5.4. Performance
5.4.2. Sexual and Gender Roles
Some participants perform their gender through their dressing which is sometimes held in contempt by some churches in Zambia. Although these participants intimated how they are considered trendsetters in dressing for some heterosexual men in Zambia, Skidmore insists that ―it is a matter of considerable debate how far gay men‘s fashion leads or influences mainstream men‘s fashion‖ (1999:514). Whether gay people are generally trendsetters for some Zambian heterosexual men, and whether many heterosexual men would concur with such assertions, is unproven but worth investigating.
Another theme that arose in relation to performance of identities and sexualities by participants was the sexual and gender roles assumed within the sexual relationships.
When the participants were asked to discuss how they ―self-construct‖ their identities and sexualities, the following discourse on their sexual positions preferences and sexual roles ensued. This section is discussed here because traditional Christianity prescribes sexual relations between an adult male and female, but participants subverted this based on the following responses:
Taonga: I do not understand this whole bottom, top thing…though people try to explain it to me…I think it is them trying to mimic heterosexual kind of relations…although Tate tried to explain to me that it is something to do with preference.
Tate: There are three types, there‟s top, bottom and versatile. ..it all depends on what you prefer as a gay person… It depends on the individual and what the individual likes…for example myself, I would say I am a bottom…that is what I prefer and I don‟t think I would become a top for that person…even though we‟ve put these labels that there‟s top, bottom, versatile…it‟s not guaranteed or it‟s not definite that that person is going to be that way for the longest time…it can be maybe later in homosexual life that you would realize that oh! you like the top…it‟s not fixed, it‟s fluid…but there those who are just strict bottoms and they will tell you that me am bottom and there are also some strictly top as well.
Paul: There are some people that prefer anything anytime…like depending on the type of person that you meet.
Chris: Am new in this thing…I only discovered this four years ago…and I started meeting up with people through Facebook and started learning about stuff…my first encounter in this was with my boss in South Africa in 2007…my boss used to be that, he is Indian, he took me for a beer…he told me he was top and he asked me if I wanted to be bottom…I did not know where I was…but now I know that I find that I am much of top…but because in the first scenario…it was the genesis, I was forced to be bottom…when I came this side [Zambia], I am more of a top.
Foster: I have never come across a man who is strictly top…I think they can be top in the gay sense but probably also bisexual as in, they like women…like that for me, it makes sense... (be)cause I have never come across someone who is gay and they are just top…gender roles still play a part in this bottom-top issue…most
feminine gays here are bottoms…because one of the two has to look like…at the end of the it‟s all gender roles.
Terry: Something that I have realized is that most bottoms are also feminine.
The responses above show that study participants could not agree on how the self-labelling of top, bottom and versatile takes place and if these are permanent or not. However, the responses reflect elements of fluidity and flexibility of position identities and sexual roles.
Evidently, within the broader categorization of gay identities and sexualities lie individual pockets of sexual identities born either from preference of sexual position, power or knowledge on gay sexuality. Taonga and Foster assumed that these positions are nothing more than mimicry of heterosexual relationships and gender roles, while Tate and Chris insisted it all had to do with preference and Paul focused on the fluidity of sexual preference as it is dependent on one‘s partner. Chris‘ narration clearly shows fluidity in sexual preference as he started off being a bottom gay when his Indian boss took up the top position.
However, Chris later on discovered he prefers being top. In Chris‘ case, his position identity during his first gay sexual encounter was largely embroiled in dynamics of race, ethnicity, nationality, class, economic, power and limited access to information on gay sexuality. The normative understanding that sexual roles in gay relationships are indicative of power relations has been critiqued by Kippax and Smith who assert that
power dynamics in anal intercourse need to be contextualized within given sexual relationships. If the receptive partner persuades his partner to penetrate him, then power of a kind lies with the receptive partner. Power is not synonymous with being an active or passive partner, thus, power is mobile (2001:417).
Self-labelling is another further categorization which takes place within gay identities and sexualities, pointing to sexual roles. Scholars like Moskowitz, Rieger and Roloff (2008) and Zheng, Hart and Zheng (2012) all categorize self-labelling within gay identities and sexualities as tops, bottoms and versatiles. Moskowitz, Rieger and Roloff point out that:
tops generally preferred insertive to receptive roles and bottoms generally preferred receptive to insertive roles. Versatiles had an equal preference for both.
These results suggested that self-label was indeed related to other sexual behavioral attributes (2008:198).
The responses of the study participants discussed in this section reflect all the three categories of self-labelling and highlight how these categories are as a result of sexual preference and not any other factors. However, whether preference in position identity shifts with time, experience and partner type remained unresolved in our discussions as an array of views were expressed. However, in their survey, Grov, Parsons and Bimbi (2012) link position identity to penis size stating that men with below average penises were likely to identify as bottoms, men with above average penises more likely identified as tops while those with average penises likely identified as versatiles. The participants did not make the penis size argument as determinant of the position identity but pointed out how position is associated with gender roles and sometimes it is not fixed as it remains subject to change.
Some participants also indicated how sexual roles and identities connected to gender roles in their sexual relationship. Carballo‐Diéguez et al (2004) in studying gay populations in Latino communities show that gender stereotypes of masculinity and femininity play an important role in the sexual behaviour of this population and that gender stereotypes play an important generic role; contextual and emotional circumstances may significantly affect sexual-role behaviour in specific cases. Foster observed that bottoms are usually feminine and take on feminine gender roles in their relationships which holds true as the participants who regarded themselves as female took on bottom positions in their relationships and were more inclined to assume feminine gender roles. However, the fact that sexual identities are not fixed is worth noting as pointed out by Paul and Chris. There are many reasons that may enlist change in sexual identities but in the case of Chris, the more experience he gained in his newly discovered sexuality, the easier it became for him to decide his preference in position and the sexual roles he assumed. Pachankis et al observe that among reasons for change of sexual positions were personal reasons which:
included personal growth, such as concomitant changes in other aspects of identity, increased experience, increased self-awareness, increased self-confidence, and increased sexual self-awareness; greater sexual experimentation; and changes in ways of finding sexual pleasure (2013:1246).
Chris‘ change in sexual identity was a result of increased experience owing to friends and partners met through Facebook, increased self-awareness about his sexuality and possibly self-confidence in his identity and sexuality with the passing of time and exposure to same-sex sexual encounters.
Once more the place of a globalized context in which gay identities and sexualities of gay Christians are forged is highlighted and I have discussed the global culture in chapter seven.
Some of the participants linked sexual roles with gender roles as shown below. I start by discussing how, according to some participants, Christianity constructs gender roles. Then I show how participants take on gender roles. The following are some of the responses on how Christianity constructs gender roles:
Paul: Christianity is full of heterosexual norms…it teaches what being a man is…a man is identified through how he behaves and all that…from the Bible background, they teach that a man should get married and have a family at a certain age.
Foster: Society and Christianity always expect a man to be the provider for the opposite sex…the women, he must have children…whatever...they expect him to marry…and that a woman should submit to him...since I identify as a woman but conform to the other gender…to church people…I come out as being rebellious because I do not expect a man to provide for me…I am my own provider.
Based on these responses, Christianity frames gender roles along heteronormative binaries of male and female. Therefore, a man is expected to marry a woman, behave as a man, provide for his wife and children and be respected by his wife. Although the participants did not elaborate on how a man is expected to behave, it can be argued that a man is expected to be a leader, macho, sexually attracted to women and exercise self-control of his emotions.
Christianity mainly regards gender roles in fixed binaries that should not be crossed and when crossed, such ―transgressors‖ are usually regarded as rebellious. Gender roles are also constructed in opposition to the other; for example, a man is expected to be the provider while the women plays the role of being provided for. My interest then is to also highlight how participants exercise their gender roles.
Gender roles as constructed by Christianity and performed by participants are usually at variance as some participants do not conform to gender roles prescribed by Christianity. To clearly show variances in gender roles assigned by Christianity and those assumed by some of my participants, I have chosen to discuss predominantly feminine gender roles performed by some participants. The following three responses highlight these views:
Roman: Me being bottom…I have to perform (sexually) for my top boyfriend…as a bottom gay, I have to do “wifey” stuff like make breakfast, lunch, do laundry…do all the womanly things…the top gay has to provide for the bottom man…I am not a woman, but am his wife.
Rihana: Since me being a male but having feelings for a woman…as a woman…I have to entice a man…perform in bed…I learnt from my female friends how to perform in bed and how to please…I am enticing a lot…I am staying with my man and he looks after me very well…he provides everything that I want…I cannot complain.
Chipobabz: My dad enjoys my cooking…bakamba nokamba atinibapikile…ati siyani azanikipa mwana wanga…nipika lumanda, delele maningi…I cook veggies so well. (Loose trans: My dad enjoys my cooking…he even says I should cook for him…he tells my family that they should leave his (me) child to cook for him…I cook a lot of lumanda (traditional food from the Eastern province of Zambia) and okra…I cook vegetables so well).
The above responses reflect how these participants either identify as women or claim femininities by taking up gender roles that are the opposite of perceived proscriptions of Christianity. They assume ―wifey‖ roles with other men, take on generally feminine roles of cooking meals and attending to laundry as their ―men‖ provide for them just like is expected of some heterosexual relationships. Rihana connects sexual performance to appeasement of her sexual partner and how well her partner provides for her. Implicitly, each partner in gay Christian relationships has gender roles aligned within heterosexual binaries, in spite of both partners being of the same sex. Same-sex gender roles are constructed along heterosexual gender roles with the major difference being the sex of the parties involved. ―Sex refers to the biological characteristics distinguishing male and female. This definition emphasizes male and female differences in chromosomes, anatomy, hormones, reproductive systems, and other physiological components‖ (Lindsey 2015:3). Of interest is how Roman distinguishes taking on feminine roles from being a woman by insisting that he is his partners ―wifey‖ but he is not a woman. These ambiguities characterized findings among gay Christians, thus showing elements of gay Christians operating on borders of femininities and masculinities. This is different from Rihana who regards himself as a woman and takes on feminine roles in his
relationship with his partner. Chipobabz assumes feminine gender roles within his family setup and reflects a supportive father who enjoys his cooking.
In their article ―Construction of Male Sexuality and Gender Roles in Puerto Rican Heterosexual College Students‖, Peraz-Jimenez et al assert that ―gender roles relate to a set of norms and beliefs about how men and women must behave and think in a particular culture‖ (2007:358-359). Religion and culture both have written and unwritten codes of behaviour and thought patterns which men and women are expected to live by. However, in the case of some of these participants, they do not subscribe to religio-cultural gender norms as they are sexually attracted to other men and not women, may dress in an ―unmanly‖ manner, and for Rihana and Chipobabz, when Christianity and culture expect them to be providers for women, they are provided for by other men. Siann adds that gender roles are
―subject to social and cultural influences and are only minimally, if at all, influenced by sexual characteristics such as hormones, chromosomes and sex organs‖ (1994:vi). Gender roles are socio-culturally assigned to males and females but the participants sometimes take on gender roles against the grain of religio-cultural expectations and prescriptions.