FEMINIST FORUM REVIEW ARTICLE Homohysteria: Definitions, Context and Intersectionality Mark McCormack & Eric Anderson Published online: 7 August 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014 Abstract In this article, we engage with the commentaries of our Feminist Forum article (McCormack and Anderson 2014) by Parent et al. (2014), Plummer (2014), Worthen (2014) and Negy (2014) to enhance understanding of the concept homohysteria and to explore its application to a range of demographic groups. Developing a stage model of homohysteria that accounts for both increases and decreases in levels of homophobia in U.S. cultures, we focus on three key issues that were highlighted by the commentaries. First, we discuss the definitional clarity of homohysteria. Next, we argue that while it is important to recognize the diversity of sexualities in the U.S. and historically, it is primarily hetero- sexuals’ perceptions of homosexuality that are most impor- tant. Finally, we call for the incorporation of an intersectional and international approach that extends the concept beyond heterosexual men in the U.S. Keywords Gender . Heterosexuality . Homohysteria . Homophobia . Masculinities . Theory Introduction The liberalization of attitudes toward homosexuality in the U.S. that has occurred in the previous few decades has been one of the most profound attitudinal changes in U.S. culture (e.g. Baunach 2012; Keleher and Smith 2012; Loftus 2001). This has been shown to have had a significant positive effect on the lives of sexual minority youth (Anderson and McCor- mack 2014; Riley 2010; Savin-Williams 2005). It has also had a significant effect on the lives of heterosexual men as well (e.g. Anderson 2009; Dean 2013; Gottzén and Kremer-Sadlik 2012). As much of our focus in this article is on the U.S., all empirical studies use U.S. samples unless otherwise noted. It was the positive impact of decreasing homophobia on heterosexual men that formed the empirical base for our Feminist Forum article (McCormack and Anderson 2014). Over the previous decade, there has been a significant im- provement in the lives of heterosexual men (Adams 2011; Anderson 2009), particularly among younger generations (those called ‘millennials’). Whereas older research has shown that men adopted behaviors that were homophobic, aggressive and stoic (e.g. Derlega et al. 1989; Floyd 2000; Pollack 1999), resulting in men being physically alienated from each other (Field 1999), contemporary research shows a rejection of these behaviors for softer and more inclusive gender embodi- ment (Adams 2011; Anderson 2014; Luttrell 2012). In our original article (McCormack and Anderson 2014), we discussed six key ways that heterosexual men’ s gendered behaviors had expanded. These were: 1) the social inclusion of gay male peers; 2) the embrace of once-feminized artifacts; 3) increased emotional intimacy; 4) increased physical tactil- ity; 5) erosion of the one-time rule of homosexuality; 6) eschewing violence. We advanced homohysteria to explain these changes, and also explored how the concept might be applied in other ways. We are grateful for the opportunity to respond to the commentaries in this Feminist Forum. We are encouraged by the four papers, and now take the opportunity to use the commentaries and some of their primary critiques to further articulate and refine homohysteria as a concept. Motivation for Homohysteria The concept homohysteria was originally developed as part of inclusive masculinity theory—a theory that provides a way of understanding the stratification of masculinities in contempo- rary U.S. and U.K. cultures (Anderson 2009). We highlight that the ‘inclusive’ nomenclature of the theory relates to inclusivity of homosexuality among heterosexual men. It M. McCormack (*) School of Applied Social Sciences, Durham University, Durham DH1 3HN, UK e-mail: markmccormackphd@gmail.com E. Anderson Dept. of Sport Studies, University of Winchester, Winchester SO22 4NR, UK Sex Roles (2014) 71:152–158 DOI 10.1007/s11199-014-0401-9