This paper is a systematic review and meta-analysis on sexual orientatn inty velopment ton among people who are lbian, gay, bisexual, or another sexual mory inty (LGB+). Common ton measured the 30 studi reviewed were beg aware of queer attractns, qutng one’s sexual orientatn, self-intifyg as LGB+, g out to others, engagg sexual activy, and iatg a romantic relatnship. Milton occurred different sequenc, although attractn was almost always first, often followed by self-intifitn and/or sexual activy; g out and iatg a romantic relatnship often followed the ton. Meta-analysis rults showed that the mean effect siz and 95% nfince tervals varied by tone: attractn [Mage=12.7 (10.1, 15.3)], qutng one’s orientatn [Mage=13.2 [12.8, 13.6]), self-intifyg [Mage=17.8 (11.6, 24.0)], sexual activy [Mage=18.1 (17.6, 18.6)], g out [Mage=19.6 (17.2, 22.0)], and romantic relatnship [Mage=20.9 (13.2, 28.6)]. Nohels, rults also showed substantial heterogeney the mean effect siz. Addnal meta-analys showed that tone timg varied by sex, sexual orientatn, race/ethnicy, and birth hort. Although patterns were found LGB+ inty velopment, there was nsirable diversy tone trajectori.
Contents:
- SEXUAL ORIENTATN INTY DEVELOPMENT MILTON AMONG LBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND QUEER PEOPLE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
- WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT BEG GAY?: PERSPECTIV OM YOUTH
SEXUAL ORIENTATN INTY DEVELOPMENT MILTON AMONG LBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND QUEER PEOPLE: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Sexual orientatn refers to the endurg physil, romantic and/or emotnal attractn to members of the same and/or other genrs, cludg lbian, gay, bisexual and straight orientatns. Hodg, which legalized marriage between people of the same reversg that cisn would not be easy, and the landspe of the issue has shifted sharply the last show there have been dramatic creas support of gay marriage and how many Amerins self-intify as LGBTQ.
In some sense, “self-intifyg” as lbian, gay, bisexual or transsexual, even a survey, is an act of feelg fortable sharg that rmatn wh the broar public — and for some rponnts, that may have bee easier as same-sex marriage beme a more accepted part of the culture. Acrdg to Sigmund Frd’s theory of psychosexual velopment, humans were nately bisexual and beme heterosexual or homosexual based on childhood experienc wh parents (Frd, 1905).
Frd theorized that homosexualy was a rult of problems that arise durg psychosexual velopment, such as boys beg overly attached to and intifyg wh their mother stead of their father, feelg tense stratn anxiety that leads boys to reject women bee they are “strated, ” and narcissistic self-obssn that leads boys to choose an object of attractn that rembl themselv (Lew, 1988). Psychoanalysts who followed Frd, cludg Sandor Rado, Irvg Bieber, and Charl Soris, took pathologil views regardg homosexualy and asserted that homosexualy uld be cured through psychoanalysis (Drcher, 2015). Bieber (1962, 1967, 1969) claimed that male homosexualy was ed by boys havg a posssive and overly volved mother, as well as a hostile or distant father; the dynamics led boys to bond wh their mother and prevented them om velopg their masculy, which led him to effemate homosexualy.
WHAT’S GOOD ABOUT BEG GAY?: PERSPECTIV OM YOUTH
For female homosexualy, Bieber (1967, 1969) claimed was ed by var parent-child relatnship dynamics, such as mothers beg overly rejectg and cril of their dghters, showg ltle warmth and affectn; this, bed wh “femizg” behavrs, such as not drsg their dghter pretty cloth and not teachg her okg and hoekeepg skills, ntributed to homosexualy. Soris also helped found the Natnal Associatn of Rearch and Therapy of Homosexualy, which stated that “homosexualy is a treatable velopmental disorr” (as ced Mondimore, 1996, p.
Unlike prr psychoanalytic studi, Ksey and his lleagu ed non-psychiatric sampl and found that homosexualy was not unmon among men and women the Uned Stat (Ksey et al., 1948, 1953).
Hooker (1957) gathered psychologil tt rults om heterosexual and gay men livg the muny and then asked psychologists to appraise their psychologil adjtment whout knowg the participants’ sexual orientatns. The psychologists classified the heterosexual and gay participants to equal levels of mental adjtment and they uld not distguish which participants were gay or heterosexual based on the tt rults.