Search

Our grounded theory analysis derives from in-depth interviews conducted with 24 gay, bisexual, queer, and other men who have sex with men (GBM) living in Toronto, Canada, to understand their experiences of sexual coercion. Participants drew on discourse from the #MeToo movement to reconsider the ethics of past sexual experiences. The idea that gay or queer sex is inherently risky and unique from heterosexual relations made negotiating sexual safety challenging. These notions were enforced by homophobic discourses on the one hand, and counter discourses of sexual liberation, resistance to heteronormativity, hegemonic masculinity, and HIV prevention on the other. Biomedical advances in HIV prevention such as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and undetectable viral load affected how some participants felt about sexual autonomy and safety. Participants held themselves responsible for needing to be more assertive within sexual encounters to avoid coercion. Many believed that unwanted sex is unavoidable among GBM: if "you're gay, it's just what happens." Targeted education aimed at GBM communities that incorporates insights on GBM sexual subcultures is necessary. This work must be situated within a broader understanding of how gender norms and hegemonic masculinity, racism, HIV status, and other power imbalances affect sexual decision-making, consent, pleasure, and sexual harm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on casual sexual relationships (CSRs) among emerging adults is prevalent, yet our empirical and theoretical knowledge of relationship processes involved in these relationships is limited. The present study’s objective was to compare four CSR partner types (acquaintance, friend, non-dating partner, ex-romantic partner) on passion, intimacy, and commitment, the components of Sternberg’s triangular theory of love. A total of 441 Canadians aged 18-25 years who were not in a romantic relationship, and who reported having had more than one sexual contact with their last CSR partner, completed an online survey. Across all partner types, passion was highest, followed by intimacy and commitment. Levels of passion, intimacy, and commitment generally increased with partner familiarity. However, CSR partner type differences on the three components were partially explained by CSR components (i.e., frequency of sexual activity, frequency of social activity, whether partners saw each other with the main goal of having sex, sexual exclusivity agreement, and hopes about the relationship). Results are consistent with CSRs’ emphasis on sexuality, and, to a lesser extent, emotions. However, they challenge the mainstream and scientific conflation of CSRs with an absence of emotional bond, commitment, or love. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]