opportunity, pleasure, and risk

8/18/2019 Opportunity, Pleasure, And Risk

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/opportunity-pleasure-and-risk 1/39

http://jce.sagepub.com

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

DOI: 10.1177/0891241602031004003

2002; 31; 440Journal of Contemporary Ethnography LEE F. MONAGHAN

Opportunity, Pleasure, and Risk: An Ethnography of Urban Male Heterosexualities

http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/440 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Contemporary EthnographyAdditional services and information for

http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/4/440SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):

(this article cites 18 articles hosted on theCitations

© 2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution. by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008http://jce.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts


http://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptions


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav


http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav


http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/4/440


http://jce.sagepub.com/











Using ethnographic data generated in Southwest Britain and an embod-

ied social paradigm, this article explores the opportunities, pleasures,

and risks attendant to urban male heterosexualities. Participant obser-

vation and informal ethnographic interviews with nightclub security

staff, or “doormen,” contextualize and embody abstract and sterile risk

discourses and knowledges. Although careful to avoid a pathologizing

biomedical perspective, several social risks are identified, which may

amplify or minimize the conditions of possibility for HIV transmission.

These include risks to existing intimate relationships and ontological

security, violence, and embarrassment.

S exuality has long been of ethnographic interest to social anthro-

pologists (Coffey 1999, 77). In the developed world, however,

sex and sexualities have received less sustained social scientific atten-

tion (Wellings et al. 1994). Today, in the third decade of HIV/AIDS, this

picture has changed: a response to the panic engendered in times of “sexual epidemic” (Rhodes 1997). As one might expect, this research

literature focuses overwhelmingly on disease or potential disease (risk)

rather than pleasure (Hart and Carter 2000, 249). Existing empirical

work on sexualities, at least withinthe sociologyof healthand illness, is

dominated by the vocabulary of risk.

Much sociological research on sex and sexualities, congruent with

negative public health discourses (Hart and Carter 2000), is now identi-

fiable. Such work encompasses valuable qualitative and ethnographic

studies on female prostitutes and their clients (McKeganey and Barnard

1996), male prostitutes selling sex to men (Bloor et al. 1993), noncom-

mercial gay sex (Davies et al. 1993), and feminist research on hetero-

sexual sex (Holland et al. 1992). Studies now provide important data

on, inter alia, the sexual significance of imbalances in gendered and

economic relations of power; strategies for negotiating safer sex,

including sex workers’ efforts to reduce the risk of virus transmission

and violence (Whittaker and Hart 1996); the importance of love, trust,

and intimacy in unprotected sex (Bloor 1995); risk management among

couples with discordant HIV statuses (Rhodes and Cusick 2000); and

the significance of life-course transitions (partnership and occupational

career) in determining safer sexual practices (Wight 1999). Undoubt-

edly, this recent work is invaluable in understanding the complexities of

human sexualities. Suchstudies—inplacingsexualities, sexualinteractions

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES 441

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Thanks to Michael Bloor, Rob Benford, and the anonymous referees for their

useful comments on an earlier draft of this article.








and (more usually) accounts of such activity within their various social

contexts—are also of practical value in suggesting policies aimed at

reducing HIV-related risk behavior (see, for example, McKeganey and

Barnard 1992).

Although much has been achieved by sociologists and anthropolo-

gists researching sexualities in epidemic times, “some important work

remains undone or incomplete” (Bloor 1995, 130). Certainly, there is a

dearth of sociological ethnographies that adopt an explicitly embodied

perspective and/or acknowledge the often taken-for-granted carnal

pleasures of sex andother forms of “risk consumption” (Hart andCarter

2000, 249). The present ethnography on urban male heterosexualities—

which is attentive to the phenomenology (Schutz 1970) and nexus of

pleasure, risk and health in a “backstage” (Goffman 1959) social

world—endeavors to overcome some of these limitations. Grounded in

rich ethnography, it contributes empirically to the social phenomenol-ogy of HIV transmission (Bloor 1995) and underscores the theoretical

importance of an embodied sociology “which puts minds back into

bodies, bodies back into society and society back into the body” (Wil-

liams and Bendelow 1998, 212). This is important because the sociol-

ogy of sexualities, risk, and HIV transmission—similar to mainstream

sociology more generally—typically treats social actors as disembod-

ied rational agents (Turner 1992, 23) rather than lived, sensuous, fleshy,

emotional bodies.

This article uses data generated as part of an ongoing ethnography of

the occupational culture of nightclub security staff, or doormen as they

call themselves. Focusing on this particular male-dominated urban

group should prove useful. Just as in gay male leather culture,“leathermen” are often characterized as more “sexual” than other gay

men (Binnie 2000), doormen are often assumed to be highly sexually

active given their involvement in the liminal nighttime economy (cf.

Winlow 2001) and their occupational culture, which institutionalizes

heterosexual, situationally dominant masculinity (Connell 1995).

Describing the sex lives and heterosexual relations of doormen working

in several city center pubs and clubs in Southwest Britain, this article

underscores the importance of conceptualizing plural heterosexualities,

risk, and pleasure as being embodied, as well as embedded, in social

interactions and relationships.

Regarding the article’s structure, first, explicit reference is made to

theoretical work on sexualities, risk, and HIV prevention. Points of

442 JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002








phenomenological sense, a separate and distinct reality that is governed

by the laws of the body andpleasure. To be sure, bodilypleasure (partic-

ularly male pleasure) is not totally ignored in recent social studies of

HIV risk and feminist literatures on heterosexuality/ies (e.g., Richard-

son 1996). Male pleasure, which is socially constructed and which may

thus be deconstructed and reconstructed in health-promoting ways, is

recognized and problematized. However, the recently established soci-

ology of embodiment is not incorporated into substantive work on

urban male heterosexualities. Embodiment, however, is of crucial sig-

nificance. This article maintains that when researching male sexualities,

recent theorizing on the body (e.g., Featherstone 1991; Williams and

Bendelow 1998) must be drawn into the frame of men’s nighttime

experiences.

The culture of risk approach, as exemplified by the anthropologist

Mary Douglas’s (1985) grid/group model, has made an important con-tribution to the social study of risk. According to this model, under-

standings of the world (comprising plural risk cosmologies and ratio-

nalities) reflect social position and differential socialization in various

groups. Again, Bloor (1995, 94) provided a useful synopsis and cri-

tique. It is therefore not my intention to explicate the “grid/group”

model here. Suffice to say, Douglas’s approach, and other cultural theo-

ries that argue social location shapes risk perceptions and behaviors

(e.g., Wight 1999), are relevant and may be invoked to explain door-

men’s shared orientations to sexual “risk” practices. For example, door-

men, who are predominantly from working-class backgrounds, consti-

tute a bounded occupational group that is hierarchical and that supports

particular norms promoting an affinity to risk behavior. That said,changing risk orientations, group heterogeneity, and the significance of

local power relationships are also significant (Bloor 1995). Although

“grid/group” theory does not deal with these and other relevant issues

(e.g., importance of heterosexual partnership careers and life-course

transitions), other contributors are cognizant of cultural factors and

changing risk perceptions (Bellaby 1990; Wight 1999). Cultural

approaches to risk therefore need not be static, and as will be seen, cul-

ture is relevant from a phenomenological perspective. Indeed, I would

underscore the carnivalesque culture of popular urban nightspots,

which frames doormen’s sexualized social interactions.

The phenomenological alternative to sexual risk, as developed by

Bloor (1995, 97-100) and employed in this study, is a micro-level









approach that explores the taken-for-granted world of routine activities.

Following Schutz’s (1970) work on systems of relevance, phenomenol-

ogy explores the various ways in which interpretive social actors orient

to perceptual stimuli (Bloor 1995, 98). As indicated by Bloor’s field-

work on street-working male prostitutes, phenomenology is a dynamic

heuristic framework that embraces dichotomies such as calculation and

habituation, volition and constraint, and the immediate and the cultur-

ally determined (Bloor 1995, 100). Gendered power relationships, stra-

tegic choices, motivation, and interpretation are thus recognized. How-

ever, Bloor added that “systems of relevance”—which reflect people’s

self- or other-imposed interest in the project at hand and their degree of

habituation to specific perceptual stimuli—“are the bones of a social

theory of cognition” (p. 100, emphasis added). Correspondingly, I feel

it is necessary to add some lived flesh to these theoretical bones. This

entails empirically exploring the social significance of embodiment,which is both the medium and the outcome of socially dependent

cognitive/emotional processes.

Arguably, a phenomenological study of sexual opportunity, risk, and

pleasure must make explicit people’s bodily-being-in-the-world

(Weitman 1999). The phenomenological significance of bodies has

already been noted in relation to “erotic reality” (Davis 1983). Other

embodied issues and themes, however, are salient. For example, door-

men, who are socially defined as holders of power in their workplace,

reflect their male-coded power in their embodiment (cf. Shilling 1993,

113). This power is intimately related to intergendered bodily interac-

tions;for example, covert sex with female customers and the doormen’s

adoption or rejection of condoms. Emotionality is also significant. Asstressed by sociologists of embodiment (Bendelow and Williams

1998), emotional bodies and mindful bodies are inseparable: emotion-

ality is intertwined with cognitive processes. This is especially perti-

nent in relation to sexual relationships (Giddens 1992; Jackson and

Scott 1997). Some emotional dimensions of urban male heterosexualities,

which comprise and impact on potentially risky behavior, are thus

explored in this article.

Finally, it is necessary to locate this study in the HIV prevention and

health promotion literature. As stated by Bloor (1995), “The task of

healthpromotion in respect of theHIV epidemic is notto proscribe rela-

tionships, but to find effective ways to encourage modifications in those

features of relationships which amplify HIV risk” (p. 101). Unfortunately,









despite this emphasis on social relationships, much of this literature

focuses on the individual (Rhodes 1997) in accord with epidemiologi-

cal andbiomedical models of the human body. Hence, while individual-

istic approaches have been thoroughly critiqued by sociologists, it

remains the case that the social paradigm on risk “is less commonly

applied in the fieldof HIVprevention” (Rhodes 1997, 210). An obvious

consequence of this is that “ethnography has an under-utilised role in

risk behaviour research in the fields of HIV prevention” (Rhodes 1997,

223). This underutilization is problematic, however, not least because

in a society where consumption and health risks are increasingly con-

joined, “the design and delivery of interventions to modify people’s risk

behaviours (such as health promotion) will be more adequate if such

strategies connect with the meanings shaping people’s social identities

and lifestyle choices” (Hart and Carter 2000, 236). Rhodes (1997), who

also stressed the importance of power and constraint in relation to sex-ual risk, agreed with this argument. Sociological accounts of “lived

experiences [and] exploratory descriptions of how risk is lived through

social interaction withothers” serve to question and complement public

health work where epidemiologically “risky” behavior may possess

different meanings and significance for people (p. 223). The present

ethnography makes the parallel argument that health promoters must

interpret health threats in terms of those cultural contexts and situations

embodied, enacted, and enjoyed by actual flesh and blood bodies.

THE STUDY

Ethnographic fieldwork, which is ongoing, commenced in 1997 in

Southwest Britain. I have adopted an active membership role, which

involves moving away from the more marginal role of the traditional

participant observer (Adler and Adler 1987). Working as a nightclub

and pub doorman, I have undertaken participant observation between

one and five times per week in six city-center-licensed premises.

Doorwork shifts, which are primarily worked in the evening but which

also include occasional days (e.g., certain weekends when popular

sporting events are screened in some bars), have ranged from three to

fourteen hours in duration. Periods spent working at each site have also

varied, ranging from one night to fourteen months. Contingencies and

personal circumstances have interrupted fieldwork, but forging informal









local links has always facilitated (re-)entry into this subterranean occu-

pation. A positive working relationship with a head doorman (who

informally recruits andretains doorstaff on behalf of a security agency),

as well as a fast expanding local nighttime economy, have provided me

with useful research opportunities.

While research has been overt in the sense that I have never inten-

tionally concealed my university affiliation and ethnographic interests,

my identity in the field, from the perspective of study participants, has

primarily been that of a working doorman. It is important to note this in

a reflexive ethnography because “the social role of the participant

observer and the images which respondents have of him [sic] have a

decisive influence on the character of the data collected” (Vidich 1955,

354). Similar to Allison (1994), an anthropologist who participated in

the everynight life of a Tokyo hostess club, I have directly participated

in environments where sex talk is a norm and sexual activity is part of the implicit if not explicit context of the clubs. (I have also regularly

talkedwith doormen in other contextssuch as bodybuilding gyms, and I

have socialized with them in nightclubs outside of their working hours.)

Given my ecological proximity, male gender, bodily comportment, rel-

ative youth (currently thirty) and heterosexuality, I have also enjoyed

and been seen to enjoy aspects of sexualized urban nightspots. My own

embodied sexuality, rendering fieldwork simultaneously emotionaland

personal, is implicated in the relational nature of the research process

(cf. Coffey 1999, 77). Similar to Winlow (2001), I have had to remind

myself that I am primarily in these settings to conduct an academic

inquiry, but my field role and heterosexual performances have facili-

tated rapport, intersubjectivity, and the generation of rich ethnographyon potentially sensitive topics. It is difficult to conceive how this study

could proceed independent of my doing types of male heterosexuality,

which simultaneously constitute my own gender identity.1

As already indicated, this study is not confined to urban nightspots.

The gym has also been extremely important. Social access, in a poten-

tially violent occupation that demands bodily capital (muscle, strength,

physicality), has been facilitated by my long-standing participation in

gym culture. Certainly, not all doormen are bodybuilders, but a signifi-

cant proportion of doormen I worked with, including the head doorman

mentioned above, regularly exercised with weights in commercial

gyms. Another doorman, whom I call Mark and who features at some

length in this article, also participated in my other ethnography on









bodybuilding, drugs, and risk (Monaghan 2001). Other doormen acting

as key informants, such as Trevor, have known me for several years

given our respective participation in local bodybuilding gyms. How-

ever, nonbodybuilders also acted as key informants, such as Jack whom

I occasionally worked beside during fourteen-hour shifts. These con-

tacts have been invaluable in gaining a detailed understanding of urban

male heterosexualities over a prolonged period.

Ethnographic contacts with certain doormen may have been sus-

tained, but many more were fleeting. Thus, while I have worked with

more than sixty doormen, not all contacts have been sociologically pro-

ductive. Problems in securing and maintaining productive fieldwork

relations are compounded in a flexible and insecure occupation that has

a relatively high staff turnover. (Managers of licensed premises may

instantly dismiss doormen. There is rarely a contract of employment in

this sector of the security industry and no unions to protect workerrights.) And while my field role has enabled me to understand the social

situations of doorstaff, fieldwork has also sometimes been constrained

given my active membership. Certainly, while I believe the advantages

of my field role greatly outweigh the disadvantages (e.g., gaining trust

and intimate knowledge of social processes), by actually working as a

doorman I have not always been able to capitalize fully on fieldwork

relations. For instance, doorstaff work in teams, but duringa shift (espe-

cially for those working inside rather than at the entrances to licensed

premises) much timeis spentphysically awayfrom one’s colleagues.2

Although contacts with many doormen have been constrained by the

practicalities of security work, I am still able to describe the general

social characteristics of my sample. Most were relatively young men of working-class origin. Ages ranged from nineteen to forty-five. Most

were in their late twenties/early thirties and white, though a few (n =10)

were from an ethnic minority (e.g., Middle Eastern, African, Afro-

Caribbean). In accord with the social construction of hegemonic mas-

culinity (Connell 1995) anddoorwork culture, all presented an image of

heterosexuality. Showing sexual interest in, and appreciation of, attrac-

tive female bodies and/or talking aboutone’s established/casual hetero-

sexual relationships was commonplace. None of the doormen I talked

with identified themselves as gay. While this is sociologically signifi-

cant, indicating the type of masculinity institutionalized and routinely

presented in doorwork culture, this does not mean there are no gay

doormen. Similar to gay soldiers, doormen who “do” being gay in other









contexts may adapt their workplace behavior and participate in hetero-

sexual discourse to develop social ties (cf. Kaplan and Ben-Ari 2000).3

While a significant minority of contacts were “officially” unemployed

(especially a group of younger doormen working midweek in a popular,

late-licensed dance club), most combined part-time doorwork with

full-time employment in the formal economy. Occupations included

tax inspector, salesman, scaffolder, gym owner, trainee accountant,

office clerk, karate instructor, chef, mechanic, and aircraft engineer.

Many reported cohabiting with their spouse or regular female partner

though others were recently separated and/or living alone. Younger sin-

gle doormen usually lived with their parents.

I use pseudonyms when referring to ethnographic contacts and

research sites, and I have changed certain background details to pre-

serve anonymity. All but one site were located in the same city, employ-

ing a network of doormen who often knewor knewof each other. Estab-lishments varied in terms of size, appearance, mood, opening times, and

number of doorstaff employed. And while all served a predominantly

young (eighteen to thirty), white, heterosexual clientele,4 there was

some interestablishment and intraestablishment variability along divi-

sions of age, ethnicity, and social class. Certain clubs, for example,

attracted a larger “thirty something” crowd, andother sites on particular

nights attracted a large ethnic minority crowd (e.g., Thursday “Rhythm

and Blues” nights at one late-licensed dance club). That said, all urban

nightspots were more or less sexualized.

Sampling has been both opportunistic and purposive. Regarding the

former, I have largely capitalized on informal links and clustered

employment opportunities within a specific urban locale. Fieldwork has, however, been undertaken at different times within and across ven-

ues employing different doormen, thereby enhancing theoretical repre-

sentativeness. For instance, during the fourteen months spent at Uncle

Sam’s, I undertook ethnography on busy Friday and Saturday evenings

and quiet Sundays, Mondays, and Wednesdays. Undertaking labor-

intensive fieldwork at different venues, at different times, and with dif-

ferent doormen (who vary according to age and marital status, for

example) is a component of theoretical sampling that provides wider

understandings of social processes and social actions (Glaser and

Strauss 1967). Here emphasis is given to acquiring in-depth under-

standings as opposed to a scant knowledge of a larger group.









Qualitative data, including shared intragroup talk about sex and sex-

ual risk, more private personal views, observations of sexualized social

interactions between doormen and female customers, retrospectively

constructed accounts of sex, stories, and cautionary tales were recorded

in a field diary. These data, written as soon as possible after fieldwork,

were then analyzed using grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967).

Conceptually, this inductive approach has allowed me to identify and

explore the sociology of urban male heterosexualities. Nonetheless,

and as will emerge below, this approach does not bar the importation of

concepts and analyses derived from other theoretical work. Grounded

theory need not force researchers to wear “theoretical blinkers” where

the ethnographer “remain[s] unaffected by earlier ideas and informa-

tion [since] grounded theorists can [among other things] use extant the-

ories to sensitize them to certain issues and processes in their data”

(Charmaz and Mitchell 2001, 169). Using this approach to groundedtheory, I read and reread field notes, leading to the identification of

emergent themes and the development of a flexible coding scheme that

in turn, strategically informed and informs subsequent fieldwork visits.

Importantly, the coding scheme also serves as a basis for segmenting,

grouping, and indexing data that are stored in computer-generated text

files (Weaver and Atkinson 1994). These data, indexed using general

thematic codes (e.g., sex, the body, violence) and more specific, subor-

dinate codes (e.g., sexual risks, sex stories, and sexualized interac-

tions), can be readily accessed for systematic analysis.

Finally, an epistemological note: in reporting and analyzing data it is

clear, particularly in the study of sexualities, that one may distinguish

between accounts as a potentially unreliable source of informationabout the empirical world and accounts as evidence of perspectives or

moral forms (Silverman 1993). Information as opposed to perspective

analyses can be particularly problematic in the study of sexual risk. As

noted by McKeganey and Barnard (1996) in their study of prostitutes

and their clients, there are often good situational reasons why research

participants may provide incorrect information about sequestered

behavior. However, two points need to be made about the approach

adopted here. First, independent of the truth or falsity of members’

accounts, doormen’s perspectives and understandings are relevant to

the identification and analysis of types of sexually related risks and

pleasures. Second, ongoing participant observation in licensed









premises provides firsthand observations that contextualize and embed

doormen’s accounts, providing information about social worlds that is

compatible with the epistemological stance of “subtle” as opposed to

“naïve” realism (Hammersley 1992).

SOCIAL CONTEXT: SEXUALIZEDURBAN NIGHTSPOTS

Ethnographers researching HIV/AIDS and sexual risk, including

sociologists offering “tightly focused” (Wight 1999) phenomenological

readings (e.g., McKeganey and Barnard 1992), are careful to locate

human action within its social context. This section therefore presages

exploration of types of sexually related risk by describing those shifting

socioerotic contexts embodied by doormen (and female customers)doing plural heterosexualities. Analytically, sexual opportunity and

doormen’s various orientations to heterosexual pleasures are central

themes and may be used critically to engage different theories of HIV

transmission (Bloor 1995). These themes, however, also inform the

empirical identification and phenomenological exploration of condi-

tions rendering heterosex potentially risky for doormen.

Conditions under which doormen’s heterosexual relations may be

defined as risky from a member’s perspective include (1) thenormaliza-

tion of nonexclusive or adventurous male heterosexuality (see Table 1),

(2) working in sexualized urban nightspots populated by women doing

receptive/flirtatious heterosexuality, (3) exploring multiple sexual

opportunities in a larger society that institutionalizes monogamous het-erosexuality, and (4) having unprotected sex with one or several women

whose HIV status is unknown. As will emerge, several performable

“recipes for action,” enabling sexually adventurous doormen to reduce

perceived risks (Bloor 1995), are also identifiable. These include con-

dom use and devising credible “cover stories” when engaging in multi-

ple sexual relationships.

Before I elaborate on the above four points an important issue must

be stressed. Significantly, while conditions for sexually related risks

may be present, sexual risk may still remain unconsidered or peripheral

for sexual social actors given limited topical, interpretive, and motiva-

tional relevances (Schutz 1970). Phenomenologically speaking, risk

reduction strategies may be employed by doormen only if sexually









related risks are thematic (as a matter of volition or constrained by oth-

ers) and interpreted as possible or probable and if the actor is suffi-

ciently interested in risk (Bloor 1995, 95). No doubt, doormen, as

embodied, living, passionate beings, may be more motivated in routine

social situations framed or interpreted as sexual to focus their attention

on the carnal pleasures promised by “lascivious” or “erotic reality”

(Davis 1983). The pursuit of (culturally mediated) bodily pleasure,

while conceivably enhanced for sexual actors who recognize possible


TABLE 1: A Typology of Urban Male Heterosexualities

1. Naturalistic, nonexclusive, or adventurous

Either in established relationship or without a regular female sex partner and willing andable to explore multiple (interactionally accomplished) heterosexual opportunities. Sex,

outside of a stable relationship, may be described as casual. Affective ties with casual

partners, who are sexually attractive for the discriminating, are limited or nonexistent.

Biology may be invoked as a vocabulary of motive; that is, “normal” men are “naturally”

promiscuous because of their genes or hormones.

2. Flirtatious and voyeuristic

Enjoy sexualized interactions with women and looking at women deemed attractive

independent of the possibility of sex. If tactile contact occurs with women doing receptive/

flirtatious heterosexuality, then it is typically limited to hugging, nonintimate kissing, and

touching through clothes.

3. Monogamous or conservative

Traditionally reproductive, this exclusive sexuality is normative in mainstream society. It is

institutionalized in marriage and is typically accompanied by strong affective ties. Sex is

valued as part of a larger, stable relationship characterized by love, trust, and intimacy. It

comprises self-sacrifice for one’s love partner and is compatible with bourgeois notions of

the “civilized” body.

4. Indifferent

Unwilling to engage in sexualized interactions with an established partner and/or casual

lover(s) due to limited interest or desire. However, a sense of “virile” masculinity may still

be retained. Indifference may be framed in terms of having had “too much of a good thing,”

or potential mates may be deemed “nonerotic” or promiscuous types who are unworthy of

his sexual attention.

5. Unsuccessful

The key word here is “unable” due to limited or absent sexual opportunities. For example,

the man’s low “erotic status,” social location, failure to interpret intergendered interactions

as potentially socioerotic, and a lack of confidence or verbal skills of seduction render him

unable to obtain a desired female sex partner.

NOTE: These are common ideal types: the typology is not exhaustive, and the empirical world isoftenmore complex.Importantly, sexualities are ongoingrelational performances subject to socialprocesses and contexts. Social actors may perform multiple, contradictory, and overlappingsexualities in space and time.








danger (Lupton 1999), may therefore be more “topically” and

“motivationally” relevant than risk, particularly if harm is yet to occur

(Rhodes 1997). Following Schutz (1970), sexual risk in routine as

opposed to novel situations may remain at the level of horizon (back-

ground of awareness) rather than theme (forefront of awareness) and

may not directly impinge on a doorman’s preparedness to pursue

(potentially) risky heterosex. Correspondingly, risk need not be an issue

in the doormen’s contextsof nightlife even when conditions forrisk tak-

ing are present.

The above points in mind, it is now possible empirically to describe

some conditions rendering sex (potentially) risky for doormen. The

normalization of nonexclusive or adventurous male heterosexuality,

within sexualized urban nightspots, is of primary significance. Within

the doormen’s masculinist occupation, “normal” men are often“associ-

ated with multiple partners” (MacPhail and Campbell 2001, 1615).Many doormen support this normative or naturalistic construction of

male heterosexuality (which, it shouldbe added, maynot necessarily be

a dominating heterosexuality in the quasi-liminal nightclub). This is

evidenced, for example, among doormen enthusiastically recounting

“sexual stories” (Plummer 1995) within their peer groups. Here sexual

bodies are topical and the storyteller’s own gendered body may become

a narrative resource (e.g., gyrating when describing a sexual act). Of

course, doormen do not simply constitute a homogeneous cultural

group, where all members actively support, embody, and enact these

hegemonic values, but non-exclusive or adventurous male heterosexu-

ality (especially with attractive women) was normalized. If doormen

constitute a bounded, hierarchical group (Douglas 1985), then, accord-ing to the culture of risk approach, sexual risk taking is likely to be high

in close conformity with prevailing group norms (Bloor 1995, 94).

Consider the views of an experienced doorman who was well inte-

grated into his nighttime occupation. Jack appropriated a term often

used pejoratively to describe sexually adventurous women when dis-

cussing many doormen’s perceived orientation to (potentially risky)

sexual opportunities. However, contra the static “grid/group” model

(Douglas 1985), Jack’s own risk orientation was fluid and processual:

six months later he was cohabiting with his pregnant girlfriend and, in

discursively doing monogamous or conservative heterosexuality,

claimed he sincerely intended to be faithful to her. This extract is also

interesting for other reasons. Besides portraying heterosexual doormen









heading out of the club to the car park. As I was stood on the front door,

the other woman came out of the club. She knew where her friend had

gone, what they were probably doing andpointed their carout to me.The

windows were beginningto steam up.I mentionedthis to a doorman whopromptly told several others. Two minutes later an entourage of eight

doormen proceeded over to the car. I stayed on the front door and

watched the procession. As the doormen walked over, the other woman,

who remained by my side, shouted over, “If you interrupt her she won’t

be happy. . . . She’ll want togive him a blow job, not half a job!” Several

doormen then put their heads against the car windows and then stood

back laughing. As they returned, the female occupant jumped out of the

car, cheered and lifted her top exposing her breasts to everyone. (Friday,

August 6, 1999, Presentations)

Doormen’s workplace sexual opportunities, rendering their bodies

potential “vehicles of pleasure” (Featherstone 1991, 177), may bedefined as risky given larger societal expectations of monogamous het-

erosexuality. As suggestedby Jack,doormen conforming to naturalistic

constructions of the male body (cf. Shilling 1993) mayplace their exist-

ing sexual relationships at risk through infidelity. Fieldwork data indi-

cate that such risk may remain unconsidered for doormen routinely

interacting in their sexualized work context, but some doormen are

demonstrably risk averse. Such doormen present themselves even when

working in tightly integrated, hierarchical groups where sexual risk and

adventure are normalized and thematic. John, one of the oldest door-

menat my firstresearch site, eschewedworkplace sexual opportunity in

contrast to most of his work mates. He enjoyed the occasional flirta-

tious interaction with female customers (including women whom hehad known for many years and with whom he had reportedly been sexu-

ally involved in the past), but he was resolute (at least when I worked

with him) in his enactment of monogamous heterosexuality. Theo-

retically, such movement from one culture of risk to another may be

explained in terms of life-course transitions (Bellaby 1990). Marriage,

more so than cohabitation and/or simply being involved in a regular

sexual relationship, imposes constraints on sexual freedom and the

willingness to have sex outside the main relationship (cf. Wellings et al.

1994):

On my first night of research Ronny asked me what my partner thought

about me working at the club. I said she didn’t mind. He replied, “Mine









hates it. Yours will as well. . . . Wait ’till you start coming in at five in the

morning.” [The club closes at 1:30 A.M.] As well as having a regular

partner, I got the impression most of the doormen enjoy “casual” sex

with women other than their regular partners. Ronny confirmed this butsaid that the only person who would not go with another woman was

John. He had recently got married. Ronny said, “He’s got too much to

lose.” I asked John about this tonight after another doorman, who was

not working, stood outside the club awaiting a call on his mobile phone

from a casual lover. John said, “It’s more trouble than it’s worth.” . . . A

few minutes later the other doorman received his phone call and

informed us, “I’m on for a shag.” He said his regular girlfriend thought

he was at work. Barry, a married doorman who had just joined us, said,

“Aghh, risky business. My missus checked my invoices [from work to

confirm that he was working on the days that he said he was working]

and checked the mileage on my car. She found out that way.” (Wednes-

day, September 10, 1997, Murphy’s Bar)

Sociocultural conditions for sexual pleasure and risk may therefore

be present, including occupational normalization of adventurous male

heterosexuality and working in settings populated by flirtatious/

receptive/attractive women, but doormen such as John act in

counternormative ways within their peer groups. Contra stereotypes,

certain doormen, including younger doormen in established sexual

relationships, may be insufficiently interested in doing nonexclusive

heterosexuality even if they support a peer group norm of recreational

sex. Indeed, the consciously restrained, bourgeois, “civilized” body

(Elias [1939] 2000) may be construed by some (usually romantically

attached) doormen to be more appropriate in terms of their own publicpresentation of a sexual self.

Additional data indicate variability in sexual risk taking within spe-

cific categories, namely, married doormen’s different and shifting ori-

entations to workplace sexual opportunity. Whereas John (conserva-

tively heterosexual) was demonstrably risk averse, Mark (adventurous

heterosexual) pursued extramarital sex though he reportedly modified

his risk position after separating from his wife. (Mark was now more

inclined to do indifferent heterosexuality when encountering certain

“types” of women.) Such variation may be partially explained in terms

of variable interactionally accomplished sexual opportunities, which

constitute a necessary condition for sexual adventure with multiple

desirable partners. And within contemporary late modern nightspots,









the representational body is central in these socioerotic processes. Flir-

tatious female customers never completely ignored John (an older

doorman with a paunch and seventies-style moustache), but Mark (a

handsome, younger, clean shaven, and athletically muscular doorman)

was frequently approached by young, attractive women. Similar to

other bodybuilders and weight trainers (Monaghan et al. 1998), his

dieted and exercised (masculine) body represented sexualized “bodily

capital” in the late modern mate market:

John’s previously expressed commitmentto his wife was evidenced later

that night. A woman called Laura, who apparently had known John for

many years, stood outside the club for about half an hour with John and

myself. She was in her early thirties, conventionally attractive, drunk,

and very amorous. She placed her arms around John, and exclaimed, “I

love this man!” He was obviously flattered, and laughed as she kept say-

ing, “Leave your wife and move in with me.” Later one of her friends

fetched her, and, in the process, indicated her sexual interest in me. I just

laughed and, after exchanging a few words, she went back into the club

withLaura.John, witha smile onhis face, said, “Seehowhardit isto turn

’em down?” (Wednesday, September 10, 1997, Murphy’s)

And

I mentioned to Mark that a young woman, who was stood opposite me,

had just lifted her dress and flashed her thong and bronzed buttocks.

Upon hearing this, Mark, with a smile, immediately approached the

woman. He whispered something in her ear and, without hesitation, she

repeated herdisplay. Mark, whohas just separatedfrom hiswife, walkedback and said, “Now, if I was still with my wife I’d havegone for her. No

messing about. She’s the type that’s straight down to business. But

because I’m single now I want somebody who is more classy.” (Friday,

June 2, 2000, Uncle Sam’s)

Finally, doormen may define sex as risky if it is unprotected. As

noted by health promoters, the risk of acquiring sexually transmitted

diseases (STDs) is increased if unprotected sex occurs with multiple

partners whose health status is unknown. Similar to other studies in the

sociology of HIV transmission (Bloor 1995), knowledge of HIV/AIDS

and other infections appears to be high among doormen. However,

many studies of male sexuality also describe men’s internalized nega-tive attitudes toward and rejection of condoms (MacPhail and









Campbell 2001, 1616). Until relatively recently I had surmised from

casual conversations that doormen were no different, and their culture

of sex was therefore potentially risky. However, and encouragingly,

group norms among certain doormen (at certain times and in certain

places) assist in the adoption of epidemiologically safer sexual prac-

tices in contexts where fast, casual sex is a possibility:

At the start of the night Sean asked me to accompany him to one of the

fire escapes andhold thedoor open forhim. I followed, curious about his

intentions. As we entered thefireescape he pulledseveralcondoms from

his pocket. He then entered a side room, which is reportedly used by

doormen for covert sex with female customers, and I saw him place the

condoms on top of the doorframe. As we left the fire escape I asked Sean

whether he was expecting to “get lucky” tonight. He replied, “Well, I

don’t know. I was in there the other day and there were no condoms so I

thought I should get some in.” I asked whether the condoms were for hisown private use, or whether his colleagues could make use of them.

Expressing a sense of group solidarity, he exclaimed, “Oh, they’re for all

the boys!” (Saturday, May 5, 2001, Oceanic)

In summary, doormen working in urbanlicensed premises encounter

and interactionally accomplish sexualized environments. Late modern

nightspots, especially on the weekend, are populated by vibrant

(carnivalesque) bodies that construct and are more or less open to sex-

ual opportunities and pleasures. Phenomenologically speaking, sexu-

ally related risk may not necessarily be topically relevant for doormen

doing adventurous heterosexuality in these settings given the immedi-

ate attractions of lascivious reality, but there are identifiable conditionswhere heterosex may be defined as risky from a member’s perspective.

These include peer group normalization of nonexclusive male hetero-

sexuality, encountering female customers doing flirtatious or receptive

heterosexuality, beingunfaithful to a supposedly exclusive love partner,

and having unprotected sex with women whose HIV status is unknown.

Sexually related risks are explored further below.

TYPES OF SEXUALLY RELATED RISK

Attentive to several doormen’s sexual “risk landscapes” (Hart and

Carter 2000, 248), discussion now explicitly shifts to types of sexually









related risk that include, extend beyond, and are possibly implicated in

HIV transmission. It is not my intention here to pathologize male

(especially nonexclusive) heterosexualities using the perspective of

“everyday reality” (Davis 1983). Rather, my goal is to report and ana-

lyze types of sexually related risk as lived by male bodies in their rou-

tine contexts of nightlife.

EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS AND ONTOLOGICAL

SECURITY: “LOSING YOUR HEAD”

This risk is correlated with, but not necessarily dependent on, nonex-

clusive male heterosexuality. Existing long-standing, supposedly

monogamous, heterosexual relationships may clearly be threatened

and ended for many reasons, aside from sexual infidelity. For example,

simply spending time physically away from one’s regular love partner,especially for doormen combining two jobs, may promote the dissolu-

tion of “secure” heterosexual relationships (including marriage). Yet

spending time in an explicitly sexualized domain, and doing nonexclu-

sive heterosexuality in a “suspect” or “open” awareness relational con-

text (Glaser and Strauss 1964), will increase the possibilities of a door-

man’s intimate relationship ending, along with the emotional security

associated with such relationships (Giddens 1992).

In discussing sexually related risks the convergence of emotional

and sexual bodies must be emphasized, not least because this prompts

attention away from common sociological understandings of human

sexuality. Thus, it should first be recognized that sociology often treats

sexuality as rational, knowable, and even quantifiable (e.g., Wellingset al. 1994, cited in Jackson and Scott 1997, 572). Even within the soci-

ology of emotions, discussions of intimacy employ “the language of

‘emotional labour’ and caring work [thus] avoiding talking about sexu-

ality as a highly emotionally charged area of social life” (Jackson and

Scott 1997, 572). However, emotionality, an integral component of the

phenomenological “lived body” (Williams and Bendelow 1998), must

be underscored even when researching men whomay otherwise present

themselves as solidly masculine and mentally tough. Even for door-

men, risks to existing social bonds may threaten what Giddens (1992)

terms “ontological security,” that is, the sense of sanctuary and the forg-

ing of secure identity—in a world characterized by uncertainty—

through loving, intimate, and trusting relationships.









As indicated below, relationship breakdown and emotional upset

(alongside possible material loss) may become thematic for doormen in

their contexts of nightly life. Because such risks may be motivationally

relevant for doormen doing nonexclusive heterosexuality, “cover sto-

ries,” which may be or were voiced to suspecting partners, are also

sometimes shared, for example, a casual lover’s scratches on one’s

body were inflicted while play fighting with boisterous work mates.

The following group interaction, where relationship breakdown, risks

to ontological security, and efforts to manage such risks became topi-

cally relevant, occurred as several doormen congregated for an after

work drink:

Fred, looking peeved, told severaldoormen that hiswife found an “I love

you” text message from hisgirlfriend on hismobile phone. Fred reported

denying all knowledge: “I told her hundreds of people must send lovemessages on Friday night after they’ve had a drink. They’ve obviously

got the wrong number!” However, he said his wife disbelieved him and

was extremely annoyed: “she said she’s gonna pack a bag for me and

drop it off on the front door tonight.” Trevor, who was sat next to Fred,

added with a sense of despondency, “Well, my missus is leaving tomor-

row. She’s going because I’m hardly ever home.” Fred, tongue in cheek,

exclaimed, “Fucking hell! We’re all gonna be sad, single doormen!”

Mark, whose wife hasrecentlyleft him, then joked about letting Fred cry

on hisshoulderonce hisown shirt haddriedout from histears. (Saturday,

July 15, 2000, Uncle Sam’s)

Undoubtedly, the above interaction or “body talk” was characterized

by a high degree of emotional control and could be interpreted as reaf-firming masculinity and group solidarity. Within this masculinist occu-

pation, competent members sharing similar life circumstances must

carefully frame their public presentation of an emotionally vulnerable

self or otherwise risk losing face and status in masculine hierarchies.

However, such “front stage” presentations of self (Goffman 1959) may

belie real emotional upset and existential anxiety following the break-

down of an intimate relationship:

Because I forged long-standing field relations, and shared embodied sex-

ual narratives with certain key informants, I was able to generate more

intimate knowledge on this topic. Mark, forexample, disclosed hismore

private personal feelings to me following his marital breakdown. This









doorman, in speaking from the experience of his body, told me he was

overwhelmed by feelings of desperation, hurt, loneliness, and confu-

sion. This emotional turmoil also had visible bodily effects. While exer-

cising one night in the local bodybuilding gym, Mark, who was strug-gling besideme, complained about hisloss of physical strength and size.

He then quipped, “My head’s gone! They [women] leave you, take your

money, peace of mind, and your muscle!” (Monday, August 7, 2000)

Finally, consider masculinist ways of coping with emotional risks

and how certain strategies may be epidemiologically risky. Medical

sociologists state that people experiencing emotional loss react differ-

ently between and within themselves, but responses are typically

gendered: men commonly eschew passive (feminine) ways of coping

(Verbrugge 1985). Mark, despite his initial disorientation and weight

loss, adopted an “action-oriented approach” to emotional crisis

(Thompson 1997) that enabled him to restore ontological security in acontext of provisional or “confluent love” (Giddens 1992). Following a

cultural script of “hegemonic masculinity” (Connell 1995), Mark

resumed an active sex life with concurrent partners. This male hetero-

sexual strategy displays a certain situated rationality and sensuality in

body-oriented consumer culture, but it also provides the conditions of

possibility for HIV transmission if condoms are eschewed:

Mark told me that in the last four months, since his split from his wife,

he’s had[unprotected] sex with about thirtywomen. Part of theattraction

seemed to be the notion that this was part of “the good life” as experi-

enced by the rich and famous: “I suppose it’s like being a film star really.

I mean, blokes I know, and they look at me, and I’ve got a good day job,nicecar, myownhouse, a prettydecent body, I workon the doors and can

pull these good-looking women. They’re jealous.” He added, “I look at

these blokeswho have been with thesame woman, andonly that woman,

since they wereyoung and, well, when I get tosixty I don’t want to look

back and have only been with the same person my whole life. No doubt

I’ll remarry in a couple of years, settle down, but at least I’d have had a

fair old innings.” (Monday, August 21, 2000, The Gym)5

VIOLENCE: “FLYING BOTTLES

AND BOILED BUNNIES”

Risk of violent bodily injury is an ever-present, taken-for-grantedpossibility for doormen independent of their sexual proclivities.









Doormen, as entrepreneurs in bodily capital (Winlow 2001), are paid to

maintain order in licensed premises and, if necessary, risk their bodies

in violent situations. Correspondingly, sex-related violence exists in a

context of other more likely dangers and concerns, and it need not be

recognized let alone prioritized by occupationally competent doormen.

Nonetheless, heterosexual relationships, especially if highly emotion-

ally charged, provide the conditions of possibility for violence and

bodily injury. This may include, in respect of nonexclusive urban het-

erosexuality, conflict with a jealous husband following the disclosure

of an adulterous affair. One informant, wary about undermining his

occupational identity as a “hard man,” told me he experienced such a

fate shortly after he started working as a doorman.

Other doormen also talked about the risk of violent assault attendant

to nonexclusive heterosexual relationships. Physical assault, as sug-

gested during an informal ethnographic interview with Trevor, wascited immediately as a possible sexually related risk. For Trevor (who

had recently separated from his regular partner) violence was more the-

matic than possible HIV transmission: it was more proximate on his

current topography of sexual risk. However, even though the possibility

of violence was more immediate, possible, and real for him than HIV/

AIDS, such discursive awareness was more a reflection of the interview

situation than his pragmatic everynight concerns. Similar to other door-

men, the possibility of violence did not constrain Trevor’s heterosexual

practices. Phenomenologically speaking, in the doormen’s world of

routine activities, the risk of sex-related violence against their own bod-

ies may remain unconsidered, or if it becomes topically relevant, then

their bodilycapital and gendered power relations mayfunctionas “reci-pes” for reducing this perceived risk (Bloor 1995):

I tried to determine through my conversation with Trevor various types

of sexually related risk. Explicitly referring to women met either while

working or socializing in nightclubs, he immediately said, “Getting

involved in a fight with the woman’s boyfriend!” He cited an example of

a friend who was attacked after leaving a nightclub for this very reason:

“she came onto him, but her boyfriend, who had an iron bar, didn’t see it

like that!” I asked whether such a risk would deter him. Trevor mused,

“Mmm. Well, my oldfella[dad]always told me that if youtake [have sex

with] a man’s wife, you’ve got to be able to take [fight] him as well. I

don’t know if it’d put me off in here though. I mean, you’ve got back up

from the boys [other doormen].” I immediately replied, “But a possible









confrontation could occur some time after work.” Trevor agreed, but it

was clear that this wasn’t something that preoccupied his thoughts. (Sat-

urday, August 26, 2000, Uncle Sam’s)

For Trevor it seems that his identification of violence as a possible

sexually related risk was prompted, at least to some extent, by recent

occurrences in his own nonexclusive sex life. The following extract,

where Trevor weighs the costs and benefits of adventurous versus indif-

ferent heterosexuality in a context of possible violent confrontation,

was recorded two weeks before the above field interview:

Trevor told me that once he finishes work tonight he’d be meeting a

woman he knows from the gym. He expressed some reservations

because the woman has recently ended a relationship with another man

at the gym. Trevor knows this man and considers him “all right, a mate.”

Trevor explained, “Apparently she finished with him after he left his

wife for her. And he’s started stalking her, she says he’s hit her, he turns

up at her house and starts crying. I don’t want to get involved in all that.”

He added, “I don’t think she’s lying. I’ve seen him in the gym recently. If

a bloke talks to her, he goes up to them [aggressively], ‘What you doing

talking to her?’ ” Shrugging his shoulders, Trevor remarked, “I don’t

knowif I can be bothered. I justwanta quick shagoffher and that’s that.”

Despite his reservations, at the end of the night I observed Trevor leave

with this woman who was waiting for him at the club exit. (Friday,

August 11, 2000, Uncle Sam’s)

It should be stressed that sexually related violence does not, in any

straightforward sense, minimize or maximize the possibility of door-men engaging in epidemiologically risky sex. To reiterate, at the micro-

social level, risk behavior/risk reduction will be variable, dynamic, and

dependent on the social actor’s systems of relevance (Schutz 1970):

HIV risk may become topically relevant or problematic for an individ-

ual depending on his or her self- or other-imposed interest in the project

at hand and his or her degree of habituation to perceptual stimuli (Bloor

1995, 98). Such processes clearly do not occur in a disembodied, gen-

der-neutral, social vacuum. Consider one last extract where Mark talks

about sexually related violence. Here the unusual situation of being

subjected to violence from a pugnacious female sex partner may, in the

doorman’s world of routine activities, present itself as more topically

relevant and in need of interpretation than the possible viral dangers of regularly changing one’s lover:









Mark told me about his recent involvement with Rosy, who has just

started working as a door supervisor at Uncle Sam’s: “when I went with

her, Fred and Dave [other doormen] told me it was the worst thing I ever

did.” Mark then recounted an incident after work last Saturday nightwhere he started talking to another woman in a nightclub and Rosy

ended up throwing a bottle at him. Mark reportedly threatened Rosy

despite the fact that “I know she can hit and has got hell of a punch!” He

added, “I explained to her when I first went [had sex] with her I was a

‘fuck up’ and I just wanted some fun. I’ve just got out of a marriage for

God’s sake. She was OK about that and we had a laugh. But now, she’s

like [referring to thefilm Fatal Attraction], shewantsto boil my bunnies.

Most girls, you go with once or twice, and you might see ’em around

town the next week and you just say ‘hiya’ and they’re OK. They might

think ‘he’s a tosser’ but that’s it.” Mark contrasted this reaction with

Rosy’s—“She thinks she owns me!” He then expressed concern that she

might become violent and vindictive, before vowing to “keep away from

her” in future through fear of “making things worse.” (Monday, August

7, 2000, The Gym)

EMBARRASSMENT: “IS THE WORKOUT

MORE IMPORTANT THAN LOOKS?”

Describing the vicissitudes of the embodied self, Williams and

Bendelow (1998) wrote, “Embarrassment is of fundamental social and

moral significance [it] is intimately bound up with our feeling concern-

ing what others think of us” (p. 59). Within the sociology of HIV trans-

mission, embarrassment—stemming from the intimacy of sex and the

ways in which ambiguity may be functional in “saving face” duringprocesses leading up to sexual intercourse—represents a potential

problem insofar as it militates against the negotiation of safer sexual

practices (Bloor 1995). However, if embarrassment is construed as a

sexually related risk, then, as an aspect of gendered power relations, it

may also be productive. Embarrassment may actually reduce sexual

risk taking, especially in visually oriented consumer culture where sex

is commodified as pleasurable only among bodies displaying health,

youth, and physical attractiveness (Featherstone 1991). In a culture

characterized by calculating hedonism, obesity, for example, has

become a new stigma (Turner 1996, 195). Few doormen I worked with

were willing to risk taunts from their peers by openly and repeatedly

pursuing sexual opportunities with so-called “fat birds.”









In the absence of an existing sexual relationship, sexual opportuni-

ties with, to use Davis’s (1983, 30) words, “repulsive” women of “low

erotic rank” may nonetheless be pursued by some doormen, only later

to be eschewed through embarrassment. Restated, indifferent urban male

heterosexuality—expressed with and through the body in an objecti-

fying gendered society—may become more situationally appropriate

and motivationally relevant for doormen risking social stigmatization:

Ricky, who is also the head doorman in a nightclub in Urbansville, told

me how, after working tonight, he had to travel 150 miles back home:

“I’ll only get a few hours sleep, then I’ll be out again. I’ve got to pay the

boys at my club back in my hometown. I only seem to go home these

days to iron a shirt, then I’m out again.” I asked him whether he was in a

relationship, and, if so, how his partner felt about his work: “oh, she left

me ages ago.” In theabsence of a regular partner, thepossibilityof casual

sex afforded in a nightclub setting may become increasingly attractive

even if the “choice” of partner is not conventionally attractive. Ricky,

whose motto was “any port in a storm,” reportedly had sex with one of

the local women in his car the previous night. Other doormen described

this woman as “pig ugly.” Tonight the same woman was in the club.

Every time she walked towards Ricky he looked embarrassed, walked

away, and avoided eye contact. As he did this, Ricky said to me, “I hope

she gets the message.” (Saturday, August 7, 1999, Presentations)

Doormen’s risk topographies clearly shift and change depending on

social contingencies, circumstances, and heterosexual enactments.

Moreover, within the “perilous landscape of masculinities” the body is

the prime vehicle (Courtenay 2000, 1391). The variable social signifi-cance of embarrassment, construed as an embodied sexually related

risk, should be underscored. Other doormen, such as Barry who was

renowned among his peers for his voracious sexual appetite and fast

rate of partner change, were unconcerned about this subtle form of

bodily regulation. He was rarely indifferent to sexual opportunity.

Being seen by other men to be sexually involved with women deviating

from heterosexist beauty norms was not problematic for this married

doorman. For Barry, the search for the “different” or “powerful other”

(and the significance of heterosexual activity vis-à-vis naturalistic con-

structions of masculinity) was more motivationally relevant:









I was onthe front doorwithJohn whenBarry, a fellowdoormanwho was

out socializing, appeared from inside the club with his girlfriend. The

woman, with whom Barry is having an extramarital affair, is a female

bodybuilder. Barry met her at a physique competition a few weeks ago,and has been telling the other doormen how she’s got really muscular

thighs which she wraps around his head during sex. Barry exchanged a

few words with us on the door before leaving. His last words before dis-

appearing were, “I’m going for a workout now” which met with his

lover’s amusement. After they departed, two young men, who were

friends of John, made some derogatory comment about the woman’s

appearance. John, who knows Barry prefers quantity to quality, said,

“Yeah, but with Barry theworkout is more importantthan what they look

like.” (Saturday, November 8, 1997, Murphy’s)

HIV/AIDS AND OTHER STDS

If penetrative sex is unprotected, then biological hazards such as

HIV/AIDS and other STDs may be attributed to the type of short-term,

casual, overlapping sexual encounters promoted in urban nightspots.

The danger of HIV transmission has obviously generated most concern

within public health discourses. However, as stated by AIDS research-

ers conducting qualitative studies in heterosexual nightclubs in the

developed world, “when sexual pleasure and danger are linked, danger

in terms of HIV/AIDS risk does not appear to be considered” (Peart,

Rosenthal, and Moore 1996, 345). This ethnography is supportive

while also recognizing that HIV may sometimes become thematic for

doormen during dyad and group interactions. Nonetheless, the rarity of

such discourses (which construct nondiscriminating, nonexclusive het-erosexuality as problematic) must be stressed. Such talk (re)produces a

larger heterosexist society where HIV/AIDS is typically associated

with “deviant Others” such as homosexuals, injecting drug users, pros-

titutes, and promiscuous women. Additional data, where HIV/AIDS

similarly became thematic independent of my own questioning, are

scant in my field diary:

Clayton, while in the company of several other doormen, said he had the

opportunity of meeting a young woman at the end of the night. Before

leaving the club, Oxo and Clayton talked about this woman. Oxo knew

her and warned Clayton to stay away: “She’s a right slapper. She’s









shagged FreddyMelgrew wholives near me.He’s a fucking animal. If he

hasn’t got AIDS then nobody has.” Clayton looked shocked and asked

Oxo whether he would go with her. Oxo replied, “No chance. I wouldn’t

want to stir Freddy Melgrew’s soup. I don’t want HIV.” Clayton thensuggested the girl’s friend might be a potential mate; however, Oxo said

the following after being quizzed by Clayton: “I don’t think you’ll have

much luck with her. I don’t think she puts it about.” Clayton, who

appeared deterred, decided instead to go to the nightclub next door for a

drink. (Saturday, September 13, 1997, Murphy’s)

AIDS researchers note that young people, especially young men,

often share a “perception that they can filter out partners that are dan-

gerous to their health” (MacPhail and Campbell 2001, 1616). The

above suggests that for doormen doing “cautious” or “indifferent” het-

erosexuality, certain types of women—those labeled “slappers,”

“slags,” or “stinkers” in local parlance—must be avoided. Such womenhave a local reputation for indiscriminate casual sex or have reportedly

had sex with promiscuous men and therefore possess a courtesy stigma

(Goffman 1968).6 Of course, in anonymous urban culture, most social

contacts are with strangers: for heterosexually adventurous doormen,

casual sex is therefore most likely to occur with women whose moral

“reputation” and HIV status are unknown. Importantly, even if door-

men eschew condoms (commonly on the ground that they are physi-

cally desensitizing) such HIV-related risk behavior is rarely due to

ignorance. Jack, for example, who often appeared successful in meet-

ing sex partners at work and estimated that he had had sex with approxi-

mately one hundred women, told me that he had undergone four (nega-

tive) AIDS tests because he never used condoms. Despite risk of serious

illness, he stressed the situated sensuality of adventurous urban male

heterosexuality: “you don’t care about that [a woman’s reputation and

AIDS] when you’re emptying your sack [ejaculating].” (Tuesday, April

18, 2000, Uncle Sam’s)

Interestingly, doormen practicing potentially “risky” heterosex may

rationalize their behavior in various ways if the status of their sexual

activities suddenly becomes problematic. For example, a relatively low

rate of partner change (that is, low relative to other known about or

imagined heterosexual men frequenting urban settings) may enable

condom-averse doormen such as Trevor to discursively minimize HIV

risk during an ethnographic interview. Given his interpretive relevances,or limited range of elements in his stock of knowledge to which the









situation may be compared (Bloor 1995, 98), HIV risk was viewed as

improbable. Other, more sexually active doormen, who may otherwise

engage unreflectively in HIV-related risk behavior, rationalized their

unprotected heterosex by claiming they were able to identify “suspect”

women. The potential sex partner’s “lived body” was central to such

evaluations, where the woman’s physical appearance, demeanor, and

talk were constructed as possible indicators of sexual risk. Below, open

deliberation of possible HIV risk with particular “types” of women

occurred, however, only when the status of Mark’s sexual behavior sud-

denly became problematic (an imposed topical relevance) during a

question situation:

Mark approached me. I immediately asked, “So, how many women has

it been since I last saw you?” He replied, “Two. It would have been three,

but one was inherelast night and I had togo withher.” I asked whether heever used a condom with any of these women. He told me, “No, never. I

don’t use them.” Mark claimed he could determine whether the women

he met through work were the “type” with whom condoms were neces-

sary: “you can ask certain questions. You know if they’re slappers from

their responses, how theylookand act. If I thought I needed to use a con-

dom I wouldn’t go with them.” I commented that that wasno real protec-

tion; for example, they could obviously lie about their sexual history.

Mark paused, then said thoughtfully, “Yeah, I guess you’re right[pause].

Butthat’s theriskyou take.” (Saturday, August26, 2000, Uncle Sam’s)

Of course, there are other STDs, besides HIV/AIDS, which pose a

health risk for those practicing nonexclusive, unprotected heterosexual

intercourse. However, in the shadow of HIV/AIDS, nonfatal STDs suchas gonorrhea or, for example, chancroid in the developing world tend

only to be discussed by researchers to the extent that they provide an

indicator of HIV/AIDS risk. This ethnography suggests that from a

“lay” perspective, other, more immediate and visibly apparent STDs

may be more topically relevant than HIV/AIDS with its long latency

period. This is certainly the case for some men who are in existing rela-

tionships, and for whom the risks of catching and subsequently passing

on an STD are more acute. For example, on one occasion a doorman

told several others that he caught gonorrhea from a woman he met at

work. He reported losing his regular partner and home after passing on

the disease. Other doormen also offered “cautionary tales” about third

parties who similarly suffered a breakdown in their primary sexual









relationship, resulting in the undermining of ontological security as

previously discussed. However, it is worth noting that this social risk,

similar to HIV/AIDS, is still rarely talked about in a masculinist occu-

pation that constrains the public presentation of vulnerability and signs

of emotional weakness. In the following excerpt this risk, clearly

related to the postmodern uses of sex in urban culture (Bauman 1999),

became topically relevant only when I made the subject thematic:

I talked with Jack about the possibilities of meeting women in night-

clubs, many men’s dislike of condoms, the possibility of catching an

STD through casual unprotected sex and passing this on to one’s regular

partner. I added, “It’s a bit like Russian Roulette. If you play the game

your luck will eventually runout. It mayrun outsooner ratherthan later.”

Jack then voiced the following story: “There was Jimmy. He was always

faithful to his wife. He loved the ground she walked on. He rarely went

out, but one weekend he had a night out with the boys, shagged this

woman and caught gonorrhea. He gave it to his missus and she kicked

him out. His head went for almost a year. He’s only just started to get

himself together.” (Saturday, May 6, 2000, Uncle Sam’s)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Employing a social paradigm, this article hopefully enhances social

scientific understanding of male heterosexualities, pleasure, and risk in

epidemic times (Rhodes 1997). Taking as its starting point the embod-

ied experiences of men within their own social worlds, it offers a sub-

stantive and formal contribution to the sociology of sexualities and HIVtransmission (Bloor 1995). Pluralizing urban male heterosexualities, it

provides privileged empirical insights into the variable doings of sexu-

ality in a hitherto unexplored yet increasingly popular domain. Theo-

retically, it also underscores the importance of an embodied

phenomenological perspective. Embodiment is integral to the social

study of sexualities because “to think and talk about sexuality [sic] is

first of all to think and talk about bodies” (Valverde 1987, 29). It is sur-

prising that although the AIDS industry has focused social scientific

attention on human sexuality/ies in recent years, much of this otherwise

important work does not make explicit those actual flesh and blood

bodies doing plural heterosexualities.









This article hopefully goes some way toward redressing this lacuna.

The socially constructed, constrained, representational, gendered,

experiential, and emotional “lived body” (Williams and Bendelow

1998) is an integral component of culturally embedded socioerotic

interaction. After documenting those conditions under which doormen

may define heterosex as risky, the above outlined possible sexually

related risks associated with (largely nonexclusive) urban male

heterosexualities. These include risks to existing relationships and

ontological security, violence, embarrassment, HIV/AIDS, and other

STDs. Importantly, nonbiological risks, such as emotional crisis fol-

lowing thedissolutionof a primary relationship, mayprovidethe condi-

tions of possibility for epidemiologically risky sex (i.e., rapid unpro-

tected partner change). Other risks, such as embarrassment, may

operate as a subtle form of body regulation, reducing the number or fre-

quency of possible sexual contacts. Even biological hazards, such asSTDs, are sociologically significant: menwho catch and transmit STDs

to their supposedly exclusive love partner risk a breakdown in their rela-

tionship and ontological security. “Losing your head” was a common

body metaphor used locally to describe this emotional risk among men

doing nonexclusive heterosexuality.

It is to be stressed, however, that this is a partial account. Some of the

sexually related risks mentioned above, and others that were not

explored (e.g., performance anxiety and loss of face), could be detailed.

Similarly, consider economic risks associated with adventurous and

nonexclusive male heterosexuality. Sex at work, if discovered by club

management, could result in instant dismissal and the loss of income

(cf. Thompson 2000, 248-49); in Britain an unplanned pregnancy witha casual lover could result in a financially debilitating relationship with

the Child Support Agency; the dissolution of a nuclear family could be

financially ruinous for a man who has to reestablish himself in a home

and provide material support for his ex-partner and children. For men in

supposedly exclusive, long-term, monogamous heterosexual relation-

ships, these socioeconomic risks may be far more important in epi-

demic times than possible HIV transmission.

Given those socially constructed dangers discussed above one may

think that doormen would eschew fast, casual, (un)protected sex with

multiple partners or, at the very minimum, endeavor to reduce associ-

ated dangers. From a health perspective, but not necessarily for









doormen, the central danger is HIV/AIDS, which may be minimized

through condom use. Despite stereotypes, which, incidentally, are

sometimes endorsed and realized by doormen themselves, not all door-

men engage in epidemiologically risky sex. During this research, con-

doms were practically valued among certain doormen sponsoring

adventurous heterosexuality. Furthermore, monogamous or conserva-

tive heterosexuality was sometimes supported (if only discursively) by

doormen who were in, or who envisioned themselves in, established

relationships. Hence, sexual risk taking (broadly conceived) is not

always engaged in by doormen who, within their occupational groups,

accept or support a masculinist norm of recreational, (un)protected sex

with multiple, desirable female partners. That said, many other door-

men doing nonexclusive heterosexuality eschew condoms even when

meeting casual sex partners in the urban world of strangers.

Given the multiple risks identified above, one may ask, “Why domany doormen still engage in such risky sexual practices?” However,

this question, appropriately posed within everyday as opposed to erotic

reality (Davis 1983), emphasizes disembodied (calculative) rationality

rather than corporeality, playfulness, and spontaneity. Calculation of

risks and benefits, whether fleeting in routine situations or protracted in

novel situations (Bloor 1995, 97), certainly occurs, but for experienced

doormen “the mindful body” may be subordinated in familiar urban

nightspots. Within these socioerotic contexts, “risk” may largely

remain taken for granted, existing on the “horizon” of consciousness

rather than becoming “thematic” and “topically relevant” (Schutz

1970). Moreover, if exploring the situated rationality or sensuality of

potentially “risky” heterosex, then there are identifiable attractions fordoormen who may otherwise be discursively aware of sexual risks.

Pleasure, in all its socially constructed manifestations, may be more

motivationally relevant for sensation-seeking and “appropriately”

gendered (physically tough, virile, invulnerable) doormen than possi-

ble danger. As noted, within the doormen’s occupational culture, “tell-

ing sexual stories” (Plummer 1995) may be personally satisfying and

constitutive of gendered identity;multiplesexual partners, in quick suc-

cession, may correspond with masculinist notions of “the good life” in

consumer culture (Featherstone 1991); and exploring sexual opportuni-

ties, especially following the dissolution of an existing intimate rela-

tionship, may restore “ontological security” (Giddens 1992). Indeed, if

the potential dangers of sex for men relate to emotional excess that may









“unman” them, then these may be “defused by an increasingly rational-

ised approach to the pursuit of pleasure” (Jackson and Scott 1997,

567-68).

As a phenomenological study, this article stressed that sexually

related risks may remain unconsidered, and/or from a calculative or

polythetic stance, incentives to risk taking may outweigh the more dis-

tant gratification of abstention (Bloor 1995). An empirically grounded,

embodied phenomenology is able to explore the dynamic topography

of risk and pleasure, which is intimately related to social contexts, pro-

cesses, and plural sexualities. Certainly, the gendered incentives associ-

ated with types of sex constructed as “risky” are many and varied and

are beyond the scope of this article. Nevertheless, these pleasures,

which may be more topically and motivationally relevant for sexual

actors, should be systematically explored (Hart and Carter 2000, 249).

Pleasures are central to understanding the attractions of “risky” sex formenwho typicallyapproach the heterosexual encounter from a position

of power (Holland et al. 1992). Much could be said, for example, about

the ways in which sexual activity, especially in leisure culture, consti-

tutes an “adventure” outside the course of everydaylife (Simmel [1910]

1997). According to modernist discourses, sexuality is “a source of

ecstasy and excitement which raises us above mundane quotidian reali-

ties and promises us escape from them” (Jackson and Scott 1997, 552).

Also, following recent sociological work on the body, it is relevant to

underscore sensuality, passion, and impulses, which are hardly men-

tioned in Giddens’s (1992) writings on the transformation of intimacy

(Shilling and Mellor 1996). Here, as in Bataille’s ([1962] 1987) and

Davis’s (1983) writings on eroticism, attention shifts from cognitivereflexivity to more sensuous bodily dimensions. These considerations,

congruent with the concerns of social phenomenology, are relevant for

social scientists exploring sexually related risks.

Similar to Watson’s (2000) qualitative research on male embodi-

ment, health, and culture, this ethnography concludes by stating that

there are no easy solutions for health professionals who try to promote

men’s health. To be sure, it is necessary to recognize heterogeneity

(some male heterosexualities are more risk averse than others), but if

the supposedly cognitive or reflexive nature of late modernity is

eschewed in certain situations, then health professionals may need criti-

cally to reassess some of their own goals and expectations. This does

not mean health promoters should condone nonexclusive, unprotected









heterosexual practices and/or collude in naturalizing socially con-

structed sexualities. After all, HIV/AIDS, globally speaking, is a het-

erosexual epidemic associated with particular sociocultural, economic,

and political conditions. However, despite the risk of serious illness—

and other risks that may amplify the conditions of possibility for HIV

transmission—many men, as a matter of volition, still actively pursue

unprotected sex with multiple female partners. This is not due to igno-

rance or weakness of understanding; it is a preference (Douglas 1992).

Health professionals wishing to effect positive change—and empirical

evidence suggests HIV prevention can be successful among groups ste-

reotyped as unresponsive to preventive efforts (Moatti and Souteyrand

2000, 1520)—should therefore recognize other factors associated with

HIV-related risk behavior/reduction. For health promoters attempting

to forge positive working relations, this entails, among other things,

locating their rational minds in their sensuous bodies (Williams 1998,451) when directing interventionist strategies at socially embedded,

embodied, and gendered sexual beings. Ethnography, although

underutilized in HIV prevention (Rhodes 1997), is instrumental in this

respect, serving to embody and ground abstract and sterile risk dis-

courses and knowledges.

NOTES

1. Sex researchers are vulnerable to what Goffman (1968) termed “courtesy

stigma,” or stigma by association. While doormen are often negatively stereotyped as

promiscuous, I would stress that a plurality of “acceptable”sexualities were performed

by my research contacts, including monogamous or exclusive heterosexuality.

2. For doormen such “isolation” often adds to the attraction of “game-like” sexual-

izedinteractionswith female customers. “Doing” flirtatious and voyeuristic heterosex-

uality enables doormen to pass the time and derive relative satisfaction from their

potentially alienating, monotonous work.

3. During in-group banter, doormen sometimes openly accused their colleagues of

being homosexual. Homophobic claims dialectically draw from and reinforce taken-

for-granted male heterosexuality and solidarity.

4. Although gay clubs were not researched, I informally interviewed the owner of a

large security agency that supplies doormen to gay clubs. According to my informant,

managers of gay clubs often prefer to hire heterosexual doormen, thereby minimizing

the possibility of doormen fraternizing sexually withcustomers when theyshouldactu-

ally be working.

5.Sincewritingthefirst draft ofthisarticle,I learned Mark isengaged tobe married.









6. There is, of course, a gender asymmetry here. Men doing naturalistic urban het-

erosexuality may be labeled “slags” or “animals” by others, but this is often read posi-

tively in working-class male peer groups in contrast to women with a reputation for

nonexclusivity.

REFERENCES

Adler, P. A., and P. Adler. 1987. Membership roles in field research. London: Sage.

Allison,A. 1994. Nightwork: Sexuality, pleasure, and corporate masculinity in a Tokyo

hostess club. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bataille, G. [1962] 1987. Eroticism. London: Boyars.

Bauman, Z. 1999. On postmodern uses of sex. In Love and eroticism, edited by

M. Featherstone. London: Sage.

Bech, H. 1999. Citysex: Representing lust in public. In Love and eroticism, edited by

M. Featherstone. London: Sage.

Bellaby, P. 1990. To risk or not to risk? Uses and limitations of Mary Douglas on risk-acceptability for understandinghealth and safety at workand roadaccidents. Socio-

logical Review 38:465-83.

Bendelow, G., and S. Williams, eds. 1998. Emotions in social life: Critical themes and

contemporary issues. London: Routledge.

Binnie, J. 2000. Cosmopolitanism and the sexed city. In City visions, edited by D. Bell

and A. Haddour. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Bloor, M. 1995. The sociology of HIV transmission. London: Sage.

Bloor, M., M. Barnard, A. Finlay, and N. McKeganey. 1993. HIV-related risk practices

among Glasgow male prostitutes: Reframing concepts of risk behaviour. Medical

Anthropology Quarterly 7:1-19.

Charmaz, K.,and R. Mitchell. 2001.Groundedtheory in ethnography. In Handbook of

ethnography, edited by P. Atkinson,A. Coffey, S. Delamont,J. Lofland, andL. Lofland.

London: Sage.

Coffey, A. 1999. The ethnographic self: Fieldwork and the representation of identity.London: Sage.

Connell, R. 1995. Masculinities. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Courtenay, W. 2000. Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-

being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine 50 (10): 1385-

1401.

Davies, P., F. Hickson, P. Weatherburn, and A. Hunt. 1993. Sex, gay men and AIDS .

London: Falmer.

Davis, M. 1983. Smut: Erotic reality/obsceneideology. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Douglas, M. 1985. Risk acceptability according to the social sciences. London:

Routledge Kegan Paul.

. 1992. Risk and blame. London: Routledge.

Elias, N. [1939] 2000. The civilizing process: Sociogenetic and psychogenetic investi-

gations. Oxford, UK: Blackwells.









Featherstone, M. 1991. The body in consumer culture. In The body: Social processes

and cultural theory, edited by M. Featherstone, M. Hepworth, and B. Turner. Lon-

don: Sage.

Giddens, A. 1992. The transformation of intimacy: Love, sexuality and eroticism inmodern societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Glaser, B., and A. Strauss. 1964. Awareness contexts and social interaction. American

Sociological Review 29:669-79.

. 1967. The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Goffman, E. 1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday

Anchor.

. 1968. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Middlesex, UK:

Penguin.

Hammersley, M. 1992. What’s wrong with ethnography? London: Routledge.

Hart, G., and S. Carter. 2000. Drugs and risk: Developing a sociology of HIV risk

behaviour. In Health, medicine and society, edited by S. Williams, J. Gabe, and

M. Calnan. London: Routledge.

Holland, J., C. Ramazonoglu,S. Sharpe, and R. Thomson.1992. Pleasure,pressureand

power:Some contradictions of genderedsexuality. Sociological Review40:645-74.Jackson, S., and S. Scott. 1997. Gut reactions to matters of the heart: Reflections on

rationality, irrationality and sexuality. Sociological Review 45 (4): 551-75.

Kaplan, D., and E. Ben-Ari. 2000. Brothers in arms: managing gay identity in combat

units of the Israeli army. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 29:396-432.

Lupton, D. 1999. Risk . London: Routledge.

MacPhail, C., and C. Campbell. 2001. “I think condoms are good but, aai, I hate those

things”: Condom use among adolescents and young people in a Southern African

township. Social Science & Medicine 52:1613-27.

McKeganey, N., and M. Barnard. 1992. AIDS, drugs and sexual risk: Lives in the bal-

ance. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

. 1996. Sex work on the streets: Prostitutes and their clients. Buckingham, UK:

Open University Press.

Moatti, J., and Y. Souteyrand. 2000. Editorial: HIV/AIDS social and behavioural

research: Past advances and thoughts about the future. Social Science & Medicine

50:1519-32.

Monaghan, L. 2001. Bodybuilding, drugs and risk . London: Routledge.

Monaghan, L.,M. Bloor, R. P. Dobash, andR. E. Dobash.1998. Bodybuildingand sex-

ual attractiveness. In The body in qualitative research, edited by J. Richardson and

A. Shaw. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.

Peart, R., D. Rosenthal, and S. Moore. 1996. The heterosexual singles scene: Putting

danger into pleasure. AIDS care 8 (3): 341-49.

Plummer, K. 1995. Telling sexual stories. London: Routledge.

Rhodes, T. 1997. Risk theory in epidemic times:Sex, drugs andthe social organisation

of “risk behaviour.” Sociology of Health & Illness 19 (2): 208-27.

Rhodes, T., and L. Cusick. 2000. Love and intimacy in relationship risk management:

HIV positive people and their sexual partners. Sociology of Health & Illness 22 (1):

1-26.

Richardson, D., ed. 1996. Theorising heterosexuality. Buckingham, UK: OUP.







opportunity, pleasure, and risk

Documents