Is Your Man Gay, Straight, or Bisexual? | Psychology Today

Contents:

• IS YOUR MAN GAY, STRAIGHT, OR BISEXUAL?
• ARE YOU GAY OR STRAIGHT?
• GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN PREFER MASCULE-PRENTG GAY MEN FOR A HIGH-STAT ROLE: EVINCE FROM AN ELOGILLY VALID EXPERIMENT
• KEV SPACEY: I N’T TELL WHETHER MEN ARE GAY JT BY LOOKG AT THEM
• CAN GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN REALLY BE FRIENDS?

IS YOUR MAN GAY, STRAIGHT, OR BISEXUAL?

Even acuntg for the fact that he might remember some of what happened, don't mean he's bisexual, secretly gay, or that you're his magil "exceptn." He was dnk out of his md. So until they fd themselv a siar suatn, they don’t see how n be possible for a straight person to have a sexual experience wh a person of the same sex and not be gay or at least bisexual. Wh gay clients, they say they feel the same way; wh bisexual clients, they say they’re lookg at both the men and the women; wh straight clients, they say they’re lookg only at the women.

Eher they’re worried that their man will eventually ci he’s gay and end the relatnship, or they want monogamy, and his cheatg is a threat to the marriage regardls of who he’s dog wh. And I should pot out here that the men when they’re engagg this behavr (regardls of whether they’re gay, straight or bi) nearly always tell themselv that what they’re dog is not cheatg bee they’re dog wh a guy. Worst of all, though, the shame attached to the memori of those first tim marred how I would approach sex for was listeng to Years & Years’ new song “Sanctify, ” and seeg the band’s out gay sger Olly Alexanr talk about how the song was spired his sexual trysts wh straight men, that I realized that the feelgs are way more mon than people let on.

Sure, I know all about gay guys havg sex wh straight guys, but felt reassurg to see him scribe the “sat and sner role” he embodied durg those experienc, and to hear the uncertaty and melancholy weaved to the than anythg though, was the repeated lyril mantra of “I won’t be ashamed. We currently have a survey vtigatn unrway that explor some of the posive out of “bromosexual” iendships, cludg our theory that gay men and straight men n be optimal wg men for one another. Send, recent rearch has argued that genr and sexual orientatn might not be as black and whe as prevly thought, which opens up new avenu for explorg how gay and straight men n relate to one another.

ARE YOU GAY OR STRAIGHT?

If a straight guy and his gay male iend are ls rigid about their masculy and sexualy, they’ll probably be more likely to discs tails about their sexual and romantic liv openly wh one another.

In short, women are able to tst the datg advice om gay male iends bee they know their gay iends don’t have any ulterr motiv: They’re not tryg to hook up wh them or pete wh them for guys. Jt as a gay man might be able to pass on advice about women to his straight iend, a straight man uld nnect his gay male iend wh another sirable gay man, sce neher the gay man nor his straight iend are petg for the same person. We believe that havg a tstworthy nfidant to help wh romantic pursus is one of the major reasons straight and gay men are leavg the fort of their same-sex, same-orientatn iend groups to form “bromosexual” iendships.

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. 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.

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

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). Further support for this notn is found studi where gay men appear to avert stat-penalti when they adopt a more mascule prentatn (Glick et al., 2007; Morton, 2017; Pellegri et al., 2020). 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’.

KEV SPACEY: I N’T TELL WHETHER MEN ARE GAY JT BY LOOKG AT THEM

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). (2016), when gay men received bog feedback that they had rated below-average on a masculy measure, they were more likely to show a creased sire to associate wh a feme – but not a mascule – gay male target.

CAN GAY AND STRAIGHT MEN REALLY BE FRIENDS?

The perceived femy/masculy of gay male targets was manipulated g wrten scriptns of their tras, terts, and qualifitns, which tapped to tradnal, stereotypil notns of masculy (henceforth masculy for simplicy).

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. Tradnally, studi vtigatg the impact of feme-prentatn on gay men’s stat have ed eher heterosexuals or gay men isolatn – to date, no study tegrated the two populatns to facilate meangful parisons.

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.

MaterialsScript for Fictnal Ad CampaignTo monstrate the direct fluence of mascule/feme-prentatn on stat attament for gay men, a novel pennt variable was nstcted for the current study. 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). Pre-ratgs om an pennt participant pool of 40 gay men were ed to validate the VBL each clip as beg mascule or feme as tend (See the onle supplement for method and rults of vio validatn study).

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”.

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. 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. Contrary to expectatns, among gay participants, the logistic regrsn mol examg the effect of ternalised homonegativy on likelihood of selectg feme vers mascule gay actors was non-signifint, χ2(1) = 1.