Predictors of sexual minority men’s sexual objectification of other men

Abstract

Given the link between sexual objectification experiences and negative psychological and mental health outcomes for sexual minority men, it is important to explore which men are more likely to enact sexually objectifying behavior. We examined predictors of sexual minority men’s sexual objectification of other men (e.g., engaging in body evaluations, making unwanted sexual advances), including focusing on appearance, involvement in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community, pornography use, and men’s gender role conflict among 450 gay and bisexual men. Our findings revealed that importance placed on appearance, involvement in the LGBTQ community, and pornography use and less restrictive affectionate behavior between men were uniquely related to sexually objectifying other men. In addition, older men were more likely than younger men to sexually objectify other men, and gay men were more likely than bisexual men to sexually objectify other men.

Keywords

Gay/bisexual gender roles LGBTQ masculinity objectification pornography

Objectification theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997) posits that being treated, evaluated, and used solely in a sexualized manner is a risk factor for negative psychological and mental health outcomes. Supporting this theory, research has consistently linked experiences of being sexually objectified via body evaluation (e.g., leering, having sexual comments made about one’s body parts) and unwanted sexual advances (e.g., sexual harassment, unsolicited touching of one’s body parts) to poorer body image and mental health outcomes (for reviews, see Moradi & Huang, 2008; Szymanski, Moffitt, & Carr, 2011). Although most of this research has focused on women as the sexual objects being acted upon, a burgeoning body of research reveals experiences of being sexually objectified are also problematic for sexual minority men. For example, experiences of being sexually objectified are related to dissatisfaction with one’s body (Davids, Watson, Nilsson, & Marszalek, 2015), alcohol use (Souleymanov, Brennan, George, Utama, & Ceranto, 2018), internalization of cultural standards of beauty, habitual body monitoring, body shame, disordered eating (Wiseman & Moradi, 2010), and engaging in risky sexual behaviors (Watson & Despenza, 2014) among sexual minority men.

Given the link between sexual objectification experiences and negative psychological and mental health outcomes for sexual minority men, it is important to explore which men are more likely to enact sexually objectifying behavior so that we can target interventions toward these men with the goal of reducing sexual objectification perpetration (Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017). This seems particularly important in light of findings showing a positive link between enactment of sexual objectification and sexual aggression among presumably heterosexual men (Gervais, DiLillo, & McChargue, 2014; Millburn, Mather, & Conrad, 2000; Rudman & Mescher, 2012), and evidence suggesting that interventions, such as Mentors in Violence Prevention, are effective in changing attitudes about violence against women and increasing the likelihood of prosocial bystander behaviors in situations where sexual violence is likely to occur (Katz, Heisterkamp, & Fleming, 2011). However, research on sexual objectification perpetration is scant. We know very little about who, why, and under what circumstances individuals are likely to engage in sexual objectification of others, especially among sexual minority men. These gaps in the existing literature are important to address so that we can contribute to objectification theory and develop an understanding of not only victims but also perpetrators of sexual objectification. Thus, we examined predictors of sexual minority men’s sexual objectification of other men, including focusing on appearance, involvement in the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) community, pornography use, and men’s gender role conflict.

Appearance-focused

The sexual minority male subculture places great emphasis on physical appearance and body image (Morrison, Morrison, & Sager, 2004; Siever, 1994; Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel-Moore, Timko, & Rodin, 1989). Gay men view appearance as more central to their sense of self than heterosexual men (Silberstein et al., 1989) and are more likely to view their own body and other men’s bodies through an appearance rather than competence-based lens (Kozak, Frankenhauser, & Roberts, 2009). Gay men are also more likely than heterosexual men to place greater importance on physical attributes in dating profiles compared with heterosexual men (Morgan, Richards, & VanNess, 2010). Tiggemann, Martins, and Kirkbride (2007) found that although both heterosexual and gay men felt pressure to obtain a thin, muscular ideal body, gay men were more likely to experience body image dissatisfaction as a result of not obtaining this ideal. Compared to heterosexual men, gay men have been found to diet more, be more fearful of becoming fat, be more dissatisfied with their bodies, and are more likely to hold cognitive distortions about the importance of having an ideal physique (Kaminski, Chapman, Haynes, & Own, 2005). Similarly, Martins, Tiggemann, and Kirkbride (2007) found that gay men had higher levels of appearance-focus and habitual body monitoring than heterosexual men. They also found that experimentally heightening a focus on one’s appearance and body by wearing a swimsuit (versus a sweater) resulted in gay (but not heterosexual) men feeling more body shame.

The importance placed on one’s appearance for sexual minority men may also be found on gay dating apps (Anderson, Holland, Koc, & Haslam, 2018). For example, on dating apps, some sexual minority men will post a primary picture of their body without their face (e.g., headless, shirtless torso pictures; Anderson et al., 2018). Chan (2016) found that 27% of men had a primary profile picture of their torso or another body part besides their face in his subsample of 204 profiles on a gay dating app in the U.S. This emphasis on one’s own physical appearance and the physical appearance of others may make some sexual minority men more likely to see other men as sexual objects and thereby engage in behavior that treats them as such. Supporting this notion, Bernard, Gervais, Holland, and Dodd (2018) found that both male and female participants in an appearance-focused condition spent more time looking at men’s arms, chests, and stomachs and less time looking at men’s faces than those in a personality-focused condition.

Involvement in the LGBTQ community

While connection to the LGBTQ community offers many psychological and social benefits to sexual minority men (e.g., sources of acceptance, support, strength, belonging, and empowerment; Riggle, Whitman, Olson, Rostosky, & Strong, 2008; Rostosky, Riggle, Pascale-Hague, & McCants, 2010), it may also serve as a risk factor for experiencing and perpetrating sexual objectification. Connection to the LGBTQ community has been defined in many ways (e.g., psychological and/or behavioral); for the purposes of this study, we define involvement in the LGBTQ community as one’s behavioral participation in this community, such as spending time with LGBTQ others, engaging with LGBTQ media, and attending LGBTQ spaces (e.g., gay bars) and events (e.g., pride festivals; Davids et al., 2015). Although no studies have examined sexual objectification enactment within the LGBTQ community, studies on sexual objectification victimization suggest that it is a common occurrence in the LGBTQ community. Engeln-Maddox, Miller, and Doyle (2011) found that gay men scored higher on experiences of being sexually objectified than heterosexual men, and their rates were comparable to both lesbian and heterosexual women. In addition, Davids, Watson, Nilsson, and Marszalek (2015) found that participation in activities and spaces specific to the gay community was related to more experiences of being sexually objectified by others. Extending this line of research, it may be that sexual minority men who are more involved in the LGBTQ community may be more likely to sexually objectify other men.

One way that involvement in the LGBTQ community may lead to sexual objectification of other men is due to the way that the male body has been used in advertising to reach gay and bisexual male customers to promote gay businesses or materials (Leimkuhler, 2018; Rohlinger, 2002). Eroticized men’s bodies are often used to sell gay materials (e.g., magazines, movies) or promote gay events or spaces (e.g., gay bars). For example, one analysis of gay magazines found high percentages of advertisements and content with models that were young, shirtless, White, had low body fat, and had high muscularity (Saucier & Caron, 2008). This commercialization and commodification of the male body often results in the eroticizing and sexualizing of gay men (Rohlinger, 2002). Thus, the more that sexual minority men are involved in these spaces and connected to these communities, the more they may be exposed to this commodification of men’s bodies, and it seems plausible that they would objectify others in the same way. Similarly, although involvement in the LGBTQ community may involve a variety of different community events, it often involves gay bars. While these places may be a refuge from stigmatization and provide a chance to find romantic/sexual partners, these spaces may also promote sexual objectification (Brown, Bettani, Knopp, & Childs, 2014; Davids et al., 2015). One central aspect of gay bars is alcohol consumption, which may also increase sexual objectification. Using the alcohol myopia model, people’s cognitive attention field narrows as people drink alcohol, and this often involves narrowing in on other’s sexual attributes rather than on internal attributes (Gervais et al., 2014; Steele & Josephs, 1990). In a study of 502 male undergraduates, researchers found that men’s alcohol consumption predicted body evaluations (e.g., objectifying gazes), sexual advances, and sexual violence of women (Gervais et al., 2014).

Similarly, involvement in the LGBTQ community may also reinforce the focus on sexualizing other’s bodies due to the categorization of gay subculture. For example, sexual minority men may classify themselves and others into categories or “tribes” (e.g., bear, twink, otter), often based on body type, age, and amount of hair. For example, in the U.S., the most well-known of these subtypes are twinks (typically younger, smaller-framed, and smoother men) and bears (older, larger-framed, and hairy men; Doyle & Engeln, 2014). These categories are socially constructed within these gay communities, and involvement in these communities may teach men to classify and objectify other men’s bodies.

Frequency of pornography use

Pornography use is common among men (Downing, Schrimshaw, Scheinmann, Antebi-Gruszka, & Hirshfield, 2016; Peter & Valkenburg, 2011; Regnerus, Gordon, & Price, 2016). In addition, gay and bisexual men report more pornography use than heterosexual men (Downing et al., 2016; Peter & Valkenburg, 2011). While pornography use may have some benefits for sexual minority men’s sexual education, positive attitudes toward sex, and sexual identity development (Hald, Smolenski, & Rosser, 2013), it may also have drawbacks. For example, Rosser and his colleagues (2013) found that sexual minority men who viewed more pornography depicting bareback sex were more likely to engage in sexually risky behaviors. Using a meta-analytic approach, Wright, Tokunagaz, Kraus, and Klann (2017) found that pornography use was negatively related to relational and sexual health among men.

Viewing pornography may condition some sexual minority men to see other men’s worth in terms of their sexual functioning and as potential sexual partners through which greater hedonistic sexual pleasure can be obtained (Grubbs, Braden, Kraus, Wilt, & Wright, 2017). Watching pornography may also shape how sexual minority men see themselves in a way that facilitates objectification. Meta-analyses of experimental studies have found that exposure to pornography increases rape myth acceptance (Allen, Emmers, Gebhardt, & Giery, 1995) and nonsexual aggression (Allen, D’Alessio, & Brezgel, 1995) among men. Similarly, meta-analyses of naturalistic, cross-sectional, and longitudinal survey studies have found that higher levels of pornography use are related to more attitudes supportive of aggression (Hald, Malamuth, & Yuen, 2010) and to actual perpetration of both verbal and physical acts of sexual aggression (Wright, Tokunaga, & Kraus, 2016) among men. Among heterosexual men, greater pornography use was positively related to more sexual objectification of women (Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017). Research also suggests that sexual objectification may mediate the link between pornography and men’s sexual violence (Wright & Tokunaga, 2016). Thus, it seems likely that more pornography use will be associated with sexual minority men’s sexual objectification of other men.

Masculine gender role conflict

Scholars who ascribe to a gender role socialization perspective describe the way men are taught from an early age to adopt and conform to behaviors consistent with masculinity (Mahalik et al., 2003). Gender role conflict occurs for some men through a combination of traditional, restrictive gender role socialization processes and learned sexism and fear of femininity (O’Neil, 2008). According to O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, and Wrightsman (1986), gender role conflict manifests along four dimensions: restrictive emotionality; obsession with success, achievement, and control over others; restrictive affectionate and sexual behavior; and conflict between family and work. O’Neil (2008) postulated that men’s gender role conflict leads to both negative intrapersonal and interpersonal outcomes such as depression, anxiety, and relationship dissatisfaction (O’Neil, 2008).

Men experience gender role conflicts when they fail to meet or deviate from the traditional norms of masculinity, experience discrepancies between their real and ideal masculine self-concepts, and/or experience or perpetrate restrictions, devaluations, or violations because of gender role norms (Englar-Carlson, 2006). In his review of the research on gender role conflict, O’Neil (2008) found that gender role conflict has been positively linked to the acceptance of rape myths (i.e., beliefs that victims of sexual assault are responsible for or somehow brought on their victimization experiences), more tolerance of sexual harassment, greater sexual entitlement, and more self-reported sexually aggressive behaviors toward women among presumably heterosexual men. In addition, he found that three of the four gender role conflict patterns seem to be important in these links: restrictive emotionality; success, power and competition; and restrictive affectionate behavior between men. However, research on gender role conflict in an interpersonal context has focused on how it affects women. Thus, this study adds to the existing literature by examining how it might affect other men.

Extending the research on the negative effects that heterosexual men’s gender role conflict may have on women (who are the so-called objects of their sexual desires), it seems logical that sexual minority men with rigid and restrictive notions of masculinity may have a tendency to view other men as sexual objects that are to be stared at, evaluated, touched, and used for one’s self-gratification (rather than developing deeper connections or emotionally intimate relationships with these men). Narratives of sexual minority men confirm that restrictive notions of masculinity concerning avoidance of emotional attachment to others and sexualization of self and others are ever present (Wilson et al., 2010). As in, men who conform to these rigid gender roles may tend to view others through a more objectifying rather than an intimate relational lens (Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017).

Lastly, the valuation of success, power, and competition has been found to have associations with negative interpersonal outcomes such as relationship dissatisfaction and the adoption of a rigid interpersonal style within relationships (O’Neil, 2008). In addition, success, power, and competition has been shown to be related to less intimacy in relationships (O’Neil, 2008). Therefore, it stands to reason that sexual minority men who have greater gender role conflict in this area in particular may again be viewing their relationships more in terms of rigid power structures and competition rather than engaging in the type of relational intimacy required to develop deeper romantic connections with others. This type of interpersonal style could lend itself more to sexual objectification of other men. Based on the previous research on gender role conflict and sexual harassment and interpersonal functioning, we hypothesize that gender role conflicts related to restrictive emotionality; success, power, and competition; and restrictive affectionate behavior between men will be positively correlated with sexual minority men’s enactment of sexually objectifying behavior.

Current study

We examined predictors of sexual minority men’s sexual objectification of other men. We hypothesized that, when examined concurrently, focusing on appearance, involvement in the LGBTQ community, pornography use, and three patterns of men’s gender role conflict (restricted emotionality; success, power, and competition; and restrictive affectionate behavior between men) would each have significant, positive, and unique links to engaging in behaviors that sexually objectify other men.

Method

Participants

We recruited participants through Facebook advertisements. The ads invited our target population to partake in an online study investigating attitudes and experiences of gay and bisexual men. This ad was displayed to Facebook users who specified that they were 18 years or older, self-identified as men, lived in the U.S., and include people who match at least one of the following Facebook interests: homosexuality, gay pride, LGBT culture, or LGBT community. The ad also targeted individuals who liked LGBT-related pages or were part of LGBT-related groups. According to the data from the Facebook ad, the ad reached 19,561 people and resulted in 1,230 clicks that directed participants to the informed consent page of the survey.

The initial sample consisted of 694 participants who after seeing the informed consent started the online survey. We eliminated 187 participants who did not finish the survey, 95 of these left the entire survey blank and 92 left at least one measure blank. In addition, we eliminated 54 participants who did not meet our inclusion criteria (being an adult sexual minority male residing in the U.S.; 3 were younger than 18 years, 17 did not report their age, 26 were assigned female at birth, 5 were either heterosexual or asexual, and 3 resided outside of the U.S.) and three participants who were missing more than 20% of items for a particular measure. All the remaining participants passed both the validity (e.g., Please select “never” so that we know you are paying attention) and seriousness (i.e., “It would be very helpful if you could tell us at this point whether you have taken part seriously, so that we can use your answers for our scientific analysis, or whether you were just clicking through to take a look at the survey?”; Aust, Diedenhofen, Ullrich, & Musch, 2013, p. 530) checks. The final sample consisted of 450 participants.

Of these 450 participants, 80% were identified as being gay and 20% bisexual. Ages of participants ranged from 18 years to 75 years with a mean age of 31.06 (SD = 14.67). Most participants identified as White/Caucasian (84%), with the rest identified as African American/Black (3%), Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander (2%), Hispanic/Latino (6%), and biracial/multiracial (5%). In terms of socioeconomic status, the highest percentage of participants identified as lower middle class (39%), followed by upper middle class (34%), working class (20%), poor (6%), and wealthy (1%).

Forty-nine percent (n = 220) reported currently being a student at a college or a university, with 10% being first-year undergraduate students, 21% sophomores, 19% juniors, 20% seniors, 22% graduate students, and 8% “other.” Of the 51% who were not currently students (n = 230), the highest level of educational attainment was 25% high school diploma, 10% two-year college degree, 33% four-year college degree, and 32% graduate/professional degree. Participants reported residing in the U.S.’ Northeast (24%), Midwest (31%), South (24%), and West (21%).

Measures

Appearance-focused

We used the 11-item appearance-based subscale of the Male Assessment of Self-Objectification Scale (Daniel, Bridges, & Martens, 2014) to assess the importance of appearance. To ensure the integrity of the scale, the full scale was administered but only the appearance-based subscale was used in the analyses. Sample items include “Physical attractiveness” and “Stomach appearance.” Participants were asked to rate each attribute on how important it is to how they view their own body using a 7-point Likert-type scale, ranging from 0 (Not at all important) to 6 (Very important). Higher mean scores indicate a greater importance of appearance. The developers of this scale found support for internal consistency (α = .90), 2-week test–retest reliability (r = .79), and structural (via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses), concurrent (via positive correlations with body shame, habitual body monitoring, and drive for muscularity), and discriminate (via nonsignificant relations with body esteem and body mass index) validity (Daniel et al., 2014).

Involvement in the LGBTQ community

We used the 9-item Gay Community Participation Scale (Davids et al., 2015) to assess involvement in the LGBTQ community. Sample items include “I go out to a gay bar or club” and “I participate in organizations and groups meant specifically for the LGBT community.” Participants rated each item using a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Always). Higher mean scores indicate greater levels of LGBTQ community involvement. The developers of this scale found support for internal consistency (α = .83) as well as structural (via exploratory factor analyses) and construct (via positive correlations with a psychological sense of community) validity.

Pornography use

We used the 7-item frequency subscale of Szymanski and Stewart-Richardson’s (2014) Pornography Use Scale to assess the frequency of pornography use. We modified 1 item (“How frequently do you view sexually explicit materials/pornography via adult magazines [e.g., Playboy, Hustler]?”) by providing examples of adult magazines targeting sexual minority men (e.g., JustUsBoys, PinUps). Another example item is “Taken together, how many hours per week do you view sexually explicit/pornographic materials (such as magazines, movies, and/or Internet sites)?” Response options vary (e.g., none, once a month or less, 2 or 3 days a month, 1 or 2 days a week, 3–5 days a week, every day, or almost every day). Higher mean scores indicate greater pornography use. Szymanski and Stewart-Richardson (2014) found support for internal consistency (α = .88) as well as structural (via exploratory factor analyses) and construct validity (via positive correlations with online sexual compulsivity and problematic pornography use).

Gender role conflict

We assessed restrictive emotionality; success, power, and competition; and restrictive affectionate behavior between men using the respective 4-item subscales of the Gender Role Conflict Scale (GRCS)–Short Form (O’Neil, Helms, Gable, David, & Wrightsman, 1986; Wester, Vogel, O’Neil, & Danforth, 2012). To ensure the integrity of the scale, the full scale was administered, but only the relevant subscales were used in the analyses. Sample items include “I have difficulty expressing my tender feelings,” “I strive to be more successful than others,” and “Affection with other men makes me tense.” Participants rated each item using a 6-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 6 (Strongly agree). Higher mean scores indicate more restrictive emotionality; success, power, and competition; and restrictive affectionate behavior between men. Wester, Vogel, O’Neil, and Danforth (2012) found support for internal consistency (αs ranged from .77 to .80), structural validity (via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses), and internal validity (via positive correlations with the GRCS–Full Version). A previous study assessing construct validity found that the GRCS was positively related to other scales measuring attitudes about masculinity and fear of intimacy (O’Neil et al., 1986).

Sexual objectification of other men

We used a slightly modified version of the 15-item Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale–Perpetrator Version (Gervais, Davidson, Styck, Canivez, & DiLillo, 2018; Kozee, Tylka, Augustus-Horvath, & Denchik, 2007) to assess sexual objectification of other men. We modified the items to focus on sexual objectification perpetration specifically toward other men rather than using the generic target of “someone” (e.g., “How often have you made a rude, sexual remark about someone’s body?”; Gervais et al., 2018, p. 549). Participants were asked to answer each item by reporting how often they engaged in the stated behavior within the past year. Sample items (with modifications in italics) include “How often have you leered at a man’s body?” and “How often have you touched or fondled a man against his will?” Participants rated each item using a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Never) to 5 (Almost always). Higher mean scores indicate more sexual objectification of other men. Gervais, Davidson, Styck, Canivez, and DiLillo (2018) found support for internal consistency (α = .90 for men), structural validity (via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses), and construct validity (via positive correlations with sexist attitudes, enjoyment of sexualization, perpetration of sexual violence, body surveillance, and valuing others for their appearance more than their competence).

Procedure

After participants clicked on the hypertext link provided in the Facebook ad, they were directed to an online informed consent and survey. Sexual objectification of other men was assessed first in the survey to decrease the likelihood that respondents’ reports of their levels of appearance focus, involvement in the LGBTQ community, pornography use, and gender role conflict could influence their responses to the outcome measure. All of the other measures were randomly ordered in the survey followed by demographic questions. As an incentive to participate, all participants were given the chance to enter a raffle drawing, awarding a $50 online merchant gift card to each of two randomly chosen individuals. We used a separate raffle database, so participants’ contact information was not linked to their survey responses.

Results

Preliminary analyses and descriptive data

Missing data were minimal for the 450 participants included in the study (i.e., 94% of participants had no missing data, 61% of the items were not missing data for any case, and no item had 1% or more of missing values); thus, we used available case analysis procedures at the scale level to address missing data points. This is a type of conditional mean imputation where missing values are imputed from each person’s observed scores on the measure where missing points occur (Parent, 2013).

Cronbach’s αs, descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations among all variables assessed in this study are shown in Table 1. Means for the sexual objectification perpetration items ranged from 1.0 to 4.10. Means were higher for items tapping male gaze and body comments when compared to items tapping unwanted sexual advances. Our mean for the full scale score (M = 2.17) is consistent with that reported by Gervais et al. (2018) using three separate male samples (M values = 2.16, 2.03, and 1.63).

Table 1.
Cronbach’s α, means, standard deviations, and correlations for study variables.

Variables α M SD Possible range 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Age – 31.06 14.67 – – −.17* −.21* .12* .01 −.17* −.27* −.25* .17*

2. Sexual orientation – – – – – −.04 −.11* −.01 .03 .06 .06 −.15*

3. Appearance-focused .84 3.52 1.05 0–6 – −.11* .05 .16* .35* .11* .15*

4. LGBTQ community involvement .81 2.03 .61 1–5 – .10* −.13* −.11* −.25* .21*

5. Pornography use .77 2.38 .86 0–4.86 – −.05 .02 −.09 .28*

6. Restrictive emotionality .84 3.20 1.24 1–6 – .23* .49* −.11*

7. Success, power, and competition .76 3.39 1.10 1–6 – .22* −.00

8. Restrictive affectionate behavior between men .73 1.98 .85 1–6 – −.21*

9. Sexual objectification of other men .85 2.17 .43 1–5

Note. Sexual orientation coded 1 = gay man, 2 = bisexual man.

p < .05.

Absolute values for skewness (range = .13–1.49) and kurtosis (range = .09–1.38) were within the normal range (i.e., skewness < 3, kurtosis < 10; Weston & Gore, 2006). Two multivariate outliers were found (Mahalanobis distance p < .001). However, these participants did not show an unusual display of responding (e.g., responding “1” for all items). Therefore, there was no justifiable reason to remove these outliers. Furthermore, these cases each had a Cook’s distance less than 1, indicating that they did not have a significant bearing on the overall model (Field, 2013).

Regression analysis

Because the demographic variables of age and sexual orientation (coded 1 = gay; 2 = bisexual) were significantly correlated with our outcome measure, we included them as covariates in our regression model at Step 1. Race (coded 1 = White; 2 = racial/ethnic minority) was not significantly related to sexual objectification perpetration (r = .06, p = .18) and thus was not included in the regression model. Main effects were entered at Step 2. Variance inflation factors for the regression analysis were well below 10, indicating that multicollinearity was not a problem (Field, 2013).

The results of the regression analysis predicting men’s sexual objectification of other men were significant, R ² = .19, F (6, 441) = 13.59, p < .001 (see Table 2). Consistent with our hypothesis, focusing more on one’s appearance, being more involved in the LGBTQ community, and consuming pornography more frequently were uniquely related to more sexual objectification of other men. Contrary to our hypothesis, sexual minority men who endorsed the gender role conflict of restrictive affectionate behavior between men were significantly less likely to sexually objectify other men. In addition, restrictive emotionality and success, power, and control were not significant predictors of sexually objectifying other men. Although not a part of our a priori predictions, we also found that being older (versus younger) and identifying as gay (versus bisexual) were significant predictors of sexual objectification of other men.

Table 2.
Summary of regression model predicting men’s sexual objectification of other men.

Predictor variable B β t R ² ΔR ² F df

Age .00 .14 3.08 .044 .044 10.20* 2, 447

Sex orientation −.10 −.09 −2.08*

Appearance-focused .08 .19 4.10* .193 .149 13.17* 6, 441

Involvement in the LGBTQ community .10 .14 3.18*

Pornography use .12 .24 5.63*

Restricted emotionality −.01 −.03 −.62

Success, power, and competition .01 .02 .32

Restrictive affectionate behavior between men −.06 −.12 −2.33*

Note. Sexual orientation coded 1 = gay, 2 = bisexual; β and t reflect values from the final regression equation.

*p < .05.

Discussion

Previous research on Fredrickson and Roberts’ (1997) objectification theory has been limited by focusing primarily on women as being objectified and heterosexual men as perpetrators. Only a handful of studies have focused on sexual minority men (e.g., Davids et al., 2015; Watson & Dispenza, 2014; Wiseman & Moradi, 2010), and these have examined experiences of being sexually objectified and related psychological sequelae. Our study extends this body of research by examining predictors of sexual minority men’s engagement in sexually objectifying behavior toward other men via making unwanted body evaluations and sexual advances. We found that placing more importance on one’s appearance, being involved in the LGBTQ community, using pornography more, and having less restrictive affectionate behavior between men were uniquely related to sexually objectifying other men via body evaluation and unwanted sexual advances. Additionally, we also found that being gay (versus bisexual) and being older (versus younger) were predictive of sexually objectifying behaviors.

Our finding that focusing on one’s own physical appearance was linked to more sexual objectification of other men is consistent with past research demonstrating that individuals who view their bodies from an appearance-based versus competence-based lens are also more likely to view other people in this way (Strelan & Hargreaves, 2005; Zurbriggen, Ramsey, & Jaworski, 2011). The processes underlying this link between placing importance on one’s own appearance and enacting objectifying behaviors toward others among sexual minority men requires more research. Perhaps when sexual minority men view themselves and other men as bodily objects, they may be more likely to enact sexually objectifying behaviors such as visually inspecting other men’s bodies and making unsolicited sexually evaluative commentary.

We also found that involvement in this community was related to more engagement in behaviors that sexually objectify other men. This finding is consistent with Davids et al.’s (2015) finding that involvement in the LGBTQ community was also a risk factor for being sexually objectified by others. Given that involvement in the LGBTQ community is a correlate of both sexual objectification victimization and enactment, practitioners might target interventions aimed at reducing sexual objectification to those most heavily involved in the LGBTQ community. Furthermore, given that recent research has examined the reciprocal and dyadic nature of objectification in heterosexual relationships (Strelan & Pagoudis, 2018), it may be important to examine how people’s environments (e.g., relationships with romantic partners, involvement in the LGBTQ culture) may jointly create, communicate, and perpetuate a culture of objectification.

Given that objectifying images, dominance, power, and acts of verbal and physical aggression are mainstays in pornography (McKee, 2005; Sun, Bridges, Wosnitzer, Scharrer, & Liberman, 2008), it makes sense that sexual minority men who have higher rates of pornography use are more likely to act out what they see on the screen in real life. Our finding linking more pornography use with more sexual objectification of other men is consistent with numerous studies linking men’s pornography exposure to sexually aggressive attitudes and behaviors toward women (Allen, Emmers, et al., 1995; Allen, D’Alessio, et al., 1995; Hald et al., 2010; Wright et al., 2016). It is also consistent with Mikorski and Szymanski’s (2017) finding linking heterosexual men’s greater pornography use to making more unwanted body evaluations and sexual advances toward women. Our findings fit within a larger body of research on pornography demonstrating that pornography use has negative effects on relational and sexual health, especially when used once a month or more (Wright, Steffen, & Sun, 2019; Wright, Tokunagaz, Kraus, & Klann, 2017).

Contrary to our hypotheses, gender role conflicts related to restricted emotionality and success, power, and competition were not related to sexually objectifying other men. In addition, restrictive affectionate behavior between men was linked to less (not more) sexual objectification of other men. Our findings are in contrast to those linking these gender role conflicts to attitudes supportive of sexual entitlement and aggression and to sexually aggressive behaviors toward women among heterosexual men (O’Neil, 2008). It may be that other models of masculine gender role constructs, such as masculine norms (e.g., dominance, violence, importance of sex, avoidance of femininity, playboy) approaches (Gerdes, Alto, Jadaszewski, D’Auria, & Levant, 2017; Mahalik et al., 2003; Parent & Moradi, 2009), better explain why some sexual minority men engage in sexually objectifying behavior toward other men. For example, both conformity to traditional masculine norms and hostile and hegemonic masculinity have been linked to heterosexual men’s sexual aggressive attitudes and behaviors toward women (Hermann, Liang, & DeSipio, 2018; McDermott, Kilmartin, McKelvey, & Kridel, 2015; Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017) and may also predict sexual minority men’s sexual objectification of other men. It may also be that the GRCS is tapping somewhat different constructs in sexual minority men compared to heterosexual men. For example, restrictive affectionate behavior between men may be serving as a proxy for internalized heterosexism (also known as internalized homophobia) among sexual minority men. Szymanski and Ikizler (2013) found a moderate correlation (r = .47) between restrictive affectionate behavior between men and a measure of internalized heterosexism in gay and bisexual men. Using this lens, it makes sense that sexual minority men who experience discomfort with expressions of caring between men would avoid engaging in sexualized behaviors toward other men.

While not a part of our a priori hypotheses, our study suggests that the demographic variables of age and sexual orientation play a role in sexually objectifying other men. We found that older sexual minority men reported more sexual objectification of other men. Past literature has not examined the role of age in perpetrating sexual objectification and requires further study. One potential explanation may be cohort effects, as older men’s sociohistorical contexts have helped shape their views on sex, sexuality, and bodies, as well as what is deemed “acceptable” sexual behaviors. Another finding from our study was that gay men were more likely to sexually objectify other men compared to bisexual men. To our knowledge, there has not been research examining the role of sexual orientation in sexually objectifying other men. One possible explanation for this is that bisexual men may have more flexible rules around gender and sexuality, so they don’t quite fit into the norms enforced by the gay or heterosexual communities and therefore do not feel bound to these rules.

Limitations and directions for future research

Our study is limited by the use of a convenience sample of gay and bisexual men who had access to the Internet and Facebook. Our ads targeted individuals who liked LGBTQ pages, making our sample skewed toward gay and bisexual men who are more comfortable with their sexuality. Because our data were cross-sectional, we cannot draw conclusions about causal links between variables. Studies using longitudinal and experimental methods to tease out causal links between significant predictors and the outcome in our study are needed. Our study is also limited by potential problems with memory recall and socially desirable responding that are associated with using self-report data.

We focused narrowly on gender role conflict in our study. Instead of assessing gender role conflict, future research should include other ways to operationalize problematic masculinity to see if they add to our understanding of sexual minority men’s enactment of unwanted body evaluation and sexual advances toward other men. Future research is also needed to tap into the unique enactments of masculinity in sexual minority men’s lives that are not captured in existing measures of masculinity that were often created using a heterosexual male reference group.

Future research should examine how experiencing sexual objectification may be a predictor to perpetuating sexual objectification. When sexual minority men’s bodies are being evaluated and treated as sexual objects, this becomes normalized in gay communities and may lead to the sexual objectification of the self and, consequently, the sexual objectification of other men’s bodies. Preliminary research shows that these experiences of sexual objectification by others are linked to body surveillance (Wiseman & Moradi, 2010), and it could be that this also leads to objectification of other men. Hence, there could be a cycle of objectification in this community where experiencing objectification from others may lead to objectifying oneself and others and so on. The experience of being sexually objectified may also leave some men feeling like they have less power, and they may turn to sexually objectifying others as a means to regain power from their experiences of being sexual objectified.

Future research may also examine the relationship between one’s own body dissatisfaction and one’s likelihood to sexually objectify others. Some research suggests that body shame and surveillance are the results of experiences of sexual objectification (Wiseman & Moradi, 2010), and it may be that they also predict sexual objectification of others, once again highlighting a potential cyclical nature of objectification in the sexual minority men’s community. For example, it may be that individuals are more likely to sexually objectify others when they are dissatisfied with their own bodies, as they can externalize their negative emotions of themselves by focusing on other men’s bodies.

Social media usage (e.g., Instagram, Facebook) and the usage of gay-dating apps (e.g., Grindr) may also be other predictors of men perpetrating sexual objectification, as these apps are particularly set up so that pictures of the body are central, and the body is viewed as a commodity for oneself and for others (i.e., using images of bodies to engage with others through likes, comments, swipes, or personal messages; Chan, 2016; Feltman & Szymanski, 2017; Mikorski & Szymanski, 2017). Similarly, future research should include more specific measures that may tease apart which particular aspects of involvement in the LGBTQ community may be linked to objectifying other men (e.g., measures that directly ask about exposure to images featuring eroticized or objectified bodies in advertisements, media, and at events and spaces directed at the LGBTQ community).

Conclusion and implications

The current study adds to the literature on objectification theory by examining predictors of sexual minority men’s sexual objectification of other men. Objectification theory has often focused on heterosexual men as perpetrators and heterosexual women as recipients of sexual objectification, and our study attempts to look at the factors that may contribute to sexual minority men enacting sexual objectification of other men. While there is a growing body of research linking experiences of being objectified and negative health outcomes among sexual minority men (Davids et al., 2015; Souleymanov et al., 2018; Watson & Despenza, 2014; Wiseman & Moradi, 2010), little is known about what contributes to perpetration of objectification of men in this community; our study adds to the literature by examining factors that may contribute to sexual minority men enacting sexual objectification of other men. We found that more importance placed on appearance, more involvement in the LGBTQ community, more pornography use, and less restrictive affectionate behavior between men were uniquely related to sexually objectifying other men. Age and sexual identity also predicted sexual objectification, with older men more likely than younger men to sexually objectify other men and gay men more likely than bisexual men to sexually objectify other men. Therapists might target interventions aimed at reducing sexual objectification toward these men. Empowering clients to challenge oppressive norms within that subculture in order to help clients develop healthy relationships with potential partners rather than engaging in objectifying behaviors toward others may be helpful.

Variables	α	M	SD	Possible range	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Age	–	31.06	14.67	–	–	−.17*	−.21*	.12*	.01	−.17*	−.27*	−.25*	.17*
2. Sexual orientation	–	–	–	–		–	−.04	−.11*	−.01	.03	.06	.06	−.15*
3. Appearance-focused	.84	3.52	1.05	0–6			–	−.11*	.05	.16*	.35*	.11*	.15*
4. LGBTQ community involvement	.81	2.03	.61	1–5				–	.10*	−.13*	−.11*	−.25*	.21*
5. Pornography use	.77	2.38	.86	0–4.86					–	−.05	.02	−.09	.28*
6. Restrictive emotionality	.84	3.20	1.24	1–6						–	.23*	.49*	−.11*
7. Success, power, and competition	.76	3.39	1.10	1–6							–	.22*	−.00
8. Restrictive affectionate behavior between men	.73	1.98	.85	1–6								–	−.21*
9. Sexual objectification of other men	.85	2.17	.43	1–5

Predictor variable	B	β	t	R ²	ΔR ²	F	df
Age	.00	.14	3.08*	.044	.044	10.20*	2, 447
Sex orientation	−.10	−.09	−2.08*
Appearance-focused	.08	.19	4.10*	.193	.149	13.17*	6, 441
Involvement in the LGBTQ community	.10	.14	3.18*
Pornography use	.12	.24	5.63*
Restricted emotionality	−.01	−.03	−.62
Success, power, and competition	.01	.02	.32
Restrictive affectionate behavior between men	−.06	−.12	−2.33*

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the authors have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered.

The data and materials used in the research are available upon request by emailing: dawnszymanski@msn.com.

References

Allen

D’Alessio

Brezgel

(1995). A meta-analysis summarizing the effects of pornography II: Aggression after exposure. Human Communication Research, 22, 258–283. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1995.tb00368.x

Allen

Emmers

Gebhardt

Giery

(1995). Pornography and rape myth acceptance. Journal of Communication, 45, 5–26. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1995

Anderson

J. R.

Holland

Koc

Haslam

. (2018). iObjectify: Self-and other-objectification on Grindr, a geosocial networking application designed for men who have sex with men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 600–613. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2350

Aust

Diedenhofen

Ullrich

Musch

(2013). Seriousness checks are useful to improve data validity in online research. Behavior Research Methods, 45, 527–535. doi:10.3758/s13428-012-0265-2

Bernard

Gervais

S. J.

Holland

A. M.

Dodd

M. D.

(2018). When do people “check out” male bodies? Appearance-focus increases the objectifying gaze toward men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 19, 484–489. doi:10.1037/men0000122

Brown

Bettani

Knopp

Childs

(2014). The gay bar as a place of men’s caring. In Gorman-Murray

A. G.

Hopkins

(Eds.), Masculinities and place (pp. 299–316). New York, NY: Routledge.

Chan

L. S.

(2016). How sociocultural context matters in self-presentation: A comparison of US and Chinese profiles on Jack’d, a mobile dating app for men who have sex with men. International Journal of Communication, 10, 6040–6059.

Daniel

Bridge

S. K.

Martens

M. P.

(2014). The development and validation of the male assessment of self-objectification. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 15, 78–89. doi:10.1037/a0031518

Davids

C. M.

Watson

L. B.

Nilsson

J. E.

Marszalek

J. M.

(2015). Body dissatisfaction among gay men: The roles of sexual objectification, gay community involvement, and psychological sense of community. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2, 376–385. doi:10.1037/sgd0000127

10.

Downing

M. J.

Schrimshaw

E. W.

Scheinmann

Antebi-Gruszka

Hirshfield

(2016). Sexually explicit media use by sexual identity: A comparative analysis of gay, bisexual, and heterosexual men in the United States. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1763–1776. doi:10.1007/s10508-016-0837-9

11.

Doyle

D. M.

Engeln

(2014). Body size moderates the association between gay community identification and body image disturbance. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 279–284. doi:10.1037/sgd0000049

12.

Engeln-Maddox

Miller

S. A.

Doyle

D. M.

(2011). Tests of objectification theory in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual community samples: Mixed evidence for proposed pathways. Sex Roles, 65, 518–532. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9958-8

13.

Englar-Carlson

(2006). Masculine norms and the therapy process. In Englar-Carlson

Stevens

M. A.

(Eds.), In the room with men (pp. 13–47). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11411-002

14.

Feltman

C. E.

Szymanski

D. M

. (2017). Instagram use and self-objectification: The roles of internalization, comparison, appearance commentary, and feminism. Sex Roles, 72, 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0796 -1

15.

Field

(2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Fredrickson

B. L.

Roberts

(1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108

17.

Gerdes

Z. T.

Alto

K. M.

Jadaszewski

D’Auria

Levant

R. F.

(2017). A content analysis of research on masculinity ideologies using all forms of the Male Role Norms Inventory (MRNI). Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 19, 584–599. doi:10.1037/men0000134

18.

Gervais

S. J.

Davidson

M. M.

Styck

Canivez

DiLillo

(2018). The development and psychometric properties of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale—Perpetration Version. Psychology of Violence, 8, 546–559. doi:10.1037/vio0000148

19.

Gervais

S. J.

DiLillo

McChargue

(2014). Understanding the link between men’s alcohol use and sexual violence perpetration: The mediating role of sexual objectification. Psychology of Violence, 4, 156–169. doi:10.1037/a0033840

20.

Grubbs

Braden

Kraus

S. W.

Wilt

Wright

. (2017, September 25). Pornography, pleasure, and sexuality: Towards a hedonic reinforcement model of sexual explicit internet media use. Retrieved from psyarxiv.com/jevb7

21.

Hald

G. M.

Malamuth

N. M.

Yuen

(2010). Pornography and attitudes supporting violence against women. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 14–20. doi:10.1002/ab.20328.

22.

Hald

G. M.

Smolenski

Rosser

B. R.

(2013). Perceived effects of sexually explicit media among men who have sex with men and psychometric properties of the Pornography Consumption Effects Scale (PCES). The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 10, 757–767. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02988.x

23.

Hermann

Liang

C. T. H.

DeSipio

B. E.

(2018) Exploring sexual consent and hostile masculine norms using the theory of planned behavior. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 19, 491–499. doi:10.1037/men0000127

24.

Kaminski

P. L.

Chapman

B. P.

Haynes

S. D.

Own

(2005). Body image, eating behaviors, and attitudes toward exercise among gay and straight men. Eating Behaviors, 6, 179–187. doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2004.11.003

25.

Katz

Heisterkamp

H. A.

Fleming

W. M.

(2011). The social justice roots of the Mentors in Violence Prevention model and its application in a high school setting. Violence Against Women, 17, 684–702. doi:10.1177/1077801211409725

26.

Kozak

Frankenhauser

Roberts

(2009). Objects of desire: Objectification as a function of male sexual orientation. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 225–230. doi:10.1037/a0016257

27.

Kozee

H. B.

Tylka

T. L.

Augustus-Horvath

C. L.

Denchik

(2007). Development and psychometric evaluation of the Interpersonal Sexual Objectification Scale. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 176–189. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00351.x

28.

Leimkuhler

(2018, June 29). Most Americans support Pride but “Pink Capitalism” creates skepticism. Retrieved from https://medium.com/psb-to-the-point/most-americans-support-pride-but-pink-capitalism-creates-skepticism-19dfe9b4ddd1

29.

Mahalik

J. R.

Locke

B. D.

Ludlow

L. H.

Diemer

M. A.

Scott

R. P.

Gottfried

Freitas

(2003). Development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 3–25. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3

30.

Martins

Tiggemann

Kirkbride

(2007). Those speedos become them: The role of self-objectification in gay and heterosexual men’s body image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 634–647. doi:10.1177/0146167206297403

31.

McDermott

R. C.

Kilmartin

McKelvey

D. K.

Kridel

M. M.

(2015). College male sexual assault of women and the psychology of men: Past, present, and future directions for research. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 16, 355–366. doi:90/10.1037/a0039544

32.

McKee

(2005). The objectification of women in mainstream pornographic videos in Australia. The Journal of Sex Research, 42, 277–290. doi:10.1080/00224490509552283

33.

Mikorski

Szymanski

D. M.

(2017). Masculine norms, peer group, pornography, Facebook, and men’s sexual objectification of women. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 18, 257–267. doi:10.1037/men0000058

34.

Millburn

M. A.

Mather

Conrad

S. D

. (2000). The effects of viewing R-rated movie scenes that objectify women on perceptions of date rape. Sex Roles, 43, 645–664. doi:90/10.1023/A:1007152507914

35.

Moradi

Huang

(2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women: A decade of advances and future directions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 377–398. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00452.x

36.

Morgan

E. M.

Richards

T. C.

VanNess

E. M.

(2010). Comparing narratives of personal and preferred partner characteristics in online dating advertisements. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 883–888. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2010.02.002

37.

Morrison

M. A.

Morrison

T. G.

Sager

C. L.

(2004). Does body satisfaction differ between gay men and lesbian women and heterosexual men and women? A meta-analytic review. Body Image, 1, 127–138. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.01.002

38.

O’Neil

J. M.

(2008). Summarizing 25 years of research on men’s gender role conflict using the gender role conflict scale: New research paradigms and clinical implications. The Counseling Psychologist, 36, 358–445. doi:10.1177/0011000008317057

39.

O’Neil

J. M.

Helms

B. J.

Gable

R. K.

David

Wrightsman

L. S.

(1986). Gender-role conflict scale: College men’s fear of femininity. Sex Roles, 14, 335–350. doi:10.1007/BF00287583

40.

Parent

M. C.

(2013). Handling item-level missing data: Simpler is just as good. The Counseling Psychologist, 41, 568–600. doi:10.1177/0011000012445176

41.

Parent

M. C.

Moradi

(2009). Confirmatory factor analysis of the conformity to masculine norms inventory and development of the conformity to masculine norms inventory-46. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10, 175–189. doi:10.1037/a0015481

42.

Peter

Valkenburg

P. M.

(2011). The use of sexually explicit internet material and its antecedents: A longitudinal comparison of adolescents and adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 1015–1025. doi:10.1007/s10508-010-9644-x

43.

Regnerus

Gordon

Price

(2016). Documenting pornography use in America: A comparative analysis of methodological approaches. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 873–881. doi:10.1080/00224499.2015.1096886

44.

Riggle

E. D.

Whitman

J. S.

Olson

Rostosky

S. S.

Strong

(2008). The positive aspects of being a lesbian or gay man. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 210–217. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.39.2.210

45.

Rohlinger

D. A

. (2002). Eroticizing men: Cultural influences on advertising and male objectification. Sex Roles, 46, 61–74. doi:10.1023/A:1016575909173

46.

Rosser

B. S.

Smolenski

D. J.

Erickson

Iantaffi

Brady

S. S.

Grey

J. A.

… Wilkerson

J. M.

(2013). The effects of gay sexually explicit media on the HIV risk behavior of men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 17, 1488–1498. doi:10.1007/s10461-013-0454-8

47.

Rostosky

S. S.

Riggle

E. D.

Pascale-Hague

McCants

L. E.

(2010). The positive aspects of a bisexual self-identification. Psychology & Sexuality, 1, 131–144. doi:10.1080/19419899.2010.484595

48.

Rudman

L. A.

Mescher

(2012). Of animals and objects: Men’s implicit dehumanization of women and likelihood of sexual aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 734–746. doi:90/10.1177/0146167212436401

49.

Saucier

J. A.

Caron

S. L.

(2008). An investigation of content and media images in gay men’s magazines. Journal of Homosexuality, 55, 504–523. doi:10.1080/00918360802345297

50.

Siever

M. D.

(1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 252–260. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.252

51.

Silberstein

L. R.

Mishkind

M. E.

Striegel-Moore

R. H.

Timko

Rodin

(1989). Men and their bodies: A comparison of homosexual and heterosexual men. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, 337–346. doi:10.1097/00006842-198905000-00008

52.

Souleymanov

Brennan

D. J.

George

Utama

Ceranto

(2018). Experiences of racism, sexual objectification and alcohol use among gay and bisexual men of colour. Ethnicity & Health. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/13557858.2018.1439895

53.

Steele

C. M.

Josephs

R. A.

(1990). Alcohol myopia. Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921–933. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.8.921

54.

Strelan

Hargreaves

(2005). Women who objectify other women: The vicious circle of objectification? Sex Roles, 52, 707–712. doi:10.1007/s11199-005-3737-3

55.

Strelan

Pagoudis

(2018). Birds of a feather flock together: The interpersonal process of objectification within intimate heterosexual relationships. Sex Roles, 79, 72–82. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0851-y

56.

Sun

Bridges

Wosnitzer

Scharrer

Liberman

(2008). A comparison of male and female directors in popular pornography: What happens when women are at the helm? Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 312–325. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00439.x

57.

Szymanski

D. M.

Ikizler

A. S.

(2013). Internalized heterosexism as a mediator in the relationship between gender role conflict, heterosexist discrimination, and depression among sexual minority men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 14, 211–219. doi:10.1037/a0027787

58.

Szymanski

D. M.

Moffitt

L. B.

Carr

E. R.

(2011). Sexual objectification of women: Advances to theory and research. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 6–38. doi:10.1177/0011000010378402

59.

Szymanski

D. M.

Stewart-Richardson

D. N.

(2014). Psychological, relational, and sexual correlates of pornography use on young adult heterosexual men in romantic relationships. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 22, 64–82. doi:10.3149/jms.2201.64

60.

Tiggemann

Martins

Kirkbride

(2007). Oh to be lean and muscular: Body image ideals in gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 15–24. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.8.1.15

61.

Watson

L. B.

Dispenza

(2014). Experiences of objectification and sexual risk behaviors among sexual minority men. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 40–50. doi:10.1037/0000014

62.

Wester

S. R.

Vogel

D. L.

O’Neil

J. M.

Danforth

(2012). Development and evaluation of the Gender Role Conflict Scale Short Form (GRCS-SF). Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 13, 199–210. doi:10.1037/a0025550

63.

Weston

Gore

P. A.

(2006). A brief guide to structural equation modeling. The Counseling Psychologist, 34, 719–751. doi:10.1177/0011000006286345

64.

Wilson

B. D.

Harper

G. W.

Hidalgo

M. A.

Jamil

O. B.

Torres

R. S.

Fernandez

I. M.

(2010). Negotiating dominant masculinity ideology: Strategies used by gay, bisexual and questioning male adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45, 169–185. doi:10.1007/s10464-009-9291-3

65.

Wiseman

M. C.

Moradi

(2010). Body image and eating disorder symptoms in sexual minority men: A test and extension of objectification theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 154–166. doi:10.1037/a0018937

66.

Wright

P. J.

Steffen

N. J.

Sun

. (2019). Is the relationship between pornography consumption frequency and lower sexual satisfaction curvilinear? Results from England and Germany. The Journal of Sex Research, 56, 9–15. doi:10.1080/00224499.2017.1347912

67.

Wright

P. J.

Tokunaga

R. S

. (2016). Men’s objectifying media consumption, objectification of women, and attitudes supportive of violence against women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 954–963. doi:10.1007/s10508-015-0644-8

68.

Wright

P. J.

Tokunaga

R. S.

Kraus

(2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression in general population studies. Journal of Communication, 66, 183–205. doi:10.1111/jcom.12201

69.

Wright

P. J.

Tokunagaz

R. S.

Kraus

Klann

(2017). Pornography consumption and satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 43, 315–343. doi:10.1111/hcre.12108

70.

Zurbriggen

E. L.

Ramsey

L. R.

Jaworski

B. K.

(2011). Self-and partner-objectification in romantic relationships: Associations with media consumption and relationship satisfaction. Sex Roles, 64, 449–462. doi:0.1007/s11199-011-9933-4