ANNA MURACO Loyola Marymount University

Intentional : Fictive Kin Ties Between Cross-Gender, Different Sexual Orientation Friends

This study explores the nature of intentional explores one type of divergence: the mutual expe- relationships between friends of different rience of friendship as family in close friendships genders and different sexual orientations. between gay men and straight women and Drawing on in-depth interviews with 46 mem- between lesbians and straight men. bers of 23 friendship dyads, I first make the case This work builds on prior research about expe- that the friends considered one another family riences of family relationships with nonkin. and I specify the criteria they use for making Through discourse (Gubrium & Holstein, 1990) such designations. I then focus on the ways in and practice (Stack, 1974), friends often are which gender and sexual orientation influenced defined as family. For many gay men and les- relationships between lesbians and straight bians, friendship and family are combined into men and between gay men and straight women. chosen family networks (Weston, 1991) that typ- The data provided evidence that the dyad mem- ically comprise not only other gay men and les- bers identified one another as family and served bians but also some straight people (Oswald, the functions of family for each other. The find- 2002; Weston) who presumably deem the gay ings also suggest that various gender issues men and lesbians to be family members as well. affect cross-gender, different sexual orientation Virtually, no previous research has examined relationships. Exploring the meaning and func- the mutuality of gay men and lesbians serving tioning of these intentional family ties docu- as chosen family for their straight friends. This ments their existence and illuminates their study explores close friendships between gay meaning and maintenance. men and straight women and between lesbians and straight men to learn how each feels about and enacts these fictive family ties. There is a pervasive cultural belief that biolegal family connections are the most salient and dura- ble bonds between individuals. They are rein- EXISTING LITERATURE ABOUT forced through customs, rituals, and laws that FRIENDSHIP AND FAMILY privilege familial relationships over nonkin ties There is a considerable overlap in the functions and determine who may be defined as family. that friends and family serve (Fehr, 1996). Trust, As experienced, however, family life often di- respect, caring, and intimacy have been identified verges from normative definitions. This study as attributes of friends, family, and romantic rela- tionships (Wilmot & Shellen, 1990). Friendships are less regulated than romantic relationships by Department of Sociology, Loyola Marymount University, social norms, receive less time, are less exclusive, One LMU Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045 (amuraco@ and are easier to dissolve (Wiseman, 1986; lmu.edu). Wright, 1985); thus, friendship is, at once, the Key Words: family, fictive kin, friendship, gender, sexual most flexible and most tenuous of social relation- orientation. ships. In contrast, family is a regulated social Journal of and Family 68 (December 2006): 1313–1325 1313 1314 Journal of Marriage and Family

Table 1. Themes Used to Code and Analyze Intentional Family Data

Theme Subtheme Sample Quote

Identification [It’s] as important as my relationship with my , and more important as family than my relationship with both of my , who I’m not very fond of anyway—If I lost him, I would be devastated. It would be the same as losing a , or a , or something like that.—Monique, straight woman He feels really kind of more like family to me than a friend, so he’s kind of like one of those people that you always know will be there.—Debbi, lesbian Functions of Financial support I’m always trying to get her stable in her life. I’m always worried about her family finances and everything and worried about her getting a 401K going, I’m worried about her when she’s 70 and all that stuff, so I wanted her to own real estate . —Scott, gay man Emotional support We’ve been there for each other in a way that my family hasn’t necessarily been there for me.—Stuart, straight man Gender issues, Life transitions We do have future plans for when we’re old. Well, you know, he bought this different by place in Tahoe. It’s this beautiful place. And it’s on this hill and right below dyad type it there’s this little cottage (laughs). That’s where I’m going to live.—Ruth, straight woman Anxiety over chosen She’s going to make me an one day. Well, depending on where they are family living. Although that’s what I worry about too, just because people change.—Connor, gay man

institution that is expected to provide material ual, and transgender (LGBT) communities and social care and connection to its members (Chauncey, 1994; Nardi). Gay men and lesbians (Cherlin, 2002). Although definitions of family also have constructed alternative family forms are socially and legally contested, the functions to challenge normative conceptions of ‘‘the fam- that families serve are similar regardless of who ily’’ (Weeks, Heaphy, & Donovan, 2001). More- performs the tasks. That is, various forms of work over, restrictive laws limit gay men’s and including emotional support, financial assistance, lesbians’ full participation in legally sanctioned and care throughout the life course lie at the cen- forms of family life that emerge from marriage ter of family life (Carrington, 1999; Hartmann, and parenthood. 1981; Hochschild & Machung, 1989). These Prior studies showed that straight people also functions are important to the extent that people form chosen family relationships when nuclear who lack or are alienated from desired family family ties are limited (Lindsey, 1981). The pre- support often build fictive networks vious research focuses on communities that are (Weston, 1991). marginalized with regards to age (MacRae, The pervasive notion that there is only one def- 1992), race (Chatters, Robert, & Jayakody, inition of family has been challenged by contem- 1994; Stack, 1974), or country of origin (Ebaugh porary kinship studies (Stacey, 1996; Weston, & Curry, 2000). For example, in Black and recent 1991). For instance, chosen family structures of immigrant communities, fictive kin are added gay men and lesbians typically comprise part- into an unit, which increases ners, former partners, and friends and may also the number of people who participate in a family include biolegal family members (Nardi, 1999; network (Chatters et al., 1994; Ebaugh & Curry; Weston). These structures provide social and Stack). Fictive kin and chosen families have in instrumental support in a reciprocal and volun- common an expansion of resources through tary manner (Carrington, 1999; Nardi; Stacey, familial arrangements. 1998). Chosen family networks are important In general, nonmarginalized straight people for gay men and lesbians who, historically, have who have access to nuclear families are not had compromised access to families of origin expected to rely upon chosen family bonds despite because of rejection or geographical distance re- wide historical variations in family life (Coontz, sulting from a move to live in lesbian, gay, bisex- 1992; Lindsey, 1981). Similar to gay men and Intentional Families 1315 lesbians, however, both straight individuals who fects close, platonic relationships between men are alienated or geographically distant from their and women who are free from sexual and roman- families of origin and lifelong straight singles tic expectations. sometimes turn friends into chosen families (Ru- Gay men and lesbians were recruited via con- bin, 1985; Stein, 1981). Changing demographics venience, snowball sampling, beginning with also contribute to straight adults’ contemporary personal contacts in the San Francisco Bay Area creation of chosen families. Many people remain LGBT communities and expanding through par- single well into adulthood; in the Year 2000, one ticipants’ own social networks. Some participants in four individuals aged 35 years and older had were recruited via fliers sent to local LGBT organ- never been married (Egelman, 2004). Similarly, izations and advertisements posted on community single and widowed older adults often rely on bulletin boards. Respondents were asked to vol- support from friends whom they view as family unteer to participate in a study designed to learn members (MacRae, 1992). Hence, many singles more about close friendships between gay men form networks to fulfill family functions. and straight women and between lesbians and Because research about chosen families has straight men. The respondents were told that to focused either on gay men’s and lesbians’ net- be included in the study, both members of the works (Carrington, 1999; Nardi, 1999; Stacey, friendship needed to be willing and able to partic- 1998) or on straights’ fictive kin arrangements ipate in an individual interview. (Chatters et al., 1994; Ebaugh & Curry, 2000; Between October 2002 and August 2003, 53 MacRae, 1992; Stack, 1974), there appears to people who were part of 25 friendship dyads be little overlap in their networks. The fact that and one triad were interviewed. For the purposes straight friends are identified as part of lesbians’ of the analyses in this study, I omitted the data and gay men’s chosen families (Weston, 1991), from seven interviewees: three of the individuals however, suggests that choosing kin may bring were in a triad, two in a dyad who were inter- gay, lesbian, and straight people, same and viewed together, and two individuals whose cross-gender, together in family networks friend was unavailable to be interviewed. Thus, (Oswald, 2002; Tillmann-Healy, 2001). An data from 46 interviewees in 23 friendship pairs examination of such friendships is an important were analyzed for this study. The interviewees step in understanding the interconnectedness of self-identified as male (n ¼ 23) and female (n ¼ these family structures. 23) and as straight (n ¼ 23), gay (n ¼ 12), and This study explores the nature of intentional lesbian (n ¼ 11). None of the participants were family relationships between friends of different transgender. The participants ranged in age genders and different sexual orientations. Draw- from 21 to 64 years, with a median age of 32 ing on in-depth interviews with members of 23 years. The racial composition of the sample was dyads, I first make the case that the friends con- 59% White, 17% Latino, 19% Asian, and 4% sidered one another family and I specify the crite- Black. All participants were high school gradu- ria they use for making such designations. I then ates, 19% with some college, 43% with a bache- focus on the ways in which gender and sexual lor’s degree, 31% with a graduate degree, and orientation influenced relationships between 7% with a doctoral degree. I did not collect data lesbians and straight men and between gay men about income level. Of the 46 participants dis- and straight women. I explore the meaning and cussed here, 24 were partnered or married and function of these friendships to document their 22 single or unpartnered. By dyad, the marital/ existence and to illuminate their maintenance partnered status was as follows: members were and significance. married/partnered in eight pairs, both members were single in four pairs, and one member was married/partnered and one single in 11 pairs. METHOD The participants primarily were residents of This study is based on interviews about close the San Francisco Bay Area and surrounding friendships between gay men and straight women counties, though six interviewees resided in the and between lesbians and straight men. I did Los Angeles area. Two of the participants from not include lesbian-straight woman or gay man- Los Angeles were members of friendship dyads straight man friendships in the sample because with a San Francisco Bay Area resident; the two the goal of this research was to explore how the Los Angeles dyads were referred to me by other intersection of gender and sexual orientation af- participants. In two cases, I traveled to interview 1316 Journal of Marriage and Family participants who lived in other parts of the coun- (LaRossa, 2005); as such, while transcribing the try (Seattle and Chicago). interviews, I noted the themes that emerged from participant responses to interview questions and examined the transcript data line by line with Procedures these themes in mind. I coded the transcripts for I interviewed the 46 members of 23 friendship participants’ use of the word ‘‘family’’ as well pairs separately. I kept confidential what one as the language participants used to distinguish friend said of the other. Interviews lasted between and compare friendship with family (e.g., ‘‘as 45 minutes and 2 hours, with an average length family,’’ ‘‘part of family,’’ ‘‘like family’’). I noted of 90 minutes, and were tape recorded and the distinctions in language but ultimately treated transcribed. these concepts as indicators that individuals to The interview schedule asked respondents to some degree experienced their friendship as focus on their close friend and to address ques- a family relationship on the basis of Gubrium tions in five primary areas: friendship formation and Holstein’s discussion of discursive practices and maintenance including norms and expecta- of defining family: ‘‘in experience, things are tions, the significance of the friendship, the role things because we think of them, act toward them, of the friendship within the participant’s larger and speak of them as such’’ (1990, p. 6). Through social network, the role of gender and sexuality this process, the following themes emerged: iden- in the friendship, and other peoples’ perceptions tification as family (e.g., definition), functions of of the friendship. I used Nardi’s (1999) study of chosen family (e.g., financial support, emotional gay men’s friendships as a model to develop my support), and gender issues that differently affect areas of focus and interview questions; his work dyads (e.g., differences in life transitions, anxi- concentrated on social support, self-disclosure, eties about chosen family; see Table 1). and activities, and all these areas are incorpo- To preserve confidentiality, I used pseudo- rated into the areas listed above. I constructed nyms throughout the study. I also changed minor additional questions to target dimensions spe- details about the interviewees’ identities, such as cific to cross-gender, different sexuality friend- age and occupation, which might have compro- ships, such as the effects of compulsory mised confidentiality because the study examines heterosexuality and negotiations of inequality. both individuals involved in friendship dyads. As I included these questions because prior such, I attempted to keep confidential within the research suggests that gender and sexuality text what interviewees said about their friends norms can be both reinforced and challenged so that quotes cannot easily be attributed to any within the context of cross-gender friendships particular individual. (O’Meara, 1989; Walker, 1994; Werking, 1997). As such, I wanted to explore how cross- gender, different sexuality friends might FINDINGS uniquely experience interactions and processes Throughout the course of the interviews, three when expectations of sexual and romantic primary themes emerged. First, the data provided involvement are presumed to be relaxed. More- evidence that the dyad members identified one over, several questions were designed to prompt another as family. Second, the data suggested that discussion about the friendship with respect to the dyad members served the functions of family family relationships. For example, the interview for each other. Finally, gender issues emerged schedule included the questions: ‘‘Would you that affected cross-gender, different sexual orien- characterize your friend as a family type of tation relationships with respect to differential ex- friend, meaning that they are present for special periences and attitudes toward life transitions and occasions?’’ and ‘‘How does your family get anxieties about the longevity of the friendship. along with your friend?’’ Discussions about friends as family, however, emerged at various Identification as Family points throughout the interviews. Throughout the coding process, I treated the The bonds between these lesbians and the straight participants as individual cases rather than dyads. men they identified as family were described as Data were coded into the most prevalent themes deep and enduring relationships as were those and then qualitatively analyzed. In order to code between the gay men and the straight women. the data, I started with a process of open coding The majority of participants characterized these Intentional Families 1317 friends as family; in nearly half of the sample, the conditions that strain her relations with family of friendship appeared to supersede relationships origin. held with biolegal family. For instance, Another way that nearly half of the respond- Patrick, who was aged 41 years and straight, said ents characterized their bonds as familial was to of his lesbian friend, Emily, aged 41: ‘‘I totally compare them to or other relations, a find- would invite her to Thanksgiving, and it would ing consistent with prior studies (Nardi, 1999; feel like having another family member, probably Rubin, 1985; Werking, 1997; Weston, 1991). more. I’d probably be happier to see her than Cristina, aged 34, stated that her friendship with some of my blood family members.’’ Similarly, Mark, aged 24 and gay, provides her an opportu- Ruth, who was aged 44 years and straight, nity to act maternal. Despite being 3 years older described her relationship with Scott, aged 44: than Carrie, his 34-year-old friend and roommate, Ken described her as being like a ‘‘stabilizing I really think that close friends are a deeper bond mom.’’ Debbi, aged 41, saw Carl, aged 45 and for me than even family. And I think most people straight, as a brother. Participants who described if they really thought about it would say that, too, their friends as siblings did so in part to empha- because you can’t choose your family. You can choose your friends . But you cannot choose size that the bond was platonic. Cassandra, aged your family. I mean, I love my family, but a lot of 29 and lesbian, employed this strategy when that is culturally prescribed. You have to love your asked whether she had ever had sex with Stuart, grandmother. You have to love your brother. You aged 35: ‘‘That would be a big N-O. He’s like know, if I saw my brother on the street without being my brother, I wouldn’t even interact with my brother.’’ Ethan, who is gay, was very sur- him at all, ever. So, you know, it’s interesting, I prised to be asked whether he and Leyla, both think of Scott as a true family member. aged 25, had ever been sexually involved:

In his interview, Scott said that he also considered That is so far from where our friendship is, and Ruth and her to be his family. that, and I kind of view her more as a , so The identification of these significant friends I’m more protective of her in terms of, you know, people that may want to make advances on her as family may be, in some part, related to strained and things like that. So I would never go down relationships with families of origin. Nearly a that road with her, just because it is just like my third of this sample reported alienation from fam- sister, and that would just be wrong. ilies of origin or a lack of access to a traditional family unit, which may have influenced the inten- Leyla commented that her future children would tional familial connections they built with know her friend as ‘‘Uncle Ethan.’’ friends. There were no apparent differences in the tendency to create families from close friends Functions of Chosen Family with respect to gender and sexuality. In other words, the gay men and lesbians in the sample ap- Many participants stated that their friends served peared no more likely than their straight friends to the functions that are expected of family. In partic- construct intentional families because they were ular, they provided financial and emotional support. alienated from families of origin. For example, Monique, aged 36 and straight, likened the bond Financial support. One key element that distin- she shared with Jesse, also aged 36 and gay, to the guishes friendship from family is the provision one she shared with her husband and furthermore, of financial support. In particular, loaning money deemed it more important than her relationship and negotiating feelings when lending it are typ- with her parents, with whom she maintains a dis- ically considered to be a responsibility of family tant and strained relationship. Similarly, Jill, aged (Carrington, 1999). That at least a fourth of these 33 and lesbian, described her friendship with friends borrowed and lent money to one another Paul, aged 38: ‘‘I definitely consider him part of is evidence that their ties are familial. Brenda the family. Part of the family that’s a nonjudging and Dan, both in their 40s, had lived together person. My family is very, I think, judging, and for many years with their collective families in he’s not that way. He’s very open minded. So, a home they bought. Brenda explained their con- yeah, he’s definitely part of the family.’’ Here, Jill scious decision to create a family network: compares her relationship with Paul to the one she has with her family of origin, at once desig- At the time we bought this house, it was some- nating him family while differentiating him from thing mutual we were buying and [I knew] we 1318 Journal of Marriage and Family

would eventually raise our kids together . aged 29 and gay, when she had issues with her I said at the time that I wanted us to think of our- parents. selves as more like family. I used to do a lot of traveling and I always needed rides to and from Financial and emotional support were inter- the airport and we sort of switched to thinking of twined several years before the interview when us as family which just symbolized for me— Paul, aged 38 and straight, convinced Jill, aged I don’t want to ask my friends to take me to the 33, to make dramatic life changes. Jill explained airport. Like if Dan goes on a trip, it’s obvious that Paul said: that [Dan’s ] is going to pick him up, right? So, when I go to and from the airport, one of you is going to pick me up. You know? That’s Don’t worry about it. Go for it. We’ll figure it family. out. You can move in with me.’’ And everything sort of happened so quickly, next thing I know, I’m living with Paul. I broke up with my - Thus, this formal financial tie led to an expecta- friend . and I had no worries. I mean he basi- tion of a familial commitment. In another case, cally, he paid for the bills for a really long time Nadia, aged 27 and straight, explained that Con- until I could get things figured out . he was nor, aged 35, lent her money when she was out of totally there for me. work for 8 months. Similarly, Ruth, aged 44 and straight, and Scott, also aged 44, recalled relying Through his financial support of Jill, Paul also on each other in leaner years, although at the time provided her with the emotional support neces- of the interview, Scott was the more fiscally sary to make important changes to her life. secure of the pair. He described his concern for Ruth’s well-being: Gender Issues That Affect Cross-Gender, Different Sexual Orientation Relationships I’m always trying to get her stable in her life. I’m always worried about her finances and everything Although many dimensions of the friendships and worried about her getting a 401K going, I’m discussed here are consistent across types of dy- worried about her when she’s 70 and all that ads, several issues emerged that are specific to stuff, so I wanted her to own real estate . the either lesbian-straight male pairs or gay male- scheme was okay, I’ll sell this condo and we’ll use all that money for a down payment on a big- straight female dyads. Here, I address how ger condo and you and me can get a condo lesbian-straight man relationships differed from together and you’d have real estate. gay man-straight woman relationships with respect to life transitions and anxieties about the longevity of the relationship. Emotional support. Although the giving of finan- cial support was normatively gendered in these Life transitions. Different issues emerged in how friendships, the conditions of emotional support the dyads navigated or planned to travel through were more complex. Many of the gay men in life transitions together, another process in which the sample identified their straight female family support is expected. In particular, there friend as a crucial source of emotional support. were distinctions in the ways that gay man- For instance, Ethan described his reliance on straight woman and lesbian-straight man partici- Leyla: pants discussed the life transitions of growing old together and of parenthood. I can literally say that without our friendship, I probably would not be alive today. ‘Cause she’s Several of the lesbian-straight man and the helped me through some really, really dark times. gay man-straight woman pairs similarly antici- And she’s the only person, even of my very, very pated growing old together. Bruce, a straight close friends, I feel 100% comfortable with. I man aged 28, discussed his desire to continue don’t have to worry about, you know, how I come off. I don’t have to worry about how I act his bond with Vanessa, a 25-year-old lesbian: or what I say. She’ll always be there and she’ll ‘‘One of the things I wrote in [a] note to her is always stand behind me. like, I imagine, that I would like to grow old with you and we’d sit on the porch and scare all of the Yet emotional support was not solely the domain little kids on the block and play dominoes and of women in these friendships. Monique, for just be loud old people.’’ Similarly, the gay example, recalled that Jesse was the first person man-straight woman pairs in the sample also ex- she called to discuss past romantic problems. pected to grow old together. For example, Leyla Also, Ming, aged 29, often turned to Ben, envisioned her friendship with Ethan as they Intentional Families 1319 age: ‘‘13 years is just a small step, I think it’s Another related issue that highlights gender going to be going on probably until the day we differences in these friendships was that several die. I have no doubt; we talk about long term straight women in the sample noted a willingness stuff all the time—getting old together. And he to be a surrogate for their gay male friend. says I’m gonna wear those flashy muumuus In most cases, however, the gay male friend did and it’s gonna be his job to tone it down!’’ not express an interest in being a . Such Whereas Leyla likely has not considered the was the situation for 35-year-old Crystal, who realities of aging, she clearly views her friend- said that she would consider having a baby for ship with Ethan as enduring. her friend, Derek, also aged 35: ‘‘I don’t really Yet there existed a gender difference in how necessarily want to have children, but I’m not participants viewed the transition to old age such ready to tie my tubes or anything, and I’ve that the gay man-straight woman pairings tended thought about the possibility of having a to have a more serious and tangible plan for aging for someone else.’’ In his interview, Derek ex- together. For example, Ruth explained that she plained that he has briefly thought about being and Scott (and Scott’s longtime partner, Bradley) a but is still too busy raising himself to give will retire together someday: ‘‘We do have future it any serious consideration. plans for when we’re old. Well, you know, [they] Marriage also influenced the ways that straight bought this place in Tahoe. It’s this beautiful woman think about having a child with or for place. And it’s on this hill and right below it a gay male friend. For example, Nadia explained there’s this little cottage (laughs). That’s where that being married complicates her thoughts I’m going to live.’’ Ruth and Scott’s plan for about bearing a child for Connor: the future seemed feasible. After caring for many people during the AIDS epidemic of the 1980s, Now that I’m married, it is different, but I always both were familiar with illness; hence, they likely told both him and [another close gay male friend] had a clear perspective about caregiving as part of that if they wanted a baby, I’d have one for them—When I would say ‘I’d have a baby for their family connection. you,’ it was because I would assume they were Another difference in reference to life transi- with a partner and they have their life and they tions occurred in discussions of parenthood. In want a baby. I always assumed that if I was going particular, one third of the gay man-straight to have children that I would be married because I do not want to raise a child alone, so I never woman pairs discussed various aspects of parent- really thought of it that way, co-parenting, I mean hood with respect to their friendship. For I would be a part of the baby’s life . but I instance, several gay men in the sample identified wouldn’t be co-parenting really—I have no idea their straight woman friend as potentially provid- what my husband would think if I wanted to have ing access to a family life that involves children; a baby for Connor. He’d probably not go for that very well, you know? there were no similar discussions in the lesbian- straight man dyads. Scott explained that through Thus, marital status affected a straight woman’s his 25-year friendship with Ruth and her now thoughts about having a child with or for her teenage daughter, he has been able to experience gay male friend. Accordingly, Ming explained childrearing. Similarly, 34-year-old Seth identi- that although she had never told Ben that she fied Shayna (also aged 34) as his primary connec- would be willing to have a child for him, she tion to straight family life: now would have to reconsider the possibility because her husband would likely disapprove of I’ve been thinking about this lately too—she’s such actions. To be clear, the women still indi- also my connection to kids, to like families— She’s the, she’s gonna be the person in my life cated a potential willingness to have a child for that’s going to set up a family—it’s just the close- their friend despite being married. At the same ness with her, the fact that our friendship can time, neither of the gay men referred to above ex- be so close—I’m going to be part of her little pressed a desire to have a child. family, which I don’t think other friendships would give. An anxious family bond. Another issue that dif- Hence, both Seth and Scott indicated that they fered according to dyad type was that gay men have valued the opportunity to participate in in the sample expressed a concern that their fam- a family life that involves children by virtue of ily bond with straight women will dissolve; les- their close bond. bians did not voice a similar anxiety about their 1320 Journal of Marriage and Family ties with straight men. Several of the gay male 2001, for a notable exception). Indeed, the data participants worried that once their friend settles provided evidence that these friends played into a more traditional straight family life, the a mutually important family role. family relationship will change. For instance, In some cases, chosen family satisfied expect- Ben expressed concerns about what will happen ations that were unmet in other family connec- to his role in Ming’s life once she becomes tions. Some participants create intentional a mother. Moreover, Connor voiced a similar families to supplement or replace strained ties concern: with families of origin. Family, as a cultural con- struct, is idealized to such an extent that many [Nadia’s] going to make me an uncle one day. familial relationships are likely to fall short of Well, depending on where they are living. the desire for them to fulfill all social, instrumen- Although that’s what I worry about too, just tal, and emotional needs (Coontz, 1992). In such because people change. Being gay in a gay rela- tionship, you sort of stay the same as your other cases, disappointment with or alienation from bi- gay friends—But when you’re married—things olegal family may make a friend’s choice to per- are different. Then you have kids and your life form familial duties especially meaningful and goes in other directions. worthy of designation as family. Yet, two thirds of the sample did not note any biolegal family Here, Connor voiced anxiety over the perceived shortcomings; hence, this cannot be the sole rea- precariousness of his family bond now that Nadia that such friends were considered to be fam- is married. Connor welcomed an opportunity to ily. Rather, it appears that the participants be an uncle to Nadia’s future child but simulta- actively constructed family networks for various neously braced himself for the possibility that reasons. her heterosexual family life may terminate or at An important consideration is whether the con- least diminish their chosen family bond. ceptualization of friends as family was more a metaphor than an authentic family relationship. Prior research concluded that in gay male com- DISCUSSION munities, friendships played the role of ideal The data provide a means for understanding the families in providing material and emotional complexity of intentional family relationships assistance, identity, history, nurturing, loyalty, across sexual orientation and gender categories. and support (Nardi, 1999). Other research identi- Two significant findings emerge as broader ana- fied family as the only existing term that encom- lytical themes from this study: (a) these close passed the depth and importance of intimate, friendships illustrate how chosen family connec- significant bonds (Gubrium & Holstein, 1990; tions exist not only for gay men and lesbians but Ibsen & Klobus, 1972; Nardi). The usage of also for straight people and (b) such friendships family language reflects an underlying issue: are both normative and transformative not only There is no sufficient social script to guide or with respect to family structures but also in terms characterize nonbiolegal, platonic, emotionally of gender and sexual privilege. intimate, and socially reliant relationships be- tween close friends. Hence, some may have iden- tified their significant friends as family because The Mutuality of Chosen Family Bonds such a bond is easily understood as being a mean- These friendships defy normative expectations ingful connection. about what constitutes family. One of the most Yet, second guessing the identification of these noteworthy findings from this study is that there relationships as family discounts the interview- is mutuality in chosen family connections ees’ perceptions of their relationships. According between gay men-straight women and lesbian- to Gubrium and Holstein (1990), the identifica- straight men friends. In particular, the data dem- tion of friends as family serves as a public onstrated that like gay men and lesbians (Nardi, announcement of the significance of the relation- 1999; Weston, 1991), many straight people in ship as well as a designation of the expectations such friendships considered their friends to be inherent in the bond. Furthermore, Carrington’s intentional family members. This is significant suggestion that ‘‘any family is a social construc- because the mutual nature of gay men and les- tion or set of relationships recognized, edified, bians in straight people’s networks has heretofore and sustained through initiative’’ allows gone unacknowledged (see Tillmann-Healy, for the expansion of definitions of family Intentional Families 1321

(Carrington, 1999, p. 6). This perspective is con- offer. The intent to act outside social norms in sistent with Thomas’s (1967) conceptualization helping gay male friends to become parents was of the definition of the situation, which asserted transformative; yet, the pressures of normative that circumstances perceived or defined as real family life, including laws that regulate child sup- to the individual are real in their consequences. port both in and outside marriage (Ingraham, Thus, the participants who defined their friend- 1999), inhibited the realization of these inten- ship as familial likely experienced and defined tions. their relationship as an authentic family tie. Also at work here, however, was straight wom- en’s application of heterosexual norms of family life, norms that assume that family life is defined Normative and Transformative Bonds by children (Morell, 1994). Many of the straight The complex dynamics of intentional family women in the sample assumed that gay men bonds extended beyond the participants’ designa- wanted to be parents themselves, despite the fact tion of friends as family. Indeed, there exists a that none of them verbalized such a desire. To be tension between the normative and the trans- clear, a straight woman’s willingness to bear formative elements of these friends’ intentional a child for a gay male friend is a generous and family bonds. Specifically, the normative as- transgressive action, particularly because laws pects of these friendships occurred with respect exist to enforce parental support of biological to the ways that conventional expectations of children (Ingraham, 1999). The women’s offers gender and heterosexism operated in the dyad. to give birth and to relinquish the child to their Simultaneously, the friendships were transforma- gay friend not only challenged traditional gender tive in that they supported transgressions of gen- norms of motherhood but also contested beliefs der norms and defied traditional familial that gay men make inappropriate parents. conceptions such that friendships are expected Straight women’s assumptions that their gay to remain primary bonds throughout the life friends aspired to the same family constructs as course and into old age, despite other familial they did, however, seemed to falsely conflate obligations. the identities (and in this case, familial desires) of gay men and straight women, making this The normative. The reinforcement of conven- move both normative and transformative. tional gender norms was one normative element A similar finding was absent for the lesbian and present in these intentional family bonds. One straight man pairs in the study. Although lesbian- way in which gender norms were reinforced straight man dyads were as likely as the gay man- was in the tendency for male friends, both gay straight woman pairs to characterize each other as and straight, to assume a provider role through family, they did not describe reliance upon the material assistance, whereas female friends were relationship to provide ties to children. Further- expected to be (and were) nurturing and emotion- more, the lesbian participants did not note a will- ally supportive (Hartmann, 1981; Hochschild, ingness to bear a child for a straight male friend in 1983). In some cases, these normative elements order to help him achieve a normative family life, were likely related to concrete differences in nor did the straight male friends say that they financial position, where relative to their women wanted their lesbian friend to play such a role. friends, many men in the sample were more finan- That neither the lesbian nor the straight male cially stable. Yet, the data also suggested that friend discusses the possibility of the lesbian’s there was an expectation that women would surrogacy suggests that the gender dynamics dif- be unconditionally nurturing and emotionally fer between these and the gay man-straight supportive. woman dyads. In this respect, the lesbian-straight Normative elements were also present in the man pairs appear to hold less normative percep- unrealized efforts to alter the shape of family life. tions of gender within the friendship. One expla- Many of the gay male participants reported that nation for this difference is that the friends could they valued the familial tie to children provided have perceived that straight men’s gender privi- by their straight female friend. Accordingly, lege would enable them to attain a normative fam- many of the straight female interviewees ap- ily life through a heterosexual relationships, peared to recognize that they could help their without the lesbian friend’s assistance, if they gay male friend by having a child for him, though so choose. Another possible explanation for none of them had been in a position to enact this this difference in findings is that the lesbian 1322 Journal of Marriage and Family participants seek definitions of family life distinct The intention to grow old together also expo- from the heterosexual norm (Lewin, 1993; ses how a chosen family that includes heterosex- Sullivan, 2004) and therefore are not motivated uals differs from that of gay men and lesbians: to take actions to replicate straight family life in Straight persons may not be as reliant upon their these friendships. chosen family to meet familial needs and can live normatively, legally marrying and potentially The transformative. In addition to the nonnorma- procreating. Quite notably, only the gay men in tive dimensions of gender involved in straight the sample acknowledged anxiety about the tenu- women’s willingness to have and then give a child ousness of their chosen family ties with straight to a gay friend, there was a degree of gender trans- women, suggesting that they may be more reliant formation in the provision of support between upon this connection than lesbians are with these intentional family members. True, the straight male friends. Gay men’s concerns about majority of the data suggested that the gender the precariousness of intentional families with norms were upheld such that men assumed a role straight women were not unfounded: Prior stud- as financial provider and women as emotional ies showed that when people marry, friends nurturer. Some data were contrary to these gender become more peripheral to marital partners norms, however, which is most clearly illustrated (Werking, 1997), at least in part because cultural by the lesbian-straight man dyad that combined scripts determined the romantic relationship to be their resources to buy and live in a communal res- the most socially and personally valued (Rubin, idence. Also, consistent with prior research 1985). (Werking, 1997), gay and straight men’s provi- In this context, the gay male friend occupied sion of significant emotional support for their the role of what Collins (1991) describes as the female friends also defies conventional gender outsider within, which is the position of being norms. Overall, the data suggest that the behavior subjugated in a social situation where dominant within intentional family ties in some ways rein- cultural norms are being acted out and insiders forced and in others challenged normative gender fail to notice, much less question the subjuga- expectations. tion (Ebaugh & Curry, 2000; Oswald, 2000). One of the transformative elements noted by According to Collins, the outsider within recog- participants was the intent for these bonds to nizes the power relations behind social norms endure as primary relationships throughout and the alternative realities they obscure. For adulthood and into old age, despite other famil- example, both Connor and Ben and their ial obligations. People expect or other respective straight woman friends were deemed family members to provide care and companion- chosen family, but the men worried that their ship as they age (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1987). family relationship may be overshadowed by Both gay man-straight woman and lesbian- their friends’ adherence to dominant social straight man pairs expected that their bond will norms. Concurrently, Nadia and Ming, the not only persist into old age but also fantasized straight female halves of each dyad, were about plans to grow old and retire together. unaware that their participation in normative Notably, the lesbian-straight man pairs indi- family life may jeopardize their respective cho- cated that they would grow old as buddies, sen family ties. In this sample, the longest and whereas the gay man-straight woman dyads dis- most rewarding familial bonds were those cussed the future in terms of living together and where the straight friend was unmarried or com- supporting each other, much the same way mitted to a life that defied heteronormative con- married couples do. Yet the dreams of aging ventions by residing in communal together rarely included a potential spouse; or holding radical political ideologies about rather, the friendship was imagined as a self- gender and family. sufficient and insular dyad. Whether these in- Such concerns ultimately may reflect the diffi- tentions will be realized in the face of other culty that gay men have in building a family that familial responsibilities is difficult to discern, includes children. Current policies limit but the spoken goal of maintaining a family con- for gay men and lesbians (HRC, 2004), but even nection with cross-gender, different sexual ori- if laws to facilitate parenting were passed, gay entation friend through old age indicated men would be reliant either on a surrogate or a commitment to the relationship and thus was on adoption to have a child. Lesbians also face transformative of family life. challenges in constructing families that involve Intentional Families 1323 children; their potential reproductive capabilities, woman and lesbian-straight man friendship pairs however (which also require some degree of to see if and how the familial relationships persist intervention), may account for differences in the over time would also provide a greater under- findings. Perhaps because gay men face great dif- standing about the nature of these bonds. As such, ficulty in building families that involve children, one recommendation for future research is to the participants felt reliant upon their chosen fam- examine friendships over time, either by follow- ily bonds with straight women for such connec- ing the same individuals over a several year tions and therefore also worried that these period or by sampling dyads at various points bonds are precarious. across the life course. The lesbians in the sample do not identify feel- A second limitation is that the study examined ings of anxiety in connection to their intentional the dyad in isolation from the rest of the social family bonds; in this context, they do not simi- network in which it existed. Hence, it is difficult larly experience the role of outsider within. One to know the degree to which the participants were explanation for this difference is that the lesbians integrated into each other’s family structures and in the study may expect a degree of marginaliza- also to assess how welcome each individual felt tion in normative family structures. For example, in the wider family context. Addressing both of many lesbian occupy what Hequem- these dimensions would provide a greater under- bourg and Farrell (1999) call a ‘‘marginal main- standing of the mutuality of chosen family bonds stream identity,’’ which refers to a simultaneous for similar friendship dyads. Thus, another rec- occupation of the socially revered role as mother ommendation for future research is to interview and the stigmatized identity as a lesbian. As such, not only the individuals involved in the dyad because they have a precarious relationship to but also those with whom they have primary normative family life, lesbian participants may relationships. not feel anxious about the stability of their inten- Finally, the study was limited in its specific tional family bonds. Moreover, lesbian families focus upon the intersection of only two categories reportedly are most resilient when lesbian moth- of difference, gender and sexual orientation. This ers sustain a sense of family and symbolically research is grounded in a third wave, intersec- redefine situations to bolster their family net- tional feminist approach to the study of families. works (Hequembourg, 2004; Oswald, 2002); Such an intersectional approach considers institu- perhaps the lesbian participants seek out a resil- tionalized inequalities as components of social ient and flexible rather than a fixed intentional structure and interaction (Zinn & Dill, 2000) family bond with their straight male friends. and is concerned with the simultaneous influence of multiple identities, such as race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, and ability upon social Limitations and Future Directions phenomena (Collins, 1998; De Reus, Few, & for Research Blume, 2005; Dillaway & Broman, 2001). Although this study makes an important contri- Because so little is known about friendships that bution to the study of families, there are also some cross sexual orientation and gender categories, limitations. First, the sample was biased in terms the specific goal of this work was to examine re- of self-selection. The study represents the experi- lationships that operate at the intersection of gen- ences of individuals who were willing to volun- der and sexuality. Future research should teer to talk about their friendships that cross encompass a truly intersectional agenda that sexual orientation and gender categories. As focuses not only on gender and sexuality but also such, there is likely a positivity bias, which is on race, class, age, and other categories of differ- the tendency for individuals to talk about their ence to more fully understand how such intersec- friendships in idealized ways (Rubin, 1985). Fur- tions shape and are shaped by interactions within thermore, given that the participants were inter- primary relationships. viewed at one point in time while the Studying intentional family ties provides friendships were current, there is little informa- a unique view of contemporary relationships. tion about whether (and how) these relationships Whereas the data showed that these friends were may continue over time. Also, it is difficult to identified and fulfilled the same functions as ascertain whether the participants have had simi- family, the occurrence of the chosen family in lar familial bonds that dissolved. A longitudinal heterosexual networks differed from that of gay study that examines other gay man-straight men and lesbians because in many cases, it lacked 1324 Journal of Marriage and Family the same sense of necessity. In general, hetero- family studies. Journal of Contemporary Family sexuals have varying degrees of privilege with re- Studies, 29, 27 – 37. gards to family structure; yet, because socially Coontz, S. (1992). The way we never were: American sanctioned forms of family life are not equally families and the nostalgia trap. New York: Basic available to gay men and lesbians, they may Books. assign chosen family a greater degree of impor- De Reus, L. A., Few, A. L., & Blume, L. B. (2005). tance. Nonetheless, the data provided evidence Multicultural and critical race feminisms: Theoriz- that relationships that cross categories of gender ing families in the third wave. In V. L. Bengston, and sexual orientation were often mutually bene- A. C. Acock, K. R, Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, ficial and meaningful. The data also exposed the & D. M. Klein (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theory strong yet complex ties that made friendships into and research (pp. 447 – 468). Thousand Oaks, family for gay men, lesbians, and straight men CA: Sage. and women. Contrary to allegations that the fam- Dillaway, H., & Broman, C. (2001). Race, class, and ily is threatened by gay men and lesbians, we may gender differences in marital satisfaction and divi- instead be viewing an expanding definition of sions of labor among dual-earner cou- family via the voluntary bonds of friendship. ples. Journal of Family Issues, 22, 309 – 327. More generally, the findings may reflect the state Ebaugh, H. R., & Curry, M. (2000). Fictive kin as of the postmodern family arrangements, biolegal social capital in new immigrant communities. or chosen, as various and fluid. Sociological Perspectives, 43, 189 – 209. Egelman, W. (2004). Understanding families: Criti- cal thinking and analysis. Boston: Pearson. NOTE Fehr, B. (1996). Friendship processes. Thousand During the preparation of this manuscript, the author was sup- Oaks, CA: Sage. ported by National Institute of Aging Grant AG000117. Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (1990). What is I thank Sarah H. Matthews for her generous assistance with the revisions of this manuscript. Additionally, I acknowledge family? Mountain View, CA: Mayfield. the assistance and contributions of Jennifer A. Reich, Stephen Hartmann, H. I. (1981). The family as the locus of T. Russell, Diane H. Felmlee, Lyn H. Lofland, Clare Stacey, gender, class, and political struggle: The example and Jeff Sweat, as well as Ruth Dunkle, Berit Ingersoll- of housework. Signs, 6, 366 – 394. Dayton, and the National Institute of Aging writing seminar at the University of Michigan. Hequembourg, A. (2004). Unscripted motherhood: Lesbian mothers negotiating incompletely institu- tionalized family relationships. Journal of Social REFERENCES and Personal Relationships, 21, 739 – 762. Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1987). An exami- Hequembourg, A., & Farrell, M. (1999). Lesbian nation of sex differences in social support among motherhood: Negotiating marginal-mainstream older men and women. Sex Roles, 17, 737 – 749. identities. Gender and Society, 13, 540 – 557. Carrington, C. (1999). No place like home: Relation- Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart: Com- ships and family life among lesbians and gay men. mercialization of human feeling. Berkeley: Univer- Chicago: University of Chicago Press. sity of California Press. Chatters, L. M., Robert, J., & Jayakody, R. (1994). Hochschild, A. R., & Machung, A. (1989). The sec- Fictive kinship relations in black extended fami- ond shift: Working parents and the revolution at lies. Journal of Contemporary Family Studies, 25, home. New York: Viking. 297 – 313. Human Rights Campaign. (2004). Family net. Chauncey, G. (1994). Gay New York. New York: Retrieved April 14, 2004, from http://www.hrc. Basic Books. org/Template.cfm?Section=Family Cherlin, A. J. (2002). Public and private families: An Ibsen, C. A., & Klobus, P. (1972). Fictive kin term introduction. New York: McGraw Hill. use and social relationships: Alternative interpreta- Collins, P. H. (1991). Learning from the outsider- tions. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 34, within: The sociological significance of black fem- 615 – 620. inist thought. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook Ingraham, C. (1999). White weddings: Romancing (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship heterosexuality in popular culture. New York: as lived research (pp. 35 – 59). Bloomington: Routledge. Indiana University Press. LaRossa, R. (2005). Grounded theory methods and Collins, P. H. (1998). Intersections of race, class, qualitative family research. Journal of Marriage gender, and nation: Some implications for black and Family, 67, 837 – 857. Intentional Families 1325

Lewin, E. (1993) Lesbian mothers: Accounts of gen- Sullivan, M. (2004). The family of woman: Lesbian der in American culture. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Uni- mothers, their children, and the undoing of gender. versity Press. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Lindsey, K. (1981). Friends as family. Boston: Tillmann-Healy, L. M. (2001). Between gay and Beacon Press. straight: Understanding friendship across sexual MacRae, H. (1992). Fictive kin as a component of orientation. Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. the social networks of older people. Research on Thomas, W. I. (1967). The definition of the situation. Aging, 14, 226 – 247. In J. G. Manis & B. N. Meltzer (Eds.), Symbolic Morell, C. M. (1994). Unwomanly conduct: The interaction: A reader in social psychology (2nd challenges of unintentional childlessness. New ed., pp. 331 – 336). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. York: Routledge. Walker, K. A. (1994). Men, women, and friendship: Nardi, P. M. (1999). Gay men’s friendships: Invinci- What they say, what they do. Gender and Society, ble communities. Chicago: University of Chicago 8, 246 – 265. Press. Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., & Donovan, C. (2001). Same O’Meara, J. D. (1989) Cross-sex friendship: Four sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life basic challenges of an ignored relationship. Sex experiments. London: Routledge. Roles, 2, 525 – 543. Werking, K. (1997). We’re just good friends: Women Oswald, R. F. (2000). A member of the wedding? and men in nonromantic relationships. New York: Heterosexism and family ritual. Journal of Social The Guilford Press. and Personal Relationships, 17, 349 – 368. Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, Oswald, R. F. (2002). Resilience within the family gays, kinship. New York: Columbia University networks of lesbians and gay men: Intentionality Press. and redefinition. Journal of Marriage and Family, Wilmot, W. W., & Shellen, W. N. (1990). Language 64, 374 – 383. in friendships. In H. Giles & W. P. Robinson Rubin, L. B. (1985). Just friends: The role of friend- (Eds.), Handbook of language and social psychol- ship in our lives. New York: Harper and Row. ogy (pp. 413 – 431). Oxford: Wiley. Stacey, J. (1996). In the name of the family: Rethink- Wiseman, J. P. (1986). Friendship bonds and binds in ing family values in the postmodern age. Boston: a voluntary relationship. Journal of Social and Beacon Press. Personal Relationships, 3, 191 – 211. Stacey, J. (1998). Gay and lesbian families: Queer Wright, P. H. (1985). The acquaintance description like us. In M. A. Mason, A. Skolnick, & S. D. Sug- form. In S. Duck & D. Perlman (Eds.), Under- arman (Eds.), All our families: New policies for standing personal relationships: An interdisciplin- a new century (pp. 117 – 143). New York: Oxford ary approach (pp. 39 – 62). Thousand Oaks, CA: University Press. Sage. Stack, C. B. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for sur- Zinn, M. B., & Dill, B. T. (2000). Theorizing differ- vival in a black community. New York: Harper and ence from multiracial feminism. In M. B. Zinn, P. Row. Hondagneu-Sotelo, & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Gen- Stein, P. J. (1981). Single life: Unmarried adults in der through the prism of difference (2nd ed., pp. social context. New York: St. Martin’s Press. 23 – 29). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.