The Influence of Sexuality on Contemporary Travel through the Eyes of the LGBTQ+ Community.
Author: Katie Shildauer
2 Commentries
Abstract:
Despite the perceived global progression in homosexuality acceptance, 72 countries still view same-sex relationships as immoral and criminalised (Wareham, 2020); leaving travel for many LGBTQ+ tourists a complex experience as opposed to one baring tranquillity. This report focuses on the direct way sexuality effects the contemporary travel experience, drawing emphasis to destination choice, integration, and relaxation.
Key Words:
- LGBTQ+, Homophobia, Contemporary Travel
Discussion Paper:
1992 marked a pivotal year for the LGBTQ+ community, with the World Health Organisation (WHO) declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. Seemingly, this advancement infers acceptance in international unison, however, Blasius (2001) emphasises this contradiction, inferring sexuality equality is not yet attained, and homosexual acts are still criminalised in 72 countries, and punishable by death in a further 12 (Wareham, 2020).
Complimenting this statistic, travel for LGBTQ+ tourists demonstrates a blatant prejudice; with Knell (2010) classifying locations worldwide as either pro-gay, those appealing because of legality and welcome, or anti-gay, locations where same-sex acts are illegal and fear of discrimination is ripe. In synonym to this acknowledgement, the tourism industry debatably views the LGBTQ+ community as one with financial and visible value, an arguably segregatory outlook, but one supported with over 70million international LGBTQ+ travellers arriving in 2000 alone (Robinson and Frost, 2017). When combining this coin alongside globalisation and increasing access to mobilities, it is predicted that LGBTQ+ tourists will only increase in prevalence and desire, allowing for the question to be asked: how does sexuality affect contemporary travel?
The interviews conducted within the report emphasise the importance of sexuality expression for LGBTQ+ tourists, in-turn justifying why anti-gay locations are less appealing, with affectionate behaviour towards same-sex partners having to be reduced or eliminated in fear of safety. Hall (2002) supports this notion, stating safety is vital component in modern-day travel, facilitating psychological tranquillity; however, this discredits Hookway’s ideology that embracing one’s authenticity achieves fulfilment and happiness. Thus, therefore providing clarification that LGBTQ+ tourists do not want to closet their sexuality on holiday out of embarrassment and fear of harassment (Mizieli?ska, 2016), so instead choose idyllic locations whereby homosexuality is accepted, and authentic expression can be displayed.
Regarding destination choice, Knell’s two-part classification is considered relatively simplistic, with homophobia not solely isolated to countries displaying criminalisation. This suggests immersivity between LGBTQ+ tourists and host communities is reduced, with attainment of acceptance being complex to forecast. Both interviewees reported of experiencing homophobia within the UK, a country that despite achieving same-sex equality in 2004 (Dryden, 2004), report of a fifth of the LGBTQ+ community having faced discrimination in the past 12 months (Stonewall, 2021). These emotive responses support the ideology of reduced integration and furthermore, reduced feelings of relaxation, showcasing that homophobia does not disappear in autonomy with decriminalisation, and in-fact, bares no pattern in prevalence. For contemporary LGBTQ+ tourists, this unpredictability results in travel baring sincere risk, with fear surrounding oppression and harassment reducing travel enjoyment and new connections being made, as in alignment with Fredline’s research (2003), relationships are made through similarity and an understanding of each other’s beliefs.
The interviewees answers bared a multiplicity of similarity, especially regarding the goal of equality; however, alike to Richardson and Monro’s philosophy, both participant’s desire ‘equality in sameness’ as opposed to ‘equality in difference’. In reference to travel, this portrays wish for their sexuality to not be of significance when travelling, and instead desire to be able to express themselves with complete authenticity, and alike to heterosexual couples, travel without fear and legally binding restrictions regarding their identities.
To conclude, using the responses from the interviews conducted and complimenting academic literature attained, it is clear sexuality adversely influences the modern-day travel experience. Thus, decision reached though the added complexity to LGBTQ+ traveller’s trips, and the contrast in their behaviour compared to heterosexual travel norms. Fears surrounding their safety via demonstrative behaviours and integrations leaves feelings of relaxation hugely reduced; in-turn causing many LGBTQ+ tourists to diminish their authentic expression in fear of unwanted harassment. The reduction of destination choice was another direct effect mentioned, with homosexuality subject to criminalisation in over 70 countries; however irrespective of this, homophobia is not irradiated through legality, and this removal of a pattern or trend, makes travel a daunting task for contemporary LGBTQ+ tourists.
References:
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N.J., Sedgley, D., Khan, E. and Jenkins, A., 2000. Sexuality and holiday choices: conversations with gay and lesbian tourists. Leisure studies, 19(4), pp.267-282.
Taylor, D., 2018. An Investigation into the Travel Motivations within the LGBT Community (Doctoral dissertation).
Usai, R., Cai, W. and Wassler, P., 2020. A queer perspective on heteronormativity for LGBT travellers. Journal of Travel Research, p.0047287520967763.
Despite the perceived global progression in homosexuality acceptance, 72 countries still view same-sex relationships as immoral and criminalised (Wareham, 2020); leaving travel for many LGBTQ+ tourists a complex experience as opposed to one baring tranquillity. This report focuses on the direct way sexuality effects the contemporary travel experience, drawing emphasis to destination choice, integration, and relaxation.
Key Words:
- LGBTQ+, Homophobia, Contemporary Travel
Discussion Paper:
1992 marked a pivotal year for the LGBTQ+ community, with the World Health Organisation (WHO) declassifying homosexuality as a mental disorder. Seemingly, this advancement infers acceptance in international unison, however, Blasius (2001) emphasises this contradiction, inferring sexuality equality is not yet attained, and homosexual acts are still criminalised in 72 countries, and punishable by death in a further 12 (Wareham, 2020).
Complimenting this statistic, travel for LGBTQ+ tourists demonstrates a blatant prejudice; with Knell (2010) classifying locations worldwide as either pro-gay, those appealing because of legality and welcome, or anti-gay, locations where same-sex acts are illegal and fear of discrimination is ripe. In synonym to this acknowledgement, the tourism industry debatably views the LGBTQ+ community as one with financial and visible value, an arguably segregatory outlook, but one supported with over 70million international LGBTQ+ travellers arriving in 2000 alone (Robinson and Frost, 2017). When combining this coin alongside globalisation and increasing access to mobilities, it is predicted that LGBTQ+ tourists will only increase in prevalence and desire, allowing for the question to be asked: how does sexuality affect contemporary travel?
The interviews conducted within the report emphasise the importance of sexuality expression for LGBTQ+ tourists, in-turn justifying why anti-gay locations are less appealing, with affectionate behaviour towards same-sex partners having to be reduced or eliminated in fear of safety. Hall (2002) supports this notion, stating safety is vital component in modern-day travel, facilitating psychological tranquillity; however, this discredits Hookway’s ideology that embracing one’s authenticity achieves fulfilment and happiness. Thus, therefore providing clarification that LGBTQ+ tourists do not want to closet their sexuality on holiday out of embarrassment and fear of harassment (Mizieli?ska, 2016), so instead choose idyllic locations whereby homosexuality is accepted, and authentic expression can be displayed.
Regarding destination choice, Knell’s two-part classification is considered relatively simplistic, with homophobia not solely isolated to countries displaying criminalisation. This suggests immersivity between LGBTQ+ tourists and host communities is reduced, with attainment of acceptance being complex to forecast. Both interviewees reported of experiencing homophobia within the UK, a country that despite achieving same-sex equality in 2004 (Dryden, 2004), report of a fifth of the LGBTQ+ community having faced discrimination in the past 12 months (Stonewall, 2021). These emotive responses support the ideology of reduced integration and furthermore, reduced feelings of relaxation, showcasing that homophobia does not disappear in autonomy with decriminalisation, and in-fact, bares no pattern in prevalence. For contemporary LGBTQ+ tourists, this unpredictability results in travel baring sincere risk, with fear surrounding oppression and harassment reducing travel enjoyment and new connections being made, as in alignment with Fredline’s research (2003), relationships are made through similarity and an understanding of each other’s beliefs.
The interviewees answers bared a multiplicity of similarity, especially regarding the goal of equality; however, alike to Richardson and Monro’s philosophy, both participant’s desire ‘equality in sameness’ as opposed to ‘equality in difference’. In reference to travel, this portrays wish for their sexuality to not be of significance when travelling, and instead desire to be able to express themselves with complete authenticity, and alike to heterosexual couples, travel without fear and legally binding restrictions regarding their identities.
To conclude, using the responses from the interviews conducted and complimenting academic literature attained, it is clear sexuality adversely influences the modern-day travel experience. Thus, decision reached though the added complexity to LGBTQ+ traveller’s trips, and the contrast in their behaviour compared to heterosexual travel norms. Fears surrounding their safety via demonstrative behaviours and integrations leaves feelings of relaxation hugely reduced; in-turn causing many LGBTQ+ tourists to diminish their authentic expression in fear of unwanted harassment. The reduction of destination choice was another direct effect mentioned, with homosexuality subject to criminalisation in over 70 countries; however irrespective of this, homophobia is not irradiated through legality, and this removal of a pattern or trend, makes travel a daunting task for contemporary LGBTQ+ tourists.
References:
Pritchard, A., Morgan, N.J., Sedgley, D., Khan, E. and Jenkins, A., 2000. Sexuality and holiday choices: conversations with gay and lesbian tourists. Leisure studies, 19(4), pp.267-282.
Taylor, D., 2018. An Investigation into the Travel Motivations within the LGBT Community (Doctoral dissertation).
Usai, R., Cai, W. and Wassler, P., 2020. A queer perspective on heteronormativity for LGBT travellers. Journal of Travel Research, p.0047287520967763.