Four Domains Related to Single/Relationship Status

Four Domains Related to Single/Relationship Status among Sexual Minorities Raised Conservatively Religious

Objective: Compare 4 Relationship options wherein all subjects were satisfied.

N=452 ….these were selected from a larger sample of 1782, while 1330 were randomly eliminated from this study to allow exact comparison between the 4 groups

All 452 were satisfied at one of 3 satisfaction levels and reported one of 4 relationship options. The 4 option groups were exactly equally represented in satisfaction to allow exactly equal representative data being compared.

  • 4 options———-Slight Sat. — Sat.– Very Sat.Total
  • Single Cel (SC)———–21———71——–21 ——–113
  • Sing Non C (SNC) —–21———71——–21———-113
  • Mix Or Relat (MOR)—-21——–71——–21———-113
  • Same S. Relat (SSR)—21——–71——–21———-113
    • ————————————————————————-452

The three relationship groups (SC, SNC, MOR) within the 1782 were also similar in depression as compared to those in SSR (i.e, 28% to 36% of the 3 satisfied groups had depression scores at or lower than the average in SSR)

  • 4 Domains are proposed for Comparison
    • Sexuality–well established
    • Homo-positivity/negativity–proposed as important
    • Religiousness and Moral values–well established
    • Family–proposed as important
    • SHRF acronym
  • We found the following demographic variables did not differ across the relationships:
    • education
    • gender
    • ethnicity
    • state/country of residence
    • urbanicity
    • age
    • degree of conflict resolution between sexuality & religion

34 items were tested within the 4 domains and when including all 34, then each of 8 sub-domains was found to show significant differences (eta squared). 21 survey items were found to show medium or large effect sizes (eta squared). The 8 sub-domains and 21 items are shown below within Domains and Sub-Domains along with each eta squared value.

  • Sexuality
    • sexual orientation .059
      • same sex attraction .094
      • same sex aversion .068
      • Kinsey score .122
      • LGB identity .297
    • possibility of fluidity .081
      • biological basis .186
      • environmental basis .140
      • expected fluidity .074
    • eroticism .148
      • neutral about intimacy .061
      • masturbation acceptable .326
      • sexual disgust .112
  • Homo-positivity/negativity
    • external .137
      • LGBT community supportive .240
    • internal .191
      • internalized homonegativity .142
      • same sex wrong .445
  • Religious and Moral Values
    • religiousness .185
      • orthodoxy .216
      • religious practice .399
      • intrinsic religiosity .192
    • moral values .126
      • authority .134
      • long suffering .128
      • sanctity .223
  • Family
    • the importance of heteronormative family .167
      • importance of children .127
      • appropriateness of children in SSR .296

The following 13 items within Domains and sub-domains were significant and thus included but showed small effect sizes (these small eta squared values are shown for the 13 items).

  • Sexuality
    • sexual orientation
      • other sex attraction .052
      • other sex aversion .037
    • possibility of fluidity
    • eroticism
      • sex drive .030
  • Homo-positivity/negativity
    • experiences with the LGBT+ community
      • valued for being LGBT .053
    • internal
      • self acceptance about SSA .044
  • Religious and Moral Values
    • religiousness
    • moral values
      • loyalty .032
      • pleasure .032
      • kindness .015
      • liberty .030
      • fairness .025
  • Family
    • the importance of heteronormative family
      • desire for other-sex companionship .029
      • desire for same-sex companionship .017
      • fear of disappointing family .031
  • Specific Questions for the 34 items by subdomain
    • Sexual orientation
      • Degree of sexual attraction for men, 1-7
      • Degree of sexual attraction for women, 1-7
      • Degree of sexual aversion for men, 1-7
      • Degree of sexual aversion for women, 1-7
      • Kinsey position exclusively heterosexual to exclusively homosexual 0-6
      • identity: LGBQ=1, heterosexual, SSA, or exgay=0
    • Fluidity
      • Experiencing same-sex attraction is biological in origin and not subject to change: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • Experiencing same-sex attraction is environmental in origin and not subject to change developed through childhood experiences with parents, peers, or other early relationships: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • I believe I will experience the future-shifts/fluidity in my sexual attractions: str disagree to str agree 1-7
    • Eroticism
      • I feel natural about sexual intimacy. I can take it or leave it: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • I feel it is okay for me to masturbate: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • When I think of an attractive person, I easily become sexually aroused: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • I think sex, whether with a man or woman, is mostly dirty, scary, and/or disgusting: str disagree to str agree 1-7
    • Experiences with the LGBT+ community
      • I feel valued and supported experiencing SSA/being LGBT+ never (around 0%)=1 to always (around 100%)=7
      • The out/open LGBT community has felt like a supportive community for me. str disagree to str agree 1-7
    • Internal homopositivity/negativity
      • If it were possible, I would choose to be straight: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • I wish I were heterosexual: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • I believe it is unfair that I am attracted to people of the same-sex: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • It is wrong for a person to have sex with someone of her or his same sex, regardless of the level of commitment: str disagree to str agree 1-7
      • I experience self acceptance about my same-sex attractions: never (around 0%)=1 to always (around 100%)=7
    • Religiousness
      • Current religious activity: stopped attending=1 to engage in my religious activity/attend at my place of worship more than once a week=5
      • Current viewpoint: theologically conservative=1, not theologically conservative=0
      • My whole approach to life is based on my religion/spirituality: str disagree=1 to str agree=7
    • Values
      • Importance of authority, fairness, kindness, liberty, loyalty, sanctity, long suffering, pleasure: none=1 to very strong=7
    • Importance of heteronormative family
      • importance of having children and a child-centered family life: not important to me=1 to very important to me=4
      • I desire to bond emotionally and share the ups and downs of life with a woman: strongly don’t want it=1 to strongly want it=7
      • I desire to bond emotionally and share the ups and downs of life with a man: strongly don’t want it=1 to strongly want it=7
      • How appropriate are children being raised by same-sex parents: completely inappropriate=1 to completely appropriate=5
      • I am afraid of disappointing my family for experiencing
        SSA/being LGBT+: never (around 0%)=1 to always (around 100%)=7

How can these data be employed by someone raised in a conservative religion? As an example of how these items may be used to determine a life path, consider the following individual–

Sexuality: high same sex attraction, low opposite sex aversion, Kinsey 4, Bisexual identity, biological rather than environmental belief and little fluidity expected, high eroticism/libido and not neutral about intimacy.

Homo-positivity/negativity: internal homo-positivity and experiences with the LGBT+ community

Religiousness/moral values: low orthodoxy and intrinsic religiosity, but high religious practice consistent with family solidarity; moral values are not strong in authority, long suffering or sanctity.

Family: high importance of hetero-normative family and children; little desire for same sex companionship along with fear of disappointing family.

Conclusion: Despite strong same sex attraction, the absence of opposite sex aversion and the bisexual identity and Kinsey 4 make MOR a realistic possibility. Furthermore, strong external homo-negativity along with internal homo-positivity suggest an SSR may not be an ideal choice for this person but that SNC and MOR may be possible. Desire for religious activity would suggest an MOR but low orthodoxy and low authority and long suffering also makes SNC feasible. All of the above plus family heterosexual-normative desires suggest that MOR may be a reasonable choice which would also minimize disappointing a conservative family. SNC might be a backup plan considering the high eroticism/libido if an MOR is not achievable or if an MOR ends. See the table below for a summary of our core findings–this table allows for comparison between the four single/relationship statuses across the four domains

Table 1. Average degree to which participants in four single/relationship options report variables

ConstructSCSNCMORSSR
Sexuality    
     Same-sex AttractionMediumHighHighHigh
     Same-sex AversionLowLowLowLow
     Same-sex Kinsey ScoreHighHighMediumHigh
     LGB IdentityLowHighMediumHigh
     Biological BasisMediumHighMediumHigh
     Environmental BasisMediumLowMediumLow
     Expected FluidityMediumLowLowLow
     Neutral about IntimacyMediumLowLowLow
     Masturbation AcceptableMediumHighMediumHigh
     Sexual DisgustLowLowLowLow
Homo-positivity/negativity    
     LGBT Community SupportiveLowHighMediumMedium
     Internalized HomonegativityMediumLowMediumLow
     Same-sex Sex WrongHighLowMediumLow
Religious and Moral Values    
     ConservativenessMediumLowMediumLow
     Religious PracticeHighMediumHighLow
     Intrinsic ReligiosityHighMediumHighMedium
     AuthorityHighMediumMediumMedium
     Long-SufferingHighMediumHighMedium
     SanctityHighMediumHighMedium
Family    
     Importance of ChildrenMediumMediumHighMedium
     Appropriateness of Children for an SSRMediumHighMediumHigh

Note: SC = single and celibate, SNC = single, not celibate, MOR = mixed orientation relationship, SSR = same-sex relationship, Low = bottom 33% of potential response values, Medium = middle 33% of potential response values, High = top 33% of potential response values