Literature DB >> 34697693

Demographic and Geographic Differences in Facial Masculinity Preferences Among Gay and Bisexual Men in China.

Lijun Zheng1,2, Jing Zhang3.   

Abstract

This study examined demographic and geographic differences in facial masculinity preferences among gay and bisexual men in China. The final sample included 2595 participants whose data were obtained from four published data sets and one unpublished data set. Demographic variables included sexual self-label, sexual orientation, age, educational level, and occupational status. Geographic variables were classified based on the IP addresses of respondents including North-South division, administrative division, economic regional division, and modernization division. There were significant differences in facial masculinity preferences in demographic variables. Gay men preferred more masculinized faces than did bisexual men. "Tops" preferred feminized faces, whereas "bottoms" and "versatiles" preferred masculinized faces. Participants aged 20-29 years preferred more masculinized faces than did those aged 16-19 years and older than 30. Also, the results indicated significant differences in facial masculinity preferences in geographic variables. Participants living in South China preferred more masculinized faces than did those living in North China. Concerning administrative division, individuals living in South China (Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian, and Jiangxi) preferred more masculinized faces than did those living in other regions. Participants living in first-tier cities (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen) preferred more masculinized faces than did those living in other cities. The findings implicated context-dependent variability in facial masculinity preferences among gay and bisexual men; facial trait-attribution processes may contribute to these individual differences.
© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Facial attractiveness; Facial masculinity; Facial trait attribution; Gay and bisexual men; Sexual orientation; Sexual self-label

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34697693     DOI: 10.1007/s10508-021-02082-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Sex Behav        ISSN: 0004-0002


  21 in total

1.  Sex Ideologies in China: Examining Interprovince Differences.

Authors:  Yang Hu
Journal:  J Sex Res       Date:  2016-02-17

2.  Recognition and Construction of Top, Bottom, and Versatile Orientations in Gay/Bisexual Men.

Authors:  David A Moskowitz; Michael E Roloff
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2016-10-12

Review 3.  Sexual selection on human faces and voices.

Authors:  David A Puts; Benedict C Jones; Lisa M DeBruine
Journal:  J Sex Res       Date:  2012

4.  Psychology. Rice, psychology, and innovation.

Authors:  Joseph Henrich
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-05-09       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  The Effects of the Mating Market, Sex, Age, and Income on Sociopolitical Orientation : Insights from Evolutionary Theory and Sexual Economics Theory.

Authors:  Francesca R Luberti; Khandis R Blake; Robert C Brooks
Journal:  Hum Nat       Date:  2020-03

6.  The influence of physical body traits and masculinity on anal sex roles in gay and bisexual men.

Authors:  David A Moskowitz; Trevor A Hart
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2011-04-05

7.  Sex-dimorphic face shape preference in heterosexual and homosexual men and women.

Authors:  Aaron N Glassenberg; David R Feinberg; Benedict C Jones; Anthony C Little; Lisa M Debruine
Journal:  Arch Sex Behav       Date:  2009-10-15

8.  Influence of Perceived Height, Masculinity, and Age on Each Other and on Perceptions of Dominance in Male Faces.

Authors:  Carlota Batres; Daniel E Re; David I Perrett
Journal:  Perception       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 1.490

9.  Male Facial Appearance and Offspring Mortality in Two Traditional Societies.

Authors:  Lynda G Boothroyd; Alan W Gray; Thomas N Headland; Ray T Uehara; David Waynforth; D Michael Burt; Nicholas Pound
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-01-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  No evidence that partnered and unpartnered gay men differ in their preferences for male facial masculinity.

Authors:  Rachel Cassar; Victor Shiramizu; Lisa M DeBruine; Benedict C Jones
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.