Sexual objectification, intimacy, and sexual health behaviour in men who have sex with men

Abstract

Frederickson and Roberts (1997) located the tendency to sexually objectify others in a sociocultural context and identified negative psychological, psychosexual, and behavioural consequences at the level of the recipient or “object” of objectification. However, little is known about the negative consequences - if any- for the “objectifier” and how it might impact the interpersonal relationship between both parties, the “subject’ and “object” in the objectification dyad. Informed by objectification theory (Nussbaum, 1990, 1995), this research aimed to address this gap in the literature and investigated the psychological, emotional, and behavioural consequences of objectifying others from the perspective of the viewer. There were three major hypotheses: 1. objectification would predict intimacy difficulties, 2. objectification would predict poor sexual health behaviour, and 3. intimacy difficulties would account for the association between objectification and sexual health behaviours. This research used a mobile dating app to recruit two samples of men who have sex with men (MSM) to test predicted associations in two correlational studies in Hong Kong (N = 299; Study 1) and Sydney (N = 404; Study 2). Study 1 measured state objectification and found that MSM higher in other-objectification engaged more in unprotected anal intercourse and had higher frequency sex. State objectification when using an app also associated with less emotional connection in those app met relationships. Study 2 assessed both state and trait objectification and found that trait objectification was associated with intimacy difficulties in typical and app met relationships, whilst state objectification, as per Study 1, associated with lower intimacy in app met relationships and in sexual risk taking. In short, the association between state objectification and sexual health behaviours was supported. Seeing others as things or commodities for personal use predicted more frequent sexual partners and higher sexual risk behaviour. The association between state and trait objectification and intimacy difficulties was also supported (with differences observed between state and trait objectification). The mediating role of intimacy difficulties for the association between objectification and sexual behaviour was not supported. Implications of these results for objectification theory and mental health care providers are discussed.