In 1989, we conducted a study of gay men to determine the risk factors for HIV infection.30 This study was divided into two main areas: one part covered the quantitative aspects, in other words, a survey by quota sample was applied to different groups of men who have sex with men, through the use of a structured questionnaire. The other part consisted of an ethnographic study, directed at those groups who were difficult to reach and who frequented public sex places such as saunas, parks, movie theaters and public toilets. This is the study used in this book to make comparisons between the situation in 1989 and that in 1998. On the one hand, observations were carried out in public places and on the other, in-depth interviews were conducted with clients.
For this work, we recruited a gay man who had researched these activities and who served as a participatory observer, in-depth interviewer and analyst of the situation in four specific types of places: parks and alleyways, public toilets, movie theaters and saunas. Over a period of three months, the ethnographer participated in activities in these areas and, without revealing his identity as a researcher, collected the information. Every day he recorded the activities in each place and the non-structured interviews carried out with clients, which would then be transcribed. Given that the schedule of activities in each place was different, the ethnographer was able to go to the movie theaters and saunas in the afternoons, and concentrate on the parks, alleyways and derelict buildings at night.
We considered it necessary to keep his work secret for several reasons. In the first place, if had he disclosed his role as an observer he would have aroused suspicion, apprehension and mistrust, which in turn would have distorted the information gathered. In the second place, because some of these places are extremely dangerous, anyone regarded as extraneous to the activities taking place could be the target of attacks. This happened in any case, since the ethnographer was assaulted on two occasions. In the case of the in-depth interviews, the ethnographer did explain the purpose of the study to the interviewees. We did not include their names or any data that might identify them.
Most of the interviews were conducted with gay men who had attended AIDS prevention workshops at the Association for the Fight Against AIDS ( a non-governmental organization which later became ILPES), who volunteered to be interviewed and who admitted to having had sex in public places. However, it was later possible to carry out short interviews in the parks and saunas with men who had not attended the workshops. These short interviews were included in the analysis carried out by the ethnographer. However, the in-depth interviews were analyzed independently from the ethnographer’s reports and were divided as follows:
Saunas: a total of 22 in-depth interviews were carried out in situ over a three-month period. In addition, the ethnographer made 10 three-hour visits to each of the saunas studied.
Parks: 20 short interviews, lasting between a half hour and an hour, were conducted with clients, all of them gay men recruited from the AIDS prevention workshops provided by the Association for the Fight Against AIDS. The ethnographer also carried out 50 hours of observation over a three month period.
Public toilets, alleyways and empty buildings: 10 gay clients were interviewed in these places who also attended AIDS prevention workshops. No interviews were carried out in the PSPs (Public Sex Places), but rather in clients’ homes. The ethnographer spent a total of 40 hours at the selected points over a three month period.
Movie theaters: By prior appointment, 10 gay men who frequented movie theaters for sex were interviewed in cafes or at home. These men volunteered to be interviewed during AIDS prevention workshops. The interviews lasted approximately two hours each. In addition, the ethnographer spent 20 hours at a selected movie theater over a three-month period.
The 1998 study was called “Public Sex Places“. The investigation was undertaken by the Research Department of the Latin American Institute for Prevention and Health Education, ILPES, in the Metropolitan Area of San Jose.
The study was directed by chief researcher Dr. Jacobo Schifter, Regional Director of ILPES, assisted by a general coordinator, Rodrigo Vargas, who, in addition to supervising the different phases of the study, was also responsible for drafting the various guides and questionnaires used in the study, together with other team members and under the supervision of Dr. Schifter.
The general objective of the study was to update our information on the situations taking place in public sex places, eight years after the first survey.
Public sex places are defined as all those areas accessible to the public, such as parks, spas, public lavatories, saunas, study centers, movie theaters and massage parlors, both indoor or outdoor establishments, frequented by men who have sex with other men and who use these places to make contacts or have sexual relations.
The first phase of the process included preparation of the research plan, the development of research tools and the sample design, the selection of the actual sample and the hiring and training of interviewers and of the staff collaborating in the application of the in-depth interview guides, guides for ethnographic observation and the questionnaires. This phase had a duration of approximately two months.
The second phase, consisting of field work, lasted two months. At the same time, a data base was developed to enter the information from the questionnaires and the interviews were transcribed. This process, in its entirety, lasted four months.
Finally, the third phase included the treatment and presentation of the data (tabulation and preparation of the transcriptions of the in-depth interviews) and the drafting of the final report to the research director for subsequent analysis.
With respect to the geographic aspect of the study, the research was carried out in the Metropolitan Area of San Jose.
Given the fact that men who have sex with other men are found in all social, cultural and geographic spheres, it was necessary to extend the geographic boundaries of public sex places in the Metropolitan Area of San Jose, to include a particular location outside the city, because of its importance.
In 1989 we had discovered the presence of three main protagonists in public sex places: gay men, sex workers and police officers. By 1998 it was decided that the ethnographic study should also include in-depth interviews with these three groups and therefore three general coordinators were appointed to conduct interviews with each group and observe their different roles.
In the 1998 study we wanted to test some of the hypotheses on the reasons for visiting public places for sex. In order to obtain a representative sample, we decided to select men who frequent homosexual social centers in the city of San Jose. Our idea was to carry out the survey with the objective of making subsequent comparisons. Once the data had been analyzed, our population of gay men would be divided into those who visited public places to have sexual relations and those who did not, and we would then try to examine the similarities and differences between them.
A questionnaire was designed with the objective of gathering the necessary information to determine the possible reasons why people frequent public places to have sexual relations. Most of the questionnaire was structured and pre-codified, and contained approximately 90 questions divided into the following sections: identification of the interview, social and demographic variables, sexual self-definition and people who are familiar with sexual definition, first sexual experience, sexual relations and couples, sexual communication, violence, visits to public sex places and motivations, condom use and consumption of alcohol and drugs in public sex places, family background, emotional, physical and sexual abuse, self-perception and questions for the interviewer.
The results relating to the duration of the interview are shown in Table 1:
The survey was carried out by a team of five interviewers who received prior training. The process lasted approximately four weeks and no major problems were encountered during the survey.
The quantitative study was carried out with a population of men who have sex with other men and who frequented social areas located in the Metropolitan Area of San Jose at the time of the survey.
In theory, this means that the sample consists of homosexual men who participate in Costa Rica’s gay community and leaves out those who frequent PSPs but do not participate in gay social centers. However, as we shall see later, the fact of participating in social centers or not doing so does not have the same significance in a Latin country as it does in the United States.
These social centers or meeting points were defined as places or commercial establishments such as bars, restaurants or discotheques which are frequented mainly by men who have sex with other men. Bearing in mind the obvious limitations of time and resources, we decided to concentrate the survey in these places, since access was relatively easy. Once we had compiled a list of all these establishments, of the days and hours when they were open and of the number of clients who came daily/nightly, we proceeded to prepare the sample design and finally the sample itself.
To select the sample, there was no existing sample design that would permit us to establish a process of selection. Nevertheless, it was feasible to build one.
In doing so, the following aspects were taken into account:
The sample design included a total of 7 establishments with the required characteristics.
To find out whether the sample was viable, an estimate was made of the number of visitors to the establishments on the days these were open. The results indicated that it was possible to obtain the size of sample required. We stress that these estimates were made for the sole purpose of assessing the possibility of securing the required sample size. The reason why the number of people who frequent these social centers could not be taken as valid data of the number of people is explained by the fact that the people who frequent these places are not always the same, nor do they arrive with the same frequency. In addition, the opening hours of these places differ and the number of visitors can fluctuate due to the opening or closure of these centers.
Once we had constructed the sample design, the next step was to determine how many interviews would be carried out at each establishment.
Given that we obtained a list of establishments with an approximate number of visitors per day, the sample was proportionally assigned to this variable. The random nature of the sample was determined by the choice of hours at random and because it was considered that the flow of people who visit a specific establishment also occurs in a random manner. In fact the selection of certain specific hours at random was done for reasons of order and to avoid a situation where the interviewer would have a heavy work load that he could not handle.
Finally, 301 interviews were carried out at the different social centers. In this case, the sampling procedure was applied with Probability Proportional to the Size (number of people visiting a given place) of the establishment (PPS). The size of the sample was determined taking account of the time necessary to obtain results and availability of funds.
In general, the degree of cooperation encountered during the interviews was acceptable, since 95.3% of the interviewers described it as good or very good. Moreover, 87% of the interviewers described the results in the same way.
This book is also based on two other, additional sources: the ethnographic observation and the in-depth interviews.
| A. | In the first case, an ethnographic observation guide was applied to study the culture of the people who frequent public sex places, which entailed living with them day by day. Specifically, we studied behavioral patterns, µthe rules of the game’, high risk sexual practices and the types of contacts that occur in the places. |
| To this end, observations were conducted in ten parks, five saunas, three movie theaters, a university, four public toilets, one video club, one spa, one alleyway and one commercial establishment. This process had a duration of one month in each place. | |
| B. | During the second phase, 60 in-depth interviews were carried out with clients of public sex over a period of approximately three months. For the purposes of this study, the “clients” included gay men, sex workers and even police officers, who also participate in public sex, as we shall see later. Subsequently, we requested 40 written accounts from gay men with a history of sexual and physical abuse. |
A. Ethnographic observation
We conducted in-depth interviews or received written accounts (see section 1b) from:
| 1a. | Gay clients of PSPs (20 interviews) |
| 1b. | Gay men at abuse workshops (40 written accounts) |
| 2. | Sex workers (20 interviews) |
| 3. | Police officers (20 interviews) |
It is important to note that in the places studied, identities are fluid and therefore differentiation is not always easy. A policeman may turn into a “cachero” or a sex worker, a “locust” may move from crime to prostitution, a prostitute may become a criminal and a gay can end up as a prostitute.
1a Gay men who are clients of PSPs
Gay men are an important sector of the clients at PSPs. Some participate in the gay community (bars, discotheques, organizations) and others do not.
We conducted 20 in-depth interviews lasting 2 hours with gay men who attended AIDS prevention workshops organized by ILPES and who frequent public sex places. Abelardo Araya, coordinator of the organization’s gay program, was responsible for securing the voluntary participation of workshop participants who visit PSPs and for carrying out the interviews. These included a series of questions about the interviewees’ life history, family background, relationships with parents, family violence, homosexuality and homophobia, reasons for frequenting public sex places, sexual practices, risk of HIV infection, drug use and other related issues.
The fact that participants in the AIDS prevention workshops should be our main source of information implies homosexuals with a certain degree of recognition of their sexual identity. However, this recognition is not of the same type that exists in the United States. For a Latin “gay”, being out of the closet is more a question of inwardly accepting his own sexuality, rather than expressing it to the rest of the world. In other words, it is an end to the mental repression of his own homosexuality.31 Coming “out of the closet” does not imply activism or open participation. Thus, many of the gays who are “out of the closet” in Costa Rica are actually hidden, and the difference between those who believe they are “out” and those who do not is only a matter of degrees.
Nevertheless, for the purposes of this study and analysis of the results it is important to point out that the gay sector which is in theory more open and more involved in Costa Rica’s gay community is most strongly represented. This leaves out a group who frequent public places but who are not clients of gay bars and who do not participate in homosexual organizations.
1b. Gay men with a history of sexual and physical abuse
One group with whom we worked in a different way were gay men with a history of sexual and physical abuse. When we analyzed the survey and found that the violence and sexual abuse factor was so significant, we decided to conduct an additional exploration of the links between visiting public sex places and a previous history of physical and sexual violence.
Since ILPES had programmed a series of workshops between September and November 1998 for men who had suffered physical or sexual abuse, we decided to search for answers among the participants. Approximately 40 men participated in these workshops, which were programmed by ILPES independently of this study. Participation was completely voluntary. ILPES had invited clinical psychologists to refer some of their patients who were interested in working on their abuse experiences with a group of gay men, under the supervision of psychologists specializing in this area. An announcement was also posted to enable those who had attended ILPES’ AIDS prevention workshops to participate.
In order to understand the relationship between violence and participation in public sex places, we obtained permission to recruit four workshop participants who wished to contribute to our study. Their role was to introduce to each of the four groups, three tasks or assignments relating to sexual and physical abuse and participation in public sex places. We obtained unnamed copies of the accounts written by the participants on: the sexual abuse they had suffered, their most erotic encounters in public places and their own analyses of the similarities and differences they saw in both cases.
Of the 40 participants, 23 frequented public sex places. We selected only the accounts of clients of these places and have included five of them in this study. Although they contain experiences and analyses that are common all 23 cases, we believe that the interpretation of the relationship between abuse and public sex places should be studied with a much broader and more representative population. These analyses should therefore be considered speculative and as possible subjects for further study.
2. “Cacheros”, “Chapulines” and Criminals
The interviews with men involved in prostitution were conducted at El Salon, a project for sex workers and criminals in the center of San Jose, with the support of the project director Antonio Bustamante Ledo, who provided us with a list of young men who are criminals and were willing to be interviewed. The interviews were conducted by ILPES’ journalist Dino Starcevic.
This ILPES project works with various groups of men who are involved in prostitution and crime, mainly robbery: “cacheros”, common criminals and “chapulines” or “locusts”. The differences and similarities between these groups makes it difficult to categorize them.
In the book Lila’s House32, we define “cachero” as a man who, in Latin sexual culture, is perceived as the “penetrator” in anal sex with another man, and who is therefore not regarded as a homosexual. In his work on homosexuality in Mexico, Carrier tells us that in Mexico this figure is known as the “mayate”33. In the Dominican Republic, according to de Moya and Garcia, “cacheros” are known as “bugarrones”34. “Cacherismo” has a long history in Costa Rica and is practiced by heterosexual men who, for different reasons, do not have access to women (prison inmates, banana and coffee plantation workers, sailors, truck drivers and others). However, the category of “cachero” is more fluid than many people realize and there are “cacheros” who are involved in prostitution in marginal areas. “Cacheros” also engage in more varied sexual practices than they admit to.35
“Cacheros” who engage in prostitution are not homosexuals in the “modern” sense of the word. Studies on male prostitution in the United States suggest that most of them are not homosexuals either. According to Coombs, the majority of young male prostitutes in the United States are typically masculine and heterosexual. The statistics for his sample of 124 individuals are: 6% homosexual, 22% bisexual and 72% heterosexual.36 Similar results were obtained in Denmark, where Jersild, in a study of 300 male prostitutes in Copenhagen, identified only 6 as homosexuals.37 In his study on male prostitution, Ginsburg expresses the view that the homosexual act does not make an individual gay and notes that most of the sex workers he interviewed were not homosexuals, though he recognizes that some of them might become so through practice.38
Some believe that the practice of “cacherismo” is a convenient category invented by men in homophobic societies to “escape” the stigma of homosexuality. Others, such as Rudi C. Bleys, adduce that not considering “cacheros” as homosexuals is part of the tradition of European ethnography which, since the nineteenth century, has considered those who are effeminate to be homosexuals, but not so those who are masculine.39 However, our own studies show that this category does not “serve” to protect “cacheros” from discrimination. Among the middle classes, for example, “cacheros” are regarded as homosexuals both by heterosexuals and by homosexuals themselves. However, among the lower social classes, the “heterosexual” identity of the “cachero” is accepted among people of all sexual orientations. This tolerance is a reflection of a sexual culture which considers practice to be more important than the sexual object in determining sexual identity. The sexual culture of certain popular Latino sectors focuses more on the body to define the sexuality of a person: men are men so long as they are “active” sexually, whether with women, men, children or animals.40
The group of non-gay men who frequent public sex places consists mainly of “cacheros” involved in prostitution. In other words, men who have sex with other men for money. Unlike other types of “cacheros”, such as prison inmates or sailors, they are not interested in sexual satisfaction. As was shown in Lila’s House, “cacheros” who are prostitutes are not sexually attracted to their clients, have not had a history of sex with men prior to working in the sex trade and do not consider themselves to be homosexuals. Most of them have sex with women and have fathered children.41
Not all prostitutes are “cacheros”, nor are all “cacheros” prostitutes. As we shall see, public sex places are also frequented by homosexual prostitutes, in other words sex workers who are attracted to other men, who define themselves as gay and who make money from sex. However, homosexual prostitutes and “cacheros” do not share the same sexual identity and are concerned that they should not be perceived as doing so. For this reason, they even position themselves in different areas or sections of the public sex places. Other “cacheros”, such as former prison inmates or police officers, also frequent public sex places to satisfy themselves sexually and do not engage in prostitution.
Prostitutes are not always “cacheros”. In the list provided to us by the director of El Salon, there were “chapulines” or “locusts” as well as “cacheros”. The “locusts” are juvenile delinquents who steal and work in gangs. These gangs emerged fairly recently and their modus operandi is to mug and rob people in Costa Rican cities. The term “locusts” was coined only ten years ago. Some “locusts” are as young as eight or nine years old, while others are over thirty. However, the majority are teenagers. The members of these young criminal gangs caught our interest because now they are also working as prostitutes in public sex places. These young criminals who engage in prostitution also appear in studies conducted in the United States. In his study on male prostitution, Gandy42 included what he termed “hoodlum hustlers or heterosexual delinquents” while Raven43 mentions the “smart, small time crook who sees the homosexual as an easy mark”. Despite their differences, these groups are similar to Costa Rica’s “chapulines”, in that they are more criminals than prostitutes. In the Dominican Republic, de Moya and Garcia mention groups of adolescents involved in prostitution and theft, known as “palomos”44. However, the “palomos” are more involved in prostitution than in mugging people in the cities.
Approximately 150 “cacheros”, “locusts” and “delinquents” attend the El Salon project each week. Out of the 20 who were interviewed, 13 described themselves as “locusts”, and the rest as “delinquents”. None of them described themselves as “homosexual”, “bisexual” or “gay”, though 18 admitted to having had sexual relations with men. Their initiation into homosexual sex took place within the terms of prostitution and none admitted to feeling desire or having fantasies about other men. When they were asked directly about how they viewed their sexual relations with other men, the general reply was as “cacheros” (not all of them used this word but used similar terms such as “male-men”, “macho” or “male”), in other words, acts that take place between “men” (heterosexuals) and homosexuals. In their accounts, the interviewees did not admit to being penetrated by clients, but they did recognize that “other locusts” had done it for money.
The program coordinators are both heterosexuals and homosexuals, although ILPES is known for its work with homosexuals. In view of this reputation, it is possible that those who attend the Salon are the “cacheros” and “locusts” who are most involved in prostitution. This could be a subject for future study.
Public sex places are also frequented by common criminals who are not “locusts”. Some of them are “cacheros” and others are simply there to rob people. It is hard to tell them apart. Both the common criminals and the “cacheros” try to pick men up with the aim of robbing them or charging them for sex. However, many criminals end up having sex with their potential victims and many “cacheros” end up robbing their clients. Although some of the interviewees described themselves as common delinquents --muggers and thieves who work alone --they were not the focus of our study. The similarities and differences between “delinquents” and “locusts” should be analyzed in a future study.
Members of El Salon who offered themselves as volunteers were given a two-hour in-depth interview. The following subjects were discussed: personal and family background of the interviewee, first sexual experiences and sexual desire, public sex places, sexual self-definition of the interviewee, sexual orientation and homosexuality, prostitution and sexual culture in public sex places, money and prostitution, HIV/AIDS, other sexually transmitted diseases and prevention, violence, relations with the police and consumption of tobacco, alcohol and drugs.
Our interest centered on the 13 interviewees who described themselves as “locusts”, since this is a criminal group which only recently began to practice “cacherismo” and because it is linked to several recent crimes against gay men. The fact that some of these crimes were perpetrated by several youths (common delinquents do not usually operate in gangs) suggests involvement by “locusts”. The fact that some of the “locusts” interviewed admit to having wounded or having been on the verge of killing some clients (though none admitted to actually perpetrating a crime) is another sign of their involvement. However, not all crimes against gays have been committed by “locusts”, nor are they all killers. Several of the common delinquents or “prostitute cacheros” interviewed admitted to having mugged or attacked gay men in public places. Some killings were committed by criminals who acted alone.
At the same time, the activities of “locusts” and “prostitute cacheros” may vary. Some of those in the first group are now more involved in prostitution than robbery. Some from the second group, when they age or lose their appeal, engage more in robbery than in prostitution. Others change their activities for short periods, according to circumstances. When there are more tourists in town, for example, they engage in prostitution with foreigners, and when there are fewer tourists they rob local people.
Finally, once the interviews had been analyzed, an extra session was held with 10 “locusts” who admitted to having attacked their clients. We asked this group to help us “interpret” or “read the story” of three crimes against gays. The extra session lasted approximately one hour with each interviewee.
3. Police Offic