We all agree that
sexual orientation isn’t just about whom you sleep
with but how much of your identity is tied up in the
things you have to buy (not to mention the price
you’re willing to pay for them).
Let’s
begin with a stipulation: It’s difficult to write
about one’s personal spending without seeming
like a snob or a communist, a sybarite or a Spartan.
Some of the things I give money for will surely seem silly
or extravagant to you, and some of the things I go without
may seem like necessities in your household. But the
highly idiosyncratic nature of consumption raises a
cultural question: Is there a particularly gay way of
spending?
Ambrose Bierce
called money "an evidence of culture.” He was
kidding, sort of -- joking, as he often did, about the
airs of the rich and cultured. (He also called money
“a passport to polite society.”) But at
some basic level, money is surely evidence of culture, in
the sense that the items we value enough to purchase
help define who we are. So if we can agree that there
is a gay culture, there should be testimony to it in
our spending habits. Just look at the ads in this magazine.
They lead to another question: With the economy the
way it is, can any of us afford to be gay?
This question
presented itself to me in stark terms this past summer as I
sat on the Fire Island Pines beach scrubbing my jeans with
sand. A few weeks earlier, having watched my
mutual-fund gains shrink from the merely mediocre to
the almost theoretical, I had resolved to cut back. And so
when I needed new jeans, I foreswore $300-plus designer
denim in favor of a $145 pair from the French basics
store A.P.C. The store puts a little label on its
untreated-denim jeans saying that if you soak them in salt
water and then rub them with sand, they will break in easily
and develop those striations and wear marks that
high-end designers charge the extra money for.
That’s why
I was abusing my jeans with beach sand and drawing strange
glances: I wanted a designer look at a more affordable
price. Whether that makes me a fussy, stereotypical
faggot is another question, one I hope to address in
this story.
Another
stipulation, an obvious but important one: $145 is still an
outrageous sum for jeans. (And actually, according to
A.P.C.’s website, the store now charges $155
for the same pair.) But not long ago, at the New York
City outpost of Universal Gear (a chain store with locations
in the gay sections of four cities), I found Dolce
& Gabbana jeans for $274.95 -- on sale,
down from $345. Under the cold glare of D&G, $145
seems like a bargain. And this particular gay man is
not going to the Gap to buy its saggy-assed jeans, even if
they are only $55, and even if I do live on a
reporter’s salary, and even if that does mean I
eat leftovers most nights and have traded down from
Junípero gin ($35 per bottle) to Tanqueray ($20 per
bottle). Call me a queen, but Gap jeans don’t
fit me, in at least two senses: They don’t fit
my body, and, I would argue, they don’t fit my
culture.
My first phone
call for this story was to Lee Badgett, the brilliant
economist with the Williams Institute, an LGBT public policy
think tank at the University of California, Los
Angeles. Badgett has been researching gay people and
poverty, and is so polite that she suppressed a groan
when I told her the reason for my call, but I understood her
objections: This story could confirm a stereotype of gays as
more privileged than straights. It could make us seem
frivolous, and it would continue to ignore the least
advantaged in our community.
But then I asked
Badgett to send me her preliminary data on gays and
poverty. She did so -- the data appear in this story for the
first time -- and the numbers show a complicated
picture, which does reveal some financial advantage in
being a gay man. According to census figures, gay and
lesbian couples experience poverty at about the same rate as
straight couples of the same race, age, and education
level. But when you look at all gay men -- including
singles -- they are half as likely to be living in
poverty as straight men, according to numbers Badgett
compiled from a 2002 survey by the National Center for
Health Statistics. That survey showed that 2.1% of gay
and bisexual men ages 18–44 live in poverty, compared
with 4.2% of straight men in the same age group.
(Straight women and lesbian/bisexual women in that age
group had no statistically significant difference in
poverty rates -- for each cohort, the rate was about 6%.)
These data may
mean only that gay men under 45 who live in poverty are
less likely than others to reveal themselves in a survey.
But could the data also mean something else? Have gay
men created a culture in which poverty is less
acceptable than it is for straight men? And do we work
harder to avoid it because of those cultural expectations?
To put it blithely, is $145 the least we can spend on
jeans, because otherwise the jeans wouldn’t be
gay enough?
Click here to follow The Advocate on Twitter.
Page 1 of 3