Cited by 32Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions

To Have Sex or Not to Have Sex? An Online Focus Group Study of Sexual Decision Making Among Sexually Experienced and Inexperienced Gay and Bisexual Adolescent Men

Open access
DuBois, L. Zachary, Macapagal, Kathryn R., Rivera, Zenaida, Prescott, Tonya L., Ybarra, Michele L., Mustanski, Brian·2015·Archives of Sexual Behavior

Abstract

Adolescent gay and bisexual men (AGBM) are at disproportionately high risk for HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, yet healthy sexuality and HIV prevention programs grounded in experiences unique to AGBM (e.g., coming out) are lacking, as is the formative work necessary to inform such programs. A richer understanding of factors informing AGBM's decisions to have or not have sex is needed. To fill this gap in the literature, we conducted qualitative and mixed-methods analyses of data collected in online focus groups with 75 ethnically diverse 14-18-year-old AGBM across the United States. Findings suggest that many reasons why AGBM choose to have or abstain from sex mirror those noted in the previous literature as influential for heterosexual adolescents (e.g., temptation, "horniness"). AGBM conveyed additional experiences/concerns that appeared unique to their sexual identity, particularly fears about pain during anal sex, and difficulties safely and accurately identifying same-sex partners. Both sexually experienced and inexperienced youth voiced reasons to wait or stop having sex. Sexually inexperienced youth said their motivations centered on wanting to avoid STIs and HIV, a desire to wait for the right partner, and the specialness of sex. On the other hand, sexually experienced AGBM said they stopped having sex if there was not an available partner they had interest in, or to improve their romantic relationship. Thus, while our findings suggest that there may be common factors across sexual identities that impact youth's sexual decision making, healthy sexuality programs for AGBM also need to address issues specific to being gay and bisexual.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10508-015-0521-5

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Online focus groups have so far been used mainly for hard-to-reach populations or where participants might feel embarrassed.

    “This way of conducting focus groups has so far been used mainly for hard-to-reach populations or where participants might feel embarrassed. (DuBois et al. 2015).”

    From “It’s just a joke”: gender, sexuality and trivialisation in adolescent online violence such as cyberhate, cyberbullying, and online grooming (2025) · cites this paper as DuBois et al. 2015

    The Methods (Procedures; page unavailable) describe online focus groups with gay and bisexual adolescent men recruited nationally. The Discussion (Limitations; page unavailable) says online recruitment broadened the sample and that anonymity may encourage participation by stigmatized groups. These passages support the examples of hard-to-reach or potentially uncomfortable participants, but not the claim that online focus groups have been used mainly for those purposes. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DuBois, L. Z., Macapagal, K. R., Rivera, Z., Prescott, T. L., Ybarra, M. L., & Mustanski, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Boston (US)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Center for Innovative Public Health Research (US)
Corresponding author
Mustanski, Brian
Venue
Archives of Sexual Behavior
Published
2015-04-30
Volume
44
Issue
7
Pages
2027-2040
ISSN
  • 0004-0002 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2800
OpenAlex
W2035087802
Cited by
32
References
62
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
5.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Archives of Sexual Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH096660)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Adolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › LGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › HIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Keywords
sexual decision-making, sexual abstinence, HIV prevention, sexually transmitted infections, anal sex, partner identification, coming out, sexual identity, adolescent sexuality
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Humans, Male, Sexual Behavior, Sexual Partners, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, United States, Focus Groups, Homosexuality, Male, Internet, Young Adult, Reproductive Health

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review