Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

2012, 6(2), 203-216.

Original Article

SEXUAL STRATEGIES THEORY: EVIDENCE FROM

HOMOSEXUAL PERSONAL ADVERTISEMENTS

Lisa M. Dillon*
Department of Psychology, Wayne State University
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Daniel J. Saleh
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Department of Psychology, Wayne State University

Abstract
In this study, we tested whether Buss and Schmitt’s (1993) theory that mating strategies
vary by sex and relationship duration could be applied to gay men and lesbians. We
extended the findings of Gallant et al. (2011) with an analysis of 300 profile pictures
from gay and lesbian personal advertisements. We found sex differences, effects for type
of relationship sought, and masculinity/femininity effects. Lesbians smiled more,
displayed more skin, and downplayed their height by using a downward camera angle in
comparison to gay men. Lesbians displayed a higher number of total photos in their
profiles than gay men, but both sexes displayed more photos when seeking a long-term
relationship; gay men seeking a short-term displayed the fewest photos. Short-term
relationship seekers of both sexes smiled less and wore less clothing than counterparts.
Gay men and lesbians mentioned financial status more when seeking a long-term
relationship. Lesbians rated as highly feminine smiled the most and wore the least
clothing. Gay men rated as high in masculinity were more likely to exaggerate their
height with an upward camera angle and flex their muscles in photos.

Keywords: Sex differences, gay and lesbian, mate selection, sexual strategies theory,
personal ads, evolutionary psychology

Introduction

Due to the differing level of parental investment each sex makes, men and
women have contrasting mate preferences. As women are the vessel for offspring, they
guard their parental investment by remaining more selective about their partners and they
seek features that indicate a male’s health and potential to provide protection (Sefcek et
al., 2006; Trivers, 1972). Indicators of phenotypic quality, such as youthfulness and
physical attractiveness, are preferred by men (Sefcek, Brumback, Vasquez, & Miller,

AUTHOR NOTE: Please direct correspondence to Lisa M. Dillon, 5057 Woodward Ave., Detroit,
MI 48202. Email: dillon@wayne.edu

2012 Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology

203
 Homosexual personal advertisements

2006; Buss & Schmitt, 1993). This preference for youthfulness and attractiveness is
prevalent as these traits signal the relative health, genetic quality, and fertility of the
potential mate (Buss, 1989). In addition, the anticipated duration of the relationship (e.g.,
long-term versus short) has been known to affect mate choice (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
Selecting mates depending on the expected duration of the relationship is one of
the tenets of Buss and Schmitt’s Sexual Strategies Theory (Buss & Schmitt, 1993).
Cross-culturally, short-term relationships are characterized by lower investment than
long-term relationships. If a potential mate is perceived as being a short-term mating
opportunity, men tend to be less discriminating among potential partners, but men still
seek an attractive, sexually accessible partner who requires minimal investment (Buss,
1998). For long-term mates, men are more willing to invest personal resources, more
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

interested in obtaining a mate of high reproductive value, and more likely to evaluate a
potential mate’s parental skills as well (Buss, 1998). Women tend to evaluate potential
mates with more stringent criteria in general and seek the most attractive mate possible
when participating in risky short-term mating opportunities; attractiveness signals mate
quality and, therefore, the perceived benefit of the short-term opportunity may only be
the genetic contribution (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). For long-term mating opportunities,
women prefer mates who display indicators of resourcefulness such as ambitiousness,
industriousness, and earning potential (Shackelford & Buss, 1997).

Homosexuals and Sexual Strategies Theory

Much of the research on mate selection and Sexual Strategies Theory has ignored
homosexual samples. Even though the goal of reproduction cannot be achieved naturally
in homosexual relationships, one might expect that gay men and lesbians would possess
mate preferences that evolved in heterosexuals and seek to display these attributes to
potential mates. While homosexuals may not meet reproductive needs via romantic
relationships, they are still impacted by their evolutionary history, and the factors that
predicted mate selection for our ancestors are likely to apply to homosexuals as well.
Furthermore, gay men and lesbians might adjust the traits they sought in accordance to
the predictions of Sexual Strategies Theory.
Previous research has shown some support that the preferences of gay men
resemble those of heterosexual men. An investigation on this notion found that gay men
ranked physical attractiveness and sex-typical appearance as highly important in a
potential mate (Bailey, Kim, Hill, & Linsemeier, 1997). In a large scale survey on
preferred traits of potential mates, Lippa (2007) reported results consistent with those of
heterosexual men; they ranked attractiveness high and were not concerned with a
potential mate’s ambition or status. Gobrogge, Perkins, Baker, Balcer, Breedlove, &
Klump (2007) found that homosexual men seeking long-term relationships sought mates
within a narrower age range than comparison groups who were seeking sexual encounter,
which provides support for the idea that homosexual men are responding to cues that
signal genetic quality.
Regarding the mate preferences of lesbians, very little is known. Lippa (2007)
found that lesbians, like heterosexual women, valued intelligence, humor, honesty, and
kindness the most. However, Bailey and others (1997) found that lesbians displayed a
greater preference for potential mates who described themselves as feminine. Similarly,
lesbians were less likely than heterosexual women to describe their physical traits and
more likely to describe personality traits (Smith & Stillman, 2002). As with gay men,

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

204
 Homosexual personal advertisements

sexual strategy was also a factor. Regan, Medina, and Joshi (2001), found that when the
relationship is expected to be short, lesbians were concerned most with the potential
mate’s physical attractiveness and least concerned with the intelligence level and
commitment to family, and concern for these two traits reversed with respect to long-term
mates.
Testing mate recruitment patterns via masculinity and femininity should be a
useful way to test within group differences due to the wider tolerance for variation in the
Gay and Lesbian community. Gender nonconformity is a known predictor of
homosexuality (Bailey & Zucker, 1995). Additionally, both gay men and lesbians
describe themselves as less typical in masculinity and femininity for their respective sex
and show awareness of gender variance (Lippa, 2000). Gay men and lesbians will
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

summarize their gendered attributes and preferred gender role more frequently than
heterosexuals (Bailey, Kim, Hills, & Linsemeier, 1997) which communicates personal
awareness of gender. Facial ratings of masculinity, which is related to testosterone
exposure, have been shown to be lower for gay men (Roney, Hanson, Durante, &
Maestripieri, 2006) and higher for lesbians (Freeman, Johnson, Ambady, & Rule, 2010).
Though much research is needed to fully understand the role of hormonal influence on
sexual orientation, it is evident that biological influences on sexual orientation can be
assessed on the face, body, and behavior (Levay & Baldwin, 2009).

Mate Recruitment in Personal Advertisements

Personal advertisements make it possible to study how advertisers attempt to

entice potential mates. Users complete profiles that convey information about themselves,
including photographs and personal interests that are available to any potential mate. The
internet is host to a variety of free or low-cost dating sites that allow advertisers not only
to create personalized profiles capable of being viewed around the globe, but to receive
and respond to potential mates without disclosing personal contact information.
Previous research, irrespective of sexual orientation focus, has concentrated on
the advertisement text in order to ascertain the qualities advertisers display and desire,
and common findings are consistent with Sexual Strategies Theory. Women consistently
review the height listed for potential mates in advertisements and are more likely to state
a preference for a mate taller than they (Salska, Frederick, Pawlowski, Reilly, Laird, &
Rudd, 2008). Gustavson, Johnson, and Uller (2008), using a Swedish sample,
demonstrated that while both sexes sought and desired physical attractiveness in a
potential mate, men consistently offered more financial resources in comparison to
women and women sought older partners and mates with financial resources. For short-
term mating opportunities, physical attractiveness is most reliably desired over other
traits (Regan, Medina, & Joshi, 2001). Regarding long-term relationships, as advertiser
age increases, advertisement response rates decrease for women but not for men (Baize &
Schroeder, 1995). Women who describe themselves as attractive receive more responses,
as do men who describe their education and income (Baize & Schroeder, 1995).

The Current Study

The majority of the analyses of personal advertisements have produced the

aforementioned findings by focusing on word choice, phrasing, and surface content
(Groom & Pennebaker, 2005), ignoring a rich source of data that accompanies most

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

205
 Homosexual personal advertisements

personal advertisements: photographs. The primary objective of this study was to test
hypotheses based on Sexual Strategies Theory by analyzing the advertisements, primarily
the profile photographs, of gay and lesbian mate seekers. Profile photographs are the first
picture that potential mates see. The present study is an extension of a study designed by
Gallant, Williams, Fisher, & Cox (2011), which used a heterosexual sample. With the
exception of our hypothesis on the number of photographs varying by relationship type,
all hypotheses were the same as those designed by Gallant et al. (2011). However, we
expected significant within-group variation and also coded faces in the photographs for
masculinity and femininity, though specific predictions were not made.
Hypotheses:
1. Lesbians would smile more than homosexual men in their profile
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

photographs (Hess, Adams, & Kleck, 2004).

2. Gay men would display more grey hair in their photographs than lesbians.
Grey hair is an indicator of age that applies to all ethnic groups (Tobin &
Paus, 2001). Therefore, women, more than men, were predicted to conceal
this visible marker of reduced reproductive value.
3. Gay men would display photographs that accentuated their height. Height
may signal cues about a potential mate’s overall health, at least for men. For
example, men with longer legs have lower risk for cardiovascular disease and
type II diabetes than men with shorter legs (Sorokowski & Pawlowski,
2008).
4. Gay men would emphasize their muscles in their profile photographs.
Muscles signal sexual maturity, dominance, and the ability to protect others
(Maisey, Vale, Cornelissen, and Tovée, 1999). Hence, it was expected that
male advertisers would be more likely to flex muscles to emphasize muscle
size.
5. Gay men would have more profile pictures that showed the advertiser in
outdoor settings.
6. Lesbians would show more of their body in their photographs, by exposing
skin or by wearing comparatively less clothing than gay men. Skin exposure
is a way to allow viewers to assess health, fertility, and youthfulness.
Correspondingly, clothing has been shown to become more revealing for
females nearing ovulation (Durante, Li, Haselton, 2008), the period of
women’s highest sexual interest.
7. Our seventh hypothesis was that lesbians would display fewer profile
photographs with other women present. It has been demonstrated that
viewing attractive faces of the same sex negatively affects how participants
rate their own attractiveness (Little & Mannion, 2006).
8. Lesbians would be less likely to wear glasses in their photographs. Wearing
eyeglasses has been shown to decrease women’s attractiveness ratings
(Lundberg & Sheehan, 1994).
9. Gay men would describe themselves as being financially secure more often
than lesbians. Advertising financial security is more commonly practiced by
heterosexual men (Sefcek et al., 2006).
10. The number of photographs in the profiles would vary by the type of
relationship sought by the advertiser. We expect that short-term relationship
seekers would have the lowest number of photographs due to the low level of
investment.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

206
 Homosexual personal advertisements

11. There would be an interaction for sex and relationship type. Regarding short-
term relationships, gay men and lesbians would display significantly more of
their bodies. Men who sought long-term relationships would emphasize their
ambitiousness and financial resources more than men seeking a short-term
intimate encounter.

Methods

Participants

There were a total of 300 unique photographs of individual advertisers analyzed

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

in this study (150 for each sex) that were collected from a free online dating site, Plenty
of Fish (www.plentyoffish.com). We selected 50 photographs for each type of
relationship sought by the advertiser (intimate encounter, dating, and long-term
relationship) for both gay men and lesbians (defined by seeking a partner of the same
sex). For the purpose of our analyses, an intimate encounter is a short-term mating
opportunity, dating is intermediate with the potential for a sexual relationship, and long-
term relationship is an enduring pairing for an extensive time period. Participants ranged
in age from 18 to 35 (men: M = 25.7, SD = 4.92, women: M = 25.29, SD = 4.89). Data
regarding ethnicity were gathered via self-report in the profiles; Caucasian advertisers
comprised 70% of the sample, 9% identified as Hispanic, 7% as Asian, 6% as Black, 6 %
as bi-racial, and 2% as “Other.”

Measures

The online dating site selected was Plenty of Fish, which is a website where users
can list a free personal advertisement for prospective partners, and was suitable for the
current study for many reasons. According to the website, it receives 90 million visitors
each month (Plenty of Fish, 2010), which suggests it is regularly used. Plenty of Fish is a
mainstream site that allows advertisers seeking the same sex to advertise. Plenty of Fish
is searchable by the type of relationship sought. As advertisers can create free accounts,
financial access is eliminated as a barrier for potential advertisers.

Procedure

All photographs were collected within a short time period, saved, and assigned a
number to match a coding sheet. This was used to allow multiple coders to re-assess the
photographs when coding disagreement occurred between the authors. Depending on the
account type, users with free accounts can upload up to eight photographs, and paid
subscribers can upload up to sixteen photographs for their profile. However, only the first
photograph was coded. Profiles were randomly selected from accounts of users in several
metropolitan areas of the United States by a coder blind to the hypotheses. Masculinity
for male faces and femininity for female faces (low, moderate, or high) in the
photographs were assessed. Three coders (two were blind to the hypotheses being tested)
examined the profiles for the variables of interest and any discrepancies were discussed
and resolved, except for the coding of masculinity and femininity. All discrepancies
could not be resolved, and κ = 0.946 for this variable.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

207
 Homosexual personal advertisements

Results

All photos were coded for whether the identified traits from the hypotheses were
identified as present or not present. Univariate analyses of variance (ANOVA) models
were calculated for each dependent variable, and the independent variables used were the
sex of the profile advertiser listed (male or female), the type of relationship sought
(intimate encounter, dating, or long-term), and the masculinity/femininity rating (low,
moderate, and high, respectively) of each profile. Prior to computing the ANOVA
models, all dependent variables were screened and no data transformation was used. The
effect sizes for all significant findings are presented in Table 1. There were no main
effects produced for the following variables: the presence of others, eyeglasses, displays
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of gray hair, and setting where the photo was taken (indoors or out). These variables were
not considered further in the analyses.

Table 1. Effect Sizes of Significant Findings

Variable Comparison Cohen's d*
Smiling
Intimate/dating 0.41
Lesbian/ gay 0.28
Gay dating/ gay intimate encounter 0.63
Lesbian dating/ gay intimate encounter 0.81
Highly feminine lesbian/Highly masculine gay 0.74
Profile picture-Upward Angle
Lesbian/ gay 0.32
Highly masculine gay/Moderately masculine gay 0.77
Highly masculine gay/low masculine gay 0.7
Displays of Strength
Lesbian/ gay 0.41
Highly masculine gay/lesbian 0.55
Clothing
Intimate/long-term 0.45
Dating/long-term 0.42
Highly masculine gay/Moderately masculine gay 0.6
Highly masculine gay/Moderately feminine lesbian 0.53
Skin Exposure
Lesbian/ gay 0.39
Intimate/long-term 0.43
Lesbian intimate encounter/gay intimate encounter 0.6
Lesbian intimate encounter/gay dating 0.7
Lesbian intimate encounter/gay long-term 0.87
Lesbian intimate encounter/ lesbian long-term 0.61
Highly masculine gay/Moderately masculine gay 0.39
Highly feminine lesbian/low feminine lesbian 1.01

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

208
 Homosexual personal advertisements

Financial Security
Gay long-term/gay intimate encounter 0.29
Gay long-term/gay dating 0.21
Gay long-term/lesbian intimate encounter 0.29
Gay long-term/lesbian dating 0.21
Gay long-term/lesbian long-term 0.27
Number of Photographs in Profile
Gay long-term/gay intimate encounter 1.53
Gay intimate encounter/gay dating 1.36
Gay intimate encounter/lesbian dating 1.78
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Gay intimate encounter/lesbian intimate encounter 0.78

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Gay intimate encounter/lesbian long-term 1.45

*Absolute value presented

Smiling

The presence or absence of a discernible smile was coded for each photograph.
The first hypothesis was supported; there were significant main effects for sex, F(1, 298)
= 5.98, p < .05, and for relationship type, F(2, 297) = 4.21, p < .05, and for the interaction
between sex and relationship type, F(5, 294) = 3.56, p < .01. Lesbians smiled more (M =
1.40, SD = .49) than gay men (M = 1.54, SD = .50). Advertisers seeking an intimate
relationship (M = 1.56, SD = .49) smiled significantly less than those who sought dating
(M = 1.36, SD = .48). Gay men (M = 1.40, SD = .49), and lesbians (M = 1.32, SD = .47)
seeking dating smiled more than gay men seeking an intimate encounter (M = 1.70, SD =
.46). There was also a significant main effect for masculinity/femininity F(5, 294) = 2.77,
p < .05, and post hoc analyses revealed that lesbians rated as highly feminine (M = 1.28,
SD = .46) smiled more than gay men rated as highly masculine (M = 1.63, SD = .49).

Profile Picture Camera Angle

Photographs were coded for the presence of an upward camera angle or

downward angle, or the camera being level with the head. Photographs with the
downward and level angles were collapsed together and compared to the photos taken
with an upward angle. A main effect for sex was produced, F(1, 298) = 7.68, p < .01; gay
men (M = 1.76, SD = .42) were significantly more likely to use an upward angle in their
profile picture than lesbians (M = 1.88, SD = .32), supporting our hypothesis. There was
also a significant effect for masculinity/femininity F(5, 294) = 4.54, p < .001. Advertisers
whose photos were rated as highly masculine (M = 1.65, SD = .48) were more likely to
use an upward camera angle in comparison to advertisers rated as moderate (M = 1.94,
SD = .23) and low (M = 1.92, SD = .26) on masculinity.

Displays of Strength

The presence and absence of muscle flexing in the profile picture of each
photograph was coded. There was a significant main effect for sex, F(1, 298) = 12.96, p <
.01; no main effect for relationship type, or the interaction of relationship type and sex,
was produced. Gay men (M = 1.92, SD = .27) flexed significantly more in their profile

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

209
 Homosexual personal advertisements

pictures than lesbians (M = 2.0, SD = .0). There was a main effect for
masculinity/femininity, F(5, 294) = 3.16, p < .01, with gay men rated as highly masculine
(M = 1.87, SD = .33) more likely to flex than lesbians rated as low, moderately, or highly
feminine.

Clothing

Each photograph used in the analysis was coded as minimal or regular. If the
advertiser were wearing lingerie, a bathing suit, or underwear, this was coded as minimal;
all other clothing was coded as regular. While there was no effect for sex, there was a
significant main effect for relationship type, F(2, 297) = 5.34, p < .01, but there was no
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

interaction effect for sex and relationship type. Post hoc analyses revealed that advertisers
for intimate encounters (M = 1.84, SD = .37) and dating (M = 1.85, SD = .36) wore less
clothing in their profile pictures than advertisers of long-term relationships (M = 1.97, SD
= .17). There was a main effect for masculinity/femininity, F(5, 294) = 4.55, p < .01, with
gay men rated as highly masculine (M = 1.75, SD = .43) wearing less clothing than gay
men rated as moderately masculine (M = 1.95, SD = .19) and lesbians rated as moderately
feminine (M = 1.50, SD = .50).

Skin Exposure

The major body parts (head, lower and upper legs, back, chest, midriff, neck,
lower and upper arms) of the advertisers’ bodies in their profile picture were coded for
the amount of skin exposed. Plenty of Fish requires that profile pictures contain a clear
headshot, and no genitals can be exposed. Each body part received a value (exposed
versus not exposed), and a sum value was produced for each advertiser which was used to
compute an ANOVA. There was a main effect for sex, F(1, 298) = 11.71, p < .01, for
relationship type, F(2, 297) = 4.57, p < .01, and for the interaction of sex and relationship
type F(5, 294) = 4.79, p < .01. Lesbians (M = 1.11, SD = 1.33) displayed more skin in
their profile pictures than gay men (M = .6, SD = 1.26). Advertisers seeking an intimate
encounter (M = 1.16, SD = 1.45) displayed more skin than those seeking a long-term
relationship (M = .6, SD = 1.17). Regarding the interaction effect of sex and relationship
type, lesbians seeking an intimate encounter (M = 1.58, SD = 1.43) displayed more skin
than gay men seeking an intimate encounter (M = .74, SD = 1.35), gay men (M = .62, SD
= 1.29) seeking dating, and gay men (M = .44, SD = 1.16) and lesbians (M = .78, SD =
1.17) seeking a long-term relationship. There was also a main effect for
masculinity/femininity, F(5, 294) = 9.07, p < .01: Gay men rated as highly masculine (M
= 1.20, SD = 1.64) showed more skin than gay men rated as moderately masculine (M =
.70, SD = .81). Lesbians rated as highly feminine (M = 1.59, SD = 1.45) showed more
skin than lesbians rated low on femininity (M = .37, SD = .88).

Advertisement of Financial Security

Each profile was coded for whether the advertiser mentioned his or her financial
security in the required section of the profile where the advertiser is asked to share
information about him or herself. There was an interaction effect for sex and relationship
type, F(5, 294) = 10.11, p < .01. Post hoc analyses revealed that gay men seeking a long-
term relationship (M = 1.70, SD = .46) mentioned their financial status more than gay

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

210
 Homosexual personal advertisements

men (M = 2.0 SD = .0) and lesbians (M = 2.0, SD = .0) seeking an intimate encounter, gay
men (M = 1.92, SD = .27) and lesbians (M = 1.92, SD = .27) seeking dating, and lesbians
(M = 1.98, SD = .14) seeking a long-term relationship.

Number of Photographs

The total number of photographs in the profile of each advertiser was summed
for each profile collected. There was a significant interaction effect for sex and
relationship type sought, F(5, 293) = 13.95, p < .01. Gay men seeking an intimate
encounter (M = 1.50, SD = .95) had fewer photographs than lesbians (M = 2.96, SD =
2.46) seeking an intimate encounter, gay men (M = 4.04, SD = 2.47) and lesbians (M =
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

4.46, SD = 2.14) seeking dating, and gay men (M = 4.28, SD = 2.38) and lesbians (M =
4.1, SD = 2.35) seeking a long-term relationship. Lesbians seeking an intimate encounter
displayed fewer photographs than lesbians seeking a long-term relationship.

Discussion

The main objective of this study was to test hypotheses generated from Sexual
Strategies Theory by analyzing the profile photographs from online personal
advertisements of gay men and lesbians. Many of our hypotheses were supported. The
present study builds on the work of Gallant et al. (2010) and provides evidence that
Sexual Strategies Theory can be applied to gay men and lesbians, but there were some
similarities between heterosexuals and homosexuals of the same gender, and some effects
of masculinity-femininity within each sex.
The prediction that lesbians would smile more than gay men was supported,
consistent with the general sex difference in smiling (Mealey, 2000). We hypothesized
that gay men would be more likely to have profile photographs that were taken with an
upward angle and this was also supported. Additionally, we supported the hypothesis that
gay men would emphasize their physical strength in their profile pictures by flexing their
muscles or adopting a pose that accentuated muscle flexion. The hypothesis that lesbians
would have fewer profile pictures in which they wore glasses in comparison to gay men
was not supported. The data did not support the hypothesis that lesbians would have
significantly fewer profiles than gay men showing them with other women. Gay men and
lesbians were just as likely to have profiles showing them with other members of the
same sex. The lack of difference here may be due to the advertiser’s desire to avoid
confusion for viewers of the profiles.
The general hypothesis that lesbians would be more likely to wear minimal
clothing was not supported. We were unable to control for differences in male and female
clothing fashion. This may be due to the way clothing was categorized (regular versus
minimal), especially in light of the findings regarding cumulative skin exposure.
However, clothing did vary depending on relationship type sought. Advertisers seeking
an intimate encounter wore minimal clothing in their profile picture compared with
advertisers interested in a long-term relationship. Also, gay men rated as highly
masculine wore minimal clothing in their profile pictures compared with moderately
masculine gay men.
In addition to examining clothing, we also analyzed cumulative skin exposure
and supported our hypothesis that lesbians would show more skin in their profile pictures.
Interestingly, lesbians seeking an intimate encounter displayed more skin than gay men

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

211
 Homosexual personal advertisements

seeking any type of relationship and lesbians seeking long-term relationships. Exposed
skin can reveal the relative health, attractiveness, and potential sexual accessibility of a
potential mate (Symons, 2008). As physical attractiveness has been shown to influence
mate selection in intimate encounters (Li & Kendrick, 2006), skin exposure may be a
form of intrasexual competition that advertisers use to draw attention to their profile
based on perceived importance of physical attractiveness, especially for women (Fisher,
2005). A previous study has found that women nearing ovulation also increase skin
exposure (Grammer, Dittami, & Fischmann, 1993), and as ovulation and female desire
for sex are linked, our finding supports a sex difference regardless of sexual orientation.
The data supported the hypothesis that gay men would mention financial security
in their profile descriptions more than lesbians. In fact, gay men seeking a long-term
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

relationship mentioned their financial security more than any other combination of sex
and relationship type. Financial security is revealing about the stake the advertiser has in
the potential relationship, as it may signal personal stability and inclination toward
sharing resources with the potential long-term mate. Attracting potential mates by
communicating a willingness to invest resources is a common finding in men (Cashdan,
1993), and in two thirds of tribal societies the groom offers a bride-price or bride service
(Murdock, 1967). Thus, our finding supports a sex difference that persists among hetero
and homosexual orientations.
The data also supported our hypothesis that the number of photographs in each
profile would vary by relationship type sought. Gay men seeking an intimate encounter
displayed the fewest photographs out of any combination of sex and relationship type.
Likewise, lesbians seeking an intimate encounter displayed fewer photos than those
seeking a long-term relationship. We infer that displaying photographs may be an
indicator of investment and is a way to provide potential mates with multiple sources of
information about one’s attractiveness and personality.

Limitations and Future Directions

There were several limitations to the present study. Only users from age 18 to 35
were selected for the present sample. This is likely a contributing factor in the failure to
find any users with grey hair. Future research can examine the applicability of the present
findings with a more varied sample.
Another limitation is that only the profile picture was coded. Users are not
required to upload any additional pictures, so coding the profile picture afforded
consistency. However, many profiles contained multiple pictures which displayed more
visual data about the advertiser. If all photographs in the profile were analyzed, the
findings might be different.
There were three types of sought relationship used in the present analyses:
intimate encounter, dating, and long-term. Future research might be more inclusive of
other relationship types for further examination. Plenty of Fish allows users to select from
the aforementioned options plus friendship, other relationship, activity partner, talk/e-
mail, hanging out, or “anything.”
A fourth limitation was the inability to code photographs for visual evidence of
resources, and we opted to gather this information from their profile statements. The
decision was made in order to code consistently, as visual displays of resources were
highly inconsistent in the photographs.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

212
 Homosexual personal advertisements

We were unable to confirm that lesbians were more likely to wear minimal
clothing, but we did find that lesbians exposed more skin, especially when seeking an
intimate encounter. Given the different findings for these similar hypotheses, future
research could explore how clothing in photographs is examined. For example, we did
not address clothing sheerness or tightness, and both of these aspects have been linked to
sexual motivation in women (Grammer, Renninger, & Fischer, 2004).
The coding of masculinity and femininity is a limitation. The categorization of
masculinity and femininity (low, moderate, and high) may be too restrictive. Also, only
male photographs were coded for masculinity and female photographs were coded for
femininity. Future research may rate photographs on a less restrictive continuum.
Sexual orientation is a limitation in the present study as well that may have
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

affected the current study in many ways. Some people with sexual attraction and
interaction with the same sex may not wish to seek partners online or use websites that
will ask them to specify a sexual orientation, due to the perceived consequences of being
identified as a homosexual (Corrigan & Matthews, 2003). Thus, our sample may only
represent a portion of the homosexual population.
A further extension of the work conducted here would be to test which types of
profiles appeal to the greatest number of users. It follows that if advertisers are recruiting
selectively based on the type of relationship that these strategies would effectively recruit
more interest from viewers, and gathering data on the successful recruitments can provide
more opportunities for testing Sexual Strategies Theory. Eventually, data on mate-choice
criteria in homosexuals may help to elucidate neuroendocrine mechanisms in behavioral
sex differences in heterosexuals, including variation in masculinity/femininity and the
development of sexual orientation.

Received November 13, 2011; February 6, 2012; Accepted March 13, 2012

References

Baize, H. R., Schroeder, J. E. (1995). Personality and mate selection in personal ads:
Evolutionary preferences in a public mate selection process. Journal of Social
Behavior and Personality, 10(3), 517-536.
Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997). Butch, femme, or
straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960-973.
Buss, D. M., Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: an evolutionary perspective
of human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.
Buss, D. M. (1998). Sexual Strategies Theory: Historical origins and current status. The
Journal of Sex Research, 35(1) 19-35.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses
tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 1-49.
Cashdan, E. (1993). Attracting mates: Effects of paternal investment on mate attraction
strategies. Ethology and Sociobiology, 14, 1–24.
Corrigan, P. W., & Matthews, A. K. (2003). Stigma and disclosure: Implications for
coming out of the closet. Journal of Mental Health, 12, 235–248.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

213
 Homosexual personal advertisements

Durante, K. M., Li, N. P., Haselton, M. G. (2008). Changes in women’s choice of dress
across the ovulatory cycle: Naturalistic and laboratory task-based evidence.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1451-1460.
Fisher, M. (2005). An evolutionary examination of female intrasexual competition.
Unpublished Dissertation, York University, Toronto, Canada.
Freeman, J. B., Johnson, K. L., Ambady, N., Rule, N. O. (2010). Sexual orientation
perception involves gendered facial cues. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 36(10), 1318-1331.
Gallant, S., Williams, L., Fisher, M., Cox, A. (2011). Mating strategies and self-
presentation in online personal advertisement photographs. Journal of Social,
Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology, 5(1), 106-121.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Groom, C. J., Pennebaker, J. W. (2005). The language of love: Sex, sexual orientation,
and language use in online personal advertisements. Sex Roles, 52(7/8), 447-461.
Grammer, K., Renninger, L., Fischer, B. (2004). Disco clothing, female sexual
motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impressed? Journal of Sex
Research, 41(1) 66-74.
Grammer, K., Dittami, J., Fischmann, D. B. (1993). Changes in female sexual
advertisement according to menstrual cycle. Poster presented at the 23rd
International Ethological Conference, Torremolinos, Spain..
Gustavson, L., Johnson, J. I., Uller, T. (2008). Mixed support for sexual selection theories
of mate preferences in a Swedish population. Evolutionary Psychology, 6(4),
575-585.
Harris, M. B. (1991). Sex differences in stereotypes of spectacles. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 21(20), 1659-1680.
Hess, U., Adams, R. B., Kleck, R. E. (2004). Facial appearance, gender, and emotional
expression. Emotion, 4(4) 378-388.
Levay, S., Baldwin, J. (2009). Human sexuality. Sinauer: Massachusetts.
Li, N. P., Kendrick, D. T. (2006). Sex similarities and differences in preferences for
short-term mates: What, whether, and why. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90(3), 468-489.
Little, A. C., Mannion, H. (2006). Viewing attractive or unattractive same-sex individuals
changes self-rated attractiveness and face preferences in women. Animal
Behaviour, 72, 981-987.
Lundberg, J. K., & Sheehan, E. P., (1994). The effects of glasses and weight on
perceptions of attractiveness and intelligence. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 9(4), 753-760.
Maisey, D. S., Vale, E. L., Cornelissen, P. L., Tovée, M. J. (1999). Characteristics of
male attractiveness for women. The Lancet, 353(9163), 1500.
Maynard, S. (1989). Rough work and rugged men: The social construction of
masculinity in working-class history, Labour/ Le Travail, 23, 159-169.
McIntosh, D. (2006). Spontaneous facial mimicry, liking and emotional contagion. Polish
Psychological Bulletin, 37(1), 2006, pp. 31-42
Mealey, L. (2000). Sex differences: Development and evolutionary strategies. San Diego:
Academic Press.
Mealey, L. (1997). Bulking up: The roles of gender and sexual orientation on attempts to
manipulate physical attractiveness. Journal of Sex Research, 34(2):223–228.
Melamed, T. (1992). Personality correlates of physical height. Personality and Individual
Differences, 13, 1349–1350.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

214
 Homosexual personal advertisements

Murdock, G. P. (1967). Ethnographic atlas. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Otta, E., Abrosio, F. F., Hoshino, R. L. Reading a smiling face: Messages conveyed by
various forms of smiling. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(3), 1111-1121.
Pierce, C. A. (1996). Body height and romantic attraction: A meta-analytic test of the
male-taller norm. Social Behavior and Personality, 24(2), 143-150.
Phua, V. C. (2002). Sex and sexuality in men’s personal advertisements. Men and
Masculinities, 5, 178-193.
Plenty of Fish (2010). Advertising on Plenty of Fish. Retrieved from
http://www.plentyoffish.com/advertising.aspx
Regan, P. C., Medina, R., Joshi, A. (2001). Partner preferences among homosexual men
and women: What is desirable in a sex partner is not necessarily desirable in
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

romantic partner. Social Behavior and Personality, 29(7), 625-634.

Roney, J. R., Hansen, K. N. Durante, K. M., Maestripieri, D. (2006). Reading men's
faces: Women's mate attractiveness judgments track men's testosterone and
interest in infants. Proceedings of the Royal Society Biological Sciences, 273,
2169-2175.
Salska, I., Frederick, D. A., Pawlowski, B., Reilly, A. H., Laird, K. T., Rudd, N. A.
(2008). Conditional mate preferences: Factors influencing preferences for height.
Personality and Individual Differences, 44(1) 203-215.
Schmitt, D. P. (2005). Fundamentals of human mating strategies. In D. Buss (Ed.), The
handbook of evolutionary psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Sefcek, J. A., Brumbach, B. H., Vásquez, G., & Miller, G. F. (2006). The evolutionary
psychology of human mate choice: How ecology, genes, fertility, and fashion
influence our mating behavior. In M. R. Kauth (Ed.), Handbook of the evolution
of human sexuality part 1 [Special Issue]. Journal of Psychology & Human
Sexuality, 18(2/3).
Shackelford, T. K., & Buss, D. M. (1997). Marital satisfaction in evolutionary
psychological perspective. In R. Sternberg & M. Hojjat (Eds.). Satisfaction in
Close Relationships. New York: The Guilford Press.
Smith, C. A., Stillman, S. (2002). What do women want? The effects of gender and
sexual orientation on the desirability of physical attributes in the personal ads of
women. Sex Roles, 46 (9-10), 337-342.
Sorowkowski, P. (2008). Attractiveness of blonde women in evolutionary perspective:
Studies with two Polish samples. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 106(3), 737-744.
Sorokowski, P., & Pawlowski, B. (2008). Adaptive preferences for leg length in a
potential partner. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 86-91.
Symons, D. (1995). Beauty is in the adaptations of the beholder: The evolutionary
psychology of human female sexual attractiveness. In P. R. Abramson & S. D.
Pinkerton (Eds.), Sexual nature, sexual culture. Chicago series on sexuality,
history, and society (pp. 80-119). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Terry, R. L., Hall, C. A. (1989). Affective responses to eyeglasses: Evidence of a sex
difference. Journal of the American Optometric Association, 60(8), 609-611.
Trivers, R. L. (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.)
Sexual selection and the descent of man, 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago:
Aldine.
Tobin, D. J., Paus, R. (2001). Graying: Gerontobiology of the hair follicle pigmentary
unit. Experimental Gerontology, 36, 29-54.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

215
 Homosexual personal advertisements

Tsukiura, T., & Cabeza, R. (2008). Orbitofrontal and hippocampal contributions to

memory for face–name associations: The rewarding power of a smile.
Neuropsychologia, 46(9), 2310-2319.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and Cultural Psychology – ISSN 1933-5377 – Volume 6(2). 2012.

216