Prevalence of Dating Violence Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual Youths — Evidence From Local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys

Background: Youth dating violence is prevalent in the U.S.  Victims of dating violence are more likely to have a variety of negative physical, social, and mental health outcomes. Despite extensive studies of dating violence in the general youth population, little research has been done on dating violence in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) youths.              

Purpose: To examine the prevalence of dating violence among LGB youths and investigate whether LGB youths are at increased risk for dating violence.   

Methods: Based on two measures of sexual orientation, sexual identity and sexual contact, we created two data sets by pooling local Youth Risk Behavior Surveys (YRBSs) from 2001 to 2009, one including local YRBSs from Boston, Chicago, New York City, and San Francisco and the other local YRBSs from Boston, Chicago, Milwaukee, New York City, and San Diego.  For each data set, we calculated the prevalence rates of dating violence among different sexual orientation groups and tested the association between dating violence and sexual orientation.  We then used logistic regressions controlling for gender, race, grade level, and sites and years fixed effects to estimate the adjusted odds ratios of dating violence for LGB youths.     

Results: For the data set based on sexual identity, 91.0% of youths were heterosexual, 1.7% gay/lesbian, 4.1% bisexual, and 3.2% unsure.  The prevalence rates of dating violence among heterosexual, gay/lesbian, bisexual, and unsure youths were 10.5%, 27.2%, 23.3%, and 16.5%, respectively, and dating violence was significantly associated with sexual identity (p < .001).  The adjusted odds ratios for the gay/lesbian, bisexual, and unsure youths (reference group: heterosexual youths) were 2.64 (95% CI: 1.88-3.70), 2.58 (95% CI: 2.10-3.17), and 1.70 (95% CI: 1.27-2.27), respectively.  For the data set based on sexual contact, 50.3% of youths had opposite-sex sexual contact, 2.6% same-sex sexual contact, 3,6% sexual contact with both sexes, and 43.5% no sexual contact.  The prevalence rates of dating violence among youths having opposite-sex sexual contact, same-sex sexual contact, sexual contacts with both sexes, and no sexual contact were 14.3%, 19.4%, 29.7%, and 6.3%, respectively, and dating violence was significantly associated with sexual contact (p < .001).  The adjusted odds ratios for youths having same-sex sexual contact, sexual contacts with both sexes, and no sexual contact (reference group: youths having opposite-sex sexual contact) were 1.38 (95% CI: 1.06-1.78), 2.65 (95% CI: 2.19-3.22), and 0.43 (95% CI: 0.38-0.48), respectively.                      

Conclusions: LGB youths are at increased risk for dating violence.  It is important to disseminate dating violence prevention messages in LGB youths and help them better cope with minority stress and mitigate the impacts of dating violence.