![](bg3.png)
like men, 10) Normal, and 11) Individuals who like
masculine men. Some words are quite familiar and
are common terms used when defining one’s sexual
orientation but several descriptions are a very unique
way to reveal an otherwise undetermined label for
specific sexual attraction and experiences.
This result clarifies what du Gay and Hall (1996)
have said in that the term identity is not a natural in
itself, but a constructed form of closure and that
identity naming, even if silenced and unspoken, is an
act of power. A community is a social unit that
stabilises the deep-rooted identity classification with
the play of differences as the only point of origin.
Identity is a cultural site where particular discourses
and practices are entwined and shattered at the same.
The historical route taken by LGBT Indonesians
shows that the homosexual identity first emerged in
urban centre in the early twentieth century. Before
then, it was preceded by the LGBT movement in the
late 1960s when waria, transgender women, came
into view (UNDP, 2014). Considering the fact that
homosexuality is a predominantly Western
discourse, LGBT Indonesians have persisted in order
to secure their local and cultural distinctiveness as a
means to acknowledge how sexuality is highly inter-
related with race, ethnicity, class and other aspects
of identity. The term ‘waria’ as an Indonesian
specific phenomenon demonstrates how language
shapes reality. Boellstorff (2005) refers to male-to-
female transvestites (best known by the term banci)
as waria, which he used to name both female (she)
and male (he). This means that biological foundation
for sexuality is misleading because it is and through
language that one’s subjectivity is produced across
historical and cultural contexts.
Amongst all options, waria scores zero, which
means that none of the respondents associated
themselves with the characteristics of waria as a
specific gender identity. They used another way to
describe their identities which can be put into one of
the 11 categories above. Since almost all of the
respondents are male (92.65%), it is easily
understood that sexual orientation represents the
interests of those who call themselves male. It
explains why only a minority stated ‘bi-curious’,
‘lesbian’, and ‘individuals who like masculine men’
which is language used to represents women’s
discourse on sexuality. However, the sexual identity
of the respondents who says ‘pro-LGBT’ is hard to
properly know as they could only be showing their
support for LGBT individuals who are still
experiencing discrimination and repressive acts
physically, psychologically and verbally. Although
the numbers are very small, its significance brings a
great magnitude to the campaign for the human
rights of LGBT people in the public sphere and
throughout social media.
However, only 80.88% of respondents admit that
they had sex with men while only 19.12% say the
opposite. The number is greater than the 68.85%
respondents who confess that they are gay with a
12.03% difference in percentage. This means that
diversity in sexual orientation is becoming more
extensive, which breaks the long-established
perception that sexual intercourse between men must
be labelled ‘gay’ which leaves no room for other
sexual expressions. This explains the prior outcome
that highlights the variety of sexual identity as
proposed by respondents. The argument that can be
brought to light for this observable fact has been
explained by Hall (1996), who said that difference
matters because it is essential to meaning, and
without it, meaning could not exist. The wide range
of identities breaks not only the existed binary
opposition that separates feminine from masculine in
extreme poles, but also defies the
‘heteronormativity’ as being the ideological force
that works behind all prejudices and violent acts
against LGBT people who stands for the right to be
different. It also dismantles the belief that sexual
subjects should fall into one distinct category and
cannot transgress the boundary without being
marked as deviant, dissonant, disturbing and above
all, subversive.
In spite of the LGBT people’s will to challenge
the traditional norms that marginalise and put them
in an already heterosexual relationship of
subordination, they cannot escape from a discursive
mechanism that requires them to have a ‘husband
and wife relationship’ as a means of survival. It
means that those who are married (13.11%) are not
committed to a monogamous relationship but have
an open relationship. It appears that a sense of
freedom that liberates them from the cultural
expectation to be ‘normal’ conflicts with the need to
express their homosexuality. It affects how the
respondent will decide on their sexual openness to
others and how it brings significance to them.
The degree of sexual openness as illustrated in
the diagram below exemplifies identity as a source
of worry rather than as a place of belonging. Even
though quite a lot of the respondents do not hesitate
to declare their sexuality, there are still considerable
number of people who show reluctance in revealing
their sexual identities for the reason that LGBT are
believed to be a type of illness and taboo for
Indonesian society. The figure confirms that the
community has silenced LGBT people and made
The Impact of Mobile Devices on Indonesian Men’s Sexual Communication
169