Gay & LGBTQ+ Open Relatnship Counselg| Gay Therapy Center

Contents:

• MANY SUCCSFUL GAY MARRIAG SHARE AN OPEN SECRET

MANY SUCCSFUL GAY MARRIAG SHARE AN OPEN SECRET

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 <. 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 <. 001; six femal intified as gay, and all of them further scribed their relatnships as monogamo). Gay/lbian and bisexual/other dividuals were substantially more likely than heterosexual dividuals to report open relatnships (OR = 25.

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). 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). It’s not jt a gay male thg: Sexual mory women and men are equally attracted to nsensual non-monogamy.

Gay, lbian, and bisexual Amerins are more likely than heterosexual people to exprs tert open relatnships. 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. Among lennials who intify as gay, lbian, bisexual or other, 52% would be terted open relatnships.

But they knew om the begng that their bond would be fed on their own terms, cludg what they ll “play” wh other the trial phase of the nstutnal battle to overturn the Proposn 8 ban on same-sex marriage nclus feral urt, gay nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewre the tradnal l of matrimony. Quietly, outsi of the news media and urtroom spotlight, many gay upl are dog jt that, acrdg to groundbreakg new rearch. A study to be released next month is offerg a rare glimpse si gay relatnships and reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many.