Why Are There Gay Men? | Male Homosexualy | Live Science

Contents:

• GAY MEN AND STRAIGHT MEN AS FRIENDS
• IS FLIRTG BETWEEN GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN OKAY?
• GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT
• THE FACT NO ONE LIK TO ADM: MANY GAY MEN ULD JT HAVE EASILY BEEN STRAIGHT
• CAN GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN REALLY BE FRIENDS?
• WHILE STRAIGHT MEN FACE TNAL CRISIS, GAY MEN EXCEL AMILLY, STUDY FDS
• WHY ARE THERE GAY MEN?

GAY MEN AND STRAIGHT MEN AS FRIENDS

S., before there was such a thg as a gay inty, some straight men would, wh ltle shame, engage sexual ntact wh other men (ually allowg themselv to be fellated) when female partners were otherwise unavailable (see Gee Chncey’s semal book, Gay New York: Genr, Urban Culture, and the Makg of the Gay Male World 1890-1940) and there is good reason to believe this still occurs other untri and cultur. “By unrstandg their same-sex sexual practice as meangls, accintal, or even necsary, straight whe men n perform homosexual ntact heterosexual ways…Ward argu that the real reason ‘straight’ men behave the ways is to ‘reaffirm rather than challenge their genr and racial inty’ and ‘to leverage whens and masculy to thentite their heterosexualy the ntext of sex wh men. My last post scribed a populatn of mal who nsir themselv heterosexual, do not label themselv gay or bisexual, chew volvement wh the LGBT muny, are often married or romantilly volved wh an oppose-sex partner, and who engage sex wh mal or exprs the sire to do so.

Due large part to the popularizatn of the topic the btsellg 2005 book On the Down Low: A Journey to the Liv of 'Straight' Black Men Who Sleep wh Men,[i] Lato and Ain-Amerin men are the primary subjects rearch wh non-gay intified MSM. One of the earlit studi, "The Bisexual and Non-Gay Attached Rearch Project" om the early 1990s, found that participants engagg same-sex sexual behavr but not intifyg as gay or bisexual scribed themselv as “kky,” “normal,” or “jt a guy.”[iii] A much more recent 2010 study nsisted of terviews wh heterosexually intified men who had engaged sexual activy wh another male the prev year; participants did not nsir this activy as discrepant wh their inty.

Fally, while there is nflictg data, appears that non-gay intified MSM engage high levels of dg and alhol e.[vi] Many fact engage sexual activy wh other men as a means of obtag fancial rourc to procure such substanc.

IS FLIRTG BETWEEN GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN OKAY?

[iii] Daryl Hood, Garrett Prtage, June Crawford, Tania Sorrell, and Chris O’Reilly, "Report on the BANGAR Project: Bisexual Activy/non Gay Attachment Rearch Targetg Strategi Intifitn Project." (Sydney: Natnal Centre HIV Epimlogy and Clil Rearch ,1994).

We have a bromance where we are very fortable around each history of homosocial relatnships, or heterosexual male iendships, is eply plex and steeped social stigmas, myth, rejectn and aggrsn, the thors expla their rearch. “But there is a generatnal effect here: Olr men who grew up the 1980s may still feel the need to prent a very straight versn of themselv, but more posive attus toward homosexualy ntemporary culture mean that younger men are simply ls ncerned about how other people view their behavrs. 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.

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

For heterosexual men, the preference for mascule-prentg actors was predicted by greater anti-gay sentiment, whereas ternalised anti-gay prejudice did not predict a preference for mascule-prentatn among gay men. 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). Siarly, Clsell and Fiske (2005) found that subgroup labels for feme gay men like ‘flamboyant’ eliced higher ratgs of warmth, but lower ratgs of petence pared to more mascule subgroup labels like ‘straight-actg’. 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.

THE FACT NO ONE LIK TO ADM: MANY GAY MEN ULD JT HAVE EASILY BEEN STRAIGHT

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. 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.

CAN GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN REALLY BE FRIENDS?

” (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.

Internalised Anti-Gay Attus (Gay Participants Only)The 3-em ternalised homophobia subsle of the Lbian, Gay and Bisexual Inty Sle (LGBIS; Mohr & Kendra, 2011) was ed to asss negative attus toward onelf as a gay person. 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”.

WHILE STRAIGHT MEN FACE TNAL CRISIS, GAY MEN EXCEL AMILLY, STUDY FDS

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. 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.

WHY ARE THERE GAY MEN?

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.

(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). Other recent studi (see Hunt et al., 2020; Salvati et al., 2021a, b; Sanchez & Vila, 2012) have ed more prehensive measur to operatnalise ternalised anti-gay prejudice, such as the 7-em Reactn to Homosexualy Sle (RHS: Smolenski et al., 2010).