Introduction

In recent years, awareness and acceptance of LGBT+ individuals has grown in society, and their

visibility in media has risen accordingly. An interesting example of this is FX’s It’s Always Sunny in

Philadelphia (2005), a controversial satire of the American Dream which has developed significantly

over its twelve seasons. This show is interesting analytically due to its evolution from crude offensive

humour to genuinely thoughtful parody, and due to the 11 year coming out arc of one of the main

characters.

Representation is a key issue in media, as the way characters are portrayed in the public

consciousness affects people’s world-view and ideology (Hall, Evans, and Nixon, 2012). This is

particularly true of minorities or marginalised groups, as their depiction can alter not only how other

people perceive them, impacting their safety, but also their perception of themselves. Arguably,

then, while content creators have no obligation to accurately or responsibly reflect the world, there

is some level of expectation, or at least, hope, that they do.

The dissertation will begin with a literature review to look at the history of sitcom and

representation to contextualise this specific show, including the representation of gay characters. It

will also review as well the relationship of homophobia, masculinity, and class, both on television

and in real life, so as to ascertain the accuracy of Mac’s portrayal of these issues. There will then be a

methodology to further specify how textual analysis will be utilised to this end. The bulk of the

report will be found in the analysis section, where the evidence will be reviewed in discourse, ending

with a conclusion to summarise my findings.

1
Literature Review

Situational comedies, or sitcoms, are a genre of television comedy that were lifted from radio, and

originally developed from Victorian music hall (Crisell, 2006). The durable genre has survived due to

its popularity and lucrativeness, as the format lends itself to syndication (Butsch, 2008). Traditional

sitcom has a number of stylistic conventions associated with it, both aesthetically and structurally.

Classic sitcoms are studio-based and use a multi-camera shooting technique and ‘flat’ lighting, as

pioneered by German Expressionist Karl Freund, to reduce reshoots and reinforce the ‘live’

experience for a studio audience (Austerlitz,2014). Some early sitcoms were even shot on a theatre

stage, such as The Honeymooners (1955) (Butler, 2010). Structurally, a conventional sitcom is

episodic rather than serialised. While new elements may be introduced in the course of an episode,

they are typically dealt with and removed by the episode’s end, allowing the show to return to its

default norm (Eaton, 1981). Neale and Krutnik (1990) explain this as the sitcom pivoting around

‘refamiliarizing the recurring situation’ (235), noting this as the main point of divergence with soap

opera. This means that a new viewer could, in theory, watch any episode in any order without much

of the plot being sacrificed. While this makes the plot of an episode somewhat predictable – i.e., you

know that the problem will be resolved – Crisell (2006) argues that it is this predictability that allows

the viewer to feel safe to enjoy the humour without any threat. However, this reset of the situation

every episode does mean that there is little room for character development (see Ellis, 2000), so that

characters remain static even though another sitcom trope has episodes holding morals for the

characters. The characters are never able to remember or learn from these important lessons, and

so are doomed to repeat their mistakes (Newcombe, 1993).

A further convention of sitcoms is for them to be built around a heterosexual relationship (Mills,

2005); most sitcom protagonists are either already in a heterosexual marriage (as in domestic family

sitcoms) or seek a relationship with the opposite sex (as in sitcoms with a ‘will-they-won’t-they’ plot)

2
(Attallah, 2003). Typically, the latter will resolve into the former state, with the series finale being a

heterosexual wedding (Scodari, 1995).

Despite this, sitcoms were among the first in television to include gay characters within the main

ensemble, though they were primarily exaggerated stereotypes (Marc, 1989). This is not necessarily

a comment on how sitcoms treated gay characters per se, as Medhurst and Tuck (1989) point out

that sitcoms use stereotypes more often than most genres, as the short humour-focussed format

means that stereotypes are a useful shorthand (Butsch, 2008), and so characters in sitcom are likely

to be stereotypes regardless of what they are stereotypes of. However, stereotypes in general are

perceived to be negative; Dyer (2009) criticises them as the powerful in-group making assumptions

about an unknown out-group and assigning them characteristics accordingly. In contrast, Neale

(1993) argues that stereotypes themselves are not problematic, only negative or simplified ones.

Unfortunately, there is much evidence to suggest that the representation of non-straight characters

in sitcom is less than ideal; Mills (2005) suggests that the relative prevalence of gay characters in the

genre is due to its inherent heteronormativity as described above, and so anyone outside of this

assumption is automatically ‘abnormal’, and therefore funny. This is supported by Dyer’s (2009)

finding that the other genre with a high frequency of such characters is horror, a genre which again

subverts the norm, here to create fear rather than humour. Accordingly, horror and laughter are

both listed as reactions of the straight audience to gay characters by Gwenllian Jones (2002). Mills

(2005) also finds that the humour around gay characters derived from their ‘campness’, a sentiment

echoed by Austerlitz’s (2014) note that the behaviour was an exaggerated performance, thus

suggesting the tone is mocking. Furthermore, portrayals of gay characters are usually made ‘safe’ for

straight audiences, for example through ‘coding’ characters as gay rather than stating it explicitly

(Mittell, 2010) or by rendering canon gay characters as sexless and neutered, so that they are only

gay ‘in theory’ (see Conway, 2006). These mild references to homosexuality without requiring any

commitment allow for a dual reading of the text which can appeal to both gay and straight

3
audiences (Lavery, 2008). Even explicitly gay characters are made non-threatening by the rest of the

artificial, larger-than-life set-up of traditional sitcom, which Kessler (2006) describes as a ‘carnival’

(80); the lack of every-day realism means no real threat is made to heteronormativity. Interestingly,

Joyrich (2009) points out that same-sex kisses are acceptable, as long as they are performed by

straight characters, again robbing them of any ‘threat’. Conway (2006) uses the character Will

Truman from sitcom Will & Grace (1998) as an example, debating whether he is a ‘safe’ gay – it is

true that he has been somewhat desexualised and removed from the gay identity, but Conway

argues that allowing him to fit heteronormativity makes him more threatening, as ‘anyone can be

gay’. Medhurst (2009), however, believes this kind of representation was problematic as it was

pandering and dishonest, and in fact it was usually the ‘bad’ representations of gay characters, such

as gay-coded villains, who were beloved by the LGBT community. It remains a topic with strong

arguments on both sides caused by the dearth of variety in openly gay characters on television; both

types of representations are valid, but so long as they are scarce each one will be held up and

scrutinised, as they must try to represent an entire community with only a few examples.

Looking at how sitcoms specifically represent non-straight sexualities is significant due to the

position of societal power that sitcoms hold (see Austerlitz 2014). Sitcom is a popular genre,

particularly in the US, and its high viewing rates combined with its non-threatening, humourous,

domestic nature means that it has the power to influence people’s real-world ideologies (Hall, Evans,

and Nixon, 2012). Wells (1998) attributes this influence to its ‘ideological smuggling’ (181); sitcoms

often contain an underlying political creed, typically liberal and progressive in tone (Hamamato,

1989), but presented in such a way that it does not antagonise conservative viewers. Though this

may seem a somewhat tepid form of activism, it is worth noting that since 1998 when the source

was written, sitcoms have become much more outspoken, and even Will & Grace, which began in

1998, was credited by Joe Biden with paving the way to same-sex marriage in America in an

interview with Meet the Press (6 May 2012).

4
Modern sitcoms are less likely to follow traditional sitcom conventions. Vermeulen and Whitfield

(2013) describe a shift in both narrative style and aesthetics in their analysis of Arrested

Development (2003), with Savorelli (2010) exploring the specific changes in detail, such as the loss of

the laugh track and thus the need for a live audience and sequential shooting. Butler (2010) notes

that single-camera has become more prevalent than studio sitcoms, and it is telling that he lists the

former as ‘televisual’ sitcoms compared to the ‘proscenium’ studio sitcoms (196). He also lists that

televisual sitcoms are ‘medium-oriented’ (ibid.), meaning that the production is an important part of

the narrative. This is a key concept in the idea of ‘comedy verité’, a term coined by Mills (2004) to

explain the style of modern sitcoms, particularly with the rise of the ‘mockumentary’. The concept

states that modern sitcoms aim for a more ‘realistic’ effect, even framing the show as a factual

documentary and thus situating the characters in the real world. These modern style changes are

often indicative of more modern, progressive narratives (Mills, 2008). However, Martin (2014)

argues that despite this, and despite the rise of the inclusion of gay characters, they are still usually

presented as ‘safe’, as their displays of affection are downplayed. Another change in modern sitcoms

is that they are more likely to have ensemble casts (Savorelli, 2010), meaning that there is more

scope for story; it is possible that this is itself another sign of a less conservative sitcoms, as one of

the easiest ways to introduce an ensemble is in a workplace sitcom, which historically has been done

as a site to explore relationships and sexuality (Mills, 2005, and Feasey, 2008).

While traditional sitcom conventions are less prevalent today, sitcoms using them they remain some

of the most popular, and these conventions are important to understand so that we can recognise

when they are being explicitly broken, parodied, or subverted. This is relevant as Always Sunny is a

satire, and comments on everything from its own sitcomic origins to real-world issues such as

politics, race, and sexuality, though Detweiler (2012) criticises its use of satire as a crutch. The canon

gay character, Ronald ‘Mac’ McDonald, was closeted for the first 11 seasons of the show, and so

analysing his representation will also require an overview of the literature on masculinity and male

friendships.

5
Spangler (1992) and Feasey (2008) both look at how male friendships are presented on television

and note how men are not allowed to be as affectionate with each other as female friendships;

Feasey (2008) backs this up with research into real-life friendships between men, suggesting that

this is an accurate portrayal. Spangler (1992) states that these kinds of friendships are considered

more acceptable and thus are more prevalent in sitcoms, as it is once again a safe environment and

one where anxiety can be diffused with humour. Similarly, Simpson (1998) finds that the affection

can be shown in television if it is done with irony; this links to Miller’s (2006) report of Seinfeld’s

(1989) use of the ‘ironic dismissal’, which states that the male characters were comfortable in their

unconventionally close relationship until it was examined externally and measured against the

societal norm. This societal discomfort is attributed somewhat to the rise of gay characters on

television by Simpson (1998), as their visibility brought the concept of homosexuality into the public

consciousness, and so any intimacy between men sends them into a ‘homosexual panic’ (see Lotz,

2014, and Sedgewick, 1991). This in turn shows a link between masculinity and homophobia, as

intimacy is avoided due to fear of having ‘gay acts’ enacted upon them (Lotz, 2014). A further factor

is that homosexuality can be placed ‘in opposition to masculinity’ (Feasey, 2008, 29), that is, that

being gay is a failure in manliness (Simpson, 1998). The latter interpretation is why the homophobia,

once internalised (see Sedgewick, 1991), can lead to an inflated, overly-performative masculinity in

men who are in actuality gay (Cruz, 2000). This, too, is an archetype of gay character on television, as

discussed by Wlodarz (2009), but typically they are characters who are ‘out’, thus endeavouring to

show different ‘types’ of gay people, or if they are closeted they are framed as cowards who will

meet with violence (Becker, 2009).

The final relevant area when looking at the representations of gay characters is social class, as there

is a definite class dynamic in Always Sunny. Kessler (2006) notes that the majority of gay characters

in sitcoms, and indeed on television in general, are white, middle-class, and well-educated, as

echoed in Baker’s (2005) analysis of Will & Grace. Part of this could be due to the decline in working-

class sitcoms in recent years (Wells, 1998) and the decline in respect for working-class individuals

6
(Butsch, 2008), making them a less fashionable site for the ‘new and exciting’ gay characters. This

lack of representation of working class gay people may be why, according to Simpson (1998),

homosexuality is seen as ‘something that afflicts other classes’ (142), making the working class

‘safe’. Relatedly, Barrett (2000) claims that working class individuals are more likely to be

homophobic, and have more internalised homophobia if they are gay themselves.

This literature review has explored a number of topics which are important to keep in mind moving

forward into my own analysis. It is important to note historical sitcom conventions and how they

have changed recently in modern shows to give context to Always Sunny, as is the case with how

sitcoms and other genres have represented non-straight sexualities. Within the show’s diegesis, the

only character to realise that he is not straight does not do so until the twelfth season, and so

looking at real-world research into internalised homophobia and the closet has been helpful, as well

as its relation to masculinity. After looking at research into how male friendships are portrayed on-

screen and enacted in the real world, it will also be worthwhile to look at the relationship between

Mac, who is confirmed to be gay, and Dennis, who is also implied to not be heterosexual.

7
Methodology

I intend to investigate the representation of sexuality in Always Sunny using textual analysis.

A qualitative approach is most-suited as it will allow me to explore the issue discursively

with greater depth and nuance (Gunter, 2000).

As my topic concerns representation, my primary focus in analysis will be the underlying ideology

surrounding LGBT+ themes and characters. Creeber (2006) describes textual analysis in television by

comparing it to traditional analysis of literature, where the focus is on the content of the text and

the interpretations that could be made by the reader. Therefore, I will be carrying out my analysis

based on the assumption that the ideology held by the creators will be inherently embedded in the

text (Bertrand and Hughes, 2005), regardless of whether they intended it, which then becomes

available for the viewer to decode based on their own beliefs (Hall,1980).

Having rewatched the show in its entirety, I will attempt to uncover themes and group textual

examples accordingly in order to fully explore the representation. I imagine the focus will be on

narrative dialogue, though in order to fully analyse there will also likely be discussion of

performance, cinematography, mise-en-scene, etc. I will then use the textual analysis in conjunction

with the contextual findings in my literature review to evaluate the representation of sexuality in

Always Sunny in the context of other sitcoms and real-world queer theory.

8
Analysis

The Text and the Meta Text

Whilst Always Sunny is most accurately described as a sitcom, it is also a satire, and makes this clear

by immediately undercutting its positive title with views of the city at night in the opening sequence

(see Leonard, 2015). It subverts a typical sitcom set-up; a group of friends running a bar together;

with an impossibly low budget, lack of laugh track, and presence of swearing and adult themes,

beginning with an episode about racism and homophobia (‘The Gang Gets Racist’, 2005). It uses the

typical sitcom attribute of returning to the norm after each episode as an allegory for the characters’

lives; where other sitcom characters exist in a world of arrested development, the gang of Always

Sunny stagnate as time continues to pass around them, trapped in their lives as victims of

circumstance, a post-modern failure of the American Dream (see Kimmel, 2017). These are

important themes to remember when analysing the representation of sexuality; we are constantly

reminded that these characters are real people who inhabit the same world as us, with the same

social rules. When a character is hospitalised, they are still injured in the following episode, because

the rules of our world apply (‘The Gang Goes Jihad’, 2006). The storytelling is cumulative, uncommon

in sitcom, with comments made as jokes in one episode being consolidated into characterisation as

character development. These all serve to remind the viewer that any representation of sexuality is a

valid threat in reality.

It could be argued that these deviations from traditional sitcom act to queer the genre, particularly

given the fact that so many of the characters are implied to be non-heterosexual. Representations of

gender, friendships, and class are all atypical, as well as the elements described above. There is an

awareness by the writers that this is a gay text, particularly in later seasons. Even the fact that it is

set in Irish pub in Philadelphia is an indication of deviation from heteronormativity; McNaught

(1978a) draws parallels between gay pride and St Patrick’s Day, and indeed Mac visits gay bar ‘The

Rainbow’ on St Patrick’s Day in ‘Charlie Catches a Leprechaun’ (2016), returning covered in green

9
glitter. Another point of reference is the film Top Gun (1986), a film infamous for its homoeroticism

and its unconvincing heterosexual romance (Studlar, 2001). More notable is the way that they use

this film to draw attention to the sexuality of its characters; a scene between the male and female

characters from Top Gun is recreated shot-for-shot with Dennis and a female character, calling into

question his attraction to her (‘The D.E.N.N.I.S. System’, 2009), while ‘The Gang Makes Lethal

Weapon 6’ (2013) sees the gang making a film that recreates the iconic volleyball scene in Top Gun

(see Wilder, 2017) ‘for the ladies’, which Mac calls ‘a love story between men’, mirroring the

language used by the filmmakers (ibid.). This suggests a self-awareness and media literacy on the

part of the writers, reducing the risk of ‘colonialist fetishim’ (143) as described by Kessler (2006),

despite them being straight themselves. Some of this insight may be attributed to the fact that the

mother of Rob McElhenney, who plays Mac, is a lesbian (McElhenney, 2015), and so there is

incentive and opportunity for the representation of non-heterosexual identities to be handled

respectfully and skilfully.

“Dude, I Am Not Gay”: In the Closet

This analysis will focus specifically on the representation of main character Mac throughout his

coming out arc. In the earlier seasons, several episodes feature plot lines where Mac showed an

interest in a female character; it is likely that, at this stage in production, the writers had not yet

decided to have Mac be a gay character; indeed, in ‘Frank Falls Out the Window’ (2016), Charlie

claims that Mac was ‘still into women’ in 2006; but within the text we can read Mac’s actions as

being those of a closeted gay man. McNaught (1978b) describes how closeted gay men may be in

relationships with women, through denial or self-preservation, and even have a ‘heterosexual

experience’ (7) to ‘test’ themselves. In addition, behaviour has no indication on sexual attraction

(Bogaert, 2012), something particularly true in Always Sunny, where characters regularly use their

sexuality as a tool of their own gain: Dee frequently dates and manipulates men for her own gain

(for example, in ‘The Gang Dances Their Asses Off’, 2007), while Frank and Charlie get married for

10
tax reasons (‘Mac Fights Gay Marriage’, 2010). In fact, the only member of the gang who does not

have plot lines dedicated to this theme in the same way is Mac, as his use for women is to ‘prove’ his

heterosexuality.

Mac is shown to be homophobic before coming out as gay himself, escalating from stating that a

child needs both a mother and a father (‘The Gang Finds A Dumpster Baby’, 2007), to actively

berating a gay couple in his new church (‘The Gang Goes to Hell’, 2016). Gross (2001) criticises

representations of gay characters who are self-loathing because of it, as they are cliched, and when

these are the only gay characters represented it legitimises the response of self-hatred and implies

that gay people should feel that way. However, it should be noted that the gay couple in this

episode, and indeed other gay characters who appear in the show, do not share this trait, and so it is

not presented as the only option. Furthermore, internalised homophobia is appropriate for Mac’s

other characteristics. The most prominent reason is his Catholicism; in ‘Mac Fights Gay Marriage’

(2010), he states that homosexuality is wrong because of the Bible. McNaught (1975) describes how

being Catholic can lead to internal turmoil for gay individuals which can manifest as self-hatred and

feelings of isolation, even in things unrelated to homosexuality. We see this accurately represented

in Mac, who ‘feels guilty all the time’, but would rather speak to a priest about it than a therapist

(‘Psycho Pete Returns’, 2015), and claims that God should be terrifying, because ‘that’s how you

know He loves you’ (‘Sweet Dee Gets Audited’, 2011). These examples are not directly tied to Mac’s

sexuality, and do not appear in episodes where it is particularly relevant, but the show is clearly

aware of the sentiment expressed by McNaught, as Dennis discusses how religious gay men

experience ‘self-hatred and denial’ in ‘The Gang Recycles Their Trash’ (2012). In fact, Mac is quite

literally shown to be self-flagellating, asking to be lashed by his fellow church-goers after losing at

curling in ‘The Gang Goes to Hell’ (2016), an episode explicitly about both his religion and sexuality.

Therefore, we can infer that the writers have made a conscious choice to portray Mac as a man

whose sexuality has complicated his relationship with religion, and vice versa.

11
This internalised homophobia in turn has its own effect on Mac’s personality. In the literature

review, it was discussed how working class men in particular see homosexuality as a failure to be a

man, and so gay men may have an inflated masculinity in order to make up for the perceived

deficiency. This, too, is accurately represented in Mac, who sees himself as the ‘sheriff of Paddy’s’

with a duty to protect his friends, carrying out ‘ocular pat-downs’ of potential threats despite being

afraid while doing them (‘Pop-Pop: The Final Solution’, 2012). However, much of this masculinity is

implied to be performative; Mac fakes videos of himself carrying out dangerous stunts to impress his

friends (‘Mac Day’, 2013), and makes more of an effort to appear muscular than to be physically

strong, with Dennis pointing out that he only works his ‘glamour muscles’ (‘The World Series

Defense’, 2009). Mac is obsessed with social norms (Knowles, 2015), striving to appear as a jock-ish,

heterosexual man, but his masculinity is a self-delusion (Henschke, 2015), just as his sexuality is. In

truth, Mac is implied to be naturally caring and sensitive. In ‘A Very Sunny Christmas’ (2010), a child

Mac screams in excitement over a Cabbage Patch Doll, an emotional and feminine response to what

is presented as a feminine toy designed to replicate motherhood. This scene takes place before he is

old enough to have fully learned society’s expectations of him as a man, and thus the response is

natural and unmitigated. He is shown to retain this care-giving nature as an adult, attempting to

carry Dennis to food on hearing that he has not been eating (‘Frank’s Pretty Woman’, 2011),

repeatedly being shown to be the only one to understand Charlie’s illiteracy (as in ‘The Gang Gets

Held Hostage’, 2007), and opposing a scheme that would take benefits from the needy (‘Dennis and

Dee Go On Welfare’, 2006). So if it is in his nature to be sensitive, why does Mac feel the need to

over-perform his masculinity? One explanation is the city of Philadelphia itself. The city enforces

Mac’s position in society as working class. That he is in a lower societal position is less explicitly

commented on than his religion or his sexuality, but is nonetheless a fundamental fact of the show

and a key theme in the gang being trapped in their circumstances. Mac is not only poor, he is ‘old

poor’ (‘The Great Recession’, 2009); being poor is part of his culture and upbringing. His lower class

12
makes him more likely to experience internalised homophobia, thus making it more difficult for him

to come out.

A further element that enforces Mac’s masculinity is the presence of the gang. Primarily it is a male

friendship group, the only female being Dee, who is Dennis’ twin, and thus something of an

extension of him. They have all known eachother since high school, and Charlie has known Mac from

childhood, meaning that there are expectations of behaviour that maintain the status quo that they

have always known. They primarily socialise at the bar, which is both private, as they are the owners,

and public, as it is a place of business (Kotsko, 2012). The bar, then, their homosocial enclave (see

Lotz, 2014), is paradoxical, and so forces their relationship to be similarly paradoxical; they are

friends and so should be able to be their true selves in front of each other, and in the privacy of their

bar where they can ‘hide from the world’ (‘The High School Reunion Part 2: The Gang's Revenge’,

2011); but their friendship, like the bar, is also on view to the public, and thus there is the risk of

judgement and the risk of being read as non-heterosexual, leading to the group policing masculinity

out of homosexual panic (Cruz, 2000).

The friendship group dynamic is further complicated by the presence of Dennis. The relationship

between Mac and Dennis is a subversion of the typical ‘bromance’ as described by Lotz (2014); it is

not the series that feels the need to reassure the audience that they are heterosexual, for, indeed, it

is implied that they are not, but the characters themselves. For example, in ‘The Gang Dines Out’

(2012), Mac and Dennis eat dinner together at a formal restaurant, a monthly occurrence for them.

At the end of the night, Dennis gives a speech in front of the entire eatery, calling Mac ‘strong’ and

‘brave’, and serenading him with a few bars of Roger Whittaker’s (1982) ‘Wind Beneath My Wings’.

This is undeniably romantic framing, but it is not presented as a joke by the show, as we see the

sincerity of the characters’ emotions through the use of camera. Initially, when the dialogue is most

suggestive of a romantic situation, highlighting that this is a monthly event that each look forward to

and get dressed up for, the framing and editing is much the same as it is for any other conversation

13
in the show, reducing the threat to heterosexuality. However, when we see Mac and Dennis from

the point of view of another character, with a covert shot through the crowd, we see more amatory

moments; Dennis offers a small smile, Mac leans forward to better engage. This is representative of

how Mac and Dennis are unable to see the quasi-romantic nature of their relationship, even as it

seems obvious to others. Yet, the camera does become tighter and more intimate during their later

conversation when Dennis does bring himself to compliment Mac, and again after he makes his

speech; the two have allowed themselves to be closer with each other and thus are closer to seeing

their relationship for what it is. Nevertheless, Dennis still takes the time during his speech to give

explicit details about a sexual encounter he had with a woman, plainly attempting to distance

himself from the obvious homosexual reading of the situation. The fact that they are two men makes

this affection particularly conspicuous; Becker (2009) found that this kind of affection was rarely

present between men in television without them stressing that they are purely platonic.

It is interesting, then, that Dennis mitigates his affection with a reference to a woman rather than by

denying any attraction to Mac, particularly as he is implied to be bisexual and so being intimate with

a woman has no relevance on whether he could also have feelings for him. In fact, even occasions

when Mac, still closeted, allowed his feelings for Dennis to surface; trying to kiss him in both ‘The

Gang Recycles Their Trash’ (2012) and ‘Flowers for Charlie’ (2013), and telling him he loves him in

‘The Gang Gets Held Hostage’ (2007); Dennis’ response is always to pull away and ignore the

incident, rather than deny that there is anything between them. Indeed, there is nothing to indicate

that Dennis was not telling the truth when he informed the mother of his child that he could not be

with her because, although he sleeps with women, he is ‘emotionally involved’ with Mac (‘Dennis’

Double Life’, 2017). It would have been simpler to go along with Mac’s plan to pose as a gay couple,

and Dennis had no qualms about doing so in ‘The Gang Exploits the Mortgage Crisis’ (2009),

suggesting his issue was one with dishonesty rather than homophobia. A similar incident occurred

when he drunkenly told his short-term wife that he wishes to divorce her because he ‘never loved

her’ (‘Dennis Gets Divorced’, 2010), said while looking at Mac, whom he calls his ‘boy toy’. For all

14
intents and purposes, Mac and Dennis are presented as being in an unspoken relationship, which

Mac is unable and Dennis is unwilling to address.

However, while Mac and Dennis may represent a complicated and non-straight relationship, it is also

shown to be an unhealthy one. They are explicitly co-dependent, to the extent that, after not

hearing from Dennis for an hour, Mac phones the police (‘Mac and Dennis Break Up’, 2009). This

could be viewed as having a negative impact on the way sexuality is represented in the show, as it is

the only ‘gay relationship’ given focus, and so could imply that relationships between men are by

nature unhealthy. However, this is a hugely reductionist interpretation. Mac and Dennis’ problems

stem primarily from their own specific and complex characterisation; the audience knows the

characters well enough to determine that this relationship would likely not be applicable anywhere

else. Some of their unhealthiness is also caused by their inability to fully acknowledge their

relationship, due to Mac being in the closet and Dennis distancing himself from his feelings. This

does hold some analytical merit due to the way being in the closet is typically portrayed in media,

but this will be further explored later.

We see a microcosm of their relationship in ‘Mac and Dennis Move to the Suburbs’ (2016) as they

are isolated in a middle class domestic setting. Furthermore, we see Mac removed from the city and

the rest of the gang, elements which police and enforce his masculinity. Away from his old life, Mac

is free to be himself and allow himself to be sensitive, taking on the role of ‘househusband’ without

argument, cooking for Dennis and staying home to look after their house, even becoming a caregiver

after getting a dog whom he names Dennis Jr. That all these endeavours fail is symptomatic of the

years of repressing this part of himself that he experienced in the city. Mac and Dennis clearly

parallel a married couple in this episode, though again there are allusions to how they see the

situation compared to how the audience, as outsiders, might. When the pair speak over the dinner

table, the camera is tighter on Dennis, from Mac’s perspective, than it is on Mac; this suggests that

Mac is more comfortable with the intimacy and implications posited by their suburban set-up than

15
Dennis, even if he, too, eventually snaps. This is further reinforced by the episode’s sub-plot, which

sees Mac unable to sleep due to of a recurring chirping noise, which Dennis claims to be unable to

hear. At the end, it is revealed that Dennis was lying, ‘because he hate[s Mac]’. This mirrors how

Mac, now nearing the end of his coming out arc, is beginning to acknowledge his feelings for Dennis,

even if it troubles him, i.e. through insomnia; meanwhile, Dennis repeats his pattern of ignoring the

issue, and pushing Mac away.

Overall, though he is in denial, Mac’s sexuality is still shown to affect almost every aspect of his

character while he is in the closet. He tells a therapist how he feels misunderstood, and is

ambivalent and insecure in his relationships (‘The Gang Gets Analyzed’, 2012), matching how

McNaught (1975) describes the closeted experience. It is a slow development over twelve years,

giving a complex and potentially true-to-life representation.

“Well, I’m Gay”: Coming Out

The first time we see Mac begin to admit to himself that he is gay; or at least, that he may be

attracted to men; is in ‘The Gang Saves the Day’ (2013), where each member of the gang fantasises

about how they would save a shop from a robbery. Arguably, each fantasy gives insight into that

character’s sexual orientation, but Mac’s is the most obvious and the most relevant to this essay. In

it, he performs an action-hero-esque sequence, complete with exaggerated sound effects and a

gritty filter, where he fights a mob of yakuza with karate, aligning with what we already know about

his self-perceptions of masculinity and as a man of action (see Leonard, 2015). He is then killed, and

his three male friends cry over his body. Dennis can also be heard sobbingly professing his love, but

it is only faint, drowned out by music as Mac’s soul ascends to heaven; once again, his Catholicism

prevents him from fully confronting his sexuality. This self-explanatory fantasy lines up with Feasey’s

(2008) findings that men are only allowed to express themselves in desperate or dangerous

situations, and even here it was only to themselves. The relationship between the closet and death

16
is one that is often present in representations of gay men in television; Becker (2009) describes how

being closeted is presented as being cowardly and as leading to either perpetrating or being victim

to violence. This is a theme that appears in Always Sunny as well; when Mac hides his relationship

with Carmen, a trans woman, in fear that the gang will think he is gay, they instead think that he is a

serial killer (‘Mac is A Serial Killer’, 2007). This type of representation is backed up by McNaught

(1980), however, who notes that the majority of gay men who die violent deaths in real life are

closeted. We also see the inverse; Mac’s cousin is an out gay man, and is presented a more

successful version of Mac, sharing all of his passions and even his name (‘Mac Day’, 2013),

suggesting that being closeted is holding Mac back. Presenting the closet in this way is problematic,

as it places blame on gay individual for not coming out, rather than on an environment and society

that means he feels unable to. This is circumvented in Always Sunny because the audience is familiar

with Mac’s circumstances; furthermore, Mac’s cousin, though successful, still dies at the end of the

episode in which he appears. Arguably, having an out gay character die is concerning for a different

reason, however.

The first time Mac comes out to anyone else is in ‘The Gang Goes to Hell’ (2016). In this episode,

Mac takes the gang on a cruise hosted by his new church, only to discover that the leaders of the

church are a gay couple. This is notable as McNaught (1980) notes that it is easier to come out when

there are other people out around you, thus mirroring real-life coming out experiences. This

solidarity is reinforced by the directing; Mac is consistently framed in the same shot as the other two

men, signifying that he is like them. This episode, by focusing so sharply on Mac’s sexuality and

coming out, automatically passes judgement on it. The episode features a deadly sins motif where

each member of the gang gets sent to the ship’s brig - a stand-in for Hell - for each of their

respective sins; Dennis for lust, Dee for wrath, and Charlie and Frank for gluttony. Mac, however,

walks voluntarily into ‘Hell’, announcing that he is gay. Given his religion, this is clearly significant; he

is so happy to have discovered his identity that he is willing to accept whatever the punishment may

be, giving up his religious principles. This turns out to be quite literal; the only way he has been able

17
to reconcile his sexuality is by deciding that God is not real after all. Unfortunately, this also works

the other way; after surviving a near-death experience, Mac comes to the conclusion that God is in

fact real, and thus he cannot be gay, rescinding his coming out. The two aspects of his character

cannot coexist, cementing what we learned when looking at his closeted behaviour.

Mac’s final and permanent coming-out is in ‘Hero or Hate Crime?’ (2017). The episode focuses

entirely on Mac’s sexuality, the premise being that Frank shouted the slur ‘faggot’ to him, but doing

so saved his life. There are questionable moments in terms of how sexuality is represented in this

episode, most notably Mac’s ‘exercise bike’, which he is oblivious to the sexual nature of, and which

fits the history of television representing gay men as sexual deviants (Hart, 2000). However, Dennis

points out that while Mac is a sexual deviant, it ‘has nothing to do with being gay’. The use of a slur

is treated seriously; while the only reason they take issue with it is for the opportunity to win a

lottery ticket, Mac does explain the etymology of the word and why it is hateful, causing the rest of

the gang to agree that it is perhaps a word they should not use. In terms of being an accurate

representation of coming out, McNaught (1988) notes that someone cannot come out without a

good support system, and this episode the gang encourage him to finally come out, saying that they

are ‘in support of it’ and he will ‘feel better’. The moment of coming out itself is initially played for

comedy, with Mac claiming to be gay only to win a lottery ticket and joyfully exclaiming ‘Gay Mac

rules!... Gay rich Mac!’. The normal fast pace and noise of the show is maintained, again

underscoring the joke. Once it has been revealed that it was a winning ticket, the gang expect him to

retreat back into the closet as he did before, but instead the pace of the episode slows and quietens,

and Mac has a more sincere ‘coming out’ moment where he confirms that, no, he now openly

identifies as gay, which finishes with light piano music to solidify it as a significant moment for the

character and the show.

The thing that finally convinces him to come out is that he will win the lottery ticket, rather than

anything more personal and significant, but the rest of the gang do give him the opportunity to go

18
back in the closet afterwards with no repercussions, which he refuses. It is possible that the positive

experience of winning $10,000 being tied to his coming out, rather than the two previous

experiences of being involved in a robbery and nearly drowning gives him a favourable association to

being gay that allows him to stay out. On a meta level, this more sentimental scene was due to

complaints when Mac rescinded his coming out in ‘The Gang Go To Hell: Part Two’ (2016) (Ryan,

2017).

“Why, Because I’m Gay?”: Out Life

Once he is publicly out, there are some notable changes to Mac’s demeanour. He seems happier in

these episodes and is certainly not ashamed of his newfound orientation, openly enjoying a

lapdance from a male stripper (‘PTSDee’, 2017). He also believes that he is more sensitive than

Dennis by virtue of being gay (‘The Gang Tends Bar’, 2017), matching how McNaught (1980)

describes being more comfortable, authentic, and sensitive after coming out. That Mac brings up

being gay so often, despite believing he shows no outward signs of being gay (‘The Gang Tends Bar’,

2017) is representative of Sedgewick’s (1991) belief that being gay is not just about who you are

attracted to, but, by necessitation of society, part of your identity.

One interesting facet of Mac’s coming out is how it changes the context of his relationship with

Dennis. Having a non-traditional friendship between two male characters is one thing when one

character is in denial over his sexuality and the other is afraid of his; but when Mac is an out gay

man, and one who canonically has feelings for Dennis, any affection between them is in direct threat

to heteronormativity. Dennis seems to feel this himself, as Mac states that Dennis is ‘uncomfortable’

and ‘distant’ now he’s out, attributing it to homophobia (‘The Gang Tends Bar’, 2017). Mac himself

has no qualms being affectionate, even though his sexuality is now out in the open; he gets Dennis a

heartfelt present for Valentine’s Day (ibid.), dreams about kissing him (‘PTSDee’, 2017), and buys

back their old apartment, decorating it how it was when they lived together (‘Dennis’ Double Life’,

19
2017). The latter is the episode where Mac suggests they pose as a gay couple to allow Dennis to

avoid commitment to an old relationship, and then, when it revealed that she is the mother of

Dennis’ son, Mac is eager to try co-parenting the child. These interactions are not out of character

for their relationship; they had already posed as a couple in ‘The Gang Exploits the Mortgage Crisis’

(2009), and co-parented a dog in ‘Mac and Dennis Move to the Suburbs’ (2016). It therefore

retroactively reframes all of Mac and Dennis’ previous interactions; Mac sees no reason why he

would no longer be living with Dennis in the future (‘The Gang Goes to Hell: Part Two’, 2016), or

even sleeping in the same bed (‘Dennis’ Double Life’, 2017); though he identifies as gay, he still sees

those things as normal. This, combined with the fact that we know Mac has, and has had for a long

time, feelings for Dennis, it once again reaffirms that Mac and Dennis have essentially been dating

unofficially throughout the entirety of the show.

Representing the Gay Community

It is hard to argue that Mac is a good person or an aspirational character. True, many of his faults

early on can be traced to his self-delusion of masculinity and denial over his sexuality, but most

closeted people do not hunt other human beings (‘Mac and Dennis: Manhunters’, 2008). As a canon

gay character, some people may see him as a representative for the gay community, and not a

particularly good one. Mac carries less pressure as a representative if you consider the rest of the

gang to also be LGBT+, but this makes no difference when considering that they are usually even

worse. However, if ‘bad’ characters are often the most beloved in the gay community as they are the

most interesting, the gang are certainly complex and well-developed characters. Furthermore, while

each do reprehensible things, much of the basis of the show is that the characters are victims of

society and circumstance. Henschke (2015) discusses how Frank, the only main character presented

as heterosexual, is the root of the gang’s immorality, and it is he who commits the worst crimes,

including waterboarding his own daughter (‘The Gang Solves the Gas Crisis’, 2008). The point is even

expressed in the show by Bruce, Dennis and Dee’s biological father, who blames Frank for the way

20
his children turned out (‘Dennis and Dee’s Mom is Dead’, 2007). It is also important to again consider

the show’s placement as a sitcom; the gang represent archetypal sitcom characters, transposed into

realistic people: the ‘schemers’ of Seinfeld reborn (see Kotsko, 2012, and Neale and Krutnik, 1990),

and the fact that their schemes always fail makes them pitiable. Lotz (2014) describes how viewers

are expected to forgive television protagonists for illegality and misdeeds as long they are ‘good

men’ at heart who have noble intentions, such as protecting their family. This is subverted in Always

Sunny, where the characters break the law and do morally questionable things, but their only goal is

personal gain. Iuliano (2015) argues that this cannot truly be considered immoral, though, but

merely the actions of hedonists that seek immediate gratification.

We can also measure the ‘success’ of Mac as a gay character by comparing him to other

representations of gay characters in sitcom, such as those investigated in the literature review. To

begin with, though Mac is white, as are the rest of the gang, he is certainly not middle or

professional class, differentiating him in representation from many other gay men on television

(Kessler, 2006, Medhurst 2009). This is good because by showing an underrepresented demographic

of gay men, Always Sunny contributes to a more holistic representation of sexuality on television in

general.

Unlike Seinfeld, which encourages viewers who wish to take away a gay reading without ever risking

committing to actual representation, or even ‘gay’ characters who we never see in relationships, the

audience must infer Mac is gay long before they are outright told. This forces the audience to face

the fact that Mac is gay, even if they may be prejudiced against it. Furthermore, while Mac’s

sexuality is a key part of his personality which affects other aspects, it is not the only aspect; he is

not reduced to this fact as some other characters are (Becker, 2009) and has many other aspects

that the audience may like him for, and his coming out arc is long enough that it is appropriately

detailed, and is as much about reconciling his other traits and accepting himself as he is as it is about

his sexuality.

21
As this is a comedic genre, it is also key to note the changes in the type of humour surrounding

sexuality. It can be difficult to explore the exact source of humour in a show such as Always Sunny,

as there is no laugh track to signpost when the audience should laugh, and, given that the characters

are bad people, it can be unclear exactly what the show’s ideology is. Unlike in traditional sitcoms, in

Always Sunny the humour is derived not from the fact that Mac is gay, but from how deluded he is

about it. Many jokes center around Mac’s accidental innuendo (as in ‘Wolf Cola: A Public Relations

Nightmare’, 2017), or from Mac carrying out obviously homoerotic activities without realising it,

such as getting the gang to oil up muscular men in ‘Mac Day’ (2013). The humour is furthermore

from Mac being the only person who is unaware of the fact, with the gang frequently referring to

him as gay and explicitly agreeing on it (ibid.). When Mac and Dennis pose as a gay couple in ‘The

Gang Exploits the Mortgage Crisis’ (2009), the joke is not that they are uncomfortable with the

asocial notion of being in a same-gender relationship, but that they argue publicly about their

imagined sex life (‘I’m the power bottom’). The humour is therefore framed to be about Mac

personally and the specific situation, rather than homosexuality itself.

22
Conclusion

Overall, Always Sunny is a nuanced show which is highly aware of sexuality and LGBT+ issues. It uses

references, narrative cues, directing, editing, and more to communicate its message to the viewer

on a number of levels. In Mac, the audience is presented with a fully realised character whose

journey to self-identify as gay is well-informed, complex, and potentially realistic. However, the

show as not always handled the subject well. There have been several missteps into offensiveness,

and times when the satire has been misjudged. It is not surprising given that the creators are

apparently all cisgender, white, and, most importantly, heterosexual, but what is notable is the way

that they improve over time. That they have listened to comments and complaints from viewers

suggests an awareness of and sensitivity to the audience that is not characteristic of this kind of

brash satire, and a willingness to listen and improve, which is ultimately all that can be asked of the

writers.

23
Bibliography

Arrested Development. 2003-2013. [TV Programme]. Fox: 20 Television

Attallah, P., 2003. ‘The Unworthy Discourse: Situation Comedy in Television’ in Morreale, J., ed.

Critiquing the Sitcom: A Reader. New York: Syracuse University Press, pp 91-115.

Austerlitz, S., 2014. Sitcom: A History in 24 Episodes from I Love Lucy to Community. Chicago:

Chicago Review Press Inc.

Baker, P., 2005. Public Discourses of Gay Men. London: Routledge

Barrett, D. C., 2000. ‘Masculinity Among Working-Class Gay Males’ in Nardi, P., ed. Gay

Masculinities. London: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 176-205.

Becker, R., 2009. ‘Guy love: a queer straight masculinity for a post-closet era?’ in Davis, G., and

Needham, G., eds. Queer TV: Theories, Histories, and Politics. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 121-140.

Bogaert, A. F., 2012. Understanding Asexuality. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group,

Inc.

Bertrand, I., and Hughes, P., 2005. Media Research Methods: Audiences, Institutions, Texts. London:

Macmillan Education

Butler, J. G., 2010. Television Style. Oxon: Routledge

Butsch, R., 2008. ‘Five Decades and Three Hundred Sitcoms about Class and Gender’ in Edgerton, G.

R., and Rose, B. G., eds. Thinking Outside the Box: A Contemporary Genre Reader. Kentucky: The

University Press of Kentucky

Conway, R. J., 2006. ‘A Trip to the Queer Circus: Reimagined Masculinities in Will & Grace’ in Keller,

J. R., and Stratyner, L., eds. The New Queer Aesthetic on Television. London: McFarland & Company

Inc., pp. 75-84

Creeber, G., 2006. The Joy of Text?: Television and Textual Analysis. Critical Studies in Television: The

International Journal of Television Studies. 1 (1), pp. 81-88

24
Crisell, A., 2006. A Study of Modern Television: Thinking Inside the Box. Hampshire: Palgrave

Macmillan

Cruz, J. M., 2000. ‘Gay Male Domestic Violence and the Pursuit of Masculinity’ in Nardi, P., ed. Gay

Masculinities. London: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 66-82

Detweiler, E., 2012. “I Was Just Doing a Little Joke There”: Irony and the Paradoxes of the Sitcom in

The Office. The Journal of Popular Culture. 45 (4), 727-748

Dyer, R., 2009. ‘Stereotyping’ in Durham, M.G. and Kellner, D.M. eds. Media and cultural studies:

Keyworks. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, pp. 353-365

Eaton, M., 1981. ‘Television and Situation Comedy’ in Bennett, T., ed. Popular Television and Film.

London: British Film Institute

Ellis, J., 2000. Seeing Things: Television in the Age of Uncertainty. London: I. B. Tauris

Feasey, R., 2008. Masculinity and Popular Television. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press

Gross, L., 2001. Up from Invisibility: Lesbians, Gay Men, and the Media in America. New York:

Columbia University Press

Gunter, B., 2000. Media Research Methods: Measuring Audiences, Reactions, and Impact. London:

Sage Publications, Inc

Gwenllian Jones, S., 2002. The sex lives of cult television characters. Screen. 43 (1), 79-90.

Hall, S., Evans, J., and Nixon, S., 2012. Representation: Cultural Representation and Signifying

Practices. London: SAGE

Hamamato, D., 1989. Nervous Laughter: Television Situation Comedy and Liberal Democratic

Ideology. New York: Praeger

Hall, S., 1980. ‘Encoding/Decoding’ in Hall, S., Hobson, D., Lowe, A., and Willis, P., eds. Culture,

Media, Language. London: Hutchinson 128-138

Hart, K. P .R., 2000. Representing gay men on American television. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 9

(1), 59-79.

25
Henschke, A., 2015. ‘Frank Reynolds, Role Model’ in Hunt, R., and Arp, R., (eds.) It’s Always Sunny

and Philosophy: The Gang Gets Analysed. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 91-102

The Honeymooners. 1955-1956. [TV Programme]. CBS: Jackie Gleason Enterprises

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. 2005-. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season One, Episode Four, ‘Charlie Has Cancer’. 2005. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 25 August

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season One, Episode Six, ‘The Gang Finds a Dead Guy’. 2005. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 8 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Two, Episode Two, ‘The Gang Goes Jihad’. 2006. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 29 June

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Two, Episode Three, ‘Dennis and Dee Go On Welfare’. 2006.

[TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 6 July

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Two, Episode Four, ‘Mac Bangs Dennis’ Mom’. 2006. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 6 July

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Two, Episode Seven, ‘The Gang Exploits A Miracle’. 2006.

[TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 27 July

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Three, Episode One, ‘The Gang Finds a Dumpster Baby’.

2007. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 13 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Three, Episode Three, ‘Dennis and Dee’s Mom is Dead’.

2007. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 20 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Three, Episode Four, ‘The Gang Gets Held Hostage’. 2007.

[TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 20 September

26
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Three, Episode Ten, ‘Mac Is A Serial Killer’. 2007. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 18 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Three, Episode Eleven, ‘Dennis Looks Like A Registered Sex

Offender’. 2007. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 25 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Three, Episode Fifteen, ‘The Gang Dances Their Asses Off’.

2007. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 5 November

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Four, Episode One, ‘Mac and Dennis: Manhunters’. 2008.

[TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 18 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Four, Episode Two, ‘The Gang Solves the Gas Crisis’. 2008.

[TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 18 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Four, Episode Thirteen, ‘The Nightman Cometh’. 2008. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 20 November

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Five, Episode One, ‘The Exploits the Mortgage Crisis’. 2009.

[TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 17 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Five, Episode Two, ‘The Gang Hits the Road’. 2009. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 24 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Five, Episode Three, ‘The Great Recession’. 2009. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 1 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Five, Episode Six, ‘The World Series Defense’. 2009. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 22 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Five, Episode Nine, ‘Mac and Dennis Break Up’. 2009. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 12 November

27
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Five, Episode Ten, ‘The D.E.N.N.I.S. System’. 2009. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 19 November

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Six, Episode One, ‘Mac Fights Gay Marriage’. 2010. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 16 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Six, Episode Two, ‘Dennis Gets Divorced’. 2010. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 23 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Six, Episode Five, ‘Mac and Charlie: White Trash’. 2010. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 14 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Six, Episode Eleven, ‘The Gang Gets Stranded in the

Woods’. 2010. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 2 December

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Six, Episode Thirteen, ‘A Very Sunny Christmas’. 2010. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 16 December

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Seven, Episode One, ‘Frank’s Pretty Woman’. 2011. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 15 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Seven, Episode Three, ‘Frank Reynolds’ Little Beauties’.

2011. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 29 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Seven, Episode Four, ‘Sweet Dee Gets Audited’. 2011. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 6 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Seven, Episode Thirteen, ‘The High School Reunion Part 2:

The Gang's Revenge’. 2011. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 15 December

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eight, Episode One, ‘Pop-Pop: The Final Solution’. 2012. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 11 October

28
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eight, Episode Two, ‘The Gang Recycles Their Trash’. 2012.

[TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 18 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eight, Episode Five, ‘The Gang Gets Analyzed’. 2012. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 8 November

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eight, Episode Eight, ‘Charlie Rules the World’. 2012. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 6 December

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eight, Episode Nine, ‘The Gang Dines Out’. 2012. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 13 December

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Nine, Episode One, ‘The Gang Broke Dee’. 2013. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 4 September

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Nine, Episode Five, ‘Mac Day’. 2013. [TV Programme]. FX:

RCG Productions. 2 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Nine, Episode Eight, ‘Flowers for Charlie’. 2013. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 23 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Nine, Episode Nine, ‘The Gang Makes Lethal Weapon 6’.

2007. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 30 October

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Ten, Episode Three, ‘Psycho Pete Returns’. 2015. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 28 January

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Ten, Episode Seven, ‘Mac Kills His Dad’. 2015. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 25 February

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eleven, Episode Two, ‘Frank Falls Out the Window’. 2016.

[TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 13 January

29
It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eleven, Episode Five, ‘Mac and Dennis Move to the

Suburbs’. 2016. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 3 February

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eleven, Episode Eight, ‘Charlie Catches A Leprechaun’.

2016. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 24 February

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eleven, Episode Nine, ‘The Gang Goes to Hell’. 2016. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 2 March

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Eleven, Episode Ten, ‘The Gang Goes to Hell: Part Two’.

2016. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 9 March

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Twelve, Episode Three, ‘Old Lady House: A Situation

Comedy’. 2017. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 18 January

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Twelve, Episode Four, ‘Wolf Cola: A Public Relations

Nightmare’. 2017. [TV Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 25 January

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Twelve, Episode Six, ‘Hero or Hate Crime?’. 2017. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 8 February

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Twelve, Episode Seven, ‘PTSDee’. 2017. [TV Programme].

FX: RCG Productions. 15 February

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Twelve, Episode Eight, ‘The Gang Tends Bar’. 2017. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 22 February

It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, Season Twelve, Episode Ten, ‘Dennis’ Double Life’. 2017. [TV

Programme]. FX: RCG Productions. 8 March

Iuliano, J., 2015. ‘No Restrictions, Baby!’ in Hunt, R., and Arp, R., (eds.) It’s Always Sunny and

Philosophy: The Gang Gets Analysed. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 21-30

30
Joyrich, L., 2009. ‘Epistemology of the console’ in Davis, G., and Needham, G., eds. Queer TV:

Theories, Histories, and Politics. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 15-48

Kessler, K., 2006. ‘Politics of the Sitcom Formula: Friends, Mad About You, and the Sapphic Second

Banana’ in Keller, J. R., and Stratyner, L., eds. The New Queer Aesthetic on Television. London:

McFarland & Company Inc., pp. 130-146

Kimmel, K., 2017. ‘The Gang’s In A Thesis: An Examination of American Television’s Dark Horse

Sitcom “It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia”’ Undergraduate dissertation, Georgetown University.

Available at:

https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/1043761/Kimmel%2c%20Katha

rine%202017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [Accessed 26th March 2018]

Knowles, C., 2015. ‘Are the Gang Authentic?’ in Hunt, R., and Arp, R., (eds.) It’s Always Sunny and

Philosophy: The Gang Gets Analysed. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 65-76

Kotsko, A., 2012. Why We Love Sociopaths: A Guide to Late Capitalist Television. Hampshire: Zero

Books

Ladenburg, K., 2015. Illuminating Whiteness and Racial Prejudice through Humor in It's Always Sunny

in Philadelphia's “The Gang Gets Racist”. The Journal of Popular Culture. 48 (5), 859-877

Lavery, D., 2010. ‘Reflections on Seinfeld’ in Lavery, D., ed. Seinfeld, Master of Its Domain: Revisiting

Television’s Greatest Sitcom. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Ltd., pp. 36-48

Leonard, D., 2015. ‘Psychoanalysing the Game of Games’ in Hunt, R., and Arp, R., (eds.) It’s Always

Sunny and Philosophy: The Gang Gets Analysed. Chicago: Open Court, pp. 55-64

Littlewood, J., and Pickering, M., 1998. ‘Heard the One About the White Middle-Class Heterosexual

Father-in-Law?: Gender, ethnicity, and political correctness in comedy’ in Wagg, S., ed. Because I Tell

a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics, and Social Difference. London: Routledge, pp. 291-312

Lotz, A. D., 2014. Cable Guys: Television and Masculinities in the 21 Century. London: New York
st

University Press

Marc, D., 1989. Comic Visions: Television Comedy and American Culture. Oxford: Unwin Hymen Ltd.

31
Martin, A. L., 2014. It’s (Not) in His Kiss: Gay Kisses and Camera Angles in Contemporary US

Television Comedy. Popular Communication: The International Journal of Media and Culture. 12 (3),

153-165. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15405702.2014.921921

[Accessed 29 October 2017]

McElhenney, R., 2015. WTF with Marc Maron, Episode 582, Interview with Rob McElhenney

[Podcast] Los Angeles: Public Radio Exchange. Available at:

http://www.wtfpod.com/podcast/episodes/episode_582_-_rob_mcelhenney1?rq=rob%20mce

[Accessed 10th February 2018]

McNaught, B., 1975. ‘The Sad Dilemma of the Gay Catholic’ in McNaught, B., 1988. On Being Gay:

Thoughts on Family, Faith, and Love. New York: St Martin’s Press, 134-145

McNaught, B., 1978a. ‘More Pluses’ in McNaught, B., 1988. On Being Gay: Thoughts on Family, Faith,

and Love. New York: St Martin’s Press, 25-27

McNaught, B., 1978b. ‘Dear Anita: Late Night Thoughts of an Irish Catholic Homosexual’ in

McNaught, B., 1988. On Being Gay: Thoughts on Family, Faith, and Love. New York: St Martin’s Press,

5-14

McNaught, B., 1980. ‘Coming Out - The Payoff’ in McNaught, B., 1988. On Being Gay: Thoughts on

Family, Faith, and Love. New York: St Martin’s Press, 18-21

McNaught, B., 1988. On Being Gay: Thoughts on Family, Faith, and Love. New York: St Martin’s Press

Meet the Press, 2012 [TV Programme] NBC: NBC News Productions. 6 May

Medhurst, A., 2009. ‘One queen and his screen: lesbian and gay television’ in Davis, G., and

Needham, G., eds. Queer TV: Theories, Histories, and Politics. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 79-87

Medhurst, A., and Tuck, L., 1982. ‘Situation Comedy and Stereotyping’ in Cook, J., (ed.) Television

Situation Comedy. London: British Film Institute

32
Miller, M., 2006. ‘Masculinity and Male Intimacy in Nineties Sitcoms: Seinfeld and the Ironic

Dismissal’ in Keller, J. R., and Stratyner, L., eds. The New Queer Aesthetic on Television. London:

McFarland & Company Inc., pp. 147-159

Mills, B., 2004. Comedy Verité: Contemporary Sitcom Form. Screen. 45 (1), 63-78

Mills, B., 2005. Television Sitcom. London: British Film Institute

Mills, B., 2008. ‘Contemporary Sitcom (‘Comedy Verité’)’ in Creeber, G., ed. The Television Genre

Book. 2 edn. London: British Film Institute, pp. 88-91.

Mittell, J., 2010. Television and American Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Neale, S., and Krutnik, F., 1990. Popular Film and Television Comedy. London: Routledge

Neale, S., 1993. ‘The same old story: stereotypes and difference’ in Alvarado, M., Buscombe, E., and

Collins, R., eds. The Screen Education Reader. London: Macmillan Education

Newcombe, H., 1993. TV: The Most Popular Art. Michigan: Anchor Press

Savorelli, A., 2010. Beyond Sitcom: New Directions in American Television Comedy. McFarland &

Company Inc.

Scodari, C., 1995. Possession, attraction, and the thrill of the chase: Gendered myth‐making in film

and television comedy of the sexes. Critical Studies in Media Communication. 12 (1), 23-39

Sedgewick, E. K., 1991. Epistemology of the Closet. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf

Seidman, S., 2002. Beyond the closet: The transformation of gay and lesbian life. New York:

Routledge

Seinfeld. 1989-1998. [TV Programme]. NBC: Columbia TriStar Television

Simpson, M., 1998. ‘The Straight Men of Comedy’ in Wagg, S., ed. Because I Tell a Joke or Two:

Comedy, Politics, and Social Difference. London: Routledge, pp. 137-145.

Studlar, G., 2001. ‘Cruise-ing into the Millennium: Performative Masculinity Stardom and the All-

American Boy’s Body’ in Pomerance, M., (ed.) Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls: Gender in Film

at the End of the Twentieth Century. New York: SUNY Press, pp. 170-183

33
Spangler, L. C., 1992. ‘Buddies and Pals: A History of Male Friendships on Prime-Time Television’ in

Craig, S., ed. Men, Masculinity, and the Media. London: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 93-110.

Top Gun, 1986. [Film] USA: Paramount Pictures

Ryan, M., 2017. We Spoke To Charlie Day About Mac’s Big Revelation On ‘It’s Always Sunny In

Philadelphia’. Uproxx [online] Avaliable at: https://uproxx.com/tv/charlie-day-mac-its-always-sunny-

in-philadelphia/ [Accessed 9th March 2018]

Vermeulen, T., and Whitfield, J., 2013. ‘Arrested developments: Towards an aesthetic of the

contemporary US sitcom’ in Peacock, S., and Jacobs, J., eds., Television Aesthetics and Style. London:

Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, pp. 103-113

Wells, P., 1998. ‘‘Where Everybody Knows Your Name: Open convictions and closed contexts in the

American situation comedy’ in Wagg, S., ed. Because I Tell a Joke or Two: Comedy, Politics, and Social

Difference. London: Routledge, pp. 180-201

Whittaker, R., 1982. Wind Beneath My Wings, The Wind Beneath My Wings [album]

Wilder, S. A., 2017. ‘Playing with the boys: contesting and performing masculinity in “Top Gun”’

Masters dissertation, San Francisco State University. Available at: http://sfsu-

dspace.calstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10211.3/197232/AS362017FILMW55.pdf?sequence=1

[Accessed 28th March 2018]

Will & Grace. 1998-2006. [TV Programme] NBC: Warner Bros. Television

Wlodarz, J., 2009. ‘‘We’re not all so obvious’: masculinity and queer (in)visibility in American

network television of the 1970s’ in Davis, G., and Needham, G., eds. Queer TV: Theories, Histories,

and Politics. Oxon: Routledge, pp. 88-107

34