose a side — top or bot
tom — and stay there (not unlike the divide
between gay, straight, and bisexual). This
has had an incredible impact on the kinds
of relationships queer men are entering
into online.
All of these factors, when combined,
are putting the future of our communities
in crisis. Minds are narrowing and commu
nities are thinning. While online networks
may seem to hold great promise for bring
ing people together, social scientists are
beginning to recognize that the Internet
cannot possibly bring people together in
the way that many had hoped. Online net
working is only successful when it’s done
as a complement to physical networking,
not as a substitute. Moreover, if queer men
continue to log on in such large numbers,
we can almost count on an increased nar
rowing of minds. Creative solutions are
direly needed to bring LGBTIQ commu
nities together in positive ways.