Coming out: Impact on friendships between heterosexual men and gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Friendships between heterosexual men and gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM) appear to be less common than other friendship dyads. While some heterosexual men’s fear of being perceived as gay may act as a barrier in forming these friendships, research conducted within the past decade suggests that attitudes toward gbMSM are improving in Western cultures. Little is known regarding how heterosexual men react to their peers who are gbMSM after disclosing their sexual orientations to them during this cultural shift in North America. Using inclusive masculinity theory as a framework, the purpose was to examine how friendships between heterosexual men and gbMSM are impacted following their coming out experiences. Data were collected from heterosexual men and gbMSM aged 18–36 ( M = 28.52) residing in the United States and Canada ( N = 443) through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Heterosexual and gbMSM were asked to answer open-ended questions regarding the gbMSM’s coming out experiences and describe changes in their friendships afterward. Thematic analysis guidelines were followed to analyze the responses. Results indicated three pathways for friendships: a positive coming-out experience with an improved friendship, a neutral coming-out experience with no change in the friendship, and a negative experience followed by a damaged or terminated friendship. Findings suggest that positive attitudes toward cross-orientation friendships may be more prevalent and accepted at present than historically. These findings start an important dialogue with the potential implication of further normalizing positive friendships between heterosexual men and gbMSM.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".