Using Relationship Education Programs with Same-Sex Couples: A Preliminary Evaluation of Program Utility and Needed Modifications

Same-sex couples represent a group likely to benefit from relationship education, given the many unique challenges they face. However, it is unclear whether existing programs, predominantly designed for married heterosexual couples, are appropriate for use with same-sex couples. In this article we highlight the need for quality relationship education programs for same-sex couples and review the literature to identify unique needs of same-sex couples that may not be met by existing programs. We then describe a small survey of couple therapists and researchers conducted to provide preliminary information about whether same-sex couples are perceived to benefit from existing relationship education programs and whether modifications to program content are needed. Twenty respondents indicated that a core set of relationship education components were useful when working with same-sex couples, although the presentation of these components generally required modifications to remove heterosexist bias and to improve applicability to same-sex couples. In addition, several novel program foci were suggested (e.g., stigma management). Implications for the design and delivery of relationship education to same-sex couples are discussed.     

Minority Stress and Stress Proliferation Among Same‐Sex and Other Marginalized Couples

Drawing from 2 largely isolated approaches to the study of social stress—stress proliferation and minority stress—the authors theorize about stress and mental health among same‐sex couples. With this integrated stress framework, they hypothesized that couple‐level minority stressors may be experienced by individual partners and jointly by couples as a result of the stigmatized status of their same‐sex relationship—a novel concept. They also consider dyadic minority stress processes, which result from the relational experience of individual‐level minority stressors between partners. Because this framework includes stressors emanating from both status‐based (e.g., sexual minority) and role‐based (e.g., partner) stress domains, it facilitates the study of stress proliferation linking minority stress (e.g., discrimination), more commonly experienced relational stress (e.g., conflict), and mental health. This framework can be applied to the study of stress and health among other marginalized couples, such as interracial/ethnic, interfaith, and age‐discrepant couples.     

Therapy with Lesbian Couples

Speaking as a therapist and a heterosexual, the author discusses her work with lesbian couples. She suggests that necessary components of good therapy are the therapist's awareness of his or her own views, fears and assumptions about homosexuality, and an understanding of the ways that society, including the world of therapy, still subjugates same sex relationships. Working with lesbian couples raises challenges that are pertinent to the wider issue of the redefinition of couple therapy in a society where the couple relationship itself is being redefined.     

Couple Longevity in the Era of Same‐Sex Marriage in the United States

The author used a new longitudinal data set, the How Couples Meet and Stay Together surveys (N = 3,009), to generate the first nationally representative comparison of same‐sex couple stability and heterosexual couple stability in the United States. He measured the association between marriage (by several definitions of marriage) and couple longevity for same‐sex couples in the United States. Reports of same‐sex relationship instability in the past were due in part to the low rate of marriages among same‐sex couples. After controlling for marriage and marriage‐like commitments, the break‐up rate for same‐sex couples was comparable to (and not statistically distinguishable from) the break‐up rate for heterosexual couples. The results revealed that same‐sex couples who had a marriage‐like commitment had stable unions regardless of government recognition. A variety of predictors of relationship dissolution for heterosexual and for same‐sex couples are explored.     

Couples relationship standards and satisfaction in Pakistani couples

Relationship standards are beliefs about what is important in a satisfying couple relationship, which vary considerably between cultures, and might mean that what couples seek from couple therapy differs across cultures. We assessed the standards of n = 49 Pakistani couples and whether those standards predicted couple satisfaction. To provide referents for the Pakistani standards, we also assessed selfreported relationship standards in n = 33 Western couples and n = 30 Chinese couples. Pakistani couples endorsed couple bond standards (e.g., expressions of love) as similarly important, and family responsibility (e.g., extended family relations) standards as more important, than Western or Chinese couples. In Pakistani couples, Couple Bond predicted couples' relationship satisfaction, but family responsibility and Religion predicted only wives' satisfaction. Modest sample sizes necessitate caution in interpreting results but suggest existing couple therapies might need modification to address the distinctive relationship standards of Pakistani couples.     

Attachment Change in the Beginning Stages of Therapy: Examining Change Trajectories for Avoidance and Anxiety

The purpose of this study was to investigate the nature of self‐reported attachment change (avoidance and anxiety) in the context of six sessions of couple therapy designed to emphasize both therapist‐centered and couple‐centered (i.e., enactment‐based) clinical process during the beginning stages of therapy. A total of 48 couples with at least one partner who reported clinically significant relationship dissatisfaction participated in this study. Findings confirmed that some couples experience positive attachment‐related change (anxiety or avoidance), while also identifying a subset of individuals who may not experience optimal levels of attachment‐related change. In addition, findings point toward both differences and similarities between change trajectories for avoidance and anxiety. Finally, there was evidence that socio‐demographic factors may be associated with attachment change.     

Same‐Sex Couples,Families, and Marriage: Embracing and Resisting Heteronormativity1

This article focuses on lesbian and gay couples and families and the politics of same‐sex marriage. Drawing from the literature on same‐sex couples, same‐sex marriage, and queer theory’s concept of heteronormativity, we argue that gay and lesbian couples and families both affirm and challenge heterosexual and gendered family forms. First, we review literature that discusses how same‐sex relationships and families are similar to and different from conventional heterosexual relationships and families. Second, we discuss the socio‐legal and cultural inequalities faced by LGBT families. Third, we discuss the politics of same‐sex marriage, examining the debate among social conservatives, pro‐marriage activists, and queer critics over the desirability of same‐sex marriage. We conclude that the growing visibility of LGBT couples and families has made their exclusion from the institution of marriage more conspicuous and that recognition of LGBT relationships and families seems likely to increase.     

Sexual Minority Stress and Same‐Sex Relationship Well‐being: A Meta‐analysis of Research Prior to the U.S. Nationwide Legalization of Same‐Sex Marriage

Meta‐analytic methods were used to analyze 179 effect sizes retrieved from 32 research reports on the implications that sexual minority stress may have for same‐sex relationship well‐being. Sexual minority stress (aggregated across different types of stress) is moderately and negatively associated with same‐sex relationship well‐being (aggregated across different dimensions of relationship well‐being). Internalized homophobia is significantly and negatively associated with same‐sex relationship well‐being, whereas heterosexist discrimination and sexual orientation visibility management are not. Moreover, the effect size for internalized homophobia is significantly larger than those for heterosexist discrimination and sexual orientation visibility management. Sexual minority stress is significantly and negatively associated with same‐sex relationship quality but not associated with closeness or stability. Sexual minority stress is significantly and negatively associated with relationship well‐being among same‐sex female couples but not among same‐sex male couples. The current status of research approaches in this field is also summarized and discussed.     

Freud,Grafenberg, and the neglected vagina: Thoughts concerning an historical omission in sexology

Because similarity between partners has been thought to be related to relationship quality, this study assessed similarities between partners in 44 married, 35 heterosexual cohabiting, 50 gay, and 56 lesbian couples on demographic characteristics, appraisals of relationship quality, and factors predictive of relationship quality. With regard to demographic characteristics: Partners' age was correlated for each type of couple; partners' income, education, and job prestige were correlated only for heterosexual cohabiting couples; and gay partners had the largest discrepancies in age, income, and education. With regard to appraisals of relationship quality: Partners' scores were correlated for each type of couple on relationship satisfaction but for only gay and lesbian couples on love for partner; partners across all couples differed in their assessments of relationship quality. With regard to the predictors of relationship quality: Partner scores were correlated for each type of couple only on shared decision making; these predictor scores were most frequently correlated for lesbian partners; differences between partners were least for lesbian couples on attractions to the relationship and perceived family support and greatest for cohabiting couples on dyadic attachment. Relationship quality was not related to discrepancies between partners' demographic variables but was negatively related to discrepancies in partners' dyadic attachment. In conclusion, partner homogamy was most pervasive in lesbian couples, and for all couples homogamy on dyadic attachment was related to relationship quality.     

Legal Marriage,Unequal Recognition,and Mental Health Among Same‐Sex Couples

The authors examined whether the perception of unequal relationship recognition ‐ a novel couple‐level minority stressor ‐ has negative consequences for mental health among same‐sex couples. Data were analyzed from a dyadic study of 100 same‐sex couples (200 individuals) in the United States. Being in a legal marriage was associated with lower perceived unequal recognition and better mental health; being in a registered domestic partnership or civil union—but not also legally married—was associated with greater perceived unequal recognition and worse mental health. Actor partner interdependence models tested associations between legal relationship status, unequal relationship recognition, and mental health (nonspecific psychological distress, depressive symptomatology, and problematic drinking), net controls (age, gender, race and ethnicity, education, and income). Unequal recognition was consistently associated with worse mental health, independent of legal relationship status. Legal changes affecting relationship recognition should not be seen as simple remedies for addressing the mental health effects of institutionalized discrimination.     

Stress Spillover and Crossover in Same-Sex Couples: Concurrent and Lagged Daily Effects

ABSTRACT

A growing body of literature on romantic relationships demonstrates associations between daily stress and relationship quality; however, this research has largely focused on heterosexual couples. Whereas all couples may experience common external stressors originating outside the relationship (e.g., work and finances), sexual-minority couples may also experience unique stressors due to their sexual orientation (e.g., discrimination or harassment). To address the dearth of literature on the daily experience of stress in same-sex relationships, we examine concurrent (same-day) and lagged (next-day) effects of common external and sexual-minority stressors on relationship quality using 14-day daily diaries from 81 same-sex couples. In doing so, we identify the types of external stress most likely to spill over into the relationship, as well as those vulnerable to crossing over from one partner to the other. We further examine whether the effects are proximal (concurrent) or carry over from one day to the next (lagged). Common external stress was negatively associated with same-day actor and partner relationship quality. Sexual-minority stress demonstrated lagged effects for actor relationship quality, but only for men. Implications for the proximal impact of common external stress and the lagged effects of sexual-minority stress, specifically for men, on relationship quality are discussed.     

“When You’re Sitting on the Fence,Hope's the Hardest Part”: Challenges and Experiences of Heterosexual and Same-Sex Couples Adopting Through the Child Welfare System

This study of 84 foster-to-adopt parents (42 lesbian, gay, and heterosexual couples) examined the challenges that parents faced as they navigated multiple systems during the post-placement period. Some participants described the legal insecurity associated with their role as foster-to-adopt parents as impacting their well-being and attachment. Lack of support services, disorganization within social service agencies, and strained relationships with birth parents were also identified as stressors. Lesbian and gay participants faced additional concerns regarding the security of their placement due to the possibility for discrimination. Participants as a whole identified positive aspects of their experiences within various systems (e.g., supportive social workers).     

Intimacy,Gender and Self Psychology: Considerations for Relationship Counselling

This paper reviews major conceptualisations of intimacy and the blocks, frequently attributed to gender, which are thought to contribute to problems in couple relationships. The paper concludes that gender is often not the limiting factor that inhibits intimacy in heterosexual couples. It may be more productive to consider individual rather than couple therapy to deal with impasses that appear to be associated with gender. Ideas from self psychology provide insights into how some requests for intimacy may be related to immature self‐object needs, which may better be handled through individual rather than couple therapy. A range of therapeutic goals and strategies that focus directly on intimacy are then outlined.     

Assortative Mating Among Dutch Married and Cohabiting Same‐Sex and Different‐Sex Couples

The authors compared male and female same‐sex and different‐sex couples in the Netherlands with respect to age and educational homogamy. Because many same‐sex couples in the Netherlands are married, differences between married and cohabiting couples were analyzed for all 3 groups. Analyses of data from the Dutch Labor Force Surveys 2001–2007 (N = 184,999 couples) showed that male same‐sex couples are less homogamous in terms of age and education than different‐sex couples. Female same‐sex couples are less homogamous in terms of age, but not in terms of education. No meaningful differences were found between married couples and cohabiting couples. Partnership status appeared less important than the sex composition of the couple. Given the relatively tolerant climate toward homosexuals in the Netherlands, the similarity of the results with those yielded by studies conducted in the United States may be considered striking.     

Intimacy and Emotion Work in Lesbian,Gay, and Heterosexual Relationships

Knowledge about how gender shapes intimacy is dominated by a heteronormative focus on relationships involving a man and a woman. In this study, the authors shifted the focus to consider gendered meanings and experiences of intimacy in same‐sex and different‐sex relationships. They merged the gender‐as‐relational perspective—that gender is co‐constructed and enacted within relationships—with theoretical perspectives on emotion work and intimacy to frame an analysis of in‐depth interviews with 15 lesbian, 15 gay, and 20 heterosexual couples. They found that emotion work directed toward minimizing and maintaining boundaries between partners is key to understanding intimacy in long‐term relationships. Moreover, these dynamics, including the type and division of emotion work, vary for men and women depending on whether they are in a same‐sex or different‐sex relationship. These findings push thinking about diversity in long‐term relationships beyond a focus on gender difference and toward gendered relational contexts.     

Swinging: A replication and test of a theory

Traditional sex‐role stereotypes suggest that men and women engage in sex for different reasons. Previous studies have supported the notion that women are more motivated by emotional expression in having sex, and men are more concerned with physical gratification. In a survey of sexual behavior, heterosexual and homosexual respondents were asked to rate the importance of a variety of reasons for having sex and not having sex. The results showed that men and women differed in the importance attached to emotional and physical motives, with gender differences appearing in both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Certain practical motives (e.g., to reproduce, fear of AIDS, fear of pregnancy) differentiated between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Motivations predicting frequency of sexual behavior in the last month depended on the relationship status of the respondent. These findings, although suggesting that gender differences in motivations for sex persist in all kinds of relationships, point to many similarities among gay and straight men and women in reasons for having sex and limiting sexual activity.     

Difference and Diversity:

Some therapists believe that they should treat gay and lesbian couples ôjust like heterosexual couples.ö Others hold the view that same-sex couples are completely different from heterosexual couples and that only specially trained therapist can work with them. This paper is an attempt to over come the lack of information about gay and lesbian couple by describing the differences between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples; differences between gay couples and lesbian couples; diversity within both lesbian couples and gay couples; and the therapeutic implications of these differences. The discussion of differences has powerful political implications and is embedded within a larger context of belief systems about gender and sexual orientation. Therapist needs to protect against categorizing, essentializing, or over generalizing about gay and lesbian couples. Although heterosexism, homophobia, and sexism affect the dynamics of all gay and lesbian relationships, it is important to recognize that age, class, race, ethnicity, and physical ability, as well as the dynamics of each individual couple, make each relationship unique. The therapist, whether lesbian, gay, bisexual, or heterosexual, should be familiar with issues specific to lesbian and gay experience within the dominant society, and, at the same time, be attuned to the idiosyncratic nature of individual couples.     

Same Sex Couples and Counselling:

This paper is about homosexual relationships and the way that clinicians and researchers have conceived them and then attempted to compare them with heterosexual models. When there are problems experienced by one or both people in a relationship the available conceptualizations are inadequate. The need for a different perception of these dyads in counseling is suggested. This paper extends earlier research with men and women who migrated to Australia as part of a same sex couple (Hart, 1990). My aim is to broaden the view of the social and personal dynamics of gay and lesbian couples in general. I conclude that couples, in or out of counseling, should be sited within gay and lesbian multicultural kinship patterns.     

Constructing Couples’ Stories: Narrative Practice Insights from a Dyadic Dementia Intervention

Memory loss and dementia can be devastating for both caregivers and care recipients. Narrative therapeutic approaches offer promise, as well as challenges, for social interventions with couples where one partner has dementia. The Couples Life Story Approach is a recently-developed method by which practitioners work with such couples to help them narrate the story of their life together. This narrative approach is augmented by mementoes (e.g., photos, cards) that are collected by the couple during the intervention. Significant memories are elicited from both partners and developed into a Life Story Book. Drawing on data from this clinical research intervention with 20 older couples, we ask: What are some of the challenges of conducting narrative-based therapeutic interventions with older couples with memory loss? Clinical themes were identified utilizing a multiple case study approach during weekly team meetings. Six of the most prominent themes are presented here. Specifically, how to: (1) construct a narrative from disparate stories, (2) tell a mutual story, (3) tell the story of a couple that has been in a shorter relationship, (4) incorporate others in the story, (5) include difficult life moments, and, (6) end the story. Within each theme, we utilize case examples to illuminate relevant issues and describe strategies that were developed to resolve these clinical challenges. Implications for practitioners and clinical researchers who are engaged in dyadic interventions are discussed.     

HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTION AND SEXUAL ORIENTATION

The 2006 Canada census is used, along with a well‐known model of household production, to estimate the value of household commodities produced by gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples. The results show some intriguing differences and similarities. Unlike heterosexuals, gay and lesbian couples respond differently to changes in the cost of time. However, all couples are characterized by the importance of market goods over time and the importance of human capital in the market over the home, with respect to household production. Hence, although there are differences in the sexual division of labor between households of different sexual orientations, the value of household commodities is mostly driven by differences in the amount of market goods used in the home. Market goods are determined by income, and differences in income within a couple‐type swamp differences in income across couple‐types, and as a result there is no statistical difference in the value of household commodities produced across the three sexual orientations. (JEL D13)