摘要
經濟窘迫的年輕男同志，他們如何建立與經營親密關係？此過程又與中產階級男同志有什麼差異？為了理解上述提問，本研究採取訪談法與田野參與觀察，在田野地透過滾雪球抽樣徵得七位主要報導人，他們年屆23至33歲、自我認同為男同志、原生家庭經濟狀況小康以下，且現在職業為非典型工作或收入低於等於法定基本工資。 研究發現，在初步參與圈內社交時，經濟窘迫的年輕男同志在網路或實體空間均遭遇先於「性感階序」的階級排除機制；在後續的長期社交中，原生家庭貧窮的經驗改變了報導人對「情愛消費」的意義詮釋，使他們越是承蒙砲友的經濟照料，越是感到尊嚴受損；在經營交往關係時，報導人應對危殆工作而發展出的勞動調適策略，使交往雙方原先預期可在關係中獲得的元素消失，因而促發雙方針對性愛、情感、勞動與金錢花用進行對等或不對等協商，此過程改變了親密關係的形式，使得原先抱有一對一式親密關係理想的男同志們進入了開放式關係。 總結來說，面對危殆工作與危殆性、面對來自現實生活的考驗，經濟窘迫的年輕男同志們並不傾向直接解編親密關係，而是嘗試協商拼裝親密關係的多項元素，將其調整為性愛或情感方面的開放式關係。本文挑戰了視男同志親密關係為純粹關係的觀點，同時發現男同志親密關係的腳本正逐漸邁向異性戀式的婚姻經濟想像，經濟權力或將成為當代男同志親密關係的重要課題。
並列摘要
How do precarious young gay men (PYGM) build and maintain intimacies? How does this process differ from that of middle-class gay men? Employing snowball sampling, seven key informants, aged 23 to 33, self-identifying as gay, and originating from working-class families, were enlisted. Their present occupation encompassed precarious work or positions yielding remuneration equal to, or below, the minimum wage. Utilizing a combination of in-depth interviews and participatory observations, this study unveils several pivotal insights. Primarily, during their participation in Tongzhi datings, whether through virtual platforms or face-to-face interactions, PYGM often confronted an exclusionary mechanism rooted in socioeconomic class, predating the “sensual hierarchy.” Furthermore, the informants’ interpretations of “loving consumption” were intricately shaped by their past experiences of precarity and class contempt. Consequently, an ambivalence towards accepting economic caring and loving consumption from others engendering sentiments of shame. Lastly, the intimacies of PYGM underwent intricate transformations due to their adjustments toward precarious work. These adjustments stimulated a multifaceted negotiation of intimacy encompassing sex, emotion, work, and the way of spending. Consequently, this trajectory led certain PYGM, who previously held monogamous ideals, to gravitate towards open relationships. To sum up, faced with precarious work and precarity, PYGM tend not to end intimacies directly, but try to negotiate and assemble multiple elements of intimacies, forming open relationships that are sexually or romantically open. This study challenges the view that gay men’s intimacies are pure relationships, and also finds that the social script of gay men’s intimacies is gradually moving towards a heterosexual marriage-economic imagination, thus making economic power an important issue in contemporary gay men’s intimacies.