The Prevalence and Gratification of Nude Self-Presentation of Men Who Have Sex with Men in Online-Dating Environments: Attracting Attention,Empowerment,and Self-Verification

Abstract

This study builds on research about the importance of body presentation among men who have sex with men (MSM) by exploring the phenomenon of nude body presentation in online dating environments. In a quantitative survey of N = 9,235 MSM users of a gay online dating site (ODS) in Germany, the prevalence of nude pictures and gratifications sought while displaying them were investigated. About two-thirds of the participants declared that they use nude pictures in their dating profiles, with only small differences in prevalence between members of different ages, education levels, and sexual orientation. Furthermore, the results indicate that the use of nudity is driven by three underlying gratifications: (1) Attracting attention, meaning that nudity is used to accelerate sexual outcomes from online dating use; (2) empowerment, meaning that nudity online serves as an environment for otherwise and elsewhere inhibited forms of body presentation; and (3) self-verification, whereby nudity is used as a means of receiving affirmation from others. Regression analyses are used to investigate associations of these gratifications with sociodemographics and online dating behavior. Findings are discussed in relation to earlier research on self-presentation as well as theories of body importance among gay men. While earlier research has mainly focused on the negative implications of body presentation (e.g., self-objectification; reinforcing standards of beauty), the findings of this study hint that ODS may provide a platform for acts of nude body presentation that are not possible elsewhere and are thus accompanied by empowerment and self-verification.

Background

Over recent decades, empirical research on men who have sex with men (MSM) has consistently claimed that members of this group place particular importance on body appearance.^1–4 For example, almost 30 years ago Silberstein et al. concluded that “physical appearance is of heightened importance in the gay male subculture,”⁵^(p342) and that appearance is “significantly more important to their sense of self compared to (…) heterosexual subjects.”^(p341)

For many researchers one of the main rationales behind this was that MSM place high importance on their physical appearance because they are seeking to attract other men, who in turn place great value on physical attractiveness in potential partners^6,7 (in contrast to women, who “place greater emphasis on other factors, such as personality, status, power, and income”⁸^(p252)). In fact, MSM were found to show similar tendencies for body dissatisfaction to heterosexual women and higher tendencies than heterosexual men and lesbian women.^5,8–10 Furthermore, exercise behavior and a drive for muscularity were significantly higher in homosexual than heterosexual men.^5,11 The heightened importance of one's own physical appearance among MSM is accompanied by the disposition for body showcasing, that is, presenting this physical attractivity to others.⁴

First empirical results suggested that the importance of body showcasing among MSM has spread from offline to online and is also reflected in computer-mediated communication (CMC) environments.¹² In a content analysis of 300 profiles of MSM using the gay dating app Jack'd, Miller showed that fitness and muscularity are very important factors in the online self-presentation of MSM, as evidenced by the fact that about one-third of the examined profiles contained a profile picture showing a shirtless body.¹³ Miller advocates using online dating sites (ODS) as an environment for research because the “behavior exhibited (…) is entirely representational of real life and has a high level of external validity.”¹³^(p640)

Furthermore, research has shown that because of ODS's high level of anonymity (compared with social networking sites such as Facebook) and ability to selectively disclose information, ODS are an ideal environment for users to experiment with and express new facets of the self that may have not been part of the offline self.^14,15 The use of ODS is very widespread among MSM. In fact, based on studies comparing different samples of MSM, one can estimate that between one-half and two-third of these men use these sites.^16–20

In Miller's study, the presence of nudity in users' profiles was not associated with age. However, while it was associated with a higher likelihood to emphasize written claims of one's own attractiveness (and thus somehow illustrate dating value), the question of whether the presence of nudity affects the actual dating behavior of users remains open. The first aim of the present study, therefore, is to broaden the empirical basis and to find answers to the following questions: What is the association between nude self-presentation of MSM in ODS and sociodemographics? (RQ1); and How is nude self-presentation associated with the dating behavior (intensity of dating site use and offline sexual outlet)? (RQ2)

Male homosexuality researchers have expanded the explanations for heightened body importance among gay men beyond the modest rationale of attracting other men. According to Tate and George, three main reasons explain the distinct role of the body among MSM: “a desire to attract men (acknowledged to value a partner's looks more than women do), internalized homonegativity (whereby guilt over sexuality is expressed as a drive toward bodily perfection or even punishment through dieting, compulsive exercising, and purging) and toxic effects of the commercial gay scene.”²¹^(p163) The first and third reasons (desire to attract men and effects of the commercial scene) are immediately comprehensible: They are actually similar to the gratifications experienced from gaining popularity and conforming to standards of sexual attractiveness that have been found to underlie the acts of body self-presentation among adolescents.^22–24

However, the second reason (internalized homonegativity) is very specific to MSM and its logic stems from psychodynamic theories. The rationale behind the idea that “guilt over sexuality is expressed as a drive toward bodily perfection”²¹^(p163) is the psychodynamic assumption that internal conflicts and experiences of unpleasure are—through a subconscious process—defended and compensated by actions and behaviors of pleasure. With respect to MSM, those unpleasurable events are constituted by the still prevalent structures of heterosexism in society.²⁵ According to psychodynamic theories of homosexuality, these structural stigmatizations are internally defended and compensated by the heightened importance of body and sexuality among MSM.^26–28

The differentiation of underlying reasons for heightened importance of the body inspires investigation of its contingent analogy in CMC environments. We therefore ask: Which forms of gratification are members of a gay ODS seeking when they publicly display pictures of their own nude body? (RQ3); and How are these gratifications related to sociodemographics (RQ4) as well as to members' online dating behavior (intensity of dating site use and offline sexual outlet)? (RQ5)

Methods

Procedure and recruitment

To answer the research questions, we used data from a subsample of German respondents to a multinational online survey among members of the gay ODS PlanetRomeo.com, which is available in desktop, mobile, and app versions. PlanetRomeo.com is a well-known and widely used ODS among MSM in Europe and especially in Germany.¹⁸ In response to newly imposed regulations by Apple and Google concerning nudity in the app version of the dating site in 2013, the survey was conducted to explore various attitudes toward gratifications and uses of nudity.

All members of the site were invited to participate in the survey by banners placed on the Web site and two separate newsletters sent to every user. From our subsample, N = 9,235 MSM completed the questionnaire and gave valid answers to all relevant items.^a The mean age of the sample was 38.9 (range 18–83; standard deviation = 11.4). Seventy-four percent of respondents declared they were “only attracted to men,” whereas the remaining 26 percent claimed to also have a sexual interest in women to some degree. Seventy-eight percent reported having higher education levels either through graduating from high school or attaining a university degree (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample Description and Presence of Nudity

	Nude pictures in online dating profile/s?
	Yes (n = 6,154) %	No (n = 3,081) %
	67	33
Age			X² = 119.58 (p < 0.000), Φ = 0.11
18–29	22	29
30–39	31	25
40–49	30	26
50–59	13	14
60 and above	3	6
Education			X² = 23.75 (p < 0.000), Φ = 0.05
No formal education	1	0
Graduated primary school	33	29
Graduated secondary school	31	34
University graduate/postgraduate	35	37
Sexual attraction			X² = 60.01 (p < 0.000), Φ = 0.08
Only or mostly to men	88	93
To men and women equally	7	4
Mostly to women^a	5	2

Note: N = 9,235 men that answered the question concerning nude pictures in their dating profile/s; Nude pictures: Do you have nude pictures in your PlanetRomeo profile/s (upper body/whole body, front or back)? (Yes/No/I would rather not say); Education: What is your highest educational level? (No formal education/Graduated primary school/Graduated secondary school/University Graduate/Postgraduate); Sexual attraction: Whom do you feel sexually attracted to? (Only to men/Mostly to men and sometimes to women/To men and women equally/Mostly to women and sometimes to men/Only to women/I would rather not say).

The option “Only to women” was excluded from data analysis as the study focuses solely on men who have sex with men.

Measures

Nude pictures

To assess the prevalence of nude pictures in their ODS profiles, participants were asked the following: “Do you have nude pictures in your PlanetRomeo profile/s (upper body/whole body, front or back)?” Possible answers were “Yes,” “No,” and “I would rather not say.”

Gratifications sought

To assess which gratifications members sought when showing their own nude body in an online dating environment, we developed a 14-item scale inspired by the literature mentioned above as well as existing literature on online self-presentation.^{13,22,23,29–39} The scale measured how applicable different motives for the use of nude pictures are to the participants. The participants were asked: “You mentioned that you have nude pictures in your PlanetRomeo profile. There are many reasons for showing your body online. What about you? Why do you have nude pictures in your PlanetRomeo profile/s?” The types of gratifications cited are listed in Table 2. We coded the items such that a higher score represented higher approval (score range = 0–4; see Table 2).

Table 2.

Principal Axis Factoring of the Gratifications Sought

					Scale ^b
	% ^a	Loading Factor 1	Loading Factor 2	Loading Factor 3	α	n	M	SD	R
Factor 1: Empowerment					0.78	5992	1.80	1.04	0–4
To show myself in contrast to my everyday appearance.	42	0.78	−0.07	−0.03
To show myself in a way I usually cannot.	39	0.78	0.06	0.10
Because nude pictures are a special way to express yourself.	42	0.54	0.07	−0.19
Because it is a challenge to the cultural mainstream.	15	0.48	0.03	−0.14
Factor 2: Attracting attention					0.68	6055	2.73	0.94	0–4
Because I find a good date faster.	61	−0.10	0.82	0.01
Because I am more likely to get clicks and messages from others.	71	−0.01	0.69	−0.04
Because it is usual in chat and dating portals.	61	0.13	0.45	0.00
Factor 3: Self-verification					0.77	6067	2.48	1.01	0–4
Because I am proud of my body.	41	−0.10	0.00	−0.87
Because I just like these pictures.	62	0.18	−0.04	−0.62
Because it feels good to be complimented on my body.	59	0.11	0.13	−0.55
Excluded items^c
Because I want to appear sexy without showing my face.	33	0.05	0.26	0.27
Because gay men like to show their bodies.	52	0.36	0.26	0.17
Because chatting gets more intense.	59	0.26	0.40	−0.13
Because my pictures are artistic and creative.	18	0.22	−0.09	−0.44

Note: Principal axis factoring conducted on 10 items with oblique rotation (direct oblimin); KMO = 0.842; Bartlett's test of sphericity χ²(45) = 18211.65, p < 0.000; three components could be extracted on basis of Kaiser–Guttman criterion and scree plot; eigenvalues: factor 1 = 3.94, factor 2 = 1.47, factor 3 = 1.01; cumulative explained total variance: 64 percent. Basis. All respondents that stated to have one or more nude pictures in their profile/s (n = 6,154). The analysis was conducted with n = 5,856 valid cases (list-wise case exclusion). Valid cases of the calculated mean scales are listed in the table.

Approval concerning the single items in percent: Respondents were asked “There are many reasons for showing your body online. What about you? Why do you have nude pictures in your PlanetRomeo profile/s?” and could answer on a scale from 0 (“Does not relate to me at all”) to 4 (“Relates completely to me”). The scale points 3 and 4 are regarded as approval and are here shown in percent.

Scale statistics: α = reliability by Cronbach's alpha of the included items; n = valid cases with a calculated score for the mean scale; M = mean value of all valid cases; SD = standard deviation of all valid cases; R = score range.

Excluded due to low communalities and ambiguous factor loadings in the order presented. Stats reported stem from the principal axis factoring conducted just before exclusion.

Time spent online

The time each participant spends on an ODS each day was assessed with the following question: “In general, how much time do you spend on chat and dating sites per day? If you do not know exactly, please give an estimate.” Possible answers were: “15 minutes or less,” “15 minutes to 1 hour,” “1 to 2 hours,” “2 to 4 hours,” “4 to 8 hours,” and “8 hours or more.”

Offline sexual outlet

To assess the offline sexual outlet used by users of gay ODS we asked the participants the following: “How often do you meet a person through the Internet for sex in real life?” Possible answers were: “A few times a day,” “Around once a day,” “Every 2 to 3 days,” “1 to 2 times per week,” “Every 2 to 3 weeks,” “Around once a month,” “Every 2 to 3 months,” “Seldom,” and “Never.”

Sociodemographics

We also measured participants' age, level of education, and sexual orientation (Table 1).

Results

Two-thirds of the sample (67 percent) reported using nudity in their dating profile. The use of nudity was correlated to members' age, education, and sexuality (Table 1): men who were younger, less educated, and attracted to women also (in contrast to those only attracted to men) were slightly more likely to use nudity in their profile. However, although statistically significant, the effect sizes are very low. When adding the time spent on ODS as well as the offline sexual outlet to those sociodemographics in a logistic regression explaining the presence of nudity in a profile, both variables show significant associations: more time on ODS as well as more frequently engaging in offline sexual encounters are associated with a higher likelihood to show nudity in one's profile (Table 3). The association with age becomes insignificant when jointly analyzing the effect of the five variables in a logistic regression.

Table 3.

Linear and Logistic Regressions with Sociodemographics and Dating Behavior Related to the Three Types of Gratifications when Using Nudity as Well as the Prevalence of Nude Pictures

	Attracting attention (0–4, linear regression)	Self-verification (0–4, linear regression)	Empowerment (0–4, linear regression)	Nudity (0;1, logistic regression)
	R² (adjusted) 0.12	R² (adjusted) 0.03	R² (adjusted) 0.07	R² (Nagelkerke) 0.13
	β	β	β	B (SE)
Age	0.06^***	−0.04^**	0.04^**	0.00 (0.00)
Education	0.01	−0.09^***	−0.18^***	−0.06 (0.03)^*
Sexual attraction	0.06^***	0.00	0.10 ^***	0.21 (0.03)^***
Time spent online	0.04^**	0.07^***	0.10 ^***	0.17 (0.02)^***
Offline sexual outlet	0.32 ^***	0.11 ^***	0.11 ^***	0.36 (0.02)^***

Note: Education: What is your highest educational level? (0 = no formal education–4 = university graduate/postgraduate); Sexual attraction: Whom do you feel sexually attracted to? (0 = only to men–4 = only to women); Time spent online: In general, how much time do you spend on chat and dating sites per day? If you do not know exactly, please give an estimate. (0 = 15 minutes or less–5 = 8 hours or more); Offline sexual outlet: How often do you meet a person through the internet for sex in real life? (0 = Never–8 = A few times a day). As due to the large sample size also minor effects become statistically significant, in the linear regression analyses we only interpret and therefore bold print findings over the size of β = 0.10.

p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001.

A principal axis factoring of answers to the set of 14 statements on possible gratifications sought when using nudity lead to three factors representing the underlying dimensions (Table 2). Ten of the 14 items could be clearly associated with one of the three factors, whereas the remaining four were excluded due to ambiguous associations presented in low factor loadings and low levels of communality. After grouping factors together on the basis of semantic similarities that existed between them, the three factors could be named as follows: (1) “Empowerment,” representing gratifications that are related to new options of body presentation that are otherwise and elsewhere inhibited; (2) “Attracting attention,” representing gratifications related to finding a date and accelerating sexual outcomes of online dating use; (3) “Self-verification,” representing gratifications related to receiving compliments on one's body and affirmation.

Participants were assigned a valid mean score if they answered all of the statements related to the respective subscale (the number of statements varied depending on the subscale). Cronbach's alpha was between 0.68 and 0.78. With a mean of M = 2.73 on the mean scale, attracting attention received the highest level of approval as gratification sought by nudity, followed by self-verification (M = 2.48) and then empowerment (M = 1.80).

We conducted three linear regression analyses and one logistic regression analysis with age, education, sexual attraction, time spent online, and offline sexual outlet predicting the three dimensions of gratifications sought by using nudity as well as the presence or absence of nude pictures in the profile itself (Table 3). As due to the large sample size minor effects also become statistically significant, we only interpreted findings over the size of β = 0.10 in the linear regression analyses.⁴⁰

Using nudity to attract attention was mainly connected to participants' use of online dating for general offline sexual outlet (β = 0.32). A higher frequency of sexual offline dates was associated with a higher tendency to use nudity to attract attention. Self-verification through the use of nude pictures was also associated with dating site use for offline sexual outlet, but on a much lower level, however (β = 0.11). In general, self-verification was only barely explainable (R² = 0.03) by all the predictors used in the model.

Using nudity as a means of empowerment could be explained to a small degree (R² = 0.07) and by four predictors in the model: Lower education (β = −0.18), sexual interest also in women (β = 0.10), more time spent on ODS (β = 0.10), as well as a higher frequency of offline dates (β = 0.11) were associated with higher relevance of empowerment as the form of gratification sought when using nudity in online dating profiles. The presence of nudity itself was mainly associated with offline sexual also outlet (B = 0.36), followed by sexual interest also in women (B = 0.21) and time spent online (B = 0.17).

Discussion

The present study was the first to investigate the prevalence and gratifications sought by MSM using pictures of their own nude body in online dating profiles on a broad quantitative basis. In a large sample of N = 9,235 German MSM, we found that about two-thirds of the sample displayed nude pictures in their profiles. The presence or absence of nudity is only lightly associated with age, education, and sexual orientation. Moreover, even older men in our sample used nudity in their profiles, although they were somewhat less likely to do so. The sheer prevalence of nude pictures supports the work of Campbell, who posited that the body plays an important role in gay men's online behavior.¹² The presence of nudity is also associated with the time users spent on ODS as well as with their offline sexual outlet. The latter factor is the strongest predictor of the presence of nude pictures in one's online profile, indicating that nudity might serve as a means of attracting men for potential offline dates and maybe accelerating the process of finding a date.

Gratifications sought when showing nudity can be distinguished into three underlying dimensions: empowerment, attracting attention, and self-verification. Using nude pictures for attracting attention is associated with a higher frequency of offline sex dates. Whether or not the nude pictures play a causal role in this association—by being a decision criterion for chat partners in agreeing to or accelerating an offline encounter—cannot be determined based on our data and should be investigated by future research. We can say, however, that the participants in our survey use nude pictures due to an assumption about dating efficacy, thus adding quantitative support to a notion that Brown et al. summarize as follows: “your picture is your bait.”⁴¹^(p66)

Using nude pictures for self-verification purposes is only barely explainable by personal characteristics and online dating behavior, although there is also a slight correlation with offline date frequency. In other words: Gratification through self-verification is more or less relevant for every MSM using pictures of their own nude body in online dating. This is in line with the notion that self-verification, even for nonpathological narcissistic tendencies, may serve a functional purpose when dealing with everyday tasks.⁴²

Using nude pictures because of a process of empowerment is associated with lower education, being sexually attracted to women as well as men, longer time spent on ODS, and a higher frequency of sexual offline dates. Following this logic, less-educated and bisexual MSM might profit more strongly from the opportunities afforded by ODS as an environment in which they can present their body particularly in a nude, and most likely sexual, way. Potentially, these men are also more likely to hide their same-sex sexual interest in other surroundings and feel that the Internet is the only space where they can realize their same-sex sexual desires.^14,15 Therefore, it is plausible that online dating environments might be the only space in which they can present their nude body in this way. MSM who show nudity online “to show myself in a way I usually cannot” are therefore more reliant on ODS, which also explains the correlation with greater time spent online.

The three dimensions of gratification found in this study correspond to theory and earlier research. The gratification of self-verification as found in the present study corresponds to similar findings regarding the self-presentation of adolescents on social networking sites. Baumgartner et al. assumed that “by receiving feedback from their peers, online sexual self-presentation may help them to reduce uncertainties that are inherent in the process of developing a sexual self.”²⁹^(p91) Apparently, the wish for positive feedback regarding one's body is not limited to the age of adolescence, but accompanies processes of sexual self-presentation throughout life (as the missing link between age and self-verification in our study further supports).

The gratification of attracting attention in our study is also similar to the findings of earlier research, particularly to the function of gaining popularity that has also been found with respect to online self-presentation of adolescents.^22,29

Concerning empowerment, on the one hand, earlier research suggested a potential for empowerment because the Internet offered a space for sexual self-presentation that was not found elsewhere.^36,37 On the other hand, earlier findings emphasized the dependency of online self-presentation from overall standards of beauty, resulting in, for example, adolescents aiming to conform to those standards and a potential reinforcement of problematic sexual self-images.^{12,13,24,29,38,43} Moreover, Miller, in his study about nudity among MSM on a dating app, interpreted the prevalence of nudity mainly in the light of self-objectification and thus with a negative overtone.¹³ In the present study, however, the statistical connection of answers in the principal axis factoring suggests that, at least for some MSM in Germany, ODS are an environment for processes of nude self-presentation that are independent from prevailing standards of beauty and body norms in society and, most likely, also in the gay community. For these men, ODS may indeed be an arena of empowerment, because it is a space in which they can articulate and showcase aspects of the self that have to be inhibited elsewhere. This is of particular interest with respect to the potential for “identity shift,” which Gonzales and Hancock introduced when describing “a link between the act of self-presentation and creating one's self-concept”⁴⁴^(p167) and thus a potential overlap of online and offline identities. Further research, particularly involving in-depth interviews, is needed to investigate the association between acts of online nude self-presentation and offline self-concept among MSM.

One of the aims of our study was to investigate whether the heightened importance of the body in the gay male subculture is also manifested in MSM's use of an ODS. Indeed, the gratifications sought through nude body presentation online found in our study can be associated with general reasons for heightened importance of the body, summarized by Tate and George as (1) a desire to attract men, (2) internalized homonegativity, and (3) the toxic effects of the commercial gay scene.²¹ The first, the desire to attract men, perfectly fits with our finding of nude pictures being used to attract attention. The second, compensation for and defense of internalized homonegativity by body showcasing, apparently finds its online representation by conscious recognition of self-verification through nude pictures. The third, the toxic effect of the commercial gay scene, however, seems to be converted to moments of empowerment in CMC environments—at least for some MSM.

Several limitations of this study should be addressed. One is that the sample was self-selected, which may have led to bias, for instance toward the use of nude pictures in the respective online context. Another limitation of the study is that we did not ask participants to specify the particular form of nude body presentation used (sexually explicit, mildly erotic, only upper body, entire body, etc.), and instead simply asked about the very presence of “nude pictures” (yes vs. no). However, the entire survey was related to a category of pictures which, due to new regulations imposed by Apple and Google, had recently been banned from being displayed in the app version of the ODS under research. This applied to pictures that were—when being uploaded by users—categorized as “sexy” or “hardcore” in contrast to “nonsexy,” with sexy being defined as “pictures that you would not show your mother.” Although this connotation does not reduce the heterogeneity of potential meanings by our sole question about having nude pictures, one can assume that the majority of respondents associated “nude pictures” with rather explicit (as opposed to more bashful) portrayals.

Future research should close this gap and investigate more deeply how different ways of body presentation are connected with the forms of gratifications identified in this study. Most likely, the findings are not directly transferrable into the field of online dating among heterosexuals. However, the underlying three dimensions of showing nude pictures might help to understand erotic online self-presentation behavior in other spheres of online communication as well as among other population groups. In general, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of the dynamics of erotic and romantic online environments that are likely to influence not only the online but also the offline life of each individual involved.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

Appendix A.

Survey Questions and Their German Translations

English	German
1. Nude pictures
Do you have nude pictures in your PlanetRomeo profile/s (upper body/whole body, front, or back)?	Hast Du auf Deinem PlanetRomeo-Profil bzw. einem Deiner PlanetRomeo-Profile Nacktbilder (Oberkörper/Ganzkörper Vorder- oder Rückansicht)?
Options
Yes.	Ja
No.	Nein
I would rather not say.	Möchte ich nicht sagen
2. Gratifications sought
You mentioned that you have nude pictures in your PlanetRomeo profile. There are many reasons for showing your body online. What about you? Why do you have nude pictures in your PlanetRomeo profile/s?	Du hattest eben erwähnt, dass Du Nacktbilder auf Deinem PlanetRomeo-Profil hast. Es gibt ja verschiedene Gründe dafür, im Internet auch mal seinen Körper zu zeigen. Wie ist das bei Dir? Warum hast Du Nacktbilder von Dir auf Deinem Profil?
Items
Because I want to appear sexy without showing my face.	Weil ich mich sexy darstellen will, ohne mein Gesicht zu zeigen.
Because it is usual in chat and dating portals.	Weil es auf Chat- und Datingportalen einfach dazugehört.
Because I am more likely to get clicks and messages from others.	Weil man dann eher angeklickt und angeschrieben wird.
Because I find a good date faster.	Weil ich dann schneller ein gutes Date finde.
Because it feels good to be complimented on my body.	Weil es sich gut anfühlt, Komplimente zu seinem Körper zu bekommen.
Because my pictures are artistic and creative.	Weil meine Bilder künstlerisch und kreativ sind.
To show myself in a way I usually cannot.	Um mich dort so darzustellen, wie ich es sonst nicht kann.
Because I just like these pictures.	Weil mir diese Bilder einfach gut gefallen.
To show myself in contrast to my everyday appearance.	Um mich mal anders darzustellen, als im sonstigen Alltag.
Because chatting gets more intense.	Weil das Chatten dadurch prickelnder wird.
Because I am proud of my body.	Weil ich stolz auf meinen Körper bin.
Because nude pictures are a special way to express yourself.	Weil Nacktbilder eine besondere Art sind, sich auszudrücken.
Because it is a challenge to the cultural mainstream.	Um mich vom Mainstream der Gesellschaft abzuheben.
Because gay men like to show their bodies.	Weil schwule Männer einfach gerne ihren Körper zeigen.
Options (extremes of Likert scale)
Relates completely to me	Trifft voll und ganz zu
Does not relate to me at all	Trifft überhaupt nicht zu
3. Time spent online.
In general, how much time do you spend on chat and dating sites per day? If you do not know exactly, please give an estimate.	Einmal alles in allem: Wie viel Zeit verbringst Du durchschnittlich pro Tag auf Chat- und Dating-Portalen? Falls Du es nicht genau sagen kannst, versuche bitte zu schätzen.
Options
15 minutes or less	ungefähr eine viertel Stunde
15 minutes to 1 hour	zwischen 15 Minuten und 1 Stunde
1 to 2 hours	1 bis unter 2 Stunden
2 to 4 hours	2 bis unter 4 Stunden
4 to 8 hours	4 bis unter 8 Stunden
8 hours or more	8 Stunden und mehr
4. Offline sexual outlet
How often do you meet a person through the Internet for sex in real life?	Wie häufig verabredest Du dich mit einer anderen Person über das Internet mehr oder weniger explizit zum Sex in der Realität?
Options
A few times a day	Mehrmals täglich
Around once a day	Etwa einmal pro Tag
Every 2 to 3 days	Alle 2 bis 3 Tage
1 to 2 times per week	1 bis 2 mal pro Woche
Every 2 to 3 weeks	Alle 2 bis 3 Wochen
Around once a month	Etwa einmal im Monat
Every 2 to 3 months	Alle 2 bis 3 Monate
Seldom	Seltener
Never	Nie
5. Level of education
What is your highest educational level?	Was ist Dein höchster Bildungsabschluss?
Options
No formal education	Ohne Schulabschluss
Graduated primary/basic school	Volks-/Haupt-/Realschulabschluss
Graduated secondary/higher school	Abitur/Fachabitur/Matura/(Fach-) hochschulreife
University Graduate	Universitäts-/(Fach-)Hochschulabschluss
Postgraduate	Postgraduiert/Promotion
6. Sexual orientation
Whom do you feel sexually attracted to?	Zu wem fühlst Du dich sexuell hingezogen?
Options
Only to men.	Ausschließlich zu Männern
Mostly to men and sometimes to women.	Überwiegend zu Männern und manchmal zu Frauen
To men and women equally.	Zu Männern und Frauen gleichermaßen
Mostly to women and sometimes to men.	Überwiegend zu Frauen und manchmal zu Männern
Only to women.	Ausschließlich zu Frauen
I would rather not say.	Möchte ich nicht sagen

Note

References

Morrison

, Morrison

, Sager

. Does body satisfaction differ between gay men and lesbian women and heterosexual men and women? A meta-analytic review. Body Image, 2004; 1:127–138.

Rothblum

. (2002) Gay and lesbian body images. In Cash

, Pruzinsky

, eds. Body image: a handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York, NY: The Guilford Press, pp. 257–265.

Atkins

. (1998) Introduction: looking queer. In Atkins

, ed. Looking queer: body image and identity in lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgender communities. New York, NY: Haworth Press, pp. xxix–li.

Duncan

. Out of the closet and into the gym: gay men and body image in Melbourne, Australia. The Journal of Men's Studies, 2007; 15:331–346.

Silberstein

, Mishkind

, Striegel-Moore

, et al. Men and their bodies: a comparison of homosexual and heterosexual men. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1989; 51:337–346.

Sergios

, Cody

. Physical attractiveness and social assertiveness skills in male homosexual dating behavior and partner selection. Journal of Homosexuality, 1985; 125:505–514.

Bailey

, Gaulin

, Agyei

, et al. Effects of gender and sexual orientation on evolutionarily relevant aspects of human mating psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994; 66:1081–1093.

Siever

. Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1994; 62:252–260.

Peplau

, Frederick

, Yee

, et al. Body image satisfaction in heterosexual, gay, and lesbian adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2009; 38:713–725.

10.

Tiggemann

, Martins

, Kirkbride

. Oh to be lean and muscular: body image ideals in gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2007; 8:15–24.

11.

Yelland

, Tiggemann

. Muscularity and the gay ideal: body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in homosexual men. Eating Behaviors, 2003; 4:107–116.

12.

Campbell

. (2004) Getting it on online: cyberspace, gay male sexuality, and embodied identity. New York: Harrington Park Press.

13.

Miller

. “Dude, where's your face?” Self-presentation, self-description, and partner preferences on a social networking application for men who have sex with men: a content analysis. Sexuality & Culture, 2015; 19:637–658.

14.

Lemke

, Weber

. That man behind the curtain: investigating the sexual online dating behavior of men who have sex with men but hide their same-sex sexual attraction in offline surroundings. Journal of Homosexuality, 2017; 64:1561–1582.

15.

Ross

. Typing, doing, and being: sexuality and the Internet. The Journal of Sex Research, 2005; 42:342–352.

16.

Benotsch

, Kalichman

, Cage

. Men who have met sex partners via the Internet: prevalence, predictors, and implications for HIV prevention. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 2002; 31:177–183.

17.

Elford

, Bolding

, Davis

, et al. Web-based behavioral surveillance among men who have sex with men: a comparison of online and offline samples in London, UK. Journal of Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, 2004; 35:421–426.

18.

Marcus

, Schmidt

, Hamouda

, et al. Estimating the regional distribution of men who have sex with men (MSM) based on internet surveys. BMC Public Health, 2009; 9:180–191.

19.

Rosser

, Wilkerson

, Smolenski

, et al. The future of Internet-based HIV prevention: a report on key findings from the men's Internet (MINTS-I, II) sex studies. AIDS and Behavior, 2011; 15(Suppl. 1):91–100.

20.

Liau

, Millett

, Marks

. Meta-analytic examination of online sex-seeking and sexual risk behavior among men who have sex with men. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 2006; 33:576–584.

21.

Tate

, George

. The effect of weight loss on body image in HIV-positive gay men. AIDS Care, 2001; 13:163–169.

22.

Siibak

. Constructing the self through the photo selection—visual impression management on social networking websites. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2009; 3:article 1.

23.

van Oosten

JMF

, Peter

, Boot

. Exploring associations between exposure to sexy online self-presentations and adolescents' sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 2015; 44:1078–1091.

24.

Shafer

, Bobkowski

, Brown

. (2013) Sexual media practice: how adolescents select, engange with, and are affected by sexual media. In Dill

, ed. The Oxford Handbook of Media Psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 223–251.

25.

Petrou

, Lemke

. Victimisation and life satisfaction of gay and bisexual individuals in 44 European countries: the moderating role of country-level and person-level attitudes towards homosexuality. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 2017 [Epub ahead of print]. DOI: 10.1080/13691058.2017.1368710.

26.

Dannecker

. (1981) Theories of homosexuality. London: Gay Men's Press.

27.

Lanzieri

, Hildebrandt

. Using hegemonic masculinity to explain gay male attraction to muscular and athletic men. Journal of Homosexuality, 2011; 58:275–293.

28.

Wood

. The gay male gaze: body image disturbance and gender oppression among gay men. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 2004; 17:43–62.

29.

Baumgartner

, Sumter

, Peter

, et al. Sexual self-presentation on social network sites: who does it and how is it perceived?. Computers in Human Behavior, 2015; 50:91–100.

30.

Kapidzic

, Herring

. Gender, communication, and self-presentation in teen chatrooms revisited: have patterns changed?. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2011; 17:39–59.

31.

Chong

ESK

, Zhang

, Mak

WWS

, et al. Social media as social capital of LGB individuals in Hong Kong: its relations with group membership, stigma, and mental well-being. American Journal of Community Psychology, 2015; 55:228–238.

32.

Gudelunas

. There's an app for that: the uses and gratifications of online social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture, 2012; 16:347–365.

33.

Ellison

, Heino

, Gibbs

. Managing impressions online: self-presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2006; 11:415–441.

34.

Sung

, Lee

, Kim

, et al. Why we post selfies: understanding motivations for posting pictures of oneself. Personality and Individual Differences, 2016; 97:260–265.

35.

Ranzini

, Lutz

, Gouderjaan

. (2016) Swipe right: an exploration of self-presentation and impression management on Tinder. Annual Conference of the International Communication Association (ICA).

36.

Tiidenberg

. Bringing sexy back: Reclaiming the body aesthetic via self-shooting. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 2014; 8:article 3.

37.

Eichenberg

, Döring

. Sexual self-presentation in the Internet [Sexuelle Selbstdarstellung im Internet]. Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung, 2006; 19:133–153.

38.

Rui

, Stefanone

. Strategic self-presentation online: a cross-cultural study. Computers in Human Behavior, 2013; 29:110–118.

39.

Leary

. (1995) Self-presentation: impression management and interpersonal behavior. Madison, WI: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.

40.

Lewis-Beck

, Lewis-Beck

. (2016) Applied regression: an introduction. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi, Singapore: SAGE Publications.

41.

Brown

, Maycock

, Burns

. Your picture is your bait: use and meaning of cybersex among gay men. Journal of Sex Research, 2005; 42:63–73.

42.

Campbell

. Is narcissism really so bad?. Psychological Inquiry, 2001; 12:214–216.

43.

van Oosten

JMF

. (2015) Putting things in perspective. Young people's susceptibility to the effects of sexual media content (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.

44.

Gonzales

, Hancock

. Identity shift in computer-mediated environments. Media Psychology, 2008; 11:167–185.