SEXUAL EMPOWERMENT FOR SEXUAL MINORITY MEN:

A CRITICAL QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Steven A. Palmieri

August, 2020 SEXUAL EMPOWERMENT FOR SEXUAL MINORITY MEN:

A CRITICAL QUALITATIVE EXPLORATION

Steven A. Palmieri

Dissertation

Approved: Accepted:

Committee Chair Department Chair Suzette L. Speight, Ph.D. Paul E. Levy, Ph.D.

Committee Member Interim Dean of the College Dawn M. Johnson, Ph.D. Linda M. Subich

Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School Toni L. Bisconti, Ph.D. Chand Midha, Ph.D.

Committee Member Date Varunee Faii Sangganjanavanich, Ph.D.

Committee Member Kevin Kaut, Ph.D.

ii

ABSTRACT

Sexuality research in psychology has historically taken a pathologizing view of sex.

Recently, a growing body of sex-positive literature has provided a counter-narrative that positions sex as something that is fundamentally good and healthy. However, the perspectives and experiences of sexual minority men have been critically absent from this discourse. Grounded in empowerment theory and using a critical queer lens, this qualitative study aimed to extend sex-positive research to the topic of sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment. The present study used interviews with sex workers, activists, educators, therapists, and survivors with a range of intersecting identities to shed light on the ways in which these sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment. Results of these interviews indicated that participants understood sexual empowerment to include elements of sexual self-humanization, sexual liberation, sexual sovereignty, and belonging to a sexually empowering community.

These results are presented along with specific recommendations and implications that are written specifically for sexual minority male psychologists conducting research, training, practice, and advocacy for sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment.

iii

DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to all future generations of sexual minority men.

I hope that you read this dissertation one day and cringe, wondering how someone who claimed to be sex-positive could be so sex-negative.

Because then, we will have seen true progress.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

To the generations of sexual minority men before me who organized, fought, and died for my sexual freedom. Thank you for empowering me. This work was only possible because of your activism. I can only hope to pay it forward.

To my parents, Anne and Joe Palmieri, to my sister Abby, and to my brother Joey.

Thank you for setting high expectations for me and giving me strength, courage, love, motivation, and support as I strive to meet them. And thank you for encouraging me to take pride in being my authentic self. Speaking of which, you’re about to learn quite a bit about my in Chapter 3. I hope that when you do, you can be just as proud of it as

I am.

To Jasmine, Zika, Donnell, and Rachel. Thank you for celebrating with me and cheering me on as I started my own journey towards sexual empowerment.

To Brian. Thank you for being the best friend I could ever ask for, and for always reminding me of the importance of having a life outside of work. You’ve been with me through heartache and headaches, joy and triumph. I could not have survived this process without you.

To Sam. Thank you for forcing me to start this process, and delivering enough cookies to fuel my late nights at the office.

To Kieran. Thank you for giving me a love worth fighting for. You remind me that silliness and intelligence are not mutually exclusive, and that both were needed to

v complete my dissertation with some sanity remaining. Thank you for helping me explore and articulate what sexual empowerment means to me. And thank you for seeing me through to the end.

To Lau, Taylor, Rebecca, Kathleen, Sarah, Myriam, Ginelle, Shuyan, Baron,

Tray, Jasmine, April, Kristin, Zach, Stefan, Mae, Nancy, and Tofunmi. Thank you for laughing with me, crying with me, venting with me, procrastinating with me, and motivating me. You all make me so proud to be part of this new generation of psychologists, fighting for justice, and lifting up the voices of those communities that have been silenced for far too long.

To my participants. Thank you for sharing with me your time, your voice, and your truth. Your lives will change the world.

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Sex-Positivity ...... 1

Empowerment Theory ...... 5

Sexual Minority Men’s Sexual Empowerment ...... 7

Purpose of the Present Study ...... 9

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 10

Sexual Empowerment ...... 10

Sexual Minority Men’s Sexual Empowerment ...... 27

A New Understanding of Sexual Empowerment for Sexual Minority Men ...... 53

III. METHODOLOGY ...... 55

Critical Queer Theory ...... 55

Participants ...... 57

Data Collection ...... 61

Data Analysis ...... 63

Trustworthiness ...... 65

vii Researcher Role and Background ...... 66

Ethical Considerations ...... 71

IV. RESULTS ...... 73

Theme One: Sexual Self-Humanization ...... 75

Theme Two: Sexual Sovereignty ...... 85

Theme Three: Sexual Liberation ...... 98

Theme Four: Belonging to a Sexually Empowering Community ...... 120

Summary ...... 135

V. DISCUSSION ...... 137

Summary and Interpretation of Results ...... 137

Strengths and Limitations of the Study ...... 151

Implications for Research, Training, Practice, and Advocacy ...... 154

Personal Reflections ...... 165

Conclusion ...... 167

REFERENCES ...... 169

APPENDICES ...... 194

APPENDIX A. PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES ...... 195

APPENDIX B. DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 204

APPENDIX C. INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ...... 210

APPENDIX D. INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL ...... 212

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Participant Demographics ...... 60

2. Themes and Sub-Themes ...... 74

ix LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Sexual Self-Humanization ...... 75

2. Sexual Sovereignty ...... 86

3. Sexual Liberation ...... 99

4. Belonging to a Sexually Empowering Community ...... 120

x CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Sexuality is a multifaceted and integral part of the human experience. For sexual minority men in particular, sexuality occupies an important position in individual and collective identity and culture. Unfortunately, counseling psychology research on sexual minority men’s sexuality is scarce and overwhelmingly focused on negative consequences of sex. Recently, counseling psychologists and allied health professionals have identified a need for increased attention to the positive aspects of sexuality (e.g.,

Burns, Singh, & Witherspoon, 2017; World Health Organization [WHO], 2006). The current study addresses this need by qualitatively exploring positive aspects of sexuality for sexual minority men. Grounded in empowerment theory (Rappaport, 1981, 1987) and situated within a sex-positive framework (Williams, Thomas, Prior, & Walters, 2015), this study explores how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment.

Sex-Positivity

Before the advent of psychiatry in the 19th century, was viewed predominately through moral, theological, and legal lenses. In fact, many of the behaviors initially classified as disorders in the first Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental

Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 1952) are also specifically prohibited in the

1 Old Testament (Gordon, 2008). Notably, not all sexual sins (e.g., , polygamy, extramarital sexual relations) were classified as disorders; rather, psychology and psychiatry have historically—and nearly exclusively—pathologized sexual interests, attractions, and behaviors that do not lead to reproduction. This selective pathologization reflects the embedded heteronormativity and repronormativity that continue to dominate modern sex research (Fahs & McClelland, 2016).

Alongside this dominant discourse, a counter-narrative arose that positioned not as evidence of moral failing, but as a component of personality. This counter-narrative began with the publication of Psychopathia Sexualis by Richard von

Krafft-Ebing in 1886. Although Krafft-Ebing continued the tradition of pathologizing sexual diversity, he attempted to disentangle psychiatric views of sexuality from theological values. By doing so, he paved the way for future psychiatrists, sexologists, and psychologists to embrace sex-positive attitudes.

Mosher (2017) traced the development of sex-positive research in counseling psychology to four primary “waves.” In the first wave, sex-positive research focused on challenging the biases of mainstream sex research. Early sex-positive scholars, such as sexologist Magnus Hirschfield, used their research to advocate for the decriminalization of and reproductive rights for women. The second wave positioned sex as fundamentally healthy, pleasurable, and essential to human development (e.g., Reich,

1945). Around the same time, Simone de Beauvoir (1949/2009) introduced a social constructionist view of sexuality and gender to counter the essentialist views held by mainstream psychology. Meanwhile, Alfred Kinsey (1953; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin,

1948) employed a data-driven approach to describe a range of sexual behaviors and

2 experiences. The third wave (e.g., Davis, 1983, hooks, 2000) emphasized the importance of equality and communication in sexual relationships. This perspective asserts that sex is a psychological experience—not simply a behavior—that is influenced by social constructions of sexuality.

The fourth—and current—wave of sex positivity has been shaped by Foucault’s

(1978) critique of sociocultural values around sexuality as well as the activism of contemporary sex-positive feminists and queer theorists (e.g., Fahs & McClelland, 2016;

Peterson, 2010; Sheffa & Hammer, 2011; , 2002). Specifically, the current wave challenges the existence of sexual binaries, embraces sexual expressions predominately considered taboo (e.g., , consensual non-monogamy, kink, sex work), emphasizes the importance of intersectionality to understanding sexual experiences, and actively works to dismantle sociopolitical inequality.

Complicating the advancement of sex-positive discourse, no consensus currently exists among researchers as to a definition of sex-positivity (Hargons, Mosley, &

Stevens-Watkins, 2017). In 1975, the WHO delineated three components of sexual health that align with many contemporary sex-positive values. Namely, sexual health includes

“(a) a capacity to enjoy and control sexual and reproductive behaviour in accordance with a personal and social ethic, (b) freedom from fear, shame, guilt, false beliefs, and other psychological factors inhibiting sexual response and impairing sexual relationship, and

(c) freedom from organic disorders, diseases, and deficiencies that interfere with sexual and reproductive functions” (p. 6). Williams and colleagues (2015) offer an updated, multi-disciplinary definition of sex-positivity comprising eight key dimensions: (a) positive refers to strengths, well-being, and happiness; (b) individual sexuality is unique

3 and multifaceted; (c) positive sexuality embraces multiple ways of knowing; (d) positive sexuality reflects professional ethics; (e) positive sexuality promotes open, honest communication; (f) positive sexuality is humanizing; (g) positive sexuality encourages peacemaking; and (h) positive sexuality is applicable across all levels of social structure

(see Hargons et al., 2017, for a review). For the purposes of this project, a combination of these definitions of sex-positivity will be used to ground the exploration of the construct.

Sex-Positive Research

To date, two content analyses have examined the extent to which sex-positive topics appear in published research. Arakawa, Flanders, Hatfield, and Heck (2013) conducted a content analysis of The Journal of Sex Research, Archives of Sexual

Behavior, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Obstetrics and Gynecology, from

1960 to 2013. Overall, they found that 7% of articles published in these journals had a sex-positive valence, while 58% had a negative valence, with medical journals publishing significantly fewer sex-positive articles than sexuality journals. By comparison, Hargons and colleagues (2017) found that just 5% of the sexuality-related articles published in The

Counseling Psychologist and the Journal of Counseling Psychology since their inceptions have used a sex-positive discourse, while 70% used a sex-negative discourse.

To address this gap, Mosher (2017) offers four areas where counseling psychologists might contribute to sex-positive research: body-positive sexuality, relationship-positive sexuality, kink-positive sexuality, and eroto-positive sexuality.

Body-positive sexuality embraces a diversity of body types and appearances, and acknowledges the role that these characteristics play in sexuality. Relationship-positive sexuality challenges hetero-patriarchal definitions of sexuality that marginalize

4 and non-monogamy. Kink-positive sexuality affirms a wide range of non-repronormative sexualities. Eroto-positive sexuality acknowledges the range of attitudes that individuals have towards erotic desires and behaviors, and challenges stigma associated with deriving sexual pleasure from , , and pornography. These approaches provide opportunities to depathologize diverse sexualities and consider them instead from a sex- positive lens without a heteronormative point of origin.

Fahs and McClelland (2016) propose three guiding characteristics for critical sex- positive research. First, sex-positive research engages in conceptual analysis by critically examining the origins and implications of sexual constructs and definitions in the development of sexuality theories, measures, and analyses. Second, sex-positive research includes abject bodies. In this way, research brings attention to bodies and sexualities that are ignored or marginalized with an emphasis on the corporeality of all bodies— particularly those that challenge hegemonic conceptualizations of sex and sexuality.

Finally, sex-positive research challenges and deconstructs heteronormative and heterosexist assumptions about sexuality. Counseling psychology research has historically neglected the aforementioned topics and guiding principles, creating a need for the development of new sex-positive paradigms.

Empowerment Theory

Empowerment theory provides a compelling gateway to introduce and center sex- positivity within counseling psychology. Empowerment theory has its roots in community psychology (Rappaport, 1981, 1987) and initially focused on the organizational and societal level. Expanding on the initial conceptualization of empowerment as a macro-level construct, Zimmerman (1995) developed a nomological

5 network for an individual-level conceptualization of psychological empowerment that emphasized the individual’s role in enacting social change. Zimmerman posited that psychological empowerment involves both process and outcome, and includes a range of intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral components. He also conceptualized empowerment as a dynamic construct, such that the experience of empowerment may change depending on individual and group differences, context, and time.

Zimmerman (1995) distinguishes between empowered processes and empowered outcomes, stating, “the former refers to how people, organizations, and communities become empowered, whereas the latter refers to the consequences of those processes” (p.

583). Empowering processes involve aspects such as skill development and practice, developing awareness of sociopolitical context, and acting in accordance with one’s goals. Research design may also contribute to empowering processes, and Zimmerman provides the example of using participatory action research to develop empowerment outcome measures.

Empowered outcomes include general themes of mastery and control, identification and utilization of resources, and participation in behaviors within a sociopolitical context (Zimmerman, 1995). These outcomes may be understood in terms of intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral components. Intrapersonal components may include constructs such as perceived control, self-efficacy, and competence.

Interactional components may include critical consciousness, skill development, and resource mobilization. Behavioral components may include outcome-driven actions designed to exert control in a given context. According to Zimmerman, empowerment at the individual level must include exploration of each of these three components.

6 Since the publication of Zimmerman’s (1995) seminal article on psychological empowerment, a few studies have begun to explore the role of empowerment in sexuality. Currently, no consensus exists on a definition of sexual empowerment (Lamb

& Peterson, 2012). The central debate in the sexual empowerment literature is about whether sexual empowerment should be conceptualized as something that is external and objective or internal and subjective. Further, much of the literature on sexual empowerment is limited by a lack of empirical research and exclusion of the experiences of sexual minority men. To date, only one known study has explored the role of empowerment for sexual minority men (Crossley, 2001). This qualitative study explored men’s perceptions of whether a local, government-funded, HIV-prevention program in England was empowering. Although many of the in the study noted that they were more likely to use safer sex practices as a result of the program, they did not necessarily find the program empowering because it was not aligned with the sexual values, goals, or culture of the gay male community. This study explored empowerment in the context of sexual health promotion; however, no known study has examined how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment.

Sexual Minority Men’s Sexual Empowerment

Sexual minority-related topics have been historically overlooked in counseling psychology literature (Malouf, 2012; Moradi, Mohr, Worthington, & Fassinger, 2009;

Phillips, Ingram, Smith, & Mindes, 2003; Singh & Shelton, 2011; Smith, 2010). As of

2017, since the inception of The Counseling Psychologist (TCP) in 1969 and the Journal of Counseling Psychology (JCP) in 1954, only 78 articles have been published in counseling psychology’s two flagship journals on the topics of and

7 identity (Hargons et al., 2017). These 78 articles include research on heterosexual identity development and conversion therapy in addition to research with or about sexual minority populations.

Reflecting the broader literature on sexual minority issues, research on the sexual experiences of sexual minority individuals is remarkably scarce. In fact, of the 11,879 articles published in the top ten counseling psychology journals between 1990 and 2009, only 11 addressed topics related to the sexual behaviors and practices of , gay, and bisexual people (Malouf, 2012; Phillips et al., 2003). Not only is the counseling psychology literature deficient in empirical investigation of the sexual experiences of sexual minority individuals, but the importance of this research gap has been largely ignored by literature reviews and content analyses. Given the centrality of sex to the identities and experiences of sexual minority men, this persistent oversight is particularly concerning.

Much of the research on sexual minority populations tends to focus on negative aspects of queer experiences, such as internalized heterosexism, victimization, rejection, and counselor bias (Adams, et al., 2010; Riggle, Whitman, Olson, Rotosky, & Strong,

2008). Consistent with trends in the research on sexual minority populations, research on sexual experiences and behaviors often focuses on negative aspects of sex such as sexual risk factors, harassment and assault, , and—particularly in the case of sexual minority men—HIV/AIDS (Harden, 2014; Riggle et al., 2008; Williams et al.,

2015). In fact, Hargons and colleagues (2017) found that, of the nine articles ever published in TCP or JCP that used a sex-positive perspective, none focused on sexual minority populations or issues. Consequently, there is a need for counseling psychology

8 research that elucidates the positive sexual experiences of sexual minority men (i.e., men who are primarily sexually attracted to—and engage in sexual relationships with—other men) within a sex-positive and LGBTQ-affirmative framework.

Purpose of the Present Study

To address the aforementioned gaps in the literature, this paper offers sexual empowerment theory as a useful framework from which to conceptualize and extend research on the positive aspects of sexual minority men’s sexual experiences. In order to stimulate further research in this area and accelerate the shift towards a more sex-positive discourse in counseling psychology literature, a qualitative exploration of how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment was conducted. The exploration of sexual empowerment is needed because it provides a foundation for future investigations into the positive aspects of sexual minority men’s sexuality, and gives sexual minority men power and voice to shape how our experiences of sex and sexuality are perceived, studied, and described in psychological research. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore what sexual empowerment means for sexual minority men, to engage in an empowering research process that centers the perspectives and experiences of sexual minority men in psychological research, and to explore subcultural similarities and differences in the definition and expression of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men. Specifically, this study aimed to address the following research questions:

1. How do participants define sexual empowerment?

2. What factors affect the experience of sexual empowerment?

9 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter provides a review of the literature used to inform this study. First, a summary and evaluation of the theoretical and empirical literature supporting conceptualizations of sexual empowerment is provided. The applicability of these conceptualization and methodologies with sexual minority men is also discussed. Next, an overview is provided of sexual minority men’s sexual culture, with implications for how these cultural factors shape the ways in which sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment. An overview of how this current literature informs the present study is provided.

Sexual Empowerment

Since its inception, empowerment theory (Rappaport, 1981, 1987), and especially

Zimmerman’s (1995) definition of psychological empowerment as a process by which an individual attains mastery over a particular issue, has been extended to a variety of populations and contexts. Much of the research on empowerment has been concentrated in the areas of workplace empowerment (e.g., Cicolini, Comparcini, & Simonetti, 2014) and health promotion (e.g., Cyril, Smith, & Renzaho, 2016); however, a growing body of research has explicitly explored the experience of empowerment for marginalized populations. For instance, Worell (1996) describes empowerment outcomes for women in

10 the context of feminist therapy. These outcomes may be classified into intrapersonal (e.g., sense of personal control/self-efficacy), interactional (e.g., gender-role and cultural identity awareness), and behavioral (e.g., competent use of assertiveness skills) components. Worell and Remer (2003) also proposed empowerment processes that guide interventions in feminist therapy, from which four principles are derived: (a) personal and social identities are interdependent, (b) the personal is political, (c) relationships are egalitarian, and (d) women’s perspectives are valued. Based on these empowerment processes and outcomes, Johnson, Worell, and Chandler (2005) developed the Personal

Progress Scale-Revised, which has been used to explore empowerment for diverse samples of women in treatment for substance abuse (Davis, Ancis, & Ashby, 2014;

Hunter, Jason, & Keys, 2013) and intimate partner violence-related PTSD (Perez,

Johnson, & Wright, 2012; Johnson, Johnson, Perez, Palmieri, & Zlotnick, 2016).

Recently, the role of empowerment in sexuality has begun to receive more attention. With this increased attention has come a fierce theoretical debate over whether sexual empowerment is best understood as a construct that is external and objective (i.e., empowerment is derived from the absence of sexual oppression) or internal and subjective (i.e., empowerment is derived from critically conscious and agentic experience). This conceptual debate has its foundation in the feminist “sex wars” of the

1980s that pitted sex-positive feminists against anti-pornography or radical feminists

(Fahs, 2014). While an external and objective definition of sexual empowerment is largely the domain of anti-pornography radical feminists, sex-positive feminists primarily conceptualize sexual empowerment as an internal and subjective experience (Fahs, 2014).

11 Despite decades of theoretical debate over the nature of sexual empowerment, little empirical work has been done to explore the nature of sexual empowerment, methods to assess it, its predictors and consequences, or strategies to increase it (Erchull

& Liss, 2014). In fact, much of the research on sexual empowerment has focused on specific phenomena theorized to be related to, or derived from, sexual empowerment itself. Further, methods for exploring sexual empowerment-related constructs have been almost exclusively quantitative. Specifically, much of this research has been focused on development of measures to assess various conceptually-related dimensions of sexual empowerment.

In this section, a review is provided of the competing conceptualizations of sexual empowerment, current methods used to explore it, and the empirical investigations into its related constructs. While this section will place particular emphasis on studies that include male or sexual minority samples, it is important to note that there is also currently no known theoretical or empirical literature investigating how sexual minority men understand or experience sexual empowerment. This review will help to provide a conceptual frame from which to formulate and interpret a qualitative exploration of sexual empowerment with sexual minority men.

Sexual Empowerment as External and Objective

The external and objective view of sexual empowerment relies on social context and observable behavior to define empowerment. Aligning with the view of sexual empowerment as external and objective, radical feminists advocated for “freedom from” sexist oppression enacted through , objectification, and coercion (Fahs,

2014). This perspective strays somewhat from Zimmerman’s (1995) definition of

12 individual-level psychological empowerment; however, it provides valuable insight into the sociopolitical context in which empowered individuals operate. From this perspective, people are sexually empowered when sex is not used against them as a tool of oppression or violence. As such, objective and external sexual empowerment is, in part, determined by sociopolitical context. To concretize this perspective, consider an example of a heterosexual female pornographic actress. An external and objective view of sexual empowerment would posit that this woman is disempowered because she is contributing to the commodification of women’s sexuality and reinforcing the expectation that women’s bodies are only valuable if they can be consumed by the male gaze. Thus, the sociopolitical forces of sexism and capitalism render this behavior disempowered.

From this perspective, sexual empowerment is also observable through the power dynamics within sexual relationships. For instance, individuals may be sexually empowered when they use sex as a way to gain or enforce power over another or to equalize power in a relationship. This conceptualization of sexual empowerment is consistent with using sex as a way for those who are traditionally sexually disempowered to gain “power over” those who are traditionally expected to be sexually empowered

(Erchull & Liss, 2013a). Another way this type of sexual empowerment may be understood is in terms of “power to” engage in sex, as social and legal barriers may prevent individuals from enacting or expressing their sexuality. In order to promote this type of sexual empowerment, people must advocate for gender equality and a deconstruction of sexual norms that reinforce systemic oppression (Bay-Cheng, 2012).

While the external and objective perspective on sexual empowerment is important, problems emerge when attempting to broadly apply the perspective to the

13 diversity of situations that arise around issues of sexuality and sexual behaviors. First, this externally-defined view of sexual empowerment can be restrictive as it renders the intrapersonal and interactional components of empowerment, such as desire and choice, irrelevant. As Peterson (2010) argues, telling someone that their subjective feelings of sexual empowerment are actually disempowered because they do not fit the observer’s definition of sexual empowerment can be invalidating. Additionally, it may be dangerous to consider power over another as a type of empowerment. Zimmerman (1995) makes a clear distinction between power (i.e., authority) and empowerment (i.e., feelings of control, critical consciousness, and agency). He further argues, “actual power or control is not necessary for empowerment because in some contexts and for some populations real control or power may not be the desired goal” (p. 593). This distinction is critically important in the context of sexuality. If power over one’s sexual partners is considered a criterion for sexual empowerment, then those who wield this power (e.g., through rape, sexual exploitation) may be considered sexually empowered.

Despite these drawbacks, an external and objective construction of sexual empowerment does have its strengths. In particular, it provides a space for the acknowledgement of the ways in which sociopolitical and legal contexts shape experiences of sex and sexuality. By doing so, it provides a framework for critical consciousness about sexuality and allows individuals and researchers to consider whether the choice to engage in some sexual practices is made freely or influenced by external determinants or internalized sexual norms. Additionally, it accounts for the relational aspects of sexuality by acknowledging different power dynamics between sexual partners.

14 Phenomena such as sexism, objectification, and sexual violence have received increasing empirical attention in psychological literature (Moradi, 2011; Haines, Deaux,

& Lofaro, 2016; Chen et al., 2010); however, the effects that these variables have on sexual empowerment-related outcomes has been largely overlooked (Fahs, 2014). This lack of research may be due to the fact that an external and objective view of sexual empowerment posits that people can be sexually empowered in two primary ways: when they are free from sexual victimization and oppression, and when they use sex to gain power over others. Systemic sexual victimization and oppression cannot be experimentally manipulated, making it difficult to empirically investigate their relationships to other sexual empowerment-related variables. Yet, the second way of being externally and objectively sexually empowered—namely, using sex to gain power over others—has received some empirical attention.

Sex is Power

The Sex is Power Scale (SIPS; Erchull & Liss, 2013a) measures women’s beliefs about their use of sex to gain power. The SIPS includes 12 questions comprising two subscales: personal use of sex to gain power over men (7 items; e.g., “I can get what I want using my feminine wiles”), and belief that other women use sex to gain power over men (5 items; e.g., “men are easily manipulated by beautiful women”). Participants respond to each question on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly; 6 = agree strongly). Higher average scores for each subscale indicate greater endorsement of the belief that sex is power. Internal consistency reliability is high for the personal use (α =

.91) and other use (α = .83) subscales. Construct validity evidence is supported by intercorrelations between the SIPS subscales and sexism, self-objectification, experiences

15 of being objectified, and enjoyment of sexualization. To date, no known study has used the SIPS with sexual minority men.

To date, only two studies have examined use of sex to gain power over others, and each has focused on women’s use of sex to gain power over men. Use of sex to gain power is associated with several sexual-empowerment related variables. For instance, initial research indicates that, in samples of predominately young, college educated, middle-class, white, heterosexual women, those who use sex to gain power over men are more likely to engage in more self-sexualizing behavior and enjoy being sexualized, have higher sexual self-esteem, feel more comfortable with uncommitted sex, and have a greater number of sexual partners (Erchull & Liss, 2013a, 2014). On the other hand, women’s use of sex to gain power over men was not associated with sexual assertiveness

(Erchull & Liss, 2014). Results for theoretically related variables were more mixed, as use of sex to gain power was associated with benevolent sexism but not hostile sexism, and more frequent body surveillance and evaluation, but not with body shame, self- perceived attractiveness, or body mass index (Erchull & Liss, 2013a, 2014). Although these preliminary results suggest that the “power over” component may be an important piece of sexual empowerment, more research must be done to further investigate this construct and its manifestations in more diverse samples.

Sexual Empowerment as Internal and Subjective

The internal and subjective conceptualization of sexual empowerment is perhaps more aligned with Zimmerman’s (1995) original definition of individual psychological empowerment because it includes perceived control, perceived competence, self-efficacy, critical awareness, understanding of causal agents, and skill development. Within the

16 context of sexual empowerment, these components translate to constructs such as sexual desire, pleasure, subjectivity, autonomy, assertiveness, self-esteem, and agency (Grose,

2016; Fine, 1988; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Nussbaum, 1995; Peterson, 2010). From this perspective, people are sexually empowered when they think critically about their own sexuality, prioritize their own desire and pleasure, and feel a sense of agency and control over their sexual behaviors. In contrast to external and objective sexual empowerment, internal and subjective sexual empowerment emphasizes the intrapersonal and interactional components of empowerment. For instance, this perspective maintains that individuals may still be empowered within an oppressive social environment if they engage in critical reflection about that environment and their role in it. Consider again the example of the heterosexual female pornographic actress. From this perspective, she still experiences the sexual oppression associated with sexism and capitalism; however, this context alone does not render her entirely disempowered. She may still be sexually empowered if she maintains awareness of this context, experiences a sense of sexual agency and control, competence and self-efficacy, self-awareness and subjectivity, self- esteem, pleasure, and critical consciousness, and is able to act in a way that is consistent with her sexual desires and values.

Just as an external and objective perspective on sexual empowerment has its shortcomings, so does an internal and subjective perspective. Lamb (2010) suggests that a definition of sexual empowerment based exclusively on feelings of pleasure, desire, and subjectivity risks reinforcing oppressive sexual norms by misinterpreting reenactment of objectifying behaviors—such as pornographic acting—as choice. She also warns that a purely subjective definition of empowerment creates an impossibly idealistic standard for

17 empowerment that few people, if any, actually experience. Furthermore, the sheer number of dimensions and the diversity of individual perspectives on sexual empowerment would make constructing an operational definition of internal and subjective sexual empowerment immensely difficult.

Though an internal and subjective construction of sexual empowerment would create difficulties for researchers and theorists, it offers benefits for the individuals being studied. Namely, it provides flexibility for individuals to construct their own individual criteria for sexual empowerment. Internal sexual empowerment also respects individual values and avoids moralizing sexuality. As Peterson (2010) states, “to dismiss girls’ subjective experiences of sexual empowerment… as a misperception or ‘false consciousness’ seems invalidating to girls and thus contrary to the goals of empowerment” (p. 308).

Many internal and subjective components of sexual empowerment (e.g., sexual desire, pleasure, subjectivity, autonomy, assertiveness, self-esteem, agency, enjoyment of sexualization) have received comparatively more empirical attention than external and objective components (Fahs, 2014). Three components in particular have received the most empirical attention: enjoyment of sexualization, sexual subjectivity, and sexual assertiveness. The following sections will summarize the results of empirical investigations into these constructs and their relationships with other sexual empowerment-related outcomes, with a particular emphasis on research with male and sexual minority samples.

18 Enjoyment of Sexualization

Enjoyment of sexualization refers to the extent to which one enjoys sexualized and appearance-based attention (Liss, Erchull, & Ramsey, 2011). The Enjoyment of

Sexualization Scale (ESS; Liss et al., 2011) measures the extent to which one enjoys sexualized and appearance-based attention. The ESS was originally developed for use with heterosexual women, but a heterosexual male version has also been created (Visser et al., 2014). The ESS includes eight items that load on one factor. Participants respond to each item on a 6-point Likert scale (1 = disagree strongly; 6 = agree strongly), with higher scores indicating more enjoyment of sexualization. Internal consistency is high for samples of heterosexual women only (α = .86) and samples of heterosexual men and women combined (α = .83). Construct validity evidence is supported by intercorrelations between the ESS and objectified body consciousness, self-objectification, objectification experiences, appearance as a contingency of self-worth, and likelihood of participating in self-sexualizing behaviors (Liss et al., 2011), as well as self-rated attractiveness, number of sexual partners, body shame, self-esteem, and the Big Five personality traits (Visser et al., 2014). To date, no known study has used the ESS with sexual minority men.

For young, college-educated, heterosexual women, enjoyment of sexualization has been found to be related to increased self-objectification, appearance-orientation, sexist attitudes, and comfort with uncommitted sex, but not related to self-esteem or depression (Liss et al., 2011). For heterosexual women who are self-identified feminists, enjoyment of sexualization tends to be strongest during the Passive Acceptance and

Synthesis phases of feminist identity development and is not associated with awareness of gender inequity (Erchull & Liss, 2013b), suggesting that this component of sexual

19 empowerment may be distinct from other forms of personal and collective empowerment.

Importantly, both samples (Erchull & Liss, 2013b; Liss et al., 2011) consisted of predominately heterosexual, middle- to upper-middle class, White, young, and college- educated women, limiting the generalizability of these findings to other populations.

Recent research has begun to extend investigations of enjoyment of sexualization to male and sexual minority samples. For undergraduate heterosexual men, enjoyment of sexualization is associated with greater self-objectification, self-perceived attractiveness, number of sexual partners in the past year, and global self-esteem (Visser, Sultani,

Choma, & Pozzebon, 2014) as well as the extent to which appearance is important to sense of self-worth (Manago, Ward, Lemm, Reed, & Seabrook, 2015). In the only study to date exploring enjoyment of sexualization within a sexual minority sample, Erchull and Liss (2015) conducted an online survey of 150 self-identified lesbian women who were predominately White, college educated, and middle-class. For lesbian women, enjoyment of sexualization may prevent negative eating attitudes and depression associated with body shame (Erchull & Liss, 2015); however, these results should be interpreted with caution as the scale used to measure enjoyment of sexualization specifically asked about sexualization by men, which may be less relevant to sexual empowerment for a sample of lesbian women.

Sexual Subjectivity

Sexual subjectivity often refers to one’s internal experience of one’s sexuality and is typically operationalized using a combination of sexual self-efficacy, sexual body- esteem, sense of entitlement to sexual pleasure from self and partners, and sexual self- reflection (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006; Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016). The

20 Male Sexual Subjectivity Inventory (MSSI; Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016) has been used to measure men’s sexual self-efficacy, sexual body-esteem, entitlement to sexual pleasure and desire, and sexual self-reflection. The MSSI is an adaptation of the Female

Sexual Subjectivity Inventory (FSSI; Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006). The MSSI includes 20 questions comprising five four-item subscales: sexual self-efficacy (e.g., “If I were to have sex with someone, I’d show my partner what I want”), sexual body-esteem

(e.g., “I am confident that a romantic partner would find me sexually attractive”), entitlement to sexual self-pleasure (e.g., “I believe self-masturbation can be a positive experience”), entitlement to sexual pleasure with partners (e.g., “It would bother me if a neglected my sexual needs and desires”), and sexual self-reflection (e.g., “I rarely think about the sexual aspects of my life”).

Participants respond to each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree;

5 = strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater sexual subjectivity. Internal consistency is high for the MSSI sexual self-efficacy (α = .82), sexual body-esteem (α =

.78), entitlement to sexual self-pleasure (α = .82), entitlement to sexual pleasure with partners (α = .78), and sexual self-reflection (α = .69) subscales. The FSSI also demonstrates good one-year test-retest reliability (Zimmer-Gembeck et al., 2011).

Construct validity evidence is supported by intercorrelations between MSSI subscales and global self-esteem, identity achievement, life satisfaction, sexual esteem, sexual depression, and self-efficacy. To date, no known study has used the MSSI with sexual minority men.

In heterosexual, Australian, young adult women, sexual subjectivity has been found to predict sexual consciousness, safe-sex self-efficacy, resistance to sexual double-

21 standards, and general sexual esteem (Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006; Zimmer-

Gembeck & French, 2016). Two studies have elucidated the effect of sexual subjectivity on same-sex sexual experiences and age of sexual debut with a sample of 251 predominately heterosexual and White undergraduate students aged 16-25. The results of these studies indicate that sexual subjectivity tends to be higher in women with a history of same-sex sexual experiences (Boislard-Pepin & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2011) and women who became sexually active at younger ages (Zimmer-Gembeck, Ducat, & Boislard-

Pepin, 2011). For heterosexual, Australian, young adult men, sexual subjectivity tends to be positively related to general self-esteem, identity achievement, life satisfaction, sexual esteem, and condom self-efficacy, and negatively related to sexual depression (Zimmer-

Gembeck & French, 2016).

Sexual Assertiveness

Sexual assertiveness refers to confidence in, and practice of, communicating sexual desires and boundaries to sexual partners (Hurlbert, 1991; Morokoff, et al., 1997).

The Hurlbert Index of Sexual Assertiveness (HISA; Hurlbert, 1991) is commonly used to measure assertiveness in sexual relationships. The HISA includes 25 questions about sexual agency (e.g., “I approach my partner for sex when I desire it”), communication

(e.g., “I communicate my sexual desires to my partner”), refusal (e.g., “it is hard for me to say no even when I do not want sex”), and embodiment (e.g., “if something feels good,

I insist on doing it again”). Participants indicate how often each statement is true for them on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = all of the time; 4 = never). After reverse-coding negatively worded items, a higher summative total score indicates greater sexual assertiveness.

Internal consistency is high for heterosexual men (α = .85; Manago et al., 2015) and

22 sexual minority men (α = .88; Palmieri, 2016). The HISA also demonstrates acceptable four-week test-retest reliability for a nonclinical sample (α = .88; Pierce & Hurlbert,

1999). Construct validity evidence is supported by intercorrelations between the HISA and enjoyment of sexualization (Manago et al., 2015), exposure to sex-positive communication (Fletcher, Ward, Thomas, Foust, Levin, & Trinh, 2015). For sexual minority men, construct validity is supported by intercorrelations with , objectification experiences, self-objectification, masculinity, and sexual risk behaviors

(Palmieri, 2016).

In a sample of 397 predominately heterosexual, undergraduate, racially diverse women, sexual assertiveness has been found to predict knowledge and self- efficacy, greater comfort with sexual body image, and less conservative views towards women (Curtin, Ward, Merriwether, & Caruthers, 2011). In samples of heterosexual, undergraduate men, sexual assertiveness has been positively associated with enjoyment of sexualization (Manago et al., 2015).

Only one study to date has examined sexual assertiveness with sexual minority men. Palmieri (2016) conducted an online survey of 282 sexual minority men.

Participants in this study predominately identified as gay or bisexual, single, HIV- negative, generally out, and White, with an average age of 31. Participants also represented a diverse set of sexual minority male subcultures and sexual position preferences. Results indicated that sexual assertiveness predicted preference for uncommitted sexual relationships, as well as frequency of—and positive emotional valence towards—objectification experiences, and was unrelated to self-objectification or conformity to masculine gender role norms. Although the participant demographics in

23 this study were generally diverse, the extent to which these demographic characteristics affect sexual assertiveness or its relationship to other variables of interest is unknown.

Applicability of Current Sexual Empowerment Research to Sexual Minority Men

The previous sections highlight the limitations of current research on sexual empowerment as it applies to sexual minority men. Existing measures do not adequately assess sexual empowerment in sexual minority men. The SIPS has only been used with female samples who overwhelmingly identify as heterosexual (Erchull & Liss, 2013a;

Erchull & Liss, 2014). The SIPS has not been used with sexual minority men, and most questions are not face valid for use with sexual minority men. Similarly, both the female

(Liss et al., 2011) and male (Visser et al., 2014) versions of the ESS were developed and validated with exclusively heterosexual samples. Items are worded with the assumption of , such that the female version inquires about sexualized attention from men (e.g., “It is important to me that men are attracted to me”) and the male version inquires about sexualized attention from women (e.g., “I feel complimented when women

‘check me out’ as I walk past”). In the only study using the ESS with a sexual minority sample (Erchull & Liss, 2015), the researchers administered the original version of the

ESS (i.e., assessing sexualization by men) to a sample of lesbian women. Despite assurances of the strong internal consistency of the ESS with lesbian women (α = .83), its validity with this population is questionable, at best, due to heterosexist language and the possibility that lesbian and heterosexual women do not enjoy sexualization in the same way (e.g., Moradi et al., 2009). Consequently, neither version would be appropriate to use with sexual minority men in its current form.

24 The MSSI (Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016) and HISA (Hurlbert, 1991) show more promise for use with sexual minority men but are still inadequate in their current forms. The MSSI was developed and validated with a sample of predominately heterosexual men, but no research has yet explored its use with sexual minority men.

Much like the MSSI, the HISA was initially developed for—and normed on— heterosexual women. Yet, some preliminary evidence supports the validity of the HISA when used with samples of heterosexual men (Manago et al., 2015) and sexual minority men (Palmieri, 2016). Moreover, all items on the MSSI and HISA are worded in a gender-neutral manner and may be applicable to sexual minority men with male sexual partners. While the MSSI and HISA contribute to the measurement of specific sexual empowerment-related variables for sexual minority men, they are missing the measurement of many other important theoretical constructs.

Not only does much of the extant empirical literature on sexual empowerment exclude sexual minority men, but it is missing several important dimensions that may be particularly relevant to this population. First, Zimmerman (1995) cautions against using any one component (e.g., self-esteem) as a proxy for empowerment as a whole. Second, it overlooks the role of critical consciousness (Freire, 1990) regarding sexuality. Critical consciousness is an important theoretical component of empowerment (Worrell &

Remer, 2003; Zimmerman, 1995) and has traditionally been included in other measures of empowerment (e.g., Johnson et al., 2005). Third, the current literature often does not account for motivations for sex (e.g., Ott, Millstein, Ofner, & Halpern-Felsher, 2006), consistent with the conceptualization of empowerment as a process and not simply an outcome (Zimmerman, 1995).

25 Fourth, it is missing the measurement of positive outcomes of engaging in sex.

Notably, previous research (e.g., Liss et al., 2011) has focused overwhelmingly on measuring negative variables in relation to sexual empowerment-related variables. Fifth, existing research frequently does not account for diverse relationship structures. For instance, measures often use language assuming emotional commitment by using the language of “romantic” partners (e.g., Horne & Zimmer-Gembeck, 2006) and monogamy by using the singular “partner” (e.g., Hurlbert, 1991). Such language reflects heteronormative and repronormative bias that marginalizes queer and consensually non- monogamous relationships. Relatedly, current literature excludes sexual experiences such as masturbation that may take place outside the context of a partnered relationship

(Bowman, 2014).

Finally, none of the methods for exploring sexual empowerment-related variables have been developed specifically for sexual minority men. Moradi and colleagues (2009) warn against the indiscriminate use of measures developed for other populations when conducting research with sexual minority samples, especially when the construct of interest is likely to be substantively different for sexual minority populations. Given the unique aspects of sex and sexuality for sexual minority men that will be reviewed later in this chapter, the experience of sexual empowerment is likely to manifest differently for this population.

Summary

Sexual empowerment theory currently comprises varying perspectives on the nature of sexual empowerment. From an external and objective perspective, sexual empowerment stems from freedom from sexual oppression, power over others in sexual

26 relationships, and power to engage in sexual behaviors. By contrast, an internal and subjective perspective prioritizes psychological processes such as insight, motivation, pleasure, and self-concept. Each perspective provides valuable contributions to understanding the whole construct, and has inspired empirical investigations to explore various components of sexual empowerment. Various measures have been developed to quantitatively explore these phenomena; however, their applicability and use with sexual minority men is limited. The limitations of the research discussed above provide a compelling rationale for a qualitative study to explore how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment. These limitations further suggest a need for a qualitative exploration of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men, using the emic perspective recommended by empowerment theory, to lay the groundwork for future studies on this subject. This study seeks to meet that need by centering the voices of sexual minority men in research about their experiences.

Sexual Minority Men’s Sexual Empowerment

Sexual minority men have been largely invisible in the theoretical development and empirical investigation of sexual empowerment. The extant sexual empowerment literature has been plagued by heteronormativity and an exclusion of sexual minority men both in the populations of interest and in the development of research about their own experiences. However, the basic theoretical structure of empowerment proposed by

Zimmerman (1995), and—to some extent—the subsequent extension of empowerment theory to sexuality by Peterson (2010) and Lamb (2010), provides a useful foundation from which to identify issues that may inform a qualitative exploration of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men.

27 According to Zimmerman (1995), definitions of empowerment must take into account differences in population, setting, time, and social context. Likewise, these definitions must be domain-specific, as empowerment is not a global construct nor a static trait. Furthermore, definitions of empowerment must be developed using an emic approach, taking into account the perspectives and experiences of the populations for which they are created. While conceptualization of empowerment must include intrapersonal, interactional, and behavioral components, specific examples of empowerment outcomes are heavily dependent upon the population and setting in question. Thus, the following sections will provide an overview of population-specific context in which sexual minority men experience sexual empowerment.

The Sociopolitical Context of Sexual Minority Men’s Sexual Empowerment

Sociopolitical context is theorized to be particularly important to the experience of sexual empowerment (e.g., Lamb, 2010; Murnen & Smolak, 2012; Worell & Remer,

2003; Zimmerman, 1995). Despite implications in current literature that all men are inherently sexually empowered, sexual minority men face a unique set of obstacles in their “freedom to” engage in sex. This section will provide a brief overview of the legal and political environment that restricts sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment, the role of heterosexism and heteronormativity in the development and expression of sexual empowerment, and the role of the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sexual minority men’s historic and current social context.

Legal and Political Environment

Sexual minority men have historically experienced a hostile legal and political climate. In 1986, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case Bowers v.

28 Hardwick that upheld the constitutionality of anti-sodomy laws, which were predominately used to prosecute sexual minority men for engaging in consensual sex.

While this decision was later overturned in 2003 by the Court’s ruling in Lawrence v.

Texas, several states have failed to repeal their anti-sodomy laws. Although they cannot be convicted, sexual minority men continue to be arrested and jailed for engaging in consensual sexual activity (Compton, 2016). This selective enforcement extends to sexual minority male youth, who are disproportionately charged with, and convicted of, sex offenses that are not similarly prosecuted for their heterosexual peers (Majd, Marksamer,

& Reyes, 2009). Some of these youth are also mandated to undergo sex offender treatment or conversion therapy for non-sexually based offenses (Majd et al., 2009). Sex between sexual minority men is also policed by the enforcement of laws that criminalize

HIV. For instance, in the state of Ohio, individuals living with HIV can be convicted of felonious assault and required to register as sex offenders if they have consensual sex or expose another person to bodily fluids such as blood or spit. They may also face enhanced penalties for engaging in sex work, and may have their HIV status involuntarily disclosed if they are under criminal investigation (The Center for HIV Law and Policy,

2017).

Anti-sodomy and HIV criminalization laws represent just one way that sexual minority men’s sexual behaviors are legally regulated. Other laws are used to protect individuals who police sexual minority men’s sexuality in more informal ways, or to deny protections to sexual minority men who have been victimized because of their sexuality. For instance, by using the so-called “gay panic defense,” a defendant may be found not guilty or receive a reduced sentence for the assault or murder of a sexual

29 minority man, provided the defendant claims that the sexual minority man was with him (Salerno, Najdowski, Bottoms, Harrington, Kemner, & Dave, 2015). Sexual minority men also risk losing or being denied access to employment, housing, education, credit or loans, jury selection, public spaces and services, and other public accommodations if their sexuality is expressed publicly due to a lack of legal protections against discrimination based on sexual orientation in 27 states (Human Rights Campaign,

2020). Seventeen states also lack hate crime protections, while several others have gender-specific sexual assault laws that preclude men from being legally defined as a rape victim, which limits the opportunities for sexual minority men to seek assistance if they are victimized because of their sexuality (DeMatteo, Galloway, Arnold, & Patel,

2015; Movement Advancement Project, 2020).

In addition to a hostile legal environment, sexual minority men face a political environment that marginalizes and exploits their sexuality. Conservative politicians inflame anti-LGBTQ religious sentiments, while liberal politicians often voice support for LGBTQ individuals to gain votes without advancing legal equality for their LGBTQ constituents (Valelly, 2012). The conservative discourse often centers sexual minority men’s sexual behaviors and characterizes them as sinful, immoral, predatory, dangerous, and unnatural. At the same time, the liberal discourse desexualizes sexual minority men, instead preferring to focus on issues such as romantic relationship recognition and employment discrimination, thereby failing to provide a counter-narrative to the sex- negative conservative discourse. Knauer (2012) suggests that this politicization of sexual orientation and rapid changes in LGBTQ civil rights may cause sexual minority men to be particularly attuned to their legal and political environment. Taken together, this

30 information suggests that developing critical consciousness about the role that the historic and current legal and political environment play in sexuality may be a key component of sexual empowerment.

Heterosexism and Heteronormativity

In addition to legal restrictions and political exploitation, sexual minority men continue to face social condemnation particularly when expressing their sexuality. For example, Monto and Supinski (2014) presented a list of scenarios in which participants might encounter gay men or lesbian women to a primarily heterosexual sample that was diverse across political and religious affiliations. Results indicated that, across all scenarios, participants expressed the most discomfort at the thought of seeing two men kissing in public. This social condemnation is not limited to internal feelings of disgust or discomfort. Physical violence against sexual minority men also occurs at alarming rates.

Although variations in methodology make precise yearly trends in hate crime violence difficult to track, a recent review of data from community organizations, academic survey studies, FBI crime statistics, and population-based surveys indicates that rates of hate crime violence against LGBTQ populations have generally been increasing since such documentation began in the 1980s (Herek, 2017). Sexual minority men also face sexual victimization such as “corrective rape” (i.e., rape with the intention of changing the target’s sexual orientation; Stemple, 2008). Overall, nearly one in four gay men have experienced sexuality-based physical violence in their lifetimes (Herek, 2009).

Sexual minority men may also face an increased risk of violence when expressing their sexuality. As Monto and Supinksi’s (2014) results suggest, expressions of sexuality such as kissing tend to evoke the strongest negative reactions from heterosexuals.

31 Further, Waters, Pham, Convery, and Yacka-Bible (2018) found that 45% of homicides of sexual minority men in 2017 were committed by individuals they met on hookup apps.

As a result, sexual minority men often feel pressured to hide their sexuality in order to avoid violence (Guasp, Gammon, & Ellison, 2013) and after experiencing violence

(Williams & Tregidga, 2013).

From an early age, sexual minority men learn that expressions of their sexuality are grounds for punishment. In school, sexual minority male students are frequently prohibited from bringing male dates to school dances, and also experience more frequent punishment for public displays of affection such as kissing or hand-holding that is not similarly disciplined for heterosexual peers (Kosciw, Greytak, Giga, Villenas, &

Danischewski, 2015). Likewise, non-heterosexual sexualities are often erased from , and when sexual minority men’s sexualities are depicted, it is often in the context of morality and sexual risk (Kosciw et al., 2015).

Sexual minority men are rarely portrayed in television (e.g., McInroy & Craig,

2017), movies (GLAAD, 2017), or music (Brett & Wood, 2002; Dhaenens, 2016). Even when sexual minority men are visible, they often must do so within the confines of heteronormativity (Joshi, 2012; Ng, 2013). In public representations and interpersonal relationships, sexual minority men may be permitted to be out, provided that they do not act “too gay.” For example, sexual minority men are often portrayed as desexualized, meaning they are stripped of their sexualities and presented as romantically—but not sexually—attracted to other men (Lapointe, 2016). Depictions of sexual relationships between men are often considered grounds for more stringent ratings in movies and television compared to similar depictions of male-female sexual relationships (Lewis,

32 2002). This alternating invisibility and punishment when sexual minority men express their sexuality likely influences the development of sexual empowerment, as sexual minority men have a lack of visible sexual role models, and must be resilient enough to overcome fear and withstand sexuality-based violence.

Sexual Health and HIV/AIDS

Since the 1980s, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has compounded the stigma of sexual relationships between men (Skinta, Brandrett, Schenk, Wells, & Dilley, 2014) and has contributed to the sexual oppression of sexual minority men. For example, men in the

United States were previously banned for life from donating blood if they had ever had sex with another man; this policy changed in 2015 when the Food and Drug

Administration determined that sexual minority men could donate blood only if they have not had sex with another man within the last 12 months. Such policies stigmatize sexual minority men’s sexual behaviors.

Compounding this stigma is the overwhelming focus on HIV/AIDS in academic research on sexual minority men’s sexual experiences (e.g., Malouf, 2012; Phillips et al.,

2003). Research in this area is often reductionistic, as it often classifies participants’ HIV status as HIV-positive or HIV-negative—neglecting individuals whose viral load is undetectable or whose status is unknown—and often defines sexual risk as condomless anal intercourse (Herbst et al., 2005).

Sexual minority men’s HIV risk is, in fact, much more nuanced. The approval of the drug Truvada, and more recent approval of Descovy, for HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) represents a major shift in the way sexual minority men engage in sex

(Riddell, Amico, & Mayer, 2018). Based on interviews with 1,168 racially and

33 socioeconomically diverse sexual minority men in and New York City,

Parsons and colleagues (2005) found that sexual minority men often use other sexual risk reduction practices such as serosorting (i.e., limiting sexual partners to those who share the individual’s HIV status), strategic positioning, and withdrawal before to minimize risk of HIV transmission while engaging in condomless anal sex, termed

“barebacking” by sexual minority men. Sexual minority men may also have empowering reasons for engaging in various sexual behaviors that researchers may consider taboo or risky. For instance, while barebacking is traditionally considered a “sexual risk behavior,” Carballo-Diéguez and colleagues (2011) conducted qualitative interviews with

120 racially and ethically diverse sexual minority men in New York City and found that sexual minority men often engage in barebacking to experience sexual pleasure and intimacy—two factors commonly associated with sexual empowerment. Consistent with an internal and subjective view of sexual empowerment that takes into account motivations for specific behaviors, it is possible that a more thorough understanding of sexual empowerment may elucidate sexual minority men’s motivations for sexual activities such as barebacking.

Sexual Minority Men’s Sexual Culture

In the face of a restrictive sociopolitical environment, sexual minority men have created a sexual counterculture that offers many opportunities for sexual empowerment.

Given Zimmerman’s (1995) stance that definitions of empowerment must inherently be context-dependent and developed using an emic approach, a thorough understanding of sexual minority men’s sexual culture is essential to accurately understanding and depicting sexual empowerment for this population. Thus, the following sections will

34 provide an overview of sexual minority men’s experiences of casual and uncommitted sex, experiences of consensual non-monogamy and group sex, sexual position preferences, appearance-orientation, sexual subcultures, commercial sex activities, use of pornography, sexual spaces, and sexual partner preferences.

It is important to note that sexual minority men often use culturally-specific sexual terminology. For instance, in a comparison of 300 sexual minority and heterosexual men and women, Horowitz and Bedford (2017) found that gay men were significantly more likely to consider behaviors such as oral and anal sex as having “had sex.” This terminology also extends to the use of culturally-specific slang terms. Much of this slang is learned informally, for instance through interactions with other sexual minority men. Rather than listing and defining each of these terms here, definitions of culturally-specific terminology will be provided throughout the following sections.

Casual and Uncommitted Sex

Sexual minority men both in the United States and across the world tend to be more comfortable with—and engage more frequently in—casual and uncommitted sex

(Schmitt, 2006; Wilkerson, 2007) and (Miller, 2015). In a study of

12,899 sexual minority and heterosexual participants across North and South America,

Europe, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, Schmitt (2006) found that sexual minority men tend to engage in casual and uncommitted sex the most frequently of any gender or sexual orientation. In qualitative interviews with 25 collegiate sexual minority men, Wilkerson

(2007) found that and hooking up were viewed as social norms in the sexual minority male community. In fact, sexual minority men will commonly make a clear distinction between the act of engaging in sex and the feeling of emotional intimacy

35 (Elder, Morrow, & Brooks, 2015). In qualitative interviews with 20 gay men, Elder and colleagues (2015) found that sex often occurs early in interpersonal relationships between gay men and is not always associated with an emotional connection. Participants in this sample were diverse in terms of religious affiliation, relationship status, race, age, education, and degree of outness. This distinction may also promote sexual and emotional well-being. For instance, a desire for emotional intimacy was associated with decreased condom use with casual sexual partners in a racially, socioeconomically, and generationally diverse sample of sexual minority men at risk for HIV transmission

(Golub, Starks, Payton, & Parsons, 2012).

Additionally, sexual minority men often use anonymity in casual sexual relationships (Barrios & Lundquist, 2012). This anonymity has historically offered sexual minority men the opportunity to express their sexuality and have sex without risking their life or liberty. Today, anonymity is still used to maintain safety and to avoid potential social ostracization, particularly among Black and Latino sexual minority men who may face greater stigmatization from their communities for having sex with men (Miller,

2015). Casual sex, anonymous sex, and “hooking up” are a common and important part of sexual minority men’s culture and identity (Schmitt, 2006; Wilkerson, 2007).

Historically, hookup culture among sexual minority men has been viewed as a way of challenging oppressive hetero-patriarchal sexual norms, as well as a way of celebrating the aspect of themselves that makes them unique—namely, their sexuality (Warner,

1999).

36 Consensual Non-Monogamy and Group Sex

In part due to the culturally normative distinction between sex and emotional intimacy, sexual minority men tend to have more affirming attitudes towards extra-dyadic sex (i.e., sex outside of a monogamous relationship). Van Eeden-Moorefield, Malloy, and

Benson (2016) conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with 26 gay men and found that these men often communicate openly about monogamy ideals and expectations in their relationships, and that sexual and emotional exclusivity are often negotiated independently of one another. About half of sexual minority men who are in a romantic relationship describe their relationship as consensually non-monogamous, according to two large (Ns = 8,718 and 819 respectively), nationally-representative samples (Haupert, Gesselman, Moors, Fisher, & Garcia, 2017; Parsons, Starks, DuBois,

Grov, & Golub, 2013).

Consensual non-monogamy may take several forms in sexual minority men’s relationships. The phrase “open relationships” is frequently used as an umbrella term to describe non-monogamous relationships. Two of the most common forms of open relationships for sexual minority men are polyamorous relationships and “monogamish” relationships (Haupert et al., 2017; Parsons, et al., 2013). Polyamorous relationships are characterized by having multiple romantic relationship partners, while monogamish relationships involve a primary and emotionally monogamous relationship that is sexually open with some possible restrictions that are negotiated by the two primary partners (e.g., having as a couple). Based on a review of theoretical and empirical literature on sexual minority men’s experiences of consensual non-monogamy,

Bonello (2009) suggests that consensual non-monogamy has been found to improve

37 relationship quality, facilitate communication in the primary relationship, and encourage sexual exploration (Bonello, 2009; Bonello & Cross, 2009).

To date, no known research has explored the role of consensual non-monogamy in sexual empowerment for sexual minority men. However, qualitative research indicates that consensual non-monogamy may promote sexual empowerment for heterosexual women (Sheff, 2005). Specifically, heterosexual women in polyamorous relationships reported experiencing an increase in sexual subjectivity, more humanization of sexual partners, greater reflexivity on their sexual roles, and more agentic sexual behaviors. The observed benefits of consensual non-monogamy for heterosexual women’s sexual empowerment suggest that varying relationship structures may also affect sexual empowerment for sexual minority men.

Group sex (i.e., sexual activity with more than one partner at the same time) is also common among sexual minority men. Data from a large, nationally-representative sample of sexual minority men indicated that at least 85% of sexual minority men have engaged in at least one type of group sex activity in their lifetime (Grov, Rendina,

Breslow, Ventuneac, Adelson, & Parsons, 2014). Group sex occurs relatively frequently among sexual minority men as well, as approximately 55% and 30% of sexual minority men endorsed participating in a or orgy (defined as having four or more simultaneous partners) respectively within the past 12 months. Similar to consensual non- monogamy, the relationship between group sex and sexual empowerment has not been empirically investigated; however, participation in group sex may be indicative of characteristics such as sexual agency and confidence that are theoretically consistent with sexual empowerment.

38 Sexual Position Preference

Sexual position preferences among sexual minority men may be a source of both empowerment and interpersonal power differences. Three labels are commonly used to identify sexual position preferences: top, bottom, and versatile. These labels commonly reflect a set of preferences for sexual activities along continua of insertive-receptive, dominant-submissive, and active-passive (Moskowitz, Rieger, & Roloff, 2008). Broadly speaking, tops tend to prefer roles that are insertive (e.g., inserting one’s penis into another’s anus), dominant, and active. Bottoms tend to prefer roles that are receptive

(e.g., enveloping another’s penis with one’s anus), submissive, and passive. Versatile (or

“vers”) men tend to express preferences between tops and bottoms on these dimensions.

Some versatile men have an equal preference for both roles, while some evince a preference for one or the other (e.g., vers-top, vers-bottom). In a review of the literature on sexual minority men’s sexual position preferences, Dangerfield, Smith, Williams,

Unger, and Blumenthal (2017) found that a preponderance of studies tends to reveal that approximately half of sexual minority men identify as versatile, with the rest split relatively evenly between tops and bottoms. However, some research shows that slightly more sexual minority men may identify as bottoms compared to tops (Dangerfield et al.,

2017).

Research has only recently begun to explore the complex nature of sexual position preference, including its predictors and associated characteristics, such as gender expression, race, and interpersonal power (Moskowitz & Roloff, 2017). Sexual position preference is a dynamic construct that may change for some individuals due to personal, practical, relational, and sociocultural reasons (Pachankis, Buttenwieser, Bernstein, &

39 Bayles, 2013). Pachankis and colleagues (2013) found that, in a two-year longitudinal study of 128 sexual minority men, more than half reported a change in their sexual position preference. Interestingly, nearly half of participants who reported a change in their sexual position preference identified relational or sociocultural power as a reason for this change. Additionally, sexual position preference tends to be associated with characteristics such as gender expression (Moskowitz & Hart, 2011; Ravenhill & de

Visser, 2017) and race (Lick & Johnson, 2015), such that more masculine and Black men are more likely to identify as tops while less masculine and Asian men are more likely to identify as bottoms. The top/bottom language also reflects an assumed hierarchy, in which the top has power over the bottom (Kippax & Smith, 2001). Yet, this dynamic is not universal, as some sexual minority men identify with such labels as “power bottom” that contradict and complicate this assumed hierarchy (Mercer, 2012).

Sexual position preference may be related to sexual empowerment in several ways. First, exploring various sexual positions may lead to an increased understanding and awareness of one’s sexual desires. Second, sexual position preferences are often associated with variations in sexual agency and control (Moskowitz et al., 2008). Third, bottoming in particular typically requires individual preparation and practice, as well as assertive communication with sexual partners to reduce pain and enhance sexual pleasure. Such self-exploration, agency, skill practice, and assertiveness are important theoretical characteristics of empowerment.

Appearance-Orientation

According to Campbell (2004), sexual minority men’s sexual culture tends to be highly appearance-oriented, meaning sexual minority men have a culturally normative

40 tendency to focus on aspects of physical appearance such as clothing, body shape, and . This appearance-orientation is often dismissed as “shallow” (e.g.,

Maki, 2017) or misrepresented as self-objectification. On the contrary, sexual minority men’s appearance-orientation has its roots in sociopolitical resistance to HIV/AIDS stigma and hegemonic masculinity. According to Atkins (1998), in the advent of the

HIV/AIDS epidemic, sexual minority men endeavored to project an image of health and vitality to counteract the stigma of HIV/AIDS that had become associated with the community. Consequently, many sexual minority men began changing their diet and exercise habits and taking exceptional care of their personal hygiene. According to

Atkins, this served the dual purpose of changing heterosexuals’ perceptions of the sexual minority male community and implicitly communicating to potential sexual partners that they did not have the virus.

Sexual minority men also tend to embrace fashion in their clothing and hairstyles.

According to Clarke, Hayfield, and Huxley (2012, p. 25), “fashion has an important part to play in articulating sexual desires and identities, and in producing sexuality as an important aspect of (what would otherwise often be a marginalized and hidden) identity.”

In the United States, this trend began in the 1960s and 1970s with the use of the “hanky code” to covertly signal preferences for various sexual practices (Reilly & Saethre, 2013).

A recent review of psychological literature on LGBTQ individuals’ clothing and appearance norms indicates that, even as the hanky code fell out of style, sexual minority men have continued to use clothing and hairstyle to signal their sexual orientation to other sexual minority men (Clarke et al., 2012). Embracing fashion is typically associated with femininity, and for sexual minority men, may represent a rejection of hegemonic

41 masculinity that has served to oppress their community. In fact, this appearance- orientation has been shown to be related to both greater sexual assertiveness and to more positive feelings about being seen and treated sexually for sexual minority men (Palmieri,

2016). Interestingly, the same study found that these outcomes were unrelated to self- objectification, suggesting that investment in physical appearance may be indicative of sexual empowerment depending on the individual’s motivation.

Subcultures

Sexual minority male culture comprises several subcultures, or groups within the broader sexual minority male culture with distinct values, norms, and practices. These subcultural identities often use animal names and indicate a range of physical characteristics, gender expressions, and interests (Maki, 2017). Several common subcultural identities include bears, otters, wolves, jocks, twinks, daddies, leather, geeks, and . The following sections will provide a brief description of each subculture and its associated characteristics. According to Lyons and Hosking (2014), empirical research has largely overlooked the existence of subcultural identities among sexual minority men.

Consequently, much of the extant knowledge about these subcultures comes from conceptual reviews (e.g., Maki, 2017), non-academic surveys (e.g., Hafertepen, 2018), and popular press (e.g., Glass, 2018). Although no research has yet explored potential power relationships between and within these subcultures, it is possible that men who identify with different subcultures may understand and experience sexual empowerment in unique ways.

Bears. subculture emerged in the 1980s during the HIV/AIDS epidemic as a counter to the prevailing idea that sexual minority men needed to present themselves as

42 lean and healthy to counteract the stigma of HIV/AIDS (Manley, Levitt, & Mosher,

2007). Likely due to their history and organization as a community, they have received relatively more research attention compared to other subcultures (Maki, 2017). Bears tend to present as more masculine and have more body hair and body fat than other subcultures (Gough & Flanders, 2009). Younger bears are referred to as cubs, while men with more body fat who do not participate in bear culture are referred to as chubs— thinner men who are sexually attracted to chubs are referred to as chasers. Bears typically express attraction towards—and engage in sexual behaviors with—other bears and are more likely to engage in sexual behaviors deemed taboo or risky (Moskowitz,

Turrubiates, Lazano, & Hajek, 2013).

Otters and Wolves. Like bears, otters are typically masculine and hairy; however, otters are thinner than bears. Wolves are similar in physique to otters but are often more muscular. Wolves are often viewed as sexually aggressive (Gremore, 2015).

Jocks. The jock subculture is characterized by athleticism, leanness and muscularity, and physical attractiveness (Maki, 2017). Bulls are a particular subgroup of jocks who have very little body fat and extreme muscularity—akin to bodybuilders in heterosexual culture. Jocks are typically seen as sexually dominant, with bulls being especially dominant (Maki, 2017).

Twinks. In many ways, twinks can be understood as displaying the opposite characteristics of bears. Twinks are typically thin or lean, hairless, young (i.e., teens to mid-twenties), bottoms, and feminine or androgynous (Lyons & Hosking, 2014). Twinks typically report stronger connectedness with the LGBTQ community and embrace stereotypes of sexual minority men. While men in many subcultures tend to be

43 appearance-oriented in terms of body shape and physical characteristics, twinks also extend this importance to fashion trends including clothing and hairstyle. Twunks are a specific subcategory of twinks who have slightly more muscle and tend to be somewhat older than twinks (Maki, 2017).

Daddies. Daddies are older sexual minority men who tend to prefer younger sexual partners. Daddies are often associated with being financially well-off, and may occasionally use their financial status to gain access to sexual partners. In addition, daddies tend to be seen as sexually dominant and identify primarily as tops (Hafertepen,

2018).

Interest- and Activity-Based Subcultures. Several sexual minority male subcultures are based less on physical characteristics and more on interests, hobbies, and personality that may not be exclusive to sexual minority male culture (Clay, 2016; Maki,

2017). Several such subcultures are explicitly sex-related. For instance, leather subculture often embraces leather fetishes in sexuality. Similar to the bear community, the leather community tends to be well-organized, with specific leather events and competitions that include an activism component. Another sex-oriented subculture is BDSM (, discipline/Dominance, sadism/submission, masochism); this community shares an interest in sexual activities that often involve consensually hierarchical power relationships (see Weiss, 2015 for a review). Some sexual minority men use the label

“poz” to describe having a positive or undetectable HIV status. While this community was historically very organized and politically active, the increased availability of medications to treat and prevent HIV have made this community more diffuse in recent years.

44 Other subcultures are not specifically related to sex, but include other interests or hobbies. For instance, geeks typically have a strong interest in a particular area such as comics or, in the case of gaymers, video games. Drag queens are cisgender men who dress in traditionally feminine clothing for the purpose of entertainment. Sexual minority men’s cultural terminology often originates in drag subculture and is popularized by the presence of drag queens at many gay bars and on television shows such as RuPaul’s Drag

Race (Barrett, 2017).

Sexual minority men’s subcultures are often intricately tied to sexuality and may inform understandings of sexual empowerment. For instance, immersion in certain subcultures may provide opportunities for sexual self-reflection and self-exploration.

These subcultures also provide a context for learning sexual language and practices.

Subcultural identity is also a common way for sexual minority men to express preferences for physical traits of sexual partners, and, according to a large, ongoing online survey of sexual minority men, these preferences often vary based on factors such as geographic location (Hafertepen, 2018). Finally, subcultural identities often refer to, or are associated with, clusters of other sexual empowerment-related characteristics such as sexual position preference, gender expression, and physical appearance. Consequently, they may provide a useful taxonomy for understanding within-group variations in sexual empowerment among sexual minority men. Given the theoretical importance of subcultural identities to sexual minority men’s sexual behaviors and relationships, careful attention must be given to how these unique identities and experiences might affect sexual minority men’s understanding of sexual empowerment.

45 Gender Expression

Because the preponderance of research on sexual empowerment focuses on the experiences of heterosexual women and girls, the existence of gendered power dynamics has been an underlying assumption in much of the extant literature on sexual empowerment; however, sexual minority men do not experience power dynamics based on assigned sex in their sexual relationships with other men. In fact, according to a recent literature review, sexual minority men typically report greater egalitarianism in their same-sex sexual and romantic relationships compared to heterosexual women (Rostosky

& Riggle, 2017). Although sexual minority men typically do not experience power dynamics based on assigned sex or , variations in gender expression may privilege some sexual minority men over others.

Sexual minority men use the terms “masc” and “” to describe masculine and feminine gender expressions, respectively. In particular, sexual minority men who are more masc (i.e., demonstrate more masculine characteristics in appearance, vocal tone, interests, attitudes, etc.) are often perceived as more socially, interpersonally, and sexually powerful compared to men who are more femme (i.e., demonstrate more feminine characteristics; Shuckerow, 2014). In a study of 547 gay men, Sánchez,

Greenberg, Liu, and Vilain (2009) found that sexual minority men who are more masc are often viewed as more sexually desirable by other sexual minority men. Further,

Sánchez, Bocklandt, and Vilain (2009) found that, in a racially, economically, and generationally diverse sample of 243 gay men, those who are more masc also express greater interest in casual sex, regardless of their current relationship status. Masc men also have a significant presence on hookup applications geared towards sexual minority

46 men, and often explicitly state preferences for other masc men (i.e., masc4masc), according to an ethnographic study of publicly available online profiles (Shuckerow,

2014). Given the role of gendered power dynamics in sexual empowerment explored in research with heterosexual women (e.g., Erchull & Liss, 2013a), it is important to explore how gender expression affects this experience in sexual minority men and whether these oppressive hierarchies are reconstructed through gender expression.

Sex Work

Although exact prevalence statistics are unknown, according to a review by Dank and colleagues (2015), sex work is believed to be relatively common among sexual minority men compared to other populations, particularly among homeless sexual minority male youth. Homeless sexual minority male youth are more likely to engage in commercial sex work than any other population (Cray, Miller, & Durso, 2013) and are ten times more likely to be detained for than their heterosexual peers (Irvine,

2010). These youth are also over three times more likely to engage in (i.e., engaging in consensual sex in exchange for food, shelter, and other basic needs out of financial necessity) than their heterosexual peers (Van Leeuwen et al., 2006). Much of the extant research in this area has focused on negative psychological consequences of engaging in nonconsensual sex work such as HIV risk, depression, and substance abuse

(e.g., Ratner et al., 2003).

Research on the experiences of sexual minority male pornographic actors is also remarkably scarce. In the only known study on the experiences of sexual minority male pornographic actors, Escoffier (2007) conducted a review of pornographic magazines and websites, as well as interviews with more than fifty sexual minority men involved in

47 pornography production, and found that many actors began their career by happenstance and view their career as a way to celebrate and explore their sexuality. Furthermore,

Escoffier found that many actors also engage in other forms of sex work such as stripping or escorting in order to supplement their income from pornography. No known research has explored ways in which engaging in commercial sex work might relate to sexual empowerment, though Escoffier’s findings imply that the experiences of sex workers may provide rich data for understanding and exploring sexual empowerment. In contrast to assumptions of abuse and exploitation that pervade current literature on sexual empowerment, many sexual minority men engaged in sex work may in fact view this work as a route to greater sexual empowerment. Specifically, this work may facilitate the development of sexual skills and self-awareness, and be associated with reduced shame and internalized stigma around sex with other men. It may also be possible that sexual minority men who are more sexually empowered feel freer to engage in sex work.

Depending on whether the sex work is voluntary or involuntary, they may experience varying senses of agency and subjectivity, and alignment between sexual desire and behavior.

Pornography

While only a small fraction of sexual minority men engages in sex work, viewing pornography is a nearly ubiquitous part of sexual minority male culture (Duggan &

McCreary, 2004; Morrison, Morrison & Bradley, 2007). In fact, according to an internet survey of 101 sexual minority men, approximately 98% of sexual minority men report viewing pornography at least once a month (Duggan & McCreary, 2004). Another study found that about 80% of their sample of 1,333 sexual minority men reported viewing it

48 for at least one hour per week (Hald, Smolenski, & Simon Rosser, 2013). Sexual education classes typically do not address, or only present negative information about, same-sex sexual relationships (Kosciw et al., 2015); consequently, many sexual minority men use pornography as a primary source of information about sexual practices, terminology, and well-being (Kubicek, Carpineto, McDavitt, Weiss, & Kipke, 2011).

Relatedly, sexual minority men also tend report much more positive effects of viewing pornography (Bishop, 2015). In a diverse sample of over 1,000 sexual minority men, pornography use has been found to be associated with enjoyment of partnered and individual sexual activity, interest in sex, sexual self-exploration, knowledge of sex acts, positive attitudes towards sex, and greater understanding of sexual orientation (Hald et al., 2013). As such, pornography may serve a uniquely important role in the development of sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment.

Sexual Spaces

Due to societal marginalization, sexual minority men often rely on a specific and limited set of sexual spaces to openly express their sexuality and to meet sexual partners.

Historically, sexual minority men have been relegated to spaces such as gay bars, bathhouses, and coded personal ads to meet sexual partners (Prestage et al., 2005). These physical spaces offer opportunities for sexual minority men to meet potential sexual partners and become familiar with sexual and cultural scripts.

Bathhouses—sometimes referred to as gay saunas—in particular are spaces specifically for sexual minority men to have sex (Jaspal & Papaloukas, 2020). In bathhouses, sexual minority men are often nude or wear only a towel, and have sex with other men individually or as a group. and are common, as

49 bathhouses often have a variety of public and private spaces where sex occurs. These sexual encounters are often anonymous and involve little to no verbal communication; instead men will often communicate their sexual interest in another man by gently touching him. For sexual minority men, going to bathhouses has been found to facilitate identity exploration, improve self-esteem, reduce sex-related stigma, enhance sexual authenticity, increase feelings of safety and belongingness, and assist in the development of strategies to manage internalized homophobia (Haubrich, Myers, Calzavara, Ryder, &

Medved, 2004; Jaspal, 2018; Jaspal & Papaloukas, 2020; Prior, 2009; Prior & Cusak,

2010).

With the advent of the internet, sexual minority men have increasingly been finding sexual partners online (Grov, Breslow, Newcomb, Rosenberger, & Bauermeister,

2014). In particular, mobile hookup applications such as Grindr allow communication with potential sexual partners while allowing for relative convenience, safety, and anonymity (e.g., Bolding, Davis, Hart, Sherr, & Elford, 2007). The availability of additional sexual spaces and the proliferation of smartphone technology are likely to facilitate sexual empowerment. In particular, these spaces provide more opportunities to seek out sexual partners, practice sexual communication, develop insight into sexual attitudes and desires, and interact with other sexual minority men in a sex-positive space.

Availability of Sex Partners

Sexual minority men are limited in their choice of sexual partners by the small number of sexual minority men, as well as factors such as geographic distance, outness of potential partners, internalized heterosexism, visibility and involvement in the LGBTQ community, and preferences for age, body type, subculture, appearance, and sexual

50 position. Both anecdotal and empirical (Develin, 2014) data suggest that sexual minority men tend to feel more comfortable with larger age gaps in their romantic relationships than their heterosexual peers. To date, no known study has examined sexual minority men’s navigation of these constraints on sexual relationships. It is possible that—similar to the acceptance of larger age differences in romantic relationships—sexual minority men may exhibit greater flexibility in their preferred characteristics of sexual partners.

Sexual minority men with intersecting marginalized identities may also face limitations in their availability of sex partners. The phrase, “no fats, no , no

Blacks, no Asians,” or some combination thereof, is not an uncommon sight on sexual minority men’s hookup and dating apps (Eguchi & Long, 2019; Smith & Brown, 2020).

Fatphobia, femmephobia, sexualized racism, and other forms of sexual discrimination place artificial limits on the availability of sex partners and access to sexual spaces for sexual minority men with multiple intersecting marginalized identities. Meanwhile, they also experience exoticization and fetishization often based on sexual stereotypes (Wade,

2018). For instance, phrases like “looking for BBC” (big Black cock) assumes that all

Black men are tops with large penises, and reduces Black men to a penis (Wilson, 2009).

These limitations, as well as the dehumanization and objectification inherent in them, may serve as obstacles to sexual empowerment for sexual minority men with intersecting marginalized identities. Further, those imposing these limitations may likewise be less sexually empowered if their prejudice is rooted in a lack of critical consciousness, fear of new sexual experiences, or recreations of oppressive systems that narrow the confines of socially acceptable sex and sexuality.

51 Summary

Consistent with Zimmerman’s (1995) recommendation that definitions of empowerment account for social context, exploring sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment necessitates an understanding of the sociopolitical context in which sexual minority men live, including the roles of the legal and political environment in which sexual minority men live, the effects of heterosexism and heteronormativity on sexual minority men’s sexual freedom, and the lasting effects of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. There are also many reasons to believe that sexual minority men’s understanding and experience of sexual empowerment may be distinct from that of other populations.

Sexual minority men tend to express more openness to casual and uncommitted sex, consensual non-monogamy, and group sex. Physical appearance plays an important role both in sexual minority men’s sexual culture broadly, as well as in organizing sexual minority men into various subcultures that each may have distinct views of sexual empowerment. While current research emphasizes the role of assigned sex in sexual empowerment, gender expression may play a similar role for sexual minority men. The commodification and consumption of sex may have unique implications for sexual empowerment, as sexual minority men tend to report an increase in sexual empowerment-related variables from engaging in sex work and viewing pornography.

Sexual minority men also create and operate within a distinct set of physical and digital sexual spaces. The limited availability of sex partners for sexual minority men is compounded by preferences for specific characteristics, as well as by within-group sexual discrimination. Sexual minority men’s unique sexual culture, values, and history have a

52 profound influence over the ways in which sexual empowerment is constructed, understood, and experienced by this population.

A New Understanding of Sexual Empowerment for Sexual Minority Men

This chapter described competing theories of sexual empowerment, reviewed empirical literature on its related constructs, evaluated the applicability of this body of research to the population of sexual minority men, and described several aspects of sexual minority men’s sexual culture that may be particularly relevant to the experience of sexual empowerment. The theories of sexual empowerment and measures of related constructs described earlier in this chapter were developed for populations other than sexual minority men. Moradi et al. (2009) caution against the automatic adaptation of research methodologies developed for people of different genders or sexual orientations, and instead advocate for taking an emic approach to research design—particularly when exploring constructs such as sexual identities and behaviors. Consequently, there is a need for de novo research on the ways in which sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment that considers the unique sexual experiences and sociocultural contexts of sexual minority men, and actively seeks out their voices in an empowering research process.

The present study sought to achieve these aims by qualitatively exploring how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment. Using a critical queer theory research approach, the author conducted individual interviews with a diverse set of sexual minority men who had particular expertise or unique perspectives on sexual empowerment in this population. Interviews were conducted with an educator and activist for queer men with disabilities, a sex columnist, a producer of a podcast about gay men’s

53 sexuality, a sexual assault survivor, a porn star, a curator of a Black history museum, a man who was married to a woman while serving in the military, and a sex therapist.

Together, these interviews provide a deep and nuanced understanding of how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment.

54 CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this study was to explore what sexual empowerment means for sexual minority men, to engage in an empowering research process that centers the perspectives and experiences of sexual minority men in psychological research, and to explore subcultural similarities and differences in the definition and expression of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men. Specifically, this study aimed to address the following research questions:

1. How do participants define sexual empowerment?

2. What factors affect the experience of sexual empowerment?

This chapter provides an overview of critical queer theory as the qualitative research approach in which this study is grounded. Next, information about participant selection, recruitment, and demographics is presented. The present study’s data collection, analysis, and validation procedures are then discussed. These are followed by a reflexivity statement locating myself in the study and a review of ethical considerations.

Critical Queer Theory

Using critical queer theory as a framework, this qualitative study sought to identify and explore defining characteristics of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men. Arising from the civil rights and social justice movements of the 1960s and 1970s,

55 critical qualitative research is inherently political and is concerned with the ways in which power, social location, oppression, marginalization, and culture shape the ways in which meaning is constructed (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Critical theory assumes that dominant discourses are created to serve the interests of those with power. Therefore, critical theory in qualitative research seeks to not only describe phenomena, but to critique and challenge social power structures (Merriam, 2009). Critical queer theory

(Downing & Gilette, 2011; Minton, 1997) in particular is attentive to the ways in which heterosexism, homophobia, heteronormativity, and repronormativity affect the participants’ lived experience and understanding of themselves. However, critical queer theory goes beyond understanding the roles of these oppressive forces by actively deconstructing and dismantling them throughout the entire research process.

In lieu of offering a singular or prescriptive process for conducting qualitative inquiry, critical theory instead emphasizes selecting specific methods that are explicitly driven by values of social justice and are attentive to the roles of power in the research process (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). As such, critical qualitative methodology uses a variety of research strategies with the goals of empowering participants by actively involving them in the research. Consequently, critical qualitative research is necessarily dialogic—that is, meaning is co-constructed by the researcher and participants. Together, the researcher and participants explore the role of power in the lived experiences of individuals on the margins, and co-construct an analysis of the ways in which meaning is made.

The analysis of individual and systemic power is at the heart of critical theory, thus making it apt for use in studies of empowerment. In exploring the understanding and

56 experience of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men, this research is directly challenging heteronormative paradigms that have marginalized this population’s experience. This study also empowers sexual minority men by amplifying their voices and experiences in a body of research in which they may not otherwise be heard. Thus, this chapter will describe a research process that sought to empower participants as they simultaneously explored the meaning of sexual empowerment in their lives.

Participants

Participant Selection

This study used purposive, theoretical sampling (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) to solicit participation from sexual minority men. Theoretical sampling is recommended when limited theoretical and empirical literature provide a starting point from which to explore a phenomenon, while there is also a strong likelihood that new themes will emerge throughout the research process. To participate in this study, participants were required to be at least 18 years old and identify as a sexual minority man.

Several other characteristics were also considered throughout the recruitment process in order to solicit diverse perspectives, allow for flexibility to respond to emerging themes, and account for the varying degrees of sexual and social marginalization within the population of sexual minority men. Examples of such characteristics included subcultural and intersecting identities, involvement in sex work, knowledge in the field of sexual minority men’s sexuality, and influence or involvement related to sexual minority men’s sexual culture. In particular, I purposefully recruited participants who were likely to be able to speak both to their own experiences of sexual

57 empowerment, and to how these experiences fit into the larger narrative, history, and context of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men.

Consistent with the use of collaboration as a validation strategy in qualitative research (Cresswell & Miller, 2000), participants were also asked at the end of each interview whether they would like to identify other potential participants.

In contrast to quantitative research, which emphasizes large sample sizes for the purpose of generalization, sample sizes in qualitative research are typically smaller to allow for an in-depth and complex exploration of the phenomenon under investigation

(Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019). Thus, the final number of participants in this study was determined by the richness of data being collected, potential for new participants to contribute unique and novel information to the research, and the emergence of new themes. Although the aim of qualitative research is not generalization, careful consideration was given to selecting participants who could speak knowledgeably about various intersecting identities and experiences, particularly as they relate to the varying degrees of power and marginalization that are central to critical queer theory.

Participant Recruitment

Recruitment of participants was conducted primarily via e-mail (N =12), private messages on social media (N = 5), phone (N = 4), and via contact forms on their personal websites (N = 2). In most cases, contact information was gathered through publicly available channels (e.g., personal websites, social media pages). Given that some potential participants did not publicly list e-mail or phone contact information, recruitment was conducted by other means as needed (e.g., word-of-mouth, via gatekeepers).

58 In the first round of recruitment, 14 individuals were contacted to ascertain interest in participation. Of these, four agreed to participate, three initially agreed to participate but were unresponsive to attempts to schedule an interview, one declined, and six did not respond. Subsequent recruitment was conducted based on recommendations by individuals who participated in the first round of interviews and analysis of emerging themes in previous interviews. In subsequent recruitment, nine individuals were contacted to ascertain interest in participation. Of these, five agreed to participate, one initially agreed but was unresponsive to attempts to schedule an interview, and three did not respond. In total, nine participants were interviewed for this study.

Notably, one individual who was contacted about participating in the research asked whether he could be named in the study (i.e., not remain anonymous). After consultation and consideration of the ethical and practical implications of this request, I informed the individual of the potential risks and benefits of this request, and stated that the requested change would likely not be approved by the Institutional Review Board. As a result, the individual declined to participate, stating: “When you mention sexual empowerment – that to me is being able to publicly talk about my experiences and sexuality with my name on it. To be kept anonymous feels like the opposite of empowerment for me.” Although the individual declined to participate in the research, he gave me permission to use this quote in the hopes that this perspective may challenge heteronormative assumptions about research ethics and affirm the importance of engaging in a research process that is, itself, empowering.

59 Sample Demographics

Interviews with each participant revealed that different identities may feel more or less central to an individual’s experience of sexual empowerment. Demographic characteristics that participants indicated are particularly salient or important to their experience of sexual empowerment are included in Table 1. Full participant demographics can be found in Appendix A.

Table 1

Participant Demographics

Pseudonym Salient Demographics

Sam HIV+ Kinky/Pig Sex writer 500+ lifetime sex partners

Alexander Cripplea Sex Never been in Sub top, ideal vers educator/activist romantic relationship

Vinny Gay sex Leather/BDSM Latino Catholic podcaster

Nick Sexual Circuit/Rave History of Grew up in South assault survival sex survivor

Jake Escort Porn performer Grew up in Dated in past but Midwest currently single

Bill Black Evangelical HIV+ Dominant top

Max Non- Perceived as Spiritual Divorced from wife, monogamous heteronormative married husband

George Bisexual/ Kinky Poly Sex writer pansexual

60 Mike Exhibitionist Sex therapist Experienced Formerly in Sex conversion Addicts Anonymous therapy a Although the word “cripple” has historically had a derogatory connotation, Alexander intentionally reclaims this label to provoke conversations about ableism.

Data Collection

Procedures

Prior to data collection, I obtained informed consent to participation, and explained the purpose of the research to each participant. After providing informed consent, all participants completed a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix B).

Participants also selected a pseudonym to use in the study write-up. After completion of the demographic questionnaire, participants were interviewed by the researcher.

Although in-person interviews with each participant were offered as an option and would have been preferred under ideal circumstances, participants were encouraged to conduct the interview using Zoom software (Zoom Video Communications Inc., 2020) with end-to-end encryption. The primary reason that face-to-face interviews were discouraged was to prioritize the health and safety of participants and the researcher, as data collection took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. Thus, consistent with social distancing guidelines implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in response to the COVID-19 pandemic during the time of data collection, face-to-face interviews were not conducted. In order to facilitate data collection from a diverse selection of participants and provide participants the most power in determining the nature of the interview, participants were offered the choice to participate in voice-based

(e.g., Zoom, phone call) or text-based (e.g., e-mail, SMS, social media messaging)

61 interviews. Five participants were interviewed via Zoom and four were interviewed via telephone. Length of interviews ranged from 39 minutes to 101 minutes (mean interview time = 83.4 minutes; median interview time = 87.5 minutes), and totaled 750.5 minutes.

All interviews were audio-recorded using the Voice Memos application on my personal laptop. All audio recordings were individually password-protected and stored on my secure MacBook Pro. I transcribed recordings of each interview individually, assisted by the Microsoft Word built-in dictation tool. Transcriptions totaled 324 pages of text. By personally transcribing the interviews, I had ample time to reflect on the information provided.

Each participant was provided a copy of their transcript, and was given an opportunity to make additions, revisions, or clarifications to their interview transcripts to ensure accuracy. To preserve confidentiality—particularly considering the personally sensitive nature of the phenomenon of interest and potential for participants to share identifying information—participants were also given the opportunity to eliminate any part of their transcript, following consultation with the researcher. In total, seven participants approved their transcripts with no changes, and two did not reply to the request for feedback. The final transcriptions were then uploaded to NVivo (QSR

International Pty Ltd, 2018) for analysis.

Interview Protocols

Interviews were semi-structured and guided by a set of initial questions and topics

(see Appendix C). Given the limited theoretical and empirical information about sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment, open-ended questions were used, with additional probes and follow-up questions included as needed, to maintain flexibility and gather rich

62 data from participants. The initial set of interview questions comprised seven questions covering two topics. Topics covered included the participant’s definition of sexual empowerment and factors that affect sexual empowerment. Questions were designed to be as open-ended as possible in order to give participants the most control over their own narratives, while being specific enough to gather rich and focused data on the experience of sexual empowerment.

Due to the possibility that later interviews with other participants might have led to the discovery of unexpected themes and topics, participants were also asked whether they would consent to participating in follow-up conversations or a second round of interviews as needed for further exploration and clarification. All participants agreed to participate in follow-up interviews as needed. One follow-up interview was conducted with Nick, which occurred after he disclosed that he had been engaged in survival sex in the past. This topic was the focus of the follow-up interview.

Data Analysis

The dataset for this study included transcripts of each interview as well as any relevant field notes (e.g., annotations, memos). All data were stored and analyzed using

NVivo (QSR International Pty Ltd, 2018) computer software. Because qualitative research is emergent, data analysis occurred throughout the process of data collection

(Merriam, 2009). For this study, the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss,

1967) of qualitative data analysis was used. As such, all data were coded for themes that arose during data collection. Because themes are established inductively, and identification of themes co-occurs with data collection, specific codes and themes were not identified prior to data collection.

63 In the first step of data analysis, I reviewed and coded transcripts of each interview separately. In this stage, I used open coding (Merriam, 2009) to identify commonalities in the data that suggested preliminary categories and themes relevant to constructing a definition of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men. Throughout the research process, new data were coded with these emerging themes in mind; likewise, emerging themes were cross-checked with codes of new data. Consequently, initial themes changed as the study progressed. This process was repeated until categorical saturation (Saunders, Sim, Kingstone, Baker, Waterfield, Bartlam, Burroughs, & Jinks,

2018) was reached.

In the second stage of analysis, axial coding (Corbin & Strauss, 2007) was used to group these preliminary categories into larger analytically-based themes. Consistent with

Fram’s (2013) recommendations for using the constant comparative method outside of grounded theory, the theoretical frameworks of empowerment theory and sex-positivity were used to move data analysis from a concrete to a conceptual level. Consistent with the dialogic nature of critical queer research, these themes were then presented to participants who were given the opportunity to provide feedback about my analysis and interpretations.

Final themes met several criteria identified by Merriam (2009). Namely, the final identified themes were examined to ensure they are responsive (i.e., relevant to the research question), exhaustive (i.e., all important data should fit into a theme), mutually exclusive (i.e., a single unit of data should not fall into multiple themes), sensitizing (i.e., as specific as possible while remaining concise), and conceptually congruent (i.e., themes

64 should exist at the same level of abstraction). The data analysis process yielded four themes and 17 sub-themes.

Trustworthiness

While reliability and validity are used in quantitative research, qualitative research instead uses trustworthiness to establish credibility and quality of research

(Merriam, 2009). In this study, trustworthiness is established in several ways. First, the interview protocols were pilot tested with two gay men. One of these participants stated he felt he had an “average understanding” of sexual empowerment and sexual minority men’s sexual culture, while the other was involved in research and education regarding gay men’s sexual health. Both participants provided feedback about question clarity, relevance, and scope that was incorporated into the final interview protocol.

Second, member checking (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was used to ensure accuracy of data and validity of conclusions. Member checking took place in two stages. In stage one, participants were provided a copy of their initial transcript and given the opportunity to make changes to the transcript as needed. In stage two, participants were invited to review my interpretations, analysis, and conclusions regarding their data. Five participants responded by the time of publication. Four participants approved the chapter with no revisions, and one pointed out a typo but otherwise approved the chapter with no revisions].

Third, thick, rich descriptions (Geertz, 1983) are used to describe the context, perspectives, and experiences of participants. These descriptions are captured in the demographic profiles of each participant in Appendix A (see Table 1 for summary of salient demographics), as well as verbatim transcripts of each interview. Sections of these

65 transcripts are included in the analysis to capture the authentic and uncensored voices of participants as they described their understanding and experience of sexual empowerment. Consequently, interpretations and conclusions are based in concrete examples from the data that were collected. Fourth, an audit trail was kept that includes documentation of researcher decisions, which allowed readers and dissertation committee members to review the research process and make independent judgments about its validity. Auditors included the dissertation committee chair, as well as three colleagues with experience conducting qualitative research—one of whom also specializes in sex research. These auditors were consulted throughout the research process to explore my biases and interpretations of data.

Finally, I kept a reflective journal throughout the interview process. This reflective journal included field notes as well as an account of my personal feelings, reactions, biases, expectations, and assumptions. These personal feelings, reactions, biases, expectations, and assumptions were bracketed out during data analysis. Further, I began this reflective journal by detailing my positionality and situating myself in the context of the research. This reflection is included in the “Researcher Role and

Background” section below.

Researcher Role and Background

Critical qualitative research begins and ends with researcher reflexivity.

Consistent with a critical queer perspective, in this section I will discuss the identities, experiences, and values that I am bringing to this research. The purpose of this is threefold. First, it allows the reader to examine the lens through which I am conducting this research and interpreting findings. Second, it provides an opportunity for me as the

66 researcher to reflect on my own biases and assumptions prior to data collection and throughout the research process. Third, it seeks to challenge the power structure common to psychological research wherein participants are expected to divulge personal information to a “neutral” observer who does not reciprocate this vulnerability.

Therefore, here I will share the identities, values, biases, and assumptions that shape my understanding of my research.

I identify primarily as gay and secondarily as queer. These identities are central to who I am, and I consider the sex that I have and want to have as central to these identities. I am exclusively romantically and sexually attracted to men, my only sexual experiences have been with men, and I expect my future sex partners to be men. My most recent romantic relationships have been consensually non-monogamous; specifically, these relationships have been emotionally exclusive and sexually open. My sexual position preference has been fluid and primarily versatile. I am HIV-negative and currently take Descovy for PrEP.

I am entirely out in all contexts. This visibility is a form of activism for me, and extends beyond just wearing my rainbow watch band to actively engaging in public displays of affection and sexuality with other men to challenge the stigma surrounding gay sex. I began and completed this dissertation in my late 20s. Until my early-to-mid- twenties, I identified with subculture, but currently do not strongly identify with any subcultures.

I identify as a cisgender man with a gender expression that is somewhat more masculine than feminine. I identify as White, was raised in a middle-class suburban household by my biological parents, and have received graduate-level education. My

67 socioeconomic privilege means that I have never had to engage in survival sex, and I have access to sexual health resources. Although I was raised Catholic, I currently identify as agnostic/atheist. I have never had a physical disability that has interfered with my sexual functioning; however, I am neurodivergent and am beginning to explore how this identity shapes my sexuality. Professionally, I have experience working as a therapist and conducting research within the LGBTQIA+ community, including on issues of sex and sexuality.

My view of sexual empowerment is shaped as much by my values as by my personal identities and experiences. I also take an intersectional view of identities, and believe my values are often shaped by feminist and anti-racist principles. As such, I actively seek opportunities to examine, critique, and dismantle systems of oppression.

The evolution of my sexual values and my own journey towards sexual empowerment is marked by several milestones and experiences. As a child, I received mixed messages about sexuality. The messages from my school and Catholic church, and to a lesser extent my parents, was simple: just say no until you are married to a woman and ready to have kids. However, I also knew that my mom had been pregnant with my older sister as a teenager before she was married. This knowledge may have prompted what I now realize was my first critical analysis of sexual values as I wondered why everyone seemed to be encouraging me not to be like my mom.

Throughout my adolescence, I learned about sexuality—and queer sex in particular—from peers in the form of crude homophobic comments and “jokes.” I did not know another openly gay person until I was 17, which meant I had no sexual mentors or role models. As a young adolescent I would often become entranced by images of

68 shirtless men in movies and magazines. Careful not to let anyone see me looking too long, I felt a deep sense of shame and fear even during these childhood explorations. Like many other gay men, pornography became my primary means of sex education during high school.

My early sexual experiences were characterized by shame, fear, and insecurity, which I attempted to assuage with futile attempts at rationalization. For example, when I had my sexual debut the summer before I started undergrad, I told myself it was ok because my boyfriend and I were in an exclusive relationship. When I started my undergraduate education in 2010, the sexual values that I had learned growing up were named and challenged by new friends who were radical queer activists, as well as by professors at my Jesuit Catholic undergraduate university. I also became involved in efforts to combat sexual violence and rape culture, which shaped my beliefs that freedom from sexual oppression is necessarily—albeit not entirely sufficient—to increase sexual empowerment.

During undergraduate was also when I had my first formal sex education that felt applicable to my own experiences. In classes like “The Philosophy of Love and Sex” and

“Sexuality and Society,” I learned about the construction of social norms around sexuality and how these norms have been used to oppress queer folk. I took every class about sex that my university offered across multiple disciplines until I graduated with majors in LGBT studies, psychology, and sociology, a minor in political science, and a concentration in perspectives on sex and gender. This formal education was instrumental in shaping my views on sex and sexual empowerment as it encouraged development of self-knowledge along with content knowledge, forced me to critically examine my own

69 sexual self, and recognize the countercultural nature of sex-positivity and sexual empowerment. Within the context of a Catholic university, I learned that the sex we have is a form of activism, and I continue to view sex as a way to challenge the oppression and marginalization of queer people.

This formal education was accompanied by further sexual exploration. I continued to have a series of monogamous relationships, but also began to explore casual sex and having friends with benefits. After I entered graduate school in 2014, I began exploring group sex and anonymous sex, went to my first bathhouse, and had my first consensually non-monogamous relationship. This exploration of new sexual experiences has been marked by self-discovery, as I started to unpack my own sexual socialization and internalized stigma, acknowledge the complexity of sex, and reflect on which types of sex felt congruent with my own values, desires, and interests. This diversity of sexual relationships and experiences has also made me feel more sexually empowered and contributed to my understanding of what sexual empowerment means to me and my community.

This history means that I bring several assumptions, beliefs, and biases to this research. First, I view critical insight as essential to sexual empowerment. For sexual minority men in particular, this means recognizing at least on some level that our sexualities are shaped by societal messages and stigma. Second, I am biased in favor of more liberationist views towards sexuality (e.g., queer men should actively challenge social norms such as monogamy, heteronormativity, and repronormativity), which I tend to view as more empowered. Third, I believe that sexual empowerment—both as a phenomenon and the process of its development—does not just occur during sex. While I

70 consider lived sexual experiences as important to the development of sexual empowerment, I also believe that one can become more sexually empowered through means such as education and self-reflection, and can demonstrate sexual empowerment outside of sex through actions such as vocally challenging sexual norms. Fourth, I assume that empowerment is not a binary or unidimensional construct (i.e., I believe that an individual can be more or less empowered between and within a variety of domains).

Finally, I assume that some features of sexual empowerment may be common between sexual minority men and other populations, and that some features are likely unique to sexual minority men.

Ethical Considerations

This study was granted expedited approval by the Institutional Review Board at

The University of Akron (See Appendix D). Qualitative research is, by nature, continuously adaptive and reflective. Further, an empowering research process treats participants as collaborators, and provides participants with information to maximize their decision-making power. Thus, I approached informed consent as an ongoing process throughout my interactions with participants. Prior to participating in research, each participant signed an informed consent document detailing the purpose, risks, and benefits of the study. To reduce the power distance between myself and participants, and to facilitate communication in the event that questions arose about the study outside of the scheduled interview time, all participants were provided with my e-mail address and personal cell phone number. Participants were also informed of specific risks and benefits of choosing to conduct the interview via their chosen medium.

71 Several steps were taken to protect the confidentiality of participants. This was deemed particularly important, as some participants may be well-known to many in the

LGBTQ community. All participants chose a pseudonym at the start of the study to be used in all research materials. Although video-recording of interviews may have yielded richer data, audio-recording was chosen to further protect participant confidentiality.

Participants were also given an opportunity to review transcripts and the final dissertation with the option to remove any potentially personally-identifying information. Finally, all raw data were kept highly secured, with only myself and my advisor having access. All raw data were encrypted and stored in password-protected files on my laptop which is protected by both password and biometric security.

The sensitivity of the research topic was also considered, as sexual minority men’s sexuality remains highly stigmatized. Several questions that were included in an initial draft of the demographic survey were ultimately excluded based on feedback from members of the dissertation committee that they may be viewed as sensitive or controversial. Examples of such questions included the participant’s HIV status, PrEP use, involvement in sex work, and experiences of survival sex. Notably, all but two participants brought up at least one of these topics unprompted and many of them characterized these experiences as central to how they understand and experience sexual empowerment.

72

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

The present study sought to explore how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment. To address this question, semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine sexual minority male participants with expertise on the topic of sexual empowerment. This chapter will review the results of these interviews. The data presented in this chapter includes excerpts from individual interviews with each participant to provide thick, rich descriptions of their understanding and experience of sexual empowerment.

Data analysis was completed using the constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). Consistent with a critical queer theoretical lens, results are presented with attention to the roles of power, privilege, and voice. Further, it seeks to illuminate, critique, and deconstruct heteronormativity, repronormativity, heterosexism, and other systems of oppression that sexually disempower sexual minority men. Results of this analysis yielded 4 themes and 17 sub- themes related to participants’ experiences and understanding of sexual empowerment.

Existing terminology did not adequately capture participant’s experiences; thus, several new terms are introduced here to describe themes and sub-themes, with definitions

73 included for each new term. These themes and sub-themes are summarized in Table 2.

The results of this study are presented thematically in this chapter.

Table 2

Themes and Sub-Themes of Sexual Minority Men’s Sexual Empowerment

Themes Sub-Themes

Sexual Self-Humanization 1. Affectivity (mindfulness, pleasure, desire, negative affectivity) 2. Curiosity (self-exploration, openness to experiences) 3. Insight 4. Pride (pride in , body-positivity) 5. Courage

Sexual Sovereignty 6. Agency (alignment with sexual values, absence of compulsion, agency at the intersection of identities) 7. Integrity (choosing sexual partners, avoiding disempowering experiences, experimentation) 8. Self-Sexualization

Sexual Liberation 9. Heteronormativity and Heterosexism 10. Sex Stigma (HIV stigma, stigma) 11. Intersecting Oppressions (ableism, racism, ageism, femme-phobia, fat-phobia and appearance discrimination) 12. Religion 13. Capitalism 14. Legal Restrictions 15. Violence

Belonging to a Sexually 16. Accessing Empowering Resources (queer and Empowering Community sexual spaces, sexual healthcare, sex education, sex partners) 17. Reciprocal Interpersonal Empowerment (affirming each other, humanizing each other, sharing knowledge with each other)

74 Theme One: Sexual Self-Humanization

Sexual self-humanization refers to understanding, experiencing, and actively cultivating a sense of oneself as a sexual human (i.e., as opposed to a sexual object) with a variety of cognitive and affective states and experiences related to one’s sexuality.

Across all interviews, several common sub-themes arose including affectivity, curiosity, insight, pride, and courage (see Figure 1).

Figure 1

Sexual Self-Humanization

Self- Humanization

Affectivity Curiosity Insight Pride Courage

Mindfulness Self- Absence of Exploration Shame

Openness to Identity- Pleasure Experiences Related Pride

Body- Desire Positivity

Negative Affectivity

Sub-Theme One: Affectivity

Affectivity refers to one’s awareness of, and ability to experience and express, a range of emotions related to sex and sexuality. While desire and pleasure were named

75 most frequently, participants identified a range of affective experiences related to sexual empowerment including joy, grief, excitement, and passion.

Mindfulness

Several participants described a general state of mindfulness as important to sexual empowerment. Nick shared, “queer men are definitely gonna feel more sexually empowered when they don’t have anything in the back of their mind [during sex].” Jake remarked that his experiences of “compartmentalizing myself, and sex, and just sort of doing it robotically” while engaging in sex work felt disempowering.

Bill and Sam both clarified that they often think about sex and sexuality from a detached, philosophical perspective. For Bill, this was related to his desire to learn more about sexuality as a theology scholar, while Sam discussed how his occupation as a sex writer influenced how he thought about sex. However, both shared that they are still able to remain mindful while engaging in sex. Sam observed, “I can like think about my sex life on paper and then when I get to the sex party, I don’t really have to think about all this other stuff.” Similarly, Bill shared:

I like knowing what drives me. But at the same time, it’s not to the point where umm I can’t be present in the moment. I’m not like sitting there like, you know, in the throes of passion with somebody and umm analyzing why they did something or why I’m doing something.

Vinny also highlighted that mindfulness can be important to sexual empowerment outside the context of sex itself while describing his past experience as a go-go dancer:

Like any performance-based work, if- the more comfortable you are, the more willing that you are to umm perform from the heart or perform without being in your head, is- is going to read to your audience a lot more authentically…so I find that empowering.

76 Pleasure

Experiencing pleasure felt sexually empowering for many participants. Some participants spoke about pleasure broadly. For example, George expressed his belief that sexual empowerment includes an element of “joy. Like yeah, you should- it should be exciting, and loving, and nice, and make you feel good. It should feel good to feel sexually empowered.” Alexander also described the pleasure he felt when having sex with another wheelchair user, saying, “I remember looking over his shoulder and seeing his wheelchair and my wheelchair like beside each other and getting this weird pang of like, ‘oh that’s so cute! ‘Cause like I’ve never have been with a disabled guy. This feels great!’”

Max noted growth in how he has experienced sexual empowerment, observing, “I no longer feel guilt or shame for feeling pleasure” and Mike agreed that empowered sex should feel “pleasurable.” Nick and Jake each highlighted their embodied experiences of pleasure (i.e., experience of pleasure as a physical sensation). For Jake, this was related to how he experiences intimacy, as he shared:

It’s just an absolute more honest sexual expression when there’s intimacy involved. I cum differently. I cum harder. It doesn’t feel fake or forced. It doesn’t feel like there’s a finish line I’m trying to cross. It’s literally just about a shared experience, sharing time, sharing space.

Nick linked his experience of embodied pleasure to his sexual position preference, saying, “as someone who is generally more of a bottom, I quite enjoy having a guy cum inside me.”

Desire

Several participants discussed the role of desire in sexual empowerment. Jake shared the importance of remaining in touch with one’s sense of desire during sex, 77 particularly while bottoming. He stated, “within the context of- of sex, you have to mentally remind yourself, ‘wait, this is a welcome experience. I want this to be happening.’ You relax. You enjoy it. You accept that.” Mike also stressed that

“awareness of your own desires” is necessary to be sexually empowered.

Participants also described feeling desire in the context of sexual fantasies. For

Alexander, “fantasy got me through most of my- the years where I wasn’t having sex.

…when I was like 14, I had huge fantasies about the hot lacrosse player from my high school like taking me in the locker room and fucking me.” Elaborating further on the role of desire, Alexander also described how a sense of longing can feel disempowering when there is no clear way to turn desire into reality. He stated, “it would just feel nice to- to know what it’s like to have some dude bust a nut in your ass. And I don’t know what that would be like and it- I feel like- I do feel like I’m missing out.”

Negative Affectivity

While most participants emphasized the role of positive affectivity in sexual empowerment, a few discussed ways in which engaging negative emotions could feel empowering. Alexander repeatedly highlighted this experience throughout his interview, at one point stating, “some days I don’t like my body. Some days I don’t like my queerness. Some days I’m mad that I can’t access my queerness the way a cis, able- bodied, white man can do. And it pisses me off, but I know that it’s part of my experience.” In addition to anger, Alexander also noted the importance of making space for feelings of grief and disappointment during sex and how he sometimes felt disempowered when his attempts to express these feelings were shut down by sex partners.

78 Some participants also became tearful during their interviews. Nick became tearful while describing his history of experiencing abuse. Mike became tearful while describing his experience coming out after going through conversion therapy and while describing his experience in Sex Addicts Anonymous (SAA), and shared that he was “a little tender” following the recent death of his SAA sponsor. Both participants went on to describe how engaging these emotional reactions directly through therapy or self- exploration, rather than avoiding or numbing them, helped them become more sexually empowered.

Sub-Theme Two: Curiosity

All participants described sexual empowerment as including an element of curiosity. This curiosity was described as including openness to exploring oneself as a sexual person and openness to exploring a variety of sexual experiences. Vinny described this curiosity broadly, stating, “I don’t know if you need to have specific mindset, but simply a mindset and an openness and a compassion towards yourself to want to see what’s out there… I think seeking all kinds of improvement and explorations for yourself umm can be really empowering.”

Self-Exploration

Participants described several types of self-exploration as contributing to their understanding and experience of sexual empowerment. Self-exploration was noted to include examining motivations for sex, the role that sex plays in one’s life, and sexual values. Max called sexual self-exploration “paramount for growth,” and stated, “I think each and every one of us has a responsibility to know ourselves. So self-education through exploration I think is probably the one thing that we really need to do.”

79 All participants shared at least one experience of self-exploration that contributed to their sexual empowerment. Mike offered his perspective that:

It’s maybe more salient to gay men’s experiences but I think that there are other people whether they be straight or queer who have- also have, been for whatever reason, have had the opportunity or have been challenged to think about these things and expand their knowledge. But I do think for gay men it’s particularly salient for all sexual minorities who have to confront their sexuality and ask questions. suggesting that sexual self-exploration may be ubiquitous in gay men’s experience of sexual empowerment.

Vinny emphasized the importance of self-exploration repeatedly throughout his interview. He summed up his perspective by stating:

Empowerment also comes in the willingness, I think, to self-discovery. So being open to umm learn more about- like I’ve been able to learn more about umm mine as I’ve gotten older more about what I like, areas that I might want to explore…. That alone just that is- is empowering: that willingness to want to grow and learn about your sexuality.

Openness to Experiences

Participants also discussed curiosity in terms of openness to new sexual experiences. Alexander described how his curiosity and openness towards trying new things felt sexually empowering:

I want to know what it’s like to top somebody standing up. I wanna- I wanna- I wanna be able to- to do all the things you can do standing up as a sexual person. Like I want to jerk off with my- like- you know- standing in my bathroom. Like I want to- I wanna have a blowjob standing in my bathroom. Like I wanna- I want to have a blowjob standing up. I want to do all these things that I’ve never gotten to experience. And I think that would empower me.

Nick added that he feels empowered by seeking out and remaining open to new experiences, regardless of whether he is able to act on them, saying, “I definitely feel

80 empowered to like- if I want to try something new, or like different, generally I’m gonna say it. And if they aren’t into it, cool. And if they are, great.”

Several participants also gave examples of how remaining open to new sexual experiences felt empowering. For example, Vinny described his initial curiosity about leather and BDSM culture:

It was a community that I didn’t know a whole lot about that has so much- there’s so much room to explore in sexuality that the various- there’s things like flogging, which is something that I got to experience and- and umm various other sexual acti- umm explorations that I think umm I perhaps maybe couldn’t have, or wouldn’t have been ready in my 20s, but was definitely ready, you know, more recently.

Sub-Theme Three: Insight

Participants often drew clear links between feeling sexually empowered by their curiosity and feeling further empowered by the insight they developed from exploring themselves and new sexual experiences. Participants specifically identified insight into one’s own sexual values, goals, desires, and motivations as being empowering.

Bill elaborated on why developing insight and knowing oneself sexually feels empowering:

I’ve always been fascinated with the process of like getting to know myself on like deeper and deeper levels… I mean, that in and of itself is empowering when you know what you want because then that way you could be like umm calculated about how to get it, you know, and intentional.

Likewise, Alexander explained, “being empowered internally is like I know what I like, I know who I am, I know that I’m a queer cripple. Like that’s what I refer to myself as. I think I put it in the- in the questionnaire I said that I’m a queer cripple.” Many other participants echoed this sentiment that understanding how intersecting identities and experiences shape sexuality feels empowering.

81 Several participants also discussed the importance of understanding one’s own motivations for sex. Mike shared how he approaches this subject with others:

I’ll often ask people, “why do we have sex?” Just to get the crowd warmed up. And it’s often- they’ll say, “pleasure, love, connection,”… or “having babies.” Those tend to be the four. But I’m like, “but it also could be about validation, revenge, stress relief, making money, you know, all kinds of reasons.” Umm so being aware and having knowledge of your own motivations of why we have sex.

Bill offered an analogy to explain why a lack of insight might feel disempowering, saying

“if you don’t know yourself and what your desires are, I feel like you’re just out here just like playing bumper cars (laughs). You know? Just like no direction. You’re just on the whim and the whimsy of whatever you bump into.”

Sub-Theme Four: Pride

Pride or confidence in oneself and one’s sexuality was also frequently mentioned by participants. All participants mentioned freedom from shame as a particularly important aspect of sexual empowerment, and several also stated that pride in sexual identity and body-positivity were important elements of sexual empowerment.

Max described how he discerns whether a sexual experience felt empowering or disempowering by asking himself, “is there an element of guilt or shame? I- I also, you know, check in with my partner… is it something that I would be ashamed to say to them?” When asked what the opposite of shame might be, Nick stated:

I’d say pride.… When I’m talking to men that that I’m like interested in, either casually for like sex or like romantically, I’m pretty upfront about my sexual proclivities—not necessarily right off the bat, but like I pretty much- I put it all out there. And it’s kind of like, “take it or leave it. If you don’t like it, I don’t really give a shit.”

He went on to say:

If you’re not confident, you’re gonna have reservations about going to like sexual spaces and even like asking, or like talking to someone that you’re sexually 82 interested in. Yeah, so not having confidence would obviously be a major barrier to like feeling sexually empowered.

A few participants shared that they take pride in bringing sexual pleasure to others. For example, Max noted, “I’m proud that I’m also pleasing to another person.

You know, I- I don’t see anything wrong with that.” Nick agreed, “I will say it is pretty gratifying to know that I’ve gotten that many people off.”

Pride in Sexual Identity

Many participants discussed the role of sexual identity-related pride in sexual empowerment. For instance, George distinguished between feeling pride in sexual acts versus pride in queer identity and what various sexual acts represent about himself. “I feel sexually empowered but I don’t know if I would say I’m proud of my kinks. I’m sexually empowered by my kinks. I enjoy my kinks. I don’t experience shame for my kinks.” He went on to say, “if it’s with your identity, I think having pride is necessary for sexual empowerment. If it’s certain kinks or something, I think just not being ashamed is- and being willing to talk about it openly or freely is probably enough.” He also shared:

I do take pride in the fact that like I feel comfortable being pegged. I like being pegged and that’s something that’s considered, you know, umm deviant or a- normal, or whatever it is. And I am somewhat flipping the script or whatever on traditional gender norms. I do take pride in doing that as well.

Vinny spoke similarly of his pride in being part of a larger LGBTQ+ community when the Supreme Court decided in favor of equality:

That’s a freedom and an empowering thing that comes as a totality towards the entire group that goes to our- speaks to our history. And people, I think, can walk a little bit more proud knowing that. As a whole, not necessarily just within our own community but as… LGBTQ+ people, as a whole.

Vinny also spoke more specifically about why feeling proud about being part of the leather subculture makes me feel more empowered: 83 You have to get into that framework of mind that you’re going to don this look and you have to have a conversation with yourself that you are gonna own it when you do. And to me, that becomes extremely empowering and- both just in general and from a sexual empowerment as well.

Body-Positivity

Many participants acknowledged the role of appearance-orientation in sexual empowerment. While most participants spoke about this relationship in terms of fat- phobia and appearance-based discrimination, a few participants spoke about how body- positivity makes them feel more empowered. Nick stated, “having confidence in your body, feeling like you’re attractive, and what people would find sexually desirable is definitely a major, major, major, major factor in feeling sexually empowered.” He also identified feeling positively about “penis size” and “tightness down there” as a way that sexual minority men might feel empowered. Max discussed the relationship between body-positivity and sexual empowerment at length:

I think there’s always a sense of being proud of the way- proud in your own skin. And not like a- not an arrogant pride but just a general sense of like really, “I really feel comfortable and I like the way I feel right now. I like the way I look.” Doesn’t necessarily have to be- like I don’t have a six-pack. I’m not anywhere close to that but I- I like who I am, and I like to feel that when I’m with someone I’m not picking myself apart.

Sub-Theme Five: Courage

Seven participants mentioned the importance of courage or overcoming fear. For many participants, this courage was associated with overcoming fear of the real or perceived negative consequences of sex, including possible rejection, emotional or physical discomfort. For Max, acknowledging that sexual exploration may feel both bad and good, yet continuing to explore anyways, felt empowering:

Good and bad are… no different. They’re just separated by degrees and polarity. So I mean, it’s kind of like you create the range and then you’re able to say, “well, 84 that was not empowering” or “this is empowering.” So I think we get stuck a lot in our modern time right now with we always wanna feel good [but] you don’t know what is good unless you know what the opposite is. So you kind of have to be brave and know that you’re going to experience both themes in your life.

Courage in the face of potential sexual health consequences was commonly mentioned as well. For instance, several participants noted that taking PrEP felt empowering because it reduced fear of HIV transmission. Relatedly, both participants who disclosed that they were HIV-positive shared a similar sentiment that receiving this diagnosis allowed them to shed much of their fear of sex. Sam described this experience by stating:

A lot of HIV-positive people that I’ve talked to sort of report…this idea that you already have this thing that everybody sort of spends years in crippling fear of. So that was very much my feeling when I first tested positive. I know a lot of HIV- positive people reach that point where they, you know, you might as well enjoy sex now because quote-unquote the worst thing that can happen has already happened. And then you learn that the worst thing that can happen isn’t this bad thing at all.

Overall, the theme of self-humanization illustrates how participants view sexual empowerment as encompassing a range of subjective and intrapersonal experiences that include affectivity, curiosity, insight, pride, and courage.

Theme Two: Sexual Sovereignty

The term “sexual sovereignty” is introduced in this study to refer to having ownership and control over one’s sexual self. Across the interviews, three common sub- themes arose including agency, integrity, and self-sexualization (see Figure 2).

85 Figure 2

Sexual Sovereignty

Sexual Sovereignty

Self- Agency Integrity Sexualization

Alignment with Choosing Sexual Goals and Values Partners

Avoiding Absence of Disempowering Compulsion Experiences

Influence of Intersecting Experimentation Identities

Sub-Theme Six: Agency

Agency refers to having control or choice with regard to one’s sexuality and was a particularly prominent theme across all interviews. All participants indicated that the capacity to make choices was sexually empowering. The ability to make choices aligned with one’s sexual values and to choose not to engage in sexual experiences that do not feel empowering was important to most participants.

Many participants shared the view that agency is essential to sexual empowerment. Mike stated:

86 Any kind of sex that you engage in, that you feel like you have agency and choice, can be considered empowering [because] in so many situations, sex is forbidden or taboo…so anytime that we’re giving somebody choice, and they get to make their own decisions around it, and umm give consent or not, I think is an empowering situation.

Vinny agreed:

The first word for sexual empowerment that comes to mind is freedom. To be free. So, free to express yourself sexually, in however means you want, whether it’s your labels that you place on yourself, labels that you might freely seek out.

When asked what he would tell a sexual minority man who was looking to become more sexually empowered, Max said, “be aware [that] you have choice. You can choose who you have sex with. You have the choice to umm be who you wanna be.” According to

Jake, “sexual empowerment is (pause)- comes into play when you’re- when I’m using my sexuality in a way that serves- that’s honest to me in some aspect.”

Alignment with Sexual Values and Goals

Although participants indicated that agency in and of itself was sexually empowering, they also elaborated on specific circumstances that influenced the role of agency in empowerment. One such way is when an individual has the ability to make choices that align with their sexual values. Jake described this perspective, stating:

That, to me, feels more empowering knowing that I’m making the choices around it based on what actually feels right for me…. That’s not to say- a lot of the times when I was charging someone money, that was still on my terms, right? I was doing it because I wanted the income. I felt like it was an environment that I could be safe in. I could get through it without a lot of collateral damage.

Describing how he exercised agency while navigating survival sex, Nick shared, “I gave preference to people that knew exactly what they wanted, and like I didn’t have to basically like name my price or whatever. Like if I felt they were lowballing me I would obviously ask for more. Shit, I gave $1,000 handjob, hello (laughs).”

87 George expressed his belief that having sex for specific reasons that were authentic and congruent to him felt empowering:

I’m doing it for the right reasons. I think maybe that’s also a different element of sexual empowerment [when] reasons are: does this bring- “does this spark joy” (laughs)—no does this actually help fulfill you in a way that’s more meaningful? So maybe sexual empowerment can help fulfill you in your identity, but also your personality, your relationship with other people, in a more meaningful manner…. There’s a part that’s like I just wanna have fuckin’ fun. I think that’s a fine motive. But it’s also, you know, sex could have a motive to build a deep connection with someone [or] to feel more in touch with your queer identity.

Mike also shared how recognizing his own agency led him to feel more sexually empowered:

There are times in my personal life where I get to choose to be sexual. And so it’s not out of control- that I have a choice in that and I get to choose and that there’s actually great freedom. There was a time where you- where I would like white- knuckle it, where I was so trying so hard to be abstinent. And I focused so much on behavior and and being a “good boy” that the paradox was when I allowed myself- gave myself permission, for example, to come to San Francisco for a week and be a slut, so to speak, that there was a choice in that and that freed me from feeling out of control.

Absence of Compulsion

A few participants noted that sexual agency was at least partly dependent on the absence of sexual compulsion. For instance, Jake discussed conversations he had with friends who were in recovery from methamphetamine addiction about how the drug affected their sexual agency:

I would be surprised if any of them would describe that experience as empowering…. The way I hear guys talk about it is that they really didn’t have any other choice. They got high, they were horny, and they kinda wanted to seek other companions who are also high and horny and just fuck for hours.

Mike also described sexual compulsivity that he experienced earlier in his life as disempowering, likening it to “being kind of a lion in a cage, I never had that idea of,

‘fuck it. I have to do it anyway.’ It was more ‘I can’t help myself. I have to do it.’ But in 88 liberating, and being free to choose and engage in behaviors, suddenly it was, ‘I have a choice. I don’t have to do that.’” He further explained:

It’s empowering in that, you know, if you look at back at Sex Addicts Anonymous this whole idea of sex addiction is like, it’s pathology and you’re out of control and it’s a disease. And I think what I’ve learned through my own experience, and through wonderful mentors, is that it’s not out of control that I do have choice in it. And it’s not this dichotomy of this good-bad binary of either you’re a sexual monster or your this chaste angel.

Likewise, Max explained why he felt disempowered when engaging in compulsive sexual behavior:

When I would start to feel undesired, I would revert to trying to like find anyone I could to sleep with. And that is very disempowered, because it goes back into the same pattern. And then there’s shame and guilt piled on top of that because you’ve already worked through that.

Agency at the Intersection of Identities

Several participants spoke at length about the effects that various identities have on one’s ability to exercise sexual agency. Although much of these experiences are discussed at length in Theme Three: Sexual Liberation, both Bill and Alexander provided extensive detail into how their intersecting identities affect their sexual agency.

Bill shared some of the pressures that he faced growing up in a well-known conservative political family:

We grew up pretty conservative. People used to like umm equate us to the Huxtables, if you will. So, as that relates to my sexuality, you know, it was challenging at times growing up, as we were somewhat visible. Both of my parents are like political appointees and stuff. So, you know, if I went out and screwed something up, it could be on the front page of the paper the next day.

He also described how he maintains his sexual empowerment in situations where his identity as a Black man is fetishized:

To me, it’s actually- it actually is empowering because I have made the choice that I’m not gonna be used in that manner by you. So, it might not be sexually 89 empowering but it’s empowering because like I’m in control. And I’m- I’m calling the shots here. I’m not letting you use me that way.

Alexander spoke about several ways in which his disability affects his sexual agency, as well as how it feels for his sexual empowerment to be so heavily determined by others:

I’m what the doctors refer to as severely disabled [which means] I need a lot of help from everybody. So, like there’s no way in hell that I can do half the things gay men are expected to do or- or follow any kind of script because my body won’t allow me to…. There are moments where I’m super empowered, and hiring sex workers is both one of the great moments and one of the shitty moments [because] if you see me right after I spend a session with my favorite worker and we dicked down for two hours I’m great. But if you see me a week later, unable to jerk off and unable to access my body, and having to wait another week or another two weeks or- and then having to figure out: do I want to spend the money this week?

Sub-Theme Seven: Integrity

While agency refers to one’s ability to make choices regarding one’s sexuality, integrity refers to one’s actions based those choices. Specifically, sexual integrity denotes engaging in behavior that is authentic and congruent with one’s personal and sexual values, goals, and desires. Similar to agency, integrity was a common theme across all interviews.

Jake summarized the central role of integrity in sexual empowerment by saying:

Sexual empowerment is when you are- when your sexual actions align with what your goals are for sex, what your motivations are for having sex…. Whatever the motivation is, as long as it’s like a true, honest motivation for yourself, and your sexual acts serve that, I think that’s empowering.

Bill agreed, saying, “sexual empowerment to me would be being in control of your sexual desires and comfortable in acting out on them, and finding yourself- or creating situations where you are able to satisfy yourself sexually. That, to me, would be sexual empowerment.” Nick also described how empowering it felt to reclaim his sexual 90 integrity after an abusive relationship, saying, “I think after working through some of the trauma related to that, I like started to finally like not- basically just to like I guess kind of act on the things that I wanted.”

Choosing Sexual Partners

Several participants discussed the ways in which acting with integrity felt empowering to them. For example, Alexander shared how hiring sex workers to meet his sexual needs felt empowering because he was taking action that was aligned with his authentic sexual desires:

I get to be that sexy, slutty guy that I know is in here but I have to constantly hide because people aren’t ready for that. So empowerment for me was: you know what? I’m gonna find a way to fund my sex life. And, you know, there was a lot of shame I had initially with hiring a worker because it’s like well, of course, the disabled guy would have to hire a worker. Of course, that would be the avenue that I’d have to go. But then I realized that it was like, I’m getting what I want. I’m getting- I’m getting the kind of sex that I’ve been craving since I was like 16, 17 and getting it on my terms. So that’s empowering.

Bill described assertiveness as a way of exercising integrity. According to Bill,

“in the gay community, people respond well to uhh directness, like being forthright, you know.” He also gave an example:

I went to this club. It was my birthday and I saw the hottest guy in the bar, right? And I just walked up to him and was like, “me, you. Let’s fuck.” (laughs) “Let’s just do it.” And he closed his tab out and he- we got my car keys and like off we went. But I just remember like feeling so empowered that like being that direct and speaking my mind got me exactly what the hell I wanted.

George spoke about how choosing partners and acting in ways that affirm his felt empowering:

Unpopular bi opinion, but fuck it. It is weirdly reaffirming to have like a bi MMF threesome. But like and- and it- it’s not necessarily that I’m being “greedy” although I fucking- honestly, I’m confused when bi people are like “I don’t wanna do that.” I’m like, “this is literally one of the best parts of it. You’re missing out.” But anyway, I’m not shaming or doing that. I’m joking. But umm there is 91 something about like those situations where I feel really affirmed for being bi. And again, like it’s so funny. People don’t wanna say that because it’s like, “oh, you don’t need to have multiple genders if you’re bi. I don’t wanna perpetuate that greedy stereotype or that I need this.” But also, I am someone who’s polyamorous and open and obviously I still love having sex with one person of one gender. But in a weird way, I do feel more sexually empowered, I do feel more bi when I’m having sex with a man and a woman at the same time. And again, that’s just- I don’t wanna push this on other people ‘cause I think that- I think that’s a slippery slope that could easily be used for some- to perpetuate elements of biphobia, and I don’t wanna do that. But at least for me personally, I find this very reaffirming.

He also discussed the importance of being authentic in his bisexual identity with sexual partners:

I do feel more empowered I think, you know, when I’m- when this person let’s say knows I’m bi, I don’t feel bad about that. So, you know, I don’t really put myself in those situations anymore. I don’t do that. Also I’m like publicly- it’s difficult to have a conversation with me without knowing that, just given my platform and what I do.

Avoiding Disempowering Experiences

Several participants noted the importance of avoiding experiences that felt disempowering to them. For example, Jake discussed how he felt empowered while escorting by only engaging in sexual practices that felt authentic to him:

I would only take clients that I knew I could give him an experience that I could at least pull from someplace honest within myself…. That was always very empowering. I didn’t- I didn’t bottom in escorting very much because I just- that’s something that for me that I just- I don’t wanna do that with someone unless there’s feelings involved. So the idea of a stranger topping me for money always felt like the wrong decision for me.

Sam, Max, and Mike all discussed how they felt empowered by avoiding sexual activities or relationships that did not align with their values. Max spoke about this experience broadly, saying, “when I respect those inner rules that I have laid out for myself because I have learned those lessons, then I do feel very empowered. I can feel proud of myself for not abusing sex, not using it as a vice or a drug to numb some part of 92 myself.” Sam gave the specific example of not having sex with partners who stigmatized his HIV status, noting, “HIV is a litmus test… if someone has an issue with my HIV status, there’s no chance that I’m gonna have sex with them. Like they’re- they’re automatically discarded.” Mike also shared his perspective:

Being sexually attracted to younger men, [I’m] always trying to be cognizant of power dynamics and… really trying to be thoughtful of the power that I have, and what turns me on, which is…themes of voyeurism or exhibitionism and so trying to always be thoughtful and responsible around that.

Experimentation

While participants described self-exploration as an intrapersonal experience, sexual experimentation was framed as a behavioral endeavor related to integrity.

Participants noted that experimentation can feel empowering when it is consensual and intentional, meaning the individual actively wants to explore a new sexual experience.

Several participants framed experimentation as an important way to learn about sexuality.

For instance, Vinny remarked, “education comes in so many different ways, not just books and so forth, but through those, you know, environments that you’re willing to put yourself in and explore.”

In fact, experimentation was viewed as so important to sexual empowerment that the majority of participants described it as a necessary experience for all sexual minority men. Sam exemplified this belief when discussing sex parties as a form of experimentation:

I think everyone should go to a sex party, and like navigate that experience and that space and consent and whatnot. And that’s also one of those things that’s like, you won’t get it until you do it. You know, ‘cause that’s a common question I get is, “how do I find a sex party? What do when I find one? And like, what are the rules?”… It’s truly one of those things that you can only sort of do, and you’ll mess up. And that’s how you learn it.

93 Nick agreed that experimenting with different sex partners felt empowering for him, but noted, “I don’t think it’s necessarily just the number of partners one has; it could also be the frequency of sex that you have with like even the same partners. Or hell, like even if you’re in a relationship, I think even having lots of sex with them is empowering.” Max emphasized that experimentation is not necessarily synonymous with promiscuity, but rather enjoying the process of discovering new experiences. He explained, “sex is like adult play. It shouldn’t be restricted…. It just should be all about being fun. It shouldn’t be taken too seriously or too rigidly. And, you know, 10 years ago I was top, and now

I’m like an exclusive bottom.” Mike addressed the difficulty some sexual minority men have navigating experimentation due to internalization of cultural scripts:

There’s this sort of cultural component and scripts that we’re adhering to and kind of navigating and working our way through. And- and there is a lot of times where those scripts are umm contradictory [but] that’s sort of life. As we grow up that we’re confronted with situations where we fall down and get back up and sometimes we’re scraped, you know, uhh but we heal and we get through it. It builds resiliency and it gives us an awareness of ourselves. [But in] other areas of life, it’s sort of expected that we’ll have conflict or trials or bruises. And we- and it’s- it’s OK. But when it comes to sex, there’s such a “sex is so scary. Sex is so taboo that we have to protect the children from sex ‘cause they’re gonna be scarred and will never get over it.”

Many participants offered examples of the ways in which sexual experimentation has helped them learn about themselves. Bill shared:

I had [my] first time bottoming when I was in my twenties and I was like, “mmm, yeah, it’s a no. This doesn’t work for me.” So, for me, it doesn’t feel restricting because the way I’m set up- like the way I’m set up is to don’t knock it till you try it. So, I don’t feel restricted because it’s like, I dipped my toe in that pool and was like, “yeah, no. This is not for me.”

Sam discussed his process of exploration through writing:

I only started talking about [sex] after I tested positive umm for HIV, which happened my last year of college. And I had written, like, I had really enjoyed like writing naughty fiction before that. Some of it I had actually published. I had 94 written like some erotic poetry…and it was empowering to me because I was writing about something that I was still processing and still dealing with.

Likewise, Vinny found ways to experiment while go-go dancing, saying, “the more I did it the more I learned how umm I could explore more different looks, different- I could play with eye contact with people in the bar and the club and flirt with my eyes. To me, that’s when I knew that I’m umm sexually empowered at those moments.”

A few participants offered cautions about experimentation. In particular, Mike emphasized the importance of remaining attentive to ways in which internal conflicts around sexuality may negatively affect experimentation:

I’ve known of queer men who maybe in the moment, went along with something ‘cause it was kind of exciting but the next day when they’re feeling a little more in a different state of mind saying, “I didn’t like that. I felt coerced.”… Maybe it speaks to people growing up with internal conflicts around their sexuality. And unfortunately, they don’t have a space to really talk it out or work it out. And so oftentimes, it gets worked out through action or behaviors. And sometimes that behavior is often at the expense of another person.

Sub-Theme Eight: Self-Sexualization

All participants discussed self-sexualization as a way of exercising sexual sovereignty. The term “sexualization” has been used to describe the process by which someone is acknowledged and appreciated as a sexual being (e.g., Erchull et al., 2013b,

Visser et al., 2014). Unlike objectification, sexualization does not inherently strip the person being sexualized of their humanity. Self-sexualization refers to the act of positioning oneself to be seen by others as a sexual being. Alexander articulated this concept when describing how disempowered he felt when he was desexualized by other sexual minority men:

I wish that I had that freedom to just be, and to go [into] queer male spaces and just be slutty [or] sexual [or] flirty and nobody would care. But every time I- every time I want to enter those spaces, either digitally or physically, I’m met 95 with like, “oh you’re disabled? Oh wow!” There’s so much stuff there that it’s really hard to constantly say like, “No. I have value here. See my value. And also see my sexual value too, like, I’m here to get my dick sucked like all the rest of you. So why do I have to prove that I’m worthy of that blowjob, or I’m worthy of that attention, or I’m worthy of being sexualized?”

Jake shared a different experience of self-sexualization as an escort:

I would say that there were definitely many experiences within the context of escorting where I felt sexually empowered. I knew I was creating a fantasy and like, I’m that fantasy. And even though I was viewed as a sexual object in a respectful, gracious way, I represented…someone’s honest idea of gay sexuality.

Max described self-sexualization as a form of self-expression, saying, “sex is part of our lives. It’s tied to your creativity; it’s like an evolved form of that. And it’s something that we should be able to play with throughout our life to express ourselves. I- whether it be just with one person in the bedroom, you know, or if it means, you know, feeling sexy in an outfit or feeling sexy in your own body.” Vinny also related self- sexualization to a form of expression:

When I finally dived deep into go-go dancing, back in the day, with the lights and the very skimpy outfits that I wore and the crowd looking up, I felt sexually empowered by that. Umm and feeding off of the people, and the music, and the lights to kind of let it all go and- and create sort of a sexually empowered persona. And- and I felt that way too… I owned it.

Alexander, Mike, and Nick all talked about exhibitionism as a sexual experience that felt particularly empowering. Nick described feeling sexually empowered at circuit parties, saying:

[They] have like sexual aspects, like darkrooms. Like honestly at a lot of them you can even just go right at it out in the open. And I think being like- being able to like go and express yourself… I go to plenty of parties where I’m wearing just a harness or a jockstrap or both.

Other participants agreed that clothing—and particularly leather gear—was a meaningful way of self-sexualizing. Vinny remarked:

96 [Wearing leather gear] is an empowering outward choice of sexual freedom because for those that know it within the community umm there’s outward signs that you can even put. You can wear say, a cuff, a leather cuff, on a wrist and within the code of the community, wearing it on your left wrist means something totally different than wearing it on your right. Flagging colors indicates things.

Alexander offered a similar perspective, saying, “I have all these insignias of what it means to be sexual and disabled on my body as a way [to say], ‘OK I’m part of this community, even if I can’t throw on a harness by myself or even though I can’t do all those things independently it’s still a part of who I am.’”

George discussed the importance of being seen as a queer sexual being specifically, even in his sexual relationships with women:

When I sleep with women, …they’re bi, they’re poly, they’re in that kink space so even if they’re straight they really like bi men. It’s not like- I don’t go to a straight bar and pick up a woman like ever anymore. And I feel really actually uncomfortable doing that. I think a large part in that is because I don’t want to necessarily hide my queer identity.

Several participants discussed how they position themselves to be seen as sexual beings by the public through their careers. Sam and George both discussed their visibility as sex writers. Mike and Alexander each spoke about their experiences giving lectures about sex in university settings. Alexander mentioned interviews he’s done about his sexual experiences with major news outlets, and he and Vinny both discussed their podcasts in which they talk about sexual minority men’s sexuality. Jake described his work as a porn performer as a type of “advertisement” for his escorting work.

In summary, participants described sexual sovereignty as a fundamental aspect of sexual empowerment. Sexual sovereignty was understood to capture the ways in which sexual minority men make choices and exercise control over their sexual behaviors in a

97 way that is congruent with their sexual values, and includes sub-themes of agency, integrity, and self-sexualization.

Theme Three: Sexual Liberation

All participants mentioned the effects that systems of oppression have on sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment, as well as the importance of liberation from those systems. Participants specifically understood sexual empowerment to include liberation from heteronormativity and heterosexism, sexual stigma, intersecting oppressions such as ableism and racism, religion, capitalism, legal restrictions, and violence (see Figure 3).

Across all interviews, participants identified two primary ways in which liberation occurs. First, on the individual psychological level, an individual becomes liberated when they recognize the existence of systems of oppression and understand the role that these systems play in their sexual empowerment. Jake described this type of liberation by saying:

The more I know what the real truth is, the better I can make decisions. You keep using that word “empowerment.” You know, I love- I just keep saying shit, like the kindest thing you can do is tell someone the truth…. When you get to know the whole story then you can just make a much better, clearer decision.

Second, an individual may become liberated on a social and cultural level when either a system of oppression ceases to exist or when they take active steps to dismantle that system. George elaborated on this type of liberation:

It’s really difficult to be sexually empowered when that’s not the standard surrounding about you…. I think a lot of people will not necessarily be able to reach that just because of the way they are treated for trying to engage in certain behaviors and be who they are.

98 Figure 3

Sexual Liberation

Heteronormativity Heteronormativity and Heterosexism Heterosexism

HIV Stigma

Sexual Stigma

Promiscuity Stigma

Ableism

Racism Sexual Liberation

Intersecting Oppressions Ageism

Religion Femme-Phobia

Fat-Phobia and Capitalism Appearance Discrimination

Legal Restrictions

Violence

99 Sub-Theme Nine: Liberation from Heteronormativity and Heterosexism

Participants identified liberation from heteronormativity and heterosexism as important to their experiences of sexual empowerment.

Heteronormativity

Several participants challenged the heteronormative assumption that sex has to conform to a specific set of standards or rules. For example, Jake remarked:

There’s this idea that there’s a sexual ideal, that gay sex has to look or be a certain way, or a certain intensity. And the reality is it can look, or be, or feel like whatever you want it to. And, you know, that’s empowerment…. I just wish gay people had a broader sense that like it’s OK to discover who you are and not think that you have to be like someone else or look a certain way.

George agreed that departing from these heteronormative standards felt empowering for him:

Me just being, you know, a queer man, having sex with another man or whatever, I think that’s just empowering in the freedom of doing that. And so kinks are kind of an add-on where I’m having uhh sex with another man [and] I’m doing these kinky things, it’s just another element that kind of supplements and enhances my empowerment for my queer identity.

Mike addressed the “nuance” of liberation from heteronormativity, and recalled a time when he watched someone masturbate in a public restroom when he was around 16 years old. He described how he enjoys voyeurism, but that early experience of outside the context of heteronormativity felt conflicting because “in some sense that was an empowering moment to get in touch with my sexuality and experience myself as a sexual being. At the same time was problematic and scary.”

George spoke about how heteronormativity affects him as someone who identifies as bisexual, saying, “sexual empowerment [comes] from society and from culture, you know, it’s- there is this biphobia and there is this kinda stigma against, you know, bi

100 people.” He also elaborated on one way that he seeks to liberate himself from this unique type of heteronormativity:

I always find myself like accidentally—or not even accidentally; somewhat on purpose—you know, when I’m dating a woman, almost dressing queerer. Like wearing even more crop tops than I usually do, or sparkles, or heels, all this stuff. It’s almost in a way to be like, “no, look! I’m still queer. I’m still a part of the community.”

A few participants identified challenging assumptions of monogamy and engaging in consensually non-monogamous relationships as a way of experiencing liberation from heteronormativity. Jake expressed skepticism that sexual minority men could be sexually empowered if they are “trying to replicate a Judeo-Christian, heteronormative experience” by seeking to get married and only have sex with their spouse. Nick, Sam, George and Max also described themselves as non-monogamous or polyamorous. Max explained that although he and his husband “have been accused of being the most heteronormative couple that has ever existed at times, mainly by people who don’t really know the interpersonal relationship” he shared that having an open relationship was an empowering way of challenging heteronormative expectations of how a nuclear family should be structured.

Heterosexism

Each participant described a wide range of ways in which heterosexism diminishes their sexual empowerment. Sam described the way that psychological liberation from heterosexism (i.e., developing a critically conscious understanding of the role of heterosexism in sexual empowerment) influences sexual empowerment for him, saying, “we discover sex generally untaught, so I guess discovering our sexual selves sort of dovetails into our discovering our entire culture and realizing that it’s beautiful and

101 enjoyable and fun and not this like negative idea that we had children.” Jake remarked on how the closet has been used to enforce heterosexism as well, noting, “I cross paths with a lot of guys who were closeted for many years. And so just the act of having sex with another man is a form of sexual expression for them. It’s an act of rebellion. It’s them finally saying, ‘I give myself permission to be myself.’”

Nick and George shared how heterosexist reactions affect their sense of empowerment when having sex in mixed-orientation spaces. George remarked that

“obviously you don’t feel sexually empowered” at sex parties where he is not allowed to bring a male partner. Nick elaborated on how he felt having sex next to a straight couple at a in Berlin, and contrasted this with his experiences in the United States:

It was a very empowering moment for me ‘cause… straight people, even if they claim to be super accepting of gay people, they would still be like super weirded out if they saw like gay people having sex next to them. But Berlin culture, they just look at it so casually… like, “if it’s not harming me or if it’s not harming anybody, then who cares?”

Several participants mentioned the ways in which heterosexism renders sexual minority men’s sexuality invisible. For instance, Mike shared, “I grew up in a time where, you know, it wasn’t OK to be gay… I knew that my uncle was gay he had killed himself. It was a family secret. So there was a lot of shame around that.” Jake shared a similar sentiment:

As gay men, I think because of the way we grow up, not being able to share—like some of our peers are able to share with each other—our feelings at an early age, we start to close in on ourselves. We start to feel shame and guilt at an early age. And so that was really tied around my sexuality.

Bill vocalized how he experienced this silence growing up in a Black household, which made it difficult for him to articulate his understanding of sexual empowerment:

102 I think the fact that I’m having such a difficult time coming up with a response speaks volumes just because like we don’t- I don’t have a concrete answer for you is because we don’t spend a lot of time talking about our sexual empowerment. Like in the Black community, sexuality is a lot of the times umm, you know, it’s a taboo subject. It’s a taboo topic. So, you pair that with the fact that we are gay, you not talking about sexual empowerment around the- well, not at the dinner table- but in Black households if you’re gay. Like no, uh-uh. We’ll talk about a million other things before we’ll talk about that. And so, I think that is part of why I’m like drawing a blank. Because nobody’s ever asked me about sexual empowerment. So, it’s like, what the fuck? I think- I- I am a very umm introspective person, and I know myself. But it’s like I- I feel a little (pause) stumped. You know? At first, I was kind of grasping at straws to come up with an answer, but I think that is the answer.

Sub-Theme Ten: Liberation from Sexual Stigma

All participants identified various ways in which they have experienced sexual stigma, as well as the importance of liberation from sex stigma to be sexually empowered. Many participants conveyed the centrality of maintaining sex-positive values as the foundation of liberation from sexual stigma. Sam powerfully articulated the relationship between liberation from sexual stigma and sexual empowerment:

To be sexually empowered as a queer man (pause) is just to believe that the sex we have is beautiful and good and healthy and normal. You know? And that’s it. And although that’s simple, it’s a really radical thing because a lot of us- for a lot of gay men, especially those who are brought up in very religious homes or conservative homes, the sex is like the big sticking point. It’s like a lot of us have that point in our pre-coming out self-understanding sort of phase or development that we could be gay if it weren’t for the sex. The sex is- and I grew up in a very religious home, an evangelical home, so the sex was the sticking point. It’s almost like they were OK with me being gay but just don’t have sex because that’s like the ugliest aspect of being gay. So to love our sexuality is a really, really radical notion because generally the people who hate gay men, really, it’s the sex that they hate. They hate our sexual selves. And- and even in like gay representation in media, they tend to render us sexless because it’s the most palatable version of gay men are just men who are gay in name but not in sex. So the sexually empowered gay man is the one who rejects all that and thinks that we do is beautiful, it is important, and should be studied, and should be written about, and should be seen by mass audiences.

He elaborated:

103 [Sex-positivity] is a stance that’s automatically sort of antagonistic because it counters most of the messaging that we get culturally and socially regarding sex and have gotten about sex for hundreds of years and so to be sex-positive is to be sex-positive in a sex-negative world. And to be sexually empowering is to have a good lens of sex and in a world that generally has a pretty sex-negative one. It’s not necessarily just the state of believing that sex is healthy but also recognizing that that stance is a counter message. I would even say a minority message.

George agreed:

I don’t think you can be sexually empowered…without being sex-positive. The way I kind of see sexual empowerment, and also being sex-positive, is that you don’t have any shame surrounding your actions. I think that’s what being sexually empowered means: that I can do what I want to do—consensually, you know, of course—umm without shame and without judgment. And if you have this idea that sex is bad, or wrong, or certain activities, or liking someone of a certain gender, or these things, you’ll never be able to be sexually empowered.

Max offered a similar perspective, saying, “you cannot shut away part of yourself. Sex isn’t bad. It’s not dirty.”

George argued that some people have more sex-negative values because “they just got the wrong fuckin’ information because their parents treated sex like it doesn’t exist so then they got it elsewhere, and then they grew older and got these like shitty ideas about sex and sexuality and sexual expression kind of ingrained in them.” Nick described his process of overcoming the “shitty ideas about sex” he had internalized while growing up in the Deep South by:

…not giving as much weight to what people think about me. And I think I started to realize that people are gonna say whatever they want… I hadn’t even had sex yet and I was already being called “the queen bee of whores.” Whether it’s true or not, they’re gonna talk anyway so I’m just gonna do me (laughs).

HIV Stigma

A few participants also discussed how HIV stigma affected their experience of sexual empowerment. Sam and Bill both disclosed that they are undetectable, and each discussed their experience of liberation from HIV stigma. Sam shared: 104 A lot of people in the world live their lives thinking that sex is dangerous. I think that, you know, we generally preach that story and the danger is, you know, something happening or getting- getting an STI or getting HIV [but] the big, scary, worst possible scenarios for sex which, which is usually considered HIV, is not this big, horrible, worst-case scenario. Sex continues and life continues and, in my case, my sex life got better after I became HIV positive, so we’re really only being hurt by the scare narratives, not by the reality.

Bill explained how he resists HIV stigma by owning his status and challenging others to overcome their stigma as well:

Do I see [my HIV status] impacting my sexual empowerment? Yes, absolutely, because it’s like I know if I’m like talking to a person online or in a bar or whatever, I will dangle that out there… It’s like when I throw that out there and they still are game, it’s just like, “ha, see? Told ya.” You know? Like I’m a winner. That’s what I do. I win. And even that, even that, isn’t enough to like make somebody change their- their interest.

Mike also shared his perspective that despite the “tragedy,” the HIV epidemic sexually empowered sexual minority men as a whole, stating it “humanized gay men and it put a face to us, and society paid attention to us, and- and as a result, years later, we have gay marriage, and- and rights, and umm equality in ways that we wouldn’t have had if we didn’t go through the AIDS crisis.”

Promiscuity Stigma

During his interview, Mike addressed his ongoing process of becoming more critically conscious about his own internalized stigma against promiscuity. He recalled how his promiscuity was stigmatized early in his coming out process, stating:

I was pretty promiscuous at that time in the coming out process. They umm a friend referred me to Sex Addicts Anonymous—thought I was a sex addict given some of my behaviors, which later looking back on now I see that’s part of just the coming out process, but it was pretty pathologized at the time.

105 He later added, “I’ve had many sexual partners. I will candidly admit that I lied in the number of sexual partners [on the demographic survey] but umm to see- to write something down on paper is daunting. Still triggers shame.”

George, Jake, and Mike also shared how the stigma against promiscuity has been present in their jobs. For example, George discussed the stigma against promiscuity taking the form of the desexualization (i.e., erasing one’s sexuality) of queer men in his job as a sex writer:

In a lot of articles that I write about queer identity, it’s almost like they want to purposely de-emphasize sex to be like, “oh, being gay is not all about sex.” But it’s like, ya know, it’s a lot about sex. You know, I’m not gonna say it’s not about sex. Like, we want to have sex with men. That’s kinda- and yes, that’s only one facet of sexuality and sexuality and orientation and all that shit, but like no, no, no, I think, you know, the way that sex umm really plays into your identity, I think, is the strength of- the power of it.

Jake acknowledged the stigma he held against sex work before he began escorting, saying, “I sort of viewed [sex work] as something that was beneath me. Or I thought, ‘oh,

I’ll do porn but I would never do sex work. That’s- you know-.’ I- I think at the time, I thought it was uhh, I don’t know, disrespectful to oneself. You were selling yourself for money.” Mike revealed some of the conflict he feels navigating his interest in exhibitionism while having a career as a therapist:

To some degree that’s still a source of arousal or a turn-on, you know, public settings where it’s sort of naughty or whatever. And so navigating that as a professional, you know, is a challenge. And I’m coming to terms with what I do find arousing or a turn-on is- is still, to this day, a challenge. I’m kind of walking that line of having a life and a sex life- an affirming sex life that may not be in, you know, which would be considered perverse by most accounts. So trying to navigate that is a challenge.

106 Sub-Theme Eleven: Liberation from Intersecting Oppressions

All participants agreed that sexual empowerment demanded liberation from intersecting forms of oppression. For the purposes of this study, the term “intersecting oppressions” refers to types of oppression experienced by some sexual minority men— but not all—based on intersecting marginalized identities. Examples of intersecting oppressions highlighted by participants in this study include ableism, racism, ageism, femme-phobia, fat-phobia, and appearance discrimination. Throughout this sub-theme, participants discussed how their sexual orientation intersected with other marginalized identities to produce unique experiences of oppression related to their sexual empowerment.

Ableism

Alexander discussed several ways in which ableism affects his sexual empowerment. One common concern that he noted was the lack of accessibility of sex and sexual spaces for people with disabilities, saying, “so much of my sexuality has been denied because of access and because of ableism.” He shared that one way he accesses sex partners is by actively sexualizing his disability:

I’m empowered by the fact that my body is different. It’s an experience that most gay men have not had before with a partner. So I kind of play with that…like, “hey wanna, you know, touch my joystick?” Like, I play with all those things because it’s a part of my identity.

Alexander also described how his sexual empowerment is often limited by the silence around sex for people with disabilities. According to Alexander, “We’ve been taught in our society generally not to talk about someone’s disability, not to talk about their mobility device, not to stare, not to say things, not to joke around. Whereas my

107 philosophy is ‘why can’t we joke around? Why can’t we say this stuff?’” He also noted how able-bodied people ignore the experience of pleasure for people with disabilities:

Nothing should feel good to them because they’re disabled. They shouldn’t have pleasure. Their life is so pitiful and sad. How dare they ask to feel good? So that’s why no one’s asking these questions because we already know that you don’t care what feels good because you already think I’m “less than.” Like, these are things we’re not saying, but if you’re disabled, you know it’s true.

He also shared how he actively claims his identity using the word “cripple” to challenge people to critically examine their ableism:

“Queer” I think is something we as a community are becoming more and more OK with. “Cripple” is still more like a shocker, so when I say “cripple” in a lecture or when I say “cripple” to somebody that I’m fucking—and I’ll be like “hey, call me a cripple,” they’re like “(gasp) oh no, I can’t do that!”…I see more acceptance of “queer” than I do “cripple” [so] I’m using it as a form of like, OK let’s unpack why that makes you uncomfortable. Let’s talk about that.

Because his sexuality is so often erased, Alexander described that he felt sexually empowered when others “really see me as a disabled person” and acknowledge his disability in a sexual context. He also shared how he works to liberate others from that erasure through his porn performance:

I remember watching that scene and thinking…“where am I? Why am I not included here? Where- where is someone like me?” And I sought out a bunch of gay porn that would feature me and I couldn’t find anything….So that’s kind of- kind of fueled me to want to do porn- to want to do- like I’ve done porn….I’m only now at 36 learning about sex and disability because it’s so still taboo and my big question is why?

Alexander stressed that ableism not limited to able-bodied people, and that encountering people with internalized ableism around their sexuality can feel rejecting and disempowering:

I’ve only had sex with one other disabled guy. And it was years ago and he told me that I was too disabled for him and it like broke my heart.… But it shows you that like ableism doesn’t discriminate…. And I remember being like 22 and holding my dorm phone and being like “what did you just say?” Like I remember 108 being crushed ‘cause I was like “even the disabled guy doesn’t wanna fuck me? Like what? What?” I was so hurt.

Racism

A few participants mentioned the role that liberation from sexualized racism plays in sexual empowerment. Bill saw himself as often being “behind enemy lines. You know? Being- being umm Black in a white- a predominantly white world, gay in a predominately straight world, and gay in a Christian environment. But I think it’s like made me tougher.” He described the alternating erasure and fetishization he experiences as a Black gay man:

There’s like this sense of erasure a lot. And I’ve seen it happen a lot of times when I’m out for drinks. Like umm my friends will be- we’ll all be standing in a circle talking and umm- a lot of my friends are hot. A lot of my friends are White. And so umm I have definitely seen like a newcomer who will walk over and wanna like, you know, umm he’s interested in one of my friends, will walk up and stand with their back to me…like I’m not even there. And so, umm, I definitely do feel like a lot of the times like either I’m fetishized, like they’ll come over and talk to me because it’s like, “oh you can live out this fantasy” or I’m not even there at all.

He also elaborated on different strategies he uses to resist erasure, saying, “game on. If I decide I want to be seen, then it’s like- then my actions from that point forward are there to be seen. And then- whether that means like bagging them for the night or whatever umm, which I’ve done just to prove it to myself like, ‘oh, you don’t see me? Watch this.’

(laughs).”

Bill also discussed stereotypes he faces, saying, “we don’t all have huge dicks” and “we aren’t all tough guys.” He described the importance of developing critical consciousness about how these stereotypes contribute to the dehumanization and fetishization of Black gay men, stating:

109 You feel like you’re disappointing them if you’re not that [and] the less self- aware person than me would probably succumb to that, but umm I’m 40 years old now. And I know who I am and I don’t give a shit so I’m just like, “see me. Love me.” And umm I don’t fall prey to that.

He further highlighted how he resists fetishization of his Blackness:

I have had some White men like approach me and it’s to the point now where I have to like assess and be like, “hmm, are they really interested in me? Or am I some sort of like umm fetishized version of, you know, something that’s kinda- are they using me to satisfy some sort of fetishization?” Umm and so, that’s a process I have to go through every time, with every person and like sort of- sort of make that assessment. Like, “hmm are they interested in me? Or are they interested in like living out some fantasy they saw on Pornhub?” Like, you know. Umm and I would say 7 times out of 10 it’s the latter.

Vinny spoke about how he harnessed the exoticization and sexualization of his

Latino identity as a form of resilience after the racism he experienced as a child:

I kind of went to an all-Catholic private school where everybody was, for the most part, White. And I remember I was teased a lot or called names like “beaner” or my skin was too dark and so coming out of that into my early twenties and then having the opposite, where it was almost exoticized, seemed ironic to me. And it made me- made me feel empowered that oh now the same skin and the same look is now adored and so I felt empowered for that and I used that umm because it was such a shift…. I danced for a Latino night and used on flyers for that. And I was definitely sexualized in a way that was umm, it- it helps in a lot of ways, I think, for sexual empowerment. But umm it also I think put me in a category or in a box more, where I was a lot more aware of- of my being Latino and my look…. I’m proud to be a part of the framework that’s evolving.

Several White participants also spoke about challenging other White people who perpetuate sexualized racism. Jake exemplified this perspective by stating:

I always want to be careful when I talk about race in the context of my Twitter, which is porn-based, to talk about like a Black guy being beautiful or like really sexy and not like, “oh that big Black cock.” Or something that’s, you know, just objectifying. Because there are a lot of White guys that will say, “oh, I’m into Black men.” What they really mean as I’m into Black men as a fetishized sexual object, not as an equal individual…. As a White gay man who grew up in the Midwest surrounded by mostly other White people, you know, I think it’s my responsibility to carry to the world the alternate viewpoint, [that] “not everybody who’s White feels like you do. And your view is out- is archaic, outdated, bigoted. And it’s not shared by me.” 110 Ageism

Vinny spoke briefly about how developing critical consciousness and actively rejecting ageism felt sexually empowering:

I know [ageism] is a big thing within the gay community [but] I embrace my age. And I feel- I think I’m you know, I’m- I’m somebody that loves to continue to grow and explore and I- I feel umm excited about where I’m at. And you know, that being said with- to me, it really is a number. It’s kind of how you feel…. The number portion of it, I don’t really umm like to buy too much into that because I think in every age realm…what it means to be a certain age isn’t what it was before. So 50 today is not what it was 20 years ago. And I think people are redefining those age groups all the time…. I don’t go on the apps a whole lot. For me, I go out more so the people that I meet, it’s a visual thing without umm looking at something that they have an age or a restriction on it.

Femme-Phobia

Several participants identified challenging femme-phobia and playing with gender expression as an empowering experience. Max described this process, saying:

There’s a lot of heavy themes that are thrown on us, and programmed and thrown on us from the time we’re born. Like, “you’re a boy. You should be masculine. You should play sports.”… You can have that self-awareness to know that you can take those things out- that programming out, you can start dissecting yourself in a good way. And start putting some of those good things back in. What do you want to be? What do you want to see? How do you want it, you know, what kind of person do you want to be?

Vinny discussed his process of challenging “traditional beliefs of what masculinity is from societal beliefs, and that I had adopted, that I had fought for so long to try and be- and appear straight and masculine so that I would be accepted not only by my family but by anybody I came in contact with.” He explained his mixing of masculine and feminine leather gear as a way to intentionally challenge femme-phobia:

It’s been fun to break- finally break some of those walls and- and explore masculine and feminine and let a lot of those barriers go and ultimately, “do I like it?” And if I do, owning it. And so it’s personal and it’s also kind of umm the statement of what I think can be sexy and how I’ve had to kind of overcome

111 that…. Kind of blending opposing masculine and feminine gear and owning it, I felt umm sexy and it was empowering to me to kind of blend those two.

Alexander also recalled actively challenging his own femme-phobia, as well as his efforts to be more inclusive towards queer men with more femme gender expressions as someone who is more masc. Bill highlighted how this type of critical consciousness may feel more challenging depending on one’s intersecting identities, stating:

For Black men especially, it’s like we’ve been- we’ve been had our masculinity taken from us for so long that it’s like we cling to it, you know. So, I don’t know if that trickles down into the fact that I’m strictly a top or more dominant or whatever, but it’s like, “nah, you can’t have my masculinity.”

Fat-Phobia and Appearance Discrimination

Nearly all participants spoke about the importance of liberation from fat-phobia and appearance discrimination. Notably, a few participants identified these systems of oppression as their greatest barrier to becoming fully sexually empowered. According to

Nick, “I think the biggest like barrier since I moved to Chicago to like me feeling fully sexually empowered is probably the fact that like I’m not as muscular.” Sam agreed, and discussed his own difficulty loving his body:

I have a lot of like bodily insecurity and so I- I very much like adhere to like very traditional, you know, attractive standards in gay men. And I feel very like, intimidated and hurt by those standards at times…. I’d love to say that I like totally reject it, like, the look of having to go to the gym and be like this very cookie-cutter gay man. I’d love to say that I can like totally step out of that. But I know I can’t say that because I- because I completely have it.

He also pointed to body-positive individuals as exemplars of sexual empowerment:

I sometimes envy like the- like the awesome sexuality of people who, you know, speak from like the fat community and- and the disabled community and are very- these awesome kind of sexual gods of this space, and are doing so from this like very intersectional demographic. Like they’re making sex accessible to people who have limitations and to people who don’t look like the picture- and honestly I wish I was like that. I- I’m not as confident as those people. I’m not as sexually empowered as those people. 112 Jake and Vinny described how porn and social media consumption contribute to this heightened focus on appearance. Jake recalled thinking of porn performers as being

“the sexual icons. They were the umm gold standard of like what a good-looking guy was to me.” Vinny described how scrolling through social media and seeing attractive sexual minority men with large followings “can make me or people feel not empowered at times

[if they] don’t fit what I think is the desired look right now or the desired body.”

Jake also described how he has “benefited from having a certain aesthetic which has gotten me hired at gay places…where they want a good-looking staff” and how this felt empowering because it was “part of like using things that are part of my sexuality in a way that’s serving me, in a way that I enjoy and isn’t sort of an act of desperation.” He also offered caution about internalizing the idea that one’s value is tied to sexual attractiveness:

There’s definitely a lot of young gay guys that…suddenly come to a big city and they’re young and they’re good-looking and that has cachet, right? That’s their currency…. It seems almost a rite of passage where they sleep with a whole bunch of people because it makes them feel better about themselves. They’re like, “oh, this person accepts me. I have value. It’s OK to be this person.” Umm I think that’s just part of the curve of like growing up and realizing then, like, “OK, I have this value but there are other things about me that are valuable as well.”

Jake also offered hope, saying, “I think the gay aesthetic is changing—which is great—to sort of represent all body types and backgrounds and ethnicities and gender identifications.”

Sub-Theme Twelve: Liberation from Religion

Participants spoke at length about the role of liberation from religion, and particularly dominant Christian messages about queer sexuality, in sexual empowerment.

Sam offered a perspective that was echoed by many participants:

113 I’m a raging atheist… The historic big enemy of sex-positivity is religion and- and the cults that kind of go along with that. I- I don’t think that like the modern, far-right movement in the United States is a religious demographic or movement, but it definitely dovetails off of ancient religious ideas. And so, I think, you know, institutions of faith, although some are very sex-positive and you can find like little liberal enclaves, for the most part, I think they tend to be inhibitors, and they tend to sort of attack messages of sex-positivity. And they- and they have for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Nick identified religious institutions as a source of sexual shame for sexual minority men, especially in the Deep South. Mike also shared the sense of shame he felt around masturbation as a Catholic and experiences going to confession, and how his experience being “born again” was connected to going through “ex-gay therapy.” Max noted the religious double-standard present for sexual minority men, saying, “[my straight peers] were hooking up [but] there’s not a- too much of a religious undertone to everything that they’re doing. Whereas we have been bombarded with that in our subculture from day one.” Bill elaborated on this double-standard:

I saw in the church, you have like- you have pedophiles and wife beaters and rapists. But they aren’t- they aren’t viewed with the same scrutiny that gays are. It’s like, why are we always the ones that our heads are on the chopping blocks? Or we’re always made out to be the example.

Several participants described a process of resisting religious teachings about sex and sexuality by learning more about these teachings and making an active choice about whether they would adhere to them. Max explained:

Catholicism, Christianity, Judaism, all of those things are a cult.… Knowing that they, as a group, have a set of beliefs is very important. And knowing that you have the choice to either join that or not join that.… You have a choice to belong to whatever group you want to.

Bill expressed exasperation that “I wasn’t getting answers from anyone, so I figured I’d better go get a degree in theology so I can think through these things on my own” and so that he could “[see] my faith for what it really is, and not for what people said it is.” Jake 114 mentioned that this process of distinguishing his own beliefs from his parents’ religious beliefs, which he described as “fanatic” and “extremist,” felt easier for him because “I just sort of always was able to view religion and religious ideology about sexuality as being someone’s opinion, and not the end-all-be-all.” Mike described his intentional approach to distinguishing between his personal values and the Catholic values he had internalized by using “acts-based versus value-based decision making.” He explained:

It was very much sort of like the list of commandments. Do not do X, Y, and Z. And I think you see this today even, in conservatism versus maybe liberalism. Conservatism is about “these are the rules. Do not do this.” And what I switched to is more of “what are my values?” And I let my values guide me in my decision- making. And so it’s not that this one behavior is wrong. It’s a whole set of, “well, does this fit within my values? Is it ethical?”

Some participants shared ways that they were able to subvert religious stigma against queer sexuality to feel more sexually empowered. For example, Vinny described a moment in his grade school theology class when given the assignment to present on the meaning of a pop song, and “I was brave enough and chose ‘I Want Your Sex’ by George

Michael (laughs). Yeah, so I think I was- in little ways here and there, I was finding you know little- little peepholes to different outer worlds.” Bill also shared his experience directly challenging a group of people at his parents’ church:

Like 50 people came to this class where they were talking about how the church has failed the gay community. And it was so well intentioned, and I applaud them for that…. [At the end], the energy was turning to me ‘cause I was the only gay in the room. Like, “well what do you have to say?” And umm I took the floor, and…I told them, I said, “thank you, I think this is great that y’all are so well intentioned that you wanted to do better with the gay community. But I think you all can start by basically like leaving us the hell alone. Like we- we are always the center of your focus. It’s like, anytime you talk about sin, it’s the gays. We are like at the top of the list.”

Mike also shared how he felt motivated by his time in conversion therapy, saying, “I see that time as really harmful and traumatic. Umm but also, I look back on that, and it’s 115 been motivating. And it’s- it’s driven me in my work to- to become a psychologist and become a sex therapist and to help people not have experiences that I had.”

Sub-Theme Thirteen: Liberation from Capitalism

Most participants also mentioned the role of capitalism as a barrier to sexual empowerment. Specifically, participants discussed how poverty and wealth, monetization and commodification of sex, internalized classism, and availability of a social safety net influenced their experiences of sexual empowerment. Sex work was a prominent topic within this sub-theme, although participants articulated different views on how this experience affected their sexual empowerment. Nick described his experience with survival sex, saying:

It was like something I fell back on if I fell on hard times financially. And I think that’s- I mean I think that’s the only reason I was motivated to do it…. I would say overall it wasn’t super empowering in that it was basically like my last resort for money.

Although Jake described his experience with sex work as primarily voluntary, he decried the relationship between money and sex, stating, “I want sex to belong to me again and to not just be a product or something that I’m monetizing…. Monetizing sex has, to a degree, sort of taken some of the pleasure and the experience of sex away from me.” Jake also conveyed that relying on sex work as his main source of income could lead to feeling disempowered. He described one situation in which he went along with a client’s demands, even though they did not feel empowering, because he needed money:

He wanted like violent stuff. He wanted to like push my head against the tiles in the shower and stuff like that. Had I known that earlier on, I would have said no. And I almost left that session too, but I thought, “well, I’m already here. I’m already halfway through, so I might as well follow through with it so I can walk out of here with money.” But [that’s] not something I would do moving forward because now I know what that feels like. I know that the money isn’t worth it.

116 Alexander expressed ambivalence about hiring sex workers, describing the experience as empowering because it allowed him to access sex on his own terms, while also noting:

That still doesn’t mean I’m 100% like sold on the fact that I have to spend 300 bucks a pop [for sex]. So, it’s- it’s- it feels empowering but also, I do wish that I could have free sex. And I- I do wish that I could have that experience without having to spend most of my money.

Classism and lack of financial privilege may also preclude people from exploring options that could lead to them feeling more sexually empowered. For instance, Mike shared that he nearly passed up a fellowship focused on LGBTQ sexuality at a prestigious university because he thought he would not be worthy of it “due to coming from a working-class family.” Sam shared a complementary perspective:

I come from money, I come from a wealthy family. It was never doubted that I was gonna go to college. I’ve always had health insurance. And that certainly has allowed me to really like not only do something as absurd as like be a sex writer, but also to explore sexually without feeling like I didn’t have the economic or social means to do so. So in- in an ideal world, everyone would be equally free and able to explore sex without having too many of the like core basic fears and discomforts, but obviously that’s not the case…. If everybody has equal ability to explore with all the basic needs we need, like health insurance and financial stability, then sex-positivity will come.

Sub-Theme Fourteen: Liberation from Legal Restrictions

Many participants noted the effect that legal restrictions such as criminalization of sex work, HIV disclosure laws, and relationship recognition have had on their experience of sexual empowerment. Sam summed up the ongoing fight for liberation from legal restrictions, stating, “I don’t identify with that whole like post-gay idea or movement. I don’t think that gay rights is this narrative that is behind us.”

Nick and Jake both described being coached by friends about how to avoid legal repercussions associated with sex work. Nick also shared how the criminalization of sex work contributed to feelings of shame when he was engaging in survival sex, saying, “I 117 felt bad about it for a little while but I was like, “you know what? I think the only reason that there is that shame is just that sex work is criminalized.”

Sam explained that because of his HIV diagnosis:

A law literally mandates me to communicate effectively about my body and my health, and so that led to great sex. And honestly, it leads to great sex for a lot of people. And I don’t necessarily want to spread the word that HIV will give you a great sex life, but like for me it did.

Vinny described how he believes access to marriage equality has empowered sexual minority men collectively by increasing our ability to make choices around sex and relationships without legal repercussions:

I don’t like having government restrict things that we can- that our heterosexual counterparts have access to. And so I think, you know, a lot of the fight for those things are simply umm human rights, that we all have sort of a level playing field. And- and within that, umm we have a choice.

Sub-Theme Fifteen: Liberation from Violence

Many participants identified liberation from violence as a key component of sexual empowerment. Bill addressed this type of liberation broadly, stating:

Within the gay community we have a very specific burden on our shoulders that others don’t. You know? When we are like 14 or 15 years old, we are trying to figure out how we can hold the guy’s hand that we have a crush on without getting our asses beat… It’s not the same umm trauma that other people experience.

Liberation from sexual violence was a particularly common focus as well. Nick,

Jake, and Mike each described experiences in which they had experienced some form of sexual violence. Nick spoke at length about how he reclaimed choice and control over his sexuality after leaving his abuser:

Sexual empowerment I think for me, I mean, I- I’m a sexual assault survivor so I mean I think it was kind of a way to…reclaim my sexuality after it had been more or less robbed of me…. I guess that like is my way of regaining control, I guess, if

118 that makes sense. Like, ‘cause obviously that was a situation where I completely lost control.

Mike also shared that he had experienced “ex-gay therapy” when he was in college. Each participant described these experiences as both disempowering and as a catalyst for reclaiming their sexuality. Vinny also recalled a situation in which he worried that his sexual boundaries would not be respected, but said he was able to stop the situation before any potential violence occurred. He described how he used this experience to become more empowered, saying, “perhaps for future encounters setting up an initial boundary, before going home with somebody, on what’s to be expected and what’s not so that I don’t find myself, in future situations, vulnerable.” Mike also described how he responded to sexual violence in an empowering way by not letting himself be defined as a “victim” of sex:

I don’t think that they’re all defining moments. And they didn’t ruin me… I have pretty thick skin around sex. I think it allows me to be a good sex therapist or talk about this. So if somebody exposes themselves to me, or comes on to me, or grabs my ass, or this or that. And I know that there’s some male privilege here ‘cause I have strength and power and I can fight back in some ways, but sometimes I haven’t been able to fight back. There’s times when I’ve been- I had a gun pulled on me, I’ve been pushed around, I’ve been beat up, I’ve had bottles thrown at me, you know, I’ve been followed by a man in a car, you know, all kinds of horrific experiences but I survived them. And again, it- because it’s male, I haven’t called the police or I haven’t- there was that one time where I told my mom. But I sort of- I guess because I survived and I’m OK that I’ve not felt victimized.

Overall, sexual liberation was understood by participants to include liberation from a wide range of systems of oppression that inhibit or reduce sexual empowerment.

Participants specifically named liberation from heteronormativity and heterosexism, sexual stigma, intersecting oppressions, religion, capitalism, legal restrictions, and violence as necessary for sexual empowerment.

119 Theme Four: Belonging to a Sexually Empowering Community

All participants emphasized the importance of community to their experience and understanding of sexual empowerment (see Figure 4). Across the interviews, two common sub-themes arose including accessing empowering resources and reciprocal interpersonal empowerment. Sam summarized this theme succinctly, “I don’t have a better definition of sexual empowerment than the ability to discover and appreciate sex, and have a good sex life and a good community.”

Figure 4

Belonging to a Sexually Empowering Community

Belonging to a Sexually Empowering Community

Accessing Reciprocal Empowering Interpersonal Resources Empowerment

Queer and Sexual Affirming Each Spaces Other

Humanizing Each Sexual Healthcare Other

Sharing Knowledge Sex Education with Each Other

Sex Partners

120 Sub-Theme Sixteen: Access to Empowering Resources

All participants identified access to empowering resources as a fundamental part of sexual empowerment. This theme refers to having access to, and accessing, empowering resources such as queer and sexual spaces, sex education, sexual healthcare, and sex partners.

Queer and Sexual Spaces

There were a number of queer and sexual spaces highlighted by participants as facilitating the development and expression of sexual empowerment, including bars and clubs, bathhouses, and digital spaces. Further, most participants shared that it felt easier for them to be sexually empowered in larger cities than in less populous areas.

Some participants mentioned that queer spaces that are not intentionally sexual such as LGBTQ sports leagues and community centers may also be sexually empowering as they help to connect people to a larger community. Notably, many participants asserted that queer spaces are inherently sexual spaces. According to Sam:

Queer spaces are no longer as heavily sexualized as they used to be. But…they never will be sexless. You know, I generally feel like we create spaces primarily for sex and then identity comes with it. I think that the general queer perspective is that there’s a fluidity between community and sex…that doesn’t exist in other cultures. We tend to have very fluid relationship between our fuckbuddies and our hookups and our friends and our lovers. And our spaces tend to be both community spaces and sexual spaces. So it’s hard to say like what’s one and what’s the other. And it takes a while to learn that. You don’t get that at first. And that’s not even a communication challenge. That’s just- you need time in it before you realize that like you may come into this as a young gay man and be looking for sex but you also will find community. And when you’re looking for community, you will find sex. And you can’t really like parse these out into different pursuits and different experiences. They’re all the same experience.

121 Nick spoke extensively about how being in queer and sexual spaces has felt empowering for him, echoing a sentiment shared by many other participants that having a public space in which to be sexual without fear of stigma feels empowering:

Being able to like engage in sexual activity, whether it be in the dark room or on the dance floor…and even like, I’d say like bathhouses, gay saunas and stuff like that…. I’m not saying you have to go to those to feel sexually empowered, but I say they definitely would promote you feeling sexually empowered ‘cause that definitely removes a lot of the shame that you would feel about engaging in certain sexual things or being like provocatively dressed or whatever when you see a lot of other people do it.

George shared, “sex spaces have empowered me in my queer identity in cool ways…. I feel sexually empowered in a queer- in a queer sex space, for sure. Umm and when I’m surrounded by other queer people, I think that’s obviously a huge element of at least me feeling more sexually empowered and being able to be more authentic and be myself.” He also elaborated on his experience in queer sex spaces as someone who identifies as bi/pan:

I’m lucky that I live in [a large city] and I go to these spaces that are super queer- affirming and specifically super bi- and pan-affirming…. I find myself in more umm bi/poly spaces. And the way you usually find those spaces are through sex clubs or through kink things… These are the avenues to meet people umm to feel more reaffirmed and sexually empowered [and] how I found my bi community was through sex—so maybe that’s sexual empowerment right there.

Despite the benefits of queer and sexual spaces, several participants acknowledged that accessing these physical spaces may be difficult for some because of geographic or other restrictions. Alexander, in particular, noted that he felt disempowered when physical and digital queer spaces were not accessible to people with disabilities.

Others shared how they found alternative spaces to be publicly sexual. For instance, Mike recalled, “my first sexual experiences were anonymous, umm happening in like tea rooms

122 on university settings or uhh like rest stops, malls, bathrooms. And so that was really the only outlet for my sexuality for many years.”

Several participants also noted digital spaces such as chat rooms and hookup apps as important to empowerment, particularly for those who don’t have access to physical spaces or may not feel comfortable being out in sexual spaces. Mike noted that Grindr has opened new avenues for people to engage sexually with each other, but lamented “the commoditization of sex” resulting from excessive technology use. He added, “I think that there was a point that Grindr was great. It was liberating. It was a great way to meet people. And now it’s like, well, I think that once you’ve gotten a taste of freedom, it’s sort of hard to come back [and] realize what it takes to be in a .”

Sexual Healthcare

Many participants addressed the importance of accessing queer-affirming and sex-positive sexual healthcare, including information about sexual health resources and availability of affirming providers. Vinny discussed the role he sees sexual healthcare playing in sexual empowerment, saying, “I think empowerment really comes with knowing that you are taking care of your sexual health. And everybody has to make up their minds individually on what that means for [themselves].”

HIV treatment and prevention were particularly prominent topics related to sexual healthcare. Bill and Sam both shared the importance of being able to access HIV treatment to remain undetectable. Most participants also mentioned PrEP as something that made them feel more sexually empowered. Vinny explained that “PrEP was I think one of those medications that you can feel empowered knowing that, at least on your end, you’re doing your part to not spread, you know, HIV.” Max said that PrEP has “changed

123 the game” for sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment, and Nick referred to his decision to start taking PrEP as a “pivotal moment” in his sexual empowerment. He added:

PrEP made me like finally OK with something that I was already quite interested in sexually, but removes a lot of the risk—I mean, obviously there is risk of other STI’s—but removes a lot of the risk. And with that risk being removed…it kind of removed a lot of the shame for me.

Sam acknowledged the role that privilege plays in accessing queer-affirming and sex-positive sexual healthcare:

I can’t really talk about going to wild crazy sex parties and not using without also saying like, “only do this if you have a clinic where you can…get full range testing and do that every two to three months.” And for some people that’s almost impossible. For some people that’s very, very expensive.… And it’s a shame that that’s the case but that’s- that’s the reality is that if I wasn’t able to get tested every few months and get a full range of testing, and if condoms weren’t readily available to me if I needed them, and if I wasn’t able to be on medication, then I wouldn’t be talking about how much I love sex parties and bareback sex. It- it wouldn’t even be on the menu.

Sex Education

Most participants commented that formal education about sexual minority men’s sexuality was either absent or pathologizing; however, they felt sexually empowered by accessing informal sex education. Nick summarized the empowerment implications of sex education:

Having the resources to even know about these things would be like very pivotal in sexual empowerment. And I think the unfortunate thing about being gay men is that there’s not a lot of like literature and articles and random things like that. I mean obviously there’s porn, but like- even then, it doesn’t say like how you do this… If there were more like educational resources that approached like things that people are gonna want to try and be interested in sexually, [that] would be like super helpful and empowering…. The lack of those resources probably is a detriment to the overall queer community’s sexual empowerment.

124 Several participants described sex education as something they had to seek out for themselves. Vinny noted that many sexual minority men learn about “different types of sexual practices” through porn. Max shared, “we discover sex at the same time that we discover like, you know, the gay bar and music and clothes and fashion and whatnot. It’s all like this cultural language that we sort of inherit.”

Mike also identified a wide variety of types of sexual knowledge as important to sexual empowerment, including “basic biological knowledge,” “knowledge [of] how to talk about [sex], …different orientations, …different types of sex, [and] pleasure.”

Alexander emphasized the importance of learning about sexual pleasure, saying, “there needs to be a space for pleasure. There needs to be a space for- forget the ‘how to.’

Forget the ‘bring out the manual.’ Like what the fuck makes you feel good? Let’s talk about that…. I wish in grade nine, I was taught how to fuck an ass.”

Sex Partners

All participants discussed how having partnered sexual experiences felt empowering for them, and a few spoke explicitly about how having access to sex partners is empowering in and of itself. Alexander started his interview by saying:

For me, becoming sexually empowered meant hiring sex workers and finding the funding and like using the money that I make from my talks and using the money that I make from the work that I do as a disability consultant to say, “you know what? I’m not having the sex that I want [and] I’m not being treated the way that I feel like I deserve.” So I decided three years ago to just start hiring sex workers and working with them because that way, at the very least, I would get what I wanted and I would get a little bit of the fantasy that I was craving so much and I wouldn’t have to put so much work in. And that’s been empowering.

Jake spoke specifically about a time when he dated a porn star who was his “celebrity crush,” saying, “to me, [that] was certainly empowering because like I had this ideal of like a physical type and I actually have been given access to that.” Bill also discussed 125 how he feels particularly empowered when he finds a sex partner whose specific sexual interests are compatible with his:

If I have something like that’s considered off the beaten path or non-traditional and then like I present it to a sexual partner, and then they’re on board umm that’s empowering to me because…I created an environment or a situation where I was able to get what I want.

Sub-Theme Seventeen: Reciprocal Interpersonal Empowerment

This study introduces the term “reciprocal interpersonal empowerment” to refer to the communal process by which individuals sexually empower each other. All participants noted that they feel empowered through their relationships with others, and that they feel empowered when they help to empower other sexual minority men. The three primary ways that participants saw reciprocal interpersonal empowerment occurring was through affirming, humanizing (understanding, experiencing, and actively cultivating a sense of others as sexual humans with a variety of cognitive and affective states and experiences related to their sexuality), and sharing knowledge with each other. Mike explained this perspective:

I can’t give you power. It’s your power. You’ve always had it. You don’t need me to give it to you. So I guess “empowering” is perhaps experiences that people have to help them get in touch with the power that they already possess, or the power that they have, or unlocking the power that they have.

George spoke extensively about the importance of taking a collective approach to sexual empowerment:

If you don’t care what other people think, you’re a sociopath. Like, imagine if you lived life and didn’t give a- “I don’t give a fuck what anyone thinks.” Like that’s fucked up! You should care what people think! Like you have the power to hurt people. And obviously it’s like about finding a balance. You know, I think people in general care too much what other people think and that’s why we have the opposite extreme… No, it’s good to care what people think to some degree. And it’s finding that balance. But, you know, in sexual empowerment, it’s just in this regard, it is a shame, you know, like how much it is contingent upon other people. 126 And, you know, you can make the claim that, you know, pure sexual empowerment comes from within and you never need that validation from the external world. And it’s like, I fuckin’ hate shit like that. Honestly, it’s such bullshit when people say that. Like, and I know [that] what they’re trying to say is like, “a lot of it shouldn’t matter.” Of course it matters. We live in a world. This is a social universe. We’re connected with other people. So I just- that language always drives me a little bit nuts but, you know, I think finding- finding the balance of, you know, these- this sexual empowerment that is internal and a part of who you are and that’s always gonna be there, and then also the other half, let’s say is surrounding yourself in spaces and by people who allow yourself to be sexually empowered. So I think that combination is what allows for heightened sexual empowerment. True sexual empowerment.

Notably, several participants described the interview itself as empowering. For example, Bill stated, “I love it. Like, I finally feel like somebody’s taking a minute to like hear my voice besides Black gays. So, I got all the time in the world.” Max also shared,

“being given the space to talk to you about what makes me feel sexually empowered, in and of itself, made me feel very sexually empowered.”

Affirming Each Other

Across all interviews, participants noted the importance of both affirming and being affirmed by other sexual minority men. Specifically, participants noted the importance of respecting sexual interests, encouraging sex-positivity, connecting with an affirming subculture, and engaging authentically in sexual relationships with others.

George explained the role that he sees reciprocal affirmation playing in sexual empowerment:

When you surround yourself with those people [who are affirming of your sexuality], you might then have- be able to then experience it more internally and then, when you have that internally, you’re actually able to then go out into the world and experience these other things better. Umm but I think it’s really difficult to experience this internal sexual empowerment without initially at first kind of receiving that…support and affirmation.

127 Several participants stressed the importance of acknowledging and respecting other people’s sexual interests and values, even if they differ from one’s own. According to Max, “That was an empowering thing to learn: that it’s OK for me to think the way that I do so that I feel good in myself but that it’s also OK to let others just be.” Sam agreed that “sexual empowerment is knowledge, not necessarily a certain way of living your sex life. Umm and sex-positivity doesn’t demand sexual promiscuity,” even though he considers himself “hyper-promiscuous.” Mike described how he engages in this process as a sex therapist, saying he strives to:

Really hear people’s experience and really be curious about what it means to them and what impact it had on them. But also in that is letting them decide the impact and describe it versus I have to adhere to a script of what society or culture says about how I need to respond to this situation.

Participants also mentioned ways of affirming others indirectly such as by advocating against systemic injustices that disempower other sexual minority men.

Some participants also shared that reciprocal affirmation may not always take the form of unconditional support, but rather often includes challenging others to affirm themselves and their own sexual empowerment when they’ve internalized sex-negative messages. For instance, Max shared how he felt empowered when others challenged his internalized sexual stigma:

If you can open up about your feelings and hear a different perspective from someone that really cares about you, I think that that helps. That really helped me. I talked to my best friend and I talked to my partner. And both resoundingly said the same thing. [Sex] is a human need.

Vinny emphasized that challenging each other can be affirming if it does not come from a place of judgment:

It’s really important to align yourself with umm with a friend or two that you can have an open and honest conversation with about your sexuality, about things that 128 you’re contemplating, things that you might want to explore that you feel that they’re not going to judge you.

Sam shared a similar story about having his internalized HIV stigma challenged:

I remember hooking up with somebody on my first day in San Francisco and nervously confiding in him that I was HIV positive, and he just was like “OK.” (laughs) He was like, “thanks for telling me I guess…. If you wanna have this big, heavy like reveal all weekend at Folsom [Street Fair], you could do that [but] I can honestly tell you: nobody gives a crap, nobody cares… We all take our risk here and we all sort of know what we’re doing and no one is going to have any issue with your status whatsoever. And if you think it’s going to be something that’s going to inhibit your Folsom, you’re wrong.” And he was completely right. Kinky people have sort of been like this safe haven for HIV positive people, and for decades before I came along. So I guess this is the community I most connect with because it’s the community that has most embraced me.

Many participants also shared that they experienced reciprocal affirmation when they found a community of sexual minority men who shared their experiences and perspectives. According to Nick, “Just knowing there are people out there that are interested in the same things sexually as you are…might also be pivotal in feeling sexually empowered.” Many participants described ways in which their understanding or experience of sexual empowerment changes based on the subcultures they belong to. For instance, Nick discussed the specific experiences associated with belonging to the circuit and rave subcultures, Sam discussed how he experiences empowerment in bareback subculture, and Vinny shared how his involvement in leather and BDSM subcultures helped him explore new sexual experiences in an affirming space that celebrated this exploration. George discussed how his experience of reciprocal affirmation within the

LGBTQ community changes based on the gender of his sexual or romantic partners:

You know, when I date a man, and it could be the same thing for sex too, it’s like at least I’m queer. I am part of the LGBTQ community, you know. I’m a part of that. And even though I’m still part of the LGBTQ community when I’m dating a woman, and I’m bi, I don’t feel it the same way.

129 Many participants described various ways in which they experienced reciprocal affirmation with sexual partners. For example, Bill shared:

When I do find myself in a more dominant role and then a person like responds to that, there’s an element of control there that is like empowering because it’s like somebody is submitting to my lead. Like, “OK you’re leading. I’ll follow.” And that’s gratifying in and of itself because it’s like, it’s approval.

Mike shared that he feels sexually empowered when he is “able to be really sexual, and talk about sex, and think about sex, and joke about sex, and- and have people not judge me for that, and say, ‘yeah, I like that. That’s who you are. I love that about you.’” He also discussed the reciprocal affirmation he experiences hosting straight male guests in his apartment who “become completely comfortable being nude in front of me, and being emotionally intimate or vulnerable is really a healing and corrective experience.”

Humanizing Each Other

Across all interviews, participants also viewed humanizing others and being seen by others as a sexual human as essential to sexual empowerment. Reciprocally humanizing processes identified by participants included seeking consent, giving pleasure, and feeling “connected” to sex partners.

A few participants spoke about the ways in which sexual minority men are socialized to dehumanize each other by actively ignoring the cognitive and affective states and experiences related to others’ sexualities. For example, Mike lamented the ways in which technology has made it more difficult to humanize each other, saying:

We’ve really commoditized relationships and sex…. We don’t go out and we build a relationship, we think that we’re going to find a relationship (snaps fingers) and it’s like shopping. And if somebody doesn’t check off all of the boxes [or] if they say something or text something that doesn’t fit or- we’re quick to swipe and- and get rid of them and ghost. And ghosting has become a very normal phenomenon. And I think it’s one of the most dehumanizing things that you can do to somebody, to just erase them without explanation.” 130 Likewise, Bill expressed feeling conflicted about what humanizing others means for his sexual empowerment. While he initially stated that he felt empowered when he viewed other people as a “game” or “challenge,” he later remarked,

Actually, hearing myself say it out loud, it sounds kind of disgusting [because] I feel like it doesn’t umm- it doesn’t really honor people. It doesn’t like really see them wholly and completely. It reduces them to sort of a game or a challenge, and I don’t think that that is umm a very appropriate way of- of interacting with others.

He eventually concluded, “real empowerment umm will come when you can like boost yourself up, but never at the expense of others.”

Some participants described seeking consent as an empowering experience. Max emphasized that consent forms a boundary for sexual exploration, saying, “[sex] shouldn’t be restricted, unless there’s something that you or your partner doesn’t like.”

Nick shared why he feels empowered when seeking consent, explaining, “asking for consent is definitely empowering because any person should want their partner to want to have sex with them… I have zero desire to have sex with someone who’s not into it.”

A few participants also described how giving sexual pleasure felt empowering.

Alexander shared that he sometimes felt disempowered when others seek to please him without seeking pleasure in return. Max elaborated on this topic, stating:

I think that is such an empowering thing to be able to give pleasure to another human…. Each and every one of us requires a complex thing to get us off. So if I’m that for you, I mean that’s very empowering. If I fulfill some fantasy for you, being my authentic self, well that’s very empowering.

Several participants also named a feeling of “connection” as empowering. Vinny described tantra as one way to experience this connection by “really exploring each other’s body and learning to accept touch and deeper connections.” Jake contrasted the disconnection he feels in sex work with the connection he feels in intimate sex: 131 [Sex work] really is a performance, you know. Even, I think a lot of hookups are a performance because people are trying to impress the other person, or they- they’ve got a fantasy in their head of who the other person is. Whereas, when I’m having sex with someone where there’s intimacy and there’s a connection, I don’t have to be anybody but myself.

Alexander identified “getting to know somebody, and seeing if there’s chemistry, and like playing around, and joking” as other ways of building these connections. Max shared that he feels empowered when he and his sex partners have a “mental connection, like we- we share a lot of the same ideas and get excited over the same things. Or it could just be that we’re just really into each other in other ways” which feels empowering because he knows that he and his partners “[want] to explore each other and do it in a respectful way. And we leave that situation feeling good as well.”

Sharing Knowledge with Each Other

All participants described the experience of sharing knowledge with others as sexually empowering. Notably, George, Sam, Vinny, Jake, Alexander, and Mike all use their professional platforms in different ways to educate sexual minority men about sexuality. Vinny spoke about how engaging in this type of education work has been empowering for him, saying “I have a podcast too where I’m able to get a lot of experts in the sexual realm that really enlighten me all the time and have definitely increased my- my education towards seeking the freedom of sexual empowerment.” Bill noted that the interview itself was empowering for this reason because “when it comes to the sexual empowerment part, I just don’t think I’ve given it that much thought. And so, this is actually a really good exercise for me, because it’s like forcing me to think about things that I haven’t.”

132 A few participants shared how the historical context of sharing knowledge each other has changed over time. For instance, Sam stated:

I think that my generation is really one of the last generations that grew up [without] mentors. And I think that that’s- that is going to, like, start to die away [because] I’m now old enough to mentor someone much younger and- and to have mentors that are older than me, [whereas, a lot of gay men who are older] didn’t have any- any guides and had to figure this out with a feeling of all equally being beginners. Just because a lot of their would-be mentors died from AIDS.

Sam elaborated further on some of the limits of reciprocal learning, as well as the empowerment implications of recognizing these limits:

I’ve talked to literally hundreds of people who are new to HIV. Young people. And for the first few years, you wanna teach everybody who rejects you that you’re safe and you’re on medicine and you, you know, you’re not contagious and U=U… You sort of build this like back pocket of catchphrases and informational websites and slogans and like bits of information that make you look less scary, umm that you really put a lot of like survival into…. It took honestly two or three years after testing positive to realize that if someone is terrified of HIV, nothing I say, no link I send- there’s no way I’m going to teach them. And it’s not really my responsibility to teach someone about how to have sex with me, or to convince them that I’m not a threat or that I’m not trying to infect them.

Sam’s comments also reflect the role that many participants saw education playing in activism. Specifically, several participants discussed disseminating information about sex and sexuality to counter false and sex-negative discourses as a form of activism to promote sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment.

Several participants identified sharing knowledge with each other as empowering particularly when the knowledge being shared is censored or difficult to access. For example, Jake and Nick both described how they learned about the mechanics of sex work from friends who had been involved in sex work.

Several participants noted that certain methods of educating their peers felt more empowering than others, both for themselves and for the people they are teaching. For 133 instance, Jake described the questions he asks himself when giving feedback that others may find challenging, including, “am I telling him this to be helpful? Or am I saying it to be mean? Because I don’t want to, you know, lean into that behavior where you’re just saying something to hurt someone’s feelings.”

Max shared how he feels more sexually empowered by striving to be a role model for others, stating, “being an example for your peers, your friends, other people, of being, you know, a sexually empowered person…I think that is a very key way to help other people be sexually empowered.” He also shared that he feels it is important to “be patient with people and meet them where they are” when sharing knowledge and information, as well as a list of questions he asks himself and others to explore sexual empowerment:

How does it make you feel?... Does it make you feel empowered? Or does it make you feel disempowered?... What energy are you putting into yourself? Is it good? Do you really feel good? Do you really feel empowered? Or do you feel bad? Are you numbing something? Are you using this as a vice or using this to numb a part of yourself, and is it distorting things?

Mike described his approach to teaching others as “holding space—whether it be personally or professionally—for others to be authentic,” even when “what I have to offer them they reject, you know, umm which is a space to explore the conflict. I’m not trying to tell them- lead them in one direction or other.” Alexander held a different view, explaining that his approach to educating others was “in the shock and awe camp” to encourage others to think about sexuality more critically. For instance, he shared his intention behind using the phrase “queer cripple” to describe himself:

I’ll talk about how during the lecture like I’m gonna use this language to describe me and like why that’s empowering for me. I think it’s just something that I- I mean ‘cause I did used to think of it as a slur….But now I’m like, “well, I know what you think of me, and I know what you assume of me. I’m gonna turn it on its head and like make you confront that then.”

134 He also shared that he responds to ableist questions by saying:

“Thank you for your question. Where did that come from?” Like getting them to generally unpack their ableism because if I come back with “oh my god, you’re a fucking fuckwit, like it- why would you say that?” Like I could do that, and that’s valid it too. But it doesn’t move us along in conversation and it doesn’t allow for growth on the part of the other person.

A few participants also acknowledged that sexual minority men’s collective sexual empowerment requires learning from queer people whose voices have historically been silenced. Sam observed the role that privilege has played in his work as a sex writer, and the importance of listening to a new generation of voices on sexual empowerment:

I’m empowered by people who are speaking about sex from like a trans identity and- and bringing sex positivity to the trans community, and writers who are sort of tackling all of this other stuff that I- that I can’t really tackle, and it’s not really my place to tackle. And their voices are the ones that we need going ahead…. I think the people who we’re really going to be paying attention to about sex in the next 50 years are gonna be umm well, like you. Like psychologists, sex therapists, sex workers, and communities of color and the trans community.

Overall, participants described belonging to an empowering community as essential to sexual empowerment. Participants reported feeling empowered when they had access to empowering resources such as queer and sexual spaces, sexual healthcare, sex education, and sex partners. Reciprocal interpersonal empowerment was another aspect of belonging to an empowering community that included affirming, humanizing, and sharing knowledge with each other.

Summary

This chapter presented the results of individual interviews with nine sexual minority men with expertise and unique perspectives on sexual empowerment. Across all interviews, participants described sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment as a complex and multifaceted experience. The data analysis process yielded four themes and

135 seventeen sub-themes. The first theme, sexual self-humanization, includes experiences of affectivity, curiosity, insight, pride, and courage. The second theme, sexual sovereignty, includes the capacity for agency, integrity, and self-sexualization. The third theme, sexual liberation, includes liberation from oppressive systems such as heterosexism and heteronormativity, sexual stigma, intersecting oppressions, religion, capitalism, legal restrictions, and violence. The fourth and final theme, belonging to a sexually empowered community, includes the ability to access empowering resources and reciprocally empowering relationships with other sexual minority men. Interview excerpts were included to present thick, rich descriptions of participant perspectives and provide supporting data for each interpretation. The following chapter will summarize these results with interpretations grounded in extant literature, consider the strengths and limitations of this study, address implications for research, training, interventions, and advocacy, and conclude with my personal reflections on the research process.

136

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to explore how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment. To that end, individual interviews were conducted with nine sexual minority men with expertise or unique perspectives on the topic of sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) of qualitative data analysis. Results of these analyses yielded four themes with 17 sub-themes. This chapter will provide a summary of these themes along with interpretations, grounded in extant literature, using a sex-positive and critical queer theoretical framework. Next, strengths and limitations of this study will be considered. A set of recommendations for future research will be provided, followed by implications of this study for clinical practice and advocacy. The chapter will conclude with my personal reflections on the research process.

Summary and Interpretation of Results

Across all interviews, four themes emerged with 17 sub-themes. First, sexual self-humanization included the following sub-themes: affectivity, curiosity, insight, pride, and courage. Second, sexual sovereignty comprised the following sub-themes: agency, integrity, and self-sexualization. Third, sexual liberation supported the following sub- themes: liberation from heteronormativity, liberation from sexual stigma, liberation from

137 intersecting oppressions, liberation from religion, liberation from capitalism, liberation from legal restrictions, and liberation from violence. Fourth, belonging to a sexually empowering community included the following sub-themes: access to empowering resources and reciprocal interpersonal empowerment. These results will be summarized and interpreted in the following sections in the context of extant literature.

Sexual Self-Humanization

The sexual minority men in this study understood sexual self-humanization to be an integral component of sexual empowerment. The term self-humanization was chosen to deliberately contrast this experience with experiences of self-objectification

(Nussbaum, 1995). Specifically, sexual self-humanization goes beyond simply the absence of self-objectification to include active and intentional experiences. As such, sexual self-humanization involves the recognition, appreciation, and cultivation of one’s cognitive and emotional experiences related to one’s sexuality. This thinking is also reflected in the nomenclature of several sub-themes; for example, sexual empowerment goes beyond the absence of shame or fear to include pride and courage. This finding supports and extends Zimmerman’s (1995) and Worell’s (1996) frameworks for empowerment that both include an intrapersonal dimension. It also supports Peterson’s

(2010) view of sexual empowerment as an internal and subjective experience.

Previous research on sexual subjectivity has uncovered themes similar to sexual self-humanization (e.g., Peterson, 2010; Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016); however, participants indicated subtle differences between how sexual subjectivity is conceptualized and how they experience sexual self-humanization. For instance, participants in this study described a slightly broader range of affectivity than what is

138 traditionally studied in research on heterosexual women’s sexual empowerment. Whereas traditional research has emphasized experiences of pleasure and desire, results of this study indicate that sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment also includes mindfulness during sex and making space for negative emotions such as grief. Given the extent that participants described heterosexist and sex-negative cultural messaging around their sexuality, it is possible that these messages become internalized and can be distracting during sex; thus, developing the skill to be fully present and attentive during sex feels empowering. No known research has indicated that awareness of negative affectivity is associated with sexual empowerment; yet, several participants made clear that having space for negative affectivity felt empowering and could be a catalyst for further empowerment. This finding may be explained by the unique role that authenticity seemed to play in participants’ experiences of sexual empowerment. Notably, while authenticity was included as a distinct theme early in the coding process, it quickly became clear that authenticity seemed to transcend any one theme, as it fundamentally shaped how participants described their experiences of sexual empowerment overall. Thus, it is likely that being able to express a full range of affect is empowering because it is authentic. It is also possible that expressing a full range of affect is empowering because it counters internalized messages of toxic masculinity (Berke, Reidy, & Zeichner, 2018) that inhibit men from expressing emotions.

The sub-themes of curiosity and insight also bear a resemblance to elements of sexual subjectivity, but with important distinctions. Sexual subjectivity is traditionally understood to include a process of sexual self-reflection (e.g., Zimmer-Gembeck &

French, 2016). While sexual self-reflection was often described as a component of self-

139 exploration, participants in this study indicated that curiosity also included being open to new sexual experiences. This openness to experiences may be empowering to participants because it represents an active rejection of heteronormative, repronormative, and sex- negative scripts that participants described as confining and limited.

For the participants in this study, identification with various subcultures provided unique opportunities for self-exploration and self-reflection. For instance, a few participants discussed how involvement in kink, leather, and BDSM subcultures prompted them to be more curious and open about their sexual interests. Kink, leather, and BDSM subcultures tend to be particularly organized (Clay, 2016; Maki, 2017), with specific events and spaces dedicated to sexual exploration. Consequently, belonging to specific subcultures may facilitate development of sexual empowerment by providing intentional exposure to new sexual experiences to prompts self-reflection and openness to exploration.

Both extant research and participant accounts support the notion that dominant narratives around sexual minority men’s sexuality are heavily based in shame, fear, and invisibility (e.g., Guasp, Gammon, & Ellison, 2013; Monto & Supinksi, 2014). Given the risks associated with public expressions of sexuality, pride and courage in the face of these potential negative consequences may feel particularly empowering. Interestingly, most participants seemed to struggle to identify what the opposite of shame and fear might be in the context of sexual empowerment. This difficulty may be a demonstration of the pervasiveness of shame and fear in discourse around sexual minority men’s sexuality. The role of body-positivity in sexual empowerment is supported by prior research (e.g., Zimmer-Gembeck & French, 2016). Unsurprisingly, many participants

140 named body-positivity as a major barrier to their own sexual empowerment, as physical appearance is closely tied to sexual minority men’s identity, culture, and sexual relationships. This finding extends Palmieri’s (2016) conclusion that appearance- orientation was related to increased sexual assertiveness and more positive feelings about appearance-based attention, as participants in this study indicated that body-positivity may moderate this relationship. Further, some participants described attractiveness as a sort of key to sexual spaces and partners, suggesting that pride in one’s physical appearance may influence one’s sense of empowerment in other domains as well.

Importantly, this study extends the role of pride in sexual empowerment to include pride in one’s sexual identity. Pride in one’s sexual identity has been a central feature of modern LGBTQ rights and social justice movements. Craig Schoonmaker, who coined the phrase “gay pride” in 1970, recalled its relationship to power (Zaltzman,

2015), stating:

There’s very little chance for people in the world to have power. People did not have power then; even now, we only have some. But anyone can have pride in themselves, and that would make them happier as people, and produce the movement likely to produce change…. Pride is shorthand for gay pride. But it didn’t start out that way. A lot of people were very repressed, they were conflicted internally, and didn’t know how to come out and be proud. That’s how the movement was most useful, because they thought, “Maybe I should be proud” [emphasis in original].

Many participants shared that taking pride in their sexual identity also meant taking pride in the types of sex they have. Interestingly, all participants noted that the repression and internal conflict described by Schoonmaker applied to both their identity and the types of sex they enjoy; thus, taking pride in both was seen by participants as a revolutionary act.

This finding is reflective of the broader role that participants saw sex playing in their identities. 141 Sexual Sovereignty

Sexual sovereignty, or the possession of ownership and control over one’s own sexuality, emerged as a prominent theme across all interviews, and included sub-themes of agency, integrity, and self-sexualization. Much of the theoretical debate in sexual empowerment literature about the role of agency often centers on whether or not sexual agency can truly exist (Lamb & Peterson, 2012). The results of this study suggest that, while there are certainly barriers to agency such as presence of coercion or racist sexual discrimination, sexual minority men do have the capacity to make choices about their sexuality and that the ability to make informed sexual choices is central to sexual empowerment. Furthermore, this study complicates extant literature on the role of agency in sexual empowerment by highlighting the highly specific ways that a variety of proximal and distal factors (e.g., substance use, sexual coercion, ableism) affect agency.

For instance, some (e.g., Lamb, 2010) have argued that agency cannot truly exist in a culture that places external restrictions on sexuality. Specifically, Lamb (2010; Lamb &

Peterson 2012) argues that one cannot make a fully agentic decision to perform in pornography because of the social scripts around the commoditization of women’s sexuality. However, participants offered a different and more nuanced understanding of sexual agency as existing along a continuum that changes based on time, place, and situation. For example, participants noted that their decisions to engage in sex work were influenced by a variety of factors including financial necessity, self-efficacy, and desire to lend visibility to traditionally desexualized populations. Importantly, participants described engaging in a self-reflective process to discern how the types of social scripts described by Lamb influenced their decisions to engage in sex work. While some

142 concluded that their decision to engage in sex work was not fully agentic because of their own financial limitations, they also noted that they were able to exercise some agency in the types of clients they worked with or sexual activities they engaged in. They noted that this capacity to exercise agency, even when the bounds of that agency was limited to some degree by external forces, felt sexually empowering.

Integrity was unanimously considered to be a critical component of sexual empowerment, lending support to theorists who argue that sexual empowerment includes an internal and subjective dimension (Peterson, 2010) and the freedom to act in accordance with one’s sexual desires and values (Fahs, 2014). Sexual integrity also parallels Zimmerman’s (1995) definition of empowerment that includes acting in accordance with one’s goals. The subject of sexual experimentation has received relatively little attention in sexual empowerment literature compared to the subjects of choosing sex partners and avoiding disempowering experiences; however, most participants described experimentation as not only important but also an essential aspect of sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment. Participants may have viewed sexual experimentation as especially important to their experience of sexual empowerment because it allows them to exert control over their sexuality, feel a sense of self-efficacy, and develop and practice sexual skills, consistent with Zimmerman’s conceptualization of empowerment. In the case of experimentation, these sexual skills may include fluency in sexual terminology, seeking and giving consent, enhancing one’s own or one’s partners’ sexual pleasure, building a repertoire of sexual positions and practices, and ensuring that sexual activities are safe for themselves and their partners. Several participants also referred to experimentation as a conduit for learning about one’s own sexual interests and

143 values, and for building an affirming community. For example, participants described experimenting with different sexual positions as a way of exploring the role of power in sexuality. These findings support previous research demonstrating that sexual position preference is closely related to sexual minority men’s understandings of interpersonal power (Moskowitz & Roloff, 2017) and race (Lick & Johnson, 2015). Similar to the way in which openness to experience might represent a challenge to heteronormative and repronormative thinking, experimentation might be one way that participants challenge these systems through action.

Past research on sexual empowerment has primarily focused on enjoyment of sexualization (Liss et al., 2011); however, for the sexual minority men in this study, this takes a more active role and manifests as self-sexualization. The results of this study also lend support to the growing view that sexualization is distinct from objectification, and that it may be experienced differently across genders (Visser et al., 2014). Whereas objectification refers to the reduction of a person to a sexual object, lacking basic human qualities such as agency and internal psychological experiences (Nussbaum, 1995), sexualization refers to a process of acknowledging and appreciating the sexual qualities of another person (Erchull et al., 2013b). Further, while traditional sexuality literature has framed self-sexualization as a disempowering experience for heterosexual women (Lamb,

2010), participants in this study described self-sexualization as empowering because it functioned as a way for them to make themselves visible specifically as queer and sexual through their appearance and actions. Sexual orientation is an invisible identity and sexual minority men are out are often desexualized to be more palatable to heterosexuals

(Lapointe, 2016); thus, making one’s sexuality visible can be an empowering way to

144 express pride and celebrate one’s sexuality. As a way of challenging heteronormativity, self-sexualization may function similarly to experimentation by allowing participants to exert control over their sexuality in a way that resists heteronormative scripts that desexualize sexual minority men and provides an opportunity for them to reclaim and author their own sexuality.

Sexual Liberation

Participants identified a broad range of interconnected types of oppression that together form an intricate system of oppression that affects their experiences of sexual empowerment. Within each system of oppression, there are entrenched and insidious forces that inhibit sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment, and power is wielded in a way that sexually disempowers sexual minority men. The process of sexual liberation from these systems of oppression mirrors the development and practice of critical consciousness (Freire, 1990). Specifically, participants described a process of becoming conscious of and critically assessing cultural forces that affect sexual empowerment, understanding the role that such systems play in one’s own experience of sex and sexuality, and taking deliberate action to deconstruct, resist, challenge, or live outside of those systems. Participants’ descriptions of liberating processes also align with Moane’s

(2010) three-component model of liberation. The first component of this model includes analysis of how macro-level systems of oppression exert control at the individual level through tools such as “violence, political exclusion, economic exploitation, cultural control, control of sexuality, and fragmentation” (p. 524). The second component emphasizes awareness of the negative consequences of oppression on oneself, and

145 development of resilience. The third component involves analyzing and enacting bottom- up change at the personal, interpersonal, and political levels.

The results of this study support Zimmerman’s (1995) nomological network of psychological empowerment that includes developing an awareness of one’s sociopolitical context, increasing critical consciousness, understanding causal agents, and engaging in outcome-driven actions designed to exert control. The finding that sexual liberation is an element of sexual empowerment also lends support to Worell’s (1996) conceptualization of empowerment that includes interactional components such as cultural identity awareness. While the aforementioned research on general empowerment has included attention to the ways that individuals engage social systems, research on sexual empowerment specifically has largely neglected this experience. Proponents of an external and objective view of sexual empowerment typically contend that the existence of oppressive systems inherently prohibits sexual empowerment (Lamb, 2010). While participants agreed that these oppressive systems were disempowering, they also derived sexual empowerment from developing critical consciousness and taking active steps to subvert or eradicate them.

The findings of the present study may reflect the influence of the “gay liberation” movement of the 1970s and 1980s on sexual minority men’s contemporary understanding and experience of sexual empowerment. Specifically, liberationists contended that

LGBTQ people should dismantle or seek to separate themselves from oppressive political, economic, and cultural systems that perpetuate heterosexism and heteronormativity (Rimmerman, 2015). Liberationists advocated for non-monogamy, group sex, casual sex, and public sex as ways to resist and subvert these systems. The gay

146 liberation movement was explicitly sex-positive, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, and critical of gender norms (Downs, 2016; Sears, 2005; Wittman, 1970). Participants in this study echoed these values, and stressed the continued importance of seeking psychological and social liberation to their experience of sexual empowerment.

Many of the resistance strategies that participants identified for subverting oppressive systems reflect common elements of the gay liberation movement as well as sexual minority men’s contemporary sexual culture. One example of this can be found in the ways that participants in this study described the role of non-monogamy in sexual empowerment. Most participants in this study described themselves as non-monogamous, reflecting previous research findings that sex outside the context of a monogamous relationship has been found to be particularly common among sexual minority men

(Haupert et al., 2017; Miller, 2015; Schmitt, 2006). The results of this study suggest that this prevalence may be a result of sexual minority men seeking liberation from heteronormative social scripts. Specifically, several participants named casual and uncommitted sex, consensual non-monogamy, and group sex as ways in which they personally become liberated from heteronormativity and sex stigma. The liberation processes that participants described were consistent with Moane’s (2010) model of liberation. Specifically, participants described how social scripts and norms around monogamy exerted control over their sexuality. They recognized the negative ways in which these norms affected their experience of sexual empowerment. Finally, they engaged in actions that challenged these norms by having consensually non-monogamous relationships, engaging in group sex, and having casual and uncommitted sex.

147 These findings also complicate current theoretical discussions of sexual empowerment that position men as the ones who wield sexual power, with little to no attention paid to the roles of sexual orientation or other intersecting identities (see, for example, Fahs, 2014; Lamb & Peterson, 2012). Traditional sexual empowerment literature describes oppressive forces such as sexism, sexual violence, and of women as barriers to sexual empowerment. While sexism undoubtedly inhibits sexual empowerment for heterosexual women, the results of this study demonstrate that reducing sexual empowerment to a dichotomy that perfectly aligns with a presumed is overly reductionistic and heterosexist. Specifically, participants reflected on the ways that forces such as ableism, racism, and heteronormativity inhibited their sexual empowerment, as well as the importance of liberation from such forces to becoming sexually empowered. Thus, this study highlights the necessity of considering sexual empowerment through an intersectional lens.

Belonging to a Sexually Empowering Community

The results of this study indicate that sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment reaches beyond the individual level to include community-level experiences. Consistent with Zimmerman’s (1995) nomological network of psychological empowerment, participants in this study described ways in which they identified and utilized resources to improve their sense of empowerment. The only known study on sexual minority men’s empowerment specifically examined how accessing such community resources was related to perceptions of empowerment. This study focused on whether an HIV- prevention program was perceived as empowering (Crossley, 2001). In that study, participants indicated that the program was not perceived as empowering because it did

148 not reflect sexual minority men’s sexual culture, values, and goals. The results of the present study support and extend those findings. Specifically, participants in this study indicated that access to sexual healthcare felt empowering under the conditions that it is queer-affirming and sex-positive.

In their seminal theoretical article on adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment,

Lamb and Peterson (2012) agreed that access to comprehensive sex education was essential to sexual empowerment. The present study supports and extends the view that sexual education is critical to sexual empowerment. Specifically, participants in this study indicated that formal sex education that was queer-inclusive and affirming was largely absent, so they sought out alternative ways to learn about sex and sexuality through informal means. Participants indicated this was empowering because they were able to learn information from informal methods such as pornography, experimentation, and peer relationships that was not included in their formal sex education. The results of this study also broaden the current understanding of what are traditionally considered to be sexual resources to include queer and sexual spaces and sex partners. Given the limited number of spaces sexual minority men have in which they can be openly sexual, and the limited access to sex partners that many sexual minority men experience, accessing these resources may be uniquely important to this population. Many participants indicated that queer and sexual spaces, sexual partners, and informative peer relationships were more accessible to them in in settings that were more urban and politically progressive. Thus, the results of this study suggest that these resources must be developed for sexual minority men who live in suburban, rural, and more politically conservative communities.

149 Interestingly, although participants in this study stressed that reciprocal interpersonal empowerment was essential to their own experiences and understanding of sexual empowerment, it has not been emphasized in traditional sexual empowerment literature. When interpersonal experiences are discussed, they are often framed such that being affirmed, being humanized, and being educated are empowering experiences.

However, little attention has been given to the empowerment implications of affirming, humanizing, and educating others. One explanation for this difference could be that nearly all research on sexual empowerment has focused on heterosexual women and girls, who may be culturally expected to prioritize attending to others at the expense of themselves, whereas men may be culturally expected to prioritize their own sexual desires and pleasure. Thus, participants in this study may have felt that subverting these heteronormative and sexist cultural scripts, in which they would be expected to prioritize their own sexual desires and pleasure at the expense of their sexual partners, was empowering.

The finding that sexual empowerment includes a reciprocal component predictably contradicts past research on sexual empowerment, but fits within broader conceptualizations of psychological empowerment. Zimmerman’s (1995) inclusion of community involvement as a behavioral component of psychological empowerment, and

Worell and Remer’s (2003) feminist principles that the personal is political and that personal and social identities are interdependent, each suggest an activism component to empowerment whereby the individual has a responsibility to their community. This finding also illuminates the roles that subcultures played in participants’ experiences of sexual empowerment. Many participants in this study shared that their subcultural

150 communities were an especially important source of affirmation and education. On the other hand, some participants also noted that belonging to certain subcultures (e.g., , “poz,” and kink) increased their risk of exposure to heterosexism and sex stigma from those outside of their subculture. Thus, sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment must take into account both individual and communal factors.

Summary of Results

Overall, the results of this study extend and complicate extant literature to provide a richer and more nuanced view of how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment. For the sexual minority men in this study, sexual empowerment was a complex, multifaceted, and at times contradictory experience. Participants understood sexual empowerment to include elements of sexual self-humanization, sexual sovereignty, sexual liberation, and belonging to a sexually empowering community.

Participants in this study engaged in sexual empowerment processes in a way that was authentic, critically conscious, sex-positive, and collectivistic. The results of this study refute the dichotomous ways in which sexual empowerment has often been discussed.

Conceptualizations of sexual empowerment as internal and subjective or external and objective, or as opposing forces of freedom from or freedom to, are each necessary but not sufficient to fully understand sexual minority men’s understanding and experiences of sexual empowerment.

Strengths and Limitations of the Study

Strengths

Through the process of personally creating verbatim transcripts of each interview,

I became immersed in the data by listening to each interview several times, which

151 allowed me to consider how participants’ tone, hesitations in speech, and patterns of responses yielded data that would not be gleaned from reading a transcript alone. Thus, I was able to develop a more accurate and nuanced representation of the ways in which participants understood and experienced sexual empowerment. Additionally, I sought to make the research process itself empowering for participants by using strategies such as member checking to respect participants’ ownership over their voice. The expertise of participants was another strength of the study. Many participants had a depth of knowledge on the topic of sexual minority men’s sexuality and were able to discuss their experience and understanding of sexual empowerment in a nuanced and critical way.

As a gay man myself, I was also able to conduct interviews, examine data, and draw conclusions using an emic perspective. Consequently, I was able to take into account contextual information about sexual minority men’s culture gleaned from personal experience to guide the questions I asked participants, and fill gaps in extant literature with personal experience and cultural knowledge to supplement my interpretation and analysis of the research results. My reflexivity throughout the research process, as well as my intentional recruitment of participants whose identities and experiences differed from my own served as a check on my emic perspective.

Specifically, as someone who holds multiple privileged identities, recruiting participants whose identities and experiences provided new perspectives on sexual empowerment allowed me to continually reflect on the ways in which my own power and privilege shaped the research process.

This study is also strengthened by its use of a critical queer theoretical lens. The use of this lens allows the research to extend beyond a simple description of findings into

152 advocacy for a social justice agenda. The results, conclusions, and interpretations in this study are therefore crafted not only to explicate how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment, but also to provide justification for systemic changes that may contribute to the sexual empowerment of this population.

Limitations

As with all qualitative research, it is important to note that the results of the present study are not intended to be representative or generalizable to all sexual minority men. Rather, the goal of qualitative research is to be descriptive, yielding results that may be transferrable to other similar samples. However, some limitations of this study are important to note.

One limitation was the subjective nature of the recruitment process. Although purposive theoretical sampling is recommended for exploratory qualitative research

(Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Merriam, 2009), researcher bias and subjectivity are unavoidable when using this sampling method. To address this limitation, I consulted with colleagues and critically reflected on questions such as “what does it mean to be an expert in sexual empowerment?” and “which perspectives are unique?” Further, I used snowball sampling to address my blind spots. Yet, these ultimately remained subjective inclusion criteria and thus dependent to a degree on whose voices are already heard and acknowledged as experts. Consequently, all participants described themselves as presently high SES with at least an undergraduate education, all were out to everyone or nearly everyone in their lives, and almost all lived in densely-populated urban environments. These resources may have afforded participants greater power and privilege relative to other sexual minority men; thus, the results of this study may not be

153 transferrable to samples of sexual minority men who do not have access to such resources.

Additionally, even with the collaborative steps taken to protect participant confidentiality, some participants may have engaged in impression management or may have felt constrained by their public image. Consequently, some participants may have emphasized or de-emphasized specific identities or experiences that influence their sexual empowerment, or may have withheld information that could have led to a deeper and richer understanding of their experience of sexual empowerment.

This study was also limited by constraints of time, finances, and public health concerns. Ideally, interviews would have occurred in person; however, due to financial limitations and the timing of the research coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic, in- person interviews were not feasible or safe. It is possible that such in-person interviews may have yielded richer data about the context in which participants were living, additional non-verbal cues, and increased rapport with participants. Additionally, this study was completed with a submission deadline, resulting in artificial time constraints.

Additional time with the data may have yielded further insights, different themes, or allowed for additional data collection.

Implications for Research, Training, Practice, and Advocacy

Critical queer theory (Downing & Gilette, 2011; Minton, 1997) challenges researchers to consider the role of power and heterosexism in the research design, implementation, and dissemination. Critical qualitative research does not feign neutrality, but instead recognizes that “neutrality” in academic research maintains the status quo.

Consequently, the purpose of critical qualitative research is to challenge the dominant

154 discourse and use research as a form of activism (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Merriam,

2009). An implicit assumption that underlies the dominant discourse in psychology is that consumers of psychological research are heterosexual, and therefore implications of research should be written for this audience. This assumption reinforces a power structure that marginalizes queer psychologists and encourages the perpetuation of heterosexist and heteronormative research, training, practice, and advocacy. This study seeks to answer the call of critical queer theory by actively resisting this assumption. Thus, while many of the implications described in this section may also be applicable to heterosexual audiences, this discussion will intentionally and explicitly address and center the needs of sexual minority male psychologists.

Implications for Research

Given the multifaceted themes and sub-themes uncovered, as well as the limitations of this study, further research on sexual minority men’s understanding and experience of sexual empowerment is warranted. While this study sought to address an important gap in research on sexual minority men’s sexuality, there is a particularly strong need for sustained sex-positive research in this area. This sex-positive lens

(Hargons et al., 2017; Williams et al., 2015) should be paired with a critical queer theoretical framework (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2019; Downing & Gilette, 2011; Minton,

1997) to produce research that is explicitly oriented towards social justice and countering the heterosexist discourse that pervades psychological literature on sexual minority men’s sexuality. Relatedly, future research should be conducted primarily from an emic perspective, with sexual minority men having control over our own voices and experiences. This research may seek to address how sexual minority men understand and

155 experience sexual empowerment from an intersectional perspective, identify factors that may promote or inhibit sexual empowerment within a specific theme or sub-theme, explore how sexual empowerment develops over time, or whether and how sexual empowerment can be measured quantitively. Given that some participants indicated that the same behaviors may be more or less empowering based on individual motivations and values, future measures of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men must account for this variation with the incorporation of qualitative questions that allow participants to elaborate on their experiences of empowerment.

This study also illuminates the need to critically re-examine binarily gendered assumptions about sexual power that position men as inherently sexually empowered and women as inherently sexually disempowered. Psychologists have been called to consider how attention to intersectionality in research may be used to promote social justice

(Rosenthal, 2016). This study highlights the need to increase attention to how various intersections of sexuality, assigned sex, gender identity, gender expression, race, ability, religion, socioeconomic status, age, size and other identities shape an individual’s experience of sexual empowerment. Such research on the role of intersectionality in sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment may yield important information about the ways in which various experiences of privilege, power, and marginalization shape participants’ understanding and experience of sexual empowerment. Additional research with sexual minority men specifically could also further examine how sexual empowerment may be understood and experienced differently within and across various subcultures, sexual position preferences, degrees of outness, and relationship structures.

Future studies may also intentionally sample sexual minority men who identify as

156 adolescents and non-experts, who were intentionally excluded from this study, in order to determine whether the results of this study may be transferrable to these populations.

Given the wide range of sexual empowerment themes and sub-themes uncovered in this study, further qualitative research may be conducted to deepen the field’s understanding of a specific theme or sub-theme, with a particular emphasis on those areas that extend or contradict current literature around sexual empowerment. For instance sexual experimentation, reciprocal interpersonal empowerment, and access to queer and sexual spaces should be explored so that researchers may develop a better understanding of the unique roles these themes play in sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment. The relationships between these themes and sub-themes may be an additional area of exploration. For instance, several participants mentioned that insight into their sexual values and interests was necessary for sexual integrity; yet, participants also noted that having agency and belonging to a sexually empowerment community facilitated this relationship. This finding may suggest that agency and environmental factors may moderate the relationship between insight and integrity. Further research may explicate such relationships to identify strategies for increasing sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment.

Future research may also include quantitative studies to examine whether these themes are generalizable to the broader population of sexual minority men. In particular, developing measures to assess sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment may challenge the heterosexism embedded in psychological research on sexuality by encouraging further examination of positive aspects of sexual minority men’s sexuality.

157 Quantitative and longitudinal research may also explore how sexual empowerment develops and changes across time, and across different settings.

Implications for Training

As stated in the introduction to this section, training for counseling psychologists on sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment must begin by acknowledging and challenging the assumption that this training is for cisgender and heterosexual audiences.

Sexual minority men who are counseling psychology students must demand training that centers their needs and listens to their voices. At the same time, the results of this study indicate that sexual minority men often learn the most accurate and empowering information about sex and sexuality from each other, often through informal channels.

Thus, professors and supervisors who identify as sexual minority men must act as mentors to trainees. Likewise, trainees in programs without sexual minority male professors or supervisors must be prepared to seek sex-positive and queer-affirming sexual education through informal channels. As a whole, counseling psychologists must acknowledge that gaps in extant literature about positive aspects of sexual minority men’s sexuality (e.g., Hargons et al., 2017) will necessitate the inclusion of curricular materials beyond traditional psychological research. Borrowing from the suggestions of participants in this study, such materials may include articles in LGBTQ periodicals, oral histories through videos and podcasts, pornography, music, and affirming and non- judgmental conversations to facilitate self-reflection.

Consistent with the recommendations of Burnes and colleagues (2017), counseling psychology programs must include training on sexuality that extends beyond pathology and dysfunction to include sex-positivity. Such training must be available

158 across training settings to include classroom education, teaching and research assistantships, and clinical training sites. Inherent in this push for inclusion is the need to make space for such training. Rather than treat sex and sexuality as a niche topic, counseling psychologists must advocate for the infusion of these topics throughout all aspects of clinical training.

The implications of this study for clinical training are not limited to current doctoral students. Counseling psychologists must challenge themselves to continually increase their competence and comfort working with sexual minority men on issues related to sexual empowerment. Thus, they must seek out continuing education in this area, and sexual minority male psychologists with particular expertise in sex and sexual empowerment must take responsibility for providing consultation and continuing education on this topic. Importantly, the participants in this study indicated that processes that facilitate or inhibit sexual empowerment extend well beyond the therapy room. In this case, counseling psychologists have much to offer as trainers and consultants (e.g.,

Tucker et al., 2007) Therefore, counseling psychologists must be prepared to consult with and train professionals in allied health disciplines to offer queer-affirming and sex- positive services. They may also provide consultation and training for sexuality educators, policymakers, and cultural influencers. For such training and consultation initiatives, counseling psychologists would be wise to reach across disciplines to enlist the participation of collaborators in the targeted field. Heterosexual counseling psychologists who wish to offer such training and consultation must defer to the expertise that sexual minority men have through lived experience.

159 Implications for Clinical Practice

The present study holds several implications for counseling psychologists engaged in clinical practice with sexual minority men. The results of this study challenge sexual minority male therapists to engage in critical self-reflection about their own understanding and experience of sexual empowerment. Given the heterosexism and heteronormativity ingrained in the training and practice of psychology, clinicians are encouraged to reflect on how they might inadvertently or intentionally reproduce those systems of oppression in their clinical work. For instance, clinicians should consider whether their perspective and values as a sexual minority man align with dominant narratives around professionalism and ethics in psychology. For instance, Zur (2015) critiqued the extent to which ethical principles in the field of psychology (American

Psychological Association, 2017) are shaped by dominant cultural narratives. Likewise, psychology’s relationship to sexuality has been historically fused with religious institutions and the criminal justice system (Gordon, 2008), which participants in this study named as inhibiting their sexual empowerment.

Thus, rather than simply rely on these hegemonic standards by default, counseling psychologists are called to reflect on the extent to which they align with the needs expressed by participants in this study, as well as their own values. Some questions to start this reflexive process may include: how has my training as a psychologist encouraged or discouraged self-disclosure around sex? How have I been taught to interpret clients’ self-sexualizing behaviors and dress? How do I navigate sexual boundaries as a psychologist? What do I have to learn from sexual minority male clients about sexuality that I may not be able to receive from formal clinical training? How can I

160 draw on my own experiences as a sexual minority man to sexually empower clients?

Does the way I speak about sex and sexuality with clients and colleagues stigmatize or uplift sexual minority men? In what ways have I internalized oppressive discourses around my own sexuality and sexual empowerment? Cruz, Greenwald, and Sandil (2017) also provide an extensive list of questions designed to prompt counseling psychologists’ self-reflection about common biases that arise when thinking about the sexualities of clients with marginalized identities. Reflecting on these questions may provide a foundation from which to approach clinical practice with sexual minority male clients with greater intentionality.

Consistent with the findings that sexual empowerment demands liberation from a wide range of oppressive systems, clinicians must consider how these systems may be reproduced in their clinical practice and actively work to create a more just and empowering practice. Several recommendations may be offered based on the feedback of participants about what facilitates their experiences of sexual empowerment. For instance, clinicians should set up their offices in such a way that they can add seating for clients in non-monogamous relationships or remove seating to make space for clients who use wheelchairs. They must also offer free or sliding scale services for clients who may not be able to afford standard therapy fees. They must be able to refer clients to allied health professionals who are queer-affirming and sex-positive. Further, they must be knowledgeable enough about the local LGBTQ and sexual minority male specific community to be able to recommend safe and affirming spaces in which to explore sexuality. Therapists who frequent the same queer and sexual spaces as their clients, including both digital and physical spaces, must consider how they might approach

161 conversations about boundaries and multiple relationships in a way that feels authentic and reciprocally empowering. These recommendations are by no means exhaustive, and counseling psychologists are encouraged to listen to the needs of sexual minority men as they craft policies to minimize the influence of oppressive systems on the accessibility of clinical services.

Specific interventions may also be adapted to facilitate development of clients’ sexual empowerment. Worell and Remer (2003) recommend several empowering interventions grounded in feminist therapy such as cultural analysis and power analysis, consciousness raising, therapist self-disclosure, and collaborative goal-setting that reflect many of the themes uncovered in this study. Mindfulness coaching has also shown promise as a therapeutic intervention to improve sexual wellbeing (Leavitt, Lefkowitz, &

Waterman, 2019) and provide a foundation for clients preparing for somatic-focused (Thouin-Savard, 2019). In relationship therapy, psychologists must provide space to explore clients’ beliefs and values around monogamy and non-monogamy, regardless of the clients’ perceived relationship structure. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, psychologists must move beyond therapy that focuses only on reducing distress and dysfunction and work with clients to instill pride, reinforce courage, and celebrate the positive aspects of sex and sexuality for their sexual minority male clients.

Implications for Advocacy

The results of this study offer several implications for advocacy and systems-level interventions. Counseling psychologists are particularly well-positioned to advocate for systemic changes in the field of psychology (Speight & Vera, 2008). Consistent with

Moane’s (2010) model, liberation demands bottom-up change at the personal,

162 interpersonal, and systemic levels. Thus, sexual minority men who are counseling psychologists are called take up the mantle of the fight for liberation and justice at a systemic level. As the editors of The Red Butterfly noted in their comments on

Wittman’s (1970) Gay Manifesto, “liberation of the head can never be more than a half- step, a transitional move, until fundamental changes are made in the institutions and cultural forms which create gay oppression” (pg. 8). Sexual minority men who are counseling psychologists are uniquely positioned to advocate for such changes from the bottom up because their expertise lies at the intersection of their lived experience and professional training.

Sexual minority men who are counseling psychologists are afforded privilege by their education and credentials. With that privilege comes a responsibility to use our power to enact change. Those in positions of power, such as clinical directors, training directors, journal editors, IRB administrators, and APA officials must use this power to advance social justice, reduce or eliminate barriers to sexual empowerment, amplify sex- positive voices, and visibly challenge entrenched systems of oppression that sexually disempower sexual minority men. This recommendation is consistent with Patton and

Bondi’s (2015) contention that effective social justice advocacy requires the disruption of systems of oppression at the institutional level. Similarly, sexual minority male counseling psychologists must consider the privilege they may hold relative to other sexual minority men because of their intersecting identities. For instance, those who are

White and able-bodied must amplify the voices of people of color and people with disabilities, and center their voices in advocacy for intersectional social justice.

163 Sexual empowerment does not solely exist within the field of psychology; therefore, advocacy for sexual empowerment must extend beyond the bounds of our field as well. Psychologists are called to be at the forefront of movements for social justice beyond the context of counseling and psychotherapy (Vera & Speight, 2003). Participants in this study offer several suggestions for what this work might look like. Specifically, counseling psychologists must join the calls of participants in this study for economic justice. This includes the dismantling of oppressive capitalist systems that preclude sexual minority men from accessing resources to have full agency over their sexuality.

Advocating for universal healthcare coverage so that sexual minority men can access sex- positive and queer-affirming mental and sexual healthcare is also needed. Participants also shared the necessity of changes to the legal and criminal justice system that disempowers sexual minority men. Psychologists must therefore lend our voices to growing calls to decriminalize sex work and advance legislation that protects sex workers from exploitation and violence. The desexualization and erasure of sexual minority men in sex education and media described by participants presents another avenue for advocacy. Sex education must be revised to center the experiences of sexual minority men and move beyond the mechanics of sex to include education about pleasure, sexual culture, accessing resources, and non-heteronormative sexualities and relationships.

Psychologists must also consume media that actively and positively sexualizes sexual minority men. Participants also lamented the role that religion and dominant narratives around sexual morality play in inhibiting sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment.

Thus, psychologists must speak out against religious ideologies that marginalize, oppress, and encourage violence against sexual minority men. Relatedly, psychologists must

164 challenge heteronormative institutions and structures that stigmatize promiscuity and non-monogamy.

The reciprocal nature of sexual empowerment between sexual minority men offers recommendations for sexual minority men who are counseling psychologists seeking to contribute to the collective sexual empowerment of the community even outside of their professional roles. Sexual minority men who are also counseling psychologists must, to the extent that they are able, preserve and patronize queer and sexual spaces that promote the development and exploration of sexual empowerment.

They must also actively develop their own critical consciousness, work towards their own sexual liberation, and explore their own understanding and experiences of sexual empowerment. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, sexual minority men must have sex that is joyful, celebratory, authentic, and empowering.

Personal Reflections

As I reach the conclusion of this dissertation process, I feel compelled to look back and reflect on how it began. Sex has been an important part of my personal and professional life. I might even go so far as to say that, at least over the last decade, sex has been the most important part of both my personal and professional life. In many ways, this dissertation feels like the culmination of my growth as a gay man and a counseling psychologist. This growth is reflected in how my research interests have changed over the years. As an undergraduate, I was primarily interested in studying heterosexism and heterosexuals’ attitudes towards LGBTQ people. When I started graduate school, I knew I wanted my focus to shift to the perspectives of sexual minority men, and was interested in contributing to the literature on sexual minority men’s

165 sexuality. Thus, my master’s thesis focused on predictors of sexual risk behavior. After completing this project, I realized that our field was saturated with research about sexual risk, but I could not find literature that reflected my experience as someone who found sex to be a positive force in my life. Throughout my training, I often felt isolated because of my sex-positive values. I faced rebuke from colleagues when I spoke openly and proudly about my sexual experiences and values as a gay, non-monogamous therapist. I realized through these experiences that our field desperately needed a new perspective.

As someone who plans to pursue a more clinically-oriented career, I wanted to leave something tangible for others to continue research on the positive aspects of sexual minority men’s sexuality. Thus, my original plan for my dissertation was to develop a measure of sexual empowerment for sexual minority men. I was initially disheartened and frustrated when my dissertation committee insisted that I conduct a qualitative project instead. I felt concerned about my lack of experience conducting qualitative research at such a large scale, and anxious about how my neurodivergence would affect my ability to complete such a complex qualitative study.

However, over the course of the project, I came to appreciate the importance of qualitative research, particularly with populations whose voices are often marginalized and silenced in psychological research. I realized that if I had jumped to measure development, the measure I created would have inevitably been influenced by heteronormative and heterosexist discourses around sexual empowerment in the extant literature. I also felt excited to bring together participants with such diverse perspectives and experiences on this topic—especially knowing that some of the participants in my study who were writers, activists, and educators were the same ones who have shaped my

166 own understanding of what it means for me to be sexually empowered as a gay man. I felt honored that my participants were willing to become so vulnerable and share their stories with me.

Throughout the research process, I was particularly attuned to the ways in which my participants and I were co-constructing our definitions of sexual empowerment. One experience that stood out for me was how frequently I caught myself and my participants talking about what sexual empowerment is not, rather than what it is. We would talk about feeling disempowered by shame, fear, objectification, and violence, which may have felt easier because of the extent to which these negative experiences pervade our discourses around sexual minority men’s sexuality. I noticed myself becoming more mindful of this over time, even outside the context of this dissertation. This research process has helped me to refine and evolve my own understanding and experience of sexual empowerment as a gay man. Through this project, I sought to challenge our field and empower sexual minority men; I feel humbled and proud to say that the process challenged and empowered me as well.

Conclusion

This study filled an important gap in the literature by using a critical queer theoretical lens to examine how sexual minority men understand and experience sexual empowerment. While this population has been largely ignored in research on sexual empowerment, the present study centered the narratives of sexual minority men. Further, it amplified the perspectives of sexual minority men who are also sex workers, people of color, people with disabilities, consensually non-monogamous, and otherwise marginalized in the dominant discourse around sex and sexuality. The present study

167 sought to address that imbalance by listening to the voices of nine sexual minority men with particular expertise or unique perspectives on their understanding and experience of sexual empowerment. Analysis of interviews revealed that participants understood sexual empowerment to include elements of sexual self-humanization, sexual sovereignty, sexual liberation, and belonging to a sexually empowering community. The results of this study provide grounds for recommendations to reshape counseling psychologists’ research, practice, and advocacy with sexual minority men. Counseling psychologists are called to challenge oppressive systems that seek to disempower sexual minority men, and become agents of change in the fight to build a culture that supports, celebrates, and centers sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment.

168 REFERENCES

Adams, J., Blair, K. L., Borrero-Bracero, N. I., Espin, O., Hayfield, N. J., Hegarty, P., . . .

Shepperd, D. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and psychology: An

international conversation among researchers. Psychology and Sexuality, 1, 76-91.

American Psychiatric Association. (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual: Mental

disorders. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical principles of psychologists and

code of conduct (2002, amended effective June 1, 2010, and January 1, 2017).

Arakawa, D. R., Flanders, C. E., Hatfield, E., & Heck, R. (2013). Positive psychology:

What impact has it had on sex research publication trends. Sexuality & Culture,

17, 305–320.

Barrett, R. (2017). From drag queens to leathermen: Language, gender, and gay male

subcultures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Bay-Cheng, L. Y. (2012). Recovering empowerment: De-personalizing and re-

politicizing adolescent female sexuality. Sex Roles, 66, 713-717.

Barrios, R. J., & Lundquist, J. H. (2012). Boys just want to have fun? Masculinity, sexual

behaviors, and romantic intentions of gay and straight males in college. Journal of

LGBT Youth, 9, 271-296.

169 Berke, D. S., Reidy, D., & Zeichner, A. (2018). Masculinity, emotion regulation, and

psychopathology: A critical review and integrated model. Clinical Psychology

Review, 66, 106-116.

Bishop, C. J. (2015). “Cocked, locked, and ready to fuck?”: A synthesis and review of the

gay male pornography literature. Psychology and Sexuality, 6, 5-27.

Boislard-Pepin, M. A., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2011). Sexual subjectivity,

relationship status and quality, and same-sex sexual experience among emerging

adult females. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 1, 54-64.

Bolding, G., Davis, M., Hart, G., Sherr, L., & Elford, J. (2007). Where young MSM meet

their first sexual partner: The role of the Internet. AIDS and Behavior, 11, 522-

526.

Bonello, K. (2009). Gay monogamy and extra-dyadic sex: A critical review of the

theoretical and empirical literature. Counselling Psychology Review, 24, 51-65.

Bonello, K., & Cross, M. C. (2009). Gay monogamy: I love you but I can’t have sex with

only you. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 117-139.

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

Bowman, C. P. (2014). Women’s masturbation: Experiences of sexual empowerment in a

primarily sex-positive sample. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 363-378.

Brett, P. & Wood, E. (2002). Lesbian and gay music. Electronic Musicological Review,

7.

Burnes, T. R., Singh, A. A., & Witherspoon, R. G. (2017). Sex positivity and counseling

psychology: An introduction to the major contribution. The Counseling

Psychologist, 45, 470-486.

170 Cameron, S., Collins, A., Drinkwater, S., Hickson, F., Reid, D., Robers, J., …

Weatherburn, P. (2009). Surveys and data sources on gay men’s lifestyles and

socio-sexual behavior: Some key concerns and issues. Sexuality and Culture, 13,

135-151.

Campbell, J. E. (2004). Getting it on online: Cyberspace, gay male sexuality, and

embodied identity. New York: Harrington Park Press.

Carballo-Diéguez, A., Ventuneac, A., Dowsett, G. W., Balan, I., Bauermeister, J.,

Remien, R. H., . . . Mabragaña, M. (2011). Sexual pleasure and intimacy among

men who engage in “Bareback Sex”. AIDS and Behavior, 15, S57-S65.

The Center for HIV Law and Policy. (2017). HIV criminalization in the United States: A

sourcebook on state and federal HIV criminal law and practice. New York, NY:

Author.

Chen, L. P., Murad, M. H., Paras, M. L., Colbenson, K. M., Sattler, A. L., Goranson, E.

N., . . . Zirakzadeh, A. (2010). and lifetime diagnosis of psychiatric

disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 85,

618-629.

Cicolini, G., Comparcini, D., & Simonetti, V. (2014). Workplace empowerment and

nurses’ job satisfaction: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Nursing

Management, 22, 855-871.

Clarke, V., Hayfield, N. and Huxley, C. (2012). Lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans

appearance and embodiment: A critical review of the psychological literature.

Psychology of Sexualites Review, 3, 51-70.

171 Clay, S. (2016). Cataloguing bodies: Tribes on Grindr (Unpublished bachelors thesis).

University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.

Compton, J. (2016, May 23). American men are still being arrested for sodomy. The

Advocate. Retrieved from www.advocate.com/crime/2016/5/23/172merican-men-

are-still-being-arrested-sodomy

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cray, A., Miller, K., & Durso, L. E. (2013). Seeking shelter: The experiences and unmet

needs of LGBT homeless youth. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.

Cresswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative research.

Theory Into Practice, 39, 124-130.

Crossley, M. L. (2001). The ‘Armistead’ project: An exploration of gay men, sexual

practices, community health promotion and issues of empowerment. Journal of

Community and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 111-123.

Cruz, C., Greenwald, E., & Sandil, R. (2017). Let’s talk about sex: Integrating sex

positivity in counseling psychology practice. The Counseling Psychologist, 45,

547-569.

Curtin, N., Ward, L. M., Merriwether, A., & Caruthers, A. (2011). Femininity ideology

and sexual health in young women: A focus on sexual knowledge, embodiment,

and agency. International Journal of Sexual Health, 23, 48-62.

Cyril, S., Smith, B. J., & Renzaho, A. M. N. (2016). Systematic review of empowerment

measures in health promotion. Health Promotion International, 31, 809-826.

172 Dangerfield, D. T., Smith, L. R., Williams, J., Unger, J., & Blumenthal, R. (2017). Sexual

positioning among men who have sex with men: A narrative review. Archives of

Sexual Behavior, 46, 869-884.

Dank, M., Yahner, J., Madden, K., Bañuelos, I., Yu, L., Ritchie, A., … Conner, B.

(2015). Surviving the streets of New York: Experiences of LGBTQ youth, YMSM,

and YWSW engaged in survival sex. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

Davis, A. (1983). Women, race, & class. New York, NY: Random House.

Davis, T. A., Ancis, J. R., & Ashby, J. S. (2015). Therapist effects, working alliance, and

African American women substance users. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic

Minority Psychology, 21, 126-135.

De Beauvoir, S. (2009). The second sex. (C. Borde & S. Malovany-Chevallier, Trans.).

New York, NY: Random House. (Original work published 1949)

DeBlaere, C., Brewster, M. E., Sarkees, A., & Moradi, B. (2010). Conducting research

with LGB people of color: Methodological challenges and strategies. The

Counseling Psychologist, 38, 331-362.

DeMatteo, D., Galloway, M., Arnold, S., & Patel, U. (2015). Sexual assault on college

campuses: A 50-state survey of criminal sexual assault statutes and their

relevance to campus sexual assault. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 227-

238.

Develin, M. (2014). The age of love. Retrieved from

https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook-data-science/the-age-of-

love/10152058525083859

173 Dhaenens, F. (2016). Reading gay music videos: An inquiry into the representation of

sexual diversity in contemporary popular music videos. Popular Music and

Society, 39, 532-546.

Downing, L. & Gillette, R. (2011). Viewing critical psychology through the lens of

queer. Psychology and Sexuality, 2, 4-15.

Downs, J., (2016). Stand by me: The forgotten history of gay liberation. Basic Books:

New York, NY.

Duggan, S., & McCreary, D.R. (2004). Body image, eating disorders, and the drive for

muscularity in gay and heterosexual men: The influence of media images. Journal

of Homosexuality, 47(3/4), 45-58.

Eguchi, S., & Long, H. R. (2019). Queer relationality as family: Yas fats! Yas femmes!

Yas Asians!, Journal of Homosexuality, 66, 1589-1608.

Escoffier, J. (2007). Porn star//escort: Economic and sexual dynamics in a sex

work career. Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 173-200.

Elder, W. B., Morrow, S. L., & Brooks, G. R. (2015). Sexual self-schemas of gay men: A

qualitative investigation. The Counseling Psychologist, 43, 942-969.

Erchull, M. J., & Liss, M. (2013a). Exploring the concept of perceived female sexual

empowerment: Development and validation of the Sex is Power Scale. Gender

Issues, 30, 39-53.

Erchull, M. J., & Liss, M. (2013b). Feminists who flaunt it: Exploring the enjoyment of

sexualization among young feminist women. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 43, 2341–2349.

174 Erchull, M. J., & Liss, M. (2014). The object of one’s desire: How perceived sexual

empowerment through objectification is related to sexual outcomes. Sexuality and

Culture, 18, 773-788.

Erchull, M. J., & Liss, M. (2015). Clinical outcomes of enjoying sexualization among

lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 62, 340-352.

Fahs, B. (2014). ‘Freedom to’ and ‘freedom from’: A new vision for sex-positive politics.

Sexualities, 17, 267-290.

Fahs, B., & McClelland, S. I. (2016). When sex and power collide: An argument for

critical sexuality studies. The Journal of Sex Research, 53, 392-416.

Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The missing discourse of

desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 29-53.

Fletcher, K. D., Ward, L. M., Thomas, K., Foust, M., Levin, D., & Trinh, S. (2014). Will

it help? Identifying socialization discourses that promote sexual risk and sexual

health among African American youth. The Journal of Sex Research, 52, 199-

212.

Food and Drug Administration. (2015). Revised recommendations for reducing the risk

of human immunodeficiency virus transmission by blood and blood products.

Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: An introduction. (R. Hurley, Trans.). New

York, NY: Random House. (Original work published 1976)

Fram, S. M. (2013). The constant comparative analysis method outside of grounded

theory. The Qualitative Report, 18, 1-25. Retrieved from

https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol18/iss1/1

175 Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward

understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of

Women Quarterly, 21, 173-206.

Freire, P. (1990). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.

Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New

York, NY: Basic Books.

GLAAD. (2017). 2017 studio responsibility index. Washington, DC: Author.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL:

Aldine.

Glass, J. (2018, May 15). Straight people can apparently be twinks now – at least

according to the New York Times. Pink News.

Golub, S. A., Starks, T. J., Payton, G., & Parsons, J. T. (2012). The critical role of

intimacy in the sexual risk behaviors of gay and bisexual men. AIDS and

Behavior, 16, 626-632.

Gordon, H. (2008). The treatment of : An historical perspective. Criminal

Behavior and Mental Health, 18, 79-87.

Gough, B., & Flanders, G. (2009). Celebrating “obese” bodies: Gay “bears” talk about

weight, body image and health. International Journal of Men’s Health, 8(3), 235-

253.

Gremore, G. (2015). Dad bods, otters, and bears! Oh my! The 10 most common male

body types. Retrieved from https://www.queerty.com/dad-bods-otters-and-bears-

oh-my-the-10-most-common-male-body-types-20150607

176 Grose, R. G. (2016). Critical consciousness and sexual pleasure: Evidence for a sexual

empowerment process for heterosexual and sexual minority women. (Doctoral

dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest. (10140242).

Grov, C., Breslow, A. S., Newcomb, M. E., Rosenberger, J. G., & Bauermeister, J. A.

(2014). Gay and bisexual men’s use of the Internet: Research from the 1990s

through 2013. Journal of Sex Research, 51, 390-409.

Grov, C., Rendina, H. J., Breslow, A. S., Ventuneac, A., Adelson, S., & Parsons, J. T.

(2014). Characteristics of men who have sex with men (MSM) who attend sex

parties: Results from a national online sample in the U.S. Sexually Transmitted

Infections, 90, 26-32.

Guasp, A., Gammon, A., & Ellison, G. (2013). Homophobic hate crime: The Gay British

Crime Survey 2013. London, England: Stonewall.

Hafertepen, D. (2018, May 1). Gay cliques census — Presented by Noodles and Beef.

Retrieved from http://studiomoh.com/fun/census/results.php

Haines, E. L., Deaux, K., & Lofaro, N. (2016). The times they are a-changing... or are

they not? A comparison of gender stereotypes 1983-2014. Psychology of Women

Quarterly, 40, 353-363.

Hald, G. M., Smolenski, D., & Simon Rosser, B. R. (2013). Perceived effects of sexually

explicit media among men who have sex with men and psychometric properties of

the Pornography Consumption Effects Scale. The Journal of , 10,

757-767.

Harden, K. P. (2014). A sex-positive framework for research on adolescent sexuality.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 455-469.

177 Hargons, C., Mosley, D. V., & Stevens-Watkins, D. (2017). Studying sex: A content

analysis of sexuality research in counseling psychology. The Counseling

Psychologist, 45, 528-546.

Haubrich, D. J., Myers, T., Calzavara, L., Ryder, K., & Medved, W. (2004). Gay and

bisexual men’s experiences of bathhouse culture and sex: ‘Looking for love in all

the wrong places’. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 6, 19-29.

Haupert, M. L., Gesselman, A. N., Moors, A. C., Fisher, H. E., & Garcia, J. R. (2017).

Prevalence of experiences with consensual non-monogamous relationships:

Findings from two national samples of single Americans. Journal of Sex and

Marital Therapy, 43, 424-440.

Herbst, J. H., Sherba, R. T., Crepaz, N., De Luca, J. B., Zohrabyan, L., Stall, R. D., &

Lyles, C. M. (2005). A meta-analytic review of HIV behavioral interventions for

reducing sexual risk behavior of men who have sex with men. Acquired Immune

Deficiency Syndromes, 39, 228-241.

Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority

adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability

sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54-74.

Herek, G. M. (2017). Documenting hate crimes in the United States: Some considerations

on data sources. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 143-

151.

Hooks, b. (2000). Feminism is for everybody: Passionate politics. Brooklyn, NY: South

End Press.

178 Horne, S., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2006). The Female Sexual Subjectivity Inventory:

Development and validation of a multidimensional inventory for late adolescents

and emerging adults. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 30, 125-138.

Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of

personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review,

14, 332-346.

Human Rights Campaign. (2020). The equality act. Retrieved from

www.hrc.org/resources/the-equality-act

Hunter, B. A., Jason, L. A., & Keys, C. B. (2013). Factors of empowerment for women in

recovery from substance use. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51,

91-102.

Hurlbert, D. F. (1991). The role of assertiveness in female sexuality: A comparative study

between sexually assertive and nonassertive women. Journal of Sex and Marital

Therapy, 17, 183-190.

Irvine, A. (2010). “We’ve had three of them”: Addressing the invisibility of lesbian, gay,

bisexual and gender nonconforming youths in the juvenile justice

system. Columbia Journal of Gender and Law, 19, 675–701.

Jaspal, R. (2018). Enhancing sexual health, self-identity and wellbeing among men who

have sex with men: A guide for practitioners. London: Jessica Kingsley

Publishers.

Jaspal, R., & Papaloukas, P. (2020). Identity, connectedness, and sexual health in the gay

sauna. Sexuality Research and Social Policy. Advance online publication.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00442-0

179 Johnson, D. M., Johnson, N. L., Perez, S. K., Palmieri, P. A., & Zlotnick, C. (2016).

Comparison of adding treatment of PTSD during and after shelter stay to standard

care in residents of battered women’s shelters: Results of a randomized clinical

trial. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 29, 365-373.

Johnson, D. M., Worell, J., & Chandler, R. K. (2005). Assessing psychological health and

empowerment in women: The Personal Progress Scale-Revised. Women and

Health, 41, 109-129.

Joshi, Y. (2012). Respectable queerness. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 43, 415-

468.

Kinsey, A. C. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders,

Co.

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human

male. Philadelphia, PA: W. B. Saunders, Co.

Kippax, S., & Smith, G. (2001). Anal intercourse and power in sex between men.

Sexualities, 4, 413-434.

Knauer, N. J. (2012). Legal consciousness and LGBT research: The role of law in the

everyday lives of LGBT individuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 59, 748-756.

Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Giga, N. M., Villenas, C., & Danischewski, D. J. (2015).

The 2015 national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay,

bisexual, transgender, and queer youth in our nation’s schools. New York, NY:

GLSEN.

180 Krafft-Ebing, R. (1965). Psychopathia sexualis with special reference to the antipathic

sexual instinct: A medico-forensic study. New York: Paperback Library. (Original

work published 1886).

Kubicek, K., Carpineto, J., McDavitt, B., Weiss, G., & Kipke, M. D. (2011). Use and

perceptions of the internet for sexual information and partners: A study of young

men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 803-816.

Lamb, S. (2010). Feminist ideals for a healthy female adolescent sexuality: A critique.

Sex Roles, 62, 294-306.

Lamb, S., & Peterson, Z. D. (2012). Adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment: Two

feminists explore the concept. Sex Roles, 66, 703-712.

Lapointe, A. (2016). Postgay. In N. Rodriguez, W. Martino, J. Ingrey, & E.

Brockenbrough (Eds.), Critical Concepts in Queer Studies and Education. Queer

Studies and Education (205-218). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

Leavitt, C. E., Lefkowitz, E. S., Waterman, E. A. (2019). The role of sexual mindfulness

in sexual wellbeing, relational wellbeing, and self-esteem. Journal of Sex and

Marital Therapy, 45, 497-509.

Lewis, J. (2002). Hollywood vs. hard core: How the struggle over censorship created the

modern film industry. New York University Press: New York, NY.

Lick, D. J., & Johnson, K. L. (2015). Intersecting race and gender cues are associated

with perceptions of gay men’s preferred sexual roles. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 44, 1471-1481.

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

181 Liss, M., Erchull, M. J., & Ramsey, L. R. (2011). Empowering or oppressing?

Development and exploration of the Enjoyment of Sexualization Scale.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 55-68.

Lyons, A., & Hosking, W. (2014). Health disparities among common subcultural

identities of young gay men: physical, mental, and sexual health. Archives of

Sexual Behavior, 43, 1621-1635.

Majd, K., Marksamer, J., & Reyes, C. (2009). Hidden injustice: Lesbian, gay, bisexual,

and transgender youth in juvenile courts. San Francisco, CA: The Equity Project.

Maki, J. L. (2017). Gay subculture identification: Training counselors to work with gay

men. VISTAS: American Counseling Association.

Malouf, M. A. (2012). Content Analysis of the LGBT Counseling Literature: 2000-2009.

(Doctoral dissertation). Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA.

Manago, A. M., Ward, L. M., Lemm, K. M., Reed, L., & Seabrook, R. (2015). Facebook

involvement, objectified body consciousness, body shame, and sexual

assertiveness in college women and men. Sex Roles, 72, 1-14.

Manley, E., Levitt, H., & Mosher, C. (2007). Understanding the bear movement in gay

male culture. Journal of Homosexuality, 53, 89-112.

Mellenbergh, G. J. (1994). Generalized linear item response theory. Psychological

Bulletin, 115, 300-307.

McInroy, L. B. & Craig, S. L. (2017). Perspectives of LGBTQ emerging adults on the

depiction and impact of LGBTQ media representation. Journal of Youth Studies,

20, 32-46.

182 Mercer, J. (2012). Power bottom: Performativity in commercial gay pornographic

video. In C. Hines & D. Kerr (Eds.), Hard to swallow: Hard-core pornography on

screen (pp.215-228). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San

Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Meyer, I. H., & Wilson, P. A. (2009). Sampling lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations.

Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 23-31.

Miller, B. (2015). “Dude, where’s your face?” Self-presentation, self-description, and

partner preferences on a social networking application for men who have sex with

men: A content analysis. Sexuality and Culture, 19, 637–658.

Minton, H. L. (1997). Queer theory: Historical roots and implications for psychology.

Theory and Psychology, 7, 337-353.

Moane, G. (2010). Sociopolitical development and political activism: Synergies between

feminist and liberation psychology. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 34, 521-

529.

Monto, M. A., & Supinski, J. S. (2014). Discomfort with homosexuality: A new measure

captures differences in attitudes toward gay men and . Journal of

Homosexuality, 61, 899-916.

Moradi, B. (2011). Objectification theory: Areas of promise and refinement. The

Counseling Psychologist, 39, 153-163.

Moradi, B., Mohr, J. J., Worthington, R. L., & Fassinger, R. E. (2009). Counseling

psychology research on sexual (orientation) minority issues: Conceptual and

183 methodological challenges and opportunities. Journal of Counseling Psychology,

56, 5-22.

Morokoff, P. J., Quina, K., Harlow, L. L., Whitmire, L., Grimley, D. M., Gibson, P. R., &

Burkholder, G. J. (1997). Sexual Assertiveness Scale (SAS) for Women:

Development and Validation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,

790-804.

Morrison, T. G., Morrison, M. A., & Bradley, B. A. (2007). Correlates of gay men’s self-

reported exposure to pornography. International Journal of Sexual Health, 19(2),

33–43.

Mosher, C. M. (2017). Historical perspectives of sex positivity: Contributing to a new

paradigm within counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 45, 487-

503.

Moskowitz, D. A., & Hart, T. A. (2011). The influence of physical body traits and

masculinity on anal sex roles in gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 40, 835-841.

Moskowitz, D. A., Rieger, G., & Roloff, M. E. (2008). Tops, bottoms, and versatiles.

Sexual and relationship therapy, 23, 191-202.

Moskowitz, D. A., & Roloff, M. E. (2017). Recognition and construction of top, bottom,

and versatile orientations in gay/bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46,

273-285.

Moskowitz, D. A., Turrubiates, J., Lozano, H., & Hajek, C. (2013). Physical, behavioral,

and psychological traits of gay men identifying as bears. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 42(5), 775–784.

184 Movement Advancement Project. (2020). Hate crime laws. Retrieved from

www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/hate_crime_laws

Murnen, S. K., & Smolak, L. (2012). Social considerations related to adolescent girls’

sexual empowerment: A response to Lamb and Peterson. Sex Roles, 66, 725-735.

Ng, E. (2013). A “post-gay” era? Media gaystreaming, homonormativity, and the politics

of LGBT integration. Communication, Culture, and Critique, 6, 258-283.

Nussbaum, M. C. (1995). Objectification. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 24, 249-291.

Ott, M. A., Millstein, S. G., Ofner, S., & Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (2006). Greater

expectations: Adolescents’ positive motivations for sex. Perspectives on Sexual

and , 38, 84-89.

Pachankis, J. E., Buttenwieser, I. G., Bernstein, L. B., & Bayles, D. O. (2013). A

longitudinal, mixed methods study of sexual position identity, behavior, and

fantasies among young sexual minority men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42,

1241-1253.

Palmieri, S. A. (2016). Understanding sexual minority men’s sexual risk behaviors:

Toward a theoretical integration of sociosexuality and objectification. (Masters

thesis), The University of Akron, Akron, OH.

Patton, L. D., & Bondi, S. (2015). Nice White men or social justice allies?: Using critical

race theory to examine how White male faculty and administrators engage in ally

work. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 18, 488-514.

Parsons, J. T., & Grov, C. (2012). Gay male identities, desires, and sexual behaviors. In

C. J. Patterson & A. R. D’Augelli (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology and Sexual

Orientation (1-22). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

185 Parsons, J. T., Schrimshaw, E. W., Wolitski, R. J., Halkitis, P. N., Purcell, D. W., Hoff,

C. C., & Gomez, C. A. (2005). Sexual harm reduction practices of HIV-

seropositive gay and bisexual men: Serosorting, strategic positioning, and

withdrawal before ejaculation. AIDS, 19 (Supplement 1), S13-S25.

Parsons, J. T., Starks, T. J., DuBois, S., Grov, C., Golub, S. A. (2013). Alternatives to

monogamy among gay male couples in a community survey: Implications for

mental health and sexual risk. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 303-312.

Perez, S., Johnson, D. M., & Wright, C. V. (2012). The attenuating effect of

empowerment on IPV-related PTSD symptoms in battered women living in

domestic violence shelters. Violence Against Women, 18, 102-117.

Peterson, Z. D. (2010). What is sexual empowerment? A multi-dimensional and process-

oriented approach to adolescent girls’ sexual empowerment. Sex Roles, 62, 307-

313.

Phillips, J. C., Ingram, K. M., Smith, N. G., & Mindes, E. J. (2003). Methodological and

content review of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-related articles in counseling

journals: 1990-1999. The Counseling Psychologist, 31, 25-62.

Pierce, A. P., & Hurlbert, M. K. (1999). Test-retest reliability of the Hurlbert Index of

Sexual Assertiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 88, 31-34.

Prestage, G., Mao, L., Fogarty, A., Van de Ven, P., Kippax, S., Crawford, J., … &

Grulich, A. (2005). How has the sexual behaviour of gay men changed since the

onset of AIDS: 1986-2003. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public

Health, 29, 530-535.

186 Prior, J. (2009). Experiences beyond the threshold: Sydney’s gay bath- houses.

Australian Cultural History, 27, 61-77.

Prior, J., & Cusack, C. M. (2010). Spiritual dimensions of self-transformation: In

Sydney’s gay bathhouses. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 71-97.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2018). Nvivo qualitative data analysis software (Version 12)

[computer software].

Queen, C. (2002). Real live nude girl: Chronicles of sex-positive culture. San Francisco,

CA: Cleis Press.

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over

prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 9, 1-25.

Rappaport, J. (1987). Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory

for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15,

121-148.

Ravenhill, J. P., & de Visser, R. O. (2017). Perceptions of gay men’s masculinity are

associated with their sexual self-label, voice quality and physique. Psychology

and Sexuality, 8, 208-222.

Reich, W. (1945). The : Toward a self-regulating character structure.

(T. Pol, Trans.). New York, NY: Orgone Institute Press.

Reilly, A., & Saethre, E. J. (2013). The hankie code revisited: From function to fashion.

Critical Studies in Men’s Fashion, 1, 69-78.

Riddell, J., Amico, R., & Mayer, K. H. (2018). HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis: A review.

Journal of the American Medical Association, 319, 1261-1268.

187 Riggle, E. D., Whitman, J. S., Olson, A., Rotosky, S. S., & Strong, S. (2008). The

positive aspects of being a lesbian or gay man. Professional Psychology:

Research and Practice, 39, 210-217.

Rimmerman, C. A. (2015). The lesbian and gay movements: Assimilation or liberation?

New York, NY: Routledge.

Rosenthal, L. (2016). Incorporating intersectionality into psychology: An opportunity to

promote social justice and equity. American Psychologist, 71, 474-485.

Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2017). Same-sex couple relationship strengths: A

review and synthesis of the empirical literature (2000-2016). Psychology of

Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4, 1-13.

Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded

scores. Psychometric Monograph, 34(4, Pt. 2, No. 17).

Salerno, J. M., Najdowski, C. J., Bottoms, B. L., Harrington, E., Kemner, G., & Dave, R.

(2015). Excusing murder? Conservative jurors’ acceptance of the gay-panic

defense. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21, 24-34

Sánchez, F. J., Bocklandt, S., & Vilain, E. (2009). Gender role conflict, interest in casual

sex, and relationship satisfaction among gay men. Psychology of Men and

Masculinity, 10, 237-243.

Sánchez, F. J., Greenberg, S. T., Liu, W. M., & Vilain, E. (2009). Reported effects of

masculine ideals on gay men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 10, 73-87.

Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H.,

& Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its

conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893-1907.

188 Schmitt, D. P. (2006). Sexual strategies across sexual orientations: How personality traits

and culture relate to sociosexuality among gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and

heterosexuals. Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 18, 183-214.

Sears, A. (2005). Queer anti-capitalism: What’s left of lesbian and gay liberation?

Science and Society, 69, 92-112.

Sheff, E. (2005). Polyamorous women, sexual subjectivity and power. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography, 34, 251-283.

Sheffa, E., & Hammers, C. (2011). The privilege of perversities: race, class and education

among polyamorists and kinksters. Psychology & Sexuality, 2, 198–223.

Shuckerow, D. (2014). Take off your masc: The hegemonic gender performance of gay

males on Grindr. (Masters thesis). Columbia College, Chicago.

Singh, A. A., & Shelton, K. (2011). A content analysis of LGBTQ qualitative research in

counseling: A ten-year review. Journal of Counseling and Development, 89, 217-

226.

Skinta, M. D., Brandrett, B. D., Schenk, W. C., Wells, G., & Dilley, J. W. (2014). Shame,

self-acceptance and disclosure in the lives of gay men living with HIV: An

interpretative phenomenological analysis approach. Psychology and Health, 29,

583-597.

Smith, J., G., & Brown, S. (2020). “No Fats, femmes, or blacks:” The role of body types,

gender roles and race in condom usage online. In: Farris D., Compton D., Herrera

A. (Eds.) Gender, Sexuality and Race in the Digital Age (pp. 205-222). Springer,

Cham.

189 Smith, N. G. (2010). Productivity in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender scholarship

in counseling psychology: Institutional and individual ratings for 1990 through

2009. The Counseling Psychologist, 38, 50-68.

Speight, S. L., & Vera, E. M. (2008). Social justice and counseling psychology: A

challenge to the profession. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Handbook of

counseling psychology (p. 54–67). John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Stemple, L. (2008). Male rape and human rights. Hastings Law Journal, 60, 605-647.

Thouin-Savard, M. I. (2019). Erotic mindfulness: A core educational and therapeutic

strategy in somatic practices. International Journal of Transpersonal

Studies, 38, 203-219.

Tucker, C. M., Ferdinand, L. A., Mirsu-Paun, A., Herman, K. C., Delgado-Romero, E.,

van den Berg, J. J., Jones, J. D. (2007). The roles of counseling psychologists in

reducing health disparities. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 650-678.

Valelly, R. M. (2012). LGBT politics and American political development. Annual

Review of Political Science, 15, 313-332. van Eeden-Moorefield, B., Malloy, K., & Benson, K. (2016). Gay men’s (non)monogamy

ideals and lived experience. Sex Roles, 75, 43-55.

Van Leeuwen, J. M., Boyle, S., Salomonsen-Sautel, S., Baker, D. N., Garcia, J. T.,

Hoffman, A., Hopfer, C. J. (2006). Lesbian, gay, and bisexual homeless youth:

An eight-city public health perspective. Child Welfare, 85, 151-170.

Vera, E. M., & Speight, S. L. (2003). Multicultural competence, social justice, and

counseling psychology: Expanding our roles. The Counseling Psychologist, 31,

253-272.

190 Visser, B. A., Sultani, F., Choma, B. L., & Pozzebon, J. A. (2014). Enjoyment of

sexualization: Is it different for men? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 44,

495-504.

Wade, R. M. (2018). Racialized sexual discrimination (RSD) and psychological

wellbeing among young Black gay/bisexual men (YBGBM). [Doctoral dissertation,

University of Michigan].

Warner, M. (1999). The trouble with normal: Sex, politics, and the ethics of queer life.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waters, E., Pham, L., Convery, C., & Yacka-Bible, S. (2018). A crisis of hate: A report

on homicides against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. National

Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs: New York, NY.

Weiss, M. (2015). BDSM (bondage, discipline, domination, submission,

sadomasochism). In P. Whelehan & A. Bolin (Eds.), The International

Encyclopedia of Human Sexuality. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Wilkerson, J. M. (2007). Acquiring a sociosexual identity: Experiences of sexually

marginalized collegiate men. (Doctoral dissertation). Texas State University, San

Marcos, TX.

Williams, D. J., Thomas, J. N., Prior, E. E., & Walters, W. (2015). Introducing a

multidisciplinary framework of positive sexuality. Journal of Positive Sexuality,

1, 6-11.

Williams, M., & Tregidga, J. (2013). All Wales hate crime research project: Research

overview & executive summary, Cardiff: Race equality first. Retrieved from

http://www.refweb.org.uk/files/Wales%20Hate%20Crime%20Report.pdf

191 Wilson, P. A., Val Wilson, P. A., Valera, P., Ventuneac, A., Balan, I., Rowe, M., &

Carballo- Diéguez, A. (2009) Race-based sexual stereotyping and sexual

partnering among men who use the internet to identify other men for bareback

sex. The Journal of Sex Research, 46(5), 399-413.

Wittman, C. (1970). The Gay Manifesto. Red Butterfly. Retrieved from:

http://www.againstequality.org/files/refugees_from_amerika_a_gay_manifesto_1

969.pdf

World Health Organization. (1975). Education and treatment in human sexuality: The

training of health professionals (Technical Report Series No. 572). Geneva,

Switzerland: Author.

World Health Organization. (2006). Defining sexual health: Report of a technical

consultation on sexual health. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from

http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/publications/sexual_health/defining_sexua

l_health.pdf

Worell, J. (1996). Opening doors to feminist research. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

20, 469-484.

Worrell, J., & Remer, P. (2003). Feminist perspectives in therapy: Empowering diverse

women (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Zaltzman, H. (Host). (2015, June 3). Allusionist 12: Pride [Audio podcast episode]. In

Allusionist. https://www.theallusionist.org/pride

Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & French, J. (2016). Associations of sexual subjectivity with

global and sexual well-being: A new measure for young males and comparison to

females. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 315-327.

192 Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., Ducat, W. H., & Boislard-Pepin, M. A. (2011). A prospective

study of young females’ sexual subjectivity: Associations with age, sexual

behavior, and dating. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 927–938.

Zimmerman, M. A. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.

American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581-599.

Zoom Video Communications Inc. (2020). Zoom (Version 4.6.10).

Zur, O. (2015). Power in Psychotherapy and Counseling. Online Publication by the Zur

Institute. Retrieved from http://www.zurinstitute.com/power_in_therapy.html

193 APPENDICES

194 APPENDIX A

PARTICIPANT DEMOGRAPHIC PROFILES

Pseudonym: Sam

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 28 Assigned Sex Male Race White Gender Identity Male (6), SES 6 Cisgender (6) Education Undergraduate Gender Expression Masculine (6), Religious Affiliation Atheist (6) Feminine (2) Disability Status None

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Homosexual (6), Gay (5), Bicurious (2) Romantic Attraction Men (6) Men (6), Women (2), Other Genders (1) Future Sex Partners Men, Women Sex Partners- Current Men (3) Sex Partners-12 Months Men (50+) Sex Partners- Lifetime Men (500+) Relationship Status Open – non-monogamous and polyamorous

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everyone (6) Sexual Position Preference- Ideal Versatile Bottom Sexual Position Preference- Actual Versatile Bottom Subcultures Kink/Pig (5), Jock (3), Cub (1), Otter (1), Twunk (1) Submissive/Dominant 1 Attractiveness- Own Rating 2 Attractiveness- Others’ Rating 4

Other Identities: HIV-positive; Grew up in rural then moved to urban area 195 Pseudonym: Alexander

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 36 Assigned Sex Male Race White Gender Identity Man (6), Cis (6) SES 6 Gender Expression Masculine (3), Education Masters Feminine (3) Religious Affiliation None Disability Status Cerebral Palsy

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Queer (6), Homosexual (6), Gay (3) Romantic Attraction Men (6), Other Genders (3) Sexual Attraction Men (6) Future Sex Partners Men Sex Partners - Current Men (2) Sex Partners – 12 Months Men (3) Sex Partners - Lifetime Men (50) Relationship Status Never been in a romantic relationship

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everyone (6) Sexual Position Preference - Ideal Versatile Sexual Position Preference - Actual Exclusive Top Subcultures Cub (6), Daddy (4), Bear (3) Submissive/Dominant 2 Attractiveness – Own Rating 3 Attractiveness – Others’ Rating 3

Other Identities: Sex educator/activist; Disability consultant; New porn performer

196 Pseudonym: Vinny

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 49 Assigned Sex Male Race Latino Gender Identity Man (6), Cis (5) SES 7 Gender Expression Masculine (4), Education Undergraduate Feminine (2) Religious Affiliation Catholic (2) Disability Status None

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Gay (6), Homosexual (1) Romantic Attraction Men (6), Women (1) Sexual Attraction Men (6), Women (1) Future Sex Partners Men Sex Partners - Current 0 Sex Partners – 12 Months Men (10) Sex Partners - Lifetime Men (253) Relationship Status Past dating, but currently single

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everyone (6) except Heterosexual Friends (5) and General Public (5) Sexual Position Preference - Ideal Vers bottom Sexual Position Preference - Actual Vers bottom Subcultures Jock (4), Leather (2) Submissive/Dominant 1 Attractiveness – Own Rating 4 Attractiveness – Others’ Rating 4

Other Identities: Producer of podcast about gay sexuality

197 Pseudonym: Nick

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 29 Assigned Sex Male Race White Gender Identity Man (6), Cis (6) SES 7 Gender Expression Masculine (4), Education Undergraduate Feminine (2) Religious Affiliation Agnostic (6) Disability Status None

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Gay (6), Homosexual (6), Queer (4) Romantic Attraction Men (6) Sexual Attraction Men (6) Future Sex Partners Men Sex Partners - Current Men (3) Sex Partners – 12 Months Men (150) Sex Partners - Lifetime Men (about 1,000) Relationship Status Past dating, but currently single; non-monogamous

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everybody (6) except Family of Origin (4) Sexual Position Preference - Ideal Vers bottom Sexual Position Preference - Actual Vers bottom Subcultures Jock (4), Twink (4), Circuit (4), Rave (4), Leather (4), Twunk (3) Submissive/Dominant 2 Attractiveness – Own Rating 5 Attractiveness – Others’ Rating 5

Other Identities: Sexual assault survivor; Grew up in South; History of sex work

198 Pseudonym: Jake

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 48 Assigned Sex Male Race White Gender Identity Man (6), SES 7 Genderqueer (1) Education Some college Gender Expression Masculine (5), Religious Affiliation Christian (1) Feminine (1) Disability Status None

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Gay (6), Homosexual (6), Queer (6) Romantic Attraction Men (6) Sexual Attraction Men (6) Future Sex Partners Men Sex Partners - Current Men (1) Sex Partners – 12 Months Men (30) Sex Partners - Lifetime Men (400) Relationship Status Past dating, but currently single

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everyone (6) except general public (5) Sexual Position Preference - Ideal Vers bottom Sexual Position Preference - Actual Vers bottom Subcultures Jock (6), Daddy (4) Submissive/Dominant 3 Attractiveness – Own Rating 5 Attractiveness – Others’ Rating 5

Other Identities: Porn performer; Escort

199 Pseudonym: Bill

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 40 Assigned Sex Male Race Black Gender Identity Man (6) SES 8 Gender Expression Masculine (5) Education Graduate Feminine (1) Religious Affiliation Evangelical (5) Disability Status None

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Gay (6), Homosexual (6) Romantic Attraction Men (4), Women (2) Sexual Attraction Men (5), Women (1) Future Sex Partners Men Sex Partners - Current 0 Sex Partners – 12 Months Men (4) Sex Partners - Lifetime Men (60) Relationship Status Past dating, but currently single

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everyone (6) Sexual Position Preference - Ideal Exclusive top Sexual Position Preference - Actual Exclusive top Subcultures Daddy (5), Bear (3), Ballroom (when younger) Submissive/Dominant 5 Attractiveness – Own Rating 4 Attractiveness – Others’ Rating 4

Other Identities: HIV+; Well-known conservative family

200 Pseudonym: George

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 28 Assigned Sex Male Race White Gender Identity Cis (6), Man (5), SES 8 Gender Expression Masculine (4) Education Undergraduate Feminine (2) Religious Affiliation Jewish (4) Disability Status None

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Bisexual (6), Queer (6), Pansexual (6) Romantic Attraction Men (6), Other Genders (6), Women (4) Sexual Attraction Men (6), Women (6), Other Gender (6) Future Sex Partners Men, Women, Other Genders Sex Partners - Current Men (8), Women (3), Other Genders (2) Sex Partners – 12 Months Men (50), Women (10), Other Genders (5) Sex Partners - Lifetime Men (800), Women (200), Other Genders (50) Relationship Status Past dating, but currently single

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everyone (6) Sexual Position Preference - Ideal Versatile Sexual Position Preference - Actual Vers top Subcultures Kink/BDSM (4), Otter (4), Daddy (3), Jock (2) Submissive/Dominant 4 Attractiveness – Own Rating 5 Attractiveness – Others’ Rating 5

Other Identities: Polyamorous, Sex writer

201 Pseudonym: Max

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 34 Assigned Sex Male Race White Gender Identity Man (6), Cis (6), Non-binary (1) SES 7 Gender Expression Masculine (3), Education Undergraduate Feminine (3) Religious Affiliation Spiritual (6), Jewish (3), Buddhist (3), Pagan (3) Disability Status None

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Gay (4), Homosexual (4), Bisexual (1) Romantic Attraction Men (6), Women (1) Sexual Attraction Men (6), Women (1) Future Sex Partners Men Sex Partners - Current 0 Sex Partners – 12 Months Men (4) Sex Partners - Lifetime Men (100+), Women (5) Relationship Status Other: “10 years together and open”

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everyone (6) Sexual Position Preference - Ideal Exclusive bottom Sexual Position Preference - Actual Vers bottom Subcultures Jock (5), Twunk (5), Otter (3) Submissive/Dominant 4 Attractiveness – Own Rating 4 Attractiveness – Others’ Rating 4

Other Identities: Previous marriage with woman; perceived as “heteronormative”

202 Pseudonym: Mike

General Demographics Sex and Gender Age 49 Assigned Sex Male Race White Gender Identity Man (6), Cis (6) SES 8 Gender Expression Masculine (3), Education Doctoral Feminine (1) Religious Affiliation Agnostic (6), Catholic (1) Disability Status None

Sexual Orientation & Relationships Sexual Identity Gay (6) Romantic Attraction Men (6) Sexual Attraction Men (6) Future Sex Partners Men Sex Partners - Current 0 Sex Partners – 12 Months 5 Sex Partners - Lifetime 250 Relationship Status Past dating, but currently single

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Outness Everyone (6) Sexual Position Preference - Ideal I do not use these labels Sexual Position Preference - Actual Versatile Subcultures Daddy (4), Jock (3) Submissive/Dominant 4 Attractiveness – Own Rating 4 Attractiveness – Others’ Rating 4

Other Identities: Sex therapist, exhibitionist, experienced conversion therapy and Sex Addicts Anonymous

203 APPENDIX B

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE

Instructions: In this questionnaire, you will be asked a series of questions about yourself. Some of these questions may feel personal in nature. Therefore, you have the option of skipping any questions that you would prefer not to answer. When answering these questions, think about how you see yourself at this point in time (not necessarily how others would define you).

General Demographics

1. What is your age? ______

2. What is your race / ethnicity? African American / Black Asian American European American / White Hispanic / Latina/o Middle Eastern / Arab American Native American Multiracial: ______Other: ______

3. Please compare yourself to others on a scale of 1-10, with 10 being those who are best off (i.e., those who have the most money, most education and best jobs) and 1 being those who are worst off (i.e., those who have the least money, lest education, and the worst jobs or no job). Where would you rate yourself on this scale? 1 (worst off) … 10 (best off)

204 4. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? Less than high school Some high school High school graduate Some college Undergraduate degree (e.g., associates, bachelors) Master’s degree (e.g., M.B.A., M.S.) Professional or Doctoral Degree (e.g., Ph.D., M.D., J.D.)

5. What is your religious affiliation? Christian, Evangelical Christian, Catholic Christian, Other Jewish Muslim Hindu Buddhist Pagan Agnostic Athiest Other: ______

6. How strongly do you identify with the religious identity selected above? 0 (not at all strongly) … 6 (extremely strongly)

7. Do you currently have a physical disability that affects your sexual functioning? No Yes (please explain): ______

Sex & Gender 8. Please indicate the sex you were assigned at birth. Male Female

205 9. How accurately do each of the following terms describe your current gender identity? Man Bigender Transgender Genderfluid Non-binary Genderqueer Agender Woman Other: ______

10. In general, how would you describe your gender expression? 0 (not at all masculine) … 6 (extremely masculine) 0 (not at all feminine) … 6 (extremely feminine)

Sexual Orientation 11. How accurately do each of the following terms describe your sexual orientation identity? 0 (Not at all accurate) … 6 (extremely accurate) Gay Heterosexual Homosexual Straight Bisexual Asexual Queer Demisexual Pansexual Skoliosexual Questioning Other: ______Bicurious

12. Please indicate your level of ROMANTIC / EMOTIONAL attraction to: 0 (not at all attracted) … 6 (extremely attracted) ___ Men ___ Women ___ Other genders (agender, non-binary, trans*, etc.)

13. Please indicate your level of SEXUAL attraction to: 0 (not at all attracted) … 6 (extremely attracted) ___ Men ___ Women ___ Other genders (agender, non-binary, trans*, etc.)

206 14. I would like my future sexual partners to be: ___ Men ___ Women ___ Other genders (agender, non-binary, trans*, etc.)

15. With how many people are you currently in an ongoing sexual (but not romantic) relationship (e.g., friends with benefits, regular hookups, etc.)? ___ Men ___ Women ___ Other genders (agender, non-binary, trans*, etc.)

16. With how many different partners have you had sex within the past 12 months? ___ Men ___ Women ___ Other genders (agender, non-binary, trans*, etc.)

17. With how many different partners have you had sex in your lifetime? ___ Men ___ Women ___ Other genders (agender, non-binary, trans*, etc.)

18. Which of the following best describes your current relationship status? I’ve never been in a romantic relationship I’ve had dating relationships in the past, but am currently single I am divorced I am a widow I am in a monogamous relationship I am in an open relationship (please describe structure) _____ Other: ______

Sexual Minority Male-Specific Demographics 19. In general, how “out” do you consider yourself to be in the following contexts? 0 (not applicable) … 1 (not out at all) … 7 (out to everyone) Family Heterosexual friends LGBTQ+ friends School / work 207 Social media 20. Sexual minority men often use the labels top (i.e., insertive partner), bottom (i.e., receptive partner), and versatile (i.e., either or both insertive or receptive partner) to describe their sexual position preferences. Which of the following best describes your IDEAL sexual position? Exclusive top I do not want to have anal sex Versatile top I do not use these labels Versatile Versatile bottom Exclusive bottom

21. Ideal sexual position preference does not always match actual behavior in sexual relationships. IN REALITY, which of the following best describes your sexual position? Exclusive top I do not want to have anal sex Versatile top I do not use these labels Versatile Versatile bottom Exclusive bottom

22. There are many terms used to describe body types and subcultures among sexual minority men. How accurately do you feel each of the following terms describes you? 0 (Not at all accurate) … 6 (extremely accurate) Bear Twunk Cub Daddy Otter Leather Wolf Geek / Gaymer Jock Drag Queen Bull Other: ______Twink None of these

23. In your sexual relationships with other men, how submissive / dominant do you tend to be? 0 (Not applicable) … 1 (Extremely submissive) … 7 (Extremely dominant)

24. How would you rate your own physical attractiveness compared to other sexual minority men? 1 (much less attractive) … 7 (much more attractive)

208 25. How do you think other sexual minority men would rate your physical attractiveness compared to other sexual minority men? 1 (much less attractive) … 7 (much more attractive)

26. If there are other identities that you believe play a role in your sexual empowerment, please indicate those here. ______

209 APPENDIX C

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL

Definition of Sexual Empowerment

1. What does “sexual empowerment” mean to you?

2. What does it mean to be a sexually empowered queer man?

3. Tell me about a time when you felt sexually empowered.

Factors that Affect Sexual Empowerment

4. Thinking about your various identities and experiences in the queer community (e.g., sexual position preference, subculture, monogamy-orientation, profession, intersecting identities, etc.), how do these affect the ways in which you experience sexual empowerment?

5. What barriers have you encountered to your sexual empowerment?

6. What experiences have helped you become more sexually empowered?

7. How does your experience of sexual empowerment change across different contexts?

Conclusion & Debriefing

8. Are there other things I did not ask you that you believe would be important to discuss?

9. To protect your confidentiality, I ask that all participants select a pseudonym for me to use while discussing the results of this study. What would you like your pseudonym to be?

210 10. It is possible that interviews with other participants may bring up themes or topics that we did not discuss today. If this is the case, would you be open to participating in a follow-up discussion about those topics?

11. For this study, I am intentionally seeking out participants who may have expertise or unique views on sexual minority men’s sexual empowerment. Are there other people you know that you would recommend I invite to participate in this research?

12. Before we wrap up, I want to review what the next steps will look like. First, I will be producing a transcript of our conversation within the next few days. I will send you that transcript, and you will have the opportunity to make any additions, revisions, or clarifications to the transcript to ensure its accuracy. You can also ask me to eliminate any part of the transcript that includes personally identifying or other sensitive information. All of this will be completely voluntary. What would be the best way for me to send you this transcript?

13. Second, when I have finished the interview process with all participants and written up the results, I will share the final write-up with you. You will then have an opportunity to provide input regarding any interpretations, analysis, or conclusions I have made regarding the information you provided. In addition, I may ask you to provide feedback about my interpretations, analysis, or conclusions before the end of the research process. Providing any of this feedback is completely voluntary.

14. I understand that participating in this study may have caused some discomfort, or may have prompted you to want to further explore some of the topics we discussed today. Would you like me to provide referrals to any mental health providers or other resources in your area?

Thank you for taking the time to speak with me today. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions about this study, or would like to provide any additional information.

211

APPENDIX D

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL

212