Positive and negative communicative behaviors in coming-out conversations.

This article was downloaded by: [Dicle University] On: 14 November 2014, At: 22:52 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Homosexuality Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

Positive and Negative Communicative Behaviors in Coming-Out Conversations a

Jimmie Manning PhD a

Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA Accepted author version posted online: 25 Aug 2014.Published online: 08 Oct 2014.

To cite this article: Jimmie Manning PhD (2015) Positive and Negative Communicative Behaviors in Coming-Out Conversations, Journal of Homosexuality, 62:1, 67-97, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.957127 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2014.957127

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions

Journal of Homosexuality, 62:67–97, 2015 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2014.957127

Positive and Negative Communicative Behaviors in Coming-Out Conversations JIMMIE MANNING, PhD

Downloaded by [Dicle University] at 22:52 14 November 2014

Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, Illinois, USA

This essay features typographic analysis of 258 coming-out narratives from 130 diverse lesbian, gay, or bisexual participants. Two typologies of coming-out conversations, one exploring positive communicative behaviors and another exploring negative, are offered. Positive behaviors for all members of the conversation include open communication channels, affirming direct relational statements, laughter and joking, and nonverbal immediacy. Negative behaviors for those coming out included nervous nonverbal behavior, indirectly approaching the topic, and lack of preparation. Negative behaviors for receivers include expressing denial, religious talk, inappropriate questions or comments, shaming statements, and aggressive statements. Future studies and research implications are considered. KEYWORDS coming out, interpersonal communication, practical research, qualitative inquiry, relationships

Research about coming-out conversations, similar to research about any queered interpersonal interaction (Elia, 2003; Manning, 2009a), has been sparse. This limited attention to coming out conversations is particularly curious, given that a defining element of coming out, “the process by which individuals come to recognize that they have romantic or sexual feelings toward members of their own gender, adopt lesbian or gay (or bisexual) identities, and then share these identities with others” (Rust, 2003, p. 227, emphasis added), is the communication that happens as part of that process. To be certain, the disclosure of nonheterosexual identity is important (Adams, 2011; Harry, 1993). Unfortunately, coming out conversations are Address correspondence to Jimmie Manning, Department of Communication, Northern Illinois University, 305 Watson Hall, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA. E-mail: [email protected] 67


68

J. Manning

often filled with frustration, anxiety, fear, confusion, and discomfort (Brierly, 2000; Manning, 2014a) as well as the potential for violence (Tharinger & Wells, 2000). Alternately, and as data in this study reflect, often coming-out conversations are filled with touching, joyous moments of connection and sensitivity. Understanding the positive and negative elements of coming-out conversations could be beneficial to those who have someone come out to them or who are preparing for a coming-out disclosure of their own. This study, an interpretive analysis of coming-out narratives from a diverse variety of individuals in multiple situations and contexts, examines some of these interpersonal communicative aspects of coming out. Participant narratives are used to generate two practical typologies: one identifying communicative behaviors that were identified as positive and another for behaviors identified as negative. To help illustrate the typology, excerpts from participant survey data is provided. Finally, discussion is offered exploring how these practical understandings might be explored in future studies of coming out and interpersonal communication involving non-heterosexual individuals.

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND COMING OUT: MOVING FROM THE COGNITIVE TO THE COMMUNICATIVE Social science research about coming out is often placed into models that help to explain the cognitive processes people face as they realize their sexual identities (Manning, 2014a). Cass’s (1979, 1984, 1990) Homosexual Identity Model (HIM) served as a germinal force for the development of scholarship about coming out (Rust, 2003). HIM, like most empirical models that explore coming out, does so from a psychosocial vantage point that focuses more on internal thoughts, feelings, and anxieties rather than on external expression related to sexual identity. Even though a variety of other stage models have appeared since Cass’s original work, HIM still stands as the most widely cited and prominent model of coming out (Manning, 2014a). Other developments include Troiden’s (1988) model that argues that coming out follows a horizontally displayed spiral progressing up and down as well as back and forth as individuals become familiar with their sexual identities; D’Augelli’s (1994) six areas of development of sexual orientation that occur throughout one’s lifespan; and a series of helpful critiques of these and other models (e.g., Franke & Leary, 1991) that explore how they are limited both by their linearity (e.g., Rust, 2003) as well as how they fail to account for diversity (e.g., Chan, 1989; Greene, 1994; Rosario, Schrimshaw, Hunter, & Braun, 2006). Rust (2003) and Manning (2014a) both offer overviews of the advantages and disadvantages that sociopsychological perspectives have allowed

Positive and Negative Communicative Behaviors

69


for understanding coming out. The rest of this study focuses on one particular limitation that has followed coming out research: It seldom explores communication. Such inquiry would undoubtedly be helpful for interpersonal relationships, as those who are coming out could prepare for such conversations, and those receiving coming-out disclosures could help to provide a comfortable and affirming communication climate. As Manning (2014a) notes, understanding coming out in terms of communication requires a different approach than identity models because each communicative coming-out experience will likely be different, as an LGB person comes out to many different people in many different contexts throughout life. Some of the key research regarding communicative aspects of coming out are explored here to offer a sense of what interpersonal coming-out disclosures entail.

Interpersonal Communication and Coming Out As Adams (2011) notes, coming out is a complex, often paradoxical process that often places unfair burdens upon non-heterosexual individuals, as they have to consider when it is the right time to come out and what the implications of doing so might be. He also notes, as have theorists have before him (e.g., Rich, 1980; Sedgwick, 1990), that sexual identity is often not easily accessible. People will often assume heterosexuality until there is some challenge to that idea (Manning, 2009b; Rich, 1980). Based on these ideas and the other research reviewed here, I argue these challenges to heteronormativity are often communicative in nature. Moreover, based on the data presented in this study, it would also appear that even when people suspect another might be attracted to people of the same sex, they crave a coming-out disclosure as some sort of affirmation. That is not the reason people tend to come out. As psychosocial models (Rust, 2003) and the data in this study help to illustrate, people often crave to express their sense of true identity to others. Given that notion, it might be a better question to ask why people do not come out rather than why they do. As Harry (1993) argues, “the principal reason for not being out is that the audience would react punitively through sanctions which can be economic, violent, or ones of social disapproval and loss of prestige” (p. 28). That is not to suggest that coming out does not have its positive implications as well. For example, Bacon (1998) positions coming out as a cultural form of rhetoric aimed toward a queer movement of liberation. This liberation can come in the form of spiritual or religious community building (Wilcox, 2003), allowing for open conversations with heterosexual-identified others about personal-political issues (Manning, 2009a). Sharing stories about coming-out experiences with similar others can also create a profound sense of connection (Plummer, 1995). Therapists (Rust, 2003) and medical practitioners (Manning, 2014a) also see the benefits of coming out, arguing that


70

J. Manning

LGB people have a greater sense of confidence and increased health by doing so. Sexual identity can also be tied to sexual relationships, and so being liberated about sexual identity can add to a productive and rewarding holistic sense of health (Manning, 2014b). For these reasons and more, increased and extended inquiry into coming-out conversations is essential (Toomey & Richardson, 2009). Manning (2014a) developed a communicative model of coming out that examined the four sequential parts a coming-out conversation tends to go through as it occurs: The conversation is introduced as special or noteworthy; an identity disclosure is directly or indirectly made; the people in the conversation interact to negotiate a sense of what it all means, even if that negotiation is not necessarily thoughtful; and finally some sort of concluding statement is made, one that in many cases indicates how the relationship will continue to develop. Further research has looked specifically at particular contexts, including studies that have examined the consequences of coming out to family members (e.g., Oswald, 2000; Savin-Williams & Dube, 1998), in health-care settings (Manning, 2014a), to coworkers (King, Reilly, & Hebl, 2008), or as an educator (Russ, Simonds, & Hunt, 2002). Other inquiries have made use of data about coming-out conversations, even if conversations were not the focus of the study itself. For example, in a study about gay men coming out to parents, LaSala (2000) provided qualitative data that allowed glimpses into parents’ reactions. This study differs from prior studies in that it makes a direct focus on the content of conversations. The lack of focus on coming-out conversations is understandable. As Adams and Manning (in press) note, actual coming-out conversations would be difficult, if not impossible, to capture and analyze as discourse. Additionally, interpersonal communication studies have often ignored or avoided issues related to sex, sexuality, and sexual identity (Manning, 2013b). To combat these methodological and motivational barriers, guided narratives about coming-out conversations serve as a site of inquiry for the following research question: What positive and negative communicative behaviors are present when individuals communicate their non-heterosexual identity to others?

METHODS Participants and Procedures To explore positive and negative communicative behaviors in coming-out conversations, an open-ended survey was administered online that asked LGB individuals to share their personal coming-out experiences as narratives. Participants were located through snowball sampling (Manning & Kunkel, 2014b), starting with seven LGB-oriented online groups (as they



71

were listed in order in a Google search). Over a four-month period 130 participants responded to the survey, with 62 identifying as men (55 gay, seven bisexual), 67 as women (49 lesbian, 18 bisexual), and with four of the participants also identifying as transgender (one individual refused to identify in terms of gender). Participants ranged from 18 to 72 years in age, with the mean age being 32.8 years. Participants in the study were ethnically diverse, with White non-Hispanic participants making up only 65% of the sample, and representation from Asian, Latino, multiracial, Native American, and Black races/ethnicities comprising the other 35% (listed in descending order based on number of participants). All but 36 of the participants were from the United States, with each geographical portion of the United States receiving fairly equal representation. The other 36 participants were from Britain, Australia, Canada, and Mexico; with one representative each from China, France, Italy, Paraguay, and Sweden. Biographical information is often included with narrative excerpts utilized in this essay to contextualize the data. The goals of the study required genuine and detailed stories, so surveys were designed to capture as much rich storytelling as possible. To this end, participants were directed to a survey with six open-ended questions probing for two detailed coming-out narratives: one they considered to be a positive experience and one they considered to be a negative experience (in order to extend the possibility for a variety of coming-out experiences). The first question for each narrative was geared toward asking them to tell their story; the second toward asking what they considered to be positive and negative in terms of communication in the interaction; and the third toward how they perceived the interaction as changing their relationship with the person or persons to whom they came out. They were allowed to use as much space as possible in telling their individual stories. Participants who did not fully complete the survey had their survey data removed from all levels of analysis (and are not reflected in the demographic information listed). In total, 211 single-spaced pages of narrative data were collected. To remain true to the participants and their written voices, all data in this essay are presented in original form—any editing is clearly noted and was exclusively used for the sake of confidentiality. The editors for this article have indicated the intentional inclusion of irregular spelling or grammar in the data through the insertion of a sic notation.

Data Analysis Interpersonal typographic analysis (Manning & Kunkel, 2014b) was used to identify typical positive and negative communication behaviors in coming-out conversations. This process began with numerous readings of the complete set of narratives so as to strongly acquaint myself with the data.


72

J. Manning

In order to inductively derive categories from the data, a chief goal in initial qualitative analysis (Lindlof & Taylor, 2002), three stages were engaged. First, I identified any communicative behaviors identified in the narratives. This identification gave me a subset of the data pertinent to the research question asked in the study. Second, I examined each identified behavior in context of the individual narrative and assessed it as a positive or negative behavior and with the understanding that coming-out experiences identified as negative overall could still contain positive communicative behaviors and vice versa. Finally, I used Spradley’s (1979) attribution semantic relationship “X is an attribute (characteristic) of Y” (p. 111) to constitute a typology of positive and negative behaviors in line with Manning’s (2013a) qualitative guidelines for typology development. In the analysis, X was the specific communicative behaviors and Y was the larger category descriptor that more abstractly described the behavior. Abstract categories were developed by taking a given datum (in this case a specific positive or negative behavior) and comparing it to prior data for similarity or difference. When differences were noted, a new typology category was added. As the process continued, I merged and revised as appropriate until I had enough categories to exhaust all cases in the data set. As additional validity and reliability checks, I also examined the final typology for similarities or differences along demographic categories (age, ethnicity, national origin, sexual identity, etc.) in a comparison matrix and found that these variables yielded no significant difference. I then rechecked data for alternate interpretations (Miles & Huberman, 1994), but could find no alternate readings of positive or negative. Finally, internal and external member checks (Manning & Kunkel, 2014b) were conducted as the typology was presented to participants who took part in the study as well as to other individuals who have engaged a coming-out conversation before (both LGBand non-LGB-identified people) in order to gain a better understanding of whether the results seemed true based upon their personal experiences. Positive feedback indicated valid results with the possibility of transference to other contexts.

Results As one might expect, coming-out conversations can contain positive and negative elements regardless of whether a participant believed the conversation to be positive or negative overall. The analysis developed three broad categories: positive communicative behaviors, negative communicative behaviors from receivers, and negative communicative behaviors from the person coming out. Each is explored in-depth through a typology of the particular categorical area.



POSITIVE

73

COMMUNICATIVE BEHAVIORS

Participants in this study generally provided many examples of positive communicative behavior in their coming-out narratives (with coming-out conversations being labeled as negative overall even containing positive elements) as well as explanations of why they appreciated these behaviors. Additionally, the context of the discourse surrounding the portrayal and/or discussion of such behaviors in the narratives allows views into how these behaviors could be helpful. As the data reflect, some of these behaviors were dominant and overarching in many coming-out conversations, while others are behaviors that may seem minor without the context of the narrative explaining why it was so helpful. In addition to the actual communicative behaviors that were experienced in the coming-out conversations, participants also provided many supportive actions that they felt were missing from their experiences or that they craved. After a close examination of the data, it became apparent that four specific types of communicative behaviors were especially appreciated by participants: open communication channels, affirming direct relational statements, laughter and joking, and nonverbal immediacy. Each of the four categories is examined along with survey data to help elucidate the explanations. Open communication channels. Many survey respondents noted that they appreciated what could be classified as behavior encouraging open communication channels. This is communicative behavior that demonstrates a want or need to relate, understand, or clarify upon the information in the discussions. For instance, one of the most-prevalent communicative acts promoting open communication channels in the narratives was the sense that people were listening in the coming-out conversations. “It felt good just to have someone hear me, to understand me, to know me,” one participant explained. This behavior was cited by her and others as one that made it easier to cope with the confusion surrounding a LGB identity. For many of the respondents, having others listen to their experiences, feelings, and worries represented some sort of respect (or attempt to respect and understand) them as LGB individuals. “They listened to me and tried to get it even if their religious beliefs kept them from fully understanding,” shared one participant. The simple act of listening has its limitations, however. As a 22-year-old White female from the Midwest complained about a friend who would not do much besides listen: I told her that I thought that I liked girls. I mentioned that I was scared and that I didn’t know what to do. I expressed romantic interest in a fellow friend and confided that I was sure that Jesus wouldn’t approve. . . . While she was a good confidant, she didn’t offer me any real comfort about my situation. . . . I would have liked more active support.

As this passage demonstrates, the simple act of listening is not always enough. Sometimes advice, affirmation, or even questions are craved. Active

74

J. Manning


listening does appear to be, however, a welcome start for most LGB individuals engaging coming-out conversations. Similar to listening is the notion of education. Survey respondents often praised receivers of coming-out disclosures when they seemed to want to educate themselves on LGB issues. Education in this case does not necessarily always refer to the new information that can be learned from one another in terms of facts or statistics—although that would appear to be valuable based on respondent input—but, rather, looks to the notion that different people have different views on different topics and that hearing these different views—or establishing openness—can be important in coming-out conversations. As a 23-year-old White man from the Midwest explains in describing his positive coming-out conversation: I always left it an open dialogue with which we could be completely be honest and discuss any questions or concerns. This worked very well; I never just said “know this and this alone” and left it there; there’s not growth for anyone involved when that’s the case.

Although LGB individuals did often call for more of an open mind and for people to allow space for education in coming-out conversations, it was evident from the narratives that LGB individuals were not always communicating with openness themselves. To this end, it may be important for some LGB individuals to keep an open mind to what others have to say about their LGB identity. For example, some survey participants instantly dismissed anyone with a religious view as being closed minded and not open to change. Other surveys suggested that anyone who was not instantly accepting or who had questions were “bigots” or “hopeless.” Still, others reported that they were anticipating responses such as these and that they prepared themselves for these types of negative and/or nonsupportive responses. As one participant stated, “I was not negative or defensive, I just let the conversation flow, if the conversation was going to develop [sic] I was ready for any questions.” Yet another survey respondent discussed how listening to his parents’ concerns helped him know what to tell them in the future. Part of the equation of creating open communication channels is the ability to ask questions. It was not uncommon for participant responses to suggest that LGB individuals craved questions from those to whom they were coming out. This observation is not to suggest that receivers are not asking questions in coming-out conversations. Many respondents pointed out that receiving questions after the coming-out disclosure was part of the response to learning of the LGB person’s non-heterosexual orientation. Some of these questions, as later analysis reveals, were not considered to be questions that fostered discussion or understanding. Others were seen as positive and as establishing support. For example, when reflecting upon coming out to his colleague, a 26-year-old White male from the Midwest explained:


75


I think this experience sticks out in my mind because when I told her she goes, “Really?” and then I said, “Yeah,” and she goes, “Okay.” Then she wanted to know if I had a boyfriend. No one really ever asks that. They’re too busy trying to prove they’re cool with being gay or whatever and don’t even think about you as a person with a relationship. So when she asked me that, I told her yes, and then she asked me about him and instantly started comparing him with her s.o. She asked if my boyfriend was a hottie and we talked about him and it was great. I felt like she understood what gay was really about.

This example points to a specific question that the respondent enjoyed, one that allowed him to elaborate on his LGB identity in a positive way. In addition to inviting more disclosure from the LGB individual, thus continuing an open line of communication, it exhibited a comfort for the person receiving the coming-out disclosure. Although many survey participants indicated they wanted more questions, they often did not indicate what specific types of questions they wanted. Additionally, a tension also appears to be at play: Although participants wanted questions about their sexual orientation, they also report not being able to answer some questions and being annoyed by others. Affirming direct relational statements. In addition to open lines of communication, participants often reported being happy with direct relational statements that affirmed acceptance and/or approval of their LGB identities as well as statements directly affirming love. Not surprisingly, “I love you” seemed to be the most popular phrase with survey respondents. Some respondents pointed to this phrase as the one that allowed them to relax after coming out. As a 23-year-old Asian male from the Midwest described: I felt like I wanted to run, and I was in the mood to. I was upset, anticipating their reaction. When they told me that they loved me, I breathed a sigh of relief. It was positive because I got a good reaction and they were the first that I let know.

As can be seen in his narrative, this individual entered the comingout conversation fearful of how his parents would feel about him and his non-heterosexual orientation. When his parents told him they loved him, it allowed him to instantly feel relief. This is a direct testament to the positive power that direct relational statements can bring to coming-out conversations. The importance of parents communicating love for their children once learning of an LGB identity is extended in this narrative from a 23-year-old Latina woman from the Western United States: i told him that i was a lesbian and i had been struggling with it for years. i just remember telling him i needed to tell him and be honest about it.

76

J. Manning


the first thing he said to me was that he still loved me. it didn’t matter of i was gay or straight. all that mattered was that i was his daughter and he wanted me to be happy. in his eyes it was as natural for me as him being straight. when he left i got this big hug and felt better about myself and like this huge weight on my shoulders was lifted. i could finally be myself.

Not only does this narrative include a direct statement about love, but it also brings forth another phrase that many others report as satisfying in coming-out conversations: I want you to be happy. This phrase, in a sense, functions not only as a direct statement that happiness is desired for the LGBT individual, but indirectly it suggests that sexual orientation is not a major issue and that, on some level, the LGB identity is being accepted. Although love and desire for happiness appear to be almost universally craved by those coming out to close others, sometimes less direct or intense versions of these statements might be in order, depending on the relationship. For instance, more than one gay male respondent reported that, when coming out to a straight male friend, the response was either “That’s cool,” or “I’m cool with that.” As one participant explained, Guys can’t really come out and tell you they love you and stuff. Maybe your dad. So when another guy hears you’re gay and wants to tell you he cares, I think he just tells you it’s cool or something like that. It’s less gay but gets the point across.

In that scenario, it would appear that even indirect relational statements may be helpful in acknowledging care and affirmation. Along those lines, some receivers attempt to show their support or understanding by direct statements explaining that they have associations with other LGB individuals. As a White 23-year-old man from the Midwest said: They kept telling me about people that they needed to introduce me to— I’m not sure if they wanted to hook me up or not, but the people they were talking about were gay. In retrospect, I suppose it was a little weird that the first thing many of my co-workers wanted to point out that they knew other gay people. But, really, at the time it was rather affirming.

As this example and other responses to the survey show, even if sometimes the ways of showing acceptance are awkward, they still have the possibility to demonstrate affirmation. Laughter and joking. Although some might perceive coming-out conversations as being inherently serious, the data collected in this study suggest that this is not the case with many coming-out conversations. Narratives provided were frequently of a light-hearted nature, and yet others had tense


77


moments that were transcended by the use of joking and humor to incite laughter. For example, after one 19-year-old White male came out to his younger sister, he reported how she was quiet. To break the silence, he flitted his wrist at her and laughter ensued and conversation commenced. In this case the joking came from the person coming out, but some narratives demonstrate that those who are receiving the coming-out disclosure make attempts to lighten the moment as well. For instance, a 24-year-old White male from the Midwest shared: When I finally told him he laughed at me. Not in a mean way but, in a “were you telling a joke?” kind of way. Then he asked, “Really?” I said, “yes.” He responded, “We’ll . . . I’m still going to give you shit.” Looking back, it was just about the best response I could have expected. In my mind I had worked out the situation where he would have completely rejected me and I think I was prepared for that.

In this scenario the receiver of the coming-out disclosure believed the coming-out attempt to be a joke. After he realized that his friend was serious about his LGB identity, he still kept the moment light by telling him a nonserious, obviously receiver-based phrase that allowed for lightened spirits. The attempt to lighten the situation—without totally belittling it—was appreciated by the LGB individual. Although this example might seem problematic in that, like much humor, it appears esoteric or open to interpretation, most examples provided by respondents in regards to the use of joking and laughter were evident. For example, one teenage woman reported a narrative where, after coming out to her mother, the mother quipped, “I hear women are better in bed anyway.” She saw her mother’s joke as supportive and appropriate. Of course, not all humor used in coming-out conversations will be deemed as creating positive experiences. Although most of the reported attempts at humor were either successful or appreciated, one narrative pointed out where humor was used in inappropriate ways, or where nervousness was identified, such as in this instance where a 21-year-old White man from Australia experienced an ill attempt at a joke: Maddy and I walked up to the counter. She goes, “I thought you were joking. I really did until I saw you get into bed and cuddle with him. Then I thought you were being mean to lead a gay guy on like that. Then you kissed him good-bye and it hit me as real.” Then the attendant asked me which pump I was on and she said, “Be careful he really likes to pump it up!” I looked at her and she just smiled. Then she pointed at some sausages on the counter and goes, “I bet you want one of these.” I was like, “What!” in my head. Then she pointed at some eggs in a jar and goes, “I bet you want some of those, too.” I told her right then it wasn’t funny. She just looked confused.


78

J. Manning

So although some humor may be appropriate and appreciated, as this narrative demonstrates humor is in the eye of the beholder and may not be viewed as supportive. Nonverbal immediacy. The use of humor can be abstract and sometimes esoteric in coming-out conversations and so can the use of nonverbals. Not surprisingly, a large number of survey participants cited that they craved more nonverbal immediacy in their coming-out conversations: smiles, nods of understanding, and, above all, hugging. Hugging was by and far the most desired response in the coming-out process. As one Latino gay man from Mexico stated about coming out to his straight best friend, “I wish he would have given me hug. [sic] I know that sounds a little silly and probably even cliché, but I kind of felt like I was a leper for a little while.” Another man, bisexual-identified and from the United States, reported that nonverbal immediacy could have established some sort of confirmation in the situation, stating, I wanted a non-verbal reaction from them, such as just getting up to hug me. I wanted them to touch me, to let me know they heard me. Other than that, given the situation and background, they reacted in the best way I could of imagined.

The need for touch to confirm the situation that sometimes arises is especially displayed in this statement where a gay Black man from Britain went as far to assert, “Hell they could have hit me and I’d have been happy. At least I would know that they knew I was in there.” In addition to touch seemingly confirming the reality of the situation, many narratives described the experience of touch in complementing emotions such as when one participant told of receiving a hug along with the comforting message, “I love you,” and still another participant told of a parent who magnified affirmation by touching her hand and saying, “This changes nothing.” Using nonverbals to complement supportive messages were reported as effective, appreciated, and necessary. Other forms of touching were also cited as being appreciated or desired in coming-out conversations: shoulder rubbing, pats on the back, even kisses. Most described instances of touching expressed liking or approval, but some respondents did report inappropriate touch—as will be reviewed later in the study. NEGATIVE

COMMUNICATION BEHAVIORS

Unlike positive communicative behaviors, LGB individuals who shared their narratives were more likely to offer examples of negative behaviors they perceived themselves as engaging during coming-out conversations. To this end, negative communicative behaviors have been divided into (a) behaviors viewed as negative and that were reported as being exhibited by the



79

LGB individual who is disclosing a non-heterosexual orientation, and (b) behaviors viewed as negative and attributed to the person to whom the LGB individual was coming out. As the data will illustrate, each of these two separate categories takes on a different perspective and different type of analysis—not necessarily in researcher interpretation, but in the interpretation that appears in the narratives and as it answers the overarching research question for the study. Negative behaviors from receivers. Most of the narratives provided by participants in this study suggest that although coming-out conversations are generally hard to approach and are often filled with awkwardness and tension, overall the experiences typically have positive communicative behaviors and outcome. This is evidenced not only by the inability of some participants to provide even one negative coming out experience, but also by the repeated inclusion of phrases such as, “It was easier than I thought,” “Everything went better than I could have ever hoped,” or “I learned I had nothing to worry about.” Still, with the exception of seven narratives, every participant was able to list at least one behavior from each conversation that he or she wishes would have happened differently in terms of the receiver’s communicative behavior. Some coming-out conversations were almost exclusively filled with what were viewed or described as negative behaviors from the receiver of the disclosure. As some narratives indicated, these behaviors were reported to have caused extreme emotional distress or even fear of injury or death for the LGB individual. The communicative behaviors of receivers listed or described as negative in coming-out conversations can be sorted into five broad categories: expressing denial, religious talk, inappropriate questions and concerns, shaming statements, and aggression. These categories are described with appropriate examples from the research data. Expressing denial. Many respondents reported feeling frustrated with the coming-out conversation because they felt as if their LGB identity was not being accepted as real or legitimate. In these cases, those to whom they came out often contended that it was a phase, misunderstanding, result of confusion, or a variety of other contentions, dismissing the possibility that the person coming out is really an LGB person. As one 23-year-old Asian man from the Midwest shared: I came out during a car ride with my friends to go play basketball. When I came out, he didn’t react negatively but he was in denial. He kept on saying that I wasn’t, and that I needed a woman. He kept on asking if I wanted to have sex with a woman, and he can set that up. I retaliated with if I did this, would you do it with a guy. It basically ended there.

As can be seen in the narrative, the assertion from the receiver of the coming-out disclosure is one suggesting that the LGB individual is confused,

80

J. Manning


even offering to help find him a woman who is willing to engage in sex so as that this confusion can be cleared. It is almost as if sexual orientation is being negotiated through the communication. Many of the cases of denial described by LGB individuals in this study were reported as causing deep pain and turmoil. As one respondent shared about his parents, “I’m an only child and they should have seen this coming and at least TRIED to learn about it and grow. Instead they chose denial and anger and fear.” Many of the reports of denial involved parents, some who suggested counselors for their children to help them be less confused. Other family members, such as siblings and cousins, were reported as being in denial as well. One 44-year-old White man from the South shared how his sister exhibited her denial when he came out to her: I feel that my sister feels a professional obligation to officially stand opposed on this issue, despite her heart. She is my only sibling, and we were very close as kids. The denial she revealed when I first came out was truly embarrassing: “And I DEFENDED you to my friends! Practically every adult friend I have has asked me if my brother is gay, and I’ve said absolutely not—he’s just artistic, and doesn’t have time to date.”

In this scenario, it can be understood that denial is not an actual response to the brother’s coming out to his sister; however, it does illustrate the embarrassment that is inherent in denial, both on behalf of the brother and on behalf of the sister. One particular narrative involving denial and straying from the others was shared by a 24-year-old Asian American woman from the East coast. She told of coming out to a friend, and then after coming out to the friend she received an e-mail stating, in part: Last spring, I was feeling very distraught about homosexuality. I was prepared to just give up and try to live life as a gay man. I didn’t want to, but I felt I had no choice. I didn’t feel like trying to live that way would be freeing; I felt like it was a terrible reality to face. I dreaded the idea of coming to my family with that kind of news, and I dreaded the type of lifestyle that I would be engaged in. But I couldn’t do it a year ago. I couldn’t give in, and it didn’t happen. And I’m glad it didn’t. I’m a better man because it did not happen. Remember freshman year when we talked about Christianity and homosexuality? My views never really changed since then. Your view on the issue has been abundantly clear since then. I haven’t been nearly as bold or vocal in what I believed, but I bet you knew all the while. In order for us to continue being friends, we will at least have to have a mutual respect for each other’s position on the issue of homosexuality.

When reflecting on this coming-out experience, the woman wrote about her friend:


81

His struggle with coming out was a negative experience for me. I would have changed the way he spoke about sexuality. It seemed as long as he didn’t talk to me and have me be his reminder that homosexuality exists then he could continue to be in denial. And sadly I’m sure he’s still in that stage.


This narrative suggests, then, that sometimes the denial that may come forth as a response to a coming-out disclosure may be related to one’s own fear of identifying as LGB. At any rate, it is obvious that this woman’s coming out caused discomfort to him because she was a reminder of who he did not want to be. This example also speaks to the fear that, for some, a loss of control in the relationship is at play when a person comes out. Religious talk. The previous narrative and its response also broach a topic that, based on the narrative data, is one of the most volatile in coming-out conversations. In the narrative, a friend rejects someone coming out as LGB in part because of his religious views. Whether intended to be supportive or not, the topic of religion is easily the most commonly disdained topic to emerge from coming-out narratives. As many respondents explained, they consider themselves religious or have religious convictions themselves, but many of them believe the inclusion of religion in coming-out conversations to be inaccurate, misguided, or a shield to avoid dealing with feelings in the situation. To be clear, only two coming-out narratives center almost exclusively upon religion. One of these comes from a 36-year-old Latina woman from the Eastern United States who shares: this friend asked me what I was doing the weekend and i told her i was going with this new woman i had met and she was wonderful. she stopped and said you are going out with a woman and i said yes, and asked her is there a problem with that and she said yes its against the bible and you should know better. she said she couldn’t be friends with me anymore and i should know better being a Christian myself.

In this narrative, friendship is terminated because of religion. It is not surprising, then, that the individual providing the narrative described the coming-out experience as a negative one. Another narrative found a White 23-year-old woman from England also deciding to end an acquaintance after she was attacked based on religion while she was coming out. She put in writing the woman’s response to her coming-out disclosure: “I’m gonna pray for you.” She says. Suddenly she’s going off on me, how my eternal soul is going to burn in hell, and what I was doing in my life was a sin, and she’s pray [sic] for my soul . . . blah, blah, blah. I asked her why God would have made people the way they are if he didn’t love

82

J. Manning

all of them? But as many of you know, there is no communication with those types of people. It’s their way or hell!!! I really wish I would have been stronger, you know ripped her self-righteous ass a new one. She’s spouting the gospel in a pub for crying out loud!!!!


Instead of confronting the angry woman, the LGB woman avoided communication—not only in this situation, but with the person in general after the conversation. Her telling of the narrative also illustrates the hypocrisy that many survey respondents described or reported when sharing perceptions of those who bring religion into coming-out conversations. Most narratives involving religion, however, include religion in a list of many reasons to not be supportive of LGB identity. In one such narrative, a 28-year-old White man from the Midwest shared: I was essentially outed by an aunt to my father. He called immediately to confirm what he had heard was true. I was on vacation at the time and had to call him back when I got home. I cried incessantly while he told me that he would never accept me, that I was condemned to hell, that he was going to institutionalize me, that I was being brainwashed, that he wanted to die, and that I wasn’t ever allowed to tell anyone else in the family.

This narrative, like many other coming-out narratives involving religious talk, asks for the participant to conceal the LGB identity from others. It also, especially in consideration of the other narratives presented in this discussion, helps to illuminate how dynamic and multilayered elements of religion can be when a part of coming-out conversations. It is clear from the response that the LGB man’s father has issues with his son’s sexual orientation far beyond the religious reasons and that the father may also feel some shame in association with his son’s sexual orientation. Also of note is one particular narrative that only briefly mentions religion but that illustrates that religion can positively be introduced into coming-out conversations. As a 23-year-old White man from the Southwest demonstrates with his narrative: My most positive experience was coming out to my mother. I took her out to a nice dinner to tell her I had something important to discuss with her. When I started crying before revealing my secret, she falsely presumed that I was going to tell her that I did not want to become a physician anymore. We still laugh about that. She told me that she would love me forever, no matter what kind of life I decided to live. She also told me that God makes us all different, and we should be loved for whom we are, not who society thinks we should be. Her only fear has been that I will get physically attacked for being gay. Overall, my entire coming out process has been very positive.


83


In the narrative, the mother brings up God in a context that is supportive and affirming. The narrative is so successful that her son labels it as his “most positive experience” in terms of coming out. This is not to suggest that expression of religion in the context that God approves of homosexuality is the only way to introduce religious talk into a coming-out conversation without it being viewed as negative; it is simply the only way that religion was communicated in coming-out conversations that was viewed as positive by a participant in this study. Inappropriate questions, comments, or concerns. The mother who successfully introduced God into the coming-out conversation in the previous narrative was also well evaluated for doing something many saw as “annoying” or even “beside the point” in coming-out conversations: She expressed her concerns for her son’s safety. Surprisingly, many participants—both men and women—reported that this behavior was unwanted in coming-out conversations. As a 23-year-old White woman from the West coast shared: My father got upset and said that he worried I would date men who were more likely to be HIV positive (which seemed illogical to me since I had just come out about liking women!) My mother said she didn’t want to always have to worry about someone “throwing a bomb” through my front door. After that for years I never talked at all about sexuality or gay stuff with my father and rarely with my mother.

This sharing of concern, even if it were out of love, was not accepted as a positive sign by the LGB individual and seemingly assisted in stifling communication regarding the topics of sexuality and sexual orientation. Perhaps it is because the concerns seem so unlikely, or maybe the LGB individual did not want to be reminded of the fears that often accompany LGB identity, or perhaps it is because other craved statements involving affirmation and support were not included. Whatever the reason, it is evident this LGB individual—like many in the survey—did not appreciate the receivers bringing up fears and concerns in the coming-out conversation. The situations described previously, however, differ from some of what participants seemingly considered to be the more intrusive, illogical, or antagonistic questions and comments that many people made after learning of an individual’s LGB identity in coming-out conversations. Some respondents, such as this 22-year-old White woman from the East coast, believe these types of questions to be a normal part of the coming-out process. As she tells it: My mother went through the usual things of, “are you sure this isn’t a phase?,” “is this because I wasn’t around much?,” “is this because you never had a positive male role model?,” “I never saw this coming, you

84

J. Manning

were always so feminine.” I assured her, this was not a phase, I’ve always had these feelings, it had nothing to do with my past, and not that it matters, yes I’m girly now but did she completely forget the 4–5 yrs of my tomboy stage?


Even though the LGB woman who shared this scenario described the situation as a positive coming-out experience, she also wished her mother had asked different questions. Like many other survey respondents, she felt as if the questions sometimes made the situation more about the other than it did about the self. The inappropriate questions, concerns, and comments reported by the LGB individuals in their narratives also often had relational implications, too. As this 21-year-old Latino male from the Midwest explains: I think my brother was very accepting and kind overall, however, he did say some things that kept making me feel as an outcast. He said that if it was up to him, he wouldn’t have wanted to know. He also asked me not to tell my mom, since he didn’t think she would take it well (which proved to be wrong some years later). He joked about not wanting to watch me eat hot-dogs, since it would give him “mental images” (though he wasn’t altogether joking). Still, what hurt me the most was when he said that he would feel uncomfortable with me around his kid (he has a 5 years old son, named after him). Even though he didn’t follow what he said back then (I am around his son when I’m there), what he said still had some consequences for me. I don’t feel comfortable with his son, or with him for that matter when I’m over there. And I still have some unresolved issues with him, because he still is a homophobe, even when he makes an “exception” with me.

As can be ascertained from the narrative, beyond the initial hurt from the comments and concerns that were expressed by the man’s brother, the relationship between both the man and his brother and the man and his brother’s son continue to feel strain as a result of the comments. Some respondents reported receiving questions that were embarrassing during their conversations. For instance, one man reported that when coming out to a roommate in his college dorm he was asked “fairly predictable and unintentionally funny questions (“How long have you been gay?,” “Doesn’t it hurt?,” “Why don’t you lisp?”), to which he responded, “Most queers are boring and normal like most breeders.” Another respondent reported that she was asked what it was like to be a lesbian, and then after she answered was “accused of throwing it in their faces.” Some participants complained that instead of discussing their own sexual orientation they were asked about other people who might or might not be gay. Gay males also frequently reported that straight women would instantly move the conversation to superficial topics such as shopping or fashion.


85

Some of the respondents shared regrets about answering or attempting to answer some of the embarrassing questions that were asked. This 32-yearold man from the West coast explains one thing he would change about his coming-out conversation with his parents:


I wouldn’t tell them everything. They asked me so many questions, even things like “do you fuck others or do they fuck you?” and now looking back I understand that I should have never went into too many details of my sex life. I thought I was being honest and sharing my life with them, so I was answering every question they asked. But later I realized that too much information for older generation is not necessarily good.

Ultimately, the presentation of questions that may be inappropriate at the time can cause discomfort and/or the perception that not much support is being offered in the coming-out conversation. It must also be noted, however, that sometimes inappropriate comments or questions about LGB persons may act as a catalyst of sorts for prompting an emergent face-to-face revelation. For example, a 28-year-old Latina woman from the East coast shared: The first I called myself lesbian in front of a large group of people was during a feminist theory course at [UNIVERSITY DELETED], fall 2001. It was the first week of the semester and the topic of discrimination and bias within the feminist community came up. I believe we were discussing Betty Friedman [sic] and how she said lesbians were a menace to the movement since our sexual prefference [sic] turned off heterosexual support and so forth. One of my classmates, a straight woman, went off about how gays and lesbians should be more discrete and that whatever you do inside your bedroom is your bussiness [sic] but that GLBT groups shouldnt [sic] force their lifestyles on other people and so forth. The proffessor [sic] was a lesbian but she was not out either and I could see in her face that she was real offended—as was I and a queer friend of mine also enrolled in the class—but was trying to keep composure and objectivity as proper of an instructor and not take the situation personal or attack her student’s views out of classroom context. In any case, in light of what this girl was saying i [sic] felt compelled to express my own views and put my sexuality in front burner while counteracting her position in proper context to classroom discussion and feminist theory. It was extremely rewarding moment.

In this case, it is evident that the offensive comment regarding sexual orientation functions as the impetus for coming out (as opposed to being an insensitive response made to a person’s sexual orientation disclosure). It would appear that in this situation, the statements allow empowerment as opposed to inflicting shame. Others reported similar coming-out narratives occurring at work and in the household.

86

J. Manning

Shaming statements. Another type of comment that respondents reported not appreciating, one sometimes phrased in the form of a question, is phrases that were interpreted as attempting to shame those who were coming out as LGB in the conversation. Sometimes these shaming statements directly referenced shame, such as in this situation where a 38-year-old White man from the South decided to come out to all of his family at the same time:


I would have preferred that my family’s reaction be different. My mother referred to me as a “source of shame,” and my brother has not spoken to me in 16 years. In addition, my partner and I have been together 12 years, and it was only within the past 2 years that my mother has agreed to meet him.

Instead of validating or affirming her son’s bravery in revealing his sexual orientation, the mother instead shamed her son by pointing out the shame she believed he was bringing to the family. Based on the information provided alongside the statement, it is evident that this belief of shame caused turmoil to the overall relationship. In other cases, the shame was inflicted through the receiver telling the person who was coming out that he or she was “disgusting,” “immoral,” “stupid,” and even “selfish.” Participants who had these types of phrases aimed at them all reported that they felt low self-worth during the process; most said they were reluctant to approach topics of sexual orientation again (usually with the receiver but sometimes also with others) and also expressed strained relationships following the coming-out conversations. Interestingly, many of the participants who reported shaming statements in the surveys reported these statements in vague terms such as “she made me feel like I had no self-worth” or “all he did was tell me how terrible I was for doing this to the family.” In reviewing what participants wrote about shaming statements, it is obvious that these statements—unlike other statements provided in the survey—were often not specific nor did they contain many direct quotations. Aggression. One of the most disturbing type of communicative behaviors reported by survey participants is the aggressive statements and violence that often occurred in coming-out conversations. The aggression was reported equally by men and women in the surveys, and it included name-calling that employed such pejoratives as “bitch” and “cunt” aimed at women and “faggot” and “fucker” aimed at men. One participant even reported that her mother told her, “I fucking hate you!” after she disclosed her lesbian identity. Often the aggressive language was accompanied by violent acts, such as in this narrative provided by a teenage White man from the Midwest:


87

I was about 14 or 15 years old. I first told my mom, she went and got a hand gun and put it to my head. She said while she cured [sic] that if I ever turned gay, she would shoot my brains against the wall. She hit me in the head with the gun and threw me to the floor. After that i [sic] ran away from home.


A 44-year-old man from the Midwest shares this instance of violence in a coming-out conversation with his father: He yelled and cursed, then went into the garage and came after me with a shovel. I ran to my car and he kept coming. As I tried to drive off, he started hitting my sports car with the shovel yelling and cursing. I continued to drive away with him damaging my car. To this day, my father and step mother talk with me, but I am left out of ALL family functions (weddings, passing of family members) and talk. I really do not feel like I have a family of my own.

These narratives crystallize the horrors that many LGB individuals reported fearing when entering their own coming-out conversations. It is evident from these narratives that the revelation of an LGB identity can be shocking and bring forth a level of anger that may make it unsafe for some to conduct a coming-out conversation face to face. Another man, who did not report violence in his coming-out narratives, made this comment about choosing where to come out to his brother: I think I did good in the way I told him. Doing it in an open space proved to be a very good idea, since there was a nice day outside, and it was a calm environment overall. Also, there is the fact that you are in public, so my brother could not have been violent toward me, even if he wanted to.

This comment helps to display the considerations of time and place that LGB individuals must consider in preparing for coming-out conversations, especially in terms of violence. Negative behaviors from those disclosing. The previous section of this study focuses upon behaviors that were perceived as negative elements of the coming-out conversations as described by the research participants. Of course, the research participants also reported elements of their own communicative behavior that they felt added a negative element to their coming-out experiences. Some of these behaviors have been foreshadowed or discussed earlier in the findings. This portion of the study focuses specifically on three communicative behaviors that the LGB individuals participating in this study found to be annoying, intrusive, or unwanted and that they were exhibiting themselves. These communicative behaviors—nervous

88

J. Manning


nonverbal behavior, indirectly approaching the topic, and lack of preparation for the conversation—are analyzed in the following with appropriate supportive examples from the research data. Nervous nonverbal behavior. There were two forms of nonverbal communication that were commonly listed as problematic by a great number of survey participants: vocalics, especially in terms of voice quality, and crying. Unlike other behaviors mentioned in the data, these behaviors were cited as not easy to control. Although vocalics were mentioned frequently, they were often mentioned in passing. Shaking voices and odd pitches resulting from tightly clenched throats were commonly listed symptoms, even if the descriptions of such symptoms were not elaborate. These participant-described “annoying” or “humiliating” paralinguistic features happened almost equally in positive and negative coming-out experiences, and none of the survey data seems to indicate that these behaviors were necessarily a result of anything the receivers of the coming-out disclosure were doing. Unfortunately, the data did not allow much more to be ascertained about these two nonverbal communicative behaviors, since no narratives went into much detail about the situations. Much more attention was paid by survey respondents to the crying that occurred during coming-out conversations. In most instances the crying was cited as embarrassing, and many respondents reported being frustrated with crying while trying to explain something that was already difficult to explain. Crying was helpful in some cases, too. For instance, in more than one narrative after an LGB individual began to cry, the person to whom they were coming out began to soften a hostile disposition toward the situation and exhibited more support. The receivers of coming-out disclosures were reported as crying, too. Sometimes the person who was coming out felt fine about the coming-out conversation, but after the person he or she was coming out to began to cry it caused more anxiety and awkwardness. Regardless of the function of crying in the conversations, it is apparent that many who shared their coming-out experiences did not enjoy it. In almost every case where crying was a part of the narrative, it was listed as a communicative behavior the LGB person would have changed for him or herself during the coming-out conversation. Many LGB individuals elaborated upon the crying that occurred in their coming-out conversations. For instance, one 27-year-old White man from the Midwest explained what he would change about his behavior during his coming-out experience: I would not have been so sheepish and passive in on my end of the conversation. I shouldn’t have been apologetic about my sexual orientation. I should not have cried. I wish I had the courage to tell him precisely


89

what I thought of his comments and how much I felt they were out of line. I should have stood up for myself.


This narrative clearly reflects how crying, at least in this situation, represented a sort of weakness, almost a visual symbol of the apologetic nature the man felt he exhibited. It would appear from the narrative that he craved a voice with which to speak, but instead he could only offer tears. Yet another narrative examines the themes of crying and apology, this one from a 22-year-old White woman located in the South. She states: i think that i would have not apologized in the middle of coming out. Although I think i was apologizing more for crying, than i was for being. I would have explained that the tears were for years of pent up frustration and lying; they were more of a release.

Similar to the previous narrative, the crying that happens during the coming-out conversation is seen as symbolic; but unlike the last narrative, instead of symbolizing shame and an apology, the crying represents the release she is finally able to make by coming out. Even if her narrative stands as an exception to the negative emotions associated with crying, it is obviously bittersweet. Indirectly approaching the topic. Many participants expressed that they introduced topics or tangents to the conversation that stalled the coming-out disclosure. More than a couple of survey respondents regretted that while coming out they “beat around the bush” (four surveys use this phrase in some form) and did not directly come forward with the sexual orientation disclosure. This played out in different ways in the coming-out conversations. For example, a 21-year-old Latino man from South America shares this narrative about when he made his brother guess: While we were in our way out he started asking me some questions, the first one being: “did you get some girl pregnant?,” to which I replied “no.” He then asked “are you sick?,” again “no.” When we were finally out and still in the front yard of the mall he asked “sos puto?” (are you a faggot?). I didn’t say anything for a moment, I was petrified and shaking. He was looking at me straight to my face and his expression was a mix of rage and surprise. I don’t even remember if I said “yes” (I think I did), but in any case, the truth was revealed. After that moment of tension which seemed to have lasted forever, but which in truth only lasted some seconds, we started to walk torward another restaurant (we were still going to have lunch!).

In reflecting upon his coming -ut experiences later in the survey, he writes about his regret in having come out this way:

90

J. Manning

Every time I came out to significant people in my life (my mother and brother, since my father died long ago) I did not really come out to them. What I did was leading them to question me. I was in fact playing my cards to their denial.


It is evident that he feels remorse for not directly approaching the topic, and he is not alone. While guessing games are one way survey participants report not getting to the point, others found themselves trying to introduce their coming-out conversations with what may have been too much elaboration. As a 19year-old White woman from the East coast shares about coming out to her mom: I suggested that she read a book on how to deal with children that are gay. I told her that I found it at the library and it was a good book. She put it down and said she didn’t need to read a book to know how to accept her child. She said that I should know that I can be comfortable as who I am around her, but not to label myself so early in my life, as this will lead to painting myself in a corner and being questioned by others if I decide that I am something else.

In this case, the mother figured out the forthcoming LGB disclosure before her daughter could actually come out in the conversation. Later in the survey, in reflecting upon what she would change in the situation, the daughter states, “I would have just been honest with her and told her flat out, instead of weaving around the situation.” So, as can be seen, while delaying the disclosure or not being straightforward with it does not appear to always be destructive, it does seem to go down as a communicative regret. Other reported forms of stalling include asking the friend or relative how much they love the individual before making the disclosure; discussing the fear of making the statement that is about to be made; or, in the case of one respondent, providing a historical foray into the topic of same-sex relationships. Unfortunately, while many provide one or two lines in their narratives about delaying the actual disclosure in their coming-out conversations, very few participants elaborate upon how, exactly, these delays played out, and much of the data is cursory in this area. Still, it is obviously a common tactic, and one that participants frequently state they regret. Lack of preparation for the conversation. In a sense, not being fully prepared for the conversation would appear to be a problem that is not fully a communicative behavior but rather a psychological or educative behavior that the LGB individual failed to fully consider and/or complete before the coming-out conversation actually occurred. However, lack of preparation is



91

being considered as a communicative behavior for this study, since this lack of preparation often led to befuddlement, frustration, and the inability to fully engage in the open dialogue so many respondents report they wanted to experience in their coming-out conversations. Even though it would be difficult to argue that any kind of coming-out conversation script exists given that (a) coming-out conversations are likely conversations that do not occur frequently in the lives of individuals, and scripts oftentimes involve knowing what is supposed to occur in a given situation; and (b) as established, coming-out conversations have received little to no attention in terms of communication studies, it is evident from the narratives that oftentimes the flow of conversation is impeded during coming-out conversations when those receiving the sexual orientation disclosure make comments, ask questions, or make assertions that call upon the LGB individual to respond with specific, informed responses. Unfortunately, many individuals report in the surveys that they were unable to provide this communicative feedback and that ultimately they regret not being as informed about LGB issues as they would have liked to be in their conversations. Once again, this is an area in the narratives where very little information was provided in terms of specifics. For instance, one survey respondent indicated, “I wish at the time that I was more knowledgable [sic] about being gay, I really had little experience at the time.” Even though this statement makes it quite clear that he did not feel fully prepared for the coming-out conversation, it does not elaborate upon what it would mean to be more knowledgeable about being gay. Another respondent said, “She would ask me these questions about gay stuff and I should have the answers but I didn’t and so there was these giant laps [sic] in the conversations.” In addition to showing the lack of preparation, this short and representative example makes it clear that the flow of conversation was impeded from the lack of knowledge on behalf of the LGB individual. Yet, at the same time, it leaves questions as to what information could have been obtained in advance to enhance the flow of the conversation. In a few cases the lack of knowledge that led to conversation problems became evident: lack of knowledge about HIV or AIDS, not knowing the cause of being gay, or not knowing what the Christian Bible specifically states about the topic of homosexuality. Some of the comments provided in narratives also suggest that a lack of knowledge regarding LGB issues might be related to some of the negative nonverbal behaviors that were listed by respondents. As one participant states, “Since it was close to the time I was discovering myself, I don’t think I had all the terminology that I could have had. Plus I was so nervous, I think I stumbled alot [sic] in the conversation.” It would appear that in this case the lack of knowledge regarding LGB issues added to the overall nervousness and apprehension in the conversation.

92

J. Manning


DISCUSSION This research offers a practical understanding of what kinds of interaction may be seen as positive or affirming communicative behavior in coming-out conversations as well as what may be perceived as negative. Knowing these behaviors and their potential can be of great use, not only to LGB individuals who may be engaging such conversations but also to those who may have someone come out to them and who desire a better understanding of how to possibly navigate the discussion. The findings in this study are particularly important because many of the positive behaviors listed by those who came out to someone examined communicative behaviors that may not instantly be recognized as helpful or as adding to the harmonious nature of a comingout conversation. For example, although it is probably not surprising to learn that a hug is comforting in a coming-out conversation, it is intriguing to learn many participants felt as if they were unloved, unwanted, or (as one participant literally stated) “untouchable” to the other person because she or he revealed her or himself as an LGB individual. Further research in this area can help to elaborate on these positive communicative behaviors. Additionally, it is interesting to note that other than a broad statement such as “Me telling them” or “I finally said it” reflecting positive communicative behavior, no classifiable positive behaviors were attributed exclusively by LGB individuals to themselves about coming-out conversations. Instead, positive behaviors identified in narratives were almost universally attributed to the receiver of the coming-out disclosure. In contrast, LGB individuals did not hesitate to point out their own negative behaviors, many of which were rooted in nervousness. Future research should acknowledge this imbalance and seek to explore how positive behaviors can be exhibited by all involved in coming-out conversations and perhaps ask more questions to LGB persons about any behaviors they exhibited that they saw as positive so as to begin understanding how positive communicative behaviors enacted by those coming out can be embraced in coming-out conversations. Another research strategy could be to seek coming-out narratives where overall the conversation was appearing to go in a bad direction but where a change in communicative behavior or the engagement of a particular behavior helped to change the overall conversation for the better. This study also suggests that tying the various strands of research related to coming out, both those that are more communicative in nature and those that are more identity-centered, would be of value. The notion that psychosocial identity and communication practices in research can be separated is almost certainly an artificial one brought on by the inherent nature of parsing that occurs with research about gender or sexuality that is carried out over multiple disciplines (Manning et al., 2008), and as such crossdisciplinary models or theories that pull together these strands of research



93

would be of value. Rust (2003) offers one example of what such an endeavor might look like, as she pulls together the various forms of identity development research and makes sense of what it all means. Adams (2011) takes a different approach to this kind of work, infusing his study of experiencing the closet with research and theories derived from multiple theoretic camps. Manning (2014a) offers a constitutive model of coming out, drawing in research at the cognitive, relational, and cultural level to consider how they interact. More of this kind of work would be of value to LGB people and those to whom they come out, as well as for educators who seek to break heteronormative expectations of gender and sexuality (Manning, in press). One of the methodological limitations of this study is that the narratives were only collected from those who were coming out. Although this limitation is minimized by a validity check involving individuals who were not a part of the study but who had experienced someone coming out to them, further research exploring the experiences and reactions of those they came out to would be beneficial to establishing how coming-out conversations are coconstructed, whether or not these individuals perceived the same behaviors as positive or negative, and in providing advice for LGB individuals who may want to know as much as possible about what could go right and wrong in a coming-out conversations. Analysis that takes advantage of dyadic (Ganong & Coleman, 2014) or multiadic (Manning, 2010, 2013b) forms of analysis, where both or multiple sides of the story can be shared, would also allow for a richer understanding of how conversations occur and are shaped by participant vantage point. It also becomes important to consider how cultural elements may ultimately affect the specific situations contained within the communicative behaviors in coming out. Based upon this data set, the dominant experience for individuals coming out seems to be the same across cultures (as established by the diverse participants). It would be intriguing, however, to explore whether cultural differences would emerge when the narratives were coconstructed (as opposed to being shared from one viewpoint) or how the conversations themselves defied or played into dominant cultural constructions of coming out. Furthermore, because this study uses broad survey data that do not allow for the in-depth explorations that other qualitative methods such as interviews provide, it should not be taken for granted that experiences across cultural backgrounds are identical and that nuanced differences may exist. Future research studies should explore deeper the various cultural characteristics of coming-out conversations. Future studies could also extend the notion of how people react to coming-out conversations by exploring the relationship between the quality of coming-out conversations and perceived relational affects. Although the narratives here fulfill one of the primary advantages of interpretive qualitative research in that they allow a sense of lived relational experience

94

J. Manning

(Manning & Kunkel, 2014a), they also raise many interesting questions about relationships after coming-out conversations. Does the quality of a conversation centered upon a coming-out disclosure ultimately affect a friendship? Is it indicative of the direction a relationship will take? How do the particulars of a given relationship affect the conversation? These answers could continue to expand upon researcher and practitioner knowledge of coming out as a constitutive force.


CONCLUSION Fortunately, this study is surely not the last to devote its attention to coming-out conversations. The results of this study will likely be expanded, challenged, strengthened, and/or defied through continued research in the area of LGB identity disclosure. As this study demonstrates, positive behaviors in the coming-out process include open communication channels, affirming direct relational statements, laughter and joking, and nonverbal immediacy. While some of these behaviors are tangible and others are more abstract in nature, the narratives demonstrate that all helped to foster positive coming-out experiences (or were helpful in making negative coming-out experiences better). Negative behaviors include expressing denial, religious talk, inappropriate questions or comments, shaming statements, and aggressive statements (from the person receiving the disclosure) and nervous nonverbal behavior, indirectly approaching the topic, and lack of preparation for the conversation (from the person coming out). With increased attention to coming-out conversations and what they entail, one can hope that such negative elements of the conversations will soon diminish.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A first draft of this article was selected as a top paper in the LGBTQ Caucus at the 2010 National Communication Association Annual Convention and later received the Outstanding Conference Paper Award from the Organization for the Study of Communication, Language, and Gender. The author wishes to thank Adrianne Kunkel for her help and support in the research and writing process.

REFERENCES Adams, T. E. (2011). Narrating the closet: An autoethnography of same-sex attraction. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast.



95

Adams, T. E., & Manning, J. (in press). Autoethnography and family research. Journal of Family Theory & Review. Bacon, J. (1998). Getting the story straight: Coming out narratives and the possibility of a cultural rhetoric. World Englishes, 17(2), 249–258. Brierley, H. (2000). Gender identity and sexual behavior. In P. C. Rodríguez Rust (Ed.), Bisexuality in the United States (pp. 104–26). New York, NY: Columbia University. Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. Cass, V. C. (1984). Homosexual identity: A concept in need of a definition. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 219–235. Cass, V. C. (1990). The implications of homosexual identity formation for the Kinsey model and scale of sexual preference. In D. P. McWhirter, S. A. Sanders, & J. M. Reinisch (Eds.), Homosexuality/heterosexuality: Concepts of sexual orientation (pp. 239–266). New York, NY: Oxford University. Chan, C. S. (1989). Issues of identity development among Asian-American lesbians and gay men. Journal of Counseling and Development, 68(1), 18–20. D’Augelli, A. R. (1994). Identity development and sexual orientation: Toward a model of lesbian, gay, and bisexual development. In E. J. Trickett, R. J. Watts, & D. Birman (Eds.), Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (pp. 312–333). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Elia, J. P. (2003). Queering relationships: Toward a paradigmatic shift. Journal of Homosexuality, 45(2/3/4), 61–86. Franke, R., & Leary, M. R. (1991). Disclosure of sexual orientation. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 10(3), 262–269. Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (2014). Qualitative research on family relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 451–459. Greene, B. (1994). Lesbian women of color: Triple jeopardy. In L. Comas-Diaz & B. Greene (Eds.), Women of color: Integrating ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy (pp. 389–427). New York, NY: Guilford. Harry, J. (1993). Being out: A general model. Journal of Homosexuality, 26(1), 25–39. King, E. B., Reilly, C., & Hebl, M. (2008). The best of times, the worst of times: Exploring dual perspectives of “coming out” in the workplace. Group and Organizational Management, 33(5), 566–601. LaSala, M. C. (2000). Gay male couples: The importance of coming out and being out to parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 39(2), 47–71. Lindlof, T. R., & Taylor, B. C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Manning, J. (2009a). Because the personal is the political: Politics and unpacking the rhetoric of (queer) relationships. In K. German & B. Dreshel (Eds.), Queer identities/political realities (pp. 1–12). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge. Manning, J. (2009b). Heterosexuality. In J. O’Brien (Ed.), Encyclopedia of gender and society (pp. 413–417). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Manning, J. (2010). “There is no agony like bearing an untold story inside you”: Communication research as interventive practice. Communication Monographs, 77(4), 437–439. Manning, J. (2013a). Developing typologies through qualitative analysis. In S. J. Tracy (Ed.), Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis,


96

J. Manning

communicating impact instructor companion (pp. 1–2). Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell. Retrieved from https://professor.wiley.com/CGI-BIN/JSMPROXY? DOCUMENTDIRECTORDEV+DOCUMENTID&140519202X+DOCUMENTSUBID &1+PRFVALNAME&lessonplan/Chapter_6_Lesson_Plan_Outline.doc Manning, J. (2013b). Interpretive theorizing in the seductive world of sexuality and interpersonal communication: Getting guerilla with studies of sexting and purity rings. International Journal of Communication, 7, 2507–2520. Retrieved from http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2250/1023 Manning, J. (2014a). Coming out conversations and gay/bisexual men’s sexual health: A constitutive model study. In V. L. Harvey & T. Housel (Eds.), Left out: Health care issues facing LGBT people. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Manning, J. (2014b). Communication and healthy sexual practices: Toward a holistic communicology of sexuality. In M. H. Eaves (Ed.), Applications in health communication: Emerging trends (pp. 263–286). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt. Manning, J. (in press). Communicating sexual identities: A typology of coming out. Sexuality & Culture. doi:10.1007/s12119-014-9251-4 Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2014a). Making meaning of meaning-making research: Using qualitative research for studies of social and personal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31(4), 433–441. Manning, J., & Kunkel, A. (2014b). Researching interpersonal relationships: Qualitative methods, studies, and analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Manning, J., Vlasis, M., Dirr, J., Emerson, T., Shandy, A., & De Paz, T. (2008). (Inter)(cross)(multi)(trans)disciplining sex, gender, and sexuality studies: A qualitative inquiry into the reflections of researchers, teachers, and practitioners. Women & Language, 31(2), 36–41. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Oswald, R. F. (2000). Family and friendship relationships after young women come out as bisexual or lesbian. Journal of Homosexuality, 38(3), 65–83. Plummer, K. (1995). Telling sexual stories: Power, change, and social worlds. London, UK: Routledge. Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5(4), 631–660. Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. The Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46–58. Russ, T. L., Simonds, C. J., & Hunt, S. K. (2002). Coming out in the classroom . . . An occupational hazard? The influence of sexual orientation on teacher credibility and perceived student learning. Communication Education, 51, 311–324. Rust, P. R. (2003). Finding a sexual identity and community: Therapeutic implications and cultural assumptions in scientific models of coming out. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay and bisexual experiences (pp. 227–269). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Savin-Williams, R. C., & Dube, E. M. (1998). Parental reactions to their child’s disclosure of gay/lesbian identity. Family Relations, 47, 7–13. Sedgwick, E. K. (1990). Epistemology of the closet. Berkeley, CA: University of California.


97


Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Tharinger, D., & Wells, G. (2000). An attachment perspective on the developmental challenges of gay and lesbian adolescents: The need for continuity of caregiving from family and schools. School Psychology Review, 29, 158–172. Toomey, R. B., & Richardson, R. A. (2009). Perceived sibling relationships of sexual minority youth. Journal of Homosexuality, 56(7), 849–860. Troiden, R. R. (1988). Homosexual identity development. Journal of Adolescent Health Care, 9(2), 105–113. Wilcox, M. M. (2003). Coming out in Christianity: Religion, identity, and community. Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana.

Impulsivity, Sensation Seeking, and Risk-Taking Behaviors among HIV-Positive and HIV-Negative Heroin Dependent Persons.

Selective recall of positive and negative feedback, self-control behaviors, and depression.

Under pressure: the effects of stress on positive and negative relationship behaviors.

Individual differences in response to positive and negative stimuli: endocannabinoid-based insight on approach and avoidance behaviors.

Positive and negative birefringence in chromosomes.

Conversations.

The Positive and Negative about Positive Airway Pressure Therapy.

Eating behaviors and negative affect in college women's everyday lives.

Varieties of positive and negative priming.

Letter: Positive and negative distribution volumes.

Methods for assessing positive and negative symptoms.

Music Regulators in Two String Quartets: A Comparison of Communicative Behaviors between Low- and High-Stress Performance Conditions.

Perception of Communicative and Non-communicative Motion-Defined Gestures in Parkinson's Disease.

Communicative rhythms in brain and behaviour.

Personality correlates and cyclicity in positive and negative affect.

Negative urgency, mood induction, and alcohol seeking behaviors.

Cognitive functioning and positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

Premorbid personality and positive and negative symptoms in schizophrenia.

Negative and positive expectancies in lone and group problem drinkers.

Challenging conversations.

Compassionate Conversations.

[Conversations difficiles].

TRIM19-positive and TRIM19-negative cells in and around a perivascular cuff of CD68-positive macrophages.

Positive and negative regulation by NK cells in cancer.