QUEERING GAY MALE BODY DISSATISFACTION by Alexander T. Vasilovsky, H.B.Sc. (University of Toronto, June 2009) A thesis presented to Ryerson University in partial fulfillment of Master of Arts in the Program of Clinical Psychology Ryerson University Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2012 ©Alexander T. Vasilovsky 2012 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I authorize Ryerson University to lend this thesis to other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research I further authorize Ryerson University to reproduce this thesis by photocopying or by other means, in total or in part, at the request of other institutions or individuals for the purpose of scholarly research. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Queering Gay Male Body Dissatisfaction Master of Arts, November 2012 Alexander T. Vasilovsky Clinical Psychology Ryerson University A sizable body of psychological research suggests that gay men exhibit greater body dissatisfaction than heterosexual men. However, much of this research has been critiqued for presenting explanatory models that pathologize homosexuality by suggesting that it is the cause of gay male body dissatisfaction. This thesis relied on the voices of 19 gay/queer men/genderqueers to problematize the explanatory models’ characterization of gay identities, communities, and body ideals as monolithic. The participants expressed ideas that were antithetical to the explanatory models’ restrictive formulations of homosexuality. Additionally, this thesis developed a theory of gay/queer embodiment based on the Foucauldian concept of subjection. How the participants negotiated embodied gay and queer identities was explored in relation to larger discursive regimes of power, like heterosexism, hegemonic masculinity, and neo-liberalism. Specific attention was given to queer forms of embodied resistance. iii Acknowledgements This thesis was financially supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. I want to thank my supervisor, Dr. Maria Gurevich, for her support, guidance, and invaluable input throughout all stages of my thesis’ construction. I have been initiated into a world of academic inquiry that has proven to be revelatory, personally, politically and otherwise. Additionally, I want to thank my thesis committee – Drs. Kelly McShane and Stephanie Cassin – for their thoughtful, insightful reviews of my thesis, Nataliya Uzerina for her painstakingly detailed, accurate transcription work, and the gay/queer men/genderqueers whom I interviewed, because my thesis would not exist without them. Lastly, I want to thank Ryerson University’s Gender, Sexuality, and Critical Psychology Laboratory for fostering such a lovely intellectual environment that continually challenges my world view. iv Table of Contents Introduction . 1 Queering gay male body dissatisfaction . 1 Method . 10 Theoretical and Epistemological Framework . 10 Participants . 16 Procedure . 19 Analysis . 22 Results and Discussion . 26 The gay male body dissatisfaction imperative . 26 Gay identities, communities, and body ideals . 37 Heterosexism, hegemonic masculinity, neo-liberalism, and queer epistemology . 58 Heterosexism, hegemonic masculinity, and neo-liberalism . 63 Shame/masculine compensation . 84 Neo-liberalism and gay equality . 97 Embodied queer resistances . 108 Conclusions and Future Directions . 117 References . 124 Footnotes . 142 Table 1 . 148 Appendix A . 150 Appendix B . 152 Appendix C . 156 v Queering Gay Male Body Dissatisfaction How is the gay/queer male body fashioned through and by psychology? Almost invariably, it is positioned within discourses about body dissatisfaction (Duncan, 2010a; Kane, 2009, 2010). Body image is the experience of embodiment, a composite of our attitudes about (i.e., body satisfaction) and perceptions of our bodies (Cash & Smolak, 2011). While certainly not unequivocal, a large body of psychological research implies that gay men exhibit greater body image disturbance, body dissatisfaction and disordered eating, and lower body esteem than heterosexual men (e.g., Lakkis, Ricciardelli, & Williams 1999; Schneider, O’Leary, & Jenkins, 1995). Most quantitative studies are cross-sectional and involve comparing gay men to heterosexual men (as well as lesbians to heterosexual women) on a battery of measures to ascertain who is most dissatisfied. Measures typically include: Likert-type rating scales that evaluate satisfaction with one’s overall appearance; single-item measures and checklists that assess satisfaction with different parts of the body; and body size drawings that provide self-ideal discrepancy appraisals (Morrison, Morrison, & Sager, 2004). A recent meta-analysis (Morrison et al., 2004) synthesized the results of 27 studies – 20 published and seven unpublished – conducted between 1983 and 2003 that compared the difference in body satisfaction between 1,397 heterosexual men and 984 homosexual men. The studies produced an average weighted effect size of 0.24, a small effect (Cohen, 1992), which nonetheless permitted Morrison et al. (2004) to conclude that gay men are most unhappy with their physical appearance. A close reading of the literature reveals that the results of studies purporting to reveal greater body dissatisfaction among gay men are also not always straightforward. For instance, Martins, Tiggemann, and Kirkbride (2007) compared 98 gay men to 103 heterosexual men and concluded that gay men demonstrated higher levels of self-objectification, body surveillance, 1 body shame, drive for thinness, and upper and lower body dissatisfaction, though “further analyses” (p. 639) revealed that some of the authors’ results were non-significant (moreover, effects sizes were not reported). These results that seem less supported by their statistical analyses than by the belief that “physical attractiveness” (p. 636) is necessarily of “increased importance” (p. 636) to all gay men. Gil (2007) wrote that the gay men in his study reported both lowers levels of ideal body image and ideal-actual body image difference, as well as less self- acceptance than heterosexual men for which he censured “gay male subculture” (p. 241) and gay men’s need “to establish their sense of personal and narcissistic worth based on their physical appearance” (p. 242). Gay men did report lower levels of “ideal” body size as measured by a contour drawing rating scale, but they also reported lower levels of “actual” body size; thus, their low ideal-actual body image difference simply indicated that there was a smaller discrepancy between their ideal and actual body sizes. Furthermore, on the same inventory Gil (2007) used to establish gay men’s lower self-acceptance, heterosexual men scored significantly lower on “autonomy” (and lower, but not significantly so, on “personal growth” and “positive relation with other”). Duggan and McCreary (2004) likewise summarized their study by declaring that gay men possessed “poorer eating attitudes and a greater desire to be thin” (p. 55). This declaration does not seem wholly demonstrative of the researchers’ discovery that two out of three measures of body dissatisfaction revealed no significant differences between gay and heterosexual men. Williamson and Spence (2001) found that the most powerful predictor of eating disturbance among gay men was internalized cultural beliefs about the importance of slimness, which was based on a measure not validated for use with men. The authors created a series of leading items designed to ascertain the participants’ “gay developmental histories” (p. 220) – such as, “Most people on the gay scene are particularly body conscious,” which 65.9% of 2 the participants endorsed. This led them to summarize their results as follows: “Gay men generally perceived that attractive appearance was highly valued by other members of the gay community” (p. 223). Such an abridgment belies their finding that a sense of alienation from the “gay scene” actually predicted increased body dissatisfaction. Chaney (2008) supported “the idea that gay and bisexual men may be more susceptible to [muscle dysmorphia] compared to heterosexual men” (p. 166) based on “the findings reported [in his study]” (p. 166) though he did not actually perform such a comparison. Countless other examples exist of researchers evaluating gay men against a heterosexual norm and “discovering” a lack or deficiency while discounting or dissembling repudiating evidence. Kane (2009) has also noted that several authors have found no difference or few, often trivial, differences between gay and heterosexual men (e.g., Brand, Rothblum, & Solomon, 1992; Olivardia, Pope, & Hudson, 2000; Olivardia, Pope, Mangweth, & Hudson, 1995; Pope, Hudson, & Jonas, 1986). Boroughs and Thompson (2002) administered five body image and eating- related measures to 134 gay and heterosexual participants; they found some marginally significant effects for sexual orientation, but, mainly, no difference. Pope, Phillips, and Olivardia (2000) analyzed 49 gay men’s attitudes toward body image and determined that both gay and heterosexual men desired a more muscular body; the only dissimilarity was a smaller discrepancy between the gay men’s ideal body and their actual muscularity. Likewise, Hausmann, Mangweth, Walch, Rupp, and Pope (2004) found that gay men were indistinguishable from a comparison group of heterosexual