Frontiers | Sexual Orientatn Inty Development Milton Among Lbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Queer People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contents:

• GEICS MAY DETERME IF GAY MEN ARE TOPS OR BOTTOMS
• GAY MEN'S PREFERENC FOR "TOP" VS. "BOTTOM" CAN BE JUDGED BY THEIR FACE
• PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS
• 15 STEREOTYP THAT LIM OUR PERCEPTNS OF GAY MEN
• TOP/BOTTOM SEXUAL SELF-LABELS AND EMPATHIZG-SYSTEMIZG COGNIVE STYL AMONG GAY MEN CHA
• ABOUT THE CENTERSCE 1983 THE CENTER HAS BEEN SUPPORTG, FOSTERG AND CELEBRATG THE LGBT MUNY OF NEW YORK CY. FD MORE RMATN ON AND OUR WORK ABOUT THE CENTER. VIS ABOUT THE CENTEROUR MISSNCYBER CENTERCENTER HISTORYRACE EQUYMEDIA CENTERLEARSHIP & STAFFEMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNICORPORATE PARTNERSHIPSANNUAL REPORTS & FANCIAL INFORMATNCONTACT USHOURS & LOTNSEMAPSUPPORT THE CENTER
• CHARACTERISTICS OF GAY, BISEXUAL AND OTHER MEN WHO HAVE SEX WH MEN WH MULTIPLE DIAGNOS OF INFECT SYPHILIS BRISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, 2005–2014 : SEXUALLY TRANSMTED DISEAS
• SEXUAL ORIENTATN INTY DEVELOPMENT MILTON AMONG LBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND QUEER PEOPLE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
• DIFFERENC DIG RATS BETWEEN GAY MEN WHO PREFER RECEPTIVE VERS SERTIVE SEX ROL DITE A ROLE FOR PRENATAL ANDROGEN
• GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT

GEICS MAY DETERME IF GAY MEN ARE TOPS OR BOTTOMS

Legend would have you believe that once you’ve earned your gay rd, a Harry Potter–like ceremony occurs where, stead of the Sortg Hat, a giant magil butt plug divis all gay men to two ho: tops or is clearly not the se, pecially for those people who nsir themselv versatile (HIYA). The two subdivisns have their own l, stereotyp, and -jok, and n sometim seem as if they’re at war wh each other, rather than both workg together for mutual sexual of this n make tryg different thgs dntg, pecially if you’re a baby gay venturg to this world for the first time. But I believe that many gay men pick one si, stick to , and that some of those dividuals choose toppg—you’ll have seen their profil markg them as “masc dom tops” on the apps—bee of s ti to tradnal Miller explas, there are outsi forc that, datg back to the ancient Greeks, have prevented gay men om tly diggg to what sexual behavrs we might actually enjoy.

“Wh bottomg there is the perceptn that you're givg up your masculy bee receivg a penis is somethg that women do, ” Miller Chris Whe, an expert health promotn and the director and prcipal vtigator of the Safe and Supportive Schools Project at the Gay-Straight Alliance Network San Francis, tak this one step further.

”To be (fucked) or not to be (fucked) shouldn’t always be the qutnAcrdg to a 2011 study by The Journal of Sexual Medice that surveyed 25, 000 gay men Ameri about their last sexual enunters, only 36 percent said they had bottomed and 34 percent said they had, realy, we’re not actually fuckg all that much. Although some rearch suggts that the perceptns of potential partners’ sexual rol gay men’s relatnships n affect whether a man will adopt the role of top or bottom durg sexual terurse, remas unclear whether sexual rol uld be perceived accurately by naïve observers.

GAY MEN'S PREFERENC FOR "TOP" VS. "BOTTOM" CAN BE JUDGED BY THEIR FACE

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.

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). 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. 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.

15 STEREOTYP THAT LIM OUR PERCEPTNS OF GAY MEN

Stereotyp about gay men are stctive to both how society views , as well as to how we view society mak fun of and gras gay men for thgs that are patently unte, young gay men are left whout proper role mols, failed by a society that scrib them wh generalizatns. Stereotyp may be ground the tth or be plete and utter falsehoods, but they are dangero regardls of where they e opprsn and reprsn of gay men throughout history — om ancient tim and early Christiany to the morn AIDS crisis — has been rooted fear and falsi. Dpe the persistence of stereotyp that portray lbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several s of rearch and clil experience have led all mastream medil and mental health anizatns this untry to nclu that the orientatns reprent normal forms of human experience.

Helpful rpons of a therapist treatg an dividual who is troubled about her or his same sex attractns clu helpg that person actively pe wh social prejudic agast homosexualy, succsfully rolve issu associated wh and rultg om ternal nflicts, and actively lead a happy and satisfyg life.

TOP/BOTTOM SEXUAL SELF-LABELS AND EMPATHIZG-SYSTEMIZG COGNIVE STYL AMONG GAY MEN CHA

The phrase “g out” is ed to refer to several aspects of lbian, gay, and bisexual persons’ experienc: self-awarens of same-sex attractns; the tellg of one or a few people about the attractns; wispread disclosure of same-sex attractns; and intifitn wh the lbian, gay, and bisexual muny. If they are a heterosexual relatnship, their experienc may be que siar to those of people who intify as heterosexual unls they choose to e out as bisexual; that se, they will likely face some of the same prejudice and discrimatn that lbian and gay dividuals enunter.

Frd theorized that homosexualy was a rult of problems that arise durg psychosexual velopment, such as boys beg overly attached to and intifyg wh their mother stead of their father, feelg tense stratn anxiety that leads boys to reject women bee they are “strated, ” and narcissistic self-obssn that leads boys to choose an object of attractn that rembl themselv (Lew, 1988).

Bieber (1962, 1967, 1969) claimed that male homosexualy was ed by boys havg a posssive and overly volved mother, as well as a hostile or distant father; the dynamics led boys to bond wh their mother and prevented them om velopg their masculy, which led him to effemate homosexualy. For female homosexualy, Bieber (1967, 1969) claimed was ed by var parent-child relatnship dynamics, such as mothers beg overly rejectg and cril of their dghters, showg ltle warmth and affectn; this, bed wh “femizg” behavrs, such as not drsg their dghter pretty cloth and not teachg her okg and hoekeepg skills, ntributed to homosexualy.

ABOUT THE CENTERSCE 1983 THE CENTER HAS BEEN SUPPORTG, FOSTERG AND CELEBRATG THE LGBT MUNY OF NEW YORK CY. FD MORE RMATN ON AND OUR WORK ABOUT THE CENTER. VIS ABOUT THE CENTEROUR MISSNCYBER CENTERCENTER HISTORYRACE EQUYMEDIA CENTERLEARSHIP & STAFFEMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNICORPORATE PARTNERSHIPSANNUAL REPORTS & FANCIAL INFORMATNCONTACT USHOURS & LOTNSEMAPSUPPORT THE CENTER

Studi were clud the review if they met the followg creria: (1) llected data om lbian, gay, bisexual, and/or queer people about the timg of their inty velopment ton; (2) llected data the Uned Stat; (3) were wrten English; and (4) were published or pleted on or after January 1, 1990.

E., the day the search were performed): (inty OR tone OR velopment) Abstract AND (gay OR lbian OR bisexual OR homosexual OR queer OR “sexual mory” OR “sexual mori”) Abstract AND (“sexual orientatn” Subjects for PsycINFO; sexualy Subject Headg for Soclogil Abstracts). E., 60–76%) of gay/lbian participants wh smaller reprentatn of bisexual, queer, and other sexual mory inti; five studi had sampl of relatively equal numbers of gay/lbian and bisexual participants; three studi clud participants wh substantial reprentatn of gay/lbian, bisexual, and other sexual orientatn inti; one study nsisted of only bisexual participants; and three studi did not provi breakdowns for sexual orientatn inti. In a study of gay/lbian women, there were no signifint differenc between Black and Hispanic/Lata women, but pared to women of lor, Whe women were signifintly later qutng their orientatn, self-intifyg as gay/lbian, g out, and havg a same-sex romantic relatnship (Parks et al., 2004).

Among the seven studi that pared the timg of ton between gay/lbian and bisexual people their analys, most studi found that gay/lbian people reached the ton of attractn and self-intifyg signifintly earlier than bisexual people (Diamond, 1998; Maguen et al., 2002; Herek et al., 2010; Calzo et al., 2011; Martos et al., 2015; Hoenig, 2016; Katz-Wise et al., 2017a). Supplementary Table 3 shows the rults of meta-analys of tone ag by sexual orientatn (bisexual and gay/lbian) based on data om four studi; two of the studi are the top tier of methodologil rigor and two are the send tier (Herek et al., 2010; Pew Rearch Center, 2013a; Fredriksen-Goldsen et al., 2017; Katz-Wise et al., 2017a); however, none of the studi examed the relatnship tone. Given the soccultural prsure of heteronormativy, bisexual peopl’ attractns to multiple genrs, and their pacy to engage sexual behavrs and relatnships that may be viewed as heterosexual, there may be more nial, mimizatn, or uncertaty about their bisexual sexualy than for gay/lbian people.

CHARACTERISTICS OF GAY, BISEXUAL AND OTHER MEN WHO HAVE SEX WH MEN WH MULTIPLE DIAGNOS OF INFECT SYPHILIS BRISH COLUMBIA, CANADA, 2005–2014 : SEXUALLY TRANSMTED DISEAS

In addn, bee bisexualy as a legimate sexual orientatn has historilly been qutned, wh views that bisexualy is a transnal step between heterosexualy and homosexualy and that very few people are tly bisexual, people wh an emergg bisexual inty may feel more nfn and self-doubt about their inty than people wh monosexual orientatns (Brown, 2002; Roberts et al., 2015; Monro et al., 2017).

SEXUAL ORIENTATN INTY DEVELOPMENT MILTON AMONG LBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND QUEER PEOPLE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

Bee most LGBTQ people are raised the same society as heterosexuals, they learn the same beliefs and stereotyp prevalent the domant society, leadg to a phenomenon known as ternalized homophobia, whereas LGBTQ-intified dividuals feel shame, guilt or hatred towards the part of themselv intified as LGBTQ. In ntrast, the data do not support a role for prenatal androgens the velopment of differenc sexual orientatn among men, as nclud by the same two meta-analys4, the associatn wh 2D:4D and genr rol among female sexual orientatn, we hypothized that a subset of gay men who are more genr nonnformg may show a larger, ls male-typil, 2D:4D than more genr nformg gay men. For nsistency across measur, sre on the Relled Childhood GNC sle were subtracted by 5 and multiplied by negative 1 for graphil pictn of rults; Th, a higher sre on both the Childhood and Adulthood GNC graphs dit more genr size imageNon-exclive same-sex attractn, GNC and dig ratsThe prcipal analys above asssed ASR differenc GNC and dig rats among gay men, whereas other non-heterosexual men were exclud om the analys as we hypothized that there may be more variabily velopmental procs fluencg sexual orientatn of men who display variatn same and oppose sex attractn and/or behavr.

Here, we report analys on the fol measur cludg all non-heterosexual men: self-intified gay men (n = 149), self-intified bisexual men (n = 24), and men who self-intified as “other” (n = 18; self-labels clud: pansexual, asexual, nonbary, genrqueer, queer, heteroflexible, qutng, trans, and var forms of “I don’t label myself”).

Altogether, the fdgs support a role for prenatal androgens fluencg ASR preference and genr nformy of gay fdg that 2D:4D rats differ a subset of gay men based on ASR and GNC rrponds well to the lerature on 2D:4D rats sexual orientatn women: self-intified “femme” and “butch” lbians differ their average dig rats such that the more genr nformg group (“femm”) had more female-typil (higher) 2D:4D rats3.

DIFFERENC DIG RATS BETWEEN GAY MEN WHO PREFER RECEPTIVE VERS SERTIVE SEX ROL DITE A ROLE FOR PRENATAL ANDROGEN

Alternatively (although not mutually exclively), prenatal androgens may mediate a third variable such as sexual orientatn and/or body type which may fluence genr prent fdgs are nsistent wh prev lerature showg that gay men wh an sertive ASR preference display other ditors of high androgen exposure, cludg an earlier pubertal onset, creased height and body hair pared to both heterosexual men and other gay men19. While there is generally high nrdance between preference and behavr, is likely that preference/fantasi rrpond more to ternal factors, whereas behavr is more nstraed by external nsiratns, such as the preferenc of sexual partners, and/or soc-cultural factors associated wh masculy and sex primary analys the prent study evaluated ASR group differenc GNC and dig rats among gay men, whereas other non-heterosexual men were exclud om the analys. For stance, the three groups of non-heterosexual men differ GNC: both self-intified bisexual and gay men report lower relled childhood and adulthood GNC pared to the “other” group of non-heterosexual men, and bisexual men report lower childhood GNC pared to gay men.

Th, while is possible that prenatal androgens ntribute to the sexual orientatn of some non-exclive same-sex oriented men, this prr work together wh the prent study suggts that the velopment of same-sex attractn among bisexual and other non-heterosexual men likely differs and/or may be more variable than gay is important to note the limatns of the prent study that should be taken to nsiratn. We, as well as other labs, have ed this measure prr publitns, showg nsistent sex differenc and sexual orientatn differenc among ncln, we found that a retrospective approximatn of prenatal androgens, the 2D:4D rat, differs among ASR preference groups, suggtg that gay men who prefer a receptive ASR and who tend to be more genr nonnformg were exposed to a lower level of prenatal androgen than gay men who prefer an sertive ASR, who tend to be more genr nformg. 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. 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.

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

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). 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.