In Defense of Gaydar: Reality Television and the Politics of the Glance

Abstract

The reality dating programs Boy Meets Boy and Playing It Straight purported to illustrate the elusiveness of performing sexual orientation in a culture that increasingly understands sexuality as fluid. By highlighting stereotypes typically associated with both gay and straight men, the shows exposed the difficulties of determining sexual orientation with “gaydar”. Both gay and straight participants were represented as equally incapacitated to identify sexual orientation. In doing so, the programs sought to advance liberal democratic conceptions of tolerance and equality. Employing Foucault's conception of the “glance,” I explore the problems inherent in relocating “gaydar” to the small screen.

Keywords:

• Performativity
• Reality Television
• Glance
• Gaydar
• Queer Theory

A previous version of this essay was presented at the 2004 National Communication Association's annual convention in Chicago.

A previous version of this essay was presented at the 2004 National Communication Association's annual convention in Chicago.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Isaac West, Linda Steiner, and the two anonymous reviewers.

Notes

A previous version of this essay was presented at the 2004 National Communication Association's annual convention in Chicago.

1. Boy's producers used the word “mate” to describe the contestants.

2. Boy was shot over a one-week period in May 2003 in Palm Springs, CA. Playing was taped over a three-week period in August 2003, mainly in Lamoille, NV.

3. Gaydar is not confined to gay people. So-called “fag hags,” straight women who largely hang out with gay men, and other heterosexuals who run in queer circles have professed to have gaydar (Maddison, 2000).

4. “Experience” is not meant as the unreflective consciousness of a person immersed in the social world. Scholars such as Joan Scott (1993) have rightfully warned of placing too much faith in the “authenticity” produced by such terminology. Experience in this analysis signifies “a complex semiotic and dialectical process, not simply an unmediated knowledge of self or other” (Yingling, 1997, p. 22).

5. While the contestants’ bodies and sexualities were carefully managed by the program's producers, sex and sexuality were not wholly absent in Boy. Despite the sanitizing of sexuality, discourses of sexuality were plentiful. The men constantly flirted with James (and often one another); scantily clad bodies were seen pool side; and there was even a little kissing. Although this was relatively tame for cable television, discourses were produced that allowed for some discussions of sex and sexuality.

6. The “Fox Reality Network” was launched in May 2005. While it was not carried by a number of cable providers, limiting its availability and the prospects for seeing Playing, it was offered by companies such as Direct TV and DISH Network.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Jeffrey A. Bennett

Jeffrey A. Bennett is Assistant Professor of Communication at Georgia State University