Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jan 28.
Published in final edited form as: J Homosex. 2024 Feb 20;72(2):228–244. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2024.2319621

Sexual Racism on Geosocial Networking Applications and Identity Outness among Sexual Minority Men in the US

Junye Ma a, Dafna Paltin a, Michael Miller-Perusse a, Ashley Black b, Jason V Baker b,c, Keith J Horvath a,d
PMCID: PMC11333733  NIHMSID: NIHMS1967532  PMID: 38377340

Abstract

Although the use of geosocial networking (GSN) applications for relationship seeking is prevalent among sexual minority men (SMM), SMM of color may be vulnerable to sexual racism online. Little is known about how sexual racism relates to SMM of color’s identity outness, which is integral to the minority stress model and the focus of this study. Eighty SMM, recruited through social media (53.7% racial/ethnic minority), reported their experiences of race-based discrimination on GSN apps and identity outness. Chi-squared and Fisher’s tests examined differences in race-based discrimination online by participants’ race/ethnicity. A factorial MANOVA was performed on outness to family, peers, and healthcare providers. Nearly one-third of participants experienced race-based discrimination online. Higher percentages of SMM of color experienced race-based discrimination than White SMM. SMM who experienced race-based discrimination online reported lower outness to family than those who had not. Post-hoc analyses revealed that Asian SMM reported consistently lower outness than other groups. Our findings resonated with the mediation framework of minority stress, suggesting that sexual racism online may be a distal stressor that contributes to the group-specific process of identity outness. This also illustrated the importance of addressing sexual racism on GSN apps to buffer existing stress with outness among SMM of color.

Keywords: Sexual racism, sexual minority men, identity outness, online dating, geosocial networking applications, intersectionality, minority stress

Introduction

Relationship seeking online is prevalent among sexual minority men (SMM), as approximately 52% to 70% of SMM in the United States (U.S.) seek sexual or romantic partners online (Macapagal et al., 2019; Macapagal et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2014). Across online platforms, geosocial networking (GSN) applications (e.g., Tinder, Grindr) are especially popular (Prestage et al., 2015) due to their geolocation features, personalization of users’ accounts, and privacy settings, which may facilitate connections with other SMM nearby and confer a sense of anonymity (Albury & Byron, 2016; Birnholtz et al., 2014; Ma et al., 2021; McConnell et al., 2017). The lack of in-person venues for relationship seeking (Dehaan et al., 2013) and SMM’s desire to maintain the anonymity of their sexual identity (Ma et al., 2021; McConnell et al., 2018) further motivate SMM to seek partners online. However, certain features of GSN apps may be used to harm SMM of color. For example, the “Block’ and “Filter” features on some GSN apps may marginalize SMM of color, further promoting negative evaluation and categorization of SMM of color (Narr, 2021; Winder & Lea, 2019). Some scholars expressed concerns about the removal of race/ethnicity filters on GSN apps, given that racial/ethnic minority users may use these filters to avoid discrimination online (Zhou, 2022) or to assert one’s agency in selecting their sexual networks (Winder & Lea, 2019). Others argued that these features may contribute to exclusion (e.g., limiting interactions with racial/ethnic minority users) and racial bias in app algorithms, such as the possibility of reduced likelihood for racial/ethnic minority users to show up as potential matches (Narr, 2021). Additionally, marginalization may also manifest in the form of a lack of perceived belonginess among SMM of color due to an unrepresentative user base on GSN apps, as well as experiences of microaggression (e.g., the concept of perpetual foreigner).

U.S. national survey studies estimate that 84.9% of adult SMM of color have experienced sexual racism (i.e., discrimination in selecting romantic and/or sexual partners based on race/ethnicity) on GSN applications (Gleason et al., 2022). Notably, Black (93.8%) and Asian (93.0%) SMM are especially vulnerable to sexual racism online, as compared to their Hispanic and White peers (Gleason et al., 2022). In online spaces, sexual racism may be more blatant due to the anonymity and psychological distance that the internet provides (i.e., online disinhibition effect), which facilitates impulsive and aggressive comments (Suler, 2004).

Researchers have documented a clear distinction between sexual racism and sexual partnering as a matter of personal preference. Sexual racism, a term first used in 1976 to describe sexual barriers to racial integration (Stember, 1976), implies negative sociocultural stigma and stereotypes against people of color, which influences people’s racial desires in romantic and sexual settings (Robinson, 2015). Sexual racism may be especially salient to SMM given the prevalence of relationship seeking online within this population (Macapagal et al., 2019; Macapagal et al., 2018; Phillips et al., 2014), and it may be more perceivable by the victim through explicit degradation and objectification (Wade, 2018). Conversely, personal preference implies neutral comparative decisions without negative connotations against the non-preferred type (e.g., preferential treatment for individuals who share similar lifestyles and experiences in the absence of negative judgment towards others).

Experiences of sexual racism may be understood within the minority stress model (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003), which proposes that chronic, hostile stressors contribute to worsened mental and physical health outcomes among SMM. For example, distal stressors (i.e., external adverse events such as rejection and discrimination) include experiences of racial stereotyping (e.g., the association between Asian SMM with femininity and submissiveness) and stigma (Callander et al., 2016; Cascalheira & Smith, 2020; Ruez, 2017) experienced by SMM of color on GSN apps. Proximal stressors refer to SMM’s internal reactions to distal stressors, such as identity concealment and internalized stigma. Existing research has illustrated sexual racism’s impact on SMM of color’s internalized stigma, such that SMM of color who experienced sexual racism may be less interested in other SMM of color (Han & Choi, 2018; Wade et al., 2021). Expanding upon the minority stress model, the psychological mediation framework of minority stress (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009) posits that the effects of distal stigma-related stressors (e.g., discrimination) on health are mediated by both general psychological processes (e.g., social relations) and group-specific proximal stressors (e.g., identity concealment). A body of research on sexual racism has elucidated its relationship with general psychological processes, including self-esteem (Thai, 2020), partner desirability (Lim & Anderson, 2021), and psychological wellbeing (Bhambhani et al., 2020). Nonetheless, little research explored sexual racism’s associations with group-specific processes, such as identity outness.

Identity outness is an important aspect of SMM’s lives, especially SMM of color. Studies show that identity outness may facilitate SMM’s access to social support (Legate & Ryan, 2014), cultivate self-esteem (Legate et al., 2012), buffer mental health concerns (Pachankis et al., 2020), and reduce sexual risk behaviors, such as condomless anal sex and sex under the influence of substance use (White & Stephenson, 2014). However, being out about one’s sexual identity may expose SMM to greater levels of social rejection (Robinson, 2018), discrimination, and violence (Dragowski et al., 2011; LaSala, 2010; Russell et al., 2014). This experience may be understood through the intersectionality framework (Crenshaw, 1989, 1991). That is, SMM of color with an intersecting racial/ethnic minority identity may experience stressors related to both their sexual identity and their race/ethnicity. These adversities are believed to contribute to their anticipation for additional forms of discrimination or rejection from others (Meyer, 2003), including peers and family members. Thus, concealment of one’s sexual identity may be the only feasible strategy for SMM of color to cope with intersectional minority stressors, such as sexual racism, given the difficulty in concealing one’s racial/ethnic identity. For example, a qualitative study on Asian LGBTQ+ individuals described the use of identity concealment to cope with heterosexism (Bridges et al., 2003). Similarly, a mixed-method study on Black lesbian and bisexual women qualitatively described the negative association between general racism and identity outness (Bowleg et al., 2008). These findings support further explorations of whether there are associations between sexual racism and identity outness to inform both theory, such as the minority stress theory, and practice for how to address this potential barrier to SMM of color’s overall wellbeing.

Identity outness to family members, peers, and healthcare providers – the focus of this study - may be especially important to SMM (Whitman & Nadal, 2015). For instance, the degree to which sexual and gender minority youth are willing to disclose their sexual identity (Reyes et al., 2023) is mainly determined by perceived family support. However, identity outness to family may be particularly challenging for SMM of color (Berman et al., 2023), as some minority cultures may prioritize heteronormativity and continuation of the family tree more than White families (Battle & Ashley, 2008). For example, the preservation of the family tree is often a priority in Asian cultures (Bridges et al., 2003; Lee & Hahm, 2012), making it especially challenging for Asian SMM to obtain family approval and support for their SMM identity. In addition to family, studies have also shown a positive association between community connectedness and identity outness (Chang et al., 2021; Kavanaugh et al., 2020). Finally, given that SMM of color often report mistrust towards healthcare providers and negative interactions with them (Eaton et al., 2015), more research is warranted to examine identity outness in healthcare settings.

In summary, research to date has primarily focused on psychosocial correlates (e.g., depression, anxiety) of sexual racism among SMM of color (Bhambhani et al., 2019; Bhambhani et al., 2020; Han & Choi, 2018; Hidalgo et al., 2020; Souleymanov et al., 2020; Thai, 2020; Wade & Harper, 2020). However, little is known about the relationship between sexual racism and identity outness, which is a fundamental component of the minority stress model and a key aspect of SMM of color’s lived experiences. Consequently, this study examined associations among experiences of sexual racism on GSN applications and identity outness to family, peers, and healthcare providers among a national sample of SMM in the U.S. Specifically, we tested the following two hypotheses:

  1. Hypothesis 1: Identity outness to family, peers, and healthcare providers will be lower among participants who experienced sexual racism online than those who had not.

  2. Hypothesis 2: There will be significant racial/ethnic differences in identity outness to family, peers, and healthcare providers.

Methods

Participants

From February to June of 2021, we recruited a national sample of SMM in the U.S. (representing 26 States and Washington D.C.) via paid social media advertisements (primarily Facebook) to participate in a six-month pilot trial of a mobile health intervention (PrEP iT!) to improve adherence to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) for HIV. Eligible participants included those who a) were prescribed PrEP; b) were 18 to 29 years old; c) were assigned male at birth; d) identified as a man; e) identified as gay, bisexual, or another non-heterosexual identity, or reported sex with a man in the past year; f) reported an HIV-negative serostatus; g) started or restarted PrEP in the past 30 days or started PrEP more than 30 days ago and self-reported not always taking PrEP as prescribed in the past 30 days; and (h) were English-speaking.

Procedures

Data for this study came from the baseline survey of the PrEP iT! intervention. Upon clicking social media ads, prospective participants were directed to an online eligibility survey. Those who screened eligible were prompted to schedule a virtual baseline study visit, during which study staff confirmed respondents’ eligibility, obtained informed consent, and assisted participants in completing an online baseline survey. All study procedures were approved by the San Diego State University’s Institutional Review Board, and participants received a $50 digital gift card for completing the baseline visit.

Measures

Sociodemographic Characteristics.

Participants self-reported their age, race/ethnicity (Asian, Black, Hispanic, White), gender identity (“what is your current gender identity?”), sexual identity (“What is your current sexual identity?”), education level, employment status, and health insurance status. See Table 2 for more details.

Table 2.

Participant Demographics (N = 80)

Variable n %
Race/ethnicity
 White 37 46.3
 Asian 16 20.0
 Hispanic 14 17.5
 Black 13 16.3
Experienced sexual racism
 Yes 25 31.3
 No 55 68.8
Gender identity
 Male 78 97.5
 Genderqueer/Gender nonconforming 2 2.5
Sexual identity
 Gay, queer, or homosexual 76 95.0
 Bisexual 4 5.0
Education
 Two-year college 2 5.3
 Four-year college 12 31.6
 Graduate school 24 63.2
Employed
 Yes 64 80.0
 No 16 20.0
Health insurance (N = 79)
 Yes 78 98.8
 No 1 1.3
Open in a new tab

Note. Participants were on average 25.1 years old (SD = 2.7). Percentages may sum to greater than 100% due to rounding.

Sexual Racism.

Questions adapted from the Everyday Discrimination Scale (Williams et al., 1997) assessed SMM’s experiences of race-based discrimination on GSN applications (“How often do the following things happen when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex”; Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never). These included a total of eight discriminatory situations, such as “people act as if they’re better than you are,” “you are called names or insulted,” and “you are threatened or harassed.” Participants who endorsed any of these discriminatory experiences on GSN applications (i.e., Often, Sometimes, Rarely) answered a follow-up item: “What do you think are the reasons for these experiences when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex?” (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, age, etc.) Participants were able to choose multiple reasons for discriminative experiences online. Given this study’s focus on race-based discrimination on GSN apps, a dichotomous variable was created for participants who selected race/ethnicity as the reason for any of the eight discriminatory situations on GSN apps (yes, no).

Outness of Sexual Identity.

Three items adapted from the Outness Inventory (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000) assessed participants’ outness of sexual identity to family members (“How many of your immediate family members know your sexual identity”), peers (“How many of your peers know your sexual identity”), and healthcare providers (“How open are you about your sexual identity to your primary medical care provider”). Respondents indicated their outness to family members and peers on a 5-point scale (1 = None; 5 = All) and outness to healthcare providers on a 7-point scale (1 = Primary medical provider definitely does not know your sexual identity; 7 = Primary medical provider definitely knows about your sexual identity, and it is openly talked about). Higher scores indicate greater sexual identity outness.

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for participants’ demographics, experiences of race-based discrimination on GSN apps, and identity outness. We summarized categorical variables using counts and percentages and presented continuous variables using means and standard deviations. Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests examined differences in experiences of race-based discrimination on GSN applications by participants’ race/ethnicity.

A 2 (race-based discrimination: Yes, No) × 4 (race/ethnicity: Asian, Black, Hispanic, White) between-subjects factorial multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed on three dependent variables: a) outness to family, b) outness to peers, and c) outness to healthcare providers. We examined main effects of race/ethnicity and race-based discrimination as well as their interaction, using Wilk’s criterion (Λ) as the omnibus test statistic. MANOVA allowed for the examination of differences in multiple continuous outcome variables (i.e., forms of identity outness) by categorical groups (i.e., race/ethnicity, race-based discrimination). This approach also allowed for a reduced familywise error rate and increased statistical power in this study, given that MANOVA accounts for correlations among outcome variables (Field et al., 2012).

Prior to conducting the MANOVA, we examined bivariate correlations among all dependent variables. Results showed expected direction of correlations (i.e., positive correlations among all the outness variables) and the lack of multicollinearity (correlations ranging from .39 to .64). Means and standard deviations as well as Bivariate correlation coefficients for outness variables are presented in Table 1.

Table 1:

Bivariate Correlations among the Outcomes Variables

M SD Range 1 2 3
1. Outness to family 4.0 1.5 1 – 5 —
2. Outness to peers 4.2 1.1 1 – 5 .64*** —
3. Outness to providers 6.0 1.6 1 – 7 .39*** .51*** —
Open in a new tab

Note.

***

p < .001; M = mean; SD = standard deviation. Outness to family and peers was measured on a 5-point Likert scale, while outness to providers was measured on a 7-point Likert scale. Higher score indicated higher identity outness.

Statistically significant effects observed in MANOVA were then examined in univariate ANOVAs for each dependent variable. Finally, post-hoc tests with Bonferroni correction examined specific group differences in sexual identity outness to probe significant findings from these univariate ANOVAs. All analyses were conducted using STATA SE version 13, and a Type-I error rate of .05 was used to determine statistical significance.

Results

Participants were 18 to 29 years in age (Mage = 25.1 years, SD = 2.7; Table 2). Just over half of the sample (53.7%) identified as a racial/ethnic minority (20% Asian; 17.5% Hispanic; 16.3% Black). Most participants identified as a man/male (97.5%) and gay (95.0%), had completed their undergraduate college education (94.8%), had medical insurance (98.8%), and were employed (80.0%). Overall, 31.3% of the sample reported experiencing race-based discrimination on GSN applications, with significant racial/ethnic variations: Black (54%), Asian (50%), Hispanic (43%), White (11%); χ2 (3) = 13.78, p = .003.

We observed significant racial/ethnic differences in experiences with various discriminatory situations (Table 3). A significantly higher percentage of SMM of color than White SMM reported being treated with less courtesy on GSN applications due to their race/ethnicity (25.0% Asian, 46.2% Black, 28.6% Hispanic, 0% White, Fisher p < .001). The same trend was observed for experiences of being treated with less respect than other people on GSN applications due to one’s race/ethnicity (31.3% Asian, 46.2% Black, 28.6% Hispanic, 0% White, Fisher p < .001). Moreover, there were significant racial/ethnic differences in the experience of being perceived as not smart on GSN application due to one’s race/ethnicity (12.5% Asian, 38.5% Black, 21.4% Hispanic, 2.7% White, Fisher p = .006). Finally, Significantly higher percentages of SMM of color than their White peers reported the experience that “people act as if they are better than you on GSN applications” (37.5% Asian, 30.8% Black, 21.4% Hispanic, 2.7% White, Fisher p = .002).

Table 3.

Differences Across Discriminatory Situations due to Participants’ Race/Ethnicity

Items Asian
(n = 16)		 Black
(n = 13)		 Hispanic
(n = 14)		 White
(n = 37)		 Fisher p-value
Col % (n) Col % (n) Col % (n) Col % (n)
You are treated with less courtesy than other people are when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex? 25.0 (4) 46.2 (6) 28.6 (4) 0 (0) < .001
You are treated with less respect than other people are when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex? 31.3 (5) 46.2 (6) 28.6 (4) 0 (0) < .001
People act as if they think you are not smart when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex? 12.5 (2) 38.5 (5) 21.4 (3) 2.7 (1) .006
People act as if they are afraid of you when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex? 0 (0) 15.4 (2) 7.1 (1) 5.4 (2) .333
People act as if they think you are dishonest when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex? 12.5 (2) 15.4 (2) 0 (0) 5.4 (2) .374
People act as if they’re better than you are when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex? 37.5 (6) 30.8 (7) 21.4 (3) 2.7 (1) .002
You are called names or insulted when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex? 18.8 (3) 30.8 (4) 21.4 (3) 5.4 (2) .069
You are threatened or harassed when you use websites or apps to find someone to date or for sex? 12.5 (2) 7.7 (1) 7.1 (1) 8.1 (3) .939
Open in a new tab

Note. Numbers represent responses indicating “my race/ethnicity” as the reason of discrimination.

MANOVA results revealed a statistically significant main effect of race-based discrimination on the combined dependent variables, F(1, 72) = 3.54, p = .02, partial η2 = .05. A statistically significant main effect of race/ethnicity was also observed, F(3, 72) = 2.73, p = .01, partial η2 = .10 (medium to large effect size). However, the race-based discrimination by race/ethnicity interaction was not statistically significant, F(3, 72) = 1.87, p = .06 and therefore was not included in the subsequent ANOVA models.

To probe the statistically significant multivariate effects, univariate 2 (sexual racism) × 4 (race/ethnicity) ANOVAs were conducted on each individual dependent variable (Table 4). For outness to family, there was a statistically significant main effect of race-based discrimination, F(1, 75) = 9.45, p = .003, η2 = .12 (medium to large), and race/ethnicity, F(3, 75) = 6.07, p = .001, η2 = .20 (large). Specifically, outness to family was significantly higher among SMM who had not experienced race-based discrimination online (M = 4.36; SE = .16) than those who had (M = 3.77; SE = .30). For outness to peers, no statistically significant differences were observed by experiences of race-based discrimination, F(1,72) = .68, p = .41, η2 = .01. However, outness to peers significantly differed by race/ethnicity, F(3, 72) = 3.41, p = .02, η2 = .12 (medium). Regarding outness to healthcare providers, there was a statistically significant main effect of race/ethnicity, F(3, 75) = 5.16, p = .003, η2 = .18 (large), but not race-based discrimination, F(1, 72) = .02, p = .89, η2 = .0003. Collectively, these result are consistent with hypothesis 1.

Table 4:

Means, Standard Deviations, and Two-Way Analyses of Variance of Outcome Variables by Sexual Racism and Race/Ethnicity

Outness to Family M (SE) F df h df e η2
Sexual racism 9.45** 1 72 .12
 No 4.36 (.16)
 Yes 3.77 (.30)
Race/Ethnicity 6.07** 3 72 .20
 Asian 3.55 (.31)
 Black 3.60 (.36)
 Hispanic 4.12 (.32)
 Non-Hispanic White 4.67 (.23)
Outness to Peers M (SE) F η2
Sexual racism 0.68 1 72 .01
 No 4.28 (.14)
 Yes 4.28 (.26)
Race/Ethnicity 3.41* 3 72 .12
 Asian 3.86 (.26)
 Black 3.98 (.30)
 Hispanic 4.24 (.27)
 Non-Hispanic White 4.58 (.19)
Outness to Providers M (SE) F η2
Sexual racism 0.02 1 72 .0003
 No 6.00 (.20)
 Yes 6.13 (.38)
Race/Ethnicity 5.16** 3 72 .18
 Asian 4.91 (.39)
 Black 5.46 (.44)
 Hispanic 6.52 (.40)
 Non-Hispanic White 6.55 (.29)
Open in a new tab

Note.

*

p < .05;

**

p < .01; M = mean; SE = standard error; dfh = hypothesis degrees of freedom; dfe = error degrees of freedom.

Finally, post-hoc tests probed the above univariate ANOVA findings on racial/ethnic differences, with results supporting hypothesis 2. There were significant differences in outness to family across racial/ethnic groups, such as that outness to family was significantly higher for White SMM (M = 4.67; SE = .23) than Asian (M = 3.55; SE = .31), F(1, 72) = 15.70, p = .001, and Black SMM (M = 3.60; SE = .36), F(1, 72) = 9.64, p = .01. Outness to peers was significantly higher among White SMM (M = 4.58; SE = .19) compared to Asian SMM (M = 3.86; SE = .26), F(1, 72) = 8.88, p = .02. Outness to healthcare providers was significantly lower among Asian SMM (M = 4.91; SE = .39) than Hispanic (M = 6.52; SE = .40), F(1,72) = 9.73, p = .01, and White SMM (M = 6.55; SE = .29), F(1,72) = 9.91, p = .01.

Discussion

Little research exists about how and to what extent sexual racism is associated with identity outness, a key aspect of the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003) and has practical implications for SMM’s daily lives (Riggle et al., 2017; Whitman & Nadal, 2015). To our knowledge, this study is one of the first to examine associations among experiences of sexual racism on GSN applications, identity outness to friends, family and healthcare providers, and race/ethnicity in a sample of SMM in the U.S.

A significantly higher proportion of SMM of color experienced race-based discrimination on GSN applications than their White peers in this sample of SMM. This observation is unsurprising, given that SMM of color are marginalized for both their sexual identities and for their race/ethnicity (Crenshaw, 1991), resulting in intersectional experiences of sexual racism. This observation is also consistent with the documented “racial hierarchy” (i.e., Black and Asian SMM are especially vulnerable to sexual racism on GSN apps compared to their Hispanic and White peers) in existing studies (Gleason et al., 2022; Hidalgo et al., 2020; Thai, 2020) and obligates GSN app companies to foster a respectful and safe environment for SMM of color through increased visibility of racially/ethnically inclusive messages. Relatedly, messages that cultivate SMM of color’s identity pride and community connectedness (Chang et al., 2021; Colpitts & Gahagan, 2016; Kavanaugh et al., 2020), which are two key resilience factors in the minority stress model (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 2003), may serve to reduce identity concealment and increase well-being (Colpitts & Gahagan, 2016).

Consistent with hypothesis 1, outness to family was significantly lower among SMM who experienced race-based discrimination on GSN applications than those who did not. This finding is consistent with prior research on the importance of identity outness among LGBTQ+ people of color (Bridges et al., 2003) and the documented negative association between general racism and identity outness (Bowleg et al., 2008). This observation may also be understood through the psychological mediation framework of minority stress (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009), in which sexual racism operates as a form of distal stigma-related stress that is associated with lower identity outness (a group-specific process). Social relationships are a crucial part of general psychological processes, including feelings of social support or isolation, experiences of internalized stigma, and individual coping strategies. For SMM of color, in particular, intersecting identities, double discrimination, and cultural expectations may contribute to SMM’s anticipation for further rejection from family members and therefore account for identity concealment to avoid multiplying existing stressors. Notably, race-based discrimination was only significantly associated with SMM’s outness to family, but not to peers or healthcare providers.

It may be possible that SMM of color with unsupportive families may be more likely to use GSN apps to connect with peers (Macapagal et al., 2018), which may increase potential exposure to sexual racism online. Given the cross-sectional nature of this exploratory study, causal associations could not be inferred from our analyses. There may be additional variables (e.g., internalized homophobia) that mediate or moderate this association, which warrants further research. Moreover, this null association may be attributable to the relative agency in SMM’s ability to choose their social networks and care providers. That is, compared to family members, one’s peers and healthcare providers may be considered more replaceable. It may also be possible for SMM of color to distance themselves from a given peer group or healthcare providers, whereas SMM of color may have less agency to distance themselves from or to replace family members.

Supporting hypothesis 2, outness to family was higher among White SMM than both Asian and Black SMM independent of race-based discrimination, which is consistent with observations that heteronormativity and the preservation of the family tree may often be prioritized in some minority cultures (Berman et al., 2023; Lee & Hahm, 2012). This observation on racial/ethnic differences in outness to family may also be explained by the intersectionality theory (Bowleg, 2013; Crenshaw, 1991), such as that White SMM may be less vulnerable to the various intersecting minority identities than SMM of color, making it less challenging for White SMM to seek family support of their sexual identity. For example, White SMM’s sexual identity may not always be obvious to others, thus reducing the likelihood of discrimination or rejection based on their sexual orientation. Conversely, even when SMM of color attempt to conceal their sexual identity, experiences of race-related stressors may still persist (e.g., discrimination, rejection). Similarly, SMM of color may experience additional cultural barriers (e.g., being tokenized in workspace, assumptions of receiving promotions due to one’s race/ethnicity) compared to their White counterparts.

Finally, we observed significant racial differences in outness to peers and healthcare providers, with Asian SMM reporting the lowest outness to peers and medical providers than other racial/ethnic groups. This observation may be attributable to the cultural stigma and limited access to healthcare engagement (Kim & Keefe, 2010; Lee et al., 2010) among Asian SMM. For example, the lack of linguistically and culturally competent providers may contribute to less comfort in disclosing one’s sexual identity. Moreover, lower levels of identity outness among Asian SMM may be related to the lack of media representation or role models of queer Asian individuals, which may promote isolation and lack of belongingness (Gomillion & Giuliano, 2011), as well as heterosexism within the Asian community, and racism within the SMM community (Ruez, 2017; Szymanski & Sung, 2010). Specifically, internalized homophobia among Asian SMM (Szymanski & Sung, 2013) may entail fear of judgement from medical providers and therefore lower willingness for identity disclosure. Asian SMM on their caregivers’ insurance may also be concerned about confidentiality around their sexual orientation and sexual behaviors.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, most participants identified as cisgender gay men with a college education, had health insurance, and were employed. This limits generalizability to bisexual and transgender men, as well as other SMM who may lack opportunities for higher education, gainful employment, and health insurance. Future research may consider comparing experiences of sexual racism online within different sub-groups of the sexual and gender minority community (e.g., by sexual orientation or gender identity). Second, the small sample size may have limited power to detect interaction effects of race/ethnicity and sexual racism on identity outness. Study data were drawn from a completed pilot intervention trial, limiting our ability to expand on the existing sample size. The use of the intervention’s baseline data also precluded our ability to draw causal or directional inferences about sexual racism and identity outness. Nonetheless, despite the limited sample size, analyses revealed significant findings around sexual racism, race/ethnicity, and identity outness. Our initial demonstration of the negative association between sexual racism on GSN apps and identity outness warrants future research with a more robust sample to replicate our findings and continue explore the mechanism of sexual racism’s impact on SMM of color. For instance, it would be necessary to investigate how the association between sexual racism and identity outness is moderated by race/ethnicity and other socio-demographic characteristics (e.g., sexual identity, level of income, mental health outcomes, degree of community connectedness, geographic region). Finally, we did not use a validated scale to measure experiences of sexual racism on GSN apps. Instead, items from the Everyday Discrimination Scale referred to race-based discrimination online, necessitating the development and validation of sexual racism-specific scales, which may allow the examination of sexual racism on GSN from a continuous perspective, as opposed to our dichotomized approach.

Conclusions

Findings from this study revealed important associations among race-based discrimination on GSN applications, identity outness (especially to family members), and race/ethnicity on a national sample of SMM in the U.S. Our findings are consistent with the mediation framework of minority stress (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009) and intersectionality framework (Crenshaw, 1989), collectively suggesting that sexual racism may operate as a distal stressor that contributes to the group-specific process of identity outness for SMM of color. Our findings suggested the importance of addressing sexual racism on GSN apps to buffer stress associated with identity outness among SMM of color.

Funding:

This project is supported by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), awarded to Drs. Keith J. Horvath and Jason V. Baker; R34MH116878.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

References

  1. Albury K, & Byron P (2016). Safe on my phone? Same-sex attracted young people’s negotiations of intimacy, visibility, and risk on digital hook-up apps. Social Media + Society, 2(4), 1–10. 10.1177/2056305116672887 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Battle J, & Ashley C (2008). Intersectionality, heteronormativity, and Black lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) families. Black Women, Gender & Families, 2(1), 1–24. 10.5406/blacwomegendfami.2.1.0001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berman M, Eaton LA, Watson RJ, Earnshaw VA, Wiginton JM, & Layland E (2023). Factors associated with disclosure of sexual orientation among Black sexual minority men. LGBT Health, 10(1), 51–61. 10.1089/lgbt.2021.0446 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhambhani Y, Flynn MK, Kellum KK, & Wilson KG (2019). Examining sexual racism and body dissatisfaction among men of color who have sex with men: The moderating role of body image inflexibility. Body Image, 28, 142–148. 10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bhambhani Y, Flynn MK, Kellum KK, & Wilson KG (2020). The role of psychological flexibility as a mediator between experienced sexual racism and psychological distress among men of color who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(2), 711–720. 10.1007/s10508-018-1269-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Birnholtz J, Fitzpatrick C, Handel M, & Brubaker J (2014). Identity, identification and identifiability: The language of self-presentation on a location-based mobile dating app Paper presented at the 16th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices & services., 10.1145/2628363.2628406 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bowleg L (2013). “Once you’ve blended the cake, you can’t take the parts back to the main ingredients”: Black gay and bisexual men’s descriptions and experiences of intersectionality. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 68(11–12), 754–767. 10.1007/s11199-012-0152-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowleg L, Burkholder G, Teti M, & Craig ML (2008). The complexities of outness: Psychosocial predictors of coming out to others among Black lesbian and bisexual women. Journal of LGBT Health Research, 4(4), 153–166. 10.1080/15574090903167422 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bridges SK, Selvidge MMD, & Matthews CR (2003). Lesbian women of color: Therapeutic issues and challenges. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 31, 113–130. 10.1002/j.2161-1912.2003.tb00537.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brooks VR (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books. [Google Scholar]
  11. Callander D, Holt M, & Newman CE (2016). ‘Not everyone’s gonna like me’: Accounting for race and racism in sex and dating web services for gay and bisexual men. Ethnicities, 16(1), 3–21. 10.1177/1468796815581428 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Cascalheira CJ, & Smith BA (2020). Hierarchy of desire: Partner preferences and social identities of men who have sex with men on geosocial networks. Sexuality & Culture, 24(3), 630–648. 10.1007/s12119-019-09653-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Chang CJ, Kellerman JK, Fehling KB, Feinstein BA, & Selby EA (2021). The roles of discrimination and social support in the associations between outness and mental health outcomes among sexual minorities. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 91(5), 607–616. 10.1037/ort0000562 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Colpitts E, & Gahagan J (2016). The utility of resilience as a conceptual framework for understanding and measuring LGBTQ health. International Journal for Equity in Health, 15(1), 1–8. 10.1186/s12939-016-0349-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Crenshaw K (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics. In Feminist legal theories (pp. 23–51). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  16. Crenshaw K (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. 10.2307/1229039 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Dehaan S, Kuper LE, Magee JC, Bigelow L, & Mustanski BS (2013). The interplay between online and offline explorations of identity, relationships, and sex: A mixed-methods study with LGBT youth. The Journal of Sex Research, 50(5), 421–434. 10.1080/00224499.2012.661489 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Dragowski EA, Halkitis PN, Grossman AH, & D’Augelli AR (2011). Sexual orientation victimization and posttraumatic stress symptoms among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 23(2), 226–249. 10.1080/10538720.2010.541028 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Eaton LA, Driffin DD, Kegler C, Smith H, Conway-Washington C, White D, & Cherry C (2015). The role of stigma and medical mistrust in the routine health care engagement of black men who have sex with men. American Journal of Public Health, 105(2), e75–e82. 10.2105/AJPH.2014.302322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Field A, Miles J, & Field Z (2012). Discovering statistics using R. Great Britain: Sage Publications, Ltd, 958. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gleason N, Serrano PA, Muñoz A, French AL, & Hosek SG (2022). Experiences of online racialized sexual discrimination among sexual and gender minorities in the United States: Online survey data from Keeping It LITE. The Journal of Sex Research, Advanced online publication, 1–6. 10.1080/00224499.2022.2103633 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Gomillion SC, & Giuliano TA (2011). The influence of media role models on gay, lesbian, and bisexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(3), 330–354. 10.1080/00918369.2011.546729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Han CS, & Choi KH (2018). Very few people say “No Whites”: Gay men of color and the racial politics of desire. Sociological Spectrum, 38(3), 145–161. 10.1080/02732173.2018.1469444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hatzenbuehler ML, Nolen-Hoeksema S, & Dovidio J (2009). How does stigma “get under the skin”? The mediating role of emotion regulation. Psychological Science, 20(10), 1282–1289. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02441.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hidalgo MA, Layland E, Kubicek K, & Kipke M (2020). Sexual racism, psychological symptoms, and mindfulness among ethnically/racially diverse young men who have sex with men: A moderation analysis. Mindfulness, 11(2), 452–461. 10.1007/s12671-019-01278-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kavanaugh SA, Taylor AB, Stuhlsatz GL, Neppl TK, & Lohman BJ (2020). Family and community support among sexual minorities of color: The role of sexual minority identity prominence and outness on psychological well-being. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 16(1), 1–17. 10.1080/1550428X.2019.1593279 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Kim W, & Keefe RH (2010). Barriers to healthcare among Asian Americans. Social Work in Public Health, 25(3–4), 286–295. 10.1080/19371910903240704 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. LaSala MC (2010). Coming out, coming home: Helping families adjust to a gay or lesbian child. Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar]
  29. Lee J, & Hahm HC (2012). HIV risk, substance use, and suicidal behaviors among Asian American lesbian and bisexual women. AIDS Education and Prevention, 24(6), 549–563. 10.1521/aeap.2012.24.6.549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee S, Martinez G, Ma GX, Hsu CE, Robinson ES, Bawa J, & Juon HS (2010). Barriers to health care access in 13 Asian American communities. American Journal of Health Behavior, 34(1), 21–30. 10.5993/AJHB.34.1.3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Legate N, Ryan RM, & Weinstein N (2012). Is coming out always a ‘good thing’? exploring the relations of autonomy support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(2), 145–152. 10.1177/1948550611411929 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Legate N, & Ryan WS (2014). Autonomy support as acceptance for disclosing and developing a healthy lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered identity. In Human motivation and interpersonal relationships (pp. 191–212). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  33. Lim CC, & Anderson RC (2021). Effect of sexual racism on partner desirability in gay Asian men. Journal of Homosexuality, Advanced online publication, 1–18. 10.1080/00918369.2021.1948772 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ma J, Korpak AK, Choukas-Bradley S, & Macapagal K (2021). Patterns of online relationship seeking among transgender and gender diverse adolescents: Advice for others and common inquiries. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 9(3), 287–299. 10.1037/sgd0000482 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Macapagal K, Kraus A, Moskowitz DA, & Birnholtz J (2019). Geosocial networking application use, characteristics of app-met sexual partners, and sexual behavior among sexual and gender minority adolescents assigned male at birth. Journal of Sex Research, 57(8), 1–10. 10.1080/00224499.2019.1698004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Macapagal K, Moskowitz DA, Li DH, Carrión A, Bettin E, Fisher CB, & Mustanski B (2018). Hookup app use, sexual behavior, and sexual health among adolescent men who have sex with men in the United States. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(6), 708–715. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2018.01.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. McConnell E, Néray B, Hogan B, Korpak A, Clifford A, & Birkett M (2018). “Everybody puts their whole life on Facebook”: Identity management and the online social networks of LGBTQ youth. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 15(6), 1078. 10.3390/ijerph15061078 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. McConnell EA, Clifford A, Korpak AK, Phillips G, & Birkett M (2017). Identity, victimization, and support: Facebook experiences and mental health among LGBTQ youth. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 237–244. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.026 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Meyer IH (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Mohr JJ, & Fassinger RE (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay male experience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33(2), 66–90. 10.1080/07481756.2000.12068999 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Narr G (2021). The uncanny swipe drive: The return of a racist mode of algorithmic thought on dating apps. Studies in Gender and Sexuality, 22(3), 219–236. 10.1080/15240657.2021.1961498 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  42. Pachankis JE, Mahon CP, Jackson SD, Fetzner BK, & Bränström R (2020). Sexual orientation concealment and mental health: A conceptual and meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(10), 831–871. 10.1037/bul0000271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Phillips G. n., Magnus M, Kuo I, Rawls A, Peterson J, Jia Y, Opoku J, & Greenberg AE (2014). Use of geosocial networking (GSN) mobile phone applications to find men for sex by men who have sex with men (MSM) in Washington, DC. AIDS and Behavior, 18(9), 1630–1637. 10.1007/s10461-014-0760-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Prestage G, Bavinton B, Grierson J, Down I, Keen P, Bradley J, & Duncan D (2015). Online dating among Australian gay and bisexual men: Romance or hooking up? AIDS and Behavior, 19(10), 1905–1913. 10.1007/s10461-015-1032-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Reyes MES, Bautista NB, Betos GRA, Martin KIS, Sapio STN, Pacquing MCT, & Kliatchko JMR (2023). In/out of the closet: Perceived social support and outness among LGB youth. Sexuality & Culture, 27, 290–309. 10.1007/s12119-022-10013-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Riggle EDB, Rostosky SS, Black WW, & Rosenkrantz DE (2017). Outness, concealment, and authenticity: Associations with LGB individuals’ psychological distress and well-being. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(1), 54–62. 10.1037/sgd0000202 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Robinson BA (2015). “Personal Preference” as the new racism: Gay desire and racial cleansing in cyberspace. Sociology of Race and Ethnicity, 1(2), 317–330. 10.1177/2332649214546870 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Robinson BA (2018). Conditional families and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer youth homelessness: Gender, sexuality, family instability, and rejection. Journal of Marriage and Family, 80(2), 383–396. 10.1111/jomf.12466 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Ruez D (2017). “I never felt targeted as an Asian… until I went to a gay pub”: Sexual racism and the aesthetic geographies of the bad encounter. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 49(4), 893–910. 10.1177/0308518X16680817 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  50. Russell ST, Toomey RB, Ryan C, & Diaz RM (2014). Being out at school: The implications for school victimization and young adult adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(6), 635–643. 10.1037/ort0000037 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Souleymanov R, Brennan DJ, George C, Utama R, & Ceranto A (2020). Experiences of racism, sexual objectification and alcohol use among gay and bisexual men of colour. Ethnicity & Health, 25(4), 525–541. 10.1080/13557858.2018.1439895 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Stember CH (1976). Sexual racism: The emotional barrier to an integrated society. Elsevier. [Google Scholar]
  53. Suler J (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 7(3), 321–326. 10.1089/1094931041291295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Szymanski DM, & Sung MR (2010). Minority stress and psychological distress among Asian American sexual minority persons 1Ψ7. The Counseling Psychologist, 38(6), 848–872. 10.1177/0011000010366167 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Szymanski DM, & Sung MR (2013). Asian cultural values, internalized heterosexism, and sexual orientation disclosure among Asian American sexual minority persons. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(3), 257–273. 10.1080/15538605.2013.812930 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  56. Thai M (2020). Sexual racism is associated with lower self-esteem and life satisfaction in men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(1), 347–353. 10.1007/s10508-019-1456-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Wade R (2018). Racialized sexual discrimination (RSD) and psychological wellbeing among young black gay/bisexual men (YBGBM) [Dissertation]. University of Michigan. http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/144046 [Google Scholar]
  58. Wade RM, Bouris AM, Neilands TB, & Harper GW (2021). Racialized sexual discrimination (RSD) and psychological wellbeing among young sexual minority Black men (YSMBM) who seek intimate partners online. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 19(1), 1–16. 10.1007/s13178-021-00676-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  59. Wade RM, & Harper GW (2020). Racialized sexual discrimination (RSD) in the age of online sexual networking: Are young Black gay/bisexual men (YBGBM) at elevated risk for adverse psychological health? American Journal of Community Psychology, 65(3–4), 504–523. 10.1002/ajcp.12401 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. White D, & Stephenson R (2014). Identity formation, outness, and sexual risk among gay and bisexual men. American Journal of Men’s Health, 8(2), 98–109. 10.1177/1557988313489133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Whitman CN, & Nadal KL (2015). Sexual minority identities: Outness and well-being among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 19(4), 370–396. 10.1080/19359705.2015.1038974 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Williams DR, Yu Y, Jackson JS, & Anderson NB (1997). Racial differences in physical and mental health: Socio-economic status, stress and discrimination. Journal of Health Psychology, 2(3), 335–351. 10.1177/135910539700200305 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Winder T, & Lea CH (2019). “Blocking” and “Filtering”: A commentary on mobile technology, racism, and the sexual networks of young black MSM (YBMSM). Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 6(2), 231–236. 10.1007/s40615-018-0493-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Zhou ZB (2022). Compulsory interracial intimacy: Why does removing the ethnicity filter on dating apps not benefit racial minorities? Media, Culture & Society, 44(5), 1034–1043. 10.1177/01634437221104712 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES