The American Academy of Clinical Sexology

Bears and Chubs:

Exploration of Two Gay Subcultures and

Clinical Implications for Sexology Practice

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The American Academy of Clinical Sexology

in Candidacy for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

By

William David Krieger

Orlando, Florida

January 2017

ii

Copyright © 2016 by William D. Krieger All Rights Reserved iii

Dissertation Approval

This dissertation submitted by William D. Krieger has been read and approved by three committee members of the American Academy of Clinical Sexologists. The final copies have been examined by the Dissertation Committee and the signatures which appear here verify the fact that any necessary changes have been incorporated and the dissertation is now given the final approval with reference to content, form and mechanical accuracy. The dissertation is therefore accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

Signatures

iv

Acknowledgments

To my parents who, being married over sixty six years, inspire me to believe that love can stay. To my supportive and loving sisters. To the memory of my older brother,

Bart Jay Krieger, who died before completing his Ph.D. To Bill Maciolek and the twenty- eight year conversation I hope never ends. To John Cirigliano who has been a gift in my life for over thirty-eight years and to Dan Haughey for making him a happy man. To

Rafael Oliveira for reminding of romance, spontaneity, and desire.

To my committee, I greatly appreciate and value your advice and encouragement.

To my friends, mishpocheh, mentors, colleagues, and clients, I humbly thank you for the gift of your support and the privilege of sharing time together.

Thank you, Dr. Krista Bloom, for being so personally, clinically, and professionally inspiring. But for you I would not have known this path existed. But for your encouragement I could not have walked it. Thank you Vanessa Major; magical in your own right, for being the catalyst and clinician who brought us together.

Thank you, Dr. William Granzig, for the gift that is The American Academy of

Clinical Sexology, for your generosity, kindness, and for the breadth and depth of your knowledge.

v

Vita

William D. Krieger received his Master of Social Work degree from Fordham

University’s Graduate School of Social Services in New York City, and trained at The

Manhattan Psychiatric Center, The Albert Ellis Institute, and The Wellness Institute. He is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker, Certified Clinical Hypnotherapist, Master Certified

Addiction Professional, and Clinical Sexologist practicing in Florida.

vi

Abstract

This dissertation in Clinical Sexology examines the erotology of, and boundaries between, gay Bears and gay Chubs. It centers on the following questions: What are gay

Bears and gay Chubs?; What does the existing literature have to say about these groups?;

What are the implications to sexology? Exploration of clinical sexology assessment and intervention needs of gay Bears and gay Chubs will be provided through the non- judgmental, erotological, lens of Dr. William Granzig’s Sexual Template (2004).

vii

Contents

1: INTRODUCTION ...... 9

THE PROBLEM ...... 9 SIGNIFICANCE TO SEXOLOGY ...... 10 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS ...... 11 DEFINITIONS ...... 12 2: LITERATURE REVIEW...... 18

HISTORY ...... 18 DEMOGRAPHICS ...... 19 DIFFERENTIATION AS DISTINCT GROUPS...... 23 ENVIRONMENTAL STRESSORS ...... 27 Body Sizeism ...... 29 Penis Sizeism ...... 33 Heterosexism ...... 34 Homophobia ...... 35 Anti-Sex Bias ...... 41 3: METHODOLOGY ...... 43 4: ANALYSIS ...... 45 5: RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...... 48

SEXOLOGY ASSESSMENT WITH BEARS AND CHUBS ...... 52 The Assessment of Gay Bears and Chubs Using the CHUBBIE ...... 52 Determining the Sexual Self Problem Domain(s) ...... 58 Additional Recommended Assessments ...... 61 THE SEXUAL TEMPLATE AND THE P-LI-SS-IT MODEL ...... 62 Bears, Chubs, and Cathexis ...... 63 Desire Phase Fantasies and the Push-Pull Dynamic of Eroticism ...... 64 Classic Sexology Interventions for Bears and Chubs ...... 70 SEXUAL PSYCHOEDUCATION FOR GAY BEARS AND GAY CHUBS ...... 71 Specific Mental Health Concerns ...... 71 Specific Health Concerns of Bears and Chubs ...... 72 Size-Related Sexual Psychoeducation for Bears and Chubs ...... 73 Additional Psychoeducation Resources for Bears and Chubs ...... 75 RATIONAL EMOTIVE BEHAVIORAL THERAPY INTERVENTIONS ...... 75 Why Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT)? ...... 75 Teaching Self-Acceptance Versus Self-Esteem ...... 78 Fat Shame-Attacking Exercise ...... 79 The Internet Mirror Behavior Experiential Intervention ...... 80 The If You Can’t Fix It Feature It Behavior Experiential Intervention ...... 82 CONCLUSION ...... 84 POSSIBLE FUTURE RESEARCH ...... 86 APPENDIX A ...... 88 APPENDIX B...... 90 APPENDIX C ...... 92 APPENDIX D ...... 95 viii

PERMISSIONS ...... 100 GLOSSARY ...... 101 REFERENCES ...... 107

1: Introduction

The Problem

Gay Bears and Gay Chubs are labels that are unknown to many clinical sexologists.

Gay males are often perceived by others as an homogenous group. In fact, America is diverse and composed of sexual cultures and subcultures having their own beliefs and practices. Two such subcultures are gay Bears and their Admirers who, along with gay

Chubs and their Chasers, are groups of men who self-identify and/or cathect sexually based on certain parameters of body size, shape, and traits related to masculinity. Bears and Chubs and their admirers exist predominantly as deviants within a larger American culture focused on heterosex, size-related, weight-obsessed hegemonic norms regarding masculinity and somatotype (Filiault & Drummond 2007; Monaghan 2008; Monaghan

2007; Monaghan 2005), and within a gay American culture often described as focused on the thin and youthful (Pyle 2012).

Though sociological research stands accused of representing white middle class heterosex hegemony (O’Connell Davidson & Layder, 1994), there is much written regarding gay Bears, with much less material available referencing gay Chubs specifically. The wealth of research on obesity and stigma is often used to justify conclusions that may be erroneous about both groups. There are parallels as well as differences between the Bear and Chub subcultures that are worthy of exploring and discussing in some detail, particularly as they relate to defining concepts and clinical sexology practice as a whole.

Despite the existence of studies of these groups, persisting lack of precision and consistency in the definitions, labels, and language used in and around these subcultures

10 leaves a clinical gap in research that needs to be addressed. Walter Gropius, Master of the

Bauhaus, in creating the language of modern architecture warned us that “we must know both vocabulary and grammar in order to speak a language; only then can we communicate our thoughts” (1938, 26). As definitions and language are important to interpretation of the data regarding these subcultures, these will be created where they are missing or vague. Review of the literature, predominantly limited to research in The

United States and The United Kingdom, will discuss and question the validity of conclusions based on application of predominant norms.

Significance to Sexology

Thinking of all gay males as homogeneous is clinically inappropriate and can also be a form of homophobia and cultural incompetence. Failing to individualize treatment may result in unhelpful or unsupportive interventions for gay Bears and Chubs. There is a dearth of sexological information on these gay subcultures and they are neglected to the point of being invisible to therapists in general and specifically overlooked in the sexological treatment of gay men.

The available literature will be reviewed to provide clinically appropriate definitions of gay Bears and Chubs. It is hypothesized the literature review will demonstrate that, though Bears and Chubs may perceived as overlapping groups due to similarities in their external characteristics, these are truly disparate subcultures that differ in sexual temperament, mores, and beliefs.

The issue of clinical bias related to homosexuality, body size, and/or obesity, and the factors related to this bias, are likewise of importance to sexology to avert potential negative consequences caused by clinicians (iatrogenic) or by clinical environment 11

(nosocomial). Research of the breakdown of self-selected labels of members of two online websites serving these gay subcultures will show that these subcultures contain men at high-risk for bias-related stigma and illness and thus are at risk of poorer outcomes when seeking professional care.

A clinically appropriate schema for sexological treatment of these clients will be offered based on Granzig’s Sexual Template (2004) that provides an accepting perspective beginning with simple sexual desire while acknowledging the different treatment needs of gay Bear and gay Chub subcultures as compared to each other and to the broader gay male culture.

Ethical Considerations

Human beings are not identical; all Bears are individuals and all Chubs are individuals. Maintenance of respect for the client’s person, chosen way of living and self- expression is important. Social Work principles support the individuality of each person, and a person-in-environment perspective which will be applied here as a foundation of understanding that each individual is a sexual being and must be considered on that basis, even if some generalizations are agreed upon. This concept is essential to the therapeutic process and helping individuals come to terms with their sexual needs and desires.

Part of the process in maintaining respect for individuals and their choices is reassessing therapist biases and countertransference. Clinicians unable to accept these men and their sexual expression should acknowledge their bias against homosexuals, homosex, or large, heavy, hairy men by referring these clients to others who are more willing to assist these clients with a non-judgmental approach. 12

The National Association of Social Workers code of ethics informs that clinicians

“should not practice, condone, facilitate, or collaborate with any form of discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, or mental or physical disability…” and should “obtain education about and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, gender, marital status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical disability” (NASW

Standards And Ethics: Diversity & Equity, 2016).

Definitions

The literature is quite muddled when it comes to defining gay Bears and Chubs.

Therefore, the author has provided definitions of terms found in the Glossary. However, some are of sufficient importance to be placed here for the purposes of this sexological examination of Bears and Chubs and will benefit from rigorous definition to enforce consistency of meaning and concept. As per Schrock and Schwalbe,

much of the contention and confusion in the field stems from vague definitions of key concepts, inconsistent use of key concepts, or both. Although it is impossible to impose, post hoc, a set of definitions on a body of literature, it is possible to offer a set of definitions that can be used to interpret the literature. (Schrock and Schwalbe 2009, 279)

Note that for the definition of healthy weight, a term used purposely here instead of the term normal weight (Guadamuz, Lim, et al. 2012, 386) and determining what constitutes obesity, Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data and definitions were used

(“Defining Adult Overweight And Obesity | Overweight & Obesity | CDC”, 2012). Since use of the Body Mass Index (BMI) to predict physical health purposes is now considered a known flaw of the measure as per Tamiyama, Hunger, Nguyen-Cuu, & Wells (2016), 13

BMI is used solely as a means of comparison of physical size without regard to physical health.

In order to discuss gay Bears, it helps to know what a gay Bear is. Bear is a term used to describe older gay males, predominantly over thirty years old, with a “large or husky body” (Wright 1997, 21), “stocky versus fat” (McCann 2001, 310), who fall within the CDC’s high range of healthy weight, overweight, or Class 1 obesity (CDC), having

BMI between 24.9 - 30.0, who may or may not have a large gut, are hirsute, or hairy, usually bearded, with average to above average body hair, and possessing mesomorph body type tendencies.

Note that this somatoform conforms closely to the requirements of hegemonic masculinity (Filiault & Drummond 2007, 175). Bears exhibit relatively even distribution of body fat, do not evidence stringy athleticism, and tend toward easy development of muscle with an overall v-shape torso, despite possibly displaying noticeable belly fat, regardless of size. The Bear subculture is predominantly white with some studies placing the percentage of White gay male Bears at 89.2% within the subculture (Moskowitz,

Turrubiates, Lozano, & Hajeck 2013).

Behaviorally, Bears demonstrate comfort with, and attraction to, the trappings of masculinity. As per Filiault & Drummond, there are several mental attributes that may be included among the trappings of masculinity, among them resiliency, stoicism, control of others, disregard for personal appearance, risk taking, and aggression (2007, 176). A visual example of a gay Bear is provided in figure 1. 14

Figure 1. Bill Maciolek, circa 2004. Mr. Maciolek was featured in Bear Magazine issue 27 (pp. 6-10) in 1993. Photograph taken by the author.

Certain modifiers may precede the term Bear. For example, Pocket Bear is someone meeting Bear criteria with similar proportions but of below average stature. A

Muscle Bear is someone meeting Bear criteria but skewing toward chiseled musculature because of regular exercise, gym attendance, and/or steroid use. Chubby Bear refers to someone meeting Bear criteria with similar proportions but above average build in terms of healthy weight (for example, perhaps a Muscle Bear having gone to fat a bit.) Leather

Bear refers to a gay male meeting Bear criteria who is also a member of the leather community. A Daddy Bear is a gay Bear who embodies the daddy or father role in a father/son relationship analog. Other modifiers, as per Monaghan (2005), include Panda

Bear (Asian Bears), Polar Bears (older men with white or grey hair), and Black Bears

(Bear men of color).

The gay Bear subculture has its own terminology for the sorts of gay men found around Bears. Cub is a term used to describe gay males of any age (but usually skewing 15 younger than the average Bear) who are hirsute, possibly bearded, and, typically, leaner

(average to healthy weight) and smaller than a Bear but who exhibit mesomorph somatotype traits suggesting they will become the definition of a Bear with the thickening of age. The Cub, who will become a Bear as he ages, is in contrast to the Otter who tends to be thin, hirsute (having a hairy pelt like the animal from which he is named) but who will never be a Bear due to his lean ectomorphic somatotype similar to the relatively hairless type commonly known as a Twink within gay subcultures.

Anyone who cathects to the Bear aesthetic is called an Admirer. Often referenced as Bears and their Admirers, as opposed to the term Chasers for those who seek out

Chubs.

What then, is a Chub? Chub is a term used to describe gay males of any age (but often skewing younger than Bears overall) who fall within the Center for Disease

Control’s range for Class 1 and Class 2 categories of obesity (2012), including severe and morbid obesity (having a BMI between 30-39). Chubs have a large gut and either exhibit overall endomorphic or ectomorphic somatotype.

Note that this somatoform does not conform to the requirements of hegemonic masculinity (Filiault & Drummond 2007, 175). Chubs have a pronounced roundness of the torso (versus the mesomorph v-shape) with disproportionate weight gain in the abdomen and stomach resulting in an overall classic apple shape. There may be roll(s) of fat (panniculus) on the torso and lower abdomen. Limbs will be thicker and more in proportion to the torso on endomorphic Chubs; these same body parts may be skinny on ectomorphic Chubs having pronounced bellies. There is reduced focus on body hair, facial hair, and other overtly masculine hallmarks in favor of softer, rounder proportions. 16

Behavior may or may not display comfort with, and attraction to, the trappings of masculinity.

A more rotund variation of the Chub is the Super Chub, a term used to describe gay males who fall within the Center for Disease Control’s Class 3 (2012) super obesity category of obesity, having BMI 40 and above, have a large gut, exhibit rolls of fat

(panniculus), average to no body hair, and an overall endomorphic, rounder, body type of more extreme proportions and girth. If a natural mesomorph, the rotund size results in loss of the hegemonic V-shape. Once again, there is reduced focus on body hair and facial hair and other overtly masculine hallmarks in favor of rounded features. As shown in figure 2, the Chub and Super Chub have a classic apple shape.

Figure 2. David Addison Small’s ‘Michael’s Angel’ (1995), from the author’s private collection. Photograph by the author.

Anyone sexually attracted to the Chub aesthetic is termed a Chaser. The term derives from Chubby Chaser and is the Chub subculture analog for the Bear subculture term Admirer. 17

Unlike a Chub who is so labeled based on personal appearance, the Chaser’s preference, rather than personal appearance, is what is being labeled. However, there is a subcategory of Chaser with its own term: Chub4Chub. A gay male who is a Chub who also is sexually attracted to other Chubs is called a Chub4Chub; in essence, a Chaser who is also a Chub.

18

2: Literature Review

History

Identification of the Bear and Chub in the literature is a relatively modern phenomenon. According to Les Wright, the earliest documented reference to gay Bears was “two entries from 1966 in the minutes of …. a Los Angeles-based MC [motorcycle] club, noting the formation of a ‘Bear club’” (1997, 21), though “eyewitness accounts from Dallas, Miami, and elsewhere describe the use of the term by self-identifying Bears in common usage in the 1970’s” (Wright 1997, 21). Wright reports that the first published description including the attributes needed to be a gay Bear was an article written by George Mazzei and printed in the Advocate on July 26, 1979 in which Mazzei

(Hennen 2008, 102) and his friends decided that, of the animals in the zoo of their local bar, they were ‘Bears’ and they were determined to “’formulate what we thought constitutes a Bear’” (Wright 1997, 26).

All literature agrees that long before Bears and Bear groups, Chubs paved the way toward a group identity with an organization called Girth & Mirth that came about in

1976, having begun as “a national network of ‘chubbies’ and ‘chasers” (Hennen 2008,

100). Suresha writes that “the ground-breaking book, Fat is a Feminist Issue, didn’t come out until 1978, two years after the founding of Girth & Mirth” (2002, 64), an organization

“for big men and their admirers” (63) not merely about socializing but “part of a whole culture of liberationist activity” related to fat-acceptance and gay liberation (64).

According to Whitesel, by 1985, the Seattle-based Affiliated Bigmen’s Club became a national umbrella organization that started the first annual Labor Day Convergence

(2014, 9). 19

Chubs, and then (a dozen year later) Bears (Hennen 2008, 100), began a display of gay comfort with men of size and masculinity but “reject the self-conscious exaggerated masculinity of the gay leatherman in favor of a more authentic masculinity”

(Hennen 2008, 97) Some argue that AIDS, and the resulting loss of the clone as the gay hegemonic aesthetic due to its pressure on conformity and association with sexual objectification (thought of as helping to spread AIDS), led to a backlash of like-minded men who did not conform to the lean clone ideal and who wished to be less sexually objectified (Wright 2001, 351-353). Wright cites a 1989 Bear Magazine poll that, at the time, indicated, “most felt a shared outlook, discovered among kindred spirits, was the most important thing” in being a Bear (Wright 2001, 351-352). This idealization would eventually devolve through commercialization (Hennen 2008, 101-105) to culminate in the current heterosexual hegemonic fashion of the lumbersexual and articles such as

Teeman’s in The Daily Beast that bemoan,

the lumbersexual, cute and beardy as he is, is just the latest, depressing sign of the withering on the vine of gay counterculture, the latest pasteurizing of sexuality. “Gay” is no longer different, or even challenging, and marriage equality—vital as it is—only serves to make homosexuality even safer and less threatening. Does political and social equality really have to entail a leveling of sexual difference? (Teeman, 2014).

Demographics

Among males, according to the Kinsey report and the Kinsey Institute at Indiana

University, “6.3 percent of the total number of orgasms is derived from homosexual contacts” (Kinsey 1948, 610), “10 per cent of males are more or less exclusively homosexual” (Prevalence of Homosexuality, 2016), as shown in figure 3, and “4 per cent 20 of the white males are exclusively homosexual throughout their lives after adolescence”

(Kinsey 1948, 651).

Prevalence Male Exclusive Homosexuality (Kinsey, 1948)

Non-Exclusively Homosexual Males Exclusively Homosexual Males 10%

90%

Figure 3. Data adapted from (Prevalence of Homosexuality 2016; Kinsey 1948).

Current estimates of the prevalence of same sex attraction vary but a recent study suggests that when anti-gay bias and stigma are accounted for in polling techniques, fully twenty percent of the population is attracted to their own gender (Coffman, Coffman, and

Erickson 2015) as shown in figure 4.

General Population Same Sex Attraction (Coffman, Coffman, & Erickson, 2015)

80% No Experience Same Sex Attraction 20% Experience Same Sex Attraction

20%

80%

Figure 4. Data adapted from (Coffman, Coffman, and Erickson 2015).

21

These 20% may be the 1 through 5 on the Kinsey scale.

Of a recent survey of gay males, approximately 23% self-reported as Bears

(Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, & Hajeck 2013, 780), as shown in figure 5.

Gay Cohort for Study (Moskowitz, et. al., 2013)

23% (rounded) Self-Identify Bear

23%

77%

Figure 5. Data adapted from (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, & Hajeck 2013).

Make-up of the Bear subculture by race, as shown in figure 6 of self-reported

Bear and Non-Bear samples, contain 5.8% Hispanic men, the Bear group is less diverse and Whiter with 4% more Whites at 89.2%, 100% less Pacific Islanders at 0%, and almost 50% fewer Blacks at 2.5%.

Bears in Gay Study Cohort by Race 100 80 60 40 20 2015 Gay Study 0 Cohort by Race (Moskowitz, et. al.)

Figure 6. Data adapted from (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, & Hajeck 2013). 22

While sexual orientation may be straightforward in that those belonging to both gay Bear and gay Chub in-groups are, by definition, males who cathect to a male sexual object, do not assume homosexuality without asking or asking without the preceding qualifier word; Bear and Chub may be used by some men to describe themselves who do not see themselves as gay. Culture, nationality, race, and other factors play a role here. In one study of Bears, only 73.3% of respondents classified themselves as exclusively homosexual (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck 2013, 784); over 20% reported being bisexual with less than 6% reporting being heterosexual or refusing any label.

Cyberspace offers a wealth of information regarding the sexual granularity of

Bears and Chubs as they seek the objects of their desire among like-minded individuals.

Bears have been online, in what Wright termed ‘cybearspace’ since the earliest days of the internet and bulletin boards in the period of 1985-1988 (Wright 1997, 32). Two of the most recognized websites are www.Bear411.com for Bears and Chubs, and www.BiggerCity.com for Chubs and Bears. As with other online dating websites, profile choices limit self-identification to proscribed categories and these terms are often site- specific. Nevertheless, they provide a guide to the percentage breakdown of how men self-identify.

At least one survey profiles Bears as better educated, more likely to be shorter and hairier and heavier than average, more likely to desire a partner who weighs more, more likely to be White, less likely to reject a partner due to weight and age, less interested in erect penis size of their partner, and more likely to pursue a wider variety of sexual acts/interests than the general gay population (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, &

Hajeck 2013, 777-783). 23

Analysis of search items returned from Bear411.com, such as those in table 1, yields an expected preference for Bear and Cub self-identification with 66% self- selecting a Profile Label of a type of Bear or Cub.

Table 1. Bear411 Self-Identified Profile Labels April 7, 2016 at 1:34 P.M. DST

Member Self Identification Option Search Results % of Total Bear 32,995 26% Cub 28,540 24% Muscle Bear 1,710 2% Daddy Bear 14,640 12% Chubby 18,060 15% Leather Bear 1,965 2% Chaser 24,570 19% Total Search Result 122,480 100%

Similarly, analysis of search data for BiggerCity.com, in table 2 yields a

breakdown of members by self-described type (or Community Tag) showing that fully

70% of the member population self-selects as a type of Chub and/or Chaser.

Table 2. BiggerCity Self-Identified Community Tags April 7, 2016 8:23 P.M. DST

Member Self-Identification Option % of Total Chub 33 Bear 19 Chaser 29 Chub4Chub 8 No Community Tag Selected 11

Total Members Returned by Search 401,301 100%

Differentiation as Distinct Groups

All clients suffer when lumped together in a group without consideration for differences. According to Hickson, et al, “minorities are routinely thought as more 24 homogenous than they actually are” and this is a result of, as attributed to Simon, “a phenomenon known as the out-group homogeneity bias” (Hickson, et al, 2016, 1).

What are gay Bears and gay Chubs? They are many different things to many different people and poorly defined, hence the working definitions supplied previously. If we are to understand their potentially differing needs as clients, we must be able to tell the difference between clients even if they may not know the difference themselves.

Review of the literature reveals distinctly different outlooks and temperaments for gay

Bears and gay Chubs. While we cannot change their sexual template, we can know where to begin to provide appropriate guidance to self and sexual exploration when we understand the nuances of subculture that may affect preferences, pitfalls, and temperament differences of those seeking treatment.

Vagary in the literature around these subcultures stems from lack of definition, loose definition, and/or assumptions: academia offers unclear differentiation of these groups of gay men. Unhelpful inconsistencies in the use of the terms Bear and Chub result in shifting contextual meaning. Sometimes terms put forth are so personal as to be meaningless. For example, Lawrence Brown’s “ten archetypal icons of fat desire”

(Brown 2001, 51) neither rigorously defines terms nor translates personal terminology rarely heard elsewhere (“the enormous softie”? (Brown 2001, 48)) into anything universally understandable and usable.

Sometimes the terms Bear and Chub are used to describe differing types of gay men who oppose one another in an uneasy relationship with the “more appealing imagery employed by Bears” being given as a reason for the “out-migration… of significant numbers of men… from Girth and Mirth chapters” (Hennen 2008, 100). Sometimes these 25 same terms are used to describe equivalent types of gay men such as when Pyle lumps the two together in the description to his talk on the subject as “men whose bodies do not conform”(2012) to the gay male standard of what is “considered beautiful (young, skinny, hairless)” (2012) and reporting that “big men, or Chubs, are large-bodied or fat gay men and Bears are masculine, hirsute, and often large-bodied gay men” (Pyle, 2012).

What large-bodied and fat mean is undefined and we are unable to tell if a large-bodied

Chub is equivalent to a large-bodied Bear if both are hirsute, masculine, and big.

Certainly, both the Bear body and the Chub body are the antithesis of the smooth, lean, toned, swimmer physique of the twink as described by Filiault & Drummond (2007, 180).

Kort defines Bear as “a gay man who is ‘beefy’, if not overweight, and usually (though not always) hairy as well” (2008, 271). In 1992, The New Joy of Gay Sex described

Bears, among other things, as “just regular guys—only they’re gay” (Silverstein and

Picano 1992, 128-130).

Some point to a sensibility as what defines Bears; “Bears are living contradictions to the gay stereotypes that still permeate today’s society…. a community woven together by an appreciation for masculinity and genuineness in a man. This is what really makes a

Bear” (Hill 1997, 65). According to Susan Sontag, “a sensibility (as distinct from an idea) is one of the hardest things to talk about” (Sontag 1964, 1).

In the case of gay Bears, vagary of definition was, at one time, purposeful as, according to Les Wright in 1997, “it is impossible to answer the question ‘What is a

Bear?’ in any definitive way” because it is a term loaded with “physical…. metaphysical and other symbolic attributes of Bears” (Wright 1997, 21). Assuming this sensibility actually was true when both Wright and Hill wrote these definitions in 1997, in today’s 26 granular gay Bear world of muscle Bears, Bear runs, Bear cruises, Bear merchandise, and the post-Bear movement toward the twink (Suresha 2002, 306-317), a more grounded definition in terms of Bear as sex object is reachable in terms of physical attributes and expressed preferences.

In October of 2014, a book review in the Huffington Post online reported. “In gay culture, ‘Bears’ are a subset of males who pride themselves on their large stature and rugged masculinity -- conveyed through traits like hairiness and accentuated testosterone”

(Frank, 2014). It must be noted that this layman’s article perpetuates the myth of an association between body hair and testosterone when it is problems with a metabolite of testosterone, di-hydro-testosterone or DHT, that is the main trigger for hair growth or loss

(Kopera 2015, 188) along with the quantity and quality of androgen receptors, also known as NR3C4, mediating the effects of androgen (Smith & Walker 2014, 2-3).

The concept of Bear as metaphysical component is lessened to the point of being moot in a world where appearance and physical traits trump the sensibility, the bonhomie, and the warm acceptance ascribed to the early movement. These simply no longer exist and, as early as 1995 regarding a defunct Bear club in Australia, Bob Hay wrote, “The Bear ethos is taking second place to self interest.” It would seem that

Wright’s “glamour Bear” (1997, 9) , who “embody the emergent consensus of Bear beauty” (1997, 9), won.

Movements based on a sensibility may devolve into superficiality and artifice. In the case of Bears, the devolution was men acting out on desire, simply wanting “a place to meet potential sex partners” (Hay 1997, 234). That this gay trend eventually trickled into the mainstream as a fashion statement is evidenced in Dennis Tang’s 2015 article in 27

Esquire, describing the urban lumberjack, or lumbersexual (Teeman 2014), as a men’s fashion (stolen from gays according to Teeman (2014)), that lasted from 2006 until 2015.

Bear is not what it once was: as per Chasabl, a social network site “for big men and the men who love them” (Chasabl 2013),

the term ‘bear’ has gone mainstream as of late and its definition has certainly broadened! Today, a bear is any gay or bi man who is hairy (from a little hair to full-on gorilla) and not skinny. Bears can range from beefy (usually called a ‘muscle bear’) to thick with a belly (a typical ‘bear’) to fat (a ‘chubby bear’) (Chasabl FAQ 2013).

For most, the antithesis of desire is camp, which may be a lens for interpreting

Wright’s emphasis on the sensibility of the gay Bear:

Things are campy not when they become old – but when we become less involved in them, and can enjoy, instead of be frustrated by, the failure of the attempt”…. all ‘camp’ objects, and persons, contain a large element of artifice…. ‘camp’ is a vision of the world in terms of style…. it is the love of the exaggerated. (Sontag 1964, 5-6).

The Bear movement, quoting David Bergman from Suresha, “prized the artificiality of the so-called natural…. the Bear idyll has always taken place in a cyberspace, which is nostalgia for something that never was” (Suresha 2002, 40-41). In this way, the Bear aesthetic may be seen as a form of what Goffman, quoting Carling, called deminstrelization (Goffman 1963, 110), with Bears refusing to participate in an effeminacy that “ingratiatingly acts out before normals the full dance of bad qualities imputed to his kind, thereby consolidating a life situation into a clownish role” (Goffman

1963, 110). This is not to be confused with fear of effeminacy; this is an active choosing of a way of being not in keeping with twentieth century Western stereotypes of the homosexual other fostered by a heterosex society.

Environmental Stressors 28

The environments in which Bears and Chubs form and exist pose challenges for them. We must assume all gay male clients from within these groups will have minority stress compounded by being a member of an often-stigmatized subculture within the already oppressed homosexual minority. Haas, et al., report that studies

confirmed a higher prevalence of lifetime mood and anxiety disorders among participants who identified as LGB, compared to those who identified as heterosexual. Men who reported same-sex sexual behavior or attraction reported a higher prevalence of most mood and anxiety disorders… Most studies have shown an association between mental disorders and suicide attempts in LGB respondents who report suicidal behavior. (Haas, et al. 2011, 10-13).

Additionally, we must understand the even greater risk for mental health issues

(anxiety, depression, etc.) in younger (under 30), bisexual, and/or minority members of these already oppressed out-groups (Hickson, et al. 2016, 1-8). In essence, though all gay males are at higher risk, younger gay males are at greatest risk. For example, “health- related surveys of U.S. males aged 17–39 found higher rates of lifetime suicide attempts among respondents who reported same or both-sex sexual behavior compared to those who reported only opposite-sex sexual behavior” (Haas, et al. 2011, 11).

This has implications for sexology because understanding the specific challenges faced by gay men is crucial to the delivery of appropriate and helpful interventions for them. As per Granzig, “acceptance of the patient’s cathexis is the crucial first step in beginning to deconstruct the Sexual Template and then use it to improve a person or couple’s sex life” (Granzig 2004, 5). As with any client, we must know with what and with whom we are dealing and detach our own biases; the clinician’s “intervention is an act of violence if it is not subjected strictly to the ideal ordering of nosology” (Foucault

1994, 8). 29

Body Sizeism Body sizeism is a form of a “body fascism – the narrow dictates of appearance”

(Whitesel 2014, 3). Laurence Brown writes that “fat is not only a Bear’s issue, it is a queer issue” (Brown 2001, 44). In actuality it is a human issue, though “the earliest and most influential attempts to theorize body weight issues can be seen in feminist scholarship starting in the late 1970s and continuing until the mid-1990s” (Bell and

Naughton 2007, 108).

Despite ever increasing obesity in the population of Western societies (Green,

Subramanian & Razak, 2016), Western culture has a distinct anti-fat bias in the form of sizeism that stigmatizes fat and relates it to being both unhealthy and undesirable.

This bias extends to clinical environments and those clinicians with bias against fat people should not be working with obese people of any kind, including gay Bears and

Chubs who are subgroups within the population deemed as fat. Clinical bias is linked to negative clinical experiences and outcomes yet remains very common:

Despite the high prevalence of obesity (approximately one-third of the US adult population), individuals with obesity are frequently the targets of prejudice, derogatory comments and other poor treatment in a variety of settings, including health care. Furthermore, there is a growing body of evidence that physicians and other healthcare professionals hold strong negative opinions about people with obesity… The direct effects of provider attitudes on patient-centred care may reduce the quality of the patient encounter, harming patient outcomes and reducing patient satisfaction. Patients with obesity who experience identity/ stereotype threat or felt/enacted stigma may experience a high level of stress which can contribute to impaired cognitive function and ability to effectively communicate. Accumulated exposure to high levels of stress hormones… has several long-term physiological health effects, including heart disease, stroke, depression and anxiety disorder, diseases that disproportionately affect obese individuals and have been empirically linked to perceived discrimination (Phelan, et al. 2015, 320-321).

30

A recent study warns us that the historical perception of fat as unhealthy may be a case of bias rather than basis: the authors demonstrate use of BMI misclassifies people as unhealthy when research shows no scientifically proven connection between weight loss and health improvement (Tamiyama, Hunger, Nguyen-Cuu, & Wells 2016, 8). The authors conclude that “a clinical focus guided by weight and BMI may be misdirected”

(Tamiyama, Hunger, Nguyen-Cuu, & Wells 2016, 8). The CDC reports that over one- third (34.9%) of U.S. adults are obese (Adult Obesity Facts, September 21, 2015) despite their means of measure coming increasingly under attack.

Likewise, Monaghan reports a disconnect between public perception by males of obesity and government policy regarding obesity (2007, 605). Specifically, by government and medical establishment guidelines “based on the Body Mass Index

(BMI), most men in nations such as the UK and US are reportedly overweight or obese.

This is authoritatively defined as a massive and growing problem” (Monaghan 2007,

584) yet most men do not perceive this as a problem (Monaghan 2007, 605-607).

Regardless of sexual orientation, most males report they do not look or feel healthy at the BMI dictated by doctors and government tables and these men therefore come to their own conclusion of what is an appropriate weight for them (Monaghan

2007, 605-607). Perhaps this is related to the prevalence of obesity in men being generally similar across all income and education levels when the same is not true for women (Flegal, Carroll, Ogden, Curtin 2010, 235-241). Data exists on the masculine trait of disregard for personal appearance (Filiault & Drummond 2007, 176) yet some of these men are, according to Monaghan, choosing to weigh more because they perceive themselves as looking unhealthy when at government guideline BMI.. 31

The stigma of sizeism affects gay men particularly in that many gay men perpetuate society’s stigmatization of fat despite being more vulnerable to body dissatisfaction than heterosexual males (Morrison, Morrison, & Sager 2004, 135). A study of gay males found that not fitting in visually costs gay men their authentic gay identity and,

particularly prominent was the notion of the hegemonic gay ‘look’, an idealized image of thinness, muscle tone, and style typically devoid of fat that one could show off through clothing in gay spaces. Men within these spaces often judged and were judged by such standards, equating achieving this ideal with performing a gay identity they experienced as authentic. (Hutson 2010, 228-229)

External societal pressure for males to fit into a specific body type as described above is stigmatizing especially for Chubs, but there is current research and discussion as to whether pressures differ for heterosexual versus homosexual males. Norman argues that “fat talk is a prominent resource through which ‘normal’ masculine embodiment is achieved” (Norman 2013, 407). As society pressures all men toward body dissatisfaction based on weight, “there is mounting evidence in the research literature to indicate that gay men are possibly more susceptible to body image concerns, including eating disorders, than are heterosexual men” (Drummond 2007, p. 271) considering “the gay male subculture imposes strong pressures on gay men to be physically attractive and that gay men, like women, experience extreme pressure to be eternally slim and youthful” (p.

271). Nevertheless, according to a 2015 study by Hausmann, et al.,

gay men showed no significant differences from community heterosexual comparison men on any of our body-image indices. Admittedly, the gay men aspired to a body ideal that was much more muscular than they were themselves - but this ideal was essentially identical to that chosen by the heterosexual and in previous similar studies (Hausmann et al. 2015, 1556).

32

The insights raised by Monaghan and others regarding male disregard of body ideal dictates notwithstanding, society as a whole stigmatizes those classified as fat through exclusion and marginalization in much the same manner as “racist, ableist and misogynist logics and practices” (Van Amsterdam 2013, 155).

The very terms used to label Bears and Chubs may be positives or pejoratives depending on who wields them and their position regarding obesity and body fat. Such is often the way with reclaimed words associated with stigma and spoiled identity

(Goffman, 1963); the language of gay Bears and Chubs likewise represents a positive reclaiming of subculture member features perceived as negative by most outsiders. For example, in his introduction to “Bears on Bears”, Suresha cites Jonathan Van

Decimeter’s June 1999 Suck.com column regarding this; “Bears…. chief distinction is their rough embrace of beer-bellied, hairy masculinity. Really, though, Bears are just part and parcel of the relentless super-sizing of America” (2002, xv-xvi).

Another example of sizeism is in Joe Kort’s book aimed at straight clinicians who wish to positively assist and understand their gay clients (Kort, 2008). Calling itself “The

Essential Guide”, it mentions Bears only in the definitions section (271-272), the term

Chub does not appear once, and the word fat appears once and is only used when quoting someone asking if they repulse their partner (Kort 2008, 240). Ignoring this aspect of gay reality plays into what Kane described as “the old and new orthodoxy” research paradigms that pathologize gay males and their relationship to their own body due to

“competing demands of being thin and muscular” and that “gay men are obsessed with their appearance” when there is “a body of research that gay (and heterosexual) men’s body image issues are diverse and multi-faceted” (Kane, 2009, 20-21). 33

Terms used may have connotative bias. According to The New Shorter Oxford

English Dictionary, the primary definition of the noun chub is a “thick-bodied, coarse- fleshed river fish” that is a member of the carp family. Curiously, the second definition of the noun chub refers to a “lazy person, a yokel, a dolt” (Brown 1993, 398). The adjective chubby describes anything round and thick as a chub or round-faced and plump (p. 398).

Bears and Chubs are not the first to form in-group alignments with like-situated individuals (Goffman 1963, 112), connections in which the meaning and value of words depends on who is uttering them. Of clinical importance is that observers and non- members must be wary of co-opting the language of an in-group to which they do not belong. Non-members, gay and straight alike, of the out-group of big gay men rarely question their thin privilege to pass within normal size society (Whitesel 2014, 92).

Penis Sizeism Bear porn and Chub porn are less focused on penis size as a requirement for stardom. Conversely, the pornography of mainstream gay culture, perceived as worshiping Phallus, is,

well-known for presenting images of extreme sexual endowment… most of the models are very ‘well hung’. Since penis size is such a sensitive issue for men in our society, exposure to these ‘sexual supermen’ must have implications for self- image and self-esteem. It should be noted that Bear-oriented magazines tend to include men with a much wider variety of endowments. (Locke 1997, 136)

There were attempts to equate this lack of emphasis on penis size in Bear and

Chub porn with an hypothesis assuming smaller penis size among the subculture members. The hypothesis was disproven (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck

2013) but still persists, perhaps in part due to the optical illusion of the penis being partially hidden within pubic fat on heavier males. However, there is a relationship 34 between childhood obesity and hypogonadism and this may truly result in smaller genitalia (Speiser et al. 2005, 1871-1879).

This lack of emphasis on penis size by Bears is an example of Bears and other men of size moving beyond the ‘phallus and receptacle’ paradigm (Hennen 2008, 126), a development some would tie to conclusions about low self-esteem and its relationship to the performance of radical sexual practices (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck

2013).

Heterosexism Herek defines heterosexism as “the ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any non-heterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community”

(Herek 1995, 321). Gay Bears and gay Chubs are homosexuals trapped in a heterosexist matrix. Though there are gay friendly cities such as Asheville, New York City, Key

West, Los Angeles, Miami, Palm Springs, Provincetown, San Francisco, and Wilton

Manors, the majority of the United States of America practices heterosexuality, with straight hegemony reflected in the culture at large.

Social construction of racism is, according to Dr. Judith Smith of Fordham

University Graduate School of Social Services, “a process by which social, economic, and political forces determine the content and importance of categories of race” (J. Smith, personal communication, Human Behavior and the Social Environment Lecture,

September 27, 2007). One may make this quote applicable to sexuality simply by changing the word race to sexuality. Just as Buck describes the antebellum creation of white privilege in order to “encourage whites to identify with the big slaveholding planters as members of the same ‘race’ ” (Buck 2001, 34), so do societal forces of church and law continue to this day to create heterosexual privilege. It becomes an unquestioned 35 assumption by many that heterosexuality is the norm and that any other means of sexual expression is therefore abnormal when, in fact, “there is no ‘natural’ human sexuality”

(Hubbard 1991, 65).

Heterosexist privilege even extends to the avoidance of being perceived as abnormal when negotiating “homosocial desire” (Sedgwick 1985, 1). Goffman negatively refers to homosexuals, who attempt to communicate with each other publicly, as a group whose “exploitation of public solidarity has to do with its power to spoil casual contact between male heterosexuals” who might risk being unjustly imputed as homosexuals (1966, 141).

Homophobia Irrationality in thought and behavior may be part of what it means to be human.

All of us, at some time or another, experience irrational fear. Homophobia may be thought of as an irrational fear of homosexuality. This irrational fear may be volatile and it may strike from without or from within. It may be found in our clients, ourselves, or in the very psychological systems we think of as curative.

Society's rethinking of sexual orientation was crystallized in the term homophobia, which heterosexual psychologist George Weinberg coined in the late 1960s. Weinberg used homophobia to label heterosexuals' dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals as well as homosexuals' self loathing. The word first appeared in print in 1969 and was subsequently discussed at length in Weinberg's 1972 book, Society and the Healthy Homosexual. The American Heritage Dictionary (1992 edition) defines homophobia as ‘aversion to gay or homosexual people or their lifestyle or culture’ and ‘behavior or an act based on this aversion.’ (Herek, 2012).

How do we know someone is homosexual and how does a homosexual know how to appear heterosexual? According to David Hutson in Standing Out/Fitting In, “Identity is an interactional and ongoing endeavor” (2010). Gay Bears and Chubs may be seen as 36 subculture identities for navigating a potentially hostile environment both internally and externally; aversion to gay identity may come from without or within.

According to Eguchi, citing Chesebro, “heterosexuality is the ‘necessary’ communicative element for men to conform to the hegemonic masculinity” (2007, 37).

Gay people of all types have difficulty navigating heterosex and homosex environments while juggling “the challenge both of conforming to appearance norms (or risking censure or, perhaps even worse, invisibility) and of looking distinctive (Clarke and

Turner 2007, 275). There is danger for the individual here since “negotiating non- heterosexual identities is very complicated in a society that stigmatizes homosexuality”

(Eguchi 2011, 40).

This danger still exists despite advances in rights for homosexuals in The United

States (gay marriage and gay adoption, for example), because “Americans remain less accepting of homosexuality than other westerners” (Horowitz 2014). According to the

Pew Research Center, this may be accounted for by religiosity:

The link between religiosity and acceptance of homosexuality explains, at least in part, why acceptance of homosexuality among Americans is low relative to other wealthy countries, particularly Canada and Western European nations, where religion is less central to people’s lives than in the U.S. Fully 60% of Americans say homosexuality should be accepted by society, compared with 88% in Spain, 87% in Germany, 80% in Canada, 77% in France, 76% in Britain and 74% in Italy. Half of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives, compared with 30% or less in Canada and Western Europe. In Britain and France, fewer than one-in-five say religion is very important to them (17% and 13% respectively). (Horowitz 2014)

The particular complexities of the erotology of gay Bears and gay Chubs (and their similarities and differences as subcultures) are addressed only obliquely in the literature; primarily via observational study and confessional interviews (Foucault 1990) documenting those with membership in and/or desire for these groups. 37

Theories for the etiology of desire of, for, and by Bears and Chubs abound.

Seemingly operating from an unstated premise that any deviance from hegemonic, commonplace attraction requires explanation of some sort, the literature provides anthropological, ethnographic, political, feminist, sociological, psychological, and medical explanations for why these groups of men exist and are desired (Hennen 2005;

Mass 2001; Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, & Hajeck 2013; Whitesel 2014; Wright

2001; Wright 1997). Studies of sexual behaviors of gay Bears often do so with conclusions based on measurement of perceived deviant behaviors (Moskowitz,

Turrubiates, Lozano, & Hajeck 2013). These conclusions often ignore how hegemonic

“ideology both reflects and helps to reproduce a particular set of power relations”

(O’Connell Davidson & Layder 1994, 50-77). If there is concern about male conceptual imperialism and the partial world view offered by a white male middle-class perspective, certainly the literature about gay Bears and gay Chubs is riddled with unexplored, sometimes internalized, hegemonic male heterosexist bias (O’Connell Davidson &

Layder 1994, 50-77).

Historically, psychoanalysis and psychotherapy were unkind to homosexuality, as were other therapies. Psychological treatment philosophies and interventions for homosexuals and other populations seem to go in and out of style throughout the decades.

The basis of treatment changes over time. Each theory is earnestly presented as the right approach to resolve human problems. Science or pseudoscience then tries to prove its efficacy, proclaiming it the successor to older concepts. We are left to wondering which therapies have merit and which are less helpful.. Often times, in reality, combining several approaches is what is most helpful to clients, depending on a particular situation. 38

One example of failed treatment approaches in sexology was determined early on in sex offender treatment when behavioral orgasmic reconditioning worked and failed simultaneously. Though while applied it successfully changed the stimuli necessary for an offender to attain erection and achieve orgasm, the reconditioning did not prevent eventual recidivism with the original victim demographic (Wood, Grossman, & Fichtner

2000, 32-33).

Among the outré are so-called experts like Dr. Charles Socarides, who notoriously vilified “obligatory homosexuals” (Socarides 1995, 8-20) as sexual compulsives acting out a type of sexual vampirism in their quest for real masculinity, a quest that could by definition never be fulfilled (Socarides 1995, 8-20). Proudly stating that he has used his model for over 40 years, Socarides used pathology to describe homosex desire, unlike heterosex desire, which he described as a healthy, complementary fulfillment. He assumed that heterosexual compulsivity by a male is related to “trying to prove something to himself” (Socarides 1995, 20) and so illogically allowed his psychoanalytic homophobic biases to confuse gay panic anxiety with the many anxieties both men and women seek to avoid through the poor coping skill of compulsive acting out sexually:

Dr. Socarides' theories and all other incarnations of so called ‘ex-gay therapy’ have been denounced by the American Medical Association, the Psychiatric Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Counseling Association, among others. GLAAD and other advocates have been telling media for years that they must be sure to explain the policies of the leading medical and psychiatric associations when reporting on so-called ‘conversion therapy’. (Moch 2013)

The outré may also come in the form of internalized heterosexism by clinicians.

For example, Isay’s belief in gay male health requiring reparative healing through loving 39 relationships, as examined in Commitment and Healing through case studies and his psychoanalytic lens, is at best, unproven (2006). At worst, his conclusions are an excuse to promote internalized heterosexist ideals. Isay’s beliefs about the primary healing value of marriage and the importance of fidelity in building sexual passion in loving relationships (Isay 2006, 17-57) do not hold up in terms of clinical evidence or the social and interpersonal realities of modern heterosexual or homosexual lives. Just because

“systematic investigations by psychologists over the years suggest that there is no greater psychopathology in gay men than in heterosexuals” (Isay 1989, 14), one may not infer they are otherwise similar. A couple-based relationship as the ultimate reparative experience for healthy love is not an evidence-based practice; being equal need not mean being the same.

Another example of internalized heterosexism and homophobia is Kort’s stereotypical and overly simplistic look at what he says constitutes the hallmarks of internalized homophobia in gay clients (Kort 2008, 30). It is a disservice to straight clinicians, and offensive to gay people, to suggest that gay clients have internalized homophobia because they have “discomfort with obvious ‘fags’ and ‘dykes’” or because they express “denigration of gay ghettos by asking, ‘Why do gays and lesbians all have to live in the same area?’”, or because of “making comments like ‘I don’t have to tell others what I do in bed; I don’t want to know what they do’”, or “commenting that a person or establishment is ‘too gay’” (Kort 2008, 30). Kort’s instructions and assumptions are a mistake. Perhaps it is the reverse that is actually true? If a gay person truly believes that to be truly gay one must do and embrace all and only things homosexual, this may be interpreted as internalized heterophobia. 40

Even in such remarkable clinical works as David Fawcett’s Lust, Men and Meth

(2016), the word Bear is only used once and in a section drawing parallels between internalized homophobia and the use of labels as a form of division and commoditization of gay men in the world of online hookups (Fawcett 2016).

Though “there is a very sizeable number of gay men who now live their lives largely outside ‘straight’ society, and there are many others who prefer to live much of their private lives within gay communities” (Dowsett 1993, 698), these are unhelpful and potentially harmful assumptions to make regarding clients and their internal motivations.

In fact, as per Sánchez, Westefeld, Liu, Ming & Vilain, “internal conflict about being affectionate with other men, difficulty balancing one’s work/school and family/leisure life, and the importance of appearing masculine predict negative feelings about being gay” (2010, 109). Where one lives and what masculine traits one seeks in a sexual partner are unproven indicators of internalized negative feelings about homosexuality.

Gay men and straight men both judge men’s masculinity based on behavior more than appearance (Sánchez & Vilain 2012, 117); therefore, perception of masculine behavior is a trait shared by all men regardless of their sexual orientation. When a straight man judges other men’s masculinity by behaviors but seeks feminine traits in their female partners out of cathexis for heterosex while being unperturbed or even supportive of other sexual orientations, he may be said to be healthy and he is not demonstrating internalized homophobia. When a gay man judges other men’s masculinity by behaviors but seeks masculine traits in their male partners out of healthy cathexis for homosex while being 41 unperturbed or even supportive of other sexual orientations, he may likewise be said to be healthy and not demonstrating internalized homophobia.

Gay and straight men are both allowed similar tastes in masculinity and femininity without labeling them as pathological in any way. The desire for certain attributes of masculinity has equal costs for both heterosexual and homosexual men in that restriction of emotions and affection associated with masculinity affects both gay men and heterosexual men who value hegemonic masculine ideals (Sánchez, Westfeld,

Liu, & Vilain 2009, 79). Additionally, both homosexual and heterosexual men who feel they do not meet some internal ideal of masculinity experience significant psychological distress; if they cannot meet the masculine ideal, they are likely to question self-worth

(Sánchez, Greenberg, Liu, & Vilain 2009, 79).

Homophobia is a systemic life-long stressor for all homosexuals that may manifest as acceptance and repetition of patterns of physical or psychological abuse, internalized shame, and an habituation to the systemic abuse of homophobic authority.

Anti-Sex Bias

The environments in which gay Bears and gay Chubs find themselves often evidence anti-sex bias. Pew Research Center data pointing to a link between homophobia and religiosity (Horowitz 2014) suggests additional research would find other anti-sex beliefs are related to religiosity.

Anti-sex beliefs cause robust distortion in the perception of sex just as the results reported by Grubbs, Exline, Pargament, Hook & Carlisle demonstrate that “religiosity and moral disapproval of pornography use were robust predictors of perceived addiction to Internet pornography while being unrelated to actual levels of use among pornography 42 consumers” (2015, 125). It is negative judgment of self and others that drives much human misery, not the participation by self or others in a particular behavior; as per

Epictetus of the Stoics in the 1st Century A.D, “People are disturbed not by things, but by the views which they take of them.”

In Lawrence Mass’ examination of Bears and health-related issues, he refers to

“one prominent member of the leather community” (Mass 2001, 16) asking, “why fisting injuries should be regarded any differently from those resulting from sports” (Mass 2001,

16).

43

3: Methodology

What are Bears and Chubs and where is the line or overlap between the two populations? How does one meet criteria for one or both groups, if ever? To answer the question, a qualitative review of the literature was undertaken to attempt to both define and to determine the characteristics of these two gay male subcultures. As the literature has proven itself to be vague, this led to the creation and provision of specific definitions, available in both the definition section and in the glossary. There is very limited research on these populations, so the author analyzed some available data from online websites frequented by self-identified Bears and Chubs to determine some population characteristics, similarities, differences, and overlaps. The purpose of this is to formulate a starting point for the assessment and treatment of men in the clinical environment who self-identify as Bears and/or Chubs in a manner that will be therapeutic and create favorable outcomes by helping clients to set and meet their therapeutic goals. Until clinicians are able to understand who Bears and Chubs are, we are unable to be helpful with these populations. It would be similar to attempting to treat a person with low sexual desire without having any knowledge or training about the characteristics of that person or their environment.

Additionally, online affinity websites frequented by members and admirers of these gay male subcultures for the purpose of partnering were explored. These websites offer community psychoeducation and subculture specific data, as well as more powerful and less restricted search engines, but this enhanced information is often available only to paying members. While the websites offer opportunities to participate without paying, the best information and access tools are usually hidden behind security firewalls that 44 keep out non-paying members; one must pay to play with the full deck in these environments.

Most members of these websites sign up and access the search engines as tools for finding sex and relationship partners among like-minded men commoditized through a database indexed by self-profiling and self-labeling categories. By adjusting the filters on these search engines to return all possibilities among active members, the same information and database access tools were used by the author to determine total members and their self-selected labels/profiling tags. The returned data was used to calculate percentages of the entire member population on the site by label/profile tag.

Member-only psychoeducation and sexual education data was gleaned from behind the firewalls. Biggercity.com was kind enough to allow reprint and free use of any data not having specific member identification information (see Appendices and the release in the end matter). In doing this research and gathering this information, additional patterns of overlap and differentiation between gay Bears and gay Chubs emerged. Based on some of the data, as well as other aspects of the literature review and clinical experience of the author, clinical approaches for assessment and treatment of gay

Bears and Chubs will be suggested and discussed later.

45

4: Analysis

The literature review and research point to diversity between Bears and Chubs in terms of their characteristics physically and psychologically. Sexologically, the more we know about these differences, the better. In fact, the very nature of the heterogeneity of gay culture may be related to sex. For gay Bears, according to Moskowitz, Turrubiates,

Lozano and Hajeck, “a portrait emerges from these Bear results that supports a theory for why the gay community ultimately is so heterogeneous (and thus produces the high degree of spinoff subcultures); Cultures facilitate successful same-sex encounters. Bears have sexual desires that need fulfilling” (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano and Hajeck

2013, 782.)

Based upon the literature review, Table 3 summarizes characteristics and tendencies of gay Bears versus Chubs, adapting data from multiple sources.

Table 3. Characteristics of Gay Bears Versus Gay Chubs

Characteristics of Bears Characteristics of Chubs Older (over 30), beefier than average male Any age, fatter than average male Classic husky mesomorph, BMI ~24.9-30 Classic apple shape ecto- or endo- morph, BMI ~ =>30 No panniculus May have panniculus Comfortable with trappings of masculinity Less comfortable with trappings of masculinity Average to hirsute body hair Smooth or little body hair More likely to have college education or higher Less likely to have college education or higher More likely to be White than general gay pop. Less likely to be White than gay Bears Less concerned appearance, grooming, clothes More concerned appearance, grooming, clothes Mental health risks > general population Mental health risks > gay Bears Physical health risks > general population Physical health risks > gay Bears Greatly reduced tolerance for effeminacy Reduced tolerance for effeminacy Less likely to have ever rejected a partner More likely to have rejected a partner More likely to reject partners as too young Less likely to reject partners as too young Less likely to reject partners due to appearance More likely to reject partners due to appearance Prefer partners weighing more than themselves Prefer partners weighing less than themselves Prefer physical expression to verbal expression No preference for physical over verbal expression Judges masculinity in others based on behavior Judges masculinity in others based on behavior Less likely to talk about sex More likely to talk about sex Sexually adventurous; indulges sexual self Sexually less adventurous; suppresses sexual self More likely engages adventurous sex, fantasies Less likely engages adventurous sex acts, fantasies 46

Sources for table 3 include Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck 2013; Monaghan

2008; Monaghan 2007; Monaghan 2005; Wright 2001; Wright 1997; Mass 2001;

Hickson, et al. 2016; Sánchez, Westefeld, Liu, Ming & Vilain 2010; and Filiault &

Drummond 2007.

Analysis of the demographics data points to legitimacy in claims that Bear subculture skews toward White men and middle-class values (Rofes 1997, 97; Wright

1997, 12).

Demographic data also supports that Bears and Chubs (at between 23% and 33%) make up a slightly smaller subculture of the overall gay population than the 34.9% of all

U.S. adults reported to be obese by the CDC (Adult Obesity Facts, September 21, 2015) represent in the general population (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, & Hajeck 2013).

According to Ward, et al., gay men as a group are at least seven percent less likely to be obese as straight men (2014, 4) and the numbers seen in the literature and in the percentages gathered from subculture affinity websites suggest this is true.

The numbers confirm that gay men of size are a minority within a minority with a prevalence of obesity at 23.2% versus 30.7% among straight males (Ward, et al. 2014, 4).

Data on race upholds the statement that “In practice, in the United States the vast majority of bears are ‘white’” (Wright 2001, 4). As Brown asks, “Why do we see so few black and Asian bears and chubbies?” (2001, 53). Wright suggests that while “some men of color do identify as gay, even as bear”, many non-white “men who engage in sex with men do not identify with a white, middle-class concept of social identity” (2001, 5).

However, what is interpreted as a bias may be less overt racism than related to sexual cathexis toward the hegemonic masculine ideal imagery desired by those men looking for 47 others in this arena; beefy and white. The concept of being gay is dissimilar across cultures, just as being hairy is not a universal factor in maleness across cultures.

Regarding class, Hennen states that “whiteness and middle class values enable the foregrounding gender and effeminacy” (2008, 28) and “white, middle-class, gay men occupy a social space of premium privilege” (28) while there are “African American men who must choose between identification as ‘gay’ and an identification as ‘black’” (28) and “the working class and working poor… may read ‘gayness’ in classed terms that remain invisible to those comfortably ensconced in the bourgeoisie” (28). Middle class white privilege and values affect desire across these gay subcultures..

Review of the hostile environmental stressors around gay Bears and gay Chubs suggest internal and external distortions may be related to their seeking the help of a clinical sexologist. Sizeism, heterosexist bias, homophobia, shame, and other issues may wreak havoc with a man’s self-worth and with his desires.

That both disgust and desire play a role in the Sexual Template, and are related to cognitive dissonance and the trauma of experiencing both disgust and desire in early proto-sexual situations, is a lynchpin of Dr. John Money’s theories related to the formation of sexual psychopathology (1986 and 1989) and the role of rescuing lust from tragedy in the etiology and formation of paraphilias. Dr. Money coined the word lovemaps to describe the Sexual Template (1986 and 1989). Thus, we may extrapolate that it is not the impulse to act, but rather the negative judgment of the act, that drives much of human suffering resulting in psychopathology such as erectile dysfunction, low sexual desire, premature ejaculation, guilt, shame, etc., for which clients seek help.

48

5: Recommendations and Conclusions

Sexologists are in a unique position to improve cultural competence in treating gay clients and go beyond merely affirming gay identity. Rather we may affirm and explore these gay subculture identities so as to integrate appropriate care for sexual expression as well as sexual dysfunction. Sexologists must ask what gay identity the client chooses. It is important to assess their deeper sexual identity and sexual templates.

For example, we can ask if they identify as a Bear, a Chub, a Chaser, a Cub, a Master, a

Slave, an Otter, etc.? It is critical to not pathologize what may be healthy desires which may only be a reflection of who they are sexually and they are looking for validation or understanding about themselves from the practitioner. It is important to ascertain exactly what issues are at the root of them seeking sex therapy. Sex therapists needs to ask specific questions that will help to determine the nature of the problems that any given client is facing as well as the recommended course of treatment. It is also important to ascertain the client’s knowledge about their chosen subculture, such as Bears and Chubs, what else they want or need to know about these subcultures and lifestyle options, and how we assist them in making closer connections and intimacies. Understanding attachment to these identities also helps us to assist clients mourning losses of identity

(such as rapid weight loss due to disease) and the subsequent disruptions such changes may cause in their sex life related to the sexual templates of their partners and themselves.

Social Workers have an acronym for remembering the protocol, or plan for sequence of action, with a new client. It is so basic to the practice that understanding it is related to Social Work licensure. The acronym is AASPIRINS: 49

A: Acknowledge the client and develop rapport. A: Assess. S: Start where the client is. P: Protect life by determining danger to self and/or others. I: Intoxicated do not treat. Refer. R: Rule out medical issue. Refer. I: Informed consent. N: Non-judgmental stance. S: Support client self-determination. (Michaeli 2011).

AASPIRINS is safe clinically, including during sexology clinical practice, and helps practitioners to remain focused on those steps necessary to keep ourselves, and our clients, within the guidelines of most reasonable sexology practice for maintaining boundaries, ethics, safety, and appropriate good outcomes.

Acknowledging and assessing the client’s sexual experience and subculture will help us begin where he is. Understanding how the literature applies to our client’s sexual needs within his subculture will help illuminate how we may help.

Review of the research demonstrates that gay Bears and gay Chubs are minorities within minorities; these subcultures are at added risk of mental health issues and physical health issues as a result of exposure to mental stress from body sizeism, penis sizeism, heterosexism, homophobia, and anti-sex bias. Additionally, physical stress associated with these exposures may create and/or exacerbate health issues ascribed to increased

BMI. The literature also points to gay Bears potentially presenting with more sexual experience, sexual acceptance, and exposure to extreme sexual acts as compared to gay

Chubs (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, & Hajeck 2013); any clinician who would have difficulty accepting homosexual acts that may include a wide range of untraditional sexual expressions by large men should refer these men to another practitioner. 50

Best practice includes tossing preconceived notions regarding potential members of these groups while keeping the research in mind as points of reference for beginnings.

Providing therapy to clients begins with a neutral stance that does not assume homosexuality, does not assume heterosexual Judeo-Christian monogamous relationships as the desired construct, does not assume heteronormative sex acts, and does not assume the heterogeneity of the pool of homosexual men seeking sex therapy. Unhappiness leading Bears, Chubs, and those who love them to sexologists may have its roots in various issues. While these may be related to reality not meeting the Sexual Template, there are many other issues to look for within these groups. Some of these issues may be related to the stressors associated with being gay, with being outliers physically in terms of size, and others related more specifically to being a member of a gay out-group..

Gay Bears may be the safest group with which other males may explore their sexuality or their desire for Bears as a group. However, younger and leaner males, as suggested by the research, would be more successful at attracting gay Chubs who are less likely to reject sexual partners younger and thinner than themselves.

Males who are at greater risk of being rejected because they are heavier, less classically attractive, hairier, or older, would be more successful at seeking sexual partners among gay Bears who, as a group, typically seek partners heavier than themselves and who are less likely to reject any sex partner except those too young or too thin.

Interventions related to getting gay Bears or Chubs to lose weight, such as for health reasons, must be approached carefully as they may disrupt the sexual template of the gay Bear or Chub and their sexual partner(s). Changes to weight, of necessity, will 51 bring change to sexuality in these groups and may involve mourning or grief for gay

Bears and their Admirers as well as gay Chubs and their Chasers. As found in the literature by Monaghan, regardless of sexual orientation, most males report they do not look or feel healthy at the BMI dictated by doctors and government tables and these men therefore come to their own conclusion of what is an appropriate weight for them (2007,

605-607). In fact, men often are choosing to weigh more because they perceive themselves as looking unhealthy when at government guideline BMI (Monaghan 2007,

605-607). Gay Bears and Chubs risk not only perceiving themselves negatively when they lose weight, but risk losing their social life and sexual appeal to others within their subcultures.

Gay Bears, though they may appear similar to Chubs, never really become gay

Chubs or vice-versa because they are separate subgroups having distinguishing features.

Gay Chubs are heavier, less masculine, of non-hegemonic somatotype, less hirsute, and are less comfortable with hegemonic masculinity than gay Bears.

How this line of demarcation affects the gay man so labeled depends on how others perceive him and on his self-perception. “Masculinity—however gay men define it—is an important construct for many gay men.... gay men who are more concerned about violating traditional masculine ideals feel more negatively about being gay than those less concerned” (Sánchez, Westefeld, Liu, Ming & Vilain 2010, 109-110). As noted by Hennen, Suresha, Wright, and others cited throughout, some men might choose the more socially acceptable label of Bear over Chub because it makes them feel more masculine or socially acceptable, despite not meeting our definition criteria for Bears. 52

Chub and Bear spaces may be regions in which different men of size perform the characteristics of their type among their in-group; a presentation of self (Goffman, 1959, pp. 108-109) occurs within each region. Under normal circumstances, an air of conviviality exists within the auspices of like-minded groups. In practice, however, among fat gay men, the heteronormative becomes “carnivalesque…. in the performance of fat” (Whitesel & Shuman 2013, 478). Those not conforming to the in-group region may find themselves further isolated and under stress; the demand to be a part of an in- group to which he does not truly belong may result in a sense that “his sensitivities, his latent hostilities, his exacting demands interfere with his own relationships” (Horney

1937, 106).

Sexology Assessment with Bears and Chubs The Assessment of Gay Bears and Chubs Using the CHUBBIE

Clinical differentiation of these gay subcultures, and identification of the member subculture for a presenting client, may be simplified using the Chub Bear Identification

Evaluation (CHUBBIE), which is a series of questions based upon the research-gleaned attributes identifying and differentiating these groups of gay men.

The CHUBBIE helps with assessment and starting where the client is. By determining the client’s subculture based on demographic and temperament data, a non- judgmental stance is maintained. Results may be used to help with reality testing and with client self-determination in an informed manner. Ascertaining the subculture most aligned with a client’s attributes and temperament helps us explore and determine the client’s environmental and sexual template fit in relation to their self-image and presentation in the environment. The CHUBBIE is a tool for enhancing understanding for both the client and the clinician. 53

Before beginning, the therapist is to gather demographic and biopsychosocial information for the gay male subject. This must include height and weight.

Calculate BMI by dividing weight in pounds by height in inches squared and multiplying by a conversion factor of 703 or use a BMI calculator such as the one available on the CDC website (“Defining Adult Overweight And Obesity | Overweight

& Obesity | CDC” 2012). Here is an example to follow from the CDC website “About

Adult BMI” (2015) :

Calculate BMI by dividing weight in pounds (lbs) by height in inches (in) squared and multiplying by a conversion factor of 703. Example: Weight = 150 lbs, Height = 5'5" (65") Calculation: [150 ÷ (65)2] x 703 = 24.96

CHUB BEAR IDENTITY EVALUATION (CHUBBIE)

The CHUBBIE evaluation is designed to assist the therapist in assigning a subject male to the appropriate gay subculture, either Bear or Chub. The therapist administers the CHUBBIE to help a man to identify with either Bear or Chub subcultures. It consists of attributes separated into three sections, Physical, Demographic, and Behavioral. Each section is scored individually.

Throughout the CHUBBIE, disqualifying features incompatible with BEAR and CHUB identities will result in termination of the evaluation with an outcome indicating the subject male is neither a Bear nor Chub.

Directions: The therapist will circle those attributes associated with the subject male.

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES

Bears and Chubs are associated with certain physical attributes and these will be used to categorize the subject male.

Body Type

1. Ectomorph type is thinner, delicate, lean, and stringy.

2. Mesomorph type is athletic, firmer, beefier and rectangular.

54

3. Endomorph type is rounder, softer, heavier and less defined.

Circle Body Type below that best describes the subject male:

Ectomorph Mesomorph Endomorph

Body Mass Index (BMI)

Calculate BMI of the subject male by dividing weight in pounds by height in inches squared and multiplying by a conversion factor of 703 or use a BMI calculator such as the one available on the CDC website. Below is an example from the CDC website “About Adult BMI” (2015): Example: Weight = 150 lbs, Height = 5'5" (65") Calculation: [150 ÷ (65)2] x 703 = 24.96 Once subject male’s BMI is calculated, answer the following based on BMI.

 Is BMI less than 24.9? If so, then the subject is determined to be TERMINATE too lean to be a Bear or Chub and the EVALUATION evaluation is terminated.

BMI: Circle either Bear or Chub based on the subject’s BMI as shown below based on body type.

For Ectomorph or Endomorph Body Types: BEAR = BMI <= 30 BEAR BMI > 30 = CHUB CHUB For Mesomorph Body Types: BEAR=BMI<=35 BMI>35=CHUB

Hairiness

Beards and hairiness separate Bears and Chubs. Circle

either Bear or Chub for each factor based on the subject male’s hairiness.

55

Beard?

BEAR = Bearded or heavy stubble BEAR CHUB No Beard = CHUB

Body Hair?

BEAR BEAR = Extremely to Average CHUB Little to Smooth = CHUB

Structure

Rolls of fat under the belly or bulges around the hips and back (love handles) are associated more with Chubs than Bears. Circle either Bear or Chub below based on subject’s structure

Does subject have rolls of fat and/or love handles?

BEAR = Neither or minimal BEAR Rolls of fat or love handles = CHUB CHUB

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES RESULT SCORE

Total the number of times BEAR is circled on left and enter PHYSICAL BEAR on left PHYSICAL

Total the number of times CHUB is circled on right and CHUB

____ enter on right ____

Circle PHYSICAL BEAR or PHYSICAL CHUB

based on the higher of the two numbers

DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES

Certain demographic information is associated with the Bear and Chub subcultures. These will be scored based on the subject male’s information.

56

AGE

TERMINATE If age is under 30 and PHYSICAL RESULT = BEAR then EVALUATION the subject male is a Cub and the CHUBBIE is terminated.

EDUCATION

Circle Bear or Chub below based on highest level of education:

BEAR BEAR= College or higher CHUB No college or incomplete = CHUB

RACE Circle Bear or Chub below based on subject male’s race:

BEAR = White/Caucasian Other = CHUB BEAR CHUB

DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES RESULT SCORE Total the number of times BEAR is circled on left DEMOGRAPHIC DEMOGRAPHIC and enter on left Total the number of times CHUB is CHUB BEAR circled on right and enter on right ______Circle DEMOGRAPHIC BEAR or DEMOGRAPHIC CHUB based on the higher of the two numbers:

BEHAVIORAL ATTRIBUTES Bears and Chubs are associated with certain behavioral preferences and these will be used to categorize the subject

male. Circle Bear or Chub for each behavior below based on subject male’s preferences.

57

Rejection of Sex Partners? BEAR = Never or Rarely BEAR CHUB Sometimes or Often = CHUB

Rejects partners based on appearance? BEAR = No BEAR CHUB Yes = CHUB

Concerned with clothes and cleanliness? BEAR = No BEAR CHUB Yes = CHUB

Prefers partners weighing more than himself? BEAR = Yes BEAR CHUB No = CHUB

Extremely intolerant of effeminacy in sexual partners? BEAR = Yes BEAR CHUB No = CHUB

Extremely sexually adventurous? BEAR = Yes BEAR CHUB No = CHUB

Rejects sex partners as too young? BEAR = Yes No = CHUB BEAR CHUB

BEHAVIORAL ATTRIBUTES RESULT SCORE

Total the number of times BEAR is circled on left and enter

on left

BEHAVIORAL BEHAVIORAL

BEAR Total the number of times CHUB is circled on right and CHUB

enter on right ______

Circle BEHAVIORAL BEAR or BEHAVIORAL CHUB

based on the higher of the two numbers

CHUBBIE FINAL RESULT: Circle the Section Results from the PHYSICAL, DEMOGRAPHIC, and BEHAVIORAL Sections below. 58

Circle CHUBBIE FINAL RESULT either Bear or Chub below based on which has two or more Sections.

PHYSICAL BEAR CHUB

DEMOGRAPHICS BEAR CHUB

BEHAVIORS BEAR CHUB

The final Result is the outcome subculture for the subject male based on administration of the CHUBBIE. Circle the final result below.

BEAR CHUB

CHUBBIE FINAL RESULT

Determining the Sexual Self Problem Domain(s)

Prior to choosing interventions, the client’s sexual self problem domain(s) need to be determined. This can be performed using a modification of the Johari Window created by Drs. Joseph Luft and Harry Ingham in 1955 (Chapman, 2003).

Table 4 is a four pane example useful for determining the domain of the sexual self problem being experienced by the presenting client using a quadrant method created by the author.

59

Table 4. Sexual Self Problem Domain Determination

Physical Sexual Self Emotional Sexual Self

A. How I physically see myself A. I feel sexually positive and sexually matches how others see connected. me physically. B. I feel sexually negative and B. How I physically see myself disconnected. sexually does not match how others see me physically.

Sexual Template Sexual Reciprocity

A. I know what I want sexually A. What is seeking me is sexually and I find it. arousing to me and gives me sexual pleasure. B. I know what I want sexually but I cannot find it. B. What is seeking me is not sexually arousing to me and does not give me C. I don’t know what I want pleasure. sexually.

If Physical Sexual Self is A, then the client is presenting as in touch with the reality of themselves their perception is congruent with how they are physically perceived by others; they may or may not be content with their physical person.

If Physical Sexual Self is B, then the client is either not packaging themselves accurately in terms of commodity or they are experiencing some form of dysmorphia.

Perhaps they are simply unhappy with their appearance in some way? Examples of interventions to try may be found the section on Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy

Interventions.

If Emotional Sexual Self is A, then the client is presenting as in touch with the emotional reality of themselves, contented, and most likely not seeking change in this area. 60

If Emotional Sexual Self is B, then the client is experiencing problems with sexually related emotion, desire, and/or connection. Further assessment may help to determine if these issues are related to organic problem, external factors such as bias or stigma, or internal concerns such as problems in thinking.

For Sexual Template, if the answer is A, then the sexual template is working for the client (so long as it is compatible with present conditions, partners, etc.). Items B and

C represent issues with either learning or coming to terms with what one wants sexually,

C, or some disconnect or frustration that prevents sexual fulfillment of the client in their present circumstances, B. The Sexual Template and P-LI-SS-IT Model information provided later in this document may be helpful in determining where to begin with these clients.

Sexual Reciprocity item B represents issues with either attracting what one finds attractive or perhaps having problems with desire that affect reciprocity. The sections on

Bears, Chubs, and Cathexis, Desire Phase Fantasies and the Push-Pull of Eroticism,

Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy Interventions, and Addressing Shame and Trauma may be helpful with these clients.

Assume a heavy-set client scores Physical Sexual Self A, Emotional Sexual Self

A, Sexual Template B, and Sexual Reciprocity B . He is in touch with his appearance and emotions in a healthy way but is finding it difficult to find sex partners and those he does attract do not excite him sexually. This will require additional assessment using the

CHUBBIE. Assuming further assessment reveals he is a Chub by definition who cathects to other Chubs (Chub4Chub) then he has the likely chance for success on gay hookup sites according to the research, though is in a minority and may need patience. He may be 61 helped to know that; simply knowing one is of a set type, but perhaps rarer, may reduce his anxiety and increase his patience in playing the percentages as he seeks partner(s).

Normalization is a powerful reframe and is an important part of what we do as sexologists.

Additional Recommended Assessments

Assessment tools can provide other useful information to the sex therapist and the client which can help to gain a fuller picture of the client’s concerns and needs. Some examples of sexual assessments for use with members of the gay Bear and gay Chub subcultures include:

The Sexual Disorder Screening Questionnaire (Bloom 2006), though brief and for both men and women, is a useful tool for quick assessment of sexual dysfunction.

The Sexual Irrationality Questionnaire, “developed to assess irrational beliefs in the realm of sexuality” to assess “clients who have sexual problems” by McCormick and

Jordan in 1986 and determine what will diminish “erroneous and self-defeating beliefs about sexuality” (Davis et al. 1998, 115).

The Sexual History and Adjustment Questionnaire by Lewis and Janda assesses childhood factors, parental attitudes about sexual activity, and participant attitudes and comfort regarding sexuality (Davis et al. 1998, 29).

The Sexual Awareness Questionnaire by Snell, Fisher, and Miller, measures sexual consciousness, sexual preoccupation, sexual monitoring, and sexual assertiveness assesses childhood factors, parental attitudes about sexual activity, and participant attitudes and comfort regarding sexuality (Davis et al. 1998, 94-97).

62

The Sexual Template and The P-LI-SS-IT Model

In the practice of Clinical Sexology, etiology of desire is moot. According to Dr.

William Granzig, at the heart of Foucault’s work is how we learn about sickness from our society and culture (W. Granzig, personal communication, Social Foundations of

Sexology Lecture, May 8, 2015). Intrauterine communications in the form of biology and post-natal communications in the form of our senses and cultural exposures conspire to inform our Sexual Template, which is “the sum of all sexual erotic desires” (Granzig

2004, 4). This section will follow Granzig’s steps as provided in the above-mentioned lecture and in his 2004 presentation notes regarding the use of the Sexual Template in delivery of accepting and unbiased clinical sexology treatment.

Granzig instructs that the etiology of a client’s cathexis is “of no concern to the therapist” and that by following the Sexual Template methodology, one may more readily accept “the patient’s cathexis” as this “is the crucial first step” to using the Sexual

Template to “improve a person or couple’s sex life” (Granzig 2004, 5).

We take in, or are communicated, what we want through daily exposures from inception to tomb. Intrauterine communications in the form of biology, environmental variables, and post-natal communications in the form of our senses and cultural exposures over time conspire to inform our Sexual Template (Granzig 2004, p.4). In the words of Bateson, “an organism can learn only that which it is taught by the circumstances of living and the experiences of exchanging messages with those around him. He cannot learn at random, but only to be like or unlike those around him. We have, therefore, the necessary task of looking at the experiential setting...” (1972, 234). 63

Formulation of a Sexual Template is as complicated and varied for Bears and Chubs as for any other human being.

Bears, Chubs, and Cathexis

There are far more variables to cathexis than merely sexual orientation yet

of the very many dimensions along which the genital activity of one person can be differentiated from that of another (dimensions that include preferences for certain acts, certain zones of sensations, certain physical types, a certain frequency, certain symbolic investments, certain relations of age and power, a certain species, a certain number of participants, and so on) precisely one, the gender of the object choice, emerged from the turn of the century, and has remained, as the dimension denoted by the now ubiquitous category of “sexual orientation”. (Sedgwick 2009, 8)

Granzig instructs us to readily accept the focus of our clients’ desires for a particular sexual object. Other attributes within the demographics of the cathexis may include the sex, race, age, education, economics, and “other attributes in the Sexual

Template such as desire for tenderness, closeness, companionship, affection, and other societally approved emotions” (Granzig 2004, 6). According to Dr. Arlen Keith,

The template encompasses first and foremost the gender of the potential partners you are interested in (men, women, both men and women) and expands to include physical characteristics (height, weight, physique, skin color, etc), demeanour (masculinity-femininity, gait, attitude, voice, accent, etc.), status (power, money, etc.), spirituality (religion, belief systems, etc.), body modifications (tattoos, piercings, haircut, shape/style of beard, etc.), culture and race. Age is an important factor with most people preferring others within 5 years of their own age. (2013).

Gay Bears and gay Chubs may not cathect to those similar to themselves. If a

Bear or Chub is questioning himself as an object of desire within his chosen in-group, there may be a dissonance between presentation and reality that functions as a kind of neurotic gap (Horney 1937) in which the Bear or Chub finds stigma or feelings of alienation from the in-group to which he aspires. If the Bear or Chub is not attracting, or 64 is unable to maintain, the objects to which he cathects, there may also be systemic issues related to biology, sexology, mental health, and/or obstacles (sizeism, homophobia, etc.).

Following the AASPIRINS protocol, and using the assessment tools provided and recommended earlier in this chapter, will assist in determining whether these are problems requiring intervention or referral.

Desire Phase Fantasies and the Push-Pull Dynamic of Eroticism

We have people who are brainwashed into thinking they are ugly because they do not fit the standard set by gay media. We have people who are brainwashed into thinking they are sick because they are attracted to people who do not fit the standard set by gay media. --Larry Toothman, A Short History of Bear Clubs in Iowa

The next step is determining “desire phase fantasies” (Granzig 2004, 5) that jumpstart arousal. For all clients, Granzig warns us this is the “most difficult part of the therapy in that patients are extremely resistant to acknowledge their fantasies to their partners, their therapist, and even to themselves” (p. 6). For those, like Bears and Chubs, existing in a relatively hostile social environment, the task is more difficult. Granzig reports most clinical assessment rests on four criteria regarding behavior:

The statistical norm. How common is the behavior? The medical norm. Is the behavior healthy? The ethical norm. Is the behavior moral? The legal norm. Is the behavior legitimate? (2004, 7-8)

Deviance is a double-edged sword in the world of the erotic. All the dynamics of disgust, shame, and lust may serve to stoke the passion of desire. This is the basis of what

Morin (2012) termed “the erotic equation... ATTRACTION + OBSTACLES =

EXCITEMENT” . Patrick Carnes understood this when he wrote, while discussing fear 65 and its nature to betrayal bonds, “control makes the fear. The fear deepens the bond”

(1997, 90) So it is that,

the erotic experience, by its very nature, is shaped by the push-pull of opposing forces and is therefore energetic, interactive, and potentially dangerous. We are the most intensely excited when we are a little off-balance, uncertain, poised on the perilous edge between ecstasy and disaster (Morin 2012).

Disgust is a fear looming over all who might open up regarding their sexual fantasies and desires. “The injury big gay men experience is one of being perceived as

‘disgusting’ and ‘sexually repulsive’” (Whitesel 2014, 50). A non-judgmental stance of acceptance by the listener helps clients overcome fear of generating disgust when compared to temporal and cultural norms of modesty. For this purpose, Granzig reports an often-used approach called the “P-LI-SS-IT model developed by Dr. Jack Anon of the

University of Hawaii in 1972” (2004, 9-10).

The ‘P’ in the model stands for permission for the patient to safely reveal his Sexual Template. Once permission is given and accepted, the clinical sexologist move on to ‘LI’, which stands for limited information…. The clinical sexologist discusses the fantasies with the client to “enable the patient to view the sexual fantasies as with the norm of sexual behavior…. The specific suggestions (SS) part of the model “utilizes erotology to enable the patient and partner to find those areas of mutuality in each other’s Sexual Template…. The therapist can safely provide information from each Sexual Template to the other partner. The active participation removes the feelings that the other will find their fantasies disgusting as they are specific suggestions regarding the variety of sexual activities that are within the norm of unusual, non-coercive sexual behaviors. The final ‘IT’ intensive therapy is usually provided for those patients who have underlying pathology and is usually not a specific sexual problem. (Granzig 2004, 10)

Here, in the realm of desire, is where the templates may deviate substantially between Bears and Chubs in that Bears may prove less forthcoming and more sexually adventurous with Chubs more open but demonstrating greater suppression of self.

Whether or not a gay male is actually a Bear or a Chub by our definition, at least one 66 study shows that those who define themselves as a Bears are “more likely to report never rejecting a partner” (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck 2013, 779) but when they do reject a partner they are “more likely to reject partners due to their being too young”, and “less likely to reject individuals who were less attractive than they appeared or who weighed more” (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck 2013, 779).

Additionally, the same study found Bears “reported enacting more sexual behaviors, many of which are esoteric and physiologically extreme” (Moskowitz,

Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck 2013, 781) and that these may include

“insertive/receptive fisting, insertive urination, general domination, insertive asphyxiation, and insertive sexual assault” which may be related to “behavioral representations of increased masculinity”, tying back to a kind of self-acceptance associated with hegemonic masculinity (but being interpreted by the study authors as being related to low self-esteem) (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck 2013, 780-

782). “Bears appear to be more sexually diverse than and explorative than mainstream gay and bisexual men” (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck 2013, 781). Fantasies including these desires may be more difficult to elicit from clients who internalize dread due to religious, familial, societal and/or cultural aversion to acts viewed as “antisocial, mentally ill, debauched, and even sinful” (Granzig 2004, 5-6).

Regarding the research of Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, and Hajeck, it must be noted that their findings about Bears may not apply to non-Bears, including Chubs.

Additionally, there are problems with the study in that their research population skews considerably toward the gay leather community, including those attending the 2008

International Mr. Leatherman Competition (IML), versus only Bear community research; 67 a decidedly different population (778-783). The inferences by the authors that self-esteem findings are causative of the performance of what they deem extreme sexual acts

(Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano & Hajeck 2013,782) are unsubstantiated, possibly judgmental, conclusions.

Despite sharing some degree of body image stigma, Chubs may have fewer traits in common with Bears when it comes to sexuality and masculinity. As members of a non-

Bear group, the findings suggest that Chubs are more likely than Bears to accept younger partners, more likely to reject overweight and less attractive partners, are more likely to have rejected a partner or partners, and fall into categories of men who are less “sexually exploratory and diverse” (Moskowitz, Turrubiates, Lozano, and Hajeck 2013, 778-782).

Erich Fromm defines erotic love as the “craving for complete fusion, for union with one other person. It is by its very nature exclusive and not universal” (Fromm 1957,

48). This specificity is personal and exclusive because “the patterns that shape each individual’s erotic desire phase are unique” (Granzig 2004, 4) and forms “the basis for love and lust” (Granzig 2004, 1). It comes down to love and desire for that object within our Sexual Template at the personal level.

The process of coming out as a homosexual is often replicated when gay men have a second coming out regarding their fantasies of desire; just as their initial closet was based on peer pressure to conform, so is their second closet as they are “afraid to tell their friends that their sexual preferences” differ greatly (Toothman 2001, 228). It is not easy to tell friends you like men who they “might call ‘trolls, ’geeks,’ or ‘fatso’ “

(Toothman 2001, 228). Likewise, to be one of those men targeted with these terms, and 68 who cathects to someone who is not, often results in disappointment unless the object of desire reciprocates complimentarily within their own Sexual Template.

In practice, heterosexual and homosexual men have some similarities in their patterns of desire. “Looks matter more for men than women, irrespective of sexual orientation” (Elmer 2012, 13). “Regardless of sexual orientation, men are more interested in casual sex, have a stronger preference for youthful looking partners, and place a greater importance on the physical attractiveness of a mate when compared to women”

(Sánchez, Greenberg, Liu, & Vilain 2009, 80).

Searches for the gay gene proved futile (Hamer & Copeland 1994) in a world where correlation is not the same as causation (Yong 2015). When it comes to the desire of gay males, UCLA’s Sánchez and Vilain write that scholars “have theorized why many gay men focus on masculinity and express anti-effeminacy” (2012, 112). Numerous authors postulate theories of internalized anti-gay sentiment such as past humiliation for effeminacy, the desire to avoid being stereotyped, and other reasons for this pro- masculine focus (Sánchez and Vilain 2012, 112) among Bears.

According to Leight’s publically posted article “You’re Just Not in My Template”

(2013), the Sexual Template may be very helpful in enlightening the client and in reframing his desires and rejections because the Sexual Template,

may contain inconsistencies, tends to grow with age, and you will continue to add characteristics to your template, but this is an unconscious process and not a choice.... Additionally, once an attribute is in the template it is NOT extinguishable. In other words, if you were sexually interested in men with beards when you were 21 you will be interested in men with beards when you are 81 (Leight 2013, “You’re Just Not in My Template”).

Additionally, of vital importance is recognizing that, 69

if you are in a long term relationship and your partner falls out of your template it may be difficult if not impossible to revive your sex life. This is not petty. This is a realistic part of human sexual connection… and while …you may be the most handsome man in the world… that does not translate in to ‘everyone wants to have sex with me’. When you are rejected as a potential sexual partner, remember, it is not about you, it is directly related to the Sexual Template of the person doing the rejecting (Leight 2013, “You’re Just Not in My Template”).

By examining their Sexual Template, we can ascertain if there is dissonance that is internal to the individual such that they are not seeing themselves clearly (individual work being necessary and possibly, if due to psychopathology or a medical condition, a referral indicated). Examples of internal dissonance might be someone who sees himself as something they are not. For example, if the client is a bearded, hirsute, but blatantly effeminate gay man who is self-conscious about his appearance, limits food intake in an unhealthy manner resulting in underweight frame, considers himself a Bear, cathects to gay Bears, but is having difficulty finding and keeping a partner, he may be having difficulty with honest self-appraisal. The research suggests that though this man may inwardly feel he is a Bear, and may even be bearded and hairy enough to pass as a member of the in-group, his discomfort with, and nonperformance of, hegemonic masculine ideals negates his membership as a Bear. Thus, in practice, there is difficulty with membership to the in-group and he may do better to look for men elsewhere as well as accepting referral to the individual therapy necessary to reach a self-awareness based in rigorous truthfulness and honest self-appraisal.

Alternatively, we can examine the desire phase of each partner in the system to see if each sees the other(s) as no longer falling within the parameters of their own Sexual

Template and make recommendations about getting back within the Template, when possible. This may include determining appearance and behavior of the members at the 70 inception of the relationship and determining if changes from that type or image are reversible in any way. As with any couple, we must know whom they were at limerence to understand where they are now.

Ultimately, we must eschew etiology and accept that the focus of desire is specific to a gay males’ Sexual Templates, and thus their preference for specialized objects of erotic cathexis.

In turn, Chubs and Bears may attract and/or be attracted to specialized objects such as fetishists who position size as a desirable attribute. For example, “feederism sexualizes body fat, food consumption and weight gain (Giovanelli & Peluso, 2006, p.

331). As the act of eating has become fetishized, the consumption of food can be seen as the genital orgasm of a fetishist (Gammen and Makinen 1994, 124; Giovanelli & Paluso

2006, p. 332). Chubs, especially, may be attracted to or by those into feederism and may or may not be comfortable with readily sharing these experiences and/or fantasies in clinical settings.

Classic Sexology Interventions for Bears and Chubs

In general, sexology interventions for gay men of average build and stature look a great deal like sex therapy interventions for heterosexual couples except that they must additionally include frank discussion of the special issues facing the group. Typical interventions or treatment tasks (Kaplan 1974, 201-220) for gay males may include Stop-

Start, the Squeeze method, and Sensate Focus (193-210) as they would for heterosexual clients but with variation for the differences of male/male dynamics.

A recommended general resource for adaptation of classic sex therapy to gay males is Dr. Arlen Keith Leight’s Sex Happens, a “Gay Man’s Guide to Creative 71

Intimacy”. The title of the first chapter, “Man-to-Man Relationships: Unique Challenges and Obstacles to Intimacy” (2013, 3), goes directly to the extra complications minority out-group membership adds to the sexological treatment of gay men. For example,

Sensate Focus, “the centerpiece of Masters and Johnson’s therapeutic work” (Weiner &

Avery-Clark 2014, 308), “ is a hierarchy of invariant, structured touching and discovery suggestions created by Virginia Johnson…. It is a diagnostic and a therapeutic tool for identifying psychological relationship factors that contribute to sexual difficulties, and for teaching new skills to overcome these problems and to foster more meaningful sexual intimacy” (Weiner & Avery-Clark 2014, 308). Leight’s Sex Happens includes exercises adapted from Sensate Focus used to create a “sensual journey” in the treatment of gay men specifically (Leight 2013, 1-132).

Additional treatment needs of Bears and Chubs are compounded by belonging to an out-group having issues of size that warrant additional explicit instruction.

Sexual Psychoeducation for Gay Bears and Gay Chubs

Specific Mental Health Concerns

As they age, gay men, Bears among them, are at higher risk than the general population for depression, poorer physical health, and disability than the general population (Fredriksen-Goldsen, et al. 2012, 1). Recent research from the U.K. indicates that younger gay men (more likely to be Chubs, Chasers, Otters, and Cubs than Bears) are at greater risk of depression, anxiety, and other mental health issues than older gay men (Hickson, et al. 2016, 1-8); we must consider this risk when planning for interventions. Per Kaplan, “some sex therapists require all prospective clients to submit to a psychiatric examination in order to rule out high risk patients” (1974, 196), and “the 72 basic premise on which sex therapy rests is that anxiety occurring at the moment of sexual intercourse disrupts the patient’s erectile response” (Kaplan 1974, 267).

Additionally, medications prescribed to address the mood dysfunctions of this population may negatively affect sexual desire, souring sex life in the form of reduced desire and other unwanted side effects.

While younger Chubs, Cubs, Chasers, and Otters may experience anxiety disproportionately compared to Bears, who are generally older and less at risk, resiliency factors can help reduce risk; high income, living with a male partner, living in an urban center, and being well-educated, will mitigate these factors in our younger, bisexual, and/or minority clients (Hickson, et al. 2016). Better outcomes are linked to resiliency and, as with all other clients, we must seek those factors enhancing resilience in our clients, including “self-efficacy, realistic appraisal of the environment, social problem- solving skills, sense of direction or mission, empathy, humor, adaptive distancing, androgynous sex role behavior, positive caring relationships, positive family or other intimate environment, and ‘high enough’ expectations” (Norman 2000, 4).

Specific Health Concerns of Bears and Chubs

Etiology of health issues notwithstanding (weight? out-group membership stress?), medical clearance to ascertain no organic or pharmacological reason for sexual dysfunction is paramount when working with this and any other population (Kaplan

1974, 195-196). Whether the problem is lack of desire, premature ejaculation, delayed ejaculation, or some other problem with the sexual cycle, we must rule out organic disorders. For example, diabetes is “the most common cryptic physical cause of” erectile dysfunction and “any disease that destroys any part of the neurological apparatus which 73 subserves ejaculation will impair this function” (Kaplan 1974, 321). As no amount of talk therapy, Stop-Start, Squeeze technique, Sensate Focus, or desensitization for anxiety will repair the underlying organic causes and damage of illness; medical problems require medical referral.

According to Dr. Larry Mass (2001), the Bear and Chub population’s many specific physical health concerns include thrombophlebitis, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, arteriosclerotic cardiovascular disease with stroke and myocardial infarction

(heart attack), arthritis, duodenal ulcer, hiatal hernia, gastroesophageal reflux disease

(GERD), hyperlipidemia, cholelithiasis (gallstones), cholecystitis (inflammation of the bile duct), colorectal and prostate cancers, and sleep apnea (Mass 2001, 19-32). Many of these affect and/or may cause sexual dysfunction and sexual performance issues.

Additionally, “hirsuteness is likewise a consideration…. body lice (crabs and scabies) are common among Bears” (Mass 2001, 19) as well as pilonidal sinus and cyst, “an infection of the hair follicles in the small of the back” (Mass 2001, 28).

Size-Related Sexual Psychoeducation for Bears and Chubs

Additional considerations for treatment of men of size include practical recommendations for reduction of any negatives that may arise due to girth while attempting to maximize enjoyment of sex. One obvious challenge for larger people having sex is the difficulty with movement, positioning, and other restrictions that come with being obese. Water is the friend of those seeking relief from gravity. Sex in large bathtubs, hot tubs, swimming pools, lakes, rivers, and oceans is a wonderful way to engage erotically in an environment that reduces physical stress and provides ease of movement. 74

Some of the best practical recommendations come from within the community itself, but not all are publicly available online. BiggerCity.com has helpful blog entries for the community behind their firewall, intended for Bears, Chubs, and their Admirers willing to pay for membership. Having received permission to use these, they are

Appendices A through C as there is much here to inform both clients and clinicians. The author has merged highlights from them in the form of specific sex and relationship DO and DO NOT instructions list below that may be useful as a handout for Bear and Chub clients:

DO:  Do keep rooms cooler than usual but relax and enjoy any sweat build up  Do use appropriate furniture rated for larger weight adults  Do use padding, pillows, and positions that reduce stress on knees and joints  Do use firmer pressure when massaging/touching but elicit feedback and adjust accordingly  Do pay attention to a heavy partner’s breathing and body language being sure to acknowledge and adjust based on positive feedback or grimaces/signs of displeasure  Do let the big guy set the pace; he may or may not have mobility issues  Do explore for erogenous zones  Do explore various aspects of sexuality with which you may find you are comfortable, including oral/genital, oral/anal, genital/oral, genital/anal  Do be upfront regarding your fetishes and desires; for example, if you are more interested in a big man’s body than getting to know him as a person, that may be okay or not okay but should be discussed prior to engagement  Do pay attention to your own weight and size in a realistic way; perception of self is not always the same as perception by others. DO NOT:  Do not jiggle or focus on a single body part (big belly, for example) unless asked  Do not avoid areas such as underneath the belly or panniculus unless specifically told NOT to touch them  Do not keep a man of size on all fours on a hard floor  Do not worry about sweat; take it as a compliment 75

 Do not be preoccupied with a man of size remaining hard all night; erections come and go for all body types so remember that kissing, cuddling, and other means of sensual engagement encourage erection in a relaxed way  Do not continue to do anything you are asked to stop or that causes negative body language such as pulling away, grimaces, or grunts of pain/discomfort  Do not engage in name calling such as “fatty”, “jelly-roll”, etc., even in jest, unless this is discussed and/or part of a shared fantasy or fetish  Do not assume big men cannot “top”  Do not assume big men have mobility problems

Additional Psychoeducation Resources for Bears and Chubs

The following are some resources that can be supplied to gay Bears and Chubs for self-exploration or for clinicians seeking to gather more information on these groups.

Internet sites for gay Bear and Chub affinity and dating include Biggercity.com,

Chasable.com, Growlr.com, Bearunderground.net, and bearwww.com, among others.

Girth and Mirth is the Chub club with many branches nationally. Search for Girth and

Mirth and Convergence to get location information and dates of upcoming Big Gay Men

Organization social gatherings for Chubs and Chasers.

Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy Interventions

Why Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT)?

Although not all gay Bears and Chubs have mood, thought, or sexual issues, gay men seeking therapy, including sex therapy, are likely experiencing some form of mood, thought, or sexual concern that they wish to address. It is important for clinicians to consider which modalities could be more helpful for these populations. The clinician should practice within their expertise and seek out any training they see as necessary to competently treat their niche clientele, and/or refer out those clients who are outside of their therapeutic scope. 76

One therapeutic model that is evidence-based and could be helpful in treating

Bears and Chubs who are struggling with mood issues or distorted thinking or beliefs about themselves and others is Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). REBT is the basis of all Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and is among the most evidence-based psychotherapies. According to Corsini & Wedding (2008, 187-193), Dr. Albert Ellis developed Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy as a form of psychotherapy based on the idea that emotional consequences and behaviors are largely created by an individual’s belief system. Ellis developed the theories of REBT in the 1950’s and opened New

York’s Albert Ellis Institute in 1959.

Ellis’ system goes to the root of irrational patterns of thought by actively disputing the underlying beliefs we take for granted. As research has demonstrated the role religiosity plays in negative beliefs about sex, REBT is a perfect choice of interventions since, according to Ellis, REBT is the only psychological intervention that provides a scientific alternative to devout thinking. In an interview with Jeffrey Mishlove,

Ellis stated that,

We are born gullible to our parents, influenceable, teachable, in the first place. Therefore we stupidly listen to our parents, but then we invent many musts, shoulds, oughts, demands, commands, in addition to the standards, the values, that we adopt from our parents… we mainly disturb ourselves with those Jehovian commands… The three main musts are I must do well or I am no good, you, you louse, must treat me well or you are worthless and deserve to roast in hell, and the world must give me exactly what I want precisely when I want it or it is a horrible awful place… It is because of the musts… If you didn’t must-urbate you would not awful-ize, terrible-ize, catastroph-ize, you would not self-disturb… The technique is the scientific method and we say we are the only cognitive behavioral therapy who does say that when you think anti-scientifically, devoutly, really piously, dogmatically, which is inflexible and anti-scientific, then you disturb yourself. Therefore we use the flexible scientific method to get you philosophically, and otherwise, to un-disturb yourself… The insight that I made myself disturbed, I foolishly listened to my mother and father and took them too seriously, and I am still doing it and that now I require work and practice, work 77

and practice, to give up my biological and sociological tendency to disturb myself, that will help you (Ellis 2010).

A long-term follow-up study found that REBT is especially effective at targeting demandingness, a trait associated with mood disorder and relapse (Szentagotai, et al.

2008, 523). Additional clinical efficacy is confirmed by Chambless & Ollendick (2001,

698) as well as Corsini and Wedding who report that “hundreds of clinical and research papers present empirical evidence supporting REBT main theories” (2008, 194).

Among the many practice components of REBT are psychoeducation concepts, the ABC method, active disputation of irrational beliefs, behavior therapy, and behavior experimentation interventions “not only to help clients to become habituated to more effective ways of performing, but also to help change their cognitions” (Corsini &

Wedding 2008, 201).

Once the following suggested exercises are completed, REBT active disputation of irrational beliefs and the use of the REBT ABC method to help clients come up with more effective replacement beliefs will result in reduced self-disturbance, reduced demandingness, and greater tolerance for frustration. The ABC technique involves having clients summarize the Activating event, state their irrational Beliefs about the event, describe their resulting unhelpful negative emotional Consequences and behaviors, followed by Disputation of these irrational ideas which results in new Effective emotional consequences and behaviors (Ellis 2000).

REBT is so effective, and has proven itself capable of helping so many, the author provides clients a copy of Ellis’ A Guide to Rational Living as bibliotherapy homework to be read during treatment. 78

Teaching Self-Acceptance Versus Self-Esteem

Much of the research mentioned heretofore about gay Bears and gay Chubs refers to issues associated with stigma of spoiled identity and stressors related to self-image. To address problems with self-image means to take a hard look not only at one’s self-esteem but at the conditional nature of the entire concept.

Alternatives from Ellis’ Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy are concepts related to acceptance versus self-esteem, put forth fully in The Myth of Self-Esteem

(2005). According to Dr. Ellis, "Self-esteem is the greatest sickness known to man or woman because it's conditional." (Albert Ellis, Ph.D., Psychology Today, February,

2001, page 72, in the interview, "The Prince of Reason").

To counter this conditional state, Ellis offered self-acceptance and other- acceptance in the form of his doctrines of USA and UOA: Unconditional Self-

Acceptance and Unconditional Other Acceptance (Ellis 2005, Ellis 1997). These concepts are summarized by the following precepts (Krieger 2012):

 Accept others and ourselves as imperfect human beings.  We all have an equal right to exist.  No one needs approval to survive.  I need not approve of others.  Others need not approve of me.  Actions are successful or unsuccessful.  A person's self is more than his acts and acts never wholly define a person.  Accept that we all fail at some things.  Remember that any concept of "self-esteem" based on external factors is transient.

As put forth by Ellis, Unconditional Self-Acceptance states that

I will always accept myself as a very fallible human who will make many errors and mistakes. I will mainly choose my own goals and purposes and will only rate or evaluate my thoughts, feelings, and actions as ‘good’ when they aid and ‘bad’ when they sabotage my individual and social goals. I shall not globally rate my self, my essence, my personhood, or my being. By achieving unconditional self- 79

acceptance (USA), whether or not I perform well and whether or not I am approved by others, I shall try to perform better and to get along with other people – not to prove my worth as a person but to enhance my efficiency and enjoyment (Ellis & Harper 1997, 230).

Likewise, Ellis’ Unconditional Other Acceptance states that

I will accept other people unconditionally, even when I deplore their behaviors with myself and with others. I will accept their human fallibility and never damn them as persons. As with myself I shall accept the sinners but not condone their sins. I shall try to help people change their poor behaviors, and may stay away from them if they don’t; but I will not insist that they absolutely must change and will not be revengeful or vindictive if they don’t. I shall try to help people act fairly and justly but not command they absolutely have to be fair. (Ellis & Harper 1997, 230-231).

As a component of REBT, acceptance versus self-esteem is related to positive outcomes, perhaps also offering a path to relief for those willing to discard irrational dogma based on a religiosity that is part of their suffering.

REBT Behavior Experimentation Interventions for Bears and Chubs

The use of Behavior Experimentation in REBT is related to the use of exploration activities suggested by Ellis to work against our distortions and fears by practicing and evaluating new habits of thought. He encouraged these exercises for various purposes, including addressing shame and using real-life situations for facing fears while working through the thinking changes learned in the rational and emotive phases of REBT treatment (Ellis & Harper 1997, 227-239).

Fat Shame-Attacking Exercise

For gay men of size having difficulty addressing internalized body sizeism, and thus having difficulty with unconditional self-acceptance, this intervention offers a safe opportunity for shame reduction while working on reducing irrational beliefs resulting in self-disturbance. As Ellis describes, 80

My famous shame-attacking exercise is designed to let you keep judging your “bad” or “stupid” act while removing your self-damning. To benefit from it, you deliberately pick something you consider shameful and that you would ordinarily totally avoid doing or about which you put yourself down severely if you were to do it. For example, you wear some outlandish clothes to a formal affair, or yell out the time in a supermarket, or tell a stranger that you just out of a mental hospital. Do something foolish but harmless – so that you don’t bother other people too much or get in trouble yourself. But while doing this “shameful” act, work on your thoughts and emotions so that you do not feel very embarrassed or humiliated. In other words, publicly do this foolish thing – but don’t put yourself down. (Ellis & Harper 1997, 231).

Following Ellis’ guidelines, have the client of size who feels shame about his weight wear very tight clothes, perhaps a shirt that is too short and exposes some of his belly at the bottom. In the tradition of in vivo desensitization, have him dress this way at first while driving around town and then in more exposed settings. While doing this, he is to actively avoid putting himself down and to repeat to himself the concepts of USA and

UOA. Have him journal his feelings and thoughts, best done using REBT ABC method self-help sheets. Continue the shame-attacking exercise regularly until he is able to perform these foolish acts without self-judgment, without making himself ashamed. Push him to continue this into the bedroom and other sexual play spaces to explore the limits of his self-disturbance regarding his size in the realms of his social and sexual self.

The Internet Mirror Behavior Experiential Intervention

For clients possibly facing identity confusion or having incongruent self- perception, this intervention offers a safe opportunity for self-guided feedback. The Bear and Chub online communities present a free social mirror and reality check available to even those in the most isolated, rural areas. The intent of the exercise is not to actually meet others or hook up but to explore perception of self and perception by others. This intervention may be used for treating individuals and for couples. For couples struggling 81 with questions regarding fidelity, this may be too triggering. For other couples, this is an opportunity to share an exploration of each others’ identities, self-image, and perception by others.

Instruct the client to join multiple affinity community websites and hookup websites and create profiles for each. The client need not use a real name or exact location but must be honest in all profile details related to appearance. Explain to the client that the intent is not to find dates but to explore how he is perceived by others and discover how that fits with his sense of self. Examples of websites to use are Bear411,

Bearfront, BiggerCity, Grindr, Growlr, etcetera.

The websites will prompt the client to select a personal category type in a manner similar to the definitions in table 2 from the Demographics section. Additionally, most sites will ask the client what he finds attractive, a looking-for type. These may differ between websites and will force the client to make decisions about what he is (or at least how he perceives himself) and what he seeks in others.

The client’s profile on each site must include a photograph or photographs of the client’s body but his face need not be shown. The description of self in the profile must match reality in terms of age, weight, height, body hair, and other pertinent physical facts. The intent is to see who is attracted to the client rather than who is attractive to the client; will the client’s self-identified type match the looking for type of those contacting him? Instruct the client to report back whether the men attracted to the client perceive him as he perceives himself. If those who contact him are looking for some other type

(for example, he labels himself as a Bear but attracts those looking for a Chub or a

Chub4Chub or an Otter), this may be an example of incongruity in self-perception that 82 would be played out in the online community in a very visual and obvious way to be explored further in treatment. Additionally, have the client compare what type of man he has chosen as looking for and compare that to the men contacting him. Is his desired type of mate looking at his profile and responding? If not, why not?

This exercise opens discussion for changes men may make to match up with those within the Sexual Template as well as deciding if one’s type is really one’s type or some other issue is at work. Whether the client is single or partnered, this exercise will underline any mismatches between reality and perception while encouraging exploration and thought regarding his Sexual Template.

The If You Can’t Fix It Feature It Behavior Experiential Intervention

This is a normalization and esteem building exercise. Explain to the client that the first rule of marketing is that if you can’t fix it you feature it. Use old advertising tag lines to explain how this works. For example, in the 1980’s when faced with falling sales due to inroads made by better quality “Japanese rivals led by Toyota Motor Corp., the automaker rolled out the slogan, ‘Quality is Job 1’” (Woodall, 2012). Ford could not say they were higher quality but they could imply they hoped to be. Similarly, the very aspects of a client’s appearance or personality he finds problematic may be the very thing others find attractive.

Instruct the client to remember the last time he remembers having good sex with a partner who then spoke to him afterward and gave him positive feedback. Have the client write down his memory of this encounter and any feedback that partner gave him at that time. He is not to judge or censor what the other person said, simply to report it. Suggest he write down the encounter thinking about what a camera would see and what a voice 83 recorder would hear. Review this with the client and discuss any incongruity between his sense of self and the feedback provided to him from a place of positivity. Normalize how difficult it is to see oneself clearly.

Focus on those positives pointed out by that partner following that good time. Are these attributes the client admires in himself? If not, why not? Are they attributes of himself he could feature in marketing himself rather than minimizing them?

The next step is having the client choose one or more of these attributes to feature in some exaggerated manner to see if, or how, this alters how he is perceived. Altering appearance purposefully to alter target market. Is the client’s belly large and he normally tries to hide it but his partner reported admiring the big belly? Have the client experiment with tighter shirts. Is his beard thick and he normally shaves it daily but his partner reported becoming more sexually aroused because of the heavy facial hair? Have him not shave for a month. Did his partner report liking the client’s hairy asshole but now that he is older the client follows the fashion of getting it bleached? Have the client go au natural for a few months.

This exercise may assist the client in seeing that others may find attractive the very attributes of his own person he ignores or actively dislikes. Sometimes the first rule of marketing makes all the difference in what we attract; if you can’t fix it, feature it.

84

Conclusion

This dissertation looked at the findings of prior scholarly peer reviewed research on gay Bears and Chubs, primarily research on individuals whose identities include membership in subcultures existing within the diverse gay culture in the United States, itself a subculture of American society.

The findings indicated definitions of Bears and Chubs were so numerous and vague as to be virtually nonexistent, creating an unhelpful situation in interpreting research and identifying group members and their sexology related characteristics.

Definitions of gay Bears and Chubs were created and used as lenses with which to examine the existing literature, to classify similar and differentiating subculture characteristics, and to identify characteristics of relevance to sexology. Once identified, these characteristics were organized and examined in order to better serve these populations by specifically addressing those most likely to impact these subcultures.

Systemically, examined as distinct in-groups, Bears and Chubs share some vulnerabilities. Their out-group stigmatization by society as a whole as “fat gay men”

(Whitesel 2014) is compounded by their stigmatization within the gay community for the same reason. This places them at special risks that may affect mental and physical health, sexual expression, and their own special forms of in-group relationships.

The mitigating identity offered by Bear culture is inviting, especially for those subjected to the increased stigmatic pressures of the Chub label, but cognitive dissonance can play a part in self-identification with one group over the other. Vagary in the definition of gay Bears continues to create an ongoing and unhelpful identity mythology and sensibility that has devolved to a fashion. This seemingly purposeful identity 85 diffusion is potentially harmful, and, “psychologically speaking, a gradually accruing ego identity is the only safeguard against the anarchy of drives as well as the autocracy of conscience, that is, the cruel overconscientiousness which is the inner residue in the adult of his past inequality in regard to his parent” (Erikson 1959, 97-99). The encouragement and growth of healthy and congruent sexual identity is something with which clinicians may assist their clients.

As sexologists, use of Granzig’s Sexual Template (2004) assists clients in self- acceptance as it addresses issues of health, sexual desire, fantasy, ergonomics, etc., that impact intimacy and sexual pleasure. Understanding the nuances of gay Bears and gay

Chubs as members of different subcultures allows clinicians to assist clients in finding an identity in relation to themselves, their partner(s), and their communities. It begins by simply asking our gay male clients if they identify with a specific gay group such as

Bears and Chubs and by evaluating their intake for the behavioral and demographic attributes and issues that research associates with these groups.

Toward this end, the AASPIRINS protocol was suggested as a model for remaining focused on the important steps in beginning work with Bears and Chubs. Tools and recommendations in the form of assessments, potential pitfalls, psychoeducation,

REBT interventions that included self-acceptance and behavioral exercises demonstrated ways of intervening with these subcultures that take into account the tendencies and attributes found in the literature.

Exploration and normalization of identity assists clients in claiming membership in like-minded groups rather than isolating,. Successful changes to inner dialogue can bring about reduction in the shame, stress, and anxiety associated with sexual and 86 psychological disturbance. Often, as with other successful interventions, these changes may manifest in changes in sexual performance that include a change in sexual partners.

For clients who previously suffered with issues related to self-acceptance, shame, and diffuse identity, this may mean gravitating (perhaps for the first time) toward others with affinity for their newfound self.

Possible Future Research

As the definition of Bears and Chubs remains inconsistent in academia and clinical environments, there remains a lack of consistent empirical research on Bears and

Chubs. Future research needs to address this. Now that definitions are put forward, much more study is needed, especially for the Chub subculture as the study of obesity overshadows this group and Chubs are rarely specifically mentioned or researched as a distinct group.

The prevalence of these groups internationally is relatively unknown and most available data focuses on the United States and United Kingdom. Cultural differences and the varied ideals of hegemonic masculinity across cultures may determine the prevalence of Bears and Chubs internationally as well as provide additional information for refinement of definitions and treatment.

Additional research on screening for the granularity of gay identity groups in sex therapy would be helpful and the validity of the CHUBBIE could be further explored.

Identifying gay Bears and Chubs in practice may be as simple as asking; perhaps by modifying screening instruments such as Dr. Krista Bloom’s Sexual Disorder Screening

Questionnaire (Bloom 2006) we may yield more specific information regarding these and other gay male subcultures. 87

A study of the increased prevalence of obesity in Western cultures and whether this is related to any changes in the ideal size/weight of objects of sexual desire, despite media and governmental focus on thin as a positive attribute, might help normalize somatic outliers like Bears and Chubs should it prove that heavier body types are becoming more generally sexualized.

With research suggesting gay Bears and Chubs are exposed to environmental stressors that place them at elevated risk of victimization through multiple points of bias, a study of trauma-informed interventions and their success in assisting gay men of size with sexual, behavioral, and psychological function, would be of interest.

Finally, a comprehensive sexology examination of gay male subcultures would provide a tool for exploration, understanding, and treatment options for homosexual men to address their needs in a more granular manner that reaches beyond the gay label. 88

Appendix A

“Let’s Get Physical: How to Make a Chubby Body Talk”

(Retrieved from http://www.biggercity.com/columns/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2709 March 15, 2015 at 7:35 P.M. Used with permission.) Here are the do’s and don’ts of pleasuring a big man. DO enjoy those big nipples. There’s a lot of sensitivity there, and large nipples tend - for many big men - to mean a larger erogenous zone. Look at his face as you tease them, and try to see if he’s giving you subtle cues to go harder or softer. Happy grunting, heavy breathing, and furious jerking off are definitely, definitely good signs. DON’T concentrate on the belly. For most big men, it isn’t that erotic of a place to be touched. Listen to him, of course. If he’s always telling you to kiss, rub, and admire his belly, yep, he enjoys that. But make sure it’s as much about his enjoyment as it is about your horniness for his big body. He’s not going to mind a good rub or two, and maybe even some kisses, but make sure that the rest of him gets the same treatment! DO give him a great back massage. Big men tend to have a lot of tension in their back, as it counterbalances the weight of the belly. Grip hard, go deep, and don’t be afraid to use your elbows. Massaging a big, chubby back is great for both the big guy and his admirer: straddle his waist with your legs, and really dig in there, exploring his sensitive, broad back. If you’re a top this can be fun foreplay too, as he’s sure to feel your excitement as you lay your hands on him. Let’s just say it’ll be a... pressing issue. DON’T spend too much time jiggling. Yeah, we know: jiggling the chub on a big guy is fun, and for some of us it’s a very erotic experience. It might not be for him, though. Depending on the level of comfort he has with his body he might find it distracting, or even worse, humiliating. Go with the flow and see how he responds, if he grimaces or seems taken out of the experience, move on. DO find a position that’s easy on his knees - top or bottom. One downside of carrying that weight is the toll it can take on the knees. Figure out positions for anal sex that don’t require too much stress on his legs. Spread eagle on his stomach can be comfortable, or on all fours on a very soft surface, or on his side spooning. Riding on top can be difficult for chubby tops and bottoms, but standing with something to support himself can work in both ways. DON’T keep him on all fours on the floor. A hard surface can be really rough on his knees, and you want him to be in a position that can last for a while, right? If you want to do all fours find a better place. DO spend time figuring out his erogenous zones. Exploring a big man’s body is an amazing experience, and it’s a great chance to see where he really reacts. We can’t give you too many tips here because everyone is different. Legs are iffy - some big men love it and many hate it. Lower back and neck are frequently popular. Chest, ears, and even scalp can really work. Take your time and enjoy every inch. DON’T spend time on places that consistently make him flinch. Flinching is almost always a bad sign. Non-verbal reactions are always your first clue, when you ignore them 89 that’s usually when a guy will start to complain. Ticklish places aren’t always to be avoided, but grimacing and flinching: now that’s a bad sign. DO find pieces of furniture that make what you’re wanting to do easier. Don’t underestimate how much a sofa, ottoman, or even... dare we say it... a bean bag chair can aid in these scenarios. You’ll want something solid, as nothing kills a chubby boner faster than breaking furniture. Even a well-secured sling - with some help for entry and exiting - can be an excellent tool for a chubby bottom. DON’T worry if he isn’t constantly hard. He doesn’t have to be. Concentrate more on his breathing, reactions, and expressions. Sexual pleasure isn’t only measured by erections. You can always give it some attention yourself, though. Take a break for some jacking off, kissing, dirty talk, or a good blowjob and see how that can return the stiffness. DO use firm pressure when touching his body. Light touching tends to tickle and irritate more than stimulate. When rubbing his body you’ll want to go deep, especially if you’re giving any kind of massage. DON’T complain if it gets a little sweaty. Big men sweat when engaging in strenuous activity. Take it as the compliment it is. Plus that slipperiness can make things...interesting. DO make lots of eye contact. Eye contact can increase the connection between the both of you, and steady eye contact while doing something mutually pleasuring gives you a sense of just how much he’s enjoying it. Eye contact is great when you’re doing something intensely stimulating, such as jacking him off, nipple play, fucking or being fucked. It can make an already hot sex session even better. DON’T keep the room too hot. Bigger men tend to feel the heat more than smaller guys, and tend to appreciate a cooler room. Winter is always the best time to get physical with a big man, and during the middle of summer an air conditioner is a must for someone who wants to be in close contact with a big guy. DO listen to him. Not just to what he says - although that is important - but how he’s breathing, his grunts and moans, every non-verbal sign that he’s giving to you. Of course if he asks you to do something, you should do it. Also listen to the way he talks. Is he engaging in a lot of dirty talk? Then you should do the same. Is he using your real name or a nick name? Respond in kind. DON’T be shy to touch places like under his chest or belly. Many chasers are nervous about these areas, but they can be sensitive and stimulating. As we said before, don’t give all your focus to this area, but don’t neglect them either. See if he likes it, and if he does... enjoy. DO make sure he’s having as much fun as you are. Sex should be mutually inclusive, a perfect way for two guys to connect. Try to respond to his cues, and if you feel like he’s not having a great time, don’t be afraid to ask what you can do for him to really enjoy himself!

90

Appendix B

“The Skinny Behind the Big”

(Retrieved from http://www.biggercity.com/columns/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2718 March 15, 2016 at 7:45 P.M. Used with permission.) Tuesday, March 31, 2015 5:25 PM We asked our fellow chubs one simple question: what’s the one thing that you think a chaser should know about chubs when they’re just starting out in the chubby and chaser dating world? The answers surprised us. The theme through every answer, though, was clear: big guys want respect from their dates, hookups, or potential partners. At first, to a chaser, a big guy might seem like a long-term sexual fantasy brought to life. But we’re just people. Here are nine things that will help you to get to know us better: 1. We aren’t desperate. Big men can get dates. Chubby guys don’t have to settle for the first man that asks them out. Most chasers get this or would never assume it to be the case, but it’s good to lay that out there first. We know plenty of big guys who are perfectly happy hooking up with a different chaser every week, big guys who don’t want a relationship, and big men who are happily married. Some areas are easier for a big guy to date than others, but we make do: that’s the good thing about the Internet, we’re not restricted to local markets! 2. Some big guys are in excellent health. Don’t assume that every big guy won’t be able to go for a two hour hike with you, or won’t be able to join in your softball league. Every big man is different, and some of us, despite our size, aren’t diabetic, have good blood pressure, and exercise regularly. Get to know us, our lifestyles, and our daily habits before you assume anything about our health. Odds are if a big guy has lots of outdoors pictures and invites you for a long walk around the city you’re not going to have to plan stops or bring taxi fare. We are great judges of our own abilities. 3. Some big guys have mobility issues. On the other hand, be aware of subtle hints that the big guy you are with won’t be able to do an extended walking tour and would prefer a concert with seating options. Some of us are embarrassed to admit that we have issues with long uphill sections or that we do require breaks. If your big date asks to stop for a while, do it. You might observe that this and the previous point are contradictory, but they’re not. Some big guys have zero mobility issues, some big guys may need the use of a cane or scooter. It comes with the territory, and the last person we want to be judgmental of our needs is a chaser. It might seem unusual if you haven’t dated a big guy before, but be respectful and let the big guy set the pace until you know each other well. 4. Don’t engage in fat-related nicknames or name calling unless we explicitly say we’re into it. “Hi, Big Guy!” might seem like a fun greeting to you, but to many of us it’s something we’ve heard all our lives as a pejorative and don’t particularly want to hear it from a prospective love interest. The more demeaning it is, the more you have to be absolutely certain that the guy is into it. For instance, there are big guys that love to be called “fatty” in bed, but they’re in the minority. Usually they’ll let you know that this is a fetish of theirs. Take it as a given, otherwise, to leave these terms out of conversations with us. 91

5. If you’re more into your fat fetish than actually getting to know us, let us know. Are you much more interested with playing with an amazing belly than having a boyfriend? Is what you really want with a big guy to fuck a huge ass, feel their weight on you, or shove your face in the middle of their soft, hairy chest? Great. Be upfront about it. Many guys are A-OK with that, and enjoy having someone who gets off on their big bodies. Whatever you do, don’t pretend to be a lovelorn romantic seeking a perfect soul mate when all you really want is to explore a hot big body. Honesty gets you a long way with guys. Sure, it means that the deeply monogamous and romantic big guys aren’t going to hook up with you, but they were never a good match for you in the first place. 6. Big guys can top. For some reason there is a pervasive idea that big guys have small cocks. This is perhaps due to the old wives tale that for every twenty pounds you lose, you gain an inch of penis. (The math doesn’t make sense: many guys have, after extensive lifestyle changes or bariatric surgery, lost 200 or 400 pounds, and they aren’t walking around with 14” or 24” cocks.) There are big tops out there, and they are more than willing to show you both how big a chub’s cock can get and also the many, many positions a big man can do you in. Other preconceptions to ditch: that a 500 pound man is too big to bottom (untrue), that a big guy can’t ride on top of you (untrue), and that a big guy can’t get hard (definitely untrue). 7. Don’t make fat jokes about other big men. If you want to be in the good books with big guys avoid making fat jokes. Don’t insult other chubs out there, don’t talk about how gross a fat politician or celebrity is, and avoid using fat-shaming words to describe people you don’t like. You’d be surprised that there are chasers out there with profiles that call out fat guys while at the same time supposedly being attracted to them. Makes sense? Nope. Fat jokes are ingrained in our culture, but rise above it. Treat big men and big women with dignity and respect, and your chubby date will appreciate it. 8. If you’re embarrassed about introducing us to your friends and family, you’re not ready to date a big guy. Yeah, coming out as a chaser to your friends and family might be a shock. But it’s a step you’re going to have to make if you want to have a relationship with a big man. Now we’re not saying that you have to be out to your family - though it always helps - but you should not be ashamed to be seen with a big man in public if you want anything more than a quick hookup with one. We have our own issues about our bodies, we don’t need yours. 9. We want to be loved for who we are. No matter how kinky, no matter how horny, no matter how big: everyone wants to be loved for who they are. Sure, we all take in this love in different ways, and have different romantic and sexual needs. But deep down we want the same thing that you do: to connect with someone on a physical and mental level, whether it’s for a few hours at a bear run or for a few decades in a house in the country. If you want to date a big guy, to have a real, honest relationship with one, be prepared to connect with more than just the physical. Get to know us and realize just how much there really is to love.

92

Appendix C

“Are You Bi-Sizual?”

(Retrieved from http http://www.biggercity.com/columns/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2712 March 15, 2016 at 8:45 P.M. Used with permission.) “Tuesday, February 03, 2015 7:54 PM Tastes change. You might have been convinced that you only liked Devon Sawa look- alikes back in the late 1990s, but now you’re older and a beefier daddybear catches your eye. Or perhaps you have considered yourself a chaser for a decade or two, but your expanding waist line tells you something different. This could be it. This could be the moment you realize that you might be... bi-sizual. A Chub4Chub. How can you tell? If You’re a Big Guy: You see Kevin James and say “Him, I’d make an exception for.” Kevin James is a slippery slope to Chub4Chubland. Perhaps you’ve seen him in one of those roles he got slimmer for. Or you gave into his handsome light brown eyes, his delicately tussled hair, and his five o’clock shadow. “Oh,” you think to yourself, “Kevin James is just an exception.” Either him or one of the beefier professional wrestlers. First you only like the muscled ones, then you look over and see Steve Austin, and we all know that Steve Austin is just a gateway drug to The Big Show, and from there pretty much any size is fair game! Your partner is rubbing off on you. No, not like that. We mean that being around a partner with a very different taste in men can normalize the experience for you. It starts with you being able to identify guys that your partner finds attractive. Every guy, monogamous or not, gets the sense of which other guys your partner likes. At first you think it’s all the big guys, then you realize the things he likes about bigger men. At the same time he makes it seem less weird to find bigger guys attractive. Without trying, or even realizing it, your tastes can be ever so slightly expanded. You’re making a whole lot of exceptions. On a more serious note - if you’ll allow us - exceptions are a sign that your tastes are changing. Picture this: you see a handsome guy with a nice smile, and then realize you find him attractive despite having a belly. When you’re hanging out with other chub and chaser couples you see them both together and think, huh, they’re both cute. At first it’s one or two guys a year, and then, suddenly, you’re out at Bigger Vegas and realize you’re checking out almost as many big men as their smaller partners! When other big guys flirt with you, you suddenly don’t mind. Wasn’t it annoying when you’re at a bear or chub event and big men seem to be the only ones that hit on you? At least that’s how you used to feel until one day it didn’t seem so bad any more. And maybe, just maybe, you flirt back? Was it just that you became appreciative of the attention and took the compliment for what it was, or have your tastes broadened to the point that maybe you can do more than just flirt with a big man? You finally get what a chaser sees in you. Here’s the best part of being, at least in part, into other big guys: you can see why men find you attractive. It’s a nice moment. You 93 look at your big legs, your broad chest, your rubbable belly, and know that not only are you a nice guy but, hey, you’re also hot! You’ll be amazed at what a difference this can make, especially if you’re trying to find a short or long term partner. We’re not saying you’ll get a giant ego, but instead you’ll be able to look at yourself in the mirror and get why you’re a hunk! As a big guy realizing that you’re not only into smaller guys but could have fun with a bigger man means a lot: you can find yourself attractive, you have a larger pool of dating options, three-ways can now have multiple configurations. As we get older it’s natural for our tastes to broaden, and to be open to new possibilities. If you’re monogamous and happy with a smaller man that’s fine, but if you’re single or in an open relationship why don’t you give another big man a shot, for a night or longer? It’s worth it! If You’re a Small Guy: You’re getting hit on by way more chasers lately. At first it’s only one, so you can say, oh, maybe he just likes bigger guys and smaller guys. And then another smaller guy hits on you. At one point you start to realize that half of the notes in your inbox are from men who weigh less than you do. This, my slowly-becoming-larger-friend, is the first sign that you are headed for Chub4Chubdom. This is because it’s much easier for an outside observer to notice that you’re a bigger guy, you see yourself in the mirror several times a day and don’t notice the change. Plus some people like just-sorta-big guys like you as well as larger guys. You’ll find that the middle ground between chaser and chub isn’t a bad place to be. It’s not all about labels, it’s about being appreciated for the cute guy that you are. You’ve been consistently out-eating your bigger dates. It might begin as a joke between you and your friends, since you’re the smallest one but seem to eat just as much or more than the bigger ones. But, after a while, the eating can catch up with you. This is a fact of life when you’re dating bigger men, you can subconsciously begin to adapt their eating habits, especially when you cook for each other and share dinners out together. You get used to larger dinners both psychologically and physically, and, well, this can have an effect on your physique. People start calling you big guy. You know what we said before about others noticing changes to your body before you do? Here’s the clearest sign, even before those enotes from chasers start coming in: you get called big guy. At first you wonder if it’s ironic, like how the Merry Men called Little John little. But, nope. For some reason straight men especially like to refer to bigger guys as Big Guy. Then they’ll start making comments about your size. Suddenly, you’re “really active for a guy of your size” or are pointed out as a comparison for a bigger man. “Oh, he’s big, like you.” At this point you can’t ignore it. Yep, you’re Chub4Chub. When you borrow clothes from a bigger guy, they fit. This is a total give-away. You might be able to hand-wave it by thinking that it’s probably just really tight on him, or a stretchy sweater, or you like your hoodies baggy. It starts with the shirts and sweaters and ends with being able to share pants, especially if he wears it under his belly and you wear it at your waist. The labels don’t lie: that 3XL is fitting you now, and that means you’re a bigger guy! People always confuse you and your partner for brothers. This is especially weird when you and your partner (or date) are of different ethnicities or completely different ages. However when a normal sized person sees two bigger guys together, they immediately 94 try to put together why this would be happening, and the immediate thought (when there are two of you) is: brothers. If there are more than two of you out, it has to be football team. For some guys realizing that they’ve moved on from chaser to chub4chub is a happy moment: it means that you can look in the mirror and think “Yeah, I’d hit that!” or suddenly realize that all those hot chub4chub guys you’ve been pining for on the Internet all these years may be in your grasp. For others it’s a worry, as you like being the smaller one, or you just don’t want to get bigger. Neither is a wrong reaction, and it’s up to you where you go from here: do you enjoy your newfound Chub4Chubness or do you make an effort to reduce the weight and regain your chaser status? “

95

Appendix D

CHUB BEAR IDENTITY EVALUATION (CHUBBIE)

The CHUBBIE evaluation is designed to assist the therapist in assigning a subject male to the appropriate gay subculture, either Bear or Chub. The therapist administers the CHUBBIE to help a man to identify with either Bear or Chub subcultures. It consists of attributes separated into three sections, Physical, Demographic, and Behavioral. Each section is scored individually.

Throughout the CHUBBIE, disqualifying features incompatible with BEAR and CHUB identities will result in termination of the evaluation with an outcome indicating the subject male is neither a Bear nor Chub.

Directions: The therapist will circle those attributes associated with the subject male.

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES

Bears and Chubs are associated with certain physical attributes and these will be used to categorize the subject male.

Body Type

4. Ectomorph type is thinner, delicate, lean, and stringy.

5. Mesomorph type is athletic, firmer, beefier and rectangular.

6. Endomorph type is rounder, softer, heavier and less defined.

Circle Body Type below that best describes the subject male:

Ectomorph Mesomorph Endomorph

Body Mass Index (BMI)

Calculate BMI of the subject male by dividing weight in pounds by height in inches squared and multiplying by a conversion factor of 703 or use a BMI calculator such as the one available on the CDC website. Below is an example from the CDC website “About Adult BMI” (2015): Instrument created by William D. Krieger, LCSW. May be used by licensed clinicians with acknowledgment of the author. 96

Example: Weight = 150 lbs, Height = 5'5" (65") Calculation: [150 ÷ (65)2] x 703 = 24.96 Once subject male’s BMI is calculated, answer the following based on BMI.

 Is BMI less than 24.9? If so, then the subject is determined to be TERMINATE too lean to be a Bear or Chub and the EVALUATION evaluation is terminated.

BMI: Circle either Bear or Chub based on the subject’s BMI as shown below based on body type.

For Ectomorph or Endomorph Body Types: BEAR = BMI <= 30

BEAR BMI > 30 = CHUB CHUB

For Mesomorph Body Types: BEAR=BMI<=35 BMI>35=CHUB

Hairiness

Beards and hairiness separate Bears and Chubs. Circle either Bear or Chub for each factor based on the subject male’s hairiness. Beard?

BEAR = Bearded or heavy stubble BEAR CHUB No Beard = CHUB

Body Hair?

BEAR BEAR = Extremely to Average CHUB Little to Smooth = CHUB

Structure

Rolls of fat under the belly or bulges around the hips and back (love handles) are associated more with Chubs than Bears. Circle either Bear or Chub below based on subject’s structure. Instrument created by William D. Krieger, LCSW. May be used by licensed clinicians with acknowledgment of the author. 97

Does subject have rolls of fat and/or love handles?

BEAR BEAR = Neither or minimal CHUB Rolls of fat or love handles = CHUB

PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES RESULT SCORE

Total the number of times BEAR is circled on left and enter PHYSICAL BEAR on left PHYSICAL

Total the number of times CHUB is circled on right and CHUB

____ enter on right ____

Circle PHYSICAL BEAR or PHYSICAL CHUB

based on the higher of the two numbers

DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES

Certain demographic information is associated with the Bear

and Chub subcultures. These will be scored based on the subject male’s information.

AGE

TERMINATE If age is under 30 and PHYSICAL RESULT = BEAR then EVALUATION the subject male is a Cub and the CHUBBIE is terminated.

EDUCATION

Circle Bear or Chub below based on highest level of education:

BEAR BEAR= College or higher CHUB No college or incomplete = CHUB

RACE Circle Bear or Chub below based on subject male’s race:

BEAR = White/Caucasian Other = CHUB BEAR CHUB Instrument created by William D. Krieger, LCSW. May be used by licensed clinicians with acknowledgment of the author.

98

DEMOGRAPHIC ATTRIBUTES RESULT SCORE Total the number of times BEAR is circled on left and enter on left

DEMOGRAPHIC DEMOGRAPHIC BEAR Total the number of times CHUB is circled on right CHUB and enter on right ______Circle DEMOGRAPHIC BEAR or DEMOGRAPHIC CHUB based on the higher of the two numbers:

BEHAVIORAL ATTRIBUTES Bears and Chubs are associated with certain behavioral preferences and these will be used to categorize the subject

male. Circle Bear or Chub for each behavior below based on subject male’s preferences.

Rejection of Sex Partners? BEAR = Never or Rarely BEAR CHUB Sometimes or Often = CHUB

Rejects partners based on appearance? BEAR = No BEAR CHUB Yes = CHUB

Concerned with clothes and cleanliness? BEAR = No BEAR CHUB Yes = CHUB

Prefers partners weighing more than himself? BEAR = Yes BEAR CHUB No = CHUB

Extremely intolerant of effeminacy in sexual partners? BEAR = Yes BEAR CHUB No = CHUB

Extremely sexually adventurous? BEAR = Yes No = CHUB

BEAR CHUB

Instrument created by William D. Krieger, LCSW. May be used by licensed clinicians with acknowledgment of the author.

99

Rejects sex partners as too young? BEAR = Yes BEAR No = CHUB CHUB

BEHAVIORAL ATTRIBUTES RESULT SCORE

Total the number of times BEAR is circled on left and enter

on left

BEHAVIORAL BEHAVIORAL CHUB BEAR Total the number of times CHUB is circled on right and

enter on right ______

Circle BEHAVIORAL BEAR or BEHAVIORAL CHUB

based on the higher of the two numbers

CHUBBIE FINAL RESULT: Circle the Section Results from the PHYSICAL, DEMOGRAPHIC, and BEHAVIORAL Sections below. Circle CHUBBIE FINAL RESULT either Bear or Chub below based on which has two or more Sections.

PHYSICAL BEAR CHUB

DEMOGRAPHICS BEAR CHUB

BEHAVIORS BEAR CHUB

The final Result is the outcome subculture for the subject male based on administration of the CHUBBIE. Circle the final result below.

BEAR CHUB

CHUBBIE FINAL RESULT

Instrument created by William D. Krieger, LCSW. May be used by licensed clinicians with acknowledgment of the author.

100

Permissions

Re: BiggerCity: Feedback / Other nycbkrieg@ gmail.com Inbox Los [email protected] Mar 4, 2016, 12:25 PM to me Hi Bill, Thanks for the note, and for asking. You may use general information, without attribution, and without any references to users or user identifiable data. Regards, Los Tech Support BiggerCity.com

On Mar 4, 2016 at 11:55 AM Bill Krieger wrote: I am writing my dissertation for my PhD in Clinical Sexology on bears and chubs and some of the common sense information you post on the website regarding how to make bigger guys comfortable during sex and romantic encounters would be valuable for clinicians to know (keeping the room cooler, etc.) May I use this information (with or without attribution to your site as you prefer)? It would only be the general information you post for members without any other user information or data. Thank you. Bill Krieger User: redacted Client: Android 4.4.2 [en_US] / BC 1.3.0.4 [en] FBL:568128

101

Glossary

Bear-related Terms

Bear: Bear is a term used to describe older gay males, predominantly over thirty years old, with a “large or husky body” (Wright 1997, 21), “stocky versus fat” (McCann 2001,

310), who fall within the CDC’s high range of healthy weight, overweight, or Class 1 obesity (CDC), having BMI between 24.9 - 30.0, who may or may not have a large gut, are hirsute, usually bearded, with average to above average body hair, and possessing mesomorph body type tendencies.

Note that this somatoform conforms closely to the requirements of hegemonic masculinity (Filiault & Drummond 2007, 175). Bears exhibit relatively even distribution of body fat, do not evidence stringy athleticism, and tend toward easy development of muscle with an overall v-shape torso, despite possibly displaying noticeable belly fat, regardless of size.

Behaviorally, Bears demonstrate comfort with, and attraction to, the trappings of masculinity. As per Filiault & Drummond, there are several mental attributes that may be included among the trappings of masculinity, among them resiliency, stoicism, control of others, disregard for personal appearance, risk taking, and aggression (2007, 176).

An visual example of a gay Bear is provided in figure 1. 102

Figure 1. Bill Maciolek, circa 2004. Mr. Maciolek was featured in Bear Magazine issue 27 (pp. 6-10) in 1993. Photograph taken by the author.

Certain modifiers may precede the term Bear. For example, Pocket Bear is someone meeting Bear criteria with similar proportions but of below average stature. A

Muscle Bear is someone meeting Bear criteria but skewing toward chiseled musculature because of regular exercise, gym attendance, and/or steroid use. Leather Bear refers to someone those meeting Bear criteria who are also a member of the leather community.

Other modifiers, as per Monaghan (2005), include Panda Bear (Asian Bears), Polar Bears

(older men with white or grey hair), and Black Bears (Bear men of color).

103

Cub: Cub is a term used to describe gay males of any age (but usually skewing younger than the average Bear) who are hirsute, possibly bearded, and, typically, leaner (average to healthy weight) and smaller than a Bear but who exhibit mesomorph somatotype traits suggesting they will become the definition of a Bear with the thickening of age. The Cub, who will become a Bear as he ages, is in contrast to the Otter who is lean, hirsute (having a hairy pelt like the animal from which he is named) but who will never be a Bear due to ectomorphic somatotype similar to the relatively hairless twink type.

Admirers: Anyone who cathects to the Bear aesthetic. Often referenced as Bears and their Admirers, as opposed to the term Chasers for those who seek out Chubs.

Chub-related Terms

Chub: Chub is a term used to describe gay males of any age (but often skewing younger than Bears overall) who fall within the Center for Disease Control’s range for

Class 1 and Class 2 categories of obesity (2012), including severe and morbid obesity

(having a BMI between 30-39). Chubs have a large gut and either exhibit overall endomorphic or ectomorphic somatotype.

Note that this somatoform does not conform to the requirements of hegemonic masculinity (Filiault & Drummond 2007, 175). Chubs have a pronounced roundness of the torso (versus the mesomorph v-shape) with disproportionate weight gain in the abdomen and stomach resulting in an overall classic apple shape. There may be roll(s) of fat (panniculus) on the torso and lower abdomen. Limbs will be thicker and more in proportion to the torso on endomorphic Chubs; these same body parts may be skinny on ectomorphic Chubs having pronounced bellies. There is reduced focus on body hair, 104 facial hair, and other overtly masculine hallmarks in favor of softer, rounder proportions.

Behavior may or may not display comfort with, and attraction to, the trappings of masculinity.

Super Chub: Super Chub is a term used to describe gay males who are Chubs grown even larger. These men fall within the Center for Disease Control’s Class 3 (2012) super obesity category of obesity, having BMI 40 and above, have a large gut, exhibit rolls of fat (panniculus), average to no body hair, and an overall endomorphic, rounder, body type of more extreme proportions and girth. If a natural mesomorph, the rotund size results in loss of the hegemonic V-shape. Once again, there is reduced focus on body hair and facial hair and other overtly masculine hallmarks in favor of rounded features. As shown in figure 2, the Chub and Super Chub have a classic apple shape.

Figure 2. David Addison Small’s ‘Michael’s Angel’ (1995), from the author’s private collection. Photograph by the author. 105

Chaser: Anyone who cathects to the Chub aesthetic. A Chaser may be of any body type with any type of body and facial hair configuration. The term derives from Chubby

Chaser as opposed to the term Admirers for those who seek out Bears.

Chub4Chub: A person who self-identifies as a Chub who also cathects to the Chub aesthetic. A Chub4Chub is, in essence, a Chaser who is also a Chub.

Convergence: From the OrlandoConvergence.com website (Orlando is the host for the

2016 Annual Labor Day Convergence):

Convergence is an annual international conference and social gathering of gay men of size and their admirers. This event serves a particular community, also commonly known as Chubs and Chasers; a vibrant sub-culture of the gay community at large. Convergence is an annual event, held in different cities around the United States during the summer. The first event was held 30 years ago and we had increasing turn-outs each year, with over 600 attendees representing over 20 different countries. Convergence is a venue that allows members of our community to enjoy themselves openly, without judgment and affords an opportunity to make new friends and relationships as well as maintain those already established. In short; Convergence is primarily a social event to meet other people in our community. It is packed with social activities, excursions, and parties. (http://www.orlandoconvergence.com/help/faq.aspx 2015)

Additional Terms

Clone: Accepted as the gay hegemonic look of the 1970’s up until the AIDS crisis, clones embodied “a middle-class fetishization of working class masculinity”(Wright 2001, 352) , involving a uniform of jeans and flannel shirt that avoided the “’dangerous hypermasculinity’ of the leather scene” (Wright 2001, 352).

106

Twink: An updated version of the clone, the twink is a gay male having an ectomorphic, smooth, lean, toned, swimmer physique (Filiault & Drummond 2007, 180) without facial hair. Non-twinks sometimes use this in a classist, anti-sizeist, and pejorative manner, “analogous to… the disempowered inventing a counter-discriminatory vocabulary” (Wright 2001, 8).

107

References

"About Adult BMI". 2015. Cdc.Gov. Accessed December 21, 2015. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyweight/assessing/bmi/adult_bmi/.

"Adult Obesity Facts". 2015. Cdc.Gov. Accessed December 21, 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html.

"Are You Bi-Sizual?”. 2015. Biggercity.Com. Accessed February 3, 2016. Used with permission. http://www.biggercity.com/columns/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2712.

Bancroft, John, Erick Janssen, Lori Carnes, David Goodrich, David Strong, and J. Scott Long. 2004. "Sexual Activity And Risk Taking In Young Heterosexual Men: The Relevance Of Sexual Arousability, Mood, And Sensation Seeking". Journal Of Sex Research 41 (2): 181-192. doi:10.1080/00224490409552226.

Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps To An Ecology Of Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Bell, Kirsten and Darlene McNaughton. 2007. “Feminism And The Invisible Fat Man”. Body and Society 13 (1): 107-131.

Bloom, Krista. 2006. "Identification Of Sexual Disorders In Clinical Settings Using A Brief Assessment Tool And Training Program". Ph.D., The American Academy of Clinical Sexology.

Brown, Laurence. 2001. “Fat Is A Bearish Issue.” In The Bear Book II, edited by Les Wright, 39-53. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

Brown, Leslie. 1993. Chub. In The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, edited by A.M. Huges and John Sykes, vol. 1, 398. New York: Oxford University Press Inc.

Buck, Pam Davidson. 1991. “Constructing Race, Creating White Privilege”. In Race, Class, and Gender in the United States. 7th ed., edited by P.S. Rothenberg, 33-37. New York: Worth.

Carnes, Patrick. 1997. The Betrayal Bond. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications, Inc.

Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685–716. 108

Chapman, A. 2003. “Johari Window”. Accessed November 19, 2016. https://www.usc.edu/hsc/ebnet/Cc/awareness/Johari%20windowexplain.pdf

"Chasabl". 2016. Chasabl.Com. Accessed December 28, 2015. http://www.chasabl.com/.

"Chasabl FAQ". 2016. Chasabl.Com. Accessed December 28, 2015. http://www.chasabl.com/Home/FAQ.

Clarke, Victoria and Kevin Turner. 2007. "V. Clothes Maketh The Queer? Dress, Appearance And The Construction Of Lesbian, Gay And Bisexual Identities". Feminism & Psychology 17 (2): 267-276. doi:10.1177/0959353507076561.

Coffman, Katherine, Lucas Coffman, and Keith M. Marzilli Ericson. 2013. "The Size Of The LGBT Population And The Magnitude Of Anti-Gay Sentiment Are Substantially Underestimated". Nber.Org. Cambridge, MA: The National Bureau of Economic Research. doi:10.3386/w19508. Accessed April 3, 2016. http://www.nber.org/papers/w19508

Corsini, Raymond J., and Danny Wedding. 2011. Current psychotherapies. Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Davis, Clive M., William L. Yarber, Robert Bauserman, George Schreer, Sandra L. Davis. 1998. Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

"Defining Adult Overweight And Obesity | Overweight & Obesity | CDC". 2012. Cdc.Gov. Accessed December 16, 2015. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/adult/defining.html.

Dowsett, Gary. W. 1993. "I'll Show You Mine, If You'll Show Me Yours: Gay Men, Masculinity Research, Men's Studies, And Sex". Theory And Society 22 (5): 697- 709. doi:10.1007/bf00993543.

Drummond, Murray. J. N. 2005. "Men's Bodies: Listening To The Voices Of Young Gay Men". Men And Masculinities 7 (3): 270-290. doi:10.1177/1097184x04271357.

Eguchi, Shinsuke. 2011. "Negotiating Sissyphobia: A Critical/Interpretive Analysis Of One "Femme" Gay Asian Body In The Heteronormative World". The Journal Of Men's Studies 19 (1): 37-56. doi:10.3149/jms.1901.37.

Ellis, Albert. 2010. “A Guide to Rational Living – Thinking Allowed DVD w/ Jeffrey Mishlove” [Youtube Video]. Posted August 21, 2010. Accessed December 7, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyRE-78g_z0

109

------2005. The Myth of Self-esteem: How Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy Can Change Your Life Forever. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.

------2000. “Emotional Disturbance And Its Treatment In A Nutshell”. In The REBT Resource Book for Practitioners. 2nd ed., edited by M.E. Bernard and J.L. Wolfe, II-1 – II-3. New York: The Albert Ellis Institute.

Ellis, Albert & Harper, R. A. 1997. A Guide to Rational Living. Woodland Hills, California: Melvin Powers Wilshire Book Company.

Elmer, Eddy M. 2007. "Gay Men’s Physical Attractiveness Scale". Masters, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada. Accessed January 14, 2016 http://summit.sfu.ca/system/files/iritems1/12571/etd7571_EElmer.pdf

Erikson, Erik H. 1959. Identity And The Life Cycle. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Fawcett, David. 2015. Lust, Men and Meth. [Digital]. Wilton Manors, FL: Healing Path Press.

Filiault, Shaun M. and Drummond, Murray J. N. 2007. “The Hegemonic Aesthetic”. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review 3 (3): 175-184.

Flegal, Katherine M., Margaret D. Carroll, Cynthia L. Ogden and Lester R. Curtin. 2010. "Prevalence And Trends In Obesity Among US Adults, 1999-2008". JAMA 303 (3): 235-241. doi:10.1001/jama.2009.2014.

Foucault, Michel. 1973. The Birth Of The Clinic. Reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 1994.

------1978. The History Of Sexuality. Vol. 1. 1978. Reprint, New York: Vintage Books, 1990.

Frank, Priscilla. 2014. "'Brotherhood Of Bears' Offers Intimate Peek Into Underrepresented Gay Male Subculture (NSFW)". The Huffington Post. Accessed December 12, 2015. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/21/alan- charlesworth_n_6016548.html.

Fredriksen-Goldsen, K. I., C. A. Emlet, H.-J. Kim, A. Muraco, E. A. Erosheva, J. Goldsen, and C. P. Hoy-Ellis. 2012. "The Physical And Mental Health Of Lesbian, Gay Male, And Bisexual (LGB) Older Adults: The Role Of Key Health Indicators And Risk And Protective Factors". The Gerontologist 53 (4): 664-675. doi:10.1093/geront/gns123.

Fromm, Erich 1957. The Art Of Loving. London: Unwin Paperbacks. 110

Gamman, Lorraine and Merja Makinen. 1994. Female Fetishism. New York: New York University Press.

Gingerich, W. J. and Eisengart, S. 2000. Solution-Focused Brief Therapy: A Review of the Outcome Research*. Family Process, 39: 477–498. doi:10.1111/j.1545- 5300.2000.39408.x

Giovanelli, Dina and Natalie M. Peluso. 2006. “Feederism”. In Handbook of the New Sexuality Studies, edited by Steven Seidman, Nancy Fischer, and Chet Meeks, 331- 336. New York: Routledge.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation Of Self In Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.

------1963. Stigma. New York: Simon & Schuster.

------1966. Behavior In Public Places. New York: The Free Press.

Gough, Brendan and Gareth Flanders. 2009. "Celebrating "Obese" Bodies: Gay "Bears" Talk About Weight, Body Image And Health". International Journal Of Men's Health 8 (3): 235-253. doi:10.3149/jmh.0803.235.

Granzig, William. 2004. "The Sexual Template And Erotology". Presentation, Asia Pacific Conference on Sexology, Mumbai, India (November).

Gropius, W. 1928. “The Theory And Organization Of The Bauhaus”. In Bauhaus Weimar 1919-25 Dessau 1925-28, edited by H. Bayer, W. Gropius, and I. Gropius, 20-29. Boston: Charles T. Branford Company.

Green, M A, S V Subramanian, and F Razak. 2016. "Population-Level Trends In The Distribution Of Body Mass Index In England, 1992–2013". J Epidemiol Community Health, jech-2015-206468. doi:10.1136/jech-2015-206468.

Grubbs, Joshua B., Julie J. Exline, Kenneth I. Pargament, Joshua N. Hook, and Robert D. Carlisle. 2015. "Transgression As Addiction: Religiosity And Moral Disapproval As Predictors Of Perceived Addiction To Pornography". Arch Sex Behav 44 (1): 125-136. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0257-z.

Guadamuz, Thomas E., Sin How Lim, Michael P. Marshal, Mark S. Friedman, Ronald D. Stall, and Anthony J. Silvestre. 2011. "Sexual, Behavioral, And Quality Of Life Characteristics Of Healthy Weight, Overweight, And Obese Gay And Bisexual Men: Findings From A Prospective Cohort Study". Arch Sex Behav 41 (2): 385- 389. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9859-5.

Hamer, Dean and Peter Copeland. 1994. The Science Of Desire. New York: Simon & Schuster. 111

Haas, A. P., Eliason, M., Mays, V. M., Mathy, R. M., Cochran, S. D., D’augelli, A. R., … Clayton, P. J. 2011. “Suicide and Suicide Risk in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Populations: Review and Recommendations.” Journal of homosexuality 58 (1), 10–51. doi:1080/00918369.2011.534038.

Hausmann, Armand, Barbara Mangweth, Thomas Walch, Claudia I. Rupp, and Harrison G. Pope. 2004. "Body-Image Dissatisfaction In Gay Versus Heterosexual Men". J. Clin. Psychiatry 65 (11): 1555-1558. doi:10.4088/jcp.v65n1119.

Hay, Bob. 1997. “Bears In The Land Down Under”. In The Bear Book, edited by Les Wright, 225-238. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

Hennen, Peter. 2005. Bear Bodies, Bear Masculinity. Gender & Society 19 (1), 25-43.

------2008. Faeries, Bears, and Leathermen. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Herek, Gregory M. 2012. “Definitions: Homophobia, Heterosexism, and Sexual Prejudice”. Department of Psychology, University of California, Davis. Accessed December 17, 2016. http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/prej_defn.html

------1995. “Psychological Heterosexism In The United States”. In Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Identities Over The Lifespan, edited by R. D’Augelli and C. Patterson, 321-346.

Hickson, Ford, Calum Davey, David Reid, Peter Weatherburn, and Adam Bourne. 2016. "Mental Health Inequalities Among Gay And Bisexual Men In England, Scotland And Wales: A Large Community-Based Cross-Sectional Survey". Journal of Public Health, fdw021. doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdw021.

Hill, Scott. 1997. “Aroused from Hibernation”. In The Bear Book, edited by Les Wright, 65-83. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press..

Horney, Karen. 1937. The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Horowitz, Juliana M. 2014. "Americans less accepting of homosexuality than other westerners – religion may be one reason". Pew Research Center. Accessed December 1, 2016. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/12/americans- are-less-accepting-of-homosexuality-than-canadians-western-europeans-and- religion-may-be-one-explanation/.

Hubbard, Ruth. 1991. “The Social Construction of Sexuality”. In Race, Class, and Gender in the United States. 7th ed., edited by P.S. Rothenberg, 65-68. New York: Worth.

112

Hutson, David J. 2010. “Standing Out/Fitting In: Identity, Appearance, And Authenticity In Gay And Lesbian Communities”. Symbolic Interaction 33 (2): 213-233.

Isay, Richard A. 1989. Being Homosexual. New York: Farrar-Straus-Giroux.

------2006. Commitment and Healing. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Kane, Graeme. 2010. “Unmasking The Gay Male Body Ideal: A Critical Analysis Of The Dominant Research On Gay Men’s Body Image Issues”. Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review 5 (1): 20-34.

Kaplan, Helen Singer. 1974. The New Sex Therapy: Active Treatment of Sexual Dysfunctions. New York: Brunner/Mazel Inc.

Kinsey, Alfred C., Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Clyde E. Martin. 1948. Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company.

Kopera, Daisy. 2015. "Impact of Testosterone on Hair and Skin". Endocrinol Metab Synd 4 (3): 187-191. doi:10.4172/2161-1017.1000187.

Kort, Joe. 2008. Gay Affirmative Therapy For The Straight Clinician. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.

Krieger, William D. 2012. “Self-Esteem as Sickness: The Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy Perspective”, wdkrieger.com, Accessed November 15, 2016. http://www.wdkrieger.com/self-esteem-as-sickness.html

Leight, Arlen Keith. 2013. Sex Happens: The Gay Man’s Guide To Creative Intimacy. Minneapolis: Langdon Street Press.

------2013. "You're Just Not In My Template | Marriage Counseling For Men". Marriagecounselingformen.Org. Accessed February 15, 2016. http://www.marriagecounselingformen.org/youre-just-not-in-my-template.

“Let’s Get Physical: How To Make A Chubby Body Talk”. 2015. Blog. BiggerCity.Com. Used with permission. Accessed March 15, 2016. http://www.biggercity.com/columns/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2709.

Locke, Philip. 1997. “Male Images in the Gay Mass Media and Bear-Oriented Magazines: Analysis and Contrast”. In The Bear Book, edited by Les Wright, 103- 140. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

Mass, Lawrence D. 2001. “Bears and Health”. In The Bear Book II, edited by Les Wright, 15-37. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

113

McCann, Thomas. 2001. “Laid Bear: Masculinity With All The Trappings”. In The Bear Book II, edited by Les Wright, 305-326. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

Michaeli, Dorlee. 2011. “The Two Acronyms You Must Know for the LMSW Exam”. SocialWorkCareer.com. Accessed December 15, 2016. http://www.socialwork.career/2011/10/two-acronyms-you-must-know-for- lmsw.html

Moch, Hannah. 2013. "Richard Socarides Talks Coming Out To His Father, A Founder Of "Ex-Gay Therapy"". GLAAD. Accessed December 30, 2015. http://www.glaad.org/blog/richard-socarides-talks-coming-out-his-father-founder- ex-gay-therapy.

Monaghan, Lee F. 2005. "Big Handsome Men, Bears And Others: Virtual Constructions Of 'Fat Male Embodiment'". Body & Society 11 (2): 81-111. doi:10.1177/1357034x05052463.

------2007. "Body Mass Index, Masculinities And Moral Worth: Men's Critical Understandings Of ‘Appropriate’ Weight-For-Height". Sociology Of Health & Illness 29 (4): 584-609. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2007.01007.x.

------2008. Men And The War On Obesity. New York: Routledge.

Money, John. 1986. Lovemaps. New York: The Irvington Press.

Money, John and Margaret Lamacz. 1989. Vandalized Lovemaps. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.

Morin, Jack. 2012. The Erotic Mind: Unlocking the Inner Sources of Passion and Fulfillment. [Digital]. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, LLC.

Morrison, Melanie A, Todd G Morrison, and Cheryl-Lee Sager. 2004. "Does Body Satisfaction Differ Between Gay Men And Lesbian Women And Heterosexual Men And Women?". Body Image 1 (2): 127-138. doi:10.1016/j.bodyim.2004.01.002.

Moskowitz, David A., Jonathan Turrubiates, Hector Lozano, and Christopher Hajek. 2013. "Physical, Behavioral, And Psychological Traits Of Gay Men Identifying As Bears". Arch Sex Behav 42 (5): 775-784. doi:10.1007/s10508-013-0095-z.

"NASW Standards And Ethics: Diversity & Equity". 2016. Socialworkers.Org. Accessed April 25, 2016. https://www.socialworkers.org/diversity/new/standards.asp.

Norman, Elaine. 2000. Resiliency Enhancement. New York: Columbia University Press.

114

Norman, Moss E. 2013. ""Dere's Not Just One Kind Of Fat": Embodying The "Skinny"- Self Through Constructions Of The Fat Masculine Other". Men And Masculinities 16 (4): 407-431. doi:10.1177/1097184x13502662.

O’Connell Davidson, Julia and Derek Layder. 1994. Methods: Sex and Madness. New York: Routledge.

"Orlando Convergence 2016". 2016. Orlandoconvergence.Com. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.orlandoconvergence.com/help/faq.aspx#q1.

Phelan S, Burgess D, Yeazel M, Hellerstedt W, Griffin J, van Ryn M. 2015. “Impact of weight bias and stigma on quality of care and outcomes for patients with obesity”. Obesity Reviews. 16 (4). 319-326. doi:10.1111/obr.12266.

"Prevalence Of Homosexuality". 2016. Kinseyinstitute.Org. Accessed April 6, 2016. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/bib-homoprev.html.

Pyle, Nathaniel. 2012. "Fat. Hairy. Sexy. Contesting Standards Of Beauty And Sexuality In The Gay Community". Presentation, Second ISA Forum of Sociology on Social Justice and Democratization, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Rofes, Eric 1997. “Academics as Bears: Thoughts on Middle-Class Eroticization of Workingmen’s Bodies”. In The Bear Book, edited by Les Wright, 89-99. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

Sánchez, Francisco J., Stefanie T. Greenberg, William Ming Liu, and Eric Vilain. 2009. "Reported Effects Of Masculine Ideals On Gay Men.". Psychology Of Men & Masculinity 10 (1): 73-87. doi:10.1037/a0013513.

Sánchez, Francisco J., John S. Westefeld, William Ming Liu, and Eric Vilain. 2010. "Masculine Gender Role Conflict And Negative Feelings About Being Gay.". Professional Psychology: Research And Practice 41 (2): 104-111. doi:10.1037/a0015805.

Sánchez, Francisco J. and Eric Vilain. 2012. "“Straight-Acting Gays”: The Relationship Between Masculine Consciousness, Anti-Effeminacy, And Negative Gay Identity". Arch Sex Behav 41 (1): 111-119. doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z.

Schrock, Douglas and Michael Schwalbe. 2009. "Men, Masculinity, And Manhood Acts". Annu. Rev. Sociol. 35 (1): 277-295. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-070308- 115933.

Sedgwick, Eve Kosofsky. 1985. Between Men. New York: Columbia University Press.

------1990. The Epistemology Of The Closet. Berkeley: University of California Press. 115

Silverstein, Charles, Felice Picano. 1992. The New Joy Of Gay Sex. New York: Harper Perennial.

Small, David A. 1995. Michael's Angel. Pen and Ink Intaglio. Hollywood, Florida: Private collection of the author.

Smith, Lee B., Walker, William H. 2014. “The Regulation of Spermatogenesis by Androgens”. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2014 June ; 0: 2–13. doi:10.1016/j.semcdb.2014.02.012.

Socarides, Charles W. 1995. Homosexuality: A Freedom Too Far. Phoenix, Arizona: Adam Margrave Books.

Sontag, Susan. 1964. "Notes On "Camp"". Faculty.Georgetown.Edu. Accessed November, 12, 2015. http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/theory/Sontag- NotesOnCamp-1964.html.

Speiser, Phyllis W. et al. “Consensus Statement: Childhood Obesity”. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism 90 (3): 1871–1887. doi: 10.1210/jc.2004-1389

Suresha, Ron Jackson 2002. Bears on Bears: Interviews and Discussions. Los Angeles: Alyson Publications.

Szentagotai, A., David, D., Lupu, V., & Cosman, D. (2008). “Rational Emotive Therapy, Cognitive Therapy, and medication in the treatment in the treatment of major depressive disorder: Theory of change analysis”. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, 4: 523-538.

Tang, Dennis. 2015. "Why 'Athleisure' Replaced The Urban Lumberjack". Esquire. Accessed December 18, 2015. http://www.esquire.com/style/mens- fashion/news/a35965/athleisure-urban-lumberjack/.

Teeman, Tim. 2014. "How Straight World Stole ‘Gay’: The Last Gasp Of The ‘Lumbersexual’". The Daily Beast. Accessed December 18, 2015. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/12/how-straight-world-stole-gay- the-last-gasp-of-the-lumbersexual.html.

Textor, Alex Robertson 1999. Organization, Specialization, and Desires in the Big Men’s Movement: Preliminary Research in the Study of Subculture-Formation. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Identity, 4 (3), 217-239.

"The Skinny Behind The Big". 2015. Blog. BiggerCity.Com. Used with permission. Accessed March 15, 2016. http://www.biggercity.com/columns/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=2718.

116

Tomiyama, A J, J M Hunger, J Nguyen-Cuu, and C Wells. 2016. "Misclassification Of Cardiometabolic Health When Using Body Mass Index Categories In NHANES 2005–2012". Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 40 (5): 883-886. doi:10.1038/ijo.2016.17.

Toothman, Larry. 2001. "A Short History Of Bear Clubs In Iowa". In The Bear Book II, edited by Les Wright, 215-231. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press. van Amsterdam, Noortje. 2013. "Big Fat Inequalities, Thin Privilege: An Intersectional Perspective On 'Body Size'". European Journal Of Women's Studies 20 (2): 155- 169. doi:10.1177/1350506812456461.

Ward, Brian, James Dahlhamer, Adena Galinsky, and Sarah Joestl. 2014. “Sexual Orientation And Health Among U.S. Adults: National Health Interview Survey, 2013”. In National Health Statistics Report 77. Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics, U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1-10.

Weiner, Linda and Constance Avery-Clark. 2014. "Sensate Focus: Clarifying The Masters And Johnson's Model". Sexual And Relationship Therapy 29 (3): 307-319. doi:10.1080/14681994.2014.892920.

Whitesel, Jason. 2007. “Fatvertising: Refiguring Fat Gay Men in Cyberspace”. Limina 13, 92-102.

------2014. Fat Gay Men: Girth, Mirth, And The Politics of Stigma. New York: New York University Press.

Whitesel, Jason and Amy Shuman. 2013. "Normalizing Desire: Stigma And The Carnivalesque In Gay Bigmen's Cultural Practices". Men And Masculinities 16 (4): 478-496. doi:10.1177/1097184x13502668.

Wood, Raymond M., Linda S. Grossman, and Christopher G. Fichtner. 2000. "Psychological Assessment, Treatment, And Outcome With Sex Offenders". Behavioral Sciences & The Law 18 (1): 23-41. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099- 0798(200001/02)18:1<23::aid-bsl375>3.0.co;2-d.

Woodall, Bernie. 2016. "Ford Marks Turnaround Juncture With New Slogan". Reuters. Accessed December 18, 2015. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ford-slogan- idUSTRE80O02O20120125.

Wright, Les K. 1997. The Bear Book. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

------1997. “Introduction: Theoretical Bears”. In The Bear Book, edited by Les Wright, 1-14. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

117

------2001. The Bear Book II. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

------2001. "Exploring The Bear Phenomenon". In The Bear Book II, edited by Les Wright, 351-357. Binghamton: Harrington Park Press.

Yong, Ed. 2015. "No, Scientists Have Not Found The 'Gay Gene'". The Atlantic. Accessed February 17, 2016. http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/10/no-scientists-have-not-found- the-gay-gene/410059/.