Queer expectations: An empirical critique of rural LGBT+ narratives

Abstract

Much of the body of literature on LGBT+ populations within the United States place urban areas and so-called gayborhoods as goals and eventualities, paralleling early US studies on immigration. Using a multistage, mixed-methods approach, consisting of secondary analysis of the Pew 2013 Study of LGBT Persons ( N = 1197) and in-depth interviews (35 gay men, 2 trans-identifying individuals, 1 heterosexual woman, and 2 lesbians), we found that rural LGBT+ residents engaged in both short-term and long-term travel to mitigate feelings of being spatially segregated from the loci of gay social life—what Ghaziani (2019a) refers to as cultural archipelagos. However, rural residents also used their geographical location to resist dominant narratives about LGBT+ life. Some of our respondents felt that living in rural areas better situated them to be activists and advocates for LGBT+ rights, while others simply did not feel they could be comfortable within more urban contexts. These findings suggest that rural LGBT+ residents may have delinked their sexual selves with their cultural and political selves, thus illustrating the plurality of rural queer voices that exists. As we also argue, while residence category should be considered as influencing one’s experience, care must be used to avoid overly deterministic accounts. Finally, this article extends earlier work by Brekhus (2003), Mattson (2015), and Ghaziani (2019a) by presenting the meaningfulness of travel to and from queer cultural strongholds.

Reasons Why Crime and Safety in Rural Areas Matter

“…Research shows that the context of discrimination and victimization matters, and that stressors impact individuals' mobility, health, and life chances (MUCF) -The Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society (2020). Some small rural communities can be restrictive toward Queer people, see Misgav and Hartal (2019) reporting the experiences of sexual minorities and their fight to the right to be different, while other rural areas can be inclusive and welcoming (Rosenberg 2021); see, for instance, Conner and Okamura (2021) who illustrate the advantages of living in rural areas for LGBTQ+ rights advocates.…”

Crime, Offenders, and Victims

“…In Sweden, MUCF (2020) found that young LGBTQ+ people in rural areas have less access to meeting places with other youths and may avoid attending recreational events and activities due to the fear of being treated badly. However, there are cases in which rural areas can be inclusive and welcoming (Rosenberg 2021); see for instance, the case of Conner and Okamura (2021) who list the advantages of living in rural areas for LGBTQ+ people.…”

Emergent Topics in Research in Rural Areas

“…Bell (2000), for instance, which is a seminal study on cultural constructions of rural gay masculinity in the United States, showed a blurred rural-urban divide. More recently, Conner and Okamura (2021) illustrated the advantages of living in rural areas for LGBTQ+ rights advocates, while DeKeseredy et al (2014) showed that the way the media has portrayed the sexuality of rural inhabitants in the United States (no matter their gender or sexual orientation) is distorted and serves the interests of particular rationalities of abuse. Missing in the current criminological research is a better understanding of why certain rural places impact positively on LGBTQ+ safety, while others, negatively.…”