What Do We Know about Gay and Lbian Coupl? on JSTOR

Contents:

• ABOUT THE CENTERSCE 1983 THE CENTER HAS BEEN SUPPORTG, FOSTERG AND CELEBRATG THE LGBT MUNY OF NEW YORK CY. FD MORE RMATN ON AND OUR WORK ABOUT THE CENTER. VIS ABOUT THE CENTEROUR MISSNCYBER CENTERCENTER HISTORYRACE EQUYMEDIA CENTERLEARSHIP & STAFFEMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNICORPORATE PARTNERSHIPSANNUAL REPORTS & FANCIAL INFORMATNCONTACT USHOURS & LOTNSEMAPSUPPORT THE CENTER
• PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS
• 15 STEREOTYP THAT LIM OUR PERCEPTNS OF GAY MEN
• CHARACTERISTICS AND ALLOWED BEHAVRS OF GAY MALE UPL’ SEXUAL AGREEMENTS
• ASPECTS OF GAY MALE COUPL’ SEXUAL AGREEMENTS VARY BY THEIR RELATNSHIP LENGTH
• RELATNSHIP CHARACTERISTICS AND MOTIVATNS BEHD AGREEMENTS AMONG GAY MALE COUPL: DIFFERENC BY AGREEMENT TYPE AND COUPLE SEROSTAT

ABOUT THE CENTERSCE 1983 THE CENTER HAS BEEN SUPPORTG, FOSTERG AND CELEBRATG THE LGBT MUNY OF NEW YORK CY. FD MORE RMATN ON AND OUR WORK ABOUT THE CENTER. VIS ABOUT THE CENTEROUR MISSNCYBER CENTERCENTER HISTORYRACE EQUYMEDIA CENTERLEARSHIP & STAFFEMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNICORPORATE PARTNERSHIPSANNUAL REPORTS & FANCIAL INFORMATNCONTACT USHOURS & LOTNSEMAPSUPPORT THE CENTER

Bee there is a arth of general rearch regardg this muny, and no studi to date that e quantative methods, we cid to explore this muny quantatively—g an Inter-nvenience sample, followed by a purposive suggted, the Bear culture exhibs and valu a greater sense of domant (but not necsarily domeerg) “thentic masculy” parison to other subcultur wh the gay muny (e. Whereas mastream gay men often do not engage sired or preferred sexual behavrs bee of fears of rejectn or judgment (Kamski, Chapman, Hayn, & Own, 2004), those the more acceptg Bear muny reject the fears due to their beg ultimately “feme” nature (Hennen, 2005). G., uratn, fistg, voyrism, exhibnism) (Grov, Parsons, & Bimbi, 2010) to the active existence of the Bear muny and regnn of this subculture by the larger gay/bisexual male culture, more rearch is need to explore the gree to which the prevly mentned physil, behavral, and psychologil differenc actually exist.

Consirg the likely prevalence of a Bear inty may be held (wh varyg tenaci) by about 14–22% of gay men, the rults provi addnal evince for the manift and latent heterogeney of gay and bisexual rults regardg body tras and partner selectn nfirm, for the first time a systematic manner, fdgs documented prev terview and ethnographic studi. A study that answers the rearch qutns would provi further evince to support the heterogeney hypothis: Not only is the mastream gay muny culturally heterogeneo, but so are the sexual health behavrs and problems wh last suggtn for future rearch would be to tt some of the theori generated by the current data. For stance, prr rearch has intified that gay men have UAI wh their ma partners as a way to foster and strengthen their mment to and satisfactn wh the relatnship (Davidovich, W, & Stroebe, 2006; Vroome, Stroebe, Sandfort, W, & Van Griensven, 2000; McLean et al., 1994; McNeal, 1997; Worth, Reid, & McMillan, 2002), as well as, to monstrate love, timacy, and tst for one another (Appleby, Miller, & Rothspan, 1999; Blais, 2006; Davidovich, W, & Stroebe, 2004; Vroome et al., 2000; McLean et al., 1994; McNeal, 1997; Worth et al., 2002) addn to practicg UAI wh their ma partners, some studi have intified a subgroup of gay men who also have UAI wh sual MSM partners (Chakravarty, Hoff, Neilands, & Darb, 2012; Gass, Hoff, Stephenson, & Sullivan, 2012; Mchell, Harvey, Champe, & Seal, 2012; Mchell & Petroll, 2012).

PHYSIL, BEHAVRAL, AND PSYCHOLOGIL TRAS OF GAY MEN INTIFYG AS BEARS

For example, among gay upl who practice UAI, men who received HIV-specific social support om their ma partners and those who had higher levels of mment and value to their sexual agreements were ls likely to have had UAI wh a sual MSM partner (Darb, Chakravarty, Beougher, Neilands, & Hoff, 2011; Mchell et al., 2012; Mchell & Petroll, 2012). To better asss HIV risk among gay male upl, rearch has begun to exame the role that sexual agreements may have on gay men’s practice of UAI wh their ma and their sual MSM partners (Crawford, Rodn, Kippax, & Van Ven, 2001; Davidovich, W, & Stroebe, 2000; Gass et al., 2012; Gomez et al., 2012; Hoff & Beougher, 2010; Hoff, Beougher, Chakravarty, Darb, & Neilands, 2010; Hoff et al., 2009; Kippax, Crawford, Davis, Rodn, & Dowsett, 1993; Kippax et al., 1997; Mchell et al., 2012; Mchell, Harvey, Champe, Moskowz, & Seal, 2011; Mchell & Petroll, 2012; Prtage et al., 2006; Prtage et al., 2008; Wheldon & Pathak, 2009) the U.

15 STEREOTYP THAT LIM OUR PERCEPTNS OF GAY MEN

S., Europe and Atralia, sexual agreements appear to be mon among gay male upl (Crawford et al., 2001; Davidovich et al., 2000; Elford, Boldg, Maguire, & Sherr, 1999; Gass et al., 2012; Hoff & Beougher, 2010; Mchell et al., 2012; More-Get, Jeann, Dubois-Arber, & Spencer, 2000; Prtage et al., 2006; Prtage et al., 2008). One particular type of an open sexual agreement is lled “negotiated safety”, which allows HIV-negative seronrdant gay male upl to practice UAI wh their relatnship as long as both partner’s serostat rema HIV negative and both men practice safer sex wh sendary partners (Kippax et al., 1997).

CHARACTERISTICS AND ALLOWED BEHAVRS OF GAY MALE UPL’ SEXUAL AGREEMENTS

Fdgs om the studi dite that between 48% and 98% of gay male upl formed a sexual agreement (Gass et al., 2012; Mchell et al., 2001; Prtage et al., 2006; Prtage et al., 2008), which clud upl wh closed monogamo sexual agreements or a variety of different open nonmonogamo sexual agreements (Adam, 2006; Bryant & Demian, 1994; Crawford et al., 2001; Hoff et al., 2009; LaSala, 2004a; 2004b; Parsons, Starks, DuBois, Grov, & Golub, 2011; Ramirez & Brown, 2010; Wagner, Remien, & Carballo-Dieguez, 2000; Wheldon & Pathak, 2009; Worth et al., 2002).

However, all of the studi llected data om nvenience sampl, which lims our abily to fively state how mon sexual agreements are among gay male agreements appear to be mon, not all gay male upl tablish a sexual agreement or ncur about aspects of their sexual agreements. For example, Wheldon & Pathak (2009) found that partnered gay men wh a high endorsement of normative masculy predicted that men would be more likely to have an open sexual agreement that permted UAI to occur outsi of their reasons that men break their sexual agreements and their attus toward disclosg those breaks to their ma partners have also been examed. Specifilly, we employed a novel recment and dyadic data llectn method to asss: 1) the prevalence, and characteristics of, sexual agreements among a natnal nvenience sample of gay male upl; 2) the sequence which upl discs their HIV stat, engage UAI, and tablish a sexual agreement; 3) the primary reasons for tablishg and breakg sexual agreements; 4) the primary reasons that men do and do not disclose breaks the sexual agreement to their ma partners; 5) the extent to which upl ncur about aspects of their sexual agreements; 6) which behavrs are allowed the upl’ sexual agreements; and 7) whether upl who ncurred about aspects of their sexual agreements (e.

ASPECTS OF GAY MALE COUPL’ SEXUAL AGREEMENTS VARY BY THEIR RELATNSHIP LENGTH

Table 1 scrib addnal tails about the socmographic and relatnship characteristics of the study sample of gay male upl, cludg how equent they engaged UAI wh and outsi of their 1Socmographic and Relatnship Characteristics of 361 Gay Male Coupl, 722 MSMIndividual-level characteristicN%Sexual orientatn Gay70998 Bisexual132Race/ethnicy Whe55977 Hispanic or Lato679 Ain Amerin284 Mixed race365 Othera325Hight tn level Some graduate school or pletn of adv. Addnal rmatn about the sampl’ sexual agreement characteristics is provid Table 3Characteristics of Sexual Agreements Reported by 506 Partnered Gay MenCharacteristicN%MSM who reported havg a sexual agreement wh ma partner50670Origal type of sexual agreementa Only have sex wh ma partner31963 Sex wh each other and allowed to have sex wh sual partners unr certa guil17134 Sex wh each other and allowed to have sex wh sual partners whout any guil163Current type of sexual agreementa Only have sex wh ma partner28456 Sex wh each other and allowed to have sex wh sual partners unr certa guil20641 Sex wh each other and allowed to have sex wh sual partners whout any guil163Discsed sexual agreement explicly when first tablished34869Sexual agreement ever broken the relatnship Y – by one or both men the uple15931 No – both men the uple kept their agreement34769Sexual agreement broken wh the prev three months Perceived that ma partner broke265 Self-reported break469Disclosed break to ma partner wh prev three monthsb No3270 Y1430Primary reason for disclosg recent break to ma partnerc We believe and practice open l of munitn wh each other857 I told him bee was jt the right thg to do17 Tst429 Part of our agreement clus full disclosure of any breaks17Primary reason for not disclosg recent break to ma partnerd I didn’t want to give him a reason to not tst me1753 I feared that the relatnship would end if I told him1031 I didn’t know how to tell him516MSDNumber of tim men reported talkg about their sexual agreemente4. Addnal dyad-level data of gay male upl’ sexual agreements are scribed Table 5Coupl’ Conrdance About Their Sexual Agreement Establishment, Type, Discsns, and AdherenceCharacteristicN%Establishment of a sexual agreement *** Coupl wh one male who reported havg a sexual agreement9225 Coupl wh both men who reported not havg a sexual agreement6217 Coupl wh both men who reported havg a sexual agreement20757Coupl who ncurred about their origal type of sexual agreement ***16680 Only have sex wh ma partnera10362 Sex wh each other and allowed to have sex wh sual partners unr certa guila6137 Sex wh each other and allowed to have sex wh sual partners whout any guila21Coupl who ncurred about their current type of sexual agreement ***17484 Only have sex wh ma partnerb9253 Sex wh each other and allowed to have sex wh sual partners unr certa guilb8147 Sex wh each other and allowed to have sex wh sual partners whout any guilb1< 1Type of discsn when sexual agreement was first tablished ** Coupl who ncurred their discsn was explicc12158 Coupl who ncurred their discsn was more implied and assumedc2211 Coupl who reported disrdance about their type of discsnc6431Sexual agreement ever broken relatnship *** Y – by both men the uple136 Y – by one male the uple7340 No – both men uple kept their agreement11254Sexual agreement broken relatnship wh prev three months *** Y – by both men the uple105 Y – by one male the uple3115 No – both men uple kept their agreement16680Allowed Behavrs of the Sexual AgreementAcrdg to the current type of sexual agreement, participants endorsed which behavrs they were allowed to engage wh their ma partner, other partners, and anyone/everyone.

RELATNSHIP CHARACTERISTICS AND MOTIVATNS BEHD AGREEMENTS AMONG GAY MALE COUPL: DIFFERENC BY AGREEMENT TYPE AND COUPLE SEROSTAT

The men among our Inter-based sample of gay upl dited that their risk of acquirg HIV and STIs was one of their most important reasons for why they formed a sexual agreement wh their study intified important fdgs regardg the stabily of sexual agreements over time.

As prevly mentned, we did not asss whether upl allowed UAI to occur outsi of their relatnship based on g seroadaptive risk rctn strategi and did not asss how other relatnship characteristics, such as tst and mment, affect aspects of the upl’ sexual further our unrstandg of how gay male upl’ sexual agreements affect an dividual’s and a uple’s risk for acquisn of HIV, future rearch mt explore the tersectn of allowed behavrs of sexual agreements wh certa seroadaptive risk rctn strategi among gay male upl.