Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

The Meaning of 'Regular Partner' in HIV Research Among Gay and Bisexual Men: Implications of an Australian Cross-Sectional Survey

Benjamin R Bavinton, Duane Duncan, Jeffrey Grierson, Iryna B Zablotska, Ian A Down, Andrew E Grulich, Garrett P Prestage

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

32 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1777-1784
JournalAIDS and Behavior
Volume20
Issue number8
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

  1. SDG 3 - Good Health and Well-being
    SDG 3 Good Health and Well-being

Keywords

  • Social Change
  • Gender Specific Studies

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The Meaning of 'Regular Partner' in HIV Research Among Gay and Bisexual Men: Implications of an Australian Cross-Sectional Survey'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this