Perceptions of Informal and Formal Coping Strategies for Intimate Partner Violence Among Gay and Bisexual Men

Abstract

The prevalence of intimate partner violence (IPV) in same-sex male relationships has been reported to be at least as prevalent as is observed in female–male relationships. Though research has focused on understanding the prevalence and antecedents of IPV in male–male relationships, there is a paucity of data describing perceptions of coping strategies adopted by gay and bisexual men who may experience IPV. Ten focus group discussions were conducted with 64 gay and bisexual men in Atlanta, Georgia, between September 2013 and November 2013. Focus groups examined perceptions of how gay and bisexual men would respond to IPV and the IPV-coping services they would utilize. Thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes that describe how gay and bisexual men perceive existing IPV services and how they would use these services, if gay and bisexual men were to experience IPV. The results indicate that men experiencing IPV in male–male relationships do not have adequate access to IPV services that are tailored to their unique needs. As a result, there is a strong reliance on informal sources of support. Services are urgently needed to meet the unique needs of men experiencing IPV in same-sex relationships.

Keywords

gay men bisexual men violence coping

Introduction

Intimate partner violence (IPV) is generally defined as interpersonal violence that occurs between two individuals in an intimate physical, sexual, or emotional relationship, and may take the form of physical, sexual, emotional, or mental abuse (Renninson & Welchans, 2000). Recent studies demonstrate that the prevalence of IPV among male–male couples is equivalent or sometimes higher than the prevalence of IPV reported by women in female–male couples (Blosnich & Bossarte, 2009; Finneran & Stephenson, 2013; Messinger, 2011; Tjaden, Thoennes, & Allison, 1999). Prior research has reported that the overall prevalence of IPV perpetration or receipt of IPV ranges from 30% to 78%, with emotional abuse being more prevalent (29.8% to 48.0%) than any other form of IPV (Finneran & Stephenson, 2013; Kennamer, Honnold, Bradford, & Hendricks, 2000; Toro-Alfonso & Rodríguez-Madera, 2004). IPV in male–male relationships is commonly shaped by factors including power imbalances, threats to masculinity, feelings of jealousy, drugs, and/or alcohol (Finneran & Stephenson, 2014), which are similar to factors known to shape the risk of IPV in female–male relationships perpetrated by heterosexual-identifying males (Sagrestano, Heavey, & Christensen, 1999). In addition, some antecedents of IPV are specific to same-sex male couples, including differences in “outness” (Carvalho, Lewis, Derlega, Winstead, & Viggiano, 2011), suggesting that although IPV may be equally as prevalent in male–male and female–male relationships, there are some unique contexts that shape the risk of IPV in male–male relationships. The high prevalence and unique dynamics of IPV among male–male relationships highlight the need for tailored interventions that meet the specific needs of male victims or perpetrators of IPV in same-sex relationships.

As IPV in male–male relationships has been reported at equal or higher rates than female–male relationships, the Violence Against Women Act received new guidelines by the Department of Justice to ensure that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals are not discriminated against when seeking care for IPV (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014). These new guidelines mandate that IPV programs funded by the Office on Violence Against Women will provide nondiscriminatory services to LGBT individuals (U.S. Department of Justice, 2014). However, while there is growing evidence of high IPV prevalence among male–male couples, there is a paucity of research that has examined the perceptions of coping strategies men would adopt if experiencing IPV in male–male relationships. Furthermore, the Department of Justice’s mandate to provide IPV services to the LGBT population highlights the importance of understanding how gay and bisexual men perceive the needs for, and utility of, current IPV services.

According to Liang, Goodman, Tummala-Narra, and Weintraub’s (2005) theoretical framework for help-seeking behavior by victims of intimate partner violence, there are three phases that an individual who experiences IPV must pass through to receive approriate care: (a) defining/recognizing the problem, (b) deciding to seek help, and (c) selecting an appropriate IPV-coping service. Each of these is shaped by individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors that affect the ability or willingess of the person to seek care. Research recognizes that men, regardless of sexual identity, experiencing IPV often report negative experiences with formal services and consistently feel victimized based on societal perceptions of masculinity, thus creating internal/external self-blame and a reluctance to seek care for IPV (Eckstein, 2010; Douglas & Hines, 2011; Hines, Brown, & Dunning, 2007). These results, however, are not specific to gay and bisexual men, and refer mainly to heterosexual-identifying male victims of IPV by female perpetrators. Some resources are available to male victims of IPV in female–male relationships, however, fewer services are available to gay and bisexual men experiencing IPV in male–male relationships (Douglas & Hines, 2011; Ford, Slavin, Hilton, & Holt, 2012; McClennen, Summers, & Vaughan, 2002), especially formal services that are tailored to gay and bisexual men (Ford et al., 2012; McClennen et al., 2002). The Violence Against Women Act guidelines will assist in creating greater access to IPV-coping services for gay and bisexual men; however, this article further demonstrates how these services may not necessarily be tailored to gay and bisexual men experiencing violence in male–male relationships, potentially, inhibiting the use of these services.

In this article, qualitative data are used to examine the perceptions of coping strategies, including formal services and informal sources of support, available to gay and bisexual male victims of IPV in Atlanta. Understanding perceptions of the sources of support for gay and bisexual male victims of IPV has the potential to introduce the development of interventions tailored for this currently underserved population.

Method

This study was approved by the Emory University Institutional Review Board. This study uses focus group discussions (FGDs) to examine gay and bisexual men’s general perceptions of how men in their communities respond to and cope with IPV. The use of FGDs were appropriate as the aim of the study was to understand men’s general perceptions of these services and not their personal experiences as victims of IPV (Kitzinger, 1995).

Study Recruitment

This study recruited gay and bisexual men in Atlanta, Georgia, using venue-based sampling (VBS). Based on time–space sampling, VBS occurs within predetermined blocks of time at previously identified venues where hard-to-reach populations can often be found (Muhib et al., 2001). Venues included over 160 gay-themed or gay-friendly venues, including gay pride events, gay sports team events, gay fund-raising events, downtown areas, gay bars, bathhouses, an AIDS service organization (ASO), and urban parks. Randomization occurred when recruiters approached every nth man to ask him if he was willing to be screened for the study, n varying based on the volume of people at each venue. If a man agreed to be screened, he completed an online screener to determine eligibility. Additional recruitment occurred through flyers that were posted in Atlanta-based venues, where gay and bisexual men frequently visited (e.g., restaurants, bars, coffee shops). Flyers included a link to the same web-based screener that men completed during VBS. Eligibility criteria included (a) self-reporting as male gender, (b) being 18 years of age or older, (c) self-identifying as gay/homosexual or bisexual, and (d) living in the Atlanta metropolitan area. Eligible participants were contacted by phone and were given the option of participating in an in-person or online focus group discussion (OFGD).

Data Collection

Eight in-person FGDs were conducted and two OFGDs with 4 to 10 participants per FGD. FGDs comprised small groups to initiate discussion and participant interaction. Each FGD and OFGD received an informed consent document to (a) emphasize the sensitivity of the discussions and (b) encourage discussions and stories to remain within the FGD/OFGD. Participants in the OFGD read an electronic version of the informed consent document. In-person FGDs took place in private and secure spaces at a local ASO or at Emory University. OFGDs used a chatroom-based format using Adobe Connect, a real-time web-based meeting client. Adobe Connect allows for participants to view a variety of customizable windows, including a window for discussion, where they can communicate and type responses to questions as though in a chatroom. Participants in OFGDs were also able to contact the moderator privately if they had questions or comments that they did not want to express to the group.

FGDs lasted approximately 1.5 hours and were conducted by a trained moderator from Emory University. The moderator had received training in the conduct of FGDs and qualitative data collection, and additionally had extensive experience in research with sexual and gender minority populations. The moderator used a semistructured question guide, with multiple domains of interest, including definitions and types of IPV, experiences of IPV in peer and social networks, IPV-coping strategies for male victims in male–male relationships, help-seeking responses to IPV among male victims in male–male relationships, and local available resources for gay and bisexual men experiencing IPV. Some of the core questions relating to IPV services included “How do you think, in your experiences, or how have you seen your friends respond when abuse happens? Do they turn to you as a friend? Do they turn to their family? Do they turn to substance abuse? Do they turn to certain resources in the community? Where do you see, how do you see them responding?” During the FGDs, participants responded to three prerecorded audio clips of fictional IPV scenarios. These enabled participants to discuss general perceptions of how gay and bisexual men, specifically male victims, respond to and cope with IPV, rather than having participants share their personal experiences. Participants in FGDs and OFGDs received $50 gift cards for their participation in the study.

Data Analysis

In-person FGDs were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim and OFGDs were automatically downloaded to a readable text file. Analysis was conducted using MAXQDA, version 10 (Verbi Software, Berlin, Germany). A team of two data analysts conducted detailed descriptions, using some elements of grounded theory (Charmaz, 2006). After multiple close readings of the text, analysts created a codebook, which consisted of inductive and deductive themes. Inductive themes were based on the domains of interest in the question guide and deductive themes were unexpected topics that consistently emerged in the data. Thematic codes were then systematically applied to the text by both analysts; any differences among coders were resolved by consensus. The thematic analysis entailed the consistent application of a set of codes to all transcripts in order to examine how themes were discussed across participants and between groups of participants. A preliminary codebook was created based on close readings of the four transcripts, incorporating explicit domains from interview guides (deductive themes) as well as pervasive, unanticipated themes that were emergent across various transcripts (inductive themes). Provisional definitions were given to each code and two analysts applied the codes to a single transcript. The coded transcripts were merged for comparison and code definitions were revised based on an examination of coding disagreement. This process was repeated until consistent agreement was attained among all codes. For the purpose of this analysis, the theme of IPV coping and IPV resources were split into subthemes, including counseling, IPV organizations, the police, church, ASOs, friends and/or family, individual coping, stigma of IPV among gay and bisexual men, and suggestions for improvement. The IPV coping and IPV resources were geared toward the perceptions of male victims in male–male relationships. After multiple purposeful and focused readings of the coded text, thematic analyses were created for each subtheme to examine patterns within each theme across participants and across FGDs.

Results

Participant demographic information from the FGDs is described in Table 1. There were a total of 64 participants in this study, with 52 participating in in-person FGDs and 12 participating in OFGDs. FGDs and OFGDs’ participants did not differ in age, education, or race/educations. Themes extracted from in-person FGDs and OFGDs had similar overlap in discussion on topic sensitivity. Participants ranged from 18- to 45-year-olds with a mean age of 34.5 years. About two thirds of the participants reported their race as Black, while about one third of the participants reported their race as White. There was one participant who identified as Hispanic and two participants who identified as Asian.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of the Sample.

	Percentage	n
Interview site
University	37.5	24
HIV testing center	43.83	28
Online	18.8	12
Age (years)
18-25	21.9	14
26-35	29.7	19
36-45	48.4	31
Race
Black/African American	68.8	44
Caucasian/White	23.4	15
Hispanic/Latino	1.6	1
Asian/Pacific Islander	3.1	2
Other	3.1	2
Education level
College or more	31.3	20
Some college or 2-year degree	46.9	30
High school diploma or GED	18.8	12
No high school diploma	3.1	2
Sexual identity
Gay/homosexual	85.9	55
Bisexual	14.1	9
Relationship status
Single (not dating)	51.6	33
One main partner (exclusive)	32.8	21
One main partner (open)	12.5	8
Multiple partners	3.1	2
Total	100	64

Awareness of IPV and IPV Services

Most gay and bisexual men in Atlanta were cognizant of IPV within their community and believed it to be a problem. Participants provided information on how they, or other gay and bisexual men that they know, perceive and how they would use available resources specific to IPV experiences in male–male relationships to cope with the violence. Some of these services were formal, including counseling services geared toward gay and bisexual men, IPV organizations, and police. Participants also discussed how, in the absence of formal IPV services geared toward gay and bisexual men, they would use informal mechanisms for coping with IPV, including support from friends and/or family, individual coping mechanisms, and sometimes unhealthy ways of coping, including substance abuse. In general, most participants believed they would take direct action as a means of coping among male victims of IPV in male–male relationships. These strategies involved seeking out counseling services at ASOs and churches, approaching IPV centers and police, as well as talking to friends and/or family. However, some participants reported they would take passive strategies, as means of coping with IPV in male–male relationships. These strategies involved substance use or ignoring the violence. Participants also discussed the benefits and challenges with accessing formal/informal services for IPV, including ways that accessing these coping mechanisms and resources present unique challenges for gay and bisexual men.

Counseling Services

Participants frequently suggested counseling services as a form of IPV coping among gay and bisexual men. These services were victim oriented and included therapy with mental health professionals, volunteer counseling services at churches, and individual and group counseling services through ASOs. Additionally, some participants believed that a good gay friendly counselor (FGD2, in-person) was an excellent choice for counseling services because it helped them get through difficulties in their life:

A good counselor, especial[ly] a good lesbian, gay lesbian, a good gay friendly counselor. . . . Someone who just listens in and tells you, “so okay, you love this person. And . . . your past is okay.” (FGD2, in-person)

Participants stated that counseling could be useful to assist with self-improvement and increase self-love and self-care:

And that’s what I did. I did try a little therapy, a one on one section with a counselor. . . . And don’t beat myself up so much about what I have allowed to happen to me or what I have been through. Love myself today and just kind of go on with the day-to-day things that I want to do. (FGD4, in-person)

While most counseling services are perceived to be in a formal counseling center/office with mental health professionals, many participants also suggested counseling in informal settings, such as churches:

Yeah I guess some good communities churches, the churches . . . does have some references . . . counselors that donate their time and talk. (FGD2, in-person)

Somebody counseling, religious counseling, a good church, good church counseling. (FGD2, in-person)

Participants also frequently spoke highly about Atlanta-based ASOs that were geared toward the LGBT community, especially in terms of receiving counseling services. Men from the FGDs identified many accessible and available organizations. Even though the mission of these organizations is to address HIV/AIDS services and not IPV, most men suggested these organizations because they would be convenient and provide basic accommodations, like housing, counseling, and support groups:

I know that they have support groups, [and] social services like housing and stuff like that too, . . . they had different seminars set up, for lesbians, gay men as well. (FGD1, in-person)

I just finished [a program] at [an ASO]. It’s a focus group that focuses on keepin’ your stress level low when it comes to gay relationships and all that . . . and even in the process of all of that, I even did individual counseling there as well. I sure did. And it helped me out quite a bit in certain little areas that I was still kind of dealin’ with even right til today. (FGD2, in-person)

Unfortunately, many participants were unaware of the resources available to gay and bisexual men. For instance, many gay and bisexual men stated they would be unable to find support via counseling or through an ASO because they were not aware of the available support resources:

Yeah, where do you find this stuff out? I don’t go to the club or anything. . . . How would you find out about ’em is my whole question. That’s why I don’t participate because I don’t know where any of ’em are. (FGD5, in-person)

There’s a lot of resources [for IPV in general], the only thing with the lifestyle gay and lesbian transgender is it’s not widely publicized or advertised. (FGD2, in-person)

Some participants expressed difficulty in seeking counseling services, in consequent of past mentor experiences, specifically with parents:

I feel like the problem is, a lot of us don’t really seek mentors because our primary mentors were our parents and once our parents put us out because they disagree with our lifestyle and it’s like, why should I even go look for a mentor when I can just do my own thing? (FGD5, in-person)

IPV Organizations

A few participants mentioned using IPV organizations as a resource for IPV, recognizing that some IPV organizations provide useful services: “[they will] actually take out a van to domestic violence victims, domestic abuse relationships and put ’em in a hotel or an apartment or whatever” (FGD1, in-person). However, most participants did not identify IPV organizations as a useful resource for gay and bisexual men because these organizations are not knowledgeable of IPV in male–male relationships; rather, IPV organizations are perceived to only focus on resources for women who experienced IPV. In addition, men believed they would only be seen as perpetrators. Some men stated that because IPV organizations exclusively cater to female victims, they were unsure of where to go for IPV-coping resources:

Women have shelters and etc. . . . Society is more comforting for women. (Participant 1, FGD6, online)

I think for women is better known in the community. Not sure the gay man knows there are resources available which are similar. (Participant 2, FGD6, online)

Other participants discussed experiences of trying to utilize IPV organizations, despite the fact that they are catered to women. They stated that when male victims do try to use IPV organizations as a resource for help with IPV, the IPV organizations do not know how to respond:

If you went down to like a domestic abuse center, and a man shows up, and they are expecting women to walk in the door and a man shows up, they don’t even know what to do or how to respond. Because they don’t really have a lot of material to look at. They’re jus goin off, the male to female interaction, and its different. (FGD1, in-person)

When gay and bisexual men tried to access IPV organizations, they were not provided the services that they needed, since IPV organizations are geared toward female victims of IPV. Instead, men described experiences of service providers making assumptions about their needs, which involved sending them to other agencies that were not appropriate for helping them address the IPV that they were experiencing:

When I went down there [a social service agency addressing homelessness], they referred me to some of the wrong programs, just off of the assumption. I may have been seeking maybe physical treatment for certain things, and, that’s not why I was there . . . but sometimes people can already have an assumption or pass judgment on why we’re here to receive certain services or what services they think we should be there to receive and that’s not always the case. So it, what I did was I never went back. (FGD1, in-person)

Police/Criminal Justice System

Though the police were recognized as a common way to address IPV in female–male relationships, most participants had a negative perception of using the police to solve IPV in their communities. Some participants expressed wanting the police involved “I would like to see the police involved cause I don’t have, I have zero tolerance for that” (FGD1, in-person). Despite wanting help or institutional involvement, participants expressed having distrust for the police. This distrust resulted from participants’ previous negative experiences when encountering the police. Many participants stated that when the police were called to deal with IPV among gay and bisexual men, they would “NOT intervene” or “they [wouldn’t] consider it important”:

They don’t take it seriously . . . because you’re just kind of left to deal with it yourself . . . I mean basically it’s what they’re telling you, so you just don’t feel like it’s a recognized thing. (FGD2, in-person)

They are not, they are NOT gonna interfere with that. The police are no help. I’m talkin’ about in [a Georgia county]. Zero help in terms of someone bein’ abused in an abusive male-to-male. (FGD1, in-person)

Participants also discussed their issues with the criminal justice system. FGD participants stated that when they went to court, the experience was embarrassing; the judges did not take them seriously:

We had to go to court on the issue where you could actually look at me and tell something had gone on. I had pictures to prove it, I had tons of stories to tell. And because I get in front of the judge, and the judge kind of like dismisses it. . . . But I felt slighted because I felt like I wasn’t taken seriously. (FGD2, in-person)

Even if the police did intervene, participants stated that the police had difficulty recognizing which partner was the perpetrator because it was a relationship between two men. In some cases, this meant that calling the police led to additional detrimental consequences for the male victim of IPV:

Because when it [violence] did happen the police asked me to leave. Even though it was my house. Even though I was the one who was victimized. They asked me to leave. . . . So I was appalled that I had to leave my house. (Participant 1, FGD4, in-person)

No, because I have had that same experience. They came, I was bruised and everything else. It was my home, and I had to leave. [LAUGHS] . . . I had my tail whooped, beat up in my own home and I call you guys and you talking about, “Because y’all in a relationship y’all need to resolve this and that.” “No what you need to do is remove him like I have asked you [LAUGHS].” (Participant 2, FGD4, in-person)

Gay and bisexual men also claimed hesitance in contacting the police for IPV, based on prior experiences with the police that did not necessarily pertain to IPV. Many participants revealed their frustration and dislike of police because of their homophobic nature:

And I guess the police kinda had attitudes or felt some kind of way because it was a gay event going on and all these homosexuals out there. So, of course they were really nasty in their approach to get everybody to leave. And they came to us . . . and they were like “You guys need to get the hell out of here.” . . . So officers literally started running after us with the nightsticks and was swinging at us, so we were running away from them . . . and he was just hitting me over and over again. They picked me up and they put handcuffs on me and stuff like that and I was arrested for disorderly conduct. I didn’t do anything . . . so now I kind of feel a certain way about the police regardless because of that. (FGD2, in-person)

Some participants, however, discussed positive experiences with the police, including their own experiences or one of their friends’ experiences. In some cases, police were seen to be involved with IPV among gay and bisexual men and even imprisoned perpetrators of IPV. These stories were shocking, however, to most participants because they expected authority members to ignore the issue and not have any respect for gay and bisexual men:

And they did have a run in with the law and the legal system surprisingly here in Atlanta don’t play that with gay couples either. I was shocked, I was really shocked . . . I guess in my head thinkin’ that it would be no big deal or whatever but. . . . Right like they wasn’t gonna do anything but they did. He got locked up. My friend’s lover got locked up. (FGD1, in-person)

While some participants have had success with the police as a formal coping mechanism for IPV, the general consensus was that police were not cooperative or sympathetic toward male victims experiencing IPV in male–male relationships. In fact, participants expressed such distrust in the police that when the police were helpful, this was considered to be shocking.

Individual Coping and Friends and/or Family

If formal services were not readily available or would not be used by male victims experiencing IPV in male–male relationships, many participants stated that they would rely on individual coping mechanisms for IPV. Many participants claimed to “make the wheels turn for [themselves]” (FGD1, in-person). Most commonly, participants identified their family as a support system to assist in coping with IPV:

I would probably be dealin’ with it myself cause I experienced it. I would pray. I would call upon family. I called my family quick, “Look, this is what’s goin’ on.” Or I’ll call, I’ll look at my phone. I literally will, if I’m stressin’, I will call every number in my phone until I know that I’m at a point to where that I’m satisfied. (FGD5, in-person)

They [family] will be there for you through the highs and the lows. (FGD6, in-person)

Participants described multiple ways to use friends as a coping mechanism for IPV, including as a source of emotional support, as a distraction while experiencing something difficult, and as a way to learn about access to other resources:

My support was my college friends. I reached out to them because they understood what I was going through. I tried to get help from them. (FGD8, in-person)

I think you end up talking to someone and let someone know maybe through that. They’ll be like “hey, here’s some resources.” (FGD8, in-person)

At the same time, participants expressed difficulties that were involved if they relied on friends and/or family. A few participants stated that it can be challenging to rely on friends and/or family because this form of support may provide advice that does not consider the complexity or intricacy of the male–male relationship that is experiencing IPV:

And even though you been through the punches and broke arms, you still tend [to] love them at some point [Agreement]. And you don’t wish them the worst and then you turn to the family member and a friend and the first thing they say, “Get out of the relationship. Mediate with him, let him go.” And it’s easier said than done. (FGD4, in-person)

Other participants recognized that it might be challenging to rely on friends and/or family because the experience of IPV may isolate someone from these forms of social support. Since social isolation can be used as a tool by perpetrators on their victims, relying on social support as a way to address IPV can be challenging:

I was in a situation where . . . I was socially ostracized or when I was in a relationship I never bothered with my family where I should have been creating a support system. I didn’t call my family back or do all of this, but that was all part of the plan, so when I ended up not working, I didn’t have a support system to call, I didn’t know who to call. (FGD1, in-person)

Some participants also identified challenges with relying on friends and/or family that are unique to gay and bisexual men. Many participants recognized that they could not rely on this form of support because friends and/or family were not supportive of their same-sex relationship:

Let’s say, two gay men, if both of their families are accepting, then I think it tends to work for them. But [interrupted by other participant, “I agree”] if they are not, even if you have one of the families accepting, that helps immensely. But when you have families that don’t accept it, it is kind of like I don’t know, I would compare it to just, like, buying a car without a warranty. (FGD4, in-person)

This results in some male victims of IPV feeling as though they have nowhere to go. If a man cannot rely on the police, social service organizations, or a social support system, then they are left with minimal options for IPV-coping resources. According to participants, this can result in silence around IPV in male–male couples, which contributes to a lack of recognizing IPV as a problem among gay and bisexual men:

I feel like it’s [violence] not really talked about as much as abuse in heterosexual relationships just because I feel like a lot of at least the gay men that I’ve talked to don’t feel like there’s anyone to really reach out to. Like they don’t trust the police and a lot of them don’t have accepting families and you know they kind of just brush it under the rug a lot. (FGD1, in-person)

When there is nowhere else to go and no healthy mechanism for coping with IPV, gay and bisexual men expressed that some male victims of IPV would rely on unhealthy coping mechanisms. Two FGDs discussed substance abuse as a method of individual coping among male victims experiencing IPV in male–male relationships. Substance abuse was considered to be a last resort because many gay and bisexual men experiencing IPV can become isolated from their friends and/or family and would feel the need to be numbed:

When they reach out, substance abuse included. I have seen a lot of my friends turn that route . . . because they have been already condemned pretty much by their family and friends or whatever. They’ve isolated themselves because of the abusive relationship. (FGD4, in-person)

Substance abuse, with drinking, for me that was a way to kind of just numb everything, but the problem was always still there. But it changed everything. (FGD2, in-person)

The Stigma of IPV Among Gay and Bisexual Men

Participants felt that male victims of IPV in male–male relationships were not given the same respect as female victims who had experienced IPV in female–male relationships. This was due to the belief that men are not expected to experience IPV. Participants stated that IPV resources available to women are more publicized and visible in society, while there were very few services available to male victims experiencing IPV:

I think [resources available for women experiencing IPV] are more publicized . . . as far as abused women. They just don’t appear too much. And I know we have an obligation, and I say “we” as a community, to speak up [other participants agree]. (FGD4, in-person)

Additionally, a few participants touched on how IPV among gay and bisexual men is never really discussed, or that if they do receive information about managing IPV, they are told about the risk of developing HIV. This implies that the focus on male–male relationships in certain support services is exclusively focused on HIV and other STI prevention, while ignoring other important components of relationships, such as providing advice on how to leave an abusive partner or how to counsel the male victim after the relationship is terminated:

They tell us about stuff like HIV and the issues that get all the attention. They tell us about places like [an ASO] and they give you resources to deal with that. But they had a panel discussion at my school, a couple weeks ago about violent abuse against women, and the topic of LGBT relationships never really came up in that. There probably wouldn’t be a panel at my school about that. (FGD4, in-person)

Even if resources were to be more available to male victims experiencing IPV, many participants stated that “men in general are less likely to seek the help available” (FGD6, online). IPV resources would be difficult for male victims to access because of the stigma and shame of being a man experiencing IPV:

And are you gonna go? Because you’re ashamed about it. You’re a man and you’re allowing another man to beat on you. That’s my attitude. Like I said, I could whoop him. . . . The point is another man going for help cause another man is beatin on him. And that’s embarrassing. That’s my opinion. (FGD8, in-person)

Suggestions for Improving IPV Resources for Gay and Bisexual Men

The majority of participants felt that there was a lack of awareness and communication about the available resources for male victims experiencing IPV in male–male relationships. Most participants felt that “more community awareness” (FGD8, in-person) among the gay and bisexual male population was necessary so that more resources and opportunities for support could be provided. Participants suggested “more talks or sessions at your local community library,” while others suggested “getting out and seeing everybody, knowing everybody,” because “that’s one of the issues as a nation we need to get back toi” (FGD8, in-person). Participants proposed advocating IPV resources for gay and bisexual men through technology.

Participants suggested using advertisements during television commercials and promotions through the Internet to increase awareness about IPV and IPV resources for male victims:

I think too that, it’s like you said, how they advertise women getting abused and all that. If they would actually do a commercial . . . (FGD1, in-person)

Internet is pretty much the way to go. But like he was sayin’, you can’t, yeah you can type in a search like me, I’m very, I’m computer literate, that’s my major but I can type. Yeah, there has to be some way that it has to be put out there so we can see. (FGD5, in-person)

A few participants also suggested adding IPV resources to already implemented prevention programs. Since sexual health promotion and HIV prevention is perceived to be more common among gay and bisexual men than the promotion of IPV resources, some participants suggested incorporating IPV services into already-existing HIV prevention services. For example, one participant suggested giving a card describing local IPV services with condoms that are distributed at the bars:

If you do go out to the bar scene and you walk into an establishment. The first thing they give you is a condom, they need to give a card along with that condom and say “look if you’re experiencing problems in your relationship, XYZ, this is what you need to go through.” (FGD2, in-person)

Another participant suggested IPV services be discussed when an individual is being tested for HIV:

Counseling probably would help too. I know counseling gets to be expensive but. . . . Yeah. The same that they go for HIV and STD . . . that’s the same thing that they should do with counseling. And if they don’t wanna talk, just say. . . . “Hey, any violence goin on? And say, you been violated or do you know anyone that’s been violated?” (Participant 1, FGD10, in-person)

Even though participants expressed disappointment and difficulty with many formal and informal resources and coping mechanisms for responding to IPV, they were still able to provide suggestions for improving services.

Discussion

Some of the challenges men faced in accessing IPV services were a perceived lack of trust, a lack of capacity of the services to treat gay and bisexual men, and perceived homophobia at formal services. In addition, men reported a lack of acceptance of their sexual orientation among informal sources of support, specifically among friends and/or family, which created further lack of support for victims of IPV. These challenges emphasize why IPV services need to recognize the unique experiences of IPV experienced by men in male–male relationships by tailoring their services to this specific population.

Previous studies have categorized the coping strategies adopted by women experiencing IPV into two domains: approach and avoidance (Moos, 1995). These two domains have alternatively been referred to as active strategies and avoidance strategies (Holahan & Moos, 1987) or engagement and disengagement strategies (Scheier, Weintraub, & Carver, 1986; Tobin, Holroyd, Reynolds, & Wigal, 1989). Avoidance strategies include taking actions to avoid situations that may lead to IPV, for example, adopting smoking to reduce tension or avoiding individuals whose presence may instigate a threat of IPV (Holahan & Moos, 1987). Avoidance strategies may be thought of as passive attempts to avoid violent situations rather than attempts to deal with the cause of IPV. In contrast, active strategies are behaviors that directly address the violent situation, such as addressing the issue of IPV with the perpetrator or another relative or seeking assistance from formal services (Holahan & Moos, 1987). Throughout the analysis, it was evident that most men revealed they would use active strategies to cope with IPV in their relationships, similar to the first step of defining/recognizing the problem in Liang et al.’s (2005) theoretical framework. However, some men believed they would engage in avoidance strategies, such as ignoring the situation by using drugs and/or alcohol. It is important for coping services to become more accessible to gay and bisexual men for advocacy of healthier active strategies and prevention of further avoidant behavior that is detrimental to health.

An important finding was that men believed women received more respect at IPV-coping services, specifically IPV organizations. Prior research demonstrates that IPV organizations are constructed to place men in the aggressor position, while women are placed in the victim position (Douglas & Hines, 2011). In addition, most IPV organizations are tailored for female victims experiencing IPV in female–male relationships (Douglas & Hines, 2011), making it especially difficult for gay and bisexual men to approach IPV-coping services and stalling the second step of deciding to seek help in Liang et al.’s (2005) theoretical framework.

There was also a lack of awareness on how or where to access IPV-coping services for gay and bisexual men, an important element of phases 2 and 3 of Liang et al.’s (2005) framework. Research reports that services lacking outreach and knowledge on how to treat gay and bisexual men experiencing IPV impedes services to gay and bisexual men (Ford, Slavin, Hilton, & Holt, 2012). Outreach to increase awareness about IPV has existed (Wolfe & Jaffe, 1999); however, most IPV services still lack outreach and are still not LGBT-specific or culturally-specific (Howley & Stapel, 2010). In contrast, when pamphlets/cards containing signals, forms, and available resources of IPV are placed in public areas, specifically for female victims of IPV, the community becomes more conscious of IPV and may have stronger inclinations to speak with individuals experiencing IPV (Edwardsen & Morse, 2006). Although these intervention methods have been used for only female victims of IPV, the same strategies could be applied for gay and bisexual men.

Research has indicated that gay and bisexual men’s dissapointment toward police interference is shaped by the heterosexual dominant surrounding environment, as well as the social construct of male aggression (Courtenay, 2000; Martin, 1995), thus limiting gay and bisexual men from contacting police for assistance in IPV. Perceptions that police would also misinterpret the victim for the perpetrator also affected the use of police as a form of IPV coping. Similarly, female–female couples, particularly butch/femme individuals, were fearful of being stereotyped as perpetrators by police (Wolf, Ly, Hobart, & Kernic, 2003). These preceptions further prevent police contact by gay and bisexual men, out of fear of becoming falsely accused or imprisoned. Therefore, training of police to recognize and effectively manage IPV among male–male relationships is an important point of intervention.

An influx of formal resources specific to gay and bisexual men are needed because: (a) current services are perceived as homophobic (Bornstein, Fawcett, Sullivan, Senturia, & Shiu-Thornton, 2006) and (b) a majority of formal services have a lack of knowledge in responding to IPV among gay and bisexual men (Douglas & Hines, 2011). Estrangement from friends or family due to homophobia and conflict over sexual identity also results in a lack of social support options for some gay and bisexual male victims of IPV. Research has demonstrated that IPV organization staff do not believe same-sex IPV to be as violent or as serious as opposite-sex IPV (Brown & Groscup, 2009). Therefore, it is important for IPV services to create efficient and effective intervention and prevention programs. Research has identified that 3.6% of U.S. IPV services have reported interest in wanting to provide services to LGBT individuals (Douglas & Hines, 2011), indicating that there is some capacity for services that are specifically catered to gay and bisexual men, but that services have yet to meet the needs of gay and bisexual men.

Through person-oriented methods, services are tailored directly to the needs of the population experiencing IPV, meaning that diverse intervention methods are developed and implemented, rather than using homogeneous approaches (Bogat, Levendosky, & Von Eye, 2005; Nurius, Macy, Nwabuzor, & Holt, 2011). There has already been research on improving IPV services for certain populations, such as African American women (Gillum, 2009), lesbian and bisexual women (Turell & Herrmann, 2008), and Asian immigrant communities (Lee & Hadeed, 2009). While further research is required on how to develop and integrate IPV-coping services for male victims in male–male relationships, this type of intervention is still plausible and will address the third step of selecting an appropriate IPV-coping service in Liang et al.’s (2005) theoretical framework, a critical gap in the current landscape of U.S. IPV services.

Limitations

Study participants were a general population of gay and bisexual men rather than men who had experienced IPV. Since inclusion criteria did not require participants to be experiencing or perpetrating IPV, results cannot make claims about actual experiences of violence, though they do describe perceptions of gay and bisexual men in Atlanta, Georgia. Given the high prevalence of IPV among gay and bisexual men, it was decided to focus on a sample of general gay and bisexual men, rather than those who had experienced IPV, as the aim was to understand how men may react to IPV and to gather information on their perceptions of the available IPV services. However, further research is warranted to examine the coping strategies used by male victims of IPV in male–male relationships. A large percentage of the study participants identified as African American; thus, the sample is not racially representative of the general gay and bisexual male population. Additionally, participants were recruited from gay-themed venues, thus limiting perceptions of IPV from gay and bisexual men who may not be as visible and active in the gay community.

Conclusions

Despite these limitations, the results of this study further emphasize the necessity for IPV-coping services that are tailored for male victims experiencing IPV in male–male relationships. There has been research on the available IPV resources for gay and bisexual men (Ford, Slavin, Hilton, & Holt, 2012; McClennen et al., 2002); however, this is the first article to report perceptions of available services and suggestions for improving gay and bisexual oriented IPV-coping services. It is important to develop IPV-coping services that are specific to the needs of gay and bisexual men (Finneran & Stephenson, 2014), and to address both the lack of knowledge and discrimination that gay and bisexual men face when they approach services (Brown & Groscup, 2009; Douglas & Hines, 2011). With individual, interpersonal, and sociocultural factors affecting the three phases of help-seeking behavior by victims of IPV (Liang et al., 2005), it is important to have the third phase of “selecting appropriate IPV-coping services” to be modified for all communities (e.g., gay and bisexual men). While there is still more research to be done on designing and integrating these services and resources, these innovative findings illuminate the many barriers that may be faced by gay and bisexual men when seeking to use IPV services.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, grant #5R21HD066306-02, supported the original research of this project.

References

Blosnich

J. R.

Bossarte

R. M.

(2009). Comparisons of intimate partner violence among partners in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 2182-2184. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.139535

Bogat

G. A.

Levendosky

A. A.

Von Eye

(2005). The future of research on intimate partner violence: Person-oriented and variable-oriented perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 49-70. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-6232-7

Bornstein

D. R.

Fawcett

Sullivan

Senturia

K. D.

Shiu-Thornton

(2006). Understanding the experiences of lesbian, bisexual and trans survivors of domestic violence. Journal of Homosexuality, 51(1), 159-181. doi:10.1300/J082v51n01_08

Brown

M. J.

Groscup

J. L.

(2009). Homophobia and acceptance of stereotypes about gays and lesbians. Individual Differences Research, 7, 159-167.

Carvalho

A. F.

Lewis

R. J.

Derlega

V. J.

Winstead

B. A.

Viggiano

(2011). Internalized sexual minority stressors and same-sex intimate partner violence. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 501-509. doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9384-2

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. London, England: SAGE.

Courtenay

W. H.

(2000). Constructions of masculinity and their influence on men’s well-being: A theory of gender and health. Social Science & Medicine, 50, 1385-1401.

Douglas

E. M.

Hines

D. A.

(2011). The helpseeking experiences of men who sustain intimate partner violence: An overlooked population and implications for practice. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 473-485. doi:10.1007/s10896-011-9382-4

Eckstein

J. J.

(2010). Reasons for Staying in Intimately Violent Relationships: Comparisons of Men and Women and Messages Communicated to Self and Others. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 21-30. doi:10.1007/s10896-010-9338-0.

10.

Edwardsen

E. A.

Morse

(2006). Intimate partner violence resource materials: Assessment of information distribution. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 971-981. doi:10.1177/0886260506290200

11.

Finneran

Stephenson

(2013). Intimate partner violence among men who have sex with men: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 14, 168-185. doi:10.1177/1524838012470034

12.

Finneran

Stephenson

(2014). Antecedents of intimate partner violence among gay and bisexual men. Violence and Victims, 29, 422-435. doi:10.1891/0886-6708.VV-D-12-00140

13.

Ford

C. L.

Slavin

Hilton

K. L.

Holt

S. L.

(2012). Intimate partner violence prevention services and resources in Los Angeles: Issues, needs, and challenges for assisting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients. Health Promotion Practice, 14, 841-849. doi:10.1177/1524839912467645

14.

Gillum

T. L.

(2009). Improving services to African American survivors of IPV: From the voices of recipients of culturally specific services. Violence Against Women, 15, 57-80. doi:10.1177/1077801208328375

15.

Hines

D. A.

Brown

Dunning

(2007). Characteristics of callers to the domestic abuse helpline for men. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 63-72. doi:10.1007/s10896-006-9052-0

16.

Holahan

C. J.

Moos

R. H.

(1987). Personal and contextual determinants of coping strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 946-955. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.946

17.

Howley

S. S.

Stapel

(2010). Rethinking victim assistance for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer victims of hate violence & intimate partner violence. Retrieved from http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/Reports%20and%20Studies/WhyItMatters_LGBTQreport_press.pdf

18.

Kennamer

J. D.

Honnold

Bradford

Hendricks

(2000). Differences in disclosure of sexuality among African American and white gay/bisexual men: Implications for HIV/AIDS prevention. AIDS Education and Prevention, 12, 519-531.

19.

Kitzinger

(1995). Qualitative research: Introducing focus groups. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 311, 299-302. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7000.299

20.

Lee

Y.-S.

Hadeed

(2009). Intimate partner violence among Asian immigrant communities: Health/mental health consequences, help-seeking behaviors, and service utilization. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 10, 143-170. doi:10.1177/1524838009334130

21.

Liang

Goodman

Tummala-Narra

Weintraub

(2005). A theoretical framework for understanding help-seeking processes among survivors of intimate partner violence. American Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 71-84. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-6233-6

22.

Martin

C. L.

(1995). Stereotypes about children with traditional and nontraditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 33, 727-751. doi:10.1007/BF01544776

23.

McClennen

J. C.

Summers

A. B.

Vaughan

(2002). Gay men’s domestic violence: Dynamics, help-seeking behaviors, and correlates. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services: Issues in Practice, Policy & Research, 14(1), 23-49. doi:10.1300/J041v14n01_02

24.

Messinger

A. M.

(2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the National Violence Against Women Survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2228-2243. doi:10.1177/0886260510383023

25.

Moos

R. H.

(1995). Development and applications of new measures of life stressors, social resources, and coping responses. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 11, 1-13. doi:10.1027/1015-5759.11.1.1

26.

Muhib

F. B.

Lin

L. S.

Stueve

Miller

R. L.

Ford

W. L.

Johnson

W. D.

Smith

P. J.

(2001). A venue-based method for sampling hard-to-reach populations. Public Health Reports, 116(1), 216-222.

27.

Nurius

P. S.

Macy

R. J.

Nwabuzor

Holt

V. L.

(2011). Intimate partner survivors’ help-seeking and protection efforts: A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 539-566. doi:10.1177/0886260510363422

28.

Renninson

C. M.

Welchans

(2000). Intimate partner violence. Retrieved from http://www.popcenter.org/problems/domestic_violence/PDFs/Rennison%26Welchans_2000.pdf

29.

Sagrestano

Heavey

C. L.

Christensen

(1999). Perceived power and physical violence in marital conflict. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 65-79. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00105

30.

Scheier

M. F.

Weintraub

J. K.

Carver

C. S.

(1986). Coping with stress: Divergent strategies of optimists and pessimists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1257-1264. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1257

31.

Tjaden

Thoennes

Allison

C. J.

(1999). Comparing violence over the life span in samples of same-sex and opposite-sex cohabitants. Violence and Victims, 14, 413-425.

32.

Tobin

D. L.

Holroyd

K. A.

Reynolds

R. V.

Wigal

J. K.

(1989). The hierarchial factor structure of the coping strategies inventory. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 13, 343-361.

33.

Toro-Alfonso

Rodríguez-Madera

(2004). Domestic violence in Puerto Rican gay male couples: Perceived prevalence, intergenerational violence, addictive behaviors, and conflict resolution skills. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19, 639-654. doi:10.1177/0886260504263873

34.

Turell

S. C.

Herrmann

M. M.

(2008). “Family” support for family violence: Exploring community support systems for lesbian and bisexual women who have experienced abuse. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 12, 211-224. doi:10.1080/10894160802161372

35.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2014). Frequently asked questions. April 9, 2014. Nondiscrimination Grant Condition in the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ovw/legacy/2014/06/20/faqs-ngc-vawa.pdf

36.

Wolf

M. E.

Hobart

M. A.

Kernic

M. A.

(2003). Barriers to Seeking Police Help for Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Family Violence, 18(2), 121-129.

37.

Wolfe

D. A.

Jaffe

P. G.

(1999). Emerging strategies in the prevention of domestic violence. Future of Children, 9, 133-144. doi:10.2307/1602787