897342

research-article2020
JIVXXX10.1177/0886260519897342Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceWhitehead et al.

Original Research
Journal of Interpersonal Violence
1­–30
Same-Sex Intimate © The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Partner Violence in sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0886260519897342
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519897342
Canada: Prevalence, journals.sagepub.com/home/jiv

Characteristics, and
Types of Incidents
Reported to Police
Services

Jessica Whitehead,1 Myrna Dawson,1

and Tina Hotton1

Abstract
During the past 50 years, there has been an increase in research and
programming initiatives focusing on the issue of heterosexual intimate
partner violence (Het-IPV). In comparison, less attention has been paid
to same-sex intimate partner violence (SS-IPV). Furthermore, of the
existing research, the majority focuses on SS-IPV incidents in the United
States which, due to social and legal differences, cannot yield an accurate
picture of SS-IPV in Canada. This descriptive study sought to understand
the prevalence, characteristics, and types of SS-IPV and Het-IPV within a
Canadian context, with an emphasis on understanding the differences and
similarities of incidents reported to police services. It explores the influences
of heteronormativity and hegemonic masculinity on SS-IPV reporting
and recognition. To assess this, data from Statistics Canada’s 2007–2011
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Surveys were utilized. Participation in

1University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:
Jessica Whitehead, Centre for the Study of Social and Legal Responses to Violence, University
of Guelph, 6th Floor, Mackinnon Building, 50 Stone Road East, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1,
Canada.
Email: [email protected]
2 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

this survey is mandatory for all police services and, therefore, the sample
used contains over 99% of incidents of IPV reported in Canada during the
4-year period (N = 346,565). The results indicate that 4% of incidents of
intimate partner violence reported to the UCR involved people engaged in
same-sex relationships. It demonstrates that SS-IPV incidents are similar to
Het-IPV incidents in reported prevalence, and the findings also show that
there are differences in the types of violations reported and several incident
characteristics, including levels of victim injury, and the population density
of the offense location. These findings can provide a foundation for future
research and raise further questions about how SS-IPV is responded to by
the criminal justice system after it has been reported to police services.

Keywords
domestic violence, domestic violence and cultural contexts, perceptions of
intimate partner violence, LGBTQ+ intimate partner violence

Over the past 50 years, public perceptions of intimate partner violence (IPV)
have changed slowly but significantly. There has been an increase in research
and programming initiatives focusing on the issue of IPV as a crime and a
public concern rather than a private matter (Balsam, 2001). However, this
increased attention has predominantly focused on heterosexual IPV (Het-
IPV).1 To date, comparatively less research on same-sex IPV (SS-IPV)2
exists (Burke et al., 2002; Duke & Davidson, 2009; Gehring & Vaske, 2017;
Goldberg & Meyer, 2013; Hoyle, 2007; Messinger, 2014; Murray & Mobley,
2009), and this is particularly true for Canadian research (Furman et al.,
2017; Ristock et al., 2017).
The majority of the existing research on abuse within same-sex relation-
ships has focused on determining prevalence (Oringher & Samuelson, 2011;
Tesch et al., 2010) and barriers to reporting of IPV incidents (Calton et al.,
2016, Guadalupe-Diaz & Jasinski, 2017). However, this growing body of
research has yielded inconsistent estimates of the extent of the problem
(Gehring & Vaske, 2017) and placed less emphasis on understanding the
types of SS-IPV that occur. Researchers have argued that the comparatively
slower growth of SS-IPV research is a result of discrimination against same-
sex communities and the widespread perception, by service providers,
researchers, and same-sex individuals, that IPV occurs only with male abus-
ers and female victims (Guadalupe-Diaz & Jasinski, 2017; Murray &
Mobley, 2009). This cyclical issue has resulted in fewer public policies and
Whitehead et al. 3

programming initiatives that address SS-IPV, which in turn has hindered

data collection and research (Murray & Mobley, 2009).
Similar to studies of Het-IPV, the majority of research examining SS-IPV
incidents focus on samples from the United States. However, Canadian views
and legal approaches toward same-sex relationships differ from some of the
U.S. counterparts. For example, in Canada, same-sex marriage has been
legally acknowledged since 2005. In contrast, the U.S. Supreme Court found
that state-level bans were unconstitutional 10 years later in 2015 (Obergefell
v. Hodges, 2015; Statistics Canada, 2015; Widiss, 2016). Legally recognizing
same-sex marriage may be viewed as a way of reducing or eliminating
homophobia within the legal system (Smith, 2005). Greater societal and legal
acceptance of same-sex partnerships has the potential to play a role in enhanc-
ing the services available to and for victims when seeking help (Fray-Witzer,
1999). The U.S. legalization of same-sex marriage may alter societal and
legal acceptance over time; however, currently, it may not always be possible
to draw analogies between the U.S. and Canada.
Another limitation faced by many studies of both Het-IPV and SS-IPV is
the difficulty in locating representative or large samples (Hester et al., 2010;
Messinger, 2014; Turell, 2000). There is no known sampling frame of indi-
viduals involved in same-sex relationships or SS-IPV victims, and studies of
SS-IPV often rely on the victim or offender to self-identify. As a result, many
studies have utilized convenience samples recruited at same-sex events,
through partnership with community organizations via on-site recruitment or
use of member email lists (e.g., Hassouneh & Glass, 2008; Wathen et al.,
2018), geospatially specified advertising on social media (e.g., Delle Donne
et al., 2018), administrative data (e.g., Messing et al., 2018), or time-location
sampling (e.g., Friedman et al., 2018), to promote representativeness.
However, a limitation of several of these approaches to sampling is that the
insights yielded by them may focus on individuals who more frequently
access same-sex venues, and thus may emphasize the experiences of younger
or more “out” same-sex individuals (Messinger, 2014).

Theoretical Framework
Traditional IPV research has used feminist frameworks and social constructs
of gender inequality to explain IPV as a crime that is frequently perpetrated
by men against women (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Hoyle, 2007; Johnson &
Dawson, 2011; McClennen, 2005; Ristock, 2002). However, as a result of the
emphasis on the domination of men over women, these approaches cannot
adequately describe abuse between same-sex partners (McClennen, 2005).
For example, it is argued that the concept of patriarchy alone cannot explain
4 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

instances of abuse that occur between women (Hoyle, 2007). Similar to het-
erosexual relationships, same-sex relationships may also have diverse and
dichotomous roles with both a dominant and a submissive partner. As noted
by Stark and Hester (2019) aspects of coercive control, a combination of
psychological, physical, and/or sexual abuse causing the victim to feel a loss
of freedom may also be present in same-sex relationships. This may manifest
through “relationship rules” in which one partner assumes a position of
power and decides the terms of the relationship while the other partner abides
by the rules and undertakes emotional responsibility within the relationship
(Donovan & Hester, 2014; Stark and Hester, 2019). In short, heterosexuality
is not the only form of intimate partner relationship in which this power
imbalance can occur (Little & Terrance, 2010). Therefore, to better explain
SS-IPV, feminist frameworks can be combined with additional theoretical
approaches, including concepts of hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativ-
ity, and heterosexism as factors that may influence the frequency and nature
of SS-IPV incidents (Donovan & Hester, 2014; Stark and Hester, 2019).
Hegemony is an understanding or worldview that is so dominant that people
will often have difficulty conceiving alternative perspectives (Deutschmann,
2007). Kinsman (1996) applied the concept of hegemony to sexual orientation
by linking struggles over sexual relations to conflicts between social classes
and coined the term “hegemonic masculinity” (Deutschmann, 2007; Kinsman,
1996). It draws attention to prevailing views that support the dominance of
heterosexuality over other sexual orientations and incorporates the concepts of
heterosexism and heteronormativity.
Hegemonic masculinity reinforces the legitimacy of patriarchy and the
dominant role of men within society (Hearn, 2012). The concept focuses on
strength, authority, control, and aggressiveness as ideal masculine attributes
frequently associated with heterosexuality and homophobia (Jeffries & Ball,
2008; Kay & Jeffries, 2010). Those in same-sex relationships, particularly
males, challenge this viewpoint. As a result, male same-sex masculinity is
viewed as subordinate to heterosexual masculinity, and same-sex men are
often dehumanized or portrayed as weak and feminine (Kay & Jeffries,
2010). This perspective may be a factor that contributes to violence, includ-
ing against intimate partners, among same-sex populations. According to
Kay and Jeffries (2010), some same-sex men may choose to challenge their
subordinate position in society by engaging in IPV. Assaults may be viewed
as an act of retaliation or a method of asserting manhood that would other-
wise be negated or undermined as a result of the offender’s sexual orientation
(Kay & Jeffries, 2010; Kwong-Lai Poon, 2011). Similarly, Milletich et al.
(2014) argue that incidents of female SS-IPV may occur because females
also experience feelings of inadequacy or lack self-worth as a result of
Whitehead et al. 5

identifying as a sexual minority. Furthermore, they argue that women who

are in same-sex relationships, but do not identify themselves as lesbian or
bisexual, are more likely to abuse their female partners and relate this to
internalized homophobia.
In conjunction with hegemonic masculinity are the ideologies of hetero-
normativity or heterosexism, societally influenced views of heterosexual
relationships as a representation of the norm in the broader culture and as
superior to same-sex relationships (Banks, 2003; Van Eeden-Moorefield
et al., 2011). Peterman and Dixon (2003) view heterosexism as a “social dis-
ease” and note its pervasiveness within contemporary families, media, and
social service providers. Similar to the concept of hegemonic masculinity,
individuals experiencing SS-IPV relationships may be influenced by hetero-
normativity and heterosexism. These ideologies dichotomize heterosexual
and same-sex relationships as well as males and females and limit under-
standings of shared experiences across relationships and genders (Hassouneh
& Glass, 2008).
Heteronormative and heterosexist ideologies can be related to IPV as such
acts are often viewed as crimes that occur within heterosexual relationships.
The battered women’s movement of the 1970s drew attention to the problem
of IPV but also conceptualized it as a male–female phenomenon (Hassouneh
& Glass, 2008; Schechter, 1982). Men are frequently portrayed as the perpe-
trators and women as the victims and, in fact, the majority of reported cases
do adhere to this male–female conceptualization (Burczycka & Conroy,
2018; Kay & Jeffries, 2010).). However, this understanding may create a bar-
rier to the recognition of IPV because, within SS-IPV incidents, females may
be offenders and males may be victims, thus defying the dominant male–
female conceptualization. As a result of heteronormativity and heterosexism,
some SS-IPV victims may not identify the abuse that they are experiencing
as IPV and responding police officers may be more likely to confound perpe-
trators with victims (Kwong-Lai Poon, 2011).

Literature Review
Prevalence of SS-IPV
As noted above, the majority of existing SS-IPV research has compared the
prevalence of SS-IPV to IPV that occurs between heterosexual partners
(Messinger, 2011). As with Het-IPV, exact rates of SS-IPV are unknown
because many incidents are not reported (Owen & Burke, 2004). In addition,
limited Canadian SS-IPV data are currently available. Thus, when identifying
similarities and differences between SS-IPV and Het-IPV incidents,
6 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

self-reported prevalence rates of SS-IPV are primarily from the United States
(Barrett & St Pierre, 2013; Messinger, 2011).
There is no consensus in the current literature about the prevalence of
SS-IPV. The Canadian 2009 General Social Survey (GSS) results indicate
that self-identified same-sex or bisexual women (21%) reported experiencing
IPV more frequently than heterosexual women (6%) in the last 5 years
(Hutchins, 2013). More recently, the 2014 GSS found that 4% of heterosex-
ual Canadians had experienced IPV in the form of physical or sexual abuse in
the last 5 years and that those identifying as same-sex or bisexual were twice
as likely to report IPV victimization at 8% (Burczycka, 2016). This estimate
is slightly lower than Barrett and St. Pierre’s (2013) study of 2004 GSS data
which found that 36% of Canadian bisexual and same-sex respondents had
experienced at least one incident of IPV. However, their results may differ as
they included reports of emotional and financial abuse in their study.
In the United States, Het-IPV literature has indicated prevalence rates
ranging from 7% to 33% (McClennen, 2005; Turell, 2000; Walters et al.,
2013). In comparison, SS-IPV literature has reported a vast difference in
prevalence, with victimization rates ranging from 15% to 75% (Burke et al.,
2002; National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs [NCAVP], 2016;
Waldner-Haugrud et al., 1997; Walters et al., 2013). For example, Goldberg
and Meyer (2013) found that lifetime and 1-year IPV prevalence rates were
higher in both male and female same-sex relationships compared with het-
erosexual relationships in California.
It has been suggested that these disparities may be the result of barriers to
victim reporting of SS-IPV or due to different research techniques, including
how researchers define violence, the types of relationships being studied, and
whether individuals identifying as bisexual were included in the study
(Barrett & St Pierre, 2013; Oringher & Samuelson, 2011). For example,
results may not be comparable if one study includes only individuals in com-
mitted relationships and another study also includes casual relationships
when defining intimate partners. Although SS-IPV victims face many of the
same deterrents as heterosexual victims when reporting, underreporting by
SS-IPV victims may be further exacerbated because they face additional bar-
riers due to their sexuality. These may include homophobia, potential loss of
community ties, and fears about revealing their sexuality if this has not
already been disclosed (Calton et al., 2016). Also, because SS-IPV preva-
lence estimates are typically based on smaller samples, victimization percent-
ages may vary widely (Hassouneh & Glass, 2008). Overall, the majority of
research indicates that SS-IPV is as prevalent as Het-IPV, but may be reported
less frequently to police services and, therefore, is likely underestimated
(Burke et al., 2002; Calton et al., 2016; McClennen, 2005).
Whitehead et al. 7

Types of SS-IPV
Much of the existing SS-IPV research highlights similarities with Het-IPV.
Het-IPV and SS-IPV have both been found to have high rates of recidivism
and contain similar patterns of escalation over time (Island & Letellier, 1991;
Pattavina et al., 2007). With regard to the types of abuse reported, hetero-
sexual and same-sex perpetrators both use forms of physical violence, intimi-
dation, and emotional abuse to control their victims (Carvalho et al., 2011).
However, studies comparing the types of IPV offenses committed by hetero-
sexuals and same-sex abusers are few. Furthermore, similar to studies exam-
ining the prevalence of SS-IPV, methodological differences when identifying
types of SS-IPV committed have made it difficult to compare findings to
Het-IPV (Donovan & Hester, 2014; Nowinski & Bowen, 2012).
To date, most studies that do compare types of IPV reported within hetero-
sexual and same-sex relationships have been conducted in the United States.
For example, Waldner-Haugrud et al. (1997) found that incidents reported by
male and female same-sex partners had similar levels of violence severity.
Later, Turell (2000) surveyed self-identifying heterosexual, male same-sex,
female same-sex, bisexual, and transgender individuals (N = 499) about their
experiences with IPV throughout their lifetimes. Results showed that both
male and female same-sex individuals reported higher rates of physical vio-
lence and other coercive behaviors compared with heterosexual victims.
Female same-sex victims reported experiencing physical abuse more than
male same-sex victims, thus conflicting with the findings of Waldner-
Haugrud et al. (1997). Turell (2000) also found that heterosexual individuals
reported slightly higher rates of threats as well as financial and emotional
abuse. Similar rates of sexual abuse were reported by both groups. In support
of Turell’s results, Renzetti (1989) found that female same-sex victims expe-
rienced severe physical abuse similar to forms experienced by heterosexual
female victims. Also, supporting Turell’s findings, Nowinski and Bowen
(2012) found that male SS-IPV victims experienced higher levels of physical
IPV than heterosexual males. Recently, the NCAVP (2016) further affirmed
these findings and reported that male SS-IPV victims were twice as likely to
experience physical violence. These studies overall indicated similarities
between the characteristics of SS-IPV and Het-IPV in the United States.
Among the limited Canadian studies, similar findings to those documented
above have been reported. Focusing on male SS-IPV reported in Canada,
Bartholomew et al. (2008) found that 94% of victims reporting SS-IPV expe-
rienced psychological abuse, 41% physical abuse, and 12% sexual abuse dur-
ing their lifetime (Bartholomew et al., 2008). Similarly, Barrett and St. Pierre
(2013) demonstrated that 20% of their sample experienced physical or sexual
8 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

abuse, and 35% of same-sex and bisexual respondents also reported that they
had experienced emotional or financial abuse. When SS-IPV incidents have
been reported to police services in Canada, physical assaults, including com-
mon, major, and other assaults, were most frequently recorded followed by
utterance of threats (Ibrahim, 2019). Thus, Canadian studies report similar
findings to those of the U.S. studies. Generally, it has been found that, regard-
less of gender or sexual orientation, incidents of verbal and emotional abuse
within a relationship occur more frequently than physical abuse and that
sexual abuse occurs the least often, although these incidents may also be least
likely to be disclosed (Burke et al., 2002; Merrill & Wolfe, 2000; Messinger,
2011; NCAVP, 2016; Turell, 2000). In addition, physical and sexual abuse
often takes place within the context of coercive control perpetrated by one or
both partners and are, therefore, difficult to isolate (Bartholomew et al., 2008;
Stark & Hester, 2019).

Research Questions
To contribute to the discussion surrounding SS-IPV prevalence and address
the limited information regarding types of SS-IPV experienced within a
Canadian context, this analysis will utilize data from Statistics Canada’s
2007–2011 incident-based Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Surveys. This
study will seek to determine the similarities and differences between SS-IPV
and Het-IPV. Specifically, two research questions guide this study:

Research Question 1: How often is SS-IPV reported to police in Canada

in comparison to Het-IPV?
Research Question 2: How do the characteristics and types of incidents
reported by SS-IPV and Het-IPV victims differ?

This research can provide insight into SS-IPV within a Canadian context and
an initial foundation for future research. Furthermore, additional information
about the characteristics of SS-IPV in Canada may help to reduce the stigma
surrounding SS-IPV and, subsequently, empower victims (McClennen,
2005).

Method
Data
The data used in this study were derived from Statistics Canada’s 2007–2011
incident-based UCR Survey. The UCR is a census of all crimes that come to
Whitehead et al. 9

the attention of the police in Canada. Data were collected directly from police
service organizations throughout the country, and police responses to this
survey were mandatory. Information at the national level was collected with
a police response rate above 99% (Statistics Canada, 2013).
This study focused on cases in which the following four criteria were met:
(a) the sex of both the victim and the accused was identified as either male or
female; (b) the victim and the accused were currently or previously involved
in an intimate relationship, including a current or former legal or common-
law spouse, dating partner, or other intimate partner; (c) the incident con-
tained elements of physical violence, sexual violence, and/or utterance of
threats; and (d) the accused was at least 18 years old (N = 346,565). As the
UCR is a census, the number of missing observations was very low for the
key variables used in the sample selection for the study (age, sex, and victim–
accused relationship). Less than 1% of the cases had missing victim–accused
relationship information, and no cases were missing information regarding
the sex of the victim or accused. Incidents containing missing values for one
or more of the independent variables were generally included in the models
to preserve the sample size. All variables with missing values that made up
1% or more of the observations were included and reported as missing, the
highest being the variable “victim injury” at 4%.
As an administrative data set, the UCR collects limited information on the
personal characteristics of the victim and accused. Unlike its U.S. counter-
part, the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), which asks
police respondents to identify whether or not incidents of IPV occurred in
same-sex intimate relationships (see Pattavina et al., 2007), the UCR ques-
tionnaire does not contain questions on the sexual behavior or sexual identity
of the victim or the accused except in survey modules focused on hate crime.
Thus, for the purpose of this study, it was possible to identify violence in
same-sex and opposite-sex relationships by recorded information on the sex
of the victim3 and accused in conjunction with the variable that identifies the
relationship between the victim and the accused. However, it is important to
note that this measure does not capture the sexual and/or gender identity of
the victim or accused. For example, a victim may be assaulted by someone of
the same-sex, and the police may have recorded the relationship between the
victim and accused as dating partners or other intimate partners, but if asked,
the individual may report their primary sexual identity as heterosexual or
bisexual. To remain consistent with prior literature, we will refer to incidents
of IPV committed by same-sex or heterosexual (opposite-sex) partners as
measured at the time of the incident. It is acknowledged that comparisons of
IPV across spectrums of sexual identities are better suited for studies using
self-reported measures.
10 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Measures
Thirteen variables, identified through prior IPV research, were used to assess
the prevalence and characteristics of SS-IPV and Het-IPV reported to police
services in Canada. These variables were grouped into two categories: (a)
victim and accused variables and (b) incident or situational variables (see
also Table 1).

Victim and accused variables.  This group of variables captures characteristics

of the individuals involved in the reported incident and includes victim–
accused relationship, relationship status, as well as the age of the victim and
the accused. The victim–accused relationship was captured in two ways: (a)
a binary variable that compared cases involving heterosexual partners and
same-sex partners and (b) a four-category variable which included male vic-
tim with female accused, female victim with male accused, male victim with
male accused, and female victim with female accused.4
Next, the “relationship status” variable was coded as a categorical variable
to compare incidents of IPV that occurred between current partners and
estranged partners. Research has indicated that IPV may escalate when part-
ners separate and that this may affect the severity of abuse (Island & Letellier,
1991; Peterman & Dixon, 2003).
The age of the victim and the accused were treated as continuous vari-
ables. To meet data quality recommendations for the UCR data,5 incidents
involving a victim or an accused over the age of 90 years were excluded
(Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Statistics Canada, 2013).

Incident variables.  Incident variables included the violation type, victim injury,
use of a weapon, offense location, province or territory, and the population
density of the police jurisdictions in which the offense occurred. These vari-
ables have been included to better understand the types of IPV reported in
Canada and to isolate any differences in heterosexual and same-sex IPV
reporting.
The violation type variable focuses on the most serious offense
recorded in relation to the incident. It was divided into 15 categories
based on the Criminal Code (1985). These categories included the follow-
ing: murder, manslaughter, other offenses causing death; attempted mur-
der and conspire to commit murder; aggravated sexual assault or sex
assault with a weapon; sexual assault (Level 1); other sexual crimes and
trafficking in persons; aggravated assault and assault with a weapon;
assault (Level 1); firearms offenses; assaults against peace public officer;
kidnapping, forcible confinement, or taking hostage; robbery, extortion,
Whitehead et al. 11

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics (N = 346,565).

Total

Victim, accused, and incident variables n %

Victim and accused variables
  Victim–accused relationship (binary)
  Heterosexual partners 334,525 97
  Same-sex partners 12,040 3
  Victim–accused relationship (categorical)
   Male victim and female accused 54,055 16
   Female victim and male accused 280,470 81
   Male victim and male accused 6,820 2
   Female victim and female accused 5,220 2
  Relationship status
  Current partners 238,480 69
  Estranged partners 108,085 31
  Victim age (M) 32 years
  Accused age (M) 38 years
Incident Variables
  Violation type
   Murder, manslaughter, other offenses causing death 395 <1
   Attempted murder and conspire to commit murder 365 <1
   Aggravated sexual assault, sex assault with a weapon 425 <1
   Sexual assault (Level 1) 5,350 2
   Other sexual crimes and trafficking in persons 70 <1
   Aggravated assault and assault with a weapon 46,130 13
   Assault (Level 1) 216,935 63
  Firearms offenses 110 <1
   Assaults against peace public officer 3,010 1
   Kidnapping, forcible confinement, or taking hostage 9,455 3
   Robbery, extortion, and intimidation 1,445 <1
  Criminal harassment 25,860 7
   Harassing telephone calls (starting April 2008) 6,440 2
   Uttering threats to person 29,010 8
  Other assaults 1,565 <1
  Victim injury
  No injury 148,955 43
  Minor injury 176,720 51
   Major injury or death 5,810 2
  Unknown 15,075 4
 Weapon
(continued)
12 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Table 1. (continued)
Total

Victim, accused, and incident variables n %

   Physical force, threat, or no weapon 293,895 85
  Firearm 1,635 <1
   Knife or other piercing instrument 13,545 4
  Other weapon 25,845 7
  Unknown 11,640 3
  Offense location
  Private residence 295,815 85
   Public or other location 44,690 13
  Unknown location 6,060 2
 Province/territory
   Newfoundland and Labrador 4,570 1
   Prince Edward Island 1,230 <1
  Nova Scotia 10,880 3
  New Brunswick 7,670 2
  Quebec 71,385 21
  Ontario 107,450 31
  Manitoba 20,385 6
  Saskatchewan 22,375 6
  Alberta 45,545 13
  British Columbia 46,445 13
  Yukon 1,145 <1
  Northwest Territories 3,625 1
  Nunavut 3,860 1
  Population density variable
  Rural 61,325 18
  Small town 71,060 21
   Smaller metropolitan area 80,605 23
   Mid-sized metropolitan area 66,675 19
   Major metropolitan area 66,815 19
  Unknown 85 <1

Note. For data quality reasons, the sample includes incidents in which the sex of the victim
and the accused is known, and the accused and the victim are between the ages of 18 and 90
years.

and intimidation; criminal harassment; harassing telephone calls;6 utter-

ing threats to person; and other assaults, including other violations against
the person.
Whitehead et al. 13

Next, the level of injury was categorized as no visible injury, minor physi-
cal injury, and major physical injury or death. Incidents in which the level of
victim injury was unknown were included in the analysis. Cases were catego-
rized as “minor physical injury” if no professional medical treatment was
administered and as “major physical injury” if professional medical treat-
ment was required at the scene or later at a medical facility (Statistics Canada,
2015). This variable was based on the injury observed by officers at the time
of the incident and does not capture any follow-up information collected by
police services.7
The “use of a weapon” variable captures whether the incident involved a
firearm, a knife, or other piercing instrument, or another type of weapon (e.g.,
if a motor vehicle is used as a weapon). The accused’s use of weapons may
be perceived as an indicator of seriousness within the criminal justice system
(Pattavina et al., 2007) and thus is an important characteristic to measure in
relation to police-reported IPV.
The “offense location” variable captures whether the incident occurred at
a private residence, in a public location, or in which the location was unknown
or not reported. Incidents that occurred in an unknown location or not reported
(N = 6,060) were included to maintain the sample size and coded similarly to
Dawson and Hotton’s (2014) UCR analysis.
The “province or territory” variable was included as previous studies have
demonstrated that police responses may differ at the provincial, territorial, or
local levels (Dawson & Hotton, 2014). It has also been noted that IPV is
reported to police services at disproportionate rates in different provinces and
territories, with higher reporting rates in the territories and western provinces
(Bressan, 2009).
The final variable concerns the population density and captures whether
the incident occurred in an urban or rural location. This variable was
included because reported rates and severity of IPV have been shown to
differ based on the population density of the incident location (Northcott,
2011; Statistics Canada, 2018b). For example, Blosnich and Bossarte
(2009) found that female SS-IPV was more prevalent in urban areas than
in rural. In this study, the population density of reporting police jurisdic-
tion was used as a crude proxy measure to classify the location of the
reported incident. This variable was coded into six categories based on the
population serviced by the reporting police jurisdiction: rural (less than
9,999), small town (10,000–49,999), smaller urban area (50,000–249,999),
mid-sized urban area (250,000–999,999), major urban area (1,000,000 and
over), and unknown.8
14 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Method of Analysis
A descriptive analysis of 346,565 cases from the UCR data was conducted to
compare the prevalence and characteristics of police-reported incidents of
IPV. The analysis highlights the similarities and differences between Het-IPV
and SS-IPV incidents reported between 2007 and 2011 in Canada, by the
relationship between the victim and accused (see Table 2). It is important to
note that the UCR is a census and not a sample of police-reported incidents.
Therefore, analyses for the purpose of statistical inference were not necessary
as these findings described all IPV-related crime reported in Canada during
this period.

Results
Prevalence.  The first research question focused on determining how often SS-
IPV is reported to police in Canada in comparison to Het-IPV. It was shown
that the majority of cases reported involved heterosexual partners (97%) and
that SS-IPV was reported in 3% of incidents (see Table 1). These distribu-
tions are consistent with prior literature regarding the population of Canadi-
ans who identify as same-sex or bisexual (3%); that is, same-sex partners do
not appear to be overrepresented among police-reported victims of IPV (Sta-
tistics Canada, 2015). When the victim–accused relationship was divided
into four categories, as anticipated, most incidents involved Het-IPV with
cases involving a female victim and male accused (81%) being reported most
frequently followed by incidents between male victims and female accused
(16%). SS-IPV was reported less frequently with 2% of cases involving a
male victim with a male accused and 2%9 occurring between a female victim
and a female accused.

Characteristics.  The second research question sought to compare characteris-

tics and types of police-reported SS-IPV and Het-IPV. Based on the descrip-
tive analysis, similarities were found in relationship statuses and the average
ages of the victim and accused (see Table 2). Both Het-IPV and SS-IPV were
reported more frequently between current partners than estranged partners. In
the sample, approximately two thirds (69%) of the incidents reported to
police between 2007 and 2011 were perpetrated by a current partner and one
third (31%) by an estranged partner. However, female SS-IPV offenses had a
slightly higher rate of occurrence between estranged partners (40%). Regard-
less of sexual orientation, the average age of victims and accused was in the
mid-30s with female victims being slightly younger than male victims. SS-
IPV differed from Het-IPV in types of violations, levels of victim injury,
 Table 2.  Victim–Accused Relationship by Characteristics of the Incident, UCR2 2007–2011 (N = 346,565).
Heterosexual Partners Same-Sex Partners

Female Victim
Male Victim and Female Victim Male Victim and and Female
Female Accused and Male Accused Male Accused Accused Total

Victim, accused, and incident variables n % n % n % n % n %

Victim and accused variables

  Relationship status
  Current partners 37,130 69 193,680 69 4,520 66 3,150 60 238,480 69
  Estranged partners 16,925 31 86,790 31 2,300 34 2,070 40 108,085 31
  Victim age (M) 37 years 33 years 36 years 33 years 34 years
  Accused age (M) 34 years 36 years 35 years 34 years 35 years
Incident Variables
  Violation type
   Murder, manslaughter, other offenses causing death 70 <1 295 <1 25 <1 5 <1 395 <1
   Attempted murder and conspire to commit murder 70 <1 280 <1 15 <1 0 <1 365 <1
   Aggravated sexual assault, sex assault with a weapon 10 <1 395 <1 15 <1 5 <1 425 <1
   Sexual assault (Level 1) 25 <1 5,255 2 45 1 25 <1 5,350 2
   Other sexual crimes and trafficking in persons 0 <1 70 <1 0 <1 0 <1 70 <1
   Aggravated assault and assault with a weapon 12,110 22 32,225 11 1,230 18 565 11 46,130 13
   Assault (Level 1) 33,790 63 175,995 63 3,930 58 3,220 62 216,935 63
  Firearms offenses 10 <1 95 <1 5 <1 0 <1 110 <1
   Assaults against peace public officer 555 1 2,355 1 65 1 35 1 3,010 1
   Kidnapping, forcible confinement, or taking hostage 100 <1 9,225 3 80 1 50 1 9,455 3
   Robbery, extortion, and intimidation 110 <1 1,255 <1 65 1 15 <1 1,445 <1
  Criminal harassment 2,390 4 22,640 8 325 5 505 10 25,860 7

(continued)

15
16
Table 2. (continued)
Heterosexual Partners Same-Sex Partners

Female Victim
Male Victim and Female Victim Male Victim and and Female
Female Accused and Male Accused Male Accused Accused Total

Victim, accused, and incident variables n % n % n % n % n %

   Harassing telephone calls (starting April 2008) 1,560 3 4,625 2 80 1 175 3 6,440 2
   Uttering threats to person 3,070 6 24,455 9 895 13 590 11 29,010 8
  Other assaults 185 <1 1,305 <1 45 1 30 1 1,565 <1
  Victim injury
  No injury 22,115 41 121,135 43 3,080 45 2,625 50 148,955 43
  Minor injury 28,820 53 142,515 51 3,130 46 2,255 43 176,720 51
   Major injury or death 1,050 2 4,490 2 215 3 55 1 5,810 2
  Unknown 2,070 4 12,330 4 395 6 280 5 15,075 4
 Weapon
   Physical force, threat, or no weapon 39,880 74 244,215 87 5,410 79 4,390 84 293,895 85
  Firearm 125 <1 1,450 1 45 1 15 <1 1,635 <1
   Knife or other piercing instrument 5,135 9 7,840 3 390 6 180 3 13,545 4
  Other weapon 7,350 14 17,475 6 665 10 355 7 25,845 7
  Unknown 1,565 3 9,490 3 310 5 275 5 11,640 3
  Offense Location
  Private residence 46,020 85 240,680 86 5,240 77 3,875 74 295,815 85
   Public or other location 7,245 13 34,930 12 1,400 21 1,115 21 44,690 13
  Unknown location 790 1 4,865 2 180 3 225 4 6,060 2
 Province/territory
   Newfoundland and Labrador 645 1 3,745 1 105 2 75 1 4,570 1
   Prince Edward Island 185 <1 1,000 <1 25 0 20 <1 1,230 <1

(continued)
 Table 2. (continued)

Heterosexual Partners Same-Sex Partners

Female Victim
Male Victim and Female Victim Male Victim and and Female
Female Accused and Male Accused Male Accused Accused Total

Victim, accused, and incident variables n % n % n % n % n %

  Nova Scotia 2,065 4 8,400 3 190 3 225 4 10,880 3

  New Brunswick 1,135 2 6,145 2 200 3 190 4 7,670 2
  Quebec 11,055 20 57,685 21 1,830 27 815 16 71,385 21
  Ontario 15,975 30 86,755 31 2,580 38 2,140 41 107,450 31
  Manitoba 2,795 5 17,155 6 215 3 220 4 20,385 6
  Saskatchewan 2,930 5 18,815 7 290 4 340 7 22,375 6
  Alberta 7,280 13 36,990 13 670 10 605 12 45,545 13
  British Columbia 8,630 16 36,735 13 605 9 475 9 46,445 13
  Yukon 205 <1 905 <1 15 <1 20 <1 1,145 <1
  Northwest Territories 605 1 2,930 1 40 1 50 1 3,625 1
  Nunavut 550 1 3,210 1 55 1 45 1 3,860 1
  Population density variable
  Rural 9,695 18 49,410 18 1,015 15 1,205 23 61,325 18
  Small town 12,140 22 56,215 20 1,395 20 1,310 25 71,060 21
   Smaller metropolitan area 12,990 24 64,870 23 1,535 23 1,210 23 80,605 23
   Mid-sized metropolitan area 9,655 18 55,200 20 1,165 17 655 13 66,675 19
   Major metropolitan area 9,565 18 54,705 20 1,705 25 840 16 66,815 19
  Unknown 10 <1 70 0 5 0 0 <1 85 <1

Note. For data quality reasons, the sample includes incidents in which the sex of the victim and the accused is known, and the accused and the victim are between the
ages of 18 and 90 years.

17
18 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

weapon use, offense location, province or territory of offense, and population

density reported (see Table 2).

Types of violation. Victims in both victim–accused relationships reported

experiencing assault (Level 1) most frequently (63%); this was followed by
aggravated assault and assault with a weapon (13%); uttering threats to per-
son (8%); criminal harassment (8%); kidnapping, forcible confinement, or
taking hostage (3%); harassing telephone calls (2%); and sexual assault
(Level 1) (2%). All other types of incidents each made up less than 1% of the
reported cases of IPV. The types of violations reported were consistent across
all victim–accused relationships with the exception of incidents involving
aggravated assault and assault with a weapon, criminal harassment, or utter-
ing of threats.

Weapon use. Regardless of the victim–accused relationship, cases with a

male victim (Het-IPV = 22%, SS-IPV = 18%) reported incidents involving
aggravated assault and assault with a weapon more frequently than cases with
a female victim (Het-IPV = 11%, SS-IPV = 11%). This finding is consistent
with previous Het-IPV literature that female accused are more likely to use a
weapon in incidents of Het-IPV (Brown, 2004) and male SS-IPV accused are
more likely to use a weapon than female (Waldner-Haugrud et al., 1997).

Criminal harassment. Female victims (Het-IPV = 8%, SS-IPV = 11%)

reported higher proportions of criminal harassment violations than male vic-
tims (Het-IPV = 4%, SS-IPV = 5%). This finding aligns with previous
research which has shown that females report experiencing criminal harass-
ment more frequently than males (Turell, 2000).

Utterance of threats.  Male and female SS-IPV victims reported higher propor-
tions of threats uttered toward them. Previous studies have noted that threats
to the individual are commonly used tactics in SS-IPV offenses and may
include aspects unique to same-sex experiences, such as “outing” or threats
to expose the victim to HIV (Calton et al., 2016; Knauer, 1999; Pattavina
et al., 2007).

Physical injury. In the sample, most incidents involved no physical injury

(43%) or minor physical injury (51%) to the victim. Major physical injury or
death occurred in 2% of the cases, and in 4% of the cases victim injury was
unknown. When compared with SS-IPV, both male (53%) and female (51%)
victims of Het-IPV cases have a slightly higher proportion of reported inci-
dents involving minor physical injury than same-sex victims. Male SS-IPV
Whitehead et al. 19

incidents reported a proportion of incidents without physical injury (45%)

and with minor physical injury (46%) similar to male and female Het-IPV
victims. Female SS-IPV cases were the only victim–accused relationship to
report a higher proportion of cases without injury (50%) than with minor
physical injury (43%). However, it should be noted that the level of injury in
male and female same-sex cases was recorded as unknown in over 5% of
cases, more often than in heterosexual cases.
In the majority of reported incidents, physical force or threats were used
rather than weapons (85%). When weapons were used, the incident involved
a firearm (<1%), a knife or other piercing instrument (4%), or another type
of weapon (7%). Three percent of the cases did not have information about
whether a weapon was used. Physical force or threats were reported in a
larger proportion of incidents involving female victims (Het-IPV = 87%,
SS-IPV = 84%) than male victims (Het-IPV = 74%, SS-IPV = 79%). Male
victims had higher proportions of reported incidents involving knives or
other piercing instruments (Het-IPV = 9%, SS-IPV = 6%) and other weap-
ons (Het-IPV = 14%, SS-IPV = 10%) than female victims regardless of the
victim–accused relationship.

Location of incidents.  Both Het-IPV and SS-IPV incidents were reported most
often in private residences (85%) than in public locations (13%), and in
which the location was unknown or not reported (2%). A higher proportion of
Het-IPV incidents were reported in private residences than SS-IPV
incidents.
The majority of incidents took place in Ontario (31%) and Quebec (21%),
which are the two most densely populated provinces (Statistics Canada,
2018a). Similar proportions of IPV reporting occurred in most provinces and
territories. However, a larger portion of male SS-IPV incidents took place in
Ontario (38%) and Quebec (27%). Female SS-IPV was reported at a higher
rate in Ontario (41%) and a lower rate in Quebec (16%). British Columbia
had a higher proportion of Het-IPV with 16% male victims and 13% female
victims reported than SS-IPV victims.
The final difference occurred in the proximity of IPV to urban and rural
areas. While reporting was similar in all population densities, slightly more
incidents were reported in smaller urban areas (50,000–249,999; 23%) than
small towns (10,000–49,999; 21%), major urban areas (1,000,000 and over;
19%), mid-sized urban areas (250,000–999,999; 19%), rural areas (less than
9,999; 18%), or unknown areas (<1%). This finding is consistent with previ-
ous Het-IPV research (Peek-Asa et al., 2011) and presents additional chal-
lenges to IPV victims, especially same-sex victims, with limited access to
services. Male SS-IPV and both forms of Het-IPV have similar proportions
20 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

of reporting in all population densities. However, female SS-IPV is reported

more frequently in rural areas (23%) and less often in mid-sized and major
metropolitan areas (13%). This conflicts with Blosnich and Bossarte's (2009)
findings that female same-sex victimization occurs at higher proportions in
urban settings.

Discussion
Through a review of current literature and descriptive analysis, this study has
assessed the prevalence of Het-IPV and SS-IPV as well as the similarities and
differences in incident characteristics and types reported to Canadian police
between 2007 and 2011. Approximately 3% of the IPV sample were involved
in same-sex relationships while slightly less than 4% of Canadians identify as
same-sex or bisexual (Statistics Canada, 2017), and approximately 1% of
couples are in same-sex spousal partnerships (Ibrahim, 2019). However, it is
not currently known how many same-sex people in Canada were in an inti-
mate relationship during the 4-year period captured in this study.
Studies have found that IPV is often underreported, and therefore, it is
likely that many incidents were not captured in this study (Carvalho et al.,
2011; Ibrahim, 2019). Furthermore, previous North American studies have
argued that SS-IPV is as prevalent as Het-IPV but may be less likely to be
reported to police services (McClennen, 2005; Messinger, 2014). It has also
been argued that underreporting of SS-IPV may be exacerbated due to hetero-
normative understandings of IPV, perceptions of homophobic responses by
police, and fears about revealing their sexuality (Banks, 2003; Calton et al.,
2016; Duke & Davidson, 2009; Hoyle, 2007; Murray & Mobley, 2009;
Oringher & Samuelson, 2011). Therefore, this finding cannot be compared to
self-reported SS-IPV victimization but can support the development of mea-
surement tools to better gauge underreporting in Canada and inform under-
standings of prevalence.
Of the sample assessed, similar relationship statuses and average ages of
victims and accused were found for all victim-accused relationships. In same-
sex and heterosexual relationships, a higher proportion of IPV was reported
between current partners and, on average, the victim and accused were in
their mid-30s. Notably, SS-IPV differs from Het-IPV in several characteris-
tics, including reported violation types, the levels of victim injury, weapon
use, offense location, and urban and rural proximity, and these are addressed
in more detail below.
The descriptive analysis showed that male victims reported higher propor-
tions of aggravated assault or assault with a weapon than female victims. It
may be possible that males are less likely to report IPV except for in more
Whitehead et al. 21

aggravated or extreme cases. This could be viewed as a manifestation of

hegemonic masculinity and its influences on victim behavior as it reinforces
societal beliefs that males should be strong, in control, and have a position of
authority (Jeffries & Ball, 2008; Kay & Jeffries, 2010). For same-sex or het-
erosexual men, reporting victimization by an intimate partner may challenge
this form of masculinity, and therefore, victims may be especially reluctant to
report. It is possible that this difference in the severity of injury when report-
ing may also influence police responses to incidents and warrants further
investigation.
The results also demonstrated that female victims reported higher propor-
tions of criminal harassment than male victims, regardless of victim–accused
relationship. This, too, may be related to hegemonic masculinity and its par-
ticular impacts on males’ reporting behaviors. Alternatively, criminal harass-
ment may be a technique used by male or female accused to establish power
and control over female victims when societal hegemonic beliefs support the
notion that females will, when repeatedly harassed, yield to aggressors, but
further research is required to explicate these patterns.
Finally, same-sex victims reported higher proportions of violations involv-
ing utterance of threats. As previously noted, same-sex victims may be more
vulnerable to threats by their partners. This use of threats has frequently been
noted as a reason for underreporting of SS-IPV but it is possible that, when
reported, this form of abuse is also more frequently disclosed to police ser-
vices in North America (Knauer, 1999; Pattavina et al., 2007). Between 2015
and 2018, Australia, Ireland, and the United Kingdom created and imple-
mented “coercive controlling behaviour” as a criminal offense (Stark &
Hester, 2019). Based on Frankland and Brown’s (2014) study of coercive
control in same-sex relationships, it is possible that this distinction may, over
time, provide additional information regarding the experiences of individuals
who are exposed to forms of emotional abuse that are not currently captured
in the UCR and allow for additional comparisons between Het-IPV and
SS-IPV.
Weapons were not used in most reported IPV incidents. However, both
heterosexual and same-sex male victims were more likely to have a knife or
other piercing instrument or other weapon used against them. Previous stud-
ies have shown that in heterosexual relationships females are more likely to
use a weapon on their male partner (Brown, 2004; Carney et al., 2007). This
has been related to females on average being smaller in size or lesser in
strength than male partners and using weapons as methods of compensating
for these differences (Brown, 2004). However, this differentiation does not
explain why male same-sex victims, who may be less likely to differ in size
22 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

or strength, are also more likely to have a weapon used on them and will
require additional research attention.
Approximately one quarter of female SS-IPV incidents were reported in
rural areas, small towns, and smaller metropolitan areas. This conflicts with
the fact that there are larger proportions of same-sex individuals who live in
communities in urban centers (Statistics Canada, 2017). It also raises ques-
tions about how police in less densely populated areas are prepared to respond
to incidents of SS-IPV.
As noted at the beginning of this article, this study aims to contribute to
the conversation about Canadian SS-IPV by presenting a large nation-wide
sample and hopes to provide a foundation for future research. This study
highlights several similarities and differences between police-reported Het-
IPV and SS-IPV in Canada. However, it is not possible to draw any causal
conclusions without further analysis. Much more research and attention from
the research community, public, and service providers is needed to under-
stand the issue further and to reduce the problem of SS-IPV.

Limitations
The UCR is an administrative data source originally intended to measure
rates of police-reported crime in Canada. To ensure that the data collected is
standardized, high-level information was collected from all police jurisdic-
tions (Dawson & Hotton, 2014). This means that information is consistent
but also that a limited number of variables are recorded. Furthermore, the
UCR data collection is limited by the number of incidents reported and the
police identification of victim–accused relationship status.
First, the UCR captures only the incidents of IPV that were reported to
police (Statistics Canada, 2013). Therefore, not all incidents of IPV will be
reported to the police and recorded in the UCR survey as the literature sug-
gests that IPV and SS-IPV are extremely underreported (Messinger, 2011;
Oringher & Samuelson, 2011). Second, the accurate identification of SS-IPV
incidents has been found to present a barrier to research (Pattavina et al.,
2007). The UCR methods of data collection could also be affected by police
perception of gay or lesbian individuals and SS-IPV. It is not always possible
for an observer or intervener to identify the victim–accused relationship or
sexual orientation. In the case of UCR data collection, a police officer may
not be aware that SS-IPV has occurred unless they inquire about the relation-
ship or the participants identify themselves as intimate partners. For example,
officers operating in a heteronormative environment may assume that an inci-
dent involving same-sex partners has occurred between friends or room-
mates, and it is possible that the victim–accused relationship may be
Whitehead et al. 23

improperly recorded. Finally, the UCR data set does not provide information
about the socioeconomic status or racial identity of the victim or accused.
However, studies assessing IPV have found that visible minorities are less
likely to report their IPV victimization to police services and that those with
lower socioeconomic status may have less access to victims’ assistance ser-
vices (Duke & Davidson, 2009; Ristock et al., 2017; Sokoloff & Dupont,
2005). Thus, it is possible that socioeconomic status and race may influence
IPV reporting in the UCR survey.

Future Research
This study aimed to build on the existing research by comparing police-
reported SS-IPV and Het-IPV generally. However, as this area of literature
continues to grow, additional attention is needed to better understand legal
responses to SS-IPV. The reporting of an offense represents one of the initial
stages by which an accused individual is filtered through the criminal justice
system. Future research could focus on the responses of police and judges to
reported SS-IPV incidents. In Canada, pro-arrest policies exist which require
police to intervene or make an arrest when an indecent of IPV is reported
(Dawson & Hotton, 2014; Pattavina et al., 2007). Under these policies, offi-
cers are encouraged or required to arrest and remove the accused (Iyengar,
2009). Once an accused is arrested, police services may choose whether they
are charged or cleared otherwise (Dawson & Hotton, 2014). As a result,
police officers can often maintain discretion and act as gatekeepers to the
criminal justice system (Dawson & Hotton, 2014). Similarly, judges decide
the appropriate punishment for individuals convicted of IPV-related offenses.
If the sexual orientation of the accused influences police or judicial responses,
it could indicate that systemic inequalities exist and help to inform policy
development as well as service provider training (Ford et al., 2013). Additional
research on the responses of police and judges could shed light on the experi-
ences of same-sex individuals in the criminal justice system and clarify where
policy changes would be the most effective to improve responses to SS-IPV.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article: The analysis presented in this paper was
24 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

conducted at the Guelph Branch Research Data Centre which is part of the Canadian
Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN). The services and activities provided by the
Guelph Branch Research Data Centre are made possible by the financial or in-kind
support of the SSHRC, the CIHR, the CFI, Statistics Canada, and the University of
Guelph. The views expressed in this paper do not necessarily represent the CRDCN’s
or that of its partners’.

ORCID iD
Jessica Whitehead https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2282-5279

Notes
1. To maintain consistency with prior literature, the acronym “Het-IPV” will refer
to intimate partner violence that occurs between partners of opposite sex.
2. The acronym “SS-IPV” for “same-sex intimate partner violence” will generally
be used in this article to describe incidents between gay, lesbian, or bisexual
partners. However, on occasion, it will be appropriate to speak of gay, lesbian,
or bisexual relationships specifically based upon the current literature available.
This is not intended to minimize the impact of violence on all sexual minorities
or to simplify the dynamics of violence within gay, lesbian, or bisexual relation-
ships. It is meant to build on the limited existing information and act as a founda-
tion for future, more specific studies.
3. The sex of the victim refers to their biological sex which was identified and
coded by the reporting police officer. At the time of data collection, the Uniform
Crime Reporting (UCR) did not contain specific instructions for officers regard-
ing the coding of transgender individuals; thus, it was not possible to capture this
population in the analysis.
4. These numbers have been rounded to protect confidentiality and simplify find-
ings for presentation in this article. Same-sex couples make up 3.48% of the
sample. Of this, 1.97% of the sample were in male same-sex relationships and
1.51% of the sample were in female same-sex relationships at the time of the
reported incident.
5. To prevent the release of potentially sensitive and confidential information when
displaying UCR data, Statistics Canada has created a list of confidentiality vet-
ting guidelines. In regard to the apparent age of the accused, cases involving
accused over the age of 90 years old were removed because of the small number
of cases. The UCR manual (Statistics Canada, 2013) also notes that some cases
involving accused persons aged 90 and older may be miscoded and may there-
fore alter the results of the analysis.
6. The UCR began collecting information about harassing telephone calls in 2008.
7. Incidents of major physical injury and death have been grouped together to
comply with Statistics Canada’s (2013) data vetting requirements and to reduce
the risk of residual disclosure, the identification of individuals through cross-
referencing with other released data.
Whitehead et al. 25

8. These measures are approximate and do not incorporate other important charac-
teristics of the area, such as proximity to an urban center.
9. These numbers have been rounded to protect confidentiality and simplify find-
ings for presentation in this article. Same-sex couples make up 3.48% of the
sample. Of this, 1.97% of the sample were in male same-sex relationships and
1.51% of the sample were in female same-sex relationships at the time of the
reported incident.

References
Balsam, K. F. (2001). Nowhere to hide: Lesbian battering, homophobia, and minority
stress. Women and Therapy, 23, 25–37.
Banks, C. (2003). The cost of homophobia: Literature review on the human impact
of homophobia on Canada. Community University Institute for Social Research.
Barrett, B. J., & St. Pierre, M. (2013). Intimate partner violence reported by lesbian-,
gay-, and bisexual-identified individuals living in Canada: An exploration of
within-group variations. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 25, 1–23.
Bartholomew, K., Regan, K. V., White, M. A., & Oram, D. (2008). Patterns of abuse
in male same-sex relationships. Violence and Victims, 25, 617–637.
Blosnich, J. R., & Bossarte, R. M. (2009). Comparisons of intimate partner violence
among partners in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships in the United States.
American journal of public health, 99(12), 2182–2184.
Bressan, A. (2009). Spousal violence in Canada’s provinces and territories. Statistics
Canada.
Brown, G. A. (2004). Gender as a factor in the response of the law-enforcement sys-
tem to violence against partners. Sexuality and Culture, 8(3–4), 3–139.
Burczycka, M. (2016). Trends in self-reported spousal violence in Canada, 2014.
Statistics Canada.
Burczycka, M., & Conroy, S. (2018). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile,
2016. Juristat, 38(1). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2018001/
article/54893-eng.htm
Burke, T. W., Jordan, M. L., & Owen, S. (2002). A cross-national comparison of gay
and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18,
231–257.
Calton, J. M., Cattaneo, L. B., & Gebhard, K. T. (2016). Barriers to help seeking for
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer survivors of intimate partner vio-
lence. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 17(5), 585–600.
Carney, M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate part-
ner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 108–115.
Carvalho, A. F., Lewis, R. J., Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., & Viggiano, C. (2011).
Internalized sexual minority stressors and same-sex intimate partner violence.
Journal of Family Violence, 26, 501–509.
Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c.46, s.231(6).
26 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Dawson, M., & Hotton, T. (2014). Police charging practices for incidents of intimate
partner violence in Canada. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 51,
655–683.
Delle Donne, M., DeLuca, J., Pleskach, P., Bromson, C., Mosley, M. P., Perez, E. T.,
Mathews, S. G., Stephenson, R., & Frye, V. (2018). Barriers to and facilitators
of help-seeking behavior among men who experience sexual violence. American
Journal of Men's Health, 12(2), 189–201.
Deutschmann, L. B. (2007). Deviance and social control. Toronto: Thomson Canada
Limited.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the
patriarchy. Free Press.
Donovan, C., & Hester, M. (2014). Domestic violence and sexuality: What's love got
to do with it? Policy Press.
Duke, A., & Davidson, M. (2009). Same-sex intimate partner violence: Lesbian,
gay, and bisexual affirmative outreach and advocacy. Journal of Aggression,
Maltreatment & Trauma, 18, 795–816.
Ford, C. L., Slavin, T., Hilton, K. L., & Holt, S. L. (2013). Intimate partner violence
prevention services and resources in Los Angeles: Issues, needs, and challenges
for assisting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients. Health Promotion
Practice, 14, 841–849.
Frankland, A., & Brown, J. (2014). Coercive control in same-sex intimate partner
violence. Journal of Family Violence, 29(1), 15–22.
Fray-Witzer, E. (1999). Twice abused: Domestic violence and the law. In B. Leventhal
& S. E. Lundy (Eds.), Same-sex domestic violence (pp. 19–42). SAGE.
Friedman, M. R., Bukowski, L., Eaton, L. A., Matthews, D. D., Dyer, T. V., Siconolfi,
D., & Stall, R. (2018). Psychosocial health disparities among black bisexual
men in the US: Effects of sexuality nondisclosure and gay community support.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 1–12.
Furman, E., Barata, P., Wilson, C., & Fante-Coleman, T. (2017). “It's a gap in aware-
ness”: Exploring service provision for LGBTQ2S survivors of intimate partner
violence in Ontario, Canada. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 29(4),
362–377.
Gehring, K. S., & Vaske, J. C. (2017). Out in the open: The consequences of intimate
partner violence for victims in same-sex and opposite-sex relationships. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 32(23), 3669–3692.
Goldberg, N. G., & Meyer, I. H. (2013). Sexual orientation disparities in history of
intimate partner violence: Results from the California health interview survey.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 28, 1109–1118.
Guadalupe-Diaz, X. L., & Jasinski, J. (2017). ““I wasn’t a priority, I wasn’t a vic-
tim” Challenges in help seeking for transgender survivors of intimate partner
violence.” Violence Against Women, 23(6), 772–792.
Hassouneh, D., & Glass, N. (2008). The influence of gender role stereotyping on
women’s experiences of female same-sex intimate partner violence. Violence
Against Women, 14, 310–325.
Whitehead et al. 27

Hearn, J. (2012). A multi-faceted power analysis of men’s violence to known women:

From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. The Sociological Review,
60, 589–610.
Hester, M., Donovan, C., & Fahmy, E. (2010). Feminist epistemology and the poli-
tics of method: Surveying same sex domestic violence. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 13(3), 251–263.
Hoyle, C. (2007). Feminism, victimology and domestic violence. In S. Walklate
(Ed.), Handbook of victims and victimology (pp. 146–174). Willan Publishing.
Hutchins, H. (2013). Risk factors for violence against women. Statistics Canada.
Ibrahim, D. (2019). Police-reported violence among same-sex intimate partners in
Canada, 2009 to 2017. Juristat, 39(1). https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-
002-x/2019001/article/00005-eng.htm
Island, D., & Letellier, P. (1991). Men who beat the men who love them: Battered gay
men and domestic violence. Harrington Park Press.
Iyengar, R. (2009). Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence
from mandatory and recommended arrest laws. Journal of Public Economics,
93, 85–98.
Jeffries, S., & Ball, M. (2008). Male same-sex intimate partner violence: A descrip-
tive review and call for further research. Murdoch eLaw Journal, 15, 134–179.
Johnson, H., & Dawson, M. (2011). Violence against women in Canada: Research
and policy perspectives. Oxford University Press.
Kay, M., & Jeffries, S. (2010). Homophobia, heteronormativism, and hegemonic
masculinity: Male same-sex intimate violence from the perspective of Brisbane
service providers. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 17, 412–423.
Kinsman, G. (1996). The regulation of desire: Homo and hetero sexualities. Black
Rose Books.
Knauer, N. J. (1999). Same-sex domestic violence: Claiming a domestic sphere while
risking negative stereotypes. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review, 8,
325–350.
Kwong-Lai Poon, M. (2011). Beyond good and evil: The social construction of vio-
lence in intimate gay relationships. In J. Ristock (ed.), Intimate partner violence
in LGBTQ lives (pp. 110–138). Routledge.
Little, B., & Terrance, C. (2010). Perceptions of domestic violence in lesbian relation-
ships: Stereotypes and gender role expectations. Journal of Homosexuality, 57,
429–440.
McClennen, J. (2005). Domestic violence between same-gender partners. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 20, 149–154.
Merrill, G. S., & Wolfe, V. A. (2000). Battered gay men: An exploration of abuse,
help seeking and why they stay. Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 1–30.
Messing, J. T., Thomas, K. A., Ward-Lasher, A. L., & Brewer, N. Q. (2018). A com-
parison of intimate partner violence strangulation between same-sex and differ-
ent-sex couples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pubmed/29566602
28 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

Messinger, A. M. (2011). Invisible victims: Same-sex IPV in the national violence

against women survey. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26, 2228–2243.
Messinger, A. M. (2014). Marking 35 years of research on same-sex intimate part-
ner violence: Lessons and new directions. In D. Peterson & V. R. Panfil (Eds.),
Handbook of LGBT communities, crime, and justice (pp. 65–85). Springer.
Milletich, R. J., Gumienny, L. A., Kelley, M. L., & D’Lima, G. M. (2014). Predictors
of women’s same-sex partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Violence,
29(6), 653–664.
Murray, C. E. M., & Mobley, A. K. (2009). Empirical research about same-sex inti-
mate partner violence: A methodological review. Journal of Homosexuality, 56,
361–386.
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. (2016). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans-
gender, queer, and HIV-affected intimate partner violence in 2015. Emily Waters.
Northcott, M. (2011). Domestic violence in rural Canada. In S. McDonald (Ed.),
Victims of crime research digest (pp. 9–14). Department of Justice.
Nowinski, S. N., & Bowen, E. (2012). Partner violence against heterosexual and gay
men: Prevalence and correlates. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 36–52.
Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015).
Oringher, J., & Samuelson, K. (2011). Intimate partner violence and the role of mas-
culinity in male same-sex relationships. Traumatology, 17, 68–74.
Owen, S., & Burke, T. (2004). An exploration of prevalence of domestic violence in
same-sex relationships. Psychological Review, 95, 129–132.
Pattavina, A., Hirschel, D., Buzawa, E., Faggiani, D., & Bentley, H. (2007). A com-
parison of the police response to heterosexual verse same-sex intimate partner
violence. Violence Against Women, 95, 374–394.
Peek-Asa, C., Wallis, A., Harland, K., Beyer, K., Dickey, P., & Saftlas, A. (2011).
Rural disparity in domestic violence prevalence and access to resources. Journal
of Women's Health, 20(11), 1743–1749.
Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence between same-sex part-
ners; Implications for counselling. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81,
40–47.
Renzetti, C. M. (1989). Building a second closet: Third party responses to victims of
lesbian partner abuse. Family Relations, 38, 157–163.
Ristock, J. (2002). No more secrets: Violence in lesbian relationships. Routledge.
Ristock, J., Zoccole, A., Passante, L., & Potskin, J. (2017). Impacts of colonization on
Indigenous Two-Spirit/LGBTQ Canadians’ experiences of migration, mobility
and relationship violence. Sexualities, 22, 767–784.
Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the bat-
tered women's movement. South End Press.
Smith, M. (2005). The politics of same-sex marriage in Canada and the United States.
Political Science & Politics, 38(2), 225–228.
Sokoloff, N., & Dupont, I. (2005). Domestic violence at the intersections of race, class,
and gender: Challenges and contributions to understanding violence against mar-
ginalized women in diverse communities. Violence Against Women, 11, 38–64.
Whitehead et al. 29

Stark, E., & Hester, M. (2019). Coercive control: Update and review. Violence Against
Women, 25(1), 81–104.
Statistics Canada. (2013). Uniform Crime Reporting Incident-Based Survey: Research
data centre user manual.
Statistics Canada. (2015). Definitions. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2012001
/definitions-eng.htm#c47
Statistics Canada. (2017). Same-sex couples and sexual orientation. . . by the num-
bers. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/dai/smr08/2015/smr08_203_2015
Statistics Canada. (2018a). Estimates of population, Canada, provinces and territo-
ries. http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a05?lang=eng&id=0510005
Statistics Canada. (2018b). Family violence in Canada: A statistical profile, 2016.
Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 85-002-X. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-
002-x/2018001/article/54893-eng.htm
Tesch, B., Bekerian, D., English, P., & Harrington, E. (2010). Same-sex domestic
violence: Why victims are more at risk. International Journal of Police Science
and Management, 12, 526–535.
Turell, S. C. (2000). A descriptive analysis of same-sex relationship violence for a
diverse sample. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 281–293.
Van Eeden-Moorefield, B., Martell, C. R., Williams, M., & Preston, M. (2011). Same-
sex relationships and dissolution: The connection between heteronormativity and
homonormativity. Family Relations, 60, 562–571.
Waldner-Haugrud, L. K., Vaden Gratch, L., & Magruder, B. (1997). Victimization
and perpetration rates of violence in gay and lesbian relationships: Gender issues
explored. Violence and Victims, 12, 173–184.
Walters, M. L., Jieru, C., & Breiding, J. B. (2013). The national intimate partner and
sexual violence survey (NISVS): 2010 findings on victimization by sexual orien-
tation. National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention.
Wathen, C. N., MacGregor, J. C., Tanaka, M., & MacQuarrie, B. J. (2018). The
impact of intimate partner violence on the health and work of gender and sexual
minorities in Canada. International Journal of Public Health, 63(8), 945–955.
Widiss, D. A. (2016). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships: New possibilities
for research on the role of marriage law in household labor allocation. Journal of
Family Theory & Review, 8(1), 10–29.

Author Biographies
Jessica Whitehead is a masters of arts, criminology and criminal justice policy grad-
uate of the University of Guelph and a masters of social work graduate of McGill
University. She is currently a research associate with the Centre for the Study of
Social and Legal Responses to Violence (www.violenceresearch.ca).
Myrna Dawson, PhD, is a professor and Canada Research Chair in Public Policy in
Criminal Justice, and director of the Centre for the Study of Social and Legal
Responses to Violence (www.violenceresearch.ca), University of Guelph. She is
30 Journal of Interpersonal Violence 00(0)

director of the Canadian Femicide Observatory for Justice and Accountability (www.
femicideincanada.ca) and co-director of the Canadian Domestic Homicide Prevention
Initiative With Vulnerable Populations (www.cdhpi.ca).
Tina Hotton is a research associate with the Centre for the Study of Social and Legal
Responses to Violence (www.violenceresearch.ca) at the University of Guelph. Over
the past 19 years she has worked both as a researcher for the Canadian Center for
Justice Statistics and as an analyst and regional manager with the Research Data
Centres Program at Statistics Canada.