Fig1: In India thirty-one percent of ever-married youth women aged 15-29 have experienced physical, sexual, or emotional spousal violence. The most common type of spousal violence is physical violence (27%), followed by emotional violence (12%). Six percent of ever married women have experienced sexual violence.
Table1: In India, thirty-one percent of ever-married female youth (aged 15-29) have experienced either physical, sexual, or emotional spousal violence. The most common type of spousal violence is physical violence (27%), followed by emotional violence (12%). Six percent of ever married women also experienced sexual violence. In this study, we are analysing men’s risky sexual behaviour and intimate partner violence. It is common and widely prevalent among all religions, castes, education level, wealth categories, and age groups. But, varies over different personal, behavioural and exposure-related factors. There are differentials in the level of violence penetration by selected characteristics of husbands. So, it is necessary to know the prevalence of violence among married men by socio-demographic characteristics. Men belonging to general castes (23%) did indulge in less violence than others. Men in the older age group (41-54 years old) (34%) did indulge in more violence than younger men (26%). Uneducated men (45%) engaged in more violence than educated men (17%). Working men (31%) indulge in less violence in comparison to those not working (33%). Men, who have seen their father beating their mothers (40%) indulge in more violence than others.
Regarding physical violence, men who belong to general castes (20%) indulge in less violence than others. Men in the older age (41-54 years old) group (30%) were responsible for more physical violence than younger ones (19%). Uneducated men (41%) perpetrated more physical violence than educated men (14%). Working men (27%) indulge in less physical violence in comparison to those not working (28%). Men, who have seen their father beating their mothers (37%) engaged in more physical violence than others.
In the case of sexual violence, men belong to general castes (5%) did engage in less violence than others. There is no difference in the age group. Uneducated men (11%) did more sexual violence than educated men (3%). Working men (6%) engage in more sexual violence in comparison to those not working (8%). Men belong to general castes (9%) were responsible for less emotional violence than others. Men in the older age group (17%) did more emotional violence than younger men (12%). It is found that men living in joint families, urban settings and belongs to higher economic status report comparatively less indulgence in violence than others. Men of the Eastern region are more likely penetrating all types of violence than other regions. Men who exposed to mass media are less likely to indulge in violence in comparison to those who are not exposed to mass media. Significant bivariate association were found between each of the men’s sexual risk behaviour and violence perpetrated on their wives. Any type of violence by husband is higher (35%) among those who have multiple sexual partners, who engage in high- risk sex (38%) and who have more than a one-lifetime partner (34%) in comparison to others who are not engaged in these sexual risk behaviours. Men who reported as involved in sexual violence, they had significantly a greater number of multiple partners (10%), more lifetime partners (8%) and engage in high-risk sex (7.5%) than non-perpetrators.
Table 2: The results of binary logistic regression analysis reiterate the findings of bivariate analysis. The result from the husband characteristics reveal that men from general caste carried out more violence irrespective of any form of violence (AOR=1.30) in comparison to those from SC castes, which is opposite in the case of women. There is no significant association in age group and work status. Educated men involved in less violence (AOR=0.68) than uneducated men. Parental violence is a risk factor for promoting violence; the men who are the victims of violence in childhood; they are more likely to carry out violence than others.
But in case of sexual violence, the result is different, here parental violence, age group and working status are showing as insignificant. Education attainment is the only protective factor that escapes women from their husband’s violence. Educated men are 40% less likely to engage in violence than uneducated men.
Table 3: This table shows the percentage of sexual risk behaviour among Indian married men by different background characteristics. In India, two-per-cent of currently married men have multiple sexual partners, 1.2% have sex with someone other than spouse, and 15% have more than a one-lifetime partner. Rural men (2%) have more sexual partners than urban men. ST caste (2.12%) have more multiple partners than others. It is more prevalent in younger age (3.4%) than older. Currently not working (3%), joint family (2%) and victims of parental violence (3%) all are risk factor for having multiple sexual partners.
Further when we see high-risk sex, it is more prevalent in ST caste (2%) and those belonging to the younger age group (3%). High risk sex is inversely related to wealth index. Men belong to Joint family (1.44%) and who are victims of parental violence (2%) are more engage in high-risk sex in comparison to those who belong to nuclear family and did not witness the parental violence.
Similar results obtained from the number of lifetime partners, more than a one-lifetime partner is higher in ST caste category (18%) and in rural areas (15%). Men who are currently not working (17%), the victims of parental violence (19%) and belong to the nuclear family (15%) have a greater number of lifetime partners. On the other hand, Men belong to the lowest wealth status have a greater number of lifetime partners in comparison to those who belong to richest families.
Table 4: Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed the association of sexual risk behaviour and background characteristics. This analysis confirmed that no association are identified across multiple sexual partners and all castes, age groups, education levels and place of residence. Joint family is a risk factor for multiple sexual partners. Working men are 36% less likely than not working to have multiple sexual partners. Further in case of High-risk sex, men belong to joint families is 1.66 times more likely to engage in high-risk sex in comparison to those who belong to nuclear families. There is no statistically significant result regarding place of residence, caste, age group education level, wealth index and working status. Results from lifetime partner analysis that place of residence, education level, family structure and wealth index are not significantly associated with the number of lifetime partners. Older men (AOR=4.25) are more likely to have a high number of lifetime partners than younger ones. Men who are working is 20% less likely to have more lifetime partners than those not working.
Table 5: Assessment of the extent to which risky sexual behaviour of husbands represents a risk for IPV penetration is conducted via multivariate logistic regression after controlling for the men’s socio-demographic characteristics. It is found that there is a statistically significant association between sexual risk behaviour and husband’s abusive behaviour. Men who reported sexual risk behaviour were more likely than those without such a history of penetrative violence on their wives. Men who are reported multiple sexual partners were more likely to engage in sexual violence (AOR=1.8), emotional violence (AOR=1.93) on their wives. Similarly, Men with a history of high-risk behaviour were 1.77 times more likely to have carried out emotional violence on their wives. More than a one-lifetime partner is also a risk factor of abusive husbands. Therefore, the likelihood of sexual violence is 1.4 times more among men who have more than a one-lifetime partner.