Are Gay Bars Closing? Using Business Listings to Infer Rates of Gay Bar Closure in the United States, 1977–2019
Abstract
Widespread alarm over gay bar closures in the United States has occurred in a vacuum of data. This visualization depicts changes in gay bar listings from the only national guidebook of LGBT places, published annually between 1964 and 2017 and again (and finally) in 2019. Trends in gay bar listings support perceptions of recent gay bar decline. They showed their largest five-year decline between 2012 and 2017, losing 18.6 percent. An additional 14.4 percent of bar listings disappeared in from 2017 to 2019. The listings at greatest risk receive little attention: Between 2007 and 2019, when all bar listings declined by 36.6 percent, lesbian bar listings shed 51.6 percent, cruisy men’s bar listings declined by 59.3 percent, and listings for bars serving people of color declined by 59.3 percent. The largest change in bar types, those serving gay men and women together, became the largest single category between 1997 and 2017. Caution must be exercised, however, in inferring rates of bar closure from bar listings.
These data are from an original database (N = 13,963) of gay bar listings created from the Damron Guide (see the appendix). This is the only national travel guidebook of LGBT places, which was published annually between 1964 and 2017 and again in 2019, making it an unparalleled and formidable national record of LGBT placemaking in the United States.
Trends in gay bar listings support recent popular perceptions of gay bar decline (e.g., Thomas 2011):
The table displays data at five-year intervals for the period from 1977 to 2017 and includes listings from the most recent, and perhaps final, 2019 guidebook. Change in total listings is disaggregated by bar patronage: cruisy/leather bars serving men involved in BDSM, sex work, or sex on the premises; lesbian bars; bars serving primarily people of color; bars with mixed-gender socializing; and gay bars for mostly or only men. Consistent with popular perceptions, gay bar listings show their largest five-year percentage decline in the period from 2012 to 2017, losing 18.6 percent. This trend appears to have accelerated between 2017 and 2019, when the guide shed fully 14.4 percent of listings in a two-year period.
There were always far fewer lesbian bars (e.g., Wolfe 1992), consistent with longtime differences between gay male and lesbian placemaking (e.g., Brown-Saracino 2018). Listings show substantial recent decline, albeit from much smaller numbers. Between 2007 and 2019, lesbian bar listings shed 51.6 percent. Losing even one lesbian bar when the 2019 listings suggest only 15 in the entire country represents substantial loss, particularly if it is the only one serving a large region. Caution must be exercised in interpreting the number of lesbian bars before 1990, however, before which the company was run by and for men.
The time period from 1987 to 1992 marked a dramatic increase in the number of listings that indicated women and gay men were socializing together (the codes do not specify whether the women were lesbians), indicated in Figure 1 as “Mixed M/F.” These listings more than doubled between 1987 and 1992; from 1997 onward, they were the most common type of gay bar. The rise of gay bar listings describing bars patronized by both men and women represents the largest change in market mix among gay bar types during any time period observed, is a trend that has attracted little attention, and coincided with the largest decline of lesbian bar listings, from 1987 to 1992.
Figure 1. Gay bar listings in Damron guides at five-year intervals, 1977–2017 and 2019.
Note: Change in total listings is disaggregated by bar patronage: men into radical sexual practices (cruisy/leather), lesbians, primarily people of color, mixed-gender socializing, mostly or only men.
There has been little public discussion about the gay bars most at risk of closure: those serving women, those serving people of color, and cruisy men’s bars. While all gay bar listings declined by 36.6 percent between 2007 and 2019, the number of listings for bars serving people of color declined by 59.3 percent, cruisy men’s bar listings declined by 47.5 percent, and bars for women declined by 51.6 percent. Discussions of gay bar closures should pay attention to those LGBT communities at greatest risk of losing their places.
Caution must be exercised when inferring change in gay bars and lesbian bars from business listings. The quality and quantity of the guidebooks’ informants may have peaked with the popularity of physical guidebooks and declined with the recent rise of online sources. Guidebook codes changed over time and thus may not describe the same phenomena, nor is it clear whether informants and readers interpreted the codes in the same way. Further research is necessary to assess the degree to which changes in gay bar listings reflect change in the number of physical gay bars, such as through longitudinal case studies of individual cities. If we infer a relationship between listings and establishments, however, these data suggest that there have been recent and dramatic changes in the number and types of gay bars, consistent with recent changes in gay neighborhoods (Ghaziani 2014; Mattson 2015).
Acknowledgments
The author thanks eagle-eyed research assistants Jack Spector-Bishop, Wren Fiocco, Will Jacobsen, Charlie Sherman, and Tory Sparks and is grateful for research funds from Oberlin College.
ORCID iD
Greggor Mattson https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8872-9637
References
Brown-Saracino Japonica. 2018. How Places Make Us: Novel LBQ Identities in Four Small Cities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ghaziani Amin. 2014. There Goes the Gayborhood? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Mattson Greggor. 2015. “Style and the Value of Gay Nightlife: Homonormative Placemaking in San Francisco.” Urban Studies 52:3144–59.
Thomas June. 2011. The Gay Bar: Its Riotous Past and Uncertain Future. Washington, DC: Slate Magazine.
Wolfe Maxine. 1992. “Invisible Women in Invisible Places: Lesbians, Lesbian Bars, and the Social Production of People/Environment Relationships.” Architecture & Behavior 8:137–58.
Biographies
Greggor Mattson is an associate professor of sociology at Oberlin College, Ohio, where he also serves on the Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies Program Committee. He is the author of The Cultural Politics of European Prostitution Reform and is currently working on a book about recent changes in U.S. gay bars. He tweets from @greggormattson and @whoneedsgaybars.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
- visualizing_appendix.docx
- 17.36 KB
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: December 18, 2019
Issue published: January-December 2019
Keywords
Rights and permissions
© The Author(s) 2019.
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 10876
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 0
-
Where the Great Cities Go, Do Other Cities Follow? Divergent Trajector...
-
Swiping right on PrEP: a qualitative study of MSM preferences for PrEP...
-
HIV/AIDS Among Sexual and Gender Minority Communities Globally
-
The impact of lesbian bar ownership on USA lesbian bar geographies: al...
-
The Changing Mix of Gay Bar Subtypes after COVID-19 Restrictions in th...
-
Queer enough to swipe right? Dating app experiences of sexual minority...
-
Gay Dating App Users Support and Utilize Sexual Health Features on App...
-
Queering urban space through informal recreation: The experiences of a...
-
Internet Recruitment of a Diverse Population of Lesbian, Gay, and Bise...
-
The “Other” Side of Laugavegur: Past Queer Spaces in Reykjavík
-
An evaluation of assumptions underlying respondent‐driven sampling and...
-
Queer Isolation or Queering Isolation? Reflecting upon the Ramificatio...
-
Who Are the People in Your Gayborhood? Understanding Population Change...
-
After/Lives: Insights from the COVID-19 Pandemic for Gay Neighborhoods
-
Why Gayborhoods Matter: The Street Empirics of Urban Sexualities
-
Let’s (not) Go Outside: Grindr, Hybrid Space, and Digital Queer Neighb...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
View options
PDF/ePub
View PDF/ePubGet access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
