Search

Purpose: Sexual minority men (SMM) experience intimate partner violence (IPV) at disproportionately high rates. The objective of this article was to identify the experiences of SMM and health care providers on how social identity impacts IPV. Methods: SMM participants ( N  = 23) were recruited from online community settings and a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and others (LGBTQ+) organization in Los Angeles; providers ( N  = 10) were recruited from LGBTQ+ organizations. Semistructured interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. An applied thematic analysis approach was implemented to create memos, inductively generate a codebook, apply codes to the transcripts, and identify key themes in data. Results: Three main themes were identified. The first theme was weaponizing social identity to control a partner , which had three subthemes: (1) immigration status, race/ethnicity, and skin color, (2) threatening to "out" the partner's sexual orientation, and (3) abusing power inequity. Men who perpetrated IPV often used minority identities or undisclosed sexuality to leverage power over their partner. The second theme was use of IPV to establish masculinity , by exerting power over the more "feminine" partner. The third theme was internalized homophobia as a root cause of IPV , which details how internalized homophobia was often expressed in violent outbursts toward partners. Conclusion: These findings highlight how IPV among SMM can be influenced by social and sexual identity. Future research must consider socially constructed power structures and the multiple identities of SMM when developing interventions to address IPV in this population.

Purpose: This qualitative study explores the pathways by which various forms of intimate partner violence (IPV) impact the sexual health behaviors of cisgender identified sexual minority men (SMM). Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 racially and ethnically diverse SMM who recently experienced IPV and 10 clinical and social service providers focused on how experiences of IPV directly or indirectly influences sexual risk as well as engagement in HIV prevention behaviors (e.g., pre-exposure prophylaxis [PrEP] use). Applied thematic analysis, including cycles of analytic memo writing and coding, aided the identification of patterns across the data. Results: Analyses yielded three overarching themes: use of condoms, use of PrEP, and HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Participants described different ways condom use or nonuse was a mechanism by which power and/or control might be asserted by one partner over the other partner. A range of responses to questions about PrEP were identified, including partners encouraging PrEP use, as well as avoidance of conversations about PrEP or actual PrEP use, to prevent experiencing aggression or IPV from partners. Responses regarding HIV/STIs included those ranging from a new diagnosis being a potential trigger for violence to the exploitation of status to control partners. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in relationships with IPV, HIV prevention strategies can be sources of relationship control and trigger abuse. Addressing IPV may help to prevent HIV/STI transmission and promote the health of SMM. In addition, long-acting formulations of PrEP may be a promising strategy for SMM experiencing IPV when oral PrEP medications may be a risk factor for violence.