Greg Kovacs talks about gay4pay - Foms

Contents:

• GAY MALE ATTRACTN TOWARD MCULAR MEN: DO MATG NTEXT MATTER?
• IS THE BODYBUILDG INDTRY GAY FOR PAY? BODYBUILDG TROLL VCE GOODM TAK SHOTS AT NICK TRIGILI
• THE PROFSNAL ATHLETE WHO CAME OUT AS A GAY MAN— 1989
• GAS & PAS: BLACK GAY BODYBUILRS & THE COMPLEX DYNAMIC BETWEEN MCL & QUEER DIRE
• THREAD: GREG KOVACS TALKS ABOUT GAY4PAY

GAY MALE ATTRACTN TOWARD MCULAR MEN: DO MATG NTEXT MATTER?

Fdgs om the studi have substantiated the theory that athetics plays a key role women's judgments of men's physil rearch has been nducted on perceptns of attractivens gay male populatns, but past rearch has nfirmed that physil appearance is an important factor perceived attractivens of other men among gay men (Beren et al., 1996, Hospers and Jansen, 2005, Sergs and Cody, 1985, Siever, 1994, Yelland and Tiggemann, 2003).

IS THE BODYBUILDG INDTRY GAY FOR PAY? BODYBUILDG TROLL VCE GOODM TAK SHOTS AT NICK TRIGILI

There is evince that gay men preferred lean, proportnate, mcular, and athletic (-shape) men (Bartholome et al., 2000, Halkis et al., 2004, Hatala and Predhodka, 1996, Swami and Tovée, 2008). However, further studi have shown that gay men's ratgs of attractivens are more sensive to mculary than to weight (Levque & Vichky, 2006).

THE PROFSNAL ATHLETE WHO CAME OUT AS A GAY MAN— 1989

This field has foced almost exclively on women's preference among heterosexual men, and has yet to lve to such dividual variabily wh a gay male populatn. Dpe the growg body of rearch on gay male ratgs of attractivens, much of the methodology ed past studi is nstraed by their study sign and statistil approach.

GAS & PAS: BLACK GAY BODYBUILRS & THE COMPLEX DYNAMIC BETWEEN MCL & QUEER DIRE

G., gree of mculary) current study was signed to extend observatns om studi of attractivens nducted wh heterosexual populatns to a gay male populatn and to approach the paradigm of gay male partner preference g both person-centered variabily and figure-based variabily (or em-level variabily the psychometric lerature; see Boek & Wilson, 2004). ) termatns of attractivens of a seri of on the aforementned fdgs, we hypothized the followg: (1) figure-level variatn will be non-learly related to physil attractivens: two orthogonal featur (body fat and mculary) will peak at the cultural ial (low body fat and high mculary) but taper away om this peak, and reflect quadratic relatnships wh attractivens; (2) gay men will be more discrimatg (i.

E., steeper taper om/toward the most attractive figure) when observg figur unr the expectatn of a short-term relatnship pared to a long-term relatnship; and (3) gay men's partner stat and other physil characteristics (e. Sectn snippetsParticipantsParticipants for the study nsisted of 193 self-intified gay, adult men (above the age of 18).

THREAD: GREG KOVACS TALKS ABOUT GAY4PAY

Of the 193 participants, 173 intified as beg primarily gay, while 17 RultsParticipants’ self-reported mean BMI was 24.