Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Nov 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Pediatr Health Care. 2022 Sep 7;36(6):e7–e12. doi: 10.1016/j.pedhc.2022.07.007

Do Say Gay: Inclusive Sexuality Discussions for Out, Closeted, Questioning, and Straight Youth

Dalmacio D Flores 1, J Lloyd Allen 2, Jacqueline A Bannon 3
PMCID: PMC9978038  NIHMSID: NIHMS1827261  PMID: 36088221

Abstract

Introduction:

Debates questioning the soundness of inclusive elementary school discussions that acknowledge sexual and gender diverse people are harmful to gay, bisexual, or queer (GBQ) males. With parents as sexual socialization agents, examining sex communication at home is critical for promoting inclusive health information for all youth.

Method:

We examined how GBQ youth (n = 30), aged 15−20 years, conceptualized inclusive sex communication with parents and the value of open sexuality discussions.

Results:

Most of the sample identified as gay (76.7%) and diverse (13.3% Asian, 13.3% Black/African American, 33.3% Latino). Participants discussed sexual health with their parents and perceived its significance for GBQ, questioning, and heterosexual children.

Discussion:

Findings can inform interventions that promote inclusive sex communication between parents and children to promote acceptance of sexual and gender diversity and sexual health for all youth.

Keywords: Parent−child sex communication, parenting, LGBTQ health, HIV/STI prevention, gay, bisexual, queer youth

INTRODUCTION

Generation Z youth (born between 1997 and 2012) are coming out earlier than previous generations of sexual and gender-diverse individuals (Jones, 2022). Although the increase in the number of cisgender males coming out as gay, bisexual, or queer (GBQ) reflects growing societal acceptance (Flores, 2021), current debates and even legislation may reverse this trend and do little to ameliorate the disproportionate rates of negative mental health outcomes (e.g., anxiety, depression), especially among GBQ youth of color (American Psychological Association, 2022). Recent legislative debates have called attention to school-based sex education programs and the role of parents in the sexuality education of youth (Sex Ed for Social Change, 2022) and made obvious the lack of evidence-based supportive interventions for parents of sexual and gender-diverse youth (Bouris et al., 2010; Newcomb et al., 2019). To date, most of the existing research has focused on heteronormative family sexuality conversations (Flores & Barroso, 2017) with minimal acknowledgment of how families with sexual and gender minority youth have these parallel discussions (McKay & Fontenot, 2020). If inclusive sexuality communication is unaddressed and unsupported, the health of the family unit with lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) members may continue to be compromised. Given the longstanding HIV/sexually transmitted infection health disparities among sexual and gender-diverse youth and young adults in the United States (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017), family-based interventions are needed to help curtail the continued and increasing rates of HIV infection while promoting sexual wellness (Bouris et al., 2010). Given this population’s age, it can be argued that parents can provide educational resources that assist in reducing early HIV/sexually transmitted infection infections among adolescents, as parents have historically played a prominent role in helping to delay adolescent sexual debut (Flores & Barroso, 2017).

Among adolescent males who are questioning their sexual orientation, or those who may have already identified as GBQ, inclusive sex communication are critical talks that parents may use to positively influence sexual behavior and sexual health (Bauermeister et al., 2010; D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009; Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010). With regard to the experiences of gay and bisexual male youths, parent−son communications about sexual behaviors often resulted in fewer risky sexual behaviors (LaSala, Fedor, Revere, & Carney, 2016). More specifically, mother−son communications about same-sex behavior were associated with frequent and routine HIV testing (Bouris, Hill, Fisher, Erickson, & Schneider, 2015). Conversely, nonaccepting parents relying on scare tactics to dissuade gay adolescent males from engaging in same-sex behaviors contributed to parental mistrust among youth, inhibited future conversations, and resulted in missed opportunities for HIV prevention conversations (Voisin, Bird, Shiu, & Krieger, 2013). Moreover, anticipatory family rejection leads to sexual secretiveness (Bird, LaSala, Hidalgo, Kuhns, & Garofalo, 2017), which does not bode well for family-supported education about one’s sexual orientation.

Although research on inclusive sex communication is limited, studies have identified that the sexual education needs of LGBTQ youth are not being addressed sufficiently at home and throughout the ecologic systems (LaSala, 2015; Rose & Friedman, 2013). School systems are likewise not providing adequate health information guidance through sex education (Currin et al., 2017; Pingel, Thomas, Harmell, & Bauermeister, 2013). With the rising number of county and state-level debates and legislation that seek to regulate the type of topics allowed to be covered in elementary school education (e.g., Florida’s Do Not Say Gay rules and Texas’ Anti-Trans legislation), there is a need to explore GBQ youth’s perspectives on the value of inclusive family sex discussions at home. The parent study explored the perspectives of GBQ males about inclusive parent−child sex communication. In this report, we detail the sample’s rationale for why discussions about health and sexuality at home have value for closeted youth, questioning, and males who identify as heterosexual.

METHODS

Design

This qualitative study incorporated an interpretive approach (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011) that explored how GBQ cisgender males recalled parent−child communications about sex. To be included in the study, participants had to be (1) English speaking, (2) self-identify as a GBQ cisgender male, (3) aged 15−20 years, and (4) be able to recall at least one discussion with a parent about health and sex.

Recruitment

The Duke University’s Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this study protocol before participant recruitment began. Within the Institutional Review Board approval, parental waiver of consent was granted for participants aged < 18 years. This allowed for the equal and safe participation of GBQ adolescent males who have not yet disclosed their sexual orientation to their parents (Flores & Barroso, 2017). Data were collected in a southern U.S. city using participants recruited using both purposive and snowball sampling techniques. To do this, fliers describing the study were distributed at different LGBTQ centers, organizations, and community events (i.e., pride festivals and gay/ straight alliance events). Initially, individuals who inquired about the study were screened for eligibility. Those who met the criteria were provided additional information about the study purpose and goals and then asked about their willingness to participate. Participants who stated they were interested in the study were scheduled for an in-person interview.

Data Collection

Before interviews began, participants aged ≥ 18 years provided consent, whereas those < 18 years provided assent. Interviews were conducted at a location of the participant’s choice, in one of the secure offices at the host institution, or in a conference room at one of the LGBTQ youth-serving community spaces. All interviews were conducted using a semistructured guide (see Box for sample questions). The questions were developed using the principles associated with Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) bioecological theory as they aimed to better understand the different influential constructs in the ecologic system on sex communication. Participants were asked to share their experiences and recollections of sex communications with their parents. Interviews ranged between 60 and 90 min, were conducted in English, and audio-recorded. Participants did not receive any incentives for participation in this study. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and checked against the audio recording for accuracy.

BOX. Sample interview questions.

Questions

If someone you know is still unsure or questioning his sexuality, do you think there should be any sex talk with him by their parents? Please explain.

  • If yes, why? Should it include any mention of gay-specific topics (i.e., same-sex attraction, dating, anal sex, etc.)?

  • If no, why not?

Do you think all gay and straight children should be educated about gay or lesbian sexuality in school or at home?

  • Why or why not?

Analysis

Content analysis was conducted to garner a more thorough understanding of the data (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004; Sandelowski, 2010). First, to become familiar with the data, the authors read and reread the transcripts (Sandelowski, 1995). Next, using NVivo 11, a qualitative analysis software program, we developed first-level codes on the basis of the shared common meanings and second-level codes on the basis of the thematic and conceptual structures (Saldaña, 2015). We then rearranged first and second-level codes into categories that we used to generate themes that linked the underlying meanings of the categories (Graneheim & Lundman, 2004). Throughout the analytic process, they were discussed among the research team whenever differences arose until mutually agreed on definitions and terms were achieved.

RESULTS

Sample Characteristics

GBQ adolescents (n = 30) aged 15−20 years shared their recalled memories of parent−child communications about sex. Approximately 76.7% (n = 23) self-identified as gay, 16.7% (n = 5) as bisexual and 6.7% (n = 2) as queer. Our participants comprised a diverse sample with individuals identifying as multiracial (n = 1; 3.3%); Asian, (n = 4; 13.3%); African American or Black, (n = 4; 13.3%); Latino, (n = 10, 33.3%); and White, (n = 11; 36.7%). Of the sample participants, 63.3% (n = 19) reported being college students, and 86.7% (n = 26) reported that their parents knew of their GBQ self-identification.

Inclusive Sex Communication for GBQ Sons

For self-identifying GBQ sons, inclusive sex communication had an affirming value that participants deemed important. Regardless of the extent or veracity of the information, participants pointed out that parents can acknowledge emerging identities when taking time to discuss topics that these participants consider pertinent to inclusive sex communication. Sons relayed that when parents probed about their dating or sex lives after they came out, this inquiry communicated that parents still cared about them. For them, inclusive sex communication signified parental concern before and after coming out. Relatedly, inclusive sex communication was important for GBQ youth as this sample considered parents a trusted resource. Despite gaps in knowledge among parents about LGBTQ issues, sons viewed parents as inherently credible and put their sons’ best interests first. Gregory (aged 16 years, Caucasian), a high school student who identifies as queer, described it as follows:

Children trust their parents. They trust their judgment. They trust their knowledge. So I’d listen to my mom rather than some random person on the street. So parents talking to gay sons, informing them about sex, what actually goes on, what can happen in terms of sexually transmitted diseases. . . I feel like gay sons would become more knowledgeable and more confident.

For these sons, inclusive sex communication at home counters the negative messages they receive from their peers, school, and the larger community. For example, when parents are mindful of their sons’ same-sex attractions during these talks, they can correct the limitations of the public-school sex education curriculum. According to sons, inclusive sex communication reframes negative societal connotations about LGBTQ people and provides a positive possibility for their lives. They stated that this would provide optimism and encouragement to be educated on matters that will affect their future sexual and mental health.

Inclusive Sex Communication for Questioning or Closeted Sons

Participants thought parents should be encouraged to broach inclusive sex communication for sons who are not out for several reasons. First, being inclusive during sex communication will allow for questioning or undisclosed sons to know more, be enlightened on the topics, and feel supported if or when they realize or do come out as GBQ. According to the sample, parents must include broad statements during sex communication that acknowledge other sexual orientations and gender identities as many sons can. They question their identities at early ages yet may not self-identify as GBQ until they are older. David (aged 20 years, Caucasian) explained:

Because we know that children are coming out younger and younger and not hearing about their own sexual concerns during Sex Ed, that first time they are being educated formally about their identity could be really pathologizing.

Second, GBQ sons’ pointed to the value of normalizing the spectrum of sexual orientation, gender identities, and behaviors. They added that this normalization would benefit questioning or undisclosed youths’ mental health. Inclusive sex communication would provide hints to undisclosed sons that parents are accepting of other identities and orientations. If parents have an idea that their son may have same-sex attractions but are not yet ready or willing to broach the topic with parents, sons would be reassured of parental acceptance. For them, their anxiety would be reduced by inclusive sex communication that does not invalidate their identities. John, an 18-year-old participant whose parents are from Brazil, explained:

Overall it would be much better for the psychology of people, especially those who are still in the closet to their parents and even their peers, to know that they are being recognized and that they exist. Even if they are not ready to tell their parents, just from having that conversation you already know that the parent is like someone who almost inevitably respects their sexuality. And that already is a huge step!

Finally, inclusive sex communication that does not interrogate questioning sons or impose on their privacy may assist these youth in determining their identity and could reduce the length of time it takes to withhold their sexual identity from their parents. Unencumbered by the guilt of disappointing parents or being kicked out of the home, inclusive sex communication creates a space for questioning or undisclosed sons to think about and contemplate their identities, not in isolation but with the assistance of parents. One participant, Mario (aged 18 years, Latino), a recent high school graduate, recalled the time he asked his parents what sex was:

I just remember him saying, “Sex is something that men and women do to make babies.” And he didn’t explain what it was but he said that’s what it is. This was stuck in my memory ‘cause I guess it was like weird for me. He was like, “It’s between men and women and men and men can’t have sex with each other. Don’t do it. They can’t do it.” That’s what he said. He was very specific. I guess I really took that in as a five-year-old. I was like, “Okay.” And that might’ve had something to do with it taking for me a long time to understand my sexuality.

Specifically, participants stated that there are two ways that inclusive sex communication can assist questioning sons to determine their identities and prevent the formation of risky sexual behavior. First, participants mentioned that parents could be a resource that questioning sons can talk to as they figure out their identities. Secondly, GBQ sons in this sample stated that questioning sons might be able to explore their attractions via safe spaces that are not covert, are less risky, and are under the supervision of parents. These situations they described are similar to how their heterosexual peers go through the dating rituals of adolescence. Gaius (aged 18 years, African American), who identifies as bisexual, explains the value of these safe sexual spaces that can be facilitated by inclusive sex communication:

Giving that safe space for your kids to do things and to figure out who they are is very important, because if they don’t have that safe space they won’t get to do anything. In a situation like coming to college, all they’re going to do is try those things and it’s going to cause their life to spiral out of control because they’re not going to know how to control themselves. However, if they’re in a situation [at home] where they’re around people they already know, they’re going to control themselves a lot better than if they’re in a place where, “All these people are new to me, no one knows anything about me, I can do whatever I want.” If parents didn’t let that child have the room to actually experiment and find themselves, then that child is going to be more drastic when they finally have the chance to do it.

Inclusive Sex Communication for Heterosexual Children

Inclusive sex communication also can benefit children who identify as heterosexual. Our participants stated that inclusive sex communication is a means for heterosexual children to begin understanding LGBTQ issues, clarify misconceptions, and normalize same-sex attraction as a routine concept that is as common as their feelings for the opposite sex. According to GBQ sons in our study, if their heterosexual peers also receive basic information about other identities, it would lead them to understand and be enlightened about people with same-sex attractions. The awareness young heterosexual people have will translate to less ignorance, a lower likelihood of being insensitive and more acceptance of other sexualities or gender identities. Furthermore, our participants advocated for inclusive sex communication for heterosexual children because they may encounter future same-sex attraction, have friends or family who identify as LGBTQ, or may even someday be the parent of an LGBTQ child. By being inclusive when teaching heterosexual children about sex, these future parents would be able to readily answer their children’s needs. Charles (aged 19 years, Latino) stated:

I feel like if you are educated about everything then you won’t have such, “Oh well that’s not what I know. My parents never taught me about that. That’s weird, that’s wrong.” If everyone was educated and if everything was familiar to them in that aspect then maybe there wouldn’t be such discrimination or hate because it was something talked about when they were growing up. They are like, “Oh I know about it,” or “I know about that,” so even if they are not homosexual or identify as LGBTQ, it’s not something that is wrong because it’s acknowledged.

Similarly, participants in this study stated that knowledge of other sexualities among heterosexual adolescents would be beneficial as it would compel them to consider perspectives informed by experiences different from their own. Some participants added that heterosexual adolescents’ ability to consider other peoples’ realities might usher in greater equality as GBQ individuals would not censor themselves to accommodate their heterosexual peers’ lack of knowledge about others. Several participants reported educating their peers about GBQ identities. They stated that not being responsible for educating heterosexual peers would be a welcome change. Ramos, an 18-year-old participant, stated that being around informed peers is much better as he can be more open and honest about his full self:

I deserve the ability or the right to be able to talk about anything. Like about a guy and those type of things like anybody else.

DISCUSSION

This paper explored the importance of parents having inclusive sex talks with adolescent sons at home, regardless of whether the child self-identifies as GBQ, is questioning his sexual orientation or self-identifies as heterosexual. Similarly, the findings illuminated the numerous ways that inclusive sex talks with parents can (1) be a proxy used to determine parental levels of acceptance, (2) affirm and normalize the spectrum of sexuality, and (3) potentially mitigate mental and/or physical health issues that are often reported by GBQ youth. When school-based sexuality discussions from elementary levels through high school has become a hotbutton issue, the role of family-based sexual health discussions has re-emerged as crucial for the sexual socialization of all youth. From the study, the inclusivity of sexuality conversations helped GBQ youth assess their parental positions and/or attitudes toward diverse sexual orientations. Research has elucidated that GBQ individuals often develop attitudes toward LGBTQ identities on the basis of parental reactions (Hadley et al., 2009; Somers & Paulson, 2000; Udell & Donenberg, 2014). Therefore, GBQ individuals were more likely to make disclosure decisions on the basis of their parental reactions or tone during sex talks with children (Bregman, 2013; D’Amico & Julien, 2012; D’Augelli & Grossman, 2001; Dilorio, Hodkenberiy-Eaton, Maibach, Rivero, & Miller, 1996; Figueroa & Tasker, 2014). When parents engage in inclusive conversations, GBQ individuals could assess and approximate the type of support they can expect from parents when they eventually decide to disclose their sexual orientation. For some, that meant disclosing their sexual orientation earlier when parents signified positive attitudes about LGBTQ issues, whereas for others, there was a delay in self-disclosure when the information and tone parents’ had about LGBTQ issues were negative or unaccepting.

Participants signaled that inclusive conversations helped to reduce the impact of internalized homonegativity while encouraging a positive sexual identity. Several studies with GBQ individuals addressed the multiple stress experienced by the population relating to sexual orientation (Meyer, 1995), citing specific family barriers with disclosure (Švab & Kuhar, 2014; Zhao et al., 2016), family support (Ryan et al., 2009; Ryan et al., 2010), and social acceptance (Figueroa & Tasker, 2014; Webb & Chonody, 2014; Zimmer-Gembeck & Helfand, 2008). Parents engaged in affirming sexual identity conversations help normalize sexual identity. Inclusive conversations about sexuality helped participants contextualize their own sexual orientation within their family unit and signaled positive parental support.

The rationale GBQ sons provided for inclusive sex communication indicates a wish for LGBTQ identities to be presented as part of a human sexuality continuum that is not aberrant from sexuality that is normally viewed as “normal.” The value of inclusive sex communication for GBQ sons, whether still questioning or not, and heterosexual children varies but collectively underscores the need to recognize LGBTQ sexuality in a positive or, at least, neutral light. GBQ sons viewed sex communication as a chance for parents to normalize LGBTQ identities early. More importantly, these findings appeal to creating nonjudgmental spaces where GBQ sons can have positive experiences as they form a sexual identity.

Aside from the multiple reasons for the sample’s endorsement of inclusive sex talks between parents and closeted sexual minority males, they also identified benefits to having these kinds of talks with heterosexual children. In essence, when straight parents acknowledge the sexuality continuum, they indicate to heterosexual youth the normality of the sexuality continuum. Inclusive talks allow straight youth to ask questions that clarify any social misconceptions about and reactions toward LGBTQ issues in general and GBQ adolescent males in particular. In addition, these conversations can help heterosexual youth become better advocates and allies as they would be able to engage in allied conversations about sexuality with their peers.

Conclusions

This study incorporates the experiences and perspectives of GBQ male youth and their discussions of sex with parents. Participants discussed that inclusive conversations about sex can reduce internalized GBQ stigma and promote a sense of support among children, as their parents are often a trusted resource for information and guidance. In addition, findings from this study underscore the significance of inclusive sex communication between parents and their children and that the benefits of these conversations can reach beyond GBQ youth such that heterosexual children are tolerant, understanding, and allies of their GBQ peers. Future research and interventions are needed to promote inclusive sex communication between parents and their children to improve the health and wellness of GBQ youth.

Footnotes

Conflicts of interest: None to report.

Contributor Information

Dalmacio D. Flores, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA..

J. Lloyd Allen, School of Social Work, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI..

Jacqueline A. Bannon, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL..

REFERENCES

  1. American Psychological Association. (2022). APA president condemns Florida’s ‘Don’t say gay’ bill. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2022/03/florida-dont-say-gay
  2. Bauermeister JA, Johns MM, Sandfort TG, Eisenberg A, Grossman AH, & D’Augelli AR (2010). Relationship trajectories and psychological well-being among sexual minority youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 1148–1163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bird JD, LaSala MC, Hidalgo MA, Kuhns LM, & Garofalo R.(2017). ‘I had to go to the streets to get love’: Pathways from parental rejection to HIV risk among young gay and bisexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 64, 321–342. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bouris A, Guilamo-Ramos V, Pickard A, Shiu C, Loosier PS, Dittus P, & Michael Waldmiller J.(2010). A systematic review of parental influences on the health and well-being of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth: Time for a new public health research and practice agenda. Journal of Primary Prevention, 31, 273–309. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bouris A, Hill BJ, Fisher K, Erickson G, & Schneider JA (2015). Mother−son communication about sex and routine human immunodeficiency virus testing among younger men of color who have sex with men. Journal of Adolescent Health, 57, 515–522. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bregman HR (2013). Parental support of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth following disclosure: A longitudinal, cohort-sequential study. Retrieved from https://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2080&context=oa_dissertations
  7. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). HIV surveillance report, 2017. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/library/reports/hiv-surveillance.html
  8. Bronfenbrenner U, & Morris P.(2006). The bioecological model of human development. Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models of human development (pp. 793–828). New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  9. Currin JM, Hubach RD, Durham AR, Kavanaugh KE, Vineyard Z, & Croff JM (2017). How gay and bisexual men compensate for the lack of meaningful sex education in a socially conservative state. Sex Education, 17, 667–681. [Google Scholar]
  10. D’Amico E, & Julien D.(2012). Disclosure of sexual orientation and gay, lesbian, and bisexual youths’ adjustment: Associations with past and current parental acceptance and rejection. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 8, 215–242. [Google Scholar]
  11. D’Augelli AR, & Grossman AH (2001). Disclosure of sexual orientation, victimization, and mental health among lesbian, gay, and bisexual older adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 1008–1027. [Google Scholar]
  12. Denzin NK, & Lincoln YS (Eds.). (2011). The Sage handbook of qualitative research. (4th). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publishing, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dilorio C, Hodkenberiy-Eaton M, Maibach E, Rivero T, & Miller K.(1996). The content of African American mothers’ discussions with their adolescents about sex. Journal of Family Nursing, 2, 365–382. [Google Scholar]
  14. Figueroa V, & Tasker F.(2014). ‘I always have the idea of sin in my mind.. . .’: Family of origin, religion, and Chilean young gay men. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10, 269–297. [Google Scholar]
  15. Flores AR (2021). Social acceptance of LGBTI people in 175 countries and locations. Retrieved from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/global-acceptance-index-lgbt/
  16. Flores D, & Barroso J.(2017). 21st century parent−child sex communication in the United States: A process review. Journal of Sex Research, 54, 532–548. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Graneheim UH, & Lundman B.(2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24, 105–112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Hadley W, Brown LK, Lescano CM, Kell H, Spalding K, DiClemente R, ... Project STYLE Study Group. (2009). Parent-adolescent sexual communication: Associations of condom use with condom discussions. AIDS and Behavior, 13, 997–1004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Jones J.(2022). LGBT identification in U.S. ticks up to 7.1%. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx
  20. LaSala MC (2015). Condoms and connection: Parents, gay and bisexual youth, and HIV risk. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 41, 451–464. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. LaSala MC, Fedor JP, Revere EJ, & Carney R.(2016). What parents and their gay and bisexual sons say about HIV prevention. Qualitative Health Research, 26, 1519–1530. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McKay EA, & Fontenot HB (2020). Parent-adolescent sex communication with sexual and gender minority youth: An integrated review. Journal of Pediatric Health Care, 34, e37–e48. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Meyer IH (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 36, 38–56. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Newcomb ME, LaSala MC, Bouris A, Mustanski B, Prado G, Schrager SM, & Huebner DM (2019). The influence of families on LGBTQ youth health: A call to action for innovation in research and intervention development. LGBT Health, 6, 139–145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Pingel ES, Thomas L, Harmell C, & Bauermeister JA (2013). Creating comprehensive, youth centered, culturally appropriate sex education: What do young gay, bisexual, and questioning men want? Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 10, 293–301. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rose ID, & Friedman DB (2013). We need health information too: A systematic review of studies examining the health information seeking and communication practices of sexual minority youth. Health Education Journal, 72, 417–430. [Google Scholar]
  27. Ryan C, Huebner D, Diaz RM, & Sanchez J.(2009). Family rejection as a predictor of negative health outcomes in white and Latino lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123, 346–352. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Ryan C, Russell ST, Huebner D, Diaz R, & Sanchez J.(2010). Family acceptance in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 205–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Saldaña J.(2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sandelowski M.(1995). Qualitative analysis: What it is and how to begin. Research in Nursing and Health, 18, 371–375. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Sandelowski M.(2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing and Health, 33, 77–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Sex Ed for Social Change. (2022). The truth about attacks on our kids, schools, and diversity. Retrieved from https://siecus.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/The-Truth-about-Attacks-on-Our-Kids-Schools-and-Diversity.pdf
  33. Somers CL, & Paulson SE (2000). Students’ perceptions of parent−adolescent closeness and communication about sexuality: Relations with sexual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Journal of Adolescence, 23, 629–644. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Švab A, & Kuhar R.(2014). The transparent and family closets: Gay men and lesbians and their families of origin. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10, 15–35. [Google Scholar]
  35. Udell WA, & Donenberg GR (2014). Brief report: Parental discussions about sexual risk with African American sons: The role of religiosity. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 7, 7. [Google Scholar]
  36. Voisin DR, Bird JD, Shiu CS, & Krieger C.(2013). It’s crazy being a Black, gay youth.” Getting information about HIV prevention: A pilot study. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 111–119. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Webb SN, & Chonody J.(2014). Heterosexual attitudes toward same-sex marriage: The influence of attitudes toward same-sex parenting. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 10, 404–421. [Google Scholar]
  38. Zhao Y, Ma Y, Chen R, Li F, Qin X, & Hu Z.(2016). Non-disclosure of sexual orientation to parents associated with sexual risk behaviors among gay and bisexual MSM in China. AIDS and Behavior, 20, 193–203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Zimmer-Gembeck MJ, & Helfand M.(2008). Ten years of longitudinal research on U.S. adolescent sexual behavior: Developmental correlates of sexual intercourse, and the importance of age, gender and ethnic background. Developmental Review, 28, 153–224. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES