Personal advertisements of male-to-female transsexuals, homosexual men, and heterosexuals

Child, Meredith; Low, Kathryn Graff; McCormick, Cheryl M.; Cocciarella, Andrew

doi:10.1007/bf01547812

Cited by 18 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, status played a significant but small role in dating desire for all four groups. These results were in line with the findings of previous studies that have shown that attractiveness of a potential partner is pivotal for both homosexual and heterosexual men and women (Child et al, 1996;Gonzales & Meyer, 1993;Heffernan, 1999;Smith & Stillman, 2002). Attractiveness as a strong predictor of dating desire for both homosexual and heterosexual men and women might suggest that socialization factors, which are common to all men and women, underlie mate preferences.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…With respect to attractiveness, Child, Graff Low, McDonell McCormick, and Cocciarella (1996) and Heffernan (1999) found that attractiveness was a relevant partner preference for gay men and lesbians (see also Bailey, Gaulin, Agyei, & Gladue, 1994;Lippa, 2007). Gonzales and Meyers (1993) and Smith and Stillman (2002) found that gay men and lesbians desire physical attractiveness based on their choice of partners in personal advertisements and Hayes (1995) found that gay men and lesbians preferred younger partners, which can be an indicator of attractiveness, since youth implies physical attractiveness (Teuscher & Teuscher, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of Attractiveness and Status in Dating Desire in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women

Berg

Engels

et al. 2011

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study examined partner preferences of homosexual and heterosexual men and woman, focusing on attractiveness and status. Homosexual (N=591 men; M age=28.87 years, SD=10.21; N=249 women; M age=33.36 years, SD=13.12) and heterosexual participants (N=346 men; M age=39.74 years, SD=14.26; N=400 women; M age=35.93 years, SD=13.72) rated the importance of attractiveness and social status of potential partners and then, in a vignette test, expressed their desire to date hypothetical potential partners based on photographs that varied in attractiveness and status-related profiles. With ratings, heterosexual men valued attractiveness the most, followed by homosexual men, heterosexual women, and homosexual women. Heterosexual women rated social status as most important. When status profiles were manipulated and accompanied with photographs of faces, the pattern of differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals supported the self-reported results. Overall, homosexual men and women have similar mate preferences to heterosexual men and women by showing more dating desire for attractive and high social status persons. Compared to attractiveness, status played a smaller role in dating desire.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

Effects of Attractiveness and Status in Dating Desire in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women

Berg

Engels

et al. 2011

Arch Sex Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most studies indicate a stronger association between romantic popularity and physical attractiveness for women than for men (see Feingold, 1990, for meta-analyses across various research paradigms). This finding is corroborated by research on personal advertisements: Men seeking women emphasize slenderness and sexiness (conventional expressions of physical attractiveness), whereas women seeking men mention physical attractiveness less frequently and focus more on status, permanence, and affluence (Child, Graff, McCormick, & Cocciarella, 1996). Hence, these personal advertisements reflect traditional expectations that women be objects of beauty and men be providers of security.…”

Section: Gender Body Image and Romantic Relationshipssupporting

confidence: 71%

Love Thyself Before Loving Others? A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Gender Differences in Body Image and Romantic Love

Ambwani

Strauss

2007

Sex Roles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was designed to explore the intersection of body esteem, romantic love, and gender through qualitative and quantitative analyses. Male (n= 107) and female (n=113) undergraduates completed the Body Esteem Scale (BES), four Romantic Love Experiences Scale (RLES) subscales, and two open-ended questions about the interrelation between body esteem and relationships. For both genders, significant correlations emerged between the BES and RLES, suggesting a link between body experience and romantic relationships. Regression analyses indicated that two individual RLES variables (i.e., trust and jealousy) predicted body esteem for women but not for men. Qualitative data coding revealed that, compared to men, women were more likely to disclose that body image influenced sexual relations and that relationships affected their self-confidence. These findings illustrate the interpersonal dimensions of body image and highlight the value of quantitative and qualitative methodologies.Gender differences and similarities in body image and in romantic love experiences have been amply documented, yet few researchers have examined the complex associations among gender, body image, and relationships. As myriad interconnected socialization processes underlie norms and rules about gender, body, and romance, the intersection of these processes warrants closer examination. In the present study we explored this intersection by asking how men's and women's body images relate to their experiences in romantic relationships. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative techniques, we sought to expand the research literature on gender and body image within a nonclinical college population. Body Image and GenderBody image is a social construct that varies as a function of differential gender socialization (Cash, Thériault, & Annis, 2004). Frederickson, Roberts, Noll, Quinn, and Twenge (1998) argued that the cultural environment of sexual objectification socializes women to treat themselves as aesthetic objects; by internalizing others' responses to their physical appearance, women are conditioned to overemphasize the importance of good looks. Further, Frank and Thomas (2003) observed that for undergraduate women, gender role socialization (as measured by the tendency to evaluate oneself in relation to others and to suppress one's thoughts to avoid confrontation) was related to maladaptive eating-related thoughts and bulimic symptoms, which suggests that gender role socialization may have important implications for eating disorders and body dissatisfaction.Men, in contrast, do not appear to experience the same level of objectification as women (McKinley, 1998). As Bordo (1999) asserted, "Male scientists and philosophers have created a nearly unbroken historical stream of tractsSex Roles (2007) 56: [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]

show abstract

“…Studies of dating advertisements suggest that homosexual men prefer masculine men more than do heterosexual women, and that homosexual women prefer feminine women more than do heterosexual men (Bailey, Kim, Hills, & Linsenmeier, 1997;Child, Low, McCormick, & Cocciarella, 1996;Lippa, 2007). Also, among homosexual and heterosexual men and women, neural reward systems associated with viewing attractive faces (Kampe, Frith, Dolan, & Frith, 2001;O'Doherty et al, 2003) were more active when viewing preferred-sex faces than when viewing non-preferred-sex faces (Ishai, 2007;Kranz & Ishai, 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Sex-Dimorphic Face Shape Preference in Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and Women

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies have used manipulated faces to test the preferences of heterosexual individuals for sexually dimorphic facial cues. In contrast to previous studies, which have generally excluded homosexual participants, we directly compared homosexual and heterosexual male and female preferences for manipulated sexual dimorphism in faces (homosexual males: n = 311; heterosexual males: n = 215; homosexual females: n = 159; heterosexual females: n = 218). Prior studies on sexual orientation and preferences for faces that were paired with masculine and feminine behavioral descriptors suggest that homosexual men prefer more masculine men and that homosexual women demonstrate no preference for either masculinity or femininity in women. In our study, we tested for similarities and differences among heterosexual and homosexual males and females with regard to their preferences for a more specific aspect of faces: sexual dimorphism of face shape. Homosexual men demonstrated stronger preferences for masculinity in male faces than did all of the other groups. Homosexual women demonstrated stronger preferences for masculinity in female faces than did heterosexual women. These results suggest attractiveness judgments of same-sex faces made by homosexual individuals are not a mirror image of those made by heterosexual individuals of the opposite sex. Our data suggest that face preferences of homosexual individuals reflect a system of biologically and socially guided preferences at least as complex as those found among heterosexual individuals.

show abstract

Personal advertisements of male-to-female transsexuals, homosexual men, and heterosexuals

Cited by 18 publications

References 18 publications

Effects of Attractiveness and Status in Dating Desire in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women

Effects of Attractiveness and Status in Dating Desire in Homosexual and Heterosexual Men and Women

Love Thyself Before Loving Others? A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis of Gender Differences in Body Image and Romantic Love

Sex-Dimorphic Face Shape Preference in Heterosexual and Homosexual Men and Women

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About