University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln

Sociology Department, Faculty Publications Sociology, Department of

3-16-2015 Getting "Bi" in the Family: Bisexual People's Disclosure Experiences Kristin S. Scherrer Metropolitan State University of Denver, [email protected]

Emily Kazyak University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]

Rachel M. Schmitz University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub Part of the Family, Life Course, and Society Commons, Gender and Sexuality Commons, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies Commons, and the Sociology of Culture Commons

Scherrer, Kristin S.; Kazyak, Emily; and Schmitz, Rachel M., "Getting "Bi" in the Family: Bisexual People's Disclosure Experiences" (2015). Sociology Department, Faculty Publications. 257. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/257

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Department, Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015), 17 pp. DOI: 10.1111/jomf.12190 Copyright © 2015 National Council on Family Relations. Used by permission. Submitted July 10, 2013; revised November 24, 2014; accepted December 9, 2014; published online March 16, 2015. digitalcommons.unl.edu

Getting “Bi” in the Family: Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences

Kristin S. Scherrer,1 Emily Kazyak,2 and Rachel Schmitz 3

1 Department of Social Work, Metropolitan State University of Denver, Campus Box 70, P.O. Box 173362 Denver, CO 80217-3362; [email protected] 2 Department of Sociology and Program in Women’s and Gender Studies, University of Nebraska, 725 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588 3 Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska, 731 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588

Abstract ay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) There are many similarities in gay, lesbian, and bisex- Gindividuals are increasingly likely to disclose ual individuals’ coming out experiences, but bisexual their sexual orientation or gender identity to mem- people face unique challenges. Despite this, an explicit bers of their families (Pfeffer, 2012; Savin-Williams, focus on bisexual people is missing from family re- 2005; Seidman, 2002), indicating an ongoing need search. Using family systems and cultural sociologi- to better understand how members of this commu- cal perspectives, the authors analyzed how social and nity navigate the disclosure process. Prior literature cultural factors shape disclosure processes for bisexu- has examined how individual-level factors shape als as they come out to multiple family members. After the coming out process, such as the sociodemo- analyzing qualitative data from a diverse group of 45 graphic characteristics of age, race, gender, religi- individuals, they found that bisexual people navigate osity, and class (Beals & Peplau, 2006; Grov, Bimbi, monosexist and heterosexist expectations in their fam- Nanin, & Parsons, 2006; Schope, 2002; Waldner & ily relationships. Cultural constructions of bisexuality shape the ways that bisexual people disclose their iden- Magruder, 1999). More sociological literature has tities, including how they use language to influence examined how the coming out process is situated family members’ responses in desirable ways. Relation- within a broader cultural context, showing, for in- ship status also influences bisexual people’s disclosure stance, how families may respond to disclosures strategies, as a romantic partner’s gender is meaningful using cultural knowledge about sexual minorities to family members’ understandings of their sexual ori- (Aveline, 2006; Fields, 2001; Martin, Hutson, Ka- entation. The findings highlight the importance of ad- zyak, & Scherrer, 2010; Pfeffer, 2012). These stud- dressing cultural and social contexts in understanding ies often focus on a particular familial relationship, sexual minority people’s coming out processes. (e.g., parent–child), although recent research in- dicates that attending to family systems may pro- Keywords: family systems, GLBT, intergenerational vide a more holistic and nuanced account of the relationships, qualitative research, sexuality, sociology coming out experience: “The change in the whole

1 2 Scherrer, Kazyak, & Schmitz in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015) family system is another essential feature that has to demonstrate how families may be fruitfully an- not received significant attention in the litera- alyzed as a social system (rather than individually ture [on coming out in families]” (Baptist & Al- or dyadically; Baptist & Allen, 2008; Heatherington len, 2008, p. 94). & Lavner, 2008; Scherrer, 2014). This approach has Existing family research most often focuses on been especially useful for understanding interac- lesbian women’s and gay men’s coming out expe- tions among families with GLBT members and pro- riences; bisexual people (and transgender peo- vides fertile ground for subsequent research (Bap- ple) are often either excluded from analyses or tist & Allen, 2008; Heatherington & Lavner, 2008; grouped together in studies with lesbian and gay Oswald, 1999; Scherrer, 2014). The majority of re- participants (Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Heathering- search examining the impact of sexual orientation ton & Lavner, 2008; Moore & Stambolis-Ruhstor- disclosure within families has primarily centered on fer, 2013). Indeed, “very little family research in younger gay and lesbian peoples’ relationships with the past decade paid special attention to bisexuals” parents (D’Augelli, Hershberger, & Pilkington, 1998; (Biblarz & Savci, 2010, p. 490), indicating linger- Rossi, 2010; Waldner & Magruder, 1999). Although ing questions about their experiences in families. parents are undoubtedly critical to disclosure pro- Although some early studies have provided hints cesses, prior research has been slower to examine as to bisexual people’s familial experiences (Lan- how other family members (e.g., siblings, grandpar- nutti, 2008; McLean, 2007; Oswald, 1999; Watson, ents, aunts, uncles, or cousins) or how family sys- 2014), to the best of our knowledge no study has tems may be important to a person’s coming out ex- yet focused on bisexual people’s experiences com- perience. A family systems approach has also been ing out in families. In the present study, we rem- used to illustrate how families are themselves em- edy this gap using a cultural and family systems bedded in a broader cultural context that shapes framework to understand bisexual peoples’ com- family members’ expectations of one another (Cox ing out processes in families. Analyzing qualitative & Paley, 1997; Scherrer, 2014). data from 45 bisexual individuals, we examined We also drew on theoretical insights from the two questions: (a) How do cultural representations subfield of cultural sociology that articulates the of bisexuality influence disclosure experiences in centrality of culture in shaping the meanings that families and family members’ reactions and (b) people attach to lived experiences (Hays, 2000; how do the relationships among family members Schalet, 2011; Swidler, 1986). Culture refers to “the influence the disclosure process? way people conceptualize themselves, each other, and the world at large using language, concepts, and frameworks” (Schalet, 2011, p. 14). Cultural Literature Review representations are composed of stereotypical im- ages or beliefs about characteristics of particular Theoretical Perspectives groups of people (Scherrer, 2009). They can also be Two interrelated theoretical perspectives shaped thought of as controlling images (Collins, 1991), our analysis of bisexual people’s disclosure experi- given that they are embedded in a broader system ences. Family systems theory offers a useful lens of social inequality. In this article we use the terms for understanding how “individual family mem- cultural representations, cultural understandings, bers are necessarily interdependent, exerting a stereotypes, and controlling images interchangeably. continuous and reciprocal influence on one an- When someone comes out as gay or lesbian, fam- other” (Cox & Paley, 1997, p. 246). Family systems ily members draw on existing cultural representa- analyses also draw attention to how an event in- tions of those identities to interpret and respond to fluences multiple family members (e.g., parents, that disclosure (Fields, 2001; Scherrer, 2014; Seid- siblings, uncles, cousins, children) as well as fam- man, 2002). Given the unique cultural understand- ily members’ relationships with one another. Al- ings of bisexuality, it is likely that bisexual individu- though family systems approaches are used most als experience the process of coming out in families frequently in practice-oriented fields, such as mar- differently compared to their gay and lesbian peers. riage and family therapy or social work, other so- An attention to culture also extends understand- cial scientists have used family systems perspectives ings of the coming out process in families beyond Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences 3 the focus on individual- and dyadic-level variables families, which aligns with the current analysis. that typifies much of the literature, as we outline be- Seidman (2002), for instance, showed that as the low (Heatherington & Lavner, 2008). cultural meanings of gay and lesbian identities be- come more positive families are increasingly ac- Coming Out in Families cepting or accommodating of their gay or lesbian Although coming out is often conceptualized as family member. Fields (2001) also indicated that a moment of disclosure (e.g., “I came out to my par- parents who accept their children following disclo- ents last weekend”), the scholarly literature indi- sure draw on cultural representations of gay and cates that it is a process (Denes & Afifi, 2014; Orne, lesbian identities as being normal and being bio- 2011; Rust, 1993). For instance, some research indi- logical. She noted that bisexuality might be an ex- cates that parents suspected their family member’s ceptionally challenging identity for parents to un- sexual orientation before the moment of disclo- derstand given the unique cultural constructions sure (LaSala, 2010). In addition, once families learn of bisexual identity (Fields, 2001). about a family member’s sexual orientation, they continue to engage in a process in which their un- Constructions of Bisexuality derstandings of their family member’s sexual iden- Although gay, lesbian, and bisexual people share tity evolve, often with more favorable interpreta- many similar experiences, there are important dif- tions (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2005; LaSala, ferences among these identities (Bradford, 2004; 2010). In this study we examined coming out as a Rodríguez-Rust, 2000; Rust, 1993). Although def- dynamic process, both within individual familial re- initions of bisexuality vary greatly, many would lationships and in family systems more broadly. We define their bisexual identity as indicating attrac- also examined the moment of disclosure itself be- tion to people of one’s own gender and people of cause it often marks a turning point in familial re- other gender(s). Most relevant to this study are the lationships (Rossi, 2010; Schope, 2002). unique coming out experiences that bisexual indi- The prior literature on coming out in families viduals face because of how bisexuality has been that has focused on gay or lesbian individuals has culturally constructed (Bradford, 2004; Israel & identified several factors that influence both the Mohr, 2004; McLean, 2007; Ochs, 1996; Rodríguez- coming out decision and the reaction of family Rust, 2002). These largely negative representations members. Gay and lesbian people can choose to of bisexuality have also been described as character- come out to integrate themselves into their fam- istic of biphobia (Ochs, 1996) or binegativity (Elia- ilies (Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, son, 2000), terms that we use interchangeably in 2010), or they may delay disclosure for fear of this article. One defining aspect of the cultural rep- family members’ negative reactions (D’Augelli et resentations of bisexuality has been its depiction as al., 1998). Individual-level factors, such as gender, a transitory sexual orientation (Ault, 1996; Herek, race, and religion, play a role: Mothers are favored 2002; Israel & Mohr, 2004; Mulick & Wright, 2002; as recipients of disclosure more so than fathers, Ochs, 1996; Rodríguez-Rust, 2000). Individuals are Whites are more likely to disclose to family mem- expected to be romantically attracted only to people bers compared to people of color, and individuals of one gender; scholars use the term monosexism to whose family members hold traditional religious describe this expectation (Bradford, 2004; Rodrí- beliefs are less likely to be out. Dyadic-level fac- guez-Rust, 2002). Given the cultural expectation of tors, such as the quality of the family relationship, monosexism, bisexuality is often mischaracterized also matter insofar as family members with close as a “phase” or as a temporary identity “on the way” ties are more likely to disclose (see Heathering- to a gay or lesbian identity or “back to” a heterosex- ton & Lavner, 2008, for a review of this research). ual identity (Bradford, 2004; Diamond, 2008a; Israel Family responses can range from rejection to af- & Mohr, 2004). This understanding of bisexuality firmation, with factors similar to the ones just dis- as a temporary identity may have implications for cussed affecting how family members respond (La- family relationships because family members may Sala, 2010; Scherrer, 2014). It is important to note imagine that this identity will change and it need that scholars have also illustrated how cultural- not be integrated into their understanding of their level factors influence the coming out process in bisexual family member. Furthermore, that some 4 Scherrer, Kazyak, & Schmitz in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015) bisexual women describe their sexuality differently experiences. Indeed, bisexual people often come out over time may pose unique implications for family later in life (Rust, 1993) and are less likely to dis- members (Diamond, 2008b). close their identities (Weinberg, Williams, & Pryor, Bisexuality, like other sexual minority identities, 1994) than their gay and lesbian counterparts. Re- also challenges heteronormative cultural expecta- search has illustrated that controlling images of bi- tions (Jackson, 2006; Kitzinger, 2005). By hetero- sexuality influence how bisexual people come to normativity we mean the assumption and privi- their sexual identity and how they disclose that leging of heterosexuality in everyday life (Jackson, identity to others (Bradford, 2004; McLean, 2007). 2006; Kitzinger, 2005; Martin & Kazyak, 2009). Het- For instance, Bradford (2004) found that some bi- eronormativity may operate distinctly for bisexual sexual individuals do not come out for fear that oth- people because their identity includes the possibil- ers will apply negative conceptions of bisexuality to ity they may have a different-sex romantic partner them. In McLean’s (2007) research on bisexual peo- (Ochs, 1996). Indeed, when someone comes out, ple’s disclosure experiences with friends, coworkers, family members often experience a process of griev- and partners, she found that people are often dis- ing over the lack of a heterosexual identity and life missive of bisexual people’s sexual identities, casting (Martin et al., 2010). These heteronormative ex- them as temporary, immature, untrustworthy, and pectations may be particularly resilient for bisex- illegitimate. To assess potential responses from peo- ual people because family members may hold on to ple in their social networks, bisexual individuals en- hope that their bisexual family member will even- gage in a process of “selective disclosure” (McLean, tually enter into a different-sex relationship. Like- 2007), whereby they provide hints about their iden- wise, if bisexual individuals are in a different-sex tity (e.g., making jokes about romantic interest in relationship, family members may misunderstand men as well as women). them to be heterosexual, despite their self-identifi- Although there is considerably less research cation as bisexual. Research has shown that this is about coming out as bisexual within families, sev- also the case for some women partnered with trans- eral studies provide promising foundations for this gender men: Family members mistakenly under- analysis. One such study is Lannutti’s (2008) dis- stand them as heterosexual, despite their self-iden- cussion of lesbian and bisexual women’s experi- tification as queer (Pfeffer, 2012). ences with same-sex marriage. Although rela- Bisexuality has also been conflated with promis- tionships with families of origin is a very small cuity and as non-monogamy, which stereotypes bi- segment of the analysis, Lannutti’s research in- sexual people as sexually deviant and potentially dicates that cultural constructions of bisexual- dangerous sexual partners (Israel & Mohr, 2004). ity matter because families often hold out hope Although sexual activity is perhaps unlikely to that their bisexual identified family member will emerge as a topic of conversation in families (Elliot, “reconnect to the heterosexual world” (p. 253). 2012), these understandings of bisexuality may still Another notable study is Oswald’s (1999) exam- shape bisexual people’s disclosure strategies or fam- ination of two lesbian and four bisexual wom- ily members’ understandings of their bisexual fam- en’s relationships with their friends and family ily member. Gender also plays a role in perceptions members following the disclosure of their sexual of bisexuality, with men often being viewed more identity. The bisexual women in Oswald’s sam- negatively than bisexual women (Eliason, 2000). ple described how stereotypes about bisexuality Furthermore, bisexual women’s bodies and behav- emerged prominently from their friends and fam- iors are more likely to be sexualized for the pleasure ily members as they struggled to understand par- of heterosexual men, whereas men are more likely ticipants’ bisexual identities. More recently, Wat- understood as “really” gay (Diamond, 2005; Elia- son (2014) sought to expand on non-monosexual son, 2000; Yost & Thomas, 2012). people’s experiences coming out in families, using data collected from 47 people (15 of whom self- Coming Out as Bisexual identified as bisexual) regarding gender identity, Given culturally specific understandings of bi- expression, attractions, and relationships. Wat- sexuality, there is good reason to suspect that bi- son found that fear of stereotyping contributed to sexual people may have distinct coming out participants’ reluctance to come out to family and Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences 5 that some parents resorted to silence and ignor- participants’ own definitions regarding who con- ing their bisexual child’s identity or relationships. stitutes their family. In total, 45 bisexual identified Although these studies did not explicitly focus on people were interviewed about how their bisexual- bisexual people’s experiences coming out to fam- ity shaped their social experiences. Although the ilies, they suggest that families are likely knowl- foci of these studies varied somewhat, both samples edgeable about culturally constructed representa- provided examples of bisexual people’s decisions tions of bisexuality and that these understandings about disclosing their sexual identities to family likely shape their responses to their bisexual fam- members. Furthermore, these data provide exam- ily member. ples from those who were not out to families and Our sociological analysis builds on previous lit- those who were out to a smaller number of family erature that examines how culture matters in the members as well as those who were out, in some coming out process. Moreover, we analyzed how way, to the majority of their family. individuals come out to multiple family members, not only parents, and how interactions within Recruitment and Data Collection family systems shape the disclosure experience. Recruitment for both projects occurred in the Thus, our study fills an empirical gap by focusing Midwest and used targeted e-mails to GLBT-spe- on bisexual people’s experiences and extends the- cific groups, flyers posted at GLBT events and -es oretical understandings of coming out processes tablishments, announcements in university courses for all sexual minorities by focusing on culture and with sexuality/gender content, and snowball sam- the family system. We examined two main ques- pling. The inclusion of bisexual people of color was tions: (a) How do cultural representations of bi- sought by targeting organizations with missions sexuality affect disclosure experiences in families that focus on GLBT people of color. Two inclusion and family members’ reactions and (b) how do the criteria for both studies were (a) to self-identify as relationships among family members influence the bisexual and (b) be over age 18. Study 2 also re- disclosure process? quired that participants be out to at least one fam- ily member. Each participant completed a brief de- Method mographic survey and participated in one in-depth, semistructured interview. The first author con- This study drew on data from semistructured ducted all interviews. qualitative interviews collected from 45 bisexual The interview schedule was loosely clustered identified individuals. The data we used are from around a few key questions, several of which over- two related but distinct qualitative research projects lapped between the two studies. Study 1 partici- on bisexual identity. Study 1 included 20 bisexual pants responded to questions such as the following: identified participants and examined how bisexual • How did you come to identify as bisexual? people “do” (West & Zimmerman, 1987) their sex- • (How) has your sexuality shaped your experi- ual identity across different social venues. During ences in predominately heterosexual or gay/ interviews conducted in 2005, participants primar- lesbian social spaces? ily discussed their self-presentation strategies and • How do your other identities (e.g., race, gender, relationships with friends and family. Although a class) inform your sexuality? few participants in this study (n = 5) were not out • (How) does your appearance relate to your sex- to any members of their family, the challenges of ual identity? coming out to one’s family was a prominent theme in these data, which provided the impetus for Study Although no question explicitly asked about 2. Study 2, conducted in 2008, focused on the issue experiences with family members, this theme of bisexual people’s relationships with families. In emerged throughout the interviews. In Study 2, this second study, 25 individuals were interviewed participants responded to related questions such about how their bisexual identity shaped their fam- as the following: ily relationships. Participants were included in the • How did you come to identify as bisexual? second study if they were out to at least one mem- • How do your other identities (e.g., race, gender, ber of their family, although many were out to more class) inform your sexuality? than one family member. Both studies privileged 6 Scherrer, Kazyak, & Schmitz in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015)

• Who are the people that you consider to be coded a small number of transcripts (~5) and then your family? met to discuss prominent themes and develop a • Who in your family knows about your working list of codes. The authors then returned to bisexuality? code additional transcripts with the working code • How did they find out? list as well as to identify any new themes. The au- • What was their reaction? thors met about 20 times during this coding process • How has it impacted your current relationship to craft and refine open and focused codes and sys- with them? tematically code all 45 transcripts for these themes. • Who in your family have you elected not to tell Family processes were identified as participants dis- and why? cussed interactions with various family members or the family system as a whole that pertained to their Interviews ranged in length from 40 minutes to sexual orientation. In conducting focused coding, 130 minutes, averaging 83 minutes. inductive themes were refined and synthesized, and theoretically relevant themes were deductively de- Sample veloped (e.g., family members as gatekeepers, het- The sample included 13 men and 32 women, in- eronormativity). These themes were used to craft cluding one man who also identified as transgen- “initial” and then “integrative memos” (Emerson der. Although all participants self-identified as bi- et al., 1995) to push empirical findings toward the- sexual, several (n = 19) also used other language to oretical and analytical insights. Integrative memos describe their identities, such as bi-queer, homo- “elaborate ideas and begin to link or tie codes and sexually inclined bisexual, or pansexual. Regarding bits of data together” (Emerson et al., 1995, p. 162) race, one participant identified as African Ameri- and were revised to form segments of this article. can, two identified as Asian, two identified as His- We engaged in multiple strategies to enhance panic/Latino, two identified as multiracial, and the rigor and trustworthiness of these data (Cre- the remainder (n = 37) identified as White. Par- swell, 2012; Padgett, 2008), including member ticipants’ ages ranged from 18 to 64, averaging 27 checking, as we solicited feedback on the findings years. When asked about their class background, from community groups with individuals who met 18 participants identified as lower or working class, criteria for participation and, in a few instances, 10 identified as middle class, and 17 identified as with study participants themselves. We also used upper middle class. Only one person reported be- data triangulation, as we elicited survey data from ing out to “all of [his or her] family members.” The participants about their family relationships as well majority were out to some, but not all, family mem- as qualitative accounts. We also engaged in peer bers, which highlights the complex, dynamic strat- debriefing, as we presented segments of integra- egies bisexual people must use within their fam- tive memos and early drafts of this article to peer ily systems. The majority of participants were out writing groups. We also engaged in documenting to their parents. Some were out to only one par- the chain of interpretations (Angen, 2000) or au- ent, and only a few were out to other family mem- dit trail (Padgett, 2008), including collecting ma- bers (e.g., grandparents, siblings, aunts, cousins) terials such as initial and integrative memos and but not their parents. meeting notes to enable others to understand how we reached these conclusions. Data were also scru- Data Analysis tinized for “disconfirming evidence” (Ragin, Na- Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed gel, & White, 2004). Quotations were edited min- in full. Data from both samples were combined and imally for readability and, unless otherwise noted, analyzed holistically. We analyzed the data using are representative of the data. Pseudonyms for par- open and focused coding methods (Emerson, Fretz, ticipants are used to ensure confidentiality. & Shaw, 1995). During the open coding process, any and all codes are identified in line-by-line cod- ing of the data in an inductive analytic process (e.g., Results father’s reactions, coming out with a different-sex partner, “choosing” a sexual orientation). Procedur- In this section we examine three themes that il- ally, during the open coding process, each author luminate bisexual people’s coming out experiences Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences 7 within their family systems. First, we discuss how These strategies were differentially available de- cultural representations of sexualities shape dis- pending on a participant’s relationship status and closure experiences. In particular, we explore how family members’ knowledge about his or her past language and partner status both play important and present relationships. Although participants of- roles in bisexual people’s coming out processes. We ten used a specific strategy with a particular family found that bisexual people were strategic in manag- member, these strategies sometimes changed over ing their identities in families, on the basis, in part, time and between family members. of how they imagined their family members would view their sexuality. Second, we examine how cul- Not coming out tural constructions of bisexuality also shape fam- Some participants decided not to come out to ily members’ responses when bisexual people come members of their families. This was particularly out. These findings indicate that families were in- common among participants whose family mem- deed knowledgeable of stereotypes about bisexual- bers knew only of different-sex relationships. For ity and that these controlling images (Collins, 1991) instance, Monique, a 29-year-old White woman shaped their responses to their bisexual family mem- who had been married to a man for several years, ber. Third, we analyze how the coming out process was out to her husband and many friends, but she is embedded in a broader family system. We found not out to the majority of her family. She explained: that family members often acted as gatekeepers re- “If I was going to be in a monogamous relationship garding their bisexual family member’s identity. This with [a woman] . . . I [would] probably [come out], role can create complex family dynamics and indi- but I’m married [to a man].” Monique interpreted cates that coming out in families may be best under- her marriage to a man to mean that she does not stood as occurring within a family system. need to come out to her family. This rationale re- flects circulating monosexist understandings of sex- Strategies for Disclosure uality. Although individuals whose family members Bisexual individuals were strategic in their deci- were familiar only with their same-sex romantic sions about to whom and how they disclosed their histories were also subject to monosexist assump- sexuality. Furthermore, their coming out experi- tions about the nature of their sexuality, the strat- ences extended beyond the moment of disclosure egy of not coming out was less available to these into what could better be understood as a process of participants. coming out. Although participants in this study had When making decisions about coming out to some agency in their disclosure experiences, not particular family members, participants often tried all bisexual people were given a choice in disclos- to gauge their family members’ beliefs about same- ing their identity. We illustrate how individuals’ de- sex relationships and bisexuality. If participants be- cisions and experiences are shaped by the cultural lieved that a family member held heteronormative understandings they perceive their family members ideas, they were less likely to disclose their bisex- have about bisexuality. Although we found that fac- uality to that family member. Ken, a 22-year-old tors such as relationship type and quality were also White man, said that he did not want to come out a part of people’s coming out decisions and expe- to his parents because “there’s some sort of assump- riences (Beals & Peplau, 2006; Schope, 2002), we tion [that] the only son needs to carry on the fam- focus on the finding unique to this study: the im- ily name.” Ken preferred not to disrupt his parents’ portance of viewing disclosure to families as em- heteronormative familial expectations, which pre- bedded in a broader sociocultural context. Specifi- sumed different-sex marriage and parenting. Fur- cally, we discuss how family members’ monosexist thermore, these decisions are gendered, given that and heteronormative understandings influenced Ken was burdened with the expectation that dif- individuals’ disclosure strategies and experiences. ferent-sex marriage and parenting are the only We found that bisexual individuals were aware of mechanisms by which he could carry on the fam- the (negative) cultural constructions of bisexuality ily lineage. and anticipated that their family members were also In a similar vein, Elia, a 22-year-old White somewhat knowledgeable about these tropes. This woman, was out to her older and younger sis- knowledge encouraged participants to select disclo- ters, but not to other family members. She spoke sure strategies that would achieve desired outcomes. at length about how the fact that other family 8 Scherrer, Kazyak, & Schmitz in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015) members hold negative views about gay people has Perhaps because coming out as gay or lesbian kept her from coming out. Reflecting on a conver- would not challenge monosexist assumptions, bi- sation with her grandfather, she said, “He said ‘gays sexual participants imagined that these identi- are bad, gays are wrong’ and I was like ‘For sure I’m ties would be easier to understand than a bisexual not going to tell you now.’” Because her grandfa- identity. ther expressed heteronormative ideas, Elia did not One participant, Lana, was a 27-year-old White want to disclose her bisexuality to him. Like Elia, woman whose family knew only about her dating Melanie was out to a number of family members history with women. Because of this history, and but said that she decided not to come out to her her current long-term relationship with a female grandparents: “I don’t know my grandparents very partner, Lana believed that her family understood well, but I definitely know that they have an idea in her sexual identity as lesbian. Lana was particularly their heads about what it means to be gay.” Melanie close to her grandmother, with whom she had lived elaborated, saying that she also suspected that her for several years as a teenager. When talking about grandparents have no idea what bisexuality means. her decision not to correct her grandmother’s as- She went on to say, “It’s a conscious decision not sumption that she was a lesbian, Lana explained: to tell them—it’s not just omitting facts.” As these “If I started dating a man, I would then have to say examples also indicate, age, generation, and family to my grandmother ‘I’m not a lesbian,’ but at this role (e.g., grandparent, sibling) also shaped moti- point, I don’t see a point in having the conversa- vations for disclosure (Rossi, 2010; Scherrer, 2014; tion.” Because Lana had had only same-sex roman- Schope, 2002) given that participants in this study tic partners, she did not think it was important to were less likely to report being out to older fam- come out as bisexual to her grandmother. Similar ily members. to other participants, Lana thought that it was more difficult to explain bisexuality, and thus coming out Coming out as gay/lesbian. Some participants came as lesbian/gay or as in a same-sex relationship was out as gay or lesbian rather than bisexual because conceptualized as a simpler way to help their fam- of their family members’ monosexist assumptions ily members understand their sexual identity and about sexuality. These participants believed that relationships. their family members would have an easier time Participants also described coming out as les- understanding gay or lesbian identities compared bian or gay to avoid heteronormative expectations. to a bisexual identity. Kesha, a 30-year-old White For instance, Lana elaborated that she felt uncom- woman, self-identified as bisexual at 18 and de- fortable with the privilege associated with differ- scribed her process of coming out to her parents ent-sex relationships, such that if she were in a and sister when she was in a same-sex relationship different-sex relationship people would think she at age 20. Kesha said she felt like she “needed to would have “a white wedding gown and walk down clarify” to her mother why she and her girlfriend the aisle.” She said she is “much more comfortable had been spending so much time together. “When [with] letting them think that I’m a lesbian.” Sim- I came out to her, I said ‘gay’—just to make it nice ilarly, Paula, a 22-year-old White woman, said, “I and simple.” Six months later, Kesha came out to her would never bring [up my] bisexuality to my father. father as gay. Reflecting on that decision, she said: He might think that there’s a chance that I would be “My dad leans toward the pretty conservative side, straight. I try not to use that label with anyone who so I wanted to ease into it.” Similarly Melanie, the is going to desire my heterosexuality.” Indeed, par- previously discussed participant who had not come ticipants frequently discussed their concerns that out to her grandparents, said that she thought if she their families would expect that they would even- were to come out to her grandparents they would tually “settle down” with a different-sex partner if have an easier time understanding lesbian identity: they came out as bisexual. If I were to say to them “I’m a lesbian,” they’d Kesha expressed a similar sentiment. Not only be like “Oh, that’s weird, but okay, so you like did she come out as a lesbian because she thought it girls.” But If I were to say to them that I’m bi- would be an easier identity for her parents to under- sexual, I think that would be a different, more stand compared with bisexuality, but she also was difficult idea for them to get their heads around. very aware of their heteronormative expectations. She explained that she was cautious to not discuss Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences 9 her bisexuality or any different-sex sexual behavior/ lasted for six months, so there was a finite amount relationships: “It’s not the kind of thing that I would of family members I came in contact with [during bring up, for their sake.… I think that they still have that time].” As this participant illustrates, bisexual the secret dream of me falling in love with a guy people’s disclosure experiences are shaped by cul- and settling down and popping out kids.” For Ke- tural constructions of bisexuality. sha, shielding her parents from her bisexual iden- Although family members’ knowledge of past tity (and instead coming out as a lesbian) prevented and current relationships with both men and them from maintaining heteronormative expecta- women was linked to participants coming out as tions of marrying a man and having children. These bisexual, heteronormativity also shaped these dis- examples illustrate how heterosexism and mono- closure decisions. For instance, some participants sexism shaped bisexual individuals’ disclosure de- thought that bisexuality would be more likely to cisions by prompting participants to conceal their evoke positive responses from their family mem- bisexuality from family members. bers. Liz, a 23-year-old Asian woman, came out to her parents as bisexual. She said that her parents Coming out as bisexual. Some participants were “would feel more hopeless about it if I said [I was] out as bisexual, or as someone who may have rela- lesbian.” In this way, participants imagined that tionships with men or women, to particular family coming out as bisexual would make the news of members. These participants often said that their their same-sex relationship more palatable for fam- interest in being out as bisexual (as opposed to les- ily members. Jenna, a 20-year-old White woman bian or gay) was motivated by an interest in helping elaborated: family make sense of their previous, current, and Saying “Oh, I’m a lesbian” is just a much stron- potential future relationships. As an exemplar, Mel- ger statement. Because there’s not the pos- anie started identifying as bisexual at age 18 and sibility that everything will turn out in that began the process of coming out to family mem- hetero[sexual] defined, husband and wife and bers, including her mother, father, and some sib- kids and [the] white picket fence and a dog kind lings, in her early 20s. She explained that she came of lifestyle. out as bisexual to her mother but did not use that term with her father. Melanie did not use the word In other words, participants generally agreed bisexual in part because “it’s like saying the word that coming out as bisexual was not as challeng- ‘sex’ in front of my dad and I don’t need to do that.” ing to their family members’ previous conceptions However, she nonetheless disclosed her openness about what their life would resemble. Although to relationships with both men and women to her these same respondents also discussed how heter- father. The initial disclosure happened after she onormative familial assumptions were problematic, broke up with her ex-girlfriend. She turned to her coming out as bisexual may have made this news father for support: less difficult for family members to process. Taken together, these stories illuminate the ways Melanie: So you know how I’ve been dating [ex- that culturally constructed understandings of sex- girlfriend’s name]. uality shape bisexual people’s disclosure strategies, Father: Uh . . . yup. I do now. So are you gay? which primarily stem from the salient sexual dis- Melanie: Well, I really loved her, but I could get courses of heteronormativity and monosexism. Spe- married to a man some day, so I don’t know. cifically, what family members knew about previous I feel like I could fall in love with anyone, and and current relationships influenced the language this time it happened to be with [her], and I don’t know who it’s going to be next time, and used in coming out. As these stories illustrate, com- I don’t know who I’m going to end up with. ing out requires bisexual people to engage with a different (but related) set of assumptions compared Although she was out to both of her parents as to lesbian and gay people who come out to their being open to relationships with men and women, families. Melanie was not out to other family members, in- cluding her grandparents and some siblings, in part Family Members’ Responses because they did not know about her dating rela- Cultural constructions not only shape if and how tionships. She explained that her relationship “only bisexual people come out, but they also influence 10 Scherrer, Kazyak, & Schmitz in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015) how family members respond when a family mem- “They say, ‘Well you’ve told us before that you like ber comes out as bisexual or as open to relation- guys, [so] why are you still doing this? Why can’t ships with different- and same-sex partners. The you just stop this?’” Because Susan was a younger most prominent example of this came from fam- participant, it may be that family members are more ily members revealing that they viewed bisexual- likely to maintain hope that younger people are go- ity as a transitory identity (i.e., a pathway to a per- ing through a developmental phase with their sex- manent identity as lesbian, gay, or heterosexual). ual orientation and that they will eventually “end For example, Ellen recalled that when she came out up” in a heterosexual relationship. as bisexual, her parents responded by saying, “Oh Although considerably less prominent than the you’re just trying this out, you’re just dabbling [in] idea that bisexuality is a phase, some participants this for awhile and you’ll go back to dating men.” also reported hearing other stereotypes about bisex- Likewise, Sam, a 21-year-old White transgender- uality from family members, such as the idea that identified man, recounted his mother’s responses: bisexual people are promiscuous or sexually devi- “How can you be sure you’re not just going through ant. Meghan said that her mother believed bisexuals a phase?” and are “whorish people who want to have sex with ev- erything.” In this way, bisexuality is not only de-le- What does it mean? You can’t pick one or the gitimized, but it is also linked to stigmatized behav- other? I’ve never met [any]one who didn’t pick one or the other. I’ve had gay friends, but I don’t iors. A related stereotype about bisexuality emerged understand. You can’t be attracted to both peo- contending that a bisexual identity is incompatible ple, it just doesn’t work. with monogamous relationships. According to Phil, “I think in a lot of people’s minds, they smoosh to- Hanna, a 21-year-old African American woman, gether bisexuality and non-monogamy.” Phil’s sis- had a similar experience when she was talking ter articulated this stereotype and assumed that be- with her grandmother, who had raised her and cause he is bisexual, he also has non-monogamous whom she described as her “familial world”: romantic relationships. Cultural representations of bisexual people as sexually indulgent and non- [My grandmother] was like, “I thought that monogamous were less frequent in these data than you were just going through a phase when you were 16.” And I was like, “No. I’ve been in re- other common stereotypes about bisexuality, per- lationships with men and women and I’m def- haps because of the general discomfort of talking initely not heterosexual. Either you accept that about sexual practices with family members (El- or you don’t.” liot, 2012). Although there were many similarities in bi- Hanna said that her grandmother’s under- sexual men’s and women’s coming out experiences, standing of her sexuality changed over time and the stereotypes surrounding bisexual identities that her grandmother came to be very accepting were also gendered (Israel & Mohr, 2004; Scher- and supportive of her. These examples illustrate rer, 2013). For example, when Faith, a 22-year-old how family members can harbor monosexist cul- White woman, came out to her brother as bisex- tural assumptions regarding sexual orientation ual, he responded, “‘Bisexuality is cool. Like, bi and how they may believe that bisexuality is a chicks, you could do two at once.’” Faith’s brother’s transitional pathway to a “real” sexual orientation response indicates a gendered reaction in which bi- (Ochs, 1996). sexual women’s same-sex desire and relationships Not only was bisexuality seen as a phase by fam- are more readily festishized as ultimately serving ily members, but this assumption also was under- the sexual pleasure of heterosexual men. Further- girded by heteronormativity: Many participants dis- more, the bisexual men in this sample were more cussed how their family members held out hope likely (than women) to report that their family that they would ultimately end up in heterosex- members expected that their bisexuality meant that ual relationships. Speaking of her parents, Susan, they were “really” gay. For example, Ralph was a a 24-year-old White woman, said that disclos- 55-year-old White man who was married to a dif- ing her bisexuality resulted in her parents mak- ferent-sex partner, and together they had two chil- ing comments that emphasized her heterosexu- dren. In his late 40s, Ralph disclosed his bisexual ality and de-legitimizing her same-sex attraction: identity to some members of his faith community Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences 11 whom he described as his family. Although he felt she was afraid it would upset them. They’ve been very supported in the moment, Ralph later learned known to cast people out of the family for making that several people approached his wife after his dis- moral errors.” Her mother’s specific knowledge of closure to offer her comfort, anticipating that their Kesha’s maternal grandparents having conserva- relationship was over and that Ralph would now tive and heteronormative beliefs, insofar as they start dating men. would likely interpret Kesha’s sexual orientation Taken together, these data indicate that fami- as a moral error and thus sever ties if she came lies were (surprisingly) knowledgeable about ste- out, aided in Kesha’s decision to not come out to reotypes about bisexuality, most often as they de- her grandparents. scribed bisexuality as a temporary identity on the In other instances, the gatekeeper family mem- way to a stable monosexual orientation. When par- ber came out to other family members for the bi- ticipants came out as bisexual, family members en- sexual individual, a decision that was not always gaged with these stereotypes, both explicitly and necessarily discussed in advance or agreed on. In implicitly, to try to understand their bisexual fam- Kesha’s story, although her mother requested she ily member. In addition to addressing the broader not come out to her grandparents, her mother ac- sociocultural context, our findings also underscore tually disclosed Kesha’s sexual orientation to other the utility of examining coming out in families as extended family members at a family gathering, a process that both affects the entire family system which Kesha could not attend. Kesha explained: and is shaped by existing family dynamics. “My mom thought it was the perfect opportunity. She just said, ‘I think it’s a good time to tell you Coming out in Family Systems guys that [Kesha]’s gay.’ She said she just seized Bisexual individuals’ disclosure experiences are the opportunity and told them all.” Kesha reported embedded within a family system. In this section, that she and her mother had not discussed this we examine the interactions between and among and that she was “surprised” and “a little annoyed” multiple family members following disclosure, or about being left out of the decision of disclosure. what Heatherington and Lavner (2008) referred to This story also illustrates that the strategy Kesha as the “dynamics of triangles and other coalitions” used to disclose to her mom, which was informed (p. 341). We examine how knowledge about sexual by mononormative assumptions about sexuality identity is managed within these interactions and (recall that she wanted to “keep it simple”), also the ways that this disclosure (or lack of disclosure) affected what other family members know about shapes families’ subsequent dynamics. To provide her sexual orientation (given that her mother was more nuanced context for these family processes, the one to disclose it). Had Kesha been the one to we use the exemplars of Kesha and Sam to illustrate tell her aunts and uncles, she might have used a common themes in these data. different strategy and come out as bisexual, for in- After disclosure to a family member, that fam- stance, rather than gay. ily member often played an important role in de- These points are further illustrated by the story termining whether and how other family mem- of Sam, who came out as bisexual to his sister and bers were told. In the examples provided here, parents at age 16 prior to his gender transition (the mothers acted as gatekeepers who controlled narratives around coming out thus reflect that at the what information other family members received time Sam identified as a woman). Recall that Sam’s about their child’s sexual orientation. In many in- mother reacted negatively and with mononormative stances, mothers restricted information and told assumptions, saying that it was impossible for Sam their bisexual child to not come out to other fam- to like both men and women. That Sam’s mother ily members (most frequently here, grandparents, had this understanding of sexuality is important be- the other parent, or younger siblings). For exam- cause “she told the entire family that I was a lesbian” ple, Kesha first came out to her mother and then (as opposed to bisexual), which Sam described as her father and sister in her early 20s and reported upsetting. Sam’s story underscores two important that her mother “asked me not [to] tell my grand- things. First, Sam’s mother acted as a gatekeeper in- parents, her parents.” Reflecting on that request sofar as she disclosed Sam’s sexual orientation to the further, she said, “They’re very conservative and rest of the family. The fact that she was responsible 12 Scherrer, Kazyak, & Schmitz in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015) for the disclosure underscores her key role within systems. First, this example illustrates heteronorma- the family system. However, her disclosure reflects tivity in families, reflected in the fact that Sam’s un- her own understandings about sexuality rather than cle jokingly questioned her choice to attend an all- those of Sam. It is important to note that, because of women’s college because of the lack of opportunities her mononormative assumptions, she told the fam- to date men. Second, because some family members ily that Sam is a lesbian, despite Sam having come knew about Sam’s sexual orientation, but others did out to her as bisexual. not (viz., his uncle), the partial disclosure created Participants also reflected on how dynamics in uneven knowledge across family members and the the family system shifted following disclosure. Ke- potential for situations in which family members sha’s not being out to her grandparents was not al- are complicit in maintaining silence around sex- ways straightforward because other people on her ual orientation. Third, the fact that Sam’s mother mother’s side of the family (e.g., aunts, uncles, some came out to others on Sam’s behalf, as a lesbian, cousins) did know about her sexual orientation, also contributed to confusion. This shaped other and her same-sex dating partners often accompa- subsequent interactions with family members, as nied her to family events. The partial disclosure in Sam either clarified the situation or remained si- the family system, coupled with the fact that her lent. During one such interaction, Sam mentioned mother had been the one to disclose, created si- a boyfriend to an aunt: lence surrounding Kesha’s sexual orientation and The first time I mentioned having a boyfriend partners at family events. Kesha reflected that even to [my aunt], she was like “Really?” There was though her aunts and uncles knew about her sex- a moment where it was like, okay my mom told ual orientation, they did not explicitly talk about you that I was a lesbian, and now you’re seeing it or her romantic relationship: “Everyone knows that that’s not true. that my mom’s parents don’t know [about my sex- ual orientation]. I’ve very rarely seen them without In this example, Sam’s own dynamic (relation- the grandparents there [and] it can’t be talked about ship) with his aunt assumed primacy over his aunt in front of the grandparents.” These complex fam- and mother’s relationship. In sum, these narratives ily dynamics, whereby some family members may highlight how coming out in families is a complex know and others may not, create a challenging sit- process that both shapes and is impacted by exist- uation for bisexual people, as even those who know ing family relationships. about their sexual orientation may not acknowledge their relationships and identities. Moreover, Kesha and her mom, as well as aunts, uncles, and cous- Discussion ins were drawn into a complex web of information management and served as gatekeepers in keeping This study is not without limitations. First, the the knowledge of Kesha’s sexual orientation hidden sample was geographically bounded to the Mid- from her grandparents. west, and although the participants had some di- Sam also discussed how the fact that his mother versity regarding age and class, it was less diverse (inaccurately) disclosed his sexuality as a lesbian to with regard to gender and race. The gender gap in other family members shaped subsequent familial our sample likely reflects the fact that more women interactions. Specifically, Sam said that their inter- than men identify as bisexual or that the legitimacy actions have been somewhat awkward: of men’s bisexuality is particularly scrutinized and stigmatized (Eliason, 2000; Yost & Thomas, 2012). They stopped asking me about boyfriends, and, Although we made efforts to recruit bisexual iden- at some point and I could tell who was the last tified people of color, we were less successful at ob- to know because my uncle asked me one time taining as racially diverse a sample as we wished, about dating. I went to a women’s college, and perhaps because we did not recruit adequately he said “What are you gonna do without boys?” through informal social networks of GLBT peo- [Laughs] and everyone in the room got quiet and awkward. ple of color (Moore, 2011). Second, this analysis did not focus explicitly on differences that may This narrative illustrates several important exist on the basis of the intersection of age, race, points about the complexity of coming out in family class, or gender. Future research should examine Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences 13 how geographic context, as well as these other so- “really” heterosexual. This was especially true for cial identities, further shapes the coming out ex- women; in contrast, men reported that their fami- periences of bisexual people (Kazyak, 2011). Third, lies presumed that they were “really” gay. Such re- these data did not enable us to examine family actions reflect monosexism and highlight one of the members’ perspectives about their bisexual fam- most significant ways that coming out as bisexual ily members. It could be that family members have is qualitatively different from coming out as gay or different understandings of bisexuality than the lesbian. Family members of gay and lesbian indi- ones articulated by the respondents in this study, viduals often struggle with accepting that identity indicating an important avenue of inquiry for fu- and abandoning an imagined heterosexual future ture research. Furthermore, little is known about (LaSala 2010; Martin et al., 2010; Seidman, 2002). how family members’ responses may be further Yet family members often try to normalize a gay or influenced by recent social and political shifts on lesbian identity and rely on discourses about those issues such as same-sex relationship recognition. identities being biological/inborn to do so (Fields, Future research may fruitfully examine how atti- 2001; Seidman, 2002). Bisexuality challenges such tudes about bisexuality may be uniquely affected essentialist understandings about sexuality, and by these cultural shifts. Despite these limitations, thus family members are unable to rely on scripts this study makes an important contribution to lit- about how their bisexual family member did not erature on GLBT family relationships by using cul- choose to be bisexual (Fields, 2001). Furthermore, tural sociology and family systems frameworks to if and when bisexual individuals have different-sex analyze bisexual individuals’ disclosure experi- romantic partners, this may heighten family mem- ences in their families. bers’ heteronormative expectations. Family mem- Our findings demonstrate that the cultural con- bers may misunderstand them as heterosexual (in text within which families are embedded shapes contrast to their self-identification as bisexual), both how people come out as well as how family similar to the experiences of other sexual minor- members respond to disclosure. Respondents were ities (Pfeffer, 2012). Stereotypes of bisexual people aware of their family members’ understandings of as promiscuous and non-monogamous (Israel & bisexuality and were strategic in navigating these Mohr, 2004) also shape how families understand stereotypes during the coming out process. In some what it means to be bisexual. These stereotypes were ways, stereotypes about the transitory nature of bi- pervasive in participants’ narratives; all participants sexuality (Oswald, 1999) may have made coming identified at least one stereotype about bisexuality out easier for bisexual people, as they imagined that in connection to their family relationships. Partic- family members would not necessarily have to dis- ipants described these stereotypes as problematic card heteronormative expectations. Similarly, com- and engaged with them strategically in their com- ing out as bisexual may have been preferred to other ing out experiences. identity labels, such as queer or pansexual, as it was Unlike popular notions that regard coming out seen as more easy to understand. In contrast, other as simply declaring one’s sexual identity to others, participants elected not to come out as bisexual participants’ accounts in this study illustrate how (and instead came out as gay or lesbian) to avoid much deliberation and consideration went into an- the negative and stigmatized reaction they antici- ticipating family members’ possible responses and pated their family members having regarding bisex- crafting one’s coming out strategy to maximize de- uality (Bradford, 2004; Oswald, 1999). It is interest- sirable outcomes. Instead of assessing whether a ing that coming out as gay or lesbian (rather than particular strategy is good, authentic, or privileged, bisexual) was also seen as a way to combat family we addressed how circulating discourses about bi- members’ heteronormative expectations. sexuality affect the strategies that individuals use. Bisexual people must contend with monosex- Coming out strategies might be interpreted differ- ist and heterosexist cultural expectations of family ently by family members, suggesting a need for fu- members (Bradford, 2004; Diamond, 2008a; Mu- ture research that examines coming out strategies lick & Wright, 2002; Rodríguez-Rust, 2002). In- alongside various family members’ responses. Fu- deed, respondents reported that after disclosing a ture research should also continue to explore how bisexual identity, family members often dismissed cultural constructions about sexual identities (e.g., that identity and instead presumed that they were bisexuality, asexuality, queer identities) shape how 14 Scherrer, Kazyak, & Schmitz in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015) they are received in the family. Also, given that Understanding the coming out process within a people are increasingly likely to avoid sexual iden- family systems framework highlights the poten- tity labels or use alternative sexual identity labels tial for such misrepresentations to occur. to describe themselves (Diamond, 2008a, 2008b; We also found that partial disclosure in the Savin-Williams, 2005) future research should also larger family system can occur when only some seek to be inclusive of queer, pansexual, or sexu- relatives know. Past and current romantic relation- ally fluid people’s coming out experiences as well ships were particularly critical for understanding as people who prefer to not label their sexuality. bisexual people’s relationships within families be- Particular attention should be paid to how different cause intimate relationships sometimes masked family members, such as parents, grandparents, or the person’s bisexuality to some family members. siblings, might have different cultural understand- In a sense, this phenomenon could create a “double ings of the same sexual identity and thus might re- closet” for bisexual people, given that they are in- spond very differently to disclosure. The question correctly assumed to be either heterosexual or gay of how family members’ responses might change or lesbian on the basis of their intimate relationship over time, particularly for individuals who iden- history (Zinik, 2000). The degree to which roman- tify their sexuality differently over time (Diamond tic partners are not recognized as such (as is often 2008a, 2008b), also warrants continued attention in the case for same-sex relationships) can result in future research. Our findings have implications that not only awkwardness but also distance from fam- extend beyond social science research because they ily members. Moreover, the degree to which there may also be useful for informing therapeutic inter- is silence in general surrounding a person’s sexual ventions with the families of GLBT people or clini- orientation can result in frustration and sadness for cal practice with bisexual persons and their unique individuals who do feel that it is important for the therapeutic needs (Pachankis & Goldfried, 2013; family members to know about their sexuality. Our Scherrer, 2013). findings highlight the need for a more nuanced un- Our findings empirically demonstrate the util- derstanding of what it means to be “in the closet” ity of using a family systems approach to under- or “out” in the family. Future work can address why stand the process of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and certain family members serve as gatekeepers, how queer individuals coming out in families, confirm- relationships within extended families might be ing the contentions of other researchers (Baptist & strained as a result of partial disclosure, how family Allen, 2008; Heatherington & Lavner, 2008). Fu- members may seek to educate themselves on these ture research that examines the process of com- issues, or how family members may advocate for ac- ing out in families may benefit from theories or ceptance. Furthermore, advocacy efforts to promote perspectives that account for interactions between affirmative stances toward nonheterosexual sexual- and among family members, such as family sys- ities would benefit from more purposive inclusion tems, rather than focusing narrowly on a single of bisexuality as well as other marginalized sexual family relationship (Cox & Paley, 1997). We found minority identities. that not all participants were seeking the same type of relationship with their families, thus high- lighting the complex dynamics of family systems. Note Not all participants saw it as important or desir- able to make sure that all of their family members This research was financially supported by the -Bi sexual Foundation, The Kinsey Institute, and the Uni- knew about their sexual identity. In fact, some did versity of Michigan’s Sociology Department and Insti- not have a choice in whether or not to disclose to tute for Research on Women and Gender. We also wish extended family members, as one family member to express our heartfelt appreciation to the people who often played a gatekeeping role in protecting or gave of their time to participate in this research. Thank disseminating the information to the larger family. you again for opening up to us about your coming out This finding further underscores the importance experiences. This research has also benefited from the of research that incorporates the perspectives of support of research assistants and colleagues. We are family members, given that the gatekeeping family particularly grateful to members of the GSSSG writ- member might have a different understanding of ing group and to Chelsea Cutright and Sarah Stout for sexuality and could disclose an inaccurate identity. their research assistance. Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences 15

References Denes, A., & Afifi, T. D. (2014). Coming out again: Ex- ploring GLBQ individuals’ communication with Angen, M. J. (2000). Evaluating interpretive inquiry: their parents after the first coming out. Journal of Reviewing the validity debate and opening the di- GLBT Family Studies, 10, 298–325. doi:10.1080/1 alogue. Qualitative Health Research, 10, 378–395. 550428X.2013.838150 doi:10.1177/104973230001000308 Diamond, L. M. (2005). “I’m straight, but I kissed Ault, A. (1996). Ambiguous identity in an unambig- a girl”: The trouble with American me- uous sex/gender structure: The case of bisexual dia representations of female–female sexu- women. The Sociological Quarterly, 37, 449–463. ality. Feminism & Psychology, 15, 104–110. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.1996.tb00748.x doi:10.1177/0959-353505049712 Aveline, D. (2006). “Did I have blinders on or Diamond, L. M. (2008a). Female bisexuality from ad- what?” Retrospective sense making by par- olescence to adulthood: Results from a 10-year ents of gay sons recalling their sons’ earlier longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, years. Journal of Family Issues, 27, 777–802. 44, 5–14. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.5 doi:10.1177/0192513X05285613 Diamond, L. M. (2008b). Sexual fluidity: Understand- Baptist, J. A., & Allen, K. R. (2008). A family’s coming ing women’s love and desire. Cambridge, MA: out process: Systemic change and multiple reali- Harvard University Press. ties. Contemporary Family Therapy, 30, 92–110. Eliason, M. (2000). Bi-negativity: The stigma facing doi:10.1007/s10591-008-9057-3 bisexual men. Journal of Bisexuality, 1, 137–154. Beals, K., & Peplau, L. (2006). Disclosure patterns doi:10.1300/J159v01n02_05 within networks of lesbians and gay men. Jour- Elliot, S. (2012). Not my kid: What parents believe nal of Homosexuality, 51, 101–120. doi:10.1300/ about the sex lives of their teenagers. New York: J082v51n02_06 New York University Press. Biblarz, T. J., & Savci, E. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bi- Emerson, R., Fretz, R., & Shaw, L. (1995). Writing eth- sexual, and transgender families. Jour- nographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chi- nal of Marriage and Family, 72, 480–497. cago Press. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00714.x Fields, J. (2001). Normal queers: Straight parents re- Bradford, M. (2004). The bisexual experience: Living spond to their children’s “coming out.” Sym- in a dichotomous culture. Journal of Bisexuality, bolic Interaction, 24, 165–187. doi:10.1525/ 4, 7–23. doi:10.1300/J159v04n01_02 si.2001.24.2.165 Collins, P. H. (1991). Mammies, matriarchs, and Grov, C., Bimbi, D., Nanin, J., & Parsons, J. (2006). other controlling images. In Black feminist Race, ethnicity, gender, and generational fac- thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the tors associated with the coming out pro- politics of empowerment (pp. 67–89). New York: cess among gay, lesbian, and bisexual individ- Routledge. uals. Journal of Sex Research, 43, 115–121. Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. doi:10.1080/00224490609552306 Annual Review of Psychology, 48, 243–267. Hays, S. (2000). Constructing the centrality of culture, doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243 and deconstructing sociology? Contemporary So- Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research ciology, 29, 594–602. doi:10.2307/2654560 design: Choosing among five approaches. Thou- Heatherington, L., & Lavner, J. A. (2008). Com- sand Oaks, CA: Sage. ing to terms with coming out: Review and rec- D’Augelli, A., Grossman, A., & Starks, M. (2005). ommendations for family systems-focused re- Parents’ awareness of lesbian, gay, and bi- search. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 329–343. sexual youths’ sexual orientation. Jour- doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.329 nal of Marriage and Family, 67, 474–482. Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes to- doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00129.x ward bisexual men and women in the United D’Augelli, A. R., Hershberger, S. L., & Pilking- States. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264–274. ton, N. W. (1998). Lesbian, gay, and bisex- doi:10.1080/00224490209552150 ual youth and their families: Disclosure of Israel, T., & Mohr, J. J. (2004). Attitudes toward bi- sexual orientation and its consequences. Amer- sexual women and men: Current research, future ican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 361–371. directions. Journal of Bisexuality, 4, 117–134. doi:10.1111/j.0022-2445.2005.00129.x doi:10.1300/J159v04n01_09 16 Scherrer, Kazyak, & Schmitz in Journal of Marriage and Family (2015)

Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, sexuality and hetero- Oswald, R. (1999). Family and friendship relation- sexuality: The complexity (and limits) of het- ships after young women come out as bisexual eronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7, 105–121. or lesbian. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 65–83. doi:10.1177/1464700106061462 doi:10.1300/J082v38n03_04 Kazyak, E. (2011). Disrupting cultural selves: Con- Pachankis, J. E., & Goldfried, M. R. (2013). Clin- structing gay and lesbian identities in rural locales. ical issues in working with lesbian, gay, Qualitative Sociology, 34, 561–581. doi:10.1007/ and bisexual clients. Psychology of Sex- s11133-011-9205-1 ual Orientation & Gender Diversity, 1, 45–58. Kitzinger, C. (2005). Heteronormativity in action: Re- doi:10.1037/0033-3204.41.3.227 producing the heterosexual nuclear family in af- Padgett, D. K. (2008). Qualitative methods in social ter-hours medical calls. Social Problems, 52, 477– work research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 498. doi:10.1525/sp.2005.52.4.477 Pfeffer, C. A. (2012). Normative resistance and inven- Lannutti, P. J. (2008). “This is not a lesbian wedding”: tive pragmatism negotiating structure and agency Examining same-sex marriage and bisexual–les- in transgender families. Gender & Society, 26, bian couples. Journal of Bisexuality, 7, 237–260. 574–602. doi:10.1177/0891243212445467 doi:10.1080/15299710802171316 Ragin, C. C., Nagel, J., & White, P. (2004). Workshop LaSala, M. (2010). Coming out, coming home: Help- on scientific foundations of qualitative research. ing families adjust to a gay or lesbian child. New Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. York: Columbia University Press. Rodríguez-Rust, P. (2000). Alternatives to binary sex- Martin, K. A., Hutson, D. J., Kazyak, E., & Scherrer, uality. In P. Rust (Ed.), Bisexuality in the United K. S. (2010). Advice when children come out: The States: A social science reader (pp. 33–54). New cultural “tool-kit” of parents. Journal of Family Is- York: Columbia University Press. sues, 31, 960–991. doi:10.1177/0192513X09354454 Rodríguez-Rust, P. (2002). Bisexuality: The state of the Martin, K. A., & Kazyak, E. (2009). Hetero-roman- union. Annual Review of Sex Research, 13, 180– tic love and heterosexiness in children’s G- 240. doi:10.1080/10532528.2002.10559805 rated films. Gender & Society, 23, 315–336. Rossi, N. E. (2010). “Coming out” stories of gay and doi:10.1177/0891243209335635 lesbian young adults. Journal of Homosexuality, McLean, K. (2007). Hiding in the closet? Bi- 57, 1174–1191. doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.5083 sexual, coming out and the disclosure im- 30 perative. Journal of Sociology, 43, 151–166. Rust, P. C. (1993). “Coming out” in the age of social doi:10.1177/1440783307076893 constructionism: Sexual identity formation among Moore, M. (2011). Invisible families: Gay identities, lesbian and bisexual women. Gender & Society, 7, relationships, and motherhood among Black 50–77. doi:10.1177/089124393007001004 women. Berkeley: University of California Press. Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R., & San- Moore, M., & Stambolis-Ruhstorfer, M. (2013). LGBT chez, J. (2010). Family acceptance in adolescence sexuality and families at the start of the twenty- and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of first century. Annual Review of Sociology, 39, 491– Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 507. doi:10.1146/annurev-soc-071312-145643 205–213. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x Mulick, P. S., & Wright, L. M., Jr. (2002). Examining Savin-Williams, R. (2005). The new gay teenager. the existence of biphobia in the heterosexual and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. homosexual populations. Journal of Bisexuality, 2, Schalet, A. T. (2011). Not under my roof: Parents, 45–64. doi:10.1300/J159v02n04_03 teens, and the culture of sex. Chicago: University Ochs, R. (1996). Biphobia: It goes more than two ways. of Chicago Press. In B. A. Firestein (Ed.), Bisexuality: The psychol- Scherrer, K. S. (2009). Images of sexuality and ag- ogy and politics of an invisible minority (pp. 217– ing. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 6, 5–12. 239). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.1525/srsp.2009.6.4.5 Orne, J. (2011). “You will always have to ‘out’ your- Scherrer, K. S. (2013). Clinical practice with bisexual self”: Reconsidering coming out through identified individuals. Clinical Social Work Jour- strategic outness. Sexualities, 14, 681–703. nal, 41, 238–248. doi:10.1007/s10615-013-0451-4 doi:10.1177/1363460711420462 Bisexual People’s Disclosure Experiences 17

Scherrer, K. S. (2014). Gay, lesbian, bisexual and queer Watson, J. B. (2014). Bisexuality and family: Narratives grandchildren’s disclosure process with grand- of silence, solace, and strength. Journal of GLBT parents. Journal of Family Issues. Advance online Family Studies, 10, 101–123. doi:10.1080/15504 publication. doi:10.1177/0192513X14526874 28X.2014.857497 Schope, R. (2002). The decision to tell: Factors influ- Weinberg, M. S., Williams, C. J., & Pryor, D. W. (1994). encing the disclosure of sexual orientation by gay Dual attraction: Understanding bisexuality. New men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services, 14, York: Oxford University Press. 1–22. doi:10.1300/J041v14n01_01 West, C., & Zimmerman, D. (1987). Do- Seidman, S. (2002). Beyond the closet: The transforma- ing gender. Gender & Society, 1, 125–151. tion of gay and lesbian life. New York: Routledge. doi:10.1177/0891243287001002002 Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and Yost, M. R., & Thomas, G. D. (2012). Gender and bine- strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, gativity: Men’s and women’s attitudes toward male 273–286. and female bisexuals. Archives of Sexual Behav- Waldner, L. K., & Magruder, B. (1999). Coming out ior, 41, 691–702. doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9767-8 to parents: Perceptions of family relations, per- Zinik, G. (2000). Identity conflict or adaptive flexibil- ceived resources, and identity expression as pre- ity? Bisexuality reconsidered. In P. Rust (Ed.), Bi- dictors of identity disclosure for gay and lesbian sexuality in the United States (pp. 55–60). New adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 83–100. York: Columbia University Press. doi:10.1300/J082v37n02_05