Research Reports

The Prevalence of Sexual Violence Perpetration in Sexual Minority Men: A Secondary Analysis of Systematic Review Data

RaeAnn E. Anderson*1, Sara K. Kuhn1, Amanda M. Vitale2,3, Alyssa M. Ciampaglia4, Kristin E. Silver5,6

Europe's Journal of Psychology, 2022, Vol. 18(4), 437–449,

Received: 2021-02-10. Accepted: 2021-09-07. Published (VoR): 2022-11-30.

Handling Editor: Jennifer Murray, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, United Kingdom

*Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of North Dakota, 501 N Columbia Road, Grand Forks, ND 58202-8380, USA. E-mail:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.


Prior literature illustrates that sexual minority people (e.g., bisexual, gay, queer) are at increased vulnerability for sexual violence victimization compared to heterosexual peers, including while in college. However, the study of sexual violence perpetration in sexual minority populations, much less specifically sexual minority college men, has been neglected. This article reviews the literature and presents a secondary data analysis of a systematic review on college men’s sexual perpetration rates and associated methodology. We also conducted analyses to summarize available literature regarding publishing dates, authors, and data inclusivity. Methods: We downloaded the dataset and associated materials from’s data archive. Results: To our surprise, we could not analyze sexual perpetration prevalence rates in sexual minority men using the systematic review data due to absence of reported data across all 77 independent samples including over 5,500 male participants. We found no significant relationship between inclusion of sexual minority men and the use of measurement strategies specialized to assess sexual minority needs. We did find a positive relationship between recency of publication and the inclusion of sexual minority men, r(76) = .24, p = .03, and that most authors/co-authors were women (72%). Conclusions: Preventing perpetration is central to ending sexual violence; therefore, future research should include sexual minority people and use appropriate methodology in the investigation of sexual perpetration characteristics and patterns.

Keywords: sexual minority men, sexual perpetration, campus sexual assault, measurement, prevalence

Sexual violence victimization, the experience of sexual contact without consent, is a significant public health problem. Sexual victimization increases vulnerability to a broad range of long-term physical and mental health issues including depression, eating disorders, chronic pain, and posttraumatic stress disorder (Dworkin et al., 2017), and for men there is a likelihood of: suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and/or self-harm; depression; heavy drinking or drug use and resultant organ failure; somatic symptoms; sexual dysfunction; STIs/HIV; and general poor health (Sampsel, 2016). Sexual minority students (those who identify as gay, queer, bisexual, or any other non-heterosexual sexual identity) are at increased vulnerability compared to their heterosexual peers (Eisenberg et al., 2021; Martin-Storey et al., 2018; Rothman et al., 2011). However, the literature predominantly focuses on a heteronormative model of cisgender heterosexual men assaulting cisgender heterosexual women (Anderson et al., 2021; Turchik et al., 2016). For example, heteromantic preferences can exclude SM people and others who may engage in non-monogamous sexual partnerships (Ison, 2019). Thus, sexual violence is yet another area in which sexual and gender minority (SGM) groups experience disparities in representation and health (Wallace & Santacruz, 2017; Westefeld et al., 2001). Additionally, homophobia and heteronormativity perpetuate the myth that sexual violence does not occur in LGBTQ+ communities (Ison, 2019).

Further, the study of sexual violence must also include the study of sexual perpetration, although this has been historically neglected (McKay et al., 2019). Sexual victimization and sexual perpetration are two halves of the same phenomenon—sexual violence. By neglecting the study of perpetration, we neglect the possibility of discovering key prevention strategies (Abbey, 2005). Thus, the goal of this study was to review the literature to ascertain what the prevalence rate of sexual perpetration is among sexual minority men (SMM) in college and the attendant research methodologies used to determine these prevalence rates. We chose to focus specifically on perpetration behavior, not to demonize or pathologize an already stigmatized and vulnerable group of people who are victims themselves (i.e., SMM), but to acknowledge the centrality of perpetration to true sexual violence prevention and address the neglect of this topic thus far in the literature. Our sample will be SMM in college in the United States and Canada as we are reviewing an available dataset comprising existing literature on perpetration behavior in this population. We also wanted to guard against introducing variance due to culture given findings from a recent meta-analysis revealing a wide range of prevalence rates within European countries (Krahé et al., 2014). Additionally, we will not sample the literature on known adult sex offenders (e.g., prison samples; registered sex offenders) as they are a very small percentage of those who perpetrate. Rates of sexual perpetration in college men is around 29% (Anderson et al., 2020) while registered sex offenders make up less than half a percent of the United States’ population (NCMEC, 2017). Furthermore, due to the prevalence of alcohol use and the sexual culture in colleges, students frequent locations and events that are at high risk for sexual violence (Fedina et al., 2018).

Sexual Minority People’s Vulnerability for Sexual Victimization

A wealth of research has recently emerged which documents that SGM people (e.g., LGBTQ+ people, LGB and straight trans men and women, intersex and non-binary people, and gender non-conforming or gender-queer people who utilize “they/them” pronouns) are at increased vulnerability for experiencing sexual violence victimization (Hughes et al., 2010; Rothman et al., 2011; Walters et al., 2013). According to the CDC, cisgender gay and bisexual men are 1.9 and 2.3 times (respectively) more likely to experience rape and sexual violence than heterosexual men (Walters et al., 2013); among SMM college men, they are 3x more likely to experience rape (Anderson et al., 2017). Put another way, this suggests that 40.2 to 47.4% of SMM experience sexual victimization (Walters et al., 2013). Consistent with history, not only have SGM people’s experiences been neglected in this research, so have the experiences of other minoritized identities such as people of color (Griner et al., 2020). Yet, understanding the source of victimization (e.g., the behavior of the perpetrators) is fundamentally limited when solely examining experiences of those who have been victimized. Thus, comprehensive prevention for sexual minority groups requires examining the behavior of those who harm sexual minority people.

Who Is Harming Sexual Minority People?

It might be useful to look towards related violence research on SGM populations for a clue as to the prevalence of sexual perpetration among SGM people. For example, a recent study on female-assigned-at-birth SGM people (e.g., transgender men, LGBTQ+ cisgender women) found only 2.6% reported intimate partner sexual violence perpetration (Messinger et al., 2021) while rates of reported victimization were much higher. Indeed, research on hate crimes suggest that approximately 20% of sexual minority adults reported experiencing a hate crime directed at their person or property due to their sexual identity (Burks et al., 2018; Herek, 2009). Consistent with minority stress theory and the hate crime data, lifetime discrimination has been associated with intimate partner violence (IPV) perpetration (Shorey et al., 2019), suggesting that the strain of stigma leads to internalized (e.g., anxiety, depression) as well as externalized (e.g., substance use, violence) behavior. Another IPV focused study of SMM found that 44.9% of SMM reported lifetime IPV victimization while 19.5% reported lifetime IPV perpetration (Miltz et al., 2019), raising the question of where this threat of sexual violence is coming from. Within the LGBTQ+ community, outside the community, or both, and under what circumstances?

An important methodology for answering this question is comparing rates of reported sexual violence perpetration in groups of men who differ by sexual identity. We conducted a thorough review of the literature and located only three relevant studies which surveyed community or college samples and assessed the history of sexual perpetration behavior and sexual identity. We excluded incarcerated samples as the environmental stressors and vulnerabilities differ greatly from community/college samples.

Evidence From the Literature: Comparison of Self-Reported Perpetration Rates by Sexual Identity

Anderson et al. (2017) found no differences between sexual minority and heterosexual American college men in reported rates of sexual violence perpetration. In contrast, Krahé and Berger (2013) found that German college men, who were classified behaviorally as bisexual (rather than by self-identification), reported the highest rates of sexual perpetration, followed by behaviorally heterosexual men and behaviorally gay men. Walsh et al.’s (2021) results contrasted with those of both Anderson et al. (2017) and Krahé and Berger (2013), finding that heterosexual college men had the highest reported sexual violence perpetration rates. The methodological differences across these studies are one possible source of differences. The Anderson et al. (2017) and Walsh et al. (2021) studies recruited small samples of SMM. Krahé and Berger (2013) defined sexual orientation behaviorally, rather than by individual identity, as Anderson et al. (2017) and Walsh et al. (2021) had. All three studies used different measurement strategies to assess sexual violence perpetration; prior research has documented that the wide variation in sexual violence prevalence rates is tied to measurement issues (Anderson et al., 2021; Fedina et al., 2018; Peterson et al., 2011). This small body of research typifies the issues underscored by McKay et al. (2019) in their research on violence against LGBTQ people—there is a lack of standardized, comprehensive measures for violence in LGBTQ populations and a lack of attention towards perpetration research. Further research is needed on sexual perpetration that includes SMM and assesses sexual violence in ways that are inclusive of SMM’s unique experiences.

Measurement and Methodology Issues in Sexual Violence

In general, men’s experiences of sexual violence victimization are under-researched (Davies, 2002). Until recently—and similar to current United Kingdom law (Weare, 2021)—most federal definitions of sexual violence in the United States excluded certain experiences that are more common for people with penises, such as being made to penetrate someone (Stemple & Meyer, 2014). Made to penetrate victimization may be particularly relevant to understanding bisexual men’s experiences, as some data suggests this behavior is perpetrated almost exclusively by heterosexual women (Anderson et al., 2020; Weare, 2018). Further, research suggests that currently available questionnaires, such as the iterations of the Sexual Experiences Survey, may be inherently gendered and contain some degree of heterosexist bias because the development of these questionnaires largely excluded SGM populations (Anderson & Delahanty, 2020; Anderson et al., 2021). Indeed, research from the IPV literature suggests there may be tactics of violence specific to the experiences of SGM people, such as threatening to “out” someone (i.e., reveal their sexual identity without their consent; Balsam & Szymanski, 2005; Dyar et al., 2021). Thus, research on sexual violence and SMM must use tools that encompass the range of sexual experience SGM may report, while simultaneously not stigmatizing or judging. The lack of appropriate measurement tools has been an ongoing challenge in decades of research on violence against SGM people (McKay et al., 2019).

Current Study

Our literature review located three prior studies (not included in the systematic review) on the topic of SMM and sexual perpetration. Each demonstrated that measurement strategy may be obscuring the relationship between perpetration rates and sexual identity. The purpose of this study is to conduct a secondary data analysis of the most recent systematic review data (Anderson et al., 2021) on sexual perpetration in college men in the United States and Canada to examine how prevalence rates and associated measurement strategies may differ by sexual identity. Because the original systematic review did not focus on SMM data, we reanalyzed the data for this purpose consistent with calls in the literature to focus on perpetration and on measurement research, respectively (McKay et al., 2019).

  • Research Question (RQ) 1. We compared perpetration prevalence rates for SMM compared to heterosexual men. We did not make specific hypotheses given the mixed findings in the literature.

  • H1. We hypothesize that studies which included SMM (and did not exclude them from analyses) will be more likely to use modifications that would be more inclusive and more sensitive to known vulnerability factors for sexual minority people, given that over half the studies used modified measures. Such modifications include gender neutral wording, adding substance use items, and follow-up questions about the context of the assault given prior research on the potentially heterosexist nature of traditional questionnaires (Anderson & Delahanty, 2020; Koss et al., 2007).

  • H2. We will also explore whether studies that included SMM were more likely to use specific questionnaires or questionnaire types. We consider these analyses to be exploratory given the lack of existing data.

  • H3. Finally, given the paucity of relevant literature, we conducted analyses to characterize available literature. We hypothesize that there will be a relationship between year of publication and inclusion of SMM, with more recent publications being more likely to include SMM given the relatively recent increase in publications on sexual minority health (Coulter et al., 2014).

  • RQ2. We also characterized the discipline and gender of authors of relevant literature and whether the literature was inclusive of racial/ethnic minorities to identify potential targets for systematic efforts to increase equity and diversity in this research area.



As reported in the original systematic review (Anderson et al., 2021), participants were 25,524 college men recruited across 78 independent samples that reported prevalence rates of sexual violence perpetration and were published between 2000–2017. This open access dataset is publicly available via (Anderson, 2019, June 21). Participants were all men (100%), mostly white (76.8%) and heterosexual (97.5%). Zero studies in both the open access dataset, and the analytic sample in this paper, included gender minorities.


Measurement strategy was coded in detail including the name of the questionnaire, modifications made to the questionnaire, and procedure of administration. In brief, at least 16 different questionnaires were reported across the 77 included studies; the most common questionnaire was the 1982 Sexual Experiences Survey (SES). Most studies used a version of the SES (78.2%) and modified the primary questionnaire in some way (61.1%).


For the purpose of this secondary data analysis, we focused on a subset of these 77 studies that included sexual minority men (SMM), N = 24. See Table A1 in the Appendix for a list of these 24 studies. These studies were re-analyzed for prevalence rates of perpetration in SMM and variation in measurement strategy that are sensitive to sexual and gender minority (SGM) samples. In the case of datasets which resulted in multiple publications, the original study included only the citation with the most relevant data. Thus, we reviewed the list of excluded studies for any included SMM data. Gender of study authors was determined via pronouns appearing on professional or personal websites and/or email communication with the authors.


Analytic Plan

Chi square analyses (χ2) were used to examine the relationships between reported prevalence rates and indicators of sexual minority men (SMM) inclusion (see Table 1). The only exception was in the case of “date of publication” for which a Pearson correlation coefficient (r) was employed (see Table 1). Next we describe this strategy in relation to each research question (RQ) and hypothesis (H).

Table 1

Relationships Between Sexual Minority Men Participant Data Inclusion and Study Variables

Variable Included SMM Data (n = 24, % or M) Excluded SMM Data (n = 54, % or M) Statistics
Perpetration Rates
Average rate of any sexual violence 26.23% 28.91% χ2(1, N = 78) = .06, p = .81
Rape perpetration prevalence rates 6.32% 6.67% χ2(1, N = 43) = .003, p = .95
Verbal coercion rates 16.46% 20.88% χ2(1, N = 49) = .20, p = .65
Study Characteristics
Used any version of the SES 79.2% 72.2% χ2(1, N = 20) = .42, p = .59
Primary questionnaire used for sexual perpetration was standardized 91.7% 92.6% χ2(1, N = 6) = .02, p = 1.00
Date of publication 2012 2010 r(76) = .24, p = .03
Total percentage of racial minority participants 22.83% 23.35% χ2(1, N = 74) = .002, p = .96
Questionnaire Modification
Gender neutral wording 4.2% 7.4% χ2(1, N = 73) = .29, p = 1.00
Verbal coercion item addition 8.3% 13.0% χ2(1, N = 69) = .35, p = .71
Alcohol and substance use item addition 20.8% 22.2% χ2(1, N = 61) = .02, p = 1.00
Altered definition of consent
Revision of instructions/response scale 29.2% 25.9% χ2(1, N = 57) = .09, p = .79
Item removal 8.3% 9.3% χ2(1, N = 71) = .02, p = 1.00
Item combination 4.2% 1.9% χ2(1, N = 76) = .36, p = .52
Inclusion of follow-up items regarding assault context 8.3% 7.4% χ2(1, N = 72) = .02, p = 1.00
Addition of sexual outcome items 12.5% 11.1% χ2(1, N = 69) = .03, p = 1.00
Addition of items is unclear 12.5% 7.4% χ2(1, N = 71) = .53, p = .67
  • RQ 1. Since we were unable to analyze perpetration prevalence rates by sexual identity due to lack of data, perpetration prevalence rates for studies that included SMM compared to studies which did not were examined through chi square analyses comparing the average rate of perpetration.

  • H1. To examine if studies that included and analyzed SMM data were more likely than those that did not to use sexual minority inclusive questionnaire modifications, we used chi square analyses to compare the following variables across the two groups (see Table 1–Questionnaire Modification): 1) the use of gender neutral wording (e.g., no male/female pronouns), 2) if an item for verbal coercion was added, 3) if an item for alcohol/substance use was added, 4) if the authors altered the definition of consent for the questionnaire, 5) if the instructions or response scales were revised, 6) if items were removed, 7) if items were combined, 8) if the authors added follow-up items to determine the context of the sexual assault such as setting or perpetrator characteristics, 9) if sexual outcome items (i.e., questions regarding specific sexual behaviors such as oral/anal penetration) were added, and 10) if it was unclear whether items were added or not.

  • H2. We utilized chi square analyses to determine if studies including and analyzing SMM data were more likely to use any version of the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES) or any standardized questionnaire (see Table 1–Study Characteristics).

  • H3. A Pearson correlation coefficient was employed to determine if there was a relationship between the year/date of study publication and the inclusion and analysis of SMM data (see Table 1–Study Characteristics).

  • RQ2. Chi square analyses were used to determine if the inclusion and analysis of SMM data was related to the inclusion of racial/ethnic minority participants (see Table 1–Study Characteristics). Author gender and discipline for studies including and analyzing SMM data were evaluated through a simple numerical count and related percentages.

Research Question 1–Prevalence Rates

None of the included articles (N = 24), comprising 5,795 participants who identified as men, reported perpetration rates by sexual identity; therefore, our first research question could not be analyzed. Even in examining the exclusion lists for additional analyses of these samples, we were stymied by a lack of data. This lack of reporting may be due to small SMM participant sample sizes (less than 15% of total sample). Specifically, 21 of the 24 studies reporting SMM participant data were at least 90% heterosexual.

Hypothesis 1 and 2–Measurement Strategy

There was no significant relationship between the inclusion of SMM participant data and the use of questionnaire modifications that would increase inclusivity and be more relevant to a sexual minority sample. Nor were studies including SMM more likely to use a specific questionnaire for perpetration; 20 (83.3%) of the 24 studies that reported collecting SMM participant data used a version of the SES.

Hypothesis 3–Date of Publication

Statistical analysis revealed a significant relationship between studies that reported including data from SMM participants and the date of study publication (see Table 1). More recent studies (N = 24) reported including SMM data, with a mean publication year of 2012 and a modal year of 2017 (n = 6), compared to a mean year of 2010 and modal year of 2016 (n = 9) for all 77 articles analyzed.

Research Question 2–Characterizing the Literature: Author Gender and Discipline

Finally, we decided to examine if inclusion of sexual minority people was related to inclusion in other ways. The inclusion of SMM participant data was not significantly related to the inclusion of racial and ethnic minority participants.

The 54 authors and co-authors of the 24 studies that included SMM participant data were largely women (72%): 39 women-identified authors to 15 men-identified authors. One author identified as a transgender man. Investigation of the authors’ disciplines revealed that 18 of the first or corresponding authors came from a psychological field while the remaining five were from other disciplines (i.e., Sociology; Social Work; Public Health; Criminology, Law, and Justice; Criminal Justice). Seven of the studies appear to be from the same research team (i.e., Dr. Gidycz and colleagues from Ohio University’s Department of Psychology).


This literature review and secondary data analysis focused on research exploring sexual violence perpetration by college men in the United States and Canada between 2000 and 2017. Despite this research team’s knowledge of existing sexual and gender minority (SGM) health disparities and heterosexism in sexual violence research, the lack of available data was still surprising. Of the 78 individual U.S college convenience samples representing the data of over 25,000 college men examined, none reported perpetration rates specifically among sexual minority men (SMM). The 24 articles that did report any SMM participant data were homogenous (e.g., over 90% heterosexual, White, cisgender participants).

No significant relationship was found between the inclusion of SMM participant data and measurement strategies designed to capture the unique experiences and needs of SGM populations. This is remarkable given that most studies did in fact use modified questionnaires; most researchers seem to have few compunctions with modifying standardized questionnaires like the Sexual Experiences Survey (SES). Yet, few made these modifications in the spirit of SGM inclusion. The majority of the studies including SMM data used a variation of the SES, consistent with the overall sample. The SES in its various original forms uses gendered language, particularly language equating genitalia to gender. By not using gender-neutral language, such questionnaires have the potential to alienate non-heterosexual and non-cisgender respondents as the reality of their lived experiences is not represented (Woodford & Kulick, 2015). Revising these questionnaires in an empirically-based manner to include gender-neutral language and experiences common among SGM people is important because it will allow researchers to better understand, and ultimately to represent, the reality of sexual violence among SGM individuals.

A significant relationship was found between studies reporting data from SMM and the date of study publication, with more recent studies (modal year 2017) reporting more comprehensive descriptions of their participants than studies from earlier years. This suggests a recent and rapid change coinciding with the publication of the 2016 APA’s “Resolution on Data About Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity” which strongly recommends that researchers report data regarding participants’ gender and sexual identity (American Psychological Association, 2016). This suggests the importance and quick impact of such policies.

The authors and co-authors of the 24 studies analyzed were mostly women (72%). One explanation for the predominance of women authors could be that historically, research on rape stemmed from feminist scholars and the feminist psychology movement (Rozee & Koss, 2001), which has been dominated by women.

There is a considerable health disparity among SGM groups; this is even more pronounced when stratifying by race. Lesbians of color report higher rates of sexual victimization when compared to other cultural groups (Descamps et al., 2000; Morris & Balsam, 2003). Unfortunately, we found that inclusion of SMM participant data in our analysis was not significantly associated with the inclusion of racial and ethnic minority data, hampering the ability to understand this complex health problem. the removal of sexual identity minority “outliers” from the overall sample, while this allows for more straightforward data analyses, excludes these vulnerable populations of interest.

The current gap in sexual perpetration literature within the LGBTQ+ community may also disproportionately exclude members of the same community who are committing acts of sexual violence (Potter et al., 2012). Robust collaboration and active engagement with SGM people should be a central research focus as we work towards shared goals: understanding the commonalities and differences in perpetration across ethnic, gender, and sexual minority people, decreasing vulnerability for sexual victimization in highly vulnerable groups, and developing new strategies for sexual violence prevention.


As documented in the original study (Anderson et al., 2021), this analysis examined the perpetration behavior of largely cisgender, college-attending males. We recognize that for a more granular characterization of sexual perpetration in the general college population, it is important to examine perpetration in various populations (e.g., cisgender women of color, trans men and women, and other gender non-conforming or non-binary people). However, even within the cisgender male population on college campuses, there is a significant lack of demographic data on whether these men were attracted solely to cisgender women or aligned with another sexuality that includes attraction to cisgender women (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, etc.). The included studies largely defined SGM people by sexual identity; yet research has shown the SM community would comprise 20% of women and 10% of men, compared to 6.4% and 3.6%, respectively, if same-sex attraction/behavior within the past year is included (Mishel, 2019). In addition to limitations in how SGM groups were defined, most of the questionnaires used do not account for perpetration tactics that may be specific to harming sexual minority people, such as threatening to “out'' the victim or other sexual identity-related hate crimes.

Clinical Implications

The lack of available data on SMM in college samples presents serious clinical problems. Seeking mental health care is particularly difficult for SGM people. The dual stresses of being SGM in an often hostile culture and struggling with mental health issues presents a confounding alienation whereby some people feel isolated from groups of people aligned solely with either one of these two identities (Veltman & Chaimowitz, 2014). This is even more apparent for SGM people of color struggling with their mental health (Cyrus, 2017). Socioeconomic factors such as homelessness provide another reason for increased health disparities in the SGM community. For example, psychological disorders are particularly high among the homeless population (Keuroghlian et al., 2014) of which SGM people make up 20–40% (Ecker, 2016; Shelton & Abramovich 2019). Changes in our mental healthcare system are needed to equalize access to care (e.g., providing SGM-specific mental health educational materials). Collection and analysis of sexual minority data is paramount to clarifying and making transparent sexual minority-related health disparities and making relevant health care system changes (Wolff et al., 2017) that will specifically address the threat of sexual violence perpetration in sexual minority communities.


Our research has illustrated a canyon-sized gap in the sexual perpetration literature regarding SGM people. Among samples of college men, SMM are under-sampled and left out of analyses if they are sampled at all. We recommend the field focus their efforts on conducting research that recognizes the complex sexual violence dynamics in SMM, an understudied and vulnerable group. Researchers should also use measures that include tactics specific to vulnerable groups and language that does not further marginalize gender and sexual minority people. Such changes are needed to make findings more generalizable, address the needs of marginalized groups of people, and ultimately, maximize our ability to decrease the public health threat of sexual perpetration.


Dr. Anderson’s work was supported by a grant from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism under Grant 5K01AA026643-02/-03. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the funding agency.


The authors have no additional (i.e., non-financial) support to report.

Competing Interests

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Data Availability

This article includes presentation of a secondary data analysis of a systematic review on college men's sexual perpetration rates and associated measurement strategies (Anderson et al., 2021).


  • Abbey, A. (2005). Lessons learned and unanswered questions about sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20(1), 39-42.

  • American Psychological Association. (2016). Resolution on data about sexual orientation and gender identity.

  • Anderson, R. E. (2019). Dataset: The frequency of sexual perpetration in college men, reported prevalence rates from 2000–2017. Mendeley Data.

  • Anderson, R. E., & Delahanty, D. L. (2020). Discrepant responding across measures of college students’ sexual victimization experiences: Conceptual replication and extension. Journal of Sex Research, 57(5), 585-596.

  • Anderson, R. E., Goodman, E., & Thimm, S. (2020). The assessment of forced penetration: A necessary and further step towards understand men’s sexual victimization and women’s perpetration. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 36(4), 480-498.

  • Anderson, R. E., Silver, K. E., Ciampaglia, A. M., Vitale, A. M., & Delahanty, D. L. (2021). The frequency of sexual perpetration in college men: A systematic review of reported prevalence rates from 2000 to 2017. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 22(3), 481-495.

  • Anderson, R. E., Wandrey, R. L., Klossner, S. C., Cahill, S. P., & Delahanty, D. L. (2017). Sexual minority status and interpersonal victimization in college men. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 4(1), 130-136.

  • Balsam, K. F., & Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Relationship quality and domestic violence in women’s same-sex relationships: The role of minority stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29(3), 258-269.

  • Burks, A. C., Cramer, R. J., Henderson, C. E., Stroud, C. H., Crosby, J. W., & Graham, J. (2018). Frequency, nature, and correlates of hate crime victimization experiences in an urban sample of lesbian, gay, and bisexual community members. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33(3), 402-420.

  • Coulter, R. W., Kenst, K. S., & Bowen, D. J. (2014). Research funded by the National Institutes of Health on the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations. American Journal of Public Health, 104(2), 105-112.

  • Cyrus, K. (2017). Multiple minorities as multiply marginalized: Applying the minority stress theory to LGBTQ people of color. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 21(3), 194-202.

  • Davies, M. (2002). Male sexual assault victims: A selective review of the literature and implications for support services. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 7(3), 203-214.

  • Descamps, M. J., Rothblum, E., Bradford, J., & Ryan, C. (2000). Mental health impact of child sexual abuse, rape, intimate partner violence, and hate crimes in the National Lesbian Health Care Survey. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 11(1), 27-55.

  • Dworkin, E. R., Menon, S. V., Bystrynski, J., & Allen, N. E. (2017). Sexual assault victimization and psychopathology: A review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 56, 65-81.

  • Dyar, C., Messinger, A. M., Newcomb, M. E., Byck, G. R., Dunlap, P., & Whitton, S. W. (2021). Development and initial validation of three culturally sensitive measures of intimate partner violence for sexual and gender minority populations. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(15–16), NP8824-NP8851.

  • Ecker, J. (2016). Queer, young, and homeless: A review of the literature. Child and Youth Services, 37(4), 325-361.

  • Eisenberg, M. E., Lust, K., Mathiason, M. A., & Porta, C. M. (2021). Sexual assault, sexual orientation, and reporting among college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(1–2), 62-82.

  • Fedina, L., Holmes, J. L., & Backes, B. L. (2018). Campus sexual assault: A systematic review of prevalence research from 2000 to 2015. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 19(1), 76-93.

  • Griner, S. B., Vamos, C. A., Thompson, E. L., Logan, R., Vázquez-Otero, C., & Daley, E. M. (2020). The intersection of gender identity and violence: Victimization experienced by transgender college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5704-5725.

  • Herek, G. M. (2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24(1), 54-74.

  • Holmgreen, L., & Oswald, D. L. (2017). Men’s sexual coerciveness, perceptions of women’s attachment, and dating preferences. Violence and Victims, 32(5), 935-952.

  • Hughes, T., McCabe, S. E., Wilsnack, S. C., West, B. T., & Boyd, C. J. (2010). Victimization and substance use disorders in a national sample of heterosexual and sexual minority women and men. Addiction, 105(12), 2130-2140.

  • Ison, J. (2019). ‘It’s not just men and women’: LGBTQIA people and #MeToo. In B. Fileborn & R. Loney-Howes (Eds.), #MeToo and the politics of social change (pp. 151–167). Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Keuroghlian, A. S., Shtasel, D., & Bassuk, E. L. (2014). Out on the street: A public health and policy agenda for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth who are homeless. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 84(1), 66-72.

  • Koss, M. P., Abbey, A., Campbell, R., Cook, S., Norris, J., Testa, M., Ullman, S., West, C., & White, J. (2007). Revising the SES: A collaborative process to improve assessment of sexual aggression and victimization. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31(4), 357-370.

  • Krahé, B., & Berger, A. (2013). Men and women as perpetrators and victims of sexual aggression in heterosexual and same-sex encounters: A study of first-year college students in Germany. Aggressive Behavior, 39(5), 391-404.

  • Krahé, B., Tomaszewska, P., Kuyper, L., & Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2014). Prevalence of sexual aggression among young people in Europe: A review of the evidence from 27 EU countries. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 19(5), 545-558.

  • McKay, T., Lindquist, C. H., & Misra, S. (2019). Understanding (and acting on) 20 years of research on violence and LGBTQ + communities. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 20(5), 665-678.

  • Martin-Storey, A., Paquette, G., Bergeron, M., Dion, J., Daigneault, I., Hébert, M., & Ricci, S. (2018). Sexual violence on campus: Differences across gender and sexual minority status. Journal of Adolescent Health, 62(6), 701-707.

  • Messinger, A. M., Dyar, C., Birmingham, R. S., Newcomb, M. E., & Whitton, S. W. (2021). Sexual and gender minority intimate partner violence and childhood violence exposure. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(19–20), NP10322-NP10344.

  • Miltz, A. R., Lampe, F. C., Bacchus, L. J., McCormack, S., Dunn, D., White, E., Rodger, A., Phillips, A. N., Sherr, L., Clarke, A., McOwan, A., Sullivan, A., & Gafos, M. (2019). Intimate partner violence, depression, and sexual behaviour among gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men in the PROUD trial. BMC Public Health, 19(1), Article e431.

  • Mishel, E. (2019). Intersections between sexual identity, sexual attraction, and sexual behavior among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. Journal of Official Statistics, 35(4), 859-884.

  • Morris, J. F., & Balsam, K. F. (2003). Lesbian and bisexual women’s experiences of victimization: Mental health, revictimization, and sexual identity development. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 7(4), 67-85.

  • National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC). (2017). Map of registered sex offenders in the United States.

  • Peterson, Z. D., Voller, E. K., Polusny, M. A., & Murdoch, M. (2011). Prevalence and consequences of adult sexual assault of men: Review of empirical findings and state of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(1), 1-24.

  • Potter, S. J., Fountain, K., & Stapleton, J. G. (2012). Addressing sexual and relationship violence in the LGBT community using a bystander framework. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 20(4), 201-208.

  • Rothman, E. F., Exner, D., & Baughman, A. L. (2011). The prevalence of sexual assault against people who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual in the United States: A systematic review. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 12(2), 55-66.

  • Rozee, P. D., & Koss, M. P. (2001). Rape: A century of resistance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 25(4), 295-311.

  • Sampsel, H. (2016). Long-term mental and physical health outcomes for male victims of unwanted sexual violence: A systematic review [Doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University]. OSU Knowledge Bank.

  • Shelton, J., & Abramovich, A. (2019). LGBTQ2S youth homelessness: A call for structural intervention. Parity, 32(8), 24-25.

  • Shorey, R. C., Stuart, G. L., Brem, M. J., & Parrott, D. J. (2019). Advancing an integrated theory of sexual minority alcohol-related intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Violence, 34(4), 357-364.

  • Stemple, L., & Meyer, I. H. (2014). The sexual victimization of men in America: New data challenge old assumptions. American Journal of Public Health, 104(6), 19-26.

  • Turchik, J. A., Hebenstreit, C. L., & Judson, S. S. (2016). An examination of the gender inclusiveness of current theories of sexual violence in adulthood: Recognizing male victims, female perpetrators, and same-sex violence. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 17(2), 133-148.

  • Veltman, A., & Chaimowitz, G. (2014). Mental health care for people who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and (or) queer. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 59(11), 1-7.

  • Wallace, B. C., & Santacruz, E. (2017). Health disparities and LGBT populations. In R. Ruth & E. Santacruz (Eds.), LGBT psychology and mental health: Emerging research and advances (pp. 177–195). ABC-CLIO.

  • Walsh, K., Sarvet, A. L., Wall, M., Gilbert, L., Santelli, J., Khan, S., Thompson, M. P., Reardon, L., Hirsch, J. S., & Mellins, C. A. (2021). Prevalence and correlates of sexual assault perpetration and ambiguous consent in a representative sample of college students. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), NP7005-NP7026.

  • Walters, M. L., Chen, J., & Breiding, M. J. (2013). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orientation. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

  • Weare, S. (2018). From coercion to physical force: Aggressive strategies used by women against men in “forced-to-penetrate” cases in the UK. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47(8), 2191-2205.

  • Weare, S. (2021). “I feel permanently traumatized by it”: Physical and emotional impacts reported by men forced to penetrate women in the United Kingdom. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(13–14), 6621-6646.

  • Westefeld, J. S., Maples, M. R., Buford, B., & Taylor, S. (2001). Gay, lesbian, and bisexual college students: The relationship between sexual orientation and depression, loneliness, and suicide. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 15(3), 71-82.

  • Wolff, M., Wells, B., Ventura-DiPersia, C., Renson, A., & Grov, C. (2017). Measuring sexual orientation: A review and critique of US data collection efforts and implications for health policy. Journal of Sex Research, 54(4–5), 507-531.

  • Woodford, M. R., & Kulick, A. (2015). Academic and social integration on campus among sexual minority students: The impacts of psychological and experiential campus climate. American Journal of Community Psychology, 55(1–2), 13-24.


Table A1

Subset of Studies From the Systematic Review (Anderson et al., 2021) Including Sexual Minority Men (N = 24)

Pub Year Authors Title N Publication Pub Type DOI
2016 Ambrose, Carrie; Gross, Alan Interpreting Sexual Dating Encounters: Social Information Processing Differences in Men and Women 83 women; 94 men Journal of Family Violence journal article
2017 Anderson, RaeAnn E.; Cahill, Shawn P.; Delahanty, Douglas L. Initial Evidence for the Reliability and Validity of the Sexual Experiences Survey-Short Form Perpetration (SES-SFP) in College Men 402 men Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma journal article
2012 Anthony, Elizabeth R.; Cook, Sarah L. Assessing the impact of gender-neutral language on disclosure of sexual violence 258 women; 190 men Psychology of Violence journal article
2017 Barker, Analise; Galliher, Renee V. A mediation model of sexual assault among Latter-Day Saints 131 women; 77 men Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma journal article
2016 Dardis, Christina M.; Murphy, Megan J.; Bill, Alexander C.; Gidycz, Christine A. An investigation of the tenets of social norms theory as they relate to sexually aggressive attitudes and sexual assault perpetration: A comparison of men and their friends 200 men Psychology of Violence journal article
2016 Elias-Lambert, Nada; Black, Beverly M. Bystander Sexual Violence Prevention Program: Outcomes for High- and Low-Risk University Men 142 men Journal of Interpersonal Violence journal article
2011 Gidycz, Christine A.; Orchowski, Lindsay M.; Berkowitz, Alan D. Preventing Sexual Aggression Among College Men: An Evaluation of a Social Norms and Bystander Intervention Program 635 men Violence Against Women journal article
2007 Gidycz, Christine A.; Warkentin, Jennifer B.; Orchowski, Lindsay M. Predictors of perpetration of verbal, physical, and sexual violence: A prospective analysis of college men 425 men Psychology of Men & Masculinity journal article
2017 Holmgreen, Lucie; Oswald, Debra L.a Men’s Sexual Coerciveness, Perceptions of Women’s Attachment, and Dating Preferences 130 men Violence and Victims journal article
2017 Johnson, Shannon M.; Murphy, Megan J.; Gidycz, Christine A. Reliability and Validity of the Sexual Experiences Survey–Short Forms Victimization and Perpetration 433 women; 136 men Violence and Victims journal article
2004 Johnson, Thomas J; Stahl, Courtney Sexual Experiences Associated with Participation in Drinking Games 309 women; 181 men The Journal of General Psychology journal article N/A
2005 Loh, Catherine; Gidycz, Christine A.; Lobo, Tracy R.; Luthra, Rohini A Prospective Analysis of Sexual Assault Perpetration: Risk Factors Related to Perpetrator Characteristics 325 men Journal of Interpersonal Violence journal article
2002 Marmelstein Blackwell, Lisa Sexual aggression among college men: A test of two empirical models 293 men State University of New York at Binghamton thesis N/A
2003 Ménard, Kim S.; Hall, Gordon C. Nagayama; Phung, Amber H.; Ghebrial, Marian F. Erian; Martin, Lynette Gender Differences in Sexual Harassment and Coercion in College Students: Developmental, Individual, and Situational Determinants 278 women; 148 men Journal of Interpersonal Violence journal article
2016 Murphy Austin, Megan J.; Dardis, Christina M.; Wilson, Milo S.; Gidycz, Christine A.; Berkowitz, Alan D. Predictors of Sexual Assault–Specific Prosocial Bystander Behavior and Intentions: A Prospective Analysis 273 men Violence Against Women journal article
2016 Pickett, Scott M.; Parkhill, Michele R.; Kirwan, Mitchell The influence of sexual aggression perpetration history and emotion regulation on men’s aggressive responding following social stress. 135 men Psychology of Men & Masculinity journal article
2009 Schewe, Paul A.; Adam, Najma M.; Ryan, Kathryn M. A Qualitative Analysis of the Temptation to Use Force in Sexual Relationships 83
Violence and Victims journal article
2009 Stephens, Kari A.; George, William H. Rape Prevention With College Men: Evaluating Risk Status 146 men Journal of Interpersonal Violence journal article
2008 Thompson, Edward H.; Cracco, Elizabeth J. Sexual Aggression in Bars: What College Men Can Normalize 264 men The Journal of Men's Studies journal article
2017 Tuliao, Antover P.; McChargue, Dennis E.; Klanecky, Alicia K. Information acquisition in sexual aggression. 167 men Psychology of Violence journal article
2010 Voller, Emily K.; Long, Patricia J. Sexual Assault and Rape Perpetration by College Men: The Role of the Big Five Personality Traits 521 men Journal of Interpersonal Violence journal article
2007 Warkentin, Jennifer B.; Gidycz, Christine A. The Use and Acceptance of Sexually Aggressive Tactics in College Men 297 men Journal of Interpersonal Violence journal article
2010 Widman, Laura; McNulty, James K. Sexual Narcissism and the Perpetration of Sexual Aggression 147 women; 152 men Archives of Sexual Behavior journal article
2017 Young, Belinda-Rose; Desmarais, Sarah L.; Baldwin, Julie A.; Chandler, Rasheeta Sexual Coercion Practices Among Undergraduate Male Recreational Athletes, Intercollegiate Athletes, and Non-Athletes 379 men Violence Against Women journal article

aHolmgreen and Oswald (2017) included SMM data but excluded from analysis any participants that indicated they were "completely homosexual" as ascertained through self-report on a continuum scale for sexual orientation. Therefore, SMM data was included in their analysis only for participants who reported falling somewhere between "completely heterosexual" and "completely homosexual."

About the Authors

RaeAnn E. Anderson (B.A., University of Kansas, 2009; Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 2015) is currently an Assistant Professor in Clinical Psychology at the University of North Dakota. She completed her postdoctoral training at Kent State University. Her research interests are understanding basic behavioral processes in sexual victimization and sexual perpetration in order to inform sexual assault risk reduction and prevention programs, respectively. She also conducts research on measurement issues in the assessment of sexual violence histories.

Sara K. Kuhn (B.F.A., University of Utah, 1998; M.L.I.S., University of British Columbia, 2008; College Teaching Certificate, University of North Dakota, 2018) is a clinical psychology doctoral student at the University of North Dakota. Her research interests center around sexual violence prevention examining both perpetration of sexual violence and victimization. She is particularly interested in understanding bisexual and pansexual women's preferences for sexual violence prevention intervention programs.

Amanda M. Vitale (BA, University of Michigan, 2015) is currently a research manager at Icahn School of Medicine. Her research interests are in traumatic brain injury and sleep, especially among veteran populations.

Alyssa M. Ciampaglia (M.S., Saint Joseph’s University, 2017) has a master’s degree in experimental psychology. Her thesis, Testing Beck’s Specific Vulnerability Hypothesis with Male-Type Depression, examined the potential for atypical gender-specific depression symptoms based on the way men are socialized to repress sadness and express anger. She is presently a Clinical Research Coordinator at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia in the Neuro-Oncology Department leading Phase 1 and Phase 2 clinical trials in medications for pediatric patients with various types of Gliomas and Medulloblastomas. Her research interests are in promoting health and wellbeing of LGBTQIA+ individuals and advocating for intersectionality as well as diversifying methodology in clinical psychology.

Kristin E. Silver, Ph.D., is a Post-Doctoral Fellow in Behavioral Medicine and Primary Care-Mental Health Integration at Durham VA Medical Center and Duke University. Her clinical and research interests include behavioral medicine, trauma, and women's health.