Skip to main content
Guttmacher Institute

Search

  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
Guttmacher Institute
Donate

Highlights

  • Roe v. Wade Overturned
  • Reproductive Health Impact Study
  • Adding It Up
  • Abortion Worldwide
  • Guttmacher-Lancet Commission
  • Monthly Abortion Provision Study
  • US policy resources
  • State policy resources
  • State legislation tracker

Reports

  • Global
  • United States

Articles

  • Global research
  • US research
  • Policy analysis
  • Guttmacher Policy Review
  • Opinion

Fact Sheets

  • Global
  • United States
  • US State Laws and Policies

Data, Videos & Visualizations

  • Data center
  • Videos
  • Infographics
  • Public-use data sets

Peer-reviewed Journals

  • International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1975–2020)
  • Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health (1969–2020)

Global

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

US

  • Abortion
  • Contraception
  • HIV & STIs
  • Pregnancy
  • Teens

Our Work by Geography

  • Global
  • Africa
  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Latin America & the Caribbean
  • Northern America
  • Oceania

Who We Are

  • About
  • Staff
  • Board
  • Job opportunities
  • Newsletter
  • History
  • Contact
  • Conflict of Interest Policy

Media

  • Media office
  • News releases

Support Our Work

  • Make a gift today
  • Monthly Giving Circle
  • Ways to Give
  • Guttmacher Guardians
  • Guttmacher Legacy Circle
  • Financials
  • 2024 Impact Report

Awards & Scholarships

  • Darroch Award
  • Richards Scholarship
  • Bixby Fellowship
Donate
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact
News Release
June 8, 2009

Power Dynamics Within Relationships May Play A Role In Sexual Risk-Taking

Power dynamics in heterosexual relationships—which partner has the higher income, greater control over sexual and contraceptive decisions, and the stronger commitment to the relationship—may play a role in couples’ decisions to engage in risky behavior, according to "Sexual Risk-Taking Among Adult Dating Couples in the United States," by John O. G. Billy et al., published in the June 2009 issue of Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. The authors measured risky behavior by looking at whether couples had had recent anal sex and whether they had done anything to protect themselves from STDs.

According to the new analysis of data collected from 335 dating heterosexual couples participating in the National Couples Survey, couples’ sexual behaviors are not completely controlled by either partner. Several characteristics of each partner are related to risk-taking. However, some of these—having known someone with AIDS, having had an STD and perceiving that getting AIDS would be bad—are linked to risky behavior only if the partner reporting these characteristics has enough power in the relationship to influence the sexual situation.

The analysis found that couples of lower education and income levels, couples in which the female partner has had a greater number of sexual partners and couples in which the male partner has a more traditional gender role ideology have an elevated likelihood of engaging in anal sex. By contrast, couples in which the female perceives a high risk of getting AIDS are less likely than others to engage in anal sex. Couples in which the male partner has a relatively high education and income are more likely than others to do nothing to protect themselves against STDs, suggesting that couples of higher socioeconomic status perceive their risk of STD infection as lower than their poorer peers.

Although using condoms and being monogamous reduce the incidence of STDs, the authors suggest that public health efforts to encourage condom use and monogamy underestimate the difficulty people have in practicing those behaviors. Instead, Billy and colleagues suggest that couples-based interventions take into consideration relationship and power dynamics to help couples initiate and sustain safer-sex practices.

Also in this issue:

Intimate Partner Violence Among Economically Disadvantaged Young Adult Women: Associations with Adolescent Risk-Taking and Pregnancy Experiences, by Lydia O’Donnell et al.;

It’s Better on TV: Does Television Set Teenagers Up for Regret Following Sexual Initiation? by Steven C. Martino et al.;

Second Births to Teenage Mothers: Risk Factors for Low Birth Weight and Preterm Birth, by Susan N. Partington et al.;

Barriers to Adolescents’ Getting Emergency Contraception Through Pharmacy Access in California: Differences by Language and Religion, by Olivia Sampson et al.;

Minors’ Behavioral Responses to Parental Involvement Laws: Delaying Abortion Until Age 18, by Silvie Colman and Ted Joyce.

Printer-friendly version

Share

Media Contact

  • Rebecca Wind

    Guttmacher Institute
    212 248 1953
    media@guttmacher.org
Guttmacher Institute

Center facts. Shape policy.
Advance sexual and reproductive rights.

Donate Now
Newsletter Signup  Contact Us 
  • X
  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Youtube
  • LinkedIn
  • Contact

Footer

  • Privacy Policy
  • Accessibility Statement
© 2025 Guttmacher Institute. The Guttmacher Institute is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization under the tax identification number 13-2890727. Contributions are tax deductible to the fullest extent allowable.