Gay Agreements

Emotional pauses were experienced by couples who reported all types of contracts. As the quote above shows, even couples with few formalized chords can and do a break that has a considerable emotional impact. Crawford JM, Rodden P, Kippax S, Van de Ven P. Negotiated security and other agreements between men in relationships: the practice of risk is redefined. Int J STD AIDS. 2001;12(3):164–70. For these couples, creating agreements that have been helpful and supporting their lifestyle and sexual needs increases their feelings of satisfaction with their relationship as well as with their partners. Several couples, similar to those mentioned above, did not report that they had explicit agreements or explicit discussions about their agreements. These couples approached their agreements from the point of view that they could work without explicit articulation. In this area, one participant said that he felt more explicit about his consent, the more mechanical it became. However, as the couple above shows, an implied agreement does not have a negative effect on how they understood their agreement or their degree of reported satisfaction and respect.

As expected, most PrEP users reported that they had sex without a condom outside of their relationship. Three-quarters of PrEP users who did not agree on casual sex were sex without a condom, suggesting a “tacit” agreement of a new standard for sex outside of these relationships. Nearly half of the other PrEP users who had agreements prohibiting sex without a condom were busy. PrEP users in long-term relationships had different agreements on casual sex: no explicit agreement (26%), no occasional sex allowed (13%), no anal sex allowed (2%), anal sex license with a condom (17%) or anal sex without a licensed condom (40%). Some couples have been motivated by the sexual benefits of having an agreement. For example, a couple felt that their agreement brought them together sexually because it helped to facilitate their need for sexual satisfaction. Others reported that their open chords made sex between them more intimate, because it was an expression of both physical and emotional intimacy. Still others were excited about the idea that their partner was having sex with someone else. Many couples engaged in the trio explains that the contribution of an extra stranger strength and excitement to their sexual relationship.

One participant with such an agreement stated that agreements on whether or not to allow sexual relations with external partners covered a wide range of types, including monogamous agreements and agreements authorizing sexual relations with external partners. For couples who have allowed sex with external partners, most rules or conditions restrict when, where, how many times and with whom foreign sex was allowed. The manner in which couples faced breakages in their agreements varied depending on the condition that was broken, the disclosure or the reaction of the partner. In general, disclosure of the relationship has been beneficial in giving couples the opportunity to discuss their needs and expectations and by allowing better communication and, if necessary, renegotiation of the agreement. The motivations of the ex-sex agreements were also multiple, and HIV transmission and prevention proved a distant second from the concerns that couples had addressed when their agreements were reached. When HIV became a problem, most participants agreed that safety with external partners was important to the health and safety of their partners. However, these hiv concerns were discussed almost exclusively when participants were asked about safer sexual practices. HIV rarely appeared in participants` discussions about their agreements, and if so, it was generally related to a reported benefit for an agreement (. B, for example, some participants felt that one of the benefits of being monogamous was the ability to avoid HIV).