Dyadic, Partner, and Social Network Influences on Intimate Partner Violence among Male-Male Couples

Abstract

Introduction: Despite a recent focus on intimate partner violence (IPV) among men who have sex with men (MSM), the male-male couple is largely absent from the IPV literature. Specifically, research on dyadic factors shaping IPV in male-male couples is lacking.Methods: We took a subsample of 403 gay/bisexual men with main partners from a 2011 survey of approximately 1,000 gay and bisexual men from Atlanta. Logistic regression models of recent (<12 month) experience and perpetration of physical and sexual IPV examined dyadic factors, including racial differences, age differences, and social network characteristics of couples as key covariates shaping the reporting of IPV.Results: Findings indicate that men were more likely to report perpetration of physical violence if they were a different race to their main partner, whereas main partner age was associated with decreased reporting of physical violence. Having social networks that contained more gay friends was associated with significant reductions in the reporting of IPV, whereas having social networks comprised of sex partners or closeted gay friends was associated with increased reporting of IPV victimization and perpetration.Conclusion: The results point to several unique factors shaping the reporting of IPV within male-male couples and highlight the need for intervention efforts and prevention programs that focus on male couples, a group largely absent from both research and prevention efforts.

Homophobia and Communal Coping for HIV Risk Management Among Gay Men in Relationships

“…In venue-based sampling, sampling occurs within prescribed blocks of time at specific venues (Stephenson, et al, 2013). Venue-based sampling uses a sampling frame of venue-time units to target hard-to-reach populations.…”

“…Venue-time units consist of locations and times where there is a higher prevalence of the target population as compared to the general community (Stephenson, et al, 2013). The venue sampling frame for this study consisted of over 160 venue-time units and included a variety of gay-friendly venues in the Atlanta area to target a diverse group of gay and bisexual men (Stephenson, et al, 2013). At least one recruitment event was selected per day using a randomized computer program that assigned venue-time units on a monthly basis.…”

“…During recruitment, study recruiters approached every n th man ( n varied between one and three) who crossed an imaginary line drawn by the recruiters at the venue (Stephenson, et al, 2013). The man was asked if he would be interested in finding out if he was eligible for a research study, and if so, a series of eight questions were asked to determine his eligibility, including his sexual orientation, recent sex (< six months) with a man, age, race, and place of residency (Stephenson, et al, 2013). Personal palm-held computers were used to record all responses for eligibility criteria.…”

“…The theoretical range of the scale from −40 to +40 was adjusted to 0 to 80 for ease of conceptualization. A score of 0 on the scale was suggestive of homosexual openness and pride, a score of 40 suggested neutrality, and an increasing score from 40 to 80 suggested increased internalized homophobia and decreased homosexual pride (Stephenson, et al, 2013). …”

“…The effects of the stress resulting from internalized homophobia can be mitigated or exacerbated, depending on the composition of MSM social networks. Research has shown HIV risk among MSM to be influenced by social networks through the provision of access to culturally appropriate services, role models, and social support in the community (Stephenson, et al, 2013). …”