What do women want? The effects of gender and sexual orientation on the desirability of physical attributes in the personal ads of women

Christine A. Smith

Examination of personal advertisements is one way to determine what individuals want and what individuals believe others want in a partner. Researchers have examined requests for, and offers of, a number of variables, including age and race (Epel, Spanakos, Kasl-Godley, & Brownell, 1996); physical attractiveness and weight (Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Hatala & Prehodka, 1996; Koestner & Wheeler, 1988; Lynn & Shurgot, 1984); and personality traits, including masculinity and femininity (Bailey, Kim, Hills, & Linsenmeier, 1997; Child, Low, McCormick, & Cocciarella, 1996; Deaux & Hanna, 1984).

Researchers who have compared heterosexual and homosexual relationships have suggested that the primary difference between the two is gender (Bailey et al., 1997; Deaux & Hanna, 1984). Specifically, the gender make-up of those in the relationship often profoundly affects roles and choices in the relationship (Blumstein & Schwartz, 1983). Thus, if gender of those seeking partners is a factor in mate choice, when women are seeking partners we would expect all or at least most women to value similar attributes, regardless of the partner's sex. For example researchers have found that women place less emphasis on the appearance of a partner than do men (Doosje, Rojhan, & Fischer, 1999; Feingold, 1992; Goodwin, 1991; Nell & Ashton, 1997) but offer their appearance depending on whom they are seeking as partners (Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Siever, 1994).

Deaux and Hanna (1984) theorized that gender and sexual orientation interact. The differences between heterosexual and homosexual women "... appear to be stronger in what one offers in a relationship than what one seeks" (p. 374). In personal ads, women may emphasize their own physical characteristics when they believe partners desire it. Thus, heterosexual women may be more likely than lesbians to provide their own physical characteristics in their ads. However, Heffernan (1999) found that her sample of lesbians did tend to see physical attractiveness as important in partners. Thus, we cannot assume that lesbians place little or no emphasis on partner attributes or attractiveness. Nevertheless, the pressure for lesbians to be physically attractive to acquire partners does not appear to be as great as it is for heterosexual women (Myers, Taub, Morris, & Rothblum, 1999).

Although studies have examined personal ads of heterosexuals (Child et al., 1996; Harrison & Saeed, 1977) and lesbians and gay men (Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Laner, 1978), no published research to date has examined personal ads of bisexual women or men as a group. Although Deaux and Hanna (1983) included bisexuals in their research, they classified bisexuals as heterosexual or homosexual on the basis of the sex of the partner they were seeking; for example, bisexual women seeking women were classified as lesbian. Thus, trends in bisexuals' requests for and offers of physical attributes and attractiveness in personal ads are unknown. Classifying bisexuals by partner choice (heterosexual or homosexual) fails to recognize bisexuals as possibly distinct from heterosexuals and lesbians and gay men, with their own specific cultures and desires.

To address the importance of physical characteristics to bisexual women seeking female partners through personal ads, the (small) literature on bisexual women may be relevant. Rust (1993) suggested that bisexual women are perceived by lesbians as behaving heterosexually and therefore resemble heterosexuals rather than lesbians. She found that, in her sample, lesbians were more likely to perceive bisexual women as having combined lesbian and heterosexual interests. Writers on bisexuality have suggested the existence of a valid bisexual culture and identity rather than one that combines heterosexual and homosexual interests (Hutchinson & Kaahumanu, 1991; Rust, 1993).

Where do bisexual women fall in regard to offers of and requests for physical attributes of potential partners? It may depend upon whether they request male or female partners. In the current study, we examined requests for female partners in personal ads because bisexual women appear to be more likely to mention their bisexuality when requesting female partners than when requesting male partners. This may be the result of the stigma some bisexual women find when seeking female partners, as some lesbians are reluctant to date bisexual women (Rust, 1993). Thus, bisexual women may want to make their sexual orientation clear to eliminate possible hostile responses from lesbians. Another explanation for the lack of bisexual women seeking male partners in personal ads may be that bisexual women are more likely to use personal ads to find other women than to find men. If a bisexual woman is immersed in heterosexual culture or has not yet had a female partner, she may not know where to seek women who desire female p artners. Thus, personal ads may be a method to find like-minded women.

As mentioned earlier, results of research on lesbians suggest that women seeking female partners report and request few physical descriptors. However, it is less clear how bisexual women may be similar to or differ from lesbians in desire for and offerings of physical attributes in personal ads. In one of the few studies on physical attractiveness and bisexual women, Taub (1999) found that bisexual women felt more positive about their bodies when they were with female partners than with male partners. Thus, we might expect bisexual women who are seeking female partners to deemphasize physical attributes, as do lesbians and heterosexual women. However, it may be that bisexual women, because they may be at least somewhat connected to heterosexual dating culture, are more likely than lesbians to follow a heterosexual model. Specifically, bisexual women, like heterosexual women, may be likely to offer their own physical characteristics because their primary framework in seeking partners is a heterosexual one, and heterosexual men desire attractive women. Taub (1998) found that many women rejected the dominant culture's norm of beauty ideals and rituals when they came out as lesbians. In her sample, lesbians who came out as bisexual readopted the dominant culture's "feminine" beauty standards, perhaps to appeal to potential male partners. If they are involved in heterosexual dating culture, bisexual women may be more likely to believe that those seeking women emphasize physical characteristics, as is found in heterosexual men's personal ads (Deaux & Hanna, 1984). Thus, bisexual women may be similar to heterosexual women in offers of physical attributes.

In addition to physical attractiveness, we also examined offers of and requests for weight and body size in personal ads. As Epel et al. (1996) noted, requests for and offers of physical attractiveness in personal ads tend to reflect physical body shape ideals as well as physical characteristics. Koestner and Wheeler (1988) found that in personal ads heterosexual women were more likely to offer their weights than were heterosexual men, whereas heterosexual men were more likely to seek certain weights.

The literature on the importance of physical attractiveness in partner choice consistently demonstrates that men find larger women less desirable than smaller women (Furnham & Radley, 1989; Harris, Walters, & Waschull, 1991). Brand, Rothblum, and Solomon (1992) found that heterosexual women were more preoccupied with their weights than were lesbians. Gettleman and Thompson (1993) found that lesbians showed less concern with their weight than did heterosexual women. Herzog, Newman, Yeh, and Warshaw (1992) found lesbians to be more satisfied with their bodies than were heterosexual women, but both groups of women wanted to weigh less and considered thin women to be more attractive than larger women. In personal ads, heterosexual women may be more likely to offer weight because they believe men find it important. Bisexual women may be influenced by heterosexual culture, and thus believe that potential partners find weight and body shape to be important. However, available data do suggest that lesbians are not im mune to the mandates of thinness (Beren, Hayden, Wilfley, & Striegel-Moore, 1997; Heffernan, 1999).

We predicted that bisexual women would offer more physical descriptors than would lesbians. Because bisexual women may be influenced by both lesbian and heterosexual dating cultures, we predicted that bisexual women may offer fewer attractiveness traits than would heterosexual women. In addition, bisexual women may be more likely to request physical characteristics than would heterosexual women and lesbians.

Regarding weight, we predicted that both bisexual and heterosexual women would be more likely than lesbians to offer their weight and body shape. Lesbians may be less likely than heterosexual women to offer their own weight and body shape. Bisexual women may fall in the middle because of influences from both heterosexual culture and lesbian culture.

METHOD

Personal advertisements were collected from a total of 20 weekly "alternative" newspapers of major cities throughout the United States. To approximate an equal representation of the U. S. population, we collected personal ads from cities from all regions of the United States. Personal ads were also collected from an internet website. Only one newspaper was specifically a lesbian/gay newspaper (Washington Blade), and one internet website that targeted lesbians and bisexual women seeking female partners was included (Qworld).

Because a number of the sources had categories of "women seeking women," those ads were classified as lesbian unless the advertiser specifically identified herself as bisexual. Although some of the advertisers thus classified as lesbian may have been bisexual without identifying themselves as such, there did seem to be enough ads that specifically indicated that the advertiser was bisexual to suggest that the norm for bisexual women is to identify themselves as such. Only ads in which advertisers were looking for relationship partners (as opposed to friends, sexual partners, activity partners) were surveyed.

We coded a total of 857 personal ads. The sample consisted of 388 lesbians, 135 bisexual women, and 334 heterosexual women. A total of 289 advertisers (33.9%) identified themselves as European American/White, 15 advertisers (18.6%) identified themselves as African American/Black, 33 as Latina (3.9%), 7 as Asian/Asian American (0.8%), 1 as Biracial (0.1%), and 1 as Native American (0.1%). A total of 367 advertisers (43%) did not indicate their race/ethnicity.

The total number of physical traits requested and offered were tallied for each personal ad. Regarding physical appearance, we included mention of physical attractiveness including cute and sexy; facial/head features, including eye and hair color, nose, facial hair; body features and outward appearance such as tattoos, piercings; specific appearance such as preppy or leather; and height, including mention of height or desiring of partner shorter or taller than themselves. Body appearance included mention of thinness, including average height/weight proportionate, slim; fat, including terms such as large, big and beautiful, and zaftig; other body appearance euphemisms such as athletic, toned, in shape; and specific mention of weight. Thus, each advertisement was coded for a total number of traits offered, total number requested, and whether they included specific mention of weight or body size. Responses for weight and body size were coded to 90% reliability by the authors. Disagreements were discussed to clar ify categorizations and resolve coding discrepancies. Then each author coded approximately half of subsequent ads.

RESULTS

The number of traits offered ranged from 0 to 5 for lesbians and 0 to 6 for bisexual women and heterosexual women. The number of traits requested ranged from 0 to 5 for lesbians and heterosexual women, and from 0 to 6 for bisexual women.

The average number of physical characteristics asked for and requested by the three groups of women is shown in Table I. ANOVAs were performed for number of traits requested, F(2, 854) = 4.46, p = .01, and number of traits offered, F(2, 854) = 24.16, p < .01. A Scheffe posthoc test revealed that lesbians offered significantly fewer traits than either bisexual or heterosexual women. Bisexual women offered the most physical descriptors. A Scheffe test revealed that bisexual women offered significantly more traits than did either lesbians and heterosexual women (see Table I).

Mixed factorial paired t tests were performed for each of the groups of women to determine if there were significant differences between number of attributes offered and requested. All three t tests were significant at the .01 level, which indicated that the number of attributes offered was significantly higher than number of attributes requested.

Fourteen percent of lesbians, 18% of bisexual women, and 19% of heterosexual women made a request for weight/body size in a partner. Thirty-three percent of lesbians, 51% of bisexual women, and 49% of heterosexual women mentioned their own weight/body size. To test for differences between groups of women and requests for and offers of weight/body size, chi-square tests were performed (see Table II). The chi square for requests for weight/body size was not significant. Thus, the women were similar in their likelihood to request weight/body size in potential partners. The chi square for offers of weight/body size was significant. Lesbians were significantly less likely to offer weight/body size than were bisexual or heterosexual women, [chi square] (3, N = 492) = 24.16, p < .01, and bisexual women were most likely to offer weight/body size, [chi square] (3, N = 492) = 4.46, p < .01. All three groups of women were significantly more likely to offer their own body weight than to ask for it in potential partners.

DISCUSSION

According to earlier research (e.g., Deaux & Hanna, 1984; Laner, 1978) gender is the most salient factor in regard to physical attractiveness desirability in partners, and gender interacts with sexual orientation in offers of physical characteristics. The findings of the current study suggest that gender and the interaction with sexual orientation may be important factors in requests for partner physical traits. Lesbians offered significantly fewer traits than did bisexual and heterosexual women. Bisexual women offered the most. Thus, we found that bisexual women may place more emphasis on the physical traits of potential female partners than do lesbians.

In addition, sexual orientation was a factor in traits offered. Deaux and Hanna (1984) based their theory on sexual orientation as it affected sex of partner. Hence, women seeking women should be less likely to offer physical descriptors because they believe that potential female partners deemphasize physical attractiveness. Lesbians, as predicted, offered the fewest physical traits and were least likely to offer weight. Bisexual and heterosexual women offered significantly more physical descriptors and weight descriptors than did lesbians. Bisexual women were most likely to offer weight descriptors. However, no differences among the three groups of women were found for requests for weight. These findings support Deaux and Hanna's contention that differences between heterosexual women and lesbians are stronger in offers than in requests (Deaux & Hanna, 1984).

The findings on bisexual women, albeit exploratory, were somewhat surprising and suggest that bisexual women who placed personal ads may be influenced by heterosexual dating culture, or have a unique bisexual (women's) culture that emphasizes partner and personal physical attributes. On the basis of heterosexual dating culture, bisexual women may be likely to believe that women seeking women emphasize physical attributes and weight.

In addition, it might be that bisexual women are more likely to request physical characteristics in partners than are heterosexual women and lesbians because, as bisexual women, if they are going to enter into a less culturally desirable situation (i.e., woman in a relationship with a woman), they may believe that their partners should be "worth it." According to social exchange theory, interpersonal relationships are analyzed on the basis of benefits and costs (Taylor, Peplau, & Sears, 2000). Because bisexual women can enter into either socially desirable or undesirable relationships, if they choose the deviant position (a cost), they may want a partner who has very desirable qualities, such as physical attractiveness or specific physical attributes (a benefit). Previous studies of personal ads have used social exchange theory to explain the offers and requests of heterosexual women and men (i.e., Harrison & Saeed, 1977; Murstein, Merighi, & Malloy, 1989) and homosexual women and men (Gonzales & Meyers, 1993 ). The findings of the current study may expand the usage of social exchange theory to bisexual women.

The current findings also offer a challenge to sociobiological theories that theorize that women and men are attempting to maximize their reproductive potential and seek out partners who will assist in this endeavor. Thus, women seek men who are good providers (physical appearance may not be related to male fertility), whereas men seek women who are young and healthy, which is associated with reproductive potential (Buss & Schmitt, 1993). The findings of the current study do support the contention that heterosexual women offer appearance attributes to male partners and are relatively low in requests for male partner appearance attributes. Lesbians, who, according to sociobiology, would not be seeking partners for reproduction, place less emphasis on appearance, as we found in the current study. However, bisexual women seeking female partners are also not seeking out partners for reproduction (according to sociobiology). Thus, our findings that bisexual women are more likely than lesbians and heterosexual wome n to offer and request attractiveness contradict sociobiological theories that frame mate selection in terms of reproduction.

All three groups of women were significantly more likely to offer their own weight than to request it in potential partners. Thus, it appears that all three groups of women may believe that potential partners find weight to be important. All groups of women, regardless of sexual orientation, may share some commonalities as women and being part of a larger culture that values thinness in women. Gender may as salient here as sexual orientation, or at least an important factor.

Why do bisexual women offer the highest mean number of physical descriptors, more than heterosexual women do if, as Taub (1998) found, bisexual women reported rejecting the dominant culture's beauty norms when they came out as lesbians (i.e., sought female partners)? Bisexual women who place personal ads may be a unique sample of bisexual women. It is possible that bisexual women who find partners through a women's or feminist community may find that physical characteristics and weight are less emphasized in those communities. Bisexual women who are seeking female partners through personal ads may have less familiarity with what women seek in female partners, and, as a result, they rely on heterosexual norms. Or, it may be that bisexual women (indeed all women) can more easily express their wants and desires in a medium such as a personal advertisement, in which they are not visible or identifiable.

The results of this study demonstrate that bisexual women cannot be absorbed into the category "lesbian," at least when it comes to partner preferences. In fact, the bisexual women in this sample were different than heterosexual women and lesbians in offers of traits and weight descriptors. In addition, there were differences between heterosexual women and lesbians in number of physical attributes requested. Thus, it appears that the category "woman" or simply the gender of those seeking partners is insufficient to draw conclusions about partner preferences. We cannot assume that women are similar in terms of what they desire and offer romantic partners simply because of gender socialization.

Although personal advertisements have been used in a variety of studies to examine partner preferences, our sample may be limited in a variety of ways. First, we used personal ads from alternative newspapers from urban areas. Individuals who live in more rural communities or who are less familiar with alternative newspapers or subculture may be less likely to utilize them to seek potential partners. Further, personal ads on the internet may reflect an income or education bias; those with higher incomes or education may be more likely to utilize the internet. In addition, older individuals may have less familiarity with the internet and/or alternative newspapers. Thus, our current sample may have an age bias as well.

However, despite the limitations of the sample, we believe that the current study is an important early step in the examination of bisexual women and partner choice. We hope that other researchers will explore bisexual women (and men) as a unique group. There is much to learn about bisexuals, and we hope this study will inspire further research.

Table I

Means and Standard Deviations of Number of Physical Attractiveness
Traits

                    Traits offered  Traits requested    t     p

Lesbians             1.30 (1.30)      0.59 (0.90)      9.90  .01
Bisexual women       2.19 (1.79)      0.86 (1.09)      7.86  .01
Heterosexual women   1.90 (1.56)      0.61 (0.89)     14.31  .01
Table II

Frequencies of Offers of and Requests for Weight

                           Requested                Offered
                            weight                  weight
                        Yes       No          Yes      No

Lesbians                128      260          55      333
Bisexual women           69       66          24      111
Heterosexual women      164      170          63      271



                    [chi square]   p

Lesbians               41.63      .01
Bisexual women         29.35      .01
Heterosexual women     62.60      .01

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors thank Bernard Whitley, Jr. and Robert Sternberg for their helpful comments.

REFERENCES

Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y, Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997). Butch, femme, or straight acting? Partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960-973.

Beren, S. E., Hayden, H. A., Wilfley, D. E., & Striegel-Moore, R. H. (1997). Body dissatisfaction among lesbian college students: The conflict of straddling mainstream and lesbian cultures. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 431-445.

Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: Morrow.

Brand, P. A., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, L. J. (1992). A comparison of lesbians, gay men, and heterosexuals on weight and restrained eating. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 253-259.

Buss, D. M., & Schmitt, D. P. (1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204-232.

Child, M., Low, K. G., McCormick, C. M., & Cocciarella, A. (1996). Personal advertisements of male-to-female transsexuals, homosexual men, and heterosexuals. Sex Roles, 34, 447-455.

Deaux, K., & Hanna, R. (1984). Courtship in the personals column: The influence of gender and sexual orientation. Sex Roles, 11, 363-375.

Doojse, B., Rojahn, K., & Fischer, A. (1999). Partner preferences as a function of gender, age, political orientation and level of education. Sex Roles, 40, 45-60.

Epel, E. S., Spanakos, A., Brownell, K. D., & Kasl-Godley, J. (1996). Body shape ideals across gender, sexual orientation, socieconomic status, race, and age in personal advertisements. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 19, 265-273.

Feingold, A. (1992). Sex differences in the effects of similarity and attractiveness on opposite-sex attraction. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 357-367.

Furnham, A. F., & Radley, S. (1989). Sex differences in the perception of male and female body shapes. Personality and Individual differences, 10, 653-662.

Gettleman, T. E., & Thompson, J. K. (1993). Actual differences versus stereotypical perceptions of body image and eating disturbance: A comparison of male and female heterosexual and homosexual samples. Sex Roles, 29, 545-562.

Goodwin, R. (1991). Sex differences among partner preferences: Are the sexes very similar? Sex Roles, 23, 501-513.

Harris, M. B., Walters, L. C., & Waschull, S. (1991). Gender and ethnic differences in obesity-related behaviors and attitudes in a college sample. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1545-1577.

Harrison, A. A., & Saeed, L. (1977). Let's make a deal: An analysis of revelations and stipulations in lonely hearts advertisements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 257-264.

Hatala, M. N., & Prehodka, J. (1996). Content analysis of gay male and lesbian personal advertisements. Psychological Reports, 78, 371-374.

Heffernan, K. (1999). Lesbians and the internalization of societal standards of weight and appearance. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 3, 121-127.

Herzog, D. H., Newman, K. L., Yeh, C. J., & Warshaw, M. (1992). Body image satisfaction in homosexual and heterosexual women. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 11, 391-396.

Hutchinson, L., & Kaahumanu, L. (1991). Bi any other name. Boston: Alyson Publications,

Koestner, R., & Wheeler, L. (1988). Self-presentation in personal advertisements: The influence of implicit notions of attraction and role expectation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 149-160.

Laner, M. R. (1978). Media mating. II: "Personals" advertisements of lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 4 41-61.

Lynn, M., & Shurgot, B. A. (1984). Responses to lonely hearts advertisements: Effects of reported physical attractiveness, physique, and coloration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 349-357.

Murstein, B. I., Merighi, J. R., & Malloy, T. E. (1989). Physical attractiveness and Exchange Theory in interracial dating, Journal of Social Psychology, 129, 325-334.

Myers, A., Taub, J., Morris, J. F, & Rothblum, E. D. (1999). Beauty mandates and the appearance obsession: Are lesbian and bisexual women better off? In J. C. Cogan & J. M. Erickson (Eds.), Lesbians, levis, and lipstick: The meaning of beauty in our lives (pp. 15-26). New York: Haworth Press.

Nell, K., & Ashton, N. L. (1997). Gender, self-esteem, and perception of own attractiveness. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 1105-1106.

Rust, P. C. (1993). Neutralizing the political threat of the marginal woman: Lesbians' beliefs about bisexual women. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 214-228.

Siever, M. D. (1994). Sexual orientation and gender as factors in socioculturally acquired vulnerability to body dissatisfaction and eating disorders. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 252-260.

Taub, J. (1998, March). Bisexual women and beauty norms: A qualitative examination of the effects of feminism and women's communities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology, Baltimore, MD.

Taub, J. (1999). Bisexual women and beauty norms: A qualitative examination of the effects of coming out and gender of partner. In J. C. Cogan & J. M. Erickson (Eds.), Lesbians, levis and lipstick: The meaning of beauty in our lives (pp. 27-36). New York: Haworth Press.

Taylor, S. E., Peplau, L.A., & Sears, D. O. (2000). Social psychology (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Christine A. Smith (1, 2)

(1.) Department of Psychology, Minnesota State University, Moorhead, Minnesota 56563.

(2.) To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Psychology, Minnesota State University, Moorhead, Minnesota 56563; e-mail: casmith@mnstate.edu.

COPYRIGHT 2002 Springer
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning