Oct 052015
 

480px-RGB_LED_Rainbow_from_7th_symmetry_cylindrical_gratingI’ve been saying for years now that the phrase “LGBT community” is insufficient when it comes to health. It’s not one community — it is multiple communities. The social issues and health issues that a gay transgender man faces every day are different from the issues a bisexual cisgender woman faces every day. There are some similarities and grouping the communities together has been politically useful. But it should never be forgotten that L, G, B, and T all face different types of health concerns and have different civil rights battles to face.

A study came out in August that has to be one of my favorites this year. Researchers in Georgia surveyed over three thousand lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, transgender, gender non-conforming, and queer people. They asked about health behaviors of all kinds. And then they did statistical analysis, comparing the various genders (cis male, cis female, trans male, trans female, genderqueer) and sexual orientations (lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, straight). Let’s look at what they found!

  • Diet and exercise: The researchers asked about fatty foods, eating while not hungry, quantity of vegetables and fruits eaten, and about hours and types of exercise. Transgender women had the least healthy diet of all genders. As a group, they were less likely to eat many fruits and vegetables, and more likely to drink sugared drinks and eat when they weren’t hungry. Both cisgender and transgender men were also less likely to eat many vegetables compared with other groups. Genderqueer people and gay cisgender men were most likely to exercise.
  • Substance use: The researchers asked about smoking tobacco and alcohol consumption. Cisgender men were the most likely to drink alcohol, binge drink, and to drink even when they didn’t want to. Participants who identified as queer were also more likely to drink. When it came to tobacco, transgender men and straight participants were the most likely to smoke.
  • Motor vehicle risk: The researchers asked about seatbelt use, speeding, and texting while driving. No clear differences for speeding were noted. Transgender men and straight participants were most likely to drive without a seatbelt. Texting while driving varied considerably; gay and lesbian drivers were most likely to text while driving.
  • Sexual behaviors: The researchers asked about frequency of unprotected sex and sex while intoxicated. Gay men were least likely to have unprotected sex while lesbian women were most likely to have unprotected sex. When it came to sex while intoxicated, only the bisexual participants stood out as being most likely among the groups to have sex while intoxicated.
  • Violence: The researchers asked about self harm and expressing anger at others. Overall rates of interpersonal anger were very low. Transgender men and pansexual people were most likely to self harm.
  • Medical risk taking: The researchers asked about delaying medical care and not following physician advice. Transgender women were least likely to seek care; 1/3 reported that they regularly delayed seeking medical care. Both transgender women and transgender men were more likely to not follow medical advice when it was given. Bisexual people were also more likely to delay seeking medical care compared to lesbian and gay participants.

That’s a mouthful, right? There are a lot of details I left out of this summary and it still threatens to be overwhelming with detail. So how we can break this down even more simply? By talking about the conclusions.

The researchers go into some possible causes for all these different results. Maybe gay men are safer about sex because of HIV risk. Maybe transgender men eat few vegetables because of cultural expectations that “men eat lots of meat and not many vegetables.” Maybe gay and lesbian people text more while driving because of the lack of community-specific messages.

Maybe. And they’re all good thoughts.

I tend to look forward more to what we can do with these data. I’m pretty happy with this study — it’s one of the broadest I’ve seen for inclusion. Few health-oriented pieces of research include pansexual and genderqueer individuals.

It’s important to remember that these results are at the group level. Any individual person who is a gender/sexual minority will have their own health behaviors and risks. They should be evaluated and treated as individuals. From a public health perspective though, this research brings valuable data. Only by knowing what each group faces can prevention, screening, and treatment campaigns be created. Only by knowing, for example, that transgender and bisexual people avoid seeking medical care can we then examine “why?” and act to remove the barriers so that appropriate, respectful medical care is available.

So — can we change the conversation? Instead of talking about “the LGBT community”, let’s talk about “the LGBT communities”. Or, even better, “gender and sexual minority communities” — removing the alphabet soup and expanding the definitions at the same time. This research is only the tip of the iceberg. We have so much more to explore.

The paper is published online ahead of print. The abstract is publicly available.

Aug 152013
 

Rope (often used in BDSM ) smiley face - CC BY 3.0 Rose Lovell

A new psychological study of BDSM practitioners has just been published. This is the first such research to specifically examine the “Big Five” personality characteristics.

For those of you not interested in the nitty-gritty, here’s the digest: As a group, people who practice BDSM report a better sense of well-being and are more open to new experiences, extraverted, conscientious, and less sensitive to rejection than people who don’t practice BDSM. As with all correlations, this does not mean that BDSM activities caused these differences. Rather, people with these characteristics may be more likely to investigate BDSM.

Are you interested in the details? Cool! Let’s break this study down then.

First, some basics on BDSM. As some readers may remember, BDSM is an acronym standing for: Bondage, Dominance/Submission, SadoMasochism… and probably a few others besides. BDSM is considered an “alternative” sexuality and is highly stigmatized here in the United States. BDSM is often misrepresented as a purely sexual practice focused on pain. In truth, it’s often more sensual than sexual or painful. Many forms of BDSM “play” involve no sex or pain at all. Specific practices vary a lot depending on the people involved**.

Within BDSM, a person is typically in one of three roles: dominant (dom/domme), submissive (sub), or switch. The terms are fairly self explanatory. Dominant “has” control, submissive “gives” control, a switch is someone who switches roles*. Sometimes being a dom/sub/switch is referred to as an orientation, sometimes it’s a role for a particular activity (“scene”)***.

What about these personality characteristics? In personality psychology, there’s the concept of the “big five” personality characteristics, OCEAN: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. Personality characteristics are thought to be innate. You’re born with a certain personality, and it’s relatively unchangeable. Each of the “big five” can be thought of as a line, and each person falls somewhere along that line. To wit….

  • Openness: How open to new experiences are you? Open vs cautious
  • Conscientiousness: How tidy, thorough and responsible are you? Organized vs careless
  • Extraversion: How much do you enjoy being around other people? Extravert vs introvert
  • Agreeableness: How trusting and cooperative are you? Friendly vs cold
  • Neuroticism: How easily do things tip you emotionally off balance? Easily upset vs steady

Some of these traits are associated with greater happiness and resiliency (e.g., Openness, Agreeableness and Extraversion) whereas others are associated with mental instability or illness (e.g., Neuroticism). There are nuances, overlaps, and arguments over these concepts that I won’t address here, but I hope that gives you a good starting place for understanding the study results. Let me know in the comments if it doesn’t and I’ll gladly expand. This study looked at more than just the “big five”. It also included measures of rejection sensitivity, attachment style, and subjective well being.

So why look at the “big five” and all those others in the context of BDSM? The arguments of the researchers make some sense. While BDSM and the “big five” have not been directly compared before, there is some evidence that the “big five” is associated with certain sexual attitudes. The more open you are, the more permissive your attitudes around sex. The more neurotic you are, the less stable your relationships, thus impacting your sexual life. And so on. Similarly, people with secure attachment styles are more likely to have a wide variety of sexual behaviors and better trust with partner(s) than people with insecure attachment styles.

So we have our variables: the “big five”, rejection sensitivity, attachment style, subjective well-being. What about our participants?

BDSM participants were 902 Dutch people, 464 male and 438 female (no mention of trans or genderqueer folks), recruited from one Dutch BDSM forum. Control participants were 434 Dutch people screened for BDSM behavior, 129 male and 305 female, recruited from magazine ads or websites having to do with “secrets”. Men in the study were older than women. I’m really not sure this control is an adequate control for this study because of the recruitment methods… but I’m not sure it’s not either. Differences between the groups? There certainly were some other than the practice of BDSM. There were significantly more women in the control group than the BDSM group. The control group was younger and less well educated than the BDSM group, although both were more well educated than the average Dutch citizen. Whether these differences affected the study results is unknown, but a possibility.

The researchers also note a gender difference between roles in the BDSM group. Men were 33.4% submissive, 18.3% switch, and 48.3% dominant identified. Women, on the other hand, were 75.6% submissive, 16.4% switch, and 8% dominant. This is certainly reflected in the stereotypes associated with BDSM activities.

Results included:

  • People who practice BDSM were more Open, Extraverted, and Conscientious than the control participants.
  • People who practice BDSM were less Neurotic and Agreeable than the control participants
  • People who practice BDSM were less sensitive to rejection than people who didn’t practice BDSM. Within the BDSM participants, submissives were more sensitive to rejection than dominants
  • People who practice BDSM had a greater sense of well-being than control participants. Dominants scored the highest on well-being.
  • Relatively few differences between BDSM participants and control participants was found when attachment styles were examined. When there was a difference, BDSM participants had a more secure attachment than control participants.

Effect sizes were small to medium. That is about average for a psychological study.

The OCEAN results make sense within the context of BDSM. In order to even try BDSM activities, you’d need to be open to new experiences. Conscientiousness is also valued, in order to be safe. Extraversion is helpful within a community setting. The rejection sensitivity results also make sense to me – a timid person may not continue to explore BDSM after one or two rejections. But this is all after-the-fact reasoning, and not particularly predictive or scientific.

The authors note that these results contradict the long-standing assumption that women who participate in BDSM so do because they were abused as children. But they didn’t ask directly about childhood sexual abuse. Rather, they draw this conclusion from the established relationship between attachment styles and abuse history. Childhood abuse is associated with insecure attachment. But in this study, BDSM folk were more likely to have a secure attachment than the control group. I think this logic is fairly sound, though a definitive answer will need to wait for a study where childhood abuse is specifically asked about.

The most obvious limitations to this study are the participants. The BDSM and control participants were not necessarily comparable, and there were significant known differences between the groups. Those differences could have affected the study’s results. Also, as usual, this study’s results may not be generalizable to BDSM communities in other countries (e.g., the United States).

Despite the limitations, these results are a delightful breath of fresh air, when so much of the literature treats BDSM as psychopathology. People who practice BDSM has long argued that there is nothing inherently “wrong”, “sick” or “dangerous” about their sexuality. These results absolutely support their assertion. The study authors state “We therefore conclude that these results favor the view […] that BDSM may be thought of as a recreational leisure, rather than the expression of psychopathological processes.” Yes, yes and yes.

The study was published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine. The abstract is publicly available.

* This is a highly simplified description. Power, and the exchange of power, is complex.

** It’s important to note, though, that for many people who participate in BDSM pain is very important, if not the central experience.

*** In addition to Dom/Sub/Switch, there’s also the idea of “topping” and “bottoming”. Topping and bottoming are much more transitory than Dom/Sub/Switch. In any particular activity, the Top is the “do-er” and the Bottom is the “do-ee”. But being Top or Bottom is activity specific and not as much of an orientation as Dom/Sub/Switch.

Oct 252012
 

LGBT youth are at elevated risk for suicide. Researchers have been looking into the risk factors for suicide in LGBT youth. Most of the studies so far have been cross-sectional; that means they only studied how things are once, at one point in time. Longitudinal studies, in contrast, measure at multiple points in time. Longitudinal studies are expensive, and risk losing track of participants, but they provide more information.

This year, the first longitudinal study of LGBT youth suicide risk factors was published. The participants were interviewed twice, a year apart. Both times, they were psychiatrically evaluated and asked about suicide attempts. They filled out questionnaires evaluating hopelessness, impulsivity, social support, gender non-conformity, age of same-sex attraction, and LGBT-related victimization.

In this sample, roughly 31.6% of the participants had attempted suicide. This is far higher than the 8% rate reported by the CDC. Seven variables were associated with previous suicide attempts: hopelessness, impulsivity, LGBT-related victimization, low family support, being younger when first feeling same-sex attraction (for LGB youth), and symptoms of either depression or conduct disorder. That is, the more hopeless or impulsive the youth, the more likely it is that they have previously made a suicide attempt. Gender non-conforming behavior and peer support did not seem to affect suicide risk. When it came to predicting future suicide attempts, the best predictor was previous suicide attempts. Youth who had previously attempted suicide had a 10 times greater risk of another attempt compared to those who hadn’t attempted suicide.

As always, these results should be accepted with caution. For example, this study did not find that gender non-conforming behavior was associated with suicidality. This is in contrast to other studies which did find an association. This study’s participants may not be representative of the population. They also had a small (ish) sample: 237 participants; 21 were transgender, and 13 had attempted suicide. Small sample sizes can limit a study’s ability to detect statistical significance. Gender non-conforming behavior may actually be associated with suicidality, but this study may not have had a large enough sample to detect it.

For me, this study brings up the question: How do we prevent suicide attempts in our LGBT youth who have already attempted suicide? They’re the most at risk for future attempts, according to this study. I don’t have a solid answer; neither do the researchers. But they do say that “The current findings underscore the need for increased prevention efforts and specifically point to the value of targeting youth who have made a prior attempt and who acknowledge their same-sex attractions at younger ages.”

Study Abstract – Full Text – Archives of Sexual Behavior

Sep 212012
 

Because hormone therapy is known to slow and eventually stop sperm production, trans women who wish to have biological children must store their sperm before starting hormones. It is not known whether sperm production will resume if hormones are discontinued. Both the WPATH and Endocrine Society guidelines recommend considering sperm storage before starting hormone therapy.

Those recommendations aren’t without conflict. Some in the medical field have expressed concerns about the welfare of children born to trans parents. There are no empirical data available on those kids, but the authors of this study comment that “the lack of reassuring evidence cannot be used as a barrier against reproduction after gender transition.” I think they’re absolutely right. Further, the data on same-sex parenting help reinforce that it’s not the gender of the parent(s) that’s important for a child’s well-being. Factors like cooperation and stability are far more influential.

The authors note that there is little research surrounding reproduction in trans women, and that the research world has little understanding of the motivations and concerns affecting trans women’s reproductive decisions. Several issues they mention seeing in their clinic include cost, desire to transition quickly, and difficulty producing sperm for freezing. They also call for more research, so that clinicians better understand what trans women are facing and can improve health care.

I was really glad to see this article published. There was a lot of discussion of reproductive options for young trans people at the latest Gender Spectrum conference. It’s good to see it being discussed respectfully in the literature.

Link (Archives of Sexual Behavior)

EDIT: Yes, that title does look weird, doesn’t it? It really is the title of the article that was published.

Aug 152011
 

Felching is the act of sucking semen out of an anus or vagina. It can be accompanied by “snowballing”, where the semen is shared between people orally. Felching can be done by both straight and gay partners. Felching is also relatively common in the gay male barebacking community. A recent study found roughly one in sex men who bareback also do felching.

There is relatively little information about felching in the academic literature. The greatest risk with felching or snowballing is the potential to spread STDs, including HIV and hepatitis. These diseases are spread most often from the inserting partner to the receptive partner. There is also a risk of spreading intestinal parasites, if the receptive partner has one. For that reason, it’s considered a “high risk sexual behavior”.

There is no way to use barriers to reduce risk with felching. The best way to protect oneself is to get all potential sexual partners STD tested before felching. Keep in mind that HIV can take up to three months to show up on an HIV test, so you may wish to wait until a test at three months is clean.

Resources: