Syndemic Theory and Male Same Sex Intimate Partner Violence: An Urban/Non-Urban Comparison

Abstract

Background: The majority of research with gay men has been conducted in urban populations, with minimal work on partner violence in non-urban (suburban and rural) settings. Syndemic theory, the concept that negative health outcomes are increased with the addition of each new deleterious health variable, has been used to understand partner violence. The aim of the study was to determine differences in prevalence and associated factors of male same-sex intimate partner violence (MSSIPV) among gay men residing in urban versus non-urban settings. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with gay men in the state of California. Variables were identified from syndemic theory and included exposure to intimate partner violence, depression, sexual compulsivity, poly-drug use, and childhood sexual abuse. Results: Demographic differences were evident between urban and non-urban dwelling gay men. Rates of lifetime victimization and perpetration of MSSIPV between urban and non-urban gay men were not significant. In regard to syndemic variables, only childhood sexual abuse (CSA) showed any significant differences between the two populations. Being a victim of CSA increased the odds of being a lifetime victim of MSSIPV by a factor of five for non-urban participants and increased the odds of being a victim by a factor of three for all subjects. Moreover, being a victim of CSA increased the odds of being a lifetime perpetrator of MSSIPV by a factor of three for non-urban participants. Conclusion: This appears to be the first of its kind study differentiating between urban and non-urban MSM. More research is needed to verify our findings of demographic and syndemic differences between these two populations in order to fully understand and address the needs of all members of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) community.

A Scoping Review of Intimate Partner Violence as It Relates to the Experiences of Gay and Bisexual Men

“…A notable finding of the scoping review was the number of extracted studies that explored how gay and bisexual men experience distinctive stressors due to their sexual orientation. Such studies explored the distinctive social and cultural factors that impact men’s experiences of violence (Badenes-Ribera et al, 2017; Finneran et al, 2012; Meyer, 1995; Pimentel, 2015; Rollè et al, 2018). Those that examined the intersectionality between IPV and minority status often utilized the minority stress theory put forth by Meyer (1995).…”

“…Online surveys with 439 bisexual participants revealed that bisexual men were more likely to have higher levels of biphobia about their sexual identity (Turell et al, 2018). Focus groups revealed that bisexual women associated bisexual erasure to feelings of exclusion from LGBTQ health services (Flanders et al, 2017), a problematic finding, as cross-sectional surveys have highlighted that many sexual minority individuals experiencing IPV may not have access to specialized IPV services and may overly depend on LGBTQ-orientated services (Pimentel, 2015).…”

“…Research examining IPV in the heterosexual community (largely on self-identified female victims), in particular, has grown in abundance, emerging as a substantial evidence base. However, violence among gay and bisexual men is a hidden problem in society (Goldenberg et al, 2016; Pimentel, 2015) requiring further study and consideration (Stephenson et al, 2013). On the backdrop of a shortage of data (Houston & McKirnan, 2007; Stanley et al, 2006), this scoping review focuses on how gay and bisexual men experience IPV and how these experiences are reflected in the literature base.…”

“…Dickerson-Amaya and Coston’s (2019) study included bisexual, gay, and heterosexual men and reported victimization prevalence rates of IPV as 79%, 83%, and 62%, respectively, for these three cohorts, highlighting the added vulnerability of gay and bisexual men to IPV. Several studies have documented that gay and bisexual men experience rates of violence equivalent to or higher than heterosexual women (Finneran & Stephenson, 2013, 2014a; Frierson, 2014; Goldenberg et al, 2016; Houston & McKirnan, 2007; Kay & Jeffries, 2010; Pimentel, 2015; Rollè et al, 2018; Woodyatt & Stephenson, 2016).…”

“…Edwards et al (2015) suggested that the literature base on sexual minority individuals (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and nonheterosexual individuals) represented 3% of all research on IPV. Research that does pay attention to men in same-sex relationships relies heavily on targeted groups and small convenience samples (Bartholomew et al, 2008b; Finneran & Stephenson, 2014b; Stanley et al, 2006) and often recruits participants disproportionately from urban populations (Pimentel, 2015). Studies that do address same-sex violence reveal that typologies of violence for gay and bisexual men can mirror violence displayed by mixed-sex or heterosexual couples, including psychological, physical, and sexual abuse (Cruz & Firestone, 1998; Kay & Jeffries, 2010; Michael, 2006; Rollè et al, 2018).…”