Search

Gay and bisexual men engage in a variety of sexual partnerships, but the most common distinction made in HIV research and behavioral surveillance is a binary between "regular" and "casual" partners. The "regular partner" category is often perceived as pertaining to ongoing coupled "boyfriend" relationships, with the literature to date rarely troubling what actually constitutes a "regular partner." Some emerging literature has identified "fuckbuddy" partnerships as a type of regular partnership requiring attention, but it is relatively new and not well understood. Currently, assumptions of the regular partner category do not capture how men perceive and conduct commitment in different sexual partnerships that could also be considered "regular," and the implications this has for HIV prevention. Drawing on in-depth interviews with a sample of 61 Australian gay-identified men, we explore a diversity of partnership types that represent unique ways of enacting commitment. We identify three sexual partnerships: "fuckbuddies," dating, and serial monogamy, each with specific issues for HIV risk and prevention. These partnerships suggest important differences in the way men conceive of and practice intimacy and sex.

Background Regular sexual partnerships among gay and bisexual men (GBM) who practice condomless anal intercourse (CLAI) have not been well characterised in terms of partnership type, HIV seroconcordance and risk of HIV transmission. Primarily sexual regular partnerships, although commonly reported by gay men, have largely been ignored in research and HIV prevention. Among regular partners reporting CLAI with each other, we determined factors differentiating romantic or committed relationships from partnerships organised primarily around sex ('fuckbuddies') and estimated the proportion of CLAI presenting risk for HIV transmission., Methods: An online, cross-sectional survey of Australian GBM was conducted. Univariate and multivariate generalised estimating equations were used to determine statistical associations., Results: Men reported on 2250 regular sexual partnerships. Over half the partnerships were romantic or committed relationships. Over half the partnerships were HIV-negative seroconcordant (54.9%), 3.1% were HIV-positive seroconcordant, 5.2% were serodiscordant and 36.8% were of unknown seroconcordance. Potential risks presented by CLAI were sometimes mitigated by protective factors, such as having a clear spoken agreement about sex with outside partners, having fewer outside partners, openly discussing HIV risk and having an agreement to reduce risk from outside partners. These protective factors were more often found in romantic or committed relationships than among primarily sexual partnerships, and were less often found in partnerships of unknown seroconcordance., Conclusion: CLAI is more common among regular sexual partnerships considered to be of a romantic, committed nature. However, factors associated with such romantic or committed partnerships can also protect against HIV transmission risk. Unknown seroconcordance, particularly lack of communication about HIV status among primarily sexual partnerships, is a key risk factor that needs to be addressed by HIV education.

Estimates of the proportion of HIV infections coming from within regular sexual relationships among gay and bisexual men (GBM) vary widely. Research surveys use various partner type categories, but there is little understanding of how men classify their partners. We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of Australian GBM exploring sexual relationships, including 2057 men reporting on 2566 regular partnerships. Just over half of the partnerships were considered 'relationships', while the remainder were non-romantic 'fuckbuddy'-style arrangements. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with considering the partnership a 'relationship' were: using a 'romantic' descriptor, partnership length, monogamous agreements, any condomless anal sex with each other, love, and commitment. The category of 'regular partner' can mask diverse partnership types, which have different meanings to GBM, associated behaviours, and HIV risks. Certain HIV prevention techniques may be more suited to particular types of partnerships. 'Fuckbuddy' arrangements need to be more explicitly acknowledged in HIV prevention.

Increasingly, gay and bisexual men (GBM) meet casual sex partners online and this has been associated with sexual risk behavior. How do GBM meet regular partners? This online anonymous survey of 4215 GBM included 2562 men with a primary regular partner (PRP) who were included in these analyses. Mean age of the sample was 38.1 years. 60.3 % had met their PRP at least 2 years earlier. Meeting their PRP online increased from 14.0 % before 2001 to 79.9 % in 2013-2014. At all time points, men who met their PRP online were somewhat older than those who met their PRP offline. Regardless of how they met their PRP, most men met casual sex partners online. Among GBM, meeting sexual and romantic partners online has replaced other methods, for all age groups. The population of GBM who use the internet for this purpose is now equivalent to all sexually active GBM.

Research on gay men's relationships has neglected monogamy. Instead, it has tended to (a) emphasize HIV risk and relationship agreements between partners regarding sex and condom use with outside partners or (b) focus on nonmonogamous relationships as emblematic of relationship innovation. On the basis of qualitative interviews with 36 gay Australian men who favored a monogamous relationship as ideal, this article explores the meaning and practice of monogamy and its association with HIV risk. The authors present themes that include men's use of condoms in monogamous relationships, expectations of fidelity, and understandings of trust and security as the basis to meaningful and satisfying relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study on impact of prostate cancer on sexuality and mental health of gay men. Topics discussed include differences found between gay men and heterosexual men in diagnosis, treatment, care and support, implications of prostate cancer for gay men in terms of sexual recovery and mental health, and connection of findings of the study to HIV infection.