…with Melissa Bergdall & Katie Ullman

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual-identifying (LGB) individuals and couples have a longer and more involved history of Internet-based technological engagement when compared to their heterosexual-identifying counterparts. For instance, LGB folks tend to meet partners online more frequently, and make purchases online more often. Yet how to manage technologies in one’s relationships is rarely addressed. The presenter will share recent theoretical and research-based information regarding how best to manage technology in one’s relationship, how to attend to individual and couple visibility management in online environments, and provide relevant case examples and resources to participants.

Lesbian, gay, & bisexual (LGB)-identifying

folks have history that is longer & of more

varied use than heterosexual

counterparts

LGB more use of Internet for shopping,

dating, and forming relationships (Riese,

2010)

In samples, between 61-70% of same-gender couples report meeting online, whereas 22-30% of different-gender couples (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2010)

For both different- and same-gender couples, who identify as interreligious, more likely to have met online (22% of couples) than same-religion counterparts (15% of couples) (Rosenfeld & Thomas, 2010)

Interracial relationship frequency data comparing same- and different-gender couples shows interraciality is more common in same-gender couplings, because meet more frequently online and via more diverse avenues (Patterson, 2005)

Ways to connect like never before

Long distance relationships easier to

maintain (Hertlein, 2008)

Builds intimacy in relationships more quickly

(Hertlein & Blumer, 2013)

Relationships develop based on common

interests rather than appearance (Henline &

Harris, 2006)

Availability of partners (Patterson, 2005)

Visibility management (Blumer, Bergdall, &

Ullman, 2014)

Time

Accountability

Communication difficulties

Distance-promoting

Work-life spillover

Suspicion & jealousy

Internet addiction

Internet infidelity

Problematic online gaming

Any element related to technology that influences the structure and process of relationships are considered

Each element can leave our relationships vulnerable to technological harm if left unaddressed

If adequately addressed, the elements can help foster technological exchanges that are characterized by mutual respect, care, and ethical exchanges

• Daily and unlimited access/opportunity from many locations–homes, workplaces, restaurants, hospitals, and smartphones (Cooper, 2002)

• Work/School-life spillover (Campbell & Ling, 2009; Chelsey, 2005)

On average, how

technologically accessible are

you?

61 LGB college participants on

technological accessibility:

• 30% = very accessible

• 60% = pretty accessible

• 13% = not very accessible

• 0% = not at all accessible

• Simple monthly service

charge from an

Internet service

provider

• No receipts (Cooper,

2002)

On average, how affordable is

your smartphone?

61 LGB college participants on

smartphone affordability:

• 33% = very affordable

• 58% = affordable

• 8% = unaffordable

• 0% = very unaffordable

• “Enhances one’s

ability to promote

any chosen identity.”

(Hertlein & Sendak,

2007, p. 4)

• Problems when the

user decides to hide

pertinent aspects of

self in a relationship

(Cooper, 2002)

• People accept & participate in use for various functions, places, & points in time once deemed inappropriate in society (i.e. cell phone use at the dinner table) (King, 1999)

How acceptable is sexting your

partner?

How acceptable is it to send

graphic self-imagery to a partner?

To someone who is not your

partner?

Acceptability

of…

Not at all Low degree Somewhat High degree

sexting within

relationship

15% 13% 30% 41%

sending

graphic image

of self to

partner

9% 15% 24% 50%

sending

graphic image

to non-partner

43% 33% 15% 7%

showing a non-

partner a

graphic image

33% 32% 24% 9%

• Internet approximates or

simulates offline, real-world

situations (i.e. showing support

and comfort via Facebook

comments instead of through

in-person interactions) (Ross &

Kauth, 2002; Tikkanen & Ross,

2003)

• Internet provides greater opportunity for

one to act a certain way in “real time”

but have a different persona when it

comes to online behavior and activities

(Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010)

• Difficulty of defining online behaviors as problematic

• Definitions, interpretations, contracts (Hertlein & Stevenson, 2010)

Increase awareness and mindfulness around

technology

Think of technology as if it were a member of

one’s relationship(s)

If you can’t talk about technology with

someone, you probably shouldn’t be using it with

them

Talk about and address the ecological elements

Contracting (and re-contracting) in relationships

around technology

Establish clear definitions, rules, roles, &

boundaries around what is problematic

and acceptable technology use

Attend to factors that influence technology

usage (e.g., gender, age, generation,

sexual orientation, race, ethnic

background, able-bodiedness, economics,

nationality, etc.)

Model by Papalia et al. (2007), which

synthesizes Cass (1979), Coleman (1972), &

Troiden (1989) models of identity

development in L/G folks

Stage Focus Ages

First Awareness of same-sex

attraction

8-11

Second Same-sex sexual

behaviors

12-14

Third Identification as L/G 15-18

Fourth Disclosure to others 17-19

Fifth Development of same-

sex romantic

relationships

18-20

• Involves the experience of the:

Individuals

Couple formation

Couple Maintenance

Couple Conclusion

All of which exists in dominant societal

context & not necessarily uni-directional

When LBG folks meet & form, they move from individual visibility management to couple visibility management (Iwasaki & Ristock, 2007)

Visibility management refers to the degree to which the individual &/or couple is “out” in varied contexts

LGB-identifying folks may use different terminology (e.g., hiding, passing, being discrete, not being out, etc.)

Involves the who, what, when, where, why & how in terms of couple’s level of public visibility

Visibility management is affected by the individual participants, as well as the larger dominant societal context

Invisibility management refers to the degree to which society (& individuals within it) validates, recognizes, acknowledges, accepts, etc. LGB individuals & couples

If in a place where there is a high degree of invisibility being practiced, it forces LGB folks to engage in ongoing visibility management

If a society (& individuals within it) practices less invisibility management individuals & couples able to be more free, visible, supported and encourages meeting, formation, etc. of relationships (Blumer & Green, 2011; Green & Blumer, 2013)

When the LGB person is non-partnered, people can say they are supportive without having to see the sexual orientation of the person

Sexual orientation becomes more visible through coupling

Invisibility management shields people from seeing LGB couples and that places couples in a position to have to practice visibility management

The practicing of invisibility and visibility management vary over time and space

How is visibility management

different/similar for lesbian, gay, and/or

bisexual individuals and/or couples?

How are invisibility management

practices by dominant majority

different/similar towards lesbian, gay,

and/or bisexual individuals and/or

couples? What about invisibility

management practices from within the

LGB communities?

What about practices around

e-visibility?

Sample:

• 61 total participants

• Bisexual-identifying (n = 33, 54%), & same-sex oriented-identifying (n = 28, 46%)

• Female-identifying (n = 38, 62%), male-identifying (n = 23, 38%), & transgender-identifying (n = 0, 0%)

• Age range of 18-41, mean of 24.67 years

• Caucasian (n = 34, 55.7%), Hispanic (n = 16, 26.2%), Black (n = 7, 11.5%), American Indian/Alaskan Native (n = 2, 3.3%), Chinese (n = 2, 3.3%), Filipino (n = 6, 9.8%), Japanese (n = 2, 3.3%), Hawaiian (n = 1, 1.6%), Samoan (n = 1, 1.16%), & multi (n = 3, 4.8%)

• Relationship with 1 person (n = 34, 55.73%, relationship with more than 1 person (n = 5, 8.1%), & not in a relationship (n = 22, 36%)

Procedure:

• Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval obtained

• Convenience sample of undergraduate students in large, metropolitan university setting in southwestern United States

• Participants completed an online survey hosted by Qualtrics

Measures:

• Survey divided into 5 sections: 1) demographics, 2) Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Identity Scale (Mohr & Fassinger, 2000), 3) Ecological Elements Questionnaire (Hertlein & Blumer, 2013), 4) Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale-IV (Olson, 2011), and 4) Same-Sexting Practices Questionnaire (Blumer, 2013).

• Being reported: demographics, same-sexting practices with quantitative items on 6-point Likert scale where 1 = very infrequently & 6 = very frequently

Results:

• Most identify sexual orientation online (n = 32, 62.75%) & most frequently on Facebook (n = 23, 37.7%)

• Majority have infrequent (n = 33, 70.21%) negative reactions or harassment based on sexual or gender orientation minority status from people interact with online

• Facebook most frequent site identified being out about partnered relationship status (n = 21, 34.4%)

• Most reported in terms of e-visibility management in people they partner with—their being out online or offline was extremely unimportant (n = 23, 48.94% & n = 21, 44.68%, respectively)

• Importance of knowing a person’s sexual orientation when online, bulk reported either very unimportant (n = 18, 39.13%) or very important (n = 13, 28.26%)

• Importance of knowing a person’s gender orientation when online, bulk reported either very unimportant (n = 16, 34.78%) or very important (n = 13, 28.26%)

Discussion:

• LGB individuals negotiate process of being “out” offline; with greater use of online mediums it has become increasingly important to understand how navigate levels of “outness” online

• Individuals practicing e-visibility management in selves, yet mixed results in terms of knowing/caring about partners or strangers e-visibility management

• Reportedly more important for partners to be “out” offline than online

• Individuals in relationship may be in different places in LGB identity development & thus management of visibility (Blumer & Green, 2011)

• Research shows increased frequency of cyberbullying for LGB individuals (Blumenfeld & Cooper, 2010), yet results indicate extremely low levels of negative interactions—possible with current social media structures & control, LGB folks avoiding negative interactions by selectively choosing who is a part of their online community

Smartphone applications can be

used in:

• meeting people/dating

• negotiating ecological

elements/strengthening

relationships

• managing visibility & e-

visibility/support-focused

SNSs (Gudelunas, 2012), cyber

community support groups (Gauthier &

Chaudoir, 2004), apps, & websites aimed

at empowering and mobilizing LGB folks

have helped people feel more

supported, socially connected &

satisfied, & have provided opportunities

for safe places to explore one’s sexual

and gender orientations (Elderton &

Jones, 2011)

Sample of 7,184 gay & bisexual-identifying men in LA LGBT Center tested for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) between 2011-2013 (Beymer et al., 2014)

Grindr and SCRUFF linked to increased risk for some STIs:

• those who used to meet up were 25% more likely to have gonorrhea, & 37% more likely to have chlamydia than those who first met partners in person

• no difference in rate of HIV or syphilis

Team up

Review one of the case studies

Use discussion questions as you talk

about case study

LGB use and history with technology

and new media

Ecological elements to consider in

managing technology in relationships

Attention to individual and couple

visibility & e-visibility management

App resources available

University of Wisconsin-Stout

Professional Development Grant:

Just In Time Faculty-Student Grant

Julie A. Miller, MSW, LGBTQ

Program Coordinator

Megan VandenBosch, MFT MS

Student & Graduate Assistant

Dr. Markie L. C. Blumer:

https://uwstout.academia.edu/MarkieBlumer

• blumerm@uwstout.edu

• @Markie_Blumer