Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Men, Multiple Sexual Partners, and Young Adults’ Sexual Relationships: Understanding the Role of Gender in the Study of Risk

  • Published:
Journal of Urban Health Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Heterosexual transmission of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections has become a primary health concern worldwide. Gender roles for heterosexual interactions appear to sanction men’s sexual risk-taking, especially the pursuit of multiple sexual partners. Using measures developed in this study, the current study assessed the associations between men’s and women’s relationship attitudes and experiences and their sexual risk encounters. Participants were 104 men and 103 women (18–24 years) from a large, urban college located in a high HIV risk neighborhood of New York City. All completed a survey assessing HIV risk and the battery of relationship measures assessing traditional sexual roles, sexual conflicts, significance of sex, relationship investment, need for relationship, and unwanted sex. For men, greater sexual conflict in their primary relationships was associated with more sexual partners and fewer unprotected vaginal intercourse encounters with a primary partner and across sex partners overall. In addition, men’s endorsement of more traditional sexual roles and lower relationship investment were associated with higher numbers of sexual partners. Among women, compliance with men to engage in unwanted sex was associated with higher levels of participation in unprotected sex. For both men and women, greater significance given to sex in a relationship was associated with fewer extradyadic partners. This study demonstrates the utility of measures of relationship attitudes and experiences to characterize sexual risk, especially among men. Findings are discussed in terms of implications for prevention program targeting young urban adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). HIV transmission among black women—North Carolina, 2004. MMWR. 2005;54:894–899.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rothenberg R, Gisselquist D, Potterat, J. A simulation to assess the conditions required for high level heterosexual transmission of HIV in Africa. Int J STD AIDS. 2004;15:529–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Anderson JE, Wilson R, Doll L, Jones TS, Barker P. Condom use and HIV risk behaviors among U.S. adults: data from a national survey. Fam Plann Perspect. 1999;31:24–28.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Amaro H. Love, sex, and power: considering women’s realities in HIV prevention. Am Psychol. 1995;50:437–447.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Ehrhardt AA, Exner TM, Hoffman S, et al. HIV/STD risk and sexual strategies among women family planning clients in New York: project FIO. AIDS Behav. 2002;6:1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. O’Leary A. Women at risk for HIV from a primary partner: balancing risk and intimacy. Annu Rev Sex Res. 2000;11:191–234.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Gómez CA, Màrin BV. Gender, culture, and power: barriers to HIV-prevention strategies for women. J Sex Res. 1996;33:355–362.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Wingood GM, DiClemente RJ. Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women. Health Educ Behav. 2000;27:539–565.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Exner TM, Gardos PS, Seal DW, Ehrhardt AA. HIV sexual risk reduction interventions with heterosexual men: the forgotten group. AIDS Behav. 1999;3:347–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gagnon JH, Simon J. Sexual Conduct: The Social Origins of Human Sexuality. Chicago: Aldine; 1973.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Simon W, Gagnon J. Sexual scripts: permanence and change. Arch Sex Behav. 1996;15:97–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gibbons JL, Hamby BA, Dennis WD. Researching gender-role ideologies internationally and cross-culturally. Psychol Women Q. 1997;21:151–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Metts S, Spitzberg BH. Sexual communication in interpersonal contexts: a script-based approach. In: Burleson BR, ed. Communication Yearbook 19. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 1996:49–91.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tiefer L. Sex is Not a Natural Act and Other Essays. Boulder, Colorado: Westview; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Byers ES. How well does the traditional sexual script explain sexual coercion? Review of a program of research. J Psychol Human Sex. 1996;8:7–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Murnen S. If “boys will be boys,” then girls will be victims? A meta-analytic review of the research that relates masculine ideology to sexual aggression. Sex Roles. 2002;46:359–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Littleton HL, Axsom D. Rape and seduction scripts of university students: implications for rape attributions and unacknowledged rape. Sex Roles. 2003;49:465–475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Wolfe WA. Overlooked role of African-American males’ hypermasculinity in the epidemic of unintended pregnancies and HIV/AIDS cases with young African-American women. J Nat Med Assoc. 2003;95:846–852.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Muehlenhard CL, MacNaughton JS. Women’s beliefs about women who “lead men on.” J Soc Clin Psychol. 1998;7:65–79.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Struckman-Johnson C, Struckman-Johnson D, Anderson PB. Tactics of sexual coercion: when men and women won’t take no for an answer. J Sex Res. 2003;40:76–86.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. O’Sullivan LF, Byers ES, Finkelman L. A comparison of male and female college students’ experiences of sexual coercion. Psychol Wom Q. 2003;22:177–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bailey BL. From Front Porch to Back Seat: Courtship in 20th Century America. Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hopkins University Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Netting NS, Burnett ML. Twenty years of student sexual behavior: subcultural adaptations to a changing health environment. Adolescence. 2004;39:19–38.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Hearn KD, O’Sullivan LF, El-Bassel N, Gilbert L. Intimate partner violence and monogamy among women in methadone treatment. AIDS Behav. 2005;9:177–186.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Thorburn S, Harvey SM, Ryan EA. HIV prevention heuristics and condom use among African-Americans at risk for HIV. AIDS Care. 2005;17:335–344.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Seal DW, Ehrhardt AA. Masculinity and urban men: perceived scripts for courtship, romantic, and sexual interactions with women. Cult Health Sex. 2003;5:295–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wagner-Raphael LI, Seal DW, Ehrhardt AA. Close emotional relationships with women versus men: a qualitative study of 56 heterosexual men living in an inner-city neighborhood. J Men’s Stud. 2001;9:243–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Wiederman MW. Extramarital sex: prevalence and correlates in a national survey. J Sex Res. 1997;34:167–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Morris M, Kretzschmar M. Concurrent partnerships and the spread of HIV. AIDS. 1997;11:641–648.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Kretzschmar M, Morris M. Measures of concurrency in networks and the spread of infectious diseases. Math Biosci. 1996;133:165–195.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Gorbach PM, Stoner BP, Aral SO, Whittington LH, Holmes KK. “It takes a village”: understanding concurrent sexual partnerships in Seattle, Washington. Sex Trans Dis. 2002;29:453–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. McCreary DR, Rhodes ND. On the gender-typed nature of dominant and submissive acts. Sex Roles. 2001;44:339–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Choi N, Fuqua DR. The structure of the Bem Sex Role Inventory: a summary report of 23 validation studies. Educ Psychol Meas. 2003;63:872–887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. New York City HIV/AIDS Surveillance Statistics 2002. New York: New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 2004. Posted May 5, 2005.2005. Available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/ah/hivtables2002.shtmlshtml. Accessed on October 12, 2005.

  35. O’Sullivan LF, Udell W, Patel, VL. Young urban adults’ heterosexual risk encounters and perceived risk and safety: a diary study. J Sex Res. (In press).

  36. DeLongis A, Hemphill KJ, Lehman DR. A structured diary methodology for the study of daily events. In Bryant FB, Edwards J, Tindale RS, et al., eds. Methodological Issues in Applied Social Psychology. New York: Plenum; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hays MA, Irsula B, McMullen SL, Feldblum PJ. A comparison of three daily coital diary designs and a phone-in regimen. Contrac. 2001;63;159–166.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Ramjee G, Weber AE, Morar NS. Recording sexual behavior: comparison of recall questionnaires with a coital diary. Sex Transm Dis. 1999;26;374–380.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Berg BL. Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Needham Heights, New Jersey: Allyn and Bacon; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sandelowski M. The problem of rigor in qualitative research. Adv Nurs Sci. 1996;8:27–37.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Hall J, Stevens P. Rigor in feminist research. Adv Nurs Sci. 1991;13;16–29.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S. The Social Organization of Human Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Bruhin E. Power, communication and condom use: patterns of HIV-relevant sexual risk management in heterosexual relationships. AIDS Care. 2003;15:389–401.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Tschann JM, Adler NE, Millstein SG, Gurvey JE, Ellen JM. Relative power between sexual partners and condom use among adolescents. J Adolesc Health. 2002;31:17–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Seal DW, O’Sullivan LF, Ehrhardt AA. Miscommunications and misinterpretations: men’s narratives about sexual communication and unwanted sex in interactions with women. In Kimmel M, ed. The Sexual Self. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. (In press).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge research support from NICHD Grant R01-HD41721 to Lucia F. O’Sullivan, Ph.D. as well as support from NIH Training Grant 5T32DA13911 for Abigail Harrison. The authors thank the students for their participation in the project, Dr. Anke Ehrhardt for advice and support, Giovanna Rodriguez for coordinating data collection and entry, and Dr. Patricia Antoniello who helped implement the project.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Family & Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Mazer 100, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA

    Lucia F. O’Sullivan

Authors
  1. Lucia F. O’Sullivan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susie Hoffman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Abigail Harrison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Curtis Dolezal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lucia F. O’Sullivan.

Additional information

O’Sullivan is with the Department of Family & Social Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, 1300 Morris Park Avenue, Mazer 100, Bronx, NY 10461, USA; O’Sullivan, Hoffman, and Dolezal are with the HIV Center for Clinical and Behavioral Studies, New York State Psychiatric Institute and Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; Hoffman is with the Department of Epidemiology, Joseph L. Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA; Harrison is with the Department of Medicine, Division of Infectious Diseases and Population Studies and Training Center, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA.

Appendix

Appendix

Traditional sexual roles

  1. 1.

    Women are supposed to wait until the man initiates sex then decide whether they want it or not

  2. 2.

    Men ultimately decide whether condoms or birth control are used

  3. 3.

    In new relationships, women should wait for men to initiate sex

  4. 4.

    Women who have more sex than most are dirty

  5. 5.

    Women would be satisfied to just engage in foreplay

Significance of sex

  1. 1.

    Sex is part of a commitment; it’s not just an experience

  2. 2.

    A person should get to know and care for a partner before having sex

  3. 3.

    Sex is for special relationships

  4. 4.

    Sex is about showing your emotions

  5. 5.

    Sex with your partner has to be something special

  6. 6.

    It is important to be close friends before you have sex

  7. 7.

    Giving one’s virginity to a partner is special

  8. 8.

    Sex is just fun; it shouldn’t have to mean anything (Reverse scored)

  9. 9.

    I wouldn’t have sex unless I really loved the person

  10. 10.

    I have only had sex with people that I had a strong relationship with

  11. 11.

    To me sex means something—it’s more than just doing it

  12. 12.

    I think sex is all about respect and trust

Unwanted sex

  1. 1.

    We sometimes use sex for validation that our relationship is okay

  2. 2.

    I’ve had sex with my partner when I wasn’t in the mood because my partner really wanted it

  3. 3.

    I would go along with sex to make my partner happy

  4. 4.

    My partners knows how to persuade me when I don’t want to have sex

  5. 5.

    I’ve had sex with my partner when I wasn’t really in the mood

  6. 6.

    If I said no to sex, my partner would beg me to change my mind

  7. 7.

    Sometimes I make my partner convince me to have sex

Relationship investment

  1. 1.

    We look forward to seeing or talking to each other every single day

  2. 2.

    We share every secret

  3. 3.

    We think of each other as best friends

  4. 4.

    Being in a relationship should become a central part of your life

  5. 5.

    We know everything about each other

  6. 6.

    I want to spend the rest of my life with my partner

  7. 7.

    I would like our relationship to get somewhere

  8. 8.

    I can see myself with my partner when I’m old

  9. 9.

    I want to spend all our time together

  10. 10.

    If we broke up, it would be a devastating blow to me

  11. 11.

    Everybody knows that we are serious about each other

  12. 12.

    We love talking about our passions and our goals in life

Need for relationship

  1. 1.

    Without a relationship I’d feel lonely and empty

  2. 2.

    I’d be crazy right now if I had no partner at all

  3. 3.

    I would feel lonely without a partner

Sexual conflicts

  1. 1.

    My partner wants sex a lot more than I want it

  2. 2.

    Sometimes I wish my partner would just leave me alone sexually

  3. 3.

    I don’t initiate because my partner doesn’t give me a chance to

  4. 4.

    I’m not interested in sex so much as my partner is

  5. 5.

    It has to be my partner’s way or no way when it comes to sex

  6. 6.

    It’s really hard for me to say what I want sexually

  7. 7.

    When I initiate sex, it hurts my partner’s feelings

  8. 8.

    I won’t initiate sex in case I get rejected

  9. 9.

    I often say ‘no’ when my partner wants to try new things

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O’Sullivan, L.F., Hoffman, S., Harrison, A. et al. Men, Multiple Sexual Partners, and Young Adults’ Sexual Relationships: Understanding the Role of Gender in the Study of Risk. JURH 83, 695–708 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9062-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-006-9062-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation