Andriotis, K. (2010). Heterotopic erotic oases: The Public Nude Beach Experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4): 1076-1096. more

This is the pre-published version ± For final version see: Andriotis, K. (2010). Heterotopic Erotic Oases - The Public Nude Beach Experience. Annals of Tourism Research, 37(4): 1076-1096. Abstract Despite the importance of beaches for a broad spectrum of recreational activities, very little is known about the multitude of beach use in marginalized spaces offering a range of opportunities for transgressive behaviour. To explore the ways that the principles of Foucault¶s heterotopia are articulated by users of a gay nude beach, functioning as an erotic oasis, this study adopted a covert ethnographic approach which involved non-participant observation. The results of the study offer a unique glimpse into the role of beach, body and sexuality in the tourism experience and unlock the complexities and entanglements engaged in deviant beach use. Keywords: heterotopia, erotic oasis, beach experience, nudism, gay space, sexual body. INTRODUCTION Space is a product of social structures and relations, functioning as a central organising principle in the social sciences (Gupta & Ferguson, 1997, p.34). Among spaces there are settings offering a variety of leisure experiences to those who wish to feel free from constraints and pressures of everyday life. Very few of these settings are free of the signs of significant institutional presence and intervention (Evans, 2000, p.5). Beaches, as spatially specialized spaces of freedom and non-regulation, allow users to temporarily suspend conventional norms through the expression of social practices and relations (Moore, 1996). Beaches have existed in a timeless partnership with people as resources intended for use by all members of the society. However, the location of some beaches renders them ideal spaces upon which utopian rebellions can be acted out and where a particular culture can evolve ³outside of the surveillance and intervention of the powers that normally regulate social behaviour in Western society´ (Evans, 2000, p.5). Beach users are not a heterogeneous group, but indulge in a variety of activities each of which suits particular interests, and has different meanings. Due to the multifaceted use of most beaches, human presence, movement, and actions can constantly change the space. Traditionally, the beach as a recreational landscape, is used simultaneously or side-by-side by individuals with different lifestyles, and is continually open to negotiation in terms of the changing needs of those who use and shape the space at different times of the day and periods of the year. Thereby, certain sociocultural dynamics through which power, identity, meaning and behaviour are constructed, negotiated, and renegotiated, create additional unknown components (Pritchard & Morgan, 2000, p.884). Despite the critical role beaches play to the experience of a large number of people, and the differential attributes of beach spaces related to their physical characteristics and the lifestyle and relations of the actors who use and interpret them, the obvious importance of beaches as generators of recreational traffic for many coastal economies has directed research interest either on beach management, e.g. Houghton (1989), or on beach experience in mass tourist resorts, e.g. Mercer (1972); Passariello (1983). Despite the importance of beaches for a broad spectrum of active and passive day-trip, weekend and vacation recreational activities, yet very little is 1 known about the multitude of beach experience in marginalized spaces which offer a range of opportunities for transgressive behaviour. Likewise, the extensive research on the gay population as a deviant group of people, who adopt a lifestyle inconsistent with the norm and who visit spaces which offer the opportunity to act gay, has previously focused on various sorts of cruising grounds such as public restrooms (tearooms) (Delph, 1978; Desroches, 1990; Humphreys, 1970; Ponte, 1974); bathhouses (Tewksbury, 2002), adult bookstores (Leap 1999); adult theatres (Douglas & Tewksbury, 2008), highway rest areas (Hollister, 1999; Corzine & Kirby, 1977) and public parks (Allweil & Kallus, 2008; Tewksbury, 1996). In the context of tourism, research has been focused on gay tourists visiting cities with a highly developed gay scene (Visser, 2003) and hotels spaces (Poria, 2006a). Thus the beach as an important component of the travel experience of gay vacationers and as a public gay sex environment which, promotes erotic posturing and sexual interactions, has been largely neglected in the literature. Beach is a place of bodily disclosure where bodies are exposed in the act of swimming and sunbathing (Veijola & Jokinen, 1994, p.137). This bodily exposure attracts people¶s attention, a fact that is highly experienced in beaches where nudism is practiced. Thus many people believe that nudism deviates from societal norms and consists of an erotic act of immodesty, associated with sexuality. As a consequence, environments where social nudity is tolerated are believed to provide unique spaces for various sexual feelings (Smith & King, 2009). Following the expansion of nudism, the last two decades numerous studies have been conducted about the nude culture. These studies have been focused on the psychological aspects of nudism (Herold, Corbesi & Collins, 1994); nudists practices and expressions (Obrador-Pons, 2007); and sexuality (Smith & King, 2009), although the practice of nudism by the gay population has received only passing mention in the literature. For the reason that certain deviant expressions of identity such as homosexuality and nudism, are not always accepted in public but deviate from the normative structure of the society, they are being marginalised in privatised or public spaces. Remote beaches as deviant spaces, not locked into a commercial function, offer free occupation of the space and create conditions of freedom and opportunity for those open to adventures, such as public sex, swinging, voyeurism and exhibitionism. Although such adventurous are not those for which the beach is destined for, the activities that take place in gay nude beaches are encouraged by their unique atmosphere. Despite the theoretical and practical challenges of gay nudism for the emerging discipline of men¶s studies, the gay nude beach as a topos of the margin is distinctly different from the normal place of home. Here under the relative anonymity and freedom from community scrutiny, a set of connected discourses on pleasure and pleasurable activities are undertaken which has not been the subject of systematic study or exploration. In addition to the aforementioned lack of research on beach use by gay nudists, there are other gaps in the literature worth noting. In practice, the concept of µheterotopia', found in the work of Foucault (1986) has often been used in discussions of place in geography, e.g. Bonazzi, (2002); Hetherington (1997); Lefebvre (1991), as types of social spaces different to other spaces. However, Genocchi (1995) criticize research on heterotopology for focusing on discursive/linguistic sites, see for example the studies of Barnard (2007) and Piñuelas (2008), and very rarely examining empirically the notion of heterotopia as a useful approach to sociologically conceptualise real spaces. Limited exceptions include the studies of Allweil & Kallus (2008); Bartling (2006); Philips (1999) and Wieck (2006). However, none of these 2 studies, with the exception the one of Allweil & Kallus (2008), has approached deviant behaviour in public sex environments, known as erotic oases, from the aspect of µpublic space heterotopia¶. This study comes to address the gap in the knowledge of the culture and activities of the public who use a gay nude beach. The aim is to contribute to a better understanding of the concept of heterotopia by examining the ways that the beach space is being used as a means of creating new modes of social ordering. Taking the example of an unofficial public nude beach, located in close proximity to a mass coastal resort of the north coast of Crete, where gay men take advantage of their relative anonymity to look for other men and initiate sexual encounters, this study explores the ways that the principles of Foucault¶s heterotopia are articulated by beach users of a particular lifestyle. By adopting a covert ethnographic approach which involved non-participant observation of people and settings, this study offers a unique glimpse into the role of beach, body and sexuality in the tourism experience and unlocks the complexities and entanglements engaged in deviant beach use. EROTIC OASES AND HETEROTOPIAS Erotic oases serve as rallying sexual settings which provide individuals with opportunities to gather and pursue mutually desired sexual interactions (Douglas & Tewksbury, 2008). They are divided into commercially-operated businesses, expressly designed for sex, e.g. bathhouses; and natural environments co-opted by men for sexual purposes, e.g. public parks (Tewksbury, 2002, p.79). Erotic oases encourage two distinctive features, first, they are ³physically bounded, guarded, and contained by some sort of screening device that separates illicit behaviours from conventional definitions of surroundings; (and, second), they serve as a cloak of concealment for illicit activity´ (Delph, 1978, p.60). Among past research on erotic oases, Humphrey¶s (1970) sociological study on tearoom trade described the activities of men who frequent tearooms in five parks of an American city in search of quick anonymous sex; Ponte (1974) observed users of a parking lot, used as a social centre by an American gay community; Corzine & Kirby (1977) undertook a study on men who engage in short term homosexual relationships with truck drivers at two highway rest areas and two truck stops along an interstate highway at the edge of a Midwestern city; Desroches (1990) tested some of Humphreys¶ claims on five tearooms in Canada; Tewksbury (1996) undertook in-depth interviews with eleven men who had cruised for, and had sex with male sexual partners in public parks of three Midwestern states; Leap (1999) interviewed several men who patronised a particular bookstore backroom in Washington; Hollister (1999) conducted a study on cruising activities at highway rest areas; Tewksbury (2002) explored the pervasiveness and range of sexual activity among bathhouse users; and Douglas & Tewksbury (2008) examined the social dynamics of same-sex impersonal/anonymous sexual encounters in an adult theatre. Although gay tourists sometimes take vacations in the same destinations as heterosexuals and heterosexual families, the majority seek holiday environments which offer an opportunity to be themselves and participate in activities where they can step out of their lives and step into the world of gay space. The fact that even common public displays of affection which are considered normal for heterosexuals couples, such as holding hands, when practiced by gays are not well accepted and result in gay men trying to avoid staying in hotels in which many families with children are staying (Poria, 2006a). Nevertheless, the hotel room serves for homosexuals and lesbians as the ultimate space in which they feel completely isolated 3 and free, as Poria (2006b) suggested in the case of an Israeli lesbian woman. Since gays live in a heterosexual milieu, gay-friendly vacation settings provide them significant opportunities to enjoy a range of sexual cultures that may bring important changes in their individual and collective sources of gay identity (Holcomb & Luongo, 1996, p.712). Thus many gay men frequent, while on vacation, public places, such as beaches, which offer them the opportunity to seek sexual partners and express their sexuality. In an attempt to fulfil the hedonistic goal of obtaining pleasure by living free from the stress of their ordinary life, liminal gay zones offer the potential to gays to adopt liminal behaviours and identities that are not the norm (Yarnal & Kerstetter, 2008). In the case of gay resorts, beaches, as liminal spaces, provide conducive settings for personal and social codes to be temporarily suspended, and behavioral constraints to be removed, resulting in greater openness to socio-sexual contact with new partners. This contrasts with the norms and values that shape behaviour in their home environment (Ford and Eiser 1996, p.169; Sonmez et al 2006, p.896). In the case of the lesbian Israeli woman, she was able to use the beach as a space of relaxation because it offered her anonymity. This sense of freedom allowed her to expose herself safely to a heterosexual man she had met for first time (Poria 2006b). However, this is not only the case for homosexual destinations. Beach-side resorts, like Brighton, known as destination for the (heterosexual) µdirty weekend¶, have been shaped by the discourses of relative anonymity, romance and adventure, and have become the topos of a set of connected discourses on pleasure and pleasurable activities free from community scrutiny (Pritchard and Morgan, 2006, p.764; Shields 1991, p.150). Gay tourist destinations are traditionally associated with decidedly transitory and commercial enterprises like gay bars and nightclubs. However, for men who wish to hide their gay identity and as an alternative to commercial gay spaces, public sex environments such as beaches, offer sexual pleasure while avoiding being stigmatised (Richters, 2001). In reality, not only the use of beach by gays is considered deviant, but also any form of public nudity. Sexuality is not only expressed on gay beaches, but also on heterosexual marginal naturist beaches, as Evans (2000, p.11) reported in the case of Wreck Beach, Vancouver, where a few of his informants had engaged in sexual activity, in isolation from other naturists. Another study by Smith & King on how people manage their sexuality when practicing naturism in the United Kingdom (UK) found that nudity is invariably sexual, and that sexual arousal is ³likely to be a learned behavioural response to nudity in cultures that associate the naked body with love making and hence sexual feelings and behaviour´ (2009, p.440). Although the culture of nudists can be common to several areas, the varying user groups of the nude beach shape it in distinctive ways (Evans, 2000, p.12). Thus the expression of nudity by the gay population can constitute a spatial differentiation of use practice. Although nudism can be exhilarating for homosexual users, for the predominately capitalist societies of modernity their activities offend µnormal¶ beach users and the host communities. For instance, Singer (2002) talks about open sexual behaviour of gay nudists in Wilmington, Vermont (USA), which initiated calls to public officials against gays who use nudism as a flimsy excuse for orgies. As a second home owner in the area puts it: What we see every time we go down to the shore is disgusting, embarrassing and very upsetting « In the cove in front of our cabin there is a large group comprised only of males « Some of the gay men « (are) retreating into the woods for purposes other than mushroom hunting « 4 Along paths that branched into the woods from the trail (you can find) used condoms and condom wrappers «. If you use the lake you can¶t help but see it. There is no escaping it (Singer, 2002, pp.52-53). The above excerpt seems to prove that for most people cases of public comportment and public display of sexuality by homosexuals are particularly awkward. Many of the public sex environments described above have much in common to the six principles proposed by Foucault (1986) to define heterotopias. According to him these principles include: heterotopias exist in every culture in the form of crisis or deviation; their function changes in accordance with the synchrony of the culture in which they are located; they juxtapose in a single real place different spaces and locations that are incompatible with each other; they open up as a pure symmetry of heterochronisms; they have a system of opening and closing that both isolates them and makes them penetrable; and they have a function in relation to all the space that remains. Following Foucault¶s description of heterotopia, Allweil & Kallus (2008, p.193) labelled open-to-all public spaces that hold no permanent physical borders and appear as explicitly deviant with regard to the activities performed and their spatial articulation, as µpublic-space heterotopias¶. In the literature of tourism and leisure the concept of heterotopia has received limited research interest. Among the research on public spaces with a distinctly heterotopian leisure character, Wieck (2006) investigated the multiple and conflicting diversity of spaces that exist inside the boundaries of Christchurch Botanic Gardens from the perspective of both users and producers of the space, and Philips (1999, p.107) explored Disneyland, as a place offering a µphantasmagoria¶ which brings together µabsent others¶, and revels in the exoticism of its attractions. On the other hand, only one piece of research was found, having studied erotic oases from the aspect of heterotopia. This was the study of Allweil & Kallus (2008, p.194) who studied homosexuals¶ cruising in Independent Park along the Tel Aviv shoreline and attempted to examine whether µpublic space heterotopias¶ constitute practices of resistance and serve as agents of change. Study Area and Methods The information on which this paper is based was gathered as a part of a much larger ongoing study taking place in Crete. The study, the findings of which will be presented in forthcoming publications, has the goal of examining nudists¶ behaviour and experiences and community reactions towards them. The current paper presents the results of a research of the users of the only nude gay friendly beach in Crete, located on the margin of the mass coastal resort of Chersonissos. Gathering data in the particular locality of Chersonissos was partly for reasons of convenience and partly because the island of Crete has so far not been subject to gay research. The beach under study sits at the bottom of a small cliff and can be accessed on foot by following the paths down from a dirt beach road. Rock formations have separated the beach into four sections (Figures 1 and 2). The first section consists of rocks and is usually occupied by a couple of single men. The second sandy section is the most visible and is usually occupied by six to eight users, usually heterosexual couples. The third section is the largest divided by a large boulder from the second section, and can comfortably hold 15-20 people. It is considered as the gay part of the beach, where during afternoons most beach-goers are male of a gay persuasion. The final section is a small cave at the edge of the beach, hidden from view by the cliffs, and accessible only by sea. Although mainstream beaches, in most coastal resorts, including those 5 found in Chersonissos, provide facilities such as umbrellas and deck chairs, and users have the chance to buy drinks or food as well as various types of recreational amenities, the beach under study is not organised at all, making it synonymous with naturalness. In contrast to private erotic oases, e.g. bathhouses, engagement in the study beach requires no consumption of commercial commodities, since admission is free and nothing is institutionalized. Within walking distance, there exists only limited development along the cliff top, mainly in the form of second homes and a barrestaurant. The fact that the beach does not offer any items for sale forces users to tote food and drink items with them. Alternatively, users wishing to buy food or drinks have to wear their swim suits in order to move on to the bar/restaurant in the vicinity. Figure 1. First and Second Section of the Beach Figure 2. Third and Fourth Section of the Beach In light of the sensitivity of the investigated topic, the difficulty and disaffection of men who engage in public sex to be queried, and considering that the meaning of any spatial order is not intrinsic, but can evoke through practice (Moore, 1996, p.8), this study adopted a covert ethnographic approach which involved informal nonparticipant observation, where the bathers did not know about the research. To understand how gay nudist¶s interactions changed throughout the day and week, it 6 was necessary for the author to spend extended periods in the beach. However, due to the hot weather the time spent in the beach had to be short, around four hours per visit. In more detail, the author visited the beach 29 times between August 25 and September 24 2008, at various times and always alone. During these visits, notes were kept which were analysed in relation to Foucault¶s principles of heterotopia. These notes allowed the researcher to uncover the practices and experiences of those who use the study beach. Note-taking was not conspicuous, as a number of bathers often read or kept notes while on the beach. In order to support a more interpretive discourse in the notes, links across the relevant literature were sought. Prior to undertaking the current research, the author had never been to a gay friendly nude beach before. Hence, when he first entered the beach, he was quite unprepared for the conditions he found there such as when he accidentally witnessed the use of a cave for courtship and sex. As a heterosexual man in a predominantly gay beach, the researcher was not using the space in the ways other users did, but tried to be unobtrusive in order not to affect what was going on. This outsider strategy of observing the space and its use, which involved observation without sexual participation, according to Styles (1979, p.48) ensures objectivity and emotional distance and enhances the validity of research. Although as a non participating insider, the researcher was in the minority, he certainly seemed to be accepted by other bathers. Also the act of remaining clothed in swim-suit, in one of the most easily viewed parts of the beach, prevented beach users from approaching him. However, it is acknowledged that the presence of the researcher might have created a situation which disrupted the typical flow of interaction. Like every research method, covert observations face various weaknesses. According to Lugosi behavioural covert observation has been criticised for being ³ethically and professionally unsound and vilified all those who engaged in µduplicitous¶ research´ (2006, p.541). Another issue is that like many past research undertaken in erotic oases, it was difficult for the author to be open about his research. In practice, interviewing people about use practices and experiences which are often marginalized, can present practical difficulties. Considering that those who partake in public sex environments often seek anonymity and strive to hide the fact they patronize such settings (Tewksbury, 2002); the presence of a known researcher immersing himself into the space could be annoying and disrupt the tranquillity of the space. In addition, Douglas & Tewksbury (2008, p.4) support that interviews of users of erotic oases raises concerns regarding the possibility of response bias, as a large number of people who enter and exit erotic oases are not willing to give full and informed consent to be interviewed, and those that do, may not be entirely forthcoming. Notwithstanding all these limitations, the covert method adopted in this study offered the researcher access to information that otherwise would have been unavailable. The Heterotopic Nude Beach Foucault (1986) identified two general types of space, utopias and heterotopias. Utopian spaces present a society in a perfected form. Thereby, such spaces are not real but exist only in people¶s imagination. The study beach rather than utopian, is exposed, as heterotopic real place in which the ordinary rules of behaviour are to an extent suspended, and is formed like a counter-site, in which the real sites, are simultaneously represented, contested, and inverted (Foucault, 1986, p.24). The marginality mirrored in the gay nude beach and its transcendence in relation to ordinary spaces is explored below in relation to Foucault¶s principles. 7 Forms of Heterotopia. Heterotopic space belongs to each and all human groups, but manifests itself in two different forms: heterotopias of crisis and heterotopias of deviation. The majority of people visit a beach to swim, sunbathe or relax. However, the gay nude beach attracts users of a certain lifestyle, which often undertake activities not common to most people. Due to its users¶ outrageous lifestyle, the production of the gay nude beach, as heterotopia of crisis, is prompted by a subtle crisis, and is ³privileged, sacred or forbidden space reserved for individuals who are in a state of crisis´ (Foucault, 1986, p.24). Like those individuals, namely adolescents, menstruating women, pregnant women, and elderly, which are according to Foucault in a state of crisis with regard to the society they live, the users of the gay nude beach are considered in crisis not only at the societies (resorts) they temporarily visit, but also at their home environment. The expression of gay men¶s sexual preference, in public spaces, even symbolically through clothing, hair styles and other emblematic signifiers of µotherness¶, often results in stigma, prejudice, and discrimination of the society towards them, and opens them to the risk of a spectrum of homophobic abuse and to the generation of a homophobic and stressful social environment (Forrest & Clift, 1998, p.163), where the prevalence of mental disorders is higher, compared to the heterosexual population (Meyer, 2003). Hence, the gay nude beach serves as a heterotopia of crisis where the gay population has the opportunity to meet like-minded people and express their sexuality openly while simultaneously avoiding the insurmountable constraints encountered when disclosing their sexual identity in heterosexual spaces (Forrest & Clift, 1998). Due to the lifestyle of its users and their activities, the gay nude beach, as heterotopia of crisis, presents several differences from Foucault¶s description. First, the beach under study is ghettoised on the edges of society, but it has not been emanated from the communities¶ surrounding it, as the heterotopias of crises cited by Foucault do. Instead, the majority of those who frequent the beach are not likely to be from the immediate area. Second, the individuals who according to Foucault are placed in crisis can µmove out of crisis¶ by exiting their respective heterotopias (Barnard, 2007). In the words of Barnard (2007, p.6) those deemed in crisis by the physical conditions that Foucault denotes, finally move out of crisis, e.g. adolescents become adults, women¶s menstruation ends, pregnant women give birth, and the elderly finally die. Thus although the individuals Foucault referred to have the chance to exit their respective heterotopia, for those whose crises are prompted by homosexual lifestyle differences, this is not always possible. The gay nude beach is one of those spaces which allow covert gays to briefly come out of the closet, by withdrawing outside of the system of values of mainstream society. Foucault (1986) in his essay spoke of borderlines between crisis and deviation. In reality, the reason that the gay nude beach is visited temporarily by people whose behaviour is deviant in relation to the required mean or norm, and whose relationships with the host society and other tourists is not µnormal¶, classifies the beach not only as heterotopia of crisis, but also as heterotopia of deviation. Heterotopias exist in many public spaces and in the case of erotic oases appear as explicitly deviant because in one way or another, house difference and accommodate the deviant, whose tactics enable him to challenge his oppression. This opinion is justified by Delph (1978), who supported that those engaging in homosexual activity differ from most known forms of deviance. The gay nude beach which is occupied by individuals whose behaviours do not represent the behaviours of most tourists, but deviates from current or average standards of the society (Ryan & Kinder, 1996), can 8 be used in a way different from those beaches which surround it, as a multidimensional and µmarginal space of alternate social ordering¶, which in the words of Hetherington allows gay nudists to be an example of an alternative way of doing things by becoming ³a free site, celebrated as a space apart in which people can be and act out difference in ways that challenge the social order´ (1997, p.31). On the same way that the gay nude beach, as heterotopia of crisis, presents differences from Foucault¶s description, it also presents differences as heterotopia of deviation. In contrast to the heterotopias of deviation identified by Foucault, namely rest homes, psychiatric hospitals, and prisons, to which users rarely confine themselves voluntarily, the gay nude beach has no gates, and users can enter and leave the place at any time. Traditionally, in the beach heterotopia, deviance, liberated force users discover otherness which is encouraged by freedom of movement that offers people the opportunity to temporarily escape from established routines and practices of mainstream society. In addition, although Foucault¶s heterotopias of deviation are used on a long term basis, and sometimes up to an individual¶s death, the gay nude beach, is visited for a few days or weeks, forming temporal heterotopias, as the Polynesian vacation villages which according to Foucault (1986) offer to visitors of an urban background a compact break of primitive and eternal nudity. Changes over Time/Heterochrony. Heterotopias begin ³to function at full capacity when people visit them at a sort of absolute break with their traditional time´ (Foucault 1986, p.26). The beach, as a transitional territory outside or on the peripheries of everyday life offers to users a break from everyday reality through manifestation of social relationships and freedom to transcend social structural limitations. The beach, as a temporal heterotopia, is mainly visited seasonally by daytrippers or holidaymakers, who travel from short or long distances to use the space in a temporal break. Hence, seasonal fluctuations of demand attributed to factors such as climatic conditions, human decisions, and inertia or tradition (Andriotis, 2005), mean that most people visit the beach at certain periods of the year and consequently beach use appears during the summer season and disappears again off-season. Beyond seasonal fluctuations, heterotopic spaces change in line with the synchronicity of the culture in which they operate and the activities practiced by users over time. Thus according to Bonazzi, ³the synchronicity of time and space or, in other words, the spatialization of history, allows heterotopias to function´ (2002, p.43). According to Lefebvre (1991) each society creates its own unique spaces where experience of social life can be conceptualized based on values and social meanings. In the case of the study beach, its features have occurred naturally, with little human interplay. Thus the planned functions have been ignored and therefore the beach has kept it naturalness. The fact that the beach is not used as ³commodity´ means that it has not been transformed through development, and human actions have not diminished its magic. In contrast to the way that most public spaces are produced, which according to Kirsch are ³conceived, designed and produced through labour, technology and institutions´ (1995, p.548), the study beach function has arisen from practice, through the ways in which social actors use, negotiate, appropriate and transform the space into their own personal space (Lefebvre, 1991, p.38). This negotiation is vividly manifested in the ways in which the beach and its users are positioned in relation to the erotic. Before the introduction of tourism in the area of Chersonissos, external influences in the culture of the society were very limited and its beaches were only for local use. During this period Chersonissos was a traditional fishing village somewhat isolated from the sphere of influence of society. Hence, the 9 social structures were extremely conservative. Only after the 60¶s when the national road connecting the village with Heraklio (the largest urban centre of the island) was constructed, various types of developments took place in the area, e.g. the provision of infrastructure and the construction of various types of commercial-operated businesses. As a result of those developments, influences from the outside world were substantial and the function of the beach started to change. Despite the lack of official data on gay demand and supply in Chersonissos, PinkChoice an internet site providing travel information to gay travellers reports that Chersonissos has become a ³main tourist destination, particularly with the younger gay and lesbian traveller who come for the sun and fun « (and offers) a great selection of gay and gay-friendly hotels, inns, guesthouses and apartments for the gay and lesbian traveller to choose from´ (2010, p.1). Although in Crete, nude bathing and homosexuality infringe upon local values, and often make Cretans indisposed towards such practices (Andriotis, 2006), following the arrival of large numbers of tourists, Cretans have been forced to adjust at an alarming speed to the differences between their own extremely conservative lifestyle and the relaxed behaviour of incoming tourists. As a consequence, although in the past the study beach was not a gay meeting point, today it has been affected by historical processes and its function has undergone important changes. The attraction of µdeviant beach users¶ can be also attributed to the attitude of tolerance of Cretans and the Greek government to the practice of nudism and homosexuality, due to the economic benefits tourists bring to the local economy (Mintel, 2005). Harvey (1989, p.218) argues that in the case of space production, representations of space, include signs and significations, codes and knowledge, which allow practices to be talked about and understood. Looking at the physical characteristics of the beach, surrounded by steep cliffs on all sides, one could note that admission relies on specific knowledge. Although the resort of Chersonissos does not seem to have any clearly marked gay beach, and the study beach is not listed on gay beach web sites, reports on the internet e.g. Anonymous (2009); Barefoot (2009), place the beach as gay friendly and as a spot where gays can go swimming and meet other gays. Hence, the beach has been known to those with involvement in the gay subculture for having an accumulated a history of gay activities. Its reputation presumably has been developed through prior experience and exchange of information between gay men. This exchange of information has brought a specific conception about the lifestyle of people who visit the space and the activities they engage in when they are there. Much like its deviant users, the beach has been attached a label of a certain homosexual nature. Even those male outsiders, or in the words of Foucault (1986) µguests in transit¶, with no involvement in the gay subculture, who enter the space accidentally and observe cruising activities, although at first they might not be able to understand what kind of site they enter, after the µdiscovery¶ of the µerotic oasis¶, and through seduction they can become curious and return occasionally. Conflation. The study beach is obviously one of those spaces where opportunities for nudism and expressions of sexuality vary according to the taste of those using it. The practice of nudism often depends on who gets to the beach first. While observing gay nudists¶ use of the beach it was evident that once somebody stripped others seemed quick to follow. As mentioned on the internet: ³Many kept their swimsuits on at first, but as the day wore on more and more people stripped off´ (Barefoot, 2009). Some days the first users of the day determined the textile or nude 10 character of the beach. During mornings the beach was being used not only by gays, but also by heterosexual beach users and gay activities were somewhat limited. During afternoons when many of those working in the vicinity of the beach finished their work, attendance of gay users increased and in the late afternoon period when the number of bathers was decreasing a small number of gays remained in the search of sexual activities. On the other hand, in line with Passariello¶s (1983) study on the Pacific Coast, Mexico, where urban dwellers flock to the beach of a small village for weekends, the study beach, attendance also increased at these times. This also occurred in the peak summer season (mainly August) when attendance by both Greek groups, which were usually heterosexual and family groups increased. On these days the beach was used as every normative non-nude beach, although with a larger share of gay bathers. In practice, temporal and spatial patterns of beach usage becomes a resistance to intrusion, making the use of the beach unpredictable, as McLain also found in a study on the exploration of unintentional spaces: One never knows what will happen there « The permission these spaces grant individuals to act on impulse or behave unrestrictedly is a key factor in the unpredictability of these spaces. One cannot know what will change in the space; who will enter, or what will happen ... The activities are as transient and unreliable as the comers and goers (2005, pp.48-49). In the context of unpredictability, users may not even find anybody of gay persuasion in the beach, if the time is not right. In the case of the study beach non-normative behaviours such as groping each other and grabbing at sexual areas on the body of another as well as open erection were not frequently open to public view. Self-censorship was exercised in an implicit manner in response to the fear of adverse criticism that such sexual activities may be raised by heterosexual users and passers-by or the embarrassment that may result from being seen and publicly exposed. Such a situation inevitably restricted gay nudists¶ freedom since self-censorship can result in some sort of balancing between a desire for full self-expression with the risks and costs of coming out publicly. Although some of the men may attend the beach in the search of sexual stimulation, in the majority of cases, they were discreet and inclined to control their libidinal arousal in public view. Those engaging in more involved sexual encounters would commence such behaviour in areas that would best accommodate them, such as the cave at the edge of the beach. The short swim required to reach it, made it easily accessible and allowed bathers time to disengage when intruded upon. Despite the subsequent visits of the author to the beach, the author visited the cave on only one occasion, as his aim was not to spoil its atmosphere. Nevertheless, when the author saw men entering the cave together after reciprocal gestures, or one man entering it when already occupied by one or more other men, it was assumed that brief casual sexual encounters were in progress inside. Apart from the cave a small number of sexual contacts were encountered in the rocks area, mainly masturbation and fellatio. In this area the author witnessed the most overt display of sexual activity, when a young foreign couple was practicing sexual intercourse while a number of male bathers were viewing from the sea. Perhaps, these two individuals who engaged in public sexual activity wished to place themselves performers on µan erotic theatre¶ (see Douglas & Tewksbury, 2008), confirming Bell¶s (2006, p.391) notion that having an audience while having sex outdoors and the risk of possibly being seen can serve as an aphrodisiac. 11 Activities of gay nudists were changing function at noon, when four boats with tourists from Chersonissos were arriving. Although the boats anchored in the sea, less than a mile from the beach, and only stronger passengers could swim to the beach, it was in visual range from the boats. As a result, when the boats were approaching, nudists either huddled into a corner or were wearing their swimsuits. This was the time that visitation to the cave by males was limited. Only after the departure of the boats did most gays strip off again and revert to their set of standards with regard to the use of this beach. Although not all men were nude, availability was enhanced by one¶s self-presentation in the nude. The physical circumstances of the beach which did not require taking one¶s clothes off, permitted users to easier gauge ones interest, through displaying their exposed body to others, while touching genitals in the process of applying sun cream or drying the body with a towel after swimming. Douglas & Tewksbury (2008, p.4) note that participants of erotic oases engage in communication practices directly aiming at soliciting others for the purpose of sexual encounters. In the study beach most of the times verbal solicitations were not the norm and the erotic scene was silent. As happens with most sexual oasis interactions (see Styles, 1979), silence helped users to preserve their anonymity. Instead of verbal exchange, gestures, mainly eye contact, were employed when an individual sought to make a connection with a specific man. Often nods of the head were used to indicate a direction for another to move to the cave, where they could commit sexual contact out of sight. However, in a highly verbal society, where speech dominates, verbal communication was not entirely absent. Among the limited occasions of verbal communication, contact was initiated with a request for the time or a match, and followed with discussions on the weather. If the man approached did not respond positively the conversation lapsed, although when sufficient mutual interest existed, they often moved to the cave. Most interactions which occurred in the study beach were typically between strangers and were more likely to lead to quick and without commitment sex and no emotional commitment, as also reported by Humphreys (1970) about tearoom sex. This was evident from the fact that most users did not exchange any words after interactions, but many, mainly Greek nationals, were leaving the beach soon after. Even in those cases where men were visiting the beach on repeated occasions and had contact with the same man whom they knew only through their contact in the beach, it looked like they did not exchange their names. Thus those beach users who concealed their behaviour from others and were worried about being seen with a certain sort of person, or afraid of being branded as homosexuals, chose the beach as a less recognizable gay setting, instead of well-established and notorious places, such as gay bars and baths which have a reputation that stigmatizes those that use them. The fact that many beach users were foreign holidaymakers of Western European origin ensured Greek µcovert deviants¶ that when engaging in brief stigmatized behaviours with them, they would remain hidden from family and friends, and they would maintain a heterosexual self-identity. Exclusiveness. The question of accessibility, in Foucault¶s (1986) terms the way a place opens or closes to public entrance, is central to the description of heterotopias. According to Foucault (1986, p.26) all heterotopias involve a clearly identifiable system of opening and closing that at the same time isolates them and makes them penetrable. In the case of beaches, physical features are critical to unravel the complex issue of accessibility and the form of heterotopia. People are strongly attracted to beaches with certain qualities of accessibility than others. In practice, 12 beaches in close proximity to highly populated areas and seaside resorts, such as those beaches of Chersonissos located in front of large hotel complexes, attract a relatively dense population, whereas the further secluded a beach, the greater is the likelihood that users will have to travel to the beach, and as a consequence the smaller is the population within a given radius (Mercer, 1972). On the other hand, in beaches with numerous access points, users come and go continuously, although physically selfcontained beaches with limited access points are restricted to a limited reach of the socio-legal gaze (Houghton, 1989; Mercer, 1972). In the literal sense, physical boundaries can make a beach open or closed to public entrance and have a substantial effect upon beach selection decisions. The study beach is situated in a convenient yet secluded location, offering shelter to deviant activities for those who reject the remnants of restrictive morality. In order to reach the beach, one must be willing to climb down an almost vertical cliff face which while carrying bags is quite difficult. Hence, the price of entry is being a willingness to traverse the cliff-side trail. In contrast to Foucault¶s heterotopias, which are not freely accessible like public spaces, but have gates, the beach under study is open to public, although physical boundaries separate it from the rest of the society. Thus the beach excludes apart from those who are annoyed by some gays¶ excessive lifestyle, bathers such as old people, those who are disabled and families with young children, who are not physically able to reach it. Hence, the site is neither completely inaccessible, nor completely open. In addition to physical accessibility, opening of heterotopias can refer to sight (Rotenberg, 1995). Most public beaches are easily viewed from the outside outward and are open to viewing by passers-by. On the beach there are no walls between users. Everybody can watch and can be watched by others. Bodies are visible exposed to public view in the act of swimming and sunbathing (Veijola & Jokinen, 1994). As Löfgren mentions about viewing in a normative beach: There is, of course, no way you cannot look. People on the beach are constantly testing different ocular techniques, consciously or unconsciously switching between different ways of seeing: watching, staring, glancing scanning, looking from the corner of your eye, pretending not to look, making brief eye contact, looking away (1999, p.228). Since the desire to see other people¶s genital and bodily functions offers excitement and pleasure, it was apparent that a number of men were attracted to the beach by the possibility of watching nude bodies. In the study beach there was a lot of looking. Many of the men, who were there more for the swinging lifestyle than for nude sunbathing and swimming, were usually wearing sunglasses, which offered them the opportunity for unobtrusive observation of nude bodies, while at the same time provided new forms of hiding (Löfgren, 1999). Function of Heterotopia. According to Foucault heterotopias have a function that makes them different from other spaces. This difference creates a feeling of order of the space as perfect and meticulous, an illusion that the remaining spaces are clumsy and jumbled and not what they appear to be (Foucault, 1986, p.27; Rotenberg, 1995). Thus the role of heterotopias ³is to create a space of illusion that exposes every real space, all the sites inside of which human life is partitioned, as still more illusory´ (Foucault, 1986, p.26). Although the study beach gives an impression of an imagined space of the utopia, it constitutes a real-world space offering an illusion of freedom 13 through the chance of escaping normative surveillance. Nowadays, many gays are able to live an open life. In Greece, however, most gays are still not openly gay. Ultimately, for them the beach serves as a direct response to the oppression they feel by offering them the opportunity to take of the µmasks¶ they normally wear to hide their sexuality from the heterosexual world and indulge in activities not allowed in heterosexual spaces. Situated in a separate world apart from normative society, the micro cosmos of the beach heterotopia presents an illusory version of gay beach culture by offering hidden corners where participants can discover unexpected scenes of sexual interplay. Like the brothels described by Foucault, the study beach, as a non-commercial erotic oasis of freedom away from the familiar, can be considered µout-of-time¶ and µout-ofplace¶ space where taboos and inhibitions are being confronted. Only at the end of the day, when bathers leave the illusionary space and step back to their lives do they return to reality. Thus the study beach functions as a metaphor for a gay-dominated community and a mirror which is the mediator between two worlds, the world of illusions where gays seek to enact utopian visions within the larger society and the real world that the study beach separates them temporary from it. CONCLUSION This study explored some prominent and uncommon uses and actions introduced in a gay nude beach space. The beach heterotopia examined, as physically anomalous category between land and sea is located in a remote area, distant from mainstream coastal resorts, and has been created by natural features - cliffs, rocks, caves, sand, and sea. The morphology of the beach heterotopia and the activities and behaviours of its users suggest it as a unique space in which gay nudists have the potential to explore their sexuality and to enjoy experiences and feelings that are often repressed in conventional public spaces. Gay nude beaches are open to a wide mix of strangers who come together and participate in activities that are legally or morally transgressive and which function as important alternatives to commercialized gay spaces. Thus their function has evolved through their use and because there is a space available which is appealing to a specific group of people. Like most nude beaches, the beach heterotopia described in this study, is a tourist attraction per se. This study examined the gay nude beach, as a type of space different is some way to other beach spaces. While the study beach meets many of the features of Foucault¶s principles, it presents many differences when compared to those heterotopic spaces described by Foucault. As a result, the findings of this study confirm the caveat suggested by Foucault that there is no absolute heterotopia. In Foucault¶s words, ³heterotopias take on varied forms, and perhaps one cannot find one sole form of heterotopia that is universal´ (1994, p.756). Thus this study seeks the main features that make the beach heterotopia to differ from other forms of heterotopia. First, without question, the most obvious feature of beach heterotopia is its physical surroundings. Its natural features offer seclusion and notions of tranquillity which are integral to the construction of the beach idyll. The natural state of the beach in conjunction with the lack of commercialisation leaves the freedom to users to come and go freely at anytime. This enables patterns of practice that do not occur on most other beaches. Second, apart from the physical characteristics of the beach there is no difference between the beach heterotopia under study and normative beaches, with a notable exception of its users. Although in hetero-normative beaches one may encounter high-density crowds, traffic and noise with bathers both arriving and leaving throughout the day at innumerable access points, the beach heterotopia 14 brings in close physical proximity a small number of men who are willing to enter into sexual contact. The lifestyle of these users and the relative anonymity and the freedom from the constraints of daily living allows them to temporarily violate the customarily accepted codes of behaviour and develop experiences that lead towards the inversion of moral roles and practices. A third characterizing feature of heterotopia is that although many locals residing in the vicinity of the beach can be against nude bathing and the sexual activities taking place in it, same sex activity is common or not proscribed and even openly accepted. The beach heterotopia appears to have escaped the control of the authorities and has become a counter space due to a permissive local attitude. Although in many settings the locals are not always happy about the ways in which tourists expose their bodies on the beach (Löfgren, 1999, p.237) as well as their activities, the local community tends to turn a blind eye towards such activities due to the foreign exchange earnings tourists bring. In brief, the case examined in this study illustrates that the function of beach heterotopia is shaped by three interrelated components: the physical space, its users and their activities, and community tolerance towards such activities. The physical features of the beach combined with the construction of a beach space in which users behaviour does not have to be edited to conform to a heterosexual norm, and community tolerance presumably attributed to the profits emerging from tourism, leave grounds for the function of the beach heterotopia. Thus based on the findings of fieldwork conducted in the gay nude beach suggests that a framework which embraces three significant elements of beach heterotopia (space, users¶ activities/lifestyle and community tolerance) can be used as an integrative conceptual tool which produces a heterotopic nude beach. This framework can certainly have applicability in other erotic oases beyond the study beach. There is certainly more work to be done in understanding the specific features of the beach and the ways these sites produce erotic oases not only for those residing a short drive from the beach, but also for foreign holidaymakers. In contrast to the study of Passariello (1983), where foreign tourists viewed the large influx of Mexican domestic bathers on weekends as disruptive to the ambience, in this study, foreigners coexisted and interacted with Greek nationals in a desire for sexual relations. However, in this study it was not possible to make any comparisons based on the nationalities of beach users. These comparisons require further research and will be the subject of deeper consideration in the author¶s future research. Likewise, due to the virtual absence of related work in the area of beach heterotopias, future research is required to further investigate beach settings, and the actions of their users. Such research should not be limited to gay nude beaches, but also to other heterotopic sexual spaces in different geographic locations to examine conformity and to explore other forms of deviant public behaviour. REFERENCES Allweil, Y. & Kallus, R. (2008). Public-space heterotopias: Heterotopias of masculinity along the Tel Aviv shoreline. In M. Dehaene & L. de Cauter (Eds.). Heterotopia and the City: Public Space in a Postcivil Society (pp.193-201). London: Routledge. Andriotis, K. (2005). Seasonality in Crete: Problem or a way of life? Tourism Economics, 11(2), 207-224. Andriotis, K. (2006). Hosts, guests and politics: Coastal resorts morphological change. Annals f Tourism Research, 33(4), 1079-1098. 15 Anonymous (2009). Hersonisos Nude Beach. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from Web site: http://nudebeaches.blogspot.com/2008/08/hersonisos-nude-beach.html. Barefoot (2009). Barefoot's Naturist Guide to the Greek islands. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from Web site: http://www.barefoot.info/. Barnard, D. (2007). Being ghetto: The Hara as heterotopia in Judeo-Tunisian literature. Coastal Review, 1, [electronic journal]. Bartling, H. (2006). Tourism as everyday life: An inquiry into the villages, Florida. Tourism Geographies, 8(4), 380-402. Bell, D.J. & Holliday R. (2000). Naked as nature intended. Body and Society, 6, 127140. Bonazzi, A. (2002). Heterotopology and geography: A reflection. Space and Culture, 5(1), 42-48. Corzine, J. & Kirby, R. (1977). Cruising the truckers: Sexual encounters in a highway rest area. Urban Life, 6(2), 171-192. Delph, E. (1978). The Silent Community: Public Homosexual Encounters. Beverly Hills: Sage. Desroches, F. (1990). Tearoom trade: A research update. Qualitative Sociology, 13, 39-61. Douglas, B. & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Theaters and sex: An examination of anonymous sexual encounters in an erotic oasis. Deviant Behaviour, 29(1), 117. Evans, R. (2000). Paradise on the Margins or Paradise Lost? Tolerance, Permissiveness and Conflict on Wreck Beach. Arkleton Research Papers No. 5. University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen. Ford, N. & Eiser, R. (1996). Risk and liminality. The HIV-related socio-sexual interaction of young tourists. In S., Cliff & S.J. Page (Eds.), Health and the International Tourist (pp.152-177). London: Routledge. Forrest, S. & Clift, S. (1998). Gay tourist space and sexual risk behaviour. In Aitchison, C. & F. Jordan, Gender, Space and Identity: Leisure, Culture and Commerce. Eastbourne: Leisure Studies Association. Foucault, M. (1986). Of Other Spaces. Diacritics, 16(1), 22-27. Foucault, M. (1994). Des espaces autres. In D. Defert & E. François (Eds.). Dits et Écrits. vol. 4, (pp.752-761). Paris: Gallimard. Genocchi, B. (1995). Discourse, discontinuity, difference: the question of µother¶ spaces. In S. Watson & K. Gibson (Eds.). Postmodern Cities and Spaces. Blackwell, Oxford. Gupta, . & Ferguson, J. (1997). Beyond culture: space identity and the politics of difference. In Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical Anthropology. A. Gupta & J. Ferguson (Eds.). London: Duke University Press. Harvey, D. (1989). The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change. Blackwell Oxford. Herold, E.S., Corbesi, B., & Collins, J. (1994). Psychosocial aspects of female topless behaviour on Australian beaches. Journal of Sex Research, 31, 133-142. Hetherington, K. (1997). The Badlands of Modernity: Heterotopia and Social Ordering. London: Routledge. Holcomb, B. & Luongo, M.T. (1996). Gay tourism in the United States. Annals of Tourism Research, 23(3), 711-713. Hollister, J. (1999). A highway rest area as a socially reproducible site. In W. Leap (Ed.). Public Sex/Gay Space (pp. 55-70). New York: Columbia University Press. 16 Houghton, D.S. (1989). Some aspects of beach use in the Perth metropolitan area. Australian Geographer, 20(2), 173-184. Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places. Chicago: Aldine. Kirsch, S. (1995). The incredible shrinking world? Technology and the production of space. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 13(5), 529-555. Leap, W.L. (1999). Sex in µprivate¶ places: gender, erotics, and detachment in two urban locales. In W.L. Leap (Ed.). Public Sex/Gay Space. New York: Columbia. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The Production of Space. Blackwell, Oxford. Löfgren, O. (1999). On Holiday: A History of Vacationing. Enwing, NJ: University of California Press. Lugosi, P. (2006). Between Overt and Covert Research: Concealment and Disclosure in an Ethnographic Study of Commercial Hospitality. Qualitative Inquiry, 12(3), 541-561. McLain, S. (2005). Exploration of Space and the Discovery of the Unintended. Master Thesis. Florida: School of Visual Arts and Dance, The Florida State University. Mercer, D.C. (1972). Beach usage in the Melbourne region. Australian Geographer, 12, 125-139. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674-697. Mintel (2005). Naturism In Europe. Travel and Tourism Analyst, No. 9. Moore, H. (1996). Space, Text, and Gender: An Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya. New York: Guilford Press. Obrador-Pons, P. (2007). A haptic geography of the beach: naked bodies, vision and touch. Social & Cultural Geography, 8(1), 123-141. Passariello, P. (1983). Never on Sunday? Mexican tourists at the beach. Annals of Tourism Research, 10, 109-122. Philips, D. (1999). Narrativised spaces: The functions of story in the theme park. In D. Crouch (Ed.). Leisure/Tourism Geographies: Practices and Geographical Knowledge (pp. 91-107). London: Routledge. PinkChoice (2011). Gay Hersonissos. Retrieved February 12, 2011, from Web site: http://www.pinkchoice.com/destinationDetail_v2.aspx?id=254&content=gay+G reece+Hersonissos+Crete+hotels. Piñuelas, E. (2008). Cyber-Heterotopia: Figurations of Space and Subjectivity in the Virtual Domain. Watermark, 2, 152-169. Ponte, M.R. (1974). Life in a parking lot: An ethnography of a homosexual drive-in. In J. Jacobs (Ed.). Deviance: Field Studies and Self-Disclosures. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books. Poria, Y. (2006a). Assessing gay men and lesbian women's hotel experiences: An exploratory study of sexual orientation in the travel industry. Journal of Travel Research, 44(3), 327-334. Poria, Y. (2006b). Tourism and spaces of anonymity: An Israeli lesbian woman's travel experience. Interdisciplinary Journal Tourism, 54(1), 33-42. Pritchard, A. & Morgan, N. (2006). Hotel babylon? Exploring hotels as liminal sites of transition and transgression. Tourism Management, 27, 762-772. Richters, J. (2001). The Social Construction of Sexual Practice: Setting, Sexual Culture and the Body in Causal Sex between Men. Ph.D. University of Sydney. 17 Rotenberg, R. (1995). Extraordinary Vienna: Landscape and Power in the Metropolis. Retrieved February 15, 2009, from Web site: http://condor.depaul.edu/~rrotenbe/home/papers/extra1.html. Ryan, C. & Kinder, R. (1996). Sex, tourism and sex Tourism: Fulfilling similar needs? Tourism Management, 17, 507-518. Shields, R. (1991). Places on the Margin: Alternative Geographies of Modernity. Routledge, London. Singer, M. (2002). Day Strippers. New Yorker, 78(32), 50-57. Smith, G. & King, S. (2009). Naturism and sexuality: Broadening our approach to sexual wellbeing. Health & Place, 15, 439-446 Sonmez, S., Apostolopoulos, Y., Yu, C.H., Yang, S., Mattila, A. & Yu, L.C. (2006). Binge drinking and casual sex on spring break. Annals of Tourism Research, 33(4), 895-917. Styles, J. (1979). Outsider/insider: Researching gay baths. Urban Life, 8(2), 135-152. Tewksbury R. (2002). Bathhouse intercourse: Structural and behavioural aspects of an erotic oasis. Deviant Behaviour: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23, 75-112. Tewksbury, R. (1996). Cruising for sex in public places: The structure and language of men¶s hidden, erotic worlds. Deviant Behaviour, 17(1), 1-19. Veijola, S. & Jokinen, E. (1994). The body in tourism. Theory Culture Society, 11, 125-139. Visser, G. (2003). Gay men, tourism and urban spaces: Reflections on Africa¶s gay capital. Tourism Geographies, 5(2), 168-189. Wieck, S. (2006). The Happy Heterotopia: Science and Leisure in the Christchurch Botanic Gardens. University of Canterbury. Yarnal, C.M. & Kerstetter D. (2005). Casting off: An exploration of cruise ship space, group tour behavior, and social interaction. Journal of Travel Research, 43(4), 368-379. 18