Alternativ to Monogamy Among Gay Male Coupl a Communy Survey: Implitns for Mental Health and Sexual Risk - PMC

Contents:

• 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?
• ALTERNATIV TO MONOGAMY AMONG GAY MALE COUPL A COMMUNY SURVEY: IMPLITNS FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND SEXUAL RISK
• A GUI FOR GAY MEN ON BOTH OPEN AND MONOGAMO MARRIAGE

THAT VIRAL STUDY CLAIMG MOST YOUNG GAY MEN WANT MONOGAMY SHOULDN’T BE TSTED

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. 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 <.

While some studi dite that gay and bisexual mal are particularly likely to engage CNM, others argue that lbian and bisexual women have been neglected empiril rearch, which mak such patterns difficult to substantiate (Rubel & Bogaert, 2015).

NEGOTIATG GAY MEN'S RELATNSHIPS: HOW ARE MONOGAMY AND NON-MONOGAMY EXPERIENCED AND PRACTISED OVER TIME?

One benef of workg wh NSSHB data is that, 2012, this study oversampled sexual mory persons and provid distct post-stratifitn weights for analyzg subsampl of gay, lbian, and bisexual participants (Dodge et al., 2016). Last week, several LGBTQ-foced publitns reported on a study that claims an overwhelmg majory of younger gay men sire monogamy their relatnships, wh some 86 percent of upl surveyed claimg to be monogamo and 90 percent of sgle men “seekg monogamy. Many the gay muny have raised an eyebrow at the fdgs, given that they ntrast sharply wh personal experience and anecdotal knowledge a sexual culture where open relatnships and nonmonogamy of one sort or another are que mon.

ALTERNATIV TO MONOGAMY AMONG GAY MALE COUPL A COMMUNY SURVEY: IMPLITNS FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND SEXUAL RISK

As turns out, the doubts are jtified: The study, tled “Choic: Perspectiv of Younger Gay Men on Monogamy, Non-monogamy, and Marriage, ” is riddled wh methodologil problems to such an extent that ’s sentially worthls— 2016 and now. And when discsg gay relatnships, what is at stake is not only a qutn of scientific accuracy but of the accurate munitn of muny norms and valu both externally and among ourselv.

While the potential problems wh this unprofsnal approach are too numero to discs here, one of the most troublg aspects of the study is the fact that the thors claim to have disvered a marked and surprisg shift attus toward monogamy among gay men, even though is totally unclear whether their rponnts were reprentative of the gay male populatn at large. Th, while their claims about the clatn of younger gay men toward monogamy hge largely on their headle statistic that 90 percent of sgl the study exprsed a sire for a monogamo relatnship, this figure was rived by tentnally excludg a whole segment of sgl who appear, based on their app choice, likely to be ls vted monogamy. Ined, seems jt as likely that the rults may reveal a prevalence of nflicted attus toward monogamy among younger gays as they do a strong clatn toward .

Study sign asi, what’s really troublg here is the polil signifince of the thors’ terpretg the fdgs as revealg a novel or prevly obscure shift gay male attus toward love and sex. First, they claim that “younger gay men have the optn of adoptg to the norms of the heterosexual majory and beg tegrated to the mastream” and send, that g out younger has meant that gay men are no longer relyg on an unrground culture of anonymo sex, nor are they experiencg “prolonged perds of sexual adolcence. In sence, the thors have nstcted a flimsy argument for the evable triumph of assiatn to tradnal relatnship valu as a product of improved civil rights for gay people, the drag of objectivy offered by cg numbers.

A GUI FOR GAY MEN ON BOTH OPEN AND MONOGAMO MARRIAGE

Beyond jt addg noise to the larger set of fdgs om better studi on monogamy trends among gay men, the study lends self, whether tentnally or not, to supportg an agenda of rpectabily polics—and the same go for the sloppy reportg on . Addnal data om YouGov Profil suggts that Amerins who intify as heterosexual/straight (22%) are about half as likely as sexual mori (46%) – meang those who intify as lbian, gay, bisexual, or “other” – to say they are terted havg an open relatnship.

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 men's relatnships and how upl experience and practic change. The fdgs shed light on how gay men approach change to the stat of 'fily' wh their relatnships, and the tensns and opportuni that change n produce for upl. Published fal eded form as:PMCID: PMC5830303NIHMSID: NIHMS942217AbstractRearchers have documented the psychologil and physil health benefs of beg a relatnship among heterosexuals, although there has been limed rearch to exame such benefs among gay and bisexual men.

In orr to better unrstand the psychologil and behavral impact of same-sex relatnships on the health of gay and bisexual men, mographic characteristics, psychologil factors, sexual behavr, and substance e data were examed a sample of 819 gay and bisexual men who self-intified as sgle (n=503) or were classified as beg monogamo (n=182), open (n=71) or monogamish (n=63) relatnships. Gay and bisexual men monogamish relatnships more closely rembled those monogamo relatnships, terms of psychologil and sexual health benefs, rather than men open relatnships, suggtg that varyg forms of non-monogamy should be explored for their relevance to health behavrs. Limed rearch has explored the benefs of partnered relatnships among gay men, and even ls rearch has explored the associatns wh different gay male relatnship arrangements (e.