Talk:Gay skinhead

Votes for deletion results

This page was listed on votes for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gay skinheads for the results of the debate. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite per comments in Vote for Deletion

I urge all interested parties to review this page, especially anyone who has read Gay Skins: Class, Masculinity, and Queer Appropriation. I wrote from what I could glean via gay skinhead web sites, and from personal experience in the non-gay skinhead community, but I'm no expert. I was mainly trying to define what makes it a distinct sub-subculture, and to incorporate suggestions from the VfD discussion (including wikifying the title to singular, and I fixed the double-redirects and template).

Kappa points out that "Gayskin" receives many more Google hits than "Gay skinhead". Is it wise to re-move it to "Gayskin"? Will that harm the edit history? (I'm kind of new to WP.) Unconventional 07:01, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Generally, articles should be under the most commonly used name in English. (There are some exceptions and qualifications to that principle, but I doubt they apply here.) So if Gayskin is the most common name, go ahead and move the article. As long as the double redirects get fixed, it won't hurt anything. If you'd like help, or if you want me to move the article for you, let me know. Jonathunder 03:26, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

Being a (straight) skinhead myself I'd like to add into consideration that most straight skins dislike only gayskins who are only into the fetish side, or only claim skin for protection. Skins who simply happen to be gay, but are skins for the true purpose of working class protest, are not usually looked down on. Perhaps that should be added to this entry. -Tony

Being a bisexual skinhead, and working class, I'd like to dispute the "true purpose" of skinhead: working class protest is a misapplied and unneeded justification. Skinhead is a style movement predicated on working-class values of group identity, exclusivity, authenticity and self-validation. Dressing skinhead for protection is a perfectly valid motivation, if the other cardinal values are respected. Being a self-validating membership, the extent to which one individual exerts their own personality within that group will determine to what extent they can get away with style innovations. Thus, brogue boots are one thing, and Rangers another, and though appropriate to different variants of the Skinhead look, only rarely would they crossover with success; but rigger's boots or Reeboks are beyond the pale. The (perceived)willingness of gay skinheads to put up with style illiteracy is principally what dedicated skins dislike about them, outside of those who are simply prejudiced.

Incidentally, I have never found the conjoined gayskin to be current either among gay skins or skinheads in general. In fact, gay (and bi) skins tend to think of themselves primarily as skinheads. While this is undoubtedly no more than a description of sexual interest for some (like Bear), it is still a form of group identity with its own claims to authenticity.

Nuttyskin 01:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, is it just me or is this is just a really really bad article? I mean, really? Why can't gay skinheads just be "skinheads who happen to be gay" rather than people who chose to live a certain aesthetic and culture because they 'fetishize' it? I'd be pretty certain they choose the fashion, the friends, the style, the music because they GENUINELY like it, not because they get some sexual thrill out of it. We don't make the same comments about heterosexual skinheads and surely they make the aesthetic choices of wearing skinhead related fashions and being attracted to people who wear the same similar fashions, girls in chelseas, etc. etc.? Centerone (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't make the same comments about straight skinheads, even though they and gay skinheads are not infrequently exactly the same individuals. Insistence on labels like gay and straight are misleading us in the issue: many skins are MSM, like guys in every other sector of society. Unlike Bears, same-sex attracted skinheads are much less likely to be open about their sexuality, consequently they have a much lower profile, are much less visible. The only ones who are visible are the fetish skins, usually openly gay guys who like the look but usually have little sense of style, and who are actually the minority.

Nuttyskin (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

By MSM I assume you mean Men who have sex with men? I can't speak for your experience, but I do know out gay skins who are and have long been openly accepted by their local skinhead community, and are definitely into all aspects of the culture and style, and not just 'fetish skins'. I'm not sure I understand the point you are trying to make. You say the only ones who are visible are the fetish skins, yet I have never encountered a 'fetish skin' nor seen any genuine example of an actual person expressing such an interest. For that matter, this article is pretty much uncited and the one 'see also' of Nicky Crane surely was well-entrenched in skinhead culture, albeit neo-nazi skin culture.. but he certainly wasn't there just for some fetishization of the culture and style. Centerone (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if the intention and direction of my argument wasn't clear. I do not doubt there are openly gay skinheads who are accepted by other skinheads in their local area - I am glad of this, and wish them well in it; but it has not been my experience. The best I have seen is skinheads whose sexual activity with other men is an open secret: not commented upon, and certainly not "open" in the usual sense, but accepted tacitly. More usually, I find that skinheads have to meet and socialise in an entirely different city from their home turf in order to feel comfortable.

Fetish skins, whom some disparage, are thus often the only visible portion of the population. In the 1990s, when the skinhead look was briefly in more widespread vogue on the gay scene, fetish skins began to emerge (the Channel Four documentary Skin Complex, in which Nicky Crane outed himself, must be cited as blowing the scene wide open) and public attention was thus also directed upon genuine skinheads (i.e., those not "dressing up" in the style as if in costume) involved in same-sex activity. Skinheads who are gay must thus be distinguished from people who wear skinhead clothing primarily as a fetish activity. They are clearly not the same thing. However, I wouldn't target fetish skins as a despised group within gay skinheads: arguably, someone who begins by wearing the style in a fetish manner might plausibly become authenticised by the similarity of their experience to that of "lifestyle" skins.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know whether the Out/Skin Complex documentary is available online somewhere like youtube or vimeo? It would be good to be able to view the source material. If it's not online.. do you know anybody who might have it on videotape whom might be able to make it available for viewing? It doesn't seem to be commercially available.Centerone (talk) 18:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been able to find two YouTube videos called Skinhead OUT! Part 1 and Skinhead OUT! Part 2, posted by one hazrob (who mostly posts videos about chest waders), which certainly looks like the Channel Four documentary I remember (and it's amazing how much I do remember - mind you, I must've watched it on video dozens of times); the Parts designate which bit was broadcast before or after the ad break. Hope this helps.

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, what a piece of... typical tabloid television that hypes something in a sensationalist way, but says little to nothing. This doesn't actually prove as far as I'm concerned that there really is a significant community of people who dress in skinhead fashion only because of some fetish. Yes, there are homosexual and bisexual skinheads as there are homosexuals and bisexuals in any other community. This article continues to be without any real references. I continue to believe this either needs to be completely rewritten, or deleted. Centerone (talk) 08:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect to your opinion, this article does not actually posit a significant community of people who dress in skinhead fashion only because of some fetish, but a subgroup who are variously so designated, or dismissed; as well as that number who, as you rightly say, happen to have a particular sexuality in addition to being (authentically) skinheads.

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

At the perspective of ten years on from my last comment, the point I would make is that the gay skinhead subculture has developed (I would say, degenerated) to become a fully fetish one, an offshoot of Bears, Leathermen and coincident with the fetishisation of chavs (which is really part of class fetishism, a blend of Commodity fetishism and Racial fetishism).

There is boot fetishism, as one might expect; and the occasional wearing of clothing from Rubber and PVC fetishism. But a virtually uniform adoption of Dr. Martens 20-hole boots (or similar, as the quality of Docs has really gone to the wall), and (a subset of Bears/Leathermen) the very widespread adoption of beards and facial hair. Sideburns were always acceptable as skinhead styling; and small, neat moustaches, very rarely. But beards are completely alien in the context of the skinhead look, and have set a dividing line, an uncrossable Rubicon, between the appearance of a gay skinhead as opposed to any other. This may in part be due to the greater freedom of gay men, no longer feeling they have to conceal their identity behind a costume. But, if one is prepared to dilute that identity with totally unrelated elements from elsewhere, why pretend to be a skinhead at all?

Nuttyskin (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you might have missed the point I was making. Even 10 years ago, it seemed that the only references we had for this article were rooted in fetishism, AND they were not terribly good journalism but were more like tabloid pablum. As hazrob's YT channel is gone due to copyright issues, it's hard to exactly remember, but I'm pretty sure I was pointing out those videos you referenced were tabloid nonsense also centered around fetishism and sensationalism - all references to his channel that one can find now make it clear that hazrob's motivation was one of fetishism. I'm not denigrating sexual subcultures. We definitely should have articles about different sexual subcultures, activities, and fetishes. However, as a serious article on skinheads who happen to be gay the topic of the article itself seems to be non-notable or at very least without any significant details or good citatons, and if anything it would seemingly denigrate skinheads who happen to be gay by giving a false impression that the primary reason they do it is largely motivated by an erotic interest in gear, sexual, and fetish interests, which clearly isn't true. As such, I still believe the article is pointless and without merit. Centerone (talk) 05:20, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Subcultures that aren't skinheads

By definition, if someone is a scooterboy, casual or mod, that person is not a skinhead. Those subcultures are related to skinheads, but they are different. So logically, a gay skinhead cannot be a a scooterboy, casual or mod. If he identifies as a member of one of those subcultures, he is not a skinhead. Spylab 02:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The terms scooterboy, casual, mod and even skinhead were originally applied from outside by non-members of those subcultures, often in a sneering tone. Frequently even now scooterboys, casuals, mods and skinheads attend similar events, and can often be seen together, and it can be difficult to tell one subgroup from another, even as an informed insider. Certainly scooter boys can be indistinguishable from skinheads. Whereas, a person's sexuality is not a style decision. A member of any of these subcultures might be gay or bi, but probably on the side and not as public knowledge. So a scooter boy who is also a gay skinhead is perfectly possible.

Just realised my comment comes seven years after yours. Is that a record?

Nuttyskin (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Photo Caption/Diety

I think the caption of the current photo which references "one with a devil-like tattoo" could be improved. Does anybody know which deity and which culture or religion the tattoo represents? Centerone (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That tattoo is irrelevant to the topic of the article, so I deleted that detail from the caption.Spylab (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

LGBT hip hop?

Is this even a thing? And what did anyone think was its relevance to gay skinheads? I would suggest that most skinheads, never mind their sexuality, would not touch hip hop of any variety with a ten-foot pole. Nuttyskin (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gayskinheadkiss.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2019 (UTC)