Review of General Psychology 2010, Vol. 14, No.

4, 311317

2010 American Psychological Association 1089-2680/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0020982

Revisiting Gay Mens Body Image Issues: Exposing the Fault Lines
Graeme D. Kane
Independent Practice, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
For over 25 years the varying idealizations of gay mens bodies and the behaviors associated with achieving such bodies has been the focus of an increasingly large body of research. What rst constituted an idealized body in this research, in the 1980s, was a thin and youthful image, which evolved into a muscular ideal in the 2000s with thinness translated into lean muscle mass and a small waist. To account for the emergence of both body image dissatisfaction and eating disorders, researchers in both paradigms have tended to either pathologize gay men or speculate about the contribution of a range of social-cultural and psychological factors. These include the role of the gay community, being effeminate or less masculine, and internalized homophobia. HIV and the wasted body is claimed to have also inuenced the purported recent emergence of the muscular ideal. The underlying driver for both paradigms is the proposition that gay men are universally xated on their appearance and presenting an idealized body to other men. This critical review examines the fault lines in both paradigms that can be found within prevalence studies, the methodology, data analysis, and the contradictory and problematic theorizing that arise as a result. It concludes that the prevalence and the truth of gay mens body image issues are overstated. Keywords: gay men, body image, critical review

Gay mens body image, idealized body, and associated behaviors to achieve this universal ideal body, have been the focus of research over the past 25 years. The ideal gay mans body was initially constructed by researchers and theorists as thin and youthful (e.g., Andersen, 1999; Herzog, Norman, Gordon, & Pepose, 1984; Schneider & Agras, 1987), evolving into a muscular ideal in the 2000s with thinness translated into lean muscle mass and a small waist (e.g., Conner, Johnson, & Grogon, 2004; Hospers & Jansen, 2005; Kassel & Franko, 2000; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003). In the muscular ideal, gay mens body dissatisfaction is characterized by the competing dual demands of being both thin and muscular (e.g., Boroughs & Thompson, 2002; Hospers & Jansen, 2005; Kaminski, Chapman, Haynes, & Own, 2005). To account for the phenomena of body image and eating disorders in gay men, researchers in both paradigms have tended to either pathologize gay men (e.g., Harvey & Robinson, 2003; Feldman & Meyer, 2007a, 2007b; Fichter & Daser, 1987) or speculate about the contribution of a range of social-cultural and psychological factors. The latter include the role of the gay community or culture (e.g., Beren, Hayden, Wiley, & Grilo, 1996; Siever, 1994; Yager, Kurtzman, Landsverk, & Wiesmeier, 1988; Yelland & Tiggemann, 2003); the power of the gay media to portray an idealized gay body (e.g., Brown & Graham, 2008; Williamson, 1999); being effeminate or less masculine (e.g., Gettelman & Thompson, 1993; Strong, Singh, & Randall, 2000); and

Graeme D. Kane, Independent Practice, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. This critical review was written by Graeme Kane, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Graeme Kane, 93A Errol Street, North Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, 3051. E-mail: graemekane@yahoo.com 311

internalized homophobia (e.g., Williamson & Hartley, 1998; Wiseman & Moradi, 2010). In the muscular paradigm, the less masculine account is expanded to encompass efforts by gay men to compensate for real or perceived decits in their masculinity with the pursuit of a powerful but lean physique (e.g., Brown & Graham, 2008; Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005). An additional factor in this paradigm is the speculation that HIV and the wasted body have inuenced the purported recent emergence of the lean muscular ideal (Drummond, 2005; Filiault & Drummond, 2007; Tiggemann, Martins, & Kirkbride, 2007). Yet despite these changes within the muscular paradigm, it remains similar to the thinness paradigm in that both take as their underlying assumption, the proposition that gay men are universally xated on their appearance and presenting an idealized body to other men (e.g., Boisvert & Harrell, 2009; Gil, 2007; Martins, Tiggemann & Kirkbride, 2007; Peplau et al., 2009; Russell & Keel, 2002). The generalization that gay men are socialized by the gay subculture to be xated on their appearance (and more so than heterosexual men) has been achieved in large part by both paradigms almost universal and uncritical assimilation of early clinical and nonclinical studies. These studies then become the foundation texts that impart authority to investigate the thin and muscular gay male body ideals. Kane (2009) chronologically and critically analyzed the methodologies of seven oft-cited early nonclinical studies (Beren et al., 1996; Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; French, Story, Remafedi, Resnick, & Blum, 1996; Herzog, Newman, & Warsaw, 1991; Siever, 1994; Silberstein, Mishkind, Striegel- Moore, Timko, & Rodin, 1989; Yager et al., 1988), and questioned the generalizability of the ndings of these foundation studies. Echoing recent qualitative studies that have suggested gay men interpret, resist and challenge the dominant discourse around what is an ideal body (e.g., Duncan, 2007, 2009; Slevin & Linneman, 2010), it was recommended that gay men and their bodies are better understood using a broader, diverse and more complex

312

KANE

worldview than simplistic binary formulations of gender and sexual orientation (Kane, 2009, p. 20). This review further critically examines the fault lines found in the prevalence studies, the recruitment methods employed and the composition of the samples, the tendency to ignore underlying assumptions of ranked ordinal data and treating as interval/ratio data, the use of traditional methods with distributions that violate assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, and the contradictory and problematic theorizing that arise as a result. The intent is to challenge the generalizations made that reduce gay men and their bodies to the pursuit of attractiveness by working the fault lines (Hillier & Harrison, 2004, p. 91) within the two dominant paradigms. The article concludes by suggesting that the prevalence and the truth of gay mens body image issues are overstated.

perplexing and unaccounted for, and yet the high prevalence worldview is subsumed into modern studies without critical analysis (e.g., Feldman & Meyer, 2007a, 2007b; Martins et al., 2007; Russell & Keel, 2002). The results of Carlat et al.s review of 14 years of patient records suggested that eating disorders in men generally represents a low prevalence phenomenon and the absence of gay or bisexual men with anorexia represents a fault line for the thin paradigm.

Methodology
The fault lines that emerge in the characteristics of the samples can be organized around four main themes. These are the recruitment methods, small sample sizes, the inclusion of bisexuals to facilitate comparisons with heterosexual samples, and the exclusion of not sure responses to sexual orientation. A small sample size limits the applicability of generalizations as it cannot be condently claimed that the data obtained is unbiased, representative and normally distributed. Within the thin paradigm, combining the studies by Beren et al. (1992); Herzog et al. (1984) and Schneider and Agras (1987) yields 24 gay men (13, 7 and 4, respectively). The muscular paradigm has tended to obtain larger samples, however Boisvert and Harrell (2009) recruited 10 gay men, while Kaminski et al. (2005) suggested that their recruitment methods, that yielded 25 gay men, produced a potentially more accurate picture of the gay population than in some previous studies (p. 182). The use of differential recruitment methods is likely to undermine attempts to obtain a representative sample. Within the thin paradigm, recruitment methods have included surveying gay men in their midthirties attending a conference (Brand et al., 1992), obtaining the heterosexual comparison group through friends of one of the authors (Herzog et al.,1991, p.357), and with advertisements investigating attitudes about eating, dieting, exercise, physical attractiveness, and your body (Siever, 1994, p. 254). University students tend to be over represented in the muscular paradigm studies (e.g., Brown & Graham, 2008; Gil, 2007), with recent moves to obtaining a broader composition of participants with use of the Internet (e.g., Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005). Conner et al. (2004) recruited 28 gay men through personal contacts in the bars in Leeds (p. 509). Several studies combine bisexual or same-sex attracted males with self-identied gay males in order to produce a larger sample for comparison with heterosexual males. Feldman and Meyer (2007a, 2007b) achieved a sample size of 193 by including 27 bisexual men in the thin paradigm, while Boisvert and Harrell (2009) achieved a sample size of 13 with the inclusion of three bisexual men (that were then compared to 213 heterosexual males) in the muscular paradigm. Recent studies that have investigated bisexuals separate from gay, lesbian, and heterosexuals have found higher rates of psychological distress for bisexuals and therefore recommended against combining bisexuals into the gay and lesbian groups (Dodge & Sandfort, 2007; Jorm, Korten, Rodgers, Jacomb, & Christensen, 2002). Jorm et al. (2002) have suggested that it is possible that the mental health and psychological distress ndings for gays may have overstated the risk (p. 425) because of the practice of combining bisexual and gay participants. The authors reported that with the exception of suicidality, a pairwise regression analysis of risk factors that included adverse life events,

High Prevalence
It has been generalized that gay men are over represented in treatment populations of men with eating disorders, comprising between 20%33% (Andersen, 1999 - 20%; Gettelman & Thompson, 1993 - 33%; Strong, Singh et al., 2000 - 26%33%; Strong, Williamson, Netemeyer, & Geer, 2000 - 30%). These high prevalence rates are typically derived from four main studies (Carlat, Camargo, & Herzog, 1997; Schneider & Agras, 1987; Yager et al., 1988). A closer examination of these four studies reveals fault lines in the high prevalence generalization. The clinical sample examined by Herzog et el. (1984) comprised 13 anorectic and 14 bulimic males with seven self identied gay male and a further ve males conicted about their sexual orientation. The nonclinical sample examined by Yager et al. (1988) revealed only one of the 48 gay males would have met criteria for a diagnosis of bulimia and only one of the 300 heterosexual males would have met criteria for a diagnosis of anorexia. The study by Schneider and Agras (1987) comprised 15 male bulimics, four of which identied as gay and another four as bisexual. The four gay males from this study were most likely used to calculate the 26% used by Strong, Singh et al. (2000). Combined, these three studies produce twelve gay men that have been used to calculate the high prevalence generalization. Incorporating the nine bisexual or sexual orientation conicted males from the Herzog et al. and Schneider and Agras studies only, would produce prevalence rates for same-sex attracted males of 44% and 53% respectively. Olivardia, Pope, Mangweth, and Hudson (1995) proposed that the comparatively high prevalence of gay men within these studies was likely as a result of gay men with eating disorders [being] more likely than other men with eating disorders to seek treatment, leading to an inated rate of homosexuality in clinical samples (p. 1283). Carlat et al. (1997) reviewed clinical records over a 14-year time period and were able to identify 176 males of which 135 had a conrmed eating disorder diagnosis. The clinical data was drawn from an 800-bed hospital which also had an outpatient service that supported 600,000 patient visits per year. The rst table presented by Carlat et al. reveals that there were no gay or bisexual men diagnosed with anorexia during the 14 years of data collection, only asexual and heterosexual men were. The gay and bisexual men were diagnosed with either bulimia or Eating Disorder Not Otherwise Specied. The absence of gay men with anorexia is

REVISITING GAY MENS BODY IMAGE ISSUES

313

child adversity, and support from family and friends, revealed no signicant difference between heterosexual and gay participants. Dening sexual orientation and its assumption of identity can prove problematic for studies of young people as attraction, behavior, and identity is often less xed for this age cohort. French et al. (1996) conducted a large population-based study of 34,196 students from which they identied and combined 81 gay and 131 bisexual males in order to increase statistical power (p. 122). These were compared to a subsample of 212 heterosexual males and found that homosexual (sic) males (p.124) had higher rates of dissatisfaction with their bodies and engaged in more disordered eating. It was generalized that in consideration of the age and lack of exposure to the gay community, these results were attributed to gender nonconformity (i.e., gays and bisexuals are less masculine). Due to a lack of a clear interpretation (p. 121), the authors eliminated 3,454 students (9.8%) who described their sexual orientation as not sure. Austin et al. (2004), on the other hand, analyzed the responses of 766 students (representing 7.24% of their overall sample of 10,583) who either failed to nominate a sexual orientation or nominated not sure and found this group of young people were less concerned with weight and appearance compared with heterosexual peers (p. 1122).

Data
The fault lines that emerge in the analysis of data can be organized around three main themes. These are adjusting the scoring of measurements employed (in order to arrive at signicance); violating assumptions of data by analyzing ranked ordinal data as interval/ratio data; and using traditional methods to analyze distributions that violate assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance. Feldman and Meyer (2007a, 2007b) expanded the categories for anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating on the basis of the claim that the full syndrome diagnosis criteria may be too restrictive (2007a, p. 221) and other analysis showed that the full syndrome results did not reach statistical signicance (2007b, p. 421). Combining bisexual and gay men, and lowering criteria for low prevalence disorders was required in order to demonstrate statistical signicance. The 1994 study by Siever is often cited in the generalization that [g]ay men, like women, experience extreme pressure to be eternally slim and youthful looking (p. 252) in order to attract a male partner, whereas, because physical attractiveness is less essential in attracting a female partner, heterosexual men and lesbians are subject to less pressure to be physically attractive (p. 253). Researchers and theorist alike have tended to overlook how this generalization may not t the scientic edicts to avoid biased or demeaning attitudes about people, but of greater concern is the absence of acknowledgment of Sievers adjustment of the scores on the Eating Disorder Inventory (EDI) and Eating Attitudes Test (EAT) downward in order to achieve statistical signicance (e.g., Conner et al., 2004; Feldman & Meyer, 2007a; Martins et al., 2007; Morrison, Morrison, & Sager, 2004; Rothblum, 2002; Tiggemann et al., 2007). When the statistical analyses . . . were rerun with the original [that is, valid] scoring method for the EAT and the EDI . . . the magnitude and frequency of statistically signicant effects were greatly reduced (Siever, 1994, p. 257).

The treatment of ranked ordinal data as interval/ratio data and the use of conventional methods to locate signicant differences in lognormal distributions is found in the vast majority of the studies within the two dominant paradigms that investigate gay mens bodies, though this practice is in fact widespread in psychology and other social sciences (Chimka & Wolfe, 2009; Erceg-Hurn & Mirosevich, 2008; Wilcox & Keselman, 2003). Five-point Likert scales are typically employed (with some instances of scales of four, six, and seven). The response categories have a rank order (i.e., 1, 2, 3, etc.), but it cannot be said that the interval between the categories can be presumed to be equal. For instance, the difference between strongly disagree and agree (1 and 2) is not the same as agree and neither agree, nor disagree (2 and 3). The underlying assumption of ordinal data is that the mode or median are appropriate, and that difference can be explored with either the Wilcoxons Matched Pairs Signed Ranks Test or the Mann Whitney U test, and relationships with the Spearmans Rank-Order Correlation Coefcient. Calculating means, standard deviations and exploring differences and relationships with t tests, Cohens d (that is independent of sample size), Multiple Correlation Coefcient, and Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefcientall assume normality and homogeneity of variance. The violation of underlying assumptions of data and choice of statistical methods represent the largest fault lines. Four studies are reviewed: Peplau et al. (2009) regarding ordinal data, and Beren et al., 1996; Silberstein et al., 1989; Yager et al., 1988, regarding normality and homogeneity of variance. The two studies reported in Peplau et al. (2009) obtained large samples recruited through the Internet and found that gay men, as compared to heterosexual men, are dissatised with their bodies, overly focused on their appearance, and prone to eating disorder symptoms. The rst study obtained a sample for comparison that comprised 646 heterosexual and 130 gay men. The overall mean score for the Appearance Evaluation Scale (a 7-item 5-point Likert scale) was 3.35 and 3.10 for heterosexual and gay men respectively, with the 0.25 difference being statistically signicant for the comparison of two unequal samples. The respective standard deviation values were 0.79 and 0.81. That is to say, that on average, heterosexual and gay men nominated the value 3 (neither agree, nor disagree) regarding body dis/satisfaction with a difference of 0.25 that was statically signicant. A similar result was obtained in study two that compared 25,714 heterosexual to 1,523 gay men. The overall mean score of Self-rated Attractiveness (a 1-item 4-point Likert scale; Frederick, Peplau, & Lever, 2006) was 2.59 and 2.36, respectively. That is, heterosexual and gay men on average rated their attractiveness in terms of their body as just okay , with a difference of 0.23 that was statistically signicant in the comparison of unequal samples. The third table comprised diverse proportions of body dissatisfaction based on BMI categorizations of underweight, healthy, overweight and obese. Neither conventional nor robust parametric or nonparametric analysis was conducted. Differences of between 8 and 10% were to be considered potentially meaningful (p. 721). The authors generalized that based on their treatment of ranked ordinal data as continuous with unequal samples for comparison that heterosexual men were the group most likely to feel good about their bodies (p. 724). Yager et al. (1988) compared 48 gay to 300 heterosexual men and employed t tests. The standard deviations obtained for the gay students were at least twice the value for three of the eight scales

314

KANE

and the overall total score, which revealed that the variance from this small and unequal sample was too great to condently use conventional methods (Wilcox & Keselman, 2003). This was also the case in the study by Silberstein et al. (1989) that compared 71 gay to 71 heterosexual men. Closer examination of the results reveal that the number of men who perceived their bodies as ideal, who wanted to lose weight and who wanted to gain weight, were practically identical for gay and heterosexual men. Due to the lack of statistical differences found between the two groups, the authors split the sample into these categories and compared unequal sample sizes ranging from 10 to 36. The large differences in the standard deviations, and the unequal small sample sizes used, were not appropriate for analysis using MANOVA. Finally, Beren et al. (1996) compared 72 heterosexual and 58 gay men. The means and standard errors (as opposed to standard deviations) are reported, and statistical signicance obtained using MANOVA. Revisiting the data, and extrapolating from the standard errors in order to calculate the standard deviations, indicates that the distribution for heterosexual males was positively skewed and therefore the analysis using MANOVA was inappropriate. The lognormal distributions and likelihood of obtaining Type I errors support a greater skepticism with the generalizations made in these foundation studies that is missing in review articles (e.g., Andersen, 1999; Rothblum, 2002), research studies (e.g., Conner et al., 2004; Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005) or in Morrison et al. meta-analysis (2004). The meta-analytic review by Morrison et al. (2004) is reviewed because of the prominence accorded it. The review analyzed 20 studies (14 published) that were not coded for quality according to the authors and that comprised 984 gay and 1,397 heterosexual men. The average weighted effect size was 0.29 (0.74 with the inclusion of the study by Beren et al., 1996). Three of the high effect sizes come from unpublished manuscripts (0.63, 0.62, 0.50) and eight of the 14 published studies recruitment methods have been criticized by Hausmann, Mangweth, Walch, Rupp, and Pope (2004). For example, three of these advertised interest in eating attitudes and dieting behaviors in the recruitment of the gay sample (e.g., Siever, 1994 - that contributed 0.76, 0.60, 0.42, 0.34). Beren et al.s (1996) heterosexual sample is skewed and violates the normality assumption, and the EDI scores from Yager et al. (1988 - that contributed 0.54) violates the homoscedasticity assumption for normal distributions as previously noted. As a result, it is unclear that Morrison et al.s meta-analysis has resolved the equivocal ndings (p. 127) in favor of the generalizations that an effect size of 0.29 represents a real and signicant difference between gay and heterosexual men.

Generalizations
Both paradigms universally generalize from their data that gay men are xated on their appearance and developing an ideal body that will be found attractive by other gay men (e.g., Gil, 2007; Martins et al., 2007), and heterosexual men are satised with their bodies in general, especially when compared to gay men (e.g., Morrison et al., 2004; Peplau et al., 2009). The principal reason to account for these claims is that the values and norms in the gay community place a heightened focus on physical appearance which men may feel pressured to conform to (Feldman & Meyer, 2007a, p. 218) and [m]any gay publications emphasize the importance of being t through the images they present (Brown &

Graham, 2008, p. 102). The second reason is that gay men tend to have more female-typical occupations and hobbies (Strong, Singh et al., 2000, p. 430), with research showing that approximately 75% of sissy boys identify as gay or bisexual in adulthood (p. 429). This factor is also referred to as childhood gender nonconformity in the thin paradigm (e.g., Gettelman & Thompson, 1993; Kassel & Franko, 2000) and compensatory pursuit of a powerful physique in the muscular paradigm (e.g., Gil, 2007; Boisvert & Harrell, 2009). The third reason is internalized homophobia in the thin paradigm (e.g., Williamson, 1999; Williamson & Hartley, 1998; Williamson & Spence, 2001) which is called the minority stress model (from Meyer, 1995, 2003) in the muscular paradigm (e.g., Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005; Reilly & Rudd, 2006). The fourth and nal reason is the emergence of HIV and the wasted body (e.g., Drummond, 2005; Filiault & Drummond, 2007; Harvey & Robinson, 2003; Pope, Phillips, & Olivardia, 2000). The fault lines in these four accounts and the generalization that heterosexual men are satised with their bodies are now examined. Connectedness to, acceptance or involvement in, the gay community was shown to have little to no correlation with eating disorders in some studies (Feldman & Meyer, 2007a; Levesque & Vichesky, 2006; Tiggemann et al., 2007). With the failure of this almost universally accepted causative, Feldman and Meyer suggest that it could be afliation with a subgroup that leads to eating disorders, and Levesque and Vichesky dissemble that involvement contributes to the pursuit of muscularity but acceptance has the opposite effect. Russell and Keel (2002) found that homosexual (sic) men did not report higher levels of femininity relative to heterosexual men (p.305), while Hospers and Jansen (2005) found that b ody dissatisfaction was unrelated to femininity and [m]asculinity and femininity were unrelated to eating disorders (p. 1198). To account for these results, Hospers and Jansen suggested further research is needed into how peer pressure in the gay community (p. 1198) may account for the disproportional risk of homosexual (sic) men to develop an eating disorder (ibid). Three recent Internet-based studies within the muscular paradigm that primarily investigated internalized homophobia and body satisfaction (Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005; Reilly & Rudd, 2006; Wiseman & Moradi, 2010), provide a compelling picture with an overall combined sample size of 801 participants. Although all three studies treated ranked ordinal data (Likert responses) as interval/ratio (i.e., violated the assumption of the data), they did utilize robust methods to investigate the lognormal distributions that were obtained. The skewed distributions suggested that gay men in these studies overall reported moderate to high levels of self-esteem, satisfaction with their bodies, and low levels of internalized homophobia. Kimmel and Mahaliks (2005) sample obtained a mean of 12.46 for internalized homophobia (range: 9 36; standard deviation 2.48). Their model only accounted for small variances in body image dissatisfaction (5%) and masculine body ideal distress (13%), and it was recommended that future research be conducted into the gay communitys emphasis on slimness and youthfulness (p. 1189) in order to understand gay mens compensatory drive for a powerful physique. Reilly and Rudds (2006) study found support for only three of nine hypothesis tested and was

REVISITING GAY MENS BODY IMAGE ISSUES

315

unusual with the authors recommending interpreting their results with caution as the participants had a relatively high level of self-esteem, a relatively high level of body satisfaction, and a relatively low level of internalized homonegativity (p. 67). Wiseman and Moradis (2010) study produced similar results. The mean for EAT was 2.35 (2 rarely; standard deviation 0.70), sexual objectication experiences was 2.28 (2 rarely; standard deviation 0.74) and for men identifying as exclusively gay, internalized homophobia was 1.47 (1 completely disagree with homonegative statements as they pertain to them; standard deviation 0.63). Using robust methods, the authors were able to locate moderate relationships between incorporation of cultural standards of attractiveness, body surveillance, body shame and eating disorders symptoms. Wiseman and Moradi generalized that their data supported that found in Kimmel and Mahalik, and Reilly and Rudd, which showed that internalized homophobia (and being gay) was related to body dissatisfaction and distress. The fault lines observed in these three studies of psychologically healthy gay men would suggest that these relationships hold, but their samples overall do not support that gay men per se, are at risk because of their sexual orientation. The role of HIV and a notion of the wasted AIDS-body to account for the emergence of a muscular ideal represent a taken for granted realitypartly because the study of gay men and their bodies coincided with the emergence of HIV in the 1980s. Kane (2009) argued that the causal relationship of HIV and the muscular ideal proposed by the muscular paradigm (e.g., Drummond, 2005; Filiault & Drummond, 2007; Harvey & Robinson, 2003; Peplau et al., 2009; Tiggemann et al., 2007) runs the risk of being labeled historically disingenuous. Drummond (2010) provides a concise in-vogue and dominant script of the gay male body ideal that circulates academia and popular media. That is that [t]he archetypal gay male body is muscular, athletic, devoid of fat and hairless and in Western cultures that he is young (p. 31). Drummond further adds that academic and popular scrutiny of mens bodies and body image has only emerged over the past 10 12 years. The quantitative and qualitative cultural, sociological and historical investigation by Alvarez (2008) provides an overview of the muscular ideal that dates back to ancient Greece. The emergence of the weight training phenomenon is visually supported with pictorial data from the 1890s, and Bob Mizers 1930s and 40s mail-order art photographs and 1950s magazine Physique Pictorials. The popularity with gay and same-sex attracted males of these photographs of lean muscular males predates the identication of HIV and the AIDS-wasted body. Alvarez argued that currently there exists not one gay muscular ideal but six different muscular subtypes based on his Internet research of 5,576 gay and bisexual men. The claim that heterosexual men are more satised with their bodies and not overly concerned about its muscularity when compared to gay men is not supported. As far back as 1986, Mishkind, Rodin, Silberstein, and Stiegel-Moore reported that 7590% of males were dissatised with their bodies overall or some aspect of their body, and that boys and college mens ideal body was encapsulated by the mesomorphic or muscular mesomorphic: a body characterized by well-developed chest and arm muscles and wide shoulders tapering down to a narrow waist (p. 547). This is supported by recent studies that have shown that heterosexual men are concerned with a body that is both muscular and thin (Filiault, 2007; Furnham & Calnan, 1998; Olivardia, Pope Jr., Borowiecki III, & Cohane, 2004).

A number of studies comparing gay and heterosexual men have found either no differences (Hausmann et al., 2004; Olivardia, Pope, Mangweth, & Hudson, 1995), insignicant or few differences (Borough & Thompson, 2002; Morgan & Arcelus, 2009; Olivardia, Pope, & Hudson, 2000; Pope, Hudson, & Jonas, 1986), or observed commensurate levels of symptomotology in men as compared to women (Woodside et al., 2001). Drewnowski, Kurth, and Krahn (1995), in a study of 2,088 university-aged men (sexual orientation was not measured) found that men with higher body mass index (BMI) desired to lose weight, men with average BMI reported being satised with their weight, and men with lower BMI desired to gain weight. In an earlier study, Drewnowski and Yee (1987) obtained data from 226 college students (128 women) with 85% of men and 85% women reported being dissatised with their bodieswith 40% of men wanting to lose weight and 45% wanting to gain weight (again sexual orientation was not measured). A generalization that these studies support is that body image is diverse and complex, and often resists simplistic reductionist endeavors (Bottamini & Ste-Marie, 2006; Gleeson & Frith, 2006; Ridgeway & Tylka, 2005).

Conclusion
It can be argued that gay men experience their bodies differently to heterosexual men as the object of their physical attraction and desire shares the same gender as themselves. However men in general are likely to think about their bodies, and their level of satisfaction will likely be dependent on their age, height, weight, personality, interests, relationships, and an array of other factors (e.g., body hair, penis size, mobility). Some gay and heterosexual men experience distress in relation to their bodies ranging from anorexia, bulimia, and binge eating to obsessively working out in the gym, monitoring protein and carbohydrate intake, and removing unwanted body hair. The presence of multiple fault lines, within both the thin and muscular paradigms (and their construction of the gay male as obsessively xated on his appearance), engender less condence in the generalizations made, as this article has illustrated. It is more probable that gay men are concerned with their bodies in a way that is announced rather than pronounced (Duncan, 2009; Pope et al., 2000). In other words, scientists and practitioners need to pay better attention to the subtle ways gay and heterosexual males express a view, an interest or concern with their diverse bodies. The fault lines reveal that the prevalence and the truth of gay mens body image issues are overstated. Future researchers can avoid replicating the fault lines exposed in this paper by engaging in efforts to obtain a representative sample, analyzing (ranked ordinal) data with appropriate methods, and using robust statistical methods with lognormal distributions. But most importantly, future researchers and theorists are invited to resist evaluations that reduce gay men to being universally xated on their appearance. This would then align theorizing with scientic precepts that recommend avoiding stereotyping and bias in language (APA, 2009).

References
Andersen, A. E. (1999). Eating disorders in gay males. Psychiatric Annals, 29, 206 212.

316

KANE Erceg-Hurn, D. M., & Mirosevich, V. M. (2008). Modern robust statistical methods: An easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American Psychologist, 63, 59 601. doi: 10.1037/0003066X.63.7.591 Feldman, M. B., & Meyer, I. H. (2007a). Eating disorders in diverse lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 40, 218 226. doi: 10.1002/eat.20360 Feldman, M. B., & Meyer, I. H. (2007b). Childhood abuse and eating disorders in gay and bisexual men. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 40, 418 423. doi: 10.1002/eat.20378 Fichter, M. M., & Daser, C. (1987). Symptomatology, psychosexual development and gender identity in 42 anorexic males. Psychological Medicine, 17, 409 418. Filiault, S. M. (2007). Measuring up in the bedroom: Muscle, thinness, and mens sex lives. International Journal of Mens Health, 6, 127142. doi: 10.3149/jmh.0602.127 Filiault, S. M., & Drummond, M. J. N. (2007). The hegemonic aesthetic. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 3, 175184. Retrieved from https://admin.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/GLIP%20 Review%20Vol%203%20No%203.pdf Frederick, D. A., Peplau, L. A., & Lever, J. (2006). The swimsuit issue: Correlates of body image in a sample of 52,677 heterosexual adults. Body Image, 3, 413 419. French, S. A., Story, M., Remafedi, G., Resnick, M. D., & Blum, R. W. (1996). Sexual orientation and prevalence of body dissatisfaction and eating disordered behaviors. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 19, 119 126. Retrieved from http://www.yapmn.com/publications/ SexualOrientationandBody Dissatisfaction1996.pdf Furnham, A., & Calnan, A. (1998). Eating disturbance, self-esteem, reasons for exercising and body weigh dissatisfaction in adolescent males. European Eating Disorders Review, 6, 58 72. doi: 10.1002/ (SICI)1099 0968(199803)6:1 58::AID-ERV184 3.0.CO;2-V Gettelman, T. E., & Thompson, J. K. (1993). Actual differences and stereotypical perceptions in body image and eating disturbance: A comparison of male and female heterosexual and homosexual samples. Sex Roles, 29, 545563. doi: 10.1007/BF00289327 Gil, S. (2007). Body image, well-being and sexual satisfaction: A comparison between heterosexual and gay men. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 22, 237244. doi: 10.1080/14681990600855042 Gleeson, K., & Frith, H. (2006). (De)constructing body image. Journal of Health Psychology, 11, 79 90. doi 10.1177/1359105306058851 Harvey, J. A., & Robinson, J. D. (2003). Eating disorders in men: Current considerations. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 10, 297306. doi: 10.1023/A:1026357505747 Hausmann, A., Mangweth, B., Walch, T., Rupp, C. I., & Pope, H. G., Jr. (2004). Body-image dissatisfaction in gay versus heterosexual men: Is there really a difference? Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 65, 15551558. Retrieved from http://www.i-med.ac.at/psychiatrie/forschung_documente/ rtms-labor/documents/hausmann_gay_jcp_2004.pdf Herzog, D. B., Newman, K. L., & Warsaw, M. (1991). Body image dissatisfaction in homosexual and heterosexual males. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 179, 356 359. doi: 10.1097/00005053 199106000-00009 Herzog, D. B., Norman, D. K., Gordon, C., & Pepose, M. (1984). Sexual conict and eating disorders in 27 males. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, 989 990. Hillier, L., & Harrison, L. (2004). Homophobia and the production of shame: Young people and same sex attraction. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 6, 79 95. doi: 10.1080/13691050310001611156 Hospers, H. J., & Jansen, A. (2005). Why homosexuality is a risk factor for eating disorders in males. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 1188 1201. doi: 10.1521/jscp.2005.24.8.1188 Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Rodgers, B., Jacomb, P. A., & Christensen, H. (2002). Sexual orientation and mental health: Results from a community

APA. (2009). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Austin, S. B., Ziyadeh, N., Kahn, J. A., Camargo, C. A., Jr., Colditz, G. A., & Field, A. E. (2004). Sexual orientation, weight concerns, and eatingdisordered behaviors in adolescent girls and boys. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 11151123. doi: 10.1097/01.chi.0000131139.93862.10 Beren, S. E., Hayden, H. A., Wiley, D. E., & Grilo, C. M. (1996). The inuence of sexual orientation on body dissatisfaction in adult men and women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 20, 135141. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199609)20:2 135::AID-EAT3 3.0.CO;2-H Boisvert, J. A., & Harrell, W. A. (2009). Homosexuality as a risk factor for eating disorder symptomatology in men. The Journal of Mens Studies, 17, 210 225. doi: 10.3149/jms.1703.210 Boroughs, M., & Thompson, J. K. (2002). Exercise and sexual orientation as moderators of body image disturbance and eating disorders in males. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 307311. doi: 10.1002/ eat.10031 Bottamini, G., & Ste-Marie, D. M. (2006). Male voices on body image. International Journal of Mens Health, 5, 109 132. doi: 10.3149/ jmh.0502.109 Brand, P. A., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, L. J. (1992). A comparison of lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals on weight and restrained eating. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 253259. doi: 10.1002/1098-108X(199204)11:3 253::AID-EAT2260110308 3.0.CO;2-J Brown, J., & Graham, D. (2008). Body dissatisfaction in gym-active males: An exploration of sexuality, gender, and narcissism. Sex Roles, 59, 94 106. Carlat, D. J., Camargo, C. A., Jr., & Herzog, D. B. (1997). Eating disorders in males: A report on 135 patients. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 11271132. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/ reprint/154/8/1127 Chimka, J. R., & Wolfe, H. (2009). History of ordinal variable before 1980. Scientic Research and Essay, 4, 853 860. Conner, M., Johnson, C., & Grogan, S. (2004). Gender, sexuality, body image and eating behaviors. Journal of Health Psychology, 9, 505515. doi: 10.1177/1359105304044034 Dodge, B., & Sandfort, T. G. M. (2007). A review of mental health research on bisexual individuals when compared to homosexual and heterosexual individuals. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.) Becoming visible: Counseling bisexuals across the lifespan (pp. 28 51). New York: Columbia University Press. Drewnowski, A., Kurth, C. L., & Krahn, D. D. (1995). Effects of body image on dieting, exercise, and anabolic steroid use in adolescent males. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 17, 381386. doi: 10.1002/1098-108X(199505)17:4 381::AID-EAT2260170410 3.0.CO;2-V Drewnowski, A., & Yee, D. K. (1987). Men and body image: Are men satised with their body weight? Psychosomatic Medicine, 49, 626 634. Retrieved from http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/ 49/6/626 Drummond, M. J. N. (2005). Mens bodies: Listening to the voices of young gay men. Men and Masculinities, 7, 270 290. doi: 10.1177/ 1097184X04271357 Drummond, M. J. N. (2010). Younger and older gay mens bodies. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 6, 31 41. Duncan, D. (2007). Out of the closet and into the gym: Gay men and body image in Melbourne Australia. The Journal of Mens Studies, 15, 331 346. doi: 10.3149/jms.1503.331 Duncan, D. (2009). Gay men, body identity and the politics of visibility. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review, 6, 20 30.

REVISITING GAY MENS BODY IMAGE ISSUES survey of young and middle-aged adults. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 423 427. Retrieved from http://bjp.rcpsych.org/cgi/reprint/180/5/423 Kaminski, P. L., Chapman, B. P., Haynes, S. D., &, Own, L. (2005). Body image, eating behaviors, and attitudes toward exercise among gay and straight men. Eating Behaviors, 6, 179 187. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh .2004.11.003 Kane, G. D. (2009). Unmasking the gay male body ideal: A critical analysis of the dominant research on gay mens body image issues. GLIP Review, 5, 2033. Kassel, P. E., & Franko, D. L. (2000). Body image disturbance and psychodynamic psychotherapy with gay men. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 8, 307317. doi: 10.1016/j.eatbeh.2004.11.003 Kimmel, S. B., & Mahalik, J. R. (2005). Body image concerns of gay men: The roles of minority stress and conformity to masculine norms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 1851190. doi: 10.1037/ 0022-006X.73.6.1185 Levesque, M. J., & Vichesky, D. R. (2006). Raising the bar on the body beautiful: An analysis of the body image concerns of homosexual men. Body Image, 3, 4555. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2005.10.007 Martins, Y., Tiggemann, M., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Those speedos become them: The role of self-objectication in gay and heterosexual mens body image. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 634 647. doi: 10.1177/0146167206297403 Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38 56. Retrieved from http:// www.chssp.columbia.edu/events/ms/year4/pdf/sh_Meyer%20IH.pdf Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674 697. doi: 10.1037/00332909.129.5.674 Mishkind, M. E., Rodin, J., Silverstein, L. R., Streigel-Moore, R. H. (1986). The embodiment of masculinity: Cultural, psychological, and behavioral dimensions. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 545562. doi: 10.1177/000276486029005004 Morgan, J. F., & Arcelus, J. (2009). Body image in gay and straight men: A qualitative study. European Eating Disorder Review, 17, 435 443. doi: 10.1002/erv.955. Morrison, M. A., Morrison, T. G., & Sager, C.-L. (2004). Does body satisfaction differ between gay men and lesbian women and heterosexual men and women? A meta-analytic review. Body Image, 1, 127138. doi: 10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.01.002 Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Jr., Borowiecki, J. J., III, & Cohane, G. H. (2004). Biceps and body image: The relationship between muscularity and self-esteem, depression, and eating disorder symptoms. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 112120. doi: 10.1037/1524 9220.5.2.112 Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Jr., & Hudson, J. I. (2000). Muscle dysmorphia in male weightlifters: A case-control study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 12911296. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/ cgi/reprint/157/8/1291 Olivardia, R., Pope, H. G., Jr., Mangweth, B., & Hudson, J. I. (1995). Eating disorders in college men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 1279 1285. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/ 152/9/1279 Pope, H. G., Jr., Hudson, J. I., & Jonas, J. M. (1986). Bulimia in men: A series of fteen cases. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 174, 117119. Pope, H. G., Jr., Phillips, K. A., & Olivardia, R. (2000). The Adonis Complex: How to identify, treat, and prevent body obsession in men and boys. New York: The Free Press. Reilly, A., & Rudd, N. A. (2006). Is internalized homonegativity related to body image? Family and Consumer Sciences Research Journal, 35, 58 73. doi: 10.1177/1077727X06289430 Ridgeway, R. T., & Tylka, T. L. (2005). College mens perceptions of ideal body composition and shape. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 209 220. doi: 10.1037/1524 9220.6.3.209 Rothblum, E. D. (2002). Gay and lesbian body images. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research & clinical

317

practice (pp. 257268). NY: The Guilford Press. Retrieved from http://wwwrohan.sdsu.edu/ rothblum/doc_pdf/weight/GayandLesbianBodyImages.pdf Russell, C. J., & Keel, P. K. (2002). Homosexuality as specic risk factor for eating disorders in men. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31, 300 306. doi: 10.1002/eat.10036 Schneider, J. A., & Agras, W. S. (1987). Bulimia in males: A matched comparison with females. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 6, 235242. doi: 10.1002/1098-108X(198703)6:2 235::AID-EAT2260060207 3.0.CO; 2-A Siever, M. D. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 252260. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.62.2.252 Silberstein, L. R., Mishkind, M. E., Striegel-Moore, R. H., Timko, C., & Rodin, J. (1989). Men and their bodies: A comparison of homosexual and heterosexual men. Psychosomatic Medicine, 51, 337346. Retrieved from http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/cgi/reprint/51/3/337 Slevin, K. F., & Linneman, T. J. (2010). Old gay mens bodies and masculinities. Men and Masculinities, 12, 483507. doi: 10.1177/ 1097184X08325225 Strong, S. M., Singh, D., & Randall, P. K. (2000). Childhood gender nonconformity and body dissatisfaction in gay and heterosexual men. Sex Roles, 43, 427 439. doi: 10.1023/A:1007126814910 Strong, S. M., Williamson, D. A., Netemeyer, R. G., & Geer, J. H. (2000). Eating disorder symptoms and concerns about body differ as a function of gender and sexual orientation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 240 255. Tiggemann, M., Martins, Y., & Kirkbride, A. (2007). Oh to be lean and muscular: Body image ideals in gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8, 1524. doi: 10.1037//1524 9220.8.1.15 Wilcox, R. R., & Keselman, H. J. (2003). Modern robust data analysis methods: Measures of central tendency. Psychological Methods, 8, 254 274. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.254 Williamson, I. (1999). Why are gay men a high risk group for eating disturbance? European Eating Disorders Review, 7, 14. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099 0968(199903)7:1 1::AID-ERV275 3.0.CO;2-U Williamson, I., & Hartley, P. (1998). British research into the increased vulnerability of young gay men to eating disturbance and body dissatisfaction. European Eating Disorders Review, 6, 160170. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099 0968(199809)6:3 160::AID- ERV252 3.0.CO;2-H Williamson, I., & Spence, K. (2001). Towards an understanding of risk factors for eating disturbance amongst gay men. Health Education, 101, 217227. doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000005645 Wiseman, M. C., & Moradi, B. (2010). Body image and eating disorder symptoms in sexual minority men: A test and extension of objectication theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 57, 154 166. doi: 10.1037/a0018937 Woodside, D. B., Garnkel, P. E., Lin, E., Goering, P., Kaplan, A. S., Goldbloom, D. S., & Kennedy, S. H. (2001). Comparisons of men with full or partial eating disorders, men without eating disorders, and women with eating disorders in the community. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 158, 570 574. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline .org/cgi/reprint/158/4/570 Yager, J., Kurztman, F., Landsverk, J., & Wiesmeier, E. (1988). Behaviors and attitudes related to eating disorders in homosexual male college students. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145, 495 497. Retrieved from http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/reprint/145/4/495 Yelland, C., & Tiggemann, M. (2003). Muscularity and the gay ideal: Body dissatisfaction and disordered eating in homosexual men. Eating Behaviors, 4, 107116. doi: 10.1016/S1471-0153(03)00014-X

Received July 18, 2010 Revision received July 18, 2010 Accepted July 24, 2010