Whose Role is It Anyway? Sexual Racism and Sexual Positioning Among Young Sexual Minority Black Men

ABSTRACT

Racialized Sexual Discrimination (RSD), also referred to as “sexual racism,” is widely reported among young sexual minority Black men (YSMBM). Though RSD is driven in part by sexual scripts and racial stereotypes, little is known about YSMBM’s experiences with RSD with respect to their sexual positioning roles. Using data from a cross-sectional web-survey of YSMBM (N = 726), a multivariate Kruskal Wallis test was conducted comparing YSMBM who identified as mostly bottom, versatile, or mostly top, on the degree to which they were affected by four RSD experiences, as well as the frequency with which they encountered these experiences. Men identifying as mostly bottom reported significantly stronger negative reactions to same-race rejection and encountering sexual role assumptions than men identifying as mostly top. Men identifying as versatile encountered same-race rejection significantly more frequently than men identifying as mostly top. Men identifying as mostly bottom encountered White superiority significantly more frequently than men identifying as mostly top. RSD may impact YSMBM differentially based on sexual position. These findings may have implications for culturally competent clinical practice, as well as analytic implications (e.g., estimating more complex statistical models) for sexual racism research, which remains an important yet underexamined field in the health sciences.

Introduction

Anal sex is a common practice among sexual minority men (Goldstein, 2018; Laumann et al., 2000). One aspect of anal sex that can be important for sexual minority men involves the disclosure and negotiation of sexual positioning, referring to whether an individual is an insertive partner (i.e., “top”), receptive partner (i.e., “bottom”), or both (i.e., “versatile”; Reilly, 2016). The negotiation of sexual positioning is unique among sexual minority men and other queer-identified persons, as such a discussion is not typical among heterosexual populations due to established sexual expectations for cisgender men and women (Sakaluk et al., 2014). The widespread use of online dating/hookup apps has further facilitated the negotiation process for sexual positioning, as many apps allow users to list their preferred sexual role directly on their profiles, as well as filter for individuals who match the complementary role. Such features remove much of the guesswork in identifying a sexually compatible partner, making the process of intimate partner-seeking more efficient for those who place a high value on anal sex. These features also recognize and tacitly reinforce the salience of sexual roles through its highly visible presentation – and reflect what is often a central component of sexual minority men’s sexual and romantic lives.

With a rich historical and contemporary discourse, sexual positioning roles have long been a significant social and cultural element of queer male communities (Chauncey, 1995; Underwood, 2003). The expectation to indicate a preferred sexual role has been acknowledged for some time, with many researchers and commentators reporting on how sexual roles are a central feature of how queer men relate to one another – both socially and intimately – and especially when networking online (Gil, 2007; Kheraj, 2018; Moskowitz et al., 2008; Wegesin & Meyer-Bahlburg, 2000). The ubiquity of anal sex among sexual minority men is widely reflected in social and popular media, ranging from guides explaining how to prepare for sex as a top or bottom (Baume, 2020; Cheves, 2018) to satirizing commentary about the characteristics of those who come to embody a particular sexual positioning role (Green, 2020; Zane, 2019). Although prior research in the social sciences has addressed sexual positioning among sexual minority men, the vast majority of this literature has focused on sexual health and HIV/STI prevention (Dangerfield et al., 2017; Wade & Harper, 2017). However, the significance of sexual positioning extends beyond just disease risk, and may have important social, relational, and psychological implications for sexual minority men (Moskowitz et al., 2008).

Sexual Scripts and Intersectional Identity

Different sexual position identities are awarded differential levels of erotic capital and are often accompanied by rigid expectations, stereotypes, and prejudices. Sexual script theory, developed by Gagnon and Simon (2003), is a theoretical framework that may serve to explicate how sexual minority men come to define, enact, and embody a sexual positioning identity. Sexual scripts refer to the guidelines individuals use to define their roles in sexual situations. These scripts are separated into three different levels, including the cultural, interpersonal, and intrapsychic levels, that further influence individuals’ perceptions of how they should behave. The cultural level refers to expectations and rules for sex that are found within collective cultural and social contexts; the interpersonal level refers to the application of such cultural contexts in social situations surrounding sex; and the intrapsychic level refers to an individual’s own sexual wants and desires.

Sexual script theory and broader social norms around gender and masculinity have been used to examine enduring narratives around what it means to be a top or a bottom among sexual minority men (Dangerfield et al., 2017; Hoppe, 2011; Johns et al., 2012; Ravenhill & de Visser, 2018; Whittier & Melendez, 2004). Tops are typically viewed as conforming to a more heteronormative form of masculinity. They may be viewed as being more assertive, having larger than average penises, expressing a more limited range of emotions, and being more aggressive during sex. Conversely, bottoms are most often associated with a less masculine, submissive role. They may be seen as being physically smaller in stature, having smaller than average penises, and behaving in a “softer,” more traditionally effeminate manner (Carrier, 1977; Hammack et al., 2021; Johns et al., 2012; Moskowitz & Roloff, 2017; Reilly, 2016). Most of the literature examining sexual positioning has focused on the distinction between being top or bottom; there is limited empirical research that focuses on men who identify as versatile, and how this identity conforms to, or subverts, conventional sexual scripts for sexual minority men. Some researchers have suggested that, for some sexual minority men, being versatile is a “neutral” identity – one that enables men to escape or assert a sense of freedom from gender norms associated with sexual positioning, while also reducing potential discomfort and ambiguity over which partner will take on which role during a sexual encounter (Johns et al., 2012; Pachankis et al., 2013). Still, the lived experiences of sexual minority men who identify as versatile have not been well documented in the social sciences, and the degree to which this role is or is not constrained by a distinct set of sexual script expectations remains less clear.

Overlapping social identities, especially racial/ethnic identity, can add further complexity to how sexuality operates in the partner-seeking landscape. While sexual script theory is useful for addressing themes of gendered or cultural scripts, it may not fully capture the ways in which racialist narratives and stereotypes affect people of color in the context of sex and intimacy. Researchers have long noted the importance of accounting for intersectionality when analyzing and interpreting the experiences of individuals who hold overlapping identities, particularly those that are stigmatized or historically disenfranchised (Bowleg & Bauer, 2016; Cole, 2009; Crenshaw, 2013; Rice et al., 2019). Intersectionality posits that different aspects of an individual’s identity are interwoven and create unique experiences that may expose individuals to various levels of privilege or discrimination. While some scholars have integrated intersectionality and sexual script theory in prior work examining intimate partner relations and sexual practices among Black communities, much of this research has largely focused on heterosexual populations (Bond et al., 2021; Bowleg, 2013; Christensen, 2021). However, as noted above, the dynamics governing sexual intimacy between sexual minority men differ from that of heterosexual populations; thus, the experiences of sexual minority Black men may not be fully reflected in existing research. The integration of intersectionality and sexual script theory, tailored to the specific experiences of sexual minority men of color, would be a novel step forward in the field of sexuality research, and may provide valuable insights into the ways in which this population navigates unique identity-based stressors when seeking and forming intimate connections.

Sexual Racism and Sexual Positioning

One of the most prominent stressors facing sexual minority men of color in the context of partner-seeking is sexual racism. Sexual racism describes the ways in which individuals are afforded differential levels of value as an intimate partner based on their racial/ethnic identity, wherein Whiteness is positioned as the ideal, and those who hold minoritized racial/ethnic identities are relegated to a “lesser” status by comparison (Bedi, 2015; C. W. Han, 2021). Racialized Sexual Discrimination (RSD) is a specific form of sexual racism, referring to the discriminatory experiences that sexual minority men of color face in digital environments (e.g., dating or hookup apps/websites) when looking for intimate partners (Gleason et al., 2022; Wade & Harper, 2019). The discrimination that occurs in digital environments is distinctive from in-person discriminatory experiences, both in scale and scope. The large userbase of online dating apps allows for an exceedingly high volume of discriminatory behavior, and the quasi-anonymous nature of online settings allows users to be unusually brazen in expressing their discriminatory sentiments (Wade & Harper, 2019). Young sexual minority Black men (YSMBM) are often objectified within these spaces, and contend with enduring stereotypes surrounding their sexual roles, such as being hypermasculine, well-endowed, aggressive, hypersexual, and the insertive partner by default during anal sex (Calabrese et al., 2018; Paul et al., 2010; Stacey & Forbes, 2022; Wei & Raymond, 2011; Wilson et al., 2009). YSMBM also face frequent rejection due to their race/ethnicity, by both White men and other men of color (Paul et al., 2010; B. A. Robinson, 2015). Researchers have reported that experiences of RSD and sexual racism are associated with elevated rates of depressive and anxiety symptoms, as well as lowered self-esteem (Hidalgo et al., 2020; Souleymanov et al., 2018; Thai, 2020). However, as a relatively new area of empirical study in the social sciences, most researchers have not used validated scales to investigate this phenomenon. We have recently developed and psychometrically evaluated the first quantitative, multidimensional scale of sexual racism experienced online, and several discrete manifestations of RSD were associated with poor psychological well-being among YSMBM (Wade & Harper, 2021). One of the distinct features of the RSD scale is that it assesses both the effect and frequency of a given RSD experience, while also accounting for discriminatory experiences perpetrated by White men or men of the individual’s same racial/ethnic group. Given the health implications of RSD, it is evident that this phenomenon warrants closer attention from health professionals who are actively engaged with research and/or practice with YSMBM.

A careful examination of sexual script narratives at the intersection of racial/ethnic and sexual minority identity may provide some insights into how RSD impacts YSMBM differentially, depending on their sexual positioning role. For example, the archetype for a bottom tends to be a White, slim male, portrayed as effeminate and submissive (Carballo‐Diéguez et al., 2004; Cascalheira & Smith, 2020), whereas the archetype for a Black man is that of a dominant, insertive partner (Paul et al., 2010; Stacey & Forbes, 2022; Wei & Raymond, 2011; Wilson et al., 2009). Thus, YSMBM who identify as bottoms may be de-sexualized, viewed as less desirable, or altogether dismissed – because the racial/ethnic group stereotype for YSMBM is misaligned with the narratives of the prototypical bottom (Husbands et al., 2013; Lichtenstein et al., 2018). As a result, YSMBM who identify as bottoms might have stronger negative reactions when encountering these types of sexual role assumptions, and may also be rejected by non-Black men more frequently than YSMBM who identify as tops.

As a consequence of being viewed as less desirable in a context where White bottoms are preferred, Black bottoms’ best chances of finding a suitable partner may reside predominantly with members of the same race, to a greater degree than YSMBM who identify as mostly tops. However, this limited partner pool does not preclude the possibility that bottoms may be rejected by members of the same race. Indeed, YSMBM who identify as tops may have more options than YSMBM who identify as bottoms, due to their holding more erotic capital (afforded through objectification and/or their privileged status of being a top) and due to their sexual position being aligned with conventional scripts assigned to Black men (Mushtaq, 2021; R. K. Robinson, 2007). Subsequently, Black bottoms may be rejected by Black tops more frequently than the other way around, especially if Black tops are (1) more prone, in relative terms, to seek partners who hold more erotic capital (e.g., White men) and/or (2) seek out non-Black sexual partners more frequently because they have the sufficient erotic capital to do so. Thus, with a potentially limited partner pool, YSMBM who identify as bottoms may also experience stronger negative reactions when they are rejected by other Black men relative to YSMBM who identify as tops.

It is equally important to note that not all manifestations of RSD will necessarily differ on the basis of sexual positioning role. White superiority, for example, is a sub-domain of RSD that reflects prevailing sentiments that Whiteness is most desired (e.g., when individuals indicate that they have a “preference” for White men on their profiles). We may not expect the frequency of White superiority or other commonly expressed sentiments (e.g., sexual role assumptions based on race/ethnicity) to differ based on men’s sexual position, since these constructs are reflective of the broader social/digital context that everyone is equally exposed to. Similarly, the effect of White superiority is also not likely to differ across groups given its universality, and because the overt privileging of Whiteness itself is not contingent upon sexual positioning roles. In addition, we may not expect the effect of White rejection to differ significantly across groups because of how common it is and/or how accustomed Black folks are to encountering racial discrimination (Arscott et al., 2020; Lee et al., 2019; Seaton et al., 2008; Teunis, 2007; Wade & Pear, 2022). Ultimately, however, these are empirical questions, and engaging with these distinctions may provide valuable insights into the lived experiences of YSMBM in an increasingly digital age.

The Current Study

Given the mounting evidence that RSD is associated with adverse psychological health and overall wellbeing of YSMBM, exploring how sexual positioning operates in the context of RSD may be important to inform future research in this area. To our knowledge, no study to date has examined the association between sexual positioning and discrete manifestations of RSD using validated measures. Thus, by utilizing the joint frameworks of sexual script theory and intersectionality, we sought to compare YSMBM who identified as mostly bottom, versatile, or mostly top, on the degree to which they were affected by four RSD experiences, as well as the frequency with which they encountered these experiences. We hypothesized that men identifying as mostly bottom would report higher effect scores (i.e., having a stronger negative reaction) on same-race rejection and role assumptions compared with men identifying as mostly top and that there would be no difference in effect scores between groups on White superiority and White rejection. We also hypothesized that men identifying as mostly bottom would report higher frequency scores (i.e., encountering the experience more often) on White rejection and same-race rejection compared with men identifying as mostly top and that there would be no difference in frequency scores on the other two RSD subscales.

Method

Participants

Recruitment

A non-probability convenience sample of YSMBM was recruited using best practices for online survey sampling (Bauermeister et al., 2012; Fricker, 2008), between July 2017 and January 2018. Participants were recruited online to participate in the “ProfileD Study.” Most participants were recruited through Facebook (n = 86.9%) and the gay dating app Scruff (n = 9.4%). Prospective participants viewed advertisements for the study and clicked on a link embedded in the advertisement that directed them to the study webpage. Advertisements on Facebook were only made viewable to men in the targeted age range who lived in the United States. Facebook ads were further tailored to target individuals who (1) indicated that they were “interested in” men, or who omitted information on the gender in which they were interested; (2) indicated interest in various LGBTQ-related pages on Facebook; (3) matched Facebook’s behavior algorithms for U.S. African American Multicultural Affinity; or (4) indicated interest in various pages related to popular Black culture.

Eligibility Criteria

Participants had to meet the following eligibility criteria: (1) identify as a man; (2) be assigned male sex at birth; (3) identify primarily as Black, African American, or with any other racial/ethnic identity across the African diaspora (e.g., Afro-Caribbean, African, etc.); (4) be between the ages of 18 and 29 inclusive; (5) identify as gay, bisexual, queer, same-gender-loving, or another non-heterosexual identity, or report having had any sexual contact with a man in the last 3 months; (6) report having used a website or mobile app to find male partners for sexual activity in the last 3 months; and (7) reside in the United States.

Procedure

Prospective participants were directed to a survey hosted on Qualtrics upon clicking on the study advertisement. Participants were presented with a set of screening questions to determine their eligibility. Those who met the eligibility criteria were directed to a consent page, which contained detailed study information (i.e., purpose of the research, description of participant involvement, risk/discomforts, benefits, confidentiality, etc.). Those consenting to participate proceeded to the full survey, which lasted 30–45 minutes. Participants were not compensated for taking the survey. While completing the survey, participants were permitted to save their answers and return to the survey at a later time if they were not able to complete it in a single sitting. The study data were kept in an encrypted and firewall-protected server, and all study procedures received IRB approval for ethics in human subjects research.

Measures

Sociodemographics

The self-reported age, educational attainment, and sexual orientation of each participant were collected for descriptive purposes. Participants were instructed to provide their numerical age. Participants could select one of the 11 sexual orientation categories (e.g., gay, bisexual, questioning, etc.) and one of the five educational attainment categories (e.g., high school graduate, college graduate, etc.). Participants were also asked to describe their sexual role with respect to anal sex. Participants could select one of the six options: “I do not have anal sex”; “Bottom” “Versatile Bottom”; “Versatile”; “Versatile Top”; and “Top.” Those identifying as bottoms or versatile bottoms were collapsed into a single category, “Mostly Bottom,” while those identifying as tops or versatile tops were collapsed into a single category, “Mostly Top.”

Sexual Racism

Data were collected on participants’ self-reported experiences of sexual racism using the Racialized Sexual Discrimination Scale (RSDS; Wade & Harper, 2021). Each experience on the scale has two corresponding items: one that captures the effect (i.e., to what degree the participant has a negative reaction toward the experience) and the frequency (i.e., how often a participant encounters the experience). Experiences described on the scale could occur in one of the two contexts: partner browsing (i.e., viewing user profiles on mobile apps/websites) and partner negotiation (i.e., written communication between users on mobile apps/websites). Items within the partner browsing context (“How often do you see profiles from people of your race/ethnicity clearly state that they do NOT want to meet other people of your race/ethnicity?”) were measured on a Likert-style scale ranging from 0 (Strongly disagree) to 4 (Strongly agree) for the effect items, and 0 (Never) to 4 (All of the time) for the frequency items. Items within the partner negotiation context (e.g., “How often do White people say something mean or hurtful about your race/ethnicity?”) were measured on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (I have not contacted this group) to 5 (Strongly agree) for the effect items, and 0 (Never) to 4 (All of the time) for the frequency items. For ease of interpretation, the mean of all partner browsing items was divided by 4 and multiplied by 100 and the mean of all partner negotiation items was divided by 5 and multiplied by 100. Subsequently, all scores ranged from 0 to 100, where higher scores indicate greater frequency of encountering RSD (for the frequency items) or stronger negative reactions toward experiences of RSD (for the effect items) across all contexts.

RSD Subscales

The White superiority subscale scores were computed using the mean of eight effect items (e.g., “When White people clearly state that they want to meet other White people, I have a negative reaction”) and eight frequency items (e.g., ‘How often do you see White people clearly state that they want to meet other White people?). The role assumptions subscale scores were computed using the mean of six effect items (e.g., “When I see profiles from White people assume that people of my race/ethnicity will take on a particular sexual role, I have a negative reaction”) and six frequency items (e.g., “How often do you see profiles from White people assume that people of your race/ethnicity will take on a particular sexual role?”). The White rejection subscale scores were computed using the mean of two effect items (e.g., “When my messages are rejected by White people, I have a negative reaction”) and two frequency items (e.g., “How often are your messages rejected by White people?”). The same-race rejection subscale scores were computed using the mean of two effect items (e.g., “When my messages are ignored by people of my same race/ethnicity, I have a negative reaction”) and two frequency items (e.g., “How often are your messages ignored by people of your same race/ethnicity?”). The Cronbach’s alpha value for all subscales (α = .804–.919) demonstrated strong to excellent reliability.

Data Analytic Strategy

A total of 2,188 eligible and consenting participants were recruited for the study. Participants indicating that they did not engage in anal sex (n = 227) were excluded. Participants with missing data on study outcomes were also excluded, resulting in a total of 726 participants for analysis. Descriptive statistics were computed for the study sample, including mean scores, frequency counts, and percentages for demographic characteristics and study variables. To explore differences between sexual positioning roles and RSD subscales, a multivariate Kruskal–Wallis (MKW) test was conducted comparing three groups: (1) those who identified as mostly bottom (2) those who identified as versatile, and (3) those who identified as mostly top. Study outcomes included four out of seven RSD subscales: White superiority, White rejection, same-race rejection, and role assumptions. To streamline the analyses and focus on the scope of our discussion, we prioritized subscales with high reliability scores that were best aligned with our theoretical frameworks. The significance value for each model is reported using the Kruskal–Wallis H statistic (chi-square approximation), and mean ranks are reported for all outcomes across each group. For all significant models, post-hoc Mann–Whitney tests were conducted to test for differences between each group pairing (Mostly Bottom to Versatile, Mostly Bottom to Top, Versatile to Top), and a Bonferroni-adjusted p-value is reported for all significant effects. All data were analyzed using SPSS v. 20.

Results

Sample Description

The mean age of the sample was 24.48 years (SD = 3.18). Most participants identified as gay (71.2%) or bisexual (16.7%). The sample was well-educated, as nearly half (44.9%) of participants had completed a college degree and/or received a post-graduate education. The other half had mostly received some college education (43.3%), and only one participant had not completed high school. A little more than one-third (35.4%) of the sample identified as mostly bottom and another third (37.6%) of the sample identified as mostly top. Slightly more than a quarter (27.0%) of participants identified as versatile (see Table 1).

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for the study sample.

Categorical Variables	N (M)	% (SD)
Sexual Orientation
Gay	517	71.2%
Bisexual	121	16.7%
Other	88	12.1%
Education
Less than high school	1	0.1%
High school graduate	85	11.7%
Some college	314	43.3%
College graduate	213	29.3%
Post college	113	15.6%
Sexual Position  Mostly Bottom Versatile	257 196	35.4% 27.0%
Mostly Top	273	37.6%
Continuous Variables	M	SD	Min	Max	α
Age	24.48	3.18	18	29	–
RSD Effect
White Superiority	70.54	20.40	0	100	.830
White Rejection	60.84	28.42	0	100	.866
Same-Race Rejection	60.11	24.78	0	100	.804
Role Assumptions	62.17	20.84	0	100	.831
RSD Frequency
White Superiority	42.67	18.78	0	96.88	.819
White Rejection	58.40	24.64	0	100	.919
Same-Race Rejection	42.53	16.01	0	100	.867
Role Assumptions	41.32	21.94	0	100	.824

Kruskal-Wallis Analysis

A statistically significant effect was observed in the models examining differences in same-race rejection (H(2) = 16.23, p < .001) and role assumptions (H(2) = 8.11, p = .017) for the RSD effect analyses, as well as White Superiority (H(2) = 8.29, p = .016) and same-race rejection (H(2) = 9.00, p = .011) for the RSD frequency analyses (see Table 2). Post-hoc tests indicated that men identifying as mostly bottom (Mean Rank = 400.61) reported significantly higher effect scores on same-race rejection (U = 72.85, Z = 4.04, p < .001) than men identifying as mostly top (Mean Rank = 327.76). Men identifying as mostly bottom (Mean Rank = 386.90) also reported significantly higher effect scores on role assumptions (U = 50.78, Z = 2.79, p = .016) than men identifying as mostly top (Mean Rank = 336.12). Men identifying as mostly bottom (Mean Rank = 393.61) reported significantly higher frequency scores on White superiority (U = 48.99, Z = 2.69, p = .022) than men identifying as mostly top (Mean Rank = 344.63). Finally, men identifying as versatile (Mean Rank = 385.83) reported significantly higher frequency scores on same-race rejection (U = 48.81, Z = 2.76, p = .017) than men identifying as mostly top (Mean Rank = 337.01) (see Table 3). Tables 4 and 5 include a summary of all study hypotheses and outcomes.

Table 2. Mean rank differences on RSD subscales by sexual position.

	Effect			Frequency
	Mean Rank	H	p value	Mean Rank	H	p value
White Superiority		3.126	.210		8.288	.016
Mostly Bottom	381.86			393.61
Versatile	350.34			350.31
Mostly Top	355.67			344.63
White Rejection		1.394	.498		2.590	.274
Mostly Bottom	375.80			380.03
Versatile	356.93			352.66
Mostly Top	356.64			355.73
Same-Race Rejection		16.281	<.001		8.996	.011
Mostly Bottom	400.61			374.61
Versatile	364.62			385.83
Mostly Top	327.76			337.01
Role Assumptions		8.111	.017		5.098	.078
Mostly Bottom	386.90			358.59
Versatile	370.96			391.43
Mostly Top	336.12			348.07

Table 3. Between-group post-hoc tests.

	U	SE	Z	Adj. p value
RSD Effect
Same-Race Rejection
Mostly Top – Versatile	36.860	19.453	1.895	.174
Mostly Top – Mostly Bottom	72.851	18.059	4.034	<.001
Mostly Bottom – Versatile	35.991	19.705	1.827	.203
Role Assumptions
Mostly Top – Versatile	34.838	19.622	1.775	.227
Mostly Top – Mostly Bottom	50.780	18.216	2.788	.016
Mostly Bottom – Versatile	15.942	19.876	.802	1.000
RSD Frequency
White Superiority
Mostly Top – Versatile	5.680	19.630	.289	1.000
Mostly Top – Mostly Bottom	48.985	18.223	2.688	.022
Mostly Bottom – Versatile	43.305	19.884	2.178	.088
Same-Race Rejection
Mostly Top – Versatile	48.814	17.684	2.760	.017
Mostly Top – Mostly Bottom	37.596	16.417	2.290	.066
Mostly Bottom – Versatile	−11.218	17.912	−.626	1.000

Adjusted p-value reflects a Bonferroni correction.

Table 4. RSD effect predictions, rationale, and outcomes.

RSD	Position	Prediction (Scores)	Rationale	Outcome	Prediction Supported?
White Rejection*	Mostly Bottom	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
	Versatile	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
	Mostly Top	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
Same-Race Rejection	Mostly Bottom	Higher than tops	Black bottoms have less erotic capital by virtue of their position, and fewer options outside of race due to script alignment	Higher than tops	Yes
	Versatile	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
	Mostly Top	Lower than bottoms	Black tops have more erotic capital by virtue of their position, and more options outside of race due to script alignment	Lower than bottoms	Yes
White Superiority*	Mostly Bottom	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
	Versatile	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
	Mostly Top	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
Role Assumptions	Mostly Bottom	Higher than tops	Lower probability of assumed role (dominant) being aligned with sexual position	Higher than tops	Yes
	Versatile	No difference	Neutral/In-between	No difference	Yes
	Mostly Top	Lower than bottoms	Higher probability of assumed role (dominant) being aligned with sexual position	Lower than bottoms	Yes

*Omnibus model test was non-significant.

Table 5. RSD frequency predictions, rationale, and outcomes.

RSD	Position	Prediction (Scores)	Rationale	Outcome	Prediction Supported?
White Rejection*	Mostly Bottom	Higher than tops	Sexual position is misaligned with script	No difference	No
	Versatile	No difference	Neutral/In-between	No difference	Yes
	Mostly Top	Lower than bottoms	Sexual position is aligned with script	No difference	No
Same-Race Rejection	Mostly Bottom	Higher than tops	Black bottoms have less erotic capital by virtue of their position, and fewer options outside of race due to script alignment	No difference	No
	Versatile	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	Higher than tops	No
	Mostly Top	Lower than bottoms	Black tops have more erotic capital by virtue of their position, and more options outside of race due to script alignment	No difference	No
White Superiority	Mostly Bottom	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	Higher than tops	No
	Versatile	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
	Top	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
Role Assumptions*	Mostly Bottom	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
	Versatile	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes
	Mostly Top	No difference	Impacts all groups equally	No difference	Yes

*Omnibus model test was non-significant.

Discussion

The current study aimed to explore the association between sexual positioning and RSD experiences among YSMBM. Specifically, we sought to examine whether men who identified as mostly top, mostly bottom, or versatile differed significantly in the frequency with which they encountered RSD experiences. We also examined whether these three groups differed on the degree to which they had a negative reaction to these experiences (i.e., differences in the effect of each experience across groups). Our findings for the RSD effect analyses are consistent with our hypotheses, suggesting that being both Black and a bottom is misaligned with conventional sexual scripts (Husbands et al., 2013; Lick & Johnson, 2015). YSMBM who identify as mostly bottom may react more negatively when they encounter sexual role assumptions because they are unable to fit into what the traditional expectation for what a bottom should be (i.e., non-Black), while also being at odds with the sexual role that Black men are often expected to embody. They may also react more negatively when they experience rejection from other Black men due to the possibility that they have fewer prospective intimate partners outside of Black men – which is itself a function of the lower erotic capital that Black bottoms possess by virtue of their race and sexual position (Husbands et al., 2013; Smith et al., 2018). Our null findings for the effects of White superiority and White rejection are also in line with our expectations. Given that White rejection is an exceedingly common experience for all YSMBM, and because White superiority is reflective of the broader social context of online dating environments in general, it is unlikely that these two manifestations of RSD will exert differential effects based strictly on sexual position (Wade et al., 2022).

In contrast to the effect analyses, our findings for the RSD frequency analyses are somewhat inconsistent with our predictions. The only model that performed entirely as expected was exposure to assumptions about sexual roles, which did not significantly differ across the three groups. This supports our presumption that messages reflecting race-based behavioral stereotypes are pervasive and not conveyed/received differentially on the basis of men’s sexual roles. White rejection, on the other hand, yielded unexpected results. While YSMBM identifying as mostly bottom reported more frequent rejection from White men, this difference was not significantly greater than men identifying as versatile or mostly top. This may suggest that racial/ethnic identity carries greater weight with respect to patterns of rejection than does sexual positioning role and sexual script mis/alignment. In a previous study, we found that White rejection was the most commonly occurring form of RSD experienced by YSMBM, and rejection from White men is among the most widely reported interpersonal manifestations of sexual racism in the extant literature (Arscott et al., 2020; Forbes & Stacey, 2022; B. A. Robinson, 2015; Wade & Pear, 2022) Taken together, these results reiterate how men of color are systematically devalued in online partner-seeking landscapes and highlight the centrality of Whiteness in determining the relative desirability of sexual minority men.

In an additional unexpected finding, YSMBM identifying as mostly bottom reported more frequent instances of White superiority compared with YSMBM identifying as mostly top. Given that White superiority is reflective of the broader social norms that pervade digital spaces (e.g., the explicit privileging of Eurocentric features that many individuals convey on their profiles), we predicted that the frequency of exposure to White superiority would not differ across groups. However, a number of additional factors may influence the frequency with which certain individuals encounter RSD, namely the amount of time that individuals spend looking for partners online. If YSMBM who identify as mostly bottom hold less erotic capital than others, it is possible, then, that they may encounter greater difficulties finding others who are interested in them, and may thus devote more time toward searching for a partner. As a result, they may simply witness more instances of White superiority by virtue of spending more time in spaces that perpetuate White supremacy. In contrast, YSMBM identifying as mostly tops may find suitable partners more quickly and disengage from the partner-seeking process sooner, thereby resulting in fewer instances in which they are exposed to discriminatory profiles. In future studies, researchers should consider modeling time as a covariate to further clarify this possibility.

While men identifying as mostly bottom did not report significantly higher instances of same-race rejection compared with tops, we did find – unexpectedly – that men identifying as versatile reported significantly higher frequencies of same-race rejection compared with tops. While the empirical social science literature concerning versatile men is severely limited, some researchers have reported that versatile men tend to inhabit a more flexible, neutral role – free from the more rigid stereotypical expectations that are ascribed to tops and bottoms (Johns et al., 2012; Pachankis et al., 2013). However, it is worth noting that anecdotal and popular depictions of versatility in the contemporary discourse reflect a contrasting narrative: wherein versatile men are stereotyped as being “indecisive,” not being masculine enough, or being “closeted bottoms” (Elstad, 2021; Kirk, 2016; Mars Powers, 2020; Michael Henry, 2021). With the possibility that versatile men hold less erotic capital than tops (perhaps comparable to that of bottoms), the concomitant “dishonesty” presumed to be inherent in a versatile identity may render this population more prone to rejection. Such a question lends itself well to in-depth qualitative inquiry, and researchers may consider engaging more closely with this issue in future research.

Yet another reason why versatile men may be rejected more frequently may be related to HIV risk navigation, especially considering the disproportionate rates of HIV among Black sexual minority men. HIV is more readily transmissible from the insertive partner to the receptive partner during anal sex. Versatile men may be regarded as equally susceptible to acquiring HIV as men who are predominantly bottom, and men who engage in any receptive sex may be considered to be the most likely to be living with HIV. This is because versatile men also engage in insertive sex, which may be viewed as being more likely to transmit HIV (having acquired it receptively) than men who do not engage in receptive anal sex (i.e., men identifying as tops) (Klein & Tilley, 2012; van Druten et al., 1992; Wiley & Herschkorn, 1989). Altogether, our findings highlight the need for a more focused investigation on the experiences of men who identify as versatile, particularly within the context of online intimate partner-seeking.

Strengths and Limitations

This study was not without its limitations. Given that the sample for the study was limited to YSMBM living in the United States, the results of this study cannot be generalized toward other racial/ethnic groups, other age cohorts, or other national/cultural contexts outside of the United States. Missing data were also another limitation of the study. Although we had a sizable analytic sample with complete data, many participants who enrolled in the study did not complete the survey. This was, in large part, due to the length of the survey and our inability to offer compensation. We acknowledge that individuals who discontinue their participation in a study may differ from those who do not, which may, in turn, impact the generalizability of our results. Generalizability is also limited by our use of a convenience sample of predominantly Facebook users, who may differ from individuals who do not use Facebook. Future research would benefit from the use of representative samples and/or recruiting from multiple venues.

The cross-sectional nature of our study design, as well as our analytic strategy, does not permit us to draw causal inferences about the relationship between sexual positioning roles and RSD experiences. We are also unable to account for other key covariates (e.g., amount of time spent looking for partners online) or account for potential relevant covariates (e.g., gender conformity, internalized homophobia, etc.). Finally, the perpetration of RSD and the social norms within digital spaces are dynamic processes that may change over time, and major sociopolitical events (e.g., growing awareness of, and protests for, racial justice in the United States) may alter the ways in which RSD is expressed and experienced. As such, it will be important to continue investigating this phenomenon in ongoing studies, and employ longitudinal study designs to account for variations over time.

In spite of these limitations, the current study also presents a number of strengths. This study is among the first to examine the association between sexual positioning and RSD among YSMBM, and offers a novel integration of intersectionality and sexual script theory to test these associations. This study also contributes to a relatively modest body of social science literature on sexual positioning that is not predominantly focused on disease risk for sexual minority men and utilizes a robust, multidimensional measure of sexual racism experienced in online partner-seeking environments. Additionally, this study had a relatively large sample, allowing for better generalizability to the population of focus, despite the lack of a representative sample.

Implications

This study has a number of implications for health practitioners and researchers investigating sexual racism and related topics. As previously noted, sexual positioning is often a salient aspect of the lived experiences of sexual minority men, and experiences of sexual racism are common among men of color. Understanding the nuances of sexual and discriminatory experiences among YSMBM is an essential component of holistic, culturally competent care, and clinicians should recognize that sexual positioning plays an important role in the lives of sexual minority men beyond HIV and STI risk (Nowaskie & Sowinski, 2019). A clinician who, for example, can understand the stigma of being a Black bottom, or the pressures of being a Black top, can alleviate barriers relating to understanding and communication, establish stronger rapport, and engender greatest trust with the client. This is especially important given the deficit of clinicians who hold shared identities with, and/or similar experiences to, YSMBM – as well as the general lack of LGBTQ training among some health professionals (Knight et al., 2014; Lim et al., 2015; Sawning et al., 2017).

While there has been a steady uptick of sexual racism research in recent years, it is still an under-investigated phenomenon, particularly with respect to intervening factors that may further explicate the relationship between sexual racism and psychosocial functioning. Our findings may have analytic implications for future research in this area. To our knowledge, sexual positioning has not yet been modeled quantitatively as a potential moderator in the context of RSD and health, nor have researchers stratified by sexual positioning role in main effect analyses. While there is a demonstrable link between experiences of RSD and mental health, these associations may be amplified or attenuated based on sexual positioning role. We previously reported, for example, that same-race rejection and White superiority were associated with higher depressive symptoms among YSMBM (Wade et al., 2022). Our findings from the current study suggest that we may see even more pronounced associations for men who identify as mostly bottom. Accounting for sexual positioning roles analytically may therefore benefit the field of sexual racism research and produce more nuanced insights into the association between RSD and health.

Future Directions

While the study findings provide meaningful insights on the intersections of race/ethnicity, sexual positioning, and RSD, this work is framed around the experiences of YSMBM. Future research should expand this work to include other racial/ethnic groups, especially given that there are different sexual scripts and expectations ascribed to different populations. For example, researchers have noted that Asian and Pacific Islander (API) men are often stereotyped as being effeminate, “submissive bottoms” (Dangerfield et al., 2017; Grov et al., 2015; Han et al., 2014), which stands in stark contrast to the scripts typically assigned to Black men. Moreover, while API men share similar experiences of frequent rejection from White men, researchers have reported that many sexual minority API men indicate a preference for White men and are less likely to want to partner with members of the same race compared with other racial/ethnic groups (C. S. Han & Choi, 2018; Rafalow et al., 2017). We might, then, expect different associations to emerge when exploring the relationship between sexual positioning and RSD experiences among API men, and such differences may extend to other racial/ethnic groups as well. Understanding the specific experiences/perspectives of minoritized groups at their unique intersectional junctures will be important for researchers and interventionists to develop culturally tailored responses to RSD and will help circumvent the risk of treating minoritized groups as a monolith within a broader context of White supremacy.

In addition to accounting for different racial/ethnic groups, it will be important for researchers to engage with the potential fluidity of sexual positioning roles over time and across different contexts. Indeed, prior research has suggested that an individual’s sexual positioning role can change as a result of numerous factors, including practical (e.g., wanting to avoid associated stereotypes with a sexual position label, medical reasons, and physical comfort), relational (e.g., relating to boredom, personal growth, safety, power, or communication about a sexual position), and sociocultural (e.g., greater exposure to the queer communities, changes in geography, or change in the influence of perceived stigma) (Johns et al., 2012; Pachankis et al., 2013) reasons. Moreover, while researchers have reported that sexual positioning identity and actual behavior are highly concordant (i.e., individuals typically engage in acts that align with their self-selected label of top, bottom, or versatile), the literature in this area is exceedingly sparse (Moskowitz & Garcia, 2019; Moskowitz et al., 2008, 2022). Although the current study focused on identity, future researchers may look to include more nuanced measures of sexual positioning to distinguish between identity and behavior. Individuals may also deliberately “switch” their identity and behavior depending on the race of their partners, or publicly present a different sexual positioning role depending on which digital spaces they inhabit when seeking partners. Future researchers should employ qualitative methods and/or longitudinal designs to account for the dynamic nature of sexual positioning roles and potential changes in positioning identity over time and space.

Finally, while this study primarily focused on sexual positioning in relation to anal sex, it is important to acknowledge that there are many sexual minority men for whom anal sex is unimportant, uncommon, or altogether absent from their sexual lives. These men may report being identified as a “side” and may often engage predominantly or exclusively in other activities (e.g., oral sex or manual stimulation) that do not involve anal penetration (Hellman, 2021; Kort, 2013). This identity has slowly grown in recognition in recent years, with popular mobile apps such as Grindr officially adding it as a sexual position option (Farber, 2022; Henderson, 2022). However, the rising acknowledgment of sides has also been met with pushback. Some men who identify as sides report that their identities/sexual interests are often dismissed and that they are accused of being bottoms in denial, or sexually inexperienced (Noronha, 2022). Sexual scripts, stereotypes, and expectations that are ascribed to different racial/ethnic groups may further compound such patterns of invalidation – though, to our knowledge, no empirical inquiry into these relationships has been established. Given the cultural importance of anal sex for sexual minority men and the fact that a large portion of sexual minority men only consider penetrative anal sex to be “legitimate” sex (Sewell et al., 2017), it will be imperative for researchers to broaden the scope of positioning research – namely by allowing individuals to self-identify as sides and including this positioning role in future analyses.

Conclusion

Sexual positioning roles are an important aspect of the lived experience of sexual minority men, though the discourse surrounding positioning roles in the social and health sciences has largely focused on disease risk. The current study explored how sexual positioning factors into a more recent emergent phenomenon in the social science literature: sexual racism. We applied a mixed theoretical framework to examine the association between sexual positioning and RSD, and found differences in both the effect and frequency of specific forms of RSD across positioning roles. Moving forward, researchers should continue to examine sexual positioning while applying an intersectional lens, and investigate factors other than sexual risk that are equally salient in the lives of sexual minority men of color.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies, University of Michigan.