Negotiatg gay men's relatnships: how are monogamy and non-monogamy experienced and practised over time? - PubMed

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.

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

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).

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

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.

A GUI FOR GAY MEN ON BOTH OPEN AND MONOGAMO MARRIAGE

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.