Same-Sex Attraction Disclosure and Sexual Communication Topics within Families

Abstract

Few studies compare family communication about sex and relationships for sexual minority youth versus hetero-sexual teenagers. Further, existing studies often focus on mothers, overlooking fathers and extended family. Our survey of 952 adolescents aged 14–21 included 115 adolescents disclosing non-heterosexual attraction. Mothers offered more sexual protection methods messages to their non-SM teens, whereas fathers talked less with SM teens about risks of sex and relational sex. Most participants identified mothers, sisters, and female cousins, with male SMs having the highest number of disclosures to family members, whereas female and non-binary SMs confided in fewer family members or no one.

Sexual minority youth are more vulnerable to negative experiences and health risks across multiple domains compared to their heterosexual peers. Sexual minority youth are more likely to face bullying at school (Mitchum & Moodie–Mills, 2014), dating violence and sexual coercion (Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA, 2016; Dank et al., 2014), rejection or victimization by parents or caregivers than their heterosexual counterparts. Based on the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), high-school-aged sexual minority youth were more likely than heterosexual youth to have sex (51% vs. 41%), have sex before age 13 (7% vs. 3%), and to have had sex with four or more people (15% vs. 11%) (Kann et al., 2016). They are at higher risk than nonsexual minority youth for HIV infection and other sexually transmitted diseases (Kann et al., 2018).

Sexual risk also varies within sexual minority groups. For example, 70% of those newly diagnosed HIV in the USA were gay and bisexual men (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Black men who have sex with men have the highest HIV rates of any group, accounting for 26% of new HIV diagnoses in the USA (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2019). Among Black and Latinx adolescent and adult males, most newly diagnosed cases are from male-to-male sexual contact (80% for Black men and 86% for Latinx men) (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2018). Sexual minority youth who had sexual contact with both males and females also showed higher risk for having four or more sexual partners and using alcohol or drugs before sex (Rasberry et al., 2018). This study will only focus on GLBQ individuals since the gender history, gender identity, sexual orientation, and coming-out experiences of transgender and transsexual coming-out experiences are unique from those of cisgender individuals (Zimman, 2009).

Family communication about sex and relationships can support adolescent sexual health. Parent–teen sexuality communication is associated with delayed sex (Grossman et al., 2014; Usher-Seriki et al., 2008) and lower levels of sexual risk behavior (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2012; Widman et al., 2016). Talk with non-parental family members, such as aunts and uncles, siblings, and cousins, can also be protective and is associated with having fewer sexual partners (Grossman et al., 2019). Talk with family about sex and relationships may be particularly important for SM youth, based on their high levels of sexual risk behavior (Kann et al., 2016). However, few studies assess how family communication about sex and relationships for SM youth compares to communication with heterosexual youth. Further, existing studies focus on adolescent communication with parents (primarily mothers) and largely exclude fathers and extended family (Widman et al., 2016) who may provide additional supports for SM adolescent sexual health.

Adolescents’ conversations with their families about sex and relationships include topics such as such as facts about sex and reproduction, information about protection methods, and discussion of what is healthy and unhealthy in relationships (Grossman et al., 2018; Harper et al., 2012). One aspect of these family conversations relates to a teen’s own relationships and sexuality, including their sexual orientation (Grossman et al., 2020). When addressing teens’ relationships and sexuality, SM youth face complexities regarding whether they talk with their family members about their sexual orientation. The effects of coming out to parents are mixed regarding its relationship with adolescent health. Disclosure to parents about sexual orientation can be positive for SM teens as it is associated with higher levels of parental acceptance (D’Amico & Julien, 2012) and support (D’Augelli et al., 2005). However, coming out also can put a strain on parental relationships (Feinstein et al., 2018) and elicit violent responses from family members (Himmelstein & Bruckner,€ 2011; Jadwin-Cakmak et al., 2015).

Based on gaps in existing research on how SM teenagers talk with parents and extended family members about sex and relationships and talk with family members about their sexual orientations, this study addresses: 1) how SM teens talk with their mothers, fathers, and extended family members about sex and relationships compared to heterosexual teens, and 2) within SM teens, whether and with which family members do teens talk with about their sexual orientation.

Family communication about sex and relationships

Sexual socialization theory (Shtarkshall et al., 2007) provides a framework to understand how adolescents and their families talk about sex and the messages conveyed through these conversations. Sexual socialization involves the acquisition of the codes of conduct, understanding beliefs and values, and shared cultural symbols, often through the process of family conversations that socialize adolescents about expectations and values about sex and relationships (Deutsch & Crockett, 2016; Kuhle et al., 2015). These sexual socialization messages are often shared by parents (Shtarkshall et al., 2007; Ward, 2003); however, many teens turn to other members of the family for these conversations (Harper et al., 2012; Teitelman et al., 2009); particularly, SM youth may not always feel that they can turn to parents to talk about sexual issues (Friedman & Morgan, 2009). For instance, since aunts are often thought of as more neutral, less judgmental, and have less responsibility to enforce rules than parents, and sexual minority youth may feel more comfortable discussing sex and relationships with them (Grafsky et al., 2018).

Studies show mixed results regarding the content and frequency of SM adolescent talk with parents about sex. A study of SM youth found that they reported frequent conversations with their parents about sexual orientation, HIV/AIDS, and sexual behavior (Rose et al., 2014). A recent study of parents’ perspectives on conversations about sex with their SM teenagers found that over 77% of parents talked with their teens about protection and 48% talked about health risks of sex. While most parents felt able to talk with their SM teens about sex, they struggled with lack of knowledge about sexual issues specific to SM groups (Newcomb et al., 2018). Studies have found that parents of SM youth avoided talking with teens due to discomfort discussing same-sex sexuality (LaSala, 2015) and lack of knowledge about SM sexual issues (Rose & Friedman, 2017).

Family sexuality communication is also shaped by teens’ and their families’ cultural background. Within Latino families, traditional cultural values may hinder family sexuality communication (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2006; Murphy-Erby et al., 2011). Studies show that Latina mothers are concerned about adolescents’ risky sexual behavior, but struggle with cultural taboos regarding talk about sex (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2006). Both parents and extended family may play key roles in Latinx families, consistent with cultural values of familismo, which include expectations of support from family and reliance on relatives for guidance on life choices (Knight & Sayegh, 2010). This protection of the family closeness values can also backfire. Prior studies have demonstrated that mothers of SM Latinx youth often focus on concealing the SM identities from the rest of the family due to homophobic and heteronormative discourses in Latinx communities and in the larger society (Garcia, 2009). Some Latinx SM youth have used strategies to avoid disclosure of same-sex attractions to preserve family harmony and protect themselves against rejection (Yon-Leau & Muñoz-Laboy, 2010).

Studies of SM youth experiences of family sexuality communication are mixed regarding the effects of talk with a parent about sex. A study of male SM youth found that those who talk with mothers about same-sex behavior were more likely to report regular testing for HIV (Bouris et al., 2015). Another study found that SM youth who engage in low-conflict communication with their parents were less likely to report sexual risk behavior (LaSala et al., 2016). In contrast, another study of SM youth found that higher levels of parental communication about sex were associated with higher risk of unprotected intercourse for teens who had come out to their parents (Thoma & Huebner, 2014).

Few studies compare family sexuality communication among SM and non-SM youth, or assess sexuality communication between SM youth and non-parental family members. In a prior qualitative study (Friedman & Morgan, 2009) comparing the sexual communication between SM and non-SM young women and their parents, researchers found that although SM and non-SM participants talked about similar sexual topics with their parents, SM women were less likely than non-SM women to discuss any issues related to sexual behavior or sexual health with their parents and the focus of these conversation was often on heterosexual sex. The authors hypothesize that the SM women had fewer sources of social support for discussing sexual issues. Our current study compares the range of topics discussed in families with SM adolescents versus families with heterosexual adolescents in order to illuminate any differences in content that they receive from different members of the family.

Disclosing same-sex attraction to parents

Disclosing same-sex attraction to family is a unique challenge faced by many SM youth. In most families, parent/guardians assume that their children are heterosexual and therefore see examining one’s sexual attraction to a particular gender as unnecessary unless there are signs indicating otherwise (Hillier, 2002). Most parent–teen communication about sex focuses on abstinence, safer sex, sexually transmitted infections, sexual values, and dating (Stidham-Hall et al., 2012; Wright, 2009). Rarely does sex-related communication focus on the sex of the partner (Rosenthal et al., 1998). Prior research has demonstrated a gender divide in terms of how youth communicates with each parent about same-sex attraction: young people are more likely to directly communicate to their mothers and indirectly communicate with their fathers for instance, by allowing them to find out passively or from others (Savin-Williams, 1998, 2003). A recent study found that SM participants were more likely to reveal their sexual orientation to a mother (71%) than father (55%), with female participants more likely than male participants to hide their identity from fathers (Pistella et al., 2019). Another study also found that young women were also more likely to disclose their same-sex desire to their mothers (47%) than fathers (24%), which the researchers suggest reflects young people’s greater investment in the maternal relationship than the paternal relationship (Boxer et al., 1991). In other words, since many were not close to their fathers, it did not matter as much whether or not he knew about the same-sex attraction compared to the mother being in the know (Savin-Williams, 2003).

Culture intersects with sexual orientation to shape young people’s coming out experiences (Aranda et al., 2015). Latinx sexual minority young people face challenges on multiple levels, including prejudice against their sexual orientation and racial/ethnic discrimination (National Institutes of Health, 2011) and may experience a lack of support from both mainstream Latinx and LGB communities (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). Latino sexual minority young adults report less family acceptance than White sexual minority young adults (Ryan et al., 2010), which may in part relate to machismo, which is associated with prejudice against LGB populations (Hirai et al., 2014). In addition, the cultural value of familism may prevent sexual minority youth from coming out (Muñoz-Laboy, 2008) as coming out may be seen as disrespectful to the family (Villicana et al., 2016). In a study of coming out among lesbians of color, the findings showed that that 75% of participants reported that their mothers knew about their sexual orientation, 58% reported their fathers knew, and 84% reported a sibling knew (Aranda et al., 2015). A study of Latino gay men found that participants reported that 62% of their mothers and 44% of their fathers knew about their sexual orientation (Mitrani et al., 2017).

Disclosure to other family members

A growing body of research explores adolescent experiences of coming out to siblings (e.g., Beals & Peplau, 2006; Grafsky et al., 2018), but few studies explore coming out to family members beyond the nuclear family. Studies suggest that between 30% and 62% of SM youth retrospectively recalled disclosure to at least one sibling (Beals & Peplau, 2006; D’Augelli, 1991; Grafsky et al., 2018; Savin-Williams, 2001) and may be more likely to disclose to a female than male sibling (D’Augelli, 1991; Grafsky et al., 2018; Pistella et al., 2019). Prior research has suggested that siblings are often told about same-sex attraction before parents (Murray, 1994; Savin-Williams, 2001). Recently, a study by Grafsky et al. (2018) demonstrated that although 84% of siblings were aware of their brother or sister’s sexual attraction status, and only 62% of their SM siblings intentionally disclosed their status to them with 82% intentionally coming out to mothers. This may indicate an upward trend toward being able to disclose minority sexual orientation status to nuclear family members compared to in the past.

Fewer studies examine disclosing to nonnuclear family members. Grafsky et al. (2018) demonstrated the salience of aunts and “fictive kin” (e.g., godparents, family friends, best friends) as neutral resources for SM youths to turn to when disclosing their sexual orientation. Other studies suggested that parents may discourage teens from disclosing same-sex attraction to heterosexual family members outside of the household, particularly from those who will be least likely to respond positively (Demo & Allen, 1996; Garnets & Kimmel, 1993). In addition, a prior study (Boxer et al., 1991) found that the gender of the family member one discloses to matters such that gay and bisexual boys were more likely to turn to non-parental female than male relatives.

The current study

This paper addresses two unique aspects of family sexuality communication. First, it compares family sexuality communication for SM and non-SM adolescents. The vast preponderance of research on SM youth is drawn from populations that have already identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer. This study draws from a general, more representative sample of high-school aged-adolescents from public schools that represent the diverse communities in which they reside. The advantages of drawing from a dataset that was not exclusively focused on SM-identified youth include the following: a) the ability to compare SM and non-SM identified youth and their sexual communication with family members and b) including perspectives of a range of SM youth on the sexual orientation spectrum: adolescents who have questioned their attraction to the opposite sex or have identified a same-sex attraction. Second, this study investigates which family members SM youth disclose their same-sex attraction to and comparing how mothers, fathers, and non-parental family members communicate about different sexual topics with SM youth. Further, with few exceptions (e.g., Savin-Williams, 1998, 2003), few studies examine the role of teen gender in who teens come out to in their families. Most prior studies focus on adolescents coming out to mothers (often excluding fathers and other family members). This study includes male, female, and non-binary identified teenagers, bolstering research on coming out, which often focuses on young men who have sex with other men (at the expense of learning about sexual minority women’s experiences of disclosure) (Johns et al., 2018).

To address gaps in existing research, in this study we explore the following questions:

RQ1: Are there significant differences in sexual topics that mothers, fathers and extended family members discuss with their questioning and SM youth vs. heterosexual youth?

RQ2: Who and how many family members and trusted others do these questioning and SM-identified adolescents talk to about their sexual attraction, and how does it vary based on adolescent gender identity?

Methods

Participants

This study consists of a larger study and a substudy. The larger study was a survey sample of 967 students. Fifteen surveys were excluded since students agreed to participate but did not answer any of the survey questions. Participants (n=952) were primarily female (54%) or male (44%) and a few participants self-identified as neither male or female (0.6%) or not sure (0.7%). Participants’ age ranged from 14 to 21 with an average of 17.02 (SD=.94). The majority of the sample identified as Latinx (53%), and 17% identified as Black, 16% as White, 7% as Asian, 2% as Biracial, and 4% as other race. Fifty-eight percent reported living in a two-parent household and in 5% of households a non-parental figure was the primary caregiver. Average mother’s education was a high-school diploma. The main survey study sample (n=952) was used to address RQ1.

SM Subsample.

Using the participants from the main study, we selected out a subsample of 115 participants (13%) who identified as having a non-heteronormative sexual attraction, which included all types of attraction other than opposite sex attraction. Since this sample did not intentionally sample a same-sex attraction identified population, but rather more representative, school-based sample, we prefer to use the term SM to encompass a broader spectrum of youths ranging from those who have only just begun to question their sexual orientation as well as those who have already identified themselves as SM. The SM sample was 67% female, 25% male, and 8% neither or not sure. Average age was 17.10 (SD=.97), and mother’s average level of education was technical or vocation training post high school. Forty-seven percent lived in a two-parent household. Similar to the main study sample, 55% of the SM identified their race/ethnicity as Latinx, 20% as White, 11% as Black, 8% as Asian, and 6% as other. In terms of sexual behaviors, 35% of the non-SM sample and 33% of the SM sample reported having had vaginal sex. Thirty-six percent of non-SM participants reported having had oral sex compared to 47% of SM participants. The SM subsample was used to answer RQ2.

Procedure

Students in 11th and 12th grade were recruited to participate in an online survey study about family sexuality communication. An online survey was developed and pilot tested with high-school students. Six urban high schools were recruited for this study through school and district offices, and each participating school received a stipend. Parents were sent information about the study translated into families’ home languages. Schools were given the choice of whether to use active consent or allow for a waiver of active, signed consent (“passive consent”). Four of the six schools allowed for waiver of active consent, while two schools selected active consent. The survey was administered using Qualtrics and was available in English and Spanish. The survey took 20–30 minutes for students to complete. Fifty-eight students filled out the survey in Spanish. The study protocol was approved by the Wellesley College Institutional Review Board (Dec 19, 2016) (See Author, 2019, for more information about the larger study procedure).

Measures

Demographics

Adolescent self-identified gender was coded as male, female, neither male or female, or not sure. Since the gender non-conforming categories of neither male or female and not sure were small (n = 13), they were combined into a single category.

Adolescent race/ethnicity was measured by asking them to select the category or categories that best describe them given eight racial/ethnicity categories. Those selecting multiple categories were coded as “multiracial.” Racial/ethnic groups were Black, Latinx, White, and Asian. All other individuals were grouped into a category labeled “Other.”

Sexual orientation

A dichotomous indicator of whether the participant self-identified as SM was created from their response to “Who are you attracted to?” If the participant answered they were attracted to the “opposite sex,” they were coded as non-SM. If the participant reported being attracted to the “same sex,” “both sexes,” “not sure,” or “neither,” they were coded as SM. Eight percent of participants did not provide information about sexual orientation.

Communication about sexual topics

The Teen-Family Communication about Sex Scale (TFCSS) used latent variables to measure three types of teenager sexuality communication with parents and extended family: Protection Communication, Risk Communication, and Relational Sex Communication (Grossman et al., 2019). Protection Communication is comprised of three indicators asking whether parents and extended family members talk to teens about protecting themselves from sexually transmitted infections (STIs), HIV/AIDS, and from becoming pregnant or getting someone else pregnant. Risk Communication consists of four items asking whether parents and extended family members talk to teens about the negative consequences of sex, including teen pregnancy and STIs. We assess Protection Communication and Risk communication separately because our qualitative work has shown that families often talk with adolescents about risks of sex without providing information about protection (Grossman et al., 2018). The Relational Communication subscale was measured by three items addressing whether parents and extended family members talk about sex being permissible in the context of a relationship. These scales were adapted from the parent–adolescent communication scale (PACS) (Sales et al., 2008) and a measure of parent–child communication about sexual topics (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Model fit statistics from a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) assessing the presence of three direct communication scales suggested an excellent fit (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.07) for the proposed structure. Cronbach’s alphas of the resulting scales further suggested strong reliability: Cronbach’s alpha for Protection Communication ranged from .95 to .96 for mothers, fathers, and extended family. Cronbach’s alpha for Risks of Sex Communication ranged from .88 to .90 for communication with family members about Risks of Sex. Cronbach’s alpha for Relational Sex Communication across family members ranged from .93 to .93. All items were answered on a five-point scale of “Never” (1), “Rarely” (2), “Sometimes” (3), “Often” (4), and “All of the time” (5).

Participants (both SM and non-SM) reported who they talked to in their family about sex and relationships, such as parents or extended family members. Extended family members in this study included aunts, uncles, grandparents, older cousins, older siblings, and godparents. If participants talked with both a mother and a father, they reported about their communication with each family member separately. If participants talked with an extended family member, they were instructed to report about communication with the extended family member they talked with the most. Frequency of communication topics were reported on a five-point scale ranging from “never” (lowest value) to “all the time” (highest value). Communication scales represented three to four items each and averaged the frequency of talk across the items for mothers, fathers, and extended family members separately. If participants reported no conversations about sex and relationships with either parent, their responses to communication topics were coded as “never.” Participants had missing data on sexual communication scales if they did not identify having a parent or extended family member (i.e. no father figure or does not talk to an extended family member).

Communicating to whom and how many in network about sexual orientation

Communication about sexual orientation (only asked of SM participants) was measured using a single item “Please check all people you have ever talked with about your possible attraction toward people of the same sex, or of both sexes. Check as many that apply.” Participants were able to choose from a list of family members including mother, father, grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle, sister, brother, female cousin, male cousin, and godparent. They were also allowed to check “other” and provide their own answer, which included responses such as friend, romantic partner, or school counselor. “No one” was also an option.

Using participant responses to this question were created an indicator of the size of the SM’s “coming out” network by summing all of the people they talked with. This indicator ranged from 0 people to 11 people.

Data analysis

To address research questions 1a and 1b, we compared SM and non-SM participants in their frequency of communication about sexual topics with their mother, father, and extended family. Adolescent SM identification was entered as the independent variable and communication with mother, father, and extended family about sexual topics were the dependent variables. Individual regression models were run for each family member for each topic of communication: Protection Communication, Risks of Sex Communication, and Relational Sex Communication. A total of nine regression analyses were conducted. To reduce omitted variable bias, we controlled for adolescent self-identified binary gender and race/ethnicity. Latinx was the largest racial/ethnic group for our sample, so it was used as the racial/ethnic comparison category for analyses. The few participants (n=13) who self-identified as neither male nor female or not sure were removed from regression analyses (however, they were included in the analyses for research question 2).

To address research question 1, we first descriptively explored who SM and non-SM youth reported as the primary communication partner. Next, we conducted linear regression tests comparing the frequency of talk with family members for SM and non-SM youth. To address our second research question, we descriptively explored SM youth responses about who they talk to about their sexual orientation and the extent of their communication network. This sub-study analysis sample included only the participants who were identified as SM. One participant only provided their sexual orientation so their responses were only included in the overall SM sample and not in the breakdown by gender.

Results

Communication about sexual topics

Descriptive results showed 59% percent of SM teenagers report talking to their mother, 23% reported talking to their father, and 42% reported talking with an extended family member about sexual topics. For non-SM teens, 60% talked with their mother, 32% talked with their father, and about half (49%) talked with an extended family member.

Research question 1 assessed communication about three sexual topics: Protection Communication, Risk Communication, and Relational Sex Communication. Communication with mothers, fathers, and extended family members was modeled separately. Non-SM teens reported more protection communication with mothers than SM teens, but similar rates of risks of sex and relational sex talk. Non-SM teens reported more talk about risks of sex and relational sex with fathers than SM teens, but similar rates of protection talk. There were no significant group differences in sexuality communication with extended family, suggesting SM and non-SM teens talk at similar rates with extended family members about protection, risks of sex, and relational sex (Table 1).

Table 1.

Linear regressions for sexuality communication with family members.

	Protection talk		Risks of sex talk		Relational sex talk
Mother	B (SE)	B	B (SE)	B	B (SE)	B
Non-SM	0.31(0.16)	0.07*	0.21(0.13)	0.06	0.19(0.14)	0.05
Female	0.19(0.10)	0.07	0.26(0.08)	0.12**	0.29(0.09)	0.12**
Black	−0.42(0.14)	−0.11**	−0.25(0.11)	−0.09*	−0.34(0.13)	−0.10**
White	−0.46(0.14)	−0.12**	−0.36(0.11)	−0.12**	−0.25(0.13)	−0.08
Asian	−1.02(0.19)	−0.20***	−0.68(0.16)	−017***	−0.79(0.17)	017***
Other Race	−0.70(0.23)	−0.11**	−0.54(0.18)	−0.11 **	−0.73(0.20)	0.14***
Father	B (SE)	B	B (SE)	B	B (SE)	B
non-SM	0.34(0.18)	0.08	0.38(0.14)	0.12**	0.46(0.17)	0.12**
Female	−0.23(0.11)	−0.09*	−0.03(0.09)	−0.01	−0.05(0.10)	−0.02
Black	−0.43(0.15)	−0.13**	−0.30(0.12)	−0.11 *	−0.39(0.14)	−0.13**
White	−0.51(0.16)	−0.14**	−0.39(0.13)	−0.14**	−0.42(0.15)	−0.13**
Asian	−0.81(0.20)	−0.18***	−0.60(0.15)	−017***	−0.77(0.18)	−0.19***
Other Race	−0.65(0.24)	−0.12**	−0.54(0.19)	−0.12**	−0.71(0.22)	−0.14**
Extended family	B (SE)	B	B (SE)	B	B (SE)	B
non-SM	0.20(0.18)	0.04	0.19(0.15)	0.05	0.00(0.17)	0.00
Female	0.33(0.11)	0.12**	0.25(0.09)	0.11**	0.31(0.11)	0.12**
Black	−0.29(0.16)	−0.08	−0.19(0.12)	−0.07	−0.22(0.15)	−0.07
White	−0.62(0.15)	−0.16***	−0.44(0.12)	−0.15***	−0.43(0.14)	−0.13**
Asian	−0.68(0.23)	−0.12**	−0.39(0.18)	−0.09*	−0.33(0.21)	−0.06
Other Race	−0.36(0.25)	−0.06	−0.13(0.20)	−0.03	−0.34(0.23)	−0.06

^*p<.05

^**p<.01

^***p<.001.

Who do SM teens talk to about their sexual orientation?

Research question 2 addressed who and how many family members and trusted others do SM-identified adolescents talk to about their sexual attraction, and whether this varies based on adolescent gender identity. Out of the 115 SM adolescents in the sample, 101 (88%) responded to the question of who they talk to about their sexual orientation. Almost half (47%) of SM teens reported talking with their mother, with the next most frequent choices being female same-age relatives (37% sister, 30% cousin). Almost a third reported talking with their father (26%) and about a fifth talked with their aunt (21%) or brother (19%). Relatively, few reported talking to their grandparents, uncle, or male cousin, whereas almost a third (28%) talked to non-family members (e.g., friends, romantic partners, therapists, school counselors) (See Table 2).

Table 2.

Who SM teens talk to about sexual orientation – full sample and by gender.

	SM (n = 101)		Males (n = 24)		Females (n = 69)		Neither/Not Sure (n = 7)
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Mother	47	47%	14	58%	29	42%	3	43%
Father	26	26%	10	42%	14	20%	1	14%
Grandmother	15	15%	4	17%	10	14%	1	14%
Grandfather	5	5%	3	13%	2	3%	0	0%
Aunt	21	21%	8	33%	13	19%	0	0%
Uncle	10	10%	7	29%	3	4%	0	0%
Sister	37	37%	13	54%	21	30%	2	29%
Brother	19	19%	7	29%	11	16%	1	14%
Female cousin	30	30%	8	33%	20	29%	2	29%
Male cousin	16	16%	7	29%	9	13%	0	0%
Godparent	6	6%	4	17%	2	3%	0	0%
No one	5	5%	0	0%	5	7%	0	0%
Other*	28	28%	7	29%	18	26%	2	29%

^*Examples of “Other” responses include friend, partner, and counselor/therapist.

We descriptively explored who SM youth talked to, broken down by gender (Table 2). SM females reported mother (42%), sister (30%), and female cousin (29%) as their top 3 people they talk to about their sexual orientation. In contrast, male SM participants reported their top 3 as their mother (58%), sister (54%), and father (42%). For the seven participants identifying as gender non-conforming or not sure, they reported talking most with mothers (43%), sisters (29%), and female cousins (29%), which is more similar to how female SGs reported.

Size of “coming out” network

Since SM participants were asked about all the family members they talked to about their sexual orientation, we were able to create an indicator of how many people SM adolescents have “come out to.” The number of people SM participants talked with ranged from 0 to 11 people. Many of the SM teens talked with only 1 person (37%), about 40% talked with 2–4 people, and 16% reported talking with 5 or more people. Eight percent did not identify someone that they talked to about their sexual orientation (Table 3).

Table 3.

Number of people SMs talk to about sexual orientation.

	SM (n = 101)		Males (n = 24)		Females (n = 69)		Neither/Not Sure (n = 7)
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
0	8	8%	0	0%	5	7%	3	43%
1	37	37%	7	29%	30	43%	0	0%
2	21	21%	5	21%	14	20%	2	29%
3	10	10%	2	8%	7	10%	1	14%
4	9	9%	2	8%	6	9%	0	0%
5	5	5%	2	8%	2	3%	1	14%
6	3	3%	0	0%	3	4%	0	0%
7	3	3%	3	13%	0	0%	0	0%
8	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%	0	0%
9	1	1%	1	4%	0	0%	0	0%
10	2	2%	1	4%	1	1%	0	0%
11	2	2%	1	4%	1	1%	0	0%

When we looked at the range of network size across adolescent gender, female SM teens were most frequently reporting they had talked with only one person (43%), followed by two people (20%) with 7% reporting talking to no one. More male SM teens reported talking with five or more people (33%) than any other category, followed by talk with one person (29%) and two people (21%). No SM male teens reported talking to no one. In contrast, forty-three percent of gender non-conforming participants talked with no one, while 29% talked with two people.

Discussion

This study provides a unique vantage point on to understand how families of sexual minority youth might not discuss certain topics in their conversations about sex and relationships compared to their heterosexual counterparts. Overall, SM adolescents reported either similar or lower frequency of talk with mothers and fathers than non-SM adolescents. As previous studies have found, parents’ lower frequency of talk about sexual topics with SM youth compared to non-SM youth may reflect discomfort in talking about sexual minority issues (LaSala, 2015) or a lack of competence in knowing how to discuss minority sexual issues (Rose & Friedman, 2017). Our study revealed specific topics that were less likely to be discussed in teen sexual minority households, which can increase our understanding of gaps in family sexual socialization. The significant finding that mothers offered more sexual protection method messages to their non-SM teens may also be partially explained by the fact that SM sex typically does not warrant concerns over teenage pregnancy. However, conversations about methods to prevent of STDs and HIV are critical for SM teens and may be missing from conversations with their mothers. Because our sample was predominantly Hispanic (53%), our findings corroborate prior studies about sexual conversations within Latinx families and their heterosexual children, Latina mothers tend to focus on the potential consequences of not delaying intercourse rather than specific, and technical methods to protect against unwanted pregnancy and STDs (Guilamo-Ramos et al., 2006; Romo et al., 2010). In contrast, fathers talked with similar frequency to SM and non-SM teens about protection, but less with SM teens about risks of sex and relational sex. It may be that fathers are less concerned about the risks of sex for their SM than non-SM teens or feel ill-prepared to discuss non-heterosexual sexual risk. An alternate explanation is that given the indirect messages passed down to youth in Latinx hetero-centric family cultures – that males are non-verbally encouraged to responsibly pursue sex, whereas females are expected to retain their virginity or face dire consequences (Perez & Pinzon, 1997), perhaps fathers are tasked with the role of demonstrating how to use protection methods leaving the less “action”-oriented roles of discussing social and societal consequences to mothers. Given that most studies of teen sexual socialization involve primarily mothers, our findings showed a distinctive pattern in father sexual communication, particularly in this sample of primarily racial/ethnic minorities (84%, 53% of whom were Latinx). This underscores the need for more in-depth, qualitative investigation at how fathers understand and approach sexuality communication with their SM teenagers.

Since parents can serve a protective role against adverse health outcomes in all youth, it is concerning that our research and prior research has found a greater likelihood of differences in communication about sex and in overall monitoring of their SM and non-SM teens. For instance, Montano et al. (2017) found that sexual minority girls perceived their parents asked less and knew less about their location and activities than their heterosexual counterparts. However, researchers in this study also argued that despite this difference in parental monitoring of sexual minority girls and their heterosexual counterparts, parental knowledge of a child’s same-sex attraction overall did not impact the relationship between parental monitoring and adverse health indicators such as depression. Prior studies have found that parents can have strained parent–child relationships in households with sexual minority youth (Darby-Mullins & Murdock, 2007), with some mothers reporting decreased affection for sexual minority children and these youth reporting less secure attachment to their parents (Rosario et al., 2014).

Over 40% of SM teens in this study reported talking with extended family about sex. Our findings show that SM youth are as likely to talk with extended family as parents for communication about sex, suggesting that parents and extended family members are both resources in talking about sex for SM youth. This fits with youth perceptions of extended family as open and non-judgmental resources for conversations about sex (Grossman et al., 2018). Together, these findings suggest that parents are not the only family resources for sexual socialization, at least in the case of SM youth. More qualitative inquiry is needed to understand the family motivations behind discussions about sex with SM teenagers; for instance, are teens more comfortable approaching non-parental family members and members outside of the family because they more willing or available if a parent is not perceived to be willing or able to discuss sexual issues with a teen?

Our second research question addresses who SM adolescents come out to and the role of their gender in whether this communication occurs. In our sample of 115 SM teenagers, the vast majority had talked with at least one family member about their sexual orientation. The most common confidantes were mothers and sisters regardless of teen gender. These findings fit with prior research on SM youth, which found that mothers and sisters were the most likely family members to know about young people’s sexual orientation (Aranda et al., 2015; Mitrani et al., 2017). The greater likelihood of coming out to female rather than male family members may also reflect greater expectations of machismo among male family members, which may discourage disclosure about sexual orientation. When looking at the “village” of SM confidantes descriptively, we can see that if you were a female or non-binary SM teen, female cousin was a close third option, whereas the third most reported family member to talk with were fathers. For example, the SM female-identified teens did not as frequently disclose to their grandfathers, uncles, and male cousins as they were to their grandmothers, aunts, and female cousins. The small group of non-binary SM teens displayed fewer options to disclose their sexual orientation compared to their female- and male-identified counterparts, most often reporting talk with friends, partners, or others outside the family for disclosure. These findings support past studies (Boxer et al., 1991; Grafsky et al., 2018; Pistella et al., 2019; Savin-Williams, 2003) that demonstrate strong preferences for SM youth to come out to mothers and sisters, but also extend the literature in that disclosure also differed depending on the teen’s gender. Future quantitative research would benefit from inclusion of questions that address adolescent experiences of disclosure (e.g., was it positive or negative) and whether they voluntarily raised this issue. In addition, Grafsky et al. (2018) found that disclosing one’s sexual orientation to extended family was not seen as urgent as disclosing to one’s nuclear family, particularly if there was quite a geographic separation. This often involved deliberate, intentional decisions to disclose over a lengthy period of time in a continual, cyclical manner, particularly if there was a large or blended family.

When examining the size of their “coming out” network, all male participants reported confiding in someone, whereas 7% of females and a relatively high proportion (43%) of non-binary SM youth reported that they had not confided in anyone in their families. Future research might explore the factors that contribute to this gender disparity – Do males feel more acceptance when they come out and have an easier time finding allies within their village? Could there be a developmental reason for this gender gap such that females might not be as certain about their sexual identities to “come out” to their trusted others during adolescence as males do? Do non-binary youth have even fewer options given that they may be tackling sexual and gender minority contemplations that might be too nuanced for their village to handle?

Although the average age of first awareness of same-sex attraction has been found to be about 10 years of age (e.g., Hamer et al., 1993; Herdt & Boxer, 1993), some sexual minorities might choose to postpone the expression of their feelings until they leave their parental home or go to college or may never reveal these feelings at all. Studies have shown that on average, males tend to come out to their parents at a younger age than their female counterparts – the average age of coming out to parents for lesbians was 24, whereas for gay men it was 20 (Lever, 1994, 1995). In a more recent survey of LGBT Americans conducted by Pew Research Center (2013), 12 was the median age at first realization of non-heterosexual attraction, 17 was the median age when participants knew for sure that they were LGBT, and 20 was the median age at which they first told a family member or close friend. Gay men reported having reached all of these milestones somewhat earlier than lesbians and bisexuals. Given these gender and age differences in awareness and openness to LGB identity with others, future studies could explore the motivations and barriers for coming out to family members by gender and stage in life.

Limitations and future directions

As with the nature of quantitative survey data, we were able to detect significant patterns in communication about sex and relationships; however, we were unable to assess the quality of these conversations, such as how comfortable, lengthy, or helpful these conversations actually were. Due to a small sample size, some of the analyses remain exploratory and are important areas for future study, such as whether there are significant gender differences in who SM youth turn to about their sexual orientation. This is particularly true for our small sample of non-binary SM youth. Due to the lack of research on this hard-to-reach group, we included their responses to answer question 2 in this study. We do not know whether SM youths have the same number of potential family members to turn to compared to their non-SM counterparts, so comparisons between the two groups about the quantity of persons they turn to may need further exploration. Future research would benefit from longitudinal assessment of SMs communication about sexual orientation to their families that extends into young adulthood, since many SM adolescents hide their sexual identities from parents until later adolescence or emerging adulthood when they are more emotionally and financially independent (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 1999). In addition, prior research has shown that SM young adults often create new social support systems and family-of-choice networks to mediate conflicts within families (Etengoff & Daiute, 2015). Defining who is considered “family” for SM youth may be more fluid than traditionally measured and should be taken into consideration for future studies.

Future research with a larger sample of SM teenagers could explore whether coming out to parents or extended family members makes a difference in the sexuality communication and whether knowledge of one’s sexual orientation leads family members and trusted others in a village to “change course” in their sexuality communication and socialization for different teens. Studies with predominantly Latinx populations on this topic are scarce, so future studies could explore more in-depth how culture influences communication about sex and sexual orientation in these groups. Although this study did not examine the psychosocial or sexual behavior impacts of talking about one’s attraction to same sex peers with family members, there are resources for parents going through a similar experience with a child coming out to them (e.g., Herdt & Koff, 2000) and to help parents respond in more health-promoting ways, given the potential deleterious health-related consequences of ambivalent or negative family reactions to teens coming out as SM (e.g., Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), 2014).

Much of the research about family sexuality communication in SM youth households is derived from reports about what they talk about with parents, and studies have rarely asked parents about the same-sex attraction disclosure of their teens. This could be due in large part because parents may not open to discussing having an SM child and youths may not be willing to volunteer their parents to participate in such studies (Savin-Williams, 2003). Future research about family sexual communication comparing SM families and non-SM families should also obtain parental reports of what they talk about with their teens. In addition, researchers have largely ignored cultural contexts of family’s ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic backgrounds when studying SM youth’s coming out processes, a research gap for which new strategies and recruitment efforts can be dedicated to reach the full spectrum of youths in future research studies.

Conclusion

As visibility and acceptance of sexual minorities becomes more the norm and dialogue describing the spectrum of sexual identities in our society becomes less closeted, one overarching aim was to explore whether SM youth had access to communication about sexual orientation and/or sexual identity with trusted parental and non-parental figures. Our study highlights some significant differences in how SM youth talk to their mothers and fathers about sexual topics compared to their non-SM counterparts. Mothers’ lower levels of communication about sexual protection to their SM than non-SM teens are particularly concerning, given the need for SM teens to have accurate information about HIV and STDs (particularly for higher-risk sexually active SM teens) and the primary role that mothers typically play in family sexuality communication (Widman et al., 2016). The lack of differences in adolescent talk with extended family about sex and relationships and the key roles that siblings and cousins play in coming out conversations highlight the need to expand our understanding of SM youth–family relationships beyond parents and explore the potential of extended family to contribute to health prevention and intervention programs for SM youth. Furthermore, the significant disparity in the size of female, male, and non-binary SM youth family networks for disclosing their sexual orientation suggests that we need to better understand reasons for disclosure and what resources teens need to support their healthy development within and outside of family ties. Ultimately, these findings can inform potential interventions that address the barriers that youth encounter when disclosing sexual orientation to trusted family members as well as challenges that parents face in raising sexual-minority teenagers.