The Effects of Body Esteem Dimensions on Sexual Esteem in Men

ABSTRACT

We examined the relationship between men’s perceptions of their bodies and how they see themselves sexually. The goals of this study were to explore the following: (1) the relationship between dimensions of body esteem and sexual esteem, (2) the influence of adherence to male gender norms on the relationship between body esteem and sexual esteem, (3) the influence of body-focused anxiety on the relationship between body esteem and sexual esteem. In a convenience sample of 298 male participants (M_age = 32.34; SD = 13.34), we found that sexual attractiveness, upper body strength, and physical condition predicted sexual esteem, and that male gender norms and body image anxiety moderated this relationship. Exploratory items of body esteem for the jaw, wrists, height, and nose also significantly predicted sexual esteem. Given our findings of the role of various facets of body esteem in predicting sexual esteem, and the moderating effects of endorsement to male gender norms and body image anxiety on healthy sexual esteem, we maintain the importance of addressing these issues in the development of psychosocial, clinical, and sexual education programmesfor men, particularly in settings where men grapple with body and sexual esteem, and the implications of their masculinity.

KEYWORDS:

• Body image
• body image anxiety
• gender norms
• masculinity
• sexual esteem

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Supplementary Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2022.2139192

Notes

1. Given IRB requirements, surveys were anonymous, with all potentially identifying participant information disabled and information regarding recruitment locations not gathered. Thus, information regarding participant acquisition is unknown.

2. MI relies on the assumption that the data are missing at random (MAR) and not missing completely at random (MCAR; Garson, 2019). MCAR was assessed via Little’s test, which was significant, χ² (1894) = 2105.03, p < .001, indicating the data was not MCAR and therefore suitable for MI.