Intimate Partner Violence Reported by Lesbian-, Gay-, and Bisexual-Identified Individuals Living in Canada: An Exploration of Within-Group Variations

Abstract

Although research has examined intimate partner violence (IPV) within lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) communities, contradictory evidence exists regarding variations in IPV within this diverse population. Using data from a nationally representative Canadian survey, we examined differences in rates and severity of LGB IPV based on sexual orientation, gender, sociodemographic factors, and previous experiences of discrimination. Individuals who were bisexual, younger, currently single, less educated, and who experienced physical/mental limitations were more likely to experience IPV. Compared to gays and lesbians, bisexuals reported more incidents of violence and higher rates of injury. Implications for research and theory development are provided.

When Intimate Partner Violence Meets Same Sex Couples: A Review of Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence

“…Despite the myth that IPV is only an issue in heterosexual relationships, its occurrence among LGB couples was demonstrated to be comparable to or higher than heterosexual cases (Messinger, 2011; Kelley et al, 2012; Barrett and St.Pierre, 2013; Breiding et al, 2013). While similarities between heterosexual and LGB IPV (such as general patterns, types, outcomes, cycle of violence and use of substances) were found (McLaughlin and Rozee, 2001; Buford et al, 2007; Cain et al, 2008; Hequembourg et al, 2008), unique features and dynamics were present in LGB IPV, which were implicated in identifying and treating IPV among the community (Merrill and Wolfe, 2000; Carvalho et al, 2011; Bowen and Nowinsky, 2012; Gill et al, 2013).…”

“…However, a growing body of empirical research does exist, thereby offering important observations and considerations regarding LGB IPV. Previous studies primarily examined the prevalence of IPV in the homosexual and bisexual population (Turell, 2000; Messinger, 2011; Barrett and St.Pierre, 2013; Breiding et al, 2013), LGB specific features in IPV (Merrill and Wolfe, 2000; Balsam and Szymanski, 2005; Bartholomew et al, 2006; Carvalho et al, 2011; Edwards and Sylaska, 2013; Gill et al, 2013) and barriers to treatment (McClennen et al, 2002; Ard and Makadon, 2011). There are only a few publications on treatments and interventions for LGB IPV (Browning et al, 1991; McClennen et al, 2002; Dixon and Peterman, 2003; Ristock and Timbang, 2005; Buford et al, 2007; Fountain and Skolnik, 2007; Herrmann and Turell, 2008; Ard and Makadon, 2011; Quillin and Strickler, 2015).…”

“…Some studies (Balsam and Szymanski, 2005; Carvalho et al, 2011; Finneran and Stephenson, 2014) showed the existence of a relationship between experienced discrimination and a higher risk of IPV. On the other hand, studies on the relationship between experienced discrimination and risk of SSIPV victimization are contradictory: some indicated the existence of such a relationship (Carvalho et al, 2011; Andrews et al, 2014; Finneran and Stephenson, 2014), while some denied it (Barrett and St.Pierre, 2013; Andrews et al, 2014). …”

“…IPV in the LGB population has not been studied as frequently as in the heterosexual population: in 2015, research on LGB IPV constituted a mere 3% of the total research on the subject (Edwards et al, 2015). Even though there are a few studies on Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence (SSIPV), they highlight that the phenomenon occurs at a rate that is comparable (Turell, 2000) or even higher than heterosexual IPV (Messinger, 2011; Kelley et al, 2012; Barrett and St.Pierre, 2013). It can be difficult to identify LGB IPV prevalence rates due to the different methodologies used in the researches.…”

Gender and Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence: A Systematic Literature Review

“…These results contrast those found by Costa and colleagues (2011), in which SSPIV rates are higher than OSIPV rates, and by Santos and Caridade (2017), in which prevalence rates in SSIPV are alarming (perpetration rates of 92.3% and victimization rates of 91.7%). It is important to point out that there is no consensus in the literature about prevalence rates in SSIPV (Barret & Pierre, 2013). Discrepancies between studies may be due to methodological issues (Barret & Pierre, 2013;Calton et al, 2015), similar to diff erences in the types and sizes of samples and/or diff erences in defi nitions of violence (Antunes & Machado, 2005;Calton et al, 2015;Hester & Donovan, 2009;Santaya & Walters, 2011;Walters, 2011).…”