Assessing and understanding body image and body satisfaction in gay and bisexual men through objectification theory

Abstract

Body dissatisfaction and the prevalence of Objectification Theory are researched and often discussed in terms of cisgender women. Research that mentions body image in the gay and bisexual community concludes that there is either a small percentage of gay and bisexual men that experience body dissatisfaction or that gay and bisexual men have higher rates of body satisfaction than cisgender women. This study, firstly, aims to assess body image and satisfaction in the understudied gay community. Then, it aims to develop an understanding of gay men’s narratives of body image and body dissatisfaction. Using a unique survey composed of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire-Appearance Scale (MBSRQ-AS) and the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS), a total of 387 surveys, including 158 cisgender women and 179 gay and bisexual men, were collected. Upon initial observation, gay and bisexual men have greater body satisfaction than cisgender women. However, when grouped by age, gay and bisexual men aged 16-25 have a higher body dissatisfaction than cisgender women and have higher body dissatisfaction than the other age groups of gay and bisexual men. These results start the conversations that experiences that are considered traditionally feminine can affect masculine individuals.

LAY SUMMARY

This study examines body image and satisfaction in the gay community, finding that gay and bisexual men generally have higher body satisfaction than cisgender women. However, younger gay and bisexual men aged 16-25 have higher body dissatisfaction than cisgender women and other age groups of gay and bisexual men. These findings suggest that traditionally feminine experiences can impact masculine individuals.

Keywords:

• Body image
• objectification theory
• gay and bisexual men
• mbsrq-as
• oBCS

Introduction

Since we are born, society expects us to understand what toys, clothes, and habits are feminine and belong to women and which are masculine and belong to men. The mental health field is no different, with many national organizations, domestic and foreign, presenting information that men and women are more likely than the other to be diagnosed with specific disorders and solidifying categorical binaries. Many perpetuate that men are more likely to report alcohol and substance use, while women are more likely to report depression, anxiety, and eating disorders (“Gender Differences"; “Gender and Women’s,” 2013). This study is one of many attempts to normalize the concept that men, explicitly gay and bisexual men, experience a gendered concept like body dissatisfaction at the same, if not more significant rate than women. It is crucial to abolish gender assumptions since body dissatisfaction positively correlates with eating disorders, which can result in death (“Understanding Eating,”; “Body Image,” 2018).

Based on statistics from the National Eating Disorders Association, 2.0 − 4.6% of women will develop an eating disorder (“Statistics & Research,” 2020). These diagnosis rates are low compared to the fact that up to 40% of women may experience weight-based bullying (“Statistics & Research,” 2020). Conversely, when the statistics attempt to describe the relationship between men and eating disorders, the statistics drop to 0.02 − 3.15% depending on the observed disorder despite a nearly similar rate of experiencing weight-based bullying (“Statistics & Research,” 2020). It is also observed that only 5% of the male population identifies as being gay or bisexual and account for the majority of the male population diagnosed with an eating disorder, making gay and bisexual men disproportionately burdened by eating disorder diagnoses (“Statistics & Research,” 2020; Strother et al., 2012; Strübel & Petrie, 2020). This study is an attempt to de-gender a highly gendered diagnosis and phenomenon—eating disorders and body satisfaction. While also explaining that men, more specifically gay and bisexual men, experience body dissatisfaction at the same, if not a higher rate, than women through the understanding of pervasive psychological mechanisms like Self-Objectification and Objectification Theory.

Self-Objectification is the internalization of the dominant culture’s standards of beauty. Often, this is when an individual aligns their worth to how closely their appearance adheres to the cultures’ standards of beauty, which could result in adverse mental health outcomes (Filice et al., 2019a; 2019b; Kozak et al., 2009; Lanzieri & Hildebrandt, 2016; Strübel & Petrie, 2020). Initially composed by Fredrickson and Roberts (1997), Objectification Theory, initially, explains that a female body is often looked at, evaluated, and objectified as a form of gender oppression. In media today, we can observe an objectifying presence by the visual media’s spotlight of bodies and body parts, seamlessly aligning viewers with an implicit sexualizing overtone. This sexually objectifying treatment of women in the visual media includes mainstream films, visual arts, advertisements, television programming, and music videos (Filice et al., 2019a; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Kozak et al., 2009; Lanzieri & Hildebrandt, 2016; Strübel & Petrie, 2020).

For men, mainstream films, visual arts, advertisements on social media, and television programming have increased the amount of semi-naked and naked men in recent years. As a result, an emphasis on physical appearance and body image, more specifically, normalizing being tall, muscular, and lean, became a societal norm (Lanzieri & Hildebrandt, 2016; Levitan et al., 2019; Strother et al., 2012; Strübel & Petrie, 2020). Griffiths et al. (2018), studied social media’s effect on body dissatisfaction. They conducted an online survey of 2,733 sexual minority men in Australia and New Zealand. They discovered that Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, and Snapchat were the most frequently used social media platforms among sexual minority men, and results suggested there is a positive correlation between social media use and body dissatisfaction. When looking into social media applications that tailor to gay and bisexual men (e.g. dating applications and geosocial networking applications), body satisfaction tends to decrease as the usage of the application increases. This correlation, however, affects body image via weight stigma and self-perceived masculinity (Filice et al., 2019b; Miller, 2015; Miller & Behm-Morawitz, 2020; Sánchez et al., 2009).

Filice et al. (2019b) supported the correlation between weight stigma and self-perceived masculinity with body image by enlisting 13 previous and current users of Grindr to understand the impact of the application on their body satisfaction. Grindr is the most widely used geosocial networking application for romantic, social, and sexual interactions for “gay, bi, trans, and queer people” that are interested in other men (About Grindr, 2009). Based on the participant’s experience on the geosocial networking application, 9 of the 13 participants reported subjection to negative comments regarding their appearance in private conversations with other users. Comments centered around the participants’ facial features, skin tone, and height. Most often, the concern of body weight, shape, and composition circulated its perceived instrumentality in sex. Participants disclosed that there is a normative understanding among users that, for anal sex between men to be adequately pleasurable, bottoms (receptive partners) must not exceed a specific weight expectation.

Moreover, tops (penetrative partners) are to be of a certain stature and muscularity to fulfill their sexual role (Miller, 2015; Filice et al., 2019a). This concern over body structure is because, in mobile dating apps, masculinity and masculine aesthetics are brought to the forefront of dating as a means of catching the attention of other men. This omnipresent standard of what a man should look like circulates dating apps; even though, not every gay man can maintain specific physical and dietary regimens necessary to acquire the desirable body (Filice et al., 2019a; Griffiths et al., 2018; Lanzieri & Hildebrandt, 2016; Miller, 2015; Miller & Behm-Morawitz, 2020; Sánchez et al., 2009).

In order to quantify the existence of body dissatisfaction in gay and bisexual men, the researcher created a unique survey tool. To the researcher’s knowledge, this study is the first to combine subscales of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire-Appearance Scales (MBSRQ-AS) and the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS) to assess body-image and satisfaction. Corresponding hypotheses were developed to compare gay and bisexual men to cisgender women. Based on the subscales used to create the survey, the data comparing gay and bisexual men to cisgender women will show that:

1. Gay and bisexual men will score lower on questions focusing on appearance evaluation, and orientation.

2. Gay and bisexual men will score lower on body area satisfaction subscales about their muscle tone, weight, and waist area.

3. Gay and bisexual men will score higher on questions focusing on surveillance, shame, and appearance-controlled beliefs.

4. In regards to the self-classification of weight questions, the data will show that a majority of participants will view themselves as a classification other than “normal” weight.

Methods

Participants & procedure

For the study, participants were recruited via social media platforms (e.g. Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat) and were given an overview of the researcher’s credentials, the purpose of the study, without affecting the validity of the study, that if participants choose to fill out the survey, all responses are confidential and the link to the survey. The survey was created from subscales of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire-Appearance Scales (MBSRQ-AS) and the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS), then converted to an online forum via Google Forms for accessibility. The exact amount of surveys distributed is unknown since participants were asked to distribute the survey as well as its description to their social network to not only maximize participant outreach but also to enhance the power of the study.

A total of 390 surveys were collected. Three surveys were discarded because they did not meet the age of consent requirement, resulting in 387 surveys to analyze statistically. 46.25% (n = 179) of the sample identified as gay and bisexual men and of the 179 gay and bisexual men, 34.08% (n = 61) were between the ages of 16 and 25, 47.49% (n = 85) were between 26 and 34, and 18.44% (n = 33) were over the age of 35. 40.83% (n = 158) of the sample identified as cisgender women with an average age of 29.81 with an SD = 10.18 years, and 12.92% (n = 50) identified as heterosexual, cisgender men, and gender nonconforming. Heterosexual men and gender nonconforming participants were not discarded since their results could be used as an additional comparative measure for gay and bisexual men.

Measures

The survey to assess and understand body satisfaction in gay and bisexual men was a 61-question survey. The survey was composed of 33 questions from the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire-Appearance Scales (MBSRQ-AS), 24 questions from the Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS), three questions to capture demographic information, and a final open-ended question asking how body image/perception affects their community.

Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire—Appearance Scale (MBSRQ – AS) is a 34-question survey; which includes subscales on appearance orientation (AO), appearance evaluation (AE), body area satisfaction scale (BASS), self-classified weight (SCW), and overweight preoccupation (OP) subscales; with Cronbach Alpha’s of 0.88, 0.88, 0.77, 0.70, and 0.73 respectively (Cash, 2000, Argyrides & Kkeli, 2013). Argyrides and Kkeli (2013) not only confirmed and supported these measures of internal validity but also assessed in a sample of 1,312 high school students in Greece (463 boys and 849 girls) that this survey correlates with an investment of appearance and internalization of the media’s ideal of thin body types.

For this study, the researcher used the original definition of each included subscale from The Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire User’s Manual as part of the conceptualization of body image. Cash (2000) defined the MBSRQ-AS as the assessment of investment in one’s appearance (AO), the feelings of physical attractiveness or unattractiveness (AE), the participant’s satisfaction with distinct aspects of one’s appearance (BASS), and how one perceives and labels one’s weight, from very underweight to very overweight (SCW). The MBSRQ-AS scored on a 5-point Likert scale; however, depending on the subscale, the scale is labeled uniquely. For the AO and the AE, the scales range from “completely disagree” to “completely agree,” the BASS ranges from “very dissatisfied” to “very satisfied,” and the SCW ranges from “1 – very thin” to “5 – very overweight” having “normal weight” as a middle point. Based on these scales and scoring techniques, lower scores are associated with discontent with their physical appearance (AE), that appearance is not necessary and that not much effort should be placed on appearance (AO), and that participants are unhappy with the size and appearance of specific areas (BASS). Scores in the SCW subscale can vary depending on how a client views their weight and how others might view their weight.

Objectified Body Consciousness Scale (OBCS) is a 24-question survey to assess Objectification Theory’s effect on the way a person experiences their body (Mckinley & Hyde, 1996; Moradi & Varnes, 2017). Based on the initial validation and development of the OBCS, Mckinley and Hyde (1996) conducted three separate studies on undergraduate and middle-aged women. Mckinley and Hyde (1996) discovered that higher scores on the survey are positively correlated with restricted and disordered eating and negatively correlated with body image and self-esteem, developing a Cronbach’s Alpha of 0.70–0.80. Scores were replicated and supported in 2017 with a sample of 389 college women (Moradi & Varnes, 2017). In both the original study and the reevaluation in 2017, the survey consisted of three distinct subscales body surveillance (BSu), body shame (BSh), and appearance control-beliefs (ACB). These subscales measure habitual body monitoring of appearance rather than the bodies function or how it feels, feelings of shame due to the inability to achieve society’s expectation of beauty and weight, and a person’s responsibility to achieve society’s expectations; respectively (Mckinley & Hyde, 1996; Moradi & Varnes, 2017). The OBSC is on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” Higher scores on the OBSC would suggest that the participant would watch their body more frequently and place more emphasis on the way their body looks (BSu), that they would believe they are a terrible person for not living up to society’s expectation of their body (BSh) and believe that a person can control their body and appearance if they work hard enough (ACB); while lower scores suggest the opposite (Mckinley & Hyde, 1996)

Data Analysis was conducted on Microsoft Excel Version 16.36 to produce descriptive statistics on each independent group (e.g. cisgender women, gay men, gay men 16–25, gay men 26–35, and gay men 35+); as well as conduct t-tests to determine statistical significance between the groups. In regards to the SCW subscales, the scores were converted to a bar graph format to interpret the responses. Finally, the open-ended question quantified through WordCloud Generator By MonkeyLearn. Creating a word cloud allows for a visual representation by highlighting words and phrases based on frequency and relevance. MonkeyLearn contains artificial intelligence that can automatically detect associations and determine which words are most relevant by measuring how rare, descriptive, and how long a word is in addition to frequency to provide a visual representation of major themes of responses for a more in-depth analysis (“Free Word,” 2020).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Initial review of average scores between cisgender women and gay and bisexual men reveal cisgender women score lower than gay and bisexual men on subscales associated with the MBSRQ-AS with a difference between 0.17 and 0.43 points. When the OBCS survey is reviewed, the overall average of the survey and the average score of the body surveillance is relatively similar, with only a 0.3 points difference between the two groups. Cisgender women scored 0.27 points higher than gay, and bisexual men on the body shame subscale, and gay and bisexual men scored 0.12 points lower than cisgender women on the appearance-control belief subscale

Table 1. Mean and Standard deviation of MBSRQ-as, OBCS, and subscales.

			Cisgender women		Gay & bisexual (G&B) men		G&B men 16–25		G&B men 26–34		G&B men 35+
			n = 158		n = 179		n = 61		n = 85		n = 33
	N = 387	SD	40.83%	SD	46.25%	SD	34.08%	SD	47.49%	SD	18.44%	SD
Average Age:	29.73	9.33	29.81	10.18	29.52	4.43	23.49	1.71	28.85	2.43	42.39	5.07
Average MBSRQ	3.17	1.28	3.06	1.27	3.23	1.28	3.20	1.28	3.24	1.31	3.24	1.23
Appeance Orientation	3.26	1.33	3.16	1.28	3.36	1.38	3.41	1.39	3.36	1.39	3.28	1.35
Appeance evaluation	3.01	1.24	2.87	1.25	3.10	1.21	3.10	1.13	3.11	1.27	3.06	1.18
BASS	3.11	1.28	2.96	1.28	3.13	1.27	3.02	1.26	3.15	1.30	3.30	1.20
BASS face	3.72	0.98	3.58	0.93	3.77	0.99	3.67	1.00	3.82	1.04	3.79	0.86
BASS hair	3.64	1.20	3.62	1.08	3.51	1.27	3.72	1.14	3.44	1.38	3.33	1.19
BASS lower parts	3.22	1.27	2.85	1.26	3.40	1.23	3.41	1.17	3.44	1.27	3.30	1.26
BASS waist	2.31	1.25	2.08	1.18	2.37	1.26	2.34	1.28	2.34	1.24	2.52	1.30
BASS upper part	3.00	1.22	2.93	1.20	2.93	1.25	2.54	1.27	3.07	1.21	3.27	1.15
BASS muscle tone	3.16	1.12	2.36	1.06	2.62	1.10	2.34	0.96	2.62	1.10	3.12	1.19
BASS weight	2.47	1.25	2.18	1.20	2.61	1.22	2.61	1.10	2.54	1.28	2.82	1.29
BASS height	3.80	1.17	4.00	1.04	3.65	1.25	3.39	1.32	3.68	1.25	4.06	1.03
BASS complete appearance	3.24	0.99	3.05	0.95	3.31	0.97	3.13	1.01	3.36	1.01	3.52	0.76
Average OBCS	4.21		4.31		4.28		4.47		4.34		4.15
Average of body surveilance scores	4.36		4.46		4.49		4.76		4.47		4.42
Average of body shame scores	3.78		4.03		3.76		3.99		3.90		3.37
Average of appearance-control beliefs scores	4.49		4.45		4.57		4.66		4.64		4.66

When cisgender women and gay and bisexual men are analyzed in comparison to the age group, we see that gay and bisexual men between the ages of 16 and 25 score 0.39 points lower than cisgender women on the BASS question regarding their chest, shoulder, and hands; gay and bisexual men between the age of 16–25 and 26–34 score 0.61 points and 0.32 points lower than cisgender women on the BASS question regarding height; gay and bisexual men between the age of 16 and 25 score 0.30 points higher than cisgender women in the OBSC body surveillance subscale.

Intergroup comparisons between gay and bisexual men between the age of 16 and 25, 26 and 34, and 35+ reveal

• Gay and bisexual men between the age of 16–25 score 0.17 points lower than gay and bisexual men 35+ in the overall BASS score

• Gay and bisexual men between the age of 16–25 scored 0.53 points and 0.73 points lower than gay and bisexual men between 25 and 34 and 35+ respectively in BASS questions regarding their chest, shoulder, and hands

• Gay and bisexual men between the ages of 16 and 25 and 26 and 34 scored 0.78 points and 0.50 points lower than gay and bisexual men 35 and above on BASS question regarding muscle tone

• Gay and bisexual men between the age of 16 and 25 scored between 0.13 points and 0.62 points higher than gay and bisexual men between the age of 26 and 34 and 35+, respectively, on the OBCS body surveillance subscale and scored 0.62 higher than gay and bisexual men 35 and above on the OBCS body shame subscale.

Means tests revealed that the differences between cisgender women and different age groups of gay and bisexual men and the intergroup differences between 16-25, 26-34, and 35+ aged gay men show a statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence interval (see Tables 2–7).

Table 2. Mean test of BASS questions.

	Cisgendered women	G&B men	16–25	26–34	35+
Cisgender women		2.70E-04	0.38	1.52E-03	1.34E-05
G&B Men			0.07	0.79	0.03
16–25				0.07	1.44E-03
26-34					0.07
35+

Bold values show statistical significance p ≤ 0.05, values with an asterisk (*) show statistical significance p ≤ 0.01.

Table 3. Mean test of BASS Upper parts questions.

	Cisgendered women	G&B men	16–25	26–34	35+
Cisgender women		0.98	0.04	0.37	0.12
G&B men			0.04	0.38	0.14
16–25				0.01*	0.01*
26–34					0.41
35+

Bold values show statistical significance p ≤ 0.05, values with an asterisk (*) show statistical significance p ≤ 0.01.

Table 4. Mean test of BASS Muscle tone questions.

	Cisgendered women	G&B men	16-25	26-34	35+
Cisgender women		0.02	0.95	0.07	3.12E-03*
G&B Men			0.08	0.71	0.02
16-25				0.11	9.15E-04*
26-34					0.03
35+

Bold values show statistical significance p ≤ 0.05, values with an asterisk (*) show statistical significance p ≤ 0.01.

Table 5. Mean test of BASS height questions.

	Cisgendered women	G&B men	16–25	26–34	35+
Cisgender women		0.01*	1.77E-03*	0.05	0.76
G&B men			0.17	0.86	0.08
16–25				0.18	0.01*
26–34					0.12
35+

Bold values show statistical significance p ≤ 0.05, values with an asterisk (*) show statistical significance p ≤ 0.01.

Table 6. Mean test of OBCS Body surveillance subscale.

	Cisgendered women	G&B men	16–25	26–34	35+
Cisgender women		0.74	0.02	0.65	0.14
G&B men			0.04	0.47	0.11
16–25				0.02	4.14E-03*
26–34					0.32
35+

Bold values show statistical significance p ≤ 0.05, values with an asterisk (*) show statistical significance p ≤ 0.01.

Table 7. Mean test of OBCS Body shame subscale.

	Cisgendered women	G&B men	16–25	26–34	35+
Cisgender women		7.58E-04*	0.28	0.07	1.11E-08*
G&B men			0.16	0.37	2.39E-04*
16–25				0.60	1.95E-05*
26–34					8.31E-05*
35+

Bold values show statistical significance p ≤ 0.05, values with an asterisk (*) show statistical significance p ≤ 0.01.

Based on the results presented in Tables 1–7, cisgender women, when compared to the whole sample of gay and bisexual men, are more discontent with their physical appearance and believe that appearance is not necessary and that not much effort should be placed on appearance. However, when the sample of gay and bisexual men are separated via age (e.g. 16–25, 26–34, and 35+), different conclusions are made.

Broader analyses conclude that gay men between 16 and 25 and 26 and 34 are more concerned with aspects associated with masculinity than women and gay and bisexual men 35 and above. Gay and bisexual men between the age of 16 and 34 are less satisfied with their muscle tone/mass, their height, and their shoulders, arm, and hands; aspects of a man that is associated with masculinity and society fixates on. Though the results do not satisfy the priori arguments, the data that was collected is essential.

The data shows that gay men under the age of 35 are more likely to be dissatisfied with areas of their body, which results in more frequent body scrutiny and possible negative mental health repercussions for not living up to society’s expectations of their bodies.

Qualitative Analysis

Presented in Figure 1. Based on the word cloud, there is a clear, emergent narrative of body image and its prominent role in the gay community. That as a marginalized group and as visual creatures, the gay community has a standard of beauty. This standard emphasizes fit, white, Greek god-like, cisgender bodies, which is an outward assessment of virility. If a person cannot meet the status quo of beauty and obtain a particular type of body, then drug use and the consumption of substances could result from it.

Figure 1. Word cloud created to highlight the most frequently used words to answer: “how do you think body image/perception affects your community?“

Self-classified weight

Presented in Tables 8 and 9 and Figures 2 and 3. The data of both questions in the SCW subscale were scatter plotted, and measures of central tendency, skewness, and kurtosis were performed on the data to determine the data distribution. Based on the central tendencies in Table 9 and the scatter plot in Figure 3, it can be assumed that all groups believe that from an outside perceptive of their weight, they are viewed as societally normal weight. Skewness confirms this assumption with skewness values between −0.5 and 0.5, explaining that the distribution is approximately symmetric and represents a standard distribution. Gay and bisexual men over the age of 35, on the other hand, have a moderate positive skew (0.83). A moderate positive skew, in this sample, means that from an outside perspective, gay and bisexual men over the age of 35 would be perceived as somewhat to very thin in terms of societal standard of weight.

Figure 2. SCW “I think I am…” score distribution.

Figure 3. SCW “looking at me, most people will think I am…” score distribution.

Table 8. Central tendency of SCW question “I think I Am…“

	N	Mean	Median	Mode	SD	Skew	Kurtosis
Population	389	3.62	4.00	4.00	0.87	−0.43	−0.05
Cisgender women	161	3.73	4.00	4.00	0.93	−0.32	−0.71
Gay and bisexual men	181	3.57	4.00	4.00	0.79	−0.78	0.91
Gay and bisexual men 16–25	61	3.39	4.00	4.00	0.94	−0.88	0.43
Gay and bisexual men 26–34	85	3.69	4.00	4.00	0.71	−0.31	0.09
Gay and bisexual men 35+	33	3.58	4.00	4.00	0.66	−0.64	0.26

Table 9. Central tendency of SCW question “Looking at me, most people will think I am."

	N	Mean	Median	Mode	SD	Skew	Kurtosis
Population	389	3.24	3.00	3.00	0.97	−0.07	−0.15
Cisgender women	161	3.44	3.00	4.00	1.03	−0.25	−0.51
Gay and bisexual men	181	3.09	3.00	3.00	0.89	−0.23	0.43
Gay and bisexual men 16–25	61	2.93	3.00	3.00	1.03	−0.43	−0.30
Gay and bisexual men 26–34	85	3.15	3.00	3.00	0.87	0.15	0.24
Gay and bisexual men 35+	33	3.21	3.00	3.00	0.60	0.83	1.73

The initial inspection of Figure 2, would suggest that the data is negatively skewed, or that a majority of participants, despite the grouping, classify themselves as somewhat to very overweight. When looking at the population and cisgender women, the skew falls within a standard distribution. Gay and bisexual men between the age of 16 and 25 and over the age of 35 have moderately negative skew values. Having values moderate skew values, between −1 and −0.5, means that most scores within these groups fall to the right of the normal distribution. Consequently, despite being classified as either somewhat thin or “normal” weight form outside perspectives, gay and bisexual men between the age of 16 and 25 and 35+ internally perceive themselves as somewhat to very overweight.

Discussion

This study, to the researcher’s knowledge, is the first that uses the unique properties of the MBSRQ-AS and the OBCS to assess body image and body satisfaction in gay and bisexual men. The data suggests that our entire sample of gay and bisexual men do not have higher body dissatisfaction than cisgender women, refuting the researcher’s original hypotheses. The researcher then separated the sample of gay and bisexual men into groups based on reported age. After analyzing and comparing the means of the different age groups of gay and bisexual men to cisgender women, we see that gay and bisexual men between the ages 16 and 25 report equivalent to higher body dissatisfaction than cisgender women and report higher body dissatisfaction than the other age groups of gay and bisexual men. Gay and bisexual men between the ages 16 and 25 also are more likely to perceive themselves as being overweight. These results align with the internalization of the standards of beauty for men in the dominant culture that perpetuates the image of men being tall, muscular, and lean (Lanzieri & Hildebrandt, 2016; Strother et al., 2012; Strübel & Petrie, 2020).

Body dissatisfaction most likely effects gay and bisexual men aged 16–25 more significantly than the rest of the age groups most likely because social media and the standards of beauty integrating themselves into the early stages of identity formation and creates a fragile homosexual identity. Cass’s Model of Sexual Identity Formation suggests that there are six stages of identity formation; confusion (a conflict between perception as a heterosexual and realization of gay or lesbian thoughts and feelings) comparison (the acceptance of the possibility of having a predominantly gay orientation), tolerance (an admittance to oneself that they are probably gay to decrease identity confusion), acceptance (an increases contact with other gay and lesbian people and accepting their gay or lesbian identity), pride (an immersion in gay and lesbian culture while minimizing contact with heterosexuals), and synthesis (integrates their sexual identity with all other aspects of self, and sexual orientation becomes only one aspect of self rather than the entire identity) (Cass, 1979). Standards of beauty most likely oversees all of these stages, creating unique cognitive schemas or thought process that accumulates and exacerbates the consequences of body dissatisfaction and influences each stage differently. However, creating a basis of homosexual identity with films, television programs, and advertisements as exploratory material, the standards of gay physicality have imprinted on them. Subsequently, those advertised features have been internalized as blueprints of how they must view their physiques wholly or in part (Lanzieri & Hildebrandt, 2016). Then, when social media incorporates itself into the equation, all “acceptable” visual representations of men are made more accessible, which may not be beneficial. Having a baseline understanding of a gay identity revolving around society’s standard of beauty could not only negatively affect the way they view themselves but could negatively affect the way they interact with the community and view other gay men.

Though this study is an attempt to normalize the conversation of body dissatisfaction in the gay community, it is not without limitations. One limitation from the above study is that the direct effect of body dissatisfaction on an individual was not assessed. From the collected data, a connection between a macrolevel phenomenon like Objectification Theory and the way the gay community views the male body was researched. However, Objectification Theory’s affects an individual gay or bisexual man was not researched; despite research stating that higher levels of body dissatisfaction could be associated with disordered eating (e.g. Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia Nervosa, and Orthorexia Nervosa), depressive symptoms, sexual anxiety, and lower sexual efficacy (Barnes & Caltabiano, 2017, Blashill et al., 2015; Strübel & Petrie, 2020) Future research should solidify these correlations and formulate an affirmative and applicable treatment so that a vulnerable population can get the support it deserves. A second limitation of this study is that the influence on someone’s body dissatisfaction was not considered. Previous studies have concluded that higher social media use does increase body dissatisfaction (Filice et al., 2019a, 2019b; Griffiths et al., 2018). Future studies should attempt to separate aspects of social media (e.g. sex-related advertisement, weight-loss advertisement, anonymous weight-based comments, or overt masculine representation on social media) and their individual as well as a cumulative effect on an individual’s body dissatisfaction.

This study is the beginning of many to start questioning the hegemonic masculinity that men have been assigning to for many generations. By de-gendering diagnoses, phenomena, and situations so that they can apply to both women and men, there can be an open conversation to what affects everyone without judgment or biases, and they can search for treatment without stigma.

Acknowledgement

Thank you, Dr. Kelly Kent, for guiding, inspiring, and nurturing this novice research to unearth concepts and data that will help people feel less shame about their experiences. Thank you, Dr. Allen Lipscomb, without you, this piece of literature would not have the opportunity to help shed light on the male experience.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s). The author declares that no funds, grants, or other support were received for conducting this study and no funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript. The author has no relevant financial or non-financial interest to disclose. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Brandon Simpson. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Brandon Simpson and has approved the final manuscript.

Data availability statement

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article The author was the sole contributor to the study concept and design.