Locals and Gay and Lesbian Tourists

Although studies of residents’ attitudes towards gay and lesbian tourists have not been undertaken, there are reports of locals’ reactions in some parts of the world. Sometimes this amounts to isolated instances of tourists being refused accommodation or of being physically abused on the grounds of sexuality and, in other cases, it is a more widespread adverse reaction to a gay and lesbian inflow, a reaction that may be governmentled. None of these can be regarded as representative of community views, especially as many are based on newspaper reports. As with all studies of residents’ attitudes, it might be expected that there will be mixed views on an inflow of gay and lesbian tourism, with economic issues dominating other aspects. Dimensions such as cultural norms and religious beliefs might be expected to be particularly significant in locals’ reactions, though these may well conceal a more fundamental prejudice and intolerance. Travel guides and promotional magazine articles often point out that locals may be offended by overt gay behaviour and open displays of affection, and advise that travellers should be sensitive to local cultural and religious sensitivities. There is often reference to anti-gay feelings or legislation in particular countries, though there are few reported instances of abuse or prosecution directed at tourists as such. The UK government provides an advisory web site for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons travelling abroad (http://fco.gov.uk/knowbeforeyougo). This advises travellers to be aware of local laws and attitudes and to avoid ‘an excessive physical show of affection . . . in public’ especially outside of ‘gay neighbourhoods’, in rural areas and in countries where there are strongly held anti-gay religious beliefs. There is also a warning about the reluctance of accommodation providers in some parts of the world to accept bookings from same-sex couples.

There are reports of individual incidents of abuse, such as a French male tourist couple being beaten up in Cape Town in 2002 – apparently because of their public kissing (http://www.uk.gay.com, 2002). The murder of an American resident in Prague was believed to be the outcome of a gay encounter with a male prostitute. This, and an earlier murder of a New Zealander, ‘prompted many to question whether the Czech Republic is safe for . . . gay tourists who visit the country every year’ (Lavers, 2004). Fiji is one of the few countries to have protection in its constitution against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but an Australian tourist and a Fijian man were sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for offences ‘against the order of nature’ and ‘gross indecency’ under legislation that is a legacy of British colonial rule (Human Rights Watch, 2004b). The magistrate is reported to have described the behaviour as ‘something so disgusting that it would make any decent person vomit’. An article in Gay Times reflected on the irony of the choice of Fiji for a UK television reality programme that followed the love entanglements of ‘celebrity’ straight couples but at the same time had such anti-gay legislation (Banks, 2005). Alan Bennett, a well-known UK playwright and author, in an article about his birthdays, recounted how he had been physically assaulted by youths during a one-night stay in a small seaside town near Rome in 1992 (Bennett, 2004). Medical attention was required but police assumed it was an attack provoked by a homosexual advance and therefore required no further investigation: ‘Simply by recounting the circumstances of an assault the victim becomes the culprit’ (p. 28).

Over one-third of gay and lesbian visitors to one of the largest and most popular gay and lesbian beaches in the USA (in Florida) had, at some time, experienced verbal or physical abuse whilst visiting the area (Philipp, 1999). In the early 1990s the local mayor had stated that gays and lesbians were not welcome and the local tourist development council expressed a desire to promote the town as a place for ‘family’ vacations.

Accommodation

More common are problems in the area of accommodation bookings in particular. ‘Hotels are the worst landmines’ (Van Gelder and Brandt, 1991, p. 5). A small (non-academic) study conducted in the UK by a national newspaper showed discrimination against same-sex couples in the booking of accommodation. A gay couple were refused bookings or required to sleep in separate beds by three out of the ten hotels contacted in this small ad hoc survey (Tuck, 1998). The newspaper also referred to a Stonewall report which indicated that 17% of gay people had been made to feel unwelcome because of their sexuality when staying in a hotel. A similar nation-wide phone survey undertaken by an Internet magazine also suggested that about 17% of UK hotels outside London would refuse a booking from a gay or lesbian couple. The survey enquirers were open about employment by the magazine and it is conjectured that, as a result, responses were more favourable then would otherwise have been the case (S. Bustin, http://www.queercompany.com, 2000, personal communication). In the UK Mintel study (2000a), 16% of respondents reported having experienced discrimination (unspecified) or homophobia in a hotel or guesthouse; this was especially the case for females.

A lesbian travelling in France with her partner described her feelings about the process of booking a shared hotel room: ‘I knew the dreaded question was about to emerge from the woman’s immaculately painted French lips – the question that was so simple, so complicated, so well designed to make me feel wrong from head to toe’ (Barrington, 1998, p. 59). She and her partner were also verbally abused by a hotel porter in Spain after pushing together two single beds.

The reaction of reception staff to a male couple at a Birmingham (UK) hotel was such as to cause them to seek alternative accommodation.

The hotel manager, whilst anxious to reassure the press of the nondiscriminatory policy of the hotel, none the less stated that the hotel ‘would never knowingly let a double room to two men but would . . . offer them a room with twin beds’. He claimed that there would not be a problem for two women to book a double room and the policy was justified by reference to complaints received from other guests in the past about a gay motorcycle group (Skinner, 1995). A male couple were refused a double room in a Devon (UK) guesthouse though the tourist board (VisitBritain) accepted that its code of conduct did not cover this discrimination (Rutherford, 2005). Some of these experiences may be more to do with policies adopted by individual managers or owners than by hotel companies; one male couple, denied a double room in Warwickshire (UK), were initially informed that it was company policy to do this, something that the parent company subsequently denied (Anon., 2002). A gay man who had experienced denial of accommodation wrote to Gay Times (July 2004, p. 8) about his experience. He and his partner (travelling in the UK with two straight couples) were denied accommodation at a camping park in Skegness (a Lincolnshire seaside resort) on the grounds that same-sex couples were not accepted. A subsequent letter to Gay Times (October 2004, p. 8), however, recounted the positive holiday experiences of a male couple (with children) at a Pontins holiday camp in the UK.

A ‘mystery-shopper’ type of study of a number of hotels (320) in the USA found that, in responses to enquiries for bookings, ‘significantly fewer requests were granted to the same-sex couple than to the opposite-sex couple’ (Jones, 1996, p. 155). This was most evident in the smaller, bed and breakfast type of hotel, and it was conjectured that it might be due to personal prejudice or to a fear of same-sex couples being more conspicuous. Considerable publicity was generated in 2004 by the case of a male couple who were offered a room with twin beds rather than their preferred double bed when booking accommodation in a Scottish Highlands guesthouse. The proprietor justified this by his not wanting to ‘condone your perversion’ and expressed his disapproval of ‘unnatural acts being performed in my home’ (quoted in Blackstock, 2004, p. 6). Needless to say, VisitScotland (the national tourism promotion body) condemned this and sought to reassure potential tourists that it was an isolated incident (Copestake, 2004b). In the following week, a small-scale phone survey by a national newspaper journalist seeking a double room for a male couple failed to turn up similar reactions (Jeffries, 2004). The journalist contacted 50 hotels and guesthouses across Britain and encountered problems on only one occasion (in the Channel Islands). A UK hoteliers’ trade paper was very upbeat about the potential of this market and encouraged hoteliers to actively market to the gay and lesbian market (Golding, 2003). It pointed out, though, that one of the main issues that would need to be addressed by hoteliers was ‘check-in phobia’: an unwelcoming reception or an assumption that either twin beds or separate rooms were required.