When viewed over time, many gay men's relatnships are not static, or firmly fixed to monogamy or non-monogamy. This paper -pth terviews wh 61 Atralian gay men to explore how monogamy and non-monogamy are experienced over time, expectatns of what nstut the norms regardg gay …
Contents:
- NEGOTIATG GAY MEN'S RELATNSHIPS: HOW ARE MONOGAMY AND NON-MONOGAMY EXPERIENCED AND PRACTISED OVER TIME?
- THAT VIRAL STUDY CLAIMG MOST YOUNG GAY MEN WANT MONOGAMY SHOULDN’T BE TSTED
NEGOTIATG GAY MEN'S RELATNSHIPS: HOW ARE MONOGAMY AND NON-MONOGAMY EXPERIENCED AND PRACTISED OVER TIME?
Disver all facts and statistics on Homosexualy (gays and lbians) the U.S. on ! * gay monogamy statistics *
Mal, gay/lbian dividuals, bisexual dividuals, and those who intified as “Other, Non-Hispanic” were more likely to report open relatnships. Rearchers have rpond to the lls wh numero asssments of sexual behavr and health out among lbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenr (LGBT) persons.
MeasurDemographic Characteristics We rporated measur for sex (male, female), sexualy (heterosexual, gay, lbian, bisexual, other), genr inty (transgenr, nontransgenr), age (6 tegori, rangg om 18–24 to 65+), annual hoehold e (ordal sle rangg om 0/ls than $10, 000 to 9/$100, 000 or greater), tn (ls than high school, high school or GED, some llege, bachelor’s or higher), and race/ethnicy (Whe, Non-Hispanic; Black, Non-Hispanic; Other, Non-Hispanic; Hispanic). Due to sample size ncerns, and an tert rporatg sexualy and sex as separate variabl, we llapsed the sexualy variable to three tegori for data analysis cludg heterosexual, gay/lbian, and bisexual/other. Gay/lbian and bisexual participants were ls likely to report monogamy and more likely to report both CNM and NCNM (p <.
THAT VIRAL STUDY CLAIMG MOST YOUNG GAY MEN WANT MONOGAMY SHOULDN’T BE TSTED
* gay monogamy statistics *
Relatnship stcture was not associated wh sex, tn, or hoehold e bivariate 1Demographic characteristics by relatnship stctureFull samplen (%)Monogamyn (%)Openn (%)NCNMn (%)Relatnship stcture Monogamy2010 (89%)––– Open relatnship 83 (4%)––– Nonnsensual nonmonogamy 178 (8%)–––Sex Male1098 (48%)962 (48%)50 (61%)86 (49%) Female1172 (52%)1048 (52%)32 (39%)91 (51%)Sexualyc Heterosexual/straight2155 (94%)1937 (96%)51 (61%)166 (94%) Gay/lbian 58 (3%)34 (2%)19 (23%)4 (2%) Bisexual/other 58 (3%)38 (2%)12 (15%)8 (4%)Genr intya Transgenr 23 (1%)19 (1%)3 (4%)1 (0%) Nontransgenr2248 (99%)1991 (99%)80 (96%)177 (100%)Age 18–24 169 (7%)134 (7%)11 (13%)24 (14%) 25–34 510 (22%)470 (23%)15 (19%)15 (14%) 35–44 434 (19%)370 (18%)22 (27%)42 (24%) 45–54 397 (17%)347 (17%)17 (20%)33 (18%) 55–64 423 (19%)380 (19%)10 (12%)33 (18%) 65+ 338 (15%)309 (15%)8 (9%)21 (12%)Hoehold e Unr $10, 000 99 (4%)83 (4%)6 (7%)10 (6%) $10, 000–29, 999 329 (15%)271 (13%)19 (22%)41 (23%) $30, 000–49, 999 395 (17%)366 (18%)13 (16%)17 (9%) $50, 000–74, 999 439 (19%)395 (20%)13 (16%)31 (19%) $75–99, 999 376 (17%)331 (16%)12 (15%)33 (19%) $100, 000 or more 631 (28%)564 (28%)21 (25%)46 (26%)Edutn Ls than high school 235 (10%)193 (10%)14 (17%)27 (16%) High school 679 (30%)607 (30%)19 (23%)53 (30%) Some llege 648 (29%)566 (28%)28 (34%)54 (30%) Bachelor’s or higher 708 (31%)644 (32%)21 (26%)43 (24%)Race/ethnicyb Whe, Non-Hispanic1568 (69%)1413 (70%)44 (53%)111 (62%) Black, Non-Hispanic 228 (10%)183 (9%)13 (16%)32 (18%) Other, Non-Hispanic 153 (7%)137 (7%)11 (13%)5 (3%) Hispanic 322 (14%)277 (14%)15 (18%)30 (17%)As noted above, addnal bivariate analys addrsed relatnship stctur among participants wh different sexual orientatns.
When analyzg the whole sample, approximately 2% of heterosexual participants, 32% of gay participants, 5% of lbian participants, 22% of bisexual participants, and 14% of those who scribed their sexuali as “other” reported beg open relatnships; approximately 8% of heterosexual participants, 14% of gay participants, 6% of lbian participants, 18% of bisexual participants, and 6% of those who selected “other” for sexualy reported nonnsensual non-monogamy (p <.
When analyzg male participants, approximately 3% of heterosexual mal, 33% of gay mal, 23% of bisexual mal, and 24% of “other” mal reported open relatnships; approximately 8% of heterosexual mal, 14% of gay mal, 34% of bisexual mal, and 6% of “other” mal reported nonnsensual nonmonogamy (p <. When analyzg female participants, approximately 2% of heterosexual femal, 0% of gay femal, 5% of lbian femal, 22% of bisexual femal, and 8% of “other” femal reported open relatnships; approximately 7% of heterosexual femal, 0% of gay femal, 6% of lbian femal, 12% of bisexual femal, and 6% of “other” femal reported nonnsensual nonmonogamy (p <. Gay/lbian and bisexual/other dividuals were substantially more likely than heterosexual dividuals to report open relatnships (OR = 25.