Multiple respondents in all groups, especially those from the low-risk communities, reported sexual relationships with more than one partner for short periods of time, ranging from one or two nights to up to a few months with each partner. This differs from overlapping main partners (described below) because none of the partnerships are intimate—often all are new partners. Respondents often did tell their partners that the partnerships were not exclusive and that they had no expectation of exclusivity from them. Short-term overlapping partnerships were perceived as an acceptable way to explore different partnerships, which may be explicitly uncommitted (Table 2, example 1). Given the exploratory nature of many of these partnerships, we call this pattern Experimental.
Other individuals collect multiple partners to ensure having at least one partner. For one male STI patient all overlapping partnerships included a new partnership (Table 2, example 2) as a strategy to avoid being left without a partner. His most recent overlap lasted 5 months. These concurrent partnerships provide a “spare” or a “backup” partner in case one partner rejects the index; different partnerships are thus experimented with until it is clear which are most likely to persist.
Another theme characterizing experimental concurrency is a pattern of multiple short-term partners explicitly to avoid or in lieu of an intimate, committed partnership. Some individuals enjoyed absence of commitment; one young woman expressed her desire to be “free” (Table 2, examples 3, 4). Some individuals justified a need for such freedom because they were “young.”
Because of the nonbinding nature of experimental partnerships, condom use is common and acceptable; condom use may in fact reinforce the intended nonexclusivity of the partnership. Therefore, despite exposure to many different sexual partners, experimental concurrency usually involves protected sex (Table 3).
Multiple sexual partnerships developing during physical separations from a main partner (e.g., by geography, jail, boats, or college) were reported by many respondents. Partners often understood and accepted sexual contact with others during the separation. The other (concurrent) partnerships may continue when the main partner visits or returns. Although partners are aware that each has other partners, they avoid direct discussion of nonmonogamy in a “don't ask, don't tell” policy. In fact, some respondents even told the partner that if he/she has other partners, they did not want to know. Often partners’ additional partners are “fuckbuddies” or “fuck friends” (Table 2, example 6) in an ongoing partnership that is caring but not intimate. These other partners are often told that the main partner is temporarily absent, and that the index is not interested in another ongoing partnership. Separational concurrency was frequently described by individuals who had partners in the military or partners who tended to be incarcerated with some regularity.
Respondents reported not using condoms with the main partner from whom they are separated, but often reported condom use with the outside partners. However, condom use is much less likely when the outside partners are “fuck friends,” in a long-standing albeit explicitly nonmonogamous relationship, because intimacy and trust make condom use more difficult to negotiate. Finally, nonuse of condoms with the main partner so as not to threaten trust and intimacy in that partnership in the face of separation also allows for acquisition of STIs from the main partner (Table 3). When both partners in separational concurrency engage in sex with others, the risk of introducing infection from outside is compounded.
When a partnership undergoes transition—toward a solid partnership at the beginning stages of a relationship or disintegrating towards the end of a partnership—concurrency is common. Many individuals reported concurrent partnerships when transitioning between two main partners; not fully terminating one partnership until another is clearly established (Table 2, example 7). One woman from a low-risk community described this as the “fade-in, fade-out” pattern, and a man from a low-risk community called the pattern “these transitional things.”
Participants from all groups reported concurrent partnerships at the beginning of a main partnership, as these often start out as “just dating” (Table 2, examples 8, 9) without an expectation of monogamy. With transition to an expectation of monogamy, concurrent partnerships end. The time reported for such transition periods ranged widely, often up to a year.
At the end of a long-term partnership, participants reported alleviating the pain, anger, and loneliness from the impending loss of one partner by having other partners (Table 2, example 11). Additionally, if sexual activity lessens near the end of a partnership, sexual needs may be fulfilled elsewhere (example 12). If the period of partnership termination drags on, sexual activity can continue intermittently between main partners (example 10), as other partnerships emerge.
Transitional concurrency may be particularly risky for STI. As with separational concurrency, in a main partnership in which there is trust and commitment, introduction of condoms could be particularly problematic and potentially explosive. Motivation to end such partnerships is not always mutual. When the one having outside sexual activity is seeking comfort because the main partner is terminating the partnership, condom use with the main partner could introduce distrust or suspicion. Similarly, this individual may avoid condoms to demonstrate trust and supposed intimacy with the new partner. Thus, in transitional concurrency, individuals may avoid condom use with all concurrent partners, creating a great risk for introducing STI (Table 3).
This type of mutual nonmonogamy arises when one member of an ongoing partnership finds another partner and the other member responds in turn. Respondents reported outside sexual partnerships that were explicitly not serious and undertaken with the intention of revenge or to provoke jealousy in their main partner, hoping that jealousy would draw their partner back to monogamy. They also reported “waiting around” for the partner to finish up with another partnership (Table 2, example 13). Other respondents sought equality or fairness in the partnership because their partner was “having all the fun” (Table 2, example 14), believing they deserved the same freedom of sexual exploration. Others sought to repair self-esteem damaged by the partner's “demoralizing” infidelity (Table 2, example 15).
Again condoms usually are not used with the main partner but may be used with outside partners. Failure to use condoms with any other partners allows for the introduction of STI into the main partnership and on to additional outside partners (Table 3).
Reciprocal Concurrency in “Open Partnerships”
When both partners agree to an “open partnership” there is mutual nonmonogamy or reciprocity. Only white respondents, mostly from the community populations, reported this pattern.
In reciprocal concurrency, one partnership may remain primary, with the understanding that outside partnerships are not serious. What differentiates reciprocal nonmonogamy from experimental concurrency is that the latter generally lacks a “main” or primary partnership, and in fact often seeks such a partnership. In most open partnerships reported, the partners were up front about having other partners (Table 2, example 16), and discussed and reported on outside partners (Table 2, example 17). In other examples of reciprocal concurrency, both partners know that their main partnership is limited and “not going anywhere” and so accept their partner's having other partners; but these are seldom discussed and the partnership is not perceived as a “main” partnership (Table 2, example 18).
In reciprocal concurrency, condoms are generally used with outside partners but not with the main or ongoing partner. In an agreed upon “open” partnership that is a main partnership, condom use is rarely practiced. When the main partnership is not considered committed, condoms may also be used in the main partnership as there is no trust to be violated. In either scenario, the fact that both partners have outside partners, and condom use is difficult to practice consistently with an ongoing partner, lends to opportunities for STI to enter the partnership and spread to outside partners (Table 3).
One partnership member may have other partners to compensate for perceived deficiencies in the main partnership, and hide the infidelity from the main partner. The outside partners tend to be one-time and not ongoing partners because of a commitment to the main partner. Participants reported feeling “frustrated” with their main partner; or they expressed concern about their main partner's stability (Table 2, examples 19, 20, 23); one participant spoke of her partner “flipping out” (Table 2, example 21). Other respondents sought outside partners during a partner's pregnancy citing that the partner was “busy with the baby” (Table 2, example 22). Outside partnerships are often referred to as “one-night stands” or “flings.”
Condom use within the main partnership is neither acceptable nor likely in compensatory concurrency, because the unfaithful partner seldom discusses their partnership's perceived inadequacies with their main partner. Condoms may be used regularly with the outside partners. A potential problem in maintaining consistent condom use with outside partnerships is that these reportedly occurred spontaneously, often under the influence of drugs and alcohol, for example, when mixing socially without the main partner who is unavailable (because of child care or social distance). The unfaithful individual may not have condoms available if they did not go out with the intention of engaging in sexual activity.
Other forms of concurrency discussed less often by study participants deserve mention.
Group sex generally not involving a main partner is similar to experimental concurrency but consists of sexual activity with more than one partner on the same occasion. Participants in all groups studied, except the male and female STI patients, reported such incidents; however, these generally occurred as isolated events, not as a form of regular sexual activity.
Another form of concurrency involved sexual activity with a coparent, often while in a different main partnership. Main partners considered their partner's sexual activity with coparents more understandable and acceptable than sexual activity within less embedded relationships. One woman commented that she accepted her partner's sexual activity with his “baby's mom” but not with other women stating “don't disrespect me for some other female that you might screwing, if it's not your baby's mom, I don't really condone that” (Table 2, example 5).
A final type of concurrency reported by women is “survival sex.” These women either had one main partnership, or many short-term partnerships (some involving sexual activity more than once) but exchanged sex for either money or drugs, including both crack cocaine and injectable drugs such as heroin. The survival sex was generally with nonmain partners, and a main partner was often aware of this and also required the extra income or the drugs their partner's sexual activity generated. Only women from the high-risk census tracts and female STI patients reported sex for money or drugs. Some men reported being “pimps” and had multiple ongoing partnerships with partners who sold sex to men other than the index. The men reported sexual activity for intimacy with these partners after the resources from the outside sex were shared.
Clearly, group sex and survival sex carry high risk for STI. Most group sex situations reportedly occurred under the influence of drugs or alcohol that would compromise correct condom use. For survival sex most women engaging in sex for money do report regular condom use, whereas those reporting sex for drugs clearly have reduced ability to negotiate and practice condom use. In addition, for sex with a coparent while in a main partnership, the intimacy involved in both partnerships may inhibit condom use with either partner. As the coparents both may have other partners; this situation creates high risk for STI.
This study highlights the panoply of patterns of concurrent partnerships observed in one urban US setting. Variation in concurrency undoubtedly would increase if other cultures and countries were considered. We studied patients with STI and adults from communities with high STI and with low STI prevalence, to compare concurrency and motivations for these patterns. All groups studied reported at least one type of concurrent partnership. The qualitative data provided by this study allow examination of the motivations and explanations for concurrent partnerships, as expressed by individuals in their own words. While enriching our understanding of the dynamics of such partnerships and the variation in their expression, such data cannot tell us how widely distributed such partnerships are within a population, nor quantitate variations in their durations and frequencies, nor the STI risk associated with each type. There is a need for research on concurrent partnerships in other sociogeographic settings and for consideration of differing patterns of concurrency in designing interventions to prevent STI.
We describe the most common patterns observed as experimental, separational, transitional, reactive, reciprocal, and compensatory. Concurrent partnerships may represent normative patterns of sexual partnering in these groups. Less common patterns included survival sex, group sex, and sex with coparents. Descriptors used in certain types of concurrency (e.g., separational, experimental) included terms such as “fuckbuddies” (defined as friends who are sex partners) and “bootycalls” (defined as individuals available for free sex on an ad hoc basis). Some patterns occur along with a main partner. Different types of concurrent partnerships are associated with different levels of STI risk depending on frequency of intercourse and use of condoms with each partner.
The prevalence and multiple forms of concurrency identified in this study suggest a relatively widespread expectation that one partner may not fulfill one's social, economic, and personal needs in some social groups. Concurrency sometimes represents a sexual strategy to help meet perceived social, emotional, or economic shortages, often reported by women from high-risk communities. The higher percentages of women in the high-risk communities compared to women in the low-risk communities reporting concurrent partnerships suggests a potentially greater need for the social and economic support derived from concurrent partnerships in this setting. The elevated female-male sex ratio, the relatively low proportion of adults, especially African American adults, who are married, and the separational concurrency created by the high proportion of men who are in jail, represent unique problems for such communities. In a North Carolina study African American women clearly perceived the low sex ratio as an influence on partnership patterns that encouraged concurrency as women were more willing to tolerate the men they had because they thought other choices were limited. 17 Research is needed using survey data that are representative to confirm these observations.
Some patterns of concurrency seem linked to life stages of individuals. A period of experimentation and frequent transitions characterizes youth, and those undergoing social transitions such as divorce. In these situations, transitional concurrency may be a socially acceptable way for individuals to become “partnered,” a condition seen as essential for the social success of youth and socioeconomic well-being of those going through divorce or partnership termination. Concurrency has become a common result of the partnering process in some social groups that includes sex early in the formative stages of the partnership. As in the transitional form of concurrency, early establishment of sex without condom use in a new partnership could be particularly risky when associated with ongoing sex within a concurrent partnership undergoing dissolution.
These findings suggest a need for intervention-based research on multiple levels, e.g., to evaluate population-level interventions that use mass media to depict social models that promote serial monogamy with a “gap” of time between partners prolonged to minimize risk of most STI transmission, or to evaluate mass education about the heightened risk of STI transmission and acquisition in concurrent partnerships. To determine if concurrency per se is reducible at the population level, evaluations are needed of either indirect structural interventions that aim to relieve potential socioeconomic determinants of certain types of concurrency (e.g., to reduce separational concurrency or transitional concurrency driven by economic dependency), or direct interventions that promote healthy patterns of enduring partnering by conveying both the health risks of concurrency and the transitory nature of many patterns of partnering. Research is also needed on the effectiveness of clinical interventions that enhance partner treatment and condom promotion with harm reduction counseling. The effectiveness of strategies such as “negotiated safety” used by male couples to allow for unprotected anal sex with each other after testing negative for HIV, provided sex with outside partners is always protected 18 should be further evaluated. Interventions aimed at partnership behavior change or harm reduction versus individual behavior change will require STI practitioners to recognize that some concurrent partnerships present higher risk for STI transmission than others, and to identify those that put individuals at the most risk for acquiring or transmitting a STI. Epidemiologic studies need to confirm which types of concurrency are associated with elevated risk of STI. The challenge for interventions will be that individuals in some forms of concurrency may be more receptive than those in others to public health messages such as the promotion of consistent condom use. For example, in study partnerships in which partners had little control over the dynamics of sexual behavior (e.g., those in which one partner provided all economic support for both) the partners may have less ability to practice safe sex behaviors. STI programs developing interventions targeting concurrency have to recognize that concurrency meets socioeconomic needs for some that may prove more compelling than sexual health needs. Moreover, the finding that many individuals describe their practice of concurrency (especially separational and experimental forms) as socially acceptable, suggests that interventions must cast the messages about reducing concurrency in this light. Future research is required to determine how best to remind individuals that what may be acceptable within a partnership and is common behavior within their social circle, nevertheless carries a high risk for STI transmission.
1. Morris M, Kretzschmar M. Concurrent partnerships and the spread of HIV. AIDS 1997; 11: 641–648.
2. Kretzschmar M, Morris M. Measures of concurrency in networks and the spread of infectious disease. Math Biosci 1996; 133: 165–195.
3. Hudson CP. AIDS in rural Africa: a paradigm for HIV-1 prevention [editorial]. Int J STD AIDS 1996; 7: 236–243.
4. Potterat JJ, Zimmerman-Rogers H, Muth SQ, et al. Chlamydia transmission: concurrency, reproduction number, and the epidemic trajectory. Am J Epidemiol 1999; 150: 1331–1339.
5. Ghani AC, Swinton J, Garnett GP. The role of sexual partnership networks in the epidemiology of gonorrhea. Sex Transm Dis 1997; 24: 45–56.
6. Rosenberg MD, Gurvey JE, Adler N, Dunlop MB, Ellen JM. Concurrent sex partners and risk for sexually transmitted diseases among adolescents. Sex Transm Dis 1999; 26: 208–212.
7. Kraut JR, Aral SO. Sexually transmitted diseases and the duration between partnerships (“Gap”) (abstract no. 033). Presented at STI at the Millenium. Baltimore, MD; May 3–6, 2000.
8. Manhart LE, Aral SO, Holmes KK, Foxman B. Sex partner concurrency: measurement, prevalence and correlates among urban 18–39 year olds (abstract 031). Presented at STI at the Millenium. Baltimore, MD; May 3–6, 2000.
9. Morris M, Podhisita C, Wawer MJ, Handcock MS. Bridge populations in the spread of HIV/AIDS in Thailand. AIDS 1996; 10: 1265–1271.
10. Havanon N, Bennett A, Knodel J. Sexual networking in provincial Thailand. Stud Fam Plann 1993; 24: 1–17.
11. Aral SO, Hughes JP, Stoner B, et al. Sexual mixing patterns in the spread of gonococcal and chlamydial infections. Am J Public Health 1999; 89: 825–833.
12. Gorbach PM, Phalla T, Sopheab H, et al. Sexual bridging by Cambodian men: potential importance for general population spread of STD/HIV epidemics. Sex Transm Dis 2000; 27: 320–326.
13. Garnett GP, Johnson AM. Coining a new term in epidemiology: concurrency and HIV. AIDS 1997; 11: 681–683.
14. Aral S. Sexual behavior in the US. Plenary at STI at the Millenium. Baltimore, MD; May 3–6, 2000.
15. Spradley JP. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1979.
16. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1994.
17. Adimora AA, Schoenbach VJ, Martinson FEA, et al. Social context of sexual relationships among rural African Americans. Sex Transm Dis 2001; 28: 69–76.
© Copyright 2002 American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association
18. Davidovich U, de Wite JBF, Stoebe W. Assessing sexual risk behavior of young gay men in primary relationships: the incorporation of negotiated safety and negotiated safety compliance. AIDS 2000; 14: 701–706.