Abstract
The incidence of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) has increased over recent years, particularly among young women. Partner type is believed to influence women’s STI risk. However, researchers often restrict partner type to “casual” versus “committed,” labels that can mask risk variability. Therefore, in this study, we identified and explored a range of sexual partner types in order to understand how young women’s perceived risk and condom use intentions vary by partner type. Data were obtained during six focus groups of young women (N =25) who were recruited from a community reproductive healthcare clinic. Women described a range of monogamous and non-monogamous partner types that were distinguished based on partner regularity (i.e., whether the sexual partnership was ongoing) and personal relationship (i.e., degree of involvement outside of the sexual relationship). Women’s perceived STI risk was higher and condom use intentions stronger with new partners, particularly unfamiliar partners (i.e., “one-night stand,” “fuck boy”). Women identified potential harm from condom negotiation with all but the “friends with benefits” partners. However, the nature of this harm differed by partner type. Clinicians and researchers should consider how to support women in advocating for safer sexual behaviors across these partner types by understanding how partner regularity, degree of personal relationship, and emotional attachment differentially impact couples’ condom use decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adimora, A. A., Schoenbach, V. J., Bonas, D. M., Martinson, F. E. A., Donaldson, K. H., & Stancil, T. R. (2002). Concurrent sexual partnerships among women in the United States. Epidemiology, 13, 320–327. https://doi.org/10.2307/3703403.
Bisson, M. A., & Levine, T. R. (2009). Negotiating a friends with benefits relationship. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 38, 66–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-007-9211-2.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.
Caldwell, K., & Mathews, A. (2015). The role of relationship type, risk perception, and condom use in middle socioeconomic status black women’s HIV-prevention strategies. Journal of Black Sexuality and Relationships, 2, 91–120. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsr.2016.0002.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). STDs in women and infants. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/std/stats16/womenandinf.htm.
Chandra, A., Billioux, V. G., Copen, C. E., Balaji, A., & Dinenno, E. (2012). HIV testing in the U.S. household population aged 15–44: Data from the National Survey of Family Growth, 2006–2010. National Health Statistics Reports, 4, 1–26.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 1559–1565. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02712.x.
Connell, R. W. (1987). Gender and power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Davis, K. C., Schraufnagel, T. J., Kajumulo, K. F., Gilmore, A. K., Norris, J., & George, W. H. (2014). A qualitative examination of men’s condom use attitudes and resistance: “It’s just a part of the game”. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 43, 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-013-0150-9.
Epstein, M., Calzo, J. P., Smiler, A. P., & Ward, L. M. (2009). “Anything from making out to having sex”: Men’s negotiations of hooking up and friends with benefits scripts. Journal of Sex Research, 46, 414–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490902775801.
Fisher, J. D., & Fisher, W. A. (2000). Theoretical approaches to individual-level change in HIV risk behavior. In J. L. Peterson & R. J. DiClemente (Eds.), AIDS prevention and mental health: Handbook of HIV prevention (pp. 3–55). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fridlund, V., Stenqvist, K., & Nordvik, M. K. (2014). Condom use: The discrepancy between practice and behavioral expectations. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 42, 759–765. https://doi.org/10.1177/1403494814550518.
Garcia, J. R., Reiber, C., Massey, S. G., & Merriwether, A. M. (2012). Sexual hookup culture: A review. Review of General Psychology, 16, 161–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027911.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., & Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in qualitative research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal, 204, 291–295. https://doi.org/10.1038/bdj.2008.192.
Grello, C., Welsh, D., & Harper, M. (2006). No strings attached: The nature of casual sex in college students. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 255–267.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., & Namey, E. E. (2011). Applied thematic analysis. London: Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490609552324.
Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N., & McKenna, K. (2017). Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: Findings from a randomized study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20, 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2017.1281601.
Haberland, N. A. (2015). The case for addressing gender and power in sexuality and HIV education: A comprehensive review of evaluation studies. International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 41, 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1363/4103115.
He, F., Hensel, D. J., Harezlak, J., & Fortenberry, J. D. (2016). Condom use as a function of number of coital events in new relationships. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 43, 67–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0000000000000390.
Holland, K. J., & French, S. E. (2012). Condom negotiation strategy use and effectiveness among college students. Journal of Sex Research, 49, 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2011.568128.
Kelly, J., & Bazzini, D. G. (2001). Gender, sexual experience, and the sexual double standard: Evaluations of female contraceptive behavior. Sex Roles, 45, 785–799. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015640419862.
Lescano, C. M., Vazquez, E. A., Brown, L. K., Litvin, E. B., & Pugatch, D. (2006). Condom use with “casual” and “main” partners: What’s in a name? Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 443.e1–e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.01.003.
Levine, E. C., Herbenick, D., Martinez, O., Fu, T.-C., & Dodge, B. (2018). Open relationships, nonconsensual nonmonogamy, and monogamy among U.S. adults: Findings from the 2012 National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1439–1450. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-018-1178-7.
Logan, T. K., Cole, J., & Leukefeld, C. (2002). Women, sex, and HIV: Social and contextual factors, meta-analysis of published interventions, and implications for practice and research. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 851–885. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.128.6.851.
Lyons, H. A., Manning, W. D., & Giordano, P. C. (2014). Young adult casual sexual behavior: Life course specific motivations and consequences. Sociological Perspectives, 57, 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121413517557.
Lyons, H. A., Manning, W. D., Giordano, P. C., & Longmore, M. (2013). Predictors of heterosexual casual sex among young adults. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 585–593.
Macaluso, M., Demand, M. J., Artz, L. M., & Hook, E. W. (2000). Partner type and condom use. AIDS, 14, 537–546.
Matser, A., Heiligenberg, M., Geskus, R., Heijman, T., Low, N., Kretzschmar, M., & van der Loeff, M. S. (2014). The importance of partnership factors and individual factors associated with absent or inconsistent condom use in heterosexuals: a cross-sectional study. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 90, 325–331. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2013-051087.
Morrison-Beedy, D., Carey, M. P., & Lewis, B. P. (2002). Modeling condom-use stage of change in low-income, single, urban women. Research in Nursing & Health, 25, 122–134.
National Association of Community Health Centers. (2015). Taking routine histories of sexual health: A system-wide approach for health centers. Retrieved from https://www.lgbthealtheducation.org/wp-content/uploads/COM-827-sexual-history_toolkit_2015.pdf.
Nelson, L. E., Morrison-Beedy, D., Kearney, M. H., & Dozier, A. (2011a). Sexual partner type taxonomy use among black adolescent mothers in the United States. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 1–10.
Nelson, L. E., Morrison-Beedy, D., Kearney, M. H., & Dozier, A. (2011b). Always, never, or sometimes: Examining variation in condom-use decision making among Black adolescent mothers. Research in Nursing & Health, 34, 270–281.
Noar, S. M., Webb, E., Stee, S. Van, Feist-Price, S., Crosby, R., Fitts Willoughby, J., & Troutman, A. (2012). Sexual partnerships, risk behaviors, and condom use among low-income heterosexual African Americans: A qualitative study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 959–970. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-011-9890-6.
Raine, T. R., Gard, J. C., Boyer, C. B., Haider, S., Brown, B. A., Hernandez, A. F., & Harper, C. C. (2010). Contraceptive decision-making in sexual relationships: Young men’s experiences, attitudes, and values. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 12, 373–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691050903524769.
Rosengard, C., Adler, N. E., Gurvey, J. E., & Ellen, J. (2005). Adolescent partner-type experience: Psychosocial and behavioral differences. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 37, 141–147.
Santelli, J. S., Brener, N. D., Lowry, R., Bhatt, A., & Zabin, L. S. (1998). Multiple sexual partners among U.S. adolescents and young adults. Family Planning Perspectives, 30, 271–275.
Satterwhite, C. L., Torrone, E., Meites, E., Dunne, E. F., Mahajan, R., Ocfemia, C. M., … Weinstock, H. (2013). Sexually transmitted infections among US women and men: Prevalence and incidence estimates, 2008. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 40, 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e318286bb53.
Senn, T. E., Scott-Sheldon, L. A. J., & Carey, M. P. (2014). Relationship-specific condom attitudes predict condom use among STD clinic patients with both primary and non-primary partners. AIDS and Behavior, 18, 1420–1427. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-014-0726-y.
Steele, C. M., & Josephs, R. A. (1990). Alcohol myopia: Its prized and dangerous effects. American Psychologist, 45, 921–933.
Vanderdrift, L. E., Agnew, C. R., Harvey, S. M., & Warren, J. T. (2012). Whose intentions predict? Power over condom use within heterosexual dyads. Health Psychology, 32, 1038–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030021.
Vasilenko, S. A., Kreager, D. A., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2015). Gender, contraceptive attitudes, and condom use in adolescent romantic relationships: A dyadic approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25, 51–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12091.
Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. D. (2011). Taking casual sex not too casually: Exploring definitions of casual sexual relationships. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 20, 75–91.
Wentland, J. J., & Reissing, E. (2014). Casual sexual relationships: Identifying definitions for one night stands, booty calls, fuck buddies, and friends with benefits. Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 23, 167–177.
Wilson, E. K., & Koo, H. P. (2008). Associations between low-income women’s relationship characteristics and their contraceptive use. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 40, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1363/4017108.
Wingood, G. M., & DiClemente, R. J. (2000). Application of the theory of gender and power to examine HIV-related exposures, risk factors, and effective interventions for women. Health Education Behavior, 27, 539–565. https://doi.org/10.1363/4017108.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by Grant R34-AA023158 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism to Michael P. Carey. We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the study participants as well as the staff at the Providence Planned Parenthood Health Center. The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Planned Parenthood Federation of America or the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Norris, A.L., Carey, K.B., Guthrie, K.M. et al. Partner Type and Young Women’s Sexual Behavior: A Qualitative Inquiry. Arch Sex Behav 50, 359–372 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01780-1
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01780-1