Exploring Unwanted Sexual Encounters Among Gay, Bisexual, and other Men who have Sex with Men
- Open Access
- 11-04-2026
- Research
Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.
Select sections of text to find matching patents with Artificial Intelligence. powered by
Select sections of text to find additional relevant content using AI-assisted search. powered by (Link opens in a new window)
Abstract
Introduction
Increasingly, discussions about sexual consent have gained prominence in public, policy, and legal arenas. Sexual consent has been defined as providing conscious verbal or non-verbal indication of a willingness to engage in physical sex with another person (Hickman & Muehlenhard, 1999; Jozkowski & Willis, 2020). However, such models are often grounded in heteronormative models of sexual and romantic relationships and may overlook how sex is negotiated within some non-heteronormative contexts, including anonymous settings and sex on premises venues (SOPVs) often frequented by gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBM).
Holt (2016, p.922) defines sexual consent as “an ongoing interactive and dynamic process” involving the communication of needs and desires, negotiating boundaries, and a responsibility to ensure the safety of all members involved in a sexual encounter. Importantly, this definition emphasises that sexual consent exists in a state of flux and can shift, change, or be revoked throughout the sexual encounter (see also Dunkley & Brotto, 2020; Pitagora, 2013; Taylor & Ussher, 2001).
Advertisement
Affirmative models of sexual consent increasingly underpin legal and lay understandings of sexual consent and are a key aspect of sexual health literacy programs. These models of sexual consent emphasise that all individuals involved in a sexual encounter clearly, unambiguously, without coercion, and not intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol, agree to engage in sexual activities (Edwards et al., 2022; North, 2023; Shumlich & Fisher, 2020). These models emphasise that sexual consent is not the absence of “no” but, rather, the clear and ongoing presence of an affirmative “yes.” Affirmative models of sexual consent can enhance individual safety while also fostering positive relational and sexual experiences (Edwards et al., 2022).
Despite affirmative consent models appearing to address the issue of miscommunication around consent, some practical issues arise. What counts as ‘direct verbal communication’ in affirmative consent is clear. For some individuals, however, explicit verbal communication of sexual consent can induce embarrassment or anxiety (Edwards et al., 2022). Similarly, explicit verbal communication can also be seen to disrupt the sexual encounter, elicit concerns of sexual rejection, and/or highlight sexual incompatibilities between partners (Edwards et al., 2022; Shumlich & Fisher, 2020). While ‘unambiguous non-verbal communication’ may be more contextually appropriate and commonplace in many sexual encounters, it is also significantly less clear, and interpretations are likely to differ according to social context and the relationship between partners. This is problematic as although non-verbal communication may be the norm, it can be difficult to define what the line is between explicit and ambiguous forms of non-verbal communication. Indeed, individuals may read these differently.
Certain aspects of how GBM negotiate sexual encounters may foster environments conducive for discussions of sexual consent to occur. For example, the negotiation of sexual roles among GBM, whereby discussions as to which partner(s) adopt the insertive or receptive role, as well as the types of sex desired, can increase dialogue between partners and provide opportunities to negotiate sexual consent (Sternin et al., 2022). Similarly, the negotiation of HIV prevention strategies, in particular condom use, also afford opportunities for some GBM to negotiate sexual consent (Sternin et al., 2022). While these negotiations are common aspects within many GBM sexual encounters, they do not necessarily prevent unwanted or non-consensual sex, particularly when cues are misunderstood or assumed.
Discussions about sexual consent grounded in research and debates based on heteronormative assumptions of sex and sexuality may overlook some contexts in which GBM negotiate sex and sexual consent (de Heer et al., 2021; Richardson, 2022; Sternin et al., 2022). These contexts include a greater likelihood of anonymous or casual sex partners and the use of SOPVs such as sex clubs, saunas, and backrooms (Perez Toledo, 2023; Prestage et al., 2015; Richters, 2007; Sternin et al., 2022; Tewksbury, 2002). SOPVs offer the potential for convenient, and sometimes impersonal sexual encounters (Race, 2015) and in these venues, there is a general norm of minimal to no verbal communication except in designated communal, non-sexual areas (Richters, 2007). Similarly, some geolocation dating applications (apps) are designed to facilitate finding sexual partners; albeit not all people use such apps for this purpose (Mowlabocus, 2010; Race, 2015). Simply being present in sexualised contexts does not imply sexual consent. However, such contexts may cause some individuals to presume that all individuals they encounter are seeking sex, thereby enabling an environment in which unwanted sexual advances may be more likely (Braun et al. 2009b; Dietzel 2021). Thus there may be unique aspects of sexual cultures among GBM in which negotiating sexual consent needs to be examined.
Advertisement
Where attention has been paid to sexual consent among GBM, it has tended to focus on: unwanted and non-consensual sex in the context of licit and illicit drug use, particularly in group sex settings (Bourne et al., 2015; Drückler et al., 2021; Freestone et al., 2022; Hibbert et al., 2018; Morris, 2019); and stealthing, the deliberate removal of condoms during sex (Brennan, 2017; Daroya, 2022; Latimer et al., 2018). A higher prevalence of unwanted sex due to intoxication among GBM when compared with other population groups, including women with heterosexual experiences, women with same-sex experiences, and men with heterosexual experiences, has also been found (Carter et al., 2021).
Differences in sexual subcultures among some GBM and heterosexuals underscore the importance of investigating the issue of unwanted sex specifically among GBM, despite limited focus within current policy and programming. In this paper, we describe reported experiences of unwanted sexual encounters among a cohort of GBM in Australia to understand the type and nature of the sexual encounter. Unwanted sex encompasses a spectrum of experiences including those that were potentially not desired but consensual and those that were clearly non-consensual and/or were coerced.
Methods
Study Design and Procedure
Conducted between September 2014 and March 2025, Flux was a national, online, open, prospective observational cohort study of GBM’s health and health-related behaviours in Australia. The study protocol has been described in detail previously (Hammoud et al., 2017). Baseline and quarterly follow-up questionnaires were completed online using computer-assisted self-interviewing software (Hammoud et al., 2017).
Eligibility and Recruitment
Eligible participants were at least 16 years and six months old. As participants were being asked about behaviours in the previous six months, the age requirement of being at least 16 years and six months old ensured participants were not asked questions about participating in illegal behaviour(s) (such as drug use) while they were under 16. Eligible participants were gay, bisexual, or men who had sex with a man in the previous 12 months, and resided in Australia. Study participation was promoted through advertising on social media platforms, location-based dating and hook-up sites and apps, and through community-based gay and HIV organisations throughout Australia. The study protocol was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of UNSW.
Measures
The baseline questionnaire included demographic items such as age, gender, sexual identity, country/region of birth, HIV prevention strategies, HIV serostatus, and drug use. In 2020, the study was reoriented due to COVID-19 and new participants were invited to join (Hammoud et al., 2023). Quarterly follow-up questionnaires included: HIV status and prevention strategies, HIV risk behaviours, type and number of sexual partners.
Questions about men’s sexual behaviours in the past three months were asked separately for relationship partners (‘boyfriends’ or ‘husbands’), regular sexual partners with whom they were not in a romantic relationship (‘fuckbuddies’ or ‘friend with benefits’), and casual or anonymous partners (Bavinton et al., 2016). Participants were also asked about HIV prevention strategies, including no anal intercourse with casual partners, consistent condom use with casual partners, non-relationship condomless anal intercourse (CLAI-NR) protected by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and/or undetectable viral load, and CLAI-NR not protected by PrEP and/or undetectable viral load (Holt et al., 2021).
From June 2021, a sub-study was embedded within the overall study design. While we did not ask specifically about the history of non-consensual sexual encounters, a question was introduced asking: “During the past three months, has anyone tried to make you have sex or tried to have sex with you in ways that you didn’t want?” with the response options being: “yes”, “no”, or “prefer not to say.” This question was introduced owing to a growing media and public focus on sexual consent at the time, and a growing focus on sexual consent within GBM populations by community-based LGBTQ+ partner organisations. This question was designed to be broad so that encounters in which consent was clearly not given and encounters that were unwanted or included unwanted acts were captured. Although it elides important nuances, we use the descriptor “unwanted sexual encounters” to describe all participants who answered affirmatively to the initial survey item.
The question of unwanted sex was designed to be broad and does not distinguish between acts which might have been unwanted but consensual and acts in which there was clear coercion (whether verbal or physical). The deliberate breadth of this question was to allow for an exploration of the feasibility of collecting sensitive data on unwanted sex among GBM. All participants who answered affirmatively were then categorised as having experienced an unwanted sexual encounter. Participants answering affirmatively were then asked follow-up questions where they could provide more than one answer. Where participants answered more than one option, we report all answers recorded. Questions included: whether the participant asked their partner(s) to stop and if anything prevented them from asking; whether their partner(s) stopped after being asked; what occurred after they asked their partner(s) to stop; how many people took part in the unwanted encounter; the type of partner(s) involved in the encounter; what took place during the encounter that was unwanted; whether drugs and alcohol were used; and, how often an unwanted encounter had occurred during the previous three months. Additional items addressing where these encounters occurred were introduced in December 2021.
Analysis
This analysis is based on survey responses collected between June 2021 and June 2022. Data were analysed using SPSS version 24 software (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA). Using cohort data, we conducted a cross sectional analysis to describe characteristics of the sample, using frequencies (n) and proportions (%) for categorical variables and medians and interquartile range for continuous measures. Although participants may have completed multiple quarterly questionnaires in the wider study, for the purposes of this paper we used only the first eligible response during the analysis window. This study was not initially set up to explore the specific issue of sexual (non-) consent and included as part of a sub-study of a larger project designed to explore the health and wellbeing of GBM more broadly. As this was a sub-study with limited power or design, we did not explore associations by age, HIV status, HIV risk behaviours, PrEP use, partner type, or region of birth.
Results
Sample Characteristics
Between June 2021 and June 2022, 967 individuals provided survey responses. Most participants identified as gay (n = 864; 89.3%), were born in Australia/The Pacific (n = 578; 59.8%), and were of Anglo-Celtic background (n = 562; 58.1%). Most participants (n = 799; 82.6%) reported being HIV-negative, of whom 282 (35.3%) were taking PrEP at the time of their response, and 140 (14.5%) participants indicated they were living with HIV. In the previous three months, 479 participants (49.5%) reported no instances of CLAI-NR and no use of PrEP, and 274 (28.3%) reported having CLAI-NR that was protected by PrEP or undetectable viral load. The remaining 214 men (22.1%) reported engaging in CLAI-NR that was not protected by either PrEP or undetectable viral load (Table 1).
Table 1
Sample characteristics (n = 967)
n (%) | (n = 967) |
|---|---|
Sexual Identity | |
Gay | 864 (89.3) |
Not gay | 62 (6.41) |
No data | 41 (4.24) |
Ethnicity | |
Anglo | 562 (58.1) |
Not Anglo | 142 (14.7) |
No data | 263 (27.2) |
HIV status | |
HIV-negative | 799 (82.6) |
- On PrEP | 282 (35.3) |
- Not on PrEP | 517 (64.7) |
HIV-positive | 140 (14.5) |
- UVL | 73 (52.1) |
- No UVL | 13 (9.3) |
- No data | 54 (38.6) |
Unknown status | 28 (2.9) |
Country of birth | |
Australia/Pacific | 578 (59.8) |
Europe/Nth America | 79 (8.2) |
Elsewhere | 47 (4.9) |
No data | 263 (27.2) |
HIV risk behaviours during previous 3 months | |
No PrEP & no CLAI | 479 (49.5) |
PrEP | 274 (28.3) |
Unprotected CLAI | 214 (22.1) |
Unwanted Sexual Encounters
Overall, 12.2% (n = 118) reported having had at least one encounter of unwanted sex in the preceding three months. Among the 118 men reporting an unwanted sexual encounter, 86 (72.9%) asked their partner to stop of which 65 (55.1%) men indicated that their partner(s) did stop upon being asked. Twenty-one of the 65 men who asked their partner to stop (17.8%) reported that their partner did not stop upon being asked (Fig. 1). Of participants reporting an unwanted sexual encounter, 28 (23.7%) indicated that they did not ask their partner to stop and cited a range of reasons including: feeling pressured to proceed (n = 10, 8.5%), being affected by drugs and/or alcohol (n = 8, 6.8%), feeling frightened (n = 2, 1.7%), and freezing during the encounter (n = 2, 1.7%). Seven (5.9%) participants did not ask their partner to stop as they were willing to let their partner continue and 12 (10.2%) did not want to spoil the mood. Three (10.7%) participants reported that being controlled was part of the fantasy and two (7.1%) said they were enjoying the encounter (Table 2). While these participants indicated that the encounter was part of a fantasy or that they were enjoying it, they nonetheless reported the experience as unwanted.
Fig. 1
Unwanted sexual encounters
Table 2
Why not ask partner to stop (n = 28): participants were able to choose multiple responses
n (%) | n = 28 |
|---|---|
Did not ask partner to stop | |
I felt pressured to do it | 10 (35.7) |
I didn’t want to spoil the mood | 12 (42.9) |
I just froze | 2 (7.1) |
I was affected by drugs or alcohol | 8 (28.6) |
I was frightened | 2 (7.1) |
I was willing to let them do it | 7 (25.0) |
Being controlled was part of the fantasy | 3 (10.7) |
I was enjoying it | 2 (7.1) |
What Happened and Sex Practices during the Encounter
Of the 118 men who reported that a partner tried to have sex with them in ways they did not want, 33 (28.0%) indicated that the encounter degenerated into conflict: 17 (14.4%) indicated that an argument developed, seven (5.9%) reported that the situation became violent, and nine (7.6%) participants indicated that their partner forced them to continue with the unwanted encounter. Thirty (25.4%) men reported removing themselves from the encounter, 42 (35.6%) stopped having sex, and 30 (25.4%) just let it happen (Table 3).
Table 3
What happened during the encounter, sex practices, type and number of partners (n = 118): participants were able to choose multiple responses
n (%) | n = 118 |
|---|---|
What happened? | |
We had an argument | 17 (14.4) |
It became violent | 7 (5.9) |
They forced me to do it | 9 (7.6) |
I left | 30 (25.4) |
We stopped having sex | 42 (35.6) |
I just let it happen | 30 (25.4) |
Sex practices during the encounter | |
He kissed me | 12 (10.2) |
Oral intercourse | |
Receptive (I sucked him) | 9 (7.6) |
Insertive (he sucked me) | 12 (10.2) |
Anal intercourse | |
Receptive only | 23 (19.5) |
Insertive only | 7 (5.9) |
Receptive and insertive partner | 3 (2.5) |
Ejaculation in rectum without condom | 8 (6.8) |
Ejaculation in partner’s rectum without condom | 4 (3.4) |
He insisted we use a condom | 1 (0.8) |
He insisted we not use a condom | 11 (9.3) |
Type of partner | |
Boyfriend or husband | 10 (8.5) |
Fuckbuddy of ‘friend with benefits’ | 21 (17.8) |
A casual partner | 38 (32.2) |
An anonymous partner | 47 (39.8) |
Housemate | 6 (5.1) |
Someone paying you for sex | 6 (5.1) |
Other | 2 (1.7) |
Number of partners | |
1 | 81 (68.6) |
2–3 | 21 (17.8) |
4–5 | 14 (11.9) |
> 5 | 2 (1.7) |
Group sex setting | 11 (9.3%) |
Frequency of encounters | |
Once | 73 (61.9) |
2–3 times | 27 (22.9) |
4–5 times | 6 (5.1) |
> 5 times | 4 (3.4) |
No data | 8 (6.8) |
Among the 118 reporting sex in which their partner tried to make them have sex in ways they did not want, 33 (28.0%) indicated that the unwanted sexual encounter involved anal sex. Of those who indicated he encounter involved anal sex, 23 men (19.5%) indicated they were the receptive partner only, seven men (5.9%) were the insertive partner only, and three men (2.5%) took both the receptive and insertive role. Of those reporting unwanted receptive anal sex, eight men (6.8%) indicated that during the unwanted sexual encounter their partner ejaculated inside them. Among the men indicating that the unwanted sexual encounter involved them taking the insertive role, four reported (3.4%) ejaculating inside their partner during anal sex. Eleven men (9.3%) reported that condomless anal intercourse (CLAI) had occurred as part of the unwanted encounter. Of the 11 men reporting CLAI as part of the unwanted encounter: ten (8.5%) were HIV-negative and one (0.8%) was living with HIV. Three HIV-negative participants reporting CLAI were using PrEP at time of the unwanted encounter (Table 3).
Frequency of Unwanted Encounters, Type and Number of Partners Involved
Among the 118 men reporting an unwanted encounter, 47 (39.8%) reported that it had occurred with an anonymous partner, 38 (32.2%) with a casual partner, 21 (17.8%) with a fuckbuddy or ‘friend with benefits’, and 10 men (8.5%) indicated that the unwanted encounter had occurred with their boyfriend or primary partner (Table 3). Approximately one third (n = 37, 31.4%) of the 118 participants reporting an unwanted sexual encounter indicated that the encounter involved multiple partners and 11 (9.3%) indicated that the encounter had occurred specifically in the context of group sex.
Table 4
Where the unwanted encounter occurred: participants were able to choose multiple responses
n (%) | n = 89 |
|---|---|
At my home | 57 (64.0) |
At his home | 26 (29.2) |
Sex on premises venue | 22 (24.7) |
Beat (i.e., public park or toilet) | 5 (5.6) |
Hotel | 11 (12.4) |
Most (n = 73, 61.8%) of the 118participants who indicated that an unwanted encounter had occurred only once in the previous three months. However, almost a third (n = 37 31.4%) reported an encounter occurring more than once in the previous three months: 27 (22.8%) indicated an unwanted encounter occurring two to three times, six (5.1%) three to four times, and four (1.7%) five or more times (Table 3).
Where the Encounter Occurred
In December 2021, an additional question of where the unwanted sexual encounter occurred was included, approximately six months after questions about unwanted sexual encounters were incorporated into the questionnaire. Between December 2021 and June 2022, 89 participants responded to this question and of these, most (n = 57 64.0%) reported an unwanted encounter had occurred in their own home, and 26 (29.2%) indicated that it had occurred in the home of their sexual partner. Nearly a quarter of respondents (n = 22; 24.7%) reported that an unwanted encounter had occurred at an SOPV and five men (5.6%) indicated that it had occurred in a public environment such as a public park or public toilet (referred to hereafter as ‘beats’) (Table 4).
Discussion
While the majority (87.8%) of participants in this study reported experiencing no unwanted sexual encounters within the previous three months, 12.2% of participants did report having experienced an unwanted sexual encounter within that time. Approximately half of those participants who did report an unwanted sexual encounter indicated that they were able to resolve the situation by asking their partner to stop, and their partner stopped. However, almost a quarter of participants who asked their partner to stop indicated that their partner did not stop which, depending on jurisdiction and the type of sexual act, could constitute rape or sexual assault. Just under a third of participants reported sexual encounters in which there was some level of verbal or physical conflict and in a small number of instances, participants indicated that their partner forced them to continue. Most participants reported experiencing one unwanted encounter in the previous three months. However, almost a third reported an unwanted encounter occurring more than once within the previous three months.
Among our sample, some participants reported encounters that highlight some of the complexities around sexual consent (Hills et al., 2020; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007). For example, some participants reported being willing to let their partners continue or that they did not want to spoil the mood. Similarly, a small number of participants indicated that being controlled was part of their fantasy. Based on participant responses, the line between unwanted sex and non-consensual sex was unclear. In a qualitative study, Dietzel (2021) similarly found that when reflecting on a previous sexual encounter, some participants characterised it as unwanted despite being willing to continue with the encounter at the time. Accounts such as these highlight the potential complexities of discussions around sexual consent and experiences of unwanted sex. That is, while from the participant’s perspective elements of the sexual encounter were unwanted, their willingness to continue with it at the time may be construed as consent – thus the encounter was unwanted, but consensual. This finding has implications for affirmative consent models and education, and highlight a need for educational resources that go beyond simple scripts of “yes/no” and highlight the potential for ambiguity and miscommunication. Such campaigns should also include resources on navigating ambiguous non-verbal cues, boundary setting, and recognising internal pressures that may affect a willingness to continue with sex that is not always wanted.
Several scholars have also pointed to a distinction between consenting to and wanting sex, whereby individuals may consent to sex despite not necessarily desiring it (Hills et al., 2020; Peterson & Muehlenhard, 2007). O’Sullivan and Allgeier (1998) define this as “sexual compliance” and argue that although it may be unwanted, it may not necessarily be experienced negatively (see also Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010). The presence or absence of coercion and the willingness of the person to participate in sex regardless of whether they actively wanted it are critical factors in discerning the fine line between unwanted and non-consensual sex (Pugh & Becker, 2018; Vannier & O’Sullivan, 2010).
Almost a quarter of participants experienced unwanted sexual encounters at SOPVs. While individuals who do not identify as GBM can and do have sex at SOPVs, these settings are more commonly used by GBM (Prestage et al., 2015; Tewksbury, 2002). Negotiating sexual consent in SOPVs presents unique challenges that are often unexplored or overlooked in current discussions about sexual consent. SOPVs have unique sexual cultures and norms and can be affirming spaces for some GBM to be able to explore and express aspects of their sexual identities. Environmental factors such as low (or in cases such as darkrooms, no) lighting, coupled with the social norm of minimal verbal communication (Richters, 2007), can complicate how sex and sexual consent are negotiated. In SOPVs, the negotiation of sex frequently relies on subtle cues such as eye contact, body language, and physical gestures (Dean, 2009; Frank, 2019; Meunier, 2014; Richters, 2007; Tewksbury, 2002). Moreover, touching (whether consensual or not) is a common way for some individuals in these venues to gauge the interest of potential sex partners.
The finding that approximately one quarter of men reporting an unwanted sexual encounter occurring at an SOPV highlights a need for campaigns that emphasise promoting strategies for respectfully negotiating sex in these venues. It suggests that far from there being well understood non-verbal codes of sexual negotiation, miscommunication exists which can have serious consequences, and actual or perceived coercion can occur. Health promotion campaigns should address and affirm the unique sexual subcultures of SOPVs (Gaspar et al., 2021), while also emphasising the importance of consent. Such campaigns should be developed with GBM community input to avoid contributing to sex-negative attitudes directed toward individuals or groups who are perceived as engaging in sexual practices considered by some as socially and/or morally transgressive. The inclusion of such campaigns in mainstream discussions of sexual consent among the broader non-GBM population may risk increasing stigma and negative attitudes already experienced by many GBM.
Overarching sex-negative attitudes may inhibit an individual’s willingness or comfort with discussing sexual expectations, consent, and experiences of unwanted sexual encounters (Jozkowski, 2016). Sex-negative attitudes can be amplified in the context of sex between two (or more) men. For example, stereotypes of GBM as highly sexually active and promiscuous can result in legal and health authorities minimising experiences of non-consensual and unwanted sexual encounters among GBM (Mortimer et al., 2019). Such stereotypes can be used to characterise GBM who report non-consensual or unwanted sex as somehow “asking for” or being “deserving of” such experiences. These characterisations echo “rape myths”, whereby some women are blamed for being sexually assaulted and/or raped due to factors such as ways of dressing, being intoxicated, or being in a particular environment (Braun et al. 2009a; Burt 1980; Davies 2002; Mortimer et al. 2019). For men who attend SOPVs, venues specifically designed to facilitate sexual encounters, these stereotypes can result in a reluctance to report non-consensual ones (Salter et al., 2021). A reluctance to report such encounters can result in an underreporting and underrepresentation of non-consensual sex and sexual violence when between two (or more) men. There is a need for increased training among legal and health authorities to dispel these myths and stereotypes (Garza & Franklin, 2021).
Our findings have implications for public health initiatives to broaden community understandings of sexual health and wellbeing. We recommend tailored campaigns for GBM that address the unique aspects of some GBM sexual cultures. Following Braun and colleagues (2009b), we suggest that these campaigns should be targeted at both the level of the individual and GBM communities more broadly. At an individual level, initiatives should continue to emphasise the necessity of ensuring all sexual encounters are consensual, while also empowering and giving individuals confidence to set boundaries and to respect the boundaries of others, including in highly eroticised environments like SOPVs. Simultaneously, and adopting sex positive approaches to health promotion (Aggleton et al., 2014), these campaigns should also normalise conversations around sex and promote healthy exploration of various aspects of individuals’ sexualities and desires. At a broader community level, resources are needed that address consent and respectful approaches to negotiating sex in GBM sexual cultures, including navigating non-verbal cues, negotiating ambiguous sexual boundaries, and negotiating consent in group sex and SOPV settings. While campaigns such as these would likely have less relevance for the heterosexual population more broadly – and may indeed increase sex-negative stigma against GBM populations – they could be incorporated into existing HIV/STI resources. Doing so could work toward providing a more holistic approach to sexual health and wellbeing that extends beyond that of simply infection control.
Limitations
Our sample was a voluntary, online convenience sample and is not representative of all GBM in Australia or internationally. Moreover, our analysis relied on the use of self-reported data and may therefore be subject to recall biases. Individuals who have experienced unwanted, non-consensual, and/or traumatic sexual encounters may also not be willing to report these. We were also unable to test for associations between experiences of unwanted sex and socio-demographic, behavioural, and mental health correlates as this study was not initially set up to explore the specific issue of sexual (non-)consent. Rather, it was designed to explore the health and wellbeing of GBM more broadly. Questions of unwanted sex were included for the first time in this period and did not distinguish between levels of coercion, nor whether the entire encounter was unwanted or coerced, or a particular act within an encounter. As such, exact definitions of unwanted sex were broad. Based on these questions, we were not able to assess the degree to which coercion was or was not present in each reported problematic encounter and, therefore, unable to clearly distinguish between unwanted and non-consensual sexual encounters in every instance. Future research is warranted to address the nuances between unwanted and non-consensual sex, and associated factors.
Conclusion
A spectrum of unwanted sexual encounters were reported by 12.2% of study participants. These involved sexual encounters that were resolved by the participant asking their partner to stop, through to sexual encounters that involved conflict and violence. Many of these unwanted sexual encounters were resolved by asking their partners to stop. There is a need for sexual health literacy programs, specifically aimed at GBM, to engage with the unique sexual contexts and practices of GBM, particularly regarding how sex is negotiated in SOPVs and beats.
Policy Implications
Peer-led resources for negotiating sex and sexual consent need to be developed that are respectful both of the specifics of gay male sex cultures while also promoting wanted and consensual sex.
Acknowledgements
The study investigators thank all participants for their contribution to this study.
Declarations
Ethical Approval
All authors approved the article for submission. All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethics approval was provided by the [removed for blind review].
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.