Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Typ-2-Diabetes und Adipositas Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Live-Webinar "Urologie und Sexualmedizin in der Praxis"

Häufige urologisch-sexualmedizinische Themen in der Praxis sind das Thema des MMW-Webinars am 5. Juni von 17.30 bis 19 Uhr. Konkret geht es um die Frage, wann bei Harnwegsinfektionen auf Antibiotika verzichtet werden kann, und um ein Update zur Therapie von Libido- und Potenzstörungen des Mannes. Der dritte Vortrag behandelt sexuell übertragbare Krankheiten. Stellen Sie Ihre Fragen an die Experten und sammeln Sie 2 CME-Punkte. Jetzt gleich anmelden!
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Current Sexual Health Reports
Erschienen in: Current Sexual Health Reports 2/2022

26.03.2022 | Female Sexual Dysfunction and Disorders (A Stanton, Section Editor)

Sexual Communication Among Sexual and Gender/Sex Diverse Folks: An Overview of What We Know and Suggestions for Where to Go

verfasst von: S. E. M. Gauvin, K. E. Merwin

Erschienen in: Current Sexual Health Reports | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The purpose of this review is to summarize the current knowledge on sexual communication among sexual and gender/sex diverse (SGD) groups. Complementing an existing review of the literature on safer-sex communication with SGD individuals (Parrillo & Brown, 2021), we focus on sexual communication related to promoting sexual satisfaction.

Recent Findings

The two-pathways model of sexual communication has yet to be generalized with SGD samples. Research comparing SGD with non-SGD individuals has varied in whether there are differences between groups. There is some evidence of differences between gender diverse and non-gender diverse groups in sexual communication. Emerging evidence of the unique strengths and challenges of sexual communication among gender/sex diverse groups highlights the importance of deepening gender/sex diverse-specific sexual communications research.

Summary

A lack of literature regarding sexual communication in SGD groups is reported. Results on whether there are differences between and/or within groups are mixed and confounded by inconsistent methodologies for measurement of demographic and sexual communication variables. Clearly, further research is needed to increase our understanding of sexual communication in SGD groups. As such, we provide recommendations for future research, specifically regarding inclusive demographic and analytical considerations.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Fußnoten
1
Sexual diverse is an umbrella term which includes individuals whose sexual orientation and/or identities which differ from dominant cultural or societal expectations (i.e., heterosexual). Gender/sex diverse is an umbrella term for gender/sex identities and/or gender expressions which differ from dominant cultural or societal expectations based on sex assigned at birth (i.e., cisgender). Sexual and Gender/Sex diverse is an umbrella term that includes individuals who are sexual and/or gender/sex diverse (i.e., are not heterosexual and/or not cisgender [i.e., SG and/or GD]).
 
Literatur
1.
Moreno A, Ardila R, Zervoulis K, Nel JA, Light E, Chamberland L. Cross-cultural perspectives of LGBTQ psychology from five different countries: Current state and recommendations. Psychol Sexual. 2020;11(1-2):5–31.CrossRef
2.
Taylor JK, Haider-Markel DP, Lewis DC. The remarkable rise of transgender rights: University of Michigan Press. 2018.
3.
United Nations. Discriminatory laws and practices and acts of violence against individuals based on their sexual orientation and gender identity: Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2011.
4.
World Professional Association for Transgender Health. Standards of care for the health of transsexual, transgender, and gender nonconforming people [7th Version]. 2012.
5.
Andersen JP, Zou C. Exclusion of sexual minority couples from research. Health Sci J. 2015;9(6):1–9.
6.
Blair KL, Goldberg AE. Ethical research with sexual and gender minorities. 2016. In: The SAGE encyclopedia of LGBTQ studies [Internet]. SAGE.
7.
Byers ES. Beyond the birds and the bees and was it good for you? Thirty years of research on sexual communication. Can Psychol. 2011;52(1):20–8.CrossRef
8.
Fiani CN, Han HJ. Navigating identity: Experiences of binary and non-binary transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) adults. Int J Transgenderism. 2019;20(2-3):181–94.CrossRef
9.
Fraser G. Evaluating inclusive gender identity measures for use in quantitative psychological research. Psychol Sexual. 2018;9(4):343–57.CrossRef
10.
Fraser G, Bulbulia J, Greaves LM, Wilson MS, Sibley CG. Coding responses to an open-ended gender measure in a New Zealand national sample. J Sex Res. 2020;57(8):979–86.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Klein V, Savaş Ö, Conley TD. How WEIRD and androcentric Is sex research? Global inequities in study populations. Journal of Sex Research. 2021:Advance online publication. 1-8.
12.
Lachowsky NJ, Wentland JJ, Kilimnik CD, Levere DD. Reflecting back, looking forward: A content analysis of scientific programs from the 2013–2016 Canadian Sex Research Forum annual conferences. Can J Human Sexual. 2017;26(2):122–9.CrossRef
13.
Gauvin S, Pukall CF. Sexual problems and sexual scripts: Overview and future directions for bisexual-identified individuals. Sexual Relationship Ther. 2018;33(1-2):34–44.CrossRef
14.
15.
Sakaluk JK, De Santis C. Exclusion of sexual minority group members from sexual science: Estimates, critiques, and ways forward. Quebec City: Canadian Sex Research Forum Annual Conference; 2016.
16.
Diamond LM, Huebner D. Is good sex good for you? Rethinking sexuality and health. Social Person Psychol Compass. 2012;6:54–69.CrossRef
17.
Bauer GR, Braimoh J, Scheim AI, Dharma C. Transgender-inclusive measures of sex/gender for population surveys: Mixed-methods evaluation and recommendations. PLoS One. 2017;12(5):1–28.CrossRef
18.
Newcomb ME, Rendina HJ. Introduction to the special section on social and behavioral science with gay and bisexual men in the era of biomedical prevention. Arch Sexual Behav. 2020;49(1):87–90.CrossRef
19.•
Parrillo BT, Brown RD. Sexual communication between queer partners. Oxford University Press; 2021. This paper reviews the SGD safer sex sexual communication literature.
20.
Mark KP, Jozkowski KN. The mediating role of sexual and nonsexual communication between relationship and sexual satisfaction in a sample of college-age heterosexual couples. J Sex Marital Ther. 2013;39:410–27.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Rehman US, Rellini AH, Fallis E. The importance of sexual self-disclosure to sexual satisfaction and functioning in committed relationships. J Sexual Med. 2011;8:3108–15.CrossRef
22.
MacNeil S, Byers ES. The relationships between sexual problems, communication, and sexual satisfaction. Can J Human Sexual. 1997;6(4):277.
23.
Montesi JL, Fauber RL, Gordon EA, Heimberg RG. The specific importance of communicating about sex to couples’ sexual and overall relationship satisfaction. J Social Personal Relationships. 2011;28:591–609.CrossRef
24.
Rehman US, Lizdek I, Fallis EE, Sutherland S, Goodnight JA. How is sexual communication different from nonsexual communication? A moment-by-moment analysis of discussions between romantic partners. Arch Sexual Behav. 2017;46(8):2339–52.CrossRef
25.
Theiss JA, Estlein R. Antecedents and consequences of the perceived threat of sexual communication: A test of the relational turbulence model. Western J Commun. 2013;78(4):404–25.CrossRef
26.
Byers ES, Demmons S. Sexual satisfaction and sexual self-disclosure within dating relationships. J Sex Res. 1999;36(2):180–9.CrossRef
27.
Jozkowski KN, Marcantonio TL, Hunt ME. College students' sexual consent communication and perceptions of sexual double standards: A qualitative investigation. Perspect Sexual Reproduct Health. 2017;49(4):237–44.CrossRef
28.
Newstrom NP, Harris SM, Miner MH. Sexual consent: How relationships, gender, and sexual self-disclosure affect signaling and interpreting cues for sexual consent in a hypothetical heterosexual sexual situation. Sex Roles. 2021;84(7-8):454–64.CrossRef
29.
Li Y, Samp JA. Sexual relationship power, safer sexual communication, and condom use: A comparison of heterosexual young men and women. Western J Commun. 2019;83(1):58–74.CrossRef
30.
Peasant C, Parra GR, Okwumabua TM. Condom negotiation: Findings and future directions. J Sex Res. 2015;52(4):470–83.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Curtis Y, Eddy L, Ashdown BK, Feder H, Lower T. Prelude to a coitus: Sexual initiation cues among heterosexual married couples. Sexual Relationship Ther. 2012;27(4):322–34.CrossRef
32.
Gonzalez-Rivas SK, Peterson ZD. Women's sexual initiation in same- and mixed-sex relationships: How often and how? J Sex Res. 2020;57(3):335–50.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Brown RD, Weigel DJ. Exploring a contextual model of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction. J Sex Res. 2018;55(2):202–13.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Coffelt TA, Hess JA. Sexual disclosures: Connections to relational satisfaction and closeness. J Sex & Marital Ther. 2014;40(6):577–91.CrossRef
35.
Jones AC, Robinson WD, Seedall RB. The role of sexual communication in couples’ sexual outcomes: A dyadic path analysis. J Marital Family Ther. 2018;44(4):606–23.CrossRef
36.•
MacNeil S, Byers ES. Dyadic assessment of sexual self-disclosure and sexual satisfaction in heterosexual dating couples. J Social Personal Relationships. 2005;22(2):169–81 The first article to empirically test the two pathway model of sexual communication in “heterosexual” couples.CrossRef
37.
MacNeil S, Byers ES. Role of sexual self-disclosure in the sexual satisfaction of long-term heterosexual couples. J Sex Res. 2009;46(1):3–14.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Roels R, Janssen E. Sexual and relationship satisfaction in young, heterosexual couples: The role of sexual frequency and sexual communication. J Sexual Med. 2020;17(9):1643–52.CrossRef
39.
Babin EA. An examination of predictors of nonverbal and verbal communication of pleasure during sex and sexual satisfaction. J Social Personal Relationships. 2012;30(3):270–92.CrossRef
40.
Blunt-Vinti H, Jozkowski KN, Hunt M. Show or tell? Does verbal and/or nonverbal sexual communication matter for sexual satisfaction? J Sex Marital Ther. 2019;45(3):206–17.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Brogan SM, Fiore A, Wrench JS. Understanding the psychometric properties of the sexual communication style scale. Human Commun. 2009;12(4):421–45.
42.
Jonason PK, Betteridge GL, Kneebone II. An examination of the nature of erotic talk. Arch Sexual Behavior. 2016;45(1):21–31.CrossRef
43.
Merwin KE, Rosen NO. Perceived partner responsiveness moderates the associations between sexual talk and sexual and relationship well-being in individuals in long-term relationships. J Sex Res. 2020;57(3):351–64.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Millman RD. To talk or not to talk? Communication during sexual activity as a mediator of the association between relationship and sexual satisfaction. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. In press 2018.
45.
Blair KL, Pukall CF, Smith KB, Cappell J. Differential associations of communication and love in heterosexual, lesbian, and bisexual women's perceptions and experiences of chronic vulvar and pelvic pain. J Sex Marital Ther. 2015;41(5):498–524.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Mark KP, Lasslo JA. Maintaining sexual desire in long-term relationships: A systematic review and conceptual model. J Sex Res. 2018;55(4-5):563–81.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Merwin KE, O'Sullivan LF, Rosen NO. We need to talk: Disclosure of sexual problems is associated with depression, sexual functioning, and relationship satisfaction in women. J Sex Marital Ther. 2017;43:786–800.PubMedCrossRef
48.•
Merwin KE, Bergeron S, Jodouin J-F, Mackinnon SP, Rosen NO. Few differences in sexual talk by gender/sex and dyad type: A retrospective and daily diary study with couples. 2021 [in press]. The first study that used both a dyadic and daily diary methodology, and the first to examine sexual talk with a sample of SGD and non-SGD couples.
49.
Mallory AB, Stanton AM, Handy AB. Couples' sexual communication and dimensions of sexual function: A meta-analysis. J Sex Res. 2019;56(7):882–98.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Gagnon JH, Simon W. The sexual scripting of oral genital contacts. Arch Sex Behav. 1987;16(1):1–25.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Simon W, Gagnon JH. Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Arch Sexual Behav. 1986;15(2):97–120.CrossRef
52.
53.
Gauvin SEM, Yessick L, Pukall CF. Picking up good vibrations: Discrepant vibrator use, sexual functioning, and sexual well-being in women with male partners. Psychol Sexual. 2020;11(3):254–65.CrossRef
54.
Gauvin S, Pukall CF. The SexFlex scale: A measure of sexual script flexibility when approaching sexual problems in a relationship. J Sex Marital Ther. 2018;44(4):382–97.PubMedCrossRef
55.
Coffelt TA, Hess JA. Sexual goals-plans-actions: Toward a sexual script in marriage. Commun Quarterly. 2015;63(2):221–38.CrossRef
56.
Landgraf S, von Treskow I, Osterheider M. “Sex in a relationship” versus “sex during a one-night stand”: The link between mental representations of consensual sexuality, mating strategies, and sexual experience in heterosexual women and men. Arch Sexual Behavior. 2018;47(3):725–36.CrossRef
57.
Masters NT, Casey E, Wells EA, Morrison DM. Sexual scripts among young heterosexually active men and women: Continuity and change. J Sex Rese. 2013;50(5):409–20.CrossRef
58.
Wiederman MW. The gendered nature of sexual scripts. Family J: Counsel Ther Couples Families. 2005;13(4):496–502.CrossRef
59.
Byers ES, Henderson J, Hobson KM. University students’ definitions of sexual abstinence and having sex. Arch Sexual Behav. 2009;38(5):665–74.CrossRef
60.
Randall HE, Byers ES. What is sex? Students' definitions of having sex, sexual partner, and unfaithful sexual behaviour. Can J Human Sexual. 2003;12(2):87.
61.
Patterson GE, Ward DB, Brown TB. Relationship scripts: How young women develop and maintain same-sex romantic relationships. J GLBT Family Stud. 2013;9(2):179–201.CrossRef
62.
Rosenberger JG, Reece M, Schick V, Herbenick D, Novak DS, Van Der Pol B, et al. Sexual behaviors and situational characteristics of most recent male-partnered sexual event among gay and bisexually identified men in the United States. J Sexual Med. 2011;8(11):3040–50.CrossRef
63.
Breyer BN, Smith JF, Eisenberg ML, Ando KA, Rowen TS, Shindel AW. The impact of sexual orientation on sexuality and sexual practices in North American medical students. J Sexual Med. 2010;7(7):2391–400.CrossRef
64.
Courtice EL, Shaughnessy K. The partner context of sexual minority women’s and men’s cybersex experiences: Implications for the traditional sexual script. Sex Roles. 2018;78:272–85.CrossRef
65.•
Frederick D, Gillespie BJ, Lever J, Berardi V, Garcia JR. Sexual practices and satisfaction among gay and heterosexual men in romantic relationships: A comparison using coarsened exact matching in a U.S. national sample. J Sex Res. 2021:Advance online publication. The first study to use coarsened exact matching in a nationally representative sample. No differences in the total number of sexual communication behaviors were identified, however, differences were found within specific types of communication behaviours. The effect size of the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction was greater for gay versus heterosexual men.
66.•
Frederick DA, Gillespie BJ, Lever J, Berardi V, Garcia JR. Debunking lesbian bed death: Using coarsened exact matching to compare sexual practices and satisfaction of lesbian and heterosexual women. Arch Sexual Behav. 2021;50(8):3601–19 The first study to use coarsened exact matching in a nationally representative sample. No differences in the total number of sexual communication behaviors were identified, however, differences were found within specific types of communication behaviours. The effect size of the association between sexual communication and sexual satisfaction was greater for heterosexual versus lesbian women.CrossRef
67.
Horowitz AD, Spicer L. "Having sex" as a graded and hierarchical construct: A comparison of sexual definitions among heterosexual and lesbian emerging adults in the U.K. J Sex Res. 2013;50(2):139–50.PubMedCrossRef
68.
Mutchler MG. Young gay men's stories in the states: Scripts, sex, and safety in the time of AIDS. Sexualities. 2000;3(1):31–54.CrossRef
69.
Power J, McNair R, Carr S. Absent sexual scripts: Lesbian and bisexual women's knowledge, attitudes and action regarding safer sex and sexual health information. Culture, Health Sexual. 2009;11(1):67–81.CrossRef
70.
71.
Scott SB, Ritchie L, Knopp K, Rhoades GK. Sexuality within female same-gender couples: Definitions of sex, sexual frequency norms, and factors associated with sexual satisfaction. Arch Sexual Behav. 2018;47(3):681–92.CrossRef
72.
Muise A, Maxwell JA, Impett EA. What theories and methods from relationship research can contribute to sex research. J Sex Res. 2018;55:540–62.PubMedCrossRef
73.
Cupach WR, Metts S. Sexuality and communication in close relationships. In: McKinney K, Sprecher S, editors. Sexuality in close relationships. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1991.
74.
Lawrance K-A, Byers ES. Sexual satisfaction in long-term heterosexual relationships: The interpersonal exchange model of sexual satisfaction. Personal Relationships. 1995;2(4):267–85.CrossRef
75.
Reis HT, Shaver PR. Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In: Duck S, editor. Handbook of personal relationships: Wiley & Sons; 1988. p. 367-89.
76.
Beres MA, Herold E, Maitland SB. Sexual consent behaviors in same-sex relationships. Arch Sexual Behav. 2004;33(5):475–86.CrossRef
77.
Byers ES, Heinlein L. Predicting initiations and refusals of sexual activities in married and cohabiting heterosexual couples. J Sex Res. 1989;26(2):210–31.CrossRef
78.
Vannier SA, O'Sullivan LF. Communicating interest in sex: Verbal and nonverbal initiation of sexual activity in young adults' romantic dating relationships. Arch Sexual Behav. 2011;40:961–9.CrossRef
79.
Vencill JA, Wiljamaa SJ. From MOM to MORE: Emerging research on mixed orientation relationships. Current Sexual Health Reports. 2016;8(3):206–12.CrossRef
80.
Gottman JM, Levenson RW, Swanson C, Swanson K, Tyson R, Yoshimoto D. Observing gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples' relationships: Mathematical modeling of conflict interaction. J Homosexual. 2003;45(1):65–91.CrossRef
81.
Kurdek LA. Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual married couples? J Marriage Family. 2004;66(4):880–900.CrossRef
82.
Scott SB, Rhoades GK. Relationship education for lesbian couples: Perceived barriers and content considerations. J Couple Relationship Ther. 2014;13(4):339–64.CrossRef
83.
Willis M, Hunt M, Wodika A, Rhodes DL, Goodman J, Jozkowski KN. Explicit verbal sexual consent communication: Effects of gender, relationship status, and type of sexual behavior. Int J Sexual Health. 2019;31(1):60–70.CrossRef
84.
Greene K, Faulkner SL. Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships. Sex Roles. 2005;53(3-4):239–51.CrossRef
85.•
Holmberg D, Blair KL. Sexual desire, communication, satisfaction, and preferences of men and women in same-sex versus mixed-sex relationships. J Sex Res. 2009;46(1):57–66 The first study to examine dyad-type differences in sexual communication; no differences were found.PubMedCrossRef
86.
McKenna JL, Roemer L, Orsillo SM. Predictors of sexual consent communication among sexual minority cisgender and nonbinary young adults during a penetrative sexual encounter with a new partner. Sexuality & Culture. 2021:Advance online publication.
87.
Beischel WJ, Gauvin SEM, van Anders SM. “A little siny gender greakthrough”: Community understandings of gender euphoria. International Journal of Transgender Health. 2021:Advance online publication.
88.
Brown NR. The sexual relationships of sexual-minority women partnered with trans men: A qualitative study. Arch Sexual Behav. 2010;39(2):561–72.CrossRef
89.
Gabb J. The relationship work of sexual intimacy in long-term heterosexual and LGBTQ partnerships. Advance online publication. Current Sociol. 2019:1–8.
90.
Lamont E. “We can write the scripts ourselves”: Queer challenges to heteronormative courtship practices. Gender Soc. 2017;31(5):624–46.CrossRef
91.
Lindley LM, Anzani A, Prunas A, Galupo MP. Sexual fantasy across gender identity: A qualitative investigation of differences between cisgender and non-binary people’s imagery. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. 2020:Advance online publication
92.•
Rubinsky V, Hosek A. We have to get over it: Navigating sex talk through the lens of sexual communication comfort and sexual self-disclosure in LGBTQ intimate partnerships. Sexual Culture. 2020;24(3):613–29 A mixed-method study of sexual communication with SGD individuals. This study identified unique challenges for GD individuals and is one of the few sexual communication studies that examined the experiences.CrossRef
93.
Fleishman JM, Crane B, Koch PB. Correlates and predictors of sexual satisfaction for older adults in same-sex relationships. J Homosexual. 2020;67(14):1974–98.CrossRef
94.
Calvillo C, Sánchez-Fuentes MDM, Sierra JC. An explanatory model of sexual satisfaction in adults with a same-sex partner: An analysis based on gender differences. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(10):3393–410.PubMedCentralCrossRef
95.
Lakens D, Scheel AM, Isager PM. Equivalence testing for psychological research: A tutorial. Advances Methods Pract Psychol Sci. 2018;1(2):259–69.CrossRef
96.
Budge SL, Katz-Wise SL. Sexual minorities' gender norm conformity and sexual satisfaction: The mediating effects of sexual communication, internalized stigma, and sexual narcissism. Int J Sexual Health. 2019;31(1):36–49.CrossRef
97.
Kosenko KA. Meanings and dilemmas of sexual safety and communication for transgender individuals. Health Commun. 2010;25(2):131–41.PubMedCrossRef
98.
Kosenko KA. The safer sex communication of transgender adults: Processes and Problems. J Commun. 2011;61(3):467–95.CrossRef
99.
Siboni L, Rucco D, Prunas A, Anzani A. “We faced every change together”. Couple’s intimacy and sexuality experiences from the perspectives of transgender and non-binary individuals’ partners. J Sex Marital Ther. 2021:1–24.
100.
Martin TK, Coolhart D. “Because your dysphoria gets in the way of you…it affects everything.” The mental, physical, and relational aspects of navigating body dysphoria and sex for trans masculine people. Sexual and relationship therapy. 2019:1-18
101.
102.
Ussher JM, Perz J. Empathy, egalitarianism and emotion work in the relational negotiation of PMS: The experience of women in lesbian relationships. Feminism Psychol. 2008;18(1):87–111.CrossRef
103.
Gendron MR, Jordan S. Another perspective: Reflections on using qualitative video-recall procedures in sexual communication research with partnered gay men. Sexualities 2021:136346072110002.
104.
van Anders SM. Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Arch Sexual Behav. 2015;44(5):1177–213.CrossRef
105.
The GenIUSS Group. Best practices for asking questions to identity transgender and other gender minority respondents on population-based surveys. Los Angeles: The Williams Institute; 2014.
106.
Gossmann I, Mathieu M, Julien D, Chartrand E. The sexual initiation scale: Development and initial validation. Can J Human Sexual. 2022;11(3-4):133–42.
107.
Ruberg B, Ruelos S. Data for queer lives: How LGBTQ gender and sexuality identities challenge norms of demographics. Big Data Soc. 2020;7(1):1–12.CrossRef
108.
Saperstein A, Westbrook L. Categorical and gradational: Alternative survey measures of sex and gender. Eur J Politics Gender. 2021;4(1):11–30.CrossRef
109.
Lindqvist A, Sendén MG, Renström EA. What is gender, anyway: A review of the options for operationalising gender. Psychol Sexual. 2021;12(4):332–44.CrossRef
110.
Shibley Hyde J, Bigler RS, Joel D, Tate CC, van Anders SM. The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. Am Psychol. 2019;74(2):171–93.CrossRef
111.
Puckett JA, Brown NC, Dunn T, Mustanski B, Newcomb ME. Perspectives from transgender and gender diverse people on how to ask about gender. LGBT Health. 2020;7(6):35–311.CrossRef
112.
Kuper LE, Nussbaum R, Mustanski B. Exploring the diversity of gender and sexual orientation identities in an online sample of transgender individuals. J Sex Res. 2012;49(2-3):244–54.PubMedCrossRef
113.
Kuper LE, Wright L, Mustanski B. Gender identity development among transgender and gender nonconforming emerging adults: An intersectional approach. Int J Transgenderism. 2018;19(4):436–55.CrossRef
114.
Richards C, Bouman WP, Seal L, Barker MJ, Nieder TO, T’Sjoen G. Non-binary or genderqueer genders. Int Rev Psychiat. 2016;28(1):95–102.CrossRef
115.
Open Science Collaboration. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science. 2015;349(6251):aac4716.
116.
Mark KP, Garcia JR, Fisher HE. Perceived emotional and sexual satisfaction across sexual relationship contexts: Gender and sexual orientation differences and similarities. Can J Human Sexual. 2015;24(2):120–30.CrossRef
117.
Simula BL. A “different economy of bodies and pleasures”?: Differentiating and evaluating sex and sexual BDSM experiences. J Homosexual. 2019;66(2):209–37.CrossRef
118.
Sakaluk JK, Quinn-Nilas C, Fisher AN, Leshner CE, Huber E, Wood JR. Sameness and difference in psychological research on consensually non-monogamous relationships: The need for invariance and equivalence testing. Arch Sexual Behav. 2020;50(4):1341–65.CrossRef
119.
Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world? Behav Brain Sci. 2010;33:61–83.PubMedCrossRef
120.
Sakaluk JK, Fisher AN. Measurement memo I: Updated practices in psychological measurement for sexual scientists. Can J Human Sexual. 2019;28(2):1–9.CrossRef
121.
Brooks VR. Minority stress and lesbian women. Lexington: Lexington Books; 1981.
122.
Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(5):674–97.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
123.
124.
Rubinsky V. Toward a typology of identity gaps in “non-normative” sexual partner communication. Arch Sexual Behav. 2021;50(4):1551–67.CrossRef
125.
Rubinsky V. Sources and strategies for managing sexual conflict in diverse relationships. Sexual Culture. 2021;25(3):904–24.CrossRef
126.
Kattari SK. “Getting it”: Identity and sexual communication for sexual and gender minorities with physical disabilities. Sexual Culture. 2015;19(4):882–99.CrossRef
127.
Lee H, Knippen KL. Does sexual communication promote partner relationship among older adults? A cross-cultural analysis. Int J Developmental Sci. 2019;13(1-2):67–75.CrossRef
128.
Clayton A. How eugenics shaped statistics: Exposing the damned lies of three science pioneers. Nautilus. 2020.
129.
Witmer J. Inclusivity in statistics and data science education. J Stat Data Sci Educ. 2021;29(1):2–3.CrossRef
130.
Wood J, De Santis C, Desmarais S, Milhausen R. Motivations for engaging in consensually non-monogamous relationships. Arch Sexual Behav. 2021;50(4):1253–72.CrossRef
131.
Ledermann T, Kenny DA. Analyzing dyadic data with multilevel modeling versus structural equation modeling: A tale of two methods. J Family Psychol. 2017;31(4):442–52.CrossRef
132.
Smith AZ, Goldberg AE, Garcia RL. Multilevel modeling approached to the study of LGBTQ-parent families. In: Goldberg AE, Allen KR, editors. LGBTQ-parent families innovations in research and implications for practice. 2nd ed. Cham Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2020. p. 451–70.CrossRef
133.•
West TV, Popp D, Kenny DA. A guide for the estimation of gender and sexual orientation effects in dyadic data: An actor-partner interdependence model approach. Personal Social Psychol Bull. 2008;34(3):321–36 Describes a dyadic data analysis approach to examine the actor effect of gender/sex, the partner effect of gender/sex, and the interaction between the actor and partner gender/sex.CrossRef
134.
Kroeger RA, Powers DA. Examining same-sex couples using dyadic data methods. Analytical Family Demography: Springer; 2019. p. 157–86.
135.•
Bauer GR, Scheim AI. Advancing quantitative intersectionality research methods: Intracategorical and intercategorical approaches to shared and differential constructs. Social Sci Med. 2019;226:260–2 Describes a novel approach to analysing intersectional data that allows for the examination of potential mediators for intersectional differences.CrossRef
136.
Bauer GR, Scheim AI. Methods for analytic intercategorical intersectionality in quantitative research: Discrimination as a mediator of health inequalities. Social Sci Med. 2019;226:236–45.CrossRef
137.
Petts AL, Petts RJ. Gender matters: Racial variation and marital stability among intraracial couples. J Family Issues. 2019;40(13):1808–31.CrossRef
138.
Mercklé P, Octobre S. Les enquêtés mentent-ils? Incohérences de réponse et illusion biographique dans une enquête longitudinale sur les loisirs des adolescents. Revue Française de Sociologie. 2015;56(3):561–91.CrossRef
139.
Tambling RB, Johnson SK, Johnson LN. Analyzing dyadic data from small samples: A pooled regression actor-partner interdependence model approach. Counsel Outcome Res Eval. 2011;2(2):101–14.CrossRef
140.
Stefan AM, Gronau QF, Schönbrodt FD, Wagenmakers EJ. A tutorial on Bayes Factor Design Analysis using an informed prior. Behavior Res Methods. 2019;51(3):1042–58.CrossRef
141.
Umberson D, Thomeer MB, Kroeger RA, Lodge AC, Xu M. Challenges and opportunities for research on same-sex relationships. J Marriage Family. 2015;77(1):96–111.CrossRef
142.
143.
Ross JM, Karney BR, Nguyen TP, Bradbury TN. Communication that is maladaptive for middle-class couples is adaptive for socioeconomically disadvantaged couples. J Personal Social Psychol. 2019;116(4):582–97.CrossRef
144.
Wampold BE. How important are the common factors in psychotherapy? An update. World psychiatry: Official J World Psychiatric Assoc (WPA). 2015;14(3):270–7.CrossRef
145.
American Psychological Association. Guidelines for psychological practice with transgender and gender nonconforming people. Am Psychol. 2015;70(9):832–64.CrossRef
146.
American Psychological Association ATFoPPwSMP. Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Sexual Minority Persons. 2021.
147.
Pachankis JE, Soulliard ZA, Morris F, Seager van Dyk I. A model for adapting evidence-based interventions to be LGBQ-affirmative: Putting minority stress principles and case conceptualization into clinical research and practice. Cognitive Behav Pract 2022.
Metadaten
Titel
Sexual Communication Among Sexual and Gender/Sex Diverse Folks: An Overview of What We Know and Suggestions for Where to Go
verfasst von
S. E. M. Gauvin
K. E. Merwin
Publikationsdatum
26.03.2022
Verlag
Springer US
Erschienen in
Current Sexual Health Reports / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1548-3584
Elektronische ISSN: 1548-3592
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-022-00328-9

Neu im Fachgebiet Urologie

Patrone im Penis bringt Urologen in Gefahr

30.05.2024 Operationen am Penis Nachrichten

In Lebensgefahr brachte ein junger Mann nicht nur sich selbst, sondern auch das urologische Team, das ihm zu Hilfe kam: Er hatte sich zur Selbstbefriedigung eine scharfe Patrone in die Harnröhre gesteckt.

15% bedauern gewählte Blasenkrebs-Therapie

29.05.2024 Urothelkarzinom Nachrichten

Ob Patienten und Patientinnen mit neu diagnostiziertem Blasenkrebs ein Jahr später Bedauern über die Therapieentscheidung empfinden, wird einer Studie aus England zufolge von der Radikalität und dem Erfolg des Eingriffs beeinflusst.

Costims – das nächste heiße Ding in der Krebstherapie?

28.05.2024 Onkologische Immuntherapie Nachrichten

„Kalte“ Tumoren werden heiß – CD28-kostimulatorische Antikörper sollen dies ermöglichen. Am besten könnten diese in Kombination mit BiTEs und Checkpointhemmern wirken. Erste klinische Studien laufen bereits.

Fehlerkultur in der Medizin – Offenheit zählt!

28.05.2024 Fehlerkultur Podcast

Darüber reden und aus Fehlern lernen, sollte das Motto in der Medizin lauten. Und zwar nicht nur im Sinne der Patientensicherheit. Eine negative Fehlerkultur kann auch die Behandelnden ernsthaft krank machen, warnt Prof. Dr. Reinhard Strametz. Ein Plädoyer und ein Leitfaden für den offenen Umgang mit kritischen Ereignissen in Medizin und Pflege.

Update Urologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen
Bildnachweise