Running head: STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY:
ARE EFFEMINATE GAY MEN STIGMATIZED?
Abstract
The homosexual community has been battling stigma for most of human history. It wasn’t
un1973 that it wasn’t considered a disorder in the United States. The stigma prevails, however,
because it is a structural stigma morphed by sociopolitical institutions. Within the community,
there seems to be a separation between effeminate and masculine gay men. The present study
was conducted to discover if effeminate gays are stigmatized within the gay population. The
results showed that masculine men were preferred in romantic and sexual relationships, but
there was not enough data to assert that an encompassing stigma against feminine gay men
exists. However, there were results that signify being effeminate often carries a negative
connotation.
Stigma against Homosexuals
In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association retracted the diagnosis of homosexuality
from the DSM. Prior to that, homosexuality was viewed as a mental ailment that could be
diagnosed and cured. It took nineteen more years, however, for the World Health Organization to
follow America’s lead and remove homosexuality from its Classification of Mental and
Behavioural Disorders. While it is no longer accepted as a disorder internationally,
homosexuality continues to be stigmatized. Goffman (1963) defines stigma as an attribute that is
“deeply discrediting” (p. 3). However, this enduring attribute is not “inherently meaningful;
meanings are attached to it through social interaction” (Herek, 2004, p. 14). Homosexuality is
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
not innately wrong; the negative view of gays that lingers was established through years of
condemning literature and outsiders’ apprehension when encountering something atypical.
Being a homosexual is statistically atypical as only 1.6% of the population self-identify
as homosexual and only 1.8% of men self-identify as a gay man (Ward, Dahlhamer, Galinsky,
Joestl, 2013, p. 7). It should be noted, however, that the weight of the stigma might skew these
findings based on self-reporting. Regardless, the stigmatized trait becomes a defining
characteristic of the individual, overshadowing other qualities and engulfing their identity. The
individual is then “reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted
one” (Goffman, 1963, p. 3) that is considered “sick, immoral, criminal or, at best, less than
optimal in comparison to that which is heterosexual” (Herek, 2004, p. 15).
The stigma against homosexuals persists mainly because it still exists as a structural
stigma. A structural stigma is a “product of sociopolitical forces” that is embedded in “religion,
language, the law, and other social institutions” (Herek, 2011, p. 415). The stigma represents the
policies of “private and governmental institutions that restrict the opportunities of stigmatized
groups” (Corrigan, Markowitz, & Watson, 2004, p. 481). For the gay community, the most
publicized opportunity that is restricted is marriage. Marriage, in the sense of the law, has
implications on a slew of federal benefits stemming from immigration law, taxes, and social
security (Michon, 2013, para. 12). While homosexuals are not pressured into heterosexual
marriages, in many states and countries throughout the world, they are offered no other option if
they wish to marry and receive their full rights (Herek, 2011, p. 417). In the United States,
seventeen states remain adamant that marriage is preserved between a man and a woman.
Therefore, the laws that “deny lesbians’ and gay men’s access to marriage are by definition
instances of structural stigma” (Herek, 2011, p. 418). Gays are “denied full access to aspects of
2
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
the dominant culture” (Dooley, 2009, p. 25) by being withheld from being legally married, which
gives them “less power and access to resources than normals” (Herek, 2004, p. 14).
While laws themselves are inherently stigmatizing, the stigma ultimately expands past
that. Homosexuality, then, “evokes hostility because it is equated with violation of gender
norms” (Herek, 2004, p. 17) that are upheld by laws and amendments put in place by the
government that was elected into position. Researchers define this cultural ideology that is
“manifested in society’s institutions” (Herek, 2004, p. 16) as heterosexism. Marriage equality is
one of the major issues political candidates focus on when developing their campaigns and
hunting for endorsements. This places a “sexual minority individuals’ basic rights [under] public
debate and a majority vote” (Herek, 2011, p. 413-414). Throughout such campaigns, the
extremes of each side of the debate take to the polls, the streets, and the Internet, sharing and
pressing their opinions on anyone and anything receptive. The groups are differentiated to create
an “‘us’ (nonstigmatized) or ‘them’ (stigmatized), [highlighting] the minority out-group’s
perceived differentness and thereby promotes biased perceptions and differential treatment”
(Herek, 2011, p. 420). Isolation undoubtedly ensues.
Ultimately following is minority stress caused by exposure to “antigay messages through
the mass media” which includes anything from pins and flags to yard signs and billboards.
Immediately, homosexuals learn that “neighbors and other members of their community endorse
sexual stigma” which can cause irrevocable damage to relationships and communities (Herek,
2011, p. 419). With this opportunity to weigh in on how others may live, heterosexuals have the
chance to “define their personal identities in terms of their political and religious stance on gay
rights without necessarily questioning their own sexuality” (Herek, 2004, p. 11-12). The conflict
between the two groups becomes more apparent, resulting in an exponential increase in minority
3
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
stress (Meyer, 1995, p. 38). Because this structural stigma is so prevalent, it is immensely
difficult for the individual to overcome the negative messages that are being hurled upon them.
Even more degrading is that the “default response to [homosexuality] is disapproval, disgust, or
discriminatory behavior” (Herek, 2004, p. 15). The consistently negative views and messages are
so frequent that they are unintentionally internalized, which leads to accepting “society’s
denigration and discrediting of a stigmatized group as a part of their own value system and selfconcept” (Herek, 2011, p. 415).
This influx of negative messages and decreased self-worthy hinders an individual’s
comfort in coming out as a homosexual. The expectations of rejection and discrimination
increase because of these widely accepted and publicized societal views, contributing to the
individual’s psychological distress (Meyer, 1995). To combat the negativity, many choose to
hide. The stigma of homosexuality is considered by Goffman (1963) as a blemish of “individual
character perceived as weak will, domineering or unnatural passions, treacherous and rigid
beliefs, and dishonesty” (p. 4). Because the stigma isn’t outwardly observed, as a physical
handicap would be, it becomes logical to pass or hide, sheltering and concealing the stigma and
acting accordingly. Many stigmatized homosexuals “enact a cost-benefit analysis of how to
proceed” in social situations (Dooley, 2009, p. 14) constantly battling the probabilities of being
outed. While practice makes perfect in passing and sometimes deep cognitive activation can keep
terrorizing thoughts about the stigma from entering consciousness, hiding is exhausting. The
mind is constantly occupied by suppressing thoughts about homosexuality. This fixation leads to
a host of health issues, as described by Smart and Wegnar in their 1999 “Private Hell” studies.
With the discomfort spearheaded by the psychological effects of constantly hiding, many
gays realize “that their relationships and environments would not nurture and support the
4
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
manifestations of a gay identity” (Dooley, 2009, p. 19). This leads many gay men to leave their
hometowns in search of new, more accepting scenery, where they do not have to hide as
diligently. Oftentimes, this means moving from a small town with set beliefs to a larger city that
allows diversity to flourish. In this new location, the door for companionship opens, as there are
more people that possess the stigma, allowing individuals to search for and find an ally. Dooley
(2009) found that many gay men “decided to become more openly gay, [if] they reported
encountering an individual who became a mentor, guide, or role model” (p. 20). Such a model
can be seen as a “cultural broker, individuals who can operate in the sub-culture as well as the
dominant society” (p. 25). Their experience provides a narrative that can be emulated and
learned from, helping to “buffer stigma associated with homosexuality” (Dooley, 2009, p. 27).
This close relationship, however, can turn sour, as “all mentor relationships are not altruistic”
(Dooley, 2009, p. 25). Relying on someone heavily can exacerbate vulnerability and possibly
lead the individual to be sexually victimized by an ally or mentor.
Femme-phobia?
While the gay community faces its own difficulties as a whole, individuals look to blame
other members for being the reason behind the continuation of the discrimination. Members that
are often scoffed at are those that exhibit more feminine qualities: “For a lot of guys, it’s
tantamount to walking around with great big ‘kick me’ signs tacked on their asses” (Bergling,
2001, p. 31). Effeminate gays have been thrust into the spotlight to represent the whole of the
male gay community. According to Bergling (2001), “some men suggest that it’s not so much
the reality of effeminate or flamboyant men that’s a problem, as much as it is the perception of
such men that’s spread by popular media” (p 113). In a commentary on television show, Queer
Eye for the Straight Guy, Ramsey and Santiago (2004) noted, “the program continues the
5
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
Hollywood tradition of defining homosexuality in opposition to masculinity” through the
extravagant and dramatic behavior of cast member, Carson Kressley (p. 353). Historically, the
implementation of gay characters into television shows and movies has been to provide a
measure for and affirm the masculinity of lead characters (Ramsey & Santiago, 2004, p. 353).
Even though the media portrays the gay community in such a flowery and feminine way,
it does so to confirm society’s judgment on the importance of masculinity. It begs for males to
behave like men. Even homosexual men feel inclined to follow the standards. Sánchez et al.
(2009) found that by being romantically attracted to other men and being socialized in a
masculine culture, homosexual men “may nevertheless be affected by the same rigid rules that
affect heterosexual men” (p. 81). According to David and Brannon (as cited by Sánchez et al.,
2009), the four main rules for masculinity include not being feminine, being respected and
admired, not showing fear, and seeking out risk and adventure (p 74). Likewise, men should be
successful, achieve power and status, be competitive, restrict emotional responses, and be career
driven (Sánchez et al., 2009, p 74). According to Bailey et al. (as cited by Bergling, 2001), men
“reveal a definite preference for masculine-behaving men” even more so if they identify as a
masculine gay, displaying that they are in “the market only for those who walk their walk and
talk their talk” (p 13). Those who do not align with this preferred standard “feel isolated from a
gay social scene that’s dominated by men who worship at that altar of physical perfection”
(Bergling, 2001, p 115). Problems arise as “gay men noted that masculine ideals restrict the
expression of emotions and affection between gay men as well” (Sánchez et al., 2009, p. 81).
The same study suggests, “greater conflict with certain masculine ideals is associated with lower
self-esteem and greater depression and anxiety among gay men” (Sánchez et l., 2009, p. 75). The
individuals will begin to “to question his self-worth” (Sánchez et al., 2009, p. 81) as “masculine
6
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
norms pressure them to have an ideal body as well in order to feel attractive to other men”
(Sánchez et al., 2009, p. 82). The stigma snowballs, beginning first with the stigma of being a
homosexual, then compounds, furthering isolation.
The favoritism shown to masculine qualities in gay men is supported through the
examination of personal advertisements. As referred to by Sánchez et al. (2009), “numerous
studies have repeatedly shown that gay men who place personal advertisements tend to stress
exhibiting masculine interests and behaviors, and they tend to seek masculine mates” (p. 74).
Most notable was a study of 2,729 personal advertisements placed by gay men that there was a
significant bias towards stereotypical masculine traits and labels including “dominance, athletic
build, straight-acting and jock” (Bailey et al., as cited by Bergling, 2001, p. 74). It should be
noted that these studies took into consideration preferences when seeking a potential sexual or
romantic partner. These sorts of preferences do not necessarily equate to the existence of a
stigma against gays who are not masculine. Also, there is selection bias that occurs due to the
fact that not all gay men were represented in the sample, as not all gay men publish personal
advertisements.
While research has been conducted in regards to the strain of society’s demand for
masculinity as on homosexual men and homosexual men’s attraction to more masculine gays,
there lacks research that provides evidence that effeminate gay men are actually stigmatized
within the community. Therefore, this study aims to shed light on the judgments and opinions
held by men within the community. The researchers decided upon one research question: Are
effeminate men stigmatized within the gay community? Through the research, however, we hope
to uncover patterns or themes that expose what types of men negatively contribute to the
longevity of the apparent discrimination.
7
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
Method
Participants and Procedures
Forty-eight homosexual males completed an anonymous online survey. The sample
included participants between the ages of 18 and 44, with an average age of 23.18. The
participants were recruited through inquiries posted on Facebook pages belonging to college and
university LGBT support and advocate groups across the country and snowball sampling.
Demographic information was also compiled via quantitative data research. In terms of
ethnicity, 63.3% self-identified as Caucasian, 5% as African American, 6.7% as Hispanic, 3.3%
as Multi-Racial, and 1.7% as Asian/Pacific Islander. The rest declined to respond. For those
participants that are supported financially by a guardian or parent, their average family income
was $110,631, which is significantly higher than the median household income of $53,891 as
reported by Luh (2014). The figure is also higher than the household income for heterosexual
couples with both providers in the work force, according to US News and World Today (2013).
For those living independently, their average personal income was $48,133. A total of 25% of
the respondents identified as a Democrat, 8.3% as Republican, 16.7% as Independent, with 25%
not signifying their political affiliation. Education levels were reported as well, with 17.8%
having their high school diploma or equivalent, 40% having some college credit, 6.6%
possessing an Associate’s degree, 22.3% possessing a Bachelor’s degree, while 13.3% had Postgraduate degrees.
Consent to participate in the online survey required respondents to confirm their identity
as a homosexual man. Participants also had to be 18 years or older to partake in the study. They
completed a mixture of closed and open-ended questions regarding stigmatization within the
community of gay men. The quantitative research included inquiries about the participant’s
8
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
demographic information including age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, political affiliation, and
education. The perception of stigmatization (acceptance or avoidance) of effeminate homosexual
men was assessed using twelve statements that were rated by participants using a 5-point Likert
Scale. Sample items included: “I feel discriminated against by other gay men because of the way
I speak”, “I am offended when I am referred to as a twink”, and “I feel that effeminate gays are
weak.” The researchers ascertained slag terminology and connotations through communicating
with members of the gay community through informal interviews.
Two categorical questions were asked to gauge more information about the respondent
with hopes of finding patterns between personal style and level of dominance and views on
effeminate gay men. The first asked the respondent to define their style when in a decisionmaking situation with a romantic partner; options included dominant, equal power, and
submissive. The second inquired about their clothing style; the researchers provided eight
options including “Hipster”, “Athletic”, and “Chic”. Through the software Qualtrics, the data
was analyzed and reported by one author. The other two researchers analyzed the qualitative
findings.
The researchers formulated four open-ended, qualitative questions based on informal
interviews with known members of the community and believed that understanding what is not
desired in a romantic partner can contribute to why specific men are stigmatized. The researchers
noted that there have been no former studies regarding stigmatization within the community of
homosexual men, only insight into preferences for romantic and sexual partners. To verify
correlation with previous studies, the researchers asked two open-ended questions regarding
preferences in romantic or sexual partners. The participants were asked to list qualities they
considered “turn-ons” and ones that were considered “turn-offs.” The researchers developed two
9
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
more qualitative questions to ascertain a deeper understanding of when and where occurrences of
stigmatization most appear. Participants were asked to describe incidents in which they have felt
discriminated against by other homosexual men and when they have discriminated against a
fellow member of the community.
The qualitative data from the open-ended questions was compiled and evaluated by two
researchers. The two coders individually read the responses to each question and collaborated to
develop categories. Because there was very little variance among the responses for the respective
questions, coding was done as a cooperative effort.
Results
Analyses’ focus on participants’ responses to both quantitative and qualitative questions.
These questions allowed us to uncover whether there is significant stigmatization within the gay
community in regards to those who consider themselves more effeminate. Eight responses were
eliminated due to erroneous answers and severe incompleteness. Although 48 participants
completed the survey, they did not answer every single question. We found a significant,
medium, negative correlation in answers of those who replied to the survey that scored higher on
the “I consider myself an effeminate man” (M= 2.25, SD= 1.092) and the effeminate statements,
which include “I feel that effeminate gays are weak, I feel effeminate men further the
stigmatization towards the gay community, and I have homophobic tendencies toward people in
the gay community” (M= 7.0345 SD= 2.97926) R= -.309, p < .05. The same is true for those who
did not consider themselves effeminate and scored higher on the stigma against effeminate men
statements. We also found a significant, medium, negative correlation between the stigma
against effeminate men statements and those who scored higher on the statement “I prefer men
who are effeminate:” R= -.390, p < .05. Again, the same is true for the opposite statement. Those
10
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
who scored higher on the stigma against effeminate men scored higher on the statement “I prefer
men who are masculine:” R= .448, p <.001. The correlation is significant, medium strength, and
positive. We also predicted that there would be a significant relationship between those who
consider themselves effeminate and their relationship preferences, assuming they would choose
the “submissive” response. Our predictions were incorrect, with F(2,55)= 2.346, p > .05. The
results were not significant. Choices that were offered to participants were Dominant (M= 1.50
SD= 1.50), Equal Power (M= 2.12, SD= 2.12), and Submissive (M= 2.77, SD= 1.092). There was
also no significance between education level and views on effeminate gays F(4, 40)=.53, p>.05.
We also collected an abundance of descriptive data to help us gain more of an
understanding of the gay community: “I prefer men who are effeminate” (M= 2.19, SD= 1.017),
“I prefer men who are masculine (M= 3.67, SD= 1.190), “I prefer men of my race” (M= 3.33,
SD= 1.248), “I prefer men of my age” (M=3.36, SD= .931), “There is a negative connotation to
the label “twink”” (M= 3.02, SD = 1.344), “There is a negative connotation to the label “bear””
(M= 2.59, SD= 1.170), “I identify myself as a gay man” (M= 4.15, SD= 1.186), and “I am open
about my homosexuality” (M= 4.05, SD= 1.057).
The first open-ended question asked for participants to describe an incident in which
male members of the gay community discriminated them against. There were 21 recorded
responses. Based on the nature of the question, it can be assumed that the other 28 participants
have never experienced discrimination. Nineteen of the 21 were separated into two categories:
discrimination due to adjustable physical traits or inherent physical traits. Four of the responses
were coded as the former. An example being, “Yes, they are so judgmental. Like, I get it
Maurice, its a little early for a chunky cable-knit sweater, but I like the way it feels on my skin
and not needing to wear a coat out for the night, ok!?”. There were three responses that were
11
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
coded as inherent physical traits. Two of the three explicitly said white gay men were the most
exclusionary: “As a gay Asian male, I am often excluded or feel excluded from gay circles due to
fetishization or ostracization by predominantly white gay men.” and “Yes. As an African
American gay male a lot of white males usually blow me off because I am not the same race as
them”. Three of the 11 remaining uncoded results attributed their experience to not fitting the
accepted stereotype: “Since I don’t fit the stereotype of a gay guy and I don’t act like the ones
you see on TV, I am out casted and treated like I’m not really one of them or on the other hand
they just assume by how I look I want to be more like the daddy type”.
The following question asked the participants to describe an incident in which they
discriminated members of the community. Eleven responses were recorded and examined,
signifying that a majority (37) do not discriminate, or at least admit to it. Only one category was
created. Six of the 11 respondents cited effeminate behavior and appearance as the reason for
their negative behavior. One respondent wrote, “It is typically because of a gay male's effeminate
features. It's something I am unable to understand. I don't feel I judge them because of it, but I
am much less likely to approach a gay male if he is acting a little over the top about his
homosexuality. I approach males who portray the ‘bro’ persona and females who portray the
"white girl" persona the same way”. Another placed a heavy burden on effeminate members of
the community: “I have never discriminated just believe that overly-feminine gays bring a bad
name to our community.”
Masculine
Appearance
Character Traits
Feminine
Masculine
0
2
2
0
Appearance
2
11
4
6
12
Character Traits Feminine
2
0
4
6
7
20
7
0
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
The table above exemplifies the coding completed for the third open-ended question that
asked respondents to list what they would deem a turn-off when seeking a romantic or sexual
partner in a social setting. Five of the respondents were eliminated from the coding process
because they did not fit within a category. The response “people who don't open up about their
emotions” was placed in the Masculine/Character Traits category. Conversely, “Femininity.
Aggression. Immaturity. Being in the closet.” was coded under Feminine/Character Traits. The
response “rude, pushy, ugly” is an example of Character Traits/Appearance. Twenty of the 43
respondents listed character traits alone as turn-offs: “overly picky, pretentious, has to have
things a certain way/inflexible”.
Masculine
Appearance
Character Traits
Masculine
0
5
0
Appearance
5
23
21
Character Traits
0
21
17
The table above describes the breakdown coding used for the final open-ended question
that asked respondents to list characteristics that would be considered turn-ons in a social setting.
Three of the responses were deleted from coding because they did not fit the coding criteria.
Responses coded under appearance were most frequent, with 23 of the 43: “kind, funny, not
afraid to be himself”, “a guy who is trustworthy, kind, gentle, and who doesn’t show off and
someone who can make me laugh”. One respondent replied “outgoing, taller than myself” ,
which is an example of Appearance/Character Traits. All five of the responses that included
masculine qualities were focused on appearance: “body hair, beards, a nice smile”. The response
“good looks, humor, honest, compassion, more of a guy’s guy someone who isn’t afraid to be a
normal guy and gay” was placed under all three codes.
13
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
Discussion
Similarly to heterosexual couples, gay men place a heavy importance on character traits
when searching for a potential romantic or sexual partner. It becomes clear that outward behavior
and presentation that would signify a man as an effeminate gay are less significant in this
decision making process. There was not enough evidence in the qualitative data to suggest
feminine qualities are typical turn-offs for gay men, but there was a clear preference for
masculinity over femininity. This was mirrored in the quantitative data as results skewed towards
disagreement when participants were asked whether effeminate men were preferred. These
results revert back to society’s inherent masculine nature and favor for more manly traits.
Men that did not identify as effeminate gays scored higher on the statements used to
uncover discrimination and stigma. Likewise, participants that favored masculine men scored
high on the same statements. Together, they both rated high in their agreement that effeminate
gay men are one of the causes for the continuation of the stigma against the entire gay
community. These individuals believed the stigma existed and oftentimes upheld in via their
beliefs and actions, whereas effeminate gays and those that signified that they preferred their
partners to be more feminine scored low on the stigma statements. Therefore, they did not
believe that effeminate gay men were stigmatized and are not a contributing factor to the
persisting stigma against the whole of the population.
Perhaps the negative views that do exist are a way for some members of the population to
explain why the macro culture has yet to fully accept the gay community. Effeminate gays stray
the most from the accepted gender roles society has held and are more outright in their refusal to
fill them. Their outgoing presence draws attention and therefore makes them a target for
individuals within the community looking to place the culpability on the micro culture instead of
14
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
the inflexibility of the macro culture and government. Because the negative views are not
overwhelming and are not prominent enough to deem effeminacy a stigma that snowballs from
the stigma against homosexuals, maybe social change is a conceivable and achievable goal.
Limitations
As with all studies, there are limitations. These limitations affect the study in ways that
inhibit our ability to answer wholly investigate the trends that exist in the discrimination against
effeminate gays. We utilized an online survey software because of its convenience and lack of
cost, but there are inherent disadvantages with using data collected in this manner. There is no
way to know whether the respondents were being truthful in their answers. This led to limited
sampling and respondent availability. Also, we encountered issues with non-response.
Originally, we had 68 respondents, but there were 20 surveys that were drastically incomplete.
We also had limited resources when deciding how to circulate the survey to encourage
participation. The demographic information our respondents provided does not mimic the whole
population.
Initially, we intended on posting the survey link onto internet-accessible gay forums,
GaySpeak and Empty Closets. However, the administrators of both websites enforced policies
that did not allow new and inactive users to post links and conduct research. We found success
through posting on Facebook pages of college LGBT support groups and organizations, however
this too provided us with only a small pocket of the gay community. The sites we posted limited
our demographics as most participants were in college or had a degree.
Future Directions
Further research is encouraged along with changes that will counter the limitations. We
hope that our research will encourage others to engage in more detailed and in-depth studies in
15
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
the apparent discrimination of feminine gay men found within the homosexual community.
Specifically, we believe research into racial biases within the community would be intriguing
and enlightening as two of our results blamed Caucasian men for being racially bias in who they
were attracted to.
References
Bergling, T. (2001). Sissyphobia: Gay men and effeminate behavior. New York: Southern Tier
Editions.
Bullock, C., & Beckson, M. (2011). Male victims of sexual assault: phenomenology,
psychology, physiology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 39(2),
197-205.
Corrigan, P. W., Markowitz, F. E., & Watson, A. C. (2004). structural levels of mental illness
stigma and discrimination. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 30(3), 481-491.
Dooley, J. (2009). Negotiating sigma: Lessons from the life stories of gay men. Journal Of
Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 21(1), 13-29. doi:10.1080/10538720802494784
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma; Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond 'Homophobia': Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the
twenty-first century. Sexuality Research & Social Policy: A Journal Of The NSRC,
1(2), 6-24. doi:10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6
Herek, G. M. (2011). Anti-equality marriage amendments and sexual stigma. Journal Of Social
Issues, 67(2), 413-426. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01705.x
Kurtzleben, D. (2013, March 1). Gay couples more educated, higher-income than heterosexual
16
STIGMA WITHIN THE GAY COMMUNITY
couples. US News and World Report. Retrieved January 1, 2014, from
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/03/01/gay-couples-more-educated-higherincome-than-heterosexual-couples
Luh, T. (2014, August 20). Median income is on the rise ... finally! Retrieved November 6, 2014,
from http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/20/news/economy/median-income/
Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority Stress and Mental Health in Gay Men. Journal Of Health & Social
Behavior, 36(1), 38-56.
Michon, K. "Federal Marriage Benefits Available to Same-Sex Couples | Nolo.com."
Nolo.com. NOLO Law for All, 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.
Ramsey, E., & Santiago, G. (2004). The Conflation of Male Homosexuality and Femininity in
"Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" Feminist Media Studies, 3, 353-355.
Sánchez, F. J., Greenberg, S. T., Liu, W. M., & Vilain, E. (2009). Reported effects of masculine
ideals on gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(1), 73.
Scarce, M. (1997). Male on male rape: The hidden toll of stigma and shame. New York: Insight
Books.
Sivakumaran, S. (2005). Male/Male Rape And The "Taint" Of Homosexuality. Human Rights
Quarterly, 27(4), 1274-1306.
Ward BW, Dahlhamer JM, Galinsky AM, Joestl SS. Sexual orientation and health among U.S.
adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2013. National health statistics reports; no 77.
Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2014.
17