Based on data from the VIRAGE (Violence and Gender Relations: INED, 2015–2016) survey, this article explores reports of violence in minority populations through the case of family violence reported by members of sexual minorities. VIRAGE provides two samples of homo-/bisexual respondents who answered the same questionnaire: a volunteer sample recruited through a communications campaign, who responded via Internet; and respondents to a general population telephone survey who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Sexual identification is a sensitive issue, and surveys of private households do not necessarily capture either all victims of violence or all of those who identify as homosexual or bisexual. The general population sample thus cannot be considered representative of these groups. Lesbian and bisexual women in both samples reported more family violence than gay and bisexual men. Homo-/bisexual respondents in VIRAGE’s convenience sample reported more experiences of violence than those in its general population sample. This difference may be explained by various factors: effects of the data collection mode, and of data collection strategies more generally, as well as the heterogeneity of populations in terms of either exposure to violence or the propensity to report it. We use logistic regression methods to understand these differences, controlling for the differences between the characteristics of the respondents in the two samples. In addition to sociodemographic characteristics, we hypothesized that sexual trajectories and practices of sociability among homosexuals and bisexuals could affect the reporting and perception of violence. After these analyses, differences remain, but to a variable extent depending on sex, sexual identification, and forms of violence. The resulting models explain the differences in reporting between samples for men less well than for women. This result can be interpreted as the consequence of a difference between women’s and men’s exposure to violence: independently of the effects of data collection mode and sampling differences, the high probability that female sexual minorities will experience family violence leads to relatively high reporting in the two samples.

本文基于来自VIRAGE（暴力与性别关系：INED，2015-2016年）调查的数据，通过性少数群体成员报告的家庭暴力案件，探讨了少数群体暴力的报告。VIRAGE提供了两个回答同一个问卷的同性恋/双性恋者样本：一个通过传播活动招募的志愿者样本，他们通过互联网进行了回复；以及一般人口电话调查的受访者，他们是女同性恋，男同性恋或双性恋。性别认同是一个敏感的问题，对私人家庭的调查不一定捕获所有的暴力受害者或所有被识别为同性恋或双性恋者。因此，不能将一般人口样本视为这些群体的代表。在这两个样本中，女同性恋和双性恋女性的家庭暴力行为均高于男同性恋和双性恋男性。VIRAGE便利样本中的同性恋/双性恋者报告的暴力经历比其一般人群样本中的暴力经历更多。可以通过多种因素来解释这种差异：数据收集模式的影响以及更普遍的数据收集策略的影响，以及人群在遭受暴力侵害或报告暴力倾向方面的异质性。我们使用逻辑回归方法来理解这些差异，以控制两个样本中受访者的特征之间的差异。除了社会人口统计学特征外，我们假设同性恋和双性恋者之间的性行为轨迹和社交行为会影响暴力的举报和感知。经过这些分析后，差异仍然存在，但在不同程度上取决于性别，性认同和暴力形式。由此产生的模型解释了男性样本少于女性样本的报告之间的差异。可以将这一结果解释为男女暴露于暴力之间的差异的结果：独立于数据收集方式和抽样差异的影响，女性少数群体遭受家庭暴力的可能性很高，导致这两个群体的举报率相对较高样品。和暴力形式。由此产生的模型解释了男性样本少于女性样本的报告之间的差异。可以将这一结果解释为男女暴露于暴力之间的差异的结果：独立于数据收集方式和抽样差异的影响，女性少数群体遭受家庭暴力的可能性很高，导致这两个群体的举报率相对较高样品。和暴力形式。由此产生的模型解释了男性样本少于女性样本的报告之间的差异。可以将这一结果解释为男女暴露于暴力之间的差异的结果：独立于数据收集方式和抽样差异的影响，女性少数群体遭受家庭暴力的可能性很高，导致这两个群体的举报率相对较高样品。