Preventing sexual risk behaviors among gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents: the benefits of gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: This study compared sexual risk behaviors of gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) and heterosexual adolescents and evaluated associations between gay-sensitive HIV instruction and risk behaviors of GLB youths. METHODS: A random sample of high school students and HIV education teachers completed surveys. Self-reported risk behaviors of heterosexual and GLB adolescents were compared, with control for student and community demographic characteristics. Sexual risk behaviors of GLB youths in schools with and without gay-sensitive instruction were compared. RESULTS: GLB youths reported more substance use, high-risk sexual behaviors, suicidal thoughts or attempts, and personal safety issues than did heterosexual youths (P < .001). Among those who were sexually active, GLB youths reported more lifetime and recent sexual partners than did heterosexuals (P < .001), and more of them reported alcohol use before last sex (P < .01) and a history of pregnancy (P < .001). GLB youths in schools with gay-sensitive instruction reported fewer sexual partners, less recent sex, and less substance use before last sex than did GLB youths in other schools (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The findings document increased risk behaviors among GLB youths and demonstrate the potential benefits of providing gay-sensitive HIV instruction in schools.

The Relationship Between Sexual Abuse and Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescent Boys: A Meta-Analysis

“…For both males and females, sexual abuse experiences appear to influence their health and health practices; however, the strength of the association may differ for each gender. Future research also should focus more on sexual minority boys, who are at greater risk for both sexual victimization [38] and risky sexual practices [39], as well as on heterosexual adult men, because sexual abuse is not an issue only for sexual minority people. Furthermore, given the different cultural norms surrounding sexuality and sexual behavior for women and men, the mechanisms underlying these effects and interventions needed to reduce these effects may also be different.…”

Negative and Positive Factors Associated With the Well-Being of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Questioning (LGBTQ) Youth

“…Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer/questioning (LGBTQ) youth have greater vulnerability to a wide range of health, mental health, and social problems such as eating disorders, sexually transmitted diseases, school difficulties, forced sex, homelessness, violence and suicide (Austin et al, 2009; Blake et al, 2001; Bontempo & D'Augelli, 2002; Cochran, Stewart, Ginzler, & Cauce, 2002; Garofalo, Wolf, Kessel, Palfrey, & Durant, 1998; Perdue, Hagan, Thiede, & Valleroy, 2003; Russell, Driscoll, & Truong, 2001; Thiede et al 2003). These negative outcomes are not inevitable as a result of a sexual minority status (Diamond, 2003) but their occurrence may increase due to the discrimination, marginalization, and isolation that are often associated with being LGBTQ (Remadefi, 2008; Savin-Williams, 1995).…”

“Is This Normal? Is This Not Normal? There Is No Set Example”: Sexual Health Intervention Preferences of LGBT Youth in Romantic Relationships

“…For both male and female youth who engage in same-sex behavior, their increased risk for STIs/HIV has not been met with a public health response appropriate to the magnitude of the problem. The vast majority of school-based sex education programs do not address the needs of many LGBT youth (Pingel, Thomas, Harmell, & Bauermeister, 2013; Santelli et al, 2006) and these youth are less likely to receive school-based sex education at all (Blake et al, 2001; Goodenow, Netherland, & Szalacha, 2002). Beyond the school setting, there are limited community STI/HIV prevention resources for LGBT youth (Lyles, Crepaz, Herbst, & Kay, 2006; Mustanski, Newcomb, Du Bois, et al, 2011).…”