There’s an App for that: The Us and Gratifitns of Onle Social Networks for Gay Men | SprgerLk

Contents:

• BT GAY DATG APPS FOR HOOKUPS, RELATNSHIPS, AND EVERYTHG BETWEEN
• WHAT IS THE GAY SOCIAL NETWORK?
• THERE’S AN APP FOR THAT: THE US AND GRATIFITNS OF ONLE SOCIAL NETWORKS FOR GAY MEN
• BT GAY CHAT AND SOCIAL WORK APPS
• DIFFERENC SOCIAL NETWORKG BEHAVRS BETWEEN ITALIAN GAY AND HETEROSEXUAL MEN

BT GAY DATG APPS FOR HOOKUPS, RELATNSHIPS, AND EVERYTHG BETWEEN

All the top LGBTQ+ social works on the web (not to be nfed wh the bt gay blogs, which have ls teractn), cludg niche social muni (like bears, twks, and cubs) as well as LGBTQ+ works anized by language, natnaly, or special tert. While Facebook is currently the world's largt and most popular social workg platform (havg supplanted prev champns such as MySpace and Friendster), there are plenty of smaller groups that ter to the gay, lbian, bisexual, and transgenr muni. If you're lookg for more LGBTQ+ ntent, make sure to check out the most gay iendly ci Ameri and the list of famo transgenr mkhmarketg / via Flickr1234Se wh imag of betiful men.

We were ntacted today by the founr of the soon to lnch social work for gay men It lead to take a look around the gay male onle social workg space and wre the followg overview of some of the current market lears.

Jt as there’s a wi diversy of gay men the world, there may well be ample room for a variety of gay male social workg s – prumg they are able to build sufficient cril mass for moizatn and fancial viabily. BigJock has a long way to go before n pete wh the heavyweights above, but anythg is possible and there are clearly niche approach unrway throughout the gay male social workg market.

WHAT IS THE GAY SOCIAL NETWORK?

This study utiliz -pth terviews, (N=15), to explore the experienc of gay men, om non-acceptg fai, who e onle social workg s (SNS) to rhape their perceptn of the world and of self. Fdgs dite six emergent them domatg gay dividuals’ age of onle social workg s: (a) age pertag to cursy, (b) volvg social stigmatizatn, (c) g out and imaged teractns, (d) accsibily and fear of rejectn, (e) relatn to relig valu, and (f) “I’m Gay:” Beg LGBTQ, (see table 4.

Narrativ of the 15 participants pat a picture of SNS age as an valuable tool the exploratn and acceptance procs of their beg a gay dividual, specifilly the ntext of havg non-acceptg fai. Based on fdgs om six different foc groups and tercept terviews wh gay and bisexual men, this say explor the motivatns and perceived benefs of social workg s that allow for the creatn of a virtual muny of sexual mori.

THERE’S AN APP FOR THAT: THE US AND GRATIFITNS OF ONLE SOCIAL NETWORKS FOR GAY MEN

This paper also nsirs the technologil velopments as part of a larger history of gay men… 232 Catns54 ReferencOnle Personal AdsDavid GulunasArtJournal of homosexualy2005Users of PlaOut personals largely did not nsir themselv part of a virtual gay and lbian muny even when they regnized the existence of a lol geographilly-based gay and lbians muny, but the dynamic nature of onle personal advertisements did allow for a new type of teractive advertisement that do differ om prev prt foms.

In April 2010, the 54-year-old gay man was robbed, stabbed and eventually killed by 19-year-old Tommy Reed after the two men met and exchanged msag on an unnamed gay social workg se. S like Manhunt, Adam4Adam, RealJock, Connexn, MisterMeetMister, Ren, The Gay Social Network, and others serve a variety of needs for the gay dienc they target (Anthony 2008). Recent marketg surveys fd that gay men and lbians are more likely to e a larger number of social workg s and spend more time onle engaged social workg activi parison wh their straight unterparts (Gay and lbian adults are more likely and more equent blog rears 2010; Gay and lbian adults more likely to read blogs and e social workg tools 2009).

BT GAY CHAT AND SOCIAL WORK APPS

While the marketg-based surveys mt be viewed wh cril spicn given the lack of data on the overall gay populatn, multiple memberships, and overall objectiv of survey work that seeks to flate statistics surroundg gay nsumers for mercial ga, the market has rpond to this perceived populary of SNSs among gay men by producg an array of servic. From the sexually explic (like Manhunt wh over one ln members) to (wh a more most membership base and even more most profil), there are multiple gay-specific SNSs available for a variety of (New LGBT social workg se lnch 2010; Orrg 2008) say is an exploratory study of the and gratifitns of social workg applitns and s wily utilized by gay and bisexual men. This paper also nsirs the technologil velopments as part of a larger history of gay men munitg wh other gay men wh a culture where talk about homosexualy is closely policed and often rtricted.

Employg a and gratifitns approach, this say prents qualative data to discs the needs and motivatns that brg gay men onle to SNSs and how they manage multiple inti onle, as well as the rultg gratifitns of their onle activy. 2006; Mahajan 2009) also play a role gay male culture as a place to lote iends, sexual partners, and even celebri a broar cultural ntext where beg “out” and “publilly gay” is not always an optn.

DIFFERENC SOCIAL NETWORKG BEHAVRS BETWEEN ITALIAN GAY AND HETEROSEXUAL MEN

Young (2004), as an example, pots to the phenomenon of “mystg” where gay men certa urban ntexts have ed s like to bee an onle lol celebry even if off-le ntexts they are not known as gay much ls a gay celebry. He says gay men, Developed a highly sophistited system of subcultural s – s of drs, speech and style – that enabled them to regnize one another on the streets, at work, and at parti and bars and to rry on trite nversatns whose d meang was untelligible to possibly hostile people around them (p. Handkerchiefs of var lors worn var pockets of blue jeans also beme a way for gay men to hail other gay men on the street and bars that beme a rualized practice gay leather and other subcultur wh the muny (Stryker and Van Bkirk 1996).

Siarly, Humphreys (1970) tails how a system of s and gtur has been utilized by gay men seekg sexual partners public rtrooms sce even before homosexualy as a distct inty existed.

Intertgly, the “ttagg” phenomenon of seekg anonymo sexual enunters public spac has moved onle, at least part, wh gay men loggg onto var s to exchange rmatn on where to fd the enunters and where police activy has been reported (Ashford 2006). This is particularly a key the se of “visible” sexual mori like gay men who grow up and experience life both wh the abily to “pass” as heterosexual and who most typilly grow up wh no immediate gay fay members.

All rponnts the foc groups were between 21 and 48 years old and self-intified as gay pre-screeng only was nfintialy assured to all participants, but also the groups were rmed that both the morator and all participants self-intified as gay.

Although discsns were based on an terview schle (nsistent across all six groups), rponnts had equal opportuny to drive discsn and troduce new topics durg the the topic of nversatn the foc group clud potentially embarrassg topics cludg g onle SNSs to fd anonymo sexual partners, the rearcher also rried out one-on-one tercept terviews gay bars, nightclubs, and gay muny centers New York Cy. Bee of the problems of surveyg a tly random sample of gay men, qualative rearch cludg foc groups and tercept terviews has bee mon when seekg data (Evans 2007; Farrell 2006; Moa-Lop 2006). Although varied terms of race, soc-enomic background, and age, all participants were gay men, th ensurg a general fort level the groups and terviews that allowed for lively discsns around the topic of social works (Kegar 1998).

Rponnts reported that they moved back and forth between straight and gay news sourc wh great equency and that they were more likely to spend more time wh news and rmatn media that specifilly hailed a gay dience. One 23-year-old said, “I will sometim see a news story about somethg the [New York] Tim about somethg happeng Congrs, or about some gay suici, or hate crime, or whatever and I’ll read the story and then I’ll go to like Towleroad [a gay news blog] and then see what their take on the same story is. ” Another 40-year-old had siar sentiments: “The mastream papers and magaz ver gay issu more than they ed to even a few years ago, but you know, I jt tst the news I know is wrten by a gay wrer for…a gay dience.

” The rponnts generally did not have send thoughts about revealg their sexual orientatn onle, but some did e the s’ privacy settgs to lim who was able to accs rmatn that would intify them as gay:I have my boyiend listed on my profile as the person I’m a relatnship wh now, but before datg [him] I really didn’t say I was gay and I was really reful about what photos I was tagged and all of that, you know. Discsn and AnalysisGay men have always found ways to munite wh other gay men wh a culture that severely rtricts talk about sex and specifilly polic talk about non-normative sexual practice.

Not unlike a lored hanky the back pocket of a pair of Levis or a suggtive glance a public rtroom that allowed pre-digal generatns of gay men to signal their sexual sir spac and plac that were not always gay iendly, today SNSs like Grdr allow sexual mori to seek one another out wh a not always hospable culture. S like Manhunt,, and Adam4Adam allow gay men to nnect onle (and off-le as well) and provi a digal space where talk about sex and sexualy rtricted elsewhere be standard practice. Wrg about the gay practice of “cisg” urban environments, Turner (2003) says, “Cisg is the moment of visual exchange that occurs on the streets and other plac of the cy, which nstut an act of mutual regnn amid the otherwise alienatg effects of the anonymo crowd” (p.

This act of cisg has moved onle and to mobile phon, but the effect is the same: Gay men n still hail one another wh anonymo crowds orr to both solidify their real and imaged social works as well as fd partners for practil, sexual pleasur. While gay men evably e SNSs for many of the same reasons their straight unterparts do, there are also several unique and rultg gratifitns that emerged om the much rearch on SNSs is ncerned wh the social pal achieved by buildg works of iends, gay men dite that one of their primary of SNSs is to accumulate sexual works that are about a different kd of gratifitn. The abily to fd sexual partners was facilated by the most heavily ed SNS tools both their web-based and mobile gay men also e mastream SNSs like Facebook for the same reasons that their straight unterparts e the s, their approach and unrstandg of the s are still uniquely gay.

Even those gay men that did not reveal their sexual orientatn on a general SNS were likely to e that same SNS for very sexual purpos to verify the inty of and gather addnal visual cu about a potential there was fluid movement between s, gay men were generally very specific about their varied for particular SNSs. Conversely, general SNSs like Facebook were perceived as ls eful for nnectg wh other gay men bee even when an dividual’s social work was primarily gay, was unrstood that the works were more public parison wh gay-specific on. For this reason, matchmakg s that were open to both homosexual and heterosexual members were not seen as a place where gay men uld realistilly fd romantic or sexual relatns and were seen as beg solely for heterosexuals.

Ultimately, gay men appreciated that var social works allowed them to nnect wh a larger gay muny a signated gay-only space apart om the limed physil spac (bars, muny centers) that typilly facilate the enunters. Even those general datg s that clud a general optn to intify as gay were seen as not eful by men were more likely to reveal more about themselv on those SNSs that had a sexual foc. For some, this choice to nceal their inty had to do wh safety, and for others had to do wh simply not wantg to be regnized on a sex-seekg this study is exploratory nature and the fdgs do not lend themselv to predictive extrapolatns, the fdgs do help tablish the and gratifitns of SNSs for gay men that go beyond those typilly associated wh accumulatg social pal.

Further rearch is need to better unrstand how sexual mori e SNSs for distctive purpos and rearch is also need to unrstand if lbians’ e of social works is siar to that of gay men. While there is a lot of overlap among gay men between sexual and romantic ntacts and purely platonic ntacts, this e of social works for sexual gratifitns is an important, and unrstudied, e. While there is much speculatn that gay inty is beg ls stigmatized, gay men still dited a sire not only for gay-specific media, but gay-specific onle gatherg plac where sex is not viant but stead a central foc and sexual workg be synonymo wh social workg.

Addictn and pulsive e of social works posively rrelate wh the nstct of narcissism (Andreassen et al., 2017), other studi already monstrated how Facebook, Instagram, and other social works uld serve as ial social arenas for people who appreciate and are attracted to ego-strengtheng activi (Ryan & Xenos, 2011; Wang et al., 2012), as they allow people to strengthen their ego on immediate feedback om a potentially large amount of other dividuals (Andreassen, 2015) for gay men, some studi fd higher levels of narcissism for men who intify as gay than for those who intify as heterosexual (Drcher, 2021; Rubste 2010). This uld be attributed to var factors, such as a rponse to the opprsive homophobic power of heterosexual society or due to the high visual standards wh the gay muny that force gay men to take great re of their appearance (Drcher, 2010). The fact that this “straight actg” mak them more attractive the ey of potential partners may promote gay men’s ntued performance of hegemonic masculy, addn to the fact that adherg to the nons of hegemonic masculy mak gay men more accepted by both other gay men and heterosexual men (Connell & Mserschmidt, 2005; Eguchi, 2009; Moskowz et al., 2009).

Common elements between dividuals who intify themselv as gay and people addicted to social works are the high psychologil vtment their physil appearance and the nstant parison between their own body image and others’ (Wood, 2004) purpose of the followg study is to asss the differenc between gay and heterosexual men regardg social workg addictn and social work e, grandse and vulnerable narcissism, FOMO, and vtment one’s physil appearance.

Incln creria to participate this study were: beg male, intifyg himself as exclively gay or heterosexual, beg between the ag of 18 and 45, and havg a Facebook and Instagram acunt for at least six months. The social works nsired this rearch were Facebook and Instagram that are the two most ed social works Italy (“Italy: Ma social works ers 2021”, 2021) participants are 586 Italian men, 334 exclively gay men (GM) and 252 exclively heterosexual men (HM). DiscsnThe aim of the prent study was to asss the differenc between gay and heterosexual men regardg social workg addictn and social work e, grandse and vulnerable narcissism, FOMO, and vtment one’s physil appearance.

They allow you to post ntent on your profile, both photographic and textual, for a limed (the stori are visible for 24 h om publitn) or unlimed perd of time and are accsible to all, not beg specific for certa rults of this study show that men who intify as gay may be more at risk for social media addictn and specific behavrs adopted on social works, spendg more time on social media, postg more ntent, and seekg personal gratifitn by postg photos that may also be sexually provotive, receivg lik, and growg their followg, wh the possibily of gettg more followers than followe. The fdgs may be applible Italy, where levels of homophobia have historilly been particularly high (Lgiardi et al., 2005; Prati et al., 2011) due to wispread relig iology, polil nservatism, and tradnal beliefs about genr rol.

This happens bee the patriarchal and sexist Italian society nnot accept that men who fe themselv as gay n have effemate tras, as this is ntrary to the domant mol of masculy (Callahan & Losc, 2021; Donà, 2021).

In addn, the strong Christian valu rooted Italian fai lead them to perceive homosexualy as an unnatural phenomenon, ntrary to the dive sign of a fay posed of a man and a woman, hrg the acceptance of homosexuals and all other people who belong to the LGBTQIA + muny (Donà, 2021).

The climate of patriarchal and sexist societi leads men who fe themselv as gay to try to adhere as closely as possible to the typil norms of hegemonic masculy, performg “straight actg” so that they n be more easily accepted socially (Callahan & Losc, 2021; Connell & Mserschmidt, 2005) rults show that there are other signifint differenc between the two groups too.

This is le wh other studi that had found that people who intified themselv as gay reported higher levels of self-importance, pared to people who intified themselv as heterosexuals, and this might happen rponse to the homophobic both opprsive power and norms of society (Drcher, 2010; Rubste, 2010) FOMO variable also shows signifint differenc between the two groups, wh higher valu for gay men, who appear to be more aaid of feelg exclud, wantg to get touch wh others also on a virtual level. The GM and HM groups also prent signifint differenc regardg their body image: men who intify as gay tend to vt a lot their own image, go to the gym, and make parisons wh others, much more than heterosexuals do.