TABLE 3.

Multivariable adjusted logistic regression models examining the association of substance use and sexual partnering preferences and racial preferences appearing in the profiles of Boston-area men seeking men on a gay/bisexual social networking site (n = 89)

	Prefer White men (n = 43)				Prefer Black men (n = 43)				Prefer Latino men (n = 48)
	OR (95 % CI)	p Value	aOR (95 % CI)	p Value	OR (95 % CI)	p Value	aOR (95 % CI)	p Value	OR (95 % CI)	p Value	aOR (95 % CI)	p Value
Sexual position
Versatile	1.00	–	–	–	1.00	–	1.00	–	1.00	–	1.00	–
Top	1.25 (0.55–2.88)	0.60	–	–	0.30 (0.07–1.30)	0.11	0.27 (0.06–1.18)	0.08	0.93 (0.37–2.34)	0.87	0.95 (0.37, 2.46)	0.92
Bottom	1.27 (0.53–3.04)	0.60	–	–	2.25 (1.08–4.69)	0.03	2.30 (1.07–4.96)	0.04	2.46 (1.20–5.04)	0.01	2.27 (1.07, 4.81)	0.03
Substance use
Alcohol use	2.40 (1.10–5.21)	0.03	1.35 (0.54–3.35)	0.52	1.79 (0.88–3.68)	0.11	–	–	2.38 (1.14–4.96)	0.02	1.98 (0.75, 5.23)	0.17
Sexual preferences
Low-risk foreplay	5.86 (2.45–14.02)	<0.0001	4.27 (1.70–10.75)	0.002	3.76 (1.41–10.17)	0.01	1.27 (0.38–4.25)	0.70	5.13 (2.16–12.17)	0.0002	2.11 (0.74, 5.23)	0.16
Group sex	2.20 (1.19–4.08)	0.01	1.83 (0.91–3.69)	0.09	3.33 (1.74–6.37)	0.0003	2.28 (1.08–4.81)	0.03	3.95 (2.10–7.44)	0.0001	2.56 (1.25, 5.23)	0.01
Rough sex	1.49 (0.57–3.88)	0.41	–	–	3.64 (1.74–7.62)	0.001	2.25 (0.92–5.47)	0.08	3.60 (1.78–7.29)	0.0004	1.91 (0.83, 4.37)	0.13

Due to low-cell counts, associations between demographic and sexual risk preferences, and preference for an Asian partner could not be explored

aOR adjusted odds ratio. Adjusted for age and HIV status disclosure