Raising Capital

Abstract

We examine both gay and straight men’s constructions of masculinity using 358 self-descriptive dating profiles from Match.com of “men seeking men” and “men seeking women” in eight southern US metropolitan areas. In addition to the men’s specific references to gender and gendered performances, we discuss three broad topics of the men’s self-descriptions including personality, leisure, and work. This analysis reveals the ideal characteristics these men used to construct their own masculine identities and masculinity in relation to femininity. Although examples of conformity and nonconformity existed across both gay and straight men, we found that gay men constructed their own identities in keeping with the codes of historically heteronormative masculinities as fluently, and sometimes more so, than straight men. We explore the most prominent nuances between gay and straight men’s paths to claiming “masculine capital,” straight men’s greater leeway to temporarily distance themselves from masculine dominance, and the influence of hierarchies within masculinity on straight and gay men’s constructions of femininity.

Keywords

masculinity masculine capital patriarchy sexualities online dating

Since its start in 1995, Match.com has become one of the most popular dating websites in the United States, serving millions, and now in twenty-four countries (Match.com and Bailey 2009-2010). While user displays are limited by the website’s uniform template, each person may provide information about his or her individual background, beliefs, values, personality characteristics, and ideal relationships, creating a rich source of freely available data for empirical studies of gender and sexuality.

Framed by Connell’s (2005) concepts of hegemonic masculinity and the patriarchal dividend, and Anderson’s (2009) concepts of orthodox masculinities and masculine capital, our qualitative analysis of 358 Match.com dating profiles of self-identified gay and straight men examines how these men construct masculinities in their online gender performances. We explore nuances between gay and straight men’s paths to claiming masculine capital, straight men’s greater leeway to claim and temporarily distance themselves from masculine dominance, and the influence of gay men’s lower position within the hierarchy of masculinity on their constructions of femininity.

We focus our analysis on young adult men (age twenty-six to thirty), who lived and worked in eight southern US metropolitan cities. Specifically, we examine the ways in which these men describe, in the open-ended sections of their dating profiles, their (1) personality and demeanor; (2) leisure activities and interests; (3) occupation, career ambitions, and/or educational goals; and (4) constructions of gender through their own identities as well as their ideal dating partners and relationships. Furthermore, we explore how their descriptions signal notions of power, status, and legitimacy in a social gender order structured by a system of patriarchy.

A masculine capital framework provides us a way to examine these masculine self-presentations as well as potential motivations for incorporating particular constructions of masculinity and of ideal partners’ gender performances.¹ As masculinity scholars and researchers point out, boys and men learn to project their own conceptions of gender identity in a society that values masculinity over femininity (Kimmel 2012; Anderson 2009; Connell 2005; McGuffey and Rich 1999). Men therefore have an interest in perpetuating gendered expectations on which the dominance and privilege of masculinity rests. Through this framework, we address variations between gay and straight men’s communication of privileged masculine status, similarities between these representations in the same context, and how these presentations reinforce men and masculinity’s continued position of dominance over women and femininity.

Prior studies suggest that associations between homosexuality and effeminacy decrease masculine status and serve to subordinate gay men to straight (Anderson 2009), thus precluding gay men’s entitlement to the privileges of masculinity. Our findings contribute to existing masculinities research by examining gay men’s online appropriation of many of the same orthodox symbols used by straight men to increase masculine capital and subordinate femininity. Much like Connell’s (1992) research on “straight gay men,” our research explores this co-optation of traditional masculinities by comparing gay men’s descriptions of self and ideal partners with those of straight men. As homosexuality, alone, does not appear to bar gay men from participating in dominant masculinities, we suggest it is still femininity itself that stigmatizes some gay men, while its avoidance allows some gay men and straight men in general, to benefit from masculinity’s hegemony.

Background and Literature Review

Gendered practices of sexual orientation are complex. For example, Kimmel (1994) argues that esteemed masculinities are constructed in opposition to both women and gay men as the “others.” Therefore, gay men may use straight identifiers to gain privilege (Connell 1992), while Bridges (2014, 80) asserts that straight men today may borrow gay aesthetics but without “challenging the systems of inequality from which they emerge.” A brief history of these practices is in order.

Connell’s (1987/2005) term hegemonic masculinity refers to the most dominant tier of the gender hierarchy in a system of patriarchy, in which some masculine practices and characteristics may entitle the beholder to a greater share of its privileges than others. Connell alludes only to a few malleable elements of hegemonic masculinity, such as disassociating oneself with femininity, asserting that, in general, masculinity is constructed so that whatever is “feminine” is not “masculine.” Further, she assumes that because whatever is masculine is privileged, and only men may possess or display masculine characteristics that reinforce the dominance of patriarchy, only men stand to gain from the benefits of hegemonic masculinity.

Likewise, Connell’s concept, the “patriarchal dividend,” refers to the benefit that “men in general gain from the overall subordination of women” (2005, 79) merely by being traditionally male and accepting the assumption that the gender order is natural and functional. “Complicit masculinities” or passive existence within a system in which men are privileged for simply being male, as Connell explains describes how most men do not fit any strict definition of masculinity and may not actively seek to perpetuate the dominance of masculinity. A complicit masculinity does not intentionally reinforce hegemonic or dominant masculine characteristics, but neither does it challenge men’s dominant position in the hierarchy of gender.

Anderson (2009) extended Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity by distinguishing the performance of traditionally masculine characteristics and behaviors from the most dominant version of masculinity. Anderson explains that hegemonic masculinity encompasses characteristics that are based on fixed attributes that cannot be readily changed by an individual man—such as physical build, height, race or ethnicity, and sexual orientation. To understand ways in which some men attempt to “enact” or “exhibit” more contemporary ideal versions of masculinity, Anderson offers the concept “orthodox masculinity”—“a form of masculinity that is predicated on homophobia, misogyny, physicality, and bravado” (2009, 250). Orthodox masculinities may be used to describe behaviors, attitudes, and cultural images that men may use to signal adherence to the structure of hegemonic masculinity.

At the center of our analytical framework is Anderson’s (2009) concept of “masculine capital,” which illustrates a type of symbolic wealth that men may earn by performing orthodox masculinities. For example, Anderson (2009) explains that “not associating with homosexuality or femininity, being a muscular leader, and reserving all unacceptable emotions” can increase one’s masculine worth (p. 42). Similar to Pierre Bourdieu’s (1986) concept of “cultural capital,” earning masculine capital through orthodox masculine practices is one path through which some men may increase their masculine status in relation to other men. In other words, acting masculine entails the characteristics of being “homophobic, misogynistic, willing to take risks, etc.,” and virtually any man may include these behaviors and performances to some extent in his own construction of gender to increase his masculine capital (Anderson 2009, 42). However, ideal masculinity is never permanently achieved; instead, each man must constantly replenish his own masculine capital “reserve,” keeping in mind the context of contemporary meanings, to maintain or increase one’s privileged status within the hierarchy of men.

This system of masculine capital requires collective participation by men. However, since each man’s hierarchical status corresponds to his relative distance to others, the struggle to accumulate this symbolic masculine wealth simultaneously situates every man in competition with all other men. Within this system, excess masculine capital privileges some men over others and provides some men with the latitude to perform in ways that are traditionally viewed as feminine without risking one’s masculine status (Anderson 2009). Therefore, those who benefit most from the structure of hegemonic masculinity have the greatest interest in perpetuating its dominance. On the other hand, some men may not ever accumulate enough capital to claim entitlement to the privileges of masculinity. Likewise, some men may experience a “withdrawal” from their reserve of masculine capital by displaying characteristics associated with femininity (e.g., being nonathletic or revealing physical weaknesses). From this perspective, men who experience a withdrawal of masculine capital due to an association with femininity may use orthodox masculine behaviors and other affirmations of masculine identity to recover from this demoted status.

Connell (2005) and Kimmel (1994) argue that, due to homosexuality’s cultural association with femininity and the devalued status of femininity, gay men are relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of men and therefore enter this system with less entitlement to the benefits of patriarchy. Anderson’s (2002, 2005, 2011) studies of gay athletes’ coming out experiences suggest that gay men may attempt to maintain masculine privilege despite homosexuality’s link with femininity by displaying other tenets of orthodox masculinity. Anderson (2005) notes, “Openly gay athletes tried to be tough, macho, and competitive in order to prove their masculine worth” (p. 106). Furthermore, Anderson suggests, “acting in hyper-macho ways might maintain more currency for acceptance than simply being good” (p. 107).

Marginalized Sexual Preferences and Online Dating

Research that extends beyond heteronormative boundaries ranges from comparisons of the linguistic characteristics of gay men and women and straight men and women (Groom and Pennebaker 2005) to analyses of online forums reserved for marginalized sexual practices (Clarkson 2006; DeMasi 2006; Ellison et al. 2006; Ward 2008; Lever et al. 2008; Eguchi 2009; Ellison et al. 2011). And despite the more widespread use of online dating among gay populations, the dynamics of relationship-seeking practices online remain underexamined (Lever et al. 2008).

More recently, researchers of men and masculinities have examined gay men’s constructions of gender within forums reserved for gay men. Clarkson’s (2006) analysis of discourses on the gay men’s website StraightActing.com found that gay men constructed versions of masculinity based on a working-class masculine ideal—the “everyday Joe.” The site’s members used homophobic and misogynistic language to subordinate what they perceived as effeminate gender displays among other gay men and to assert their ideal images of men, whatever those might be. Clarkson suggests, “the plea for tolerance of their straight-acting preference thinly veils a discourse that is highly homophobic and glorifies normative standards of masculinity” (p. 192). In another examination of gendered discourses on this same website, Eguchi (2009) found similar themes—gay men rejected effeminate stereotypes associated with same-sex male attraction, and instead, idealized culturally esteemed masculine traits. In these online forums, being a gay man may be accepted as a masculine identity only if one adheres to strict heteronormative notions of masculinity outside of one’s sexual preferences. Therefore, some gay men may try to avoid the stigma of effeminacy by disassociating themselves from and subordinating those they perceive to be feminine gay men and adhering to hypermasculine gender performances.

In an attempt to expand our limited understanding of how gay and straight men use traditionally heteronormative gender narratives and construct orthodox or “ideal” forms of masculinity especially in relation to femininity, we examine a sample of men’s online dating profiles on Match.com . Specifically, we examine how they frame their interests, values, occupation, and desirable characteristics for future dating partners and relationships.

Method and Sample

In order to search for possible dates, a Match.com user completes a questionnaire in which he describes himself and the desired characteristics of his ideal partner. This process involves selecting from lists of fixed characteristics (e.g., age, location, race/ethnicity, education level, occupational industry, etc.), choosing preferences for potential mates from similar categories, uploading one or more photographs, and filling in various open-ended sections of the profile. A required component of the profile is the “About Him and His Date” section in which each user describes, in 200 characters or more, his personality, interests, values, and what he hopes to find in a partner or romantic relationship. Additionally, users are able to include more details about their leisure activities, interests, “favorite hot spots,” occupation, and education in open-ended comment boxes throughout the profile. Specifically, we examine the “About Him and His Date” paragraph, the “caption”—a headline written by the user to summarize himself and his ideal date, and any additional areas of the profile in which the user may write in his own words. Once completed, his profile becomes visible to anyone conducting a search in the particular geographic area. Users are able to narrow their search, for example, by gender, age, location, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, education level, income, or occupational industry.

Using the free search option, we examined the Match.com profiles of “men seeking men” (gay) and “men seeking women” (straight) living within twenty miles from the center of each of the following cities: Atlanta, GA; Birmingham, AL; Charleston, SC; Little Rock, AR; Nashville, TN; Raleigh, NC; Richmond, VA; and St. Louis, MO. These cities were chosen as representatives of the metropolitan south whose size is sufficient for diverse employment, and pragmatically, because there were enough gay men with profiles on Match.com in each city to choose a sample comparable to the sample of straight men. We narrowed the population of profiles in each city to men age twenty-six to thirty years because this age-group was the largest category of men actively seeking partners. In order to maintain some similarities among the groups, we further reduced the pool of profiles to include only men who indicated being employed or attending school by selecting one of Match.com’s twenty-one broad occupational industries, which included “student.”

After narrowing the search results described previously, approximately 7,457 profiles (315 gay and 7,142 straight men’s profiles) that fit this study’s criteria remained. We used a random number generator to select twenty-five gay men and twenty-five straight men in each of the eight cities. In five of these cities, however, fewer than twenty-five gay men with the study’s criteria could be identified. In those five cases, we included all of the profiles generated by the search, which ranged from nine to twenty-three profiles. In contrast, the straight population in all eight cities provided more than enough results from which to select twenty-five random profiles. Therefore, we included a total of 200 straight men’s profiles and 158 gay men’s profiles in the analysis.

Of the 358 men included, approximately 70.0 percent identified as “White/Caucasian,” 18 percent as “Black/African descent,” 3 percent as “Latin/Hispanic,” 3 percent as Asian, one man identified as “Middle Eastern,” and another as “East Indian.” Six percent identified as “other” or selected more than one race/ethnicity category. Options for highest level of education ranged from “high school” to “postdoctoral/PhD,” with the additional option “I’ll tell you later.” The most common education levels selected were “bachelors degree” (40 percent), “some college” (25 percent), and “graduate degree” (15 percent). Results from Match.com ’s table of demographics provided for each search indicated that, across race/ethnicity and education level, our sample’s characteristics resembled those of the total population of gay and straight men on Match.com who met this study’s criteria.

Our analysis focused on each man’s open-ended descriptions of self and ideal partners, which we combined into a single transcript per group of gay men and straight men in each city. Each author’s preliminary analysis produced multiple themes relating to the men’s constructions of identity, personality, interests, values, career and ambitions, and valued characteristics for ideal partners. Together we then saved quotes from each profile that related to one or more of these broad areas into a separate document and categorized them into what we agreed were smaller subthemes. Using a constant comparative method (Strauss and Corbin 1998) and working together, we then distilled these themes into three major themes: “just a simple man … ,” “work hard but play harder,” and “educated, successful and seeking ‘same.’” Additionally, we added the summary theme “Hoping to meet someone who’s up for the ride,” which is an analysis of how the men both describe and advertise their masculinity to potential romantic partners, while accentuating ideal gender characteristics found in the other three themes.

Themes of Masculinity and Distinction

Through the following discussion, we address gay and straight men’s descriptions of masculine identity and constructions of ideal characteristics for men and for women, which they often did by comparing and contrasting their own personality, interests, and goals with those of the partners they hoped to find. The men’s constructions of these characteristics suggest their adoption of orthodox gender narratives while in pursuit of masculine capital, as well as their attempts to distance themselves from the perceived negative aspects of this orthodoxy by claiming to “be more feminine” (straight men) or by claiming to “be more masculine” (gay men).

Just a Simple Man …

One of the most repetitive themes across both gay and straight men’s self-descriptions of their personalities is the image of being a “laid-back,” “easygoing,” uncomplicated guy—a man of few words who appreciates “the simple things” in life. From Raleigh, a gay man’s description is but one example of this persistent image, “I’m a pretty easygoing guy who usually gets along with everybody. I like to think of myself as an eternal optimist with [a] good sense of humor. I’m a little shy at first, but once I get to know you, you would never think so.” A straight man in Birmingham explains, “I am just a laid back down to earth kind of guy. I like simple things.” While refusing to take life too seriously and always remaining “cool, calm, and collected,” they emphasize the importance of appreciating life and the many experiences available. Offering up these descriptions begins the declaration that there is nothing to fear from this “easy to please” potential partner.

Despite claiming to be “a simple man,” the men do not describe their reserved demeanor as hindering social interactions with others or their willingness to experience new situations. In fact, the opposite is claimed as they are “up for anything,” able to enjoy or “find the positive” in any situation, and can carry a conversation with any person on any topic. Both gay and straight men construct an image of stability, denoting mastery over virtually any domain while deemphasizing fearfulness and vulnerability. For example, two straight men from Richmond make similar claims, “I would define myself as a person who is able to fit into most situations” and “I can talk to anyone, anywhere.” A gay man from Little Rock similarly asserts, “I can fit in with ease in any situation” and another gay man from Charleston claims, “I feel I carry my own weather with me.” For both gay and straight men, this “simple man” is the embodiment of the euphemism, “what you see is what you get”: There is “no drama” because he refuses to make life more complicated than it has to be.

Similarly, both gay and straight men construct their own masculine identities by claiming to be emotionally strong and levelheadedness. We find, however, that while most of the men highlight their reserved and emotionally sound demeanor, gay, and straight men sculpted this “laid-back” style to accomplish varying objectives. Gay men concentrated their discussions of emotional stability as having a “thick skin,” such as a Nashville man’s self-description, “I speak my mind and am not offended very easy.” Another man asserts, “I mean what I say and say what I mean.” Gay men asserted repeatedly that they were not offended easily, and willing, without hesitation, to “cut straight to the point.” These self-descriptions illustrate the “fearless truth-teller” component of many gay men’s idealization of their own “simple man” masculinity.

On the other hand, in their discussions of being an “easygoing” guy, straight men appear to be more concerned with dissociating themselves from negative emotions and behaviors traditionally associated with men (e.g., anger and aggression). A straight man from Charleston explains, “I am really patient and it is almost impossible to make me angry …. To be honest, I can’t remember the last time I lost my temper.” Another example is a straight man from Little Rock—“I consider myself a southern gentleman that is romantic at heart. I am slow to anger and quick to laugh.” The following straight man from Richmond mitigates his “directness” with his sense of tact and sound judgment. Further, he uses an example that draws on a stereotypical feminine desire to have feedback about appearance:

If I actually care about you, I’m going to be so blunt that I’ll probably feel bad about it. I’m not the guy who's going to tell you that you look good in something when you really don’t. Don’t get me wrong, I won’t say you look bad—but I would offer you another suggestion.:-)

This straight man keeps life simple by being straightforward but advertises that he has enough experience to know when women may be overwhelmed by the truth. In direct contradiction to the ever present cultural image of the angry, demanding, perhaps violent man, straight men emphasize their quiet “gentlemanly” relationship potential.

As Anderson explains, “reserving all unacceptable emotions” is a strategy some men use to adhere to orthodox masculinities and increase masculine capital (2009, 42). In contrast to the unapologetic honesty that gay men idealized, straight men utilized a more nuanced “simple man” to construct the “tactful truth-teller” they embody. Both gay and straight men, therefore, draw on broad themes of being direct and uncomplicated, yet they differ in that gay men used these traits to emphasize fearlessness and dominance, while straight men idealized their own restraint.

Gay and straight men more clearly differ in their idealization of these same traits in dating partners. Gay men idealized partners who share their aversions to being overly complicated and doing the oft-feminized “drama” or “playing games.” They describe ideal relationships in which neither partner is offended by the other’s willingness to “tell it like it is.” A gay man from Raleigh explains, “I am honest and expect the same treatment. I am very opinionated and will state what is on my mind, so needless to say you will always know what I am thinking.” A gay man from St. Louis asserts, “I want someone honest and funny …. Someone who will tell me how they really feel and not sugar coat it …. I’m a big boy I can handle the truth.” While straight men qualify their assertions of being “direct” by highlighting their own sensitivity, they did not emphasize a particular ideal disposition for the truth among their ideal partners, gay men applied their notions of being a “simple man” to both themselves and potential dating partners, admiring masculine partners who embody the same “fearless truth-teller” that they idealized in themselves.

Perhaps due to the men’s perceptions of their different audiences, straight men are careful to substitute emotions such as sensitivity and compassion for the negative emotions they disclaim. This difference highlights the influence of hierarchy within masculinity on the men’s pursuit of masculine capital. With privilege comes the “freedom” of straight men to describe themselves as having characteristics not traditionally associated with masculinity. Similarly, Wilkins (2009, 360) refers to a strategy of “intimacy talk,” which enables men to claim a masculinity that is “presumably more moral and more desirable.” But gay men, on the other hand, exercise greater caution to avoid associating themselves with traits that signify femininity; instead, they tailor their “laid-back” demeanor to reinforce their strict adherence to orthodox masculinity. Despite these differences, both gay and straight men capitalize on the simple man demeanor to reinforce an ideal masculinity that is emotionally durable, as opposed to the fragility and complications they associate with femininity.

Work Hard but Play Harder …

In addition to the men’s development of masculine capital through personality, we examine how the men shape their identities through the use of both work and “play.” Both gay and straight men use their leisure activities and interests to define their overall fearless attitudes and sense of adventure. They described being “up for anything” and always willing to push on to “the next level.” Descriptions of the activities they enjoy during time away from work and school incorporate many traditionally masculine qualities and symbols, the two most prominent being sports and “anything outdoors.”

Similar to Messner’s (2007) findings that sports and athleticism are key influences on men’s early constructions of masculine identities, we find that these are salient themes in both gay and straight men’s descriptions of the activities they enjoy outside of work. The symbolism of sports team dedication serves as an effective way for these men to incorporate dominant notions of masculinity into their identities regardless of each man’s athletic ability. Albeit humorously, a straight man in Nashville illustrates this idea, “I am funny, honest, and loyal. Most importantly I am a Yankee fan.” The men often discussed their sports team loyalty in tandem with other masculine symbols and imagery, as the following straight man in Atlanta demonstrates by combining his identity as a devoted sports fan with his interests in the outdoors:

Well, to start off, when it comes to this time a year, if I’m not at Turner field, you will probably find me somewhere watching the Braves. Grew up a Braves fan, and I will always be a Braves fan. When the fall comes, I’ll be cheering on my Jackets wither I’m at the game or listening to it from my deer stand. On that note, I love to be outdoors, be it the woods, the lake, the beach, or the mountains.

This man illustrates a common strategy through which men appropriate the masculine imagery of sports and the outdoors to adhere to orthodox masculinity. Further, both gay and straight men claim this masculine capital by emphasizing a lack of boundaries and their willingness to “try anything” especially “anything outdoors.”

Many men highlighted the risk and adventure involved in their outdoor sports and activities, and this emphasis on risk is most prevalent among gay men who also earned masculine capital through their pursuit of professions associated with higher levels of income or prestige. A resident doctor in Atlanta illustrates this common sentiment, “At heart, I love adventure and the thrill …. Most of my vacations involve the outdoors, like hiking, camping, skiing, mountain climbing, etc. Anybody up for trying some skydiving?” Another gay man in St. Louis, who worked in the pharmaceutical industry, explains:

I love being out and doing anything. I want to try whitewater rafting, bungee jumping and climbing the Matterhorn. I love adventure, and am a bit of an adrenaline junky… I have a tendency to be very competitive but usually in good fun. I also like to play sports and love to be taught new ones.

One explanation for gay men’s greater emphasis on the risks and adventure in their athleticism is that these aspects heighten the masculine capital they derive from their activities. Anderson (2005) argues that involvement in sports can provide an avenue to earning masculine capital for men who are otherwise marginalized by devalued, ascribed social statuses. Thus, one avenue for gay men to avoid marginalization and increase one’s status in the hierarchy of masculinity is to emphasize the traditionally valued masculine arena of sports and athleticism. We find that gay men more often incorporated themes of risk and adventure into the activities they associate with their own identities, reiterating the tenets of masculinity that they adhere to, and perhaps maximizing the capital, they stand to gain. Moreover, gay men reinforced their association between these activities and ideal masculinities through their expectations that their masculine partners would participate in similar activities.

The most pronounced differences between straight and gay men’s descriptions of their favorite activities were in the level of participation they anticipated from their potential dating partners. Although both gay and straight men described wanting to be able to share, in some way, their favorite activities with their partners, they differed both in their preferences and in their expectations for the level of experience their potential partners would already have. Gay men tended to assume the men they dated would already participate in or have some degree of mastery over the sports and outdoor activities they hoped to share, as one man’s description illustrates, his ideal man may even have enough expertise to teach him new sports. For gay men, their assumption that both partners would participate in sports and other activities together is consistent with their broader desire for masculine symmetry with the men they hoped to date. As one man explains, “I’m [a] college graduate, masculine guy, have a great career, stay active and fit and looking for a guy to share similar interests and share life with.”

Straight men, on the other hand, added the ability to share these activities together as an afterthought and they did not assume the women they might date would already have the same degree of experience. Some straight men describe shared interests as a “bonus” rather than a fundamental part of an ideal relationship. For example, a straight man in Richmond explains, “I enjoy being physically active so finding a partner who also enjoys being active would be an added plus.” Straight men also often describe an ideal woman as someone eager to tag along or willing to adapt to his own interests, as the following man illustrates, “I’d love to meet someone who I can go golfing, fishing, hunting or play tennis with. Or at least someone who won’t mind me doing those things. I also need someone who will help me use tickets to the Rams, Cardinals, and St. Louis University (SLU) Basketball games.” Another straight man explains “I need someone who will stand beside me. Someone who likes sitting at home and watching a movie just as much as partying, doesn’t mind helping me in the yard, [and] will come racing with me on the weekends.”

Unlike gay men who presumed their potential partners would already have a common level of experience in sports and the outdoors, many straight men assumed they would need to teach the women they dated how to participate. For instance, a physician in Nashville notes what he perceived as one of his most appealing qualities, “I can give free golf lessons (excellent date for those aspiring LPGA tour pros out there).” A man in Richmond describes his own favorite activities and then constructs a more feminine alternative for his potential partner’s benefit, “Naturally, outdoor activities are my favorite way to kick back. I’ll hike, kayak, or teach you to flyfish. Not a fan?! That’s fine, we can drink coffee, discuss literature, or play scrabble if you like.” And another straight man illustrates this presumption of women’s lesser degree of experience as he clarifies the type of sport each of his favorite teams played, “I’m a Carolina Hurricanes (hockey) and Dallas Cowboys (football) fan, and I’ll watch North Carolina State college football and basketball.”

On the other hand, some straight men assume that women tend to lack even having any genuine interests outside of their relationships with men. Further, the following man implies that women who share his interests may have neglected more ideal, feminine interests.

While I like a girl who enjoys sporting events and watching sports on TV, I also like a girl who enjoys girly stuff. As much as a woman wants her man to be a man, I need my woman to be a woman. It is also important for a partner to have his or her own life and not depend on me to be his or her only social outlet all the time. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to spend a lot of time with someone, but for my partner to go out on a girls’ night out every now and then is definitely a good thing.

This straight man is willing to tolerate few disruptions in the dichotomy of appropriate masculine and feminine gender performance. While not all straight men were so deliberate in their constructions of ideal masculine and feminine interests, they often allude to their own “natural” attraction to sports and adventurous outdoor activities and their assumption of women’s limitations in these areas.

Whether or not straight men sought partners who would accommodate their interests or at least be willing to tag along, their constructions of femininity assumed women’s general lack of having an authentic mastery over these traditionally masculine activities. While some men offered to teach the women they dated, and others accepted that some women may try to enjoy these activities for her partner’s benefit, straight men emphasized an assumed boundary between ideal masculine and feminine performance. Both gay and straight men, however, constructed ideal masculinities by appealing to notions of men’s inherent affinity for athleticism, competition, and adventure, dissociating these qualities from “femininity.”

Educated, Successful, and Seeking “Same”

Whether in the early stages of their careers or still finishing necessary training in college or otherwise, the men emphasized their dedication to work, long hours, and positions of leadership. “Secure in their manhood” these men are ready to handle life and excel in their careers, proud of their accomplishments, financial independence, and influence on or authority over the lives of others. Primarily for straight men, however, an expressed dedication to their career did not appear to prevent them from finding another masculine ideal, a “work–life balance.” One straight, new attorney in Little Rock says, “I like to think of myself as a professional guy who isn’t afraid to be goofy …. I am an attorney. I love my job, but I’m not a slave to it.” Or as another straight man, soon to be a dentist in Birmingham wrote:

I’ve always considered school to be one of my top priorities and like to give it my best, but in a lot of ways I’m pretty laid back; not very type A. I try to have a positive influence on the lives of others, even in small intangible ways like … giving encouragement. I still manage to have a good amount of free time, which I use to spend with friends, exercise, or whatever else seems fun.

In these descriptions, the men reiterate themes of being a laid-back guy but certainly one who works hard toward his ambitions. Straight men, in particular, were careful to note that they were in control over their work and careers, rather than their jobs dictating their priorities. In general, they present themselves as passionate and focused on their careers, while looking for a supporting partner to interact with in their limited downtime.

Perhaps the ease with which straight men created a work–life balance is in part explained by their claim that work, although enjoyable, is something they do, rather than who they are. For example, a straight man in Charleston added this explanation to his occupational industry, “I am director of purchasing for an export company but it’s not as important as it sounds. It’s a good job and I enjoy it.” Another straight man, a government employee in Little Rock, explains, “Everyone’s work has good and bad. Mine’s no different, but at the end of the day, I’m furthering my ideals, and I think my work makes me a better person.”

Straight men also found ways to increase masculine capital, albeit somewhat casually, by underscoring their positions of authority over others, as the following man in St. Louis illustrates, “Run my own business. It’s hard work and lots of hours. Occasionally nerve-wrecking being responsible for 30 people’s livelihoods.” Another man in Richmond explains, “I’m basically in charge of 8 counties and keeping the Boy Scouts running smoothly in the area.” Among straight men, whether or not they were able to use their dominance at work to increase masculine capital, their jobs endow them with authority—they do not allow their jobs to have authority over them.

In contrast to straight men’s barriers between work and personal time, gay men emphasized their deep commitment to their professional identities. In fact, they often highlight the considerable amount of time and dedication they invest in their work. Many indicate that even in their leisure time they continue to build skills and experience related to their careers. For example, “My job is my life. I am very dedicated to what I do, and every morning am thinking of new ways to improve in my profession.” A gay man from St. Louis explains a similar attitude toward his work, “I’m a guy who is very goal-oriented and never stops pushing till I achieve my plans. It could be a career goal, educational goal, fitness goal, and in this case, my goal to find a best bud and date.” Whereas straight men emphasized their ability to make time for fun, and perhaps implicitly, a dating relationship, gay men clearly asserted their strong dedication to their professional identities.

Gay men also incorporated other traditionally masculine symbols into their descriptions of work in ways that bolster the contribution of their work to their overall level of masculine capital. For example, one gay man combines masculine symbols of beer and sports with his discussion of work and leisure time, “Chillin’ at the apartment with a brew is often my weekend or going out to a pub to talk crap about the work week.” A police officer in Birmingham described his leisure time as “having a couple of beers after a long day at work.” Similar to Clarkson’s (2006) finding that gay men appropriated the “average Joe” to bolster their own masculine identities, gay men often underscore traditionally masculine notions of work by linking their notions of work to symbols of traditional masculinities and hardworking, “blue-collar” imagery.

The contrast between gay and straight men’s emphasis on work as a key component of their identities is likely influenced by the privileges straight men enjoy in a patriarchal hierarchy, including the heteronormative presumptions of men as breadwinners. Straight men are less concerned with buttressing their masculine worth through work; however, lacking this symbolic contrast with a feminine partner, gay men more often gravitate toward the idea that their work defines them. Moreover, because of society’s subordinating associations between gay men and femininity, strong commitments to one’s dominance in the labor market provides an alternative avenue for gay men to demonstrate traditional masculinity and claim entitlement to the benefits of patriarchy, while still being able to reinforce sameness with their ideal masculine partners. Regardless of their level of enthusiasm about their jobs, both gay and straight men appealed to notions of hard work and success in their constructions of their own identities.

The men’s discussions of career aspirations departed more sharply, however, as they constructed ideal characteristics in future partners. Many gay and straight men indicated that they wanted a partner “with goals in life,” which they often mentioned as each man explained his own ambitions. However, gay men more often specified not only that their partner should be driven, but also that his goals should be oriented around work-related achievements. For example, a gay man in Nashville summarizes ideal qualities of the man he hoped to date while also disassociating himself from feminine men, “I am attracted to guys who are eclectic, masc, think ‘outside the box’ … not into fem guys at all. A man who is mature, honest, faithful, assertive with minimal drama and financially independent.”

Preferring sameness in work dedication was particularly salient among gay men with higher levels of prestige in areas such as education level or occupation and among those who clarified explicitly their own masculine gender identity. For example, a graduate student described his desire to meet other men “who are intelligent, driven and genuine,” then reemphasized, “they must be invested in their work and their futures.” Many gay men used their profile captions to highlight this sameness requirement, such as “intelligent, masculine, educated seeks same.” A resident doctor in St. Louis articulates this idea further, “I would like to find a man that is comfortable in his career and well settled.” Adding to his own masculine capital, these career-oriented men sought only other educated, professional men, equally committed to career-related achievement as well as to orthodox performances of masculinity.

Some straight men, particularly those who were educated and described having prestigious careers or ambitions, outlined what they perceived to be a more egalitarian view of intimate relationships between men and women than those held by “other guys.” These men highlighted their appreciation for “a woman with a drive for independence.” He admired a woman with professional ambitions and wanted his partner to be educated, have “her own personality,” and not be too emotionally dependent. He wanted his partner to have “a sense of direction, regardless of what that direction is.” Despite these assertions, however, straight men did not hold the same high standard for their partners’ career dedication as gay men required from other men. A straight man in Nashville exemplifies this complex standard, “I want a woman who is easygoing but also determined and knows what she wants out of life, even if she doesn’t necessarily know how to get it. I’m here to help, after all!” This man illustrates one way straight men construct masculine identity in opposition to the femininity of the women they hoped to date—she may have less life experience, perhaps even still be “finding her way,” but he will be there to help guide her.

Overall, both gay and straight men value achievement, professional growth, upward mobility, and hard work ethics among men. Gay men more often framed their work as a fundamental component of their identities and applied these same idealizations to the men they preferred to date. Straight men were less emphatic that their partners already have an established, successful career, and they bolstered their own masculine capital by constructing feminine partners as in need of their encouragement in their goals and ambitions. Gay men, gaining masculine capital differently, often required that their partners’ work ethic and career achievements be consistent with what they perceived as ideal performances of masculinity. The key difference between gay and straight men here is in their expectations for potential partners’ careers, and not in their overall constructions of ideal masculinities and femininities. Both of these strategies legitimate the dominance of masculinity within the sphere of work.

Hoping to Meet Someone Who’s Up for the Ride

This final summative theme encompasses both gay and straight men’s descriptions of ideal masculine identities in contrast to performances of femininity, often by comparing and contrasting their own identities with those of their ideal dating partners. Among both gay and straight, the men’s constructions of their own gender identity influenced the ways they described ideal qualities of potential partners. Straight men were more likely to address the roles each partner should fulfill in an ideal relationship, while gay men more often framed the obligations of an “ideal partner” as requirements that applied to both themselves and their potential partners, reiterating the desire for “sameness” among gay men.

One of the clearest disparities between gay and straight men’s constructions of their own masculine identity, however, is that a large proportion of gay men offered explicit gendered self-categorizations—for example, “I’m masculine.” Across every city, many gay men used their profile’s “caption” to assert masculine status and to explicitly affirm masculine identities, such as summarizing oneself as “fun, masc, driven guy” or as a “masculine, preppy guy, back in school.” The following man in St. Louis articulates further this desire to announce one’s adherence to traditional masculine performance: “I love to laugh and be silly but know how to be serious and strong at the same time. I also feel like my appearance doesn’t reflect my personality either and people automatically think I’m flamboyant when I’m actually straight-acting and chill.”

Another way gay men offset the presumption of femininity is to appeal to the idea of being an ordinary man. For instance, multiple gay men appropriate the image of “the guy next door.” A man in Atlanta began his self-description with “I guess you can sum me up as the masculine guy next door (or across the street), lookin’ for love, with no results,” and a man in Raleigh, “I am a masculine, well-rounded, guy next door!” A gay man in Nashville, whose caption simply read “Normal Guy,” emphasized his sameness with other “normal” men—“I’m just your average everyday guy. I consider myself pretty boring. I prefer it that way.” Similarly, another man in Nashville made an effort to dissociate himself from stereotypes of gay men, “On a more personal note, I am a great guy and person … who happens to be gay. I do NOT define my existence by my homosexuality. I don’t feel the need to exude ‘gayness’ with everything I do.”

Straight men who alluded to “normal guy” imagery, on the other hand, did so as a way to assure others that they were “the total package.” Straight men were able to appeal to notions of the “normal guy” to indicate that they had transitioned into a legitimate state of manhood and were entitled to the privileges of adult masculinity. Ironically, straight men who defined themselves as a “normal guy” typically used this quality to indicate privileged statuses and distinguish themselves as “a stand out” from the majority of men. For example, a straight man in Richmond, who summarized himself with the caption “I’m a pretty promising ‘match,’” explained himself to potential dating partners as “a pretty normal, well-educated, funny, good-looking guy.” A straight man in Atlanta summarized himself as a normal guy in that he was both educated and successful in his career, “In general I consider myself to be a pretty normal guy that has led a pretty normal life. From [a] middle class family in the suburbs, to a good college (UGA!! GO DAWGS!) and a good degree, and now a job in Atlanta as a TV producer.”

An apparent difference in their constructions of their own masculine identities is that straight men placed more importance on distinguishing themselves from other men, despite also appropriating “normal guy” discourse. For example, a straight man from Charleston simply stated, “I believe I am quite different from the rest. Always interested in other cultures and lifestyles.” Other straight men accomplished this by explaining what kind of man they were not. A man from Raleigh indicated that he wanted to avoid a relatively obscure masculine stereotype, “Please don’t assume I’m the typical guy who wears his hat backwards. I’ve just always liked wearing hats.…” Despite their concern with emphasizing privileged characteristics, straight men did not appear to worry that others would doubt their masculine gender status. In fact, many straight men distinguished themselves from the “majority” of other men while still maintaining the privileges of an “average guy.” Some straight men used what they perceived to be a more egalitarian attitude toward women than they assumed to be held by most straight men as a way to illustrate their differences from other men. Anchored in their investments of being a “normal guy,” these men could also make claims of less traditionally manly attributes (Pascoe 2003; Wilkins 2009). One man describes his treatment of women in general as unique among most men:

I’m NOT your typical ‘wham bam thank u ma’am’ kinda’ guy … I’m a sucker for romance … I have so much respect for females that I have neither cheated, lied, or betrayed … I’m not your typical hornball guy. Others like to date more than one person. And that’s okay, but I’m a one girl man.

Another straight man in Birmingham explained, “I am not big into the man being the dominant one in the relationship. I want someone I can lean on, and they can be able to lean on me. A best friend you might say.” Although these men tailor their masculine appeal to a modernized trope of femininity, they characterize their fidelity and “egalitarian” perspectives as generous gestures and rare among the majority of men. Unlike gay men, straight men were able to bypass the task of categorizing their own gender identities as masculine and instead, focus on perceived appealing qualities that distinguish them from what they describe as the “majority” of other men.

Although gay men frequently and explicitly claimed their own masculine gender performance, straight men were able to move straight to increasing masculine capital through areas such as their personality, interests, and career. Both gay and straight men appropriated various notions of being average to denote ideal versions of masculinity, which they customized for the audience they hoped to attract. However, while straight men emphasized how they stood out from other men in spite of being a “normal guy,” gay men made an effort to relate their identities to broader notions of “normal” masculinity. Straight men appeared to have the leeway to risk their level of masculine capital in their constructions of masculinity. Gay men on the other hand explicitly stated, “I’m a masculine guy,” “I’m not fem,” or in other ways implied their rigid constructions of masculine gender performance. Unlike for straight men, this avowal of masculinity appears to be a routine but necessary step for gay men who seek to maintain the privileges of masculinity.

With few exceptions, gay men who promptly categorized their own identities as masculine also required their potential dating partners to be masculine men. Some men found subtler ways to communicate their desire for partners who do not disrupt heteronormative gender performances, such as preferring a man “who can blend with pretty much any scene.” However, many gay men explicitly stated their preferences for only other masculine men. The following three men illustrate the pervasiveness of this requirement, “I would like to find someone fun and masculine like myself,” “I’m a masculine guy and I like guys that are the same or close,” and “I’m a masculine guy and looking for someone who identifies in the same way.” Other men used less explicit language to indicate their masculine preference, such as “bonus points if he knows how to change a tire,” and another man who summarized his ideal match as a guy who “isn’t afraid to have a burger and a beer.”

Gay men also critiqued and subordinated men who they perceived as deviating from appropriate masculine performance. A gay man in Little Rock explained, “Potential matches don’t have to be John Wayne, but I do get annoyed by feminine guys. Which is probably why I don’t get along with most gay guys.” An Atlanta man bluntly asserted, “if I was attracted to femininity, I would be straight.” In general, these men preferred only other men who embodied culturally esteemed masculine characteristics, and they defined these qualities consistent with traditional means for earning masculine capital through performances of orthodox masculinity. Further, gay men sought other men who were poised to become high earners of masculine capital. They wanted other men who, as they claimed to be themselves, are able to fit into most any situation and do not disrupt the dominance of masculinity. In other words, gay men wanted partners whose gender identity also reinforced men’s entitlement to the benefits of hegemonic masculinity. Straight men valued, in themselves, many of the same culturally esteemed characteristics of masculinity as gay men, but they assumed their audience would perceive them as having these “natural” masculine tendencies. They were therefore apparently willing to be more flexible in their constructions of masculinity. Both gay and straight men, however, construct those they perceive to be feminine as inferior to those who represent esteemed versions of masculinity.

Conclusions, If You Like, What You See Here, Hit Me Up!

As gay and straight men attempt to find a match, we assert that both continue to claim their entitlements, as men, to masculine privilege. But given the traditional exclusion of gay men from the most privileged tiers of masculinity, and the association of gay men with femininity (Connell 2005; Anderson 2009), the claims differ. The avowals of “I’m a masculine guy,” for example, that permeate gay men’s self-descriptions, and the relative absence of this explicit affirmation among straight men, is insightful. Many straight men claim not to be “that guy” who abuses his dominant masculine status or is emotionally insensitive (adopting more traditionally feminine attributes), while some gay men attempt to avert a marginalized status by adhering to orthodox performances of masculinity and dispose themselves of any presumption of “otherness” and especially femininity. Much like Wilkins (2009, 344) found in her study of Christians and Goths, the men renounce certain aspects of “dominant notions of masculinity … but fail to challenge gendered power hierarchies.” This is troubling. On the one hand, it is positive progress that gay men have avenues to attain similar levels of social capital. On the other hand, that attainment reinforces the inferior status of femininity. For straight men, it is positive that they distance themselves from perceived negative characteristics of the traditional man, but they still tend to position women, as their potential partners, in a secondary status.

More specifically, we found that gay men who appear to be the most devoted to the tenets of orthodox masculinity were also the most concerned with finding partners who adhered to these same codes of masculinity and its most privileged characteristics. A partner who is “not feminine acting” and can “fit into pretty much any crowd” does not challenge patriarchy or disrupt the hegemony of masculinity in the social gender order. These findings suggest that some gay men diminish the loss of masculine capital attributable to homosexuality’s link with femininity—what could be termed an assumed “gay penalty”—by seeking out only other successful earners of masculine capital who do not disrupt existing gender hierarchies.

If a man is attracted to any form of masculinity, being attracted to a disruption in the dichotomy of gender seems to drain one’s masculine capital, and thus social privileges, even further. Therefore, a gay man may be able to preserve more access to masculine capital by acknowledging the “gay penalty” and compensating for this loss by subordinating feminine gay men and partnering only with fellow successful, uncomplicated guys who love sports, beer, and the outdoors. In other words, idealizing “appropriate” representations of masculinity in their own and other men’s identities appears to help mitigate the loss of masculine capital caused by being attracted to “masculinity.” The men that gay men idealize are those who perpetuate versions of orthodox masculinity whose performances justify men’s “natural” dominance. Their idealization of traditionally masculine characteristics reifies cultural notions of men as superior and that masculinity is inherently attached to biological male sex.

Because nonheteronormative identities have been traditionally excluded from the privileges of masculinity, and because heterosexual men have had the most access to the benefits of masculinity’s dominance, one might expect gay men to show less attachment to orthodox masculinity’s codes of conduct. Some existing masculinity frameworks lead to the conclusion that gay men experience less pressure to conform to heteronormative or hegemonic definitions of masculinity since their sexual identities already relegate them to the bottom of the hierarchy of men, perhaps even excluding them from the competition. Although examples of conformity and nonconformity exist across both gay and straight men, we found that the majority of gay men constructed their own gender identity in keeping with the codes of orthodox masculinity as fluently, and sometimes more so, than most of the straight men. Even where gay and straight men appear to differ in their preferences for ideal partners or relationships, their constructions of masculinity and femininity remained strikingly consistent—only the gender of their desired “match” differed. Among both gay and straight men, they idealize traditionally esteemed masculine characteristics while constructing femininity as inferior to masculinity, whether they linked devalued feminized traits like fear, fragility, dependence, or being overly complicated to women or to other “undesirable” gay men. In fact, one of the most apparent findings in this study is that gay and straight men were much more similar than different in their constructions of masculinity and femininity, idealizations of orthodox masculinities, and strategies for earning masculine capital.

Scholarship has framed antifeminine discourse among gay men as a symptom of living in a homophobic society—an internalized “rhetoric of hatred toward same-sex attraction” (see, e.g., Eguchi 2009). We find, however, that gay men appropriate tropes of orthodox masculinity with the same strategies straight men use to earn masculine capital and increase gender privilege. Using a masculine capital framework suggests that it is the realm of femininity, rather than other gay men themselves, that gay men stigmatize, subjugate, and construct as inferior. For these gay men, their attraction to other men is open and obvious, yet they demonstrate a concerted effort to dissociate ideal men from femininity, both in their own identities and in the gender performances of the men with whom they hope to “match.” Although antifeminine discourse is used to subordinate gay men within hierarchies of masculinity, it is also used, by both gay and straight men, to maintain dominance over men who do not conform to the structure of hegemonic masculinity and women in general.

We do not intend to categorize the men in this study into particular definitions of masculinity, nor do we argue that these men purposefully conform to any strict gender performance. On the contrary, these men’s self-descriptions and articulations of identity often conflicted with traditional notions of masculinity in individual ways. However, some of the most valuable understandings of masculinity are those that reveal ongoing transformations as well as common links between differently situated men’s conceptions of contemporary masculinities.

On the one hand, these gay men dispel the myth that sexual attraction to men inevitably carries with it stereotypically feminine gender performances. On the other hand, they also perpetuate misogynistic constructions of femininity, emphasize strict boundaries between ideal masculine and feminine gender performance, and reinforce men’s dominance over women. Our analysis shows that both gay and straight men increase the dividends for themselves and other men by reinforcing masculinity’s dominance and its difference from women and femininity. Subordinating femininity to masculinity serves to benefit all men who are complicit in the structure of hegemonic masculinity. Although the barriers between men are somewhat dismantled in these endeavors, this process does not, as noted by Yeung, Stombler, and Wharton (2006, 8), “alleviate external hegemony against all women.”

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

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

Note

References

Anderson

Eric

. 2002. “Openly Gay Athletes: Contesting Hegemonic Masculinity in a Homophobic Environment.” Gender & Society 16:860–77.

Anderson

Eric

. 2005. In the Game: Gay Athletes and the Cult of Masculinity. New York: State University of New York Press.

Anderson

Eric

. 2009. Inclusive Masculinity: The Changing Nature of Masculinities. New York: Routledge.

Anderson

Eric

. 2011. “Updating the Outcome: Gay Athletes, Straight Teams, and Coming out in Educationally Based Sport Teams.” Gender & Society 25:250–68.

Bourdieu

Pierre

. 1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by Richardson

, 241–58. New York: Greenwood.

Brannon

Robert

. 1976. “The Male Sex Role: Our Culture’s Blueprint of Manhood and What it’s Done for us Lately.” In The Forty-Nine Percent Majority: The Male Sex Role, edited by David

Brannon

, 12–42. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bridges

2014. “A Very “Gay” Straight?: Hybrid Masculinities, Sexual Aesthetics, and the Changing Relationship between Masculinity and Homophobia.” Gender & Society 28:58–82.

Butler

Judith

. 2011. Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge.

Clarkson

Jay

. 2006. “‘Everyday Joe’ Versus ‘Pissy, Bitchy, Queens’: Gay Masculinity on StraightActing.com.” Journal of Men’s Studies 14:191–207.

10.

Connell

R. W.

1987. Gender and Power. 2nd Edition. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

11.

Connell

R. W.

1992. “A Very Straight Gay.” American Sociological Review 57:735–51.

12.

Connell

R. W.

2005. Masculinities. 2nd Edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

13.

DeMasi

Sophia

. 2006. “Shopping for Love: Online Dating and the Making of a Cyber Culture of Romance.” In Handbook of the New Sexuality Studies, edited by Seidman

Fischer

Meeks

, 230–32. New York: Routledge.

14.

Eguchi

Shinsuke

. 2009. “Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity: The Rhetorical Strategy of ‘straight-acting’ among Gay Men.” Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 38:193–209.

15.

Ellison

Nicole

Heino

Rebecca

Gibbs

Jennifer

2006. “Managing Impression Online: Self-presentation Processes in the Online Dating Environment.” Journal of Computer-mediated Communication 11:415–41.

16.

Ellison

Nicole

Hancock

Jeffrey

Toma

Catalina

2011. “Profile as Promise: A Framework for Conceptualizing Veracity in Online Dating Self-presentations.” New Media & Society 14:45–62.

17.

Groom

Carla J.

Pennebaker

James W.

. 2005. “The Language of Love: Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Language use in Online Personal Advertisements.” Sex Roles 52:447–61.

18.

Kimmel

Michael

. 1994. “Masculinity as Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity.” In Theorizing Masculinities, edited by Brod

Kaufman

, 119–42. London, UK: Sage.

19.

Kimmel

Michael

. 2008. The Gendered Society, 3 rd edition. New York: State University of New York.

20.

Kimmel

Michael

. 2012. Manhood in America: A Cultural History. New York: Oxford University Press.

21.

Lever

Janet

Grov

Christian

Royce

Tracy

Gillespie

Brian J.

2008. “Searching for Love in all the ‘Write’ Places: Exploring Internet Personals use by Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Age.” International Journal of Sexual Health 20:233–46.

22.

Match.com, and Chadwick Martin Bailey. 2009–2010 “Studies: Recent Trends: Online Dating.” Accessed February 19, 2014. http://www.match.com/cmbstudy/.

23.

McGuffey

Shawn

Rich

B. L.

1999. “Playing in the Gender Transgression Zone: Race, Class, and Hegemonic Masculinity in Middle Childhood.” Gender & Society 13:608–27.

24.

Messner

Michael

. 2007. Out of Play: Critical Essays on Gender and Sport. New York: State University of New York Press.

25.

Pascoe

C. J.

2003. “Multiple Masculinities? Teenage Boys Talk about Jocks and Gender.” American Behavioral Scientist 46:1423–38.

26.

Strauss

Anselm

Corbin

Juliet

. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

27.

Ward

Jane

. 2008. “Dude-sex: White Masculinities and ‘Authentic’ Heterosexuality among Dudes who have Sex with Dudes.” Sexualities 11:414–34.

28.

Wilkins

Amy C.

2009. “Masculinity Dilemmas: Sexuality and Intimacy Talk among Christians and Goths.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 34:343–68.

29.

Yeung

King-To

Stombler

Mindy

Wharton

Renee

2006. “Making Men in Gay Fraternities: Resisting and Reproducing Multiple Dimensions of Hegemonic Masculinity.” Gender & Society 20:5–31.