Sex on Grindr: Young Men Who Have Sex with Men ... - AIDSTAR-One

<strong>Sex</strong> on Grindr: Young Men
Who Have <strong>Sex</strong> with Men
and Geo-Locating Social
Networking Technology
Eric Rice
Ian W. Holloway
Hailey Winetrobe
Anamika Barman-Adhikari
Harmony Rhoades
Adam Carranza
David Dent
Shannon Dunlap

Goals of Presentation
•Discuss the possibilities for risk taking associated with
geosocial networking applications for cell phones
•Describe new sampling technique using geosocial
networking applications
•Present results on sex risk taking among young men
who have sex with men (YMSM) who use Grindr
•Discuss implications for sex education and HIV
prevention

Geosocial Networking and HIV Risk
•Young Men who have <strong>Sex</strong> with Men (YMSM) continue
to be at great risk for HIV transmission
•13 – 29 year olds are = ¼ of new infections in USA
•Concerns over online partner seeking
•Inconsistent results: more partners, but not
necessarily less condom use
•Geosocial networking applications utilize geo-locating
features of cell phones
•Moves beyond online partner seeking, attraction
and interests
•Partner seeking behaviors can include geogrpahic
proximity

What is Grindr?
• Dating/ friend finding
application for smart phones
• Sorts matches by
geogrpaphic proximity
• 3 million users in 192
countries, 8000 new users a
day.

Questions Driving the Study
• What are the primary uses of the application?
• How many YMSM use it to find sex partners?
• Is finding sex partners with Grindr associated with
increase sexual risk taking?
• Is the sex YMSM have with Grindr-met partners
riskier than the sex they have with partners met
elsewhere?

Sampling Method
• West Hollywood and Long Beach
• Recruiter sat in central location in
neighborhood
• Created profile, identified as
research assistant
• Randomization chart selected users
from home screen to be approached

• Text messages sent to
users asking them to
participate in the study –
ANONYMOUS survey
• If agreed, given url
to online survey and
unique login code
• $25 gift card for
participation
• USC IRB approval

Recruitment Results
Respondent selected via randomiza2on
process in Grindr
(N=1,523)
No response to
ini2al contact
(N=1,119;
73.47%)
Refused to
par2cipate
(N=14;
0.92%)
Responded to
ini2al contact
(N=404;
26.53%)
Failed to
par2cipate
(N=181;
11.88%)
Incomplete
survey
(N=12;
0.78%)
Agreed to
par2cipate
(N=390; 25.61%)
Completed survey
(N=197; 12.93%)

Race
1%
12%
5%
10%
33%
Black
La2no/Hispanic
White
Asian/Pacific Islander
Mixed
Other
39%

Education
4% 2%
13%
Less than high school
32%
High school or GED
Some college
Bachelors degree
49%
Masters or professional
degree

<strong>Sex</strong>uality
1%
-­‐1% 2% 1%
9%
Homosexual
Bisexual
Heterosexual
Ques2oning
Queer
Other
87%

<strong>Sex</strong>ual Attraction
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
Men
Women
20
10
0
Very strongly
Somewhat
strongly
Not very
strongly
Not at all

Relationship Status
Boyfriend – open
2.6
Boyfriend – monogamous
8.2
Female spouse – monogamous
0.5
Male spouse – open
0.5
Male spouse – monogamous
1
Single
87.2
0 20 40 60 80 100

Reasons for Grindr Use, multiple responses allowed
(n=197)
reconnect with people from the past
12.2
communicate with in-­‐person friends
30.5
find people to drink/use drugs with
11.7
connect to the gay community
64.5
“kill” 2me
84.3
find someone to date
meet people to have sex/hook up with
64
64.5
make new friends
78.7
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Have you had sex with someone you met on Grindr?
Met a sex partner on Grindr
Never
24%
76%

Frequency of use by ever having met a sex partner via
Grindr (n=197), p

Duration of use by ever having met a sex partner via
Grindr (n=197), p

Primary reason for using Grindr by ever having met a
sex partner via Grindr (n=197), p

Body visibility by ever having met a sex partner via
Grindr (n=197), no significant differences.
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Face Visible Naked Chest Naked Abs Naked
Arms/Biceps
Yes
no

<strong>Sex</strong>ual behaviors by whether partner was met on
Grindr, last sex patner (n=144)
Grindr
Other
No penetra2on and no oral sexd
0
4.9
Oral sex, no condom
74.4
73.8
Oral sex, with a condom
4.9
4.6
Anal sex, no condoms/bareback
23.2
30.8
Anal sex, with a condom *
You or your partner under the
influence
35.4
31
41.5
59.8

<strong>Sex</strong>ual behaviors by whether partner was met on
Grindr, last sex patner (n=144)
Grindr
Other
Mean number of recent (past 30
day) sex partners met on Grindr **
2.82
1.08
Mean number of recent (past 30
day) male anal sex partners
3.82
1.94
Mean number of life2me male anal
sex partners
37.72
40.63

Relationship status by whether partner was met on
Grindr, last sex partner (n=144), p

Differences in unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) between last
sex partner met on Grindr vs. elsewhere (n=144)
No difference UAI Grindr, not other UAI other, not Grindr
20%
8%
72%

<strong>Sex</strong>ual behaviors with most recent sex partner met on
Grindr (n=144)
UAI
No UAI
15%
85%

Number of partners by UAI with most recent Grindrmet
sex partner (n=144)
No UAI
UAI
53.17
27.26
1.87
4.07
Life2me anal sex partners **
Recent (past 30 days) anal sex
partners ***

Summary of findings
• Many men report non-sex related reasons for using
Grindr.
• 24% never had sex with Grindr-met partner.
• More condom use reported if last partner was met on
Grindr vs. Elsewhere (60% vs. 42%, p

Conclusions
• Majority of YMSM are being responsible in their
condom using behaviors with partners met through
Grindr.
• A minority of YMSM report unprotected anal sex with
last Grindr partner, but these YMSM also report greater
numbers of lifetime and recent partners.
• Could geosocial networking applications be a platform
for HIV prevention? – Holloway presenting on those
results.

Contact: ericr@usc.edu
(213) 743 -­‐ 4766
Thanks the men of Los Angeles who participated!