Gay bars have historically functioned as communal spaces for the LGBTQ+ community. Because of neoliberalism, LGBTQ+ acceptance continues to rise as “post-gay’’ discourses, coupled with the inclusion of heterosexual audiences, have repositioned gay bars as inclusive spaces. In this study, we explore how the meaning of “gay bar” is communicatively negotiated. Specifically, we employed a co-sexuality lens with spatiality to understand how the “gay bar brand” is constructed and perceived. We used ethnographic methods including observation, 25 semi-structured interviews, and documents at two gay bars in a Midwestern college town. We demonstrate how gay bars, through neoliberal branding, reopened the meaning of gay bars as spaces for “all” sexualities. Three tensions emerged: (1) who gay bars are for (queer or general communities); (2) sexual autonomy (contested meanings around “safety” and “being yourself”); and (3) viable marketing (tension between “community” and “commodification”). This study contributes to the literature on sexuality, space, and branding by moving beyond utopian depictions of gay bars. Instead, it encourages scholars to understand the bars as destabilized and contested queer spaces.

Gay bars historically functioned as the only space where LGBTQ+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans*, queer) people could escape intolerance and persecution. From drag shows to dancing to counterculture, gay bars are symbols of expression and hope for those misunderstood. In many ways, they are LGBTQ+ institutions that have withstood time. However, the rapid closing of gay bars coupled with Big D discourses of “post-gay,” “mainstream,” and “death of the gay bar” have threatened their existence. Much of these gay culture discourses stem from research on metropolitan cities (New York and San Francisco) with larger gay populations. Yet very few have examined how this experience affects gay bars in smaller cities with fewer LGBTQ+ spaces. Drawing on the communicative theory of resilience, I examined two gay bars in a small Midwestern city to understand how they (a) construct and negotiate their identity, and (b) manage organizational resilience in discursive and material ways. Findings and implications are discussed.