Sexual Risk Behaviors With Female and Male Partners Met in Different Sexual Venues Among Non-Gay-Identified, Nondisclosing MSMW

ABSTRACT

Despite considerable interest in the sexual behavior of nondisclosing men who have sex with men and women (MSMW), little is known about where they meet their male and female partners and whether their sexual risk behavior differs with partners met in different sexual venues (e.g., bars, Internet, parks). These issues were examined among 46 non-gay-identified MSMW who had not disclosed their same-sex behavior to female partners (i.e., men on the “down low”). The prevalence of unprotected vaginal sex was nearly identical with women met in bars/clubs as with women met through friends, work, or the neighborhood. In contrast, the prevalence of unprotected anal sex was higher with male partners met on the Internet, in bars/clubs, and through friends/work/neighborhood compared with partners met in parks/restrooms or gyms. This is largely due to MSMW avoiding anal sex in parks, restrooms, and gyms in favor of oral sex. These findings provide important insights into the role of venues on sexual risk and the locations where risk reduction interventions for MSMW may be provided.

KEYWORDS:

• Sexual venues
• sexual risk behavior
• bisexuality
• disclosure
• vaginal sex
• anal sex

An earlier version of this study was presented at the inaugural conference of the University Consortium for Sexuality Research and Training, Kinsey Institute, Bloomington, IN, April 2007.

Notes

^aOther nongay identities included “heteroflexible,” “curious,” “sexually free,” “exploring,” and refusing to label oneself.

^aOther (recruitment venues): newspaper advertisements (33%), nonparticipating friend referrals (22%), and AIDS service organizations (11%).

^bOther (additional venues for meeting male partners in past year provided by the participants): through friends, at work, in the neighborhood, bus terminal, subway, parade, telephone chat line, street party, airport, pool, and sex party.

^cOther (additional venues for meeting male partners in past 3 months provided by the participants): subway, parade, on the street.

^dOther (additional venues for meeting female partners provided by the participants): subway, store, on the street, building lobby, health clinic, drug treatment meeting.

¹Sexual partners met through friends, work, or from the neighborhood were assessed separately, but because there were insufficient numbers of men who met male partners in each to be examined separately, these three sources were combined for analysis. Furthermore, these three were not “venues” where men went to meet their partners but rather were places where men happened upon sexual partners in the course of their normal routine activities.

²Prior to analysis, the distribution of the number of partners met in each venue was examined for potential normality issues. All skewness statistics were under 2.0, and with the exception of the number of male and female partners met through friends, work, or the neighborhood, the skewness statistics were within two standard errors of the skew suggesting that any skewness was due to the error from the small sample rather than actual deviations from normality (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007; S. L. Weinberg & Abromowitz, 2002).