Sexual Agreements Research Articles

Australian Gay Men’s Satisfaction with Sexual Agreements: The Roles of Relationship Quality, Jealousy, and Monogamy Attitudes

This study examined whether relationship quality, dispositional jealousy, and attitudes towards monogamy were associated with gay men's satisfaction with the agreements they have in their relationships about extra-dyadic sex. Three types of sexual agreement were examined: closed (no extra-dyadic sex is allowed), monogamish (extra-dyadic sex is allowed only when both members of the couple are present), and open (extra-dyadic sex is allowed). Results from a 2010 survey of 772 gay men in relationships indicated that sexual agreement satisfaction was positively associated with levels of intimacy and commitment for all three types of sexual agreement, but was differentially associated with sexual satisfaction within the relationship, jealousy, and monogamy attitudes as a function of sexual agreement type. Mean levels of sexual satisfaction, jealousy, and monogamy attitudes also differed between types of agreement. These findings provided preliminary evidence that sexual agreement satisfaction may be influenced by different factors depending on the type of agreement, which has useful implications for professionals with gay male clients experiencing dissatisfaction with their agreement or with their relationship more generally.

The Prevalence of Undiagnosed HIV Serodiscordance Among Male Couples Presenting for HIV Testing

In the United States, a substantial proportion of HIV transmissions among men who have sex with men (MSM) arise from main sex partners. Couples voluntary HIV testing and counseling (CHTC) is used in many parts of the world with male-female couples, but CHTC has historically not been available in the U.S. and few data exist about the extent of HIV serodiscordance among U.S. male couples. We tested partners in 95 Atlanta male couples (190 men) for HIV. Eligible men were in a relationship for ≥3 months and were not known to be HIV-positive. We calculated the prevalence of couples that were seroconcordant HIV-negative, seroconcordant HIV-positive, or HIV serodiscordant. We evaluated differences in the prevalence of HIV serodiscordance by several dyadic characteristics (e.g., duration of relationship, sexual agreements, and history of anal intercourse in the relationship). Overall, among 190 men tested for HIV, 11 % (n = 20) were newly identified as HIV-positive. Among the 95 couples, 81 % (n = 77) were concordant HIV-negative, 17 % (n = 16) were HIV serodiscordant, and 2 % (n = 2) were concordant HIV-positive. Serodiscordance was not significantly associated with any evaluated dyadic characteristic. The prevalence of undiagnosed HIV serodiscordance among male couples in Atlanta is high. Offering testing to male couples may attract men with a high HIV seropositivity rate to utilize testing services. Based on the global evidence base for CHTC with heterosexual couples and the current evidence of substantial undiagnosed HIV serodiscordance among U.S. MSM, we recommend scale-up of CHTC services for MSM, with ongoing evaluation of acceptability and couples' serostatus outcomes.

Sexual risk for HIV among gay male couples: a longitudinal study of the impact of relationship dynamics.

While the relationship context itself is increasingly being examined to understand sexual risk behavior among gay male couples, few studies have examined relationship dynamics and HIV risk longitudinally. We aimed to investigate relationship dynamics and psychosocial predictors of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) with outside partners of serodiscordant or unknown HIV serostatus (UAIOUT) over time as well as UAI with primary partner in serodiscordant couples (UAIPP). We recruited a sample of 566 ethnically diverse, seroconcordant and serodiscordant couples and interviewed them six times over the course of 3 years. The surveys encompassed relationship dynamics between the partners and sexual behavior with primary and outside partners. We fit generalized linear mixed models for both the UAI outcomes with time and relationship dynamics as predictors while controlling for relationship length. Analyses of the longitudinal data revealed that, in both categories of couples, those with higher levels of positive relationship dynamics (e.g., commitment, satisfaction) were less likely to engage in UAIOUT. Higher investment in sexual agreement and communication were among the factors that significantly predicted less UAIOUT for seroconcordant couples, but not for the serodiscordant couples. For serodiscordant couples, greater levels of attachment and intimacy were associated with greater odds of UAIPP while increased HIV-specific social support was associated with lower odds of UAIPP. These results underscore the importance of creating and tailoring interventions for gay couples that help maintain and strengthen positive relationship dynamics as they have the potential to produce significant changes in HIV risk behavior and thereby in HIV transmission.

Gay male couples' attitudes toward using couples-based voluntary HIV counseling and testing.

Many men who have sex with men acquire HIV from their primary male partners while in a relationship. Studies with gay couples have demonstrated that relationship characteristics and testing behaviors are important to examine for HIV prevention. Recently, couples-based voluntary HIV counseling and testing (CVCT) has become available to male couples throughout the U.S. However, HIV-negative couples' attitudes toward using CVCT and how their relationship characteristics may affect their use of CVCT remain largely unknown. This information is particularly relevant for organizations that offer CVCT. To assess couples' attitudes, and associated factors toward using CVCT, a cross-sectional study design was used with a novel Internet-based recruitment method to collect dyadic data from a national sample of 275 HIV-negative gay couples. Multivariate multilevel modeling was used to identify factors associated with differences between and within couples about their attitudes towards using CVCT. Findings revealed that couples were "somewhat" to "very likely" to use CVCT. More positive attitudes toward using CVCT were associated with couples who had higher levels of relationship satisfaction and commitment toward their sexual agreement and among those who had at least one partner having had sex outside of the relationship. Less positive attitude toward using CVCT was associated with couples who had higher levels of trust toward their partners being dependable. Differences within couples, including age between partners, whether sex had occurred outside of the relationship, and value toward a sexual agreement also affected their attitudes toward using CVCT. Providing additional testing methods may help HIV-negative gay couples better manage their HIV risk.

Characteristics and Allowed Behaviors of Gay Male Couples’ Sexual Agreements

Research has shown that gay male couples’ sexual agreements may affect their risk for HIV. Few U.S. studies have collected dyadic data nationally from gay male couples to assess what sexual behaviors they allow to occur by agreement type and the sequence of when certain behaviors occur within their relationships. In our cross-sectional study, dyadic data from a convenience sample of 361 male couples were collected electronically throughout the United States by using paid Facebook ads. Findings revealed that couples discussed their HIV status before having unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) but established their agreement some time after having UAI. About half of the couples (N = 207) concurred about having an agreement. Among these couples, 58% concurred about explicitly discussing their agreement, 84% concurred about having the same type of agreement, and 54% had both men adhering to it. A variety of sexual behaviors were endorsed and varied by agreement type. Concordance about aspects of couples’ agreements varied, suggesting the need to engage couples to be more explicit and detailed when establishing and communicating about their agreements. The allowed behaviors and primary reasons for establishing and breaking sexual agreements further highlight the need to bolster HIV prevention for gay male couples.

Relationship characteristics associated with sexual risk behavior among MSM in committed relationships.

Understanding situations that increase HIV risk among men who have sex with men (MSM) requires consideration of the context in which risky behaviors occur. Relationships are one such context. This study examines the presence and predictors of unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) in the past 3 months among 566 MSM couples. A majority of couples allowed sex with outside partners. Overall, 65% of the sample engaged in UAI with primary partner, including nearly half of discordant couples. Positive relationship factors, such as attachment and intimacy, were associated with an increased likelihood of UAI with primary partner. Meanwhile, 22% of the sample engaged in at least one episode of UAI with an outside partner, half of whom were discordant or unknown HIV status outside partners. Higher levels of HIV-specific social support, equality, and sexual agreement investment were significantly associated with a decreased likelihood of engaging in UAI with a discordant or unknown HIV status outside partner. HIV-positive men in discordant relationships had two and one half times the odds of having UAI with a discordant or unknown HIV status outside partner as their HIV-negative partners. Many MSM in relationships, including some in serodiscordant ones, engage in UAI with primary partners. Potential explanations include relationship closeness, relationship length, and agreement type. In addition, relationship context appears to have a differential impact upon UAI with primary and outside partners, implying that prevention messages may need to be tailored for different types of couples. Prevention efforts involving MSM couples must take into account relationship characteristics as couples balance safer sex and HIV risk with intimacy and pleasure.

Non-monogamy and sexual relationship quality among same-sex male couples.

Relationship arrangements about sex with outside partners are common among gay couples, and meaningful distinctions in psychological and behavioral health correlates have been found among nonmonogamous agreement types. The goal of this study was to investigate the relationship between sexual agreements and partners' sexual relationship quality. Data were collected from both members of 161 gay male couples (n = 322 individuals). Couples were categorized as monogamous (52.8%), open (13.0%), monogamish (14.9%), and discrepant (19.3%). We used the actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) to assess associations of relationship arrangement with four aspects of sexual relationship quality: sexual satisfaction, sexual communication, sexual jealousy, and the occurrence of at-least weekly sex between main partners. We found that sexual arrangements were not associated with sexual satisfaction, communication, or frequency. However, monogamous men reported significantly higher levels of sexual jealousy. Our findings indicate that gay men engage in a range of relationship agreements, and nonmonogamous agreements are associated with levels of sexual relationship quality equivalent to monogamous agreements.

Satisfaction with Open Sexual Agreements in Australian Gay Men’s Relationships: The Role of Perceived Discrepancies in Benefit

This study investigated whether satisfaction with open sexual agreements in gay men's relationships was associated with perceptions of discrepancies in the benefit experienced from those agreements. Three types of perceived discrepancy between the self and the relationship partner were examined: frequency of casual sex, attractiveness of casual partners, and "overall" benefit. Results from a survey conducted in 2010 of 685 Australian gay men in relationships with open agreements showed that men perceiving discrepancies in benefit, particularly those representing "under-benefit", were less satisfied with their agreement than were men perceiving equal benefit. These results supported hypotheses derived from equity theory and provide insight into factors associated with gay men's satisfaction with open agreements. These findings also have important practical implications. Professionals counselling gay men or couples experiencing low satisfaction with open agreements may consider raising issues of unequal benefit and work with their clients towards achieving equality.

Actor-partner effects of demographic and relationship factors associated with HIV risk within gay male couples.

Recent research has investigated the association of relationship factors and dynamics with sexual behaviors and HIV risk among gay male couples. However, few studies with gay male couples have used the Actor-Partner Interdependence Model framework to examine whether factors influence an individual and his partner's sexual risk behaviors. None of these studies analyzed whether relationship factors had influenced the sexual risk behaviors of both partners within the couple. Our cross-sectional study used dyadic data from 142 gay male couples to assess actor-partner effects of relationship commitment, trust, and investment in one's sexual agreement for HIV risk. Multilevel modeling was used to examine which actor-partner effects of these factors were predictive of individuals and their partners having had UAI within and outside the relationship. Results indicated that participants' likelihood of having had UAI within and outside of the relationship significantly decreased with: (1) actor effects of value in and commitment to a sexual agreement, and quality of alternatives to the relationship and (2) partner effects of participant's age, dependability of trust, quality of alternatives to the relationship, and investment of relationship commitment. No significant actor-partner effects were detected for having had UAI within the relationship. Our findings suggest that future HIV prevention strategies should take into account how relationship factors influence an individual and his main partners' sexual risk behaviors and in turn, the couple's risk for HIV. However, more research is needed to examine how actor-partner effects of relationship factors influence a variety of sexual risk behaviors within gay male couples.

Factors Associated with Men in HIV-Negative Gay Couples Who Practiced UAI Within and Outside of Their Relationship

Despite recent advances in research with gay male couples, less data exists about men who have had UAI within and outside of their HIV-negative seroconcordant relationship. Multilevel modeling with dyadic data from 142 couples was used to identify the characteristics associated with men who have had UAI with both their main partner and a casual MSM partner within the same timeframe. Analyses revealed that men were more likely to have had UAI within and outside of their relationship if they perceived their main partner has had a recent HIV test. Men were less likely to have had UAI within and outside of their relationship if they valued their sexual agreement and reported having a sexual agreement that does not allow sex outside of their relationship. Research with a more diverse sample of couples is warranted. Future interventions must consider the complexity of relationships and sexual behaviors among gay male couples.

Sexual agreements in the partnerships of Internet-using men who have sex with men

Recent studies among men who have sex with men (MSM) have found that the majority of HIV transmission results from sex with a main partner. One factor likely to affect the risk of transmission is the type of agreements the couple has regarding sexual behaviour within and outside the relationship. This study recruited 732 Internet-using MSM through Facebook banner ads. Participants completed an online questionnaire regarding demographic characteristics of the respondent and their main partner, the sexual behaviour of the couple, the existence of a sexual agreement, and the strength of investment in that agreement. The Pearson chi-square test was used to assess the association between sexual agreements (categorized as open, closed, or none) and the predictive variables. Respondents' investment in their sexual agreement was measured using the sexual agreement investment scale (a composite score ranging from 0 to 52). Ninety-one percent of respondents had some form of sexual agreement in place with their main partner. The presence and type of sexual agreement was found to be strongly associated with many characteristics of the individual and couple, including the respondent's HIV status, length of time with the main partner, having unprotected anal intercourse with a man other than their main partner, and happiness in the relationship. Increases in the strength of respondents' investment in their sexual agreement were found to be associated with newness of the relationship, relationship happiness, having a closed relationship, and decreases in risky sexual behaviour. This study offers further evidence of the important role that sexual agreements play in male couples. The overwhelming prevalence of sexual agreements and their association with relationship happiness and risky sexual behaviours has important implications for future HIV prevention and control strategies, including the implementation of couples voluntary counseling and testing.

The impact of parenting on gay male couples' relationships, sexuality, and HIV risk.

Parenthood changes couples' relationships across multiple domains, generally decreasing relationship quality, sexual satisfaction, and sexual frequency. Emerging research suggests that gay couples who are parenting might experience similar challenges. However, such changes might have even more profound implications for gay couples' health, and in particular their HIV risk, given the somewhat different ways in which they negotiate and tolerate sexual behaviors with outside partners. We aimed to examine these issues in a qualitative analysis of interviews from 48 gay male couples who were actively parenting children. Findings suggest that parenthood increases men's commitment to their primary relationship while simultaneously decreasing time and energy for relationship maintenance, and generally decreasing sexual satisfaction. These challenges alone did not generally result in greater infidelity or HIV risk, as most men reported successfully coping with such changes through a combination of acceptance and revaluing what is important in their relationships. Additionally, couples reported negotiating agreements regarding sex with outside partners that closely resemble those documented in studies of gay couples who are not parents. Men reported that parenthood typically decreased their opportunities to engage in sex with outside partners, but also posed barriers to talking about these behaviors with their partners and healthcare providers. HIV-related sexual risk behavior was relatively rare, but nevertheless present in some men. Providers should assess sexual function as a regular part of their work with gay couples who parent, and facilitate opportunities for men to discuss their sexual agreements both with their primary partners and with relevant healthcare providers.

Relationship factors associated with gay male couples' concordance on aspects of their sexual agreements: establishment, type, and adherence.

Factors associated with gay male couples' concordance on aspects of sexual agreements remain understudied. The present study examined which relationship factors, self-reports of UAI, and patterns of HIV testing may be associated with men who were concordant about having a sexual agreement, the same type of sexual agreement, and adhering to their sexual agreement with their main partner. Various recruitment strategies were used to collect dyadic data from 142 gay male couples. Concordance on aspects of sexual agreements varied within the sample. Results indicated that relationship satisfaction was significantly associated with couples who were concordant about having and adhering to their sexual agreement. Predictability and faith of trusting a partner, and value in one's sexual agreement were also positively associated with couples' adhering to their sexual agreement. More research is needed to better understand how relationship dynamics, including sexual agreements, affect HIV risk among gay male couples in the U.S.

Sexual Agreement Classifications for Gay and Bisexual Men and Implications for Harm Reduction HIV Prevention

HIV prevention educators frequently encourage gay and bisexual men (GBM) to negotiate condom use prior to sexual engagement. Identifying groups of GBM based on their presexual agreements can aid efforts to tailor interventions. Using cross-sectional data from 1,188 GBM who reported having sex with a nonprimary sex partner in the 90 days prior to the survey, the authors identified presexual agreement patterns. For both HIV-positive and HIV-negative GBM, two groups existed: men agreeing to no anal sex and men agreeing to anal sex with condoms. Among HIV-negative participants, there was a group agreeing to anal sex without specifying condom use. Among HIV-positive participants, there was a group agreeing to anal sex without condoms; this was the largest group of HIV-positive participants. Despite a presexual agreement to use condoms, substance use during sex increased the risk of unprotected anal sex. Suggestions for applying harm reduction to HIV prevention based on agreement classifications are discussed.

Relationship factors associated with HIV risk among a sample of gay male couples.

More HIV prevention research is needed to better understand how relationship factors may affect sexual risk behaviors among gay male couples. Our cross-sectional study collected dyadic data from 144 gay male couples to examine which relationship factors and characteristics were associated with men having UAI with a secondary sex partner. We targeted male couples by using a variety of recruitment strategies. Multilevel random-effects logistic regression modeling was used to examine which factors were predictive of men in gay couples who had UAI with a secondary sex partner. Analyses revealed that men were less likely to have had UAI with a secondary sex partner if they reported being in a strictly monogamous relationship, receiving an HIV test within the previous 3 months, and being committed to their sexual agreement. Future HIV prevention interventions must consider how relationship factors may influence sexual risk behaviors among gay male couples.

The couple as context: Latino gay male couples and HIV

HIV-prevention efforts with gay men in relationships frequently omit primary partners. When they are considered, examinations of race/ethnicity are often overlooked despite higher infection rates among gay men of colour. Acknowledging both the need to contextualise the behaviours that may affect HIV risk for gay men of colour and the disproportionate impact of HIV on Latino gay men, the present study utilised semi-structured, qualitative interviews to explore relationship dynamics, sexual agreements and behaviours, safer sex choices and HIV risk among nine Latino gay male couples. All participants were HIV-negative and in concordant negative relationships. Additionally, nearly all reported closed agreements. Analysis revealed participants engaging in four behaviours that may actively reduce their HIV risk: approaching sexual agreements from a practical standpoint, maintaining a high literacy around HIV, having exposure to social support groups for Latino gay men and finding support in their relationship with another Latino gay man. Additional issues are raised where long-term HIV prevention is concerned. Intimate relationships are an important context for understanding both HIV risk and prevention among Latino gay men. Likewise, race/ethnicity provides an indispensable perspective on all research with gay couples. Future prevention efforts with gay men must strive to include both.

Masculinity and Relationship Agreements among Male Same-Sex Couples

Extradyadic sex is a significant source of risk for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men in same-sex relationships. Nonmonogamous sexual agreements are common among male same-sex couples and may serve as effective targets for risk reduction interventions; however, there is a dearth of research reporting on the social and cultural determinants of explicit nonmonogamous agreements. In this study, it was hypothesized that attitudes toward dominant cultural standards of masculinity (i.e., normative masculinity) would be associated with the types of sexual agreements negotiated among gay male couples. An Internet-based survey was used to collect data from 931 men for this analysis. Results indicated that men who reported high endorsement of normative masculinity were more likely to be in nonmonogamous relationships. Furthermore, high endorsement of normative masculinity was predictive of relationship agreements characterized as the most sexually permissive. These findings indicate that rather than simply predicting nonmonogamy in gay male couples, attitudes toward masculinity may be indirectly related to increased risk of STIs by influencing the types of sexual agreements negotiated. This is the first empirical study to emphasize the role of masculinity as an explanatory factor of same-sex relationship agreements.

Relationship characteristics and motivations behind agreements among gay male couples: differences by agreement type and couple serostatus

Gay men in relationships are often overlooked in HIV prevention efforts, yet many engage in sexual behaviors that increase their HIV risk and some seroconvert as a result. While different aspects of gay male relationships have been studied, such as sexual agreements, relationship characteristics, and couple serostatus, little research combines these elements to examine HIV risk for this population. The present study recruited 566 gay male couples from the San Francisco Bay Area to study their sexual agreements, motivations behind making agreements, and other relationship characteristics, such as agreement investment, relationship satisfaction, intimacy, and communication. Participants rated their level of concurrence with a set of reasons for making their agreements. They were also measured on relationship characteristics using standard instruments. Analyses were conducted by agreement type (monogamous, open, and discrepant) and couple serostatus (concordant negative, concordant positive, and discordant). A majority reported explicitly discussing their agreements and nearly equal numbers reported being in monogamous and open relationships. A small number (8%) reported discrepant agreements. Across all agreement type and serostatus groups, HIV prevention as a motivator for agreements fell behind every motivator oriented toward relationship-based factors. Only concordant negative couples endorsed HIV and STD prevention among their top motivators for making an agreement. Mean scores on several relationship characteristics varied significantly. Couples with monogamous agreements had higher scores on most relationship characteristics, although there was no difference in relationship satisfaction between couples with monogamous and open agreements. Scores for concordant positive couples were distinctly lower compared to concordant negative and discordant couples. Agreements, the motivations behind them, and the relationship characteristics associated with them are an important part of gay male relationships. When examined by agreement type and couple serostatus, important differences emerge that must be taken into account to improve the effectiveness of future HIV prevention efforts with gay couples.

Development and Validation of the Sexual Agreement Investment Scale

Sexual agreements are ubiquitous among gay men. Lower levels of investment in these agreements may be associated with breaking them or engaging in risky sexual behavior. A scale was developed to measure agreement investment levels among gay men. Qualitative data from 78 gay men in committed relationships were analyzed to inform item development, followed by quantitative analyses of two larger samples (n = 380, n = 1,001) to assess construct, convergent, and discriminant validity. The Sexual Agreement Investment Scale (SAIS) is a psychometrically sound measure of the level of investment in sexual agreements among gay men in relationships. Men with higher agreement investment were less likely to break agreements and less likely to engage in unprotected anal intercourse with outside partners. The SAIS can be used to measure investment in sexual agreements and its impact on sexual behavior in a wide variety of settings, including research on relationships, sexuality, couples therapy and HIV prevention.

Sexual Agreements Among Gay Male Couples

Many gay male couples make agreements about whether or not to permit sex with outside partners, yet little is known about the development and maintenance of these agreements, their impact on relationships, and whether they are an effective HIV prevention strategy. Using semi-structured, qualitative interviews, 39 gay male couples were asked about their sexual agreements and about other relationship dynamics that might affect their agreements. Analysis revealed a wide range of agreement types, all of which are presented along a continuum rather than as discrete categories. For couples with open agreements, most placed rules or conditions limiting when, where, how often, and with whom outside sex was permitted. Although motivations for having agreements varied, HIV prevention did not rank as a primary factor for any couple. Most couples had congruous agreements; however, a small number reported discrepancies which may increase HIV transmission risk. How couples handled breaks in their agreements also varied, depending on what condition was broken, whether it was disclosed, and the partner's reaction. Additional results include differences in agreement type and motivations for having an agreement based on couple serostatus. Overall, agreements benefited couples by providing boundaries for the relationship, supporting a non-heteronormative identity, and fulfilling the sexual needs of the couple. Future prevention efforts involving gay couples must address the range of agreement types and the meanings couples ascribe to them, in addition to tempering safety messages with the relationship issues that are important to and faced by gay couples.