How LGBTQ+ Young Adults Navigate Personal Risk in App-Based Hookups: The Safety Spectrum Theory.

Research on hooking up is rife with examinations of risky sexual health practices among LGBTQ+ young adults; yet, little has been written about the personal safety practices for this population. This omission is notable because safety practices can enhance the notable positive outcomes related to hooking up. Drawing on one-on-one interviews with 50 LGBTQ+ young adults (20 cismen, 20 ciswomen, two transmen, and eight others) in British Columbia, California, and Connecticut, we developed the safety spectrum theory, which used a spectral measurement to assess how LGBTQ+ young adults negotiate safety practices and implement safety rules. This spectrum was then applied to a three-step sequence of application (app)-based hookup rituals: online initiation, pre-meeting preparation, and in-person meetup. Results indicated that safety strategies may be dictated by situational factors, where individuals adapt to varying circumstances to be more in control of personal safety when hooking up. We further identified that participants move across the spectrum depending upon contextual factors, such as the gender of the potential hookup partner. This work suggests that LGBTQ+ young adults are mindful of their personal safety and deserve more credit than previously attributed in queer and sexual health research. From these findings, we provide evidence-based recommendations to make dating/hookup apps and public health campaigns more effective at mitigating hookup-related risks.

Queering Hookup Motives in a Diverse Sample of LGBTQ+ Young Adults.

There is a paucity of research on hookup motives among LGBTQ+ young adults, despite the importance of such sexual encounters for the development of LGBTQ+ young adults' identities. In this study, we examined the hookup motives of a diverse sample of LGBTQ+ young adults through in-depth qualitative interviews. Interviews were conducted with 51 LGBTQ+ young adults across college campuses at three sites in North America. We asked participants, "What sorts of things motivate you to hook up?" and "Why do you hook up?" Six distinct hookup motives emerged from participants' responses. They included: a) pleasure/enhancement, b) intimacy and social-relationship motives, c) self-affirmation, d) coping, e) cultural norms and easy access, and f) multifaceted motives. While some of our themes cohered with previously identified hookup motives among heterosexual samples, LGBTQ+ young adults identified new and distinct motives that illustrate major differences between their hookup experiences and that of heterosexual young adults. For example, LGBTQ+ young adults were motivated to pleasure their hookup partner, not just themselves. They were also motivated by cultural norms within the queer community, easy access to hookup partners, and multifaceted motives. There is a need for data-driven ways to conceptualize hookup motives among LGBTQ+ young adults, instead of unquestioningly using heterosexual templates for understanding why LGBTQ+ individuals hook up.

School Pushout: The Role of Supportive Strategies Versus Punitive Practices for LGBT Youth of Color.

Recently, schools have focused on supportive (e.g., behavioral supports) rather than punitive (e.g., suspension) strategies to reduce school pushout among marginalized youth. We examined the association between suspension and discipline practices for students with intersecting identities (e.g., LGBT youth of color). We used teacher and student data from 1,091 schools that participated in the California School Climate and California Healthy Kids Surveys. Relative to White LGBT youth, LGBT youth of color were at higher risk of being suspended, and youth were differentially affected by punitive policies depending on their race, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity. While supportive strategies were associated with lower risk of suspension, punitive practices were associated with higher risk of suspension, especially for LGBT youth of color.

A Right to Disclose: LGBTQ Youth Representation in Data, Science, and Policy.

There has been growing attention to sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) in child and adolescent development, public discourse, and research. A strong tension is clear: The right for participation, and thus representation in data, science, and policy, is often understood as conflicting with the right for protection, that is, safety from disclosure of a marginalized orientation or identity. Both participation and protection rights are also closely tied to young people's rights to privacy (or lack thereof). We review recent scholarship on SOGI in developmental sciences in light of this tension. We focus on schooling as a salient developmental context for all youth, a place that is historically unsafe for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) youth, and a context where researchers have identified gaps of knowledge as well as strategies for improvement. Our review focuses on the politics and processes of SOGI inclusion in education data collection efforts in the United States, an area where SOGI data collection is scarce in comparison to other systems of care, such as health. We suggest that one solution to the dilemma would be that youth have the right to disclose their SOGI information to whom and when they choose. We offer strategies on how to hold these tensions in balance and move toward SOGI-inclusive research and data collection so that LGBTQ youth can be represented in data, science, and policy.

Internalization of the thin ideal among low-income ethnic minority adolescent girls.

Internalization of the thin ideal has been thought to occur disproportionately among Caucasian, upper-class girls and women. The current research challenges this view by assessing thin-ideal internalization among low-income ethnic minority girls (N=48). This research identifies differences between low-income ethnic minority adolescent girls who highly internalize the thin ideal (HI) and those who have lower internalization of thinness (LI). Results indicate that HI and LI groups do not differ based on ethnicity or weight categorization. Body satisfaction, competence, and perceived sociocultural pressure were analyzed as individual differences between HI versus LI participants. Those in the LI group have higher athletic competence and body satisfaction ratings for weight compared to the HI group. By identifying differences in thin-ideal internalization in this understudied population, factors that may protect someone from endorsing the thin ideal may be discovered.