The Individualization of Homosexual Sex/Erotic Acts at the Hot Springs in Taipei
Lawrence

Urban space is always a host space. The right to the city extends to those who use the city. It is not limited to property owners.

Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner 

In Risk Society, and Detraditionalization, a co-work with Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim, Ulrich Beck states capitalism in late modernity has changed its demand to labor of not being compliant for maximum production but active in the quest of autonomy, self-reflexivity and individuality.  Such a purpose aims to reach the highest level of efficiency and productivity for the consumer-oriented market.  Globalization standardizes commodities, services and values to build up a formidable, systemic cooperation in worldwide production, distribution, and consumption.  However, along with the demand to animate the labor market so as to create a favorable environment for consumption, the ideas of democracy and liberty also grow stably in this new epoch.  Individualization prevails for the benefit and at a disadvantage of both labor and capital.  People rationalize their distinct and various tastes, thoughts and choices, and contribute their originality and creativity to the labor and consumer market.  Differentiation and variation are expressed as the need of miscellaneous commodities and services in consumption, and entrepreneurs have to cater to consumers’ spontaneous and precarious fondness.

The Hot spring industry in Taiwan aptly manifests the transformation of capitalism in late modernity.     It has combined forces with various museums, local cultural-historical studios, five-star hotels, restaurants, sauna-spa complex bathhouses, and even real estate businesses to provide various alternatives of facilities and services for different kinds of potential customers, thus creating ample opportunities of individualizing and customizing.  Yet while The recreation and services may be multifarious at the hot springs, they all tend to strengthen the social and moral values of the middle-class heterorsexual family: Nevertheless, when the late-modern capitalist society demands its labor to be autonomous, self-reflexive and individualistic, the restrictions imposed at the hot springs are every bit fragile, breakable and impossible.  For according to Beck, the risk-consciousness that accompanies late-modern capitalist society tend to prompt an individual-minded person to be involved in a constant activity of calculating the risk and making decisions about what risks to take or avoid.   At the highly heterosexual hot springs, it is the homosexuals who are striving to realize their “non-normative” desires and, at the meantime, claiming their citizenship in the public sphere against the risk of surveillance, supervision, and even attack.

In this paper, through media reports and my in-depth interviews with gay informants, I intend to demonstrate the impact of individualization upon homosexuals as they engage in sex/erotic acts in the space of the hot springs.  The interviews will present gay attitudes toward such recreational activities and their innovative ways to fulfill their mental and physical longings against the bias and discrimination of the heteronormative society.  Although at times there may be some incongruence in the viewpoints of the same informant toward public sex/erotic act, a closer scrutinization of the content of the conversations will reveal that the contradictions may have risen from a sense of embarrassment toward body exposure, an inexperience with meeting direct and blatant allurement in public space, and anxieties about persecution by heteronormativity[1] in sex/erotic acts.

I

In recent years,  the booming economy of Taiwan has also brought on a thriving leisure industry.  With the stable increase of income and the implementation of five-day-work-week, workers have more time and money to conduct leisure activities.    Even the government is promoting leisurely and recreational activities so as to enhance worker productivity as well as to strengthen the service industry.  On the other hand, since the lifting of the martial law, self-awareness/determination of local residents and the idea of community formation have come to be articulated with the discourse of a new national identity, which stimulate local people to re-explore, re-excavate, re-define and re-utilize local cultural resources.  As a result, due to the economic, cultural, and political reasons, hot spring recreation, which was originally developed by the Japanese colonial rule, is now re-formulated and totemized by the state, the capitalist market and the local community to become a new Taiwanese traditional cultural activity.  The hot spring industry in Yang-Ming-Shan district for example presents urban hot spring activities as a form of mass cultural consumption initiated by spontaneous local residents as well as an exhibition of local culture and history through the hot springs museum, in addition to being packaged as a leisure commodity with medicinal effects which assuage mental and physical pressure.  Some hot spring businesses even cooperate with real estate firms to extend to the potential market of middle-class heterosexual families who might be able to afford hot spring villas for vacations.  Whether it is constructed as a culturally oriented activity or interest oriented commodity, de-sexualization is the standardized policy.

This emphasis on de-sexualization has its historical context.  In 1979, Taipei City Council abrogated the legal rights of prostitutes to work in the hot spring industry at Pei-tou.  Since then, the sex industry at Pei-tou turned underground and its scale also shrank.  Such an act of the government displays the anxiety of the patriarchal institution to eradicate the sexualized image of the nation after the consolidation of economic structure.  In order to eradicate all factors that may threaten the capitalist system, the state took upon itself to eliminate sex workers and the sex industry so as to stabilize the middle-class monogamous heterosexual nuclear family, the foundation of capitalist society.   Any stimulus, which triggers intense emotional and physical response, would be supervised or even restricted for the maintenance of stability.  As a result, the erotically potent space of the hot springs suffered severe rationalization as well as de-sexualization.

As Max Weber states, over-rationalization only serves to inflame the unquenchable need for eroticism (349).  The hot springs may adopt the policy of discouraging sexual/erotic activities on their premises, yet the realities often work against such efforts of de-sexualization.  Consequently, even the website of the Taiwan Hot Spring Associationhas to present information concerning how heterosexual couples can avoid hygienic problems when enjoying sex or love-making in the hot spring pools.    In the meantime, media reports of the hot springs also reveal heteronormative attitudes towards sex/erotic acts conducted by heterosexuals and homosexuals in the hot springs.   One article in China Times, a local newspaper, reports that a trendy phenomenon of doing sex/erotic acts at hot spring spots is sizzling among heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, so much that noise and funny sounds are often made blatantly when sex is going on in the personal bathrooms.  Interestingly, different judgments are made in relation to gays and straights when they are found to be enjoying the exact same thing.  The report mentions that some patrons had found a man and a woman lying as if they were dead on the floor of a personal bathroom, and thus asked the management to unlock the door in order to save their lives.  But what they received in return for their kindness was the scolding by the couple for disturbing their moment of jouissance.  In this case, the heterosexual couple felt fully justified in defending their privacy and love-making when they were intruded upon.  No such righteousness or dignity is accessible for the homosexual couple.  As soon as they are found out to be having sex or other erotically significant activities, other customers would quickly report to the owner and express fear and disgust toward the behavior of the gays.  And, unlike the heterosexual couple who can shame the onlookers for intruding, the gay couple would only be humiliated and ousted from the premises.

At the same hot spring spot, the owner also renovates the space in a way that would decrease chances of blatant sex/erotic act by either heterosexuals or homosexuals.  Not only is the public pool divided by gender, personal bathrooms are also divided by gender.  Men and women are completely separated in their bathing activities.  The female personal bathrooms are located near the check-out counter for safety reasons, while the male personal bathrooms are moved to the end of the aisle for “tranquility.”  Besides, in order to stop homosexuals from doing sex/erotic acts on the premises, the doors to the male personal bathrooms are lowered to chest high so as to make it easier for others to supervise any sex/erotic activities that may be conducted by gay couples. 

The boundary between public and private spaces at the hot springs often functions to enforce heterosexual norms.  Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner postulates in “Sex in Public” that through the ideologies of intimacy, heterosexual hegemony exerts its power overwhelmingly over both heterosexuals and homosexuals:

First its conventional spaces presuppose a structural differentiation of “personal life” from work, politics, and the public sphere.  Second, the normativity of heterosexual culture links intimacy only to the institutions of personal life, making them the privileged institutions of social reproduction, the accumulation and transfer of capital, and self-development.  Third, by making sex seem irrelevant or merely personal, heteronormative conventions of intimacy block the building of nonnormative or explicit public sexual cultures.  Finally, those conventions conjure a mirage: a home base of prepolitical humanity from which citizens are thought to come into political discourse and to which they are expected to return in the (always imaginary) future after political conflict. (553)

Under the sway of heteronormativity, “modern heterosexuality is supposed to refer to relations of intimacy and identification with other persons, and sex acts are supposed to be the most intimate communication of them all” (555).  As a result, sex is privatized, and the private personhood is sexualized.  Public space prohibits the exhibition of sex; sex is thus circumscribed into a private domain for sustaining and concretizing the structure of heteronormativity.  Furthermore, non-normative sexualities are ostracized from the public sphere and often penalized if found in the private domain.

Perhaps the profit-oriented hot springs cannot afford to do away with their gay customers, yet their operating principles obviously favor heterosexuals by catering to their need for a safe haven to  share their moments of “intimacy.”  It was recently reported that  it has become a fashion  for (heterosexual)  couples to visit hot spring bathhouses, hot spring restaurants, and hot spring hotels to celebrate Valentine’s Day.  And if they cannot get rooms  at these locations right away, they would  resort to personal bathrooms in the “hot” springs to quench their “burning” desire..  No such convenience is offered to homosexuals.   Even though Business owners might not be choosy about their patrons--considering the fact that gay customers bring in quite a profit--still, when owners receive more and more complaints from their heterosexual customers, they would certainly not remain blind to the non-normative sex/erotic acts taking place on their premises.

Profit-oriented hot spring spots are not the only ones that inhibit gay sex/erotic acts; the many culture-oriented hot spring bathhouses in the Pei-Tou area also took up the same posture.  Since February 2, 2001, words of warning[2] have been posted on the front door of Chang-chuen Hot Spring Bathhouse, an illegally builtbathhouse maintained by local residents which was later taken over by several scholars[3] and renovated as a successful example of community-awareness/decision.   The warning placard, posted by Da-twen police office of the Pei-tou police station, announces:  “This public bathhouse is a public space.  We firmly restrict deeds such as turning off the light without permission, occupying the space for exclusive use, or doing illegal deeds.  Please conform to the common rules.  If you find any illegal deeds occurring, please report to us.”  The illegal deeds mentioned on the warning placard definitely refer to homosexual sex/erotic acts.[4]

Chang-chuen Bathhouse is one of the best-known examples for this pure, innocent hot spring culture, established through the efforts of local residents to resist contamination by sexual and capitalist activities.  Yet as much as the owners and the community hopes to avoid sexual activities by instituting gender divisions at the hot springs and bathrooms, such arrangements ironically provide opportunities for gays and lesbians to explore and experiment with their “non-normative” sex/erotic acts.  The owner of Floral Art Village, a famous hot spring spot at Yang-Ming-Shan, admits that he is not so sure whether the gender-oriented arrangement in his bathhouse as well as the lowering of the doors on the bathrooms would really curb the passionate acts of homosexuals.  Nevertheless, surveillance measures prevail in the hot spring space, as gay patrons continue to find clandestine yet clever ways to enjoy the pleasures of verbal flirtations, eye contacts, body touches and communal talk without provoking humiliation and hostility from the heterosexual culture.

Brandon[5], a man of thirty and a very smart, sexually-experienced gay, delineates honestly in the interview his skills of alluring bathers as well as ways of declining their seduction, and his strategies of facing the astonishment and moral reproof of intruders.  For him, it takes time to learn and develop skills of decoding people’s sexual implications in the hot spring space.  When asked about his premiere at the International Inn at Yang-Ming-Shan and his response to male gazes at hot spring bathhouses, Brandon spoke that he had not had any erotic or emotional feeling.

In the beginning, I just watched.  Because I didn’t have that kind of experience before, I did not get the meaning of people’s looking at me.  I would also watch people there, but I didn’t know the meaning of eye contact at that time.[6]

He was just in the age of eighteen something and was green in sex.  Ideas of finding sexual partners never occurred to him in that period.

At that time, I didn’t have any so-called body contact with people, because I dared not to and didn’t know how to do it.  So, I would wait there for a while and see whether there was anyone I liked.  Wherever he went, I would get a peep of him, but dared not to do anything further.  When he left, I followed, and saw whether I had a chance to chat with him outside, or even exchanged phone numbers.[7]

Knowing more people and making friends was his purpose of going to hot spring spots, because

the (homosexual) environment was so restricted, and the space was so circumscribed.  It was hard for you to find people and get so close as you were with your classmates.  In other words, in that (hot spring) place, you knew there were that kind of people, and you would know more people there[8].

In an unfriendly environment dominated by heterosexual culture, hot spring space serves as a socialized place for atomized gays to meet and gather, and learn their specific cultural codes.

After several times of observation, Brandon became smart in finding out sexual hints or even direct seduction cast from other gays.  He described,

In that place, we sat there (in the pool), didn’t we?  Then, someone would stretch his leg.  Even when you moved your legs as inwardly as you could, his leg would “grow” longer and longer to touch you purposefully.  Then, my response would be two ways to express: one is letting him keep touching you when you like it; the other one is changing your seat when you don’t like it.[9]

He further illustrated the skills and process of sexual allurement practicing in the water and out of poor as well.  In the water,

if the case is that he sits and faces me, for it is comparatively far (than sitting next to you), the probable way to hook you is stretch his leg to touch you.  Then, just as I said before, you could decide whether you want or not.  If you don’t, just move your seat; if you want, then keep sitting there with no moving, and he would keep touching you.  If you couldn’t stand it (the inflaming desire) any longer, you could stretch your leg, too…. If the guy sits beside you, it is nearer.  No matter whether he uses hands, legs or shoulders, soon, you would (get each other).[10]

For Brandon, a very important point for him to accept the seducer’s stroke is the guy has hairy legs, whereas, for Passerby, Brandon’s friend, who didn’t want to get into the interview in the beginning but eventually interrupted to the conversation several times, the height of the seducer would be one of his key concerns.  He stated that he prefers to sit at the opposite of the guy he likes, because, by sitting there, he could tell the guy’s height:

Basically, if you are capable of hooking my lower part, your legs must be long enough.  I could measure how tall he would be.  But if it is a guy sitting next to you and touching you, no matter how long it is, you wouldn’t know how tall he would be.[11]

By the cover of milky hot spring water, gays practice sensuous sex/erotic acts and find their ways of exploring the body of temporary partners.

In addition to sex/erotic acts floating in the water, Brandon also pointed out there are more ways and spots of seduction outside the pool: 

  As a matter of fact, “flowers blossom everywhere in the city of spring.”  You have chances to meet affairs anywhere.  Take National Inn for example, isn’t there a wardrobe?  There is a fan over there.  Sometimes, there would be a guy just stuck right at that corner.  Even when you put on or take off your clothes, people would touch you subtly or rub you slightly.  (Besides,) isn’t there a wooden bench at the other side of the room, near to the basin at the outer part?  For me, it would be full with three people to sit on.  Sometimes it would be stuck with four guys, touching each other.  But I would feel embarrassed there.  Because of my moral standard, I would feel embarrassed to sit over there and be seen by other people.... For me, it’s a private thing between two persons.  I would stand at the opposite of the wooden bench, and see what the guys sitting on it are doing...And, at the outer part, I know many people would rush to the toilet.”[12]

Although ways and places of doing sex/erotic acts are various, Brandon has his personal standard of how, where and with which guy to do it.  Doing sex/erotic act in public is outrageous to him.

When asked if the guy keeps touching him even when he shows his dislike clearly enough, Brandon said he would reject the guy politely and gently.  In describing the process of pursuit and rejection, Brandon conveyed his philosophy of gay cruising:

Of course, people would chase you further, but man has common self-awareness.  You leave, and then he chases you further.  If you leave again, would he keep chasing you?  Few people would (do so).  In that place, few people would (waste time on) keeping wooing you.  It just wastes your own time, understand?[13]

In the space of searching for sexual/erotic pleasure, gays develop ways of wooing and rejecting others.  Wasting no time on crying for the moon and having fun as best as you can become the primary concern of heterosexuals in cruising, which absolutely corresponds with the need of capitalism, that is, efficiency and productivity. 

In Brandon’s talks, not only the skills and process of sex/erotic acts are deliberately delineated, but the autonomy of choosing right guys to enjoy sexual pleasure are also revealed confidently.  However, on the other hand, the sway of heteronomativity also casts over him in doing nonnormative sex/erotic act in hot spring space.  He thinks that gays ought to do sex/erotic acts privately and secretly, since a hot spring spot is a public space and the property of a business owner.  As far as Brandon is concerned, the purpose of hot spring space is not originally planned to serve for the homosexual sex/erotic act.  As a result, gay consumers should respect and conform to the rules of the space.

When asked about his thought about the supervision and interruption of the heterosexual institution to gay sex/erotic act in hot spring space, Brandon had a vehement debate with me to argue about gay right of utilizing public space to affirm queer counterpublic[14].  In order not to distort or misinterpret his viewpoint, I tend to present the whole content of the debate, so as to display Brandon’s philosophy of doing nonnormative sex/erotic act in the public space.  

Lawrence: If you obey the rules set up by the business owner, your space for activities would get smaller, because there is no space planned in the beginning to provide this kind of purpose...  
Brandon: But I think you should behave yourself.  You do the right thing in the right place.  Just as hospital is hospital; restaurant is restaurant.  
L: So, your definition of the purpose of the space is stricter.  
B: Yes.  It’s you who believe I am this kind of person and I have this kind of need, I can do anything I like; I just want to break the set rules.  
L: So, if the space is sexually-purified...  
B: Not purifying (the space).  Maybe I should put it in this way, that is, leave the space as it should be.  
L: In terms of your perspective, since most space where we act is not accepted by the society, with its definition, you cannot do the (sex/erotic) act anywhere.  If you want, you can only do it in the ditch.  
B: Wait!  The places we refer to, whether belong to personal business or other organizations, all of them should belong to personal business I guess.  Because the hot spring spots are public space, owners have the right to set up rules.  If you want to use the space, then, you have to conform to the rules.  Otherwise, you can join parties specifically held for gays, just as the information I got in tabloid in New York, which would indicate the date and the place of the party.  But the problem is there are no such activities in Taiwan.  Perhaps, there are some, but you just don’t know.[15]

Brandon’s statement just manifests the manipulation of heteronormativity.  The discourse of intimacy prevents Brandon from practicing and affirming his sex/erotic desire in public: “it’s a private thing for two persons,” and the public space does not serve for sex/erotic need.  In fact, Brandon is not the only one who accepts the heteronormative ethics of using public space.  Jack and Kelvin, another two informants, also hold the same viewpoint.

Jack, an active volleyball player in the age of twenty-three, shares his viewpoints sincerely with me in the interview, though he has few experiences of hot spring activities before, one with his family and the other one with his “straight” friends[16].  For him, hot spring space is a public space, where gay should not do indecent sex/erotic act with strangers.  Watching naked men would be an embarrassing yet acceptable pleasure he would like to enjoy there:

Jack: It’s strange for me (to have body touch) with strangers.  I feel it’s not right.  Because I think that place is a public place, there should not be any other things happening there.  

Lawrence: So, your maximum pleasure is visual excitement.  You don’t expect any further sex act at spot?  
Jack: Actually, it’s not that I don’t expect.  If it really happens, I just feel, even if I want (to do it with a stranger), that place is a very open place.  You don’t have any (secret) spots to do anything further.  It’s not that I don’t have this fantasy at all, but it’s impossible.  Yes.[17]

Erotic fantasy might glimmer in Jack’s mind and tickle the lower part below his stomach, but, owing to idea of intimacy, he would not practice his desire too blatantly.  Compared to Jack, who would not do sex act directly at spot but just enjoy nude-man-watching in the public hot spring pool, Kelvin, a twenty-five man with a meditative, thoughtful mind, takes a rather conservative perspective in doing certain hot spring activities in hot spring space.

        Kelvin believes the main purpose of doing hot spring activity purely as for the relaxation of body and soul.  Erotic affairs are beyond his expectation of hot spring space and can only happen in the place, where there is no disturbance and the body feels free and relaxed ultimately.  In Kelvin’s definition, hot spring space may function as an arena of gay erotic affairs, for it provides an environment of relaxation and non-disturbance.  Nevertheless, thanks to the widespread dissemination of information about gay activities on BBS and websites, some hot spring spots are gradually transformed to be popular gay cruising areas, which makes Kelvin feel uneasy in the public space permeated with the floating, expressive sex/erotic seduction among gay patrons.

In the interview, Kelvin admitted several times that his social and moral values are much more similar to those of middle class.  He explained that since a great part of his life is an a-gay life, he would sometimes view gay activities from the straight angle.  Suppression of eroticism is, in Kelvin’s viewpoint, an imperative stimulus for kindling eroticism; conspicuous gesture of advocating gay sex/erotic desire in public space just dispels happenings of erotic affairs.  Nowadays, some hot spring spots notorious for gay gathering become too open, too free, and with no discipline, which scatters away the mystery, ambiguity, and secrecy of eroticism, and compels erotic affairs to disappear.   However, the erotic act is definitely practiced by Kelvin at the moment of his nude-man-watching in the pool, though he sees it as merely an extra pleasure. 

In Kelvin’s interview, the erotic pleasure he enjoys in hot spring space seeps out subtly, but he did not try to do much effort to portray this part.  On the contrary, he described much about hot spring satisfying his communal need:

With a certain degree, seeing and being seen are involved in hot spring activities.  But I think the feeling of relatedness, that is, communicating with people, is much more important, even though you may not really get to know somebody there, and you do not really have a talk with him, not even a word.[18]

Kelvin explained relatedness as the feeling of not being alone, which brings the sense of safety to him.  Such a feeling of not being alone and a sense of safety come directly from the sameness and equality of being naked in hot spring space.  

Kelvin: Generally speaking, you wouldn’t see people naked in common occasions.  You wouldn’t want to be naked in front of people.  Hot spring space provides some certain sense of safety for you to take off your underwear and jump into the pool.  You wouldn’t do it in other ordinary places.  Just only this deed (being naked) has certain significance to me.  As far as I am concerned, that is not a deed you could do, you want to do, and you dare to do in common occasions.  However, in that place, you could do it.  Naked in the pool, naked outside the pool, naked when showering, and naked at the moment of putting on your clothes again.  
Lawrence: Regardless of his identity and social background, when doing hot spring activities, he has to perform such a certain ritual.  
Kelvin: That’s right.  And everybody has the consensus, that is, this is nothing to be shameful about.[19]    

Hot spring space offers a sphere for both gay and straight to be free, relaxed and naked to bath in the same pool without the feeling of awkwardness.  Such relax and equality between the two groups rarely exists in the rest of heteronormative domain.  In the hot spring space, Kelvin and other gays can enjoy watching the chubby, skinny, strong, delicate, old, young, white, tanned body of every man without worrying the hostility and humiliation of heterosexuals.  It is the relax, the freedom and the equality of enjoying the pleasure of bathing with men without sexual discrimination that hot spring space distinguishes itself to be a popular gay gathering space from other heteronormative places, such as swimming pools, beaches, or sauna.

        Although none of the informants of the interviews think it is proper to do sex/erotic act in the public hot spring space, for it violates the doctrine of intimacy and provokes the hostility of heterosexuals, all of them cannot accept the discriminating supervision and suppression of heterosexual institutions.  Jack posed that if the hot spring space should be policed because of the gay sex/erotic act, then, the same policy should be applied to heterosexuals, who enjoy their sexual/erotic pleasure commonly in the streets, in the parks, in MRT, in the bus, in the restaurant, in every public space.  Likewise, although, in Kelvin’s viewpoint, the gay sex/erotic act transforming the hot spring space to be a homosexualized sphere is an act of breaking the agreement[20] of the space, the institutional surveillance and restriction are hegemonic acts destroying the equality, freedom and peace distinctively generated in the hot spring space.  According to Kelvin, suppression is the prerequisite of the eruption of eroticism.  However, Kelvin is also worried about the fact that such surveillance and restriction would strictly impel hot spring activities to conform to an institutional script, which would ruin the essence of hot spring activity and space, which is the essence of freedom, relaxation, and equality.

When answering my question about the perspective of the propriety of gay sex/erotic act in hot spring space, Brandon, a practician of pursuing sexual/erotic pleasure and a conformer to the doctrine of intimacy as well, also showed his disapproval of the institutional surveillance and disturbance to gay sex/erotic act in a very paradoxical way:  

As long as you don’t disturb other people.  Because, let’s think about our own need, the (sexual/erotic) feeling is very interesting and exciting.  People are all the same.  We have the desire of adventure, and quest for excitement.  People are all the same.[21]

He further explained his meaning of not disturbing other people:  

As long as you don’t disturb other people, I don’t think it’s a big deal.  Because if you really want to do further sexual act, don’t you try to find a darker, a more hidden corner?  Actually, there will be no intruders.  If you are really witnessed by an intruder, you don’t do it on purpose; besides, he won’t witness the whole process from the beginning to the end.  You would choose the place, the surroundings, the sphere where you are safe and don’t disturb other people.  Yes!  I don’t think it matters with you question.  I don’t disturb others.  I choose this place through calculation.  I hide myself to the corner, a dark corner.  It’s not the case that you stand right to face me and view my live show with another guy in the pool, which can only contain three people.  It’s not the case, right?  I left the (public) space already.  I am demarcated from you.[22]

In Brandon’s statement, the conformation of heteronormative intimacy is obvious, while on the other hand, his self-affirmation is also remarkable.  Brandon would cooperate with the doctrine of intimacy and not do the provoking sex act in public.  However, he would not take the institutional supervision of gay sex act in private sphere.  As far as Brandon is concerned, the hidden, dark corner in the hot spring space is not a public space.  First, he calculates, and then makes a choice of the hidden place to enjoy sexual/erotic pleasure with another guy privately.  He is thoughtful enough to avoid disturbing others.  He disciplines himself well, so he should not take the ridiculous discipline of the policing institutions to his private sex/erotic act.

        Brandon’s self-affirmation also manifests in another aspect.  He thinks if you are caught because of your sex/erotic act by the heteronormative institutions, you have to take the responsibility yourself.  

If you are caught, I will scold you.  It’s you who are so stupid that you are caught.  You are not cautious enough.  You can only blame yourself of your carelessness.  In fact, whatever we do, whether legal or illegal, we should be more cautious.  It’s because of your carelessness that you are caught.  When you started doing this deed, you made a mistake.  In my point of view, a hero would take the consequences himself.  Since you did it, then, you should be brave to take the consequences; otherwise, you shouldn’t have done it.[23]

Ulrich Beck in Risk Society proposes that people in late modernity would pursue the assertion of autonomy, self-reflexivity and individuality in the demand of the capital institution.  Late-modern people would first estimate, calculate, and speculate the risk of realizing their longings, then do the act and face the outcome of failure or success themselves.  The oppressive institution would not be the condemned target when the risk intimidates their lives; instead, they would take the consequences as their personal issue.  Such individualization in late-modern society also functions in the case of gay sex/erotic act.

        In searching for sexual/erotic pleasure, Brandon would first estimate whether the place is safe and private, then he does it secretly.  If he were caught, which never happened to him before, he would blame no one but himself of his stupidity and carelessness.  It seems that Brandon is compliant with the hegemonic heteronormativity, but he also firmly advocates his rightness of doing the sex/erotic act at the private corner of the public hot spring space.  In the late-modern society, labors are individualized in doing the act and taking the risk.  Individualization manifested in calculating the risk, doing the act for one’s own need, and taking the risk of the act has deep-rootedly engraved into the writing of sex/erotic autobiography of homosexuals, and Brandon is just right the typical example of the individualized homosexuals, who actively practice the late-modern autonomy, self-reflexivity and individuality in the heteronormative environment.

        As Henning Bech[24] postulates, the city is thoroughly sexualized and modern sexuality is essentially urban.  Georg Simmel also states that, in erotic interludes or love affairs, citizens get the chance to transcend the routinized life.  However, the capitalist society would, according to Anthony Giddens, prosecute desexualization to sequestrate the radically exciting emotional experience of aberrant sexuality for stabilizing and guaranteeing the quality of labors.   Jeffrey Weeks also offers his perspective of the relationships between the sexualized city and the sexualized citizens.  He regards the practice of sexuality as the exertion of citizenship.  Privacy should not be an excuse to deprive public right of sexual minority.  On the contrary, sexual citizenship should seek to contest the confinement of genital intimacy to private space, and challenge the heterocentric public space.

As the prototypical figure of the urban sexual landscape, male homosexuals cruise in the realm of exposure to the gaze of others, and learn and develop skills of decoding the gaze and the body movement of others.  In the hot spring space, homosexuals enjoy not only sexual/erotic jouissance, but also pleasure of relaxation, freedom, and equality of body and soul.  In order to forbid the occurrence of nonnormative sex/erotic deeds in public sphere, the heterosexual institutions confine users of the space to the same-sex public pools, which paradoxically creates a realm of gay gathering and cruising.

       In the hot spring space, homosexuals manifest their autonomy of realizing their desire, their self-reflexivity of choosing the right man, right time and right place to do the sex/erotic act, and their individuality of taking the risk of being policed.  Even though homosexuals may conform to the ethics of intimacy based on the culture of heteronormativity, they truly practice their sexual and erotic needs in the hot spring space.  Facing the sexual suppression, homosexuals cultivate the competence demanded by the suppressive capitalist, heteronormative institutions, the competence of autonomy, self-reflexivity and individuality.  At hot spring spots, homosexuals explore and expand the possibility of doing sex/erotic act in public space and actively write down their distinctive sex/erotic autobiography.

---

Works Cited

Beck, Ulrich.  Risk society: Towards a New Modernity.  Trans. Mark Ritter.  London: Sage, 1992.

Beck, Ulrich, and Elizabeth Beck-Gernsheim.  “Individualization and ‘Precarious Freedoms’: Perspectives and Controversies of a Subject-orientated Sociology.”  Detraditionalization: Critical Reflections on Authority and Identity.  Eds. Paul Heelas, Scott Lash and Paul Morris.  Malden: Blackwell, 1996.

Berlant, Lauren and Warner, Michael.  “Sex in Public.”  Critical Inquiry.  Winter.  1998: 24:2.

Brandon and Passerby.  Personal interview.  24 June.  2001.

Featherstone, Mike.  “Introduction.”  Love & Eroticism.  Eds. Mike Featherstone.  London: Sage, 1999.

Giddens, Anthony.  The Transformation of Intimacy:  Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies.  Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.

Jack.  Personal interview.  24 June.  2001.

Kelvin.  Personal interview.  25 June.  2001.

Simmel, Georg.  “The Adventure.”  Simmel on Culture.  Eds. D. Frisby and M. Featherstone.  London: Sage, 1997.

Weber, Max.  “Religious Rejections of the World and Their Directions.”  From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.  Trans. and Eds.  H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills.  London: Routledge, 1948. 

国立台湾大学土木工程学研究所都市计划室。《台湾北部地区温泉规划---台湾温泉旅游之分 析与政策拟议》。台北：台湾省旅游事业管理局，1988。

简文灿。〈温泉浴春色无边趣事多〉。《中国时报》19版，1998年6月25日。

----------。〈温泉鸳鸯浴，情人最倾心，一室难求〉。《中国时报》5版，2000年2月13日。

---

[1] Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner in “Sex in Public” define heteronormativity as “the institutions, structures of understanding, and practical orientations that make heterosexuality seem not only coherent---that is, organized as a sexuality---but also privileged.  Its coherence is always provisional, and its privilege can take several (sometimes contradictory) forms: unmarked, as the basic idiom of the personal and the social; or marked as a natural state; or projected as an ideal or moral accomplishment.”  They further pose that “[b]ecause homosexuality can never have the invisible, tacit, society-founding rightness that heterosexuality has, it would not be possible to speak of “homonormativity” (548).  Heteronormativity is the hegemonic institution which elevates heterosexuality as the only  normal pattern of sexuality, and deprives non-normative forms of sexuality of their legitimacy.  In the case of hot spring activities, homosexual sex/erotic acts inevitably encounter the power of heternormativity  as they challenge its suppression of aberrant sexualities in the public sphere.     

[2] The original text is, “本公共浴室为公共场所，严禁私自关闭电源、占用或从事不法情事，请大家共同配合。如发现不法，请向本所报案。北投分局大屯派出所敬制。电话：28913971。90/2/2。”

[3] In planning the policy of developing and managing hot spring industry, the government and scholars tend to encourage local residents establishing communities with self-awareness, so as to create a new hot spring culture against the contamination of sex industry and capitalist activity.  In the report of Civil Engineering Institute at National Taiwan University, commissioned by Taiwan Tourist Business Bureau, the core target of the policy is suggested to be the participation of local communities, which are regarded as a possible solution to counter the invasion of sex industry and capitalist activity (52). Chang-chuen Bathroom and Pei-tou Hot Spring Museum are two examples of reviving local culture and history by the spontaneous participation of residents.

[4] According my informants who get their information about gay activities at the hot spring spots through the BBS and chat rooms on websites, Chang-chuen Bathroom is not only a communal place for local residents; instead, the purpose of the space is expanded to that of an arena for homosexual sex/erotic acts.

[5] Because information and experiences shared by informants in the interviews are very personal and private, their names appear in this paper will be pseudonym, so as to prevent them from curious inquisition. 

[6] The original text in Mandarin is “那刚开始，我只是看。就是因为我没有那样的经验，所以我不知道他看我代表什么意义。我也会去看人家。但那时候我不晓得眼神的交会就代表什么，我那时候还不晓得。”

[7] The original text in Mandarin is “那时候我都没有和人家有所谓的肉体碰触，因为还不敢，也不晓得要怎样去进行。所以我那时候就是待一下，看看有没有喜欢的。他走到哪，就用眼睛余光瞄他，但是就是不敢怎么样。然后看到人家离开的时候，我也跟着离开。就是在外面的时候，看有没有机会和人家聊天，甚至进一步交换电话。”

[8] The original text in Mandarin is “(同志)环境那么小，空间那么有限，你没有办法说像同班同学那么多人可以亲近。也就是说，在那个环境，你知道有那样的族群，我觉得认识的人会比较多。”

[9] The original text in Mandarin is “那个环境，我们不是都坐在那边(池里)吗？然后有的人，脚就会伸出来。明明你的脚就缩到很里面，但他的脚还是拼命长，故意来碰你。然后我的反应就是两种。一种就是喜欢，就让他碰；不喜欢，我就自己换位子啊。”

[10] The original text in Mandarin is “假如说，他是坐在我对面，因为距离比较远，能够勾搭到对方的方式只有用脚碰你。然后，就像我刚讲的，你可以选择要或不要。不要，你就换位子；要，你就继续坐在那边，按兵不动，他就会继续碰你。假如你也受不了的话，你也可以把脚伸过去。.... 假如说，坐在旁边就很近了，不管用手、用脚、用肩膀，就会很快(上手)”

[11] The original text in Mandarin is “基本上，最重要的是，你有本事用你的脚构得到我的下体的时候，你的脚要够长。我可以测量他的身高有多高。那坐在旁边的，碰你半天你又不知道他的身高多高。”

[12] The original text in Mandarin is “其实任何地方都有可能春城无处不飞花，你都有机会接触得到。像国际那边不是有个置物柜吗？那边有个抽风扇，其实那里有时也会塞个人啊！就是在换衣服的时候，也是在磨蹭啊！那另外一边往外面洗手台不是有个木条椅吗？我觉得其实坐三个人就已经满了，有时候也可以塞到四个人，也在那边东碰碰，西摸摸的啊！但是那边我就不大好意思，因为我个人道德的关系，我觉得坐在那边，还给人家看到，我会不好意思。....我觉得这是很两个人间的事情。我会站在木条椅的对面，去看坐在上面的人在做什么。....然后，外面就是，我知道会有很多人冲进厕所里面去。”

[13] The original text in Mandarin is “当然，人都会这样追过来。但是人都有自知之明，你已经闪了，然后他再追过来，假如说你又闪了，他还会再来吗？没有几个人能够...，在那种环境，没有几个人会三顾茅庐。那叫浪费时间，你懂吗？”

[14] The term is coined Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner in “Sex in Public” as a counter sphere against the heteronormative space formulated by heterosexual culture (558).

[15] The original text in Mandarin is  

 “L: 这样的说法成立的话，你活动的空间就会更小，如果要遵守业者设定的空间使用规则，因为任何一个空间都不会在一开始就规划出这样的服务(功能)...

B: 但是我觉得是你自己应该要自爱好不好，该什么地方，就做什么事情。就像医院就是医院，餐厅就是餐厅。

L: 所以你对空间的功能定义比较严谨。

B: 对啊！是你自己认为说，我是这样的人，我有这样的需要，我爱怎样就怎样，我就是要搞害既定的规则。

L: 所以如果把这些空间纯净化...

B: 其实不是纯净化，应该是，就是把该是怎么样的还给怎么样。

L: 如果照你的说法，我们活动的大部分空间其实是不被这个社会所接受的，在它的定义之下，你哪一个空间都不可以活动，你要活动的话你，只能躲到阴沟去。

B: 等一下，我们现在要讨论的这些东西(温泉场所)，不管是民营机构还是其他，应该都是民营，因为都是公开场合，出资者有权设定使用规范。我觉得你要去使用它，你就要遵守使用规则。不然的话，因为我在纽约的小报上有看到几月几号在哪里，有什么party，其实你可以去参加那种专门为同志举办的活动，只不过台湾没有。其实，说不定有，只不过你不知道。

[16] The reason why I make a quotation mark to Jack’s “straight” friends is Jack’s roommate, one of the friends accompanying Jack to the hot spring spot in Yang-Ming-Shan, had very intimate body touch with Jack at home right after the hot spring activity.  Jack is not so sure of his roommate’s sexual identity because the guy frequently makes clear statement of his preference of beautiful girls with long locks and bulgy breasts before.  Here I do not intend to make a fixed definition of his roommate’s sexual identity, but instead, I want to point out the occasional possibilities of sexual transgression between heterosexuals and homosexuals, and hot spring space and activity may be the medium of this cross.

[17] The original text in Mandarin is

”J: 对我来讲跟陌生人(身体接触)，心理会有芥蒂，会觉得不应该。因为我觉得那地方是一个蛮公共的

地方，我会觉得不应该有其他的事情发生。

L: 所以你在那地方给自己享受的极限是一种视觉的感官刺激，不会期待当场发生更近一步的接触？

J: 基本上，并不是说不期待，但是如果发生的话，会觉得说即使想要的话，那地方是一个非常公开的场合，你根本没有什么地方可以进行更近一步的事情。并不会说自己完全没有这样的想法，但是...，不可能这样子...，对。”  

[18] The original text in Mandarin is “温泉活动，其实有一定程度，看跟被看在里面。但是我会觉得比较重要是一种relate的感觉，就是跟人交流。虽然你并不真的跟人认识，你也并不真的跟人沟通，就是一句话也不说。”

[19] The original text in Mandarin is

“K: 在一般情况，你不会看到大家赤条条的，你也不会想要在一般情况在大家面前赤条条的。温泉提供某个安全的机制是，你可以裤子脱下来就跳进去。你不会在一般的地方做，我觉得光是这件事情，就已经有一定程度的意义在了。对我来讲，那不会是一个平常能做，平常想做，平常敢作的事情。可是，在那个地方，可以这样做，泡下去赤条条，上来也赤条条，冲水也赤条条，穿衣服也赤条条的。

L: 不管他的身分背景，他在进行温泉活动的时候，就必须要有这样的仪式。

K: 对，而且大家会有一个共识，就是This is nothing to be shameful about。”

[20] According to Kelvin, there should be an agreement set up by the users of the hot spring space through spontaneous consensus.  It does not need to be through debates or real negotiation, for the consensus would be naturally formed in the mutual expectation of hot spring.  However, Kelvin’s perspective of agreement presupposes a pure essence of hot spring, the relaxation of body and soul.  Any other pleasures related to hot spring activities are regarded by Kelvin as the unexpected extra, the bonus in hot spring space. 

[21] The original text in Mandarin is”只要你不要影响到别人就好，因为其实，话又说回来，那种感觉其实蛮有趣、蛮刺激的，人都是这样，会有想要铤而走险的欲望，会寻求快感，人都是一样。”

[22] The original text in Mandarin is “你只要不要影响到别人，我就觉得这没什么。因为假如说你真的要做一个近距离的亲密接触的话，你会不会找一个比较黑暗、隐密一点的角落？其实不会有第三者，看到就算真的被第三者看到，那也是不小心的，但是他不会从头看到尾。你会去选择地方、环境，就是对你自己安全，又不影响到别人的环境。对啊！我觉得这跟你的问题没有关系啊！我又不影响到别人，我这个环境，我已经经过挑选，我已经躲得很边、很暗了，我又不是说今天这个池子只能坐三个人，然后你一个人站在那边，看我们两个人表演。不是这样子的情况啊！对不对？我已经离开了，我跟你有区隔。”

[23] The original text in Mandarin is “你说被抓到，那我就要骂了，是你自己蠢，你干嘛被抓到，自己不小心，只能怪你自己大意。其实我们做什么事情，不管是合法还是非法，自己本来就该多注意。是你自己不小心被抓到，你自己在刚开始做这件事就有偏差。我个人的看法是好汉做事好汉当，你敢作了，就要敢承担。不然你当初就不要。”

[24] Henning Bech and Jeffrey Weeks contribute their perspectives to the collection on “Citysex,” Love & Eroticism, edited by Mike Featherstone.  Here I extract their viewpoints of citysex from the introduction of the book