Journal of Homosexuality

ISSN: 0091-8369 (Print) 1540-3602 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

That Man Behind the Curtain: Investigating the

Sexual Online Dating Behavior of Men Who Have
Sex With Men but Hide Their Same-Sex Sexual
Attraction in Offline Surroundings

Richard Lemke MA & Dr. Mathias Weber

To cite this article: Richard Lemke MA & Dr. Mathias Weber (2016): That Man Behind the
Curtain: Investigating the Sexual Online Dating Behavior of Men Who Have Sex With Men but
Hide Their Same-Sex Sexual Attraction in Offline Surroundings, Journal of Homosexuality, DOI:
10.1080/00918369.2016.1249735

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1249735

Accepted author version posted online: 18

Oct 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjhm20

Download by: [Cornell University Library] Date: 19 October 2016, At: 21:02
 That Man Behind the Curtain: Investigating the Sexual

Online Dating Behavior of Men Who Have Sex With Men but

Hide Their Same-Sex Sexual Attraction in Offline Surroundings

Richard Lemke, MA

t
Dr. Mathias Weber

rip
Department of Communication, Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz

c
D-55099 Mainz, Germany

us
an
Corresponding author: Richard Lemke, Department of Communication, Johannes

Gutenberg University of Mainz, D-55099 Mainz, Germany. E-mail: Richard.Lemke@uni-

mainz.de
M

Abstract
d

This study investigates how men who have sex with men (MSM) use chat and dating sites
te

based on theories of stigma-related offline behavior and online self-disclosure. We

ep

hypothesize that hidden MSM (those who self-label as heterosexual or who hide their same-

sex sexual attraction from family, friends, acquaintances, or a female romantic partner) differ
c

to open MSM in how they behave on gay chat and dating sites and in offline gay venues.
Ac

Drawing on a survey of 12,002 MSM, we show that hidden MSM tend to mask their identity

on gay chat and dating sites while avoiding offline gay venues. They also focus more

strongly on online sexual activities (e.g., masturbating during online chats) when using gay

chat and dating sites. However, they spend the same amount of time on these sites and they

use them to initiate offline sexual encounters as often and as fast as open MSM.
 Keywords: internet sexuality, online dating, self-disclosure, social networking sites, stigma

management, concealment, online disinhibition, sexual venues

Running head: Sexual online dating behavior of hidden MSM

Over the past two decades, the internet has become an important tool for men who

t
rip
have sex with men (MSMi) seeking to satisfy their sexual and social needs (see Grov,

Breslow, Newcomb, Rosenberger, & Bauermeister, 2014 for an excellent overview). Online

c
communication serves as an important arena for online dating, hence for initiating romantic

us
relationships or casual sexual encounters. By facilitating online sexual activities (OSA, e.g.,

erotic chatting, watching pornographic internet material), the internet furthermore allows
an
people to express and satisfy their sexual desires independently of offline interactions with

potential partners (Daneback, Månsson, & Ross, 2007; Tikkanen & Ross, 2000; Daneback,
M

Sevcikova, Månsson, & Ross, 2012; Robinson & Moskowitz, 2013). Both such uses of the
d

internet are specifically relevant for MSM: online communication may be utilized to
te

construct or develop a gay or bisexual identity by affording MSM a safe and anonymous

platform to disclose same-sex sexual desires for the first time or by enabling them to engage
ep

in erotic chatting with other men (Bolding, Davis, Hart, Sherr & Elford, 2007; Crowson &

Goulding, 2013; Ross, 2005; Tikkanen and Ross, 2003; Thomas, Ross & Harris, 2007).
c
Ac

Online dating also offers advantages that help address the specific needs of MSM. Firstly, as

a sexual minority, men seeking men have historically always been in need of specific, safe

spaces to find one another MSM (Brown et al., 2005; Tikkanen & Ross, 2003; Myslik, 1996).

Secondly, the sexual roles adopted by participants in male-male sexual encounters are not as

obvious as those played out by heterosexual partners and thus often need to be negotiated.

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) prior to an offline encounter seems to provide a

 suitable environment for this negotiation (Rice & Ross, 2014). Thirdly, uncommitted sexual

encounters are, on average, much more desired, prevalent, and accepted among MSM than

among heterosexuals (Peplau, 2003). CMC, in combination with a large number of potential

partners made accessible through the internet, facilitates the arrangement of such casual

sexual encounters.

t
rip
However, research has shown that men seeking men are not a homogenous group

when it comes to their sexual internet uses and online dating activities. For instance,

c
empirical data suggest that men seeking men who self-identify as bisexual or heterosexual

us
significantly differ from men self-identifying as homosexual with respect to many aspects of

their online behavior: They search less frequently for offline sexual partners and, where they
an
do, they want sexual encounters to be casual and discreet to a greater extent. Moreover, such

MSM are more frequently involved in online sexual activities (Daneback, Ross, & Månsson,
M

2008; Lever, Grov, Royce, & Gillespie, 2008; Tikkanen & Ross, 2000). Schrimshaw,
d

Downing, and Siegel (2013) conducted qualitative interviews to study both the concealment
te

strategies and techniques of searching for same-sex sexual partners employed by non-

disclosing MSMW (men who have sex with men and women). Using the dramaturgical
ep

approach of Goffman (1959) as a theoretical basis, they described how the internet was a
c

more popular medium than offline gay venues for non-disclosing MSMW seeking to express
Ac

their same-sex sexual interest to others and to confidentially meet potential sexual partners.

In the present study, we aim to expand this approach to a subgroup of MSM that we call

hidden MSM. We define this subgroup as men seeking men who hide their same-sex sexual

interest by 1) describing themselves exclusively as heterosexual; by 2) not disclosing their

same-sex sexual attraction to their immediate social environment (e.g., friends and

colleagues); or by 3) keeping up the façade of an exclusively heterosexual identity while

 being in a relationship with a woman who does not know about her partner’s attraction to

men. All three criteria may apply simultaneously; however, it is conceivable that MSM are

only hidden with respect to one or two of these criteria.

Studies indicate that hidden MSM, in accordance with our definition, exist to a

notable degree in Germany and Austria, where the study reported in this paper was

conducted. For example, among the German subsample of 54,275 MSM identified in the

t
rip
2010 EMIS survey (European MSM Internet Survey; The EMIS Network, 2013), 1 percent of

MSM described themselves as straight or heterosexual even though they admitted to feeling

c
sexually attracted to men or having had a sexual encounter with another man (Bochow,

us
Lenuweit, Sekuler, & Schmidt, 2013, p. 36).ii Furthermore, 11 percent of the sample

indicated that nobody knew about their attraction to men. Finally, 8 percent of the MSM in
an
the German EMIS sample had a relationship with a woman at the time of the survey. It is our

aim to compare, using a broad quantitative approach, how hidden and open MSM (that is,
M

MSM who openly express their same-sex sexual attraction) use online chat and dating sites.
d

While the general prevalence of the internet as a venue to meet sexual partners was well
te

documented in Schrimshaw et al. (2013), the particular processes of online self-disclosure

and exercising cautiousness employed by hidden MSM are worthy of deeper investigation on
ep

a quantitative level.

Reasons for hiding same-sex sexual desire

c
Ac

The reasons why some men choose to hide their same-sex sexual desire are diverse

(Afifi & Steuber, 2010; Allen & Oleson, 1999; Ben-Ari, 1995; Boon & Miller, 1999;

McLean, 2007; Schrimshaw, Downing & Cohn, 2016). Hidden MSM may refuse to

acknowledge to themselves that they are not heterosexual despite pronounced same-sex

sexual desires. This is conceivable if, from the point of view of a MSM, same-sex sexual

desire is associated with shame and guilt and thus cannot easily be integrated into the self-
 concept. Here the hiding represents hiding as denying. A second possible reason for hiding

same-sex sexual desire are actual or perceived external barriers that inhibit an MSM

disclosing such feelings to others despite his having fully acknowledged this status to

himself. This may occur if the MSM perceives same-sex sexual behavior as stigmatized and

hence expects to incur sanctions at the societal level as well as rejection from friends, family,

or partners following disclosure. We label this type of hiding hiding as stigma management

t
rip
(Shrimshaw et al., 2016). A third possible reason for hiding is that an MSM has fully

acknowledged same-sex sexual desires to himself but is unwilling to disclose this desire to

c
others for functional or practical reasons. This may occur when an MSM who is

us
predominantly interested in women perceives and accepts his same-sex sexual desire as a

merely subordinate variation in his set of sexual preferences or when he is not yet sure about
an
the intensity of his same-sex sexual desire. In such cases, the motive for not disclosing same-

sex sexual desire is predominantly functional: being perceived as bisexual by friends, family,
M

or a female partner would add unnecessary complexity to his everyday interaction with others
d

and may even be perceived as potentially conflicting with a predominantly heterosexual

te

orientation – much like a predominantly gay man may present himself as gay even if he

sometimes feels sexually attracted to women. This type of hiding can be labeled hiding as
ep

functional. For any one hidden MSM, one or more of these reasons may apply.

Although hiding same-sex sexual desire may be functional in some cases, it is still
c
Ac

strongly associated with the perceived social climate regarding same-sex sexual behavior

(Lemke, Tornow, PlanetRomeo.com, 2015, p. 37). The present study will focus on Germany

and Austria, with the vast majority of participants living in Germany. Consenting same-sex

sexual behavior has been legal since 1969 in Germany and since 1971 in Austria (initially the

age of consent was 21 in Germany and 18 in Austria; it was lowered in both countries to 14

years of age in 1994 and 2002, respectively). Potential legal sanctions are, however, not the
 only factor that may lead MSM to hide their same-sex sexual interest. Social sanctions,

resulting from cultural norms, societal attitudes, and public behavior towards sexual

minorities also have a significant influence on gay and bisexual men’s self-concept and on

how they manage their sexuality (Berg, Ross, Weatherburn & Schmidt, 2013; Lemke et al.,

2015). In the 2008 European Values Survey, 17 percent of Germans and 24 percent of

Austrians named (among others) “homosexuals” as a group of people “you would not like to

t
rip
have as neighbours.”iii This is reflected in everyday experiences. Taking the example of

Germany, in a 2015 survey of 29,325 MSM, 16 percent stated that they were often “upset by

c
overhearing negative statements or jokes about [their] sexual orientation” in public spaces

us
(Lemke et al., p.61). One-third of respondents reported having experienced discrimination in

their family (p. 51) and 18 percent reported having experienced physical assault (p. 56)
an
related to their non-heterosexual orientation. These data show that, while homosexuality is

already widely accepted, there remain social and geographical environments where
M

homosexuality is stigmatized and homosexuals are potentially subjected to social sanctions

d

through spoiled identities, as theorized by Goffman (1963).

te

Chat and dating sites as online gay venues

ep

The internet offers a large variety of technologies and websites that are or have been

used for sexual and dating purposes, such as chat rooms, social networking sites, instant
c

messengers, relay chats, etc. (Albright, 2008; Daneback & Ross, 2011; Döring, 2008;
Ac

Wakeford, 2002). However, with chat and dating sites (CDS), a specialized type of online

environment has emerged that is entirely dedicated to facilitating the search for romantic and

offline sex partners and initiating online sexual activities. Such CDS, prominent examples of

which are Adam4Adam.com, Manhunt.net, and in German-speaking countries the sites

PlanetRomeo.com or Gayroyal.com, play a pivotal role in online interaction among MSM.

Different labels have been used to describe CDS in academic research, such as contact sites
 (Daneback, 2006), gay social networking sites/social networks (Gudelunas, 2012; Miller,

2015), online personals (Fiore & Donath, 2004) or online dating sites (Clemens, Atkin &

Krishan, 2015). However, we regard CDS to be the most appropriate term as it encompasses

both online and offline uses (Robinson & Moskowitz, 2013) and avoids focusing on either

romantic or sexual goals only (unlike the terms partner-sites or sex-sites ). We define chat

and dating sites as having the following five criteria:

t
rip
1. Users have to create a personal profile page that is visible to other users

within the bounded system (Fiore & Donath, 2004).

c
2. The profile pages document a set of personal information along predefined

us
categories, including information that is not visible in face-to-face

encounters. Often a search engine allows users to filter other users based on
an
these categories, or the entire chat and dating site may be limited to users

with particular characteristics (e.g. a certain location, gender, age, sexual

M

preference, etc.; Fiore & Donath, 2004; Davis, Hart, Bolding, Sherr, &
d

Elford, 2006).
te

3. Members use an alias when interacting with others (Fiore & Donath, 2004).

4. The bounded system contains a messaging tool that allows private

ep

communication between two users (Fiore & Donath, 2004).

5. Users can filter and sort the profiles of other users by offline local structures
c
Ac

(e.g. members from the same city, by physical proximity in ascending order,

etc.; Gudelunas, 2012; Murphy, Rawstorne, Holt, & Ryan, 2004).

With the emergence of new technologies, new dating environments have appeared,

such as position-based dating apps on smartphones (Tinder, Grindr, Lovoo, Scruff, etc.).

However, the five criteria listed above remain applicable for these dating apps, too: For

example, on Grindr, the most popular gay dating app (Grindr, n.d.), users (1) create a profile
 containing their (2) personal information, and the app allows members to filter other users by

this information (e.g. certain age ranges). Members on Grindr also (3) use a nickname (or at

least not their real name) and (4) communicate through private messages while (5) other

users are displayed by physical proximity in ascending order. Over recent years, the

distinction between websites and apps has eroded: many CDS offer both a desktop and an

app version, or a responsive website that can be used on desktop computer, tablet and

t
rip
smartphone browsers.

The use of CDS is particularly prevalent among MSM (Lever et al., 2008). They serve

c
as an online equivalent of queer places (Myslik, 1996) or as technological tearooms

us
(Tikkanen & Ross, 2003) that MSM visit to find other MSM. They are what Goffman in his

theory of stigma calls “back places, where people of the individual’s kind stand exposed and
an
find they need not try to conceal their stigma, nor be overly concerned with cooperatively

trying to disattend it” (Goffman, 1963, p. 81). However, CDS on the internet differ from
M

offline gay venues by what Cooper & Griffin-Shelley (2002) call the “triple-A engine of
d

online sexual content”: accessibility, anonymity, and affordability (Cooper & Griffin-Shelley,
te

2002; Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010). Especially for those MSM who do not want to publicly

express their sexual attraction towards men, the internet offers an ideal environment for
ep

satisfying their same-sex sexual desires. Following Goffman’s concept of stigma

management, hidden MSM, as we define them, may tend to avoid offline “queer spaces.”
c
Ac

They do so because places where people with the same stigma meet always carry some “risk

of being easily discredited should a normal person known from elsewhere enter the place”

(Goffman, 1963, p. 82). Here, CDS may provide hidden MSM with a less risky alternative of

entering a virtual gay space – “a one-way window into a gay bar: the individual can observe

but not be observed” (Ross, 2005, p. 348). Empirical research points into the same direction:

in the 2010 EMIS sample cited above, MSM who are “out to no-one or only a few” are more
 restrained in visiting offline gay community centers or gay commercial venues than MSM

who are “out to more than a few” (The EMIS Network, 2013, p. 43). In contrast, they are

more likely to have recently visited gay websites.

In mutual (one-to-one) communication on CDS, hidden MSM can selectively unveil

their visual anonymity depending on the level of trust and intimacy towards their chat partner

(Joinson & Paine, 2009; Walther, 2011) and according to the anticipated future offline or

t
rip
online interaction and its perceived benefits (Gibbs, Ellison, & Heino, 2006). In fact, research

has shown that some MSM don’t publicly display their face on online profiles in order to

c
have “control over when and under what circumstances they would reveal identifiable

us
characteristics” (Gudelunas, 2012, p. 362). Instead, such MSM send pictures through private

messages to other users who are perceived as suitable for meeting in offline encounters. In
an
addition, CMC between two previously unknown individuals is used for uncertainty

reduction (Berger & Calabrese, 1975; Tidwell & Walther, 2002), which, borrowing from
M

Tidwell & Walther (2002, p. 321), we define as “the exchange and collection of information

that allows one to predict another’s attitudes and behaviors.” This interpretation can be
d
te

applied to hidden MSM on CDS: they are more dependent on predicting the behavior of a

possible dating partner in order to reduce the risk of being uncovered than are open MSM.
ep

They may, therefore, use CDS to a greater extent as a means of reducing this uncertainty.

Based on these theoretical notions and empirical findings, we hypothesize that in a

c
Ac

quantitative sample, hidden MSM will visit offline gay venues less frequently than open

MSM (H1). In contrast, we assume that they will use homosexual-specific online

environments more intensively than open MSM (H2). We further hypothesize that hidden

MSM will be more cautious in their online behavior than open MSM; two manifestations of

this is that they will be less likely to show their face on profile pictures (H3) and that they
 will delay offline encounters by engaging in a longer period of CMC for uncertainty

reduction purposes prior to the first date (H4).

These hypotheses were primarily derived from stigma management theory. However,

they do not only apply to hidden MSM whose reasons for hiding is due to stigma

management. The predicted behavior also corresponds to MSM hiding same-sex sexual

desire due to both functional and denial reasons. Those who have the intention of hiding their

t
rip
same-sex sexual interest should be motivated to be anonymous and to separate homosexual

behavior from their interaction with friends, family, or a female partner as far as possible,

c
regardless of their reasons for hiding.

us
Using chat and dating sites as gay-related sexual activity

Goffman’s theory does not only relate to the attendance of places that are associated
an
with a stigma; Goffman is also concerned with the conditions and consequences of co-
M
presence in general: “To be ‘with’ someone is to arrive at a social occasion in his company,

walk with him down the street, be a member of his party in a restaurant, and so forth. The
d

issue is that in certain circumstances the social identity of those an individual is with can be
te

used as a source of information concerning his own social identity, the assumption being that
ep

he is what the others are” (Goffman, 1963, p. 47). When arranging an offline sexual

encounter at the home of one of the participants, hidden MSM are at risk of being spotted by
c

a third party; this may take the form of being seen entering the flat of a well-known gay
Ac

neighbor late at night or a neighbor of the hidden MSM spotting his late night visitor. Hidden

MSM, therefore, may not only be specifically cautious when entering offline gay spaces; they

may also be more likely than open MSM to prioritize gay-related online sexual activities over

offline male-to-male sexual encounters. In fact, prior research has shown that online sexual

activities can be sexually satisfying and serve as a substitute or equivalent for offline
 sexuality (Daneback et al., 2012; Robinson & Moskowitz, 2013). Online sexual activity can

thus be an efficient way of realizing same-sex sexual desire at relatively low risk.

Ross and colleagues found that MSM who identify as heterosexual are “much more

focused on the full sensory spectrum of cybersex, and that it may be providing them with

more than cybersexual release” (this means they were more likely to use web cameras and

microphones during cybersex when compared to other MSM and to non-MSM heterosexuals;

t
rip
see Ross, Månsson, Daneback, & Tikkanen, 2005, p. 138). The authors therefore conclude

that for MSM who self-identify as heterosexual, cybersex “has provided a niche midway

c
between fantasy and actual physical contact in experimenting with, or approximating,

us
homosexual behavior. There is a space for doing, without the physical contact that would

bring the individual closer to being, homosexual” (p. 138; see also Ross, 2005). This idea of
an
CMC providing a space for doing homosexual acts without being homosexual is in

accordance with Suler’s (2004) psychoanalytical idea of a dissociation between online and
M

offline activities that leads to online disinhibition. What is written on CDS is less associated
d

with shame and guilt than offline behavior. The stigma is temporarily suspended in online
te

communication: “Consciously or unconsciously, people may feel that the imaginary

characters they ‘created’ exist in a different space (…). They split or dissociate online fiction
ep

from offline fact” (Suler, 2004, p.323). MSM who do not fully acknowledge their same-sex

sexual desire may feel encouraged to engage in gay online activities, as what happens online
c
Ac

can be dissociated from their offline persona and hence a “heterosexual” self-schema can be

preserved. In addition, activities on CDS are characterized by the opportunity of undoing they

afford, which can be seen as a defense mechanism as outlined in psychoanalytical theory

(Baumeister, Dale, & Sommer, 1998). On CDS, users can easily delete their profile and then

recreate it within minutes later if they once again start looking for other MSM. This act of

deleting an account can be accompanied by the notion of deleting all the preceding sexual
 activities not only from the internet but also from their own reality and personal history

(Suler, 2004, p. 323). We therefore hypothesize that hidden MSM engage in offline sexual

encounters with other men through CDS less frequently than do open MSM (H5), while they

will more frequently engage in online sexual activities with chat partners (H6). This

psychoanalytic interpretation particularly applies to MSM hiding their same-sex sexual desire

due to reasons of denial. However, substituting sexual encounters with other men by

t
rip
engaging in online sexual acts can also be functional for MSM who view same-sex sexual

desire as subordinate to predominantly heterosexual preferences. It can also be part of their

c
stigma management, given that online sexual activities entail less risk of being uncovered.

us
In addition to helping to facilitate offline and online sexual gratification, CDS can

serve non-sexual, social needs, such as finding friends or passing the time (Clemens, Atkin &
an
Krishan, 2015; Gudelunas, 2012; Lever et al., 2008; Blasband & Peplau, 1985; Miller, 2015;

Murphy et al., 2004). This is plausible, as open MSM also tend to prefer gay men to straight
M

men for non-sexual friendships (Nardi, 1999). For hidden MSM, such as those in a
d

relationship with a woman or who self-identify as straight, the desire for non-sexual
te

interaction with other gay or bisexual men should, however, be significantly weaker than that

experienced by open MSM. We hence assume that hidden MSM put less emphasis on non-
ep

sexual conversations and interactions on gay CDS than open MSM (H7).

Method
c
Ac

Sample and procedure

To test our hypotheses we conducted an online survey with German-speaking

members of the gay dating site PlanetRomeo.com in the fall of 2011. PlanetRomeo.com is by

far the most popular chat and dating site among MSM in German-speaking countries. This

was especially true for the year 2011 (and earlier), when the mobile dating app Grindr had

not yet become as important in Europe as it is today. For this reason, studies using MSM
 populations in Germany and other European countries frequently use PlanetRomeo.com for

recruiting purposes (Marcus, Schmidt, Hamouda, & Bochow, 2009).

An invitation to participate in our survey was sent via a newsletter to all German-

speaking owners of PlanetRomeo profiles in Germany and Austria in October 2011 (n =

456,247 at the time when the newsletter was distributed)iv. In addition, banners and ads were

placed on the website. The online questionnaire was accessed 42,873 times. However, only

t
rip
28,822 people actually answered the first questions, of whom 19,463 completed the entire

questionnaire. We excluded those participants who skipped 10 percent or more of the

c
questions and those who took less than eight minutes to complete the questionnaire (n =

us
15,311 remaining). For the current study, we further excluded respondents who did not give

valid answers to questions enquiring about their education or relationship status, who were
an
under 18 years old, as well as those who did not identify themselves as male. Furthermore,

participants who refused to declare their sexual preferences and/or sexual identity, who
M

showed no sexual interest in men by either sexual orientation, practice, or identity, and who

didn’t use CDS were also excluded from the sample. The final sample consisted of 12,002
d
te

male participants aged 18 and above. Of this sample, 93 percent lived in Germany and 7

percent lived in Austria. Because of the comparability of Germany and Austria with respect
ep

to the questions addressed in this study, we do not analyze the two countries separately. The

mean age of MSM in our sample was 35.5 years (SD = 11.1). A majority of 62 percent had
c
Ac

graduated from upper-secondary institutions of the respective educational systems. Around

half of the respondents (47 %) reported being in a committed relationship at the time of the

survey.

Measures

At the beginning of the questionnaire, participants had to indicate the CDS for gay

and bisexual men they used most frequently (e.g., PlanetRomeo.com, Gayroyal.com, etc.).
 This site was then referred to in all subsequent questions regarding participants’ use of CDS.

As was to be expected, the vast majority (82 %) chose PlanetRomeo.com as their favorite

chat and dating site, while 9 percent preferred Gayroyal.com. The remaining indicated a

number of smaller sites, none of which had a share of 2 percent or greater among our

respondents.

Sexual attraction and sexual identity. Respondents indicated the gender of their

t
rip
current partner or partners (if any) and the degree of their sexual attraction to both men and to

women on a five-point scale, where 1 indicated I am only attracted to men and 5 indicated I

c
am only attracted to women. Sexual identity was established by asking How do you usually

us
label yourself? (the response options available where gay, homosexual, bisexual, straight,

heterosexual, queer, other, or I do not assign a label to my sexual identity; these responses
an
were taken from The EMIS Network, 2013).

Disclosure of same-sex sexual attraction. We asked our respondents the following

M

question: Who knows that you are sexually attracted to men? For each of the categories –
d

family, heterosexual friends and acquaintances, people in clubs/associations, colleagues, and

te

neighborhood/local community – the choice of available answers were yes, no, some of them,

or don’t have. Respondents who were in a committed relationship with a female partner at the
ep

time of the survey were also asked if their partner knew of their sexual attraction to men (the

response options were yes or no).

c
Ac

Participation in offline and online gay subculture. Our participants indicated how

often they visited three types of offline gay subcultural venues on five-point scales, where 1

indicated never and 5 was several times a week. The venues listed were gay/LGBT parties,

gay/LGBT clubs, and gay/LGBT bars and cafés. The three items were condensed to a scale

representing the degree of participation in offline gay subculture (α = .83). The degree of

involvement in online gay subculture was established by asking respondents how long it had
 been since they had last visited their favorite chat and dating site. How recently the

participants last visited the website was indicated on an eleven-point scale, where 1 indicated

more than six month ago and 11 was less than two hours ago.

Cautiousness when using CDS. Respondents’ cautiousness when using CDS was

established on two levels. With respect to respondents’ online behavior, we asked them if

their face was visible on their profile pictures (the available response options were my face is

t
rip
clearly visible, my face is visible, but so small that it cannot be recognized, my face is not

visible) as a primary indicator of concerns about anonymity. In order to ascertain concerns

c
about the possible risks of linking online and offline behavior, we also asked our participants

us
about the last time they had met another man offline for sex whom they had only known

through chatting online beforehand. In particular, if they had done that, we asked them to
an
indicate how long they had known each other online before meeting offline for the first time

(the response scale raged from 1 one day or less to 4 more than four weeks).
M

Uses of CDS. We established three basic uses of CDS. Sexual uses that do not include
d

offline sexual encounters were measured by asking respondents how frequently they
te

masturbated until experiencing an orgasm while chatting with other chat and dating site

members, how frequently they masturbated without reaching orgasm while chatting, and how
ep

often they masturbated right after chatting until/without experiencing an orgasm (the

response scale ranged from 1 never to 4 very often). The four items were condensed to a scale
c
Ac

(α = .79). Nonsexual uses were established using the same response categories. Participants

rated how frequently they used CDS to chat with friends and to talk about things other than

sex. The two items were likewise combined (α = .65). Respondents were also asked to

indicate how long it had been since they had most recently arranged to meet a chat partner

offline for sex through a CDS (the response scale was from 1 I have never done that to 8 The

last time was today, yesterday, or the day before yesterday).

 Results

A majority (82 %) of our respondents labeled themselves as homosexual or gay.

Another 15 percent described themselves as bisexual while less than 1 percent chose queer to

describe themselves. A further 2 percent (220 respondents) identified themselves as

heterosexual or straight.

When asked about the degree of their sexual attraction to both genders, 75 percent

t
rip
reported being only sexually interested in men while the remaining 25 percent indicated

attraction to both men and women. We regard the respondents who chose “heterosexual” or

c
“straight” as a label while being at least partially sexually attracted to men therefore as the

us
first of the three types of hidden MSM that we proposed in our introduction: despite their
an
same-sex sexual attraction, they label themselves as heterosexual (1).

Twelve percent of our respondents had not disclosed their same-sex sexual attraction
M
to any of their heterosexual friends, nor to anyone in their extended family, to colleagues, to

people in their neighborhood or local community, or to acquaintances from clubs and

d

associations of which they were members. We coded those participants who had not revealed
te

their attraction to men to anyone in any of these five groups (n = 1,457; 12 %) as the second
ep

type of hidden MSM – MSM who had not disclosed their same-sex sexual attraction in

everyday social relations (2). Among those, 62 percent chose the label bisexual to describe
c

themselves, 28 percent chose gay, homosexual, or queer, and 10 percent chose heterosexual
Ac

or straight.

A small yet substantial number of participants (613; 5 %) furthermore reported being

in a committed relationship with a female partner who, at the time of the survey, did not

know about their sexual attraction to men. They constituted the third category of hidden

MSM as they had – in line with our rationale – not disclosed their same-sex sexual attraction

to a female partner (3).

 Overlaps between the three forms of hiding same-sex sexual desire are displayed in

Figure 1.

[please insert Table 1 and Figure 1 about here]

To test our hypotheses, we calculated seven separate linear regression models (cf.

Table 2). The dependent variables are different aspects of offline and online behavior that we

t
rip
assume to be related to the three types of hidden MSM in our seven hypotheses. In the first

step, we entered respondents’ age, education, and relationship status as controls into the

c
seven regression models. In the second step, we added the three types of hidden MSM as our

us
main predicting variables. Means, standard deviations, and zero-order correlations with the

three predictors for all dependent variables are reported in Table 1.

an
[please insert Table 2 about here]
M
d

The socio-demographic characteristics only explained a marginal share of the

te

variance (1 % or 2 %) in the dependent variables. Older respondents were slightly less active

throughout all online and offline behaviors under examination, while highly educated
ep

participants were more active with respect to both offline subcultural activities and online

sexual interaction. Being in a committed relationship was associated with a slightly less
c
Ac

active involvement in gay subculture, both online and offline, yet at the same time this

correlated with a more pronounced focus on the sexual uses of CDS.

The fact that participants do not openly declare a same-sex sexual identity in their

everyday environment, however, contributes to predicting behavioral patterns related to

expressing sexual attraction to men. Respondents who indicated a sexual attraction to men

but still identified themselves as heterosexual or straight did indeed visit venues like gay bars
 or clubs less frequently than open MSM (cf. Table 2). This was even more strongly the case

for respondents who had a female partner from whom they kept their attraction to men secret

or who had not disclosed their same-sex sexual attraction to family, friends, or colleagues.

Altogether, the three categories of hidden MSM accounted for 9 percent of the variance (ΔR²)

in how frequently participants visited offline subcultural venues (H1 supported). Hidden

MSM, however, had not used their favorite gay CDS more recently than open MSM (H2

t
rip
rejected). However, they differed significantly in how they communicated and interacted on

these sites: hidden MSM more frequently masturbated during or right after chatting (H6

c
supported, ΔR² = .02), yet they less often used CDS for non-sexual purposes (e.g. finding

us
friends, H7 supported, ΔR² = .06) and they were less inclined to show their faces on profile

pictures (H3 supported, ΔR² = .17). The result pattern was similar in each case: choosing a
an
heterosexual label significantly, yet weakly, predicted the three dependent variables.

Concealing same-sex sexual attraction from a female partner had more predictive power, but
M

the strongest predictor throughout all (significant) regression models was the fact that sexual
d

attraction to men had not been disclosed to anybody in their immediate social environment.
te

Against our hypotheses, hidden MSM did not differ at all from open MSM in how often they

met chat partners in offline contexts, nor did they wait longer before going on offline dates
ep

(H5 & H4 rejected).

Discussion
c
Ac

The purpose of our study was to compare how hidden and open MSM utilized gay

chat and dating sites (CDS). Hidden MSM are men who declare that they are sexually

attracted to men and yet still self-label as heterosexual, who do not disclose their same-sex

sexual interest to anyone in their everyday offline social environment, and/or who keep up

the façade of an exclusive heterosexual relationship. We argued that hidden MSM should be

specifically motivated to restrict their same-sex sexual behavior to highly confidential, if not
 anonymous, environments due to their being in denial about their same-sex sexual desires,

because they are trying to avoid stigmatization, or because they perceive and accept their

same-sex sexual interest as a merely subordinate variation of a predominantly heterosexual

preference.

Indeed, our results show that hidden MSM are more reluctant to visit offline

subcultural venues such as gay bars or clubs. Furthermore, while they do not use CDS more

t
rip
often than open MSM, they significantly differ in how they use these sites. Hidden MSM are

less likely than open MSM to post a recognizable profile picture on CDS and they less

c
frequently use CDS for non-sexual purposes such as finding friends or talking to friends

us
about non-sexual subjects. Instead, they more often masturbate during or straight after

chatting with other MSM via CDS. Contrary to our expectations, however, hidden MSM do
an
not refrain from meeting chat partners for sex offline more frequently than open MSM, nor

do they delay participating in offline encounters longer than open MSM.

M

Our results can be interpreted in light of different theoretical approaches. Firstly, our
d

data show that CDS are especially relevant for MSM who fully acknowledge the fact that
te

they are not heterosexual but who are unwilling or unable to disclose their attraction to men

to anyone in their immediate social environment. This highlights the importance of CDS for
ep

stigma-management purposes and thus supports Schrimshaw et al.’s (2013, p. 139)

interpretation that non-disclosing MSM are able to “preserve an outwardly heterosexual

c
Ac

identity, while actively engaging in sexual behaviors” with other men by arranging sexual

encounters and maintaining dual lives. Secondly, the fact that hidden MSM use CDS with a

more pronounced sexual focus compared to open MSM can be understood as supporting the

idea of CDS being efficient environments in their ability to facilitate the satisfaction of sexual

desire. Because of their anonymity, accessibility, and affordability (Cooper & Griffin-

Shelley, 2002), CDS are functional for hidden MSM as they provide low-risk opportunities
 for expressing and experimenting with same-sex sexual behaviors. Yet thirdly, using CDS for

online sexual activities may also be regarded as a dysfunctional act given that it may prolong

or even reinforce denial of same-sex sexual desires among MSM who struggle with coming

to terms with their sexual identity. Here, same-sex sexual desire is not fully incorporated into

the self-concept, but rather it is confined to the CDS as a homosexual environment while the

everyday social environment is kept purely heterosexual.

t
rip
The fact that hidden MSM meet other CDS members for offline sexual encounters

just as often and as fast as open MSM, however, speaks against the dysfunctional

c
interpretation of hidden MSM’s online sexual activities. In contrast, it appears that hidden

us
MSM are in no way limited to experiencing sexual encounters online, but that sexual

interaction on CDS provides an entry point for expressing and realizing their sexual desires
an
offline as well – at least with respect to casual, uncommitted sexual encounters. One reason

for this may be that hidden MSM successfully use CDS for reducing uncertainty by
M

collecting exactly the kind of information they need to judge the trustworthiness of potential
d

offline sex partners. Accordingly, offline dates would no longer compromise the aim of
te

concealing same-sex sexual attraction from friends, family, or colleagues. Another reason

may be, however, that the disinhibiting effect of online communication combined with high
ep

sexual desire and arousal associated with online sexual activities as well as increasing

feelings of intimacy towards a chat partner (Jiang, Bazarova & Hancock, 2013) can lead to a
c
Ac

heightened willingness to engage in risky behavior – risky from the perspective of MSM who

do not want their same-sex sexual attraction to be disclosed (Suler, 2004). Online

disinhibition may, therefore, facilitate arranging offline sex dates even in cases when they

involve a risk of being discovered. Either way, the results imply that prior engagement in

online communication can help MSM overcome (actual or perceived) sexual behavior

restrictions. This can be regarded as a functional benefit and is congruent with findings on the
 impact of the internet on sexual liberation in countries where same-sex sexual conduct is

illegal (Lemke, 2014).

In seeking a model to disentangle different theoretical perspectives on how hidden

MSM use CDS, and potentially how they select venues for sexual encounters in general, we

suggest a conflation of (at least) three theoretical pillars – psychoanalytic ideas of online

disinhibition and dissociation, stigma management theory, and the sexual efficacy of using

t
rip
online communication jointly influence the online and offline sexual venue selection among

MSM.

c
1) The greater the extent that denial is the reason for hiding same-sex sexual desire,

us
the more relevant the pillar of online disinhibition afforded by CDS becomes.

When communicating on CDS, identity-related conflicts stemming from shame

an
and guilt are temporarily suspended and same-sex sexual desire can be performed.

Following this interpretation, CDS serve as an environment of approximation, as

M

described by Ross and colleagues (2005).

d

2) The more that hiding same-sex sexual desire represents a need for stigma
te

management, the more relevant stigma theory is for understanding behavior on

gay CDS. Such venues represent a safe space where the stigma does not need to
ep

be concealed and where hidden MSM do not risk being spotted while entering and

interacting.
c
Ac

3) The greater the extent of mere functional reasons for hiding same-sex sexual

desire, the more relevant the argument of efficacy of online communication is.

Compared to offline gay venues, CDS are more accessible, more affordable, and

house a greater number of potential sexual partners that can easily be filtered and

searched according to particular sexual preferences. Engaging in online sexual

 activities and arranging offline sexual encounters via CDS is hence a more

efficient means of need satisfaction than offline gay venues.

However, there are limitations to our results. First of all, our sample is no more than a

convenience sample, despite its size. Respondents recruited via newsletters and banners on a

single web page can never be representative in a statistical sense. Although

PlanetRomeo.com constituted a “must have” tool among German-speaking MSM in 2011,

t
rip
self-selection biases are, of course, still a problem. Other limitations concern the measures

this study employed. We only established the frequency of attending offline sexual venues

c
that are not exclusively sexual, i.e. gay bars, gay clubs, and gay parties. It is possible that

us
some hidden MSM avoid all of these offline gay venues but instead visit places that have an

exclusively sexual focus and are characterized by a higher level of anonymity, such as public
an
bathrooms or cruising areas in parks. Furthermore, we measured the form of hiding same-sex

sexual desire (choosing heterosexual as a self-label; not telling any of one’s friends or
M

colleagues; not telling a female partner) but not the actual reason for hiding. Finally, some of
d

the dependent measures are only approximations to the construct they are supposed to
te

represent. This is especially the case with respect to the intensity with which respondents

used gay CDS and with respect to the frequency of meeting chat partners offline. Both items
ep

were actually measured in terms of their recency rather than their intensity or frequency.

However, in quantitative research, recency is a good approximation of frequency and is easier

c
Ac

for the respondent to recall and answer.

Despite these limitations, however, it is still plausible that our results provide a valid

impression of how MSM in Germany and Austria use gay CDS. By contacting users of

PlanetRomeo.com, the de-facto monopolist of gay CDS at the time, we were able to contact

the vast majority of MSM who actively use gay CDS. Therefore, we conclude that specifying

sub-types of hidden MSM does indeed help to develop a more profound understanding of the
 differential opportunities that online spaces offer for both hidden and open MSM. In

particular, evaluating the extent to which CDS are used as a means for exploring non-

heterosexual identity or expressing same-sex sexual desire, on the one hand, and for building

long-term romantic or non-sexual relationships, on the other, represents a useful tool for

distinguishing open and hidden MSM.

We conclude that hidden MSM, as we define them, are quite successful in managing

t
rip
the conflict between seeking sex with men and remaining heterosexual in the perception of

friends, family, colleagues, and sometimes female partners, or even themselves. While we

c
were able to measure different forms of hiding same-sex sexual interest, the particular

us
reasons for hiding need further investigation by both means of quantitative (ideally:

longitudinal) and qualitative research. How do CDS use and online sexual activities interact
an
with perceived stigma (Herek, 2009)? How do they interact with self-acknowledgement (or

not) of same-sex sexual desire? Does using CDS, due to the opportunity they afford of
M

managing multiple identities, potentially even result in a prolonged process of coming out
d

among exclusively gay men? The answers to these questions would help us better understand
te

the societal impact of CDS and also contribute to constructing an integrated theoretical

framework for sexual venue selection among MSM.

c ep
Ac
 i
By MSM we refer primarily to men who engage in same-sex sexual behavior.

However, we also apply this term to men who are sexually attracted to men and who interact

with other MSM in ways that include at least some sexual aspect (e.g., talking about sex

between men) although they have not yet engaged in same-sex sexual behavior.
ii
The EMIS survey contained three respective questions: Identity (Which of the

t
following options best describes how you think of yourself? with the response options Gay or

rip
homosexual, Bisexual, Straight or heterosexual, Any other term and I don’t usually use a

term), sexual orientation (Who are you sexually attracted to? with a five-point scale ranging

c
from Only to men to Only to women) and male sex partners (When did you last have any kind

us
of sex with a man (please include any sexual contact, not just anal intercourse)? with an
an
eight-point scale ranging from within the last 24 hours to never). In order to remain their

sample, a participant had to “provide evidence for homosexual desire, identity, or sex with
M
men” (The EMIS Network, 2013, p. 28). “Respondents that were male but were sexually

attracted to women only and thought of themselves as straight or heterosexual and never had
d

sex with men” were excluded from the sample (The EMIS Network, 2013, p. 28).
te

iii
Data gained from the 2008 European Values Survey, which included the question
ep

“On this list are various groups of people. Could you please sort out any that you would not

like to have as neighbours?” with “homosexuals” being one of 15 options. Data can be
c

investigated in the GESIS Online Study Catalogue (http://zakat.gesis.org).

Ac

iv
Due to problems with language mapping, Switzerland had to be left out, despite the number

of German speakers there.

 References

Afifi, T.D. & Steuber, K. (2010). The cycle of concealment model. Journal of Social and

Personal Relationships, 27, 1019-1034.

Albright, J. M. (2008). Sex in America Online: An Exploration of Sex, Marital Status, and

Sexual Identity in Internet Sex Seeking and Its Impacts. Journal of Sex Research, 45, 175–

t
rip
186. doi:10.1080/00224490801987481

Allen, D.J. & Oleson, T. (1999). Shame and Internalized Homophobia in Gay Men. Journal

c
of Homosexuality, 37, 33-43. doi: 10.1300/J082v37n03_03

us
Baumeister, R. F., Dale, K., & Sommer, K. L. (1998). Freudian Defense Mechanisms and
an
Empirical Findings in Modern SocialPsychology: Reaction Formation, Projection,

Displacement, Undoing, Isolation, Sublimation, and Denial. Journal of Personality, 66,

M
1081–1124. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00043

Ben-Ari, A. (1995). Coming out: A dialectic of intimacy and privacy. Families in Society, 76,
d

306-314.
te

Berg, R.C., Ross, M.W., Weatherburn, P., & Schmidt, A.J. (2013). Structural and
ep

environmental factors are associated with internalised homonegativity in men who have

sex with men: Findings from the European MSM Internet Survey (EMIS) in 38 countries.
c

Social Science & Medicine, 78, 61-69. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.033

Ac

Berger, C., & Calabrese, R. (1975). Some Exploration in Initial Interaction and Beyond:

Toward a Developmental Theory of Communication. Human Communication Research, 1,

99–112. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1975.tb00258.x

Blasband, D., & Peplau, L. A. (1985). Sexual exclusivity versus openness in gay male

couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 14, 395–412. doi:10.1007/BF0154200

 Bochow, M., Lenuweit, S., Sekuler, T., & Schmidt, A. J. (2013). Schwule Männer und

HIV/AIDS: Lebensstile, Sex, Schutz- und Risikoverhalten 2010. [Gay men and HIV/AIDS:

Live style, sex, protection and risc behavior] Aids-Forum DAH: Vol. 60. Berlin: Deutsche

AIDS-Hilfe e.V.

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. doi:

t
rip
10.1007/s10461-007-9224-9

Boon, S.D. & Miller, J. (1999). Exploring the links between interpersonal trust and the

c
reasons underlying gay and bisexual males’ disclosure of their sexual orientation to their

us
mothers. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 45-68.
an
Clemens, C., Atkin, D., & Krishnan, A.(2015) The influence of biological and personality

traits on gratifications obtained through online dating websites, Computers in Human

M
Behavior, 49, 120-129. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.058

Cooper, A., & Griffin-Shelley, E. (2002). Introduction. The Internet: The next sexual
d

revolution. In A. Cooper (Ed.), Sex and the Internet. A guidebook for clinicians (pp. 1–18).
te

New York, NY: Brunner-Routledge.

ep

Crowson, M., & Goulding, A. (2013). Virtually homosexual: Technoromanticism,

demarginalisation and identity formation among homosexual males. Computers in Human

c

Behavior, 29, A31-A39. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.017

Ac

Daneback, K., Månsson, S.-A., & Ross, M. (2007). Using the Internet to Find Offline Sex

Partners. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 100–107. doi:10.1089/cpb.2006.9986

Daneback, K., & Ross, M. W. (2011). The Complexity of Internet Sexuality. In R. Balon

(Ed.), Advances in Psychosomatic Medicine. Sexual Dysfunction: Beyond the Brain-Body

Connection (Vol. 31, pp. 121–134). Basel: KARGER.

 Daneback, K., Ross, M. W., & Månsson, S.-A. (2008). Bisexuality and Sexually Related

Activities on the Internet. Journal of Bisexuality, 8, 115–129.

doi:10.1080/15299710802142317

Daneback, K., Sevcikova, A., Månsson, S.-A., & Ross, M. W. (2012). Outcomes of using the

internet for sexual purposes: fulfilment of sexual desires. Sexual Health, 10, 26-31.

doi:10.1071/SH11023

t
rip
Davis, M., Hart, G., Bolding, G., Sherr, L., & Elford, J. (2006). E-dating, identity and HIV

prevention: theorising sexualities, risk and network society. Sociology of Health and

c
Illness, 28, 457–478. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2006.00501.x

us
Döring, N.M. (2008). The Internet’s impact on sexuality: A critical review of 15 years of
an
research. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 1089-1101. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.04.003

Fiore, A. T., & Donath, J. S. (2004). Online Personals: An Overview. In E. Dykstra-Erickson

M
& M. Tscheligi (Eds.), CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.

Extended abstracts of the 2004 conference (pp. 1395–1398). Retrieved from

d

http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/atf/chi2004_personals_short.pdf [17.08.2016]
te

Gibbs, J., Ellison, N. B., & Heino, R. (2006). Self-Presentation in Online Personals: The Role
ep

of Anticipated Future Interaction, Self-Disclosure, and Perceived Success in Internet

Dating. Communication Research, 33, 152–177. doi:10.1177/0093650205285368

c

Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Anchor Books.
Ac

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Eaglewood Cliffs,

N.J.: Prentice Hall.

GRINDR (n.d.) The Grindr Factsheet. Available at: http://www.grindr.com/press/

[11.08.2016]
 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. doi:10.1080/00224499.2013.871626

Gudelunas, D. (2012). There’s an App for that: The Uses and Gratifications of Online Social

Networks for Gay Men. Sexuality & Culture, 16, 347–365. doi:10.1007/s12119-012-9127-

t
rip
Herek, G.M. (2009). Sexual Prejudice. In T.D. Nelson (ed.), Handbook of prejudice,

sterotyping and discrimination (p. 441-467). New York: Psychology Press.

c
Hertlein, K., & Stevenson, A. (2010). The seven "As" contributing to internet-related

us
intimacy problems: a literature Review. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial
an
Research on Cyberspace, 4(1), article 1.

Humphreys, L. (1970). Tearoom trade: a study of homosexual encounters in public places.

M
London: Duckworth.

Jiang, L.C., Bazarova, N.N. & Hancock, J.T. (2013). From Perception to Behavior:
d

Disclosure Reciprocity and the Intensification of Intimacy in Computer-Mediated

te

Communication. Communication Research, 40, 125-143. doi: 10.1177/0093650211405313

ep

Joinson, A. N., & Paine, C. B. (2009). Self-disclosure, privacy and the Internet. In A. N.

Joinson, McKenna, K. Y. A., T. Postmes, & U.-D. Reips (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of
c

Internet psychology (1st ed., pp. 237–252). Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press.
Ac

Lemke, R. (2014, June). Sexual liberation on the Internet? Sexual Internet use of MSM in 50

different countries. International Academy of Sex Research. 40th annual meeting,

Dubrovnik.
 Lemke, R., Tornow, T. & PlanetRomeo.com (2015). Gay Happiness Monitor - Results

overview from a global survey on perceived gay-related public opinion and gay well-

being. Mainz: Johannes Gutenberg University. Available at:

http://www.gayhappinessmonitor.org/ [11.08.2016]

Lever, J., Grov, C., Royce, T., & Gillespie, B. J. (2008). Searching for Love in all the “Write”

Places: Exploring Internet Personals Use by Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Age.

t
rip
International Journal of Sexual Health, 20, 233–246. doi:10.1080/19317610802411532

Marcus, U., Schmidt, A. J., Hamouda, O., & Bochow, M. (2009). Estimating the regional

c
distribution of men who have sex with men (MSM) based on Internet surveys. BMC Public

us
Health, 9(1), 180. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-9-180
an
McLean, K. (2007). Hiding in the closet? Bisexuals, coming out and the disclosure

imperative. Journal of Sociology, 43, 151-166. doi: 10.1177/1440783307076893

M
Murphy, D., Rawstorne, P., Holt, M., & Ryan, D. (2004). Cruising and connecting online:

The use of Internet chat sites by gay men in Sydney and Melbourne. Monograph: 2/2004.
d

Sydney, NSW: National Centre in HIV Social Research, Faculty of Arts and Social
te

Sciences, the University of New South Wales.

ep

Myslik, W. D. (1996). Renegotiating the Social/Sexual Identities of Places: Gay communities

as safe havens or sites of resistance? In N. Duncan (Ed.), BodySpace. Destabilizing

c

geographies of gender and sexuality (pp. 156–169). London: Routledge.

Ac

Nardi, P. M. (1999). Gay men's friendships: Invincible communities. Worlds of desire.

Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Peplau, L. A. (2003). Human sexuality: how do men and women differ? Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 12, 37–40. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.01221

 Rice, S. R., & Ross, M. W. (2014). Differential processes of ‘Internet’ versus ‘real life’ sexual

filtering and contact among men who have sex with men. Cyberpsychology: Journal of

Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 8(1), article 1. doi: 10.5817/CP2014-1-6

Robinson, B. A., & Moskowitz, D. A. (2013). The eroticism of Internet cruising as a self-

contained behaviour: a multivariate analysis of men seeking men demographics and getting

off online. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 15, 555–569. doi:10.1080/13691058.2013.774050

t
rip
Ross, M. W. (2005). Typing, doing, and being: sexuality and the internet. Journal of sex

research, 42, 342–352. doi:10.1080/00224490509552290

c
Ross, M. W., Månsson, S.-A., Daneback, K., & Tikkanen, R. (2005). Characteristics of men

us
who have sex with men on the internet but identify as heterosexual, compared with
an
heterosexually identified men who have sex with women. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 8,

131–139. doi:10.1089/cpb.2005.8.131
M
Schrimshaw, E. W., Downing, M. J., & Siegel, K. (2013). Sexual venue selection and

strategies for concealment of same-sex behavior among non-disclosing men who have sex
d

with men and women. Journal of homosexuality, 60, 120–145.

te

doi:10.1080/00918369.2013.735945
ep

Suler, J. (2004). The Online Disinhibition Effect. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 7, 321–326.

doi:10.1089/1094931041291295
c

The EMIS Network. (2013). The European Men-Who-Have-Sex-With-Men Internet Survey:

Ac

Findings from 38 countries.

Tidwell, L. C., & Walther, J. B. (2002). Computer-Mediated Communication Effects on

Disclosure, Impressions, and Interpersonal Evaluations: Getting to Know One Another a

Bit at a Time. Human Communication Research, 28, 317–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-

2958.2002.tb00811.x
 Tikkanen, R., & Ross, M. W. (2000). Looking for Sexual Compatibility: Experiences among

Swedish Men in Visiting Internet Gay Chat Rooms. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 605–

616. doi:10.1089/109493100420205

Tikkanen, R., & Ross, M. W. (2003). Technological Tearoom Trade: Characteristics of

Swedish Men Visiting Gay Internet Chat Rooms. AIDS Education and Prevention, 15,

122–132. doi:10.1521/aeap.15.3.122.23833

t
rip
Wakeford, N. (2002). New Technologies and 'Cyber-queer' Research. In D. Richardson & S.

Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of lesbian and gay studies (pp. 115–144). London: Sage.

c
Walther, J. B. (2011). Theories of Computer Mediated Communication and Interpersonal

us
Relations. In M. L. Knapp & J. A. Daly (Eds.), The Sage handbook of interpersonal
an
communication (4th ed., pp. 443–480). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
M
d
te
c ep
Ac
 Figure 1: Forms of hiding same-sex sexual desire

t
rip
c
us
an
M
d
te
c ep
Ac
Table 1: Dependent variables: descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations with three types of hidden MSM
Zero-order correlations with

t
rip
Choosing Not Not
the label disclosing disclosing
heterosexual same-sex same-sex
(β) sexual sexual

c
attraction to attraction to

us
Prevalence family, a female
(at least sometimes/has already Mean friends, etc. partner
happened) (SD) (β) (β)

an
Visiting offline subcultural venues1 (scale) 2.0 (0.8) -.11** -.30** -.21**
gay/LGBT parties 62 % 1.9 (0.9) -.10** -.27** -.20**
gay/LGBT clubs 59 % 1.9 (0.9) -.09** -.22** -.15**

M
gay/LGBT bars and cafés 67 % 2.1 (1.1) -.10** -.28** -.20**
Using gay CDS as an online subcultural N/A (74% last visit 2.2 (1.8) .02* .03** .03**
environment2
Visibility of one’s face on profile pictures3
ed today)
N/A (73 % clearly
visible)
2.5 (0.8) -.17** -.39** -.29**
pt
Duration before meeting a chat partner offline4 N/A (60% no more than 2.3 (1.0) -.02+ n.s. -.03**
6 days)
ce

Masturbating during/after chatting5 (scale) 1.6 (0.7) .08** .12** .10**

masturbating until orgasm while chatting 45 % 1.8 (1.0) .07** .12** .13**
Ac

masturbating without orgasm while chatting 45 % 1.7 (0.9) .07** .10** .09**
 masturbating until orgasm after chatting 51 % 1.9 (1.0) .07** .10** .08**
masturbating without orgasm after chatting 24 % 1.3 (0.6) .03** .07** .04**

t
rip
Arranging offline sexual encounters with chat 89 % 6.1 (2.1) .02+ n.s. n.s.
partners6
Nonsexual uses7 (scale) 3.0 (0.8) -.13** -.21** -19**

c
chatting with friends 93 % 3.2 (0.9) -.12** -.21** -.18**

us
talking about things other than sex 87 % 2.8 (1.0) -.09** -.15** -.15**
1 2
Note: frequency (1 never to 5 several times a week); recency (1 last visit was less than 2 hours ago to 11 last visit was more than 6 month ago);

an
3
degree of visibility (1 not visible at all, 2 visible but not recognizable, 3 clearly recognizable); 4Time spent chatting before date (1 one day or less
to 4 more than four weeks); 5freuquency (1 never to 4 very often); 6recency (1 I have never done that to 8 The last time was today, yesterday, or the
day before yesterday); 7frequency (1 never to 4 very often); +p < .100; *p < .050; **p < .010

M
ed
pt
ce
Ac
Table 2: Predicting online and offline behavior through three types of hidden MSM
(beta values for the final models)

t
Cautiousness of using gay Uses of

rip
Gay subculture chat and dating sites gay chat and dating sites

Arranging
Using chat and Duration offline

c
Visiting dating sites as Visibility of before Masturbatin sexual
one’s face on

us
offline an online meeting a g encounters
subcultural subcultural profile chat partner during/after with chat Non-sexual
venues1 environment2 pictures3 offline4 chatting5 partners6 uses7

an
R² (adjusted) .10** .01** .18** .00 .04** .02** .07**

Controls (ΔR²) .01** .01** .02** --- .02** .02** .01**

M
Age (β) n.s. .09** -.06** --- -.13** -.10** -.06**

Education (β) .05** n.s. -.07** --- .04** n.s. -.08**

(1 = up. sec.)

Relationship status (β)

(1 = in rel.)
-.04** ed .04** -.03** --- .03** .10** n.s.
pt
Hidden MSM (ΔR²) .09** .00 .17** --- .02** .00 .06**
ce

Choosing the label -.03** --- -.07** --- .03** --- -.07**
heterosexual (β)

Not disclosing same-sex -.25** --- -.31** --- .09** --- -.15**
Ac

sexual attraction to family,

friends, etc. (β)
 Not disclosing same-sex -.08** --- -.13** --- .07** --- -.11**
sexual attraction to a female

t
partner (β)

rip
Note: 1frequency (1 never to 5 several times a week); 2recency (1 last visit was less than 2 hours ago to 11 last visit was more than 6 month ago);
3
degree of visibility (1 not visible at all, 2 visible but not recognizable, 3 clearly recognizable); 4Time spent chatting before date (1 one day or less
to 4 more than four weeks); 5frequency (never to 4 very often); 6recency (1 I have never done that to 8 The last time was today, yesterday, or the day

c
before yesterday); 7frequency (1 never to 4 very often); beta values are reported for the final regression model with all predictors

us
+
p < .100; *p < .050; **p < .010

an
M
ed
pt
ce
Ac