Introduction

Masculinity is a prized commodity in mate selection among gay men. Phua (2002) finds that gay men put strong emphasis on the act of virilization and are likely to specify wanting masculine or straight-acting partners in their personals. Similarly, examining specific gender traits, Boyden et al. (1984) find that both feminine and masculine gay men prefer partners with manly characteristics. The preference for masculinity in mate selection supports a binary gender system that subverts femininity.

The importance of masculinity in mate selection affects racial groups differently as they either benefit or suffer from stereotypical gender roles imposed on them. Early stereotypes of lustful and sinister Asian American men luring White women into sinful endeavors have evolved to viewing them as sexless or feminine persons (e.g., Mok 1999; Chen 1996). Most of these stereotypes were and continue to be reinforced through one-dimensional characters in the media. All of them, in one form or another, emasculate Asian American men. However, most information about the effect of Asian American men’s stereotypical lack of masculinity on mate selection remains mainly anecdotal. Few studies systematically link the emasculated Asian American stereotype to date or mate selection. Instead, social science studies on Asian American stereotypes have generally focused on the myth of ‘model minority’ both at school and in the workforce (e.g., Wong et al. 1998; Hurh and Kim 1989), or whether cultural specific filial piety exists among Asian Americans (e.g., Phua et al 2001; Oyserman and Sakamoto 1997). While these studies examined the impact of stereotypical “Asianness” on Asian Americans’ socioeconomic well-being, Asian American stereotypes also affect them in different social spheres, especially in relationships.

In this paper, I examine Asian American’s perceived masculinity in relation to the concept of hegemonic masculinity. Specifically, I focus on the case of gay Asian American men in the context of mate selection. Using data from in-depth interviews with 37 Asian Americans, I study how they interpret and negotiate their form of masculinity within a racialized gender hierarchy.

A Hegemonic Masculinity Frame

Popular culture generally describes true masculinity as inherent in a male body or as an expression of it. Hegemonic masculinity is a concept that is relational. Connell (1995) defines hegemonic masculinity as “the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (p. 77). Hegemonic masculinity is organized around the symbolic and equates masculinity with power. It is the ideal type that is glorified and associated with white men at the highest levels of society, although few actually possess the associated traits.

Within this framework, there are also different forms of masculinities. However, “different masculinities do not sit side-by-side like dishes on a smorgasbord. There are definite social relations between them. Especially, there are relations of hierarchy, for some masculinities are dominant while others are subordinated or marginalized” (Connell 2000, p. 10). One form of masculinity is often culturally exalted over others at any given time and location. The form of masculinity that is being subordinated or marginalized in part depends on the social organization of that society and in part on one’s perspective. Connell’s (1995) suggestion that gay masculinity is being subordinated and racial minorities’ masculinity is being marginalized looks at the hierarchy primarily through a gendered lens and is consistent with the way he organized his book. If one assumes that the fundamental hierarchy is organized around race, then one could argue instead that gay masculinity is being marginalized and racial minorities’ masculinity is being subordinated. This means that for the dominant race in a particular society, membership and its privileges are first determined by whether one belongs to that race. A gay man who belongs to the race of power may be more tolerated than a straight man of another race. In reality, the intersections of race and gender are so complex that even Connell (1995) acknowledges that the terms he uses may not be ideal. As I am examining the issue from a gendered and a racialized framework, I will depart from his usage and use only the term subordination for both gay and racial minorities’ masculinities.

In Western societies, White men’s masculinity maintains institutional dominance over racial minorities (Connell 1995, 2000). A masculine man in Western societies is portrayed as a traditional bread-winning man, who is White, physically strong, rugged, manly, and displays quality of heterosexuality. This idealized image of hegemonic masculinity forms a frame for gender role enactment and renders meanings to and organizes a person’s experience. Gonos (1977) posits that “a frame is not conceived as a loose, somewhat accidental amalgamation of elements put together over a short time-span. Rather it is constituted of a set number of essential components, having a definite arrangement and stable relations” (p. 860) The underlying assumption of a frame is that the society comes before a person’s current involvement in an activity, and thus is able to provide a person with frame structures to make sense of current events (Goffman 1974). While Goffman’s frame analysis is generally used to interpret events and activities, I am adapting the analysis and applying it to understand an overall experience. In this paper, I am not adhering to a strict application of frame analysis. Instead, I am using the concept of frames to explore how gay Asian American men interpret their experience in the mate selection process within a hegemonic masculinity frame. In doing so, my analysis is consistent with the idea that frame analysis is “the attempt to become cognizant of the rules for cognition and communication that are bound up with the production of any world” (Gonos 1977, p. 858).

Asian American Men and Masculinity

Within a racialized hegemonic masculinity frame, Asian American’s form of masculinity is subordinated. By definition, no Asian American man fits the imagery of a masculine man in the Western world. In fact, Asian American men are often being emasculated. They are sometimes stereotyped as being ‘sexless’ or asexual or even feminine (e.g., Mok 1999, Chen 1996). While “a person could be seen as Japanese and somewhat kinky, or Filipino and ‘available,’ [t]he same person could also be seen as ‘Oriental’ and therefore sexless” (Fung 2001, p. 516). Nakayama (2002) also posits that current images of Asians are “either asexual eunuchs or sexually available for white pleasure” (p. 94). Chen (1996) traces the roots of these stereotypes back to the 19th century and argues that the long-haired feminine appearance of Chinese men in the 19th century and the prevalence of Chinese men working in traditionally women’s service occupations reinforced these stereotypes.

Another form of emasculation involves the stereotype that Asian American men lack sexual prowess, alluding to the perceived diminutive size of their sexual organs. As Fung (2001) delicately puts it, “Asian man is defined by a striking absence down there” (p. 516). This stereotype robs Asian American men of their manhood and further reinforces the subordination of their form of masculinity.

Asian American men’s masculinity is undermined not only by the perceived lack of masculine physical attributes, but is also devalued by other perceived non-manly characteristics. Several researchers have posited that some White Americans view Asian Americans as exotic, subservient, docile and loyal partners—suitable companions when settling down or ideal for dating (e.g. Chow 2000; Mok 1999). Nakayama (2002) argues that “earlier fears of Asians as sexual demons have given way to more ‘domesticated’ images of Asians” (p. 94). However, none of these stereotypical images conforms to what one would label a ‘man’ in the Western world.

As such is the case, Asian American men’s desirability as a mate diminishes when masculinity is a prized commodity that men offer to potential partners, particularly among partners whom Bergling (2001) would call sissyphobic. This perceived lack of masculinity among Asian American men sometimes situates them in an indeterminate position in the racial preference hierarchy in mate selection. The impact of emasculation on their desirability as a mate is complex. On the one hand, it is particularly severe for gay Asian American men who, because of their race and sexual orientation, are subordinated within a racialized hegemonic masculinity frame. On the other hand, it may eroticize gay Asian American men and provide them with exotic racialized currency in the mating arena within a White heteronormative society.

Few studies, if any, systematically examine how gay Asian American men interpret their form of masculinity within a gendered racial hierarchy in the context of mate selection (e.g., Chuang (1999) presents a personal exploration of the topic). Most information about Asian American men’s stereotypical lack of masculinity are generally anecdotal. To contribute to current literature, I will first ‘flesh out’ the descriptions of these stereotypes. Then I discuss how gay Asian American men interpret their experiences and negotiate their status in mate selection within a hegemonic masculinity frame. I am cognizant that coupling is a dyadic process; however, in this paper, I will be examining this issue from gay Asian American men’s perspectives.

Method

Sample and Data

As part of the study, I gathered information from participant observation at bars and clubs that catered specially to gay Asian Americans and their friends. I also attended meetings and gatherings for gay Asian Americans. Some people at these places expressed interest in participating in my research and volunteered to recommend friends for the interviews upon hearing what I was doing. In order to minimize bias and to achieve a more diverse group of gay Asian Americans, I also solicited recommendations from friends. The data used in this paper are part of a larger study on American life experiences through the collection of oral histories between 1997 and 2003. For this paper, I used 37 interviews conducted with Asian Americans. This interview data was used because the participants discussed in details their dating preferences. While these interviews were considered as one data set, I took into consideration in my analyses the time factors as the interview period spanned over six years. The two time factors were age of the respondent and the date of interview. Specifically, I examined whether the data would suggest any narrowing or expansion of the variety of responses over time. For example, would some of the stereotypes no longer be mentioned or be explicitly challenged by later interviews? However, readers should keep in mind that this is a non-probability sample, and could not be used to describe any trends or prevalence.

All but two of the participants self-identified as single gay Asian Americans at the time of interview. The two participants who did not self-identify as gay protested using any sexual labels but volunteered that they would fall into the ‘gay’ category. These 37 participants were mainly from New York, Rhode Island, California, and Massachusetts. The ages of the participants range from 23 to 59 years old. Seven participants self-identified as Southeast Asians (includes Thais, Singaporeans, Indonesians and Malaysians), thirteen as Chinese, four as Taiwanese, ten as Filipinos and three as South Asians. The sample represents a mix of persons who were born in the U.S. and abroad. Interviews generally lasted from one hour to three hours. Most of the interviews were conducted at participants’ homes and some were at a restaurant or at their workplace (after work hours). Interviews were taped-recorded and transcribed. I also kept detailed notes from ongoing conversations with some participants and this information was appended to the interviews.

Researching Masculinity Frames

During the interviews, I asked participants to address how they perceive their desirability and how they think they are being perceived by others as mates. Without mentioning the word ‘stereotype,’ I also asked participants what they thought the general perception of gay Asian American men was in the context of mate selection. In almost all cases, participants volunteered the word ‘stereotype’ and provided examples as they described different Asian American images. I provided examples for only one participant who initially could not relate to the topic.

As part of the interview, participants were asked what they thought of these stereotypes and how they felt these stereotypes influence their consideration or their desirability in mate selection. I chose to focus on mate selection instead of date selection because mate selection implies greater commitment and thus potentially entails stricter selection criteria than date selection (e.g., Blackwell and Lichter, 2000). In this case, the importance of gay Asian American masculinity would surface more prominently and allow for a clearer picture for analysis.

In this paper, I mainly focus on their collective experiences. The reason for such an approach is that most Asian Americans suffer from similar stereotyping regardless of their differences. In part, this is because the diversity of Asian Americans is not fully realized and understood by non-Asians (even among some Asian Americans), and in some cases, stereotypes are used to blanket all Asian Americans for political purposes (e.g., Nakayama 2002). An example is the “they all look alike” notion (Nakayama 2002). In their study of Asian Americans as the model minority, Wong et al (1998) also allude to the assumption made about the homogeny among Asian Americans.

I used a grounded theory approach in analyzing the data (Glaser and Straus, 1967). This approach allows themes and issues that participants deemed important to emerge rather than to structure the analysis using predefined frameworks. I performed a two-stage coding process: first, by open coding broad themes and second, by focused coding using those identified themes (e.g., Esterberg 2002). According to Charmaz (2006), “[f]ocused coding means using the most significant and/or frequent earlier codes to sift through large amount of data” (p. 57). Through playing with the data, I was able to discover and develop a deeper understanding the empirical world as presented by our participants.

To ensure validity, I examined the context (life stage) in which the themes emerged and whether or not the themes were consistent if they appeared several times in a participant’s life as the interviews were essentially oral life histories. To ensure reliability, another researcher was recruited to independently code 10 randomly selected individual interview transcripts which represent about 27% of the original data (e.g., see Soulliere 2006 for a similar approach). First, the independent researcher identified all stereotypes mentioned in each transcript and grouped them into physical features and nonphysical stereotypes. The results were a 100% match with mine as stereotypes mentioned by participants clustered in a section of each transcript and required little subjective interpretation. Participants, individually and unaided, mentioned at least 80% of all stereotypes identified in this paper. Aided, participants had heard of all the stereotypes at one point in their lives. Second, the independent researcher developed themes that relates to how participants interpret and negotiate their form of masculinity in the context of their desirability as mates, and coded whether each transcript presented data that supported the theme(s). This process was more challenging as subjective interpretation was required. A 83% agreement was reached. The independent researcher identified an additional subtheme that I had identified but initially did not consider it as part of their negotiation. I had included this subtheme in the results.

To elaborate my points, I will use quotes verbatim. I use an ellipsis in places where I truncated the quotes to highlight the relevant excerpt. To ensure that every participant’s voice is represented, I use no more than two quotes from each participant. To ensure anonymity, I only identify participants using their country-of-origin or ethnicity. In some cases, participants had specifically requested that I use a regional identification instead of the country-of-origin. I am using country-of-origin for easy data referencing when analyzing the data. I do not include other information in this paper as it may compromise the confidentiality of participants’ identity. I am not suggesting that country-of-origin is more important than other social status variables. Also, I do not report percentages of participants’ agreement on any issue. From a statistical standpoint, reporting percentages may be misleading as the sample is nonrandom.

Results

I identified five major themes how participants interpret and negotiate their form of masculinity in the context of their desirability as mates: active acknowledgement of their feminine roles, active search for a ‘real man’, passive acceptance of labels, challenging the White hegemonic masculinity frame, and actively seeking a nontraditional ‘real man’ as their mate. At least 16% of all the 37 transcripts provided support for each theme. The results reveal two simultaneous trends. First, based on the first three themes, I argue that some gay Asian American men interpret these stereotypes through a hegemonic masculinity frame and thus, inadvertently maintain the frame. Second, using the last two themes, I posit that other gay Asian American men contest the hegemonic masculinity frame.

In the following sections, I first revisit and discuss gay Asian American men’s stereotypes. Then I examine how they maintain the hegemonic masculinity frame in the negotiation of their desirability and desires. After which, I discuss how they also attempt to reframe their masculinity to contest the subordination of their form of masculinity. The results demonstrate how this sample of single gay Asian Americans interprets their experiences and assign meanings to them. In interpreting the results, readers should keep in mind that the data is from a non-probability sample and thus, is not generalizable to all gay Asian Americans.

Gay Asian American Men’s Experiences of Racial Stereotypes

Few studies, if any, provide a comprehensive discussion of different gay Asian American’s racial stereotypes. Most stereotype descriptions are anecdotal and scattered in different literature. The goal of this section is to revisit stereotypic descriptions and to offer substantive explanations as to the context in which gay Asian Americans are situated. When I asked participants how they think they were being perceived as a potential mate, all but one participant offered me examples of Asian American stereotypes. They flooded me with examples of stereotypes they were aware of and shared with me their reactions to them.

All these stereotypes are consistent with the earlier discussion about how Asian American men are emasculated. These images affect gay Asian Americans’ sexualities and their desirability in mate selection. This is akin to how some researchers argue that “Asian woman are rendered hyperfeminine: passive, weak, quiet, excessively submissive, slavishly dutiful, sexually exotic, and available for white men... This Lotus Blossom imagery obscures [any] internal variations” (e.g., Pyke and Johnson 2003, p. 36).

The stereotyping of their physical features portrays gay Asian Americans in a masculine-less image. Participants are particularly irked by being portrayed as having a small endowment. A Chinese participant comments that “I have heard people saying that Chinese have small dicks but I saw all the Oriental Guys magazines, which showed otherwise. What can I say, right?” On the other hand, a Taiwanese participant shares his experience that “not all White men are well-endowed, not even the Latinos or Blacks. I think we have the perception of other races [non-Asians] are big simply because those, who are, are flaunting their thing—we do not get to see the many who are not so big.”

Being smooth—another Asian American stereotype—is associated with being feminine. A Chinese participant relates his experience, “I got this Italian guy told me once that his friends don’t understand why he likes Asians. To them, Asians are so smooth just like women. If they want women, they will go for the real thing.” A Southeast Asian participant says, “I am smoother than a lot of girls I know.”

Another common stereotyped physical feature is that Asian Americans have small “slanty” eyes. A more tactful person would sometimes describe “Asian eyes” as “beautiful almond-shaped eyes.” These types of eyes are often associated with being demure, exotic and seductive. Many participants mentioned that they have been directly or indirectly told about preferences for “Asian eyes” or in some cases the dislike of them. A Southeast Asian participant mentions:

One of my friends keeps asking me to introduce him to other Asians. I was curious why he likes Asians that much. His answer was that there’s something about that ‘Asian eyes’ that he couldn’t resist. When I asked him what he meant by ‘Asian eyes,’ he just answered, ’you know what I meant’ and used his hands to make a gesture of a straight line in front of his eyes.

Besides facing stereotypes of their physical traits, gay Asian American men also contend with nonphysical stereotyping. These nonphysical characteristics, such as being intelligent, shy, exotic, sexually passive and respectful, generally depict a lack of manly bearing. Two Chinese men comment on the stereotype that all Asian Americans are intellectual:

I once had this White guy coming up to me and starting talking to me. When I asked him why I caught his fancy, he said because he liked Asians because we are so smart. I don’t know how to react to it. I think I am smart but I definitely don’t think all Asians are smart and I sure don’t think you can tell by looking at someone.

Once a guy wanted to sleep with me because he had never slept with someone from my school before. Oh, I was at [an Ivy League university]. I didn’t know what to say to him.

To elaborate the exoticism of Asian Americans, a Taiwanese participant expresses:

It seems to me that a lot of White people when they are looking for boyfriends, they are looking for somebody that is very much like themselves and to date somebody who is Asian is really not dating somebody like themselves. However, there seems to be a small group of White men who from my dealings, they just said gee White people are everywhere, so they like the novelty of dating somebody different.

Another stereotype assumes that Asian Americans adopt a subservient outlook in the disguise of respect. In an earlier study, Kaufman and Phua (2003) find that a higher percentage of gay Asian American men prefer older partners compared to other racial groups regardless of age. As one Southeast Asian participant relates, “I like my man older and more mature so that he can take care of me and protect me.” Chronological maturity in this case connotes financial and emotional stability that would enable a man to perform his manly duties of taking care of his partner. Gay Asian Americans are perceived to be more attracted to much older White men because they want to be taken care of emotionally and financially, akin to a woman’s place in a traditional household. A Filipino participant comments, “Older White guys keep coming on to me. They keep telling me they like Asians because Asians are so faithful and respect the old. That Asians like older White guys,” while a Southeast Asian participant suggests that “people just think that we like to play the woman in a relationship and look for a older husband like in those old Chinese movies or in stories of mail-order brides.”

However, some participants are perturbed by this stereotype and offer their interpretations. A Chinese participant speculates, “some White older men settle down with a young Asian because they could not find a corresponding White man who likes them”. One Southeast Asian participant comments that all he sees when he visit a gay Asian bar is “a bunch of old White men amidst a house full of young Asians—like an old folks home for White men staffed with young Asian nurses.” A Filipino participant remarks that he stopped going to some ‘Asian and Friends’ parties in New York that cater mainly to newly arrived Asians and run by a board of old White men. Another gay Chinese participant poignantly questioned: “Why are Asians always called boys but never men?”

The stereotype that crowns all gay Asian American men as feminine or as possessing subordinated masculinity at best is that they are sexually a bottom. A bottom is generally defined as a person who takes the receptive role in anal sex whereas a top is the person who penetrates. As one Filipino participant expresses, “Some White men don’t think they are gay if they go with Asians because we are so sexless, more like woman than man. So they can fulfill their fantasy.” One Chinese participant says, “My White bottom friends keep complaining to me that it is not that they do not like Asians but it is just too difficult to find an Asian top.” A few of the not-bottom participants share their frustration that most White men they met just wanted them to ‘bend-over,’ assuming that that’s all they like.

One might argue that each of these characteristics may not necessarily represent a lack of masculinity. However, in most cases, gay Asian American men are being labeled with a set of these stereotypes that collectively emasculate them within the hegemonic masculinity frame. Phua (2002) finds that masculinity is a prized commodity in mate selection; but all these stereotypes typify Asian American men in disadvantaged images. In some cases, the image is definitively feminine; in others, they are traits that are generally not associated with or are not prized as attributes of a ‘real man.’ The narration of this Southeast Asian participant exemplifies the point:

I was with a group of friends—all Whites—and we were just talking about what kind of men we like. Most of the time we are talking about other cute White men we came across. Then I asked them what about other races and I really didn’t expect the answer I got! They all agreed that Asians are not considered men; Asians are just a different category, one of a kind and different. Asians are simply physically too smooth and soft and act so differently. That didn’t stop my friends from sleeping with Asians—they just don’t consider them men. Rather some sort of ‘natural-born gays’.

One interesting finding is the persistence of these stereotypes over time. Regardless when they were interviewed and their ages at the time of analysis as well as if they were perturbed by these stereotypes, no participant actively challenges the validity of these stereotypes. Instead, they challenge the generalizability of the stereotypes. One Chinese participant who was interviewed in 1997 aptly comments: “I don’t want to say that these stereotypes are all myths because some of us may actually fit the mold. So there may be some truth to the stereotypes. The problem is that not all of us are like that or possess all the qualities. So when all of us become one, that’s the issue.” What is important to keep in mind is the distinction between whether the stereotypes have any truth in them and how these stereotypes (regardless of what they are based on) influence life experiences. Thus, even though participants might not actively challenge the truth about these stereotypes, most of them constantly negotiate and contest the outcomes.

Framing Experiences of Stereotyping

The previous section dealt with the emasculating stereotypes of gay Asian American men. In this section, I explore how they maintain the hegemonic masculinity frame in their interpretation of their desirability and desires and thus, directly or indirectly contribute to their collective emasculation. The intention of the following discussion is not to impose judgment on participants’ personal preferences but to recognize the hegemonic masculinity frame that is used to organize experiences. The analyses of the transcripts reveals three ways in which gay Asian American men are bound by the hegemonic masculinity frame: active acknowledgement of their feminine roles, active search for a ‘real man’, and passive acceptance of labels.

First, some gay Asian American men actively acknowledge their feminine roles, using terms such as girls, boys, or women to address themselves. These gay Asian Americans tend to reject their masculinity and emphasize their femininity as marketable traits in mate selection. However, their perception and performance of femininity may differ from those perceived and acted out by females. These gay Asian Americans seem to adhere to the supremacy of hegemonic masculinity in their preference for a “real American man.” They may not be drag queens, transvestites or transgendered persons but they adopt a feminine role in behavior, or thoughts, or both. This is exemplified by one Thai participant’s comment: “I am not feminine acting but I am all woman inside. I am not sure if I want to be a real woman, like having sex change but I am surely all woman in the way I think and all, you know.” A Filipino participant says that he finds American men so much more virile and manly and that is what he desires—a real man. Another Southeast Asian participant mentions that he contemplated having a sex change before to make himself more appealing to American men. In this way, their experiences are guided by the hegemonic masculinity frame whereby they legitimize the differentiation of gender roles. Indirectly, they are actively reinforcing the frame.

Second, some gay Asian American men actively seek a ‘real man’ as their mate. They want a man manlier than themselves. They prefer a mate who is more mature, manly and hairy. Some gay Asian Americans also desire sexual partners to have larger sexual organs, another masculine trait. These physical attributes symbolize masculinity and virility. One Taiwanese shares his preferences: “I really like hairy men. They are so manly. Smooth is just like a woman.” Another Chinese participant states: “I think a man should have a nice size dick. More like a man. Perhaps that’s why I prefer White men over Asian men.” What is interesting is that some gay Asian American men’s preference for masculinity relates only to White American men but rarely to other racial groups. The stereotype of a Black man with a larger-than-life endowment does not even factor into some gay Asian American men’s consideration set primarily because of race. Some gay Asian Americans will not even include someone in their mate consideration set if that man is not White, no matter how virile or masculine he is. In these cases, the definition of masculinity has been racialized and is no longer necessarily linked to specific physical features or behaviors. Making White and masculinity synonymous, these gay Asian American men are inadvertently undermining their form of masculinity.

Third, some gay Asian Americans may not agree with the stereotypes but they do not contest them. For these participants, the social organization of their lives may circumvent the need to confront these issues. Either the company they keep may not ascribe to these stereotypes or the conversation on this topic may not arise. In both cases, discourse on these issues becomes rare or nonexistence. Thus, awareness of these stereotypes does not necessarily translate into experiences interpreted as their outcomes. In addition, some participants rationalize the effects the stereotypes have on their personal lives and decide that the stereotypes might actually benefit them. A gay Chinese participant says, “Hey, as long as it does me good, I will milk it.” When they hear or are confronted by them, most participants just ignore the comments or treatment. The reason for such reaction is their perceived futility of their reactions: either they feel that their reaction would not effect any change in others’ behavior or attitudes, or that it might exacerbate the situation and perhaps incite violent retaliation. By their passivity, they inadvertently perpetuate these images as they are left unchallenged. An attitude common among some of the participants is that they could not do anything about it. One Southeast Asian participant says, “I know that these [images] probably disadvantage us but you know what can I do? There may be some fact in them after all. I cannot start a revolution to change it, right?”

Creating an Alternate Frame

Discussion in the previous section suggests that gay Asian American men work within the hegemonic masculinity frame, and directly or indirectly support it through the interpretation of their experiences and the process of emasculation. In this section, I examine how gay Asian American men are also social agents who simultaneously contest it and actively construct their masculinities.

Some gay Asian American men challenge the White men’s hegemonic masculinity as the ideal. A Southeast Asian participant comments that “I don’t understand why I am inferior to White men. As far as I know I am more of a man than most of them I see. I am confident, make a good living and well-educated.” Another Filipino participant shares similar sentiments; “I think the stereotypes of Asians disadvantaged us. It is not that you don’t see many manly gay Asian around. But most people just see the gay Asian boys, Asian bottoms... like the idea that all gay men are feminine because they are more obvious and visible! Sometimes people just see what they want to see.” A Chinese participant asks, “Why are all White men [considered] men [but] Asian men boys?” and remarks that “you know, I am more man than most White men I meet... or at least I am hairier than they are!”

Instead of partnering with straight-acting White men, some gay Asian Americans choose either non-White men, or men who are gay-acting or non-straight acting. White men whose masculinity is also subordinated within the hegemonic masculinity frame. A South Asian participant comments that “as a political statement, I don’t date White guys who think they are straight-acting. Have you seen what they called straight-acting? Such a joke,” while a Taiwanese participant claims that he actually is only attracted to black men as he feels they have more in common.

These gay Asian American men are sometimes labeled with derogative epithets such as “lesbians,” “sister lovers,” and “lesbo sisters.” These labels not only emasculate but feminize them. Those who choose fellow Asian American men as mates are called “sticky rice,” reflecting their resistance to partners outside their race and their preference to stick together. By partnering with non straight-acting White men or non-White men, they challenge the notion of ‘straight-acting’ White men as the embodiment of hegemonic masculinity and thus, the ultimate prize in mate selection preference.

These challenges to the hegemonic masculinity frame enable them to create an alternate masculinity frame that is not (or less) hierarchical. Ironically, this alternate frame still maintains a gendered hierarchy whereby masculinity is still preferred over femininity, even as it contests the racialized hegemonic masculinity frame. Structures that invisibly govern the original frame remain intact. In this interpretation, gay Asian American men are challenging a hegemonic masculinity frame within which they are still trapped—a frame within a frame.

Discussion

The Impact of Gay Asian American Men’s Emasculation in Mate Selection

Gay Asian American men experience subordination of their masculinity through their race and sexuality in the mating market. First, Asian American men’s form of masculinity is subordinated within a racial hierarchy (e.g., Chen 1999; Truong 2006). Scholars have argued that race is an important criterion in mate selection, particularly in America (e.g., Yancey and Yancey 1997). Researchers posit that some individuals use race as a valuable commodity and trade it for other traits, such as beauty and wealth (e.g., Phua and Kaufman 2003). The value of race as a commodity is socially constructed and reflects some form of racial hierarchy that is often argued to be an outcome of the historical, economic and socio-political context of a country. In a racialized North America, Whites are generally the preferred race when compared to Asians. The following remark by Roy (1998) exemplifies this point: “I come to America and find this rigid ladder of color with white on top and black on the bottom. And on a ladder there seems to be only one way to go—up” (p. 260).

Second, gay men’s form of masculinity is subordinated within the hierarchy of masculinities. Sexism abounds even in the gay community. Both feminine and masculine gay men tend to prefer a masculine partner. Some gay men aspire to be straight-acting and generally prefer a partner who is similar to them (Phua 2002). Desiring to be straight-acting suggests that for a gay man who aspires to be masculine, he has to adhere to a heterosexual display of masculinity. The distinction of gay masculinity and straight masculinities, whether real or imagined in its manifestation, confirms a hierarchy of masculinities. Within the framework of hegemonic masculinity, gay masculinity is subordinated under heterosexual masculinity.

However, these two disadvantages are intertwined (e.g., Pyke and Johnson 2003; Eng 2001). Hegemonic masculinity can be interpreted as a form of racialized masculinity where ownership of hegemonic masculinity belongs solely to the White population in the U.S. Among gay men of different races, a sub-hierarchy of types of masculinities exists as White gay masculine men are the closest thing to hegemonic masculinities by virtue of their race. This is similar to what Pyke and Johnson (2003) posit as racialized femininities where what is “at play is the presumption that the only path to gender equality... is via assimilation to the white mainstream” (p. 49).

These two forms of subordination discussed above affect gay Asian American men’s desirability in the mating market. They are often not considered as masculine or sexually desirable as non-Asian males. Whether it is emasculation or feminization, the outcome renders gay Asian Americans non-manly. While gay Asian Americans are undeniably biologically males, they are not considered as men within a framework of “a gender system in which being a male does not limit one to being a man” (Kulich 1998, p. 220). Carr’s (2005) study on tomboyism suggests that women could choose being masculine or feminine, illustrating that one’s biological sex does not necessarily determine one’s gender role. Within this system, what constitutes being a man is culturally and socially defined. To be considered a man, a person must first be born biologically a male, and second, possess what are considered acceptable (and in some cases exalted) displays of masculine behaviors and physical characteristics within a racialized gendered social hierarchy. Thus, to desire a man is not to desire an Asian American man. In many cases, gay Asian American men are stereotyped collectively and categorized into less desirable group and in some cases, not even within the consideration group in mate selection.

Ironically, some of them are preferred precisely for those reasons. For example, some men prefer gay Asian American men because they are more like women or that they are exotic. Some gay Asian Americans react negatively to these stereotypes, even if the stereotypes are ‘advantageous’ to them. The general consensus is that they do not like to be prejudged by others. However, a few participants express that they are not bothered by the stereotypes as long as they are not affecting them in a negative manner. On the other hand, it disadvantages others. A gay Southeast Asian participant complains that he could not meet anyone for dating because no one desires him: “Gay men want another man. If they don’t think we Asians are man, then of course I have difficulty finding a partner. I have every part a man should have. I just don’t understand why it is like that.”

As the process of emasculation is being interpreted using a racialized hegemonic masculinity frame, it elevates the desirability of gay White men and subordinates that of gay Asian American men. Connell (1995) argues that “the number of men rigorously practicing the hegemonic pattern in its entirety may be quite small. Yet the majority of men gain from its hegemony” (p. 79). In short, the stereotypes that typify gay Asian American men as non-manly compromise their location in the racial and sexuality hierarchies within a hegemonic masculinity frame. Even though some Asian Americans may harness the effects of these stereotypes and use them to their advantage, these stereotypes rob a person of his or her individuality and are discriminatory.

More importantly, the analysis shows that some gay Asian American men are active social agents who constantly challenge their subordination, and in this case, they contest the hegemonic masculinity frame. Connell (1995) suggests that hegemonic masculinity exists only in a given gender relation and that position is always contestable. Connell (1995) also argues that “hegemonic masculinity embodies a ‘currently accepted strategy. When conditions... change, the bases for the dominance of a particular masculinity are eroded. New groups may challenge old solutions and construct a new hegemony” (p. 77). Thus, the challenge by gay Asian Americans offers an alternate frame to interpret their desires and desirability in mate selection. However, creating a new hegemony does not necessarily serve as the replacement of the old hegemonic masculinity frame, as Gonos (1977) posits that “the structure of a frame... is fixed and left essentially untouched by everyday events... With a great enough reworking of frame, we have done more than redefined a situation; we have destroyed a world” (p. 859–861). In fact, this alternate frame would coexist with the old frame. The coexistence of multiple masculinities frames and how they may be used by the same individual in different context reflects the complexities of human experiences. This illustrates the idea that there are multiple sites of contestation and resistance, or of power.

Conclusion

The analyses show that gay Asian American men’s adherence to the idea of hegemonic masculinity in part frames their preferences in mate selection. Assuming a feminized role, making White men synonymous with masculine men, and their passivity in challenging the notion of hegemonic masculinity ‘castrate’ gay Asian American men and reinforce their subordinated form of masculinity. However, the analyses also highlight the complexities of the issue. Gay Asian Americans are also social agents who actively resist and contest hegemonic masculinity and construct their masculinities. This contradiction highlights the complexities of human interactions and interpretations of experiences. It would be simplistic to assume there are two mutually exclusive groups of gay Asian American men who either maintain hegemonic masculinity thereby emasculating themselves, or attempt to reframe it. In fact, what is interesting is that the same person could concurrently engage in both activities.

The interviews were conducted over six years. It is plausible that discourses regarding these stereotypes could have changed over the study period and such change is not captured by this non-probability sample. However, even if the discourse has changed, the social position of individuals will determine their timing of awareness of the discourse, the extent they would participate in the discourse, or whether they would abandon earlier versions in favor of the current discourse (e.g., Parker 1999). Appositely, one Southeast Asian participant exclaims, “we are not like you [referring to the interviewer], we don’t spend all our time thinking about these things. We have our work and life to think about.” This comment underscores the fact that while this discourse may be important to both researchers and participants on a personal basis, this discourse is an intellectual exercise for the first but not necessarily for the latter. To accurately measure the extent of change in discourse and the prevalence of such discourse are both beyond the scope of this paper and require quantitative data.

While I focus on the discussion of how single gay Asian Americans negotiate their desirability and sexuality within the framework of hegemonic masculinities, I am cognizant that dominant masculinity is premised on the oppression of men of color beyond the mating arena. Labor exclusion, residential segregation, immigration restrictions and other forms of discrimination also shape a person’s perception of their own sense of masculinity. Gay Asian Americans have to contend with what it means not only to be masculine but concurrently also what it means to be a man, a racial or ethnic minority and even an immigrant.

In this paper, gay Asian American men are grouped together as a collective because Asian Americans are not “fully realized” as a diverse group by others as their differences may not be readily evident (Nakayama 2002). When someone is unclear about differences between a American-born Chinese and a foreign-born Chinese, or between a Taiwanese-born American and a Chinese-born American, characteristics of one group would easily be imposed on another. Some would argue that similar spillover effects exist across gender and sexuality lines. For example, gay Asian American men and Asian American women could easily share the stereotype of being submissive and passive in character.

Analyzing Asian Americans collectively is important as it underscores how they are often being mistaken as a monolithic group and that characteristics of one Asian group are often assumed to be shared with other Asian groups. Nonetheless, it is critical to acknowledge that differences, such as sexual orientation, gender and country-of-origin, among Asian Americans condition the intensity and breadth of their experiences. In turn, these different experiences influence how they view their identities and their constructions and performance of gender roles. In addition, examining Asian Americans in interracial relationships could also add new insights to these issues. Further research is recommended to fully explore such differences.