ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

How distancing requirements in the COVID-19 pandemic transformed intimate relationships is under-researched. Against the backdrop of research on the HIV pandemic, the paper departs from the assumption that decreased legitimacy of intimate arrangements and subjective worry about the likeliness of infection may reduce the frequency of multiple sexual contact and intimate well-being during the pandemic. Based on findings from a quantitative study which included measures of risk perception, frequency of contact with sexual partners and communities, concealment, as well as relationship quality in Austria and Germany, this paper examines sexual behaviour in association with relationship status and sexual identity. Analysing data from a convenience sample of 4,709 respondents, of whom 24 per cent identified as LGBQA+, 2 per cent as non-binary, and 6 per cent as consensually non-monogamous, bivariate analysis found significant differences in social distancing, frequency of contact with sexual communities and satisfaction with current sex life. Text analysis of the survey’s open-ended responses indicates monogamisation due to declined legitimacy of less conventional intimate arrangements during the pandemic. Findings point to the importance of the sexual morality that defined pandemic experiences in times of HIV for understanding normative pressure on intimate life during COVID-19.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tchs20
Culture, Health & Sexuality
An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tchs20
The grip of pandemic mononormativity in Austria
and Germany
Barbara Rothmüller
To cite this article: Barbara Rothmüller (2021) The grip of pandemic mononormativity
in Austria and Germany, Culture, Health & Sexuality, 23:11, 1573-1590, DOI:
10.1080/13691058.2021.1943534
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2021.1943534
Published online: 27 Jul 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 96
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The grip of pandemic mononormativity in Austria
and Germany
Barbara Rothm
uller
Department of Social Psychology, Sigmund Freud University, Vienna, Austria
ABSTRACT
How distancing requirements in the COVID-19 pandemic trans-
formed intimate relationships is under-researched. Against the
backdrop of research on the HIV pandemic, the paper departs
from the assumption that decreased legitimacy of intimate
arrangements and subjective worry about the likeliness of infec-
tion may reduce the frequency of multiple sexual contact and
intimate well-being during the pandemic. Based on findings from
a quantitative study which included measures of risk perception,
frequency of contact with sexual partners and communities, con-
cealment, as well as relationship quality in Austria and Germany,
this paper examines sexual behaviour in association with relation-
ship status and sexual identity. Analysing data from a conveni-
ence sample of 4,709 respondents, of whom 24 per cent
identified as LGBQAþ, 2 per cent as non-binary, and 6 per cent
as consensually non-monogamous, bivariate analysis found signifi-
cant differences in social distancing, frequency of contact with
sexual communities and satisfaction with current sex life. Text
analysis of the surveys open-ended responses indicates monog-
amisation due to declined legitimacy of less conventional intimate
arrangements during the pandemic. Findings point to the import-
ance of the sexual morality that defined pandemic experiences in
times of HIV for understanding normative pressure on intimate
life during COVID-19.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 18 November 2020
Accepted 11 June 2021
KEYWORDS
Sexualities; COVID-19;
concealment; intimacies;
mononormativity
Introduction
As became clear in the first few weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for social
distancing significantly affected not only the organisation of public life, but also social
relationships and intimacy. Lockdowns severely restricted collective sexual practices,
spaces and communities. In Austria and Germany, sex work and shared intimacy in
bars, clubs, saunas and sex-positive venues were prohibited during the lockdown.
With significant symbolic power, one of the most famous sex-positive clubs in Berlin,
the Berghain technoclub, had to close in 2020; it has since been transformed into an
art gallery, at least temporarily (Balzer 2020). In the spring of 2020, extensive media
discourse on pandemic sexuality developed in Austria and Germany (D
oring and
CONTACT Barbara Rothm
uller Barbara.rothmueller@sfu.ac.at
ß2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY
2021, VOL. 23, NO. 11, 15731590
https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2021.1943534
Walter 2020). Around the world, several political authorities warned against the dan-
gers of sexual promiscuity and called for the reduction of sexual relationships to
household membersor for solo masturbation as a substitute for partnered sex (e.g.
NYC Health Department 2020; Public Health Agency of Canada 2020). Yet, HIV and
AIDS scholars highlighted the fact that the burden of recommendations not to have
sex with anyone outside of ones household, and unilateral advice to avoid new part-
ners, are not equally distributed in the context of state-sanctioned heterosexuality and
the rights it confers in many parts of the world(Newman and Guta 2020, 2260).
Research in the history of medicine has shown that [o]ne dramatic aspect of epi-
demic response is the desire to assign responsibility(Jones 2020, 2). WHO published a
document on mental health in mid-March 2020 highlighting the need to reduce the
stigma from COVID-19 infections and not to attach the disease to any specific social
or ethnic group (WHO 2020, 1). Stereotyping, stigma and fear of infectiousgroups
affect intimacy and dating in the COVID-19 pandemic today, as was the case with the
AIDS pandemic in the 1980s (Watkins-Hayes 2014; Valdiserri and Holtgrave 2020). Both
the HIV pandemic and earlier syphilis pandemics were considered to be the result of
irresponsible sexual behaviour (Roberto, Johnson, and Rauhaus 2020). Since the begin-
ning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the cohabitating monogamous dyad and the trad-
itional family have formed the state-protected legitimate arrangement of pandemic
societies. It is not yet clear to what extent non-traditional arrangements are stigma-
tised due to pandemic risk management. Despite striking transformations in state bio-
politics, there remains a lack of empirical data on the reconfiguration of intimate
relationships in the pandemic.
Based on findings from an online survey on love, intimacy and sexuality in the time
of COVID-19, this paper investigates the complexity of pandemic intimacy under con-
ditions of physical distancing. It asks the following questions: how so people navigate
their intimate arrangements during a lockdown; do sexual and romantic identities dif-
fer in terms of risk perception, concealment and frequency of contact to communities
of care; and how do people make sense of new pandemic normativities? Conceptually,
the paper integrates a concern for intimate citizenship with research on pandemic
normativities and their consequences for sexual well-being. Empirical data are ana-
lysed in respect of (a) changes of intimate life, and (b) accounts of the moralisation of
intimate relationships during the pandemic.
Conceptualising intimacy as a relational practice in the time of
a pandemic
Intimate citizenship
In order to integrate individual practices and societal norms of pandemic risk manage-
ment, I draw on feminist and queer approaches to intimate citizenship (Plummer
2001) because these allow us to contextualise sexual activities by relating individual
arrangements to wider society. Based on earlier conceptualisations of sexual citizen-
ship (Lister 2002; Richardson 2018), the concept of intimate citizenship includes poli-
cies and discourses on private matters such as the body, sexual pleasure, autonomy
and care. From a sociological point of view, intimacies are influenced by legal
1574 B. ROTHMÜLLER
frameworks and inequalities as well as by sociocultural expectations and everyday
moralities (Plummer 2003; Roseneil et al. 2020; Brooks 2017; Jamieson 1999).
Conceptualised as an embodied experience of closeness, trust, communication and
care in affective spaces and sexual fields, intimacy is experienced (if at all) in social
groups ranging from family to friends, datesto communities of care, or within other
structured opportunities for intimate encounters. The social negotiation of intimate
morality leads to feelings of social affinity and closeness, and of social distance and
shame, following different trajectories in specific contexts over time.
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the call to abstain from any
unnecessary social contact has resulted in the emergence of new social norms. In
Austria and Germany, a shift of intimate citizenship has been institutionalised, with
only law-abiding individuals who follow social distancing rules being viewed as valu-
able citizens. Without taking the structural and social barriers to compliant behaviour
into account, good intimate citizenship has become marked by the sanctioning of dis-
tancing as an altruistic act necessary for the common good (De Lagasnerie 2020). The
pandemic has re-institutionalised a traditional model of how people should legitim-
ately form a social unit. The French sociologist Geoffroy De Lagasnerie has asserted
that the authorization of certain contacts and the prohibition of others has produced
a psychic reconfiguration of the links that each of us maintains with otherscertain
intimate relations have been defined as strange relationships that we cannot maintain
any more(De Lagasnerie 2020). Changed distancing requirements have reinforced
traditional norms of cohabitation, commitment and monogamy. In Austria, for
example, pandemic regulations allowed adults dressed as Santa Claus to break the
curfew in order to visit children in December 2020, while at the same time prohibiting
singles from going on Tinder dates. The regulations also specify that online acquain-
tances are not to be considered close relationships.
Intimate morality
Despite the transformation of what counts as legitimate intimacy in the discourse of
sexual liberation in the recent decades, the couple remains a fundamental element in
moral debate over what constitutes intimate citizenship. Historically, monogamy is
linked to the development of bourgeois and heteronormative norms of nuclear family
life, forming the crystal of modern sexuality (Foucault 1980). Throughout the historical
process of monogamisation, mononormativities(Kean 2015; St. Vil et al. 2020) have
institutionalised a particular yet hegemonic couple norm (Roseneil et al. 2020).
Indispensable for the recognition as a respectable citizen, the performance of monog-
amy is still considered a moral obligation in most social settings, even though multi-
partnering and non-monogamy have gained significant ground in public acceptance
(Klesse 2006).
Despite this, and in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, monogamy and abstinence
have been promoted as the healthy individual choices made by responsible citizens
(Jones 2020). At the height of the HIV pandemic, the moral pressure to avoid sex
defined public health responses in the USA and many African countries. In addition to
abstinence and the use of condoms, prevention programmes recommended
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 1575
faithfulness to one partner as the main risk avoidance strategy, in contrast to the situ-
ation in Europe, where most countries focused their liberal policies on safer sex (Matic
2006). The association of HIV with promiscuity and homosexuality encouraged many
people to return to monogamy out of fear of infection (Daly 2020). This cultural prob-
lematisation of promiscuity produced shame and concealment in the case of HIV
(Hardon and Posel 2012), yet, sexual minorities also created alternative spaces of rad-
ical democratic citizenship for AIDS care and activism (Brown 1997). Managing the risk
of intimacy within communities of care was a crucial part of navigating the HIV pan-
demic and could be so in the case of COVID-19 as well (Green et al. 2018; Stephenson
et al. 2021).
What have been the consequences of pandemic normativity on intimacy?
Most recent international research suggests that the COVID-19 pandemic is decreasing
the frequency and quality of peoples sex lives, both directlydue to social distancing
requirementsand indirectly, because of (1) stress and depression, and (2) stigma and
sexual stigma (Ko et al. 2020; McKay et al. 2020). One important aspect of the trans-
formation of intimate relations concerns risk perception and anxiety linked to the like-
liness of infection (Ko et al. 2020). Yet, as researchers from the Kinsey Institute in the
USA have shown, some people have also experimented with new sexual practices and
extended their sexual repertoire during lockdown (Lehmiller et al. 2021).
Research on the HIV pandemic has highlighted that concealment and disclosure are
part of the cultural politics of secrecy and truth-telling that are a fundamental to everyday
social life (Hardon and Posel 2012). Conceptualised as a relational practice, concealment
cannot be considered to originate in the individual. Rather, shame, guilt and active silence
are expressions of cultural norms, expectations and the intention to reduce risks and
harm in respect of social relationships. Both disclosure and non-disclosure require agents
to perform emotional and moral labour(Dong et al. 2020). In a pandemic, concealment
can be seen as a social practice that covers up non-hegemonic (sexual) practices and
intimate arrangements, particularly if people are put at risk of infection.
Method
Between 130 April 2020, the Love, Intimacy and Sexuality in the Time of COVID-19 sur-
vey was conducted in Austria and Germany. In collaboration with researchers from the
Kinsey Institute at Indiana University, a German language translation of parts of their
sex and relationship survey was integrated into a larger study of intimacy, sexuality
and social solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study collected data on sex-
ual behaviour, satisfaction with sex life, and sexual desire, among other variables.
The German language questionnaire included newly items on frequency of contact
with members of sexual communities (e.g. the queer community, LGBTIAþ, sex-posi-
tive community, bodywork, polyamory, BDSM, sex work, etc.), the number of conversa-
tion partners on sexual topics, worries that intimate relationships might fall apart, and
decline of invitations to meet for sex during the pandemic. It also included four new
items that allowed for a theoretical comparison between the COVID-19 and HIV
1576 B. ROTHMÜLLER
pandemics. Two questions were included that focused on anxiety about infection as a
result of sexual behaviour in the case of respondents who engaged in partnered sex
or group sex or anonymous sex in public spaces. Two further questions addressed the
concealment of sexual contacts, needs and practices from friends and partners during
the pandemic (for details, see online supplemental appendix).
The questionnaire was developed in SoSci and distributed via major daily newspa-
pers, radio and queer networks. Based on a final sample size of 4,709 German and
Austrian adults who completed the survey (for demographic characteristics, see Table
1), data analysis was performed using SPSS. One-way ANOVA and non-parametric tests
in the case of non-normally distributed data were conducted, and effect sizes were
used to identify statistically significant differences in concealment, risk perception and
frequency of contact by gender, age, sexual identity and relationship status. A signifi-
cance level of 0.01 was used for all analyses due to the large sample size.
Additionally, 4,140 respondents answered a question on positive and negative
changes in their intimate relationships. These open-ended responses filled 458 pages
in total and allowed for an analysis of subjective experiences of the pandemics effects
on social relationships. 1,169 people further elaborated on reasons for dissatisfaction
with their current romantic and sex life via two additional open-ended questions.
Open-ended responses were not analysed in respect of frequency of occurrence.
Rather, themes were identified that represented response patterns of shared meaning,
providing additional insight into different perspectives on sexual norms and morality.
After generating descriptive themes and refining initial codes related to the research
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of participants.
Country (N, %)
Austria 3123 66.4
Germany 1583 33.6
Gender (N, %)
Female 3174 67.5
Male 1311 27.9
Non-binary 115 2.4
Other 104 2.2
Age (M, SD) 35.2 11.9
Education (N, %)
Compulsory/Secondary School 411 8.7
Gymnasium/High School 1318 28.0
University 2971 63.2
Sexual identity (N, %)
Asexual 100 2.1
Bisexual 371 7.9
Pansexual 120 2.6
Queer 178 3.8
Lesbian or gay 285 6.1
Heterosexual 3460 73.5
Kinky 63 1.3
Not sure 100 2.1
Relationship status (N, %)
No romantic or sexual relationship 677 14.4
Casual sexual relationship(s) 272 5.8
At the beginning of a new relationship 330 7.0
Committed couple (marriage or partnership) 2711 57.6
Open or polyamorous relationships 292 6.2
Unclear complicatedrelationship(s) 240 5.1
At the end of a relationship/in separation 70 1.5
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 1577
questions, content analysis was conducted on the subthemes of moral pressure, anx-
iety, concealment and responses relevant to the earlier HIV pandemic. Compelling
examples were selected for inclusion in the final analysis.
In terms of ethics, respondents were alerted to the aims of the study and assured
of anonymity of participation and data protection. Respondents were able to skip
questions; age was the only mandatory question of the survey. No IP address, referral
site or any other potentially identifying personal information was collected.
Quantitative findings
Frequency of contact with sexual partners and communities
How did the pandemic affect community involvement and frequency of contact with
current intimate partners? In April 2020, one quarter of all respondents reported being
less frequently in contact (online or offline) with their current sexual partner(s) than
before the pandemic. Almost half of participants had less contact with former sexual
or romantic partners.
Statistically significant changes in frequency were observed across different relation-
ship arrangements (see Table 3). While people in committed couple relationships often
intensified contact with their partner (Mdn ¼3), respondents with casual sexual partners
restricted their contact (Mdn ¼2), U¼216,703.50, z¼10.22, p<.001, r¼0.19. Half
of sexually active singles met their current sex partners less frequently or not at all dur-
ing contact restrictions in April 2020. This self-restriction was also reflected in the fact
that 36 per cent of participants pursuing casual sex and 21 per cent of people in non-
monogamous relationships turned down an invitation to have sex during the lockdown.
Changes in the frequency of sexual contact significantly differed according to sexual
identification H(8)¼50.10, p<.001, age, H(5) ¼62.52, p<.001 and gender, H(2) ¼
24.40, p<.001. Stable levels of contact were most often reported by asexual and les-
bian participants. Among the group of heterosexual participants, 23 per cent had less
and 38 per cent more frequent contact with their current sexual partner(s) in April
2020. Gay men reduced their sexual contact more than heterosexual men: 55 per cent
had less contact with sex partners than before the lockdown (Mdn ¼2), while the fig-
ure among heterosexual men was 26 per cent (Mdn ¼3), U¼33,856.00, z¼5.83, p
<.001, r¼0.19. In addition, 47 per cent of the respondents who identified as kinky
reported a reduction in partner contact.
The frequency of community contact varied greatly according to sexual identity
(Figure 1 and Table 2), H(8) ¼1,129.56, p<.001. Two thirds of heterosexual respondents
generally had no contact with people from sexual communities. Among respondents
identifying as LGBPQKþ, the percentage of people having no contact with sexual com-
munities was 16 per cent before the pandemic but rose to 29 per cent in April 2020.
Lockdown thus increased the isolation of sexual minorities from their communities
of affinity and care. Asexual and queer people were interesting exceptions to that
community transformation. Their community involvement was not significantly
affected by the pandemic, although in different ways. Before the pandemic, many
asexual respondents were not in contact with any community members and remained
distant from sexual communities throughout the pandemic. At the other end of the
1578 B. ROTHMÜLLER
spectrum of community involvement, queer participants remained in contact with
their peers at a relatively high level both before and during lockdown.
Intimate relationship quality
How did distancing measures affect intimacy? The reduction in sexual contacts was
not without consequences for intimate relationship quality. The distancing or deepen-
ing of intimate relationships was related to relationship status during the lockdown
(Figure 2 and Table 3), F(7, 4,653) ¼53.77, p<.001. Singles, people in separation,
those with unclear relationship status, that is, in complicatedrelationships with one
or more persons, and respondents with casual sexual partners, experienced a loss of
closeness in their intimate relationships compared to the start of the pandemic.
Gay men most frequently reported that their intimate relationship(s) had become
more distant: this was the case for one in four respondents. Almost half of the
respondents who had casual sex (43%) or were in unclear complicatedrelationships
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
asexual bisexual pansexual queer lesbian, gay heterosexual kinky not sure
Sexual identy
not at all less frequent once a week several mes a week daily
Figure 1. Frequency of community contact, by sexual identity in April 2020. In the last two weeks,
how often have you had contact with people from a sexual or gender diverse community (e.g.
queer community, LGBTIAþ, sex-positive community, bodywork, polyamory, BDSM, sex work,
or similar)?
Table 2. Changes in frequency of community contact during the lockdown in April 2020 and
before the pandemic.
Sexual identity
Frequency in
April 2020 (Mdn)
Frequency before
the pandemic (Mdn) Wilcoxon test
Asexual 5.0 5.0 Z¼2.08, p¼.038
Bisexual 4.0 3.0 Z¼7.08, p<.001
Pansexual 3.0 2.0 Z ¼4.89, p<.001
Queer 2.0 2.0 Z ¼5.44, p<.001
Lesbian and Gay 4.0 3.0 Z ¼7.68, p<.001
Heterosexual 5.0 5.0 Z ¼14.99, p<.001
Kinky 3.0 2.0 Z ¼2.57, p¼.010
Not sure 4.0 4.0 Z ¼1.59, p¼.112
Frequency: 1 ¼daily, 2 ¼several times a week, 3 ¼once a week, 4 ¼less frequent, 5 ¼not at all.
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 1579
(49%), were concerned that their intimate relationships might break up during the
pandemic (Mdn ¼4). Among committed couples, only 16 per cent were affected by
this concern (Mdn ¼2), U¼220,514.50, z¼11.54, p<.001, r¼0.21.
Furthermore, relationship status was also associated with a currently satisfying sex
life (Table 3), H(7) ¼543.08, p<.001. Particularly, singles and people in separation
reported low satisfaction. Interestingly, and despite their overall dissatisfaction with
their current sex life, survey data showed that many asexual respondents and singles
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Relaonship status
strongly deepened
somewhat deepened
stayed the same
somewhat distant
very distant
Figure 2. Distancing or deepening of intimate relationships, by relationship status. Would you say
that your intimate relationships have deepened overall in the last two weeks, have they stayed the
same, or have they become more distant?
Table 3. Change in contact frequency and distancing of intimate relationships.
Relationship status
Change of frequency
of contact with
current sexual
partners (Mdn)
Satisfaction with
current
sex life (Mdn)
Deepening of
intimate
relationships
(M, SD)
Worries that
intimate
relationships will
break apart (Mdn)
No romantic or sexual
relationship
2.0 3.5 (1.1) 3.0
Casual sexual partner(s) 2.0 3.0 3.3 (1.3) 4.0
Committed couple
(marriage/partnership)
3.0 5.0 2.7 (1.1) 2.0
At the beginning of a new
relationship
3.0 5.0 2.6 (1.3) 3.0
Open or polyamorous
relationships
3.0 4.0 2.8 (1.1) 3.0
Unclear complicated
relationship(s)
3.0 3.0 3.2 (1.2) 4.0
At the end of a
relationship/
in separation
2.0 2.0 4.0 (1.2) 5.0
Frequency:1 ¼less often, 3 ¼stayed the same, 5 ¼more often.
Satisfaction:1 ¼not at all satisfied, 7 ¼very satisfied.
Deepening:1 ¼strongly deepened, 3 ¼stayed the same, 5 ¼very distant.
Worries:1 ¼no, not at all, 7 ¼yes, very much.
1580 B. ROTHMÜLLER
without sexual relationships felt they profited from the lockdown: at last, no-one
expected them to have an active sex life. One third of the respondents without a sex-
ual or romantic relationship, and half of asexual people, felt relieved of stressful sexual
expectations due to the contact restrictions.
Concealment from friends and partners
To what extend did respondents experience concealment pressure during the pan-
demic? In respect of current sexual activities, practices and needs, non-disclosure to
friends was relatively frequentmore frequent than secrecy in intimate partnerships.
One third (33%) of respondents frequently kept their close friends in the dark about
their pandemic sexual activities, and a quarter (28%) did so sometimes. 13 per cent of
participants often did not disclose their activities to partner(s), with an additional 23
per cent of respondents sometimes concealing their sexual life or aspects thereof.
Concealment was related to respondentsrelationship status at the time of the lock-
down (concealment from partners: H(7) ¼80.23, p<.001, friends: H(7) ¼105.97, p<
.001), but not related to sexual identity, gender or age.
Only 4 per cent of participants in an open or polyamorous relationship said that
they kept their current sexual practices secret from partners, an additional 15 per cent
said they did so sometimes. In contrast to this low level of secrecy in non-monogam-
ous relationships, one third of committed couples and as many as half of interviewees
who had casual sex were hiding parts of their sexuality from their partner(s). Similarly,
people in polyamorous arrangements reported the lowest frequency of friendship
non-disclosure (Mdn ¼3, other respondents: Mdn ¼2). Survey findings showed that
concealment from friends during the pandemic also correlated with the sexual open-
ness of a persons social network (Figure 3). The lower the frequency of contact with
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
daily several mes a
week
once a week less frequent not at all
Frequency of pandemic community contact
yes oen
somemes
infrequent
never
Figure 3. Concealment of pandemic sexuality from friends, by frequency of community contact
during the pandemic. Do you keep close friends in the dark about your current sexual contacts,
needs and practices?
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 1581
members of particular sexual community before and during the pandemic, the higher
the secrecy among respondents, r¼.14, p<.001.
The most substantive finding relating to concealment concerned the number of
people that respondents had been talking to openly about their sexuality in the
12 months prior to the survey participation (see Table 3), r¼.34, p<.001. The num-
ber of available and trusted persons with whom respondents were able to be open
about their sexualities differed between sexual identity categories, H(8) ¼404.36, p<
.001. Asexual interviewees reported having the fewest conversation partners in the
year prior to their survey participation, with half of them having had only one person
to talk to about their sexuality (Mdn ¼1). Most of the heterosexual respondents had
two persons (Mdn ¼2), lesbian and gay respondents reported 3, bisexual people
reported 4, and queer, kinky and pansexual people reported 5 persons with whom
they could share sexual experiences.
Risk perception and anxiety
Overall, 83 per cent of participants who had sex with a partner, a stranger, group sex
or anonymous sex in public during the lockdown were not at all afraid of contracting
COVID-19 through their sexual activities. 76 per cent considered their sexual risk to be
very low. Only two per cent of the respondents worried about risk of infection and 3.5
per cent perceived a genuine risk of infection. Worries about infection risks were
related to sexual identity, H(8) ¼47.62, p<.001, and were not related to age, H(5) ¼
8.79, p¼.117 or gender, H(2) ¼1.43, p¼.490.
Gay, bisexual, pansexual and queer men reported significantly higher concern about
infection and showed higher risk assessment than heterosexual men (Figures 4 and 5),
U¼24,767.50, z¼5.64, p<.001, d¼0.32.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Men who have sex
with men
Heterosexual men
very low
..
...
....
.....
......
very high
Figure 4. Worries about infection. You have indicated that you have had intimate or sexual con-
tacts since the beginning of the pandemic. How great is your concern that you have been infected
with the new Corona virus? (n1 ¼138, n2 ¼458; only men who had sexual contacts; MSM ¼gay,
bisexual, pansexual and queer men).
1582 B. ROTHMÜLLER
Only 59 per cent of gay, bisexual, pansexual and queer men assessed their infection risk
asverylow.Theanxietyofthesemenmightpartlybeexplainedbythefactthattheirsexual
practices differed from heterosexual participants. Gay, bisexual, pansexual and queer men
relatively often reported cruising activities during the lockdown: 6 per cent reported looking
for sex in public places, and 10 per cent had sex with a stranger during lockdownactivities
that were of much less relevance to heterosexual men (0.7 and 2.4 per cent).
Respondents who had sex with a stranger were then more worried than other respond-
ents that their sexual practices had put them at a greater risk of COVID-19, U¼74,726.00,
z¼6.30, p<.001, r ¼0.13. Similarly, respondents reporting cruising showed greater
concern that they might have caught the virus while doing so. Collective sexualities such
as group sex were also a source of concealment and caused worries about increased risks
of COVID-19 among participants who were navigating multiple partners during the lock-
down. More than 40 per cent of participants with multiple partners reported social distanc-
ing from partners who were not living in the same household.
Navigating intimate arrangements during a pandemic: open-ended
responses
Participantstext-based answers provide insight into changes in intimacy and relationships
during the pandemic. How then did people navigate their intimate arrangements during a
lockdown? In general, they did so in a very reflexive manner.
Mononormativities
Many respondents who navigated complex arrangements before the pandemic
reduced the number of partners to one person during lockdown in April 2020a
transformation that several respondents described as enforced monogamy
1
(woman,
38, heterosexual, at the beginning of a committed relationship), state imposed
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Men who have sex
with men
Heterosexual men
very low
..
...
....
.....
......
very high
Figure 5. Risk assessment. How high do you estimate the risk that you have been infected with
the new Corona virus during your sexual activities? (n1 ¼138, n2 ¼457; only men who had sexual
contacts; MSM ¼gay, bisexual, pansexual and queer men).
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 1583
monogamy(nonbinary, 39, bisexual, open or polyamourous relationships) or
coronamonogamy, that is, no Tinder anymore, sexual contact limited to 1 person
(woman, 38, not sure, open or polyamorous relationships).
My intimacy and physical needs were spread over a number of people before the
pandemic. These included casual sexual contacts, sexual friendship, rope partners, play
partners, but also asexual cuddling-closeness. Due to the pandemic, this relationship
complexity was reduced to one person (even if it is not a romantic relationship). (Non-
binary, 36, queer, casual sexual partners)
People in open relationships explained that they stopped seeing sexual partners.
Instead of group sex or swinging, some respondents now chose to live in a purely monog-
amous relationship. People who had sex with a stranger were often afraid that they had
done something against the law yet reported having a strong sexual desire and the inabil-
ity to live a celibatelife. Several respondents described it as a loss that they were forced
to distance themselves from intimate partners and choose one exclusive partner. This left
abandoned respondents who had previously thought they were in a relationship, lonely
and deprived of touch at a time of crisis when they felt particularly vulnerable.
What becomes clear from many comments was the reduction in sexual routines
and practices to traditional models of closeness and intimacy(man, 49, pansexual,
casual sex) and the perception of queer respondents that Corona [has] destroyed the
complexity of (psycho)sexual relationships and intimate relations(non-binary, 36,
queer, casual sex). Respondents limited their intimate life to only a few people and
actively perceived that transformation as a process of monogamisation:
Although my partners still have sexual contact with others, I am currently switching to
mono. ( ) Dating is something I have let go. (I had a slip a week ago, but Ill let that go
now) Meetings are cancelled. (Im in certain groups.). (No information on gender, 27,
kinky, open or polyamorous relationships)
Queer and polyamorous people, in particular, commented on what they saw as a
new mononormativity, reflecting on their needs and choices regarding intimate rela-
tionships with loved ones.
For 5 weeks, I was only with my first partner. It also offered new moments of encounter
and intimacy. It was restful because I did not see my lover. But I also had a lot of longing
for them. I did not want to live monogamously anymore. Anyway, it is not an easy way to
feel polyamorous. Now, I have to be monogamous and I feel more clearly that this is not
what I want. I feel set back. But it is also interesting to feel that so clearly. I talk a lot with
my intimate partners about these feelings and thoughts. (Woman, 48, heterosexual, open
marriage with lover)
Complaining that the pandemic measures only suited traditional, cohabiting nuclear
families and disadvantage patchwork families, poly-relationships, or long-distance rela-
tionships, respondents living in unconventional arrangements suffered a great deal
from social distancing policies.
Moralisation and moral conflict
Respondents sensed a conservative backlash caused by the pandemicand that
relationships that are not sanctionedby living together or by a registered partnership/
1584 B. ROTHMÜLLER
marriage are (again) increasingly seen as not a real relationship,even in progressive
circles(non-binary queer respondent, age 39, open or polyamorous relationship).
Participants described of moral pressure to avoid, and barriers to, meeting other people,
in the case of unconventional arrangements or even separate households:
On the one hand, there is a tendency among female friends to look after each other and
ask how they are doing. On the other hand, I also have the feeling that the moral cudgel
is sometimes being thrown around. ( ) With regard to my relationship, it has become
strange that I suddenly have to discuss with my flatmates whether I can see my girlfriend.
(Woman, 31, lesbian, committed relationship with one person)
Single respondents in particular perceived a new moralisation of sexual relationships:
Maintaining intimate relationships is currently not possible as a single person, or if so,
only to a very limited extent. You would also probably be given stern looks, wrote a 32-
year-old respondent without relationship. Another man pointed out that the feeling that
youre doing something morally wrong hinders active datingeverything is much more
complicated and seriously moralising than before(man, 33, gay, casual sexual partners).
The mitigation of the pandemic also led to inner conflict and emotional contradic-
tions, to moral obstaclesor a moral dilemma, since on the one hand there is respon-
sibility towards society and on the other hand there is an individual need for physical
and emotional closeness(woman, 25, heterosexual, casual sex). Similarly, another
woman reported, Less contact. Fear of contact vs. desire for closeness. Daily negoti-
ation between ones own needs and morality/society(woman, 28 years old, hetero-
sexual, no romantic or sexual relationship).
Loneliness and sexual desire came into conflict with both the fears of infection and social
distancing norms. Physical closeness was perceived as taboo, being equated to a violation
of the lawwhich led to people questioning their previous sexual routines and preferences.
Casual sex is entirely impossible. Old contacts are renewed with the aim of being able to
meet after the ban on contact. Values are reconsidered. Is a permanent relationship the
better choice after all? Is my lifestyle too promiscuous? (Man, 45, gay, casual sex)
Negotiating intimate arrangements proved especially difficult in co-living commun-
ities. Following the need to justify their intimate contacts to other people living in
their shared flat, respondents reported feelings of guilt, remorse and social pressure
with comments such as friends make me feel bad. Even when some casual sex part-
ners decided on exclusivity, it will always be discussed within the shared flat whether
it is still ok or notto meet.
The flat-sharing community with my friends has become more intensive, (), everybody is
suspicious and wants to interfere in othersaffairs. ( ) I am forbidden to do anything all the
time and I have to ask for all social contacts I plan (to be at a safe distance and all). I have the
feeling that the couples feel morally superior and believe they are in the only ones in
honourable and exemplary situation and singles are automatically worse people. That was
partly true also before the lockdown. (No gender information, 23, bisexual, no relationship)
Anxiety and concealment
Anxieties were widespread among respondents and affected dating and partners alike.
Some people began to meet their partners in secret: I asked someone for a private
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 1585
meeting for the first time. I was so insecure to ask for a meeting at all because of
Corona that I felt the need to keep it a secretthat we are meeting now(no informa-
tion on gender, 27, not sure, at beginning of a committed relationship). Respondents
described how they were afraid to do something punishable and felt guilty: I feel bad
when I visit people who dont live in my household, that is why I limit myself, but it is
not entirely possible(woman, 24, heterosexual, open or polyamorous relationships).
Respondents were also uncertain if they were allowed to see their partners in a differ-
ent householdand what would happen if they did do so: Do I have to pay a fine if
the police stops us together in the car and finds out that we do not live in the same
household?(woman, 23, heterosexual, casual sex). Responses also make visible anxi-
eties based on sexual identity and race:
As a homosexual (sic), the police often do not understand that you hold hands with your
partner and that you are not a friend, and that you live together with her or him (which
is even more difficult to explain with a different skin colour). what often already leads to
looks in everyday life is aggravated by Corona, because you have to explain it three
times, maybe you are even married and have the same name, but you absolutely have to
show your passport. (Non-binary, 34, lesbian/gay, no relationship)
Some participants perceived intimate relationships as taboo and secretive—‘a little
bit like in adolescence, wrote one respondent, with others highlighting the fact that
the prohibition of intimate contact to strangers makes the thought even more exciting
to them.
Haunting memories of HIV and AIDS
Health risks and management have been omnipresent in the COVID-19 pandemic, trig-
gering a risk awareness that some respondents remembered from the earlier HIV pan-
demic. One respondent noted, The question: Are you healthy? is being asked again.
Memories of HIV and AIDS remain present in perceptions of the COVID-19 pandemic,
being particularly burdensome for those who suffered from the social distancing and
isolation caused by the HIV pandemic:
Prohibition to meet, to visit (e.g. long-distance relationships/friends with benefits), or
danger of social ostracism if people meet. Physical contact becomes dangerousagain,
now that the threat of HIV due to antiretroviral therapy and PrEP has finally receded in
recent years (through PrEP especially within the last 2 years). Now there is a new
epidemic, which makes touch/physical and intimate proximity taboo or fearful. For people
living with HIV or people who are living together or having sex with people living with
HIV, this is a new collapse of the recently and slowly built up feeling of freedom. (Man,
38, gay, unclear complicatedrelationship)
The freedom to decide individually about responsible risk management was a com-
mon topic of discussion. Criticism was directed against organisations such as the AIDS
Hilfe support service due to their advocacy for online sex over sex dating. In the view
of one gay man, 49, this was a form of health fascism. Another gay man
stressed that,
Compared to dealing with the risk of infection with HIV, the current risk regarding sex
with other people is much less life-threatening for myself than in the past. Out of
solidarity and consideration for the current capacities of the health care system, I also do
1586 B. ROTHMÜLLER
not want to contribute to the spread at the current time and put other people in danger.
(Man, 47, gay, open or polyamorous relationships)
Highlighting solidarity in risk management, respondents worried about the impossi-
bility of safer sex during COVID-19 and anticipated social cleavages.
there is no safe sex anymorethere is no intimate relationship at the moment; the
reality between singles and people in fixed relationships is drifting apart, which creates
tension in the circle of friends; I am thinking again about the AIDS crisis of the 80 s and
what it means to protect not yourself but others. (Woman, 40, queer, unclear
complicatedrelationship)
Discussion
How then according to this survey did people navigate their intimate arrangements
during lockdown? Findings support the claim that the pandemic re-institutionalised
traditional modes of intimate citizenship. Empirical data indicate significant transfor-
mations in intimate arrangements and their legitimacy in Austria and Germany in April
2020both at the political level, by creating lockdown conditions that prioritised and
protected romantic couples living in the same household; and at the social level, by
moralising and anticipating the negative moral evaluation of non-dyadic intimate
arrangements. Even though results from this non-representative survey sample cannot
be generalised, some of the findings reveal insight into new forms of intimacy arising
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
As was already the case at the height of the HIV pandemic, gay, bisexual and other
men who have sex with men appear to be one of the groups most affected by the
COVID-19 pandemic. They reported greater health concerns as well as higher levels of
risk assessment in respect of their sexual activities during lockdown than heterosexual
men. They were also more likely to reduce the frequency of sexual contact, with the
result that they were more anxious that their sexual relationships might be on the
edge of breaking apart. Findings from the analysis of text-based responses show how
the memory of HIV informed some of these respondentsaccounts of intimacy, abstin-
ence and pandemic morality in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Yet, as the results also show, these men were not the only group to have signifi-
cantly transformed their intimate life due to pandemic risks. People in non-monogam-
ous relationships were also under pressure to alter their sexual practices. Those
participating in specific cultures of intimacy such as anonymous sex, and sex with sev-
eral partners experienced higher viral risk perception, as well as greater social and
moral pressure, than monogamous dyadic arrangements.
Findings illustrate the various ways in which people process pandemic mononorma-
tivities, ranging from resisting or questioning them, to accepting them as a temporary
phenomenon, or welcoming permission to refrain from exhausting relationship com-
plexities. The fact that the lockdown provided relief for so many asexual people and
singles provides an impressive illustration of the pressure to find a partner and have
partnered sex in Austrian and German society today (cf. Roseneil et al. 2020, 227f). The
emerging shift in social norms towards sexual restraint, however, has a flip side. As
much as diminishing expectations of an exciting sex life felt liberating to happily
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 1587
autonomous singles, conversely, those respondents who would have liked to live
unconventional forms of intimacy with their partner(s) now experienced deeply trou-
bling and sometimes intrusive expectations of monogamy, commitment and stable
cohabitation. Evidence from the survey research supports the thesis that the shift from
the legally sanctioned couple norm towards more liberal and pluralistic norms of
intimate life in the past may have come to anat least temporaryend during the
COVID-19 pandemic. The governance of the pandemic is intensifying the moral weight
of the couple norm, linking non-traditional alternatives to public health threat and
death. The gripof the couple norm has not been loosened (Roseneil et al. 2020, 216);
instead, we register the rise of a renewed culture of mononormativity, sexual exclusiv-
ity and cohabitation in viral times.
The COVID-19 pandemic has pressured people to turn to monogamy due to fear of
infection. Bad conscience and the monogamisation of sexual relationships may trans-
form queer and non-monogamous sexualities, particularly due to the loss of commu-
nity contact throughout the pandemic. A follow-up study conducted in Austria and
Germany in November and December 2020 (Rothm
uller 2021) found additional evi-
dence of the increased isolation of sexual minorities as well as stigmatisation due to
their relationship status in the course of the pandemic: fully 21 per cent of consensu-
ally non-monogamous respondents reported experiencing social exclusion due to their
polyamorous relationships during the pandemic, with 40 per cent of non-monogam-
ous respondents remaining in contact with their primary partner only.
At the beginning of the pandemic, and in a time of increased moral pressure on
minoritised forms of sexuality, community contact provides some relief from conceal-
ment and the effects of a limiting sexual morality. The results indicate that communi-
cation and trust within sexual communities reduces concealment pressure. Contrary to
public discourse that regards non-hegemonic sexuality as a driver of the pandemic,
this study identified moral conflict and careful consideration of pandemic risks among
sexual minority participants.
Instead of stigmatising non-hegemonic forms of sexuality, a comprehensive
approach to the structural, emotional and social aspects of risk reduction is key to
supporting peoples sexual and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic (Eaton
and Kalichman 2020). Pandemic mitigation strategies can learn from the HIV crisis by
taking the psychosocial dimensions and consequences of distancing into account,
instead of using moral persuasion to encourage people to make responsible decisions
(Eaton and Kalichman 2020). Non-stigmatising mitigation strategies rely on community
mobilisation and collective practices of care (Logie and Turan 2020). Yet, unlike the
HIV pandemic when communities of care were important providers of social support,
the COVID-19 pandemic separation of individuals from communities prevented stigma-
tised people from accessing support at a time when they were most targeted for their
sexual and romantic arrangements.
Note
1. All answers were translated from German to English by the author. Use of small letters as in
the original.
1588 B. ROTHMÜLLER
Acknowledgements
Thanks go to Nora Ruck, Emelie Rack, Sophie K
onig, Anna Maria Diem and David Seistock from
the Sigmund Freud University in Vienna for their support with the COVID-19 research project. I
also thank Amanda Gesselman and the Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, for their co-operation
in a pilot study in the spring 2020.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
References
Balzer, J. 2020.Berghain: Jetzt kann nur mehr Kunst helfen.Die Zeit, September 8. https://
www.zeit.de/kultur/kunst/2020-09/berghain-ausstellungshalle-berlin-schliessung-techno-club-
coronavirus
Brooks, A. 2017.Genealogies of Emotions, Intimacies, and Desire. Theories of Changes in Emotional
Regimes from Medieval Society to Late Modernity. New York: Routledge.
Brown, M. 1997.RePlacing Citizenship: AIDS Activism and Radical Democracy. New York: Guilford
Press.
Daly, S. J. 2020.Bisexual Women and Monogamy.In Bisexuality in Europe: Sexual Citizenship,
Romantic Relationships, and Bi þIdentities, edited by E. Maliepaard and R. Baumgartner,
11114. Abingdon: Routledge.
De Lagasnerie, G. 2020.Clapping for Anti-Modernism and Nationalist Submission.Accessed
April 2, 2020. https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/clapping-anti-modern-
ism-and-nationalist-submission
Dong, W., K. E. Muessig, K. A. Knudtson, A. Gilbertson, S. Rennie, K. Soni, and L. B. Hightow-
Weidman. 2020.Moral Practices Shaping HIV Disclosure among Young Gay and Bisexual Men
Living with HIV in the Context of Biomedical Advance.Culture, Health & Sexuality. doi:10.
1080/13691058.2020.1790039
D
oring, N., and R. Walter. 2020.Wie ver
andert die COVID-19-Pandemie unsere Sexualit
aten?
Eine
Ubersicht medialer Narrative im Fr
uhjahr 2020.Zeitschrift F
ur Sexualforschung 33 (02):
6575.
Eaton, L. A., and S. C. Kalichman. 2020.Social and Behavioral Health Responses to COVID-19:
Lessons Learned from Four Decades of an HIV Pandemic.Journal of Behavioral Medicine 43
(3): 341345.
Foucault, M. 1980. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage Books.
Green, H. D., M. R. Weeks, M. Berman, H. I. Mosher, M. Abbott, and N. Garcia. 2018.Managing
the Risk of Intimacy: Accounts of Disclosure and Responsiveness among People with HIV and
Intimate Partners of People with HIV.Culture, Health & Sexuality 20 (10): 11171129.
Hardon, A., and D. Posel. 2012.Secrecy as Embodied Practice: Beyond the Confessional
Imperative.Culture, Health & Sexuality 14 (Sup 1): S1S13.
Jamieson, L. 1999.Intimacy Transformed? A Critical Look at the Pure Relationship.Sociology
33 (3): 477494.
Jones, D. S. 2020.History in a Crisis - Lessons for Covid-19.The New England Journal of
Medicine 382 (18): 16811683.
Kean, J. 2015.A Stunning Plurality: Unravelling Hetero- and Mononormativities through HBOs
Big Love.Sexualities 18 (56): 698713.
Klesse, C. 2006.Polyamory and its Others: Contesting the Terms of Non-Monogamy.
Sexualities 9 (5): 565583.
Ko, N.-Y., W.-H. Lu, Y.-L. Chen, D.-J. Li, Y.-P. Chang, C.-F. Wu, P. W. Wang, and C.-F. Yen. 2020.
Changes in Sex Life among People in Taiwan during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Roles of
CULTURE, HEALTH & SEXUALITY 1589
Risk Perception, General Anxiety, and Demographic Characteristics.International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 17 (16): 5822.
Lehmiller, J., J. Garcia, A. Gesselman, and K. P. Mark. 2021.Less Sex, but More Sexual Diversity:
Changes in Sexual Behavior during the COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic.Leisure Sciences 43
(12): 295304.
Lister, R. 2002.Sexual Citizenship.In Handbook of Citizenship Studies, edited by Engin Isin and
Bryan Turner, 191208. London: SAGE.
Logie, C. H., and J. M. Turan. 2020.How Do We Balance Tensions Between COVID-19 Public
Health Responses and Stigma Mitigation? Learning from HIV Research.AIDS Behavior 24 (7):
20032006.
Matic, S. 2006.Twenty-five Years of HIV/AIDS in Europe.In HIV/AIDS in Europe, edited by S.
Matic, J. Lazarus, and M. Donoghoe, 115. Copenhagen: WHO.
McKay, T., J. Henne, G. Gonzales, R. Quarles, K. A. Gavulic, and S. G. Gallegos. 2020.The COVID-
19 Pandemic and Sexual Behavior among Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States.
Working Paper, SocArXiv. doi:10.31235/osf.io/8fzay
New York City Health Department. 2020.Safer Sex and COVID-19. Fact sheet. Accessed
February 16, 2021. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/doh/downloads/pdf/imm/covid-sex-guidance.
pdf
Newman, P. A., and A. Guta. 2020.How to Have Sex in an Epidemic Redux: Reinforcing HIV
Prevention in the COVID-19 Pandemic.AIDS & Behavior 24 (8): 22602264.
Plummer, K. 2001.The Square of Intimate Citizenship: Some Preliminary Proposals.Citizenship
Studies 5 (3): 237253.
Plummer, K. 2003.Intimate Citizenship: Private Decisions and Public Dialogues. Seattle and
London: University of Washington Press.
Public Health Agency of Canada. 2020. Statement from the Chief Public Health Officer of
Canada on 2 September 2020, Dr Theresa Tam. X Monat Jahr. https://www.canada.ca/en/pub-
lic-health/news/2020/09/statement-from-the-chief-publichealth-officer-of-canada-on-septem-
ber-2-2020.html
Richardson, D. 2018.Sexuality and Citizenship. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Roberto, K. J., A. F. Johnson, and B. M. Rauhaus. 2020.Stigmatization and Prejudice during the
COVID-19 Pandemic.Administrative Theory & Praxis 42 (3): 364378.
Roseneil, S., I. Crowhurst, T. Hellesund, A. C. Santos, and M. Stoilove. 2020.The Tenacity of the
Couple-Norm.In Intimate Citizenship Regimes in a Changing Europe. London: UCL Press.
Rothm
uller, B., ed. 2021.Liebe, Sexualit
at und Solidarit
at in der COVID-19-Pandemie. Erste
Ergebnisse der Pilotstudie und Folgeerhebung 2020. Vienna: Sigmund Freud University Press.
St. Vil, N. M., L. Y. Bay-Cheng, H. G. Ginn, and Z. Chen. 2020.Perceptions of Monogamy,
Nonconsensual Nonmonogamy and Consensual Nonmonogamy at the Intersections of Race
and Gender.Culture, Health & Sexuality. doi:10.1080/13691058.2020.1817561
Stephenson, R., T. M. D. Chavanduka, M. T. Rosso, S. P. Sullivan, R. A. Pitter, A. S. Hunter, and E.
Rogers. 2021.Sex in the Time of COVID-19: Results of an Online Survey of Gay, Bisexual and
Other Men Who Have Sex with Mens Experience of Sex and HIV Prevention During the US
COVID-19 Epidemic.AIDS & Behavior 25 (1): 4048.
Valdiserri, R. O., and D. Holtgrave. 2020.Responding to Pandemics: What Weve Learned from
HIV/AIDS.AIDS Behavior 24 (7): 19801982.
Watkins-Hayes, C. 2014.Intersectionality and the Sociology of HIV/AIDS: Past, Present, and
Future Research Directions.Annual Review of Sociology 40 (1): 431457.
WHO. 2020.Mental Health and Psychosocial Considerations during the COVID-19 Outbreak.
Accessed March 18, 2020. https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/mental-
health-considerations.pdf
1590 B. ROTHMÜLLER
... Because people who are polyamorous may have close relationships or engage in sexual activity with those who live outside their household (Manley & Goldberg, 2021;Silva Camargo et al., 2022), social distancing may have posed particular problems for enacting those relationships in a fulfilling way (Hakim et al., 2022). Recent investigations have drawn a comparison between LGBTQ and polyamorous identities during periods of Covid-19, with social pandemic restrictions creating a pressure toward a "coronamonogamy" prioritizing a single primary relationship (Hakim et al., 2022;Rothmüller, 2021). Unsurprisingly, a recent qualitative investigation of CNM parents found that parents spent less time with non-cohabiting partners during the May-December 2020 period of the pandemic (Manley & Goldberg, 2021). ...
... Indeed, on Reddit, polyamorists more often mentioned feeling lonely or alone when describing their response to Covid-19, a feeling less prevalent among swingers. Findings from prior research have suggested that increased social connectivity before and during lockdown periods was associated with lower levels of stress, worrying, and loneliness (Kovacs et al., 2021;Nitschke et al., 2020), and that during the pandemic face-to-face and same-home partnerships were often prioritized over partnerships involving distances and different homes (Rothmüller, 2021). Thus, reactions to Covid-19 within the CNM community may vary with the dynamics of their members' cohabitation. ...
Article
Full-text available
Using Owen’s Thematic Analysis, we reviewed the Reddit posts of participants in two online communities regarding consensual non-monogamy (CNM) during the January 2021 peak of the Covid-19 pandemic. In 5,209 comments, 465 unique users in the /polyamory and /swinging forums on the social media platform Reddit referred to the pandemic with two themes emerging as most salient. In the first theme, participants described, interpreted, and responded to the social limitations of the Covid-19 era, with particular attention to limitations on CNM identity and behavior during the pandemic. In the second theme, participants articulated concerns about individual and social health. In addition to strictly personal concerns about physical and mental health, participants described challenges to the well-being of relationships and communities and ways to manage risk and mitigate social damage. We discuss the implication of these findings in light of the unique social structure of CNM communities.
... The COVID-19 crisis is often rightly seen as a situation which magnifies and accelerates existing inequalities and exclusions (Bayramoglu and Castro Varela, 2021;Laster Pirtle & Wright, 2021). Research on CNM relationships during COVID-19 show that the crisis also transformed polyamorous networks often living across several households (Rothmüller, 2021). All of the issues discussed in the contributions of this Special Issue discussed so far (legal issues, division of labor, transgression of categories) are addressed again in the article of Melissa H. Manley and Abbie E. Goldberg. ...
Article
Full-text available
This special issue explores key issues regarding the parenting practices within polyamorous and consensually non-monogamous intimate relationships. The contributions are concerned with the stigmatization of child-care practices that deviate from the default of couple-based monogamy, exceed biological definitions of kinship and experiment with new forms of spatial organization beyond shared residence. In this introduction, we highlight key themes of previous research, highlight normative pressures and counter-normative contestations around the themes of exclusivity, gendered parenting roles, relational development framed as intimate growth and a pervasive reproductive futurism. Polyamorous parenting practices negotiate a complex social terrain shaped by social and health policies, law, housing development, creating new avenues for parenting roles, and the (re)organization of care work and the division of labour in child-rearing.
... Sexual intimacies and practices were not exempt from this development (Dawson and Dennis, 2020;Schnepf and Probst, 2020), as they found themselves governed by new rules and regulations, as well as being delegated to coupledom and the privacy of the household (McKenzie, 2020;Newerla, 2021). These emerging 'pandemic mononormativities' (Rothmüller, 2021) also call into question the taken-for-granted place of casual and transactional sex in Berlin's cityscape, whose material presences in the famously sexually liberal capital almost entirely disappeared due to the governance of urban spaces during the pandemic. Yet, as the example of Pornceptual shows, these disappearances and regulations did not remain uncontested by communities centred around non-normative sexual practices. ...
Article
Since its reunification, Berlin has regained its reputation as a sexually liberal European metropolis, offering spaces and infrastructures for non-normative sex to become present in the cityscape. However, with the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and the concomitant measures to contain its spread, sexual practices and their open display have become highly contested and subject to increased regulation. In this article, we attend to sex work and casual sex among gay men, who, both historically and at present, have been placed under particular public scrutiny and moralised (health) governance. Yet, non-normative sex did not vanish from the city during the pandemic, but (re-)appeared in the form of both moralising media exposure and politically motivated public appearances. Attending to the intersections and divergences within these shifting presences of casual gay sex and sex work, we highlight how the biopolitical governance of pandemic sex has been evaded, contested and incorporated into efforts to normalise certain sexual activities. We therefore conclude that the pandemic had ambivalent effects on non-normative sexual practices in Berlin. It contributed to a further politicisation in the fight for their place in the city and to the (re-)emergence of normative assumptions about the respectable sexual subject for and within communities centred around non-normative sexual practices.
Chapter
Die Pandemie wirkte in weite gesellschaftliche Bereiche hinein und forderte eine kurzfristige Restrukturierung vieler bereits gewohnter Abläufe. Vor diesem Hintergrund fragt dieser Beitrag aus sozialpädagogischer Perspektive nach den Konsequenzen der Krise für Kinder, Jugendliche und ihre Eltern, unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Aspekte Generation, Gender und soziale Ungleichheit. Bezugnehmend auf zwei narrative Interviews mit Müttern*, die Einblicke in ihr Alltagserleben im Kontext der Pandemie geben, können Bearbeitungslinien und Suchbewegungen im Rahmen von Destabilisierungs-, Refamilialisierungs- und Retraditionalisierungstendenzen exemplarisch nachgezeichnet werden.
Article
Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic impacted profoundly on the wellbeing and social interactions of the world population, and all dimensions of sexual health were potentially affected by globally implemented preventive measures. Objectives The scoping review aimed to compile existing research investigating possible effects of COVID-19 lockdowns on adult sexual health, that is, sexual behavior, functioning, and satisfaction. Further, studies on the interplay between mental health and sexual well-being during the pandemic were reviewed. Methods The review was conducted in accordance with guidelines established by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) Checklist. On October 11–12, 2021, PubMed, Embase, PsycInfo, Cinahl, Cochrane, Sociological Abstracts and Scopus were systematically searched for relevant peer-reviewed papers employing quantitative methodology. Additionally, unpublished (“grey”) research studies on the subject were retrieved. The screening, data extraction, and analysis of evidence were conducted by 4 independent reviewers using an iterative approach. Results Based on 107 studies included, the scoping review showed that the pandemic had had a wide impact on all dimensions of sexual health. Except for solo sex activities, mainly negative COVID-19 implications were identified, although findings were, in sum, characterized by complexity and unpredictability. Thus, sexual behavior, functioning, and satisfaction during the pandemic appeared to be mitigated by a broad range of sociodemographic and contextual factors. Finally, sexual health seemed deeply entwined with overall mental health. Conclusion The scoping review revealed a broad range of COVID-19-related effects on sexual health, including an overall decline in partnered sex and a concurrent increase in solo sex activities. It also emphasized a need for future research to shed light on possible long-term consequences of the pandemic in various population groups and on all aspects of sexual health. Toldam NE, Graugaard C, Meyer R, et al. Sexual Health During COVID-19: A Scoping Review. Sex Med Rev 2022;XX:XXX–XXX.
Article
Full-text available
Government controls over intimate relationships, imposed to limit the spread of Sars-CoV-2, were unprecedented in modern times. This study draws on data from qualitative interviews with 18 participants in Natsal-COVID, a quasi-representative web-panel survey of the British population (n = 6,654 people), reporting that they had sex with someone from outside their household in the preceding four weeks; a period in which contact between households was restricted in the UK. Whilst only 10% of people reported sexual contact outside their household, among single people and those in non-cohabiting relationships, rates were much higher (Natsal-COVID). Our findings show that individuals did not take decisions to meet up with sexual partners lightly. Participants were motivated by needs-for connection, security, intimacy and a sense of normality. People balanced risks-of catching COVID-19, social judgement and punishment for rule-breaking-against other perceived risks, including to their mental health or relationships. We used situated rationality and social action theories of risk to demonstrate that people weighed up risk in socially situated ways and exhibited complex decision-making when deciding not to comply with restrictions. Understanding motivations for non-compliance is crucial to informing future public health messaging which accounts for the needs and circumstances of all population members.
Article
Bislang ist wenig über positive unintendierte Nebeneffekte der Distanzierungsmaßnahmen in der Covid-19-Pandemie bekannt. Der Beitrag präsentiert Ergebnisse zweier quantitativer Erhebungen zu den Veränderungen sozialer Beziehungen während der Lockdowns in Österreich und Deutschland. Neben statistischen Auswertungen der am häufigsten wahrgenommenen, positiven Nebeneffekte werden offene Antworten aus der zweiten Erhebung im November/Dezember 2020 analysiert, in denen 1.378 Befragte ausführten, welche »neuen schönen Dinge« sie in der Pandemie gefunden haben, die ihnen gut tun. Die Daten liefern Hinweise auf zumindest fünf unterschiedliche, als positiv erlebte Nebeneffekte der Pandemiemaßnahmen: 1) Vertiefung intimer Beziehungen, 2) Genuss zeitlicher Spielräume, 3) Selbstsorgepraktiken, 4) lustvolle neue Aktivitäten und 5) Werteverschiebungen. Der Beitrag kontextualisiert die Voraussetzungen eines »Aufblühens« unter Pandemiebedingungen soziologisch und bietet ein Korrektiv zur nostalgischen Verklärung der Zeit vor der Pandemie.
Article
Full-text available
Background After decades of navigating HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, gay and bisexual men are responding to new and uncertain risks presented by the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic by adapting their sexual behavior. Methods This paper uses data from a national sample of 728 gay and bisexual men collected from April 10 to May 10, 2020, to examine changes to sexual behavior in response to the first wave of the pandemic in the USA. We also assess whether behavior modifications are associated with exposure to statewide public health measures, including Stay-at-Home orders. Results Sexual minority men report significant changes to their sexual behavior and partner selection during the first wave. Nine out of 10 men reported having either one sexual partner or no sexual partner in the last 30 days at the time of interview, a decrease compared to just before the pandemic for nearly half of men surveyed. Reporting no sexual partners in the last 30 days was significantly predicted by increased exposure to a Stay-at-Home order. Sexual minority men also reduced interactions with casual partners, increased no-contact sexual behaviors (e.g., masturbation and virtual sex), and engaged in new strategies to reduce their risks of infection from partners. HIV-positive men were particularly likely to adopt strategies including avoiding casual partners and avoiding public transportation to meet sexual partners. Conclusion Sexual minority men’s behavior changes during the first wave may have reduced the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on their communities. Despite substantial changes in sexual behavior for most men in our sample during the initial first wave, we identify some concerns around the sustainability of certain behavioral changes over time and nondisclosure of COVID-19 symptoms to partners.
Book
Full-text available
The Tenacity of the Couple-Norm explores the ongoing strength and insidious grip of couple-normativity across changing landscapes of law, policy and everyday life in four contrasting national contexts: the UK, Bulgaria, Norway and Portugal. By investigating how the couple-norm is lived and experienced, how it has changed over time, and how it varies between places and social groups, this book provides a detailed analysis of changing intimate citizenship regimes in Europe, and makes a major intervention in understandings of the contemporary condition of personal life. The authors develop the feminist concept of ‘intimate citizenship’ and propose the new concept of ‘intimate citizenship regime’, offering a study of intimate citizenship regimes as normative systems that have been undergoing profound change in recent decades. Against the backdrop of processes of de-patriarchalization, liberalization, pluralization and homonormalization, the ongoing potency of the couple-norm becomes ever clearer. The authors provide an analysis of how the couple-form is institutionalized, supported and mandated by legal regulations, social policies and everyday practices, and how this serves to shape the intimate life choices and trajectories of those who seem to be living aslant to the conventional heterosexual cohabiting couple-form. Attending also to practices and moments that challenge couple-normativity, both consciously chosen and explicit, as well as circumstantial, subconscious and implicit, The Tenacity of the Couple-Norm makes an important contribution to literatures on citizenship, intimacy, family life, and social change in sociology, social policy, socio-legal studies, gender/sexuality/queer studies and psychosocial studies.
Article
Full-text available
This paper presents data from a recent cross-sectional survey of gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) in the US, to understand changes in sexual behavior and access to HIV prevention options (i.e. condoms and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)) during the COVID-19 lockdown period. The Love and Sex in the Time of COVID-19 survey was conducted online from April to May, 2020. GBMSM were recruited through advertisements featured on social networking platforms, recruiting a sample size of 518 GBMSM. Analysis considers changes three in self-reported measures of sexual behavior: number of sex partners, number of anal sex partners and number of anal sex partners not protected by pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) or condoms. Approximately two-thirds of the sample reported that they believed it was possible to contract COVID-19 through sex, with anal sex reported as the least risky sex act. Men did not generally feel it was important to reduce their number of sex partners during COVID-19, but reported a moderate willingness to have sex during COVID-19. For the period between February and April-May 20,202, participants reported a mean increase of 2.3 sex partners during COVID-19, a mean increase of 2.1 anal sex partners (range - 40 to 70), but a very small increase in the number of unprotected anal sex partners. Increases in sexual behavior during COVID-19 were associated with increases in substance use during the same period. High levels of sexual activity continue to be reported during the COVID-19 lockdown period and these high levels of sexual activity are often paralleled by increases in substance use and binge drinking. There is a clear need to continue to provide comprehensive HIV prevention and care services during COVID-19, and telehealth and other eHealth platforms provide a safe, flexible mechanism for providing services.
Article
Full-text available
This study used data collected from an online survey study on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Taiwan to examine changes in sex life during the pandemic and the factors affecting such changes. In total, 1954 respondents were recruited from a Facebook advertisement. The survey inquired changes in sex life during the pandemic, including satisfaction with the individual’s sex life, frequency of sexual activity, frequency of sex-seeking activity, and frequency of using protection for sex. The associations of change in sex life with risk perception of COVID-19, general anxiety, gender, age, and sexual orientation were also examined. For each aspect of their sex life, 1.4%–13.5% of respondents reported a decrease in frequency or satisfaction, and 1.6%–2.9% reported an increase in frequency or satisfaction. Risk perception of COVID-19 was significantly and negatively associated with frequencies of sexual and sex-seeking activities. Higher general anxiety was significantly and negatively associated with satisfaction of sex life and frequencies of sexual and sex-seeking activities. Sexual minority respondents were more likely to report decreased satisfaction with sex life and frequencies of sexual activity and sex-seeking activities during COVID-19. Health care providers should consider these factors when developing strategies for sexual wellness amid respiratory infection epidemics.
Article
Full-text available
Zusammenfassung Einleitung Anlässlich der COVID-19-Pandemie wurden ab März 2020 in Deutschland und vielen anderen Ländern weitreichende Infektionsschutzmaßnahmen verhängt. Deren Auswirkungen auf Individuen und Gesellschaft waren sofort Gegenstand intensiver medialer Debatten. Forschungsziele Vor diesem Hintergrund verfolgt die vorliegende Studie das Ziel, die medialen Narrative speziell zu sexualitätsbezogenen Veränderungen durch die COVID-19-Pandemie herauszuarbeiten. Methoden Dazu wurde eine Stichprobe von N = 305 massenmedialen Beiträgen aus dem Februar und März 2020 hinsichtlich 1) der behandelten Aspekte von Sexualität (z. B. Partnersex, Solosex), 2) der angebotenen Corona-Sex-Narrative (z. B. Mehr-Partnersex-Narrativ; Weniger-Partnersex-Narrativ) sowie 3) der Meta-Narrative (z. B. Krise als Chance, Krise als Risiko, Krise als Chance und Risiko zugleich) analysiert. Zudem wurden exemplarisch Beiträge aus Sozialen Medien untersucht. Die Studie folgt dem Open Science Ansatz: Stichprobe, Codebuch, Reliabilitätskoeffizienten und Datensatz sind über den Server der Open Science Foundation zugänglich ( https://osf.io/ew6t3/ ). Ergebnisse Es zeigte sich, dass in den Massenmedien Veränderungen beim Partnersex und Solosex sowie hinsichtlich verschiedener Aspekte sexueller und reproduktiver Gesundheit und Rechte auf der Agenda standen. Dabei wurden für Partnersex teilweise und für Solosex durchgängig Corona-Sex-Narrative angeboten, die eine Verbesserung der Situation in dem Sinne behaupten, dass es zu mehr und zu lustvollerem Sex kommt. Gleichzeitig gingen die problembezogenen Corona-Sex-Narrative fast durchgängig von einer Verschlimmerung der Lage aus, etwa einem Mehr an sexualisierter häuslicher Gewalt, einem Mehr an Zugangshürden zum Schwangerschaftsabbruch, einem Mehr an Ungewissheiten bei Schwangerschaft und Geburt, einem Mehr an ökonomisch existenzbedrohlichen Lagen in der Sexarbeit und einem Mehr an Diskriminierung von LGBTIQ-Personen. Schlussfolgerung Im medialen Diskurs über sexualitätsbezogene Auswirkungen der COVID-19-Pandemie zeigten sich zwei auffällige Tendenzen: Eine sehr sexpositive, kommerzfreundliche bis geradezu glorifizierende Würdigung von Solosex und Onlinesex sowie eine starke Sensibilisierung für bestimmte Einschränkungen der sexuellen und reproduktiven Selbstbestimmung. Es bleibt unklar, inwiefern die medialen Corona-Sex-Narrative tatsächliche Veränderungen umfassend und akkurat abbilden, da dazu empirische Daten fehlen.
Article
Full-text available
Sexual health is a fundamental determinant of health and wellbeing. All persons—including gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM)—have the right to enjoy a safe and pleasurable sexual life with access to comprehensive information, affirmative care, and an enabling legal and sociopolitical environment [1]. The COVID19 pandemic threatens to disrupt HIV programs and global progress toward UNAIDS 90–90-90 targets [2, 3]. The unprecedented repurposing of health services and resources to address COVID-19, along with necessary restrictive public health measures [4], present a spectrum of psychological, sociocultural, structural, and biomedical concerns for sexual health and HIV prevention [5]. In this Note, we draw on lessons learned from four decades of the HIV response with GBMSM communities, and our respective programs of research, to advocate carefully recalibrated, community-engaged approaches to reinforcing HIV prevention in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article
Given the historical entrenchment of racialised stereotypes of Black women and Black men as sexually promiscuous, we wondered whether consensual nonmonogamy (CNM) among Black partners would be seen as favourably as among white partners. We also wondered if Black participants would perceive different relationship types differently from white participants. We pursued these questions in a vignette study featuring heterosexual couples coded as Black or as white and engaged in three different relationship types: monogamy, nonconsensual nonmonogamy (NCNM) and CNM. To facilitate comparisons across race*gender intersections, we used a sample comprising equivalent numbers of Black women, white women, Black men and white men aged 18-40. Contrary to expectations, analyses did not offer evidence of a racialised sexual double standard insofar as participant perceptions of relationship quality did not differ when considering a Black couple or a white couple. Indicating the persistence of mononormativity, participants across race*gender subsamples perceived monogamous relationships to be of higher quality, regardless of the vignette couple's race. We also found Black women, Black men and white women perceived CNM more favourably than NCNM, while there was no differentiation between CNM and NCNM among white men.
Article
Biomedical advances in diagnostics, treatment and prevention increase the means available to reduce HIV transmission risk. Subsequent shifts in HIV status disclosure obligation and ethics may impact how those living with HIV view, enact and experience disclosure. We analysed focus group and interview data to explore how these changes are reflected in disclosure decision-making to sexual partners among young gay and bisexual men living with HIV in the USA. Three interrelated themes were identified: engaging with partners’ varying HIV knowledge; attribution of blame; and negotiating disclosure-related harms. Participants experienced blame from partners that questioned the timing of HIV testing, status disclosure and sex events without regards for viral suppression or use of pre-exposure prophylaxis. Substantial HIV stigma was described in response to disclosure, mitigated in some cases by partners’ higher HIV knowledge. Overall, an uneven diffusion of HIV treatment and prevention knowledge and continuing HIV stigma seemed to limit the translation of biomedical advances into improved disclosure experiences. Our findings suggest that young gay and bisexual men living with HIV may continue to perform much of the moral labour involved in disclosure by managing others’ reactions, correcting inaccurate sexual health information, and negotiating the risks of disclosure-related harm.
Article
Recreational sex is a popular form of leisure that has been redefined by the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic. “Social distancing” rules have imposed limits on sex for leisure while also creating new opportunities. We discuss results from an online survey of 1,559 adults who were asked about the pandemic’s impact on their intimate lives. While nearly half of the sample reported a decline in their sex life, one in five participants reported expanding their sexual repertoire by incorporating new activities. Common additions included sexting, trying new sexual positions, and sharing sexual fantasies. Being younger, living alone, and feeling stressed and lonely were linked to trying new things. Participants making new additions were three times more likely to report improvements in their sex life. Even in the face of drastic changes to daily life, many adults are adapting their sexual lives in creative ways.
Article
In the months since the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has overwhelmed the world, numerous popular press articles have recounted cases of mistreatment toward others rooted in traits associated with the illness. These accounts are the latest repercussion of a long running “otherness” that Western society has attributed to Asian peoples. This article draws on existing theory to better understand how social stigmas and subsequently prejudice may present additional challenges as nations grapple with restrictions on individuals’ movement and move to more normal social interaction. A discussion of COVID-19 in the context of stigmatization, social identity, and social cognition theories offer a means to better understand how those impacted and stereotyped by the virus may also experience negative treatment by others.