The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC; 2012) reported that intimate partner violence (IPV) affects approximately 4.8 million females and 2.8 million males in their intimate relationships each year. Past research (e.g., Fanslow, Robinson, Crengle, & Perese, 2010; Foshee et al., 1996; Foshee et al., 2009) on IPV solely evaluated prevalence rates and factors within opposite-sex relationships; however, IPV within lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals' relationships exists at equal, if not higher, rates compared to their heterosexual counterparts (Alexander, 2008; McKenry, Serovich, Mason, & Mosak, 2006). Subsequently, a gap in research existed on violence in LGBTQ individuals' samesex relationships and the need existed for further exploration of IPV within same-sex couples (McKenry et al., 2006; Turell, 2000). The purpose of this study was an examination of the relationships among victimization rates (Victimization in Dating Relationships [VDR] and Safe Dates-Psychological Abuse Victimization [SD-PAV]), perpetration rates (Perpetration in Dating Relationships [PDR] and Safe Dates-Psychological Abuse Perpetration [SD-PAP]), and attitudinal acceptance of IPV (Acceptance of Couple Violence [ACV]) among LGBTQ college students. The specific goals of the study were to (a) identify the IPV victimization rates and perpetration rates among LGBTQ college students, and (b) examine the attitudinal acceptance of IPV in LGBTQ college students. The statistical analyses used to examine the four research questions and seven subsequent hypotheses included (a) Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) and (b) Multiple Linear Regression (MLR). The results identified that significant mean differences (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .16) existed between females and males in their reported levels of victimization and perpetration, suggesting a large effect size with biological sex accounting for 16% of the variance across the four victimization and perpetration variables. Specifically, females self-reported higher levels of psychological and emotional victimization compared to males (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .05), suggesting that females in same-sex relationships reported greater psychological abuse from their female partners. In addition, results identified significant mean differences between males and females in their levels of attitudinal acceptance of IPV (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .13), suggesting a medium effect size that biological sex accounted for 13% of the variance in attitudinal acceptance of IPV scores. In considering gender expression, results from the study identified that in females and males, those self-identifying with greater amounts of masculinity reported an increased amount of victimization and perpetration (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .15). The results identified a large effect size in that 15% of the variance in victimization and perpetration rates were accounted for by the interaction of biological sex and gender expression. Furthermore, in females and males, those self-identifying with greater amounts of masculinity reported higher levels of attitudinal acceptance of IPV (p < .01; ŋ 2 P = .12). The results identified a medium effect size in that 12% of the variance in attitudinal acceptance of IPV was accounted for by the interaction of biological sex and gender expression. In regards to a history of childhood abuse and witnessing parental IPV, participants with a history of child abuse and a history of witnessing parental IPV did not differ in their levels of victimization, perpetration, or attitudinal acceptance of IPV from those without a history of childhood abuse and witnessing parental IPV. Finally, variables such as (a) biological sex, (b) gender expression, (c) past childhood abuse, (d) witnessing parental IPV, (e) v VDR, (f) SD-PAV, (g) PDR, and (h) SD-PAP predicted attitudinal acceptance of IPV in this LGBTQ college student sample. The results identified that linear composite of these eight predictor variables predicted 93% (R 2 = .93) of the overall variance in participants' attitudinal acceptance of IPV total score (p < .01). Overall, the results identified that females reported higher levels of psychological victimization meaning that a female LGBTQ college student potentially experiences more risk of becoming a victim in a relationship. In addition, results identified that LGBTQ college students identifying as masculine present a potentially greater risk for both victimization and perpetration in their same-sex relationships. Self-identifying masculine LGBTQ college students reported greater amounts of acceptance of same-sex IPV, which possibly explains the lack of IPV reports from these college students. Finally, the results identified that individual and family-of-origin factors do, in fact, predict LGBTQ college students' levels of attitudinal acceptance of IPV. In other words, an LGBTQ college students' biological sex, gender expression, past childhood experiences, victimization rates, and perpetration rates all relate to the prediction of their attitudes about IPV. Implications for future research included the need to further examine college students engaging either in an opposite-sex or same-sex relationship, exploring the relationships between masculinity and femininity in their reported levels of victimization, perpetration, and attitudinal acceptance of IPV. The need to replicate this study exists in order to ensure inclusiveness of individuals across all sexual orientations and gender identities in college students. In addition, several significant findings from this study further substantiate the need for continued research in the area of same-sex IPV, especially utilizing a sample of LGBTQ college students, to inform (a) clinical assessment in college counseling clinics and community agencies, (b) IPV protocol development, and (c) culturally sensitive, modified intervention based on the current findings.