Running head: INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 1
Intimate Partner Violence in LGBTQ+ Relationships: Unique Challenges, Public Health
Concerns and Law Enforcement Response
Lillian Taylor
University of Colorado Denver

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 2
Introduction
According to the Center for Disease Control, intimate partner violence (IPV), is outlined as physical, sexual, or psychological violence enacted by a current or previous intimate partner or spouse. Physical violence includes hitting, kicking, punching or otherwise physically assaulting someone with the intention of causing fear, pain, or injury. Sexual violence includes engaging in sexual activity without consent, unwanted sexual comments or advances, or reproductive coercion. Psychological violence can include stalking behaviors, threats, and unrelenting criticism with the intention of dehumanizing and systematically undermining self-worth. This type of violence can occur among heterosexual and LBGTQ+ couples and does
A large body of research has been conducted into patterns of IPV in heterosexual couples, and most research surrounding IPV is limited to cisgender victims and perpetrators of
IPV. There is seemingly sparse literature, however, concerning patterns of IPV in non-heterosexual, non-cisgender relationships. This may be due in part to the unique challenges facing such victims of IPV that heterosexual, cisgender victims would not be concerned with. It may also be in part due to public perceptions of these victims stemming from homophobia, transphobia, and gender role stereotypes persisting in public health and law enforcement settings.
The purpose of this article is to outline these unique challenges and the issues in the public health and legal system that contribute to this lack of literature. As more research is conducted into this area of study, a thorough understanding of the dynamics of sex and gender may have the potential to guide future research and improve screening and intervention for these victims.
1 Violence Prevention. (2018, October 23). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/index.html

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 3
Guiding Research Questions
1. What role does gender and sex stereotypes play in the screening and intervention for victims of IPV in public health settings as it pertains to LGBTQ+ persons?
2. What unique challenges do LGBTQ+ persons face when they consider seeking intervention after they have a victim of IPV?
Definitions
Cisgender : a person who identifies with the gender assigned at birth
Transgender : a person who does not identify with the gender assigned at birth
LGBTQ+ : Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer (or Questioning)
Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) : physical, sexual, or psychological violence enacted by a current or previous intimate partner or spouse
Unique Challenges and Risks Facing LGBTQ+ Victims
Non-cisgender and non-heterosexual victims of IPV may experience an uphill battle against unique challenges across interpersonal and institutional contexts, including internalized homophobia and transphobia, expectations of rejection, and hostility from the social environment, which, in turn, are associated with increased stress, poor health outcomes, and lack of reporting to law enforcement. These challenges are associated with the public health system’s efforts in recent years that have largely neglected members of the LGBTQ+ population, which
2 Ard, K. L., & Makadon, H. J. (2011). Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine,26 (8), 930-933. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1697-6

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 4 disparities are demonstrated through the higher risk these victims face with being infected with
HIV and AIDS and engaging in risky sexual behavior (Heintz & Melendez , 2006) .
Many victims of sexual IPV in the study conducted by Heintz & Melendez reported being forced by their partners to have sex. Many stated that they felt unsafe to ask their abusive partners to use condoms or further protection during sex or that they feared their partners’ response to being asked to use protection. In addition, many victims experienced further sexual, physical, and/or verbal abuse as a direct consequence of asking their partner to use protection.
These victims, similar to heterosexual victims, may experience difficulty in successfully negotiating safe sex practices for a variety of reasons, including gendered concepts of control, fear of retaliation, and unequal power distributions within the relationship. Those experiencing
IPV are often trapped in situations where the abusive partner controls many aspects of their lives.
Many find it difficult to assert their desires in the relationship, and thus focus on on protecting themselves from physical and emotional harm before thinking about negotiating safe sex. These victims who have difficulty negotiating safe sex are at a higher risk for contracting STD’s real public health concern and is cause for worry about the possibility of an epidemic of STD transmission in the LGBTQ+ community.
A unique challenge associated with power imbalances in abusive relationships is the differing gender dynamics in LGBTQ+ relationships. Previous research has outlined the
3 Heintz, A. J., & Melendez, R. M. (2006). Intimate Partner Violence and HIV/STD Risk Among Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,21 (2), 193-208. doi:10.1177/0886260505282104
4 Heintz, A. J., & Melendez, R. M. (2006). Intimate Partner Violence and HIV/STD Risk Among Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals. Journal of Interpersonal Violence,21 (2), 193-208. doi:10.1177/0886260505282104

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 5 importance of power in heterosexual relationships stating that unequal power relations between men and women evident in society at large are often epitomized in interpersonal relationships between men and women. Individuals experiencing IPV in a non-heterosexual relationship may experience many of the same issues relating to power imbalances observed by researchers in heterosexual victims of IPV. For example, researchers have found men in gay relationships who have been victims of partner violence are more likely to have lower incomes, be unemployed, power imbalances in a relationship and leave room for abusive partners to exert control through manipulation.
A popular ideology about IPV illustrates that physical violence is centered around embedded gender stereotypes that present the bigger, ‘stronger’,man being physically violent ideology presents an image of able-bodied, heterosexual women as victims of able-bodied heterosexual men. Such an ideology makes it difficult for other accounts of domestic violence and abuse to be told and to be heard. Thus, it makes it difficult for many to believe that men can be victimized or that women can be violent. This idea also reinforces the binary that associates victimization with women and perpetrator with men. Research on IPV in lesbian relationships challenges the implications of this ideology by exploring the ways in which women struggled to define the trauma they had experienced. Not being able to define their experiences can
5 Stall, R., Mills, T. C., Williamson, J., Hart, T., Greenwood, G., Paul, J., . . . Catania, J. A. (2003). Association of
Co-Occurring Psychosocial Health Problems and Increased Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS Among Urban Men Who
Have Sex With Men. American Journal of Public Health,93 (6), 939-942. doi:10.2105/ajph.93.6.939
6 Donovan, C., Hester, M., Holmes, J., & McCarry, M. (2006). Comparing Domestic Abuse in Same Sex and
Heterosexual Relationships. Safe: The Domestic Abuse Quarterly , (21), 1-23.

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 6 exacerbate the sense of isolation felt in an abusive relationship and can act as an obstacle to
Another issue facing LGBTQ+ victims of IPV is the fear of social isolation, homophobia, and rejection from mainstream support outlets. In addition, the concept of outing may serve as both a tool of abuse and a barrier to seeking help. LGBTQ+ individuals often hide outward expression of their sexual orientation or gender identity for fear of stigma and discrimination.
A key aspect of domestic abuse in the LGBT community is presence of stigma and discrimination surrounding their sexual orientation. Many victims have experienced prior psychological or physical trauma due to their sexual preferences, usually in form of alienation their families, hate speech or hate crimes in their communities, or bullying at school. These
This form of isolation correlated to the lack of reporting and thus the higher rates of STD transmission within the community.
Gender identity can cause further issues when victims do decide to seek help. When
LGBT individuals do attempt to access IPV services their options are often severely limited compared to non-LGBTQ+ victims . Shelter services specific to the LGBTQ+ community are rare to non-existent in many cities. Men may not be admitted to shelters regardless of their status
7 Donovan, C., & Barnes, R. (2017). Domestic violence and abuse in lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGB and/or T) relationships. Sexualities, 136346071668149. doi:10.1177/1363460716681491
8 Kulkin, H. S., Williams, J., Borne, H. F., Bretonne, D. D., & Laurendine, J. (2007). A Review of Research on
Violence in Same-Gender Couples. Journal of Homosexuality,53 (4), 71-87. doi:10.1080/00918360802101385
9 Factor, R. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (2007). A Study of Transgender Adults and Their Non-Transgender Siblings on
Demographic Characteristics, Social Support, and Experiences of Violence. Journal of LGBT Health Research,3 (3),
11-30. doi:10.1080/15574090802092879

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 7 as victims, and transgender women may not gain access to women’s shelters (Pattavina et al., violence programs view domestic violence as a male-perpetrated, heterosexual issue. Thus, even if a LGBTQ+ victim can obtain such resources, the lack of sensitivity and support can only serve to further traumatize the victim, leading the individual to return to their partner or stop seeking support.
Beyond the scope of seeking victim assistance, LGBTQ+ victims face an additional barrier through seeking legal recourse against an abusive partner. Several states lack language in their domestic violence laws that would apply to LGBTQ+ victims and may even deny the right
United States Supreme Court deeming sodomy laws unconstitutional in 2003, many states the IPV in LGBTQ+ relationships is often minimized, misinterpreted, or ignored by the legal system, typically upon the first encounter with law enforcement. Law enforcement training regarding IPV in LGBTQ+ relationships is not as readily available as training for heterosexual
10 Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D., & Bentley, H. (2007). A Comparison of the Police
Response to Heterosexual Versus Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence. Violence Against Women,13 (4), 374-394. doi:10.1177/1077801207299206
11 Burke, T. W., Jordan, M. L., & Owen, S. S. (2002). A Cross-National Comparison of Gay and Lesbian Domestic
Violence. PsycTESTS Dataset . doi:10.1037/t40410-000
12 Murray, C., Mobley, A. K., Buford, A., & Seaman-Dejohn, M. (2008). Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence:
Dynamics, Social Context, and Counseling Implications. Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling,1 (4), 7-30. doi:10.1300/j462v01n04_03

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 8 violence to police due to a precedent of oppression from law enforcement.
Another barrier that occurs for LGBTQ+ victims seeking intervention services is the concept of mutual battering. Mutual battering is a situation in which both partners are equally combative and abusive toward one another, making it difficult to determine who is the victim and perpetrator . It has been established in the literature that, like heterosexual victims, there are victims that fight back against their abusers with the intention of causing harm (Carvalho et al., victim defending herself from an abusive, more physically powerful male partner, within
LGBTQ+ relationships it is often regarded as mutual battering rather than a form of self-defense victim and perpetrator.
Conclusion
The need for a more in-depth research approach is long overdue for LGBTQ+ victims of
IPV. The current body of research is limited and tends to apply the same language and ideologies that are applied to heterosexual victims of IPV. The first step to improving the conditions for
LGBTQ+ victims of IPV lies in how counselors and mental health professionals handle the situations of these victims. As researchers and counselors focus on understanding, and
13 Tesch, B., Bekerian, D., English, P., & Harrington, E. (2012). Same-sex domestic violence: Why victims are more at risk. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 1-10. doi:10.1350/ijps.2010.00.0.204
14 Carvalho, A., Derlega, V. J., Lewis, R. J., Winstead, B. A., & Viggiano, C. (2011). Internalized Sexual-Minority
Stressors and Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence. PsycEXTRA Dataset . doi:10.1037/e701962011-001
15 Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2003). Domestic Violence Between Same-Sex Partners: Implications for
Counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development,81 (1), 40-47. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00223.x

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 9 ultimately reducing, LGBTQ+ IPV, it is imperative that the unique dynamics of gender, sexuality, and societal attitudes are considered. Counselors must apply special attention to distinguishing victims from perpetrators of in these forms of abuse. Counselors must examine all levels of possible abuse when dealing with IPV, because abuse is often underreported in these populations. Thorough assessment of the amount of trauma that a victim has experienced is needed in order to help the victim accordingly.
The next step in improving the assistance and understanding for LGBTQ+ victims lies in the public health professionals responsible for identifying and reporting abuse. Clinicians taking care of LGBTQ+ patients should inquire about sexual behavior and desire in a non-judgmental manner during the clinical history-taking of the patients and should not assume heterosexuality.
Another way to insure inclusion and understanding within the public health sector would be to implement assessment and treatment materials that use LGBT+-inclusive language. Clinicians should also be provided competent education regarding the experiences of LGBTQ+ victims of to ensure the safety and understanding the complexity of such situations and thus make the process of seeking help less apprehensive for these victims.
The final step in improving victim assistance for LGBTQ+ populations lies with law enforcement and state legislatures. An attempt must be made to better educate law enforcement officers about the dynamics of LGBTQ+ violence and differentiating between perpetrators and victims. An elimination of the concept of mutual battering is also necessary in this process. As for legislation, some findings suggest the introduction of mandatory arrest laws may lead to the
16 Ard, K. L., & Makadon, H. J. (2011). Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and
Transgender Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine,26 (8), 930-933. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1697-6

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 10 increased likelihood that LGBTQ+ perpetrators of IPV will be properly prosecuted for domestic arrest laws may ensure protection for victims against perpetrators and may lead to an increased awareness of IPV in LGBTQ+ relationships. This increased awareness may begin the process of states adjusting the language within their domestic violence statutes to be more inclusive and thus create a safer atmosphere for victims to come forward and pursue legal recourse against their abusive partners.
17 Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D., & Bentley, H. (2007). A Comparison of the Police
Response to Heterosexual Versus Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence. Violence Against Women,13 (4), 374-394. doi:10.1177/1077801207299206

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 11
References
Ard, K. L., & Makadon, H. J. (2011). Addressing Intimate Partner Violence in Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual, and Transgender Patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine,26 (8), 930-933. doi:10.1007/s11606-011-1697-6
Burke, T. W., Jordan, M. L., & Owen, S. S. (2002). A Cross-National Comparison of Gay and
Lesbian Domestic Violence. PsycTESTS Dataset . doi:10.1037/t40410-000
Donovan, C., Hester, M., Holmes, J., & McCarry, M. (2006). Comparing Domestic Abuse in
Same Sex and Heterosexual Relationships. Safe: The Domestic Abuse Quarterly , (21),
1-23.
Donovan, C., & Barnes, R. (2017). Domestic violence and abuse in lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender (LGB and/or T) relationships. Sexualities, 136346071668149. doi:10.1177/1363460716681491
Factor, R. J., & Rothblum, E. D. (2007). A Study of Transgender Adults and Their
Non-Transgender Siblings on Demographic Characteristics, Social Support, and
Experiences of Violence. Journal of LGBT Health Research,3 (3), 11-30. doi:10.1080/15574090802092879
Heintz, A. J., & Melendez, R. M. (2006). Intimate Partner Violence and HIV/STD Risk
Among Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Individuals. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence,21 (2), 193-208. doi:10.1177/0886260505282104
Kulkin, H. S., Williams, J., Borne, H. F., Bretonne, D. D., & Laurendine, J. (2007). A Review of Research on Violence in Same-Gender Couples. Journal of Homosexuality,53 (4),
71-87. doi:10.1080/00918360802101385

INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE IN LGBT RELATIONSHIPS 12
Carvalho, A., Derlega, V. J., Lewis, R. J., Winstead, B. A., & Viggiano, C. (2011).
Internalized Sexual-Minority Stressors and Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence.
PsycEXTRA Dataset . doi:10.1037/e701962011-001
Murray, C., Mobley, A. K., Buford, A., & Seaman-Dejohn, M. (2008). Same-Sex Intimate
Partner Violence: Dynamics, Social Context, and Counseling Implications. Journal of
LGBT Issues in Counseling,1 (4), 7-30. doi:10.1300/j462v01n04_03
Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D., & Bentley, H. (2007). A Comparison of the Police Response to Heterosexual Versus Same-Sex Intimate Partner Violence.
Violence Against Women,13 (4), 374-394. doi:10.1177/1077801207299206
Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2003). Domestic Violence Between Same-Sex Partners:
Implications for Counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development,81 (1), 40-47. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00223.x
Stall, R., Mills, T. C., Williamson, J., Hart, T., Greenwood, G., Paul, J., . . . Catania, J. A.
(2003). Association of Co-Occurring Psychosocial Health Problems and Increased
Vulnerability to HIV/AIDS Among Urban Men Who Have Sex With Men. American
Journal of Public Health,93 (6), 939-942. doi:10.2105/ajph.93.6.939
Tesch, B., Bekerian, D., English, P., & Harrington, E. (2012). Same-sex domestic violence:
Why victims are more at risk. International Journal of Police Science &
Management, 1-10. doi:10.1350/ijps.2010.00.0.204
Violence Prevention. (2018, October 23). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/intimatepartnerviolence/index.html