Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy 2013, 34, 3253 doi: 10.1002/anzf.

1004

Finding Love: Passion, Intimacy, and Commitment in the Relationships of Gay Men
Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering
Macquarie University, Sydney This paper identifies the stages of gay male relationships through a qualitative analysis of the interviews of 12 gay men within the context of the Sternberg (1986) three component model of love. Four stages were identified: Confrontation with sexuality: Preparing for intimacy, Exploration of Sexuality: Engaging with passion, Experimentation with Relationships: Uniting intimacy and passion, and Formation of Committed Relationships: Integrating passion, intimacy, and commitment. Confrontation with Sexuality was a necessary first step before forming intimate relationships, as it provided a context for the second stage of Exploration of Sexuality, where passion could be explored. Once sexuality had been explored, Experimentation with Relationships was the next stage which involved uniting passion with intimacy, often including a period of experimenting with the types of relationships that are usually explored much earlier for heterosexuals. Finally, the fourth stage of Formation of Committed Relationships was identified which involved the integration of passion, intimacy, and commitment. The therapeutic implications of these results are elaborated by an analysis of these stages in clinical cases. Keywords: commitment, gay male relationships, intimacy, open relationships, passion

Key Points
1 Gay male relationships cannot be separated from the dominant discourse of heterosexuality and the stigmatisation of being gay. 2 Many gay men choose to have sexually open relationships. 3 Committed male gay relationships work better when both partners can negotiate and agree on a preferred style of relationship. 4 Four stages of relationships involving intimacy, passion and commitment appear to link early gay sexual awareness and later committed relationships. 5 There is overlap between the stages and some men approach them in a different order.

I thought that, you know, a relationship can take any form. And given that were gay, were not bound by the traditional rules of relationships and so we can have any sort of relationship. And, you know, its up to us to make it work (Martin, 23 years old).

Exploring intimacy by experimenting with and developing romantic relationships is a primary goal of most human beings once they reach adolescence, whether they are straight or gay. Gay men who often fail to meet the standards of heterosexual men in terms of focussing on female objects of desire, which is frequently linked to masculinity and sense of self, can also fail expectations of family and society. This is often apparent during adolescence when conformity is paramount and conrming masculinity is essential. Attempts to create a normal life by forming intimate gay relationships

Address for correspondence: Jac Brown, Dept of Psychology Macquarie University, New South Wales 2109, Australia. jac.brown@mq.edu.au

32

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

can present difculties, some common to other straight males, but others that are unique. This paper is a qualitative study of male gay relationships based on in depth interviews with 12 gay men. After describing a four stage model for the formation of intimate relationships, therapeutic implications for working with gay male couples are discussed.
Gay Men and Love Relationships

In comparing gay and straight relationships, it has been said gay men must experience a different kind of love, as the object of their desire is another man. Yet love does not appear to be gender linked, even though its expression may vary due to sexuality. In an attempt to conceptualise love in heterosexual relationships, Sternberg (1986) suggested three components of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. Intimacy was dened as feelings of connection, being close and creating a bond, which was maintained by both partners increasing their knowledge of each other, so their relationship continued to grow and be stimulated over time. He suggested that passion was the motivation behind a loving relationship, which consisted of a physical attraction and sexual connection between two lovers. Finally, commitment involved an active cognitive decision to continue and maintain a relationship in the long term. For Sternberg (1986) these three components of intimacy, passion, and commitment provided the necessary ingredients for love to continue. However the model is limited as it was developed predominantly for heterosexual relationships and presents a xed view of how relationships are developed and maintained, which may not reect current experience in either gay or straight relationships. It relies upon a dominant discourse of sexual exclusivity increasingly questioned by both gay and straight couples, as interest in consensual non-monogamy continues to increase (Barker & Langdridge, 2010). Of course there have always been non-monogamous relationships without consent from both partners, commonly known as affairs (Duncombe, 2004). Many factors relating to both gay and straight relationships put pressure on the concept of monogamy including polygamy, premarital sex, indelity, and divorce (Josephs & Shimberg, 2010). Thus indelity rates range from 20% to 25% in married heterosexual couples (Atkins, Baucom & Jacobson, 2001). Another study linked these results to gender, with 2025% of men and 1015% of women engaging in extra-marital sex (Laumann, Gagnon, Michael & Michaels, 1994), which conrms research suggesting men are more likely to cheat on their partners (Treas & Giesen, 2000). A further analysis of gender reported men were more likely to have sex-only affairs, while women were more likely to have emotion-only affairs (Atkins et al., 2001). These gures are even higher for adolescents who report cheating on partners at rates between 20% and 60% (Sheppard, Nelson & Andreoli-Mathie, 1995). Sexual hook-ups, or arrangements for physical contact outside primary relationships, are common for university students, affecting one half of males and one third of females (Paul, McManus & Hayes, 2000). Thus, while both males and females report having open relationships, men are still more likely to have them and appear to be able to separate sex from emotion more easily than women. For many contemporary couples, open relationships challenge the traditional model of intimacy, passion, and commitment proposed by Sternberg (1986). Research suggests a gender difference, with heterosexual males more likely to engage in satisfying open relationships than women. Yet most heterosexual relationships still aspire to closed relationships of the Sternberg kind. Heterosexual masculinity has been
2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

33

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

associated with power and performance (Connell, 2005), which is conrmed by the number of sexual partners and sexual risk-taking behaviour they report (Shearer, Hosterman, Gillen & Lefkowitz, 2005). Heterosexual men feel they do not get enough sex, and that sex is not related to any aspect of a relationship (Josephs & Shimberg, 2010; Mooney-Somers & Ussher, 2010). While a contemporary view of masculinity does not easily t Sternbergs (1986) model, it can provide a useful lens for interpreting and commenting on same sex relationships. Therapists and researchers still compare gay men to their heterosexual counterparts in terms of the quality of their relationships. Also studies generally nd no major differences between gay male, lesbian, and heterosexual couples on relationship variables like intimacy, communication, and trust, which appears to support a common understanding of love and intimacy (Elizur & Mintzer, 2003; Julien, Chartrand, Simard, Bouthillier & Begin, 2003; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1986; LaSala, 2004a; Mackey, Diemer & OBrien, 2000; Wagner, Remien & Carballo-Dieguez, 2000). Contrary to popular belief, there is evidence that gay male couples form long-lasting relationships and compare favourably to relationships of heterosexual couples (Bryant & Demian, 1994; McWhirter & Mattison, 1984). However they differ from other couple types around their attitudes and practices regarding the extent of sexual exclusivity (Adam, 2006; Kurdek, 2000; LaSala, 2004b; Mackey et al., 2000). Compared to straight couples, many gay men consider sex outside relationships as an important part of their lives and accept sexual freedom and experimentation as part of their gay identity. Thus Sternbergs (1986) theory of love can be modied to encompass the experience of many gay men and some heterosexual relationships. While he stated passion was the most difcult component of love to maintain, gay men have found a relatively unique way to do this within the context of the dominant discourse of heterosexuality.
Open Versus Exclusive Relationships

Gay relationships are frequently sexually open (Brown & Trevethan, 2010; Modesto Ramirez & Brown, 2010). In qualitative research their relationships are frequently described in terms of:  romantic scripts (falling in love, sexual exclusivity)  sexual exploration scripts (adventure, pleasure, sexual non-exclusivity) (Mutchler, 2000)  monogamy and monogamy in contention by one or both partners (a transitional period)  non-monogamy (Adam, 2006)  the importance of an emotional connection with a primary partner  distinguishing between recreational and intimate sex  the function of variety, which includes desire discrepancy in the couple (Pawlicki & Larson, 2011). A central dilemma described by Trussler, Perchal and Barker (2000) is that gay men want both monogamy and casual sex in their relationships, apparently simultaneously. As Pawlicki and Larson (2011) note, the gay literature emphasises current experience in relationships rather than how they play out over time. Heterosexual men also like sexual variety and choose to be sexually exclusive (Rosik & Byrd, 2007; Schmitt, 2003). However in gay male relationships, men engage in casual sexual

34

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

intercourse without apparent emotional consequences, by separating sex from emotions like love (Bameld & McCabe, 2001; LaSala, 2004a). Gay men are also more likely to deconstruct the meaning of sex, engage in sexual encounters without emotional commitment and approach sex as recreation (Green & Mitchell, 2002). Increasingly women are exploring these ideas as well (Laumann et al., 1994). Such perspectives allow gay men, many with partners sharing similar ideas (Weeks, 1991), to pursue anonymous sexual encounters in a sexually open relationship. This has consequences for single gay men looking for partners, and a common complaint in clinical work for gay men is they can often only nd men who want casual, non-involved sex. This facilitates a gay scene of casual, non-committing encounters, where many men already have partners. Nonetheless such ideas about non-exclusivity may be shared by gay and straight men, apparently due to the societal male conditioning of masculinity (Josephs & Shimberg, 2010; Mooney-Somers & Ussher, 2010).
Constructing a Gay Self

Unconscious communication about sexuality occurs early in childhood and is often negative and restrictive, which puts most people in a confusing position as sexual awareness increases (Bader, 2009). This may require individuals to compromise in expressing their sexuality. Sexual awareness (for any type of sexuality) has been documented to occur over a number of stages (Chaline, 2010). The components of any gay self includes the following:  creating a narrative of the new emerging sexual identity through interaction with similar others, and through seeking further information about what being gay means  seeking physical sensations through actual gay experiences  evaluating the experience through an interpretation of the positive and negative emotions that are experienced  negotiating explicitly or implicitly the eroticisation of power in the interchange with another, which is common in all intimate relationships  presenting the self in the newly accepted sexual identity often described as coming out. Thus, there is a very complex set of thoughts, feelings, and behaviours that frequently occur within an environment of secrecy and shame. For example, coming out often involves a more explicit choice of clothes, interests, peer group, and of course an ongoing interest in and expression of the new gay sexuality through a range of experiences. These components of narrative, sensation, emotion, power, and the presentation of self are all important aspects of a coherent sexuality. For gay men, the process of self-discovery and self-disclosure of same-sex feelings can challenge their personal identity, restructuring a concept of self (Taylor, 1999) from a perspective separate from the heterosexual environment in which they were raised. Establishing contact with other men who have recognised their same-sex attraction and submerged themselves in the gay sub-culture, allows them to normalise their feelings and form new identities, where they t in and are no longer part of a dominant heterosexual culture (Modesto, 2004). As gay men come out to families and friends, they create more congruent images of their own self-perceptions and environment (Taylor, 1999). The new sense of self evolves through further experiences, as gay men embrace their new sub-culture.
2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

35

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

Relationship Satisfaction in Open Relationships

Consistent with the Sternberg (1986) model, some gay male couples prefer sexual exclusivity and consider extra-dyadic encounters as a betrayal of trust (Bryant & Demian, 1994; Marcus, 1999). Worth, Reid and Mcmillan (2002) interviewed 20 gay male couples about sexual exclusivity, trust and rules for sex outside relationships. Gay men had conventional ideas of couple relationships based on heterosexual models, which included romantic love and monogamy, and the lack of condom use as a representation of trust and commitment to their partners. However they also believed monogamy was not easily achievable and felt pressured by their sub-culture to have sexually open relationships. In a recent Australian study approximately 50% of gay men reported sexually open relationships (Brown & Trevethan, 2010). Interestingly gay men report few differences in relationship satisfaction when compared across sexually open and closed relationships (e.g. LaSala, 2004a). However signicant differences emerged when this was examined in the context of rules for sex outside the relationship (Johnson & Keren, 1995; LaSala, 2004b; Modesto Ramirez & Brown, 2010). For example, not engaging in risk-taking sexual behaviour with other men was associated with a higher relationship satisfaction. Where both partners were able to negotiate the terms for an open relationship, their satisfaction levels did not vary from couples in closed relationships. While some heterosexual relationships aspire to this understanding, the numbers are considerably less than for gay men. Such negotiations around open relationships often occur over time. Research on gay male relationships has identied the rst stage as total monogamy. In most other relationships, this would be an expectation for the entire course of the relationship and not a stage. A later stage identied coupled casual sex, where a third person is included in sexual practices (Bonello & Cross, 2010). Partners having sex with casual partners became a further stage for many couples, while sex between the couple might or might not continue in the long term. The benets of creating open relationships was viewed in terms of different sex drives between partners, the ability to practice different forms of sexual activity, maintaining novelty and enhancing the primary relationship by keeping it fresh. Hoff and Beougher (2010) explored types of sexual agreements gay men made with their partners and found three: open agreements (64%), closed agreements (31%), and discrepant agreements (5%) where partners are unable to agree to the same rules regarding sex. Many gay men commonly separated sex and love (Slavin, 2009), usually having emotionally disengaged sex to protect the primary relationship. Gay men in sexually open relationships frequently referred to emotional delity as the important element (Bonello & Cross, 2010). In summary, understanding gay male relationships requires recognition of a variety of sexual practices, which comes from dealing with issues of sexuality within a strongly stigmatising and heterosexual world and as an important part of the process of exploring and forming satisfying relationships. The current paper presents qualitative research based on in-depth interviews with gay men, who reect upon their experience in forming relationships in seeking their version of love, intimacy, and commitment.
Methodology

Twelve men were selected and interviewed as part of a larger previously published online study of gay male relationships (Modesto Ramirez & Brown, 2010). It was

36

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

advertised as a study of adult gay male relationships through personal contacts, depositing free postcards in venues designated as gay or gay friendly, posting ads in a local gay newspaper (Sydney Star Observer), contacting gay organisations, and linking the survey to the Gay and Lesbian Counselling Service of New South Wales website, and into a personal contacts website. In-depth interviews lasting between 1 and 2.5 hours were conducted in participants homes or in a research ofce. These men responded to the following questions:  What is it like for you to be gay?  What was coming out like for you?  What is it like for you to be in a relationship?  What are the important aspects of your relationship?  Are there any factors that have inuenced your relationship?  Is there any couple that you emulate? Participants were encouraged to talk about these questions and were asked followup probes to their responses. Interviews were tape-recorded and then transcribed. A grounded theory approach was used to analyse the interviews (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). General core categories were drawn from the interviews and then were identied among all participants. After further analysis, themes emerged across responses. Axial coding was then conducted to identify broad categories. After revising the memos and notes and further scrutiny, new themes and categories were formed. This methodology was chosen for its precision in identifying constructs and rigorous procedure in developing categories with specic properties and dimensions that would show the participants experiences over time. Interviews were analysed using N-Vivo 7 qualitative software to manage the data and the coding process.
Participants

Respondents were living in Sydney, Australia at the time of the interviews. Ten men identied themselves as Australians with an Anglo background; one participant identied himself as a New Zealander with an Anglo background, and another respondent was British. They were all permanent residents of Australia. The average age of these men was 39.25, ranging from 23 to 52 years of age. They all had relationships in the past, and nine were involved in relationships at the time of the interviews. Two participants reported ending their relationships following the initial survey and before being offered in-depth interviews, and one reported not having a relationship throughout the whole research process. For those in relationships its average length was 9.7 years, although not all of them were living with their partners. Pseudonyms were used for respondents. A summary of participants backgrounds and relationship styles are presented in Table 1. Sydney is considered to have one of the largest concentrations of gay men and women in the world, and is the home of the Mardi Gras parade, which every year attracts thousands of gay men and lesbians from around the world. Although gay men and women live around areas known to be relatively gay, many live in the suburbs and most probably do not frequent these gay areas. Thus, the present study may be representative of men who are more active in the gay community due to the recruitment process.
Results The data from the interviews are documented in four stages, as shown in Figure 1.
2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

37

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

TABLE 1 Summary of Participants Description and Relationship Style Relationship Name Joe Martin Simon Jack Daniel* Phil Jonathan* Richard Keith Robert Bruno Brad Age 50 23 30 47 28 52 24 37 47 52 44 37 Background Australian Australian English New Zealander Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian Australian style Open Closed Closed Closed Closed Open Closed Open N/A Open Open Open Time in relationship 8 5 3 7 2 15 1 15 N/A 23 16 4

*Ended their relationship during the research.

Stage 1. Confrontation with sexuality: preparing for intimacy

Participants commented extensively on how they resolved their sexuality as part of their exploration of relationship issues. This rst stage of forming relationships, dealt with the development of self-understanding facilitated by confronting their sexuality, at odds with the broader society. These men needed to understand the meaning of their desires and how they could connect intimately with others. A number of themes were signicant signposts in their lives as they discovered the need to become more intimate with themselves before being intimate with others:
A. Awareness of same sex feelings. Around the age of puberty or earlier they started to see differences between themselves and peers in social and sexual interests:
So that would have been, well, theres something denitely that I used to think the boys were a lot prettier than the girls, basically. So I would have been aged, probably gosh, whats twelve? [school year] seven, eight [year], something like that (Martin, 23). But I knew that the boys that I was friendly with were interested in girls. And I was thinking, Im not interested in girls, Im interested in you (Robert, 52).

Some men were able to identify differences in the way they related to peers at an early age, for others this did not start until later in life. Others attempted to challenge the same-sex attraction, as in the next theme.
B. Challenging same-sex feelings. Some respondents reecting on the differences between themselves and their peers, felt there was something wrong with their thinking, challenging their thoughts by placing value judgments on their feelings:

38

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

STAGE 1. Confrontation with Sexuality: Preparing for intimacy STAGE 2. Exploration of Sexuality: Engaging with Passion STAGE 3. Experimentation with Relationships: Uniting intimacy and passion STAGE 4. Formation of committed relationships: Integrating intimacy, Passion, and Commitment
FIGURE 1 Stages of gay relationship development. Stage 1, Confrontation with Sexuality: Preparing for intimacy dealt with the dilemma of same sex attraction in a largely heterosexual world. Stage 2, Exploration of Sexuality: Engaging with passion involved the construction of male gay identity through exploring passions. In Stage 3, Experimentation with Relationships: Uniting intimacy and passion a range of relationships are explored to integrate passion and intimacy. Finally in Stage 4, Formation of Committed Relationships: Integrating passion, intimacy, and commitment the style of relationship is determined.

And then as I got older, I started I guess, being a lot more conscious of what I was doing. And conscious that it probably wasnt necessarily the right thing to be doing (Daniel, 28).

Other men challenged these thoughts and feelings:

I guess when I said to myself, not out loud but just in my head, Well, maybe I am actually gay. And thats, I suppose, when I was, like, Oh, my God, I have to x this, you know. And thats when I started trying to get a girlfriend, and trying to play football. It just didnt happen [laughs] (Simon, 30).

All respondents questioned their feelings leading to insecurities incompatible with the intimacy sought.
C. Confusion of same-sex feelings. Some men experienced this stage in their lives as confusing, keeping their feelings a secret:
2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

39

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

So I suppose I knew that the whole world was interested in the opposite sex, and then but I wasnt having those feelings. I was having feelings for the same sex. But I didnt really know what those feelings were, I didnt understand them, but I was also smart enough to realise that I just had to keep that to myself for the moment, until I worked it all out (Robert, 52).

Over time, there seemed to be an acceptance of these feelings as the next theme conrmed.
D. Acceptance of same-sex feelings. Many men began to reect on the ramications of accepting their feelings:
And it was like, watching movies like, ahm, Boys in the Band. And theres a couple of icon movies that sort of demonstrate gay life. And I thought Ooh, thats how that happens, or thats how that works, you know? (Robert, 52).

Generational differences were noted, as Generation Y respondents seemed to have a much easier acceptance of their sexuality:
well, I realised my personal feelings which would have been 1991 or 1992 that there was a gay community that were gay people [sic], and that that was what I was. And I just immediately slotted myself into that and And frankly I was never distressed by it. It was never something I thought was wrong or bad or unnatural or anything like that, really (Martin, 23).

Other respondents from Generation X did not have second thoughts about their same sex attractions:
Ive always been very comfortable with it, I never went through a process of feeling Was it wrong? Was I not sure? Was it dirty?, or anything like this (Richard, 37).

Thus respondents shared a range of themes from confusion to challenges and acceptance of same-sex feelings. Generally the reaction was age-related with older gay men having more initial negative reactions than younger gay men, which was part of the process of coming out. This was a key though not the only indicator of accepting their sexuality that occurred over a broad timeframe.
E. Social support for acceptance. An important aspect was support from families and friends, for some this was positive without a questioning of their sexual orientation. 1. Unconditional social support. The role of families and friends was paramount in the development of a new gay identity and some families provided a solid basis for self-discovery:
Yeah, awesome. My parents were fantastic, my whole family are really, really cool. They they dont care. Im still Im not a different person. So theyre ne. Very supportive. Very, very supportive (Daniel, 28).

For others it was more complicated and they decided to come out rst to friends or relatives before their parents as less confronting:
Ah, I came out to a cousin rst, that I was fairly close with. She said she suspected that was easy! [laughs] She then helped me come out to my sister. And my sister said that shed had conversations with my mother. And my mother suspected. So my cousin and my sister had a talk with my parents about it. And they were ne (Jonathan, 24).

40

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

Others felt they needed support to start their sexual quest:

And, well, and he encouraged me to start to be who I was. With that help I needed the support of someone who wasnt gay, someone who was straight, to actually make me see that I was all right to be gay. And he did (Brad, 37).

Some men were able to rely on families and friends to realise their sexual preference, which paved the way for creating intimacy with others. Others were not rejected by their families but did not feel accepted as gay. 2. Conditional social support. For some men the experience of making public their new sexual self, required re-negotiating relationships with parents. When gay men perceived a lack of support from their families, they submerged themselves in an environment where they felt accepted for whom they were and for whom they had become. They turned to the gay sub-culture for acceptance in an attempt to develop some level of intimacy.
And we had the whole, you know, discussion about, you know, what had she [mother] done wrong and there was really never any discussion about what shed actually seen or the fact that Id been with an older man or anything like that. It was it was just purely what had she done wrong, in terms of ahm, you know, bringing me up or, you know, how had she made me that way? (Richard, 37).

Others had to come to terms with parents never going to appreciate their new identity, opting not to acknowledge their sexual preference:
well, I had to suddenly confront the fact that the very people I loved most in the world [parents], ahm, suddenly had this huge issue with me (Bruno, 44).

In realising their new sexual selves respondents re-negotiated what they could expect from former social support networks. Some felt angry and confused by the limited ideologies in which they lived, and some decided to embrace their new cultural identity and challenge their former culture:
So, you know, here I was, at 22 you know, everything my parents had told me to be true was no longer true. Ahm, I was no longer going to grow up and have a wife and two children, and live in the suburbs and all that. So suddenly my entire world, I had to reassess everything (Richard, 37).

In many ways coming out was not an easy task, with a mix of experiences and stories about a lack of support. It was an intense journey of discovering new friendships, living new relationships and sharing emotions and preoccupations:
I guess thats not always been the case, but I guess now I feel Ive got some individualism, Ive got an identity. I feel, to a degree, empowered in who I am whereas maybe a decade ago, before I confronted my sexuality, I didnt feel that way at all. So its also to feel part of a community, as well. Ive got quite a lot of gay friends now and, ahm, Im very I think Ive developed very good relationships and a community type bonding with those people (Brad, 37).

Although none of the participants reported negative reactions from families and friends, there were clear differences in the kinds of support, which had ramications for their condence and ability to connect intimately. Once there was some level of acceptance of a new sexual self, there was a second stage of exploring and understanding the gay community.

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

41

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

Stage 2. Exploration of sexuality: engaging with passion

After participants accepted their sexual attraction for other men, a second stage involved interaction with the gay community or at least gay life in its varied forms. This involved learning how to locate, associate with and relate to other gay men in ways that acknowledged their formerly secret passions. This life initially focussed around gaining sexual experience with two main themes.
1. Participating in missed intimacy experiences of adolescence. Having missed out on intimacy made possible by a secure sexual self, respondents were ready to make up for lost experiences shrouded in a mist of confusion and secrecy. As they understood who they were and were prepared to admit it to self and others, they focused on their attraction to other guys without previous societal constraints involving a more overt sexual exploration. This was practised with greater skill and condence as they were older and experienced a greater level of relief, entitlement and enjoyment:
But, for me, it was like, ahm letting a dog off a lead. I just went crazy and had so much fun. And I kind of felt that I was owed that because, you know, my friends at school had always had lots of fun growing up and they always had relationships, and I was always the one who missed out, because I was so confused about everything (Simon, 30). I turned into a teenager again. At 36, I suddenly became 19 and umm and started playing, I started living my life again. Umm and enjoying it, actually enjoying it (Jack, 47).

They could see their lives from the perspective of a new found and nally achieved adult maturity:
I grew so much in that time. I learnt so much about myself, about my family and I could stand on my own feet, all very shaky from time to time, I could be independent, I did have a sense of identity (Jack, 47).

Some reported feeling more complete and happier as the frustration of secrecy and sexual abstinence dissipated and they were able to establish and redene different types of relationships.
2. Establishing a role for a new gay self. Many of these experiences fostered a range of ideas and attitudes towards sex and relationships within a gay context, which could be quite confronting:
So the rst thing that a gay person sees, when theyre comfortable with who they are, is the inside of a hot, sweaty, gay nightclub where everyone is getting off with everyone else. And then everyone, at the end of the night, goes off and sleeps with everyone else. And thats, like for me, at least, that was like, Okay, well, this is what it is then. This must be how it develops from here. I need to get nice and muscley, and go and dance all night, and go and sleep with somebody. Because thats what all my friends are doing. And thats what these people at this place are doing. (Simon, 30).

These messages about gay interaction resulted in life changing events as they re-evaluated life choices and redened ideas about relationships and relating to other gay men:
Ah, and I wanted to experience that for myself. And I wanted to make some friends outside that circle, network my own friends. Ahm, so we basically broke up because because of that. So I could go out and experience a bit of life before settling down into a relationship (Daniel, 28).

42

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

Beliefs about friendship and relationships were also re-evaluated challenging previously held heterosexual discourses:
And thats one of the things about gay [sic], its extraordinary to be able to explore these different styles of friendships and relationships with people, and to be able to enjoy them (Bruno, 44).

This new network of friends and social support resulted in a range of friendships that many heterosexual men might nd confronting due to a widespread homonegativity:
So we actually close in on ourselves, and we actually look to each other to support each other. And so, in many ways, its a way of supporting, its a way of nurturing, its a way of showing, you know, that you care and you love, and that you can do that. And one of the things that gay people can do is that they can do it physically and sexually (Bruno, 44).

However, in our sample there was another group of men who became less involved in a gay social life. For them, being gay was about having sex with other men and about their sexuality, but not about who they were:
Ahm, I feel its just sexuality, its what youre attracted to in terms of a partner. I dont feel that I live a gay lifestyle, I dont go to gay clubs. I dont go to specically gay clubs. I have a mixture of gay and straight friends. I think that its only a small part of who I am as a person. Id rather be known as me than as someone who is gay (Jonathan, 24).

Through a process of trial and error in sexual experimentation, these men were able to establish a more stable sense of self through explorations of their passionate sides:
However, most guys, they do tend to come out, have lots of partners, pick them up at pubs or sex on premises venues or and beats and they have, they enjoy it, they enjoy the excitement, they enjoy the umm the sexual connection with other men and a variety of men. They experiment and they get to know themselves better (Jack, 47).

Thus, establishing a strong sexual self, prepared the way for intimacy, and exploring passions allowed respondents to think about experimenting with relationships, as for Stage 3.
Stage 3. Experimentation with relationships: uniting intimacy and passion

The experiences of nding out about gay life, particularly dating and sex impacted how respondents considered gay couple relationships. They required a crash course in gay orientation and thinking to replace the heterosexual mindset imposed by society. This was challenged through their experiences in coming to terms with their sexuality in gay contexts, where they formed a range of links between ideas about intimacy and the passion experienced. Differences were experienced leading to a broader range of alternatives:
They want to nd a nice guy and settle down and live happily ever after, but umm and I know that does not happen, but it is not for me too, everyone has their own journey, everyone has their own experience and it is for them to discover that as part of their lives (Jack, 47).

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

43

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

A new view of relationships emerged as they began to form new connections between intimacy and passion and experiment with a way of life. Some reported a gay male relationship developing in a few days:
Like, gay people are quite happy to go out, take drugs, pick up, go back, and have sex. And, you know, that for some people is the start of a relationship, which may last a week or it may last a day, a week, a month. Or it could be, you know, something that lasts for years (Simon, 30).

Sexual connections allowed a process for developing gay networks and relationships. Despite forming relationships early, respondents distinguished between those with the possibility to last and those developed as part of a highly sexualised process of participating in the gay scene. They could become involved in sexual relationships and then gure out if they wanted friendships or intimate relationships:
So initially my relationships were more this is good right now and, you know, and as soon as it got past the initial honeymoon phase, then I really couldnt be bothered basically (Martin, 23). Ah, well, some of it was going out and having random sex with people. Ahm, some of it was the main part of it was making my own friends. (Daniel, 28).

In the gay context frequent sexual connections led to confusion, as sex was not related to intimate relationships as in the past but could be simply friendship. This made it difcult to nd intimate relationships:
I was going, this is ridiculous. Spend all these years grappling about being not sure who I am. Now, I know who I am and I cant nd a boyfriend. Find, you know, I can nd sex, ahm, and so, you know, 2 years went by and I was trying all sorts of ways to meet people and it just wasnt happening (Brad, 37).

When it was difcult to nd committed relationships, respondents had sexual encounters as a substitute, mistaking passion for intimacy:
And then I got into this pattern, really, of going out and having a good time with friends, a lot of whom were couples. And then I would come home or else I would go out and have sex (Phil, 52).

Consequently, sex took on a new meaning, becoming a passionate activity that was not particularly related to intimacy and commitment, but an exciting way to pass time:
I am not saying that that its not an intimate thing to do with someone. But or that, in any way, its devalued. But [having sex] its something that ah, that you can have with someone that you dont necessarily want to spend the rest of your life with (Phil, 52).

Through this stage of sexual exploration and experimentation, sexual exploration was completed and provided a sense of intimacy that had often been lacking in participants lives. These experiences were inuential in how many men began to think about the uidity between intimacy and passion in relationships and how this might impact on subsequent commitment, as described in Stage 4.

44

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

Stage 4. Formation of committed relationships: integrating passion, intimacy, and commitment

By understanding themselves and gay culture better and developing friendships and a range of short-term relationships, respondents nally began to discover a new sense of connection between passion, intimacy, and commitment:
Ah, well, its wonderful. Ahm, I ah, its just its lovely to have someone to share the happy experiences and the sad experiences with. Ah, to live with. To travel with. Ah, just to be with (Phil, 52).

This sense of intimacy was inuenced by discovering the rules of dating, exploring sex, and working out the differences between friendship, short-term relationships and more committed relationships. From past experiences many respondents could not settle into traditional forms of relationship common to many heterosexual couples. There seemed to be three types of relationships that emerged from these data.
1. Contemporary relationships. The resolution of passion, intimacy, and commitment, led to a view of love that incorporated sexually open relationships. Some couples agreed on a contemporary relationship that was increasingly open to a range of sexual experiences:
We were meeting lots of nice guys and so we would we would end up just playing together with someone. Having threesomes, which was nice. Ahm, and then thats thats we went through the period with . Ahm, and then, more recently, weve weve allowed ourselves to, you know, be a little bit more expressive with that, in terms of having one-on-one separate ahm, separate exercises (Bruno, 44).

These men appeared comfortable enough with the level of trust in their relationships to have individual sexual encounters with other men. Others not comfortable with this arrangement formed a different style of relationship
2. Traditional relationships. These men inspired by heterosexual stereotypes were reluctant to incorporate casual sex without an emotional connection, and questioned the idea of sexual freedom and availability experienced earlier. Ideas of love and how it related to passion, intimacy, and commitment required more restraint on their passionate selves. They opted for a more traditional model of sexual exclusivity:
Ah, I guess a boyfriend to me, is someone that I want to I want to spend all my time with, and I want to spend my time with exclusively. And I want them to spend their time ex not exclusively, ahm in terms of sexually exclusively. And were committed to each other, basically. We start doing things as couples [sic] (Daniel, 28).

While this type of relationship worked when both partners were in agreement, it was challenged by the third type of relationship style.
3. Compromised relationships. As long as both men agreed on having a traditional or contemporary relationship, there were no problems with sexual exclusivity/inclusivity. However, not all partners had the same idea about how open their relationship should be:
My rst partner was interested in having an open relationship, which I considered but didnt really think it was something that I wanted to have with him. And in the end he just started sleeping around anyway (Jonathan, 24).

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

45

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

Some couples acknowledged alternative views but preferred a traditional arrangement:

So it was kind of quite good timing when I did meet and one of the rst things, you know, we spoke about, once wed established that we were both gay, was this whole concept of: Is it possible to have a faithful, closed, happy, you know, relationship? And I said, Yeah, I believe its the only way that a relationship can actually work. And again, you know, I said Id seen so many relationships destroyed over the prior couple of years and I just didnt want to repeat that cycle again (Simon, 30)

For other couples one member wanted a traditional relationship and the other a more contemporary or sexually open relationship. One couple reached a compromise, moving towards the traditional type of relationship:
I think its difcult to negotiate an open relationship umm, I, you know at times I would have liked to have gone out and had casual sex and for part of our relationship we did negotiate an open type relationship umm and I did go and have casual sex. Umm my partner was quite uncomfortable about that and he did as well once umm but he was uncomfortable about that. So weve talked about it and we do not do that anymore (Jack, 47).

Other couples compromised even though there was varying enthusiasm between partners for a contemporary arrangement:
Ive got another couple of friends whove been together about 10 years, where one of the partners who sort of announces at parties: Oh, yes. No, were in an open relationship; we do what we feel like. And you can see the hurt on the other partners face, and it just occurs to me to think, well, theyve obviously negotiated this. And theyve agreed on it. And theyve probably even said: Well, if were going to stay together, its going to have to be like this, because the sex were having now is not very good. So, well, thats the only way its going to work (Joe, 50).

Not all couples could resolve this issue quite so easily:

Ah, wed got over that really, before we got into this relationship. Because, ahm, [laughs] I remember when the previous boyfriend, when I was 30, ahm, he wanted me to be sexually faithful to him. And I didnt even masturbate for about 6 months which nearly killed me! And he he I mean, he was one of those people that told you what you wanted to hear. And it was very hard, I found it very hard, and it made me very childish and jealous (Phil, 52).

Where agreement could not be reached some resolved it like many heterosexual couples:
He made it very clear to me very early in our relationship he was only interested in a monogamous relationship. Ahm, over the years you know, right from when we very rst met, Ive continued on and off to have casual sex, sometimes more frequently than others (Richard, 37).

During this nal stage gay men are able to establish their relationships from different perspectives. The resolution of passion, intimacy, and commitment expressed itself in different types of relationships: contemporary, traditional, or compromised, based on the attitudes of each partner. These choices were not always conscious but inuenced decisions about sexual exclusivity and expectations in relationships:

46

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

I think there certainly is a proportion of the gay community that is starting to realise that this is possible. And starting to really embrace it, you know. And the interesting thing with that is, traditionally that might have been, you know, slanted with promiscuity or all sorts of other tainted words. Ahm, but I think that so we actually close in on ourselves, and we actually look to each other to support each other. And so, in many ways, its a way of supporting, its a way of nurturing, its a way of showing, you know, that you care and you love, and that you can do that. And one of the things that gay people can do is that they can do it physically and sexually (Bruno, 44).

Discussion

This research study identied four stages by which gay men develop their sexuality and relationships. However like any model of human relationships, not everyone goes through all these stages and some do so in a spiral manner. Thus participants acknowledged a mental struggle eventually leading to a sexual choice. There was a difference between accepting being gay and acting on it, as if having sex with other men would conrm a gay identity (Hegna, 2007). Also participants did not perceive heterosexuals going through a similar process (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004). This emphasises the complex issue of gay men being raised in a dominant heterosexual and stigmatising society. The stages are also congruent with the process of sexual awareness described by Chaline (2010). Participants created and validated new sexual selves and roles as gay men, a pathway consistent with previous results about the coming out process (Castan ~eda, 2000; Schafer, 1976; Troiden, 1989). They questioned their identity before accepting their same-sex attraction in preparing for intimate connections. Younger gay men may have different experiences living in a more open society tolerant of homosexuality (Gillis, 1998; Grierson & Smith, 2005), as found in this study. However many relocated from smaller country towns into Sydney, which suggests they were seeking a more accepting environment. Further comparative analysis of the effects of age and geography on coming out and the development of gay identity is required. Consistent with previous research (Floyd & Bakeman, 2006; Grierson & Smith, 2005), participants preferred to come out to friends, followed by family members and nally parent(s). Respondents went through a process of learning the rites and rituals of their new social context, of discovering what it meant to be out (Ridge, 2004) and their experiences in forming relationships and separating sex from love were similar to descriptions by other researchers (Bameld & McCabe, 2001 Green & Mitchell, 2002; LaSala, 2004a; Pawlicki & Larson, 2011). They became quite aware of the initial advantages of developing new relationships following their passions, with little thought of intimacy or commitment. This process of developing social networks within a gay sub-culture allowed them to experiment before establishing romantic relationships (Stacey, 2004). Two relationship styles (traditional and contemporary) provided the basis for open and closed relationships and a social construct for gay men to sustain their ideas of committed couple relationships. This understanding allowed them to appreciate their partners beliefs and negotiate agreements of their union as a couple by implementing rules about having sex with other men. Interestingly participants who reported open relationships were older, although other researchers have suggested
2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

47

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

this trend (Adam, 2006; Hickson & Davies, 1992; McWhirter & Mattison, 1984) without conclusive evidence. One explanation could relate to experiences during the coming out process, as gay men develop a more elaborated identity and feel more secure in their sense of self, they can deal better with including a third party in relationships (Marcia, 1980). Developing a sexual sense of self, the norm for heterosexuals, was a necessary step for gay men but a long and vulnerable process. Although most came out during adolescence, some dealt with sexual self issues later in life; it was not uncommon to come out after establishing a relatively successful life as a heterosexual. This is often difcult due to the transitions required at many levels (Brown, 2009). There are a number of limitations to this research. It is a very small sample size drawn from a group of gay men relatively integrated into the gay community, accessing an initial survey through avenues such as gay newspapers and websites. Thus, a systematic research bias may exist in these data. There is also a general difculty with research that identies stages. Not everyone will go through the stages in the same way. For example, some will jump directly from Stages 14 and may later explore issues of Stages 2 and 3. However the path described is a common one and ts with other previous research. Further research is required using a larger sample, to examine the inuence of ethnic background on forming gay relationships and age differences. It would also be useful to study relationships between couples, particularly over longer periods of development, rather than by a cross-sectional analysis. However the current model provides an integrated way of exploring the love relationships that many gay men experience.
Implications for Therapy

This research has important implications for therapists working with gay men in the four stages and common examples are described in detail below.
Integrating age and stage. As the study demonstrated, age is not the only factor when dealing with gay men and it is important to integrate a careful assessment of the stage of relationship in therapy. Thus, age cannot predict an appropriate stage, but both age and stage can contribute towards appropriate interventions. Sam, who was married, came out as gay in his 50s to the dismay of his long term wife. Sessions were held for both partners and a separation ensued relatively quickly. Sam also very quickly settled into a relationship that did not last very long. After termination of that relationship he almost immediately formed another relationship lasting 7 years, an attempt to enter a Stage 4 relationship probably based on his experience of a long-term heterosexual relationship. However, at the end of his second gay relationship, he realised he had created a similar relationship to the one he left when he separated from his wife. He returned to therapy at the age of 65 to deal with issues from Stage 2, as he had not really ever explored his sexuality. Therapy continued where issues appropriate to stage 2 were explored, in order to prepare Sam for a Stage 3 or 4 relationship. Discriminating between overt and covert stages. Clients may present who very quickly appear to slot into one of the four stages. However, there may be differences between the clients stage of awareness and the stage that can only be assessed through careful

48

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

questioning. For example, just because a client acknowledges his sexuality does not mean issues of Stage 1 have been appropriately managed. These may continue to impact clients in ways not easily identied and need to be carefully managed. A client may appear to be at Stage 2 or 3, when in actual fact, he may really be dealing with issues related to Stage 1. Jason was a professionally successful gay man in his late 20s who was single and had come out many years before. His parents were professionals who knew he was gay and accepted him in his regular contact with them. He was concerned about his inability to enter relationships of any kind. In particular, he wanted to form a committed relationship associated with Stage 4. Despite his condence in being a gay man, he was simply incapable of engaging in behaviour that would draw him closer to such a relationship. In spite of his seemingly successful gay lifestyle, he was really dealing with issues related to Stage 1, as he recognised his parents were really not comfortable with his decision for a gay lifestyle. This impeded him from introducing his parents to his partner. He continued to remain in Stage 2 where he was perpetually exploring his sexuality through frequent one-night stands. Dealing more overtly with these issues and how they might impact on his relationship with his parents, resulted in movement to a Stage 3 relationship and a much greater level of satisfaction.
Facilitating movement beyond a comfortable overt stage. Sometimes a client will be very comfortable with his behaviour at a particular stage, usually one of the rst three, and there is no need for therapy. However dissatisfactions with life not connected by the client to issues associated with a current relationship stage may emerge and can be explored in therapy. Dennis was a successful mid-30s gay man who was not happy with being gay at all. His wish, and that of his single parent mother, was for him to establish a successful heterosexual marriage. His mother knew he was gay and continued to hope he would move out of this stage. His primary goal was to have children and provide a stable home environment for them, which he had never experienced himself, and was his main defence against being gay. He felt gay men could never settle into meaningful relationships and they certainly could not have children. Dennis was stuck in Stage 1 as he continued to confront his sexuality and occasionally moved into Stage 2 behaviours by acknowledging his need for sex with men and acting on this. However his life was compartmentalised with none of his friends knowing about his secret gay life. Through therapy he began to confront more aspects of his gay side and realised he was clearly more attracted to men than women and there were other ways to have children than through heterosexual marriage. He became more overt about his sexuality to his mother and began to move to Stage 3 with the establishment of a relatively long term relationship that had surpassed any of his previous experiences. Deciding on the type of committed relationship at Stage 4. For many gay men, their focus on forming a successful relationship is part of the bid for living successfully in the heterosexually oriented, partnered world. Thus, once they nd a partner, they welcome the achievement of this goal and settle quickly into the relationship. However, it is not long before there is disquiet with the relationship and Stage 4 takes on some of the issues that many heterosexual couples also face around how sexually exclusive the relationship should be. Through a process of negotiation, couples attempt to work out the rules for their partnership and how they will dene and handle their
2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

49

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

committed relationship. When they are unable to resolve this issue, they will commonly engage in couple therapy. Kevin and Michael came to therapy because one of them wanted a sexually open relationship and the other wanted a sexually closed relationship. They were a professional couple who were both in their 30s and who had lived together for 3 years. It was an issue they could not resolve and which came to a head when one discovered the other was on a gay dating website looking for casual partners. While it was tempting to encourage the couple to explore the ramications of accepting an open relationship and discuss ways of how that could be achieved, there appeared to be more fundamental concerns underlying the individual partners. Kevin was at Stage 4, having been through the other earlier stages, while Michael was straddling Stages 2 and 3. He had entered the relationship because it was convenient, but he clearly needed more space than Kevin and seemed only able to achieve this by having additional sexual partners. On the other hand, Kevin while at Stage 4, was very dependent on Michael, wanting more closeness. Thus, they very comfortably formed a classic pursue-distance pattern. These issues needed work before the couple could ever deal with whether the relationship should be opened or closed.
Conclusion The focus of this study was how gay men formed intimate relationships and socialised within the context of a heterosexual society. This examined their awareness of a divergent sexuality, the development of love and intimacy, the exploration of new worlds by experimenting with the passion of youth, and the impact on committed relationships; that is, how gay men resolve the issue of love through unique links between passion, intimacy and commitment. The limitations of the stage model needs to be reiterated as clearly gay men dont necessarily follow a path from Stages 14. There is overlap between the stages and some men, as illustrated above, approach them in a different order. Therapy is not a process that encourages clients to move from one stage to the next but a seamless process. Other aspects of therapy with gay male couples are relevant and documented elsewhere (Brown, 2007, 2009). Thus, issues of love, intimacy, and commitment in male gay relationships can be explored without a preconceived model of how they should be negotiated, and without reference to the nature of the nal relationship, which only has to work for the individual couple involved. References Adam, B. D. (2006). Relationship innovation in male couples. Sexualities, 9(1), 526. Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding indelity: Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15, 735749. Bader, M. (2009). Male Sexuality: Why Women Dont Understand itand Men Dont Either. New York: Rowman & Littleeld. Bameld, S., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Extra relationship involvement among women: Are they different from men? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30, 110142. Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non monogamies/ Critical reections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 748772.

50

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

Bonello, K., & Cross, M. C. (2010). Gay monogamy: I love you but I cant have sex with only you. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(1), 117139. Brown, J. (2007). Challenging the sterotypes of gay male and lesbian couples: a research perspective, in E. Shaw & J. Crawley (Eds.), Couple Therapy in Australia (pp. 287311). Melbourne: Psych Oz. Brown, J. (2009). Husbands who have sex with men: research ndings on sexual identity, internalized homonegativity, in J. Stanovic & M. Lalic (Eds.), Sexuality Education and Attitudes. New York: Nova Science Publishers Inc. Brown, J., & Trevethan, R. (2010). Shame, internalized homophobia, identity formation, attachment style and the connection to relationship status in gay men. American Journal of Mens Health, 4, 267276. Bryant, S., & Demian, A. S. B. (1994). Relation characteristics of American gay and lesbian couples: Findings from a national survey. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 1, 101 117. Castan ~eda, M. (2000). La Experiencia Homosexual. M exico: Paidos. Chaline, E. R. (2010). The construction, maintenance, and evolution of gay SM sexualities and sexual identities: A preliminary description of gay SM sexual identity practices. Sexualities, 13, 338356. Connell, R. W. (2005). Masculinities, (2nd edn.). Berkley: University of California Press. Duncombe, J., Harrison, K., Allan, G., & Marsden, D. (Eds.) (2004). The State of Affairs: Explorations in Indelity and Commitment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass. Elizur, Y., & Mintzer, A. (2003). Gay males intimates relationship quality: The roles of attachment security, gay identity, social support, and income. Personal Relationships, 10, 411435. Floyd, F., & Bakeman, R. (2006). Coming-out across the life course: Implications of age and historical context. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(3), 287296. Gillis, J. L. (1998). Cultural heterosexism and the family, in C. J. Patterson & A. R. DAugelli (Eds.), Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Identities in Families: Psychological Perspective (pp. 294 269). New York: Oxford University Press. Green, R., & Mitchell, V. (2002). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: homophobia, relational ambiguity, and social support, in N. S. Jacobson & A. S. Gurman (Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy, 3rd edn. (pp. 546368). New York: Guilford Press. Grierson, J., & Smith, A. (2005). In from the outer: Generational differences in coming out and gay identity formation. Journal of Homosexuality, 50(1), 5370. Hegna, K. (2007). Coming out, coming into what? Identication and risks in the coming out story of a Norwegian late adolescent gay man. Sexualities, 10(5), 582602. Hickson, F. C. I., & Davies, P. M. (1992). Maintenance of open gay relationships: Some strategies for protection against HIV. AIDS Care, 4, 409420. Hoff, C. C., & Beougher, S. C. (2010). Sexual agreements among gay male couples. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 774787. Johnson, T. W., & Keren, M. S. (1995). Creating and maintaining boundaries in male couples. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 7(3/4), 6586. Josephs, l. & Shimberg, J. (2010). The dynamics of sexual indelity. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 27, 273295. Julien, D., Chartrand, E., Simard, M. C., Bouthillier, D., & Begin, J. (2003). Conict, social support, and relationship quality: An observational study of heterosexual, gay male, and lesbian couples communication. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 419428. Kurdek, L. A. (2000). Attractions and constraints as determinants of relationship commitment: Longitudinal evidence from gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples. Personal Relationships, 7, 245262.
2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

51

Jac Brown, Oscar Modesto Ramirez and Carolyn Schniering

Kurdek, L. A., & Schmitt, J. P. (1986). Relationship quality of gay men in closed or open relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 12(2), 8599. LaSala, M. (2004a). Extradyadic sex and gay male couples: Comparing monogamous and nonmonogamous relationships. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 85(3), 405412. LaSala, M. (2004b). Monogamy of the heart: Extra dyadic sex and gay male couples. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 17(3), 124. Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mackey, R. A., Diemer, M. A., & OBrien, B. A. (2000). Psychological intimacy in the lasting relationships of heterosexual and same-gender couples. Sex Roles, 43(3/4), 201227. Marcia, J. (1980). Identity in Adolescence, in J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook of Adolescence Psychology (pp. 159187). New York: Wiley. Marcus, E. (1999). The Male Couples Guide: Finding a Man, Making a Home, Building a Life, 3rd edn. New York: Harper Collins. McWhirter, D. P., & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The Male Couple Englewood Cliffs. NJ: Prentice Hall. Modesto, O. (2004). Rompiendo Cadenas y Mitos: An a lisis Narrativo de un Caso. M exico city: Universidad de las Am ericas. Modesto Ramirez, O., & Brown, J. (2010). Attachment style, rules regarding sex, and couple satisfaction: A study of gay male couples. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 202213. Mooney-Somers, J., & Ussher, J. M. (2010). Sex as commodity: Single and partnered mens subjectication as heterosexual men. Men and Masculinities, 12, 353373. Mutchler, M. (2000). Sexual scripts, masculinity, tensions, and HIV among gay youth, in P. Nardi (Ed.), Gay Masculinities (pp. 1243), London: Sage. Pachankis, J. E., & Goldfried, M. (2004). Clinical issues in working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice Training, 41(3), 227246. Paul, E. L., McManus, B., & Hayes, A. (2000). Hookups: Characteristics and correlates of college students spontaneous and anonymous sexual experiences. Journal of Sex Research, 37, 7688. Pawlicki, P. & Larson, P. (2011). The dynamics and conceptualizations of non-exclusive relationships in gay male couples. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 26, 4860. Ridge, D. T. (2004). It was incredible thrill: The social meanings and dynamics of younger gay mens experiences of barebacking in Melbourne. Sexualities, 7(3), 259279. Rosik, C. H., & Byrd, A. D. (2007). Marriage and the civilizing of male sexual nature. American Psychologist, 62, 711712. Schafer, S. (1976). Sexual and social problems of lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 12(1), 50 69. Schmitt, D. P. (2003). Universal sex differences in the desire for sexual variety: Tests from 52 nations, 6 continents, and 13 islands. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 85 104. Shearer, C. L., Hosterman, S. J., Gillen, M. M., & Lefkowitz, E. S. (2005). Are traditional gender role attitudes associated with risky sexual behavior and condom-related beliefs? Sex Roles, 52, 311324. Sheppard, V. J., Nelson, E. S. & Andreoli-Mathie, V. (1995). Dating relationships and indelity: Attitudes and behaviors. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy, 21, 202212. Slavin, S. (2009). Instinctively, Im not just a sexual beast: The complexity of intimacy among Australian gay men. Sexualities, 12(1), 7996.

52

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

Finding Love

Stacey, J. (2004). Cruising to family and: Gay hypergamy and rainbow kinship. Current Sociology, 52(2), 181197. Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93(2), 119135. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks. CA: Sage Publications. Taylor, B. (1999). Coming out as a life transition: Homosexual identity formation and its implications for heath care practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30(2), 520525. Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual indelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 62, 4860. Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17, 4374. Trussler, T., Perchal, P., & Barker, A. (2000). Between what is said and what is done. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 5(3), 295306. Wagner, G. J., Remien, R. H., & Carballo-Dieguez, A. (2000). Prevalence of extradyadic sex in male couples of mixed HIV status and its relationship to psychological distress and relationship quality. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(2), 3146. Weeks, J. (1991). Against Nature: Essays on History, Sexuality and Identity. London: Rivers Oram Press. Worth, H., Reid, A., & Mcmillan, K. (2002). Somewhere over the rainbow: Love, trust and monogamy in gay relationships. Journal of sociology, 38(3), 237253.

2013 Australian Association of Family Therapy

53