AIDS and Behavior

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 1777–1784 | Cite as

The Meaning of ‘Regular Partner’ in HIV Research Among Gay and Bisexual Men: Implications of an Australian Cross-Sectional Survey

  • Benjamin R. Bavinton
  • Duane Duncan
  • Jeffrey Grierson
  • Iryna B. Zablotska
  • Ian A. Down
  • Andrew E. Grulich
  • Garrett P. Prestage
Original Paper


Estimates of the proportion of HIV infections coming from within regular sexual relationships among gay and bisexual men (GBM) vary widely. Research surveys use various partner type categories, but there is little understanding of how men classify their partners. We conducted an online cross-sectional survey of Australian GBM exploring sexual relationships, including 2057 men reporting on 2566 regular partnerships. Just over half of the partnerships were considered ‘relationships’, while the remainder were non-romantic ‘fuckbuddy’-style arrangements. In multivariable analysis, factors associated with considering the partnership a ‘relationship’ were: using a ‘romantic’ descriptor, partnership length, monogamous agreements, any condomless anal sex with each other, love, and commitment. The category of ‘regular partner’ can mask diverse partnership types, which have different meanings to GBM, associated behaviours, and HIV risks. Certain HIV prevention techniques may be more suited to particular types of partnerships. ‘Fuckbuddy’ arrangements need to be more explicitly acknowledged in HIV prevention.


Men who have sex with men HIV Relationships HIV prevention Regular partner 


  1. 1.
    Beyrer C, Baral SD, van Griensven F, et al. Global epidemiology of HIV infection in men who have sex with men. Lancet. 2012;380(9839):367–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kippax S, Slavin S, Ellard J, et al. Seroconversion in context. AIDS Care. 2003;15(6):839–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Volk JE, Prestage G, Jin F, et al. Risk factors for HIV seroconversion in homosexual men in Australia. Sex Health. 2006;3(1):45–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Down I. Building intimacy, managing risk: gay men’s relationships and HIV. HIV Australia. 2014;12(1):7–8.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sullivan PS, Salazar L, Buchbinder S, Sanchez TH. Estimating the proportion of HIV transmissions from main sex partners among men who have sex with men in five US cities. AIDS. 2009;23(9):1153–62.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goodreau SM, Carnegie NB, Vittinghoff E, et al. What drives the US and Peruvian HIV epidemics in men who have sex with men (MSM)? PLoS ONE. 2012;7(11):e50522. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0050522.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xiridou M, Geskus R, de Wit J, Coutinho R, Kretzschmar M. The contribution of steady and casual partnerships to the incidence of HIV infection among homosexual men in Amsterdam. AIDS. 2003;17(7):1029–38.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mitchell JW, Harvey SM, Champeau D, Seal DW. Relationship factors associated with HIV risk among a sample of gay male couples. AIDS Behav. 2012;16(2):404–11.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Holt M, Lee E, Prestage GP, Zablotska I, de Wit J, Mao L. The converging and diverging characteristics of HIV-positive and HIV-negative gay men in the Australian Gay Community Periodic Surveys, 2000–2009. AIDS Care. 2012;25(1):28–37.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ko N-Y, Koe S, Lee H-C, Yen C-F, Ko W-C, Hsu S-T. Online sex-seeking, substance use, and risky behaviors in Taiwan: results from the 2010 Asia Internet MSM Sex Survey. Arch Sex Behav. 2010;2012:1–10.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hull P, Mao L, Kolstee J, et al. Gay Community Periodic Survey: Sydney 2015. Sydney: Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW; 2015.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Van Den Boom W, Stolte I, Sandfort T, Davidovich U. Serosorting and sexual risk behaviour according to different casual partnership types among MSM: the study of one-night stands and sex buddies. AIDS Care. 2012;24(2):167–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grierson J, Pitts M, Koelmeyer R. HIV futures seven: the health and wellbeing of HIV positive people in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University; 2013.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jin F, Prestage GP, Mao L, et al. “Any condomless anal intercourse” is no longer an accurate measure of HIV sexual risk behavior in gay and other men who have sex with men. Front Immunol. 2015;6(86):1–8.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Duncan D, Prestage G, Grierson J. Trust, commitment, love and sex: HIV, monogamy, and gay men. J Sex Marital Ther. 2015;41(4):345–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mao L, Crawford J, Van De Ven P, et al. Differences between men who report frequent, occasional or no unprotected anal intercourse with casual partners among a cohort of HIV-seronegative gay men in Sydney, Australia. AIDS Care. 2006;18(8):942–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    ACON. This is ACON: Annual Report 08/09. Sydney: ACON; 2009.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benjamin R. Bavinton
    • 1
  • Duane Duncan
    • 2
  • Jeffrey Grierson
    • 3
  • Iryna B. Zablotska
    • 1
  • Ian A. Down
    • 1
  • Andrew E. Grulich
    • 1
  • Garrett P. Prestage
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Kirby InstituteUniversity of New South WalesSydneyAustralia
  2. 2.University of New EnglandArmidaleAustralia
  3. 3.Anglia Ruskin UniversityCambridgeEngland, UK
  4. 4.Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and SocietyLa Trobe UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations