(PS12-C57) Minority Stress: The Risk of Sexual Coercion in Consensual Non-monogamous Relationships

Minority Stress: The Risk of Sexual Coercion in Consensual

Non-Monogamous Relationships

Kaitlin M. Brunett, Quyen A. Do, & Shelby B. Scott

Department of Psychology, University of Texas at San Antonio 

Abstract

Purpose: Consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships are classified as relationships where partners engage in multiple simultaneous intimate relationships with the explicit agreement of all parties involved (Witherspoon & Theodore, 2021). CNM-partnered LGBTQ+ individuals may experience compounded forms of minority stress due to social stigmatization of their sexual minority status (Pallotta-Chiarolli, 2010) and CNM-specific stigmas (Mogilski et al., 2020).  Across sexual minority men and women, research has shown that sexual minority stress is associated with increased risk of experiencing sexual coercion (Kirschbaum, 2019; Kuyper & Vanwesenbeeck, 2011) and engaging in sexual coercion perpetration (Edwards & Sylaska, 2013). However, research has yet to explore how minority stress is associated with sexual coercion among LGBTQ+ individuals in CNM relationships. This study addresses these gaps by examining the associations between different forms of minority stress experienced by CNM-partnered LGBTQ+ individuals and sexual coercion.

Method: Participants included 230 LGBTQ-identified adults currently in CNM relationships. Participants were primarily women/transfeminine (47%), White (48%), and bisexual (40%). Participants completed a series of validated scales measuring sexual and CNM minority stress experiences, including internalized homophobia, sexual orientation concealment, CNM Discrimination, and internalized CNM negativity. Perpetration or experience of sexual coercion were measured as binary outcomes in terms of being present or not across participants’ relationships. Due to high correlations between variables, we ran separate logistic regressions to analyze associations between minority stress and sexual coercion. To correct for multiple tests, we also applied a Bonferroni correction with an adjusted p-value of .006.

Results: Across CNM relationships, sexual coercion perpetration was significantly associated with internalized homophobia (OR = 1.72, p < .001), sexual orientation concealment (OR = 1.46, p = .006), and internalized CNM negativity (OR = 1.70, p < .001). Additionally, sexual coercion experiences were significantly associated with internalized homophobia (OR = 1.59, p = .001) and internalized CNM negativity (OR = 1.46, p = .006). When not accounting for the Bonferroni correction, all four minority stress variables were found to have a significant association with both perpetration and experience.

Conclusion: Results provided novel empirical support that the perpetration and experience of sexual coercion within CNM relationships were associated with both sexual minority and CNM-specific forms of minority stress, highlighting the potential compounding effects of multiple forms of stress experienced by LGBTQ+ CNM populations. Results have important implications for informing prevention and intervention programs aimed at CNM relationships most at risk for sexual coercion and associated adverse health effects.