Opportunity, Pleasure, and Risk

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
http://jce.sagepub.com
Opportunity, Pleasure, and Risk: An Ethnography of Urban Male Heterosexualities

LEE F. MONAGHAN
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 2002; 31; 440
DOI: 10.1177/0891241602031004003
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/31/4/440
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Journal of Contemporary Ethnography can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://jce.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations (this article cites 18 articles hosted on the
SAGE Journals Online and HighWire Press platforms):
http://jce.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/31/4/440
Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

2002 SAGE Publications. All rights reserved. Not for commercial use or unauthorized distribution.
Doormens
JOURNAL /OF
Monaghan
URBAN
CONTEMPORARY
MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES
ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002
workplace sexual
opportunities,
OPPORTUNITY,
PLEASURE, AND RISK
An Ethnography of
Urban Male Heterosexualities
rendering their
bodies potential
LEE F. MONAGHAN
Cardiff University
vehicles of
pleasure . . . may
be defined as risky
given larger
societal
expectations of
monogamous
heterosexuality.
LEE F. MONAGHAN obtained his Ph.D. in 1998 from

Cardiff University, United Kingdom. He currently
lectures in sociology at the Cardiff School of Social
Sciences, Cardiff University. His research and teaching explore issues and themes within the sociology of
health and illness, risk, and embodiment. His previous ethnography is titled Bodybuilding, Drugs and
Risk (2001, Routledge).
Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 31 No. 4, August 2002 440-477

2002 Sage Publications
440

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES
441
Using ethnographic data generated in Southwest Britain and an embodied social paradigm, this article explores the opportunities, pleasures,
and risks attendant to urban male heterosexualities. Participant observation 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.
exuality has long been of ethnographic interest to social anthropologists (Coffey 1999, 77). In the developed world, however,
sex and sexualities have received less sustained social scientific attention (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 within the sociology of health and 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 identifiable. 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), noncommercial gay sex (Davies et al. 1993), and feminist research on heterosexual 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). Undoubtedly, this recent work is invaluable in understanding the complexities of
human sexualities. Such studiesin placing sexualities, sexual interactions
AUTHORS NOTE: Thanks to Michael Bloor, Rob Benford, and the anonymous referees for their
useful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

442
JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002
and (more usually) accounts of such activity within their various social
contextsare 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 anthropologists 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 and other forms of risk consumption (Hart and Carter
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
worldendeavors to overcome some of these limitations. Grounded in
rich ethnography, it contributes empirically to the social phenomenology 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 (Williams and Bendelow 1998, 212). This is important because the sociology of sexualities, risk, and HIV transmissionsimilar to mainstream
sociology more generallytypically treats social actors as disembodied 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 articles structure, first, explicit reference is made to
theoretical work on sexualities, risk, and HIV prevention. Points of

443
convergence and departure between this article and the literature are
highlighted, and the crucial significance of embodiment is considered
as a means of critically incorporating various theoretical approaches.
These approaches include the situated rationality of risk behavior, the
culture of risk, and phenomenology (Bloor 1995). A reflexive account
of the research is then presented. Data reporting and analysis follow the
Methods section, comprising two main sections: Social Context and
Types of Sexually Related Risk. Grounded in the lived realities of
sensation-seeking urban culture, the first section establishes the conditions under which sexual risk may become topically relevant for doormen. The second section then explicates types of sexually related risks
associated with (typically nonexclusive) urban male heterosexuality.
These include HIV/AIDS and other risks (e.g., being caught by a regular partner, emotional risks, and violence), which to doormen themselves may be socially habitualized as normal or considered more
immediate and important than viral transmission. It will be suggested
that these social risks may minimize or (in the absence of condoms)
amplify the conditions of possibility of HIV transmission.
SEXUALITIES, RISK, EMBODIMENT,

AND HIV PREVENTION
Conceived singularly, sexuality and especially urban sexuality
often seem to be dirty words in academia (Bech 1999, 215). In his
paper on city sex, Bech (1999) wrote, In many parts of the academic
world, the word [sexuality] can still be uttered only with the purpose of
curing an illness (p. 215). Judging by the dearth of ethnography on
sexualities and, in particular, investigations of embodied (hetero)sexual
pleasures in the world of strangers (Bech 1999, 232), such disdain
seems widespread. This, combined with the practical difficulties of
researching sex and the near universal presentation of heterosexuality
as a unitary concept (Smart 1996, 170), renders contemporary urban
male heterosexualities relatively unexplored territory.
Of course, and in accord with Bechs (1999, 215) comment about sex
and illness, human sexuality is increasingly relevant to academics and
clinicians in the third decade of HIV/AIDS: here risk discourse and sex
are intimately conjoined. No doubt, this has prompted much empirical
work that is variable in its degree of theoretical sophistication. Bemoaning

444
the overly individualistic approach taken in much of this literature,

Rhodes (1997) underscored the importance of the social paradigm to
sex and HIV-related risk. Whereas the former explanatory approach
takes the individual as the unit of analysis, the latter conceptualizes sexual risk as the product of an interplay between individuals, the actions
of other individuals, their communities and social environments
(Rhodes 1997, 210). Correspondingly, psychological and social psychological theoriesincluding the popular health beliefs model,
which views risk behavior as arising independently out of individual
perceptions and beliefshave been thoroughly critiqued by sociologists of HIV transmission (cf. Bloor 1995, 88-90). Following this
important work, the present article also uses a social paradigm to study
sexual risk and pleasure.
There is not one single social scientific approach to the study of sexual risk and HIV prevention. Bloor (1995), in his review of theories of
risk behavior, outlined two useful approaches that despite certain
advantages, are also characterized by certain weaknesses. These
include the situated rationality approach and the culture of risk (Bloor
1995, 90-96). Given exigencies of space it is not my intention to review
these theories here. Suffice to say, the former approach (implicit in
many sociological studies of risk) explores the contradictory social
pressures on individuals and the immediate benefits that may accrue to
risk-takers (Bloor 1995, 90). Similar to economic cost/benefit analyses (Bloor 1995, 92), this approach usefully underscores the relativity
of risk in a context of other risks, dangers (Rhodes 1997, 213), and pleasures. However, there are also concomitant limitations. Drawing from
Schutzs (1970) analysis of routine activities, Bloor (1995, 92) stated
that while calculative risk behavior does occur, risk taking may also
remain unconsidered and habitual. Significantly, most situated rationality studies militate against the adequate portrayal of habitual actions
given their reliance on interview rather than fieldwork data (Bloor
1995, 92). This is problematic in a study of urban sexual risk: calculative
risk behavior or polythetic (stepwise) cognition (Bloor 1995, 97) is
often bracketed in postmodern culture (cf. Bauman 1999, 26).
Other criticisms may be leveled against the situated rationality
approach. Briefly, these include the neglect of gendered power relations
(Bloor 1995, 93) and a need to incorporate the situated sensuality of
potentially risky sex. Weitman (1999, 74-77), following Daviss (1983)
concept of erotic reality, stated that sex is, in the Schutzian social

445
phenomenological sense, a separate and distinct reality that is governed

by the laws of the body and pleasure. To be sure, bodily pleasure (particularly male pleasure) is not totally ignored in recent social studies of
HIV risk and feminist literatures on heterosexuality/ies (e.g., Richardson 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 sociology of embodiment is not incorporated into substantive work on
urban male heterosexualities. Embodiment, however, is of crucial significance. 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 mens nighttime
experiences.
The culture of risk approach, as exemplified by the anthropologist
Mary Douglass (1985) grid/group model, has made an important contribution to the social study of risk. According to this model, understandings of the world (comprising plural risk cosmologies and rationalities) reflect social position and differential socialization in various
groups. Again, Bloor (1995, 94) provided a useful synopsis and critique. It is therefore not my intention to explicate the grid/group
model here. Suffice to say, Douglass approach, and other cultural theories that argue social location shapes risk perceptions and behaviors
(e.g., Wight 1999), are relevant and may be invoked to explain doormens shared orientations to sexual risk practices. For example, doormen, who are predominantly from working-class backgrounds, constitute 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, culture is relevant from a phenomenological perspective. Indeed, I would
underscore the carnivalesque culture of popular urban nightspots,
which frames doormens 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

446
approach that explores the taken-for-granted world of routine activities.

Following Schutzs (1970) work on systems of relevance, phenomenology explores the various ways in which interpretive social actors orient
to perceptual stimuli (Bloor 1995, 98). As indicated by Bloors fieldwork 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 culturally determined (Bloor 1995, 100). Gendered power relationships, strategic choices, motivation, and interpretation are thus recognized. However, Bloor added that systems of relevancewhich reflect peoples
self- or other-imposed interest in the project at hand and their degree of
habituation to specific perceptual stimuliare 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 peoples 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, doormen, 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 interactions; for example, covert sex with female customers and the doormens
adoption or rejection of condoms. Emotionality is also significant. As
stressed by sociologists of embodiment (Bendelow and Williams
1998), emotional bodies and mindful bodies are inseparable: emotionality is intertwined with cognitive processes. This is especially pertinent 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
health promotion in respect of the HIV epidemic is not to proscribe relationships, but to find effective ways to encourage modifications in those
features of relationships which amplify HIV risk (p. 101). Unfortunately,

447
despite this emphasis on social relationships, much of this literature

focuses on the individual (Rhodes 1997) in accord with epidemiological and biomedical models of the human body. Hence, while individualistic approaches have been thoroughly critiqued by sociologists, it
remains the case that the social paradigm on risk is less commonly
applied in the field of HIV prevention (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 conjoined, the design and delivery of interventions to modify peoples risk
behaviours (such as health promotion) will be more adequate if such
strategies connect with the meanings shaping peoples social identities
and lifestyle choices (Hart and Carter 2000, 236). Rhodes (1997), who
also stressed the importance of power and constraint in relation to sexual risk, agreed with this argument. Sociological accounts of lived
experiences [and] exploratory descriptions of how risk is lived through
social interaction with others 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

448
local links has always facilitated (re-)entry into this subterranean occupation. A positive working relationship with a head doorman (who
informally recruits and retains 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 intentionally 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
talked with doormen in other contexts such as bodybuilding gyms, and I
have socialized with them in nightclubs outside of their working hours.)
Given my ecological proximity, male gender, bodily comportment, relative 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 emotional and
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 facilitated rapport, intersubjectivity, and the generation of rich ethnography
on 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 potentially 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 significant 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

449
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. However, nonbodybuilders also acted as key informants, such as Jack whom
I occasionally worked beside during fourteen-hour shifts. These contacts have been invaluable in gaining a detailed understanding of urban
male heterosexualities over a prolonged period.
Ethnographic contacts with certain doormen may have been sustained, but many more were fleeting. Thus, while I have worked with
more than sixty doormen, not all contacts have been sociologically productive. 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 worker
rights.) 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 during a shift (especially for those working inside rather than at the entrances to licensed
premises) much time is spent physically away from ones 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, AfroCaribbean). In accord with the social construction of hegemonic masculinity (Connell 1995) and doorwork culture, all presented an image of
heterosexuality. Showing sexual interest in, and appreciation of, attractive female bodies and/or talking about ones established/casual heterosexual relationships was commonplace. None of the doormen I talked
with identified themselves as gay. While this is sociologically significant, 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

450
contexts may adapt their workplace behavior and participate in heterosexual 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 single 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 preserve anonymity. All but one site were located in the same city, employing a network of doormen who often knew or knew of each other. Establishments 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 divisions of age, ethnicity, and social class. Certain clubs, for example,
attracted a larger thirty something crowd, and other 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 venues employing different doormen, thereby enhancing theoretical representativeness. For instance, during the fourteen months spent at Uncle
Sams, I undertook ethnography on busy Friday and Saturday evenings
and quiet Sundays, Mondays, and Wednesdays. Undertaking laborintensive fieldwork at different venues, at different times, and with different 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 understandings as opposed to a scant knowledge of a larger group.

451
Qualitative data, including shared intragroup talk about sex and sexual 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 information [since] grounded theorists can [among other things] use extant theories to sensitize them to certain issues and processes in their data
(Charmaz and Mitchell 2001, 169). Using this approach to grounded
theory, 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, subordinate codes (e.g., sexual risks, sex stories, and sexualized interactions), 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 information
about 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, doormens perspectives and understandings are relevant to
the identification and analysis of types of sexually related risks and
pleasures. Second, ongoing participant observation in licensed

452
premises provides firsthand observations that contextualize and embed

doormens accounts, providing information about social worlds that is
compatible with the epistemological stance of subtle as opposed to
nave realism (Hammersley 1992).
SOCIAL CONTEXT: SEXUALIZED

URBAN 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
doormens 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 conditions rendering heterosex potentially risky for doormen.
Conditions under which doormens heterosexual relations may be
defined as risky from a members perspective include (1) the normalization 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 heterosexuality, 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 condom use and devising credible cover stories when engaging in multiple 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 motivational relevances (Schutz 1970). Phenomenologically speaking, risk
reduction strategies may be employed by doormen only if sexually

453
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 and
able 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 ones 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 mans 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 is
often more complex. Importantly, sexualities are ongoing relational performances subject to social
processes and contexts. Social actors may perform multiple, contradictory, and overlapping
sexualities in space and time.
related risks are thematic (as a matter of volition or constrained by others) and interpreted as possible or probable and if the actor is sufficiently 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

454
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 (background of awareness) rather than theme (forefront of awareness) and
may not directly impinge on a doormans preparedness to pursue
(potentially) risky heterosex. Correspondingly, risk need not be an issue
in the doormens contexts of nightlife even when conditions for risk taking 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 doormens masculinist occupation, normal men are often associated with multiple partners (MacPhail and Campbell 2001, 1615).
Many doormen support this normative or naturalistic construction of
male heterosexuality (which, it should be added, may not 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 storytellers 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 heterosexuality (especially with attractive women) was normalized. If doormen
constitute a bounded, hierarchical group (Douglas 1985), then, according 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 integrated into his nighttime occupation. Jack appropriated a term often
used pejoratively to describe sexually adventurous women when discussing many doormens perceived orientation to (potentially risky)
sexual opportunities. However, contra the static grid/group model
(Douglas 1985), Jacks 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

455
as relatively passive (sexual opportunities are reportedly thrust upon

them in the context of the nightclub), it reiterates essentialist constructions of masculinity (Connell 1995) where normal men reportedly have biological appetites rendering sexual fidelity unusual and/
or difficult:
I worked with Jack, a single doorman in his late twenties. We talked
about the sexual opportunities afforded by doorwork. The presence of
sexually available women, and the fact that doormen often seem to
exploit this opportunity, prompted Jack to describe all doormen as
slags: well, they are arent they! [Laughing.] Its very difficult not to
be. If I was married Id try and be faithful but I mean, if you were on a diet
and somebody shoved a kebab in your face every night youd end up having one wouldnt you? Its the same with the women. If a doorman says
he isnt a slag hes lying. However, Jack added that over the ten years he
has worked as a doorman, he does know two doormen who are faithful to
their wives: I know for a fact that they are. They dont go out with the
boys after work. If they do go out, they arrange to meet their wives in
town. But theyre older and they dont have as many women coming up
to them, so I suppose its easier for them to be faithful. (Saturday, May
6, 2000, Uncle Sams)
Participant observational data underscore the sexualized nature of

the liminal nightspot, including (some) doormens openness to sexual
opportunity when encountering flirtatious female customers. Significantly, the doorman below (in resisting the commercial appropriation
of his supposedly vigilant body) also risked losing his job, though some
club managers are lenient and are willing to retain otherwise occupationally competent doormen doing flirtatious or adventurous heterosexuality. The overtly sexual nature of their work environment
providing much greater opportunities than the traditional pub for bodily
display (Featherstone 1991, 173)and the type of working-class masculinity hired by managers when employing doormen go some way
toward accounting for this:
I was positioned inside the club with Nick, a doorman. Two young
women, who were full of party spirit, kicked us both on the backsides.
They were laughing and joking. One of the women shouted to me over
the music, Tell your mate to put his cock in my mouth. Nick, upon
hearing this, approached the woman. Five minutes later they were

456
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 and pointed their car out to me. The
windows were beginning to steam up. I mentioned this to a doorman who
promptly 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 wont
be happy. . . . Shell want to give 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)
Doormens workplace sexual opportunities, rendering their bodies

potential vehicles of pleasure (Featherstone 1991, 177), may be
defined as risky given larger societal expectations of monogamous heterosexuality. As suggested by Jack, doormen conforming to naturalistic
constructions of the male body (cf. Shilling 1993) may place their existing sexual relationships at risk through infidelity. Fieldwork data indicate 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 doormen at my first research site, eschewed workplace sexual opportunity in
contrast to most of his work mates. He enjoyed the occasional flirtatious interaction with female customers (including women whom he
had known for many years and with whom he had reportedly been sexually involved in the past), but he was resolute (at least when I worked
with him) in his enactment of monogamous heterosexuality. Theoretically, 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 didnt mind. He replied, Mine

457
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 but
said that the only person who would not go with another woman was
John. He had recently got married. Ronny said, Hes 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, Its more trouble than its worth. . . . A
few minutes later the other doorman received his phone call and
informed us, Im 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. (Wednesday, September 10, 1997, Murphys 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 public
presentation of a sexual self.
Additional data indicate variability in sexual risk taking within specific categories, namely, married doormens different and shifting orientations to workplace sexual opportunity. Whereas John (conservatively 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,

458
the representational body is central in these socioerotic processes. Flirtatious 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:
Johns previously expressed commitment to 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 saying, 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
with Laura. John, with a smile on his face, said, See how hard it is to turn
em down? (Wednesday, September 10, 1997, Murphys)
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 her display. Mark, who has just separated from his wife, walked
back and said, Now, if I was still with my wife Id have gone for her. No
messing about. Shes the type thats straight down to business. But
because Im single now I want somebody who is more classy. (Friday,
June 2, 2000, Uncle Sams)
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 mens internalized negative attitudes toward and rejection of condoms (MacPhail and

459
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 practices 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 and hold the door open for him. I followed, curious about his
intentions. As we entered the fire escape he pulled several condoms 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
dont 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 his
own private use, or whether his colleagues could make use of them.
Expressing a sense of group solidarity, he exclaimed, Oh, theyre for all
the boys! (Saturday, May 5, 2001, Oceanic)
In summary, doormen working in urban licensed 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 sexual opportunities and pleasures. Phenomenologically speaking, sexually related risk may not necessarily be topically relevant for doormen
doing adventurous heterosexuality in these settings given the immediate attractions of lascivious reality, but there are identifiable conditions
where heterosex may be defined as risky from a members perspective.
These include peer group normalization of nonexclusive male heterosexuality, encountering female customers doing flirtatious or receptive
heterosexuality, being unfaithful 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 doormens sexual risk landscapes (Hart and
Carter 2000, 248), discussion now explicitly shifts to types of sexually

460
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 analyze types of sexually related risk as lived by male bodies in their routine contexts of nightlife.
EXISTING RELATIONSHIPS AND ONTOLOGICAL
SECURITY: LOSING YOUR HEAD
This risk is correlated with, but not necessarily dependent on, nonexclusive 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 ones regular love partner,
especially for doormen combining two jobs, may promote the dissolution of secure heterosexual relationships (including marriage). Yet
spending time in an explicitly sexualized domain, and doing nonexclusive heterosexuality in a suspect or open awareness relational context (Glaser and Strauss 1964), will increase the possibilities of a doormans 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., Wellings
et al. 1994, cited in Jackson and Scott 1997, 572). Even within the sociology of emotions, discussions of intimacy employ the language of
emotional labour and caring work [thus] avoiding talking about sexuality 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 who may otherwise present
themselves as solidly masculine and mentally tough. Even for doormen, risks to existing social bonds may threaten what Giddens (1992)
terms ontological security, that is, the sense of sanctuary and the forging of secure identityin a world characterized by uncertainty
through loving, intimate, and trusting relationships.

461
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 stories, which may be or were voiced to suspecting partners, are also
sometimes shared, for example, a casual lovers scratches on ones
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 topically relevant, occurred as several doormen congregated for an after
work drink:
Fred, looking peeved, told several doormen that his wife found an I love
you text message from his girlfriend on his mobile phone. Fred reported
denying all knowledge: I told her hundreds of people must send love
messages on Friday night after theyve had a drink. Theyve obviously
got the wrong number! However, he said his wife disbelieved him and
was extremely annoyed: she said shes 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 tomorrow. Shes going because Im hardly ever home. Fred, tongue in cheek,
exclaimed, Fucking hell! Were all gonna be sad, single doormen!
Mark, whose wife has recently left him, then joked about letting Fred cry
on his shoulder once his own shirt had dried out from his tears. (Saturday,
July 15, 2000, Uncle Sams)
Undoubtedly, the above interaction or body talk was characterized

by a high degree of emotional control and could be interpreted as reaffirming masculinity and group solidarity. Within this masculinist occupation, 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 breakdown of an intimate relationship:
Because I forged long-standing field relations, and shared embodied sexual narratives with certain key informants, I was able to generate more
intimate knowledge on this topic. Mark, for example, disclosed his more
private personal feelings to me following his marital breakdown. This

462
doorman, in speaking from the experience of his body, told me he was

overwhelmed by feelings of desperation, hurt, loneliness, and confusion. This emotional turmoil also had visible bodily effects. While exercising one night in the local bodybuilding gym, Mark, who was struggling beside me, complained about his loss of physical strength and size.
He then quipped, My heads 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 differently 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 a
context 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 heterosexual 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,
hes had [unprotected] sex with about thirty women. Part of the attraction
seemed to be the notion that this was part of the good life as experienced by the rich and famous: I suppose its like being a film star really.
I mean, blokes I know, and they look at me, and Ive got a good day job,
nice car, my own house, a pretty decent body, I work on the doors and can
pull these good-looking women. Theyre jealous. He added, I look at
these blokes who have been with the same woman, and only that woman,
since they were young and, well, when I get to sixty I dont want to look
back and have only been with the same person my whole life. No doubt
Ill remarry in a couple of years, settle down, but at least Id 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-granted
possibility for doormen independent of their sexual proclivities.

463
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 emotionally charged, provide the conditions of possibility for violence and
bodily injury. This may include, in respect of nonexclusive urban heterosexuality, 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 suggested during an informal ethnographic interview with Trevor, was
cited immediately as a possible sexually related risk. For Trevor (who
had recently separated from his regular partner) violence was more thematic 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 doormen, the possibility of violence did not constrain Trevors heterosexual
practices. Phenomenologically speaking, in the doormens world of
routine activities, the risk of sex-related violence against their own bodies may remain unconsidered, or if it becomes topically relevant, then
their bodily capital and gendered power relations may function as recipes 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 womans 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, didnt see it
like that! I asked whether such a risk would deter him. Trevor mused,
Mmm. Well, my old fella [dad] always told me that if you take [have sex
with] a mans wife, youve got to be able to take [fight] him as well. I
dont know if itd put me off in here though. I mean, youve got back up
from the boys [other doormen]. I immediately replied, But a possible

464
confrontation could occur some time after work. Trevor agreed, but it
was clear that this wasnt something that preoccupied his thoughts. (Saturday, August 26, 2000, Uncle Sams)
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 indifferent 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 hed 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 hes started stalking her, she says hes hit her, he turns
up at her house and starts crying. I dont want to get involved in all that.
He added, I dont think shes lying. Ive 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 dont
know if I can be bothered. I just want a quick shag off her and thats 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 Sams)
It should be stressed that sexually related violence does not, in any

straightforward sense, minimize or maximize the possibility of doormen engaging in epidemiologically risky sex. To reiterate, at the microsocial level, risk behavior/risk reduction will be variable, dynamic, and
dependent on the social actors systems of relevance (Schutz 1970):
HIV risk may become topically relevant or problematic for an individual 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, gender-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
doormans world of routine activities, present itself as more topically
relevant and in need of interpretation than the possible viral dangers of
regularly changing ones lover:

465
Mark told me about his recent involvement with Rosy, who has just
started working as a door supervisor at Uncle Sams: 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 night
where 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. Ive just got out of a marriage for
Gods sake. She was OK about that and we had a laugh. But now, shes
like [referring to the film Fatal Attraction], she wants to 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 theyre OK. They might
think hes a tosser but thats it. Mark contrasted this reaction with
RosysShe 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 concerning what others think of us (p. 59). Within the sociology of HIV transmission, embarrassmentstemming from the intimacy of sex and the
ways in which ambiguity may be functional in saving face during
processes leading up to sexual intercourserepresents 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.

466
In the absence of an existing sexual relationship, sexual opportunities with, to use Daviss (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
heterosexualityexpressed with and through the body in an objectifying gendered societymay 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:
Ill only get a few hours sleep, then Ill be out again. Ive 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 Im 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 the absence of a regular partner, the possibility of 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)
Doormens 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 significance 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--vis naturalistic constructions of masculinity) was more motivationally relevant:

467
I was on the front door with John when Barry, a fellow doorman who 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 shes 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 disappearing were, Im going for a workout now which met with his
lovers amusement. After they departed, two young men, who were
friends of John, made some derogatory comment about the womans
appearance. John, who knows Barry prefers quantity to quality, said,
Yeah, but with Barry the workout is more important than what they look
like. (Saturday, November 8, 1997, Murphys)
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 researchers 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 heterosexuality 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, prostitutes, 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: Shes a right slapper. Shes

468
shagged Freddy Melgrew who lives near me. Hes a fucking animal. If he
hasnt got AIDS then nobody has. Clayton looked shocked and asked
Oxo whether he would go with her. Oxo replied, No chance. I wouldnt
want to stir Freddy Melgrews soup. I dont want HIV. Clayton then
suggested the girls friend might be a potential mate; however, Oxo said
the following after being quizzed by Clayton: I dont think youll have
much luck with her. I dont 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, Murphys)
AIDS researchers note that young people, especially young men,

often share a perception that they can filter out partners that are dangerous to their health (MacPhail and Campbell 2001, 1616). The
above suggests that for doormen doing cautious or indifferent heterosexuality, certain types of womenthose labeled slappers,
slags, or stinkers in local parlancemust be avoided. Such women
have 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 doormen eschew condoms (commonly on the ground that they are physically desensitizing) such HIV-related risk behavior is rarely due to
ignorance. Jack, for example, who often appeared successful in meeting sex partners at work and estimated that he had had sex with approximately one hundred women, told me that he had undergone four (negative) AIDS tests because he never used condoms. Despite risk of serious
illness, he stressed the situated sensuality of adventurous urban male
heterosexuality: you dont care about that [a womans reputation and
AIDS] when youre emptying your sack [ejaculating]. (Tuesday, April
18, 2000, Uncle Sams)
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

469
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 partners lived body was central to such
evaluations, where the womans 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 Marks sexual behavior suddenly 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 in here last night and I had to go with her. I asked whether he
ever used a condom with any of these women. He told me, No, never. I
dont use them. Mark claimed he could determine whether the women
he met through work were the type with whom condoms were necessary: you can ask certain questions. You know if theyre slappers from
their responses, how they look and act. If I thought I needed to use a condom I wouldnt go with them. I commented that that was no real protection; for example, they could obviously lie about their sexual history.
Mark paused, then said thoughtfully, Yeah, I guess youre right [pause].
But thats the risk you take. (Saturday, August 26, 2000, Uncle Sams)
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 such
as 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 relationships, 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

470
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 occupation 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 nightclubs, many mens dislike of condoms, the possibility of catching an
STD through casual unprotected sex and passing this on to ones regular
partner. I added, Its a bit like Russian Roulette. If you play the game
your luck will eventually run out. It may run out sooner rather than 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. Hes only just started to get
himself together. (Saturday, May 6, 2000, Uncle Sams)
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 embodied experiences of men within their own social worlds, it offers a substantive and formal contribution to the sociology of sexualities and HIV
transmission (Bloor 1995). Pluralizing urban male heterosexualities, it
provides privileged empirical insights into the variable doings of sexuality in a hitherto unexplored yet increasingly popular domain. Theoretically, 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 surprising 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.

471
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 following the dissolution of a primary relationship, may provide the conditions of possibility for epidemiologically risky sex (i.e., rapid unprotected partner change). Other risks, such as embarrassment, may
operate as a subtle form of body regulation, reducing the number or frequency of possible sexual contacts. Even biological hazards, such as
STDs, are sociologically significant: men who catch and transmit STDs
to their supposedly exclusive love partner risk a breakdown in their relationship 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 with
a 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 relationships, these socioeconomic risks may be far more important in epidemic 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 associated dangers. From a health perspective, but not necessarily for

472
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 doormen engage in epidemiologically risky sex. During this research, condoms were practically valued among certain doormen sponsoring
adventurous heterosexuality. Furthermore, monogamous or conservative 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 doormen 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 do
many 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 for
doormen 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 possible danger. As noted, within the doormens occupational culture, telling sexual stories (Plummer 1995) may be personally satisfying and
constitutive of gendered identity; multiple sexual partners, in quick succession, may correspond with masculinist notions of the good life in
consumer culture (Featherstone 1991); and exploring sexual opportunities, especially following the dissolution of an existing intimate relationship, may restore ontological security (Giddens 1992). Indeed, if
the potential dangers of sex for men relate to emotional excess that may

473
unman them, then these may be defused by an increasingly rationalised 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 distant 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, processes, and plural sexualities. Certainly, the gendered incentives associated 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 for
men who typically approach 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, constitutes an adventure outside the course of everyday life (Simmel [1910]
1997). According to modernist discourses, sexuality is a source of
ecstasy and excitement which raises us above mundane quotidian realities 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 mentioned in Giddenss (1992) writings on the transformation of intimacy
(Shilling and Mellor 1996). Here, as in Batailles ([1962] 1987) and
Daviss (1983) writings on eroticism, attention shifts from cognitive
reflexivity 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 Watsons (2000) qualitative research on male embodiment, health, and culture, this ethnography concludes by stating that
there are no easy solutions for health professionals who try to promote
mens 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 critically to reassess some of their own goals and expectations. This does
not mean health promoters should condone nonexclusive, unprotected

474
heterosexual practices and/or collude in naturalizing socially constructed sexualities. After all, HIV/AIDS, globally speaking, is a heterosexual 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
transmissionmany men, as a matter of volition, still actively pursue
unprotected sex with multiple female partners. This is not due to ignorance or weakness of understanding; it is a preference (Douglas 1992).
Health professionals wishing to effect positive changeand empirical
evidence suggests HIV prevention can be successful among groups stereotyped 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 discourses 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 sexualized interactions with female customers. Doing flirtatious and voyeuristic heterosexuality 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 takenfor-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 with customers when they should actually be working.
5. Since writing the first draft of this article, I learned Mark is engaged to be married.

475
6. There is, of course, a gender asymmetry here. Men doing naturalistic urban heterosexuality may be labeled slags or animals by others, but this is often read positively 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
Bellaby, P. 1990. To risk or not to risk? Uses and limitations of Mary Douglas on riskacceptability for understanding health and safety at work and road accidents. Sociological 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. Grounded theory in ethnography. In Handbook of
ethnography, edited by P. Atkinson, A. Coffey, S. Delamont, J. Lofland, and L. 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 mens wellbeing: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine 50 (10): 13851401.
Davies, P., F. Hickson, P. Weatherburn, and A. Hunt. 1993. Sex, gay men and AIDS.
London: Falmer.
Davis, M. 1983. Smut: Erotic reality/obscene ideology. 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 investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwells.

476
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. London: Sage.
Giddens, A. 1992. The transformation of intimacy: Love, sexuality and eroticism in
modern 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. Whats 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, pressure and
power: Some contradictions of gendered sexuality. Sociological Review 40:645-74.
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 balance. 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, and R. E. Dobash. 1998. Bodybuilding and sexual 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 and the 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.

477
Schutz, A. 1970. Reflections on the problem of relevance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Shilling, C. 1993. The body and social theory. London: Sage.
Shilling, C., and P. Mellor. 1996. Embodiment, structuration theory and modernity:
Mind/body dualism and the repression of sensuality. Body & Society 2 (4): 1-15.
Silverman, D. 1993. Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text and
interaction. London: Sage.
Simmel, G. [1910] 1997. The adventure. In Simmel on culture, edited by D. Frisby and
Smart, C. 1996. Collusion, collaboration and confession: On moving beyond the heterosexuality debate. In Theorising heterosexuality, edited by D. Richardson.
Buckingham, UK: OUP.
Thompson, G. 2000. Watch my back. Sussex, UK: Summersdale.
Thompson, N. 1997. Masculinity and loss. In Death, gender and ethnicity, edited by
D. Field, J. Hockey, and N. Small. London: Routledge.
Turner, B. 1992. Regulating bodies: Essays in medical sociology. London: Routledge.
. 1996. The body and society. 2d ed. London: Sage.
Valverde, M. 1987. Sex, power and pleasure. Toronto, Canada: Womens Press.
Verbrugge, L. 1985. Gender and health: An update on hypotheses and evidence. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 26:156-82.
Vidich, A. 1955. Participant observation and the collection and interpretation of data.
American Journal of Sociology 60:354-60.
Watson, J. 2000. Male bodies: Health, culture and identity. Buckingham, UK: OUP.
Weaver, A., and P. Atkinson. 1994. Micro-computing and data analysis. Aldershot,
UK: Avebury.
Weitman, S. 1999. On the elementary forms of the socio-erotic life. In Love and eroticism, edited by M. Featherstone. London: Sage.
Wellings, K., J. Field, A. Johnson, and J. Wadsworth. 1994. Sexual behaviour in Britain. London: Penguin.
Whittaker, D., and G. Hart. 1996. Research note: Managing risks: The social organisation of indoor sex work. Sociology of Health & Illness 18 (3): 399-414.
Wight, D. 1999. Cultural factors in young heterosexual mens perception of HIV risk.
Sociology of Health & Illness 21 (6): 735-58.
Williams, S. 1998. Health as moral performance: Ritual, transgression and taboo.
Health 2 (4): 435-57.
Williams, S., and G. Bendelow. 1998. The lived body: Sociological themes, embodied
issues. London: Routledge.
Winlow, S. 2001. Badfellas: Crime, tradition and new masculinities. Oxford, UK:
Berg.


Opportunity, Pleasure, and Risk

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Opportunity, Pleasure, and Risk

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

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

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

LEE F. MONAGHAN obtained his Ph.D. in 1998 from

Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 31 No. 4, August 2002 440-477

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

SEXUALITIES, RISK, EMBODIMENT,

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

the overly individualistic approach taken in much of this literature,

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

phenomenological sense, a separate and distinct reality that is governed

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

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

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

despite this emphasis on social relationships, much of this literature

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

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

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

premises provides firsthand observations that contextualize and embed

SOCIAL CONTEXT: SEXUALIZED

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

TABLE 1: A Typology of Urban Male Heterosexualities

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

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

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

as relatively passive (sexual opportunities are reportedly thrust upon

Participant observational data underscore the sexualized nature of

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

Doormens workplace sexual opportunities, rendering their bodies

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

Sociocultural conditions for sexual pleasure and risk may therefore

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY ETHNOGRAPHY / AUGUST 2002

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

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008

Monaghan / URBAN MALE HETEROSEXUALITIES

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

In summary, doormen working in urban licensed premises encounter

TYPES OF SEXUALLY RELATED RISK

Downloaded from http://jce.sagepub.com by martita vilarinho on May 24, 2008