Gay Men’s Body Image: Near 50 Percent Would Sacrifice 1 Year Of Their Lives For The Perfect Body, Survey Finds

Exactly how far would you go for cast-iron pecs or the perfect six-pack?

Indeed, gay men have been stereotypically cast as gym bunnies by popular culture for some time, but a new British poll has now revealed a slightly more disturbing fact about that population’s fractured relationship with body image. A study commissioned by the Central YMCA, the Succeed Foundation and the University of the West of England’s (UWE) Centre for Appearance Research in Bristol found that48 percent of gay male respondents would sacrifice a year or more of their lives in exchange for a perfect body. Perhaps even more onerous: researchers also found that 10 percent of those men would agree to die more than 11 years earlier if they could have their ideal body right now, according to Pink News.

Not surprisingly, authorities attributed the results to popular depictions of gay men in media. “Today gay men are under enormous pressure about their bodies, and we believe that a lack of body diversity in the media, including the gay press, and a relentless focus which values people based on appearance, may in part explain why gay men are particularly susceptible to this issue,” Rosi Prescott, CEO of Central YMCA, told Pink News. “This is of concern when we know that record numbers of men are taking steroids or having unnecessary cosmetic surgery to achieve what is often an unattainable or unrealistic body image ideal.”

A total of 384 men, a quarter of which identified as gay, were reportedly surveyed as part of the poll, with an average age of 40, according to the BBC. But overall, researchers say the increase in body hang-ups surged among both gay and straight men. As The Telegraph notes, the survey found a staggering 80 percent of men regularly discuss body shapes, often comparing them to those of top celebrities and fashion models — and 59 percent of them admitted that doing so makes them feel worse about themselves.

Among the most popular phrases by men discussing how other men look: “beer belly,” “man boobs” (or “moobs”), and “chubby,” along with “six-pack” and “ripped.”

“Girls want to be slim and males want to be big and lean, and while it isn’t a bad thing for people to want to look better, it has become more like a competition, which has a bad effect on most people’s mental health,” one respondent told The Guardian.

“Body talk is saying things which reinforce the traditional standard of male attractiveness, which is having a tall, lean, muscular body with clear skin and a full head of hair, and is for most people unattainable,” Dr. Phillippa Diedrichs of UWE also told The Guardian. “This research really demonstrates that body image is an issue for everyone, although in men, especially middle-aged men, it has been woefully under-reported, but has a negative impact on social relationships and on attitudes to diet, exercise and a healthy lifestyle.”

-titles of drama

(Source: The Huffington Post)

gaysianstruggs:

Find the full article here: 

Jimmy Nguyen articulates his experiences regarding racism (otherwise expressed as “lookism”) in the LGBTQ community. According to his opinion piece in the Advocate, Asians are generally regarded as the bottom of the race-attraction hierarchy, usually rejected with non-race-related groups such as “fats” or “femmes”. It’s also entertaining to see the comments by readers, criticizing him about being a “potato-queen” (or a gay man mainly attracted to Caucasian men) whilst commenting on this racially-driven construct of attraction.

My take:

I’ve seen this far too many times. I don’t consider myself ugly, nor do I consider myself to be a model. However, there is an undeniable hesitance to be attracted to Asian men as an American gay man. I’ve heard it countless times before: “I’m just not into Asians/Asians just don’t do it for me…no offense.” A phrase uttered with the knowledge that I would be possibly offended. And why not? Why are we grouped as one entity - does it speak well for the gay community to be so driven by what turns them on that we’ve made a social hierarchy of what is ideal? I think not.

Nguyen continues to say that he is mainly a “potato-queen”. I, myself, would consider myself that way. However, as those queerly educated in the history and sociology of homosexuality, much of being gay is constructed. How exactly? Nguyen touches upon the influence of power structures and media - guess who has the power in media? Truth be told, Caucasian men. Without any ill feelings towards any racial group, it is simply a truth for many gay men - the media and our society has socially constructed their groins to point towards men that the American media deems attractive = Caucasian men. 

So, let’s change it. For those out there who are in the media or plan to be - let’s do our part in diversifying the gay social spectrum. Perhaps each color needs a little more good light on them, let’s do our part as Asian to rep our people and show that Gaysians truly are beautiful.

S.F. gay married couple loses immigration battle

Washington —

Citing the Defense of Marriage Act, the Obama administration denied immigration benefits to a married gay couple from San Francisco and ordered the expulsion of a man who is the primary caregiver to his AIDS-afflicted spouse.

Bradford Wells, a U.S. citizen, and Anthony John Makk, a citizen of Australia, were married seven years ago in Massachusetts. They have lived together 19 years, mostly in an apartment in the Castro district. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services denied Makk’s application to be considered for permanent residency as a spouse of an American citizen, citing the 1996 law that denies all federal benefits to same-sex couples.

The decision was issued July 26. Immigration Equality, a gay-rights group that is working with the couple, received the notice Friday and made it public Monday. Makk was ordered to depart the United States by Aug. 25. Makk is the sole caregiver for Wells, who has severe health problems.

“I’m married just like any other married person in this country,” Wells said. “At this point, the government can come in and take my husband and deport him. It’s infuriating. It’s upsetting. I have no power, no right to keep my husband in this country. I love this country, I live here, I pay taxes and I have no right to share my home with the person I married.”

Husband’s pleas

Wells pleaded with Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and President Obama to intervene.

“Anyone can identify with the horror of having the government come in and destroy your family when you’ve done nothing wrong, and you’ve done everything right, followed every law,” Wells said.

The agency’s decision cited the Defense of Marriage Act as the reason for the denial of an I-130 visa, or spousal petition that could allow Makk to apply for permanent U.S. residency. “The claimed relationship between the petitioner and the beneficiary is not a petitionable relationship,” the decision said. “For a relationship to qualify as a marriage for purposes of federal law, one partner must be a man and the other a woman.”

Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder decided earlier this year that the law, commonly known as DOMA, is unconstitutional on equal protection grounds and that the administration would no longer defend it in court. House Republicans hired an outside counsel to defend it instead. However, the administration said it would continue to enforce the law, while exercising discretion on a case-by-case basis.

ICE’s director, John Morton, issued a memorandum in June that offered guidance to agents in making enforcement decisions. Because no law enforcement agency can pursue every case, they routinely prioritize where to commit the government’s limited resources.

The memorandum said prosecutions should seek to promote “national security, border security, public safety and the integrity of the immigration system.”

Makk meets several of the circumstances specified in the memorandum. Aside from being a spouse of an American citizen, he is also the primary caretaker of a citizen, has no criminal history, and has legally resided in the country under various visas for many years.

The couple said they spent nearly $2,000 to file the petition that was denied, and now must decide whether to file a motion to reconsider the decision, which Wells said would almost certainly be denied, giving the couple at most another 30 days of residency.

Makk gave up a professional career in Australia to be with Wells, and started a business in San Francisco and invested in rental property to meet various visa requirements. He said he has never remained in the country illegally.

Poor alternatives

Wells could move to Australia, but he said doing so would require him to give up his extensive medical care and insurance in the United States.

“We are appealing to the Obama administration to begin to put into action what they’ve said repeatedly they can do,” said Immigration Equality spokesman Steve Ralls. “The Department of Homeland Security and ICE have said again and again that they can exercise discretion in individual cases, but they have not done so for a single gay or lesbian couple yet.”

In rare cases, lawmakers can introduce so-called private bills to shield specific immigrants from deportation, but only after deportation proceedings have begun. Such bills are considered a last resort.

Drew Hammill, a spokesman for Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said Pelosi has contacted immigration officials on behalf of the couple and “will be working to exhaust all appropriate immigration remedies that are open to pursue.”

gaypolitics:

California’s Proposition 8 trial is set to continue Sept. 6, where the California Supreme Court will hear appeal arguments on Judge Vaughn Walker’s original decision – that Prop 8 was unconstitutional.

This time, the case will be televised on the California Channel, a public affairs network.

The original trial, headed by Judge Walker, was supposed to be aired, but the U.S. Supreme Court intervened, citing that airing the trial might put witnesses at risk.

The case is unique in that the state has refused to back an appeal of ruling – leaving the initiative sponsors (Protect Marriage) as the only party attempting to appeal. Federal precedent bars this, but Protect Marriage is hoping a state law will overrule federal standard and allow it.

The California Supreme Court will hear one hour of arguments the first day of the fall calendar, Sept. 6. The court will then have 90 days to release a ruling.

If an appeal is allowed, Walker’s decision would be reviewed, which could talk several additional months.

“I am very pleased that the Supreme Court of California calendared our case for the first day of their fall session,” Chad Griffin, Board President of the American Foundation for Equal Rights said in a statement. The foundation is the sole sponsor for the Proposition 8 court case, Perry v. Brown. “The governor and attorney general of California – and the United States District Court – all have found Proposition 8 unconstitutional.”

(Source: 365gay.com, via )