"It's Their Consent You Have to Wait For": Intimate Partner Violence and BDSM Among Gender and Sexual Minority Youth.

Gender and sexual minoritized (GSM) youth are more likely than their cisgender heterosexual peers to experience intimate partner violence (IPV) and practice bondage and discipline, domination and submission, sadism, and masochism (BDSM). Although IPV and BDSM are vastly different phenomena, superficial similarities (e.g., violent behaviors) can lead to misidentification in both practice and research. This study explores how GSM youth (a) experience and understand the differences between IPV and BDSM and (b) report consensual violent and controlling behaviors when answering items on IPV measures. Nine demographically diverse GSM youth (mean age 21.2) were drawn from a GSM youth-serving organization in the Northeast United States. Participants were interviewed about their experiences with IPV, BDSM, and consent. Participants also were asked to describe the process of completing two standardized measures of IPV. Interviews were coded using conventional and directed content analysis. Eight of nine participants reported IPV victimization, and seven reported BDSM interest or experiences. Four themes emerged: (a) GSM youth experience a spectrum of IPV victimization, often related to their gender and sexual identity; (b) interest in BDSM does not imply an acceptance of IPV; (c) GSM youth have a nuanced understanding of consent and strategies to communicate consent with their partners; and (d) Consent is the organizing framework by which GSM youth distinguish IPV from BDSM. Participants reported various degrees of certainty that they would include BDSM behaviors when answering questions about violent behaviors. Findings underscore the importance of conceptually and operationally differentiating IPV and BDSM. Programs that serve GSM youth should address IPV victimization, offer sex-positive education regarding healthy relationships and BDSM, and assist GSM youth in differentiating abusive behaviors from consensual BDSM. Standardized measures that do not conflate BDSM with IPV are crucial for studying IPV among GSM youth.

Campus interpersonal violence survivor advocacy services.

Objective: Although there has been increased attention to campus interpersonal violence, there is limited information on survivor advocacy services. Participants: We recruited participants from 155 U.S. institutions of higher education responsible for advocacy services on their campus. Methods: We used a community participatory action approach in partnership with the Campus Advocacy and Prevention Professionals Association to develop and disseminate a survey regarding campus advocacy services. Results: Participants shared critical insights about (a) advocacy staffing/caseload, (b) program structure, (c) advocacy practices, and (d) connection to services for people who had caused harm. We found that advocacy programs are often providing best practice services for survivors of violence but operating with few staff and unclear privacy protections. Conclusions: This study provided crucial preliminary information about how campuses provide advocacy services, but more researcher-practitioner engagement is needed to build on this study and establish clear practice guidelines.

A Comparison of Intimate Partner Violence Strangulation Between Same-Sex and Different-Sex Couples.

Strangulation is a common and dangerous form of intimate partner violence (IPV). Nonfatal strangulation is a risk factor for homicide; can lead to severe, long-term physical and mental health sequelae; and can be an effective strategy of coercion and control. To date, research has not examined strangulation within same-sex couples. The objective of this cross-sectional, observational research is to identify whether and to what extent the detection of strangulation and coercive control differs between same-sex and different-sex couples in police reports of IPV. Data (n = 2,207) were obtained from a single police department in the southwest United States (2011-2013). Bivariate analyses examined differences in victim and offender demographics, victim injury, violence, and coercive controlling behaviors between same-sex (male-male and female-female) and different-sex couples (female victim-male offender). Logistic regression was used to examine associations between strangulation, victim and offender demographics, coercive controlling behaviors, and couple configuration. Strangulation was reported significantly more often in different-sex (9.8%) than in female and male same-sex couple cases (5.2% and 5.3%, respectively; p < .05). Injury, however, was reported more frequently in same-sex than in different-sex couples (p < .05). Couple configuration (p < .05), coercive control (p < .05), and injury (p < .05) significantly predict strangulation. Findings suggest that nonfatal strangulation occurs within at least a minority of same-sex couples; it is possible that underdetection by law enforcement makes it appear less common than it actually is. Regardless of couple configuration, timely identification of strangulation and subsequent referral to medical and social service providers is essential for preventing repeated strangulation, life-threatening injury, and the long-term health effects of strangulation.

Intimate partner violence and academic performance: the role of physical, mental, behavioral, and financial health.

Undergraduate students of all gender identities are at risk of experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization. It is known that IPV negatively affects academic performance, yet little is known about the role of health. This study examined if past-year IPV victimization was associated with an increase in students' self-perception of health interfering with academic performance. Data were drawn from the 2011-2014 National College Health Assessment (N = 84,734). Structural equation modeling was used to examine the relationship between a latent variable of IPV and health impediments to academic performance. The model was a good fit for the data (RMSEA = .012, CFI = .994, TLI = .981). Undergraduate survivors of past-year IPV - and transgender students - were more likely to report impediments to their academic performance: physical assault (0.66, p < .001), sexual assault (0.57, p < .001), sexually transmitted infections (0.42, p < .001), pregnancy (0.38, p < .001), depression (0.38, p < .001), disordered eating (0.36, p < .001), financial problems (0.33, p < .001), anxiety (0.32, p < .001), sleep problems (0.32, p < .001), chronic health problems (0.29, p < .001), drug use (0.29, p < .001), injury (0.25, p < .001), and alcohol use (0.25, p < .001). This demonstrates that IPV has a spiral effect, such that IPV's impact on health is perceived by students as detrimental to their academics.