My experience as part of a gay tergeneratnal relatnship • GCN

Contents:

• THE INTERGENERATNAL RELATNSHIPS OF GAY MEN AND LBIAN WOMEN
• AGE DIFFERENC GAY COUPL
• UNRSTANDG GENERATN GAPS LGBTQ+ COMMUNI: PERSPECTIV ABOUT GAY NEIGHBORHOODS AMONG HETERONORMATIVE AND HOMONORMATIVE GENERATNAL COHORTS
• MY EXPERIENCE AS PART OF A GAY TERGENERATNAL RELATNSHIP
• GREEDY SPOE, NEEDY PARENT: THE MARAL DYNAMICS OF GAY, LBIAN, AND HETEROSEXUAL INTERGENERATNAL CAREGIVERS
• NEW TRENDS GAY MALE RELATNSHIPS: THE CHOIC STUDY
• I’M 35 AND MY BT IEND IS 64. HERE’S WHY OUR AGE DIFFERENCE AS GAY MEN IS A GIFT

THE INTERGENERATNAL RELATNSHIPS OF GAY MEN AND LBIAN WOMEN

This study reveals a new lens to view relatnships between midlife to later life adults and their agg parents and parents--law and further intifi lkag between solidary–nflict and ambivalence Words: Ambivalence, Gay men and lbians, In-law relatnships, Intergeneratnal relatnships, Midlife to later life, Solidary– parent–adult child tie is central to both generatns across the life urse; tergeneratnal ti have nsequenc for overall well-beg and “provi the ntext wh which dividuals age, the way [dividuals] mark their own ageg, and the relative value that is attached to that procs” (Lowenste, Katz, & Biggs, 2011, p.

Dpe the monstrated signifince of tergeneratnal ti, few studi vtigate relatnships between midlife to later life gay men and lbian women and their later life parents—a relatnship that may be typified by distct dynamics due to gay men and lbian women’s stigmatized sexual mory stat (Averett & Jenks, 2012; Connidis, 2012). Willson, Kim, Shuey, and Elr (2003) report higher rat of ambivalence adult children’s relatnships wh -laws than relatnships wh Men and Lbian Women’s Intergeneratnal RelatnshipsThe tergeneratnal ti of gay men and lbian adult children may be typified by unique dimensns of nflict, solidary, and ambivalence, although few studi addrs this possibily.

A child’s nonheterosexual inty has been shown to be associated wh negative teractns wh later life parents (D’Augelli, 2005); later life parents may be pecially unable to accept their gay or lbian child, or their child’s partner, “bee of the socpolil climate of their child-rearg years, when homosexualy was viewed as an unspeakable moral s or a ep psychologil pathology” (Sav-Williams & Cohen, 1996, p. As evince of this tergeneratnal stra, midlife to later life gay men and lbian women appear to have fewer fay nfidants than heterosexuals (Balsam, Bechae, Rothblum, & Solomon, 2008; Dewaele, Cox, n Berghe, & Vke, 2011; Grossman, D’Augelli, & Hershberger, 2000; Rostosky et al., 2004) and tend to rank social support om iends as more nsistent and important than support om fay (Biblarz & Savci, 2010; Graham & Barnow, 2013; Kurk, 2004, 2006; Lyons, Pts, & Grierson, 2013). Notably, however, recent chang state and feral marriage laws allow for the possibily of participatn same-sex marriage (Hull, 2006; Lannutti, 2007; Ramos, Goldberg, & Badgett, 2009), and a growg body of rearch suggts that gay men and lbian women experience supportive and meangful bonds wh parents and -laws (Fredriksen-Goldsen & Mura, 2010; Goldberg & Smh, 2011; Oswald, 2002).

AGE DIFFERENC GAY COUPL

Addnally, outns was not an cln creria bee many current midlife to later life gay men and lbians are ls likely to be out their fay of orig due to stigma (Meyer, 2003; Fredriksen-Goldsen, Kim, Barkan, Mura, & Hoy-Ellis, 2013); excludg this group would remove a portn of the sample perhaps most likely to experience parent–child and -law nflict. Fdgs enhance an unrstandg of tergeneratnal relatnships three central, this study extends prev rearch by articulatg how the tergeneratnal ti of unrstudied group—gay men and lbian women—n be clearly nceptualized wh, and ntribute to, the solidary–nflict amework (Clarke et al., 1999; Silverste, Chen, & Heller, 1996). Beg tegrated to fay life through associatnal and normative solidary ways siar to all other adult children appears to be central evince of parents’ supportivens, likely bee, as Wton suggts, “self-intified lbians and gay men experience rejectn as an ever-prent possibily stctured by claimg a stigmatized sexual inty” (1991, p.

UNRSTANDG GENERATN GAPS LGBTQ+ COMMUNI: PERSPECTIV ABOUT GAY NEIGHBORHOODS AMONG HETERONORMATIVE AND HOMONORMATIVE GENERATNAL COHORTS

Third, fdgs om this study provi sight to specific agg procs and life urse events that stcture and shift articulatns of solidary, nflict, and ambivalence midlife to later life gay men and lbians’ tergeneratnal ti (Elr, Johnson, & Crosnoe, 2003; Umberson, Pudrovska, & Reczek, 2010). Fdgs provi clear evince of the ways support, stra, and ambivalence are terpreted by gay men and lbian women, facilatg a new lens to view adult tergeneratnal relatnships wh both solidary–nflict and ambivalence paradigms (Averett & Jenks, 2012; Grossman et al., 2000; Solomon et al., 2004).

Dimensns of stra, support, and ambivalence may have important nsequenc for the well-beg of both gay and lbian adult children and their agg parents (Birdt et al., 2010; Fgerman, Cheng, Birdt, & Zar, 2012; Ward, 2008), and this study lays cril groundwork for future rearch to addrs the possibili. Through this rehed unrstandg, we exame parative s that scribe the bgraphi, general behavrs, and generatnal loc of four well-known gay men as a means to explore how dividuals born a particular birth generatn may experience vastly different experienc life due to the LGBTQ + generatn wh which they intify.

MY EXPERIENCE AS PART OF A GAY TERGENERATNAL RELATNSHIP

Explorg LGBTQ+ Generatns: Through the Ey of Warhol, Vidal, Capote & HudsonExamg the liv of celebri and well-known LGBTQ + dividuals offers a lens to summarize and illtrate typil behavrs and attus that have been formative shapg gay culture and the LGBTQ+ llective inty. In this se, the disntuy between the birth generatn to which each man belonged and the perd durg which their g of age wh regard to their LGBTQ+ inty occurred was shaped not only by the valu, behavrs, and mor of their birth generatn but also overlaid by the generatn to which they “me of age” as a gay man and a member of the LGBTQ+  muny.

His g of age occurred early life, which plac his behavr, the outward exprsn of genr inty, and sexual orientatn a much more ntemporary timeame closer behavr to a member of Generatn X (people born about fifty years after Capote) ntrast, Vidal did not publicly acknowledge his sexual orientatn or genr exprsn, and much later life vaguely intified first as bisexual (1999), and later as homosexual (Kaplan 2013). Their behavrs, outward exprsn of genr, and gree of fort wh intifyg as LGBTQ + varied pendg more on their LGBTQ + generatn than their birth wh Capote, Vidal, and Hudson, a sire or lack of sire to ngregate and be associated wh other LGBTQ + dividuals public impacted the emergence and subsequent velopment of gay neighborhoods.

The plexy of his g of age a time when homosexualy was illegal, mixed wh his fascatn wh celebry and outlandishns, sparked a cursy Warhol that helped to shape and support the culture of gay neighborhoods New York Cy the 1960s through the 1980s as clive and creative spac. He provid for his followers and for succsive generatns of LGBTQ+ people a type of eedom that he himself seemed reluctant to Homonormative Saeculum and the Events that Shaped a Century of LGBTQ+ CultureThe experience for LGBTQ + people—amed by the unrstandg and treatment of LGBTQ+ dividuals reflected the valu of mastream society—is often que different om that of non LGBTQ+ people.

GREEDY SPOE, NEEDY PARENT: THE MARAL DYNAMICS OF GAY, LBIAN, AND HETEROSEXUAL INTERGENERATNAL CAREGIVERS

We propose appendg the heteronormative generatnal nam popularized by Strss and Howe to better rporate LGBTQ+ experienc as follows:The Silent Generatn —or the “Closeted Generatn”—gay men me of age jt before, durg, and immediately after World War II and lived a world which there was tense social prsure to nform to genr stereotyp.

To avoid persecutn and harassment by the police, the early pneers further gravated wh the large metropolan areas to the margs of central ci—abandoned and fotten neighborhoods populated by those that heteronormative society has labeled social outsts and crimals—that beme some of the first regnizable gay neighborhoods. They were bolstered by the experienc of those om prev generatns as they began to shed the cultural shame that enuraged LGBTQ + dividuals to stay the closet, and they relished the out of the gay liberatn movement as gay and lbian dividuals and their alli began to celebrate “gay eedom. High-profile efforts such as AIDS Coaln to Unleash Power ( ACT UP), Broadway Car/Equy Fights AIDS, and the AIDS Memorial Quilt Project helped to fe public awarens of the societal and stutnal margalizatn of homosexualy and the necsy to addrs the AIDS panmic wh facts and not wh fear.

Generatn X took notice of members of the Greatt Generatn and Silent Generatn as they stggled—often publicly—to rencile the nflictg valu of their generatns: to acknowledge homosexuals as productive members of society while admtg that prev treatment of LGBTQ + people may have been unkd or ntrast to prev tim when popular cultural referenc implied shame or viance related to homosexualy, many of the cultural touchpots for Generatn X viewed homosexualy as a “normal” part of society, suggtg an openg for the acceptance of LGBTQ + people. Homosexualy beme creasgly more accepted by heteronormative society durg the perd as this generatn me of age, culmatg the legalizatn of same-sex marriage Canada 2005, Swen 2009, and the Uned Kgdom 2013; the Uned Stat, legalizatn of same-sex marriage first occurred state by state, but eventually the U.

NEW TRENDS GAY MALE RELATNSHIPS: THE CHOIC STUDY

For LGBTQ + people, this transn may be pecially important as young people transn om parental and faial ntrol to makg their own cisns adulthood, which unrsr the layerg for LGBTQ + dividuals of birth generatn and “ g of age” energy young adults brg to gay neighborhoods is the nsistent (Bterman 2020a).

The sire among LGBTQ + dividuals to live a muny such as those found wh gay neighborhoods has been nsistently evolvg and changg over the past five generatns, and the flux of young adults om each LGBTQ + generatn, along wh their energy and ias helps to sta gay neighborhoods for the next generatn, as shown Fig.

The difference for most LGBTQ+ people is that the product is typilly more plex and multifaceted as the generatnal touchpot is rooted a heteronormative plexy of gay inty durg the middle to later twentieth century—borne of generatns fluenced by social valu and cultural mor stilled their parents by their parents a century before—rulted a nflicted state of existence for gay neighborhoods durg their emergent and formative years. Gay neighborhoods durg this perd om 1980 to 2000 provid a rpe for LGBTQ + people—and pecially gay men—om heteronormative standards and judgment based on the associated men om three generatnal horts—the Silent Generatn, the Greatt Generatn ( like Warhol, Vidal, Hudson, and Capote) and Generatn X —were part of the “great gay migratn” to ci the 1960s through the 1980s (Wton 1995).

I’M 35 AND MY BT IEND IS 64. HERE’S WHY OUR AGE DIFFERENCE AS GAY MEN IS A GIFT

One notable shift is younger members of the Millennial and Z generatns (who participated ls directly the stggle for LGBTQ + rights) may not fully grasp the importance of gay neighborhoods on LGBTQ+ culture and lbian and gay life (Bterman and Hs 2021) and may have a lser propensy to engage the muny offered by gay neighborhoods. The closure of gay bars, emergg virtual gay spac, and chang the character of gay neighborhoods are remrs that as the plac transn om beg home to generatns rooted the stggle, to playgrounds of generatns beneftg om that stggle, now may be a cril time to exame the prent plate the trajectory of gay neighborhoods (Coff 2021).

The survival of smaller gay districts (and gay districts loted small- and mid-sized ci) is more threatened than tablished gay districts larger metropolan areas (Ghaziani 2021), and some lotns have rmally memorated LGBTQ + signifint plac wh or near gay Possibili for Gay NeighborhoodsThe perspectiv regardg gayborhoods among succsive generatns of LGBTQ + rints is changg. As the stigma associated wh intifitn wh groups unr the LGBTQ + umbrella creas universally, the need/sire for livg plac unrsred by segregatn and self-isolatn may also physil buildg blocks of gay neighborhoods—mercial tablishments ( bars, rtrants, bookstor), servic ( muny centers, health clics), and rinc—may be removed or displaced due to var urban forc cludg neighborhood change, revalizatn, gentrifitn, soc-cultural fluenc (tast, preferenc, and attus), and even equal rights legislatn (Bterman 2020a; Eeckhout et al.

However, if gayborhoods (or elements of gayborhoods) are at risk of or ed disappearg, then the need to prerve the memory spac be urgent so that the social actn that occurred there is documented, (Miller and Bterman 2021) pecially for future, many LGBTQ + dividuals—pecially younger groups of dividuals—embrace a broadly clive fn of sexual orientatn and fd ltle value labels such as “gay, ” “ lbian, ” “transgenr, ” and other sexual mori (Podmore 2021). This is not a new phenomenon, as illtrated by the example of how Andy Warhol engaged the gay neighborhoods of New York and the var typ of dividuals that found a sense of belongg fluidy among later generatns shifts the generatnal perspective of gay neighborhoods (Bterman and Hs 2021). We now live a post-bary multi-polar world, and this change is reflected neighborhoods and plac (Hs 2019) example of the shiftg language surroundg LGBTQ + inty is the faiar amalgamatn of words that reference homosexualy as a cultural touchpot, which are beg creasgly mon.