Richard Mole

The sexual attitudes and lifestyles of London's Eastern Europeans (SALLEE Project): design and methods

BackgroundSince May 2004, ten Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries have joined the European Union, leading to a large influx of CEE migrants to the United Kingdom (UK). The SALLEE project (sexual attitudes and lifestyles of Londons Eastern Europeans) set out to establish an understanding of the sexual lifestyles and reproductive health risks of CEE migrants. CEE nationals make up a small minority of the population resident in the UK with no sampling frame from which to select a probability sample. There is also difficulty estimating the socio-demographic and geographical distribution of the population. In addition, measuring self-reported sexual behaviour which is generally found to be problematic, may be compounded among people from a range of different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. This paper will describe the methods adopted by the SALLEE project to address these challenges.MethodsThe research was undertaken using quantitative and qualitative methods: a cross-sectional survey of CEE migrants based on three convenience samples (recruited from community venues, sexual health clinics and from the Internet) and semi-structured in-depth interviews with a purposively selected sample of CEE migrants. A detailed social mapping exercise of the CEE community was conducted prior to commencement of the survey to identify places where CEE migrants could be recruited. A total of 3,005 respondents took part in the cross-sectional survey, including 2,276 respondents in the community sample, 357 in the clinic sample and 372 in the Internet sample. 40 in-depth qualitative interviews were undertaken with a range of individuals, as determined by the interview quota matrix.DiscussionThe SALLEE project has benefited from using quantitative research to provide generalisable data on a range of variables and qualitative research to add in-depth understanding and interpretation. The social mapping exercise successfully located a large number of CEE migrants for the community sample and is recommended for other migrant populations, especially when little or no official data are available for this purpose. The project has collected timely data that will help us to understand the sexual lifestyles, reproductive health risks and health service needs of CEE communities in the UK.

Central and East European migrant men who have sex with men in London: a comparison of recruitment methods

BackgroundFollowing the expansion of the European Union, there has been a large influx of Central and East European (CEE) migrants to the UK. CEE men who have sex with men (MSM) represent a small minority within this population that are none-the-less important to capture in sexual health research among the CEE migrant community. This paper examines the feasibility of recruiting CEE MSM for a survey of sexual behaviour in London using respondent driven sampling (RDS), via gay websites and in GUM clinics.MethodsWe sought CEE MSM to start RDS chain referral among GUM clinic attendees, our personal contacts and at gay events and venues in central London. We recruited CEE MSM (n = 485) via two popular websites for gay men in Britain (March-May 2009) and at two central London GUM clinics (n = 51) (July 2008-March 2009).ResultsWe found seventeen men who knew other CEE MSM in London and agreed to recruit contacts into the study. These men recruited only three men into the study, none of whom recruited any further respondents, and RDS was abandoned after 7 months (July 2008-January 2009). Half of the men that we approached to participate in RDS did not know any other CEE MSM in London. Men who agreed to recruit contacts for RDS were rather more likely to have been in the UK for more than one year (94.1% vs 70.0%, p = 0.052). Men recruited through gay websites and from GUM clinics were similar.ConclusionsThe Internet was the most successful method for collecting data on sexual risk behaviour among CEE MSM in London. CEE MSM in London were not well networked. RDS may also have failed because they did not fully understand the procedure and/or the financial incentive was not sufficient motivation to take part.

Increased attendances of people of eastern European origin at sexual health services in London

Objective: To describe the service use of migrants from eight central and eastern European (CEE) countries at two central London genitourinary medicine (GUM) clinics before and after accession to the European Union on 1 May 2004. Methods: KC60 data collected between 1 June 2001 and 30 April 2007. Data refer to new attendances and exclude those attending for follow-up appointments. Results: 102 604 people attended the clinics at least once over the study period. Between May 2006 and 30 April 2007 individuals born in the eight CEE countries accounted for 7.9% of attendances among women and 2.5% of attendances made by men; the proportion increasing significantly over the 6-year study period (p<0.001). Syphilis was more likely in CEE men (age-adjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.98, 95% CI 1.07 to 8.29) and family planning services were more likely to be required for CEE women (23.9% vs 12.4%, age-adjusted OR 2.33, 95% CI 2.02 to 2.68, p<0.001), than for those born elsewhere. A larger proportion of men from CEE countries were recorded as homosexual or bisexual than men from other countries (38.3% vs 31.9%, p = 0.003). Conclusions: CEE migrants already have a substantial impact on GUM services in London. If attendance rates continue at the current level CEE women will soon account for over 10% of new attendances. Although the majority of CEE migrants are men, proportionately fewer CEE men accessed GUM services than women. Sexual and reproductive health services need to adapt quickly to meet the needs of this growing population.

Nationalism and Homophobia in Central and Eastern Europe

In terms of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rights, few organizations have done as much to promote the legal equality of sexual minorities as the European Union (EU). Especially since the inclusion of sexual orientation in the equalities agenda through Article 19 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU; formerly Article 13 TEC), there has been increased pressure at the European level for existing members and accession states to promote the equal rights of their LGBT citizens (Slootmaeckers and Touquet 2016). Despite similar top-down pressure, however, the degree of legal equality for LGBT individuals—not to mention social attitudes towards homosexuality—differs markedly across the region, with the situation particularly difficult in the states of the EU’s Eastern Partnership. The aim of this chapter is to suggest that the failure of Europeanization—understood here as the adoption of EU laws and values—to liberalize attitudes towards sexual minorities in Central and Eastern Europe can be explained in large part with reference to the nation. In line with the conclusions of Freyburg and Richter (2010) and Schimmelfennig and Sedelmeier (2005) on the need to move beyond rationalist arguments and incorporate ideational factors to explain the relative success or failure of Europeanization, I argue that in many Central and East European member states and accession countries, homosexuality clashes with discourses of national identity, which have greater resonance among the population. This chapter will also demonstrate that EU support for LGBT equality can also have a negative impact on attitudes towards non-heteronormative individuals in states that are neither EU member states nor candidate countries, in that nationalist politicians use the EU’s more liberal position towards LGBT rights to draw a boundary between the ‘decadent West’ and ‘traditional East’ for their own social and political purposes. The analysis will focus in particular on the case studies of Latvia, Serbia and Russia to show that in each case, the marginalization of LGBT individuals is legitimized with calls to ‘the defence of the nation’.

Sexualities and queer migration research

For the past five years my research has focused on the relationship between migration and sexuality – from migrant sexual health and sexual resocialisation to the formation of queer diasporas and experience of queer asylum seekers – and research published in Sexualities has played a significant role in providing me with the theoretical and conceptual tools I needed to follow existing debates, carry out my own research and make sense of my data. Until relatively recently, the academic study of migration did not explicitly deal with sexual difference, implicitly assuming the ‘typical migrant’ to be heterosexual. In recent years, these assumptions have been challenged by scholars who have produced a small but growing literature on the migration experiences of LGBTQ subjects. My own interest in the intersections between non-normative sexualities and mobility was driven by a number of factors. Theoretically, I was intrigued by Martin Manalansan’s claim that the very idea of queer had to a significant extent been brought about by migration in that the mass movement of people to the West from various non-western cultures had brought into sharp relief the numerous ‘sexual identity categories and practices that [did] not depend on Western conceptions of selfhood and community’, thereby producing a range of queer identities and subjectivities (2006: 229). Empirically, as an East Europeanist, I found it striking that so much research on queer migration focused on the USA, with some attention also paid to Asian and Latin American societies as sending countries, but that little research had been conducted on migration by LGBTQ subjects to or within Europe, let alone Eastern Europe. This was surprising given the disparities in attitudes towards and the degree of legal protection for LGBTQ people Sexualities 2018, Vol. 21(8) 1268–1270 ! The Author(s) 2018 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions DOI: 10.1177/1363460718772275 journals.sagepub.com/home/sex

Homonationalism: Resisting nationalist co-optation of sexual diversity

Historically, attempts by nationalists to forge a connection between nationality and sexuality (the lack of any a priori relationship notwithstanding) have generally been made with the aim of reinforcing the supposed heterosexuality of the nation so as to legitimize the marginalization of and violence towards sexual minorities. While it would be wrong to assume that all nationalists are homophobic, research shows that those who ascribe to the commonly held belief that nations should be seen as extended kin groups, united by a shared bloodline and common descent (all academic evidence to the contrary), are often more likely to have a heteronormative understanding of and strict rules on sexuality (Greenberg, 2006; Inglehart and Baker, 2000; Mole, 2011; Nagel, 2000; Yuval-Davis, 1997). As the continued existence of the nation as well as its internal homogeneity and demarcation from the Other are believed to result from endogenous biological reproduction and are underpinned by heteronormative conceptions of masculinity and femininity, sexual minorities are often perceived as posing a threat to the national community by undermining the family, failing to adhere to national gender stereotypes, challenging its internal homogeneity and deviating from shared national norms, especially those derived from religious teaching. The acceptance of this discourse as taken-for-granted by large swathes of the population further allows nationalist politicians to instrumentalize homosexuality, using non-normative sexuality as a lightning rod to divert attention away from economic and political problems or to reject criticism of illiberal practices – all in the name of defending the nation. More recently, however, we have seen attempts to make nation-states more inclusive of sexual minorities and supportive of LGBTQ rights. In principle, any moves to ensure that LGBTQ individuals for whom national identity is an important aspect of their sense of self are not made to feel excluded should be welcomed; as psychologists argue, identification with social groups – including nations – can

Book Review: Aleksandar Štulhofer and Theo Sandfort (eds), Sexuality and Gender in Post-Communist Eastern Europe and Russia. London and New York: The Hawthorn Press, 2005. 410 pp. ISBN 0—7890—2294—X. £27.00 hbk/£12.45 pbk

Throughout the communist period discourse on sexuality in Eastern Europe was largely silenced. Citizens were expected to adhere to the psychology of the collective, with ‘alternative’ sexualities considered contrary to the public good. Homosexuality, in particular, undermined the image of communist man and woman and was thus seen as a dangerous sign of individualism. As communist regimes sought to deindividualize members of society so as to exercise complete control over the personality and the body, discussion of sexuality was highly censored. When the repressive constraints of state socialism were loosened in the late 1980s, there was therefore an explosion of interest in questions of sexuality and gender. The publication of Sexuality and Gender in Post-Communist Eastern Europe and Russia is the result of this burgeoning interest in the subject, the edited volume having grown out of one of the first conferences on sexuality held in Dubrovnik in the summer of 2001, organized to give voice to the growing number of academics working in the field of gender and sexuality studies in Eastern Europe. The book opens with a comprehensive introduction to the study of sexuality and gender in the transition period, succinctly setting out and analyzing the main changes to both the gender order and the regulation of sexuality in Central and Eastern Europe, and highlighting the five main differences between East and West: the rates of HIV infection; attitudes towards sex education; attitudes towards gays and lesbians; attitudes towards sexual permissiveness; and the commercialization of sex through prostitution, sex trafficking and mail-order brides. It is to the editors’ credit that they do not base the book’s structure on this East–West dichotomy but rather on more universal themes. The introductory chapter thus also serves to present structural and ideational factors influencing expressions of and attitudes towards gender and sexuality in Central and Eastern Europe, successfully cross-weaving the impact of national and European legal norms, on the one hand, and religion and national identity, on the other, on the construction of gender and sexual identities, the legal and political rights of gays and lesbians, the rise of sex markets and on the representation of sexual pleasures and risks, providing a conceptual framework for the contributions that follow. The 16 contributions, which are written by Western and Central and East European scholars, tackle a broad range of issues, including gender inequality, gay and lesbian rights, attitudes towards gender and sexuality, sexual culture and politics, the social status of gays and lesbians, sexual behavior, representations of sexuality, sex trafficking, prostitution, mail-order brides, sexual satisfaction, sexual initiation at school and sexual health. The range of countries analyzed is equally wide: Serbia, Romania, the former Yugoslavia, Russia, Slovenia, Belarus, Slovakia, Estonia and Finland, although the absence of specific contributions on Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic does undermine the geographical coverage of the book. As with many edited volumes, there is no single hypothesis linking the various chapters. While a number of scholars examine a range of ‘universal’ issues from Book Reviews