The Intersection of Gender and Sexuality: Sexism Shapes Men’s Same-Sex Sexuality in Terms of Self-Label Identification and Partner Choice in China

Demographic and Geographic Differences in Facial Masculinity Preferences Among Gay and Bisexual Men in China

This study examined demographic and geographic differences in facial masculinity preferences among gay and bisexual men in China. The final sample included 2595 participants whose data were obtained from four published data sets and one unpublished data set. Demographic variables included sexual self-label, sexual orientation, age, educational level, and occupational status. Geographic variables were classified based on the IP addresses of respondents including North-South division, administrative division, economic regional division, and modernization division. There were significant differences in facial masculinity preferences in demographic variables. Gay men preferred more masculinized faces than did bisexual men. "Tops" preferred feminized faces, whereas "bottoms" and "versatiles" preferred masculinized faces. Participants aged 20-29 years preferred more masculinized faces than did those aged 16-19 years and older than 30. Also, the results indicated significant differences in facial masculinity preferences in geographic variables. Participants living in South China preferred more masculinized faces than did those living in North China. Concerning administrative division, individuals living in South China (Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian, and Jiangxi) preferred more masculinized faces than did those living in other regions. Participants living in first-tier cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen) preferred more masculinized faces than did those living in other cities. The findings implicated context-dependent variability in facial masculinity preferences among gay and bisexual men; facial trait-attribution processes may contribute to these individual differences.

Intimate Partner Violence and Controlling Behavior Among Male Same-Sex Relationships in China: Relationship With Ambivalent Sexism

In this study, we examined intimate partner violence (IPV), cold violence, and controlling behaviors in male same-sex relationships in China, with a focus on the characteristics of IPV and controlling behaviors, and their relationships with ambivalent sexism. IPV was categorized as psychological aggression, physical injury, physical assault, and sexual coercion and was measured using the revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2), an eight-item scale measuring cold violence that was designed specifically for this study. Controlling behaviors were measured using a 34-item scale that was designed for this study, and sexist attitudes toward women and men were assessed using the short forms of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI) and the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI), respectively. Participants (N = 272) reported instances of perpetration of or victimization by IPV and controlling behaviors within the past 6 months and indicated ambivalent sexism (hostile attitude toward men and women and benevolent attitude toward men and women [HM, HS, BM, and BS, respectively]). Almost 47.1% of the participants reported an experience of IPV, and the prevalence of cold violence and controlling behaviors was found to be 65.1% and 80.5%, respectively. Psychological aggression was the most common, followed sequentially by sexual coercion, physical assault, and injury in present study. We found a strong association between perpetration and victimization and that different forms of violence tend to co-occur in both IPV and controlling behaviors. As predicted, ambivalent sexism was positively correlated with IPV and controlling behaviors, specifically HS and HM. The results indicated the high prevalence of IPV and controlling behaviors among male same-sex relationships, and sexism contributing to this high prevalence.

The Dyadic Effects of Top/Bottom Sexual Self-Labels and Partner Sexual Role Requirements on Facial Masculinity Preferences Among Gay and Bisexual Men in China

Sexual position preferences in male same-sex relationships are reflected in individuals' top/bottom sexual self-labels and requirements for their partners' sexual positions. Previous studies revealed significant differences in facial masculinity preferences among sexual self-label groups among gay and bisexual men. This study examined the moderating effect of requirements for partners' sexual positions on the relationship between facial masculinity preferences and sexual self-labels. Participants (N = 1,628, data were collected in 2019) were shown 10 pairs of male faces sequentially, with each pair consisting of a masculinized and feminized version of the same base face. "Bottoms" and "versatiles" preferred masculinized faces over feminized faces, whereas "tops" showed no significant preference for masculinized or feminized faces. "Tops" preferred more feminized faces than did "bottoms" and "versatiles." There were significant interactions between sexual self-labels and requirements for partners' positions. "Tops" who required a complementary partner preferred more feminized faces than did those having no requirement. "Bottoms" who required a complementary partner preferred more masculinized faces than did those having no requirement. "Versatiles" requiring a "top" as a romantic partner preferred more masculinized faces than did those requiring "bottoms" or those having no requirement. The findings highlighted the correlation between sexual preferences and partner choices among gay and bisexual men. Stereotypes about gender and masculinity may account for the links between sexual self-labels and partner choice in both sexual self-labeling and preferred labeling of partners based on masculinity.

Intersections Around Ambivalent Sexism: Internalized Homonegativity, Resistance to Heteronormativity and Other Correlates

This article explores the connections between the construct of sexism and other sociodemographic and attitudinal variables, such as internalized homonegativity and heteronormative resistances, among psychology students. Both unrefined and inferential analyses were used with a representative sample of 841 psychology students from public universities in Madrid. Results showed higher levels of sexism, internalized homonegativity and low resistances to heteronormativity among groups of men, heterosexuals and conservatives. Interactions were found that showed a higher degree of hostile sexism in: heterosexual people with respect to LGB and heterosexual men with respect to heterosexual women. Also, interactions were found to show a greater degree of heteronormative resistance in: LGB people with respect to heterosexuals and left-wing women with respect to right-wing women. Correlations with sexism varied according to gender identity and sexual orientation. In addition, heteronormative resistances correlated negatively with sexism, while some components of internalized homonegativity correlated positively. Political affiliation was the most frequent predictor of sexism. The results highlight the need for an intersectional approach to understanding the phenomenon of sexism.