Deviance is considered to be any action or type of behaviour that is contrary to social norms (Macionis & Gerber, 2010). When sociologists study deviance, they examine how these norms change over time, how they are implemented and the effects of what happens if these norms are opposed or violated. Deviance varies from group to group and what one group classifies as deviance may not be seen as deviant to another. Furthermore, sociologists identify the social norms as socially created, not just “morally decided or individually imposed”. This means that deviance isn’t just concerning the behaviour itself, it also concerns the social responses of groups to that behaviour (Crossman, 2014). Deviance is often linked with crime and criminality, and you can commit deviant behaviour without committing a crime, but to commit a crime you have to commit deviant behaviour. Laud Humphreys wrote Tearoom Trade in 1970, when being homosexual was illegal. It is an analysis of homosexual acts that take place in public toilets. Humphreys wanted to provide an understanding of who these men were and what motivated them to seek quick, impersonal sexual gratification. The study shows that these acts are conducted through highly organised rules, roles and interactions, and contrary to belief, those involved are often highly respectable, and therefore any stereotyped beliefs about these deviant acts are challenged, showing that, sometimes, what one thinks is deviance is actually far from it. In order to demonstrate the ways in which this text contributes towards an understanding of deviance, it is important to look at the three main themes of the book, and what they highlight.
One of the main themes in Tearoom Trade is the incongruence between one’s public, social self and one’s private self for the men engaging in this homosexual activity. Precisely, Humphreys uses the term “breastplate of righteousness”, which the men put on in order to hide what can be seen as their ‘deviant’ behaviour and avoid being exposed as a ‘deviant’. “The covert deviant, in physical and moral presentation of self, creates an image of one who is neat, clean proper, conscientious, moral, conservative, righteous and religious” ( The idea of appearing conservative so as to hide their deviant nature makes sense, especially for those with a lot to lose, for example “married men with dependent occupations have more to fear” (Humphreys, 1975), 54% of them were married, and even more so for all involved because homosexuality was illegal at the time. Humphreys states the problem of the breastplate of righteousness arises from the cultural conditioning of Western man. He says that for the Western man, sex revolves around personal meanings, and that “sex without “love” meets with such general condemnation that the essential ritual of courtship is almost obscured in rococo accretions that assure those involved that a respectable level of romantic intent has been reached”, (Humphreys, 1975) and this is the very thing that tearoom participants seek to avoid. This is because the attraction of the tearooms was purely from the danger they provided. The participants sought anonymous and ephemeral sex, which would provide them with quick gratification and had no future implications. Humphreys implies this through saying that “the special ritual of tearooms” had to be “both coercive and noncommittal” (Humphreys, 1975). The fact that man had to have two different sides to his personality shows how deviance can often be missed, due to secrecy, and the creation of what society deems to be deviant, will lead to more deviant behaviour due to risk of being exposed.
Another main theme is the importance of social interaction. The men involved would meet in the public toilets and quickly assess whether other men, who are not known to them outside this community, are there for sexual encounters or just to simply use the facilities, with an obvious risk of being exposed. They’d also have to judge what type of sexual interaction would take place (“inserter or insertee”), who would serve as a lookout and what he would do to alert the others if there was the necessity to vacate the public restrooms quickly and so on. On top of this, these decisions and actions were all done in silence, being one of the rules, and what needed to be said would be through some sort of physical movement: “a gesture with the hands, motions of the eyes, manipulation and erection of the penis” (Humphreys, 1975) and more, in a hope to avoid exposure and to keep the encounters impersonal. One of the rules is not forcing any intentions on anyone, as well as other rules that protect the participants identity, such as never exchanging biographical data, as well as their well being, indicating that these acts are victimless and have no impact on society. So therefore, why should this behaviour be deemed as deviant?
What is most interesting about these rules, and how they help to grasp an understanding of deviance, is the way in which Humphreys describes them as providing “a protective code, a set of norms common to all ephemeral encounters of a homosexual nature” (Humphreys, 1975). In particular the words “set of norms” are most important, as it shows that ‘norms’ vary from social group to social group and therefore emphasises the fluctuating nature of the word deviance, and the fact that what is deviant to one group, those not involved in the tearooms, is not seen as deviant to another, those involved in the tearooms. It shows that deviance isn’t necessarily all about the person committing a deviant act. Instead it shows that “groups in society create deviance by making and reproducing the agreed-upon rules whose infraction constitutes deviance” (Hier & Greenberg, 2009), and this highlights a major problem with society, that society provides a label for these ‘outsiders’ and that behaviour doesn’t even need to be bad to be seen as deviant, it just has to be out of the ordinary.
As stated in the previous paragraph, there is a huge emphasis on the rules and roles in the tearooms. In terms of roles, there were the players who were either the insertee or the inserter, depending on the ageing crisis, which was when someone transitioned from inserter to insertee due to no longer being sought as one of the most young or handsome members. Fellatio tended to be performed by older upon younger and Humphreys describes an encounter where “a man appearing to be around forty was observed as insertee with an man in his twenties as inserter. A few minutes later, the man of forty was being sucked by one in his fifties” (Humphreys, 1975). There were also the lookouts, which included waiters, masturbators and voyeurs, and Humphreys himself was taken on as a lookout. There were also straights, who didn’t participate, and teenagers, who were feared in this community and agents of social control. A lookout was extremely important as they stopped exposure to the public and in particular the police. However, Humphreys discusses the importance of blackmail and said there were two instances where ”donations” were made to a “charity fund” in return for release” (Humphreys, 1975). This is very important as it highlights the inequality and corruption that exists in our criminal justice system. All these roles demonstrate the highly intricate society that was formed from social exclusion.
Something that is most ironic when examining a book about deviants in a society, is that the writer, Humphreys himself, could have been viewed as a deviant or partaking in deviant behaviour. It doesn’t seem that a social norm is going undercover and undertaking research without participants’ consent, and research, which can lead to some very drastic life problems and changes, nor does that seem to be something that would be seen as socially acceptable. He violated modern ethical standards for research. However, despite receiving a lot of criticism for this, Humphreys almost certainly would not have acquired the same information using socially acceptable research methods, due to the highly organised roles, rules and interactions and it is this information that demonstrably shows that this ‘deviant’ behaviour is actually harmless. Although being homosexual was against the norms and the law at the time, homosexuality eventually became legal in the US, showing that criminality and deviance is ever changing, and it solely depends on the influence and hidden agreements of society. Humphreys actually seemingly helped divert police’s attention away from these victimless crimes and to crimes that actually needed police intervention.
To conclude, Humphreys’ Tearoom Trade helps to show that deviance and those who are considered to be deviant are constantly fluctuating and change over time, depending on new laws and new social norms and standards. The effects of the implementation of norms are plain to see: it doesn’t stop people from being deviant; rather it just creates new sub-communities and secrecy. It was the dangerous aspect of these sexual relationships that attracted, enticed and encouraged the men, and this danger stemmed from it being classified as ‘deviant’. This lead to even more deviant behaviour to be committed, such as married men essentially cheating on their wives by taking part in homosexual relations, which was illegal, in public restrooms. This book especially indicates that deviance is everywhere, hidden in plain sight, and can be undertaken by anyone and everyone.