Reported Effects of Mascule Ials on Gay Men - PMC

Contents:

• WHAT DO IT MEAN TO BE A GAY MAN?
• PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS
• PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS
• STUDY SAYS BRAS OF GAY MEN AND WOMEN ARE SIAR
• GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT
• THE INFLUENCE OF PHYSIL BODY TRAS AND MASCULY ON ANAL SEX ROL GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN
• WHY ARE THERE GAY MEN?
• THE SCIENCE OF GAYDAR
• REPORTED EFFECTS OF MASCULE IALS ON GAY MEN

WHAT DO IT MEAN TO BE A GAY MAN?

As every gay man knows who has been sulted or asslted for his actual or perceived sexual orientatn, there are steep penalti for vlatg the Boy Co as there are for anyone who is “different” om the prumed (typilly whe, heterosexual, middle-class) standard.

Robert Pollack says the most important thg a fay n do to support their gay son is to keep lovg him, “to nvey to him, as soon as he shar his feelgs, that he is still loved through and through, that his sexual orientatn will not any way dimish how much he is admired and rpected. Fortunately there is a long history of gay men who bucked the accepted fns of masculy and created liv that exprsed their unrstandg of themselv and how they choose to exprs their inty as men who don’t necsarily f tradnal molds. In a 1987 say tled “A Separate People Whose Time Has Come, ” Hay scribed homosexuals as “spir people, ” who, throughout the ag, had served society their rol as “msengers and tercers, shamans of both genrs, prits and prits, imagemakers and prophets, mim and rhapsos, poets and playwrights, healers and nurturers, teachers and preachers, tkers and tkerers, searchers and rearchers.

PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS

Keywords: Bears, Gay Culture, Gay and Bisexual Men, Self-teem, Masculy, ObyINTRODUCTIONThe gay muny is ultimately a heterogeneo one wh many subgroups and subcultur—one of the monali among them beg the sire to have same-sex enunters.

Bee there is a arth of general rearch regardg this muny, and no studi to date that e quantative methods, we cid to explore this muny quantatively—g an Inter-nvenience sample, followed by a purposive suggted, the Bear culture exhibs and valu a greater sense of domant (but not necsarily domeerg) “thentic masculy” parison to other subcultur wh the gay muny (e. In rponse and ntrast wh Leathermen, Bears mata their mascule inty whout adoptg negative hypermascule tennci to acmodate all partners, spe their size or body is some theoretil support for why the Bear inty spltered om the gay male mastream culture. Popular culture, the media, and Wtern hetero- and homosexual expectatns have normalized the ial male body as one that is lean, mcular, and v-shaped (wh broad shoulrs, a narrow waist, and a flat but well-fed stomach) (Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2000).

G., poor self-image/self-teem) velop both heterosexual and homosexual men exhibg ls sirable physil tras (Beren, Hayn, Wilfley, & Grilo, 1996; Morrison, Morrison, & Sager, 2004; Pepl et al., 2009; Weer, 2009; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). Whereas mastream gay men often do not engage sired or preferred sexual behavrs bee of fears of rejectn or judgment (Kamski, Chapman, Hayn, & Own, 2004), those the more acceptg Bear muny reject the fears due to their beg ultimately “feme” nature (Hennen, 2005). G., uratn, fistg, voyrism, exhibnism) (Grov, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2010) to the active existence of the Bear muny and regnn of this subculture by the larger gay/bisexual male culture, more rearch is need to explore the gree to which the prevly mentned physil, behavral, and psychologil differenc actually exist.

PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS

Consirg the likely prevalence of a Bear inty may be held (wh varyg tenaci) by about 14–22% of gay men, the rults provi addnal evince for the manift and latent heterogeney of gay and bisexual rults regardg body tras and partner selectn nfirm, for the first time a systematic manner, fdgs documented prev terview and ethnographic studi.

Regardls of the potential explanatn, Bears appear to be more sexually diverse and explorative than mastream gay and bisexual rults documented lower self-teem, which ntradicted both our hypothis and others’ terview rearch (e.

Whether the ems are applible to gay men, bisexuals, or men qutng their sexualy remas rpect to methods, the parabily of sampl may be somewhat uncerta, as one was llected through ter surveyg and the other, through paper survey.

STUDY SAYS BRAS OF GAY MEN AND WOMEN ARE SIAR

A study that answers the rearch qutns would provi further evince to support the heterogeney hypothis: Not only is the mastream gay muny culturally heterogeneo, but so are the sexual health behavrs and problems wh last suggtn for future rearch would be to tt some of the theori generated by the current data. "Th, " the thors wrote, "by g photos of gay and straight dividuals that they themselv did not post, we were able to remove the fluence of self-prentatn and much of the potential selectn bias that may be prent photos om personal advertisements.

"A man, ually homosexual, wh a distctly effete facial stcture wh some very specific featur; a strong jawle [sic] that lacks promence, space between the ey that rell people wh down syndrome [sic], and a slopg, long forehead. The relatn between sexual orientatn and personaly was examed a meta-analysis wh a total sample of 2, 724 heterosexual men, 799 gay men, 157 bisexual men, 5, 053 heterosexual women, 697 lbian women, and 317 bisexual women. Th, our rults showed that differenc facial morphology of homosexual and heterosexual men do not simply mirror variatn femy, and the stereotypic associatn of feme lookg men as homosexual may nfound judgments of sexual orientatn.

Scientists at the Stockholm Bra Instute Swen report the Proceedgs of the Natnal Amy of Scienc USA that gay men and straight women share siar tras—most notably the size of their bras and the activy of the amygdala—an area of the bra tied to emotn, anxiety and aggrsn. They found that the straight men and gay women had asymmetril bras; that is, the cerebm (the largt part of the bra, which is rponsible for thought, sensory procsg, movement and planng) was larger on the right hemisphere of the bra than on the left.

GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT

Whereas most studi on perceptns of feme-prentg gay men have manipulated genr nonnformy via wrten scriptns, rearch suggts that behavural cu such as voice and body-language n migate or exacerbate prejudice toward a stereotyped dividual. This associatn between masculy and stat endowment has plex implitns for gay men, given the prevailg stereotype that they are more feme pared to heterosexual men (Ke & Dx, 1987; Lippa, 2000; Mchell & Ellis, 2011; Sanchez et al., 2009) Men and the Feme StereotypeSuch a stereotype reflects, to some extent, average differenc genr-typily between gay and heterosexual men. Policg of masculy among gay men is not only self-directed; there is also evince of prejudice toward more feme gay men om wh the gay muny (Bailey et al., 1997; Hunt et al., 2016) Penalti for Feme Gay MenContemporary theori of effective learship have challenged the perceived virtu of masculy.

THE INFLUENCE OF PHYSIL BODY TRAS AND MASCULY ON ANAL SEX ROL GAY AND BISEXUAL MEN

Theoretil explanatns for the fdgs nsistently foc on the possibily that gay men elic such discrimatn bee of the stereotype that they are feme and are therefore perceived as ls equipped to occupy higher-stat posns social hierarchi, such as the workplace (Ke & Dx, 1987; Lord et al., 1984). Th, the rearch appears to suggt that feme gay men are at particular risk of stat penalti, pecially om dividuals who posss anti-gay Sentiment Amongst Gay MenA further qutn regardg potential stat penalti for feme vers more mascule-prentg gay men is how plic gay men themselv may be perpetuatg such prejudice. Whereas most relevant rearch has ed heterosexual sampl, both lab and field studi on romantic partner preferenc amongst gay men highlight a monplace sire for mascule over feme tras potential partners (Bailey et al., 1997; Clarkson, 2006; Laner & Kamel, 1977; Sanchez & Vila, 2012; Tayawadep, 2002).

Such a nnectn suggts that the extent to which gay men ternalise societal stigma about beg gay may fluence their treatment of dividuals who posss stigmatised is a nsirable lerature monstratg that gay men discrimate agast more feme gay mal beyond the romantic ntext (Brooks et al., 2017; Ravenhill & Visser, 2019; Sánchez & Vila, 2012; Taywadep, 2002). This effect among gay men mirrors siar fdgs observed among heterosexual participants (Aksoy et al., 2019; Frank, 2006; Pellegri et al., 2020) that also ed analogue tasks, which masculy/femy of gay male targets were manipulated via wrten scriptns. Provid important advanc offerg elogilly valid monstratns of the rctn stat btowed upon feme men by heterosexual dividuals, important unaddrsed qutns rema about whether gay dividuals also show such a bias, g d-visual stimuli, and what psychologil mechanisms might expla such bias.

Demonstratg that gay men are as likely to discrimate agast feme gay men as heterosexuals would ntribute to the emergg awarens of tramory prejudice as an area of ncern for the gay Current StudyThe aim of this study is to explore whether a relatively feme-prentatn negatively impacts stat attament for gay men g a more elogilly valid methodology that allows meangful parisons of the reactns of gay and heterosexual men. Moreover, the study aims to tt psychologil mechanisms that may unrly the hypothised reluctance to endow stat to feme-prentg gay relevant lab studi to date have measured stat attament g direct measur, such as subjective ratgs of learship effectivens or behavural tentns.

WHY ARE THERE GAY MEN?

Though not rmg primary hypoth, we also examed whether sexism may mediate preference for more mascule gay ndidat, given that Sanchez and Vila (2012) found that antifeme attus predicted a preference for mascule-prentg romantic partners. Six cis-male, Whe-Atralian profsnal actors, 25 to 35 years old (who all intify as gay real life) were filmed performg an intil vox pop script two ways; 1) once where they were directed to manipulate their voice and body language (VBL) to be more feme, and 2) once where their VBL was to be more mascule. ” (Actor lghs)The script ma no reference to the ndidate’s qualifitns, occupatn, skills, tn, or hobbi (that is, rmatn that may be nsted as genred by participants; Lippa, 2000), while makg the ndidate’s homosexualy explic (by mentng a same-sex partner).

3Frequency of Vot for Each Actor by Heterosexual and Gay Participants (N = 256)Full size imageMeasurStat EndowmentA sgle forced-choice em askg participants to select their preferred ndidate read as follows:“Please now vote for the actor you thk should be st the Ad Campaign promotg tourism to Sydney. Usg 5-pot Likert sle where a sre of “0” dited “Totally agree” and a sre of “5” dited “Totally disagree”, gay participants were asked to rate how much they endorsed the ems, “I wish I were heterosexual”; “If were possible I’d choose to be straight”; and “I believe is unfair that I am attracted to people of the same sex”. The average of each participant’s three rpons were lculated to create their Internalised Homonegativy Attus (Heterosexual Participants Only)To measure anti-gay attus we ployed an adapted 6-em versn of the Morn Homonegativy Sle (MHS; Morrison & Morrison, 2002), as ed by Morton (2017), to exclively asss ntemporary negative attus toward gay men.

THE SCIENCE OF GAYDAR

Usg 5-pot Likert sle, where a sre of “0” dited “Totally agree” and a sre of “5” dited “Totally disagree”, heterosexual participants were asked to rate statements such as, “Gay men have all the rights they need”; and “Gay men seem to foc on the ways which they differ om heterosexuals, and ignore the ways which they are siar”. The average of each participant’s six rpons were lculated to create their Homonegativy Sexism (All Participants)A 5-em subsle om the Morn Sexism Sle (Swim et al., 1995), asssg ntemporary negative attus toward women was ed. Fally, logistic regrsns examed whether a preference for mascule vios was predicted by pre-existg levels of ternalised homonegativy (for gay participants) and homonegativy (for heterosexual participants), followed by exploratory analys also g logistic regrsns.

195], that we predicted higher ternalised homonegativy levels would be associated wh a lower likelihood of votg for a feme gay exploratory logistic regrsn analysis was unrtaken to exame if morn sexism predicted ls likelihood of choosg a feme gay male (over a mascule gay male) actor, and if this effect was morated by each participant’s sexual orientatn. The fdg that stronger anti-gay negativy predicted preference for the mascule-prentg actor amongst heterosexual men also replit prev studi (Morton, 2017; Pellegri et al., 2020), offerg further evince for the nnectn between feme-prentatn among gay men and the creased risk of stat-penalti om dividuals who harbour anti-gay attus, even unr circumstanc of affirmative actn (i.

REPORTED EFFECTS OF MASCULE IALS ON GAY MEN

(2021a) found that stronger ternalised anti-gay sentiment predicted masculy-bias – le wh the proposn that the more shame one feels about their sexualy, the ls likely they will want to be reprented by a fellow group-member who perpetuat negative the current study, however, a preference for mascule-prentg actors amongst gay participants was not signifintly predicted by levels of ternalised anti-gay sentiment. The three-em ternalised homonegativy subsle (Mohr & Kendra, 2011) clud ems, such as “I wish I was heterosexual, ” that may have suffered om a floor-effect, whereby the ems were too extreme to be endorsed by a ntemporary sample of gay men (particularly if such gay men were motivated to nceal obv -group prejudice).