Experiences of Minority Stress and Intimate Partner Violence Among Homosexual Women in Turkey

Abstract

Intimate partner violence (IPV) has been recognized as an important public health problem over the past two decades, and increased attention to violence in intimate relationships has been given to heterosexual couples. Although the vast majority of literature has determined the rate of IPV among lesbian, gay, bisexual couples, and relationship quality, few studies investigated how stress specific to living as a lesbian or bisexual woman might correlate with IPV in these relationships. For this reason, the purpose of this descriptive study was to determine the experiences of minority stress and IPV among homosexual women ( n = 149) in Turkey. Data were collected using convenience and snowball sampling. Participants completed an interviewer-administered survey. Results indicated that victimization and perpetration of all the forms of IPV occur but the most prevalent was perpetration (66.4%) and victimization (63.1%) of psychological violence. The mean score of participants’ total level of outness was found 4.78 ± 2.15 (0-10). Most participants (74.5%) reported being often exposed to discrimination in the public area and reported moderate level of internalized homophobia (2.72 ± 0.87). Participants’ level of outness associated with psychological (Victimization r = .319, p = .00; Perpetration r = .421, p = .00), physical (Victimization r = .184, p = .025; Perpetration r = .209, p = .010), and sexual (Victimization r = .263, p = .001; Perpetration r = .372, p = .00) violence perpetration and victimization. It is also founded that there was relation between internalized homophobia level and sexual violence perpetration ( r = .164, p = .045)/victimization ( r = .189, p = .021). These findings demonstrate a need for health care staff to be aware of the prevalence of IPV and minority stress that affected this population. Mental health of homosexual individuals is under the risk due to minority stress and IPV experiences. Furthermore, this finding illustrated that need for additional empirical research improved interpersonal relationship among these women. Also, policies need to be developed to reduce the minority stress experienced by these individuals and provide integration with the society.

Untangling the Relationship Between Internalized Heterosexism and Psychological Intimate Partner Violence Perpetration: A Comparative Study of Lesbians and Bisexual Women in Turkey and Denmark*

“…In Turkey, whilst IPV has been studied more extensively, only one report examines IPV among LB. Ayhan-Balik and Bilgin (2019) found that all forms of IPV perpetration occurred among lesbians in Turkey, but the most prevalent type was psychological violence (66.4%). Keeping the limited studies on psychological IPV among LB in mind, our first aim in the current study was to investigate the prevalence rates of psychological IPV perpetration among LB in relation to sexual orientation and country.…”

Giftedness, Gender Identities, and Self-Acceptance: A Retrospective Study on LGBTQ+ Postsecondary Students

“…In addition, the collective high school experiences expressed by the participants were also an outlier to the Turkish norm since this setting was one of the few specialized residential gifted schools in the nation where our participants had the luxury to be exposed to controversial social issues and experience intellectual debates. Of note, the participants in our study came from a relatively well-educated group, which does not correspond to the average level of education in Turkey (Ayhan Balik & Bilgin, 2019; Bakacak & Ōktem, 2014). Therefore, we encourage readers to interpret the results with these considerations in mind.…”

“…In Turkey, where the participants of the present study are originally from, prescribed gender roles, heterosexism, and a patriarchal culture prevail in society (Ayhan Balik & Bilgin, 2019; Bakacak & Ōktem, 2014; Kandiyoti, 2003). Despite the existence of LGBTQ+ activism and increasing exposure to LGBTQ+ matters via globalization and digital media, gender nonconformity is still considered taboo and invites physical and social hostility (Engin, 2015; Fishman, 2013; Gorkemli, 2012).…”

“…As a salient example, in 2010 homosexuality was publicly characterized by Selma Alyie Kavaf, then Turkish Minister of State responsible for Women and Family Affairs, as an illness that should be treated (Amnesty International, 2011). Expectedly, given the unfriendly governmental attitude toward gender nonconformity, the psychological status and well-being of LGBTQ+ individuals in Turkey remains an understudied topic (Ayhan Balik & Bilgin, 2019).…”

“…J. Lewis et al, 2006; Sedillo, 2015). These challenges can be attributed to unique stressors, such as discrimination and stigmatization, that are directed at individuals perceived as LGBTQ+ (Ayhan Balik & Bilgin, 2019; Mereish et al, 2014; Mitchum & Moodie-Mills, 2014). In countries known to be relatively friendly to LGBTQ+, verbal harassment, physical aggression, cyber bullying, name-calling, and ostracism (Saewyc et al, 2011; Snapp et al, 2015; Ueno, 2010) still prevail, albeit in subtler forms, such as microaggressions (Hebl & Dovidio, 2005; Nadal et al, 2011) and exclusionary remarks (Hatzenbuehler & Pachankis, 2016).…”