Abstract
Dating abuse research on lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) populations tends to aggregate LGB participants for comparisons with heterosexuals and often excludes nonassaultive dating abuse and abuse that takes place on online dating applications. In the present study, we used the Pew Research Center’s 2019 American Trends Panel Wave 56 data set (n = 4712) to compare ever experiencing several types of nonassaultive on- and offline dating abuse between bisexual women (n = 402), lesbian women (n = 207), heterosexual women (n = 1802), bisexual men (n = 225), gay men (n = 575), and heterosexual men (n = 1501). We found that gay men and bisexual women generally had the greatest odds of experiencing online dating abuse. Bisexual and heterosexual women had the greatest odds of experiencing some offline abuse (eg, being touched in an uncomfortable way), but gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men had the greatest odds of experiencing other offline abuse (eg, having their contact information or a sexual image of them shared nonconsensually). Findings highlight how assessments of nonassaultive dating abuse in on- and offline contexts via analyses of more specified gender/sex and sexual identity groups can broaden understandings of dating abuse victimization, especially among sexual minority populations.
Keywords: dating abuse, IPV, dating apps, LGBTQ, psychological abuse
Introduction
Nonassaultive psychological and sexual abuse behaviors are powerful elements of intimate partner violence (IPV) and dating abuse. These behaviors include calling a partner offensive names or verbally degrading them, humiliating or isolating one’s partner, sharing sexual information about a partner to cause harm or embarrassment, and manipulating a partner into engaging in sexual activity, among others.1,2 Such abuse is well known to contribute to negative health outcomes such as depression, anxiety, problematic substance use, and sexual dysfunctions.3-8
Despite an extensive body of research focusing on psychological and sexual abuse prevalence and consequences, a 2015 review indicated that only 3% of studies on IPV published over the previous 15 years focused specifically on sexual minority populations.9 Yet, structural and cultural norms—and specifically those that reinforce homophobia and cissexism—negatively shape sexual minorities’ lives in ways that greatly increase their risk for IPV and abuse,10,11 highlighting a critical need to better understand abusive experiences in this population. Researchers have responded to this absence by conducting more studies on sexual minorities, but our understanding of psychological and sexual abuse among these groups still lags behind our understanding of these types of abuse among heterosexual people.12,13
Furthermore, understandings of IPV and abuse among sexual minority populations are limited by researchers’ tendency (typically guided by practical sample-size limitations) to aggregate participants of diverse sexual identities into a single sexual minority category for comparisons with heterosexual people.2,9 Such comparisons have revealed a higher prevalence of both offline9,14-16 and online17 dating abuse among sexual minorities compared with heterosexual populations, and this information is useful for providing big-picture insights into psychological and sexual abuse disparities. However, grouping lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) participants into a single comparison category fails to examine differences within and between specific gender/sex and sexual identity populations. Of note, we use the term gender/sex rather than gender or sex, given that people’s identities and experiences are often a mix of both psychological gender and biological sex and are difficult to disentangle.18-20 We also henceforth use the term gender/sex and sexual identity group(s) to refer to groupings based on gender/sex and sexual identity (eg, gay men, bisexual women).21
Research that has assessed the unique experiences of more specified gender/sex and sexual identity groups highlights that these types of analyses are vital for better understanding patterns of violence. For example, research has shown that IPV experienced by gay and bisexual men can look different than the IPV experienced by heterosexual women (eg, it can include HIV-related IPV and sexual identity–based abuse).22 Bisexual women also experience a higher prevalence of IPV compared with lesbian and heterosexual women,1,9,15,16,23 likely because bisexual women partner with men and experience biphobia from their partners.24 Research has also found that lesbian and bisexual women are more likely to report childhood sexual assault, adult sexual assault, intimate partner sexual assault, and lifetime sexual assault victimization than are gay and bisexual men, but gay and bisexual men are more likely to report hate crime-related sexual assault than are lesbian and bisexual women.25 Moreover, transgender individuals are 1.7 times more likely to experience any IPV compared with cisgender individuals of varying sexual identities, suggesting that being transgender (and thus, a target of transphobia) exacerbates risks for IPV and abuse even further.26 Despite such evidence that assessments of more specified gender/sex and sexual identity–based groups matter, research with more nuanced identity comparisons (eg, bisexual women vs bisexual men vs gay men vs heterosexual women) is still limited. It is critical to assess psychological and sexual dating-abuse experiences between more specific sexual identity groups to develop tailored and potentially more effective victim resources and prevention and intervention strategies.
Another limitation of existing research is that assessments of psychological and sexual abuse tend to focus solely on behaviors perpetrated by current or previous romantic or sexual partners, dating partners, and/or casual or hookup partners. This typically excludes behaviors that take place in online contexts with people contacted on dating applications and websites (ie, nonpartners with potential romantic or sexual interests), even though online abuse is also associated with negative mental health symptoms (eg, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder).5,8
Such exclusions matter because online platforms are becoming a common part of dating experiences—30% of all US adults and 55% of LGB adults have ever used an online dating site or app27—and evidence suggests that online platforms are laden with psychological and sexual abuse, especially for sexual minority populations. For example, people of all gender/sex and sexual identities have reported being called offensive names, receiving unsolicited sexual messages and images, and being harassed via descriptions of imagined or threatened violence from people they talked to via online dating platforms.5,17,28-30 However, findings from a nationally representative sample showed that LGB users were more likely than heterosexual users to have had these types of experiences.17 Together, these findings suggest that assessing psychological and sexual abuse experiences from both on- and offline partners is needed to understand broader patterns of victimization.
Given the limitations we have listed, we sought to provide a nuanced assessment of gender/sex and sexual identity–based differences in experiences of psychological and sexual dating abuse. To do this, we analyzed data from the Pew Research Center to compare psychological and sexual dating-abuse experiences from on- and offline partners between bisexual women, lesbian women, heterosexual women, bisexual men, gay men, and heterosexual men. Of note, we were unable to consider gender/sex minority (eg, transgender, nonbinary) vs majority (ie, cisgender) status given that data were secondary and this information was not available.
Methods
Participants
We conducted analyses using data from Pew Research Center’s October 2019 American Trends Panel (ATP) Wave 56 (W56) data set.31 The ATP is a national, probability-based online panel that includes adults aged 18 years or older living in the United States. The Pew Research Center W56 data set includes 4860 participants. We excluded participants who did not provide information about their gender/sex (n = 5) or if they indicated their sexual identity was listed as “something else” (n = 60), “I don’t know the answer” (n = 60), or they did not provide sexual identity information (n = 23). As such, the present study included 4712 participants who identified as heterosexual women (n = 1802), bisexual women (n = 402), lesbian women (n = 207), heterosexual men (n = 1501), bisexual men (n = 225), or gay men (n = 575). See Table 1 for additional demographic information.
Table 1.
Participant demographics (n = 4712).
| Demographic | No., % |
|---|---|
| Age group, years | |
| 18-29 | 752 (16.0) |
| 30-49 | 1585 (33.6) |
| 50-64 | 1427 (30.3) |
| ≥65 | 944 (20.0) |
| Did not specify | 4 (0.1) |
| Gender/sex and sexual identity | |
| Bisexual women | 402 (8.5) |
| Lesbian women | 207 (4.4) |
| Heterosexual women | 1802 (38.2) |
| Bisexual men | 225 (4.8) |
| Gay men | 575 (12.2) |
| Heterosexual men | 1501 (31.9) |
| Race/ethnicity | |
| White non-Hispanic | 3253 (69.0) |
| Black non-Hispanic | 498 (10.6) |
| Hispanic | 603 (12.8) |
| Other | 313 (6.6) |
| Did not specify | 45 (1.0) |
| Family income, $ | |
| ≥75 000 | 1782 (37.8) |
| 30 000-74 999 | 1649 (35.0) |
| <30 000 | 1142 (24.2) |
| Do not know/did not specify | 139 (2.9) |
| Education level | |
| College graduate or more | 2170 (46.1) |
| Some college | 1412 (30.0) |
| High school graduate or less | 1127 (23.9) |
| Do not know/did not specify | 3 (0.1) |
| Relationship status | |
| Married | 1921 (40.8) |
| Living with a partner | 535 (11.3) |
| In a committed relationship (but not living together) | 401 (8.5) |
| Casually dating someone | 301 (6.4) |
| Not casually dating anyone (ie, single) | 1535 (32.6) |
| Did not specify | 19 (0.4) |
Procedure
The ATP W56 included a self-administered web survey conducted in both English and Spanish from October 16, 2019, to October 28, 2019. For additional information on the survey methods, please see the Methodology Report (2019) in the Pew Research Center’s ATP W56 data set files.31
Because this study was a secondary analysis of publicly available deidentified data, it was deemed as not involving human subjects and, therefore, was determined to be exempt by the University of Central Florida Institutional Review Board.
Measures
In the following sub-sections, we describe each variable used in the present study, including adaptations made for our analyses. For information on other study variables not included in analyses, please see the questionnaire in the Pew Research Center’s ATP W56 data set files.31 Of note, each ATP data set comes with variables that contain demographic profile data (PD) sourced from panel profile surveys rather than questions asked during the given wave. Information on how profile questions are asked is not publicly available. Responses of “refused to answer” or “don’t know/not sure” were coded as missing unless otherwise indicated.
Gender/sex and sexual identity
First, we created a 6-level categorical variable that indicated participants’ gender/sex and sexual identity. Participants were coded as heterosexual men, gay men, bisexual men, heterosexual women, lesbian women, or bisexual women. To do this, we determined participants’ gender/sex by using a PD variable called “sex,” in which participants were labeled as “female,” “male,” or “refused.” Specifically, we created a new gender/sex variable whereby “female” was coded as “woman” and “male” was coded as “man.” Participants coded as “refused” were excluded.
We determined that the terms gender/sex, women, and men were appropriate for the following reasons. The current recommendations from the American Psychological Association assert that sex, female, and male should only be used in cases where the research is clearly referring to biological indicators.32 When not referring specifically to biological indicators, it is preferrable to use terms such as gender/sex, women, and men, given that these are more encompassing of social identities and the inextricable links between gender and sex.18,19 Other Pew Research Center reports from this dataset used the terms gender, women, and men,17,27 suggesting that the original “sex” variable did not measure biological indicators only but rather reflected a past approach of using sex and gender terms interchangeably, which is appropriate to rectify.33 No information was provided on whether participants were gender/sex minorities (eg, transgender, nonbinary) or majorities (ie, cisgender), thus gender/sex groups may include some combination of both.
We then used the following question from the data set to categorize participants’ sexual identity: “Do you think of yourself as…,” with the following response options: gay or lesbian, straight (ie, not gay or lesbian), bisexual, something else, I don’t know the answer, and refused. We excluded participants who were coded as something else, I don’t know, or refused.
Race/ethnicity
Race/ethnicity (PD variable) was provided as a 4-level categorical variable. Participants were coded as White non-Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, Hispanic, or Other.
Family income
Family income (PD variable) was provided as a 3-level categorical variable. Income was coded as <$30 000, $30 000-$74 999, or ≥$75 000.
Education level
Education level (PD variable) was provided as a 3-level categorical variable. Level was coded as college graduate or higher, some college, or high school graduate or less.
Relationship status
We created a 5-level categorical variable for relationship status that included married, living with a partner, in a committed relationship (but not living together), casually dating someone, or not casually dating someone (ie, single). This was recoded based on the following series of questions. First, participants were asked: “Which of these best describes you?” (Options: married, living with a partner, divorced, separated, widowed, never been married). If participants answered divorced, separated, widowed, never married, or no answer, they were asked: “Are you currently in a committed romantic relationship?” (Options: yes or no). If participants indicated that they were not in a committed relationship, they were asked: “Are you currently casually dating anyone?” (Options: yes or no).
Online dating use
Participants were asked: “Have you ever used an online dating site or dating app?” (Options: yes or no).
Online dating abuse variables
Participants who reported that yes, they had ever used an online dating site or dating app were asked: “Thinking about your own personal experiences, has someone ever done any of the following to you on an online dating site or dating app?” Participants could indicate yes or no for each of the following: “called you an offensive name,” threatened to physically harm you,” “sent you a sexually explicit message or image you didn’t ask for,” and “continued to contact you after you said you were not interested.”
Offline dating abuse variables
All participants were asked: “Has someone you were dating or on a date with ever done any of the following?” Participants could indicate yes or no for each of the following: “pressured you for sex,” “touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable,” “sent you sexually explicit images that you didn’t ask for,” “spread rumors about your sexual history,” “shared a sexually explicit image of you without your consent,” and “publicly shared your contact information or address without your permission.”
Analyses
Analyses were conducted in SPSS, version 27.0. The original data set included survey weights that, when applied to analyses, allow researchers to make nationally representative inferences about trends in the U.S population. See the Pew Research Center’s ATP W56 Methodology Report (2019) for a full description of the survey weights.31 However, in the present study, we analyzed the unweighted data (while controlling for several demographic variables) because doing so offered benefits compared with the weighted data. Specifically, although applying survey weights provided a representative sample, this resulted in statistical power limitations that only allowed for analyses comparing psychological and sexual abuse between women and men (regardless of sexual identity) and sexual majorities and minorities (where lesbian, gay, and bisexual participants were combined into a single LGB group).17 Nonrepresentative samples are often used in research to provide insights into understudied topics when a nationally representative sample is not available. Thus, to increase statistical power to allow for comparisons of bisexual, lesbian, gay, and heterosexual women’s and men’s experiences of psychological and sexual abuse in on- and offline dating contexts, we analyzed the unweighted data.
We made an a priori decision to examine differences controlling for age, race/ethnicity, family income, and education. This approach allowed us to account for some demographic factors without the loss of statistical power associated with applying the full survey weights.
We examined gender/sex and sexual identity differences in experiences of psychological and sexual dating abuse on online dating sites and apps. The survey only asked participants about their experiences of abuse on online dating sites and apps if they reported that they had previously used an online dating site or app. Thus, analyses for online dating abuse only included participants who had previously used an online dating site or app (n = 2021). Then, we examined gender/sex and sexual identity differences in experiences of psychological and sexual dating abuse with dating partners and people participants had gone on dates with; this analysis included the entire study sample. For each analysis, we first conducted χ2 tests and post hoc comparisons of proportions to examine unadjusted gender/sex and sexual identity differences in experiences of each dating abuse item. We then used logistic regression models to reexamine gender/sex identity differences in experiences of dating abuse when controlling for age, race/ethnicity, family income, and education.
Results
Online psychological and sexual dating abuse
When participants were asked if they had ever used an online dating site or dating app, 42.9% said yes (n = 2021), 54.5% (n = 2570) said no, and 0.2% (n = 8) did not respond. A χ2 test showed that gender/sex and sexual identity was associated with online dating site or app use (χ2 (degrees of freedom = 5) = 133.48; P < .001. Gay men (62.8%) were the most likely to have ever used an online dating site or app. Bisexual women (55.1%) were less likely to have ever used an online dating site or app than were gay men, but more likely than all other groups. Bisexual men (45.8%), lesbian women (44.1%), and heterosexual men (40.0%) were equally as likely to have ever used an online dating site or app; and heterosexual women (38.4%) were less likely to have ever used an online dating site or app than were bisexual men but equally as likely as heterosexual men and lesbian women (P < .05 for all).
Initial bivariate comparisons of proportions among participants who had ever used online dating websites or apps demonstrated significant differences in experiences of each type of online dating abuse by gender/sex and sexual identity (Table 2). We then assessed logistic regression models to test gender/sex and sexual identity differences in experiences of online dating abuse while controlling for age, race/ethnicity, family income, and education (Table 3). Initial comparisons had shown that a greater proportion of bisexual women and gay men experienced many forms of online dating abuse; thus, we set gay men as the reference group in our logistic regression model to reexamine these patterns.
Table 2.
Proportions of gender/sex and sexual identity groups who experienced dating abuse on online dating websites or apps.
| Has someone ever done any of the following to you on an online dating site or dating app? a | χ 2 (df = 5) | P |
Heterosexual men, %
b
,
c
(n = 583) |
Gay men, %
b
,
c
(n = 359) |
Bisexual men, %
b
,
c
(n = 103) |
Heterosexual women, %
b
,
c
(n = 666) |
Lesbian women, %
b
,
c
(n = 90) |
Bisexual women, %
b
,
c
(n = 220) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Called you an offensive name | 80.61 | <.001 | 17.81 | 39.82 | 26.53 | 31.03 | 26.73 | 44.32 |
| Threatened to physically harm you | 34.78 | <.001 | 4.01 | 10.92 | 14.62 | 6.31 | 6.71,2 | 13.22 |
| Sent you a sexually explicit message or image you didn’t ask for | 237.79 | <.001 | 15.51 | 59.32 | 43.73 | 40.53,4 | 30.04 | 58.22 |
| Continued to contact you after you said you were not interested | 163.41 | <.001 | 22.71 | 56.72 | 38.83,4 | 49.13 | 26.71,4 | 56.82 |
Abbreviation: df, degrees of freedom.
aAnalyses were conducted only with participants who reported “yes” when asked if they had ever used an online dating website or app.
bPercentages reflect the proportion of participants in the gender/sex and sexual identity group who reported “yes” when asked if they had experienced the online dating abuse item.
cGender/sex and sexual identity groups with differing superscript numbers represent significantly different proportions at P < .05.
Table 3.
Logistic regression between gender/sex and sexual identity and online dating abuse items.
| Called you an offensive name | Threatened to physically harm you | Sent you a sexually explicit message or image you didn’t ask for | Continued to contact you after you said you were not interested | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has someone ever done any of the following to you on an online dating site or dating app? a | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) |
| Age, years (ref: 18-29 ) | ||||
| 30-49 | 0.93 (0.72-1.20) | 1.07 (0.71-1.62) | 0.86 (0.66-1.11) | 0.98 (0.76-1.25) |
| 50-64 | 0.43 (0.31-0.59)*** | 0.41 (0.23-0.74)** | 0.41 (0.30-0.55)*** | 0.62 (0.46-0.83)** |
| ≥65 | 0.29 (0.18-0.47)*** | 0.34 (0.13-0.90)* | 0.29 (0.18-0.45)*** | 0.44 (0.29-0.65)*** |
| Race/ethnicity (ref: White) | ||||
| Black non-Hispanic | 0.92 (0.66-1.27) | 1.49 (0.90-2.47) | 1.18 (0.85-1.63) | 1.04 (0.77-1.43) |
| Hispanic | 0.98 (0.72-1.33) | 1.37 (0.85-2.21) | 1.17 (0.86-1.58) | 0.94 (0.70-1.27) |
| Other | 1.01 (0.70-1.47) | 1.47 (0.80-2.72) | 1.02 (0.70-1.47) | 1.08 (0.76-1.54) |
| Family income, $ (ref: ≥75 000) | ||||
| 30 000-74 999 | 1.18 (0.92-1.50) | 1.40 (0.87-2.26) | 1.13 (0.89-1.44) | 1.02 (0.82-1.28) |
| <30 000 | 1.39 (1.05-1.85)* | 2.20 (1.33-3.63)** | 1.14 (0.86-1.52) | 1.02 (0.78-1.34) |
| Education (ref: college graduate or more) | ||||
| Some college | 1.34 (1.06-1.69)* | 1.73 (1.13-2.64)* | 1.62 (1.28-2.05)*** | 1.09 (0.87-1.37) |
| High school graduate or less | 1.14 (.82-1.58) | 3.13 (1.93-5.08)*** | 1.86 (1.35-2.56)*** | 0.98 (0.72-1.33) |
| Gender/sex and sexual identity (ref: gay men) | ||||
| Heterosexual men | 0.30 (0.22-0.41)*** | 0.29 (0.16-0.51)*** | 0.11 (0.08-0.15)*** | 0.21 (0.15-0.28)*** |
| Bisexual men | 0.46 (0.28-0.41)** | 1.11 (0.56-2.18) | 0.44 (0.27-0.70)** | 0.47 (0.30-0.74)** |
| Heterosexual women | 0.62 (0.47-0.82)** | 0.45 (0.27-0.72)** | 0.40 (0.31-0.53)*** | 0.71 (0.54-0.93)* |
| Lesbian women | 0.45 (0.26-0.76)** | 0.34 (0.13-0.87)* | 0.20 (0.12-0.33)*** | 0.25 (0.15-0.43)*** |
| Bisexual women | 0.86 (0.59-1.24) | 0.77 (0.43-1.36) | 0.64 (0.44-0.92)* | 0.83 (0.58-1.20) |
| χ2 (df = 15) goodness of fit | 160.04*** | 117.36*** | 351.79*** | 204.04*** |
Abbreviations: aOR, adjusted odds ratio; df, degrees of freedom; ref, reference.
aAnalyses were conducted only with participants who reported “yes” when asked if they had ever used an online dating website or app.
*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.
Logistic regression model results demonstrated that gay men had significantly greater odds of having ever been called an offensive name, compared with heterosexual men, bisexual men, heterosexual women, and lesbian women, but gay men’s odds of being called an offensive name were statistically similar to those of bisexual women. Gay men had significantly greater odds of having ever experienced threats to physically harm them than did heterosexual men, heterosexual women, and lesbian women, though odds of experiencing this were statistically similar to those of bisexual women and bisexual men. Gay men also had significantly greater odds of having ever been sent a sexually explicit message or image they did not ask for compared with all other gender/sex and sexual identity groups.
Finally, gay men had significantly greater odds of having someone continue to contact them after they said they were not interested, compared with heterosexual men, bisexual men, heterosexual women, and lesbian women, but the odds of experiencing this were similar for gay men and bisexual women.
Offline psychological and sexual dating abuse
Bivariate comparisons of proportions showed that there were significant differences in experiences of dating abuse with offline partners by gender/sex and sexual identity (Table 4). We then conducted logistic regression models to test gender/sex and sexual identity differences in experiences of dating abuse while controlling for age, race/ethnicity, family income, and education (Table 5). For consistency with online abuse analyses, we set gay men as the reference group.
Table 4.
Proportions of gender/sex and sexual identity groups who experienced dating abuse from dating partners.a
| Has someone you were dating or on a date with ever done any of the following? | χ 2 (df = 5) | P |
Heterosexual men, %
b
(n = 1501) |
Gay men, %
b
(n = 575) |
Bisexual men, %
b
(n = 225) |
Heterosexual women, %
b
(n = 1802) |
Lesbian women, %
b
(n = 207) |
Bisexual women, %
b
(n = 402) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pressured you for sex | 449.64 | <.001 | 17.51 | 34.22 | 24.63 | 45.24 | 37.72 | 64.95 |
| Touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable | 544.01 | <.001 | 7.81 | 22.12 | 15.23 | 38.54 | 33.34 | 50.55 |
| Sent you sexually explicit images that you didn’t ask for | 230.16 | <.001 | 15.21 | 38.92 | 24.63 | 24.63 | 13.51 | 44.32 |
| Spread rumors about your sexual history | 111.61 | <.001 | 10.11 | 15.82 | 18.42 | 14.42 | 14.11,2 | 30.83 |
| Shared a sexually explicit image of you without your consent | 93.99 | <.001 | 3.31 | 11.82 | 9.42 | 5.53 | 2.91,3 | 13.22 |
| Publicly shared your contact information or address without your consent | 35.76 | <.001 | 4.71,3 | 7.32 | 7.71,2 | 4.33 | 2.43 | 10.42 |
Abbreviation: df, degrees of freedom.
aAnalyses were conducted with the entire study sample.
bPercentages reflect the proportion of participants in the gender/sex and sexual identity group who reported “yes” when asked if they had experienced the abuse item with someone they were dating or on a date with.
cGender/sex and sexual identity groups with differing superscript letters represent significantly different proportions at P < .05.
Table 5.
Logistic regression between gender/sex and sexual identity and dating abuse with dating partner items
| Pressured you for sex | Touched you in a way that made you feel uncomfortable | Sent you sexually explicit images that you didn’t ask for | Spread rumors about your sexual history | Shared a sexually explicit image of you without your consent | Publicly shared your contact information or address without your consent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has someone you were dating or on a date with ever done any of the following? | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) | aOR (95% CI) |
| Age, years (ref: 18-29) | ||||||
| 30-49 | 1.15 (0.95-1.40) | 1.02 (0.83-1.27) | 1.01 (0.84-1.23) | 1.17 (0.93-1.48) | 0.73 (0.54-0.99)* | 0.92 (0.64-1.30) |
| 50-64 | 0.90 (0.73-1.11) | 0.90 (0.72-1.13) | 0.42 (0.34-0.52)*** | 0.67(0.51-0.86)** | 0.37 (0.25-0.53)*** | 0.71 (0.48-1.06) |
| ≥65 | 0.64 (0.51-0.81)*** | 0.86 (0.67-1.10) | 0.16 (0.12-0.22)*** | 0.33 (0.24-0.47)*** | 0.22 (0.13-0.36)*** | 0.46 (0.28-0.77)** |
| Race/ethnicity (ref: White) | ||||||
| Black non-Hispanic | 1.13 (0.92-1.39) | 0.64 (0.50-0.81)*** | 1.36 (1.09-1.70)** | 1.04 (0.80-1.35) | 1.39 (0.96-2.02) | 1.70 (1.16-2.48)** |
| Hispanic | 0.81 (0.67-1.00)* | 0.72 (0.58-0.90)** | 1.22 (0.99-1.50) | 0.80 (0.61-1.03) | 1.13 (0.80-1.59) | 1.04 (0.70-1.55) |
| Other | 0.93 (0.72-1.22) | 0.94 (0.70-1.26) | 1.18 (0.90-1.56) | 1.12 (0.82-1.55) | 1.58 (1.03-2.41)* | 2.19 (1.43-3.35)*** |
| Family income, $ (ref: ≥75 000) | ||||||
| 30 000-74 999 | 1.12 (0.96-1.31) | 1.10 (0.93-1.31) | 1.24 (1.04-1.48)* | 1.38 (1.12-1.70)** | 1.62 (1.19-2.22)** | 1.87 (1.32-2.66)*** |
| <30 000 | 1.19 (0.99-1.43) | 1.14 (0.94-1.40) | 1.24 (1.02-1.52)* | 1.64 (1.29-2.07)*** | 1.60 (1.13-2.28)** | 2.14 (1.46-3.15)*** |
| Education (ref: college graduate or more) | ||||||
| Some college | 0.95 (0.82-1.12) | 0.92 (0.77-1.09) | 1.27 (1.07-1.51)** | 1.36 (1.11-1.67)** | 1.19 (0.89-1.59)*** | 1.56 (1.13-2.16)** |
| High school graduate or less | 0.80 (0.67-0.96)* | 0.76 (0.62-0.93)** | 1.12 (0.91-1.36) | 1.34 (1.06-1.69)* | 1.12 (0.79-1.58)* | 1.40 (0.97-2.02) |
| Gender/sex/ual identity (ref: gay men) | ||||||
| Heterosexual men | 0.42 (0.33-0.52)*** | 0.30 (0.23-0.40)*** | 0.26 (0.21-0.33)*** | 0.60 (0.45-0.80)** | 0.24 (0.16-0.35)*** | 0.61 (0.40-0.92)* |
| Bisexual men | 0.63 (0.44-0.90)* | 0.64 (0.42-0.97)* | 0.44 (0.30-0.64)*** | 1.09 (0.71-1.66) | 0.66 (0.39-1.12) | 0.90 (0.48-1.66) |
| Heterosexual women | 1.61 (1.32-1.97)*** | 2.27 (1.82-2.85)*** | 0.50 (0.40-0.61)*** | 0.78 (0.59-1.02) | 0.35 (0.25-0.49)*** | 0.46 (0.30-0.69)*** |
| Lesbian women | 1.16 (0.83-1.62) | 1.79 (1.26-2.55)** | 0.20 (0.13-0.31)*** | 0.76 (0.48-1.22) | 0.14 (0.06-0.37)*** | 0.27 (0.10-0.69)* |
| Bisexual women | 3.24 (2.45-4.30)*** | 3.42 (2.55-4.58)*** | 0.77 (0.58-1.02) | 1.72 (1.24-2.39)** | 0.66 (0.43-1.00) | 1.07 (0.66-1.75) |
| χ2 (df = 15) goodness of fit | 505.81*** | 594.88*** | 559.34*** | 224.57*** | 177.50*** | 107.23*** |
Abbreviations: aOR, adjusted odds ratio; df, degrees of freedom; ref, reference.
*P < .05; **P < .01; ***P < .001.
Logistic regression model results demonstrated that gay men had significantly greater odds compared with heterosexual men and bisexual men, statistically similar odds compared with lesbian women, and significantly lower odds compared with heterosexual and bisexual women of having ever been pressured for sex by someone they were dating or went on a date with. The odds of having ever been touched in a way that made them feel uncomfortable were also greater for gay men compared with those of heterosexual and bisexual men, though lower compared with those of heterosexual, lesbian, and bisexual women. Gay men also had significantly greater odds of having ever been sent sexually explicit images that they did not ask for compared with heterosexual men, bisexual men, heterosexual women, and lesbian women, but the odds for gay men and bisexual women of ever experiencing this were statistically similar.
Gay men had significantly greater odds of a dating partner ever spreading rumors about their sexual history compared with heterosexual men, but the odds of experiencing this were similar to those of bisexual men, heterosexual women, and lesbian women, and significantly lower compared with bisexual women. The odds of ever having a dating partner share a sexually explicit image of them without their consent were similar for gay men, bisexual men, and bisexual women, but significantly greater for gay men compared with heterosexual men, heterosexual women, and lesbian women. Finally, the odds of ever having a dating partner publicly share their contact information or address without their consent were similar between gay men, bisexual men, and bisexual women, but significantly greater for gay men compared with the odds of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, and lesbian women.
Discussion
Findings using data from the Pew Research Center highlighted how analyses with more specified gender/sex and sexual identity groups can identify important differences in the prevalence of online and offline psychological and sexual dating abuse that may otherwise be overlooked. For example, most existing research makes comparisons between heterosexual women and men or women and men of aggregated sexual identities, and results tend to show that women experience the most dating abuse overall.34,35 As such, women are often considered the central targets of psychological and sexual abuse, not men. But our results suggest the story is more complex; that is, gay and bisexual men may have a higher risk of experiencing certain abusive behaviors on- and offline than women. For example, we found that gay men had greater odds than heterosexual, lesbian, and bisexual women of having ever been sent a sexually explicit message or image they did not ask for on an online dating site or app. Gay and bisexual men (as well as bisexual women) also had greater odds than heterosexual and lesbian women of having ever been threatened with physical harm on an online dating site or app and of an offline dating partner ever sharing a sexually explicit photo of them, their contact information, or their address without their consent.
Furthermore, research has shown that sexual minorities are generally more likely to experience abuse than sexual majorities.1,23 We found a similar pattern among women in this study (ie, the prevalence tended to be highest for bisexual women), but we also found that lesbian and heterosexual women often had similar odds for ever experiencing some forms of online and offline abuse, and that heterosexual women’s odds were greater than those of lesbian women for other abuse experiences (eg, pressured by an offline partner for sex, sent sexually explicit images they did not ask for). These findings demonstrate how analyses with more specified gender/sex and sexual identity groups can reveal important patterns in violence.
We also found that the prevalence of many (though not all) forms of psychological and sexual abuse tended to be highest for bisexual women, gay men, and bisexual men. This suggests that bisexual women, gay men, and bisexual men may have something in common aside from sexual minority status that puts them at a sometimes similarly high risk for experiencing certain forms of abuse. For example, it could be that being a person of a sexual minority who partners with men (at least in some capacity) increases the risk of experiencing forms of dating abuse. In support, sexual minorities (as an aggregated group) experience higher prevalence of abuse on and off of dating apps compared with sexual majorities,27 and broadly, men are more likely to perpetrate abusive on and offline behaviors than are women.36-38 Additionally, most gay and bisexual men and lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual women who have experienced sexual violence report that the perpetrators were men.1 This is not to say that women cannot also be perpetrators of abuse; lesbian women, bisexual men, and heterosexual men have reported that their experiences of IPV were primarily perpetrated by women partners.1 However, these findings support those of other studies that urge researchers to look beyond aggregated groups based on just the gender/sex and/or sexual identity of those who experience abuse and to consider other factors such as the perpetrators’ gender/sex.39
When it comes to gay and bisexual men’s heightened experiences of abuse, research also has suggested that the intersection of gay and bisexual men’s identities as men, people who partner with men, and sexual minorities has shaped many gay communities into hotbeds of status and competition, full of emboldened discrimination (eg, on the basis of masculinity, attractiveness, wealth) and rejection-related stress.40 It could be that these factors compound and/or normalize abusive behaviors among gay and bisexual men in general, and particularly in environments such as online dating apps where partner selection and rejection dynamics are exacerbated.
Finally, bisexual women and men are often stereotyped as promiscuous, untrustworthy, and/or not “really” bisexual; thus, they experience unique forms of discrimination and exclusion from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual communities.41 This could explain why bisexual women and men often had higher odds of certain types of abuse compared with other groups.24 Of course, odds for various types of abuse were still often higher for bisexual women than bisexual men (eg, for all online abuse except physical threats). And, in some cases for offline abuse (eg, being pressured for sex, being touched in a way that was uncomfortable), odds were higher for women than men regardless of sexual identity. Such findings align with previous research suggesting that being bisexual and being a woman increase the odds of experiencing abuse in different and sometimes compounding ways.24
Limitations and future directions
Our analyses were limited to the psychological and sexual abuse behaviors that were listed in the original survey and, as such, the findings are not reflective of all forms of on- and offline psychological and sexual abuse. Furthermore, abuse is an interpersonal phenomenon, but our results focused on experiences and not perpetration (ATP W56 did not ask about perpetration). Research has suggested that there are bidirectional associations between perpetrating and experiencing abuse that may depend on the gender/sex and/or sexual identity of partners24; thus, future research could assess both to gain additional insights into the complexities of gender/sex and sexual identity–based abuse patterns.
We also did not have information on how frequently participants used dating apps and websites, and more frequent use could explain higher prevalence of abuse.42 Additionally, although we sought to provide insights into abuse experiences among more specified gender/sex and sexual identity groups than is typical, analyses were still limited to women and men who identified as bisexual, gay/lesbian, or heterosexual. People have diverse sexual identities beyond bisexual, gay/lesbian, and heterosexual (eg, pansexual, hetero-flexible, queer), and we were unable to assess these groups.43 Similarly, research suggests that transgender individuals experience a disproportionately high prevalence of dating abuse,26 but we were unable to examine gender/sex minority vs majority status because we did not have information on how many of our participants were transgender.
Although we controlled for several demographic variables in our analyses, other social identities intersect with gender/sex and sexual identity in ways that matter for understanding abuse patterns, such as race and ethnicity. Existing studies show that sexual minorities from marginalized racial/ethnic groups experience unique race-based forms of abuse from dating and sexual partners, such as discrimination on dating apps, sexualized racism, race-based fetishization, among others.44,45 It is essential that future research also explores how racism further shapes patterns of abuse within and between specific gender/sex and sexual minority groups.
Public health implications
Findings from the present study highlighted that examining on- and offline psychological and sexual abuse experiences among more specified gender/sex and sexual identity groups can reveal nuanced patterns that would otherwise be overlooked in comparisons of women vs men or LGB vs heterosexual individuals. Recognizing these nuanced patterns matters for better understanding how nonassaultive psychological and sexual abuse functions differently within LGBTQ communities, and for developing targeted gender/sex/ual identity–based programs encouraging healthy romantic and sexual relationships, interventions for abuse, and post-abuse recovery services.46,47 For example, many existing programs for the prevention and treatment of abuse are tailored for women, despite our findings that gay and bisexual men have high or higher odds of experiencing some forms of abuse than do heterosexual and lesbian women. In addition, programs for women may not specifically address the unique ways that abuse may manifest or compound for bisexual women. Thus, specific interventions to reduce and treat gay and bisexual men and bisexual women are needed. Better assessment of gender/sex and sexual identity–specific patterns of abuse online could also aid more effective initiatives on online dating apps that aim to prevent and address abusive behaviors and help targeted interventions best reach the audiences with the greatest need.48
Acknowledgments
We acknowledge the Pew Research Center for data collection and access. Of note, the Pew Research Center bears no responsibility for the analyses or interpretations of the data presented here. The opinions expressed herein, including any implications for policy, are those of the authors and not of the Pew Research Center.
Contributor Information
Sara B Chadwick, Departments of Gender & Women’s Studies and Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53706, United States.
Jacqueline Woerner, Departments of Sociology and Psychology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States.
Eric W Schrimshaw, Department of Population Health Sciences, College of Medicine, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, United States.
Funding
None declared.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Data availability
Data are publicly available through the Pew Research Center at https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/dataset/american-trends-panel-wave-56/
References
- 1. Walters ML, Chen J, Breiding MJ. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS); 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. 2013. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/12362
- 2. Mason TB, Lewis RJ, Milletich RJ, et al. Psychological aggression in lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals’ intimate relationships: a review of prevalence, correlates, and measurement issues. Aggress Violent Behav. 2014;19(3):219-234. 10.1016/j.avb.2014.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Coker AL, Davis KE, Arias I, et al. Physical and mental health effects of intimate partner violence for men and women. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(4):260-268. 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00514-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Coker AL, Weston R, Creson DL, et al. PTSD symptoms among men and women survivors of intimate partner violence: the role of risk and protective factors. Violence Vict. 2005;20(6):625-643. 10.1891/0886-6708.20.6.625 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Echevarria SG, Peterson R, Woerner J. College students’ experiences of dating app facilitated sexual violence and associations with mental health symptoms and well-being. J Sex Res. 2022;60(8):1193-1205. 10.1080/00224499.2022.2130858 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Fernet M, Lapierre A, Hébert M, et al. A systematic review of literature on cyber intimate partner victimization in adolescent girls and women. Comput Hum Behav. 2019;100:11-25. 10.1016/j.chb.2019.06.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Hellemans S, Loeys T, Buysse A, et al. Intimate partner violence victimization among non-heterosexuals: prevalence and associations with mental and sexual well-being. J Fam Violence. 2015;30(2):171-188. 10.1007/s10896-015-9669-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Lauckner C, Truszczynski N, Lambert D, et al. “Catfishing,” cyberbullying, and coercion: an exploration of the risks associated with dating app use among rural sexual minority males. J Gay Lesbian Ment Health. 2019;23(3):289-306. 10.1080/19359705.2019.1587729 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Edwards KM, Sylaska KM, Neal AM. Intimate partner violence among sexual minority populations: a critical review of the literature and agenda for future research. Psychol Violence. 2015;5(2):112-121. 10.1037/a0038656 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Scheer JR, Martin-Storey A, Baams L. Help-seeking barriers among sexual and gender minority individuals who experience intimate partner violence victimization. In: Russell B, ed. Intimate Partner Violence and the LGBT+ Community: Understanding Power Dynamics. Springer International Publishing; 2020:139-158. [Google Scholar]
- 11. Brubaker SJ. Identifying influences on interpersonal violence in LGBTQ relationships through an ecological framework: A synthesis of the literature. In: Russell B, ed. Intimate Partner Violence and the LGBT+ Community: Understanding Power Dynamics. Springer International Publishing; 2020:53-67. [Google Scholar]
- 12. Rollè L, Giardina G, Caldarera AM, et al. When intimate partner violence meets same sex couples: a review of same sex intimate partner violence. Front Psychol. 2018;9:1506. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Whitton SW, Dyar C, Mustanski B, et al. Intimate partner violence experiences of sexual and gender minority adolescents and young adults assigned female at birth. Psychol Women Q. 2019;43(2):232-249. 10.1177/0361684319838972 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Callan A, Corbally M, McElvaney R. A scoping review of intimate partner violence as it relates to the experiences of gay and bisexual men. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2021;22(2):233-248. 10.1177/1524838020970898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Longobardi C, Badenes-Ribera L. Intimate partner violence in same-sex relationships and the role of sexual minority stressors: a systematic review of the past 10 years. J Child Fam Stud. 2017;26(8):2039-2049. 10.1007/s10826-017-0734-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Stiles-Shields C, Carroll RA. Same-sex domestic violence: prevalence, unique aspects, and clinical implications. J Sex Marital Ther. 2015;41(6):636-648. 10.1080/0092623X.2014.958792 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Pew Research Center . Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Online Daters Report Positive Experiences - But Also Harassment. 2020. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/09/lesbian-gay-and-bisexual-online-daters-report-positive-experiences-but-also-harassment/
- 18. Beischel WJ, Schudson ZC, Hoskin RA, et al. The gender/sex 3×3: measuring and categorizing gender/sex beyond binaries. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2022;10(3):355-372. 10.1037/sgd0000558 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 19. van Anders SM. Beyond sexual orientation: integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Arch Sex Behav. 2015;44(5):1177-1213. 10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Fausto-Sterling A. Gender/sex, sexual orientation, and identity are in the body: how did they get there? J Sex Res. 2019;56(4-5):529-555. 10.1080/00224499.2019.1581883 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. van Anders SM. Gender/sex and sexual diversity and biobehavioral research. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2024;11(3):471-487. 10.1037/sgd0000609 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Stephenson R, Finneran C. The IPV-GBM scale: a new scale to measure intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual men. PloS One. 2013;8(6):e62592. 10.1371/journal.pone.0062592 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Bender AK, Lauritsen JL. Violent victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations in the United States: findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey, 2017–2018. Am J Public Health. 2021;111(2):318-326. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.306017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Head S. Understanding power dynamics in bisexual intimate partner violence: Looking in the gap. In: Russell B, ed. Intimate Partner Violence and the LGBT+ Community: Understanding Power Dynamics. Springer International Publishing; 2020:111-137. [Google Scholar]
- 25. Rothman EF, Exner D, Baughman AL. The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the United States: a systematic review. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2011;12(2):55-66. 10.1177/1524838010390707 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Peitzmeier SM, Malik M, Kattari SK, et al. Intimate partner violence in transgender populations: systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence and correlates. Am J Public Health. 2020;110(9):e1-e14. 10.2105/AJPH.2020.305774 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Pew Research Center . The Virtues and Downsides of Online Dating. 2020. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2020/02/06/the-virtues-and-downsides-of-online-dating/
- 28. Hess A, Flores C. Simply more than swiping left: a critical analysis of toxic masculine performances on Tinder Nightmares. New Media Soc. 2018;20(3):1085-1102. 10.1177/1461444816681540 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Shaw F. “Bitch I said hi”: the Bye Felipe campaign and discursive activism in mobile dating apps. Soc Media Soc. 2016;2(4):2056305116672889. 10.1177/2056305116672889 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Thompson L. “I can be your Tinder nightmare”: harassment and misogyny in the online sexual marketplace. Fem Psychol. 2018;28(1):69-89. 10.1177/0959353517720226 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31. The Pew Research Center . 2019. American Trends Panel Wave 56 dataset. Accessed August 16, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/dataset/american-trends-panel-wave-56/
- 32. American Psychological Association . Gender. 2023. Accessed August 22, 2023, https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/gender
- 33. Lowik A, Cameron JJ, Dame J, et al. Gender & Sex in Methods & Measurement Research Equity Toolkit. Tool #6: Working with Pre-Existing, Secondary, & Older Data. University of British Columbia,: Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity. 2023. Accessed August 22, 2023. https://cgshe.ca/app/uploads/2023/08/GSMM-Research-Equity-Tool-6.pdf
- 34. Beauchamp AM, Cotton HR, LeClere AT, et al. Super likes and right swipes: how undergraduate women experience dating apps. J Stud Pers Assoc Indiana Univ. 2017;45:1-16. [Google Scholar]
- 35. Henry N, Flynn A, Powell A. Technology-facilitated domestic and sexual violence: a review. Violence Against Women. 2020;26(15-16):1828-1854. 10.1177/1077801219875821 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Buckels EE, Trapnell PD, Paulhus DL. Trolls just want to have fun. Personal Individ Differ. 2014;67:97-102. 10.1016/j.paid.2014.01.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Zweig JM, Dank M, Lachman P, Yahner J. Technology, Teen Dating Violence and Abuse, and Bullying. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center. 2013. Accessed March 23, 2023. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243296.pdf
- 38. Coston BM. Power and inequality: intimate partner violence against bisexual and non-monosexual women in the United States. J Interpers Violence. 2021;36(1-2):381-405. 10.1177/0886260517726415 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Badenes-Ribera L, Bonilla-Campos A, Frias-Navarro D, et al. Intimate partner violence in self-identified lesbians: a systematic review of its prevalence and correlates. Trauma Violence Abuse. 2016;17(3):284-297. 10.1177/1524838015584363 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Pachankis JE, Clark KA, Burton CL, et al. Sex, status, competition, and exclusion: Intraminority stress from within the gay community and gay and bisexual men’s mental health. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020;119(3):713-740. 10.1037/pspp0000282 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Brewster ME, Moradi B. Perceived experiences of anti-bisexual prejudice: instrument development and evaluation. J Couns Psychol. 2010;57(4):451-468. 10.1037/a0021116 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Marcotte AS, Gesselman AN, Fisher HE, et al. Women’s and men’s reactions to receiving unsolicited genital images from men. J Sex Res. 2021;58(4):512-521. 10.1080/00224499.2020.1779171 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Galupo MP, Davis KS, Grynkiewicz AL, et al. Conceptualization of sexual orientation identity among sexual minorities: patterns across sexual and gender identity. J Bisexuality. 2014;14(3-4):433-456. 10.1080/15299716.2014.933466 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Callander D, Holt M, Newman CE. ‘Not everyone’s gonna like me’: accounting for race and racism in sex and dating web services for gay and bisexual men. Ethnicities. 2016;16(1):3-21. 10.1177/1468796815581428 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Coulter RWS, Mair C, Miller E, et al. Prevalence of past-year sexual assault victimization among undergraduate students: exploring differences by and intersections of gender identity, sexual identity, and race/ethnicity. Prev Sci. 2017;18(6):726-736. 10.1007/s11121-017-0762-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Todahl JL, Linville D, Bustin A, et al. Sexual assault support services and community systems: understanding critical issues and needs in the LGBTQ community. Violence Women. 2009;15(8):952-976. 10.1177/1077801209335494 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. Sava LM, Earnshaw VA, Menino DD, et al. LGBTQ student health: a mixed-methods study of unmet needs in Massachusetts schools. J Sch Health. 2021;91(11):894-905. 10.1111/josh.13082 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48. Mowlabocus S. Kindness is our preference’: Hook-up apps as technologies of polite incivility. In: Mowlabocus S, ed. Interrogating Homonormativity: Gay Men, Identity and Everyday Life. Palgrave Macmillan; 2021:109-139. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data are publicly available through the Pew Research Center at https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/dataset/american-trends-panel-wave-56/