- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 8,086
- Points
- 113
The fastest growing churches in the world are in Iran and Afghanistan where locals have grown disillusioned with Islam.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Bro Lawrence launch Grand Victorlee plan to save poor Hardlanders, more help is definitely on the way!!?
- Thread starter k1976
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 8,086
- Points
- 113
The PAP may soon tax S'poreans for the air we breathe.
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 18,829
- Points
- 113
Only keen on atb
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 18,829
- Points
- 113
Is Singapore gay friendly? We explore this in our gay travel guide to Singapore setting out the best gay bars, clubs, hotels, safety tips, and oh-so-much more!
Gay Singapore is rising like a fabulous phoenix from the ashes of COVID-19 and lockdowns.
Change is happening here. It's fast, and it's exciting.
On our first trip to Singapore in August 2015 the anti-gay law was still in place. The gay scene was nonetheless thriving compared to other parts of Asia. Then, Covid happened and
Gay Singapore is rising like a fabulous phoenix from the ashes of COVID-19 and lockdowns.
Change is happening here. It's fast, and it's exciting.
On our first trip to Singapore in August 2015 the anti-gay law was still in place. The gay scene was nonetheless thriving compared to other parts of Asia. Then, Covid happened and
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 18,829
- Points
- 113
As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health.
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Published in final edited form as: Arch Sex Behav. 2013 Apr 24;42(5):775–784. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0095-z
The publisher's version of this article is available at Arch Sex Behav
Keywords: Bears, Gay Culture, Gay and Bisexual Men, Self-esteem, Masculinity, Obesity
As suggested, the Bear culture exhibits and values a greater sense of dominant (but not necessarily domineering) “authentic masculinity” in comparison to other subcultures within the gay community (e.g., twinks or drag queens) (Hennen, 2005). Bear culture is complex and inextricably tied to heteronormative and hegemonic masculine ideologies. This suggests that the Bear identity not only is “conventionally gendered” but includes a specific presentation of self (Hennen, 2005). Though ostensible similarities and overlapping traits exist between Bears and other gay male subcultures (e.g., the Leathermen), research indicates that their expressions of masculinity, tolerance of behaviors, and values may be unique (Wright, 1997). For example, where Leathermen revere hypermasculinity as a trait that encompasses embracing danger, fearlessness, power, and sexual callousness. Bears do not. Unconditional acceptance and empathy exist in lieu of hypermasculinity (Manley, Levitt, & Mosher, 2007). Sexual partners matter and are egalitarian. It can be psychologically damaging to live with immutable and devalued physical traits, particularly within mainstream cultures that sexually condemn such traits (Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005). In response and in contrast with Leathermen, Bears maintain their masculine identity without adopting negative hypermasculine tendencies to accommodate all partners, despite their size or body hairiness.
There is some theoretical support for why the Bear identity splintered from the gay male mainstream culture. Social identity theory suggests that groups adopt social creativity strategies. Tajfel and Turner (1986) have found that subordinate group members will, at times, try to convert their identity from being a negative one to a positive one by “changing the values assigned to the attributes of the group, so that comparisons which were previously negative are now perceived as positive” (p. 20). The classic example of this is African Americans adopting “Black is beautiful.” Bears may do something similar by altering the meaning of their heavier, shorter, and hairier physiques, relative to mainstream gays. That is, to contradict “superordinate” gay male subcultures (e.g., twinks, partyboys, A-listers) that are antithetical to, and even antagonistic towards Bears, men who are hairier and heavier exist and adopt an identity to affront the stereotypical “alpha” gay male. Thus, being “rugged,” “natural,” and “masculine” are reinvented by this community through increased weight, hairiness, and indifference to fashion (Hennen, 2005).
Popular culture, the media, and Western hetero- and homosexual expectations have normalized the ideal male body as one that is lean, muscular, and v-shaped (with broad shoulders, a narrow waist, and a flat but well-defined stomach) (Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2000). This version of the male body and its parts are increasingly portrayed in objectifying ways, such as imagery that includes bare chests or emphasizes genital bulges (Leit Pope, & Gary, 2001). It even has been noted that, as a result of the extreme importance placed on body image, physiological (e.g., anorexia/bulimia) and psychological pathologies (e.g., poor self-image/self-esteem) develop in both heterosexual and homosexual men exhibiting less desirable physical traits (Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, & Grilo, 1996; Morrison, Morrison, & Sager, 2004; Peplau et al., 2009; Weiner, 2009; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). Because the ideal male body seems to be unattainable to most, 14% to 45% of men state dissatisfaction with their body or some aspect of it (Garner et al., 1997; Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005). Thus, it is of little surprise that, given a cultural atmosphere in which thinness, youth (highly associated with hairlessness), height, muscularity, and above-average penis size are all admired and revered (Martins, Tiggemann, & Churchett, 2008), a spinoff subculture that devalues, and even eschews, such traits developed. As a corollary, interview data suggest that the adoption of the Bear identity by men who cannot or do not want to achieve this “idealized perfection” results in increased self-esteem, self-acceptance, and a better body image (Manley et al., 2007).
The Bear culture also exists to facilitate same-sex sexual encounters. However, where mainstream gay men report wanting partners with those previously stated, admired or revered characteristics (Moskowitz, Rieger, & Seal, 2009), Bears may not (Manley et al., 2007). Ethnographic research indicates that Bears may be more accepting and caring of partners with traits that mirror their own (Monaghan, 2005). That is, partners who are heavier, hairier, and eschew normative instances of idealized male beauty may be preferred. Alternatively, partner selectivity may simply be more relaxed. For example, it has been noted in previous research that men who were heavier or even obese tended not to reject partners (Moskowitz & Seal, 2010). A similar, and arguably traditionally masculine, proclivity may be present for Bears where, as long as a male partner meets minimum trait criteria, sex can ensue.
Finally, men who possess a Bear identity may be more likely to enact desired sexual behaviors than do men who are not part of that culture. Whereas mainstream gay men often do not engage in desired or preferred sexual behaviors because of fears of rejection or judgment (Kaminski, Chapman, Haynes, & Own, 2004), those in the more accepting Bear community reject these fears due to their being ultimately “feminine” in nature (Hennen, 2005). Part of the eschewal of normative idealized male beauty (for the more “natural” masculine beauty) may also encompass shrugging off sexual constraints. Accordingly, men identifying as Bears may be intrinsically more interested in enacting diverse sexual behaviors, some of which are equated with masculinity, and push the limits of what may be considered socially acceptable or normative sexual behaviors (e.g., urination, fisting, voyeurism, exhibitionism) (Grov, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2010).
Due to the active existence of the Bear community and recognition of this subculture by the larger gay/bisexual male culture, more research is needed to explore the degree to which the previously mentioned physical, behavioral, and psychological differences actually exist. In exploring these smaller subcultures of the larger gay/bisexual male culture, sociology, psychology, and even public health can better explain and address the needs of men with same-sex attractions. Health disparities may exist for some of these subcultures. Additionally, subcultural differences may unknowingly confound future studies on sexuality and health. Researchers may be ignorant of such differences, fail to account for them, and find results that are mere artifacts of the flawed or underdeveloped initial social identity measures. It is with this concern and considering the dearth of extant Bear research that we explored the following hypotheses.
Note. Ranges:
a
18–79 years
b
18–73 years
Specific to the Craigslist sample (see Tables 2 and 3), the 531 men reported being above average on height, weight, and erect penis size and below average on hairiness and muscularity. These men also reported wanting partners who were above average on height, muscularity, and erect penis size and below average on hairiness and weight. The most popular rejection criterion for partners for the Craigslist sample was “weighed too much” (50.7%) followed closely by “was less attractive” (50.3%) and “was too old” (49.7%). A majority of men reported engaging in receptive and insertive oral and anal intercourse and anilingus. Other noteworthy sexual behaviors enacted by the sample were exhibitionism (33.5%), voyeurism (35.8%), domination (19.0%), submission (16.6%), receptive urination (9.6%), and insertive urination (11.1%). A small minority of the men reported experiencing sexual assault (6.8%) or engaging in insertive sexual assault (3.0%).
Note.
a
1–7
b
1–6.
c
1–5,
d
0–5.
For number of bear events attended, participants were told not to include IML or PrideFest as an event. For more information regarding the relationship between these variables, see Moskowitz et al., 2009)
Note. N = 531. Pearson X2:
*
p≤ .05.
**
p≤.01.
Due to initial analyses to be presented in the next section, we decided to ask psychological traits questions in the follow-up, Summer 2008 IML/PrideFest study. These were scales that assessed masculinity, hypermasculinity, and self-esteem. This larger sample of men (about 1,000 more men than in the Craigslist study) reported moderate levels of masculinity (M = 3.8, SD = .76, range, 1–5), low levels of hypermasculinity (M = .25, SD = .17, range, 0-.93), and moderate levels of self-esteem (M = 4.99, SD = 1.25, range, 1–7). Hypermasculinity was not correlated with self-esteem or masculinity. However, masculinity was positively related to self-esteem in the greater sample (r(1487) = .15, p <.001).
The results regarding body traits and partner selection confirm, for the first time in a systematic manner, findings documented in previous interview and ethnographic studies. However, the sexual behavioral and psychological differences between Bears and those not identifying as such were novel and, to some degree, confound what members of the culture have verbally expressed in the literature. Bears reported enacting more sexual behaviors, many of which are relatively esoteric and physiologically extreme (Grov et al., 2010; Sandnabba, Santtila, & Nordling, 1999). These behaviors may be associated with, or an expression of, both the higher degrees of masculinity and lower degrees of self-esteem reported by such men in our studies. For example, behaviors such as insertive/receptive fisting, insertive urination, general domination, insertive asphyxiation, and insertive sexual assault may be behavioral representations of increased masculinity (Nordling, Sandnabba, Santtila, & Alison, 2006). To be able to take a fist or urinate on another man may be how the men exemplify their form of masculinity—particularly in a sexual climate where most gay men do not want to, cannot, or will not enact these behaviors. That is, not only do Bears look like “natural” males, seek partners who look like “natural” males, but also engage in behaviors that only “natural” males could tolerate or perform. Alternatively, these behaviors may stem from the lower self-esteem reported by Bears. To be urinated on or to submit to another man (i.e., engage in general submission) may be a response to perceived lower self-liking (Santtila, Sandnabba, Alison, & Nordling, 2002). Regardless of the potential explanation, Bears appear to be more sexually diverse and explorative than mainstream gay and bisexual men
Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice
Arch Sex Behav
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2017 May 24.Published in final edited form as: Arch Sex Behav. 2013 Apr 24;42(5):775–784. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0095-z
Physical, Behavioral, and Psychological Traits of Gay Men Identifying as Bears
David A Moskowitz 1,3, Jonathan Turrubiates 2, Hector Lozano 2, Christopher Hajek 2- Author information
- Article notes
- Copyright and License information
The publisher's version of this article is available at Arch Sex Behav
Abstract
The Bear community exists as a subculture in reaction to the larger gay community. It rejects the normative idealized male beauty revered by mainstream gay men. While qualitative data document such self-identifiers as masculine-acting gay men who weigh more and have more body hair, there has to date been no quantitative analysis of this group’s characteristics. In response, we conducted two large-scale studies of gay men identifying as Bears (n = 469) to survey their self-reported physical, behavioral, and psychological traits. Our studies indicated that Bears were more likely to be hairier, heavier, and shorter than mainstream gay men. They reported wanting partners who were hairier and heavier. They were less likely to reject sexual partners and the partners they did reject were more likely to be young or weigh too little (i.e., were not bearish). Bears were more likely than mainstream gay men to enact diverse sexual behaviors (e.g., fisting, voyeurism) and were comparatively more masculine. Bears had lower self-esteem but were no less (or more) hypermasculine than non-Bears. We concluded that Bears are intensely sexual. We speculate that Bears are viewed as less attractive than what is traditionally considered to be attractive. The partners they can attract may be limited and, in response to this limitation, they may be particularly attuned to seek out partners who will not reject them. This condition may produce the low self-esteem exhibited and may explain how the Bear culture developed to ensure that even the heaviest, hairiest, and/or shortest individual can partner. Future analyses of the community’s health are warranted.Keywords: Bears, Gay Culture, Gay and Bisexual Men, Self-esteem, Masculinity, Obesity
INTRODUCTION
The gay community is ultimately a heterogeneous one with many subgroups and subcultures—one of the commonalities among them being the desire to have same-sex encounters. One such subculture is comprised of gay and bisexual men who identify as Bears. Bears self-present as having the “correct attitude” towards their “naturally developing/aging” male bodies (Monaghan, 2005). They consider “real” masculinity to include having comfort with other men’s bodies and eschew the more normative gay male body-model (i.e., one in which thinness, youth, hairlessness, and muscularity are revered) (Drummond, 2005; Duncan, 2007). They favor instead a body-model that may be predetermined by genetics, age, or heteronormative masculine beliefs (i.e., men should weigh more and be hairier) (Wright, 1997). There are many different subdivisions within the Bear community. Men are categorized primarily by their hairiness, but also by their weight, age, and ethnicity. Divisions within the community may consist of: Grizzly Bears (White, hairy, heavier men), Cubs (younger hairy men), Polar Bears (older men with greying or white hair), Big Teddy Bears (men who are hairy, yet heavier than Grizzly Bears), Otters (men who are hairy but thin), and other classifications encompassing ethnic variations such as Black Bears (hairy men of color) or Panda Bears (hairy Asian or Pacific Islander men) (Monaghan, 2005). Despite physical differences within the Bear community, most of the men subscribe to a shared identity: masculinity is praised and therefore celebrated within the community. Because there is a dearth of general research regarding this community, and no studies to date that use quantitative methods, we decided to explore this community quantitatively—using an Internet-convenience sample, followed by a purposive sample.As suggested, the Bear culture exhibits and values a greater sense of dominant (but not necessarily domineering) “authentic masculinity” in comparison to other subcultures within the gay community (e.g., twinks or drag queens) (Hennen, 2005). Bear culture is complex and inextricably tied to heteronormative and hegemonic masculine ideologies. This suggests that the Bear identity not only is “conventionally gendered” but includes a specific presentation of self (Hennen, 2005). Though ostensible similarities and overlapping traits exist between Bears and other gay male subcultures (e.g., the Leathermen), research indicates that their expressions of masculinity, tolerance of behaviors, and values may be unique (Wright, 1997). For example, where Leathermen revere hypermasculinity as a trait that encompasses embracing danger, fearlessness, power, and sexual callousness. Bears do not. Unconditional acceptance and empathy exist in lieu of hypermasculinity (Manley, Levitt, & Mosher, 2007). Sexual partners matter and are egalitarian. It can be psychologically damaging to live with immutable and devalued physical traits, particularly within mainstream cultures that sexually condemn such traits (Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005). In response and in contrast with Leathermen, Bears maintain their masculine identity without adopting negative hypermasculine tendencies to accommodate all partners, despite their size or body hairiness.
There is some theoretical support for why the Bear identity splintered from the gay male mainstream culture. Social identity theory suggests that groups adopt social creativity strategies. Tajfel and Turner (1986) have found that subordinate group members will, at times, try to convert their identity from being a negative one to a positive one by “changing the values assigned to the attributes of the group, so that comparisons which were previously negative are now perceived as positive” (p. 20). The classic example of this is African Americans adopting “Black is beautiful.” Bears may do something similar by altering the meaning of their heavier, shorter, and hairier physiques, relative to mainstream gays. That is, to contradict “superordinate” gay male subcultures (e.g., twinks, partyboys, A-listers) that are antithetical to, and even antagonistic towards Bears, men who are hairier and heavier exist and adopt an identity to affront the stereotypical “alpha” gay male. Thus, being “rugged,” “natural,” and “masculine” are reinvented by this community through increased weight, hairiness, and indifference to fashion (Hennen, 2005).
Popular culture, the media, and Western hetero- and homosexual expectations have normalized the ideal male body as one that is lean, muscular, and v-shaped (with broad shoulders, a narrow waist, and a flat but well-defined stomach) (Olivardia, Pope, Borowiecki, & Cohane, 2000). This version of the male body and its parts are increasingly portrayed in objectifying ways, such as imagery that includes bare chests or emphasizes genital bulges (Leit Pope, & Gary, 2001). It even has been noted that, as a result of the extreme importance placed on body image, physiological (e.g., anorexia/bulimia) and psychological pathologies (e.g., poor self-image/self-esteem) develop in both heterosexual and homosexual men exhibiting less desirable physical traits (Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, & Grilo, 1996; Morrison, Morrison, & Sager, 2004; Peplau et al., 2009; Weiner, 2009; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). Because the ideal male body seems to be unattainable to most, 14% to 45% of men state dissatisfaction with their body or some aspect of it (Garner et al., 1997; Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005). Thus, it is of little surprise that, given a cultural atmosphere in which thinness, youth (highly associated with hairlessness), height, muscularity, and above-average penis size are all admired and revered (Martins, Tiggemann, & Churchett, 2008), a spinoff subculture that devalues, and even eschews, such traits developed. As a corollary, interview data suggest that the adoption of the Bear identity by men who cannot or do not want to achieve this “idealized perfection” results in increased self-esteem, self-acceptance, and a better body image (Manley et al., 2007).
The Bear culture also exists to facilitate same-sex sexual encounters. However, where mainstream gay men report wanting partners with those previously stated, admired or revered characteristics (Moskowitz, Rieger, & Seal, 2009), Bears may not (Manley et al., 2007). Ethnographic research indicates that Bears may be more accepting and caring of partners with traits that mirror their own (Monaghan, 2005). That is, partners who are heavier, hairier, and eschew normative instances of idealized male beauty may be preferred. Alternatively, partner selectivity may simply be more relaxed. For example, it has been noted in previous research that men who were heavier or even obese tended not to reject partners (Moskowitz & Seal, 2010). A similar, and arguably traditionally masculine, proclivity may be present for Bears where, as long as a male partner meets minimum trait criteria, sex can ensue.
Finally, men who possess a Bear identity may be more likely to enact desired sexual behaviors than do men who are not part of that culture. Whereas mainstream gay men often do not engage in desired or preferred sexual behaviors because of fears of rejection or judgment (Kaminski, Chapman, Haynes, & Own, 2004), those in the more accepting Bear community reject these fears due to their being ultimately “feminine” in nature (Hennen, 2005). Part of the eschewal of normative idealized male beauty (for the more “natural” masculine beauty) may also encompass shrugging off sexual constraints. Accordingly, men identifying as Bears may be intrinsically more interested in enacting diverse sexual behaviors, some of which are equated with masculinity, and push the limits of what may be considered socially acceptable or normative sexual behaviors (e.g., urination, fisting, voyeurism, exhibitionism) (Grov, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2010).
Due to the active existence of the Bear community and recognition of this subculture by the larger gay/bisexual male culture, more research is needed to explore the degree to which the previously mentioned physical, behavioral, and psychological differences actually exist. In exploring these smaller subcultures of the larger gay/bisexual male culture, sociology, psychology, and even public health can better explain and address the needs of men with same-sex attractions. Health disparities may exist for some of these subcultures. Additionally, subcultural differences may unknowingly confound future studies on sexuality and health. Researchers may be ignorant of such differences, fail to account for them, and find results that are mere artifacts of the flawed or underdeveloped initial social identity measures. It is with this concern and considering the dearth of extant Bear research that we explored the following hypotheses.
Hypotheses
Given the literature, we proposed the following hypotheses:- H1
Bears will report being shorter, hairier, less muscular, weighing more, and having smaller erect penises than non-Bears. - H2
Bears will report wanting partners who are shorter, hairier, less muscular, who weigh more, and have smaller erect penises than non-Bears. - H3
Bears will report fewer rejections of partners on criteria (e.g., “weighing too much,” “being too old”) than non-Bears and will report a higher prevalence of “never rejecting” any partners than non-Bears. - H4
Bears will report engaging in a higher prevalence of (diverse) sexual behavior than non-Bears. - H5
Bears will report having higher self-esteem than non-Bears. - H6
Bears will report being more masculine than non-Bears. - H7
Bears will report being less hypermasculine than non-Bears.
METHOD
Data for our two distinct studies were derived from two separate samples (a total of 2,067 men). Our two-study structure emerged from the preliminary analyses of the first, encouraging us to ask a second independent sample psychological questions. Specifically, our first study was more exploratory and focused on the physical traits, partner selection, and rejection criteria of gay men (within which we collected enough Bears for analyses). The second was more purposive, where we actively recruited Bears to test the psychological variables (never asked by the first study) that might be associated with the identity.Participants
There were gender and sexual behavioral inclusion criteria associated with both studies. Specifically, men who have or have had sex with other men were solicited to participate. Bear identification was not an inclusion requirement, but rather a grouping variable to distinguish individuals. In the Craigslist study, 22.6% (n = 120) identified as part of the Bear community. In the IML/PrideFest study, 22.7% identified as part of the Bear community (n = 349). This subsample of 349 could be further dissected by location (i.e., IML vs. PrideFest). At IML, 253 of the 349 were recruited leaving 96 to be recruited from Pridefest. In terms of a percent of subsample: of those sampled at IML, 29.5% identified as part of the Bear community; of those sampled at PrideFest, 14.2% identified as part of the Bear community. Therefore, the most conservative estimate of the Bear prevalence among gay and bisexual men would be the 14% collected at PrideFest.Procedure
Sample 1: Craigslist Study Procedures
Men with varying sexualities who had placed sexual advertisements in the “men seeking men” personals section of Craigslist.com were asked to complete a brief online survey from January to March 2008. This was an international sample recruited from all of the Craigslist.com mirror sites for which English was the predominant language (i.e., all cities in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States). Specifically, a block message was sent to each man’s publicly listed advertisement informing him of a research study on the sexual health behaviors of men engaging in same-sex sexual behavior. No compensation was provided for participants. A total of 531 men answered the questions.Sample 2: IML/PrideFest Study Procedures
For the second study, data were collected using an anonymous survey administered at two independent gay events in May and June 2008: the International Mr. Leatherman Competition (IML) in Chicago, Illinois, and PrideFest in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. We knew Bears to frequent IML because the event encompassed a sub-event, BEAR PRIDE. We also selected PrideFest due to the relatively large number of Bear commercial and cultural booths. Thus, we considered the sampling at these locations to be more purposive than convenient. Booths were set up and men attending the events were solicited to take the 15-minute survey. Upon completion, participants received $5 as compensation. A total of 1536 men (859 from IML; 677 from PrideFest) answered the questions necessary to complete the analyses for our hypotheses.Measures
Bear Affiliation
Across both studies, participants could indicate if, in the past month (for the IML/PrideFest study) and year (for the Craigslist study), they considered themselves part of the Bear community. In the Craigslist study, we only asked about community affiliation. However, because we wanted to expand on what we found in the Craigslist study, in the IML/PrideFest study, we added more measures surrounding the Bear identity. To gauge strength of affiliation, we asked how many Bear activities or events participants had attended outside of IML/PrideFest in the past month. Participants also indicated the degree to which the Bear community was important to them (1 = not at all important, 5 = very important).Craigslist Study Measures: Physical Trait, Partner Preferences and Rejections, and Sexual Behavior Variables
Self and partner body attributes
We asked the men to rate themselves, compared to most men, on a 7-point scale on the following body attributes: height, weight, body hairiness, muscularity, and erect penis size (1 = lowest, 7 = highest). For example, individuals who rated themselves as “1” on body muscularity had virtually no muscle mass, while individuals who rated themselves as “7” were extremely muscular. Similarly, we asked the participants to rate the body attributes of their partners using the same 7-point scale on the same attributes: height, weight, body hairiness, muscularity, and erect penis. These measures have been previously published (Moskowitz et al., 2009; Moskowitz & Hart, 2011).Partner rejection
We used a checklist to assess “the possible reasons for rejecting partners.” Participants could indicate with “yes” or “no” if each of the following criteria applied to why they had rejected same-sex partners: appeared too old, appeared too young, weighed more, weighed less, were taller, were shorter, were less muscular, were more attractive, and were less attractive. Participants could also select, “I have never rejected individuals no matter what they looked like or seemed.”Sexual Behaviors
We asked individuals to indicate which of the following 20 potential receptive and insertive sexual behaviors (as separate choices) they performed over the past year: oral intercourse (fellatio), anilingus, anal intercourse, fisting, urination, defecation, asphyxiation, general domination/general submission, voyeurism/exhibitionism, and sexual assault/non-consensual sex. All of these behaviors were defined on the survey. Differences between receptive and insertive behaviors were also clarified on the survey. Receptive meant that the individual took either the literal or figurative receptive role (i.e., receptive urination: being urinated on or in another man; receptive asphyxiation: being asphyxiated by another man). Insertive meant that the individual took either the literal or figurative insertive role (i.e., insertive urination: urinated on or in another man; insertive asphyxiation: asphyxiating another man).IML/PrideFest Study Measures: Psychological Variables
Self-esteem
We used the self-liking dimension of the Self-Liking/Self-Competence Scale-Revisited version (SLCS-R) (Tafarodi & Swann, 2001) to assess participants’ degrees of self-esteem (α = .91). This 8-item measure asked participants to rate their agreement with statements such as, “I never doubt my personal worth” or “I feel great about who I am” (1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree”). Higher scores indicated higher self-esteem.Masculinity
Masculinity and femininity were first measured as two separate items. The men rated themselves against other men (i.e., “compared to most men”) using a Femininity scale and Masculinity scale (e.g., 1 = not at all feminine, 5 = extremely feminine; 1 = not at all masculine, 5 = extremely masculine) from Rieger, Linsenmeier, Gygax, and Bailey (2008) (see also Moskowitz & Hart, 2011). Femininity was reverse-coded and then averaged with masculinity with good reliability (α = .76).Hypermasculinity
The Hypermasculinity Inventory (Mosher & Sirkin, 1984) was used to assess the tendency towards a hypermasculine orientation. This inventory was comprised of forced choices between a non-hypermasculine response and a hypermasculine response. For example, individuals had to choose between the non-hypermasculine statement, “It’s gross and unfair to use alcohol and drugs to convince a partner to have sex” or the hypermasculine statement, “Get a partner drunk, high, or excited and he’ll let you do whatever you want.” Hypermasculinity is most notably associated with sensation seeking traits, callousness towards sexual partners, and dangerous behaviors or precarious situations. Scores were averaged and higher scores indicated a tendency towards hypermasculinity. The scale was reliable (α = .79).Statistical Analysis
The sample sizes varied across tests by the few instances of missing data. For the Craigslist study, we used logistic multiple regression and cross tabulation with chi-square to test for differences between Bears and non-Bears on self- and partner-physical attributes, rejection criteria, and differences in sexual behavior prevalence. For the IML/PrideFest study, we used a single logistic multiple regression model to establish the odds ratios for the psychological measures and Bear identity (i.e., self-esteem, masculinity, and hypermasculinity). Age was controlled for across all tests in both studies. It was positively associated with being heavier (i.e., weighing more, r(531) = .09, p = .05, and more masculine, r(1510) = .34, p <.001, and negatively associated with hypermasculinity, r(1543) = −.23, p <.001. In the IML/PrideFest study, we additionally controlled for survey location and HIV-status—both of which were related to, and could have been possible confounds with, masculinity and hypermasculinity.RESULTS
Samples
As Table 1 shows, the majority of both samples was White and fairly educated. Most men reported being homosexual. About one in five men identified as part of the Bear community across both samples. There was a difference in the distributions of sexual orientation between the studies; however, this was not significantly related to any independent or dependent variables included in any of the analyses. There were no other significant demographic differences between the Bears collected in the Craigslist sample and those collected in the IML/PrideFest sample. In fact, both samples virtually had the same mean ages and SD (Craigslist sample: 41.23 years, ±11.29; IML/PrideFest sample: 41.69 years, ±10.41).Table 1.
Sample Characteristics[th]
Craigslist Sample
[/th][th]
[/th]
[th]
Group
[/th][th]
Non-Bear
[/th][th]
n = 411
[/th][th]77.4%
[/th][th]
Bear
[/th][th]
n =120
[/th][th]22.6%
[/th][td]
Non-Bear
n (% of group)
[/td][td]n (% of group)
Bear
n (% of group)
[/td]n (% of group)
[td]
Race/ethnicity
[/td][td]
Asian/Pacific Islander
[/td][td]
9 (2.2)
[/td][td]0 (0.0)
[/td][td]
Black
[/td][td]
17 (4.1)
[/td][td]3 (2.5)
[/td][td]
Hispanic/Latino
[/td][td]
24 (5.8)
[/td][td]7 (5.8)
[/td][td]
White
[/td][td]
351 (85.5)
[/td][td]107 (89.2)
[/td][td]
Other/Mixed
[/td][td]
10 (2.4)
[/td][td]3 (2.5)
[/td][td]
Education
[/td][td]
Some high school/finished high school
[/td][td]
45 (10.9)
[/td][td]18 (15.0)
[/td][td]
Some undergraduate
[/td][td]
140 (34.1)
[/td][td]37 (30.8)
[/td][td]
Finished undergraduate
[/td][td]
118 (28.7)
[/td][td]30 (25.0)
[/td][td]
Some graduate/finished graduate
[/td][td]
108 (26.3)
[/td][td]35 (29.2)
[/td][td]
Sexual Orientation
[/td][td]
Homosexual
[/td][td]
243 (59.1)
[/td][td]88 (73.3)
[/td][td]
Bisexual
[/td][td]
123 (29.9)
[/td][td]25 (20.8)
[/td][td]
Heterosexual/No label
[/td][td]
45 (10.9)
[/td][td]7 (5.8)
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
Non-Bear
M (SD)
[/td][td]M (SD)
Bear
M (SD)
[/td]M (SD)
[td]
[/td]
[td]
Age (in years) a
[/td][td]
40.64 (12.6)
[/td][td]41.23 (11.3)
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
IML/PrideFest Sample
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
Group
[/td][td]
Non-Bear
[/td][td]
n =1187
[/td][td]77.3%
[/td][td]
Bear
[/td][td]
n =349
[/td][td]22.7%
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
Non-Bear
n (% of group)
[/td][td]n (% of group)
Bear
n (% of group)
[/td]n (% of group)
[td]
Location
[/td][td]
International Mr. Leatherman Competition
[/td][td]
606 (51.1)
[/td][td]253 (72.5)
[/td][td]
PrideFestst
[/td][td]
581 (48.9)
[/td][td]96 (27.5)
[/td][td]
Race/ethnicity
[/td][td]
Asian/Pacific Islander
[/td][td]
23 (1.9)
[/td][td]3 (0.9)
[/td][td]
Black
[/td][td]
123 (10.4)
[/td][td]19 (5.4)
[/td][td]
Hispanic/Latino
[/td][td]
77 (6.5)
[/td][td]28 (8.0)
[/td][td]
White
[/td][td]
890 (75.1)
[/td][td]274 (78.5)
[/td][td]
Other/Mixed/No label
[/td][td]
72 (6.1)
[/td][td]27 (7.7)
[/td][td]
Education
[/td][td]
Some high school/finished high school
[/td][td]
189 (15.9)
[/td][td]33 (9.4)
[/td][td]
Some Undergraduate
[/td][td]
286 (24.1)
[/td][td]91 (26.1)
[/td][td]
Finished Undergraduate
[/td][td]
372 (31.4)
[/td][td]92 (26.4)
[/td][td]
Some graduate/finished graduate
[/td][td]
340 (28.6)
[/td][td]133 (38.1)
[/td][td]
Sexual Orientation
[/td][td]
Homosexual
[/td][td]
1034 (87.4)
[/td][td]332 (95.7)
[/td][td]
Bisexual
[/td][td]
75 (6.3)
[/td][td]11 (3.2)
[/td][td]
Heterosexual
[/td][td]
75 (6.3)
[/td][td]4 (1.1)
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
Non-Bear
M (SD)
[/td][td]M (SD)
Bear
M (SD)
[/td]M (SD)
[td]
[/td]
[td]
Age b
[/td][td]
37.45 (12.5)
[/td][td]41.69 (10.4)
[/td]a
18–79 years
b
18–73 years
Specific to the Craigslist sample (see Tables 2 and 3), the 531 men reported being above average on height, weight, and erect penis size and below average on hairiness and muscularity. These men also reported wanting partners who were above average on height, muscularity, and erect penis size and below average on hairiness and weight. The most popular rejection criterion for partners for the Craigslist sample was “weighed too much” (50.7%) followed closely by “was less attractive” (50.3%) and “was too old” (49.7%). A majority of men reported engaging in receptive and insertive oral and anal intercourse and anilingus. Other noteworthy sexual behaviors enacted by the sample were exhibitionism (33.5%), voyeurism (35.8%), domination (19.0%), submission (16.6%), receptive urination (9.6%), and insertive urination (11.1%). A small minority of the men reported experiencing sexual assault (6.8%) or engaging in insertive sexual assault (3.0%).
Table 2.
Other Traits of the Sample[th]
M
[/th][th]SD
[/th][td]
Men’s height a
[/td][td]
4.50
[/td][td]1.04
[/td][td]
Men’s weight a
[/td][td]
4.26
[/td][td]1.04
[/td][td]
Men’s hairiness a
[/td][td]
3.83
[/td][td]1.42
[/td][td]
Men’s muscularity a
[/td][td]
3.73
[/td][td]1.10
[/td][td]
Men’s erect penis size a
[/td][td]
4.48
[/td][td]0.98
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
Partners’ height a
[/td][td]
4.46
[/td][td]0.93
[/td][td]
Partners’ weight b
[/td][td]
3.79
[/td][td]0.68
[/td][td]
Partners’ hairiness a
[/td][td]
3.70
[/td][td]1.48
[/td][td]
Partners’ muscularity a
[/td][td]
4.32
[/td][td]0.92
[/td][td]
Partners’ erect penis size a
[/td][td]
4.85
[/td][td]0.96
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
Importance of Bear Community c
[/td][td]
3.41
[/td][td]1.02
[/td][td]
Number of Bear Events Attended (1 month) d
[/td][td]
1.35
[/td][td]1.52
[/td]a
1–7
b
1–6.
c
1–5,
d
0–5.
For number of bear events attended, participants were told not to include IML or PrideFest as an event. For more information regarding the relationship between these variables, see Moskowitz et al., 2009)
Table 3.
Rejection Criteria and Sexual Behavior Prevalence (Hypotheses 3 & 4)[th]
Rejection Criteria
[/th][th]
% of Non-Bears (n)
[/th][th]% of Bears (n)
[/th][th]X2 value
[/th][td]
Never Rejected Anyone*
[/td][td]
21.4 (88)
[/td][td]30.0 (36)
[/td][td]3.83
[/td][td]
Too old
[/td][td]
50.9 (209)
[/td][td]45.8 (55)
[/td][td]0.94
[/td][td]
Too young*
[/td][td]
7.3 (30)
[/td][td]14.2 (17)
[/td][td]5.43
[/td][td]
Weighed too little
[/td][td]
2.7 (11)
[/td][td]4.2 (5)
[/td][td].71
[/td][td]
Weighed too much*
[/td][td]
52.8 (217)
[/td][td]43.3 (52)
[/td][td]3.94
[/td][td]
Was too tall
[/td][td]
1.7 (7)
[/td][td]0.0 (0)
[/td][td]2.07
[/td][td]
Was too short
[/td][td]
4.6 (19)
[/td][td]4.2 (5)
[/td][td].05
[/td][td]
Was not muscular enough
[/td][td]
10.5 (43)
[/td][td]5.8 (7)
[/td][td]2.33
[/td][td]
Was too attractive
[/td][td]
1.5 (6)
[/td][td]3.3 (4)
[/td][td]1.76
[/td][td]
Was not attractive enough*
[/td][td]
52.8 (217)
[/td][td]41.7 (50)
[/td][td]4.60
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
Sexual behaviors
[/td][td]
% of Non-Bears (n)
[/td][td]% of Bears (n)
[/td][td]X2 value
[/td][td]
[/td]
[td]
Receptive oral intercourse*
[/td][td]
90.3 (371)
[/td][td]95.8 (115)
[/td][td]3.71
[/td][td]
Insertive oral intercourse*
[/td][td]
88.3 (363)
[/td][td]95.0 (114)
[/td][td]4.54
[/td][td]
Receptive anilingus**
[/td][td]
64.2 (264)
[/td][td]77.5 (93)
[/td][td]7.42
[/td][td]
Insertive anilingus**
[/td][td]
54.3 (223)
[/td][td]78.3 (94)
[/td][td]22.38
[/td][td]
Insertive anal intercourse**
[/td][td]
54.3 (223)
[/td][td]68.3 (82)
[/td][td]7.53
[/td][td]
Receptive anal intercourse
[/td][td]
56.9 (234)
[/td][td]60.0 (72)
[/td][td]0.36
[/td][td]
Receptive fisting**
[/td][td]
2.9 (12)
[/td][td]8.3 (10)
[/td][td]6.85
[/td][td]
Insertive fisting*
[/td][td]
6.6 (27)
[/td][td]12.5 (15)
[/td][td]4.49
[/td][td]
Receptive urination*
[/td][td]
8.0 (33)
[/td][td]15.0 (18)
[/td][td]5.20
[/td][td]
Insertive urination*
[/td][td]
9.7 (40)
[/td][td]15.8 (19)
[/td][td]3.61
[/td][td]
Receptive defecation
[/td][td]
1.0 (4)
[/td][td]1.7 (2)
[/td][td]0.40
[/td][td]
Insertive defecation
[/td][td]
1.0 (4)
[/td][td]1.7 (2)
[/td][td]0.40
[/td][td]
Receptive asphyxiation
[/td][td]
2.9 (12)
[/td][td]3.3 (4)
[/td][td]0.05
[/td][td]
Insertive asphyxiation*
[/td][td]
1.7 (7)
[/td][td]5.0 (6)
[/td][td]4.22
[/td][td]
General domination**
[/td][td]
14.8 (61)
[/td][td]33.3 (40)
[/td][td]20.62
[/td][td]
General submission*
[/td][td]
14.4 (59)
[/td][td]24.2 (20)
[/td][td]6.47
[/td][td]
Voyeurism**
[/td][td]
32.6 (134)
[/td][td]46.7 (56)
[/td][td]7.99
[/td][td]
Exhibitionism**
[/td][td]
29.7 (122)
[/td][td]46.7 (56)
[/td][td]12.02
[/td][td]
Receptive sexual assault
[/td][td]
5.8 (24)
[/td][td]10.0 (12)
[/td][td]2.54
[/td][td]
Insertive sexual assault**
[/td][td]
1.9 (8)
[/td][td]6.7 (8)
[/td][td]7.08
[/td]*
p≤ .05.
**
p≤.01.
Due to initial analyses to be presented in the next section, we decided to ask psychological traits questions in the follow-up, Summer 2008 IML/PrideFest study. These were scales that assessed masculinity, hypermasculinity, and self-esteem. This larger sample of men (about 1,000 more men than in the Craigslist study) reported moderate levels of masculinity (M = 3.8, SD = .76, range, 1–5), low levels of hypermasculinity (M = .25, SD = .17, range, 0-.93), and moderate levels of self-esteem (M = 4.99, SD = 1.25, range, 1–7). Hypermasculinity was not correlated with self-esteem or masculinity. However, masculinity was positively related to self-esteem in the greater sample (r(1487) = .15, p <.001).
Craigslist Study Hypotheses
Physical Trait Differences of Bears and Their Partners
To test the first two hypotheses, we conducted a logistic regression and included all five physical traits and all five partners’ physical traits. The overall model was significant, χ2(11) = 174.61, R2 = .43, p < .001. Confirming parts of the first hypothesis, Bears were more likely to be shorter (p =.03, OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56–0.97), weigh more (p < .001, OR = 3.50, 95% CI = 2.55–4.81), and be hairier (p < .001, OR = 1.74, 95% CI = 1.41–2.14). Confirming parts of the second hypothesis, they were more likely to want partners who were hairier (p < .001, OR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.19–1.81). Although there was no direct effect regarding partners’ weight, we found that the relationship between Bear identification and partners’ weight was mediated by the men’s weight (Sobel test statistic = 2.26, p = .02). Statistically significant fluctuations in the partners’ weight variable (from p < .001, without the presence of the men’s weight variable, to p = .08, with it included in the model) prompted the mediation test. Thus, Bears were more likely to weigh more and men who weighed more wanted partners’ who weighed more.Partner Rejection Criteria
The third hypothesis was tested through a series of chi-square tests, the results of which are shown in Table 3. Though we predicted that Bears would be less likely to reject partners across all criteria and be more likely to report “never rejecting” partners, this hypothesis only was confirmed for a few of the criteria. Specifically, Bears were more likely to reject partners due to their being too young. They were less likely to reject individuals who were less attractive than they appeared or who weighed more. Finally, they were more likely to report having never rejected partners.Sexual Behaviors
For our fourth hypothesis, we predicted that Bears would report engaging in more (of the 20) sexual behaviors than non-Bears. This hypothesis was confirmed, with significant results found for 75% of behaviors (see bottom of Table 3). The less normative sexual behaviors produced some of the largest differences. For example, Bears were 3.02 times more likely to have engaged in receptive fisting (p = .01, 95% CI = 1.27–7.18) and 2.03 times more likely to have engaged in insertive fisting (p = .04, 95% CI = 1.04–3.96). Bears were 1.81 times more likely to have engaged in voyeurism (p < .01, 95% CI = 1.20–2.74) and 2.07 times more likely to have engaged in exhibitionism (p < .01, 95% CI = 1.37–3.14).IML/PrideFest Study Hypotheses
Psychological Variable Differences
Due to the differences found between Bears and non-Bears within the Craigslist study, we explored three psychological constructs (i.e., self-esteem, masculinity, and hypermasculinity) that were conceptually associated with those results. Also, and as suggested by previous qualitative research, these constructs were likely to vary by the maintenance of a Bear identity. Therefore, one final logistic regression model was conducted in which the relationship between these three variables and the Bear identity were tested. The overall model was significant, χ2(6) = 87.65, R2 = .06, p < .001. Contrary to the fifth but confirming the sixth, non-Bears reported higher self-esteem than Bears (p < .001, OR = 3.11, 95% CI = 1.68–5.76). Additionally, Bears reported higher degrees of masculinity than non-Bears (p < .001, OR = 5.26, 95% CI = 2.37–11.63). The null hypothesis could not be rejected for the seventh hypothesis (regarding hypermasculinity). As a follow-up to Bears reporting lower self-esteem than non-Bears, we conducted an additional analysis to explore whether rating the culture as more important and/or attending more Bear events moderated self-esteem. No significant results were found. That is, being a more active Bear and/or finding the community more important did not affect this low self-esteem in community members.DISCUSSION
Supporting previous qualitative research, our quantitative results indicated that Bears were more likely to be hairier, heavier, and shorter. They reported wanting partners who were hairier and, due to their own increased weight, heavier. They reported rejecting partners less and the partners they did reject were more likely to be young. Bears reported the enactment of (diverse) sexual behaviors and reported being more masculine. However, in contrast to previous qualitative research, Bears actually had lower self-esteem and were no less (or more) hypermasculine than non-Bears. Our results describe a subculture of men who were different than mainstream gay men in their personal looks, partner preferences, behaviors, and psychologies. Considering the likely prevalence of a Bear identity may be held (with varying tenacities) by about 14–22% of gay men, these results provide additional evidence for the manifest and latent heterogeneity of gay and bisexual men.The results regarding body traits and partner selection confirm, for the first time in a systematic manner, findings documented in previous interview and ethnographic studies. However, the sexual behavioral and psychological differences between Bears and those not identifying as such were novel and, to some degree, confound what members of the culture have verbally expressed in the literature. Bears reported enacting more sexual behaviors, many of which are relatively esoteric and physiologically extreme (Grov et al., 2010; Sandnabba, Santtila, & Nordling, 1999). These behaviors may be associated with, or an expression of, both the higher degrees of masculinity and lower degrees of self-esteem reported by such men in our studies. For example, behaviors such as insertive/receptive fisting, insertive urination, general domination, insertive asphyxiation, and insertive sexual assault may be behavioral representations of increased masculinity (Nordling, Sandnabba, Santtila, & Alison, 2006). To be able to take a fist or urinate on another man may be how the men exemplify their form of masculinity—particularly in a sexual climate where most gay men do not want to, cannot, or will not enact these behaviors. That is, not only do Bears look like “natural” males, seek partners who look like “natural” males, but also engage in behaviors that only “natural” males could tolerate or perform. Alternatively, these behaviors may stem from the lower self-esteem reported by Bears. To be urinated on or to submit to another man (i.e., engage in general submission) may be a response to perceived lower self-liking (Santtila, Sandnabba, Alison, & Nordling, 2002). Regardless of the potential explanation, Bears appear to be more sexually diverse and explorative than mainstream gay and bisexual men
- Joined
- May 16, 2023
- Messages
- 35,321
- Points
- 113
Xpeng is a better choice
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2012
- Messages
- 18,829
- Points
- 113
- can be a symptom of other conditions,
such as substance abuse, certain medical conditions, or even as a reaction to trauma.
- If you are concerned about someone's paranoia, encourage them to seek professional help.{
Link: Mental Health America https://mhanational.org/conditions/paranoia-and-delusional-disorders} offers resources and information about paranoia and delusional disorders
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 8,086
- Points
- 113
S'porean Christians and Muslims have from time to time affirmed the belief of the mainstream that homosexual practices run counter to not only their faith, but the laws of nature. However, most believers of these 2 religions have never called for anything except restraint when dealing with issues involving the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2023
- Messages
- 1,224
- Points
- 83
More vouchers?
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2023
- Messages
- 8,086
- Points
- 113
The PAP is a one-trick pony. They are attracted by money so figure that S'poreans are only interested in the same, but we deserve less than the Pappies, so we receive a far smaller amount in the form of CDC vouchers.
Similar threads
