![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Lesbian, gay, and bisexual-identifying (LGB) individuals and couples have a longer and more involved history of Internet-based technological engagement when compared to their heterosexual-identifying counterparts. Yet consideration to the way that technology influences LGB relationships is rarely addressed. The purpose of this study was to consider the role of technology-based ecological elements in LGB-partnered relationships. To do this, a sample of university students completed an online survey focused on gathering information on technology practices as part of a larger project. The majority of the participants reported that they were accessible via technologies, their technologies were affordable, and that sexting within one's primary relationship was acceptable to the highest degree. From these results, implications for LGB individuals and couples include the need for increasing awareness and mindfulness around the effects of the ecological elements, the need for addressing these ecological elements in relationships, and the importance of establishing clear definitions, rules, roles, and boundaries around what is problematic and helpful in relation to technology use in partnered relationships. Clinical implications for relational and family therapists, as well as sex therapists, are also discussed.
Disclosure statement
The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
* Parts of this manuscript were previously presented at the 2016 Bisexual Organizing Project Bisexual Empowerment Annual Conference in Minneapolis, MN, and the 2015 Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality Annual Conference in Albuquerque, NM.
1. For the purpose of this study, couples/relationships/partnerships are defined as individuals who are in dyadic and/or multi-partnered relationships as data collected reflect both relationship structures. In the extra-researcher citations, the term “couples” is assumed to refer to dyadic relationships only, unless researchers overtly stated otherwise.
2. Thompson and O'Sullivan (Citation2016) did not break down views of pornography and cheating for non-heterosexual-identifying participants.
3. The anonymity section of the EEQ is not being reported in the current paper, as the researchers believe that previously reported findings (see Twist et al., Citation2017) from the SSPQ are a more accurate measure of anonymity, and thus a summary of findings from this latter measure are provided.
4. Monogamism is defined as the dominant belief that the only legitimate relational orientation is that of monogamous and the only acceptable relationship form is that of monogamy (Blumer et al., Citation2014 ; Twist et al., Citationin review).
5. Technophobia is defined as the fear or dislike of advanced technology or complex devices, especially computers (Brosnan, Citation2002).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Markie L. C. Twist
Markie L. C. Twist, PhD, is the program coordinator, with Graduate Certificate in Sex Therapy Program, and associate professor at the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin. They/She is also visiting associate professor, Couple and Family Therapy Program, at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Christopher K. Belous
Christopher K. Belous, PhD, an assistant professor at the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Mercer University.
Candice A. Maier
Candice A. Maier, PhD, an assistant professor at the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin.
Melissa K. Bergdall
Melissa K. Bergdall, MS, is an adjunct professor at the Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin.