Sexuality & Culture

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-020-09744-2

COMMENTARY

Male Homosexism: A Concept in Search of Acceptance

Ronald E. Hellman1

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
‘Homosexism’ is an early term originally proposed to more accurately reflect a prej-
udice, rather than a phobia implied in the term ‘homophobia.’ However, the term
‘homosexism’ never gained traction, but the roots of the word suggest a previously
unrecognized prejudice based on sexual behavior, in contrast to a prejudice based
on same-gender attraction. In this paper, homosexism, as a prejudice encompassing
subtypes of male same-sexual behaviors, is differentiated from homophobia, which
is based on sexual orientation. Homosexism can elucidate why cultural portrayals
that emphasize anal sex as the central element of sexual behavior among men who
have sex with men are not supported by research evidence. Homosexism, and its
potentially damaging effects, cannot be redressed until it is identified, named, and
managed.

Keywords Homosexism · Homophobia · Heteronormativity · Homosexuality · Men

who have sex with men · MSM · Prejudice

Heteronormative assumptions about, and appraisals of, male homosexual behav-

iors are not only unsupported by the facts, but constitute a demeaning prejudice that
harms both communities.
Although beliefs in the general population about the specific sexual behaviors of
men who have sex with men (MSM) have not, as yet, been systematically surveyed,
the widespread portrayal of male same-sexuality in cinema, television, religious
texts, books on sexual practices, and sexual content in bullying, narrowly depict anal
intercourse as the predominant behavior of MSM. Yet, a century of research on male
homosexuality finds this activity to have the lowest frequency in relation to other
forms of male homoerotic behavior (Hellman 2019).

Ronald E. Hellman—Former Associate Professor, Institute for Advanced Medicine, Mount Sinai
School of Medicine.

* Ronald E. Hellman
ronaldehellman@gmail.com
1
New York, USA

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 R. E. Hellman

Currently, there is no word that captures the essence of the phenomenon that
has given rise to the disconnect between the cultural portrayal of male same-sexual
behavior and research evidence.
It is contended, here, that a prejudice underlies the distortion of male homosex-
ual behavior that may best be described by the word ‘homosexism,’ an early term
for homophobia that was not widely adopted. Lehne (1976) originally proposed
the term to more accurately denote a prejudice rather than a phobia in reference to
Weinberg’s term ‘homophobia’ (1972). However, the term never gained traction and
has rarely been referenced in over three decades (Hansen 1982a, b).
Homophobia refers to prejudice based on sexual orientation, essentially same-
gender attraction. ‘Homosexism’ here, is redefined as a prejudice based on same-
sexual erotic activity preference. It is subsumed under the more general category of
same-gender attraction, but focuses on the subtypes of sexual behavior assumed or
observed. This definition encompasses a prejudice that has not been previously iden-
tified. ‘Homosexism,’ in this context, does not refer to the obverse of ‘heterosexism,’
meaning a prejudice favoring same gender sexuality as superior to heterosexuality.
What is proposed involves attitudes and valuations of specific categories of sexual
behavior that are associated with MSM. Homophobia would apply, for example,
when someone denigrates a person because they identify as gay, or a same-sex cou-
ple that identifies as husbands, where all that is known is their gender preference.
Homosexism would apply when there is a negative bias towards a particular sexual
practice, such as anal, oral, or manual sex that is thought to characterize MSM.
The proposed redefinition of ‘homosexism’ as a prejudice regarding male homo-
sexual practices was determined in the following way. ‘Homo,’ has the double
meaning of ‘man,’ and ‘same’ as in ‘homosexuality.’ ‘Sexism,’ refers to prejudice
based on ‘sex’ meaning ‘gender,’ but ‘sex,’ also denotes ‘sexual activity.’ Here, it
stands for a prejudice based on the particular sexual activities of MSM. Although
subsumed under the category of sexual orientation, it is not focused at the level of
gender attraction, but on the subtypes of sexual behaviors within that category. A
person, group, culture, or society that diminishes certain forms of intimate, consen-
sual erotic behaviors between men could be labeled as ‘homosexist.’
To review, briefly, the disconnect between the culture and research evidence, cin-
ema, television, magazines, and the internet are genres that cater to millions and
serve, de facto, as informational vehicles to the public regarding sex, including
same-sexual behaviors. This takes on additional relevance because there is virtually
no formal sex education in the school system on male homoerotic behavior (Kosciw
et al. 2014), nor is there evidence that family, peers, and other sources of reliable sex
information demonstrate awareness of the research evidence. Adolescents increas-
ingly obtain sexual information online (Strasburger and Brown 2014), but sexually
explicit websites, such as PornHub, continue to portray anal sex as the predominant
partnered activity of MSM (Hellman 2019).
Recent examples from television and movies include the portrayal of Elton
John in Rocketman (2019), the explicit sexual scene in Boy Erased (2018), and
the erotic scene in Special (2019). The reference to gay male sex in The Politician
(2019) occurs in a scene in which Jessica Lange’s character says, “…that’s what
gays do- munch butts.” All focus on anal sex. The exception occurs in Season 2

13
Male Homosexism: A Concept in Search of Acceptance

of Mindhunters (2019), where the one sexual portrayal in the series depicts part-
nered, manual sex. But, this scene involves two women. Anal sex between a man
and a woman is rarely portrayed in television and mainstream movies.
Typical of advertising in Out magazine, with the highest circulation of any
LGBT monthly issue, is a full-page advertisement for a shaver with mainstream
sponsorship by Panasonic and Amazon (Out 2019a). It features the prominent
display “TOP. BOTTOM. FRONT. EVEN THE BEHIND” (BOLD lettering as
per the advertisement). An article in the same issue (2019b) is entitled “Every-
thing* you ever wanted to know about ass…*butt were too afraid to ask.” Manual
and oral references are absent in the issue.
The September 9, 2019 edition of The New Yorker features an article on The
Inheritance, thought by many to be the most important gay-themed play since
Angels in America. The one explicit sexual reference in the article reads:
The play also offers validation of the different forms [my underline] that
love between men can take…: “Adam found himself irresistibly drawn to
Kip’s ass, to his muscled cheeks splayed before him like an unwrapped
gift…” (pg 39)
These examples, and others (Hellman 2019), are not meant to diminish this form
of sexual intimacy, but to demonstrate that an active, hegemonic, cultural conviction
is stereotyping MSM. Academic research evidence does not support this portrayal. A
study of same-sex couples, for example, is consistent with, and expands on research
previously cited (Hellman 2019). Couples can be more difficult to access, tend to be
more private, may not be found in the typical venues that serve as resources for gay
research, and are less likely to be part of a “hook-up” subculture, such that they may
be less influenced by peer pressure and cultural missives.
Data on the 969 gay, male couples in the study (Blumstein and Schwartz 1983)
is in accord with other surveys: 63% usually or always masturbate their partner,
55% usually or always engage in oral sex, and 19% regularly engage in anal sex.
Those who rarely or never engage in oral sex comprised 4% of the sample, while
about eight times that number (30%) rarely or never had anal sex. This contrasts
with an analysis of sexually explicit, online, gay male videos where 70% of con-
tent involves anal sex (Downing et al. 2014).
By comparison, a review of publications between 1975 and 2014 of young
people age 24 or less found a lifetime heterosexual prevalence of anal intercourse
at 22% (Owen et al. 2015). The 2006–2010 Survey of Family Growth found that
13.2% of women had recently engaged in heterosexual anal intercourse with a
lifetime figure of 36.3% (Benson et al. 2015). The Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention reports that 37.0% of males surveyed between 2006 and 2010,
and 37.7% between 2011 and 2015 had ever engaged in heterosexual, anal inter-
course, while 31.6% of females surveyed between 2006 and 2010, and 33.3% sur-
veyed between 2011 and 2015 had ever engaged in heterosexual, anal intercourse
(National Survey of Family Growth, 2020).
While most research on this subject is consonant, distortions exist. These stud-
ies advance their own bias as exemplified below.

13
 R. E. Hellman

Magnus Hirschfeld, the German sexologist, in a 1920 publication, reported that

40% of his homosexual subjects exclusively engaged in mutual masturbation, 40%
engaged in oral sex, and 8% preferred anal intercourse (Lombardi-Nash 2000).
Although Hirschfeld is vague about his methodology and apparently combined
data from men and women, the relative frequencies in his observations are con-
sistent with more rigorous, contemporary studies of male same-sexual practices.
This contrasts with the following statements in academic research publications:
Homosexual intercourse appears to be the most important alternative form of
sexual expression utilized by people living around the world. (Carrier 1980)
Or, this statement by Zheng et al. in a 2017 publication (Zheng et al. 2017):
“Anal intercourse is the main same-sex sexual behavior among gay and
bisexual men in various cultures, paralleling vaginal intercourse for hetero-
sexual men and women.” (Zheng et al. 2017)
The statement by Carrier is based on his research in the 1970s (1971, 1977).
His data on a sample of Mexican MSM: 90% practiced anal intercourse, 7% pre-
ferred oral sex, and 1% preferred mutual masturbation. The statement by Zheng
et al. is based on eight cited references. The first refers to Carrier’s work. The
second is taken from a book by a writer who is not a researcher. The remainder
are HIV risk studies specifically focused on anal sex done in the United States
between 2000 and 2012. No major, contemporary study on same-sexual behavior
(Bell and Weinberg 1978; Bieber 1962; Dodge et al. 2016; Laumann et al. 1994;
Rosenberger et al. 2011; Whyte et al. 1998) is cited.
Of course, male same-sexual behavior in Mexico and Germany may differ, and
perhaps in China. The supposition is undermined by a study that found male homo-
erotic behavior in Mexico to be far more nuanced than previously reported (Car-
rillo and Fontdevila 2011). The study observed a subgroup whose sexual behavior
was typical of the Carrier study, and was significantly linked to rigid gender roles,
but two other major subgroups were observed that were labeled “homosocial” and
“object-choice” groups. Subjects in these groups engaged in a spectrum of recipro-
cal behaviors including mutual masturbation, oral and anal sex.
In these examples, one investigation generalizes about a sexual subculture that
is not representative of the population being studied, while the other is suggestive
of a distortion that could have enhanced the likelihood of obtaining HIV related
research grant funding at the height of the epidemic. Both reinforce the heter-
onormative presumption of intercourse as the dominant activity in male homo-
eroticism, falsely diminishing the role of oral and partnered, manual intimacy.
These publications, in reputable, academic journals, raise the question as to
whether homosexism is influencing a peer review process that gives the okay to
publish biased studies that promote this false notion. If the underlying prejudice
of homosexism is operating in the academic world, these examples demonstrate
the harm that results when it is not recognized.
The cultural over-attribution that fosters this erotically based stereotype
has been historically associated with criminalization, crucially showing how

13
Male Homosexism: A Concept in Search of Acceptance

homosexism underlies the broad phenomenon of homophobia. For example, the

language in the ban on consensual gay sex, overturned in 2018 in India, reads
“carnal intercourse against the order of nature.” It was not only rescinded but
linked with an extension of social protections for gay Indians (Gettleman et al.
2018). An erotic prejudice had served the purpose of a wider form of sexual ori-
entation discrimination. Same-gender attraction had been conflated with a spe-
cific erotic activity, even though this activity is observed in opposite sex couples
as well.
The assumptions at the core of homosexism in dominant, heterosexual societies,
also have their within-group sexual minority employment. The sexual practice of
some becomes an excuse to belittle or diminish the practice of others, where the
dominant, heteronormative idea of intercourse is internalized within the sexual
minority community, and used to further misconstrue the characterization of MSM.
The stereotype undermines those with a preferred inclination for the more frequent
practices of oral and partnered, manual sex, because they experience a sense of inti-
macy equal to that experienced by those who prefer anal sex, but social and cultural
validation is absent, and the practices are negatively valued.
Note the responses to the following posting on the popular, social website Reddit
(2016):
QUES: “Why is there such a strong emphasis on tops and bottoms in the gay
community? I’m 24 and have been out for three years. Never had anal sex or
a long-term relationship, mostly due to lack of interest in my options rather
than lack of opportunity… So why is one’s anal sex position seemingly such a
definitive aspect of the gay community?
Response 1: “…things other than anal sex…that are still part of sex are not as
major a thing as anal sex is…”
Response 2: “I think once you have anal sex you’ll understand, because then
the other stuff just becomes foreplay. And there’s not much point spending
effort on trying to sleep with someone if you’re not going past foreplay, so
everyone is up front about the top, bottom or vers thing. You’re just not at the
same place yet as most of the gay community.”
(Note: there were other responses without homosexist content)
Homosexism presumes to set a bar that “tests” one’s sexual competence as a gay
person. A reasonable consideration follows as to how such responses could engender
internalized homosexism- proud to be gay, but ashamed of having no interest in anal
intercourse, while enduring the social expectation that intercourse is what “gay sex”
is. Contrast this with the heterosexual male, where there is no shame associated with
a lack of interest in anal intercourse.
Because intercourse is the heteronormative prototype of sex, the inserter in
homoerotic intercourse may not be perceived, or perceive himself, as homosexual.
The womanizing of a male partner shifts a negative affect that prejudices individ-
uals who do not identify as gay, and who, otherwise, avoid gay men, with a per-
missive mindset that legitimizes the behavior, because it sustains a privileged het-
eronormative category. The similarity, and therefore, identification between sexual
majority and minority groups around the idea of ‘intercourse,’ gives anal sex a dual

13
 R. E. Hellman

connotation, where gay, male sex in the public’s mind is ‘intercourse,’ but also ‘sod-
omy.’ Here, again, homosexism underlies homophobia, because an entire group is
being stereotyped with a heteronormative prototype that does not apply to the group,
and where the group is then devalued through the negative connotation of inter-
course as sodomy.
Homophobia and internalized homophobia are crucial factors in developmen-
tal models of sexual identity development, but homosexism is unexplored in these
schemes (Bilodeau and Renn 2005). These models incorporate sexual behavior only
as a generic consideration, where identity may derive from sexual exploration for
some, precede it for others, and involve monogamy or multiple partners, all with the
common achievement of a non-heterosexual awareness (Dubé 2000; Savin-Williams
and Cohen 2004). Erotic variables, erotic conflict, and erotic compromise based on
homosexism are not the subject of investigation, an unrecognized deficiency in these
paradigms.
These models tend to correlate self-acceptance with community and societal atti-
tudes, and the degree of within-group immersion, but miss a process of renuncia-
tion involving forms of erotic activity that are practiced and preferred, but through
socialization, and a dominant cultural sway, become undefined as forms of “sex”
(Sewell et al. 2017). Identity becomes tainted by homosexism, what Goffman (1963)
refers to as a ‘spoiled identity.’ Here, discretionary aspects of sexual identity dis-
closure (“coming out”) during minority identity development are likely to diverge
from erotic comfort and disclosure among sexual minority peers. Pride in same-
gender preference is now side by side with shame associated with erotic interest.
Erotic non-disclosure would be expected to maintain within-group acceptance. The
cultural distortion of eroticism, where oral and partnered, manual sex are devalued,
functions to endorse a selective erotophobia as a “healthy” outcome of the develop-
mental process.
With few exceptions, individuals grow up in heterosexual families and commu-
nities, where a heteronormative context to sexuality is internalized, whatever one’s
sexual orientation. Given this reality, whereas current developmental models dem-
onstrate how a gay person achieves an autonomous minority, social identity, the
variable of homosexism brings into question the ability to achieve an autonomous
erotic identity.
Ferdoush (2016) provides a parallel in his critique of Cass’ stage model (1979)
that is relevant here. He discusses sexual identity development in conservative
Bengladesh culture, where Cass’ Stage 4, ‘Identity Acceptance,’ becomes, instead,
a stage of stigma management strategies, Stage 5 ‘Identity Pride,’ becomes a time of
decent into hiding in the face of stereotyping, negative judgments, and rejection, and
Stage 6, ‘Identity Synthesis,’ involves further isolation and marginalization rather
than integration. These responses originate from attitudes in the dominant culture,
whereas the sequelae associated with homosexism encompass attitudes in both the
dominant and minority groups. This model can explain why MSM most frequently
engage in oral and manual sex, but, for the most part, only identify anal sex as “sex”
(Sewell et al. 2017).
Other models of gay identity development suffer from the same deficiency.
D’Augelli’s non-staged, human development model (1994) only provides a vague

13
Male Homosexism: A Concept in Search of Acceptance

reference to the significance of different sexual activities. The social influence on

sexuality is noted, but only regarding the dominant cultural expectation of hetero-
sexual dating. Fear and shame are linked with homophobic comments, without
acknowledgement of homosexist influences. Elizur and Mintzur’s multidimensional
model (2001) is noteworthy for its attention, not only to pressures from heterosexual
culture, but also those from within the gay community. Here, however, the focus is
on negative attitudes in the community regarding bisexuality. Glover’s multidimen-
sional model (Glover et al. 2009), builds on the constructs of desire, behavior, and
identity, but only references sexual behavior in terms of gender interest. Of the mod-
els by Troiden (1979), Coleman (1982), and Cox and Gallois (1996) none discuss
the socialization of erotic inclination within an environment of homosexism. Park
et al. (2014) explores the relationship between social disapproval, shame, and sexual
behavior, but only as a non-normative awareness of same-sexual attraction.
In contrast with sexual identity development, erotic identity development involves
the burgeoning, social awareness of erotic inclination in relation to larger social con-
structions in both the minority and dominant cultures. Because sex tends to be a pri-
vate and discretionary experience, dominant cultural beliefs regarding male homo-
eroticism appear to be heteronormative projections of prototypical penile-vaginal
intercourse, with active, passive, masculine, feminine, inserter, insertee, top, and
bottom categories and valuations. Would not the mutuality of partnered, manual sex,
for example, undermine foundational associations with stereotyped gender-linked
eroticism. Forms of sex defined as ‘sex’ fit this paradigm (Sewell et al. 2017), while
behaviors not defined as ‘sex’ clearly lack the “heft” of the stereotype, engendering
homosexism. Homesexism, as a threat that maintains a certain status quo regarding
social identity, upholds a certain group ideal, in the same way that shame functions
to maintain gender role behavior (Brown 1995; Kotz 1992).
Minority stress theory (Meyer 2003), the widely adapted foundational model to
explain the effects of prejudice, discrimination, and the internalization of negative
social attitudes on sexual minority individuals, has never investigated the role of
erotic variables on the well-being of MSM. A PubMed search of ‘minority stress
theory’ in March, 2020 extracted 197 references on research based on the theory.
Addition of the term ‘sexual behavior,’ reduced this to 63 citations, most involving
factors contributing to high risk sexual behavior in the context of HIV. None address
the issues that define homosexism.
Without careful examination of this previously unrecognized prejudice, our
knowledge foundation will continue to sustain cultural myths, beliefs, and assump-
tions about sexual identity, human character, and our social, erotic ecology. The fact
is that we live in a world of cultural fabrication regarding male homoeroticism. Our
collective mind appears to be instilled with an aberrant fantasy of male same-sexu-
ality. The mantra of ‘gay pride’ simply does not hold for gay eroticism. The hijacked
version of gay male sexuality that runs throughout the culture is not the deep, mutu-
ally intimate, personal expression of eroticism that is the true treasure at the core of
experience and well-being.
There can be no educational grounding with the potential to liberate us from
the biases at the core of this discrimination until this examination occurs. Cultures
around the world continue to judge, distort, and diminish forms of erotic behavior

13
 R. E. Hellman

based on heteronormative valuations that generate homosexism. According to

Human Dignity Trust, 73 jurisdictions around the world criminalize anal sex as a
basis for broader forms of same-gender discrimination. The death penalty exists in
12 of these jurisdictions (Human Dignity Trust 2020). The widespread belief that
this form of sex is synonymous with male same-gender attraction is unfounded, but
the stereotype persists.
The extent to which homosexism impacts the well-being of gay men as they
attempt to come to terms with both same-gender attraction and the meaning of their
erotic interests is yet to be investigated. Cultural portrayals continue to distort and
stereotype the sexuality of MSM, leaving the public misinformed, while leaving
MSM to question the very nature of their sexuality. A diverse eroticism, on equal
footing, is not promoted or, all too often, even valued regarding their sexual behav-
ior. As a result, we fail to hold media accountable for accurate representations of
male same-sexual behavior, we fail to recognize biases in the research/academic lit-
erature, and we fail to provide educational expertise on same-sexual behavior, with
consequences for individuals, communities, and societies on a global scale. Homo-
sexism, and its potentially damaging effects, cannot be redressed until it is identi-
fied, named, and managed. But, the evidence clearly demonstrates that we live in a
homosexist world.

Funding No honoraria or financial support was received on behalf of this work.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest The author declares having no conflicts of interest regarding the manuscript.

References
Bell, A. P., & Weinberg, M. S. (1978). Homosexualities. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Benson, L. S., Martins, S. L., & Whitaker, A. K. (2015). Correlates of heterosexual anal intercourse
among women in the 2006–2010 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Sexual Medicine,
12, 1746–1752.
Bieber, I. (1962). Homosexuality: A psychoanalytic study of male homosexuals (p. 233). New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Bilodeau, B. L., & Renn, K. A. (2005) Analysis of LGBT identity development models and implications
for practice. In New directions for student services (p. 111). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Periodicals, Inc,
25–39.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow and Company Inc.
Boy Erased. (2018). Focus features.
Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice: It’s social psychology. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Carrier, J. M. (1971). Participants in urban Mexican male homosexual encounters. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 1(4), 279–291.
Carrier, J. M. (1977). Sex role preference as an explanatory variable in homosexual behavior. Archives of
Sexual Behavior, 6(1), 53–65.
Carrier, J. M. (1980). Homosexual behavior in cross-cultural perspective. In J. Marmor (Ed.), Homo-
sexual behavior: A modern reappraisal (pp. 100–122). New York: Basic Books.

13
Male Homosexism: A Concept in Search of Acceptance

Carrillo, J. F., & Fontdevila, J. (2011). Rethinking sexual initiation: Pathways to identity formation
among gay and bisexual Mexican male youth. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40(6), 1241–1254.
Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3),
219–235.
Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming out process. Journal of Homosexuality, 7(2–3),
31–43.
Cox, S., & Gallois, C. (1996). Gay and lesbian identity development: A social identity perspective. Jour-
nal of Homosexuality, 30(4), 1–30.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay,
and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), The Jossey-Bass social
and behavioral science series. Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Dodge, B., Herbenick, D., Fu, T.-C., Schick, V., Reece, M., Sanders, S., et al. (2016). Sexual behaviors
of U.S. men by self-identified sexual orientation: Results from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual
Health and Behavior. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 13(4), 637–649.
Downing, M. J., Jr., Schrimshaw, E. W., Antebi, N., & Siegel, K. (2014). Sexually explicit media on the
internet: A content analysis of sexual behaviors, risk, and media characteristics in gay male adult
videos. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 811–821.
Dubé, E. M. (2000). The role of sexual behavior in the identification process of gay and bisexual males.
The Journal of Sex Research, 37(2), 123–132.
Elizur, Y., & Mintzer, A. (2001). A framework for the formation of gay male identity: Processes associ-
ated with adult attachment style and support from family and friends. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
30(2), 143–167.
Ferdoush, A. (2016). Revisiting Cass’s model of homosexual identity development in context of Bangla-
desh Society. SAGE Open, 6(2), 1–8.
Gettleman, J., Schultz, K., & Raj, S. (2018). India gay sex ban is struck down. ‘Indefensible,’ court says.
New York Times. Retrieved October, 20, 2019 from https​://www.nytim​es.com/2018/09/06/world​/
asia/india​-gay-sex-377.html.
Glover, J. A., Galliher, R. V., & Lamere, T. G. (2009). Identity development and exploration among
sexual minority adolescents: Examination of a multidimensional model. Journal of Homosexuality,
56(1), 77–101.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Hansen, G. L. (1982a). Androgyny, sex-role orientation, and homosexism. The Journal of Psychology:
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 112(1), 39–45.
Hansen, G. L. (1982b). Measuring prejudice against homosexuality (homosexism) among college stu-
dents: A new scale. The Journal of Social Psychology, 117(2), 233–236.
Hellman, R. E. (2019). The way of the world: How heterosexism shapes and distorts male same-sexuality,
a thesis. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Mental Health, 23(3), 349–359.
Human Dignity Trust. (2020). Map of countries that criminalise LGBT people. Retrieved March 16, 2020
from https​://www.human​digni​tytru​st.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-crimi​nalis​ation​/.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen, M. J. (2014). The 2013 national school climate
survey: the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools, New
York: Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN). Retrieved March 21, 2020 from https​
://www.glsen​.org/sites​/defau​lt/files​/2013%20Nat​ional​%20Sch​ool%20Cli​.
Kotz, L. (1992). The body you want; An interview with Judith Butler. Artforum. Retrieved October 27,
2019 from https​://www.artfo​rum.com/print​/previ​ews/19920​9/the-body-you-want-an-intev​iew-with-
judit​h-butle​r-33505​.
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexual-
ity. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Lehne, G. K. (1976). Homophobia among men. In D. S. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine per-
cent majority: The male sex role (pp. 66–88). New York, NY: Random House.
Lombardi-Nash, M. A. (Trans.) (2000). The homosexuality of men and women by Magnus Hirschfeld (p.
1112). Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.(orig. pub. as Hirschfeld M (1920) Die homosexualitat des
mannes und des weibes. Louis Marcus Verlagbuchhandlung, Berlin).
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations:
Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697.
Mindhunters. (2019). Season 2, episode 5, Netflix.

13
 R. E. Hellman

National Survey of Family Growth. (2020). National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention. Retrieved April 28, 2020 from https​://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/index​.htm.
Out. (2019a). “TOP. BOTTOM. FRONT. EVEN THE BEHIND.” Advertisement. August, 3.
Out. (2019b). “Everything* you ever wanted to know about ass…*butt were too afraid to ask.” August,
74–5.
Owen, B. N., Brock, P. M., Butler, A. R., Pickles, M., Brisson, M., Baggaly, R. F., et al. (2015). Preva-
lence and frequency of heterosexual anal intercourse among young people: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. AIDS Behavior, 19(7), 1338–1360.
Park, M., Anderson, J. N., Christensen, J. L., Miller, L. C., Appleby, P. R., & Read, S. J. (2014). Young
men’s shame about their desire for other men predicts risky sex and moderates the knowledge–self-
efficacy link. Frontiers in Public Health, 2, 183.
Reddit. (2016). Why is there such a strong emphasis on tops and bottoms in the gay community?
Retrieved October 17, 2019 from https​://www.reddi​t.com/r/askga​ybros​/comme​nts/50pd1​g/why_is_
there​_such_a_stron​g_empha​sis_on_tops_and/.
Rocketman. (2019) Paramount pictures.
Rosenberger, J. G., Reece, M., Schick, V., Herbenick, D., Novak, D. S., Van Der Pol, B., et al. (2011).
Sexual behaviors and situational characteristics of most recent male-partnered sexual event
among gay and bisexually identified men in the United States. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(11),
3040–3050.
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Cohen, K. M. (2004). Homoerotic development during childhood and adoles-
cence. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics, 13, 529–549.
Sewell, K. K., McGarrity, L. A., & Strassberg, D. S. (2017). Sexual behavior, definitions of sex, and the
role of self-partner context among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Sex Research, 54(7),
825–831.
Special. (2019). Season 1, Episode 3, Netflix.
Strasburger, V. C., & Brown, S. S. (2014). Sex education in the 2­ 1st century. Journal of the American
Medical Association, 312, 125–126.
The Politician. (2019). “Gone girl,” season 1, episode 4, Netflix.
Troiden, R. R. (1979). Becoming homosexual: A model of gay identity acquisition. Psychiatry, 42(4),
362–373.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Whyte, J., Bartlett, C., Polanksy, M., & Green, M. (1998). The safeguards men’s survey: Report of a
survey of Philadelphia gay and bisexual men’s knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors related to
HIV infection. Journal of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, 2(3), 113–129.
Zheng, L., Su, Y., & Zheng, Y. (2017). The intersection of gender and sexuality: Sexism shapes men’s
same-sex sexuality in terms of self-label identification and partner choice in China. Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, 77(1–2), 125–134.

Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published
maps and institutional affiliations.

13