OBJECTIVE: Cross-sectional studies support that bisexual and gay (BG) men are at increased risk for eating pathology, and romantic relationships may buffer against risk; however, no studies have examined this association longitudinally. The current study examined how romantic relationships impact the trajectory of eating pathology in BG versus heterosexual men. METHOD: BG (n = 51) and heterosexual (n = 522) men completed surveys of health and eating behaviors at baseline and 10-year follow-up. RESULTS: For BG men, being single at baseline prospectively predicted an increase in Drive for Thinness scores over 10-year follow-up. Additionally, for BG men in relationships at baseline, lower relationship satisfaction predicted an increase in Drive for Thinness scores over time. Conversely, these relationship variables did not predict trajectory of eating pathology for heterosexual men. DISCUSSION: Implications for theoretical models of risk, including objectification theory and sexual minority stress theory, and prevention, including peer-led cognitive dissonance based interventions, are discussed.
OBJECTIVE: Cross-sectional studies support that bisexual and gay (BG) men are at increased risk for eating pathology, and romantic relationships may buffer against risk; however, no studies have examined this association longitudinally. The current study examined how romantic relationships impact the trajectory of eating pathology in BG versus heterosexual men. METHOD: BG (n = 51) and heterosexual (n = 522) men completed surveys of health and eating behaviors at baseline and 10-year follow-up. RESULTS: For BG men, being single at baseline prospectively predicted an increase in Drive for Thinness scores over 10-year follow-up. Additionally, for BG men in relationships at baseline, lower relationship satisfaction predicted an increase in Drive for Thinness scores over time. Conversely, these relationship variables did not predict trajectory of eating pathology for heterosexual men. DISCUSSION: Implications for theoretical models of risk, including objectification theory and sexual minority stress theory, and prevention, including peer-led cognitive dissonance based interventions, are discussed.