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, Experimenta-
tion with Relationships: Uniting intimacy and passion, and Formation of Committed Relationships: Integrating pas-
sion, 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 stig-
matisation 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 masculin-
ity and sense of self, can also fail expectations of family and society. This is often
apparent during adolescence when conformity is paramount and confirming masculin-
ity 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 difficulties, 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 inter-
views with 12 gay men. After describing a four stage model for the formation of inti-
mate 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 defined as feelings of connection, being close and creating a bond, which was
maintained by both partners increasing their knowledge of each other, so their rela-
tionship continued to grow and be stimulated over time. He suggested that passion
was the motivation behind a loving relationship, which consisted of a physical attrac-
tion 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 fixed view
of how relationships are developed and maintained, which may not reflect 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, infidelity, and divorce (Josephs & Shimberg, 2010).
Thus infidelity rates range from 20% to 25% in married heterosexual couples (At-
kins, Baucom & Jacobson, 2001). Another study linked these results to gender, with
2025% of men and 1015% of women engaging in extra-marital sex (Laumann, Ga-
gnon, Michael & Michaels, 1994), which confirms 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 figures are even higher for ado-
lescents who report cheating on partners at rates between 20% and 60% (Sheppard, Nel-
son & 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 satisfy-
ing 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 confirmed by the
number of sexual partners and sexual risk-taking behaviour they report (Shearer, Hos-
terman, 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 fit 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 find
no major differences between gay male, lesbian, and heterosexual couples on rela-
tionship 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 modified to
encompass the experience of many gay men and some heterosexual relationships.
While he stated passion was the most difficult component of love to maintain, gay
men have found a relatively unique way to do this within the context of the domi-
nant 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 simulta-
neously. 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 emo-

tions like love (Bamfield & McCabe, 2001; LaSala, 2004a). Gay men are also more
likely to deconstruct the meaning of sex, engage in sexual encounters without emo-
tional 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 relation-
ship. 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 find 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 docu-
mented 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 fre-
quently 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 pre-
sentation 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 attrac-
tion and submerged themselves in the gay sub-culture, allows them to normalise their
feelings and form new identities, where they fit in and are no longer part of a dom-
inant heterosexual culture (Modesto, 2004). As gay men come out to families and
friends, they create more congruent images of their own self-perceptions and environ-
ment (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 & De-
mian, 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 mod-
els, 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 com-
pared across sexually open and closed relationships (e.g. LaSala, 2004a). However sig-
nificant 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 identified the first 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 identified 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 benefits 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 rela-
tionship 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 fidelity 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 explor-
ing and forming satisfying relationships. The current paper presents qualitative
research based on in-depth interviews with gay men, who reflect 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, depos-
iting 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 office. 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 influenced your relationship?
 Is there any couple that you emulate?
Participants were encouraged to talk about these questions and were asked follow-
up 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 identi-
fied 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 proce-
dure in developing categories with specific 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
identified themselves as Australians with an Anglo background; one participant identi-
fied 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 sub-
urbs 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 Time in
Name Age Background style relationship

Joe 50 Australian Open 8

Martin 23 Australian Closed 5
Simon 30 English Closed 3
Jack 47 New Zealander Closed 7
Daniel* 28 Australian Closed 2
Phil 52 Australian Open 15
Jonathan* 24 Australian Closed 1
Richard 37 Australian Open 15
Keith 47 Australian N/A N/A
Robert 52 Australian Open 23
Bruno 44 Australian Open 16
Brad 37 Australian Open 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 first 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 significant 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 definitely 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 reflecting on the differences

between themselves and their peers, felt there was something wrong with their think-
ing, 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 pas-
sions. In Stage 3, Experimentation with Relationships: Uniting intimacy and passion a range of relation-
ships 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 fix this,
you know. And thats when I started trying to get a girlfriend, and trying to play foot-
ball. 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
confirmed.

D. Acceptance of same-sex feelings. Many men began to reflect on the ramifications 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 dis-
tressed by it. It was never something I thought was wrong or bad or unnatural or any-
thing 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 accept-
ing 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 fine. Very sup-
portive. Very, very supportive (Daniel, 28).
For others it was more complicated and they decided to come out first to friends
or relatives before their parents as less confronting:
Ah, I came out to a cousin first, 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 fine (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 prefer-
ence, 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 per-
ceived a lack of support from their families, they submerged themselves in an environ-
ment 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 cul-
tural 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 sto-
ries 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 individual-
ism, 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 ramifications
for their confidence 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 understand-
ing 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 confidence 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 play-
ing, 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 finally 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 redefine 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 first 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-eval-
uated life choices and redefined 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 previ-
ously 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 find confronting due to a widespread homoneg-
ativity:
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 specifically 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 (Jona-
than, 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 explor-
ing 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 finding 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 soci-
ety. This was challenged through their experiences in coming to terms with their sex-
uality 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 find 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 relation-
ships. 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 figure 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 difficult to find 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 find a boyfriend. Find, you know, I can
find 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 difficult to find 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 par-
ticipants lives. These experiences were influential in how many men began to think
about the fluidity 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 finally 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 influenced 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 relation-
ships 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 pas-
sionate 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 first 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 arrange-

ment:
So it was kind of quite good timing when I did meet and one of the first 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, relation-
ship? 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 difficult 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 rela-
tionship; 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 first met, Ive continued on and off to have casual sex, sometimes more frequently
than others (Richard, 37).
During this final stage gay men are able to establish their relationships from differ-
ent 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 influ-
enced 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 promis-
cuity 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 identified 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 dif-
ference between accepting being gay and acting on it, as if having sex with other men
would confirm a gay identity (Hegna, 2007). Also participants did not perceive het-
erosexuals going through a similar process (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004). This em-
phasises 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 aware-
ness described by Chaline (2010).
Participants created and validated new sexual selves and roles as gay men, a path-
way consistent with previous results about the coming out process (Casta~ neda, 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 relo-
cated 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. Consis-
tent with previous research (Floyd & Bakeman, 2006; Grierson & Smith, 2005), par-
ticipants preferred to come out to friends, followed by family members and finally
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 expe-
riences in forming relationships and separating sex from love were similar to descrip-
tions by other researchers (Bamfield & 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 appre-
ciate 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 rela-
tionships (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 ado-
lescence, 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 difficult
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, access-
ing 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 difficulty with
research that identifies 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 fits with
other previous research.
Further research is required using a larger sample, to examine the influence of eth-
nic 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 ter-
mination of that relationship he almost immediately formed another relationship last-
ing 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 contin-
ued 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 identified 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 commit-
ted relationship associated with Stage 4. Despite his confidence 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 first 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 success-
ful 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 meaning-
ful 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 sexual-
ity 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 find a partner, they wel-
come 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 define 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 com-
monly 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 profes-
sional 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 tempt-
ing to encourage the couple to explore the ramifications of accepting an open rela-
tionship 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 conve-
nient, 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 diver-
gent sexuality, the development of love and intimacy, the exploration of new worlds
by experimenting with the passion of youth, and the impact on committed relation-
ships; 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 pro-
cess. 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 with-
out reference to the nature of the final 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 infidelity: 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 & Littlefield.
Bamfield, 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
reflections 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 findings 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.
Casta~ neda, M. (2000). La Experiencia Homosexual. Mexico: 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. Sexuali-
ties, 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 Infidelity and Commitment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass.
Elizur, Y., & Mintzer, A. (2003). Gay males intimates relationship quality: The roles of attach-
ment 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 Hand-
book 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? Identification 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 cou-
ples. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy, 7(3/4), 6586.
Josephs, l. & Shimberg, J. (2010). The dynamics of sexual infidelity. Psychoanalytic Psychology,
27, 273295.
Julien, D., Chartrand, E., Simard, M. C., Bouthillier, D., & Begin, J. (2003). Conflict, social
support, and relationship quality: An observational study of heterosexual, gay male, and les-
bian 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 non-
monogamous relationships. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Ser-
vices, 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 Organiza-
tion 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 last-
ing 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 Psy-
chology (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: Ana lisis Narrativo de un Caso. Mexico city:
Universidad de las Americas.
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 Fam-
ily Therapy, 31, 202213.
Mooney-Somers, J., & Ussher, J. M. (2010). Sex as commodity: Single and partnered mens
subjectification 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 rela-
tionships 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. Ameri-
can 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 infidel-
ity: 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 Sociol-
ogy, 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 infidelity 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. Psychol-
ogy, 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 rela-
tionship 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

Copyright of Australian & New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy is the property of Wiley-
Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.