Gay social networking

Tinder is not just for straight folks. Tinder, along with Grindr, has added a number of new features to make it welcoming to trans and queer users. With 1. Launched in , Chappy is one of the newer dating apps to come along. Chappy allows guys to chat with other men without all of the stigma attached to gay dating apps. Chappy adds a number of security features, such as requiring users to upload a picture of their face, and alerting you if someone tries to grab a screenshot of your image.

Like Tinder, you also have to be matched with someone before you can trade messages. In addition to providing the standard dating app fare, it also promises to provide a safe space for women to find love, friendships, and build community. Targeted toward bears and their admirers, Growlr has a network of millions of people worldwide. Pro users can enjoy private videos, anonymous searching, and ad-free browsing. The downside? The app is in dire need of a redesign.

Share on Facebook Tweet this Share. Scruff Scruff allows you to browse through millions of profiles from nearby and around the world. Tinder Tinder is not just for straight folks. Chappy Launched in , Chappy is one of the newer dating apps to come along. Growlr Targeted toward bears and their admirers, Growlr has a network of millions of people worldwide. Don't Miss. Product Review BlackShark 2 is the unholy offspring of a smartphone and a Nintendo Switch The Black Shark 2 is a gaming phone through-and-through, from the glowing logo on the back to its serious performance, and even a controller add-on.

Posted 2 days ago — By Andy Boxall. Mobile The best Android apps turn your phone into a jack-of-all-trades Choosing which apps to download is tricky, especially given how enormous and cluttered the Google Play Store has become. However, one recent population-based study found that those who are retired tend to have larger social networks among older adults Cornwell et al.

Eight Social Networking Sites for Men Who Love Men – TechCrunch

Erickson found higher income levels correlate with network diversity. Few studies have examined network characteristics of LGBT older adults. Another study documented that transgender older adults have larger social networks compared to nontransgender LGB older adults Fredriksen-Goldsen, Cook-Daniels et al. Little is known regarding diversity of social networks in LGBT older adults. There has been a number of studies that examined relationships between family and community involvement and social networks in the general population.

In contrast, there are no systematic studies examining family and community involvement as correlates of network size and diversity for LGBT older adults. LGBT older adults are less likely to be married or partnered than non-LGBT older adults, perhaps in part due to the prohibition of same-sex marriage Butler, ; Fredriksen-Goldsen et al.

A unique feature in the lives of LGBT adults is identity disclosure to others in their everyday life. Current cohorts of LGBT older adults have experienced social marginalization through their life due to discriminatory social contexts Fredriksen-Goldsen, According to Meyer , disclosing sexual identity may help LGB individuals build relationships with other sexual minority individuals although concealment of their sexual or gender identity seems to play a protective function in terms of reducing the number of discrimination and victimization events over their lifetime.

List of LGBT social networking services

The expression of sexual or gender identity is not only verbal but also behavioral; thus, the fear of being disclosed may lead to limiting social relationship, manifesting in smaller and less diverse acquaintance contacts. The goal of this article is to examine correlates of network size and network diversity using egocentric group-specific network data on social acquaintances from CAP Study, — Fredriksen-Goldsen et al. Based on social capital theory, we will test the following hypotheses:. Hypothesis 1: Background characteristics being gay or lesbian, female, younger age, non-Hispanic White, having higher income and education, being employed and having fewer chronic conditions , family relations having a partner or spouse and child , identity disclosure to best friends and neighbors , participation in religious activities, and service utilization will be positively associated with greater social network size.

Hypothesis 2: Background characteristics being gay or lesbian, female, younger age, non-Hispanic White, having higher income and education, being employed and having fewer chronic conditions , family relations having a partner or spouse and child , identity disclosure to best friends and neighbors , participation in religious activities, and service utilization will be positively associated with greater social network diversity.

The study was conducted through a collaboration with 11 community agencies from different regions of the United States, including some agencies that were LGBT specific and some that were serving older adults in general. Over a 6-month period from June to November , the agencies utilized their contact lists of older adults, aged 50 and above, to distribute invitation letters and paper questionnaires. The lists included people who have been in contact with the agencies and for whom contact information was available.

For agencies with electronic mailing lists, a similar Internet-based survey was used.

In addition, all follow-up reminders included an Internet-based survey option. Overall, 2, paper and Internet-based questionnaires were submitted and satisfied eligibility criteria LGBT adults 50 years of age and older. The questionnaire collected information on demographic characteristics, quality of life, physical and mental health, issues of receiving and providing care, and other risk and protective factors and life events. Detailed information regarding the data collection procedures is described elsewhere Fredriksen-Goldsen et al. The study asked about social acquaintances inside and outside the LGBT communities, including relationships with friends, colleagues, family members, and neighbors as reported by the respondent.


  1. Social Networks of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Older Adults;
  2. Eight Social Networking Sites for Men Who Love Men;
  3. List of LGBT social networking services - Wikipedia.
  4. Find love with the best LGBT dating apps for iOS and Android.
  5. keiran gay escort!

The social network measurement component of the questionnaire was limited in scope due to the potential for overall respondent burden. Note that we decided not to ask separate questions for every possible combination of sexual and gender identity because of substantial additional cognitive complexity that the expanded data collection instrument would have created.

We develop a modified summation index to estimate the network size of LGBT individuals.

The modified summation index uses groups defined by sexual identity, gender identity, and age because these groups reflect the basic composition of the population of interest better than typical relational categories. It has been shown that the summation method yields a valid and reliable proxy for the actual network size McCarty et al.

In the context of this article, for the purposes of concise exposition, we will refer to transgender adults as T, and to nontransgender lesbian, nontransgender gay men, and nontransgender bisexual groups as simply L, G, and B, respectively. We measure network diversity by counting the number of sexual identity and gender identity groups L, G, B, or T for which respondents reported nonzero networks from 0 to 5. Sexual identity was measured by asking participants to self-identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, heterosexual or straight, and other. Female participants who identified themselves as gay were recoded as lesbian.

Regarding their health conditions, participants were asked whether they had ever been told by a doctor that they had the following: We use the number of chronic conditions reported from 0 to 10 as an indicator of chronic health problems. For religious activity, we used three categories: The service utilization indicator 0 or 1 measures whether the respondent was a current user of programs or services for LGBT older adults.

We begin with a descriptive analysis of the social networks size and diversity. We then apply a series of multiple regression analyses to examine correlates of log-network size and network diversity among LGBT older adults. These cases were excluded from all analyses reported in this article. In addition, observations had missing values on covariates. Finally, 18 cases with zero social network sizes were removed from multiple regression analyses as the mechanisms related to the absence of network ties might be qualitatively different from mechanisms related to changes in magnitude of the social network ties.

This provided us with a sample size of 1, for the regression analyses. Correlations among all variables were examined to avoid multicollinearity issues. Thus, we used both of these measures in regression. To satisfy the assumptions of homoscedasticity and normality of residuals Weisberg, , we employed the logarithm transformation of the social network size variable. For the diversity variable, which is a count from 0 to 5, we employed two approaches: The ordinal logistic regression is more appropriate for ordered discrete outcomes than the linear regression that assumes linearity.

Introduction

However, in both analyses, the identified significant predictors and the directions of associations were the same. Because our focus is on identifying significant associations, we present results from the linear multiple regression analyses mentioned subsequently. Network information was available for 1, individuals, of whom there were lesbian nontransgender women, gay nontransgender men, 94 bisexual nontransgender men and women, and transgender men and women. The mean total network size was estimated to be Some respondents explained that high numbers of individuals in their acquaintance networks were due to their occupations e.

Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for the total network size by sexual and gender identity. Figure 2 provides the corresponding histograms of social network size, where the reported numbers of ties that were larger than the 95th percentile network size of or larger are not shown.

The distributions of network size look fairly similar across groups. The mean network diversity was estimated to be 3. Figure 2 also summarizes network diversity by sexual and gender identity categories of the respondent. For both gay male and lesbian older adults, the modal diversity was 3, indicating that more of these individuals reported social ties to three different sexual identity and gender identity groups among L, G, B, or T than to any other number of groups.

Transgender and bisexual individuals had greater diversity than gay and lesbian individuals, and their modal network diversity values were 5 and 4, respectively. Table 2 provides the number of respondents egos who reported social ties to individuals alters in the row categories L, G, B, T, or heterosexual. For example, of lesbian respondents, reported that they have social ties to gay male individuals.

The transgender participants showed the most even distribution of social ties across the four sexual and gender identity groups, while lesbian and gay male older adults showed the most affinity toward groups of similar sexual and gender identity. Note that Table 2 only provides a two-dimensional view on the reported social ties. Examination of the overall multivariate distribution of social ties across gender and sexual identity categories is beyond the scope of this article Morris, We performed multiple regression analyses for two outcome variables: Subsequently, we report results for cases with complete covariate information: The identified significant predictors and the directions of association were the same in the multiple imputation analysis as those reported here.

First, we used regression analyses to examine the relationship of social network size with sexual and gender identity, age-group, and gender. There were individuals between 50 and 64 years of age, —between 65 and 79, and —80 or older. We then used multiple regression analyses to examine associations between log-network size and diversity index of social networks and background characteristics, family relations, identity disclosure, and community involvement.

We considered including the survey mode—article or Internet—as an additional covariate but did not find significant mode effects net of other covariates. Of family relations, both having a partner or spouse and having a child had significant positive influence on social network size. Of identity disclosure factors, controlling for other covariates, being out to neighbor was positively associated with social network size, whereas being out to best friends was not.

Religious activity and service utilization were also positively associated with social network size. We note that, because of logarithm transformation, estimates should be interpreted on the multiplicative scale for network size. For example, controlling for other covariates, those being out to neighbor have networks that are 1. Log transformation was applied to social network size. Table 4 presents multiple regression results for network diversity as the outcome. Of background characteristics, younger age 50—65 and 65—80 vs.