Single by Choice? Assessing and Understanding Voluntary Singlehood Among Mature Gay Men

Abstract

This study investigated what it means for mature gay men to be voluntary single from the perspective of both assessment and subjective experience. A convenience sample of 94 self-identified single gay men from a large midwestern city, ages 35 and over, completed a structured questionnaire that included the 15-item Adaptation to Single Status Measure. Twenty of these men also participated in semi-structured life-history interviews. Descriptive, item, and scale analyses indicated a discrepancy between the perception of oneself as “single by choice” and acceptance of and satisfaction with single status. Qualitative data indicated that voluntary singlehood is neither a salient identity nor an expression of primary control; rather, it is an idiosyncratic “narrative strategy” and a form of secondary control that preserves ego integrity. These findings are discussed with respect to their implications for the creation and maintenance of healthy, happy, single lifestyles and communities.

KEYWORDS:

• gay men
• single
• relationship status
• choice
• perceived control
• self-determination
• middle adulthood
• late adulthood
• life course

This research was supported in part by a grant from the Social Science Research Council with funds from the Ford Foundation. The author would like to thank Samantha Bergmann, Bertram J. Cohler, Christine Glover, Gilbert Herdt, Todd W. Rawls, and Sharon Wasco.

Notes

1. External control beliefs (Seligman, 1992) also increase with age, although it is important to note that both primary and secondary modes reflect an internal locus of control. In fact, secondary control can be thought of as a means of transforming external into internal control beliefs.

2. On this point, writer Paul Ruddick was recently quoted in the New York Times (March 7, 2004) as saying, “Being gay and single is the new smoking. It won't be socially acceptable anymore, and you will have to go outside” (section 9, p. 3).

3. Given the definitional ambiguity of “single,” an open-ended question in the pilot version of interview instrument asked participants to define the term. Answers revealed remarkable uniformity in how they understood what it meant to be single, specifically as the absence of a long-term, committed relationship. Nevertheless, I recognize that diversity in relational status cannot be captured by a simple partnered-single dichotomy. It should also be noted that, although many of the men were sexually active, none reported a significant “fuck buddy” or “friends with benefits” relationship.

4. Findings for three questions, related to alcohol and drug use and suicidal ideation, revealed statistically nonsignificant differences between men recruited in phase 1 and in phase 2. These questions were moved from the interviewer-administered section to the self-administered section after phase 1, which may at least partially account for the differences. Even though the differences did not reach statistical significance, these questions were omitted from the analysis.

5. Despite its poor fit, the choice item was retained for obvious conceptual reasons. Factor analysis did not reveal distinct clusters (i.e., there was no evidence of another underlying construct to which the item might belong).

6. I carefully cultivated a nonjudgmental attitude and supportive rapport with participants, and shared my own (at that time) single status whenever asked.