Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 1 Running head: LESBIAN & HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS A PHENOMONOLOGICAL STUDY OF THE LIVED EXPERIENCE OF WOMEN IN LESBIAN RELATIONSHIPS WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY MARRIED TO MEN University of Calgary/Athabasca University/ University of Lethbridge Stacey Boon A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Campus Alberta Graduate Program in Applied Psychology in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Counselling In Counselling Psychology Calgary, AB February 2006 Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 2 Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 3 Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 4 Copyright © 2006 by Stacey Boon. All rights reserved. No part of this thesis may be copied or reproduced in any form or by any means without written permission of Stacey L. Boon. Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 5 Abstract This research paper presents themes from a descriptive exploratory study conducted with ten women who are in lesbian relationships, but who were married to men at some point in the past. The purpose of the study was to identify similarities and differences between lesbian and heterosexual relationships from the perspective of women who have experience in both relationship types. A qualitative analysis was performed. The results include similarities between relationship types, challenges of heterosexual and lesbian relationships, and differences between the relationship types. Benefits of each type of relationship, lesbian identity management, and external and individual factors are also represented in the findings. Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 6 Table of Contents Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………… 8 Rationale………………….……………………………………………………………….9 Definition of Terms……………….………………………………………………….….13 Bracketing of the Phenomenon……..……………………………………………………15 II. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE…….…………………………………...17 III. METHODOLOGY….……….……………………………………………………….….36 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………36 Data Collection Methods……………………………………………………………..….37 Human Rights Protection………………………………………………….……………..37 Interview Schedule………………………………………………………………………38 Data Analysis-Synthesis…………………………………………………………………39 Potential Implications……………………………………………………………………39 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………41 IV. RESULTS……………………..…………………………………………………………42 Similarities Between Couple Types……………………………………………………...42 Differences Between Couple Types……………………………………………………..46 Challenges in Heterosexual Relationships……………………………………………….62 Challenges in Heterosexual Relationships……………………………………………….68 Relationship Satisfaction Across Couple Types…………………………………………77 Benefits of Heterosexual and Lesbian Relationships……………………………………80 Lesbian Identity Management………...…………………………………………………88 External and Individual…………………………………………………………………..92 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………95 V. DISCUSSION………………..…………………………………………………………96 Definition of Terms ……………...……………………………………………………...96 Theoretical Implications ………………...……………………………………………..108 Implications for Practice ……………………………………………………………….109 Further Study and Future Research ……………………………………………………111 Contributions of this study …………………………………………………………….113 Summary and Conclusions ..………………………...…………………………………114 Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 7 References………………………………………….…………………………………………...115 Appendices.……………………………………………………………………………………..123 Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 8 Chapter I. Introduction Both the emergence of same-sex marriage in Canada and the increased visibility of gay and lesbian relationships are bringing wider attention to this population (Diamond, 2005; Lahey & Alderson, 2004). Likewise, the emphasis on social justice and cultural competence in the counselling field are contributing to a demand for more ethical and sound research and practice with populations whose needs may not have been effectively addressed by the counselling, health, and psychology professions in the past (DeVito, 1999). To date, there has been a scarcity of information on lesbian relationships, and a lack of reference to gay or lesbian relationships in literature with regard to couples and families (Beals & Peplau, 2005; Clarke et al., 2005; Diamond, 2005; Goldfried, 2001; Harkless & Fowers, 2005; Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004; Todosijevic, Solomon, & Rothblum, 2005). Perhaps it is not surprising that the literature is dominated by a focus on heterosexual relationships, as heterosexual relationships have traditionally composed the majority of marital and family interactions. Much of the past research on lesbian relationship issues has supported pathologizing and negative theories about lesbian women and lesbian pairings (Annesley & Coyle, 1995; Barrett & McWhirter, 2002; Rivett, 2001). The prevalence of concepts such as lesbian bed death and fusion in lesbian relationships, which will be defined later in this section, have dominated the discourse thus far, and these concepts have even crept into the cultural lingo of lesbian communities. As some authors have pointed out, such concepts may have arisen from a heterocentric position as to what constitutes a healthy couple relationship (Iasenza, 2000; Rothblum, 1994). As Nichols (2004) points out, lesbians were first pathologized for having sex, and then for not having it. The strengths, benefits, and unique attributes of lesbian women and Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 9 their pair bonds are only beginning to be explored. The lack of research and the significant ratio of unsound research of this population have created a stereotypical composite of lesbian couples that is characterized by unhealthy dependency and loss of identity. The stereotype also portrays lesbian couples as having problematic sexuality and incapacity to attain long-term, committed status. The prevalence of these unfavourable myths hinder researchers and clinicians from gaining a more accurate understanding of the strengths and challenges of lesbian relationships and their similarities to and differences from heterosexual couple types. Furthermore, they are obstacles to achieving a high standard of professional practice and the creation of effective policy related to this group. This is a critical period for same-sex relationships in Canada. Of the increase of same-sex marriage cases in Canada and the United States, Lahey and Alderson (2004) wrote, “There is every indication that this will not be the end of this new beginning” (p. 67). Lesbian women, gay men, and their relationships with the larger culture are evolving rapidly. This study is an attempt to gain a more accurate understanding of relationships and their place in our culture from the point of view of women who have lived experience in both types of relationships. The contextual experience of these women will help inform and enrich the theory, research, and practice with lesbian women and lesbian couples. Rationale Early studies of homosexuality tended to be focused on either the etiology of homosexuality or on conversion therapies, and likely contributed to the pathologizing of gay men and lesbian women. However, the body of literature on same-sex relationships is growing and the most recent theories are more constructive and affirming of homosexuality. For example, current research topics have explored the development of a positive gay or lesbian identity, resilience, Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 10 and the improvement of health services for gay men and lesbian women. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recently reported that there are large gaps in the knowledge about the health of the lesbian population. The IOM also reports that it is a priority to understand the health problems that lesbians are at risk for and to identify both the protective factors and conditions that will reduce the risk (Johnson & Hughes, 2005). While these changes are promising, the issues specific to lesbians and lesbian couples that are identified in the literature require further clarification and empirical support. Researchers consistently report that there is paucity of research on lesbian couples (Goldfried, 2001; Pachankis & Goldfried, 2004). Furthermore, lesbian relationships have been explored from a heterocentric point of view (Iasenza, 2000). Myths about lesbian relationships, such as the concepts of fusion and lesbian bed death, are being refuted (Iasenza, 2000; Gaines & Henderson, 2002; Spitalnick & McNair, 2005). Historically, both of these concepts have been repetitive themes in the literature on lesbian couples (Spitalnick & McNair, 2005). However, as Iasenza (2000) points out, these concepts are rooted in heterocentric definitions of healthy sexuality and emotional intimacy in primary relationships. Some studies indicate that although lesbian couples report less genital sex than heterosexual couples, they report more kissing, cuddling, and holding than do heterosexual couples (Spitalnick & McNair, 2005; Rothblum, 1994). Lesbian couples also report higher relationship satisfaction than gay or heterosexual couples (Beals & Peplau, 2001; Cardell, Finn, & Marecek, 1981; Eldridge & Gilbert, 1990; Kurdek & Schmitt, 1987; Metz, Rosser, & Strapko, 1994; Spitalnick & McNair, 2005). This discrepancy may indicate that the current standards by which we are examining lesbian relationships are not appropriate, and that concepts such as intimacy may be different across couple types. Lesbian & Heterosexual Relationships 11 It has been suggested that theories and techniques for intervention with heterosexual couples have been applied to gay and lesbian couples without there being sufficient