Associations Between Methods of Meeting Sexual Partners and Sexual Practices Among Heterosexuals: Cross-sectional Study in Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

Background The association between meeting partners on the web and sexual practices has been understudied in heterosexuals. Objective This study aims to examine the associations between the methods of meeting partners and sexual practices and HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in heterosexuals. Methods We conducted a survey among heterosexuals attending the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre in 2019. This survey asked about the methods through which the participants engaged in meeting their sexual partners, sexual practices, and intravenous drug use (IVDU) over the past 3 months. The participants’ HIV and STI (chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis) status was obtained from clinical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was used to examine the association between each method of meeting and the participants’ sexual practices, IVDU, and STI status. Results A total of 698 participants (325 men and 373 women) were included in the study. Most of the participants reported using only one method to meet partners (222/325, 68.3% men; 245/373, 65.7% women; P=.05). The men met partners most commonly at social venues (eg, bar, pub, or party; 126/325, 38.8%), whereas the women met partners most commonly through friends or family (178/373, 47.7%). Paying for sex was associated with men meeting partners at sex venues (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] 145.34, 95% CI 26.13-808.51) and on the internet (AOR 10.00, 95% CI 3.61-27.55). There was no association between IVDU and methods of meeting. Social venues were associated with condomless vaginal sex among men (AOR 3.31, 95% CI 1.94-5.71) and women (AOR 2.58, 95% CI 1.61-4.13) and testing positive for STI among men (AOR 3.04, 95% CI 1.24-7.48) and women (AOR 3.75, 95% CI 1.58-8.89). Conclusions Heterosexuals who met partners at social venues had a more than threefold risk of testing positive for STIs, indicating that heterosexuals may benefit from health promotion campaigns that are delivered through a public setting.

What's love got to do with it? Exploring the role of universities and third places in supporting human mate choice

“…Such responses suggest students may be concerned to overstep any boundaries related to the application of mate choice social behaviours outside of traditional contexts like social venues or meeting via family and friends (Constantinou et al ., 2021). In these traditional and socially accepted situations, it is often an explicit expectation that both parties are actively searching for a mate, thereby mutually clarifying social behaviours and establishing goal congruence for value creation.…”

A cross-sectional study of male and female kissing partners among men who have sex with men

“…We conducted a cross-sectional survey named 'Annual Sexual Practices and Activities (ASAP)' at the Melbourne Sexual Health Centre (MSHC) between March and April 2019. 22,24,25 The MSHC is the largest public sexual health clinic in Victoria, Australia, and it provided approximately 50 000 consultations in 2019. Clients attending the MSHC are asked to complete a series of questions on demographic characteristics and sexual practices via computer-assisted self-interviewing (CASI) as part of routine care and management.…”

“…Past studies have examined same-sex kissing partners among MSM 13,[18][19][20] or opposite-sex kissing partners among heterosexuals. 21,22 Some MSM would also have sex with women and it is unclear how commonly MSM would kiss women with and without sex. Given oropharyngeal gonorrhoea is mostly asymptomatic 9 and MSM have a high prevalence of oropharyngeal gonorrhoea, 8,23 it is possible that gonorrhoea can be transmitted between MSM and women via kissing in the absence of sex.…”

Online partner seeking and high-risk behaviour in men who have sex with men and male-to-female transgendered people in Mumbai, India: Implications for prevention strategies

“…Garga and co-workers found that individuals with more than one sexual partner, those who have high-risk behaviour, and those who have casual sex without discussion about sexually transmitted infections were more likely to use these dating apps [6]. Another study found that men who found their partners online were more likely to pay for sex compared with those who met partners at social venues [7]. A meta-analysis found that sexual encounters that were initiated online were more likely to have unprotected anal intercourse, whereas recent studies have found that app-users were more likely to have sexually transmitted infections (gonorrhea, chlamydia, and syphilis) [8][9][10].…”