Search

ABSTRACTAim: The present study examined how adult offspring of lesbian parents relate to their anonymous, open-identity, or known donors.Design: An online survey of 75 donor-conceived offspring of lesbian parents, aged 30–33 years, participating in Wave 7 of a U.S. 36-year longitudinal study of planned lesbian-parent families was conducted. Offspring were asked about donor type, motivations for contacting the donor, terminology for the donor, relationshipquality, means of relationship maintenance, impact of donor contact on offspring’s other family members, and their feelings about the donor.Results: Twenty offspring with anonymous donors and 15 with open-identity donors whom they had not contacted felt comfortable not knowing their donors. Forty offspring knew their donors – anonymous, contacted through an online registry (n = 7), open-identity,contacted (n = 9), or known since childhood (n = 24).Offspring who had contacted their donor since age 18 had theirmotivations fulfilled after contact, got along well with him, did not view him as a relative, and had told most family members about their contact, without detriment. Whether the donor was unknownor known at this stage of their lives, most offspring were satisfied with their contact level.Conclusion: This cohort of donor-conceived offspring of lesbian parents was among the first to reach adulthood during a time oftechnological advances in DNA testing, giving access to anonymous donors via online registries. The results inform donors,families, mental health providers, medical providers and public policymakers, on whether, how, and to what degree donor-conceived offspring optimally make donor contact.

The U.S. Supreme Court decisions in U.S. v. Windsor (570 U.S. 307) and Hollingsworth v. Perry (570 U.S. 399) created a focal point for public discussion of marriage equality for same-sex couples. This article reports the results of an exploratory study of the reactions of individuals currently or previously in same-sex couple relationships and a heterosexual sibling who is currently or previously married (N = 371) to the Supreme Court decisions. Thematic content analysis was used to explore participants’ responses to an open-ended question on a survey. Reactions of individuals from same-sex couples revealed the following themes: (1) longitudinal perspectives on the advancement of rights for same-sex couples; (2) emotional responses celebrating the decisions or expressing relief; (3) affirmation of their relationship or rights; (4) practical consequences of the extension of rights; and (5) minority stress related to anticipation of future prejudice or discrimination. Themes in the heterosexual siblings’ responses were (1) ally support; (2) flat support without emotion or elaboration; (3) indifference to or ignorance about the decisions; and (4) disapproval of the decisions. These themes are compared and discussed in light of prior research on reactions to marriage restriction debates and marriage (in)equality and family relationships.

The National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study (NLLFS) started in 1986 when donor insemination became available for lesbian women in the U.S. Wave 7 of the NLLFS was the first time that adults conceived via donor insemination were asked if they had or planned to have children, and what they anticipated telling children about their own nontraditional conception. Of 75 NLLFS adult offspring (mean age 30.93; 49.33% female, 48.00% male, and 2.66% gender nonbinary; 90.67% White, 9.33% people of color), 8 (10.67%) had children and 42 of the rest (62.67%) hoped to have children. Most anticipated no parenting challenges, though some mentioned societal reactions or not having had a father. They expected to rear children in an open-minded and child-focused way, and to discuss their own nontraditional conception in a casual and straightforward manner. They viewed their own mothers as role models. Wave 7 was also the first time that NLLFS parents were asked about grandchildren; of 124 parents, 7 (5.64%) were grandparents. They expressed joy in spending time with their grandchildren and pride in their offspring's parenting skills. The results are discussed in relation to research about how parents who are members of minority groups educate children about minority status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim Design Results Conclusion The present study examined how adult offspring of lesbian parents relate to their anonymous, open-identity, or known donors.An online survey of 75 donor-conceived offspring of lesbian parents, aged 30–33 years, participating in Wave 7 of a U.S. 36-year longitudinal study of planned lesbian-parent families was conducted. Offspring were asked about donor type, motivations for contacting the donor, terminology for the donor, relationship quality, means of relationship maintenance, impact of donor contact on offspring’s other family members, and their feelings about the donor.Twenty offspring with anonymous donors and 15 with open-identity donors whom they had not contacted felt comfortable not knowing their donors. Forty offspring knew their donors – anonymous, contacted through an online registry (n = 7), open-identity, contacted (n = 9), or known since childhood (n = 24). Offspring who had contacted their donor since age 18 had their motivations fulfilled after contact, got along well with him, did not view him as a relative, and had told most family members about their contact, without detriment. Whether the donor was unknown or known at this stage of their lives, most offspring were satisfied with their contact level.This cohort of donor-conceived offspring of lesbian parents was among the first to reach adulthood during a time of technological advances in DNA testing, giving access to anonymous donors via online registries. The results inform donors, families, mental health providers, medical providers and public policymakers, on whether, how, and to what degree donor-conceived offspring optimally make donor contact. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study compared 55 men and 78 women who had same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, 101 men and 120 women who had domestic partnerships in California, and 35 men and 86 women who had civil unions in Vermont, all in 2004. Couples were surveyed on demographic and relationship information, conflict, contact with family of origin, social support, politics, and leisure activities. There were few interstate differences, although couples in Massachusetts were more politically liberal and more sympathetic toward feminism than were couples in other states. There were, however, a number of gender differences. As compared to women, men were older and had waited longer to legalize their relationships; they were also more exclusively gay and less likely to have children. More than 90% of all couples were registered to vote and had voted in the last national election. (Contains 2 tables.)

This study was a 3-year follow-up of 65 male and 138 female same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont during the 1st year of that legislation. These couples were compared with 23 male and 61 female same-sex couples in their friendship circles who did not have civil unions and with 55 heterosexual married couples (1 member of each was a sibling to a member of a civil union couple). Despite the legalized nature of their relationships, civil union couples did not differ on any measure from same-sex couples who were not in civil unions. However, same-sex couples not in civil unions were more likely to have ended their relationships than same-sex civil union or heterosexual married couples. Compared with heterosexual married participants, both types of same-sex couples reported greater relationship quality, compatibility, and intimacy and lower levels of conflict. Longitudinal predictors of relationship quality at Time 2 included less conflict, greater level of outness, and a shorter relationship length for men in same-sex relationships and included less conflict and more frequent sex for women in same-sex relationships at Time 1.

Lifetime victimization was examined in a primarily European American sample that comprised 557 lesbian/gay, 163 bisexual, and 525 heterosexual adults. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) participants were recruited via LGB e-mail lists, periodicals, and organizations; these participants recruited 1 or more siblings for participation in the study (81% heterosexual, 19% LGB). In hierarchical linear modeling analyses, sexual orientation was a significant predictor of most of the victimization variables. Compared with heterosexual participants, LGB participants reported more childhood psychological and physical abuse by parents or caretakers, more childhood sexual abuse, more partner psychological and physical victimization in adulthood, and more sexual assault experiences in adulthood. Sexual orientation differences in sexual victimization were greater among men than among women.

Relationship satisfaction, affect, and stress were examined in 313 same-sex couples who had had civil unions in Vermont during the first year of this legislation. Similarity between partners on age and on positive/negative affectivity was related to relationship satisfaction whereas there was no association with similarity in income, education, and outness. Lesbian couples (n=199), compared to gay male couples, reported experiencing more stress related to family reaction to their sexuality, whereas gay male couples (n=114) reported more stress surrounding the issues of HIV/AIDS and violence/harassment than did lesbian couples. This study is the first to examine within-couple factors among same-sex couples with legalized relationships.

It is vital for women to publish their writing for tenure and promotion so that they are no longer underrepresented as senior scholars in academia. Furthermore, it is important that their radical and important ideas are published and not lost to history. For the 2022 Carolyn Wood Sherif Award talk, I focused on five topics: (1) publishing is vital for women in academia; (2) women may not feel entitled to write and publish; (3) women need to learn how to be invited to publish; (4) women may leave academia; and (5) feminist writing is political, radical, and important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]