Men who have sex with men in the bush: Impediments to the formation of gay communities in some rural areas

Richard Roberts
Centre for Rural Social Research, Charles Sturt University, NSW

PP: 013 - 014

Keywords

health, gay communities, HIV infection, rural homophobia

Article Text

Viable strategies to minimise the spread of HIV infection have led to a re-examination of sexual practices, in particular of men who have sex with men. Substantial behaviour changes towards safer sex practices have occurred in cities where gay identified men perceived their community to be adopting new safer sex norms (Patton 1990: 30). Studies from the Social Aspects of the Prevention of AIDS Projects at Macquarie University show, inter alia, that behaviour change is most effective where individuals perceive the norms of their identified community to be changing (Connell et al 1989; Connell & Kippax 1990; Kippax 1990;). Futhermore, attachment to an organised gay community and its safer sex education program is significantly related to successful behaviour change among gay identified men (Dowsett 1990). In many rural contexts, however, there are no identifiable gay communities or even readily accessible informal networks. Furthermore, there are many men who have sex with other men but who do not identify as gay. Their sexual practices put them at considerable risk of HIV infection because they do not perceive the relevance of HIV prevention messages. Most HIV behavioural research has been urban based, so it is not easy to assess at this stage the exact impact of HIV risk factors and relevant behaviour change strategies on people living in rural areas.

The absence of identifiable gay communities or easily accessible informal networks in some rural areas, and the consequent implications for effective educational strategies for HIV prevention, raises an interesting research question. It is well known that rural communities are culturally more homogeneous than urban communities. They have less exposure to different life styles. Rural residents also tend to be less tolerant of diversity and to be conservers of the status quo (Boswell 1980; Greenberg 1988). Intolerance of homosexuality has been shown to be inversely related to the size of place of residence (Stephan & McMullin 1982; Wilson 1985). In relation to HIV, attitudinal studies confirm that, while men are more prejudiced than women towards people with AIDS, rural people exhibited a 'victimisation' dimension not present among their urban sample. This provides further evidence of rural difference (Heaven et al 1990).

A higher prevalence and intensity of 'homophobia' and 'heterosexism' has been reported in rural communities (Rounds 1988; D'Augelli 1987; D'Augelli 1989; Gross 1981). It may be the case that these phenomena affect the formation of identifiable non-heterosexual communities. It is therefore important to learn more about the nature of these phenomena and their impact on the community. Yet, despite their popular and burgeoning usage the concepts of 'homophobia' and 'heterosexism' are not well understood (Roberts 1989; Herek 1984; Plasek 1984). This makes both research design and comparative studies difficult. 'Homophobia' is used to refer to three central phenomena (see Fyfe, 1983):

'Fear of homosexuals' resulting in negative attitudes, bias, prejudice, harassment, vilification, or persecution. Because the term has taken on a popular, yet non-specific meaning, it is unclear whether these negative attitudes and inimical behaviours are the result of a dislike or prejudice towards a person's (homo)sexuality, his or her perceived (homo)sexuality, or whether it is a reaction to that person's non-conformity to gender stereotypes regardless of sexual orientation.

'Institutionalized homophobia' whereby social structures are developed in a prejudicial manner to non-heterosexuals. Examples include income tax arrangements, medical insurance, rights of next of kin, age of consent, proscription of consenting homosexual behaviours, and so on.

'Internalised homophobia' whereby the homosexual person takes on the stigma generated by his or her oppressors and thus 'fears' and 'hates' those parts of him or herself which are not heterosexual. This leads to shame, fear and guilt, and often contributes to their remaining in the closet. 'Homophobia' and 'heterosexism' are often used interchangeably. However, Herek argues that 'while homophobia involves active fear and loathing of homosexuality, heterosexism wishes away lesbian and gay people or assumes that they never really existed' (1986: 925). Heterosexism refers to a world view in which non-heterosexual people, their history and culture, are ignored and omitted.

Another important factor to consider is that rural communities differ considerably in the development of gay community organisations and accessible networks. The Northern Rivers area of NSW contrasts to the South West Slopes and Riverina areas in this regard. The former has large and visible gay and lesbian communities and organisations. Is 'homophobia' more rampant in the South West Slopes and why? If men who have sex with men living in this area are inhibited from becoming more visible, both personally and organisationally, what impact will this have upon HIV risk minimisation utilising community attachment strategies? How will the discrimination against people with HIV and AIDS in rural areas be redressed by those affected? (ADB 1992).

The Rural Outreach Project under the auspices of the AIDS Council of New South Wales is making an important contribution to facilitating the formation and consolidation of gay networks and organisations in rural NSW. Nevertheless, the efficacy of a range of strategies to achieve this needs further research. A project on 'homophobia' and men who have sex with men in the bush, under the auspices of the Centre for Rural Social Research, will help to provide answers to some of these questions.

View references

Navigate: Archives | Contents | Top of page

Search

Translate

Related Publications from eContent Management