Coming out to dad: Young gay and bisexual men’s experiences disclosing same-sex attraction to their fathers

Abstract

Few studies have examined the relationship between young gay and bisexual men and their fathers. Using a phenomenological framework, this study investigated the role of fathers in young gay and bisexual men’s coming out experience, focusing on how fathers responded to disclosure of same-sex attraction, how fathers’ responses compared with sons’ expectations, and what sons perceived as having influenced their fathers’ responses. Semi-structured in-depth interviews with 30 gay and bisexual men ages 18–24 were conducted as part of a larger study; topics explored in the interview included experiences coming out to family and others. Nineteen participants’ narratives included discussion about their fathers and were included in the current analyses. The young gay and bisexual men who were interviewed perceived a complex range of responses upon coming out to their fathers, ranging from enthusiastic acceptance to physical violence. Participants spoke of fathers who were accepting in different manners and who often held contradictory attitudes about same-sex attraction. Fathers’ responses commonly differed from sons’ expectations, which were informed by homophobic talk and gendered expectations. Sons spoke about what informed their expectations as well as what they perceived as influencing their fathers’ response, including gender norms, beliefs regarding the cause of SSA, religious views, sociopolitical views, and concerns about HIV/AIDS. The pervasive influence of hegemonic masculinity throughout the young gay and bisexual men’s stories was particularly striking. The implications of these findings for future research and intervention development are discussed, as well as study strengths and limitations.

Introduction

Gay and bisexual adolescents and emerging adults are at increased risk for psychological distress (e.g., suicidal ideation and attempts, depressive symptoms) and substance use behaviors, in comparison with their heterosexual counterparts (Bos, Sandfort, de Bruyn & Hakvoot, 2008; D’Augelli, 2002; Needham, 2012; for a review, see National Research Council, 2011). These disparate trends persist across age groups, gender, race/ethnicity, and differing definitions of sexual orientation (i.e., same-sex attraction, self-identification, and behavior) (Almeida, Johnson, Corliss, Molnar & Azrael, 2009; Bontempo & D’Augelli, 2002; Saewyc et al., 2007). The increased risk of these negative outcomes is not an inherent part of being gay or bisexual, but is rather the effect of societal oppression in the form of discrimination, rejection, harassment, and violence that stems from homophobia and heterosexism (Harper & Schneider, 2003). Furthermore, researchers have reported that gay and bisexual youth report higher levels of stress exposure and lower levels of social support (Doty, Willoughby, Lindahl & Malik, 2010; Johns, Zimmerman & Bauermeister, 2013; McCallum, 2010; Needham & Austin, 2010). The presence of sexuality-related stressors encompasses multiple ecological social systems including family, school, and peer networks (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, 2005; Harper, 2007; Mustanski, Birkett, Greene, Hatzenbuehler & Newcomb, 2014).

Perceived parental attitudes toward homosexuality have been reported to predict emotional adjustment among gay and bisexual youth (Darby-Mullins & Murdock, 2007). Bouris et al. (2010) concluded in a systematic review that parents serve both as a source of stress and a source of support for gay and bisexual youth. Negative parental responses were associated with young people’s psychological distress; parent-child relationships characterized by closeness and support, however, were an important correlate of mental well-being (Bouris et al., 2010). Recent research supports Bouris et al.’s (2010) review. Sexual minority adolescents’ perceptions of closeness with their parents, involvement with parents in shared activities, and overall sense of support from their families have been positively associated with well-being and negatively associated with risk behaviors (Pearson & Wilkinson, 2013). Sexual minority emergent adults who experience high levels of family rejection or low levels of family acceptance, however, have been reported to fare significantly worse than those who experience low levels of family rejection or high levels of family acceptance in terms of depression, substance abuse, sexual risk behaviors, and suicidal ideation and attempts (Ryan, Huebner, Diaz & Sanchez, 2009; Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz & Sanchez, 2010).

Although developmental researchers initially believed that parental support would lose salience in youths’ lives, often replaced by peer support, research findings have noted that parental support persists as a health promotive factor as youth transition from adolescence into emerging adulthood (Pingel et al., 2012; Caldwell, Sellers, Bernat & Zimmerman, 2004; Caldwell, Zimmerman, Bernet, Sellers & Notaro, 2002). Though most of these findings have been noted among heterosexual youth, qualitative data seem to support this finding among sexual minority youth. In their qualitative inquiry on sexual minority youth’s conceptualizations of social support, Nesmith, Burton, and Cosgrove (1999) underscored the centrality of parental support in the lives of gay and bisexual youth. Although they did not specifically ask about coming out (i.e., voluntarily revealing their sexual orientation), nearly all participants began their narratives of parental support by recounting coming out to their parents. In another set of focus group interviews, sexual minority youth stated that adequate peer social support did not always buffer the effects of parental disregard (Potoczniak, Crosbie-Burnett, & Saltzburg, 2009). Furthermore, the dearth of support many same-sex attracted youth encounter within school and among peers underscores how important it is that they experience home as a safe space where they receive family support. Hershberger and D’Augelli (1995), for example, observed that family support buffered lesbian, gay, and bisexual adolescents against the harmful effects of peer victimization on mental health. Similarly, Bregman, Malik, Page, Makynen, and Lindahl (2012) reported that gay and bisexual youth who reported less parental rejection and more sexuality-specific social support from parents were more likely to hold an affirmed identity characterized by low internalized homophobia and identity uncertainty, and minimal concerns about being accepted by others because of their sexuality. Recently, D’Amico and Julien (2012) observed that greater current parental acceptance and lower current parental rejection of sexual orientation were associated with gay and bisexual youth’s greater comfort with sexual orientation, lower psychological distress, and lower suicidal ideations. Taken together, these findings underscore the importance of understanding gay and bisexual youth’s family contexts as a marker of well-being.

Fathers have a unique influence on adolescent well-being (Amato, 1994; Caldwell, Rafferty, Reischel, De Loney, & Brooks, 2010), with recent literature on parental support underscoring the importance of conceptualizing and measuring support from fathers as separate from that of mothers (Caldwell et al., 2004). Using nationally representative data from the Add Health study, Videon (2005) observed a relationship between adolescents’ dissatisfaction in their relationship with their fathers and depressive symptoms. This relationship between adolescents’ satisfaction in their relationship with their fathers and mental health may be especially significant for sons given changes in the mother-son relationships did not significantly impact boys’ psychological well-being in the same study (Videon, 2005). The father-son relationship may also affect the link between school victimization and young men’s mental health. In a study of British adolescent boys, for example, researchers reported evidence of a buffering effect where father involvement protected their children from psychological distress associated with extreme peer victimization (Flouri and Buchanan, 2002). Though research looking specifically at the effect of father involvement or the father-son relationship on the health and well-being of young gay and bisexual men is scarce, the existing research supports further inquiry. For example, in a Dutch study, Bos et al. (2008) observed that the quality of adolescents’ relationships with their father partially mediated the relationship between same-sex attraction and increased mental health symptoms. At present, it is unknown what features of the father-son relationship may serve to protect sexual minority youth from stress, or how masculinity may shape these processes.

The father-son relationship of young gay and bisexual men (YGBM) is particularly important to examine because fathers play a vital role in the perpetuation of hegemonic masculinity, a set of socially accepted masculine behaviors and beliefs designed to legitimate male power and reproduce the social relationships that generate that dominance (Connell, 1995; Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985). Hegemonic masculinity includes strict and limited conceptions of what constitutes ‘masculine behavior’ within a particular time and culture, the rejection of any behaviors considered gender atypical or feminine within that particular time and culture, as well as the belief that heterosexuality is superior to a gay or bisexual sexuality (Carrigan, Connell & Lee, 1985; Donaldson, 1993; Kahn, 2009). In fact, Donaldson (1993) refers to heterosexuality and homophobia as “the bedrock of hegemonic masculinity” (p. 645). Further, a central tenet of the concept of hegemony is persuasion of the majority that the existing social organization – in the case of hegemonic masculinity, the dominance of men over women and of one masculinity over others – is “normal” and “natural” (Donaldson, 1993). While scholars have critiqued the idea of a fixed hierarchy of masculinities (c.f., Moller, 2007), research has supported notion that gender and masculinities are relational and related to power differentials (Lusher & Robbins, 2010). Like their heterosexual counterparts, YGBM are exposed to these messages regarding masculinity during critical years of development (Wilson et al., 2010). The system of hegemonic masculinity is known to be detrimental to the physical and psychological well-being of same-sex attracted men; pressure to conform to masculine norms has been linked to lower self-esteem, increased symptoms of depression and anxiety, feelings of anger, and increased health risk behaviors including alcohol abuse, drug use, and sexual risk behaviors (Carlson & Steuer, 1985; Hamilton & Mahalik, 2009; Kimmel & Mahalik, 2005; Simonsen, Blazina & Watkins, 2000).

Many fathers feel it is their personal responsibility to teach their son ‘how to be a (traditionally masculine) man’ and some consider themselves an important influence on the future sexual orientation of their son (Solebello & Elliot, 2011), further complicating a father’s response to his son’s disclosure of same-sex attraction (SSA). As a result, there seems to be a common expectation that fathers will respond to a son’s disclosure of SSA with greater distress than mothers, an expectation referred to by Wisniewski, Robinson, and Deluty (2009) as the “cultural parental gender hypothesis.” This expectation that fathers will respond more negatively than mothers to a son’s same-sex attraction has been confirmed among YGBM (Cramer & Roach, 1988; Savin-Williams, 2001; Wisniewski, Robinson & Deluty, 2009), as well as heterosexuals (Wisniewski, Robinson, & Deluty, 2009). However, evidence on whether fathers actually react with more distress to sons’ disclosure of same-sex attraction than mothers is mixed. While some studies show that more mothers are initially more accepting than fathers (Pilkington & D’Augelli, 1995; Savin-Williams, 1990) or that a greater percentage of fathers are intolerant or rejecting of YGBM’s sexual orientation (D’Augelli & Hershberger, 1993), others report more negative reactions to disclosure from mothers than fathers, including a higher incidence of verbal abuse by mothers than fathers (Savin-Williams, 1995; Savin-Williams & Dubé, 1998; Wisniewski, Robsinson & Deluty, 2009). In some prior studies, however, researchers who have sought to qualitatively describe young men’s experiences coming out to parents have concentrated heavily on mothers’ reactions (e.g., Merighi & Grimes, 2000) or have relied on an oversampling of mothers in studies that interview parents of gay and bisexual youth (e.g., Saltzburg, 2004). As a result, there is conflicting evidence about whether fathers’ actual responses to disclosure match societal expectations of how fathers will respond to coming out, or if it is attributable to the underlying assumptions embedded in the studies’ designs.

The importance of parents to the health and well-being of sexual minority youth, coupled with the knowledge that sexual minority youth are coming out to parents more often and at younger ages than in previous generations (D’Augelli, 2006; Ryan, 2003), makes it imperative that researchers and practitioners have a thorough understanding of parent-child relationships within the family system. Many contemporary studies on sexual minority youth do inquire about disclosure of their sexual orientation to family and parents’ responses, typically by asking participants to categorize how positive/negative or accepting/rejecting parents were and about the occurrence of verbal or physical abuse in response to coming out (D’Amico & Julien, 2012; Doty et al., 2010; Peplau & Beals, 2006; Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003). However, in order to inform future interventions to help families support sexual minority youth, it is necessary to gain a more nuanced understanding of adolescents’ experiences coming out to parents, how they perceive their parents’ responses, and the relationship shifts that may ensue. Given the importance of the father-son relationships and the scarcity of research looking into fathers’ responses to their sons’ coming out process, this study investigated how YGBM describe their fathers’ responses to disclosure of SSA, how responses compared to YGBM’s expectations, and what YGBM perceive as having influenced their fathers’ responses.

Methods

The current investigation is part of a larger mixed methods study designed to analyze young sexual minority men’s experiences using the Internet for dating. The current paper focuses on one domain within that study – experiences related to disclosing SSA to family – in order to explore young sexual minority men’s experiences disclosing same-sex attraction to their fathers.

Sample

Thirty participants participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews seeking to better inform HIV/AIDS prevention programs for these youth as they meet others online. To be eligible for participation in the overall study, recruits had to: be between the ages of 18 and 24 (inclusive) at the time of the interview; self-identify as non-heterosexual (i.e., gay, bisexual, questioning, etc.); report being White/Caucasian, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, or multi-racial; report having used a dating website in the past 3 months; be currently single; and reside within the United States or Puerto Rico. Participants were recruited through advertisements on two social networking sites, participant referrals, and flyers posted at local venues frequented by YGBM in a Midwestern city in the United States. Promotional materials displayed a synopsis of eligibility criteria, mentioned the $30 Visa e-gift card incentive, and provided a number to call if interested. Social network advertisements were visible only to men who listed themselves as interested in other men and who fit the age range and residential requirements.

The remaining participants (N=19) discussed their experiences disclosing SSA to their fathers and were included in the current analysis. The sample for this analysis had a median age of 22 years old. Fifteen participants identified as gay, 2 as bisexual, 1 as gay/bisexual, and 1 identified as questioning/gay. Since all included participants identified as gay or bisexual, they are referred to as young gay and bisexual men (YGBM) from here on out. The racial/ethnic composition of our sample was as follows: 13 (68.4%) self-identified as White, 5 (26.3%) as Black, and 1 (5.3%) as White/Latino. Comparative analyses by race were not conducted because of the smaller sample size and the absence of a theoretical rationale to justify making these comparisons across the narratives focused on fathers’ reactions.

Procedure

Research assistants trained in qualitative interviewing techniques conducted the interviews over the phone and in person. No differences were noted between those interviews conducted in person and those conducted by phone. Participants were asked to consent both to the interview process and to the use of an audio recorder. The interviewers began by reading a detailed consent form to each participant, explaining the purpose of the study (i.e., speaking with young sexual minority men about how they use the internet for dating) and their rights as participants. Using a semi-structured interview guide, research assistants then conducted an in-depth interview covering topic areas such as experiences using the Internet as a dating tool and the advantages and disadvantages of meeting someone through a dating website and experiences with partners met through a dating website, as well as disclosure of same-sex attraction to friends, family, and others. Interviews typically lasted sixty to ninety minutes. After each interview, the interviewer wrote down her impressions of the interview into a protocol form and subsequently debriefed with the Principal Investigator in order to encourage reflexivity during the interview process. Study data were protected by a Certificate of Confidentiality. All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

In-depth Interviews

A semi-structured qualitative interview guide was created specifically for the larger study. The interview guide was grounded in a social constructivist framework, which emphasizes the socially constructed nature of reality and focuses on the meanings participants ascribe to their experiences (Patton, 2012). The guide provided a general structure for discussion, but interviewers frequently asked participants to elaborate on their answers based on their life experiences and perceptions. For example, after asking participants “How do you identify in terms of your sexual identity?” participants were asked, “What does this sexual identity mean to you?” and “What ideas or perceptions do people have about your sexual identity?” Participants were asked: “Have you told your family about your same-sex attraction?” If yes, they were then asked, “How did they respond?” YGBM provided accounts of their own experiences, and the interviewers probed with additional questions based on participants’ responses, inviting them to discuss additional information that was not covered in the interview guide but that seemed personally relevant to their experience of coming out to family members. Participants were also asked about what they had learned about same-sex attraction at the time that they first realized they were attracted to men, and from what sources they had learned this information. In response to this question, many participants talked about what they learned from family members, including fathers.

Analytic Strategy

In conducting qualitative research, the researcher is the instrument of analysis. Because the perspective that the researcher brings to a qualitative inquiry is part of the context for the findings (Patton, 2012), it is important that qualitative researchers engage in reflexive processes, acknowledging the various facets of identity and experience that have influenced their own perspective. The primary author of this research is a White, middle-class, heterosexually-identified woman who has worked with and alongside the LGBTQ community within research, activist, and personal capacities. Throughout the analytic process, the main author participated in regular peer debriefing discussions with the contributing authors as well as other members of the research center as a means of increasing the overall trustworthiness of the study (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Peer debriefing discussions included researchers and students across the LGBTQ spectrum with varied racial/ethnic identities, educational backgrounds, and theoretical perspectives.

In the process of creating an initial codebook for the larger study focused on YGBM’s Internet use, the research team recognized the significance of the phenomenon of disclosure of SSA between YGBM and their fathers. Given the dearth of literature on this subject, tour study investigated the lived experiences of young gay and bisexual men’s experiences disclosing same-sex attraction to their fathers using a phenomenological framework (Creswell, 2007; Patton, 2012). Phenomenology is specifically focused on describing what a given group of participants have in common as they experience a particular phenomenon (Creswell, 2007). It differs from other approaches to qualitative inquiry in that the primary focus is on identifying elements of a particular phenomenon by describing both what the phenomenon is and how it is experienced by a particular group of people (Creswell, 2007). Our goal in this phenomenological analysis was to observe and analyze YGBM’s experiences coming out to their fathers, and then to provide textural descriptions of these phenomena based on summaries of the experiences described by participants. To achieve this goal, this study focused on one overarching research question: How do YGBM describe their fathers’ responses to their disclosure of same-sex attraction?

The data set for this analysis was created by reading through the data corpus, which consisted of full transcripts of interviews from the greater study, and combining all information regarding participants’ experiences surrounding ‘coming out’ or disclosure of SSA to fathers, as well as what participants learned about SSA from fathers. This document was open-coded using emergent domains, including: a) expected responses; b) how SSA was disclosed (i.e., told, found out, asked, just “knew”); c) initial responses; d) change/no change in response over time; and e) perceived cause of response (e.g., father’s religious beliefs, gender norms, sociopolitical views). A codebook was created that included operational definitions of all codes. Transcripts were then re-read and pattern codes were created to connect subsequent concepts under larger headings within each transcript. Following this, consistent patterns in meaning, concepts, and themes across all interviews were identified (Creswell, 2007; Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Through the process of inductive coding, two sub-questions evolved that served to maximize our understanding of YGBM’s experiences coming out to their fathers:

1. How did fathers’ responses to disclosure compare with YGBM’s expectations?

2. What do YGBM perceive as having influenced their fathers’ responses?

The composite descriptions of the phenomena presented in this article offer an explanation of the underlying structure which exists across the respondents’ experiences (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). In line with our phenomenological orientation, all voiced themes are presented instead of only those that were endorsed by a majority of participants in order to assure that different voices were represented in our findings and that conceptual “outliers” were not silenced by the average or dominant perspective (Creswell, 2007; Moustakas, 1994). Specific counts of the number of times each theme or sub-theme was endorsed are not presented as to not privilege any particular experience or perspective. Offering such counts may also create inaccurate accounts of the prevalence of each theme since the semi-structured qualitative interview guide used asked about whether the participant’s family knew of his same-sex attractions and did not specifically ask all participants about disclosure to their father, given that learning about young men’s disclosure of SSA to their fathers was not a primary goal of the larger study. Pseudonyms have been assigned to the participants, and any characteristics that may identify participants otherwise have been removed.

Results

YGBM reported receiving varied responses upon coming out to their fathers, ranging from enthusiastic acceptance to physical violence. Many participants spoke of receiving acceptance and support from their fathers, but this experience was not one-dimensional; fathers were accepting in different ways and often held contradictory attitudes about SSA. Additionally, fathers’ responses commonly differed from YGBM’s expectations. For some YGBM, this was because they grew up hearing homophobic talk from their fathers. Others discussed their fathers’ positive response in contrast to unsupportive responses from mothers. To further understand YGBM’s perceptions of their fathers’ reactions, this study explored what participants perceived as having influenced their fathers’ responses.

How did fathers respond to disclosure of SSA?

The narratives described by participants regarding their father’s reaction to their same-sex attraction revealed a multi-dimensional range of acceptance and rejection. Six primary thematic categories of responses from fathers to their sons’ disclosure of SSA were derived from participants’ interviews: a) immediate rejection; b) denial; c) individual acceptance/group rejection; d) support without full acceptance; e) ambivalent acceptance; and g) immediate acceptance. Within these responses, participants also spoke of instances where their father had become more accepting over time, demonstrating that fathers’ responses to sons’ SSA were not fixed events, but in fact developed and unraveled over time. This phenomenon is referred to as change in acceptance with time.

Immediate rejection

Immediate rejection is often the response expected from fathers. In the “immediate rejection” category, a father responds to his son’s disclosure of SSA with intense negative emotions or violence. This response to coming out is epitomized by Jason’s (20, questioning/gay) experience. Jason, whose father found out he was same-sex attracted when he was in tenth grade, said, “Oh my dad beat my ass (laughs).” Though Jason did not elaborate on his father’s response or his current relationship with his father, it is clear that his father’s initial response was to respond with violence – an obvious message of rejection. Beyond immediate rejection, however, participants revealed much more complex dynamics within fathers’ responses upon disclosing their SSA.

Denial

In the “denial” category, a father responds to his son’s disclosure of SSA by refusing to believe that his son is telling the truth or believing that his son’s SSA is just a phase. Lucas (22, gay) described his family’s reaction, including his father’s: “Um…they were in worse denial than I was for a long time, um, I tried coming out about three times (laughs) um, to…just like, ‘No, no that’s wrong’ (laughs) ‘you can’t be.’” Lucas said that his father and immediate family refused to believe him until he “just finally got sick of it and took a boy home for Thanksgiving in front them and extended family, and they had to deal.” Benny (24, gay) accredited his parents’ denial to the fact that his sister (and only sibling) came out as a lesbian the year before. Benny said,

I told them but they really don’t want to believe me because my sister is, you know, is a lesbian. So they really don’t want to believe me. Because they – you know – think that they’re not going to have any grandchildren. They said ‘No,’ they started yelling at me, I was yelling back and you know…

Benny, who was still living with his parents, described his sexuality as a contentious issue within their relationship.

While Lucas’s and Benny’s fathers’ denial came in the form of a continued assertion of disbelief, Jaime’s father’s denial was less of a direct challenge to Jaime’s disclosure of SSA. Jaime (24, gay) came out to his dad at age 14, after disclosing his SSA to just a few friends at school. Jaime described his experience:

And I sat him down and I told him, and he asked me if I had told anyone else. He didn’t have a really negative reaction, he had a very calm reaction, and his reaction was more along the lines of ‘OK well, I don’t want you to tell anyone right now, especially not your mom.’ He said, ‘I want you to wait six months, and if you still feel the same way, I want you to tell me, we’ll talk about it again then.’ I was like OK. Six months came and went and I never really said anything, mainly because there was [sic] some family issues then and he wasn’t living at home.

Rather than directly challenging Jaime’s coming out, his father responded initially by dismissing his SSA as likely just a phase, which allowed him to deny Jaime’s SSA after his disclosure and prevented Jaime from coming out to his mom or others.

Individual acceptance/group rejection

In the “individual acceptance /group rejection” category, a father expresses acceptance of his son but makes it clear he does not accept gay people in general or the “gay things” his son does. Seth (20, gay) seemed at ease with this inconsistency. When Seth’s dad found out he was gay, he hugged Seth and said that he loved him no matter what. Seth, however, noted the limits of his father’s approval: “So yeah, [my dad is] like, he’s accepting of me. He’s not accepting of gays though. Like he’ll accept me. He doesn’t want to hear about like, ya know, anything gay that I do necessarily.” Seth’s father was able to ‘make an exception’ for Seth, accepting him without accepting SSA overall; for his part, Seth expressed no uncertainty in his characterization of his father as accepting.

Disapproval without rejection

In the “disapproval without rejection” category, a father expresses his discomfort with or disappointment in his son’s SSA, but makes it clear to his son that he is not disowning him or rejecting him as a son. For example, Jerome (19, bisexual) said of his father’s reaction, “My dad was kinda hurt, like really, really hurt, but at the same time he wasn’t like disowning. He wasn’t like, ‘I can’t have a son like this,’ or anything like that.” Mitchell (22, gay) spoke similarly of his father’s response:

He takes it much more difficultly [than my mom]. […] But he’s not, he’s not one that’s going to talk down to me about it, and he, he tries to understand I suppose. But it’s not something that he’s really that comfortable with yet.

Both Jerome and Mitchell described their fathers as having reservations about their SSA without rejecting them.

Ambivalent acceptance

In the “ambivalent acceptance” category, a father expresses his acceptance of his son’s SSA, but his son either doesn’t believe he is being honest or feels the father is only partially OK with his SSA. Neither Scott nor Jesus felt they could trust their father’s expressions of acceptance. When Scott’s (22, gay) dad asserted his acceptance of his son’s SSA, Scott considered it too divergent from his father’s previously espoused beliefs to be credible. He described his father’s reaction: “My dad verbally says it’s OK, but I know that he absolutely hates it […] emotionally, I think he understands it intellectually.” Scott resisted taking his father’s response at face value, deeming the incongruence between his passive acceptance of Scott’s SSA and his history of being “intolerant of a lot of different things” as too great to be believable. Jesus (22, gay) spoke of a strained relationship with his father. While he revealed that his father’s attitude toward his sexuality had improved, stating “…before [my father] wasn’t OK with my sexuality, but now he is,” he soon after voiced suspicion that his dad “talks shit” about his SSA behind his back, which kept him from feeling entirely comfortable around his father. Calling upon different reasons, both Scott and Jesus remained incredulous of their father’s statements of acceptance.

Anthony (20, gay/bisexual) questioned the basis of his parents’ negative emotions after he disclosed his SSA. Anthony said that both his parents reacted “not too kindly at first, but it wasn’t because of the sex shit, it was more because of the fact they felt like I had lied to them because I didn’t tell them.” Anthony said that soon after coming out to them, though, “[…] it got to the point where I honestly felt like I was being attacked, not because of the lie but because of what I was.” Though his parents maintained they were upset by his secrecy, Anthony began to feel that his parents’ disapprobation truly stemmed from their objection to his SSA. On the other hand, for Cameron (24, bisexual), it was not that he felt his father was lying to him, but simply that he sensed his father wasn’t completely comfortable with his SSA. After describing his parents’ reaction as “supportive at first,” Cameron spoke of going to his dad for support:

[…] I feel kinda bad for my dad ‘cause he always has to – if I have any health issues or questions or feel really annoyed, I go to [my dad] and I can talk to him about it or – and he’s more open [than my mom] to like meeting people that I might be dating.

Soon after, he remarked,

[…] with my dad it’s more – he’s open but – (sigh/laugh) but I can only imagine it – that it is hard for him to hear some things and he gets really con – I think he’s mainly concerned about my health and well-being.

Cameron sensed that his father wasn’t entirely comfortable with his SSA.

Immediate acceptance

Some participants reported their fathers were immediately accepting and supportive. Aaron (22, gay) described his father as unfazed by his coming out: “[…] it was just like, ‘OK, so what’s your point?’ […] And I was able to talk to him a lot about it, and he was able to talk to my mom a lot about it as well.” Aaron’s father responded calmly to his disclosure of SSA and supported him in subsequent conversations with his mother. Abe (21, gay) described his father’s reaction: “Ah, my dad was very, very supportive. He yeah, he was the hardest one to tell and the one that took it the best. He was awesome.” Aaron’s and Abe’s stories are representative of those participants whose fathers were accepting of their SSA right away and provided support to their child immediately after disclosure.

Change in acceptance with time

Outside of these thematic categories capturing fathers’ range of acceptance and rejection, some participants reported that their father became more accepting of his SSA over time, pointing to the impermanence of the categories of response detailed above. Brent (20, gay) stated that his father initially “had issues with [his SSA],” but that over time their relationship improved; they would joke around together, and Brent commonly introduced guys he was dating to his father. Jaime (24, gay), whose father told him to wait and see if his SSA was a phase, also described how his dad’s response to his SSA evolved over time:

But then it came around over the years, like we talked about it again and, you know, it’s not – he’s like, you know, ‘I love you, and I accept you. It’s something I’m working on, but it’s not about you. It’s about me.’

Jaime’s dad reacted initially by silencing Jaime and dismissing his SSA as transient; later, his dad’s perspective shifted so that he viewed the “problem” as his own response rather than Jaime’s sexual orientation. Brent and Jaime’s narratives demonstrate that for some fathers, acceptance of a son’s SSA comes more gradually and comfort increases over time.

How did fathers’ responses compare to sons’ expectations?

A common, though not ubiquitous, theme within participants’ narratives was that fathers’ supportive responses were often incongruous with sons’ expectations. YGBM often expected that fathers would respond to their SSA negatively. They based this expectation on either: a) fathers’ past homophobic comments, or b) their own gendered parental expectations, i.e., a belief that mothers are accepting of gay sons while fathers are not.

Expected father rejection based on past homophobic comments

Participants who expected a negative response from their fathers often referred to hearing their fathers’ anti-gay talk in childhood and adolescence. Because of this, these sons assumed from a young age that their fathers would harbor the same negativity when it came to their own sexuality. Seth (20, gay) talked about the anti-gay comments his father directed toward the television: “My dad’s military, and like, I’d see stuff on the news and I’d get like red. And he would say something at the TV, and then I just like – it was understood that like it [being gay] wasn’t acceptable.” After Seth came out to his mom, he left the house while she told his dad. He explained, “I didn’t know if he’d be like angry to the point of like beating me or something or if he’d kick me out of the house.” Instead, Seth was surprised with a hug.

And when I got back, he hugged me, and he said, ‘I’ll love you no matter what, it doesn’t matter what you do in your personal life, blah blah.’ And that was it. And he’s like fine, and he’ll ask me about stuff… it was so much less dramatic than I thought it would be.

When asked about what he learned about SSA growing up, Seth thought back and analyzed the discrepancy between the homophobic comments he heard from his father and the response he received, surmising that his father had in fact known that he was attracted to the same sex and wanted to postpone Seth’s coming out.

So I think he said that kinda stuff for like my siblings, so that – like I don’t think it was meant cruelly, but I think he didn’t want to hear it for himself. So if he said that stuff he could postpone it.

Seth perceived his father’s motivation for making anti-gay comments as an attempt to buy time before he had to truly face Seth’s sexuality and prevent his younger siblings from becoming aware of Seth’s SSA, as well as his father’s tolerance of it.

Brent (20, gay) also described how his father’s derogatory comments affected him during childhood:

My dad was the kind of person – he would see things on TV and be like, ‘Oh that guy’s a fag,’ or he would say things like that… This guy [on TV] feels the same way [as me], but my dad’s saying these things to him like it is not OK. Or is it just not OK for my dad.

For Brent, hearing his dad criticize TV characters he identified with was the equivalent of criticizing Brent directly; he interpreted the remarks as a proxy for how his dad would feel about his SSA. Brent stated that though his father initially “had issues” with his SSA, their relationship evolved from discomfort to mutual light-hearted teasing, “[Now] we joke about it. […] He always picks on me and sometimes says stupid things, so then I just throw it right back at him and he’s used to it, ya know.” Both Brent and Seth discovered their fathers’ responses to their own SSA differed from the homophobic sentiment they directed toward the TV throughout their childhood.

Expected father rejection based on parental gender differences

When reflecting on the discrepancy between the responses anticipated from fathers and their actual responses, other participants contrasted the supportive responses they received from their father with unsupportive responses from their mother, exposing the gendered nature of their expectations. Aaron (22, gay) described his dad’s low-key response to his divulgence of SSA as the complete opposite of his mom’s reaction.

[My mom], um, she freaked out and she wouldn’t look at me for a little while… And I’ve always thought that was kind of funny, where generally the mom is like the more accepting of the parents, the more willing to have a gay son. But I guess that wasn’t the case with me, and my dad was very OK with it.

Aaron reflected that his parents’ reactions diverged from his expectation. His narrative explicitly spelled out the belief that mothers are accepting of gay sons while fathers are not, an expectation alluded to by other participants. He was surprised by his father’s easygoing response and his “[willingness] to have a gay son,” and said that his dad contributed to his mom’s eventual acceptance of Aaron as a gay man.

What do YGBM identify as influencing their fathers’ responses?

Many participants stated or alluded to reasons for their fathers’ responses to their disclosure of SSA. In our analyses, the research team observed that hegemonic masculinity permeated YGBM’s narratives on why their fathers responded the way that they did. YGBM cited a) gender norms, b) their fathers’ beliefs regarding the cause of SSA, c) religious views, d) sociopolitical views, and d) concerns about HIV/AIDS as having influenced their fathers’ responses, providing further insight into the processes shaping how and why fathers react to their sons’ disclosure of SSA. The fact that each of the perceived influences called upon by the YGBM in this study can be linked to hegemonic masculinity is a testament to its pervasive nature in our society today.

Gender norms

Some YGBM referred directly to the influence of gender or masculinity norms on their fathers’ reactions. SSA was perceived as synonymous with femininity or a lack of masculinity. Harold (24, gay) was seen by his stepfather as transgressing the norms of hegemonic masculinity and received negative feedback in response. Even though he was “in the closet,” Harold said that his stepfather “just saw the signs” and knew of his SSA. Harold recalled, “He would always, you know, jokingly go around and say, ‘Oh, sissified this and that, sissified this and that,’ but he was never a cruel person.” Harold’s stepfather’s only acknowledgement of his SSA was teasing about behavior that was considered too feminine.

Other YGBM reported increased acceptance of their SSA based on conformity to masculinity norms. Brent (20, gay) explained his dad’s surprise at being able to bond with Brent’s boyfriends.

Like I’ve come home with guys, ya know, and been like, ‘OK, this is who I’m dating.’ He shakes their hand, and a lot of times they have something in common, ‘cuz I think at first my dad assumed, ‘Well they’re gay, they’re gonna be like girls.’ But some of them watch football, ya know, there’s like that kind of bond that they can get.

For Brent’s dad, finding that his son’s boyfriends liked football and conformed to traditional gender norms allowed him to move beyond his discomfort with their sexual orientation. These young men perceived their fathers’ responses to their disclosure of SSA as hinging on whether or not they (or the men they dated) overstepped their fathers’ idea of hegemonically masculine behavior.

Beliefs on cause of SSA

Other YGBM’s narratives about coming out to family included the underlying belief that SSA was caused by trauma. Lucas (22, gay) remembered his dad’s inquiry about the cause of his SSA:

Um (sigh) when I came out to my dad, he asked if I had been like, raped or molested when I was a kid because [he] automatically jumped to the conclusion that, ‘Well, that’s the only reason someone’s gay, is because you know, some traumatic sexual thing that happened to them when they were a kid.’ So that’s like, no, that’s not the case at all.

Lucas corrected his father’s belief, asserting that sexual trauma did not cause his SSA. When Will (24, gay) was asked how his family responded to his SSA, he said, “Um, not the greatest.” Will explained:

Um, [my parents] did the whole blame game because I was with my mother and for the longest period of time she lived with her parents before she struck out on her own. The house, I had my grandfather and my uncle there, and they weren’t the greatest of male role models so I just never looked to them for anything and I ended up gravitating toward female tendencies, a little effeminate. Um, so my dad took that as it was due to that that caused it, but I don’t think that it’s a learned behavior, personally.

Will’s father seemed to believe that having a lack of positive male role models in the home made Will effeminate, which was linked to his SSA.

For these fathers, personal beliefs on the cause of SSA seemed to have colored their responses to their sons’ sexuality. With the promulgation of homosexuality as unnatural, it appears some fathers come to believe in various external causes of homosexuality in order to comprehend this departure from hegemonic norms and, possibly, to redirect away from themselves any ‘blame’ for having played a part in the development of their son’s SSA.

Religious views

Some participants evoked religion to explain their father’s response to their SSA. Will (24, gay) asserted that though the rest of his family was understanding about his SSA, “the parents – no go. And a lot of that has to do with religion.” Will chuckled as he offered his explanation, “Um, mom’s Jehovah’s witness, dad’s Catholic.” Mitchell (22, gay) said that, compared to his mom, his dad “takes [his SSA] much more difficultly. He is kind of, he’s very involved in like the Catholic Church, and he still believes that I’m making a choice.” Mitchell attributed the difference between his parents’ responses to his SSA to his father’s greater religious involvement. Unlike with other perceived influences described here, neither Will nor Mitchell provided any detail about why they perceived their fathers’ religious views as having negatively influenced his response; it was as though the link between religion and anti-homosexuality attitudes were believed to be implicit and obvious.

Sociopolitical views

In addition to religion, some YGBM explained their father’s response by calling upon his sociopolitical views. Scott (22, gay), who believed his father understood his SSA intellectually but not emotionally, felt his dad’s conservative sociopolitical views, as well as his prejudice against other minorities, was telling of his reaction. Scott explained,

[My dad] is like comically cliché in like his identity. Like he is a redneck republican Texan, who uses the N-word frequently, like is very just intolerant. He’s smart, and he knows he does, so he kinda, he kinda jokes about these intolerances, but when it comes down to it he definitely has like a deep-rooted like hate for a lot of minorities that sexual, [ethnic], racially. Yeah I dunno, he’s very intolerant of a lot of different things.

Scott deemed his father’s current proclamation of acceptance too divergent from his conservative views and past attitudes to be trustworthy.

On the other hand, Bryce (20, gay) attributed his dad’s response to his parents’ progressive values. Bryce related his parents’ reaction: “They were like, ‘Oh really, that’s adorable.’ You know, that was it, I got lucky.” He credited their supportive response to his parents’ liberal sociopolitical identities and related values, explaining, “You know, that’s it, they are culturally understanding, and sexually understanding, and just across the board understanding. My mom’s a Dead Head … [My dad] married her. You know, they get it. It’s fine.” Bryce called upon his mom’s identity as a follower of the Grateful Dead (i.e., a “Dead Head”) to stand for her liberal sociopolitical identity and offered his dad’s marriage to her as evidence of his similar identity. Bryce was unsurprised by his parents’ reaction; the fact that they were unfazed by his disclosure of his SSA was in keeping with their existing attitudes.

Concerns about HIV/AIDS

Other fathers responded to their son’s coming out by bringing up what they saw as the health implications of SSA, particularly HIV/AIDS. The high incidence of HIV among men who have sex with men may raise concerns about the sexual health of YGBM. However, not all YGBM acquire HIV, as it is linked to behaviors and not attractions. Therefore, the automatic conceptual link between SSA and HIV/AIDS risk behaviors may be illustrative of the stigma that surrounds young men’s SSA. Lucas (22, gay), whose father initially believed his SSA was caused by sexual trauma, recounted having to come out to his family three times before they finally believed him. He said,

Um…more of the times when I was trying to come out to my dad – like the first thing, one of the things he had brought up was like, ‘Well do you want AIDS? You know that’s what, “‘Cause that’s what’s gonna happen,’ and stuff.

Lucas’s father used the threat of HIV as ammunition against Lucas upon his disclosure of SSA, declaring that he must “want AIDS” if he was gay. His response illuminates this father’s inability to understand a sexuality that diverges from that endorsed by hegemonic masculinity. In categorizing a gay sexuality as voluntary and nothing more than a quest for disease, Lucas’s father underscores the invisibility of the social construction of dominant sexualities and masculinities, not to mention how this social construction affects the transmission of HIV.

While some fathers appeared to use the higher incidence of HIV among gay and bisexual men as a type of argument against same-sex attraction, other fathers tried to unpack the connection between same-sex attraction and HIV. For example, Cameron’s (24, bisexual) father also expressed concerns about HIV/AIDS after he came out. Cameron recalled, “[…] and um, my dad – immediately the next day we had a conversation about AIDS and how he was concerned about my health and um, it kinda become the elephant in the room […]” Though Cameron’s father also immediately associated his son’s SSA with HIV risk, his apprehension inspired him to become a source of support for Cameron, who stated, “[…] if I have any health issues or questions or feel really annoyed, I go to [my dad] and I can talk to him about it […]”. Lucas’s and Cameron’s narratives illuminate how similar perceptions of HIV/AIDS risk can be acted on differently by fathers who are in different places with regard to acceptance of their son’s SSA.

Discussion

The narratives of this group of young gay and bisexual men suggest that fathers’ responses to YGBM’s coming out cannot be dichotomized simply as “rejecting” vs. “accepting” or “supportive” vs. “unsupportive.” Within participants’ descriptions of their father’s response to their coming out, six primary thematic categories were identified: immediate rejection, denial, individual acceptance/group rejection, support without full acceptance, ambivalent acceptance, and immediate acceptance. Few participants spoke of outright rejection and many described receiving unanticipated support. Analyses revealed that numerous fathers whom participants designated as “accepting” in fact held reservations about their sons’ SSA (categorized thematically as “support without full acceptance” or “ambivalent acceptance,” depending on the context) or held reservations about same-sex attraction in general (designated as “individual acceptance/group rejection”). YGBM differed with regard to how they responded to their fathers’ ambiguity; some perceived their father as supportive despite these inconsistencies, but others had more difficulty reconciling their father’s ambiguity regarding their SSA. Multiple young men spoke of how their father’s response to their SSA changed since their initial ‘coming out,’ highlighting how fathers’ responses are not necessarily static but may evolve over time.

Fathers’ responses were nuanced and, though certainly not all instantly accepting, it was clear that many attempted to move beyond discomfort and adjust their own attitudes and beliefs in order to accommodate a same-sex attracted son. The research team views this as an indication that fathers’ responses may be malleable to intervention. While it is known that negative or rejecting responses are detrimental and positive or accepting responses are supplemental to the health and well-being of sexual minority youth (Bouris et al., 2010; Bregman, et al., 2012; Darby-Mullins & Murdock, 2007; Ryan et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2010), the current findings lead us to question 1) whether the different types of acceptance described above might differentially affect the health and well-being of YGBM, and 2) how this may change over time. Furthermore, YGBM themselves hold different conceptualizations of what an accepting response is, and how much ambiguity they will tolerate within their father’s acceptance. How YGBM feel about their father’s response must also be considered, as well as how this impacts mental health and well-being. Future research that examines father-son dyads over time may help to elucidate some of these complex mechanisms and aid us to identify which components of their relationship may be most suitable and effective for intervention.

The qualitative nature of our study allows us to make potential recommendations to advance the current theoretical measurement of fathers’ reactions to YGBM’s sexuality in survey research. Although prior survey work in this area has inquired about YGBM’s experiences coming out to family by having participants indicate the extent to which a parent’s response is supportive/unsupportive or accepting/rejecting (e.g., Savin-Williams, 1990; D’Augelli, 2002), the nuanced experiences expressed by YGBM as they disclosed their SSA to their fathers may not be adequately captured using this method. In light of these findings, a shift in how fathers’ responses to their sons’ disclosure of SSA is assessed in survey research in order to accurately represent YGBM’s experiences may be warranted. Such a measure should take into account the different degrees or types of acceptance that YGBM may receive from fathers and inquire about any ambiguities or contradictions within fathers’ reactions. Inquiry on response to disclosure of SSA should also ask how the participant feels about his father’s response, as his own feelings about his father’s response may have a large bearing on how the paternal disclosure affects YGBM’s mental health and well-being. Finally, a father’s response to his son’s disclosure of SSA should ideally be asked about over time in order to capture whether change occurred since initial disclosure. This shift in asking about father’s response to disclosure of SSA will provide a better understanding of how family processes unfold after disclosure of SSA, allowing the design of interventions that are relevant and that appropriately address the issues with which families need help.

The pervasive influence of hegemonic masculinity

Hegemonic masculinity, defined by Connell (1995) as a set of socially accepted masculine behaviors and beliefs designed to legitimate male power, permeates the socio-ecologic systems of both YGBM and fathers. Men of all ages are bombarded by messages from the media, interpersonal interactions, and institutions (such as schools, religious institutions, and governments) that enforce and reproduce rigid standards regarding sexuality and masculinity.

Given this, it is unsurprising that many young men in this study expected that fathers would respond to their SSA negatively. Hegemonic masculinity norms were imbued within each of the two main forces participants spoke of having shaped their expectations for a negative response: parental gender differences and fathers’ past homophobic statements. Participants’ narratives included some evidence of tension within sons’ expectations for how their father vs. mother would respond to his disclosure of SSA, consistent with Wisniewski, Robinson & Deluty’s (2009) “cultural parental gender hypothesis.” It was expected by participants that mothers would be more accepting of a son’s SSA because of presumed ‘gender differences’ between parents. This belief is illustrative of the fact that, though certainly not beyond the persistent influence of hegemonic masculinity, mothers are not personally held to the standards of hegemonic masculinity. Nevertheless, as several of our participants reported, the expectation that mothers will be more accepting or supportive of SSA than fathers does not always play out. Several fathers, in fact, were described as vital in helping participants’ mothers become more accepting of their son’s SSA.

Participants also recalled predominantly homophobic conversations about sexuality with their fathers throughout childhood, influencing their anticipated responses to coming out. The use of derogatory comments is consistent with Solebello and Elliott’s (2001) findings that fathers may use anti-gay comments to communicate that SSA is not the dominant/ideal masculinity. The use of homophobic messages as a strategy to reinforce hegemonic masculinity and model how to be a traditionally masculine, heterosexual male has been noted previously (Donaldson, 1993). Since some fathers “see themselves as pivotal in directing their sons’ future sexual preferences,” (Solebello & Elliott, 2011, p. 302), even a father who suspects his son may be same-sex attracted may continue making anti-gay comments in an attempt to direct his son toward heterosexuality. Alternatively, a father who does recognize the difference between his son’s sexual orientation and the performance of his masculinity may make anti-gay comments not in attempt to shape his son’s sexuality, but to shape his performance of masculinity. Fathers may be trying to protect their sons or the family from the discrimination they may experience if he is perceived as either gender atypical or gay. Finally, homophobic comments from fathers may not be purposive, but may truly be offhand remarks simply replicating societal values of hegemonic masculinity without thought to the messages this may be sending sons. Regardless of the motives behind them, anti-gay comments from fathers left sons apprehensive and sometimes fearful about disclosing their same-sex attractions.

In many cases, however, YGBM were taken aback by the fact that their fathers did not reject them, but provided love and (some degree of) acceptance instead. One possible explanation for the incongruence between sons’ expectations and fathers’ responses may be that YGBM ‘misread’ the degree to which their fathers subscribed to hegemonic models of masculinity. In a qualitative study with Australian fathers and their heterosexual adolescent sons, Kirkman, Rosenthal, and Feldman (2001) documented a disconnect between what fathers communicated and what their adolescents heard. Fathers expressed a desire to embrace aspects of fatherhood (e.g., intimacy, affection) that did not fall within traditional masculinity. At the same time, however, fathers voiced discomfort in transgressing masculinity norms, and often used humor as a way of dispelling their discomfort when talking about sexuality with their sons. Interpreting their fathers’ joking tone as sarcastic in intent, sons felt that the messages were reaffirming (rather than dispelling) their fathers’ promotion of hegemonic masculinity. Kirkman et al.’s (2001) findings align with our participants’ experiences of father-son communication, underscoring the relevance of addressing and challenging normative assumptions regarding masculinity – particularly as they relate to fatherhood and same-sex sexuality. Interventions that facilitate fathers and sons’ discussions of masculinity and improve their communication skills, particularly with regard to sexuality, may be warranted. The fact that the fathers who made openly homophobic remarks about men on TV did not react to their son’s SSA with similar rejection was both a surprise to participants and a hint to researchers to further explore the underlying processes surrounding fathers’ communications with their sons regarding sexuality. Overall, the picture painted by these participants’ stories refuted the common cultural narrative that fathers will necessarily reject SSA sons.

The manifestation of hegemonic masculinity across different domains (gender norms, father’s beliefs regarding the cause of SSA, religious views, sociopolitical views, and concerns about HIV/AIDS) showcases how difficult it is to escape this hegemonically masculine and heteronormative paradigm. YGBM perceive that, in different spheres, fathers are wrestling with hegemonic masculinity; therefore, we believe the development of an intervention to assist with the process of both critically analyzing and resisting hegemonic masculinity is warranted. Though more research with both YGBM and their fathers is needed in order to design an intervention, our data identify some important topics to include in a father-son intervention designed to increase fathers’ acceptance and support of same-sex attracted sons. Although not previously done with same-sex attracted youth, interventions such as the Fathers and Sons Project (Caldwell, Wright, Zimmerman, Walsemann, Williams & Isichei, 2004; Caldwell et al., 2010) and R.E.A.L. MEN (DiIorio, McCarty, Resnicow, Lehr & Denzmore, 2007) have proven the feasibility and efficacy of father-son interventions. The finding that fathers’ responses to their sons’ SSA were not definitive – that participants in fact perceived shifts over time in their fathers’ attitudes regarding their SSA, often moving toward increased acceptance – points toward the feasibility of an intervention for YGBM and their fathers.

The goal of such an intervention would be to increase fathers’ acceptance of their same-sex attracted sons, improve father-son communication, and increase father-son prosocial activities and, in so doing, change the social ecology of YGBM’s home environment. In affecting a father’s level of acceptance of his same-sex attracted son and increasing his awareness of the damaging effects of hegemonic masculinity, not only is any victimizing behavior on the part of the father stopped, but the father is in a position to provide support to his son to help fend off the negative effects of victimization/minority stressors from other sources. Future research should focus on the ways in which increased father acceptance and support affects the mental health and well-being of YGBM.

Study strengths and limitations

The current analysis examined how young gay and bisexual men perceived their fathers’ responses to their disclosure of SSA. The findings must be interpreted within this context – this study did not interview fathers of young gay and bisexual men, and therefore it is unknown whether participants’ fathers would agree with their son’s report of their response to his coming out or what influenced his response. Future research directly with fathers and with father-son dyads is needed to better understand how a son’s disclosure of SSA to his father affects the mental health and well-being fathers, if and how fathers perceive their attitudes toward having a gay or bisexual son change with time, and what fathers perceive as influencing their responses. Despite this need, understanding fathers’ responses as currently perceived by YGBM is still a valid and vital enterprise. After all, it is YGBM’s perceptions of their father’s attitudes about their SSA that will affect their mental health and well-being.

Whereas adolescents are likely to focus primarily on how a father’s response affected them, many of the YGBM interviewed had clearly also thought through the experience from their father’s point of view. Participants seemed able to piece together instances of what they learned about SSA from fathers growing up and the various identities and values held by fathers to analyze and make sense of their father’s response, and many expressed an understanding of the struggle their father faced in coming to terms with his coming out. However, future longitudinal research with both YGBM and their fathers would be beneficial, allowing for an exploration of these processes as they unfold. In addition, we felt that a methodological limitation of this study was that member-checking interviews with participants were not conducted. Such interviews might have given us the opportunity to further explore the issues raised above, providing additional insight into these processes.

Conclusion

Fathers’ responses to their sons’ disclosure of SSA were diverse; many recounted receiving acceptance and support from their fathers. Fathers’ acceptance was not one-dimensional – instead YGBM described receiving different degrees or types of acceptance. For some, acceptance changed over time, and for others, fathers’ acceptance was riddled with contradictions. As such, it is the authors’ belief that research on YGBM (and LGBT adolescents and emergent adults more broadly) should make an attempt to move beyond questions that dichotomize youth’s experiences coming out to family as accepting or rejecting and allow for the expression of ambiguities and change within family members’ responses. In some cases, a father’s level of acceptance was reported to increase over time. The fact that some YGBM spoke of fathers who worked through their own discomfort and homophobia to provide their sons with support points toward the feasibility of a father-son intervention for YGBM and their fathers designed to facilitate this process. Participants’ perceptions of what influenced their father’s responses shared the common link of hegemonic masculinity; these perceived influences begin to illuminate some of the topics important to address in such an intervention. Overall, the varied and often complex reactions of fathers to sons’ disclosure of SSA reported by participants in this study gives a glimpse into the complex processes both fathers and sons navigate in acknowledging and coming to terms with a son’s SSA.