THE HANKY CODE: FROM COVERT SIGNALS TO SYMBOLS OF LIBERATION

IMAGINE LIVING IN A WORLD WHERE YOUR IDENTITY IS A SECRET YOU MUST GUARD FIERCELY, AND YOUR DESIRES ARE WHISPERS SHARED ONLY IN THE SHADOWS.

For decades, queer individuals—particularly gay men—existed in a cloistered reality where bars were hidden in anonymity and a quiet, coded language emerged as a lifeline. Among these codes was the hanky code, a color-coded system offering a subtle yet powerful means of self-expression within LGBTQ+ and BDSM communities. While numerous articles detail its surface aspects, they often overlook its profound impact as a vibrant language of identity and desire.

The hanky code was a covert sartorial code used predominantly by queer men in the 1970s and into the 1980s. Simply put, a bandana was worn in one's back pocket for the purpose of sexual signaling. The color of the bandana was associated with a specific interest or fetish, and the wearer's role was indicated by which back pocket the bandana resided in—left for dominant or "top" roles, right for submissive or "bottom" roles. The code initially began with red bandanas to discreetly identify certain practitioners. As additional color associations were added, a decoder list was created, often distributed by queer businesses, erotica shops, and gay bars as a form of community marketing.

THE ORIGIN OF THE HANKY CODE EXISTS LIKE MYTH OR URBAN LEGEND, WITH VARYING STORIES DEPENDING ON THE SOURCE.

However, it is widely traced to the queer community of San Francisco in the early 1970s, particularly in the Castro District's bars and events. This system likely developed from broader traditions of symbolic signaling in marginalized communities, adapted for both safety and solidarity. Scholar Gayle Rubin observed that "subcultural codes often develop as an adaptive response to the need for privacy and solidarity" (Rubin, 1984, p. 25). The hanky code thus became a practical solution to maintain privacy while building community—a quiet act of rebellion allowing those constrained by mainstream society to carve out space for themselves.

As the hanky code spread throughout the mid-1970s, it was predominantly practiced by queer men in the BDSM or leather subculture but eventually became part of the gay mainstream. Images of a bandana tucked in a denim back pocket became a visual shorthand for queer men, appearing in magazine illustrations and book covers. Terms like "hanky code" and "flagging" (the act of participating in the code) entered the queer lexicon. These cultural references not only documented the once underground phenomenon but also created a cultural record of an emerging queer masculine identity. Such developments not only highlighted the hanky code's significance but also contributed to representations of queer masculinity and visibility.

WITHIN THIS CONTEXT, THE HANKY CODE FOSTERED A SENSE OF BELONGING IN A COMMUNITY FACING WIDESPREAD MARGINALIZATION. FOR MANY GAY MEN, IT OFFERED A WAY TO SAFELY SIGNAL THEIR IDENTITIES AND PREFERENCES, ALIGNING THEMSELVES WITH LIKE-MINDED INDIVIDUALS AND REINFORCING A SENSE OF CONNECTION.

Psychological models of identity formation, such as Vivienne Cass's theoretical model, emphasize how critical finding community is to self-acceptance (Cass, 1979). For individuals facing stigmatization, this coded language enabled them to communicate their authentic selves while remaining within societal boundaries. The hanky code was not simply about preference or desire; it was about finding kinship and belonging—a quiet way to say, "You are not alone."

The mid-1980s saw a decrease in the use of the hanky code, attributed to the curbing of anonymous sexual practices in relation to the rise of HIV/AIDS. However, flagging continued within the queer BDSM subculture, where alternative activities deemed low or no risk were practiced. Reflecting the times, a black and white checkered handkerchief representing safer practices appeared in hanky codes, promoting awareness and safety.

In the late 1990s, the BDSM subculture reinterpreted the hanky code aesthetic through dress. Known as fetishwear or gear, attire traditionally made in black leather began featuring accented colors associated with the hanky code. Accessories like suspenders, shoelaces, and graphic T-shirts referencing common interests provided a casual approach to flagging. This evolution allowed for signaling beyond the bandana, offering a more direct form of expression and an opportunity to openly embrace identities that included one's specific interests.

TODAY, THE HANKY CODE REMAINS A POWERFUL SYMBOL OF LGBTQ+ RESILIENCE AND INGENUITY. DESPITE SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS IN LGBTQ+ RIGHTS, MANY STILL FEEL THE NEED TO CONCEAL ASPECTS OF THEIR IDENTITIES, PARTICULARLY REGARDING KINK AND OTHER NON-NORMATIVE PRACTICES.

The code has evolved, taking on new meanings and applications, and now serves as both a historical symbol and an expressive tool for navigating identity in a modern context. Reclaiming the hanky code has become a way for some to openly celebrate their identities, unbound by past constraints.

The revival of the hanky code embraces adaptability, serving as a nuanced way to express complex identities. For non-binary individuals, for instance, the code offers a visible means to signify gender fluidity and complexity. Queer theorist Judith Butler suggests that "identity is performatively constituted by the very 'expressions' that are said to be its results" (Butler, 1990, p. 33). Through the modern hanky code, individuals can embody a range of identities and preferences, creating visual representations that are both deeply personal and readily understood within the community. By utilizing different colors or combinations, individuals challenge narrow interpretations of sexuality and gender, expressing identity in nuanced and meaningful ways.

The hanky code itself employs specific colors to communicate interests, with each hue and pocket placement signifying unique identities, roles, or desires. During the earliest times, the code was simple, existing primarily of the colors of available hankies. This is sometimes referred to as “The Old Guard.

• Black: Represents interest in BDSM activities, with placement on the left indicating dominance and on the right indicating submission.
• Red: Symbolizes an interest in particular practices; on the left, it suggests a dominant role, while on the right, it denotes a submissive role.
• Yellow: Often denotes an interest in specific activities, with pocket placement conveying dominant or submissive inclinations.
• Blue: Typically associated with certain preferences, with shades indicating different interests; the side indicates preferred roles.
• Green: Traditionally signals an interest in activities like outdoor encounters, with pocket placement clarifying roles.
• White: Represents "vanilla" or non-kinky interests, with the left side symbolizing a dominant preference and the right indicating submission.

Each color, combined with pocket placement, creates a detailed and expressive language of identity. Over time, the hanky code has expanded to include more colors and meanings, reflecting the evolving diversity of queer and kink communities. This rich system serves as both a means of self-expression and a way to foster connection, empowering individuals to explore and express desires openly.

While previous sartorial codes signaled queerness—with some also indicating sexual availability—the hanky code was the first to simultaneously communicate queer identity, availability, and specific interests.

Throughout its 40-plus-year history, the hanky code has contributed to representations of queer masculinity, responded to cultural shifts within the queer zeitgeist, and evolved from a covert signifier to a sartorial declaration of identity, visibility, and representation.

Embracing the hanky code today not only honors a historical tradition but also enriches the sense of connection and identity that this coded language continues to foster across generations. It stands as more than just a relic of the past—it offers an opportunity to reclaim and reimagine these once-hidden signals as tools for authentic expression and identity celebration.

References

• Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. Routledge.
• Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235.
• Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York: Gender, Urban Culture, and the Making of the Gay Male World, 1890–1940. Basic Books.
• Cornier, R. (Year). [Details about Raul Cornier's thesis or publication].
• Rubin, G. (1984). Thinking sex: Notes for a radical theory of the politics of sexuality. In C. Vance (Ed.), Pleasure and Danger: Exploring Female Sexuality. Routledge.