Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2022 Jun 2.
Published in final edited form as: Arch Sex Behav. 2021 Jun 2;50(4):1449–1460. doi: 10.1007/s10508-021-02009-5

Population-Specific Correlates of Sexual Arrangements and Communication in a National Sample of Latinx Sexual Minority Men

Gabriel Robles 1, Stephen C Bosco 2, Daniel Sauermilch 3, Tyrel J Starks 2,4
PMCID: PMC8272519  NIHMSID: NIHMS1712702  PMID: 34080072

Abstract

While the literature on sexual arrangements has expanded considerably, less is known about sexual arrangements among ethnically diverse populations, particularly Latinx sexual minority men (LSMM). Relationship research may overlook culturally salient correlates (e.g., ideals of masculinity or immigration-related factors) of sexual arrangements. The current study explores relationship-related factors (i.e., sexual arrangements, sexual communication, and relationship functioning) as well as Latino-specific factors, including dominant cultural views of masculinity (machismo/caballerismo) and immigration among partnered LSMM. Participants were recruited nationwide through social media and geo-location dating apps. All participants were aged 18 or older, cisgender male, lived in the U.S., including Puerto Rico, were able to read in either English or Spanish, and indicated they were currently in a relationship with a cismale partner. Multinomial regression was used to calculate the odds of being in an open or monogamish arrangement relative to a monogamous arrangement. Multivariable linear regression analysis was conducted to examine factors related to sexual communication. Language spoken with partner, adherence to more general heteronormative beliefs (genderism), substance use, were associated with specific sexual arrangement groups. The findings also suggested that birthplace, language spoken with partner variables and machismo were associated with specific sexual arrangements and associated with sexual communication. This study highlights that factors associated with sexual arrangements and sexual communication may be population specific. The current study points to a complex interplay between culturally relevant ideals of masculinity and sexual arrangements as well as sexual communication among partnered Latinx sexual minority men.

Keywords: Culture, immigration, consensual non-monogamy, Latino, sexual minority men

INTRODUCTION

Sexual arrangements refer to how a couple “handles” sex with outside partners, without implying an explicit understanding between the members of the couple (Dellucci, Carmichael, & Starks, 2020; Rios-Spicer, Darbes, Hoff, Sullivan, & Stephenson, 2019). Research on sexual arrangements among sexual minority men (SMM) has typically classified relationships as monogamous (sex with outside partners is not permitted); open (sex with casual partners may occur separately of together); and monogamish (sex with casual partners is permitted only when the main partner is present) (Hoff & Beougher, 2010; Starks et al., 2019). Studies have indicated that 47–72% of male relationships have a monogamous arrangement (Gass, Hoff, Stephenson, & Sullivan, 2012; LaSala, 2004; Mitchell, Harvey, Champeau, Moskowitz, & Seal, 2012; Starks et al., 2019; Stephenson, White, & Mitchell, 2015), while 3–40% are in an open arrangement, and 7–44% are in a monogamish arrangement (Gass et al., 2012; LaSala, 2004; Mitchell et al., 2012; Starks et al., 2019; Stephenson et al., 2015).

Despite the expanding literature on sexual arrangements, less is known about the prevalence of sexual arrangements among ethnically diverse populations, specifically among partnered LSMM. Some studies have shown no significant differences in the prevalence of sexual arrangements across racial and ethnic groups (Feinstein, Dellucci, Sullivan, & Mustanski, 2018; White et al., 2017). Others have found that LSMM specifically are more likely to report monogamous than non-monogamous arrangements (Beougher, Gómez, & Hoff, 2011; Parsons, Starks, Dubois, Grov, & Golub, 2013; Starks et al., 2019).

The establishment of a sexual arrangement has been understood as a strategy to promote overall relationship well-being (e.g., Hoff & Beougher, 2010; Hoff, Campbell, Chakravarty, & Darbes, 2016; Lewis, Gladstone, Schmal, & Darbes, 2006). Among general samples of SMM, men in monogamous arrangements are more likely to report better overall communication (Dellucci et al., 2020; Hoff & Beougher, 2010; Mitchell, 2014). Other studies have found no significant differences between communication patterns across sexual arrangement groups (Hoff, Beougher, Chakravarty, Darbes, & Neilands, 2010; Whitton, Weitbrecht, & Kuryluk, 2015). Among LSMM, Martinez, Munoz-Laboy, et al. (2017) identified specific barriers to non-monogamous arrangements. These included concerns about jealousy, infidelity, sexual safety (i.e., condom use) and lower rates of overall communication. Despite the potential associations between relationship-specific factors and sexual arrangements, few studies have examined culturally specific factors, which may be particularly salient correlates among LSMM.

The construct of masculinity – as defined with respect to Latinx cultural values – has long been researched as machismo. Traditional machismo encompasses a collection of gendered traits prized in men which embody hyper-masculinity (i.e., violence, hypersexual behaviors, and heavy substance use) (Cianelli, Ferrer, & McElmurry, 2008; Ferrer et al., 2016; Neff, 2001; Torres, Solberg, & Carlstrom, 2002). As the treatment of this construct in research had been met with criticism (Félix-Ortiz, Abreu, Briano, & Bowen, 2001), the work of Arciniega et al. (2008) reframed the discourse regarding Latinx masculinity. They proposed a more nuanced interpretation of the construct incorporating caballerismo (Arciniega, Anderson, Tovar-Blank, & Tracey, 2008). As a counterbalance to machismo, caballerismo may be interpreted as the more positively perceived masculine gendered traits and behaviors such as nurturance, social responsibility, emotional connectedness (Arciniega et al., 2008; Mirandé, 2018; Neff, 2001; Torres et al., 2002). This multidimensional understanding of Latinx masculinity provided by Arciniega et al. (2008) has been applied widely in research on mental and somatic health outcomes for Latinx communities (Estrada, Rigali-Oiler, Arciniega, & Tracey, 2011; Ojeda & Piña-Watson, 2014; Rivera, Brady, & Blashill, 2020).

Minimal work has examined the associations between culturally constructed ideals of masculinity, sexual arrangements, and relationship functioning among LSMM (Arciniega et al., 2008). In a general sample of partnered SMM, Wheldon and Pathak (2010) found that SMM in non-monogamous relationships reported higher levels of masculinity. For Latinx men generally, conforming to dominant cultural masculine norms (i.e., machismo) is an important value. It symbolizes strength and power within the context of a relationship (Marín, 2003). Traditionally, sex is viewed as a behavior to demonstrate masculinity, therefore Latinx men may seek multiple sexual partners to conform to the cultural norms of masculinity (Díaz, 1999; Jarama, Kennamer, Poppen, Hendricks, & Bradford, 2005).

Contrary to the idea that machismo might increase the likelihood of multiple sex partners, LSMM are more likely to report a monogamous sexual arrangement than another groups (Beougher et al., 2011; Parsons et al., 2013; Starks et al., 2019). The concept of caballerismo provides a context for understanding this observation with the idea that responsibility underlies this concept (Estrada et al., 2011). The literature examining links between masculinity and sexual arrangements among partnered LSMM is limited and much of it has not distinguished between machismo and caballerismo (Wheldon & Pathak, 2010).

Consistent with the greater SMM community, substance use among LSMM is quite common (Downing et al., 2020; Loza, Curiel, Beltran, & Ramos, 2020). However, LSMM are more likely to report alcohol use (Ramirez-Valles, Garcia, Campbell, Diaz, & Heckathorn, 2008), problematic drinking, and marijuana use (Rhodes et al., 2012) compared to other types of drugs (e.g., cocaine, crack, meth, and prescription medications). While much of this literature has focused on unpartnered LSMM, emergent research has illustrated high rates of problematic drinking, cocaine use, as well as other recreational drug use among partnered LSMM as well (Martinez, Munoz-Laboy, et al., 2017).

Substance use within the sexual minority community has been conceptualized as a way to cope with negative experiences related to an individual’s sexual orientation (Bourne & Weatherburn, 2017; Feinstein & Newcomb, 2016). The use of substances as a way to buffer negative events or emotions including loneliness and anxiety has also been demonstrated among LSMM (De Santis, Gonzalez-Guarda, Provencio-Vasquez, & Deleon, 2014). It has been suggested that being partnered may provide a sense of safety, thereby reducing substance use behaviors for some sexual gender minority subgroups (Whitton, Dyar, Newcomb, & Mustanski, 2018); however, this has not been demonstrated among partnered LSMM.

Among LSMM, culture and immigration are associated with sexual communication and sexual risk. Lo, Reisen, Poppen, Bianchi, and Zea (2011) found that adherence to cultural values was not associated with frequency of sexual communication; but rather, LSMM with increased sexual desire and substance use were less likely to engage in communication around sexual safety. Additional work has indicated that LSMM are more likely to report condomless anal sex with a casual partner when the casual partner is under the influence of substances (Wilson, Díaz, Yoshikawa, & Shrout, 2009). Conversely, recent research has found that the use of PrEP is associated with sexual communication and sexual agreement formation among SMM broadly (Malone et al., 2018). Further, HIV status occupies a unique position in predicting sexual communication among SMM. Among serodiscordant relationships, seronegative SMM have reported greater challenges in sexual communication due to what may be preoccupation with HIV transmission (Starks, Gamarel, & Johnson, 2014). Yet, HIV status disclosure among SMM in relationships has indicated that partners may negotiate sexual risk and thus more readily engage in sexual communication within their relationship (Shaver, Freeland, Goldenberg, & Stephenson, 2018).

These findings align with other research that has shown that immigration-related factors, birth place and language spoken, can influence sexual risk behaviors (Poppen, Reisen, Zea, Bianchi, & Echeverry, 2004; Rhodes & McCoy, 2015; Zea, Reisen, Poppen, & Bianchi, 2009). Specifically, previous research finds that LSMM who were born in the U.S. and indicated being English-dominant were more likely to report greater number of sexual partners compared to Spanish-dominant immigrants (Poppen et al., 2004; Rhodes & McCoy, 2015), which could be suggestive of the fact LSMM are adhering to particular standards of masculinity. The role of immigrant and U.S.-born specific factors within the context of sexual arrangements has not been examined as an influence on relationship functioning among partnered LSMM.

In a recent review of literature, Robles, Bosco, Dellucci, and Starks (2019) found that individual-level experiences can impact the quality of a relationship as well as patterns of communication at the dyadic-level. Additional research has found that greater number of previous sexual partners was associated with greater avoidance of sexual communication with a casual partner (Redlick, 2017). These previous findings may arise from the way LSMM communicated about sex-related topics. Latinx cultural values predict partner communication specific to condom use. Greater adherence to cultural values of masculinity (higher levels of machismo) are associated with greater likelihood of reporting condomless sex with casual partners (Jarama et al., 2005). Current research has not addressed the extent to which sexual communication is associated with cultural values that uphold hypermasculine beliefs and behaviors within the context of a sexual arrangement (Beougher et al., 2011; Martinez, Wu, et al., 2017).

The current study sought to provide a culturally informed examination of the correlates of sexual arrangements among LSMM. The first aim is to explore the demographic and dominant cultural views of masculinity associated with sexual arrangements among partnered LSMM. The second aim has a greater focus on relationship functioning (i.e., sexual communication) by examining the associations between these demographic, dominant cultural views of masculinity, and sexual communication. Finally, the current study controlled for both PrEP uptake and HIV status variables considering findings from recent research have shown such factors predict sexual communication among SMM in relationships.

Methods

Participants and procedures

LSMM were recruited online to participate in an internet-based survey between November 2018 and May 2019 using an index approach to recruitment (Robles, Dellucci, Stratton, & Starks, 2019). To be eligible, index participants needed to be 18 years of age or older, reside in the U.S. (including Puerto Rico), and identify as cismale. In addition, all participants were currently in a main partnership with a self-identified cismale 18 years of age or older, identified as Hispanic or Latino/x, and were able to read in Spanish or English.

Recruitment was conducted via a geo-targeted sexual networking mobile application and social media outlets. Potential participants clicked on the advertisements and then were directed to a brief screener to confirm age, race/ethnicity, gender identity, and relationship status. Participants that were not eligible for the current study were routed to a separate screener that assessed eligibility for a number of alternative studies that are actively recruiting SMM which are all being conducted at the research lab where the authors are currently located. Participants who were eligible for the current study were routed to the consent page.

The survey was designed to facilitate completion in either English or Spanish. Participants selected their preferred language prior to providing informed consent. Participants began the survey in the language in which they completed consent; however, they were able to switch language preferences at any point during the survey.

After completion of the survey, participants provided a valid e-mail address to receive their compensation. Finally, participants received a recruitment email template with a unique survey link and invitation to be forwarded to their main partner. Each participant was compensated with a $10 Amazon gift card. All procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of Hunter College of the City University of New York.

Measures

Demographics.

Participants provided demographic information including age, sexual orientation identity, gender identity, racial background, ethnic origin, income, highest educational attainment, HIV status, pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) uptake, and relationship length. Further immigration related information was also assessed, and whether they were born in the mainland U.S. Further, Participants also the primary language spoken with main partner by responding to question stating: “What language(s) do you usually speak with your partner/boyfriend?” The response format included (1) Only Spanish, (2) More Spanish than English, (3) Both equally, (4) More English than Spanish, and (5) Only English. Responses were transformed into a new 3-category variable capturing partner bilingual communication; (1) Only Spanish, (2) Bilingual, and (3) Only English.

Sexual Arrangement.

Similar to previous studies (Parsons et al., 2013; Starks et al., 2019) sexual arrangements were assessed using a single item that asked participants to report how they and their partner, “handled sex outside of their relationship.” Participants were categorized as monogamous if they reported, “neither of us has sex with others, we are monogamous” or “I don’t have sex with others, I don’t know about my partner.” Those who reported, “Both of us have sex with others together” were classified as monogamish. Participants were classified as being in an open arrangement if they reported; “Only I have sex with others,” “Only he has sex with others,” “Both of us have sex with others separately,” “We have sex with others separately and together,” and “I have sex with others, I don’t know about my partner.”

Latinx Masculinity (Machismo and Caballerismo).

Participants completed the modified Machismo scale for gay men (Arciniega et al., 2008; Estrada et al., 2011), a 23-item scale that measures traditional machismo and caballerismo. Machismo refers to men’s relative social position to non-male individuals and informs the beliefs and behaviors that men should subscribe also referred to as hyper-masculinity. The machismo subscale consisted of 12-items which included, “It is important not to be the weakest man in a group” and “Real men never let down their guard.” Internal consistency for the machismo subscale was strong (α=.92). Caballerismo refers to deference and civility that men display towards their family and community members. The caballerismo subscale consisted of 11-items which included statements such as, “Men must display good manners in public” and “Men must exhibit fairness in all situations”. Internal consistency for the caballerismo subscale was strong (α=.94). All items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree). All the items were coded such that higher scores indicated higher endorsement of traditional machismo and caballerismo.

Genderism.

Participants completed the genderism subscale of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale (GTS; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). The genderism subscale is a 12-item measure that assessed attitudes and beliefs related to gender role. Example items include, “Feminine men make me uncomfortable” and “Men who act like women should be ashamed of themselves.” Additional items were associated with gender expression conformity not specific to men (i.e., women, non-binary). All responses were indicated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly agree) to 7 (Strongly disagree). Appropriate items were reverse-coded and item scores were summed such that higher scores indicated greater adherence to gender role ideologies. Internal consistency was strong (α =.91).

Sexual Communication.

Sexual communication was measured using the Dyadic Sexual Communication (DSC; Catania, 1998) scale, a 13-item measure that assessed how participants perceive discussions related to sexual matters with their partners. Example items included, “Some sexual matters are too upsetting to discuss with my sexual partner” and “My partner often complains that I am not very clear about what I want sexually.” Items are scored on a 6-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Disagree strongly) to 6 (Agree strongly). Item scores were summed such that higher scores indicated greater sexual communication. Internal consistency was good (α =.77).

Relationship functioning.

Relationship functioning was assessed using the Revised Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS; Busby, Christensen, Crane, & Larson, 1995), a 14-item measure that measures the couple’s overall adjustment to relationship conflict and stressors. Participants were asked the frequency in which members of the couple disagree on everyday stressors. Example items included, “How often do you agree or disagree with your partner on displaying affection.” and “How often do you and your partner get on each other’s nerves?” Participants reported their scores on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Always disagree/All the time occurs) to 5 (Always agree/Never occurs). Items were coded such that higher scores indicated greater relationship functioning and dyadic adjustment. Internal consistency was good (α =.64).

Drug use severity.

Drug use severity was assessed using the 10-item Drug Abuse Screening Test (DAST-10; Skinner, 1982). Participants who indicated recent drug use (past 30 days) were subsequently asked to indicate the presence or absence of 9 symptoms associated with drug use. Responses were summed to produce a count of problems. Participants who did not indicate the use of any substances were assigned a value of zero. Items were coded and summed such higher scores indicated more severe drug use. Internal consistency for the scale was strong (α =.79).

Problematic drinking.

Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT; Bohn, Babor, & Kranzler, 1995) was used to measure problematic drinking. The AUDIT is comprised of three sections; quantity of consumption, problems related to drinking, and injury related to drinking. A 5-point Likert scale was used to assess drinking frequency (1 item; 0 = Never to 4 = 4 or more times per week), quantity of alcohol consumption on a typical drinking day (1 item; 0 = 1–2 drinks to 4 = 10 or more drinks), and problems relate to alcohol consumption (6 items; 0 = Never to 4 = Daily or Almost Daily). A 3-point Likert scale was used to assess physical injury to self or others as a result of drinking (0=No to 2 = Yes, during the last six months) and concern from others (0=No to 4=Yes, during the last 6 months). All 10 items were summed to create a total scale score and higher scores indicating greater problematic drinking. Internal consistency was strong (α =.91).

Condomless Anal Sex (CAS).

CAS was also assessed using a series of survey items. Participants indicated the number of times they had sex with their main partners. Those who indicated that sex with casual partners had occurred were then asked to indicate the number of times they had insertive and receptive anal sex with a casual partner in the past 3 months. For each kind of sex reported (insertive and/or receptive), participants were asked to indicate the number of times they had condomless sex. Responses from each participant used to create a dichotomous variable that indicated the occurrence of CAS with either a main partner or casual partner.

Analysis

Before the formal analyses, potential duplicates were identified by comparing variants of names, email addresses, HIV status, other demographic information, and meta-data (e.g., device and browser information). A series bivariate analyses (i.e., χ2tests of association and ANOVAS) examined sexual arrangement group differences on each of the demographic and cultural factors. Next, a multinomial regression predicted the odds (adjusted odds ratios) of sexual arrangement group membership adjusting for demographic characteristics, immigration (i.e., survey language and nativity status), relationship functioning (i.e., sexual communication and relationship functioning), Latinx-specific masculinity, conservative and gender-normed attitudes towards cisgender persons, and key behavioral indicators (i.e., problematic drinking, drug use severity, and CAS with a main partner). Lastly, linear regression analysis predicted sexual communication from sexual arrangement groups controlling for demographics, language spoken with their main partner, relationship functioning, substance use and condom usage. The analyses used the identically coded demographic variables across all models (i.e., bivariate, multinomial, and linear regression). See Table 1 for coding details.

Table 1.

Sexual Agreement Type by Demographic characteristics

Overall Monogamous Open Monogamish Test Statistic
Subgroup n (%) 530 (100.0) 175 (33.0) 239 (45.1) 116 (21.9)
Column Percentages
n(%) n(%) n(%) n(%)
Age χ2(2) = 11.70**
 30 years and younger [0] 268 (50.6) 107 (61.1)a 108 (45.2)b 53 (45.7)b
 31 years or older [1] 262 (49.4) 68 (38.9)a 131 (54.8)b 63 (54.3)b
Race χ2(8) = 11.40
 Black/Afro-Latinx 43 (8.1) 18 (10.3) 18 (7.5) 7 (6.0)
 White Latinx 335 (63.2) 101 (57.7) 166 (69.5) 68 (58.6)
 Native American/Indigenous 19 (3.6) 7 (4.0) 6 (2.5) 6 (5.2)
 Multiracial 92 (17.4) 31 (17.7) 35 (14.6) 26 (22.4)
 Other 41 (7.7) 18 (10.3) 14 (5.9) 9 (7.8)
Ethnic Origin χ2(8) = 13.53
 Mexican/Chicanx 261 (49.2) 81 (46.3) 122 (51.0) 58 (50.0)
 Central American 37 (7.0) 14 (8.0) 17 (7.1) 6 (5.2)
 South American 81 (15.3) 23 (13.1) 30 (12.6) 28 (24.1)
 Caribbean 132 (24.9) 48 (27.4) 63 (26.4) 21 (18.1)
 Other/multiethnic 19 (3.6) 9 (5.1) 7 (2.9) 3 (2.6)
Language Spoken with Main Partner χ2(4) = 0.65
 English only 182 (34.3) 60 (34.3) 83 (34.7) 39 (33.6)
 Spanish only 71 (13.4) 26 (14.9) 31 (13.0) 14 (12.1)
 Bilingual 277 (52.3) 89 (50.9) 125 (52.3) 63 (54.3)
Born in Mainland U.S. χ2(2) = 2.45
 Yes [1] 307 (57.9) 106 (60.6) 141 (59.0) 60 (51.7)
 No [0] 223 (42.1) 69 (39.4) 98 (41.0) 56 (48.3)
Sexual Identity χ2(4) = 5.82
 Gay 464 (87.5) 145 (82.9) 215 (90.0) 104 (89.7)
 Bisexual 48 (9.1) 23 (13.1) 17 (7.1) 8 (6.9)
 Queer 18 (3.4) 7 (4.0) 7 (2.9) 4 (3.4)
HIV status χ2(2) = 3.55
 Negative/Unknown [0] 404 (76.2) 139 (79.4) 173 (72.4) 92 (79.3)
 Positive [1] 126 (23.8) 36 (20.6) 66 (27.6) 24 (20.7)
PrEP Uptake χ2(2) = 11.41**
 Currently prescribed [1] 105 (19.8) 22 (12.6)a 50 (20.9)a,b 33 (28.4)b
 Not currently prescribed [0] 425 (80.2) 153 (87.4)a 189 (79.1)a,b 83 (71.6)b
CAS with Main Partner χ2(2) = 0.37
 At least one CAS [1] 325 (77.9) 109 (74.7) 142 (81.1) 74 (77.1)
 No CAS [0] 92 (22.1) 37 (25.3) 33 (18.9) 22 (22.9)
Education χ2(2) = 4.37
 Less than 4-year college [0] 336 (63.4) 114 (65.1) 158 (66.1) 64 (55.2)
 4-year college degree or more [1] 194 (36.6) 61 (34.9) 81 (33.9) 52 (44.8)
Income χ2(2) = 3.12
 <$30,000 [0] 332 (62.6) 110 (62.9) 157 (65.7) 65 (56.0)
 $30,000 or more [1] 198 (37.4) 65 (37.1) 82 (34.3) 51 (44.0)
Relationship Length χ2(2) = 6.82*
 Less than 3 years [0] 279 (52.7) 105 (60.0)a 122 (51.3)a,b 52 (44.8)b
 3 years or more [1] 250 (47.3) 70 (40.0)a 116 (48.7)a,b 64 (55.2)b
M(SD) ‡ M(SD) ‡ M(SD) ‡ M(SD) ‡
Length of U.S. Residency (years)† 10.5 (10.5) 11.7 (10.9) 10.0 (10.5) 9.7 (11.2) F(2, 218) = 0.75
Machismo 29.7 (15.7) 29.2 (17.4)a, b 31.5 (15.4)a 26.7 (12.9)b F(2, 527) = 3.92*
Caballerismo 56.5 (16.2) 58.9 (16.8)a 54.2 (16.3)a 57.5 (14.6)a, b F(2, 527) = 4.46*
Genderism 33.5 (17.0) 29.8 (14.9)a 37.5 (18.0)b 30.9 (16.2)a F(2, 527) = 12.60**
Sexual Communication 39.5 (9.5) 40.7 (10.0)a 37.5 (9.1)b 41.8 (9.1)a F(2, 527) = 10.24**
DAS 32.6 (6.4) 32.9 (6.6)a,b 31.7 (6.5)a 33.9 (5.7)b F(2, 527) = 5.29**
DAST 1.3 (2.1) 1.0 (1.5)a 1.6 (2.6)b 1.1 (1.8)a,b F(2, 527) = 4.44*
AUDIT 7.4 (8.0) 5.4 (5.9)a 9.1 (9.0)b 6.8 (7.7)a F(2, 527) = 11.67**
Open in a new tab

Note: Numbers in brackets indicate underlying coding metric.

*

p ≤ .05;

**

p ≤ .01

a-b

Within rows, cells with different superscripts differed at p < .05 using the post hoc chi-squared proportion test for categorical variables and a post hoc LSD difference test for continuous variables.

†

Participants born outside the mainland U.S.

‡

Scores represent the average of the total sum score.

DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale; DAST = Drug Abuse Screening Test; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; CAS = Condomless Anal Sex

Results

Direct recruitment efforts resulted in the enrollment of 625 index participants. Of these, 95 successfully recruited their main partner. The current study was limited to the subsample of partnered LSMM who participated individually (n = 530).

Table 1 includes a detailed summary of participant demographics. Over half of the sample (50.6%) reported being between the ages of 18 to 30 years old. The majority of the sample reporting identifying as being of Mexican or Caribbean descent (74.1%) with over half of the participants reporting being born in the U.S (57.9%). Over half (52.3%) of the sample indicted speaking with their main partner in both English and Spanish (bilingual). Additionally, three-fourths of the sample (76.2%) reported an HIV-negative status and among those, 80.2% indicated not currently being on PrEP. Open arrangement represented the largest subgroup (45.1%) with over half (54.8%) of the participants aged 31 years and older over reported being in an open arrangement. Among those currently taking PrEP there was a significant difference between sexual arrangement subgroups, greater PrEP use was indicated among those in an open arrangement compared to monogamous and monogamish groups (χ2(2) = 11.41, p < .05).

Results in Table 1 additionally show that across most key variables, significant between group differences were observed between the monogamous and non-monogamous subgroups at the bivariate level. In terms of Latinx-specific variables, results indicated significant differences with Machismo being associated with open arrangements (F(2, 527) = 3.92, p < .05). Caballerismo was associated with monogamous arrangements (F(2, 527) = 4.46, p < .05), and Genderism was associated with open arrangements (F(2, 527) = 12.60, p < .01) across sexual arrangement groups. There was no significant difference in Length of U.S. residency across sexual arrangements. Among the dyadic-specific variables, results indicate significant difference in sexual communication scores with less communication among open men relative to monogamous and monogamish (F(2, 527) = 10.21, p < .01). Additionally, significant differences in dyadic adjustment scores with monogamish men reporting higher scores than men in monogamous and open arrangements (F(2, 527) = 5.29, p < .01) were observed across groups. Similar findings were observed among individual-level variables, results indicate significant differences in drug use severity (F(2, 527) = 4.44, p ≤ .05) and problematic drinking (F(2, 527) = 11.67, p < .01) with men in open relationships reporting greater substance use problems.

Table 2 contains results of the multivariable multinomial regression analysis predicting sexual arrangement group. Several factors were associated with the odds of being in an open (versus a monogamous) arrangement. Regarding Latinx-specific variables, participants who only spoke Spanish to their partner were significantly less likely to report being in an open arrangement versus participants who only spoke English (AOR=0.36, p <.05). In contrast, participants with greater adherence to traditional gender role ideologies were more likely to be in an open arrangement than a monogamous arrangement (AOR=1.03, p <.01). In terms of individual-level factors, participants reporting problematic drinking (AOR=1.06, p <.01) and drug use (AOR=1.20, p <.01) were more likely to be in open compared to monogamous arrangements. Current findings demonstrated an association between drug use severity and problematic drinking among men in an open arrangement with both being positively associated with the odds of being in an open versus a monogamous arrangement. Age was the only demographic factor that increased the likelihood of being in a monogamish arrangement (AOR=1.05, p <.05).

Table 2.

Sexual Arrangements (ref = Monogamous)

Open Arrangement Monogamish Arrangement
AOR 95% CI AOR 95% CI
Age 1.03 (0.99, 1.07) 1.05* (1.01, 1.10)
Education 1.01 (0.54, 1.83) 1.22 (0.65, 2.30)
Income 1.08 (0.60, 1.95) 1.12 (0.59, 2.12)
Relationship Length 1.14 (0.68, 1.91) 1.66 (0.94, 2.93)
HIV Status 1.07 (0.57, 2.00) 0.91 (0.44, 1.87)
PrEP Uptake 1.64 (0.84, 3.22) 1.90 (0.95, 3.83)
U.S. Born 0.71 (0.40, 1.24) 0.65 (0.35, 1.20)
Language with Partner (ref=English only)
 Spanish only 0.36* (0.15, 0.87) 0.64 (0.25, 1.64)
 Bilingual 0.66 (0.36, 1.18) 1.02 (0.54, 1.95)
Sexual Identity (ref=Gay)
 Bisexual 0.56 (0.25, 1.28) 0.58 (0.22, 1.53)
 Queer/Other 1.07 (0.27, 4.33) 0.60 (0.11, 3.26)
Sexual Communication 0.98 (0.95, 1.01) 1.01 (0.98, 1.05)
DAS 0.97 (0.93, 1.01) 1.00 (0.96, 1.05)
Machismo 1.00 (0.98, 1.02) 0.99 (0.96, 1.01)
Caballerismo 1.00 (0.98, 1.02) 1.00 (0.98, 1.02)
Genderism 1.03** (1.01, 1.05) 1.02 (0.99, 1.04)
AUDIT 1.06** (1.03, 1.10) 1.03 (0.99, 1.07)
DAST 1.20* (1.04, 1.38) 1.10 (0.93, 1.30)
CAS with Main Partner 0.90 (0.48, 1.67) 1.20 (0.61, 2.38)
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05;

**

p < .01

DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; DAST = Drug Abuse Screening Test; CAS = Condomless Anal Sex;

Table 3 contains results of the linear regression model predicting sexual communication. Indicators of immigration were associated with sexual communication. Men born in the U.S. reported higher levels of sexual communication relative to men born outside the mainland U.S. (B = 2.30; 95% CI 0.61, 4.08; p < 0.05). Those reporting bilingual communication with partners (versus English only) had lower sexual communication scores (B = −1.89; 95% CI −3.77, −0.01; p < 0.05). Additionally, dyadic adjustment scores were positively associated with sexual communication (B = 0.21; 95% CI 0.08, 0.33; p < 0.001). Furthermore, scores on the machismo and caballerismo scales had inverse effects. Machismo was negatively associated with sexual communication (B = −0.13; 95% CI −0.19, −0.07; p < 0.001). In contrast, caballerismo was positively associated with sexual communication (B = 0.13; 95% CI 0.07, 0.19; p < 0.001). Lastly, CAS with main partners was negatively associated with sexual communication (B = −2.32; 95% CI −4.32, −0.32; p < 0.05). Those who reported CAS with their main partner, scored lower on the sexual communication scale. Sexual arrangement group differences – significant in bivariate analyses –were no longer significant in the multivariable model.

Table 3.

Sexual Communication

Sexual Communication
B 95% CI β
Age −0.02 (−0.15, 0.11) −0.01
Education −0.52 (−2.43, 1.39) −0.03
Income 0.66 (−1.25, 2.57) 0.03
Relationship Length −1.61 (−3.24, 0.01) −0.08
HIV Status −1.36 (−3.37, 0.64) −0.06
PrEP Uptake −0.80 (−2.88, 1.28) −0.03
U.S. Born 2.30* (0.61, 4.08) 0.12
Language with Partner (ref=English only)
 Spanish only −0.65 (−3.47, 2.17) −0.02
 Bilingual −1.89* (−3.77, −0.01) −0.10
Sexual Identity (ref=Gay)
 Bisexual −0.72 (−3.34, 1.93) −0.02
 Queer/Other −2.71 (−7.23, 1.84) −0.05
Sexual Agreement (ref=Monogamous)
 Open −1.19 (−3.10, 0.71) −0.06
 Monogamish 0.82 (−1.30, 2.94) 0.04
DAS 0.21** (0.08, 0.33) 0.14
Machismo −0.13** (−0.19, −0.07) −0.22
Caballerismo 0.13** (0.07, 0.19) 0.23
Genderism −0.06 (−0.12, 0.00) −0.12
AUDIT −0.006 (−0.11, 0.10) −0.01
DAST −0.08 (−0.47, 0.31) −0.01
CAS with Main Partner −2.32* (−4.32, −0.32) −0.10
Open in a new tab
*

p < .05;

**

p < .01

DAS = Dyadic Adjustment Scale; AUDIT = Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test; DAST = Drug Abuse Screening Test; CAS = Condomless Anal Sex

Discussion

The current study explored demographic factors and dominant cultural views of masculinity associated with sexual arrangements and sexual communication among partnered LSMM. This is one of the few studies that have investigated culturally specific correlates of sexual arrangements. Sexual agreement groups did not differ significantly with respect to dominant cultural standards and expectations of hyper-masculinity (i.e., machismo) or norms of deference and civility (i.e., caballerismo). However, a greater adherence to gender-norms was associated with open arrangements, suggesting a distinct separation between culturally specific ideals around masculine behaviors and those gender-based normed behaviors that are reflective of heteronormative ideals. The current study also found that men who reported speaking English and Spanish (bilingual) to their partner engaged less in sexual communication relative to other language-dominant groups. Further, men born in the mainland U.S. engaged in greater levels of sexual communication relative men not born on the mainland U.S.

The finding from the current study that greater adherence to more general heteronormative beliefs (genderism) was associated with open arrangements among partnered LSMM is consistent with prior research among SMM more broadly (Wheldon & Pathak, 2010). However, in examining more Latinx-specific beliefs of masculinity (machismo or caballerismo) there were no observed differences in associations with sexual arrangement categories. Suggesting that among the partnered LSMM in the current study who are currently residing in the U.S., may place a greater importance on more general ideals of masculinity and gender normative beliefs as they relate to the establishment of a sexual agreement. In addition to the role of masculine ideals as being associated with sexual arrangements, we found significant differences between languages spoken with a partner and sexual arrangements. LSMM who reported being in a monogamous arrangement were more likely to speak English (rather than Spanish) with their main partner. The findings that English as a primary language being spoken with a main partner in tandem with the adherence to more generalized and less culturally-specific masculine beliefs as being associated with sexual arrangements among partnered LSMM may suggest that acculturation may play a significant role in the formation of sexual arrangements among LSMM currently residing in the U.S. Interestingly, findings indicate that language spoken with partner has a significant association with sexual arrangements and sexual communication.

The current findings suggest that men reporting speaking both Spanish and English with their partner were less likely to engage in conversations related to sex and sexual behavior compared to those who spoke primarily English. This finding points to a potential complex interplay between language spoken and immigration history. Previous research has shown sexual communication and sexual arrangements to be related (LaSala, 2005; Whitton et al., 2015). In contrast we found key differences suggesting that among LSMM these two constructs may operate independently. This may arise because of diversity in language, behavior, and cultural notions of masculinity. Further research on sexual arrangements and communication among LSMM should consider the cultural context in which sexual arrangements are formed and the specific context through sex-specific conversations occur. These findings are not consistent with previous research on LSMM that suggest bilingual relationships are associated with greater sexual communication (Zea, Reisen, Poppen, Bianchi, & Echeverry, 2005; Zea, Reisen, Poppen, & Díaz, 2003). Our findings suggest that sexual communication may be less about language but more about U.S.-specific heteronormativity among SMM broadly.

The findings regarding sexual arrangement group differences in drug use and problematic drinking are consistent with the larger body of literature (Mitchell, Boyd, McCabe, & Stephenson, 2014; Parsons et al., 2013; Starks & Parsons, 2014). Men in open arrangements were more likely to report greater drug use and problematic drinking. Several explanations are plausible. Substance use may facilitate sexual behavior with casual partners (Bruce et al., 2008). Given the high level of stigma within the Latinx community on same-sex sexual behaviors, the use of substances might be a strategy to reduce levels of distress related to engaging in sex with a man (Bruce, Ramirez-Valles, & Campbell, 2008; Li, Okafor, Gorbach, & Shoptaw, 2018; Paul, Boylan, Gregorich, Ayala, & Choi, 2014). As previously discussed in prior research (De Santis et al., 2014) substance across the LSMM community might be a way to mitigate distress related to acculturation or experiences of discrimination based on their dual minority status. The current study did not assess motivations behind substance use. Future research should seek to identify salient motivations for substance use and explore potential intervention implications.

Substance use was unrelated to sexual communication in this sample. This finding is inconsistent with previous studies that have demonstrated an inverse relationship between substance use and sexual communication (Lo et al., 2011; Wilson et al., 2009). However, results highlighted a link between dominant cultural beliefs of masculinity and sexual communication. Specifically, men with greater adherence to dominant cultural standards of masculinity (i.e., machismo) were less likely to report engaging in sexual communication with their main partner. This is of particular concern as LSMM continue to experience disproportionate rates of HIV acquisition (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Cultural norms around masculinity might shape the expectations that LSMM in same-sex relationships have for the relationship. Further, Men born in the U.S. reported greater sexual communication, suggesting the potential role of communication norms and expectations as enhancing the skills to engage in conversations related to sex within the context of a main partnership.

Future research examining sexual arrangements would benefit from prospective research designs in which the development of sexual arrangements can be measured in tandem with processes of acculturation or lack thereof, and beliefs about gender and masculinity. Further, more research is needed on how acculturation and possible acculturative stress (psychological impact of adaptation to a new culture) impacts the communication patterns of LSMM. Additionally, research and clinical practice addressing sex-related communication among LSMM and LSMM couples should be able to contextualize sex specific communication practices within frameworks of acculturation, while not pathologizing the Latinx experience in the U.S.

The findings of the current study must be understood considering several limitations. First, the data were generated from a convenience sample of LSMM using geosocial dating applications and social media outlets. This recruitment method limits generalizability to SMM who use these geospatial applications. Indeed, the observed relationships could be different among LSMM, specifically, and SMM more generally who do not use these applications. Additionally, the use of a SMM dating geospatial application has been contextualized as a way to create an attachment to the SMM community more broadly (Jaspal, 2017). The sample of the current study only consisted of LSMM men currently living in the U.S. and Puerto Rico. Additionally, we found some effects related to immigration/non-immigration and language. These effects may have been attributed to acculturation; however, we did not measure acculturing. Further, our findings might not be applicable to LSMM who currently reside in their country of birth. This might be of particular interest for future studies to examine differences in cultural perspectives within the U.S. compared to Latin American countries and how those differences might influence sexual arrangements.

Despite the reported limitations, the findings of the current study expand on previous research to suggest a complex interplay between culturally relevant ideals of masculinity and sexual arrangements as well as sexual communication among partnered LSMM. In the current study, we sought to examine cultural associations with sexual arrangements as well as to gain a further understanding on how cultural values and immigration impact the decisions men make about sex, particularly among LSMM, a population underrepresented in sexuality studies. As a result, the current study identified the protective role of being born outside the mainland U.S. This finding highlights the need for a greater body of sexuality research on immigrant and non-immigrant Latinx SMM living in the mainland U.S.

Funding:

This study was funded by a Research Supplement to Promote Diversity in Health-Related Research funded by the National Institute of Drug Abuse (R01DA045613-01S)

Footnotes

Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Research involving

Ethical approval: All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the City University of New York University Integrated Institutional Review Board (Human Research Protection Program 2018-1094) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Arciniega GM, Anderson TC, Tovar-Blank ZG, & Tracey TJG (2008). Toward a fuller conception of Machismo: Development of a traditional Machismo and Caballerismo Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(1), 19–33. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.55.1.19 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Beougher SC, Gómez W, & Hoff CC (2011). The couple as context: Latino gay male couples and HIV. Cult Health Sex, 13(3), 299–312. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bohn MJ, Babor TF, & Kranzler HR (1995). The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT): Validation of a screening instrument for use in medical settings. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 56(4), 423–432. doi: 10.15288/jsa.1995.56.423 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bourne A, & Weatherburn P (2017). Substance use among men who have sex with men: Patterns, motivations, impacts and intervention development need. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 93(5), 342–346. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bruce D, Ramirez-Valles J, & Campbell RT (2008). Stigmatization, substance use, and sexual risk behavior among Latino gay and bisexual men and transgender persons. Journal of drug issues, 38(1), 235–260. [Google Scholar]
  6. Busby DM, Christensen C, Crane DR, & Larson JH (1995). A revision of the dyadic adjustment scale for use with destressed and nondistressed couples: Construct hierarchy and multidimensional scales. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 21(3), 289–308. [Google Scholar]
  7. Catania JA (1998). Dyadic Sexual Communication Scale. In Fisher TD, Davis CM, Yarber WL, & Davis SL (Eds.), Handbook of Sexuality-Related Measures (3 ed., pp. 129–130). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  8. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2018). HIV Surveillance Report. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html
  9. Cianelli R, Ferrer L, & McElmurry BJ (2008). HIV prevention and low‐income Chilean women: Machismo, marianismo and HIV misconceptions. Cult Health Sex, 10(3), 297–306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. De Santis JP, Gonzalez-Guarda R, Provencio-Vasquez E, & Deleon DA (2014). The Tangled Branches (Las Ramas Enredadas) sexual risk, substance abuse, and intimate partner violence among Hispanic men who have sex with men. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 25(1), 23–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dellucci TV, Carmichael C, & Starks TJ (2020). Arrangements versus agreements: Evaluating two approaches to measuring male couples’ rules and understandings around sex with outside sex partners. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1–12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Díaz RM (1999). Latino gay men and HIV: Culture, sexuality, and risk behavior. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 5(3), 292–293. doi: 10.1037/1099-9809.5.3.292 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Downing MJ, Benoit E, Brown D, Coe L, Hirshfield S, Pansulla L, & Carballo-Diéguez A (2020). Early sexual experiences, mental health, and risk behavior among Black non-Hispanic and Hispanic/Latino men who have sex with men (MSM). Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 29(1), 41–61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Estrada F, Rigali-Oiler M, Arciniega GM, & Tracey TJG (2011). Machismo and Mexican American men: An empirical understanding using a gay sample. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 58(3), 358–367. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Feinstein BA, Dellucci TV, Sullivan PS, & Mustanski BM (2018). Characterizing Sexual Agreements With One’s Most Recent Sexual Partner Among Young Men Who Have Sex With Men. AIDS Education and Prevention, 30(4), 335–349. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Feinstein BA, & Newcomb ME (2016). The role of substance use motives in the associations between minority stressors and substance use problems among young men who have sex with men. Psychology of sexual orientation and gender diversity, 3(3), 357–366. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Félix-Ortiz M, Abreu JM, Briano M, & Bowen D (2001). A critique of machismo measures in psychological research. In Columbus F (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research (Vol. 3, pp. 63–90). New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers. [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferrer L, Cianelli R, Villegas N, Reed R, Bernales M, Repetto P, … Peragallo‐Montano N (2016). Exploring the masculine identity in the context of HIV prevention in Chile. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 48(2), 128–138. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gass K, Hoff CC, Stephenson R, & Sullivan PS (2012). Sexual agreements in the partnerships of Internet-using men who have sex with men. AIDS Care, 24(10), 1255–1263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hill DB, & Willoughby BLB (2005). The development and validation of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Sex Roles, 53(7–8), 531–544. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hoff CC, & Beougher SC (2010). Sexual agreements among gay male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(3), 774–787. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9393-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Hoff CC, Beougher SC, Chakravarty D, Darbes LA, & Neilands TB (2010). Relationship characteristics and motivations behind agreements among gay male couples: Differences by agreement type and couple serostatus. AIDS Care, 22(7), 827–835. doi: 10.1080/09540120903443384 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hoff CC, Campbell CK, Chakravarty D, & Darbes LA (2016). Relationship-based predictors of sexual risk for HIV among MSM couples: A systematic review of the literature. AIDS and Behavior, 20(12), 2873–2892. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Jarama SL, Kennamer JD, Poppen PJ, Hendricks M, & Bradford J (2005). Psychosocial, behavioral, and cultural predictors of sexual risk for HIV infection among Latino men who have sex with men. AIDS and Behavior, 9(4), 513–523. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jaspal R (2017). Gay men’s construction and management of identity on Grindr. Sexuality & Culture, 21(1), 187–204. [Google Scholar]
  26. LaSala MC (2004). Extradyadic sex and gay male couples: Comparing monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships. Families in Society, 85(3), 405–412. doi: 10.1606/1044-3894.1502 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. LaSala MC (2005). Monogamy of the heart: Extradyadic sex and gay male couples. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 17(3), 1–24. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lewis MA, Gladstone E, Schmal S, & Darbes LA (2006). Health-related social control and relationship interdependence among gay couples. Health Education Research, 21(4), 488–500. doi: 10.1093/her/cyh075 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Li MJ, Okafor CN, Gorbach PM, & Shoptaw S (2018). Intersecting burdens: Homophobic victimization, unstable housing, and methamphetamine use in a cohort of men of color who have sex with men. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 192, 179–185. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Lo SC, Reisen CA, Poppen PJ, Bianchi FT, & Zea MC (2011). Cultural beliefs, partner characteristics, communication, and sexual risk among Latino MSM. AIDS and Behavior, 15(3), 613–620. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Loza O, Curiel ZV, Beltran O, & Ramos R (2020). Methamphetamine use and sexual risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in a Mexico‐US border city. The American Journal on Addictions, 29(2), 111–119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Malone J, Syvertsen JL, Johnson BE, Mimiaga MJ, Mayer KH, & Bazzi AR (2018). Negotiating sexual safety in the era of biomedical HIV prevention: relationship dynamics among male couples using pre-exposure prophylaxis. Culture Health & Sexuality, 20(6), 658–672. doi: 10.1080/13691058.2017.1368711 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Marín BV (2003). HIV prevention in the Hispanic community: Sex, culture, and empowerment. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 14(3), 186–192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Martinez O, Munoz-Laboy M, Levine EC, Starks TJ, Dolezal C, Dodge B, … Fernandez MI (2017). Relationship factors associated with sexual risk behavior and high-risk alcohol consumption among Latino men who have sex with men: Challenges and opportunities to intervene on HIV risk. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(4), 987–999. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0835-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Martinez O, Wu E, Frasca T, Shultz AZ, Fernandez MI, López Rios J, … Sandfort TGM (2017). Adaptation of a couple-based HIV/STI prevention intervention for Latino men who have sex with men in New York City. American Journal of Men’s Health, 11(2), 181–195. doi: 10.1177/1557988315579195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Mirandé A (2018). Hombres y machos: Masculinity and Latino culture. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  37. Mitchell JW (2014). Aspects of gay male couples’ sexual agreements vary by their relationship length. AIDS Care, 26(9), 1164–1170. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mitchell JW, Boyd C, McCabe S, & Stephenson R (2014). A cause for concern: Male couples’ sexual agreements and their use of substances with sex. AIDS and Behavior, 18(7), 1401–1411. doi: 10.1007/s10461-014-0736-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mitchell JW, Harvey SM, Champeau D, Moskowitz DA, & Seal DW (2012). Relationship factors associated with gay male couples’ concordance on aspects of their sexual agreements: Establishment, type, and adherence. AIDS and Behavior, 16(6), 1560–1569. doi: 10.1007/s10461-011-0064-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Neff JA (2001). A confirmatory factor analysis of a measure of “machismo” among Anglo, African American, and Mexican American male drinkers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 23(2), 171–188. [Google Scholar]
  41. Ojeda L, & Piña-Watson B (2014). Caballerismo may protect against the role of machismo on Mexican day laborers’ self-esteem. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 15(3), 288–295. [Google Scholar]
  42. Parsons JT, Starks TJ, Dubois S, Grov C, & Golub SA (2013). Alternatives to monogamy among gay male couples in a community survey: Implications for mental health and sexual risk. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(2), 303–312. doi: 10.1007/s10508-011-9885-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Paul JP, Boylan R, Gregorich S, Ayala G, & Choi KH (2014). Substance use and experienced stigmatization among ethnic minority men who have sex with men in the United States. Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse, 13(4), 430–447. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Poppen PJ, Reisen CA, Zea MC, Bianchi FT, & Echeverry JJ (2004). Predictors of unprotected anal intercourse among HIV-positive latino gay and bisexual men. AIDS and Behavior, 8(4), 379–389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Ramirez-Valles J, Garcia D, Campbell RT, Diaz RM, & Heckathorn DD (2008). HIV infection, sexual risk behavior, and substance use among Latino gay and bisexual men and transgender persons. American journal of public health, 98(6), 1036–1042. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.102624 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Redlick M (2017). The perceived threat of sexual communication, number of previous sexual partners and topic avoidance in romantic relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 8(1–2), 148–157. [Google Scholar]
  47. Rhodes SD, & McCoy TP (2015). Condom use among immigrant Latino sexual minorities: Multilevel analysis after respondent-driven sampling. AIDS Education and Prevention, 27(1), 27–43. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Rhodes SD, McCoy TP, Hergenrather KC, Vissman AT, Wolfson M, Alonzo J, … Eng E (2012). Prevalence estimates of health risk behaviors of immigrant Latino men who have sex with men. The Journal of Rural Health, 28(1), 73–83. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Rios-Spicer R, Darbes L, Hoff C, Sullivan PS, & Stephenson R (2019). Sexual agreements: A scoping review of measurement, prevalence and links to health outcomes. AIDS and Behavior, 23(1), 259–271. doi: 10.1007/s10461-018-2212-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rivera DB, Brady JP, & Blashill AJ (2020). Traditional machismo, caballerismo, and the Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Cascade among a sample of Latino sexual minority men. The Journal of Sex Research, 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Robles G, Bosco SC, Dellucci TV, & Starks TJ (2019). Integrating intra-individual and dyadic factors in examining health among gay and bisexual men: A narrative review of recent literature. GLBT Family Studies, 1–26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Robles G, Dellucci TV, Stratton MJ, & Starks TJ (2019). The utility of index case recruitment for establishing couples’ eligibility: An examination of consistency in reporting the drug use of a primary partner among sexual minority male couples. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Shaver J, Freeland R, Goldenberg T, & Stephenson R (2018). Gay and Bisexual Men’s Perceptions of HIV Risk in Various Relationships. American Journal of Men’s Health, 12(4), 655–665. doi: 10.1177/1557988317745759 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Skinner HA (1982). The Drug Abuse Screening Test. Addictive Behaviors, 7(4), 363–371. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Starks TJ, Gamarel KE, & Johnson MO (2014). Relationship Characteristics and HIV Transmission Risk in Same-Sex Male Couples in HIV Serodiscordant Relationships. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(1), 139–147. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0216-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Starks TJ, & Parsons JT (2014). Adult attachment among partnered gay men: Patterns and associations with sexual relationship quality. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43(1), 107–117. doi: 10.1007/s10508-013-0224-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Starks TJ, Robles G, Bosco SC, Dellucci TV, Grov C, & Parsons JT (2019). The prevalence and correlates of sexual arrangements in a national cohort of HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in the United States. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48(1), 369–382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Stephenson R, White D, & Mitchell JW (2015). Sexual agreements and perception of HIV prevalence among an online sample of partnered men who have sex with men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(7), 1813–1819. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0532-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Torres JB, Solberg VSH, & Carlstrom AH (2002). The myth of sameness among Latino men and their machismo. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72(2), 163–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Wheldon CW, & Pathak EB (2010). Masculinity and relationship agreements among male same-sex couples. Journal of Sex Research, 47(5), 460–470. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. White D, Grey JA, Gorbach PM, Rothenberg RB, Sullivan PS, & Rosenberg ES (2017). Racial differences in partnership attributes, typologies, and risk behaviors among men who have sex with men in Atlanta, Georgia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(4), 961–975. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Whitton SW, Dyar C, Newcomb ME, & Mustanski B (2018). Effects of romantic involvement on substance use among young sexual and gender minorities. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 191, 215–222. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2018.06.037 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Whitton SW, Weitbrecht EM, & Kuryluk AD (2015). Monogamy Agreements in Male Same-Sex Couples: Associations With Relationship Quality and Individual Well-Being. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 14(1), 39–63. doi: 10.1080/15332691.2014.953649 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  64. Wilson PA, Díaz RM, Yoshikawa H, & Shrout PE (2009). Drug use, interpersonal attraction, and communication: Situational factors as predictors of episodes of unprotected anal intercourse among Latino gay men. AIDS and Behavior, 13(4), 691–699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Zea MC, Reisen CA, Poppen PJ, & Bianchi FT (2009). Unprotected anal intercourse among immigrant Latino MSM: The role of characteristics of the person and the sexual encounter. AIDS and Behavior, 13(4), 700–715. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Zea MC, Reisen CA, Poppen PJ, Bianchi FT, & Echeverry JJ (2005). Disclosure of HIV status and psychological well-being among Latino gay and bisexual men. AIDS and Behavior, 9(1), 15–26. doi: 10.1007/s10461-005-1678-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Zea MC, Reisen CA, Poppen PJ, & Díaz RM (2003). Asking and telling: Communication about HIV status among Latino HIV-positive gay men. AIDS and Behavior, 7(2), 143–152. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES