David Aveline. Retrospective Sense Making by Parents of Gay Sons Recalling Their Sons' Earlier Years

http://jfi.sagepub.
com/
Journal of Family Issues
http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/27/6/777
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0192513X05285613
2006 27: 777 Journal of Family Issues
David Aveline
Sons' Earlier Years
''Did I Have Blinders on or What?'': Retrospective Sense Making by Parents of Gay Sons Recalling Their
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
can be found at: Journal of Family Issues Additional services and information for
http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:
http://jfi.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://jfi.sagepub.com/content/27/6/777.refs.html Citations:
What is This?
- May 2, 2006 Version of Record >>

at UNIV FEDERAL DE SAO PAULO on June 19, 2014 jfi.sagepub.com Downloaded from at UNIV FEDERAL DE SAO PAULO on June 19, 2014 jfi.sagepub.com Downloaded from
10.1177/0192513X05285613 Journal of Family Issues Aveline / Retrospection by Parents of Gay Sons
Did I Have Blinders
on or What?
Retrospective Sense Making by Parents of
Gay Sons Recalling Their Sons Earlier Years
David Aveline
Mount Royal College, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Retrospective sense making is a common practice necessitated by newappear-
ances that contradict old ones. This article examines this practice by parents
who have recently learned that their sons are gay. Eighty parents are inter-
viewed, and the data are analyzed for recurrent themes. In efforts to make sense
of the past, parents recall much atypical gender behavior in their sons and lack
of interest in sports. The article suggests that these behaviors become apparent
to the parents because of long-lived cultural scripts equating atypical gender
behavior with homosexuality. Parents also reflect on why they had earlier mis-
interpreted their sonsbehaviors as heterosexual and do so through three meth-
ods (revelations, confirmations, and justifications). Theoretical implications
as they pertain to the heterosexual presumption and cognitive dissonance are
discussed.
Keywords: cognitive dissonance; parenting; gays; social theory; symbolic
interaction
D
avies (1997), Peraldi (1992), Rich (1980), and Richardson (1996)
described Western society as operating under a heterosexual presump-
tion. Heterosexual interests are typically attributed to others by default and
permanently so until signs meaningful to the attributors indicate otherwise.
Without appearances of either homosexuality or heterosexuality, people are
typically assumed to be naturally heterosexual and thus conforming mem-
777
Journal of Family Issues
Volume 27 Number 6
June 2006 777-802
2006 Sage Publications
10.1177/0192513X05285613
http://jfi.sagepub.com
hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Authors Note: This article is derived froma dissertationin the Department of Sociologyat Indi-
ana University. I gratefully acknowledge committee members M. S. Weinberg, C. J. Williams, J.
Jimerson, andB. Powell. I further acknowledge the Social Science ResearchCouncil for its fund-
ing of the larger project as well as Indiana Universitys College of Arts and Sciences for its Col-
laborative Graduate-Undergraduate Research Grant. Please address all correspondence to Dr.
David Aveline, Mount Royal College, Behavioural Sciences Department, 4825 Richard Rd.
S. W., Calgary, Alberta, Canada T3E 6K6; e-mail: daveline@mtroyal.ca.
at UNIV FEDERAL DE SAO PAULO on June 19, 2014 jfi.sagepub.com Downloaded from
bers of an assumed social order. Even if people do not consciously think of
others as heterosexuals, they are at least likely to take opposite-sex sexual
and romantic interests for granted. Indeed, this assumption of hetero-
normativity fits well within what Schutz (1970) called the natural attitude
or peoples taken-for-granted assumptions about the natural order of the
world. In this respect, the heterosexual presumption may even extend to
infancy, long before any legitimate sense of self or sexual desire takes root.
Parents may not consciously think of their young children as heterosexual,
but within such an assumed social order, they are at least likely to take later
heterosexual development for granted.
1
It follows that when a young man tells his parents he is gay or when par-
ents find this out for themselves, they typically do not anticipate such news. If
those parents had long lived with a heterosexual presumption for their son,
they had most likely seen his growing years as either heterosexual by nature
or heterosexual in potential. As a result, observed traits and behaviors would
have been interpreted within such a framework. Friendships with girls in
early adolescence may have been seen as budding romantic interests, moodi-
ness may have been dismissed as girl troubles, and close male friends may
have been seen as mere buddies.
The event of a sons coming out as gay to his parents will likely mark the
end of such assumptions and the subsequent end of the parents long-held
heterosexual presumption. This suggests an anomic state in which parents
taken-for-granted expectations of a conventional life (i.e., wedding, wife,
and children) for their sons no longer apply and newexpectations are far and
fleeting. Furthermore, it suggests a state in which all previously perceived
appearances of heterosexuality might be thought of as false or misleading,
and any previous perceived appearances of homosexuality might become
true indicators of what really was or what must have been. In other
words, many parents may be led to re-examine and reinterpret the past in light
of the new information that their son is and possibly always has been gay.
They may be led to restructure the past retrospectively to make it congruent
with the present. To the extent that a sons homosexuality is newinformation
that parents must comprehend, and to the extent that it contradicts earlier
assumptions, they may be faced with discordant realities: the present as it is
and the past as it appeared. It is thus likely that parents typically re-examine
what they thought about their son retrospectively and make newsense of rele-
vant past events and behaviors as they are recalled. This retrospective sense
making is exemplified by the following autobiographical reflection by a
mother of a gay son:
778 Journal of Family Issues
Andy didnt seemto have a regular girlfriend, but he did have numerous female
friends and . . . he spent a lot of time with these women, both at work and out-
side of work hours. When we visited him in Los Angeles we met several of
these women, and he brought one young woman home with him over the holi-
day, but we could sense that none of these were really romantic relationships. I
remember asking himabout girlfriends, about getting married, and his answer
was always I guess Imjust too picky. Somehowit never occurred to me that
Andy might also be gay. I was blind to the fewclues that might have been there.
(Baker, 1998, p. 48)
In this article, I examine retrospective sense-making work by parents who
have recently learned that their sons are gay. Parents of gays make a good
case for examination of retrospective sense making for at least two reasons.
First, assuming that they had little or no suspicion of their sons homosexual-
ity (or perhaps potential homosexuality as they may later perceive) in the
past, they have been faced with information that radically transforms a reality
they had long taken for granted. This would likely lead them back to their
original interpretations in which they may reinterpret them accordingly. It
might also lead them to recall past events and behaviors that meant little to
themat the time but subsequently become significant with respect to the new
information that their sons are gay. Retrospective sense making would thus
seem a likely course of action.
Second, not only might the parents have interpreted their sons behaviors
as heterosexual in the past, but they also would have done so by virtue of a
broad culturally prescribed definitional frameworkthe heterosexual pre-
sumption. As such, they may not only engage in retrospective sense making
to bring the past in harmony with the present, but they may also be led to
question their own beliefs and societys taken-for-granted beliefs about
sexual identity development. In such cases, retrospective sense making
would not only be geared toward a reconstruction of the past but also a re-
examination of present social paradigms for understanding the world.
Theoretical Background
Retrospective sense making is a common human activity necessitated by
newappearances that contradict original interpretations of past appearances.
According to Blumer (1969), Schutz (1970), and others, people make sense
of their experiences as they occur not only based on the information at hand
but also on a broadly shared cultural knowledge of what that information typ-
ically means. They interpret appearances according to what is known about
the world and typify, classify, and categorize similar appearances into famil-
Aveline / Retrospection by Parents of Gay Sons 779
iar patterns. Their interpretations become part of their perceptions of every-
day reality; they may become fixed and steadfast for years, and they are usu-
ally unproblematic. With discordant later appearances, however, people are
led to retypify, reclassify, and recategorize past appearances into other
known patterns, making themcongruent with the newand by the interpret-
ers own definitionstrue reality. Past appearances then become defined as
unfounded, deceptive, not what they seemed, or otherwise.
Garfinkels (1967) documentary method suggests a more structured view
of retrospective sense making. A set of like appearances (which Garfinkel
calls indexical particulars) accumulate and make up an underlying pattern,
which reflexively serves to define those appearances. He suggested that this
process is not fixed but is ongoing in that new appearances may constantly
modify or change the underlying pattern as they come about. Once this
occurs, the original underlying pattern is thought to be not what it seemed
and modified accordingly.
2
Retrospective sense making, in this respect, is a
redocumentation of an underlying pattern based on new appearances.
Schutz (1970), Blumer (1969), and Garfinkel (1967) have laid the theoret-
ical groundwork for retrospective sense making in that it may be understood
within the larger frameworks of phenomenology, symbolic interaction, and
ethnomethodology. Few researchers, however, have looked at this activity
in practice. Retrospective sense making is likely to occur in a number of
situationspeople who learn that their spouses have been involved in long-
term extramarital affairs, parents who discover that their daughter has been
hiding a pregnancy, detectives who piece together a crime based on newly
appearing evidence, or even people learning that acquaintances or coworkers
are postoperative transsexuals. Even so, there has been little systematic
examination of this activity by people who do discover realities different than
those they had long taken for granted.
Cognitive dissonance studies (Festinger, 1957) come close to examining
retrospective sense making in looking at the psychological discomfort peo-
ple might feel when faced with conflicting realities. To the extent that past
interpretations and present information are discordant, people are indeed
likely to experience dissonance. Subsequent efforts to reinterpret past events
reduce that dissonance, and retrospective sense making becomes the method
at hand. Cognitive dissonance, however, is not an adequate vehicle of expla-
nation for the reinterpretive work suggested by retrospective sense making.
Not only does it focus on motivation to reduce discomfort rather than
method, it also deals more with reality replacement rather than reality rein-
terpretation. With reality replacement, the resulting belief is that reality had
always been as it appears. With reality reinterpretation, people maintain a
full or at least partial awareness of past interpretations despite newones. Dis-
sonance may be reduced in either case, but the processes and the results are
different. As such, there remains a need for an examination of retrospective
sense making in practice.
Literature Review
A review of recent research yielded few clues about how parents make
new sense of their gay sons growing years. One possible reason is that this
research predominately comes from the helping professions of social work
and psychiatry and, as such, has dealt primarily with a single set of issues
parental acceptance and family conflicts, which may arise from lack of
acceptance (Ben-Ari, 1995; Bernstein, 1995; Cramer & Roach, 1988; Robin-
son, Walters, & Skeen, 1989). In this respect, there is general agreement that
acceptance is often difficult and depends largely on the amount of time parents
have known about their sons homosexuality. As such, any focus on parents
examination of the past has centered on a search for cause and further focused
on guilt, shame, and self-blame.
Two themes in the literature bearing some relevance to retrospective sense
making are death of dreams and subliminal awareness. The term death of
dreams (Borhek, 1983; Fairchild &Hayward, 1979; Robinson et al., 1989) is
broadly defined as a mourning process in which parents long-held expecta-
tions of marriages, daughters-in-law, and grandchildren are put to rest and
eventually replaced by new hopes for their sons happiness based on what is
learned about gay lives in general. To the extent that this suggests a loss of
expectations for the future that were based on past perceived potentialities, it
does in effect involve a reinterpretation of that past. But the emphasis here
has been on a process occurring in the present rather than memories of past
events, and the focus has been on coping rather than reconstruction. There is,
in fact, little examination of the basis regarding the parents past expectations
(i.e., a heterosexual presumption) and the process by which they make sense
of them once they are lost.
Subliminal awareness, according to DeVine (1983), is the first of five
stages parents go through on the way to acceptance of their sons homosexu-
ality. Because this awareness is described as subliminal, it would by defini-
tion only be realized fully in the present. It thus carries with it an assumption
that parents had somehow noted behaviors in the past that gave clues to
homosexuality and only became fully aware of them much later. Because
they noted themsubliminally and presumably returned to themat later times,
one might assume that they made sense of them retrospectively. However,
like other researchers, DeVines emphasis was on acceptance, and his analy-
sis does not go beyond such assumptions. As such, there are significant gaps
in the literature, and questions about retrospective sense making remain.
Research Questions
I focus on two questions in this article. First, if parents do engage in retro-
spective sense making once learning that their sons are gay, what if anything
is taken as evidence of earlier homosexuality? Assuming that many parents
focus on past events they see as indicative of homosexuality, their recollec-
tions would likely reflect their present underlying beliefs about homosexual-
ity and gay people in general. For example, if parents believe that gay men
are typically effeminate, will they selectively focus on indicators of feminine
behavior? Assuming that parents underlying beliefs about homosexuality
are drawn from the wider culture and that media images and long-held
beliefs about gay men are part of that culture, what they see as evidence may
reflect those beliefs.
The second question pertains to how parents come to terms with having
wrongfully interpreted a significant part of their sons lives. Few relation-
ships are as close as that of a parent and child, and parents often pride them-
selves on truly knowing the needs, desires, and struggles of their children.
When sons come out as gay, parents may feel that they have not known them
as well as they thought. Their sons true needs were somehownot apparent to
them, their struggles were somehow missed, and substantial parts of their
lives were carried out in secrecy. As Weinberg (1972) put it, the child sud-
denly appears like a member of a different species to a parent who learns
that he is gay. As a result, many parents might feel the need to justify their
past interpretations for not seeing what really was or what must have been. To
this extent, parents may not only reinterpret the past but interpret the basis of
their original interpretations as well. Howthey interpret the circumstances of
and reasons for their wrongful interpretations may in turn reflect the ways in
which they operate under a heterosexual presumption.
Method
Eighty parents of gay sons were interviewed for a larger study of their
concerns (Aveline, 1999) using a topical life history approach in which a
single theme of a persons life is pursued (Denzin, 1970). Those interviews
are the data source here, and the following is a description of the method.
I solicited a group of parents large enough for variations of experience to
be likely. I approached six chapters of a national self-help organization called
PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). However, because
research on parents of gays often relies heavily on PFLAG, I also found other
sources. First, I contacted more disaffirming parent organizations such as
PFOX (Parents of Ex-gays) and those attached to ex-gay organizations such
as Exodus International. Second, I attended gay social gatherings and asked
those present to contact their parents about my research. Third, I placed
advertisements in newspapers with contact information. Fourth, I asked doz-
ens of gay groups to make announcements during regular meetings. Finally, I
received referrals by word of mouth.
I operationally defined parent of a gay son as anyone who sees himself or
herself as such
3
and screened participants throughout data collection to
ensure a diversity of experience. This led to several changes in strategy with
time. First, because more mothers responded, I began to tell organizations
that fathers were especially needed. Second, PFLAGparents were most will-
ing to be interviewed and tended to be most affirming of their sons. To ensure
other voices, I eventually decided that there were sufficient respondents from
this source and did not interview 17 PFLAG members who subsequently
responded. Finally, I spent much time soliciting parents affiliated with the
disaffirming groups. These efforts, however, yielded only two parents will-
ing to be interviewed.
4
The solicitation yielded 131 parents. Others responded but could not be
included for various reasons (e.g., they were curious but not interested, they
did not give contact information, or they had misunderstood the nature of the
research). As a result, only 82 parents were interviewed. Of the remainder, 8
did not respond when called back or or had fictitious telephone numbers, 8
more were too busy and could not settle on an interview time, 7 lived too far
to be interviewed, 6 changed their minds, 2 never kept appointments, and 1
was hospitalized. Finally, 17 PFLAG parents were not interviewed because
of ongoing screening decisions as mentioned. Discounting two parents
whose interviews could not be used because of technical difficulties, the final
count was 80 participants. Forty-five parents (56%) were from PFLAG, 10
(13%) were referred to me by their gay sons, 7 (9%) by other parents with gay
sons, and the remaining 18 (22%) through internet contacts, newspaper adver-
tisements, or word of mouth. Twelve couples were interviewed together,
5
thus amounting to 68 families.
Interviews were audiotaped and took place at convenient locations. I con-
ducted 50 interviews, and six trained undergraduate students conducted the
rest. If rapport was not already established, some time was taken to chat
beforehand so that participants felt comfortable. Interviewers answered any
questions about the procedure, obtained written permission to be inter-
viewed, and obtained background information (race, education, sons age,
etc.) with a questionnaire.
Because much previous research had assumed experiences such as guilt,
shame, or difficulty in acceptance (Ben-Ari, 1995; Bernstein, 1995; Cramer
& Roach, 1988), my prime directive was to assume as little experience in
advance as possible and to interview parents in such a way as to minimize
bias.
6
Parents were thus interviewed with a semistructured schedule of six
questions broad enough to allowthemto talk freely (e.g., Could you tell me
about your life with your gay son?). I followed Reissmans (1993) advice
and attended to the parents, or actively listened to and encouraged the talk.
Several parents did ask for feedback early in the interview (e.g., How am I
doing?). I assured them that they were doing fine and told them that there
were no right or wrong answers. The vast majority of the interviews ran
smoothly with much relaxed talk.
To remain close to the data, I transcribed the majority of interviews. Once
this was done, passages were coded for their recurrent themes. I began with
broad categories (e.g., discovery of sons sexual orientation) and adapted
them continuously during several readings until they fit all data that seemed
relevant. I followed Rubin and Rubins (1995) advice and not only read the
passages with an awareness of my research objectives but also with a sensi-
tivity to potentially undiscovered trends that may be pertinent. This process
thus involved adding newcodes when themes emerged, dividing codes when
differences were apparent, collapsing two or more codes when commonali-
ties were found, reassigning passages to different codes when necessary, and
renaming codes to refine them. After the final reading, there were 112 codes
falling into 12 categories. Retrospective sense making was one category with
15 codes, such as interest in girls games, toys, did not suspect son
because he dated girls, and so forth.
To monitor the data, there were several checks of consistency. First, I tele-
phoned eight randomly selected parents and asked them to respond to the
questions again. Answers were characteristically shorter but consistent. Sec-
ond, I checked for inconsistencies in the stories. Did any parents say one
thing and contradict themselves later on? I found five such cases and deleted
them from the final analysis. Third, I asked a second person to examine all
coded passages to see if any did not appear to fit logically with their codes.
He identified 37 passages, and they were also deleted.
To check reliability, I asked two other people to code a sample of pas-
sages. The coders familiarized themselves with the 12 categories and 112
codes under themand then applied themto a random sample of 30 passages.
For the 112 codes, Coder 1 matched 33%and Coder 2 matched 30%. For the
12 categories, Coder 1 matched 60% and Coder 2 matched 57%. Agreement
among the two coders and myself was 23% and category agreement was
47%.
Discrepancies in code matching may be explained by perceptual differ-
ences among coders or ambiguities in the data. Matching was nevertheless
lowand must be regarded as a limitation in the data. Further limitations lie in
the overrepresentations of the sample itself. Fifty-six percent were from
PFLAG, and 44% from other sources; 70% were mothers, and 30% were
fathers; and 95% were White, and 5% were Black. Additionally, 60% were
Democrats, and 48% had at least a college degree. The sample was thus
overrepresented by PFLAG members, mothers, Whites, Democrats, and
those with a college degree or beyond. The nature of the research, however,
was not to generalize any types of experiences to all parents of gays but to
gain insight into the processes involved.
Analysis
Most parents said that they suspected their sons to be gay long before dis-
covery or disclosure. Their suspicions, however, appeared vague and unar-
ticulated as a whole. Parents were asked in the initial questionnaire if they
ever suspected that their sons might be gay and, if so, their sons ages when
those suspicions first occurred. Twenty-two out of 80 parents (27.5%) said
that they never suspected, although most were able to recall experiences they
now knew pointed in that direction. Eight (10%) more parents said that they
did suspect their sons to be gay but were unable to recall their exact ages at
the time (e.g., Oh, when he was a teenager). The remaining 50 parents
(62.5%) not only said that they suspected but were also able to give exact
ages or 2-year to 3-year age ranges when those suspicions occurred. Thus, 58
(72.5%) parents reported at least some past suspicions of homosexuality. The
mean reported age of sons when those suspicions began was 15.4 years,
ranging between 6 months and 30 years. Considering that the mean reported
age of discovery or disclosure was 22.3 years, there was often a period of sev-
eral years from initial suspicion to confirmation.
This might lead one to believe that the disclosure or discovery event came
as no surprise to most parents. For some, this was the case. They had long
thought that their sons were gay, and several even said that they were relieved
when their sons finally told them. More often, however, parents described
these events as emotional, stressful, or shocking. The following account is
typical:
I came home from work. I was changing clothes. William was in his room on
the phone, and he was talking about dating. But it was dating a guy. I just about
went crazy. Just hearing the word, even though I suspected it all (along). . . .
Hes not real quiet. I mean, I wasnt eavesdropping. I could just hear it.
(Wendy
7
)
As a result, even though most parents did report some suspicions, they
appeared to have remained at the subliminal level for much of the time, as
suggested by DeVine (1983). After knowing that their sons were gay, the par-
ents were able to recall events, traits, and behaviors that to them pointed in
that direction and consider them bona fide evidence of their sons retrospec-
tive sexual orientation.
The parents reported recollections can be divided into two categories:
indicators, which pointed toward homosexuality or its potential; and counter-
indicators, which pointed away from it. Indicators were events, traits, or
behaviors that parents cited as evidence that their sons were either gay at the
time or potentially so. Counterindicators were events, traits, or behaviors
parents cited as reasons for why they could not have known about their sons,
or which threw them off track. First, I look at what indicators and
counterindicators the parents recalled, and then how they recalled them.
Indicators and Counterindicators:
What the Parents Recalled
The most common single indicator for young sons growing up was not
one that pinpointed any particular trait but one that nevertheless set them
apart from other boys. Fifteen parents used the word different when describ-
ing their sons growing years. They were different fromtheir brothers, differ-
ent from other boys, different from average boys, or simply different. The
following are examples.
Three or four (years old) was when we noticed his play patterns were
different. . . . But then we didnt discuss it. . . . But to be honest, it was always in
the back of my mind. (Helen)
And we thought even back then, well, Billy was a very different young man
than most of the boys. (Beattrice)
And I think I really did have feelings then, and I dont knowif I would specifi-
cally say he might be gay. But I suspected he was different. (Isabelle)
The parents said that they became aware of this difference early on, real-
ized it at the time, or noticed it on occasion. Similar to equally general
counterindicators the parents mentioned such as all boy or just a regular kid,
different seemed to be a catch-all termfor behaviors and traits that were atyp-
ical of young boys but vague enough to not warrant more specific labels.
None said they associated this difference with homosexuality at the time, and
two even mentioned specifically that this had never occurred to them. Sev-
eral, however, did say that they now realized what this difference really
meant, considering their sons present sexual orientation.
The remainder of the indicators and counterindicators can be divided into
three categories: (a) typical and atypical gender traits or behaviors, (b) rela-
tionships with males and females, and (c) participation or interest in sports.
Typical and Atypical Gender Traits or Behaviors
Indicators of atypical gender behavior were most often reported by the
parents. Thirty (37.5%) parents named personality traits of their sonsnature,
talent, or interests they thought were atypical of boys. Sons were gentle, sen-
sitive, and tender. Others were musically inclined, fashion conscious, and
into theatre. Still, others were neat, organized, and accomplished cooks. One
couple described their son as loving jewelry, antiques, classical music, and
fine cuisine, later believing that these early tastes indicated his sexual orien-
tation. Other parents recalled their sonsplay habits to be similarly indicative.
The following account is typical.
He never did play boy things. . . . Wed buy cars and the whole nine yards, and
he would play some, but he liked to do restaurant. . . . He was the waiter or hed
be the cook. Hed play restaurant. . . . I mean, he looked. . . . Howcan I say this?
Like he wasnt sissy, but yet he was. (Quincea)
Unlike other parents who reported thinking that their sons behavior was
simply atypical of boys, this mother was one of few who associated such
behaviors directly with femininity or effeminacy. Only three other parents
did appear to suggest this, describing their sons as demonstrative, not the
butchy sort, or having softer mannerisms. The rarity of such associations is
not surprising given their negative implications when applied to young boys.
More often, parents suggested that they originally saw their sons atypical
gender behavior as compatible with perceived trends toward less rigid gender
roles, implying that in modern times, boys need not necessarily be restricted
to traditional roles. Sensitivity, one mother suggested, need not be unmascu-
line. Another mother said that she rejected adherence to gender-appropriate
toys as follows:
In society, we have our male stereotypes and our female stereotypes, and little
kids see that. Thats whats thrown at them from the time they are born. For
Billy, we raised himas a person. When he was little, his bedroomwas kitchen! I
mean it was kitchen! He had this fascination with cooking and the kitchen, and
he didnt ask us for a three-wheeler. He asked us for a stove that opened up and
had a Fisher-Price stove top, and we never said anything. Thats what he
wanted, so thats what he got. (Beth)
Early play habits were also mentioned. Ten parents suggested that their sons
choices of toys or activities were more typical of girls. Among them, three
said that their sons enjoyed play activities such as restaurant or beauty parlor;
five mentioned their sons interest in dolls; and four said that their sons
enjoyed cooking toys, requesting such items as spatulas and other cooking
utensils for holidays or birthdays. One mother even recalled her sons interest
in the shapes of her perfume bottles as he played with them, suggesting that
this was more characteristic of girls. Such choices were often neutralized
with such folk sayings as the best chefs are men or men can be sensitive
too.
Some parents reported comparing their gay sons to their other sons, sug-
gesting that the gay sons behaviors were in sharp contrast. The following
two mothers made such comparisons.
Well, except, like, they were like night and day. The older one loved car grease
and racing and that kind of stuff. Eugene was more quiet and gentler. (Ellen)
Well, I do have a stepson, and I noticed his play patterns. He was a lot more
aggressive and stuff. And a lot of this is being stereotypical with gender role
things, but fromthe point at which I was at in my knowledge, you know, he was
very nurturing. He liked to play with dolls. (Glenda)
In contrast, other parents who had one or more daughters reported similar-
ities between their daughters and their gay sons behavior. One mother, for
example, said she noticed that both her gay son and daughter played with
Barbie dolls, and another remarked that her gay son played house with his
sister.
Few parents said that they associated such interests and play activities
with homosexuality. More often, they said that they thought their sons were
merely artistic, different, or otherwise. Not all parents, of course, said that
their gay sons were atypical in terms of gender behavior. Many said that they
differed little from other boys. When parents did make such remarks, how-
ever, traditional gender behavior such as roughhousing with other boys
appeared to be mentioned as counterindicators, suggesting this to mean that
there was no evidence of future homosexuality.
Relationships With Males and Females
When parents mentioned their sons early relationships with girls, they
described them either as too close or not close enough. Eleven (14.0%) par-
ents said that their sons gravitated toward girls as children or that their best
friends were always girls. The following are such accounts.
He didnt have the same connection with guys . . . and then it was so odd. Nick
gravitated toward the girls in the kindergarten class, and the girls in the neigh-
borhood. AndI couldnt figure it. . . . He had an affinity and really enjoyed these
young girls. Thats interesting. (Norma)
I thought when he was a little boy he just didnt play like little boys. He enjoyed
playing with his cousins. Little girl cousins playing with dolls and things like
that. And I kept thinking. I just knew something was wrong. I really, honest to
God, I knew it. (Sylvia)
These accounts suggest that parents were evoking traditional gender norms
in that young girls and boys should not be peers during childhood or that the
sexes should naturally separate to formtheir own distinct gender identities.
In contrast, these parents and others saw their sons as too distant from
females later in life. Nineteen (24.0%) parents referred to their sons teenage
and young adult dating habits, seeing them as unwilling to commit them-
selves, awkward, or uninterested. The following exemplify.
Brett never had a strong relationship with a girl in high school. His best friend
was a girl, but he was never attracted to any one girl. He never had a lasting rela-
tionship with one girl very long. (Xaviera)
And he went to his prom, but he never. . . . He had a little girlfriend when he was
a freshman in high school, and then after that he never dated. And every once in
a while Id say, Randy, dont you ever go out on a date? He said, Mom, I
cant afford to date. (Roberta)
Accounts of such dating deficiencies suggest that the parents felt that their
sons should have viewed girls romantically or sexually. Even when they did
not date at all, however, parents typically reported explaining this to them-
selves at the time as not having the time or money to date, being a late
bloomer, or simply being shy. Some, however, did say that their sons disin-
terest led them to wonder about sexual orientation. In contrast, when sons
dated regularly or appeared to do so, this was cited as a counterindicator for
why they could not have known that they had gay sons. Closeness to females
in adolescence and young adulthood, therefore, went unnoticed when it had
heterosexual appearances and noticed when it did not.
Relationships with boys or men were also seen as too close or not close
enough. Three parents whose sons disclosed their sexual identities as adults
mentioned that their sons had always shared houses or apartments with other
men and that the arrangements appeared too domestic or too intimate. A
father among them, for example, mentioned that his son had bought a house
with another man and that their house was tastefully decorated with antiques.
He added that he had not realized until much later what this arrangement
meant.
There was also a story of early sex play with other boys and another story
of a son who told his mother that he became sexually aroused during wres-
tling matches with boys. Other stories seemto have been told to quaintly por-
tray the innocence of young gay boys who may have been unaware of the
implications of their own actions at the time. Three examples follow.
He worked at a camp and one of the counselors he became friends with, and I
dont think it was sexual. . . . But he just talked about this boy as a girl would
talk about a boyfriend or something. And thats when I just knew. There was
just such excitement, you know. He was just kind of giddy with this friend per-
son, you know. (Darlene)
And I didnt tell you this. He did tell me when he was in the fifth or the sixth
grade. He said to me, Why do I think guys are cute and not girls? And I said,
Well, I guess if theyre cute, theyre cute. Youre cute, so maybe you just think
theyre cute. AndI just. . . . It just kind of went right over my head. (Quincea)
Same-sex closeness was thus noticed when it contravened the perceived
norms of heterosexual camaraderie and more closely resembled same-sex
attraction. In contrast, parents who said that their sons were not close enough
to boysimplying that they failed to bond with themproperly as peersnot
only suggested this in saying that they were too close to girls but also dis-
cussed this almost entirely within their participation or interest in sports.
Participation or Interest in Sports
Major sports such as basketball, baseball, and hockey have long been pop-
ular in Western society and have traditionally been arenas of male bonding.
As a result, parents have long encouraged their sons to participate. Perhaps
also as a result, participation or interest in sports has often been considered
part and parcel of a male heterosexual persona and thus essential to hetero-
sexual development (Kopay, 1977; Young, 1994). It is therefore not surpris-
ing that sports came up often in the parents stories. Twenty (25.0%) parents
mentioned sports of one kind or another, not simply in reference to indicators
or counterindicators of homosexuality but as vehicles of perceived normative
male bonding. The majority of these parents described their sons as not inter-
ested in sports or as simply disliking them altogether. The following are
examples.
I think that, as in just about everything going on, the strong emphasis in sports
and physical activities, that he was not . . . particularly drawn to, or enjoyed,
and certainly didnt excel at [them]. (Jack)
He enjoyed things at that age that other boys probably didnt in that he was
more attuned to music and art and drama, and he was not into sports. This was
in some respects a disappointment to his father who was a . . . coach and really
would love to have Vance participate in some sports. Vance didnt care for the
hunting-fishing route, which his dad again enjoyed at the time when [Vance]
was growing up. (Velma)
The implication here is that the sons lack of interest in sports either was
noticed at the time as an indicator of difference or was revisited as a more
focused indicator of early homosexuality. The next parent reported that
his sons nonparticipation in sports was a major contributor to his early
suspicions:
But when Thomas was in about the sixth grade, I started to have, you know,
concerns. I never told anyone, and especially not Thomas. He had tendencies,
especially because he didnt play sports. He didnt like them. I tried to get him
to do them, but he hated them. (Trent)
More typically, however, parents tended to explain their sons lack of interest
in other ways. They did not like sports because they had other interests, they
were too busy with other things, or they were overly shy. The following
exemplifies.
I started introducing them to competitive sports. My son Clyde gave me the
impression that he didnt like the closeness and competitiveness of basketball.
When he got to the basket and there were a lot of kids around, he backed away
fromthat and didnt like that at all. . . . So as I think back now, all of these things
kind of fall into place. But I never thought anything about it. I thought he was
just shy. (Clark)
Like Clark, fewparents attached disinterest in sports to homosexuality at the
time. Only three out of the twenty who mentioned sports said that they won-
dered about this at the time. In contrast, several other parents said that they
had no suspicions about homosexuality at all, citing their sons interest in
sports or athletic prowess as counterindicators. One father said that his son
played football and for this reason could not have known about his true sexual
identity. He did learn later that his son had only joined a football team to
please him and, ironically, he was able to redefine his son as uninterested in
sports.
The next section builds from this one, looking at how the parents recalled
events, traits, and behaviors, and howthey defined their own recollections in
terms of knowing or not knowing about their sons sexual identities before
discovery or disclosure.
Revelations, Confirmations, and Justifications:
How the Parents Recalled the Past
If retrospective sense making is a selective re-examination of the past and
a reinterpretation of its events, then howpeople come to terms with what they
originally thought versus what they nowknowsuggests a second-level inter-
pretation of what led them to the original interpretation of the events, traits,
or behaviors in question. Not only might people reinterpret past events for
what they really meant, but they might also interpret the reasons that led them
to think in certain ways at the time the events took place. Thus, people might
revisit events incongruent with present knowledge, reinterpret them accord-
ingly, and then subsequently or simultaneously interpret why they had not
seen what it really was at the time. This suggests two levels of reinterpreta-
tion: (a) what past events really meant and (b) why they thought about them
as they did when they occurred. In this section, I amconcerned with the latter.
Nearly all parents recounted events, traits, or behaviors in their sons
growing years. Although some gave only simple descriptions, the majority
either offered second-level interpretations of what they thought at the time,
or they suggested these interpretations in their words. An examination of
their stories yielded three broad types of second-level interpretations: (a) rev-
elations, or I never noticed until now; (b) confirmations, or So I was
right; and (c) justifications, or How could I have known?
Revelations were interpretations that focused on particular past events,
traits, or behaviors and suggested either that they were missed for their true
meanings or interpreted as having other meanings at the time. This was
apparent when parents related incidents that they thought in retrospect were
obvious indicators of their sons sexual orientation. They said that they
missed interpreting them as such or that they interpreted them in some other
way. The following are examples:
The kid [next door] is the same age as [my gay son] is, and she had a big birth-
day party. You know, all the kids in the school were out in the backyard playing
volleyball. And you know, he just never had anything like that. And now, hes
making all these new friends because he didnt have any friends before. I
always thought he was a loner. (Isa)
He had dated in high school, and his first love was killed in an automobile
wreck. And then he was friends with a girl, and they were just friends. In high
school. She and her boyfriend split up and she came on pretty heavy to Wil-
liam . . . then she went back to her other boyfriend. I guess my excuse on that
was that I thought hes been hurt twice. Hes had enough of women for a while.
Hes going to take care of school and career and have some fun. And then if he
wants to get a relationship then, he may do it then. (Wilma)
The first mother originally believed that her sons lack of friends was a result
of his being a loner, whereas the second mother thought her son stopped dat-
ing because of bad experiences with girls. Both recalled not only those events
but also their original wrongful interpretations of them and reinterpreted
them accordingly. With the new knowledge that their sons were gay, they
revisited and reinterpreted those events to be concordant. More common,
however, was that the parents revisited events that now made sense to them
and simply admitted that they thought nothing of them at the time. Some
examples follow:
He had moved to San Francisco. . . . did we have blinders on or what . . . He went
there because a friend had gone and kept telling himhowwonderful it was. . . .
And there were clues all over the place. But I didnt see them. (Thelma)
This one friend of ours said that she knewMiguel was gay since he was a little
boy. But I didnt knowthat. . . . Nowpeople play with dolls when they were lit-
tle. And everybody said oh, youre going to make a sissy out of him. But I never
really thought. . . . It was just like everyday play. Kids dont play like they used
to play. (Millicent)
And when he had his relationship, his 15-year relationship, we used to go over
to their house, and they would cook dinner for us. We used to have them to our
house for dinner, and they were just accepted, him and his friend. . . . It never
came up. It just never did. And like I say, sometimes I wonder if I was in denial.
(Kenneth)
Parents relating such stories not only said that they had blinders on or were
in denial but called themselves dumb, innocent, or otherwise. These
explanations appeared to be given as reasons for why they were unable to see
what must have been at the time. In this respect, their revelations allowed
them to reinterpret past events retroactively.
Second were confirmations. Parents related incidents that to them were
either obvious indicators of earlier homosexuality or raised questions about it
at the time. Once they learned later that their sons were gay, those incidents
became confirmed for themand, thus, true indicators of earlier homosexual-
ity. Confirmations differ from revelations in that parents claimed that their
original interpretations were correct and that they had either noted themat the
time or suspended them pending further evidence. Two examples follow:
I mean, he was the partying kind. You knowhowthese wild parties are. Believe
me, many nights at 3 or 4 oclock in the morning, I would go and get him, and
he would be in someones apartment where there were all guys there. I used to
think, Why arent there any girls? You know, this was before I knew.
(Quincea)
I knewmy whole life. I probably knewbefore he did, so it was not a great reve-
lation. I was not shocked. The only difference is that now it was confirmed. I
always felt my sonwas gay. . . . He was not into sports. . . . When he was little, he
was verbal, and he liked being with the girls because they were a little more
mature. He was not a queen. He wasnt frilly. He didnt throw the way boys
throw. He was just a little bit different. (Harriett)
The first mother told of her suspicions when she noted her sons late-night
all-male parties, whereas the second mother recounted her sons atypical
gender behavior. Both had noted these things at the time, and both found
them confirmed later on.
Justifications are different fromrevelations and confirmations in that par-
ents related past events and then gave reasons as to why they had not seen
them as indicators of their sons early homosexuality. Those reasons offered
as oversights were either internal (citing failings within themselves) or
external (citing either failures within organizations or society itself). As for
internal justifications, parents most commonly said that they believed combi-
nations of counterindicators such as their sons frequent dating habits, inter-
est in sports, or masculine appearance. Other parents cited what they defined
as their own ignorance or lack of perceptiveness as follows:
There were signs. But because we were not educated about sexual orientation,
the fact that there are different sexual orientations never occurred to me.
(Yvonne)
Parents citing external justifications referred to their churchs lack of cover-
age of homosexuality, to the fact that no one discussed it in their own growing
years, or to society in general for its failure to prepare parents for having gay
sons. For the last, several parents said that because they had been very reli-
gious, they had thus taken for granted the churchs teachings that life is laid
out like a plan for those who fear God. Their religiosity, they reported, had
prevented them from thinking about life in any way other than the accepted
heterosexual family cycle.
Several parents had comparable things to say about society in general in
its failure to openly address homosexuality. Two fathers from different cities
expressed such sentiments in strikingly similar ways.
And sometimes I joke. I said when I was raising those children, I was always
looking at the Dr. Spock book. Well, there certainly wasnt anything in Dr.
Spock, you know. That wasnt even in my edition, even mentioned, or anything
about that. (Ernest)
You would . . . have expectations for your child. I suppose no one of my genera-
tion ever imagined that their child would be gay. Im still mad at Dr. Spock
because we read all their child-rearing books, and theres not a word in there
about that. (Lester)
These parents and others not only blamed society for its lack of acceptance of
gays but also expressed resentment because that lack of acceptance directly
affected their earlier relationships with their sons. As they said,
I guess that here we had a close family, we thought. We shared our concerns.
And then to realize that here was a whole area that you had not shared was a
jolt. (Charles)
I just wish I had known. Can you imagine the added pressure he had from me
saying, Well, I just dont understand, Stephanie is a wonderful girl. (Sylvia)
In contrast, other parents reported that they were relieved that their sons told
them they were gay when they were already adults, believing that had they
known when they were teenagers, this would have been too difficult for them
to handle.
Whether revelations, confirmations, or justifications, the parents second-
level interpretations typically appeared to accompany their recollections of
past occurrences, or they were implied. It should be noted that they are ideal
types in that the parents recollections appeared to fit to varying degrees
within them. Some recollections fit well into one type, whereas others fit
more within one type than another. Nevertheless, it was apparent that the par-
ents felt a need to interpret their own interpretations of the past to come to
terms with it.
Discussion
Cultural Paradigms for Interpreting Homosexuality
It is ironic that very little reported evidence of early homosexuality in sons
came fromactual homosexual behavior. Wendy, who overheard her son talk-
ing on the telephone about dating another boy, and Darlene, who recalled her
son talking about a boy he met at camp as a girl would talk about a boy-
friend are notable exceptions. Although actual homosexual behavior (e.g.,
sexual activity or same-sex dating) might be strong evidence of a homosex-
ual orientation, it is unlikely that parents in general would observe it directly
or define it as such if they did, especially in their sons earlier growing years.
Not only might same-sex sexual activity before puberty be dismissed as mere
experimentation, but gay identities are also rarely crystallized at such young
ages and thus would likely not be linked to sexual orientation. Later on, gay
adolescents often do what they can to conceal their sexual and romantic
activities fromtheir parents (Herdt, 1989; Sullivan &Schneider, 1987). With
little true evidence of homosexuality, therefore, this leaves the question of
what, if anything, can be taken as evidence of earlier homosexuality by
parents attempting to make sense of the past.
As it happened, the parents reported evidence came overwhelmingly
from displays of atypical gender behavior. Boys typically like sports; their
sons did not. Boys typically choose other boys as playmates; their sons pre-
ferred the company of girls. Boys are typically aggressive and assertive; their
sons were sensitive and artistic. Therefore, the conclusion was that their sons
must have been homosexual in their growing years not because they engaged
in homosexual behavior or because they felt as though they were gay but
because they did not act like typical boys. A number of parents even sug-
gested that their sons were homosexual even before those sons knew so
themselves.
This conflation of atypical gender behavior with developing homosexual
identity is by far compatible with earlier research suggesting such a link
(Hockenberry &Billingham, 1987; Whitham, 1977) and especially compati-
ble with Greens (1987) sissy boy syndrome. Greens research was longi-
tudinal, following boys displaying atypical gender behavior (i.e., effemi-
nacy) for 15 years into adulthood. The boys typically disliked sports,
preferred girls toys, and gravitated toward girls as playmates. Seventy-three
percent became homosexual or bisexual, and Green concluded that the link
between early gender behavior and later sex object choice is innate.
Even though many parents I interviewed might agree with Green, the truth
of his conclusion is not relevant here. What is relevant is that the parents did
indeed recall their sons earlier atypical gender behavior and saw it them-
selves as foreshadowing later homosexuality. If the past were looked on as a
mine of information that may be used for sense making in the present, then
atypical gender behavior was the ore to be mined. Virtually all events, traits,
and behaviors the parents recalled pointed not to homosexuality per se but to
behavior thought atypical of boys and, thus, to homosexuality by default.
With this in mind, the parents evidence gathering can be well understood
using Garfinkels (1967) documentary method of interpretation. If the under-
lying pattern one seeks to understand is a gay son, then many of the
indexical particulars (indicators) that make it up are displays of atypical
gender behavior, such as sensitivity, artistic inclinations, or otherwise.
Atypical gender behavior, in turn, indicates a gay son.
Going one step further, one must ask where such a linkage came from.
Why were retrospective indicators of homosexuality overwhelmingly drawn
from those of atypical gender behavior? One answer surely lies in Western
cultural history in which the link between feminine behavior and male homo-
sexuality has long been ingrained as a cultural script. Because heterosexual-
ity involves two sexes, it is characterized by morphological and gender-
rooted differences thought to complement each other. Homosexuality
involves only one sex, and differences considered inextricable to sexual rela-
tions become elusive. As a result, the differences rooted in heterosexuality
are often projected onto homosexual relationships. Femininity and passivity
in one partner are thus often thought of as a necessity. In this respect, assump-
tions of heteronormativity extend even to homosexuality. Heterosexuality
involves two sexes; homosexuality somehow involves compensatory
differences.
Perhaps as a result, cultural constructions of the feminine male homosex-
ual are vast. They have been portrayed in media and folklore images
(Capsuto, 2000; Russo, 1981), and their perceived common existence had
even been given early scientific legitimacy (Greenspan & Campbell, 1945;
West, 1955), rooting their images still deeper in culture. It is therefore not
surprising that atypical gender behavior in the form of femininity would be
noticed by parents and conflated with homosexuality. To the extent that par-
ents are motivated to make sense of their sons growing years, they seemed to
have focused on evidence pointing to scripts that were available to them, and
those scripts were drawn from culture. If a culture reinforces the link
between feminine male behavior and male homosexuality, then both will
indicate each other reflexively. It is this reflexivity the parents evoked in their
efforts to make sense of their sons growing years.
It is furthermore interesting to note that although parents reported notic-
ing atypical gender behavior, they often did not define it as such at the time
and did not link it with homosexuality until much later. At the times of obser-
vation, sons were not so much feminine but different. It was typically not
until later that these differences were linked to gender behavior and thought
to be because of their sexual orientation. As a cautionary note, therefore, one
cannot take what the parents say as support for the notion that gay men dis-
play greater degrees of atypical gender behavior whether in childhood or
later in life. In their attempts to make sense of their sons growing years, the
parents were motivated to find indicators of earlier homosexuality. Because
atypical gender behavior has long been conflated with homosexuality in cul-
ture, such indicators were readily available to them in their efforts. They
appeared to them readily as a result. There is no doubt that atypical gender
behavior also exists among heterosexual males. However, because parents of
heterosexuals are unlikely to be motivated to make sense of their sexual
orientation, such behavior would go largely unnoticed.
Reality Replacement Versus Reality Reinterpretation
If the parents focused on their sonsatypical gender behavior in the past as
perceived evidence of their sexual orientation, how did they come to terms
with their original interpretations of what it meant at the time versus what it
now means in the present? They appeared to do so through second-level
interpretations, and three types were apparent: revelations, confirmations,
and justifications. Revelations were admittances of having missed informa-
tion at the time or having interpreted it wrongly, confirmations were declara-
tions that their original interpretations were correct, and justifications were
explanations of why they had missed vital information. Although informa-
tion as it came to the parents was interpreted unilaterally at the time, that
same information as it was recalled after acquiring new and contradictory
knowledge was interpreted through multiple channels: what the old informa-
tion was, how it was interpreted at the time, a comparison of the old infor-
mation to the new, a new interpretation of the old information, and finally, a
second-level interpretation of the basis behind the original interpretation. For
example, Kennedy originally saw that his son had bought a home with
another man. His original interpretation was that the two men were close
friends. Later, once he knew that his son was gay, he revisited that informa-
tion and reinterpreted the relationship as homosexual. He then looked at his
original interpretation of mere friendship and interpreted his basis of that
interpretation as I was in denial. Harriet did the same thing. In the past, she
noted that her son was more interested in theatre than in sports and that he
liked being with girls. She noted at the time that he was just a little bit differ-
ent and suggested that she had linked this difference to later homosexuality
but suspended it pending further evidence. Later, once she knew that her son
was gay, she revisited those incidents and saw them as earlier indicators of
homosexuality. Finally, she looked at her original interpretation and stated
that she knew this at the time, knowing her son was gay my whole life.
As mentioned, even though awareness of discordant realities would likely
lead to dissonance, cognitive dissonance as a model does not in itself explain
retrospective sense making. Festinger (1957) dealt with reality replacement,
whereas retrospective sense making deals with reality reinterpretation. Cog-
nitive dissonance suggests little or no resulting awareness of previously dis-
cordant realities, whereas retrospective sense making suggests full aware-
ness. What this in turn suggests is a continuum. On one end, parents may
ultimately come to believe that they had always known their sons were gay.
8
On the other end, they continue to knowthat they had misinterpreted the past.
Along the continuum, presumably, are varying levels of awareness and, at
some point, perhaps even subliminal awareness as suggested by DeVine
(1983).
9
If such a continuum is accepted, then it is logical to assume that the
greater the conscious awareness of dissonant realities, the greater the need to
neutralize the source of the dissonancei.e., the original wrongful interpre-
tations. It is here that the second-level interpretations may come into play.
Revelations, confirmations, and justifications appear to be conscious efforts
to reduce dissonance necessitated by awareness of self as an interpreter of
reality.
This is not to suggest that retrospective sense making is simply an applica-
tion of meaning to information and then another application followed by an
account of the original interpretation. Although this first-level and second-
level application likely does happen, it is more likely that the original inter-
pretation is revisited several times as newinformation comes along or that an
application of meaning might be suspended at any point until followed by
further information. As Blumer (1969) said, Interpretation should not be
regarded as a mere automatic application of established meanings but as a
formative process in which meanings are used and revised as instruments for
the guidance and formation of action (p. 5). He further states that a person
selects, checks, suspends, regroups, and transforms the meanings in light of
the situation in which he is placed (p. 5). With this in mind, retrospective
sense making might be typified by an original and then a revised application
of meaning but more likely a continuous process in which revisions are con-
stant. Although the parents illustrate this process well as retrospective sense
makers, they also illustrate their interpretations of self as sense makers as
they go along. Their revelations, confirmations, and justifications are reflec-
tive accounts of themselves as sense makers and appear as checkpoints along
a sense-making path.
Symbolic interaction and phenomenology tell us that people live in
worlds of meanings available to themwhich they drawfromand apply to sit-
uations to understand howto act. It furthermore tells us that those worlds are
constructed with time through repetitive action and eventually become entire
systems of knowledge under which people operate (Berger & Luckmann,
1966). The heterosexual presumption appears to be just such a system.
Through patterned interaction, heterosexual development has become the
assumed standard of social order, and homosexual development a less trav-
eled path outside that order. Lester, in saying that no one of my generation
ever imagined that their child would be gay, seemed to echo the sentiments
of many parents in saying that people, even in their earliest years, are
assumed to be naturally heterosexual and that heterosexual development and
interests are taken as a matter of course. Having a gay son appeared to change
that presumption. Children may grow up heterosexual, but they may also be
gay. The parents likely continued to define people around themas heterosex-
ual, but the possibility was more apparent to themthat those people may also
be gay or lesbian.
Notes
1. Comments about newborn children often presume future heterosexuality. Handsome boys
might be referred to as future lady killers and girls might be said to break a lot of hearts when
they grow older.
2. Although this is likely unproblematic much of the time, there are incidences in which peo-
ple may stubbornly hold on to original interpretations despite evidence against them; Allport
(1954), in The Nature of Prejudice, noted that individuals do so frequently when faced with evi-
dence contradicting their beliefs about particular groups. As he said, Prejudgments become
prejudices only if they are not reversible when exposed to newknowledge. Aprejudice, unlike a
simple misconception, is actively resistant to all evidence that would unseat it (p. 9).
3. This decision came fromconsidering alternatives to conventional definitions of a parent. I
expected stepparents to respond (Are they real parents?) as well as parents whose sons had died
of complications fromAIDS (Are they still parents?). I also wondered about parents whose sons
no longer defined themselves as gay because of religious conversion (Are they still parents of
gays?). Because the experience of such parents might be different, they may bring atypical varia-
tions to the final analysis. However, because my objective was to make as few assumptions as
possible about parents experiences, I included them in the definition. To do otherwise would
have been to presume those experiences in advance.
4. It was my impression that members of gay groups were typically distrustful of social
researchers and even more so of those they define as gay. One local facilitator of an ex-gay minis-
try told me that parents in his group were typically ashamed of their situations and reluctant to
talk to outsiders.
5. These couples insisted on being interviewed together, thus leaving the question of how
such dynamics would affect the flowof information. Typically, one played off the other, in which
one waited until the other finished speaking and then added his or her own perspective. Couples
also occasionally finished each others sentences. However, the fact that one member of a couple
may have been limited by the presence of the other in that he or she may not have felt free to speak
must be acknowledged as a limitation.
6. The dilemma of interview bias is well known. Cicourel (1964) pointed out that any inter-
viewquestionwill guide people to thinkin specific directions. As a result, that questionmay gen-
erate thoughts on issues that may not have previously existed. Denzin (1970) recognized this but
saythat some bias is unavoidable if useful data are tobe gained. We cannot eliminate bias as such;
we can only reduce it by asking careful questions.
7. All respondents and those they mentioned were assigned pseudonyms.
8. Because parents may have been motivated by the interviews to explain their past actions
and because a number of parents claimed they had always known about their sons homosexual-
ity, this may have been the case. The extent, however, is beyond the scope of this research.
9. This idea of varying levels of awareness of dissonance reduction work has been discussed
by Wicklund and Brehm(1976) who suggested that this awareness can be either at the conscious
or unconscious level.
References
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Perseus Books.
Aveline, D. T. (1999). My son, my son!HowParents Adapt to Having a Gay Son. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Baker, J. (1998). Family secrets: Gay sons. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Ben-Ari, A. (1995). The discovery that an offspring is gay: Parents, gay mens and lesbiansper-
spectives. Journal of Homosexuality, 30(1), 89-112.
Berger, P., &Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: Atreatise in the sociology
of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Bernstein, R. (1995). Straight parents, gay children. New York: Thunders Mouth.
Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interaction: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Borhek, M. (1983). Coming out to parents. New York: Pilgrim Press.
Capsuto, S. (2000). Alternate channels: The uncensored story of gay and lesbian images on
radio and television. New York: Ballantine Books.
Cicourel, A. (1964). Method and measurement in sociology. New York: Free Press.
Cramer, D., & Roach, A. (1988). Coming out to mom and dad: A study of gay males and their
relationships with their parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 15(3/4), 79-91.
Davies, P. (1997). The role of disclosure in coming out among gay men. In K. Plummer (Ed.),
Modern homosexualities (pp. 75-83). New York: Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act. New York: McGraw-Hill.
DeVine, J. L. (1983). A systematic inspection of affectional preference orientation and the fam-
ily of origin. Journal of Social Work and Human Sexuality, 2(2/3), 9-17.
Fairchild, B., & Hayward, N. (1979). Now that you know. New York: Harcourt Brace.
Festinger, L. (1957). Atheory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: StanfordUniversity Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Green, R. (1987). The sissy boy syndromeand the development of homosexuality. NewHaven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Greenspan, H., &Campbell, J. (1945). The homosexual as a personality type. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 101, 682-689.
Herdt, G. (Ed.). (1989). Gay and lesbian youth. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Hockenberry, S., & Billingham, R. (1987). Sexual orientation and boyhood gender conformity:
Development of the boyhood gender conformity scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 16(6),
475-487.
Kopay, D. (1977). The Dave Kopay story: Anextraordinary revelation. NewYork: Arbor House.
Peraldi, F. (1992). Heterosexual presumption. American Imago, 49(3), 357-370.
Reissman, C. (1993). Narrative analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence: Signs. Journal of Woman
and Culture in Society, 5(4), 631-660.
Richardson, D. (1996). Heterosexuality and social theory. In D. Richardson (Ed.), Theorising
heterosexuality: Telling it straight (pp. 1-20). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Robinson, B., Walters, L., & Skeen, P. (1989). Response of parents to learning that their child is
homosexual and concern over AIDS. Journal of Homosexuality, 18, 59-80.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (1995). Qualitative interviewing. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Russo, V. (1981). The celluloid closet. New York: Harper & Row.
Schutz, A. (1970). On phenomenology and social relations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Sullivan, T., &Schneider, M. (1987). Development and identity issues in adolescent homosexu-
ality. Child and Adolescent Social Work, 4(1), 13-24.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexual. New York: St. Martins.
West, D. (1955). Homosexuality. London: Penguin Books.
Whitham, F. (1977). Childhood indicators of male homosexuality. Archives of Sexual Behavior,
6(2), 89-96.
Wicklund, R. A., & Brehm, J. W. (1976). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Young, P. D. (1994). Lesbians and gays and sports. New York: Chelsea House.

David Aveline. Retrospective Sense Making by Parents of Gay Sons Recalling Their Sons' Earlier Years

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição original:

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

David Aveline. Retrospective Sense Making by Parents of Gay Sons Recalling Their Sons' Earlier Years

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

http://jfi.sagepub.

http://jfi.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

- May 2, 2006 Version of Record >>

Você também pode gostar