Introduction to Special Issue on Parenting and Sexuality
The focus of this double issue—36 (2/3)—is on the parenting relationship, which matches the theme of the recent annual College of Sexual and Relationship Therapy (COSRT) conference. Each year COSRT, the organization that houses this journal, holds an annual conference and almost every year this journal, Sexual and Relationship Therapy (SRT), has a special issue that corresponds with the topic of the annual conference. Much like the annual conference showcased a variety of topics—ranging from the importance of narrative in the parenting relationship (Sainsbury, Citation2021) to fatherhood (Machin, Citation2021) to parenting children with special educational needs or disabilities (Davies, Citation2021), and to gender, sexual, erotic, and relational diversity (GSERD) parenting considerations and clinical implications (Twist, Citation2021)—this special issue focuses on a wide variety of topics. Articles are included that focus on the following sexuality-related parenting topics across the developmental lifespan and familial life cycle: pregnancy, daily hassles in family-work systems and life satisfaction, late adolescents and young adults in relationships, bibliotherapy for young adult women, maternal experiences of sex postnatal, parental perspectives on sexual intimacy perinatal, sexual functioning of lesbian and gay parents with children from heterosexual relationships, and maternal experiences of postpartum depression. It is my hope that you find these parenting-related topics interesting and clinically informative, much like those presented at the annual conference.
Gender, sexual, erotic, and relational diversity
In this introduction, I wanted to also highlight parental considerations and clinical implications from my invited keynote presentation at the annual COSRT conference, as the topic is not only relevant and timely, but also relates back to and further builds upon a previous special issue
of this journal—33(4), which was a special issue on GSERDFootnote1 (Twist, Citation2018). GSERD is an umbrella term and related theoretical conceptualization aimed at recognizing the diversity within and between humans around gender (e.g., cisgender, transgender, agender), sexuality (e.g., heterosexual, gay, lesbian, asexual, bisexual, pansexual), eroticism (e.g., kinky, fetishists, non-kinky), and relationality (e.g., monogamous, monogamish, polyamorous, polygamous) (Twist, Citation2016a; Citation2018; Citation2019; Citation2021; Twist et al., Citationin press).
Gender, sexual, erotic, and relational diversity in adolescence
In the context of modern parenting and family/relational system dynamics each of the GSERD areas increasingly warrants attention as the demographics of families and the upcoming generations are changing. For instance, 2.2% of adults in the United Kingdom (UK) now identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual (LGB) and 4.4% of Generation ZFootnote2 (Gen Z) identifies as such (Office of National Statistics, Citation2018). In addition, 200,000-500,000 adults in the UK identify under the transgender umbrella (Office of National Statistics, n.d.). Data is similar across the pond—indeed, 5.6% of United States (US) adults now identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and 1 in 6 or 15% of Gen Z identify as such (Jones, Citation2021). Furthermore, 1.8% of US Gen Z and .06% of US adults identify under the transgender umbrella and about half of US Gen Z think traditional gender roles/labels are outdated (Jones, Citation2021).
In terms of the demographics, not only are there reportedly more LGB-identifying children and adolescents now than historically reported, their coming out process is, on average, on a faster trajectory than previous generations. For instance, in the past, self-identification as LGB typically happened between the ages of 15-18 years (Cass, Citation1979; Coleman, Citation1982; Troiden, Citation1989), but now is happening between the ages of 14-18 years—a whole year earlier in the lifespan (Meyer, Citation2018). In addition, there has been an increase in asexual identification in younger generations (Twenge et al., Citation2017). Also, it is important to keep in mind that those in younger generations are the first to be considered digital natives, which means they have never NOT had modern technologies in their lives (Prensky, Citation2001). The implications of this is there is no way that technology has and is not not playing a part in not only their overall identity development (Hertlein & Twist, Citation2019), but also their GSERD identity development (Twist, Citation2021). In relation to this, some adolescents may be identifying as digisexuals or robosexuals, (Hertlein & Twist, Citation2019; McArthur & Twist, Citation2017; Twist, Citation2021). Of note, some scholars and clinicians view digisexuality as an erotic orientation or identity while others see it as a separate, standalone identity (Twist, Citation2020a).
While data and literature are available around the growing diversity in youth in terms of gender and sexuality, there is little to no like scholarly information available on the intersections of the youth and their diverse erotic (Bezreh et al., Citation2012; Twist, Citation2021; Twist et al., Citationin press) and/or relational identities (Alhuzail & Lander, Citation2021; Olmastead, Citation2020; Slap et al., Citation2003; Twist, Citation2021; Twist et al., Citationin press). The limited information available on minoritized erotic identities in youth includes a handful of retrospective studies asking adults about their interest in kinks/fetishes/bondage, discipline/dominance, submission/sadism, and masochism (BDSM) in childhood and how this played a role in their erotic identity development—within these studies there is evidence to support that interest in kinks/fetishes/BDSM have been present since childhood and adolescence (Aaron et al., Citation2017; Hoff & Sprott, Citation2009; Twist et al., Citation2017a; Yost & Hunter, Citation2012). This is similar to retrospective reports by LGB adults of their childhood in relation to their sexual orientation and related identity development (Sprott & Berkey, Citation2015).
What scarce scholarly literature there is exploring minoritized relational orientation identities in youth is either non-existent in terms of polyamory (e.g., swinging, consensual non-monogamy; Olmstead, Citation2020) or is focused on a specific form—polygamy. Even when the intersection of polygamy and youth/adolescence occurs in the scholarly literature, it is not focused on as a relational orientation and related identity development of the youth themselves, but rather, is focused on the effects of polygamous marriage/s on the mental, relational, and academic health of the youth/adolescence (Blumer et al., Citation2014a; Hamdan et al., Citation2009; Twist et al., Citation2015). The few studies where this is more of the focal point on polygamy in the youth themselves, the scholars focus more on the sexual behaviors and practices of the youth existing within polygamous contexts (Alhuzail & Lander, Citation2021; Owuamanam & Bankole, Citation2013; Slap et al., Citation2003), rather than on their relational orientation [note: although these two identities/orientations may be connected, they are not one in the same]. Indeed, a handful of scholars have reported that adolescents coming from polygamous homes in Nigeria, where between 30-50% of adults report practicing polygamy, are more supportive of sexual ‘promiscuity’ and engage in such ‘promiscuity’ at greater rates than those coming from monogamous homes (Owuamanam & Bankole, Citation2013; Slap et al., Citation2003). In addition, no gender differences were found amongst the adolescents coming from polygamous homes in terms of their attitudes towards sexual ‘promiscuity’ (Owuamanam & Bankole, Citation2013).
Gender, sexual, erotic, and diversity and parenting considerations
Considering these changing demographics and the growing significance of GSERD in this ever-expanding context, there are many intersectional parental and family/relational system considerations. Parents/care providers/relational systemsFootnote3 of youth/adolescents need to first and foremost be supportive of GSERD in general, as the younger generations are often more diverse, aware, and knowledgeable than their older generation counterparts (parents not excluded) in some of these areas of diversity. Being supportive, in part, means being aware of GSERD and the ‘-isms’ related to each of these areas of diversity, while also working towards minimizing the harmful effects of such ‘-isms’ on youth of all backgrounds, identities, and experiences (Twist, Citation2021).
Considerations around gender
In terms of expectant parents, who seek to not proliferate cisgenderism, or the dominant ideology that delegitimizes people’s own understanding of their genders and bodies (Ansara, Citation2010; Ansara & Hegarty, Citation2012; Blumer et al., Citation2013a), the awareness of this ‘-ism’ needs to start in utero and upon birth. This can include not permanently gendering a child, regardless of genitalia, before they are born nor after birth, and instead being open to the child’s gender and their gendering of themselves as they grow (Twist, Citation2020b). When youth are in early to middle childhood this can look like including all gender pronouns and characters of diverse gender identities and backgrounds in the books, stories, movies/shows, games, toys, and animal companions with which the youth engage. As the youth progresses into adolescence, being supportive and having a non-cisgenderist ideology can look like: affirming puberty-related medical care needs that are congruent with how the youth genders themself, supporting the ways the youth express their gender, and honoring rites of passage ceremonies in ways that fit for the youth’s identities, particularly as it relates to gendering. In elementary and secondary schooling contexts, comprehensive sexuality education programming needs to also be inclusive of comprehensive gender education, and there needs to be the inclusion of gender diversity in everyday classroom environments like in the learning of all gender pronouns rather than only primarily binary ones, as well as in the breaking down of classroom activities, bathroom usage, and athletics, not by gender, but by other qualities, so that there is inclusion of youth of all genders rather than only those of binaries (Twist, Citation2021).
Considerations around sexuality and sexual orientation
In terms of sexuality and sexual orientation, expectant parents, who seek to not perpetuate heterosexism, or the system of attitudes, biases, and discrimination that favors dyadic, cisgender woman-man sexuality and relationships (Penelope, Citation1979), can begin with not assuming their infant and relatedly child is or will be “sexuals” (as opposed to asexual; Chang & Twist, Citation2021) or heterosexual or “straight.” As the youth progresses into adolescence, being supportive and non-heterosexist can include: affirming who the youth dates and/or befriends regardless of their gender and/or sexuality, supporting the ways youth express their sexuality, and supporting and helping to safeguard the youth from anti-gay and anti-bisexual bullying both in person and in online environments. In elementary and secondary schooling contexts, there needs to be the inclusion of sexuality and sexual orientation diversity via: the inclusion of LGB authors, stories, musicians, scientists, and in the overall teaching of history, having gender and sexuality alliance (GSA) clubs and groups, as well as comprehensive sexuality education programming that includes sexuality and sexual orientation diversity.
Gen Z is more queer than previous generations and part of this includes an increase in identification with middle sexualities (e.g., bisexual, pansexual, omnisexual). Unfortunately, those of older generations often have more difficulty recognizing and understanding the middle sexualities identities. This places youth in positions of having their sexual identities being invalidated and invisible (Twist et al., Citationin press). Indeed, of the sexual orientation minority groups, bisexuals tend to be one of the more marginalized (Twist, Citation2016b; Ulrich, Citation2011). To help increase one’s knowledge, while working towards diminishing heterosexism and biphobia, family members can read booksFootnote4, listen to podcastsFootnote5, and watch showsFootnote6 focused on the middle sexualities and better understanding of them (Twist, Citation2021).
Considerations around erotic orientation
In terms of erotic orientation, the first step in diminishing erotocentrism, or the belief that one’s sexual behavior and attitude is superior to all others and that one’s own sexuality is the standard by which others should be judged (Skeen, Citation1991; Citation1999) and ‘vanillaismFootnote7’, or the dominant belief that the only legitimate erotic orientation is being ‘vanilla’ or non-kinky, is to just acknowledge the possibility that youth and adolescents can be attracted to and/or interested in qualities other and more than gender and sex—in other words, they can be diverse in erotic orientation and identity. Instead of being aware and open to this possibility in our youth, what is commonly experienced is that as one ages into young adulthood and beyond, they may start to recognize their own kinks, fetishes, and related interests and reflect back on their younger years and realize they had those interests early on or that such kinks/fetishes were embedded in their programming without being framed as such. If relational systems get to a place of being aware of erotic diversity, and relatedly of not shaming nor practicing kinkphobia in general, then beneficial and healthy rules and norms from kink culture can be embedded into everyday parenting practices in intentional ways.
An ethical practice within BDSM/kink communities is the overt discussing of and the layers associated with consent, and as such there are several tools to use in having consent conversations. Such tools can be and are applied in the practicing of consensual communication outside of the kink context (Twist, Citation2021). One such tool is the 4Cs framework (Williams et al., Citation2014), which as a consent communication tool is a good fit for sharing with youth in secondary schooling and/or in the developmental stage of adolescence. The 4Cs framework details the following practices as necessary to agree to and follow in order to have more consensual exchanges: 1) being caring before, during, and after said exchange, 2) clear communication, 3) grounding and centering the exchange around consent, and 4) practicing caution as such exchanges often exist along a continuum from an enthusiastic yes to a cautious maybe to a hard no (Williams et al., Citation2014).
Another tool, that is perhaps the simplest and one of the oldest around consent communication within BDSM/kink communities, is that of the use of a “safeword.” An agreed upon safeword prior to engaging in conversations, exchanges, and/or activities in which ongoing consent is needed, can be employed when a person needs to let the other party/ies know that they are approaching or about to cross a physical, emotional, verbal, and/or moral boundary, and whenever the safeword is said by anyone, the exchange stops outright. Learning safewords as a consent-based communication tool is a good fit for youth in early and middle childhood and/or in the context of pre-elementary/lower elementary schooling. For communicating along a continuum of consent the safeword system of the “stoplight method” can be utilized and is timely with youth in upper elementary and secondary schooling and/or in the development stages of pre-adolescence/adolescence. Using this system during a consent-based exchange, if someone says “red” this means stop immediately, “yellow” means proceed with caution and/or you are getting close to the hard limits or the red, and “green” means this is good so continue doing what you are doing. Some have added “blue” to the stoplight method, which is meant to indicate consent beyond green and/or do more or in a more intense manner. Having more tools (like those presented in this section) for practicing consent across all aspects of one’s life is something relational systems can offer the next generation, starting in their youth, to help empower them across contexts (Twist, Citation2021).
Considerations around relational orientation
In terms of relational orientation, the first step in diminishing monogamism, or the dominant belief that the only legitimate relational orientation is being monogamous and the only acceptable relationship form is that of monogamy (Blumer et al., Citation2014a; Twist et al., Citation2015), is just to acknowledge the possibility that youth and adolescence can be oriented towards not only monogamy and/or mono-partnered relationships, but also polyamory and/or multi-partnered relationships, particularly those that are reared in multi-partnered homes and/or in cultures where such structures are more normative (Alhuzail & Lander, Citation2021; Hamdan et al., Citation2009; Owuamanam & Bankole, Citation2013; Slap et al., Citation2003; Twist et al., Citation2015). In addition, much like how minoritized erotic orientation communities and practitioners have tools that can be helpful to share with youth to support greater understanding around communication exchanges, within minoritized relational orientation communities there are also terms, concepts, and tools that when shared with youth can be empowering to them in their relationships.
The application of relational tools from polyamorous and/or consensually non-monogamous are one way of expressing support for youth not only if they are non-monogamous in their relational orientation, but also in supporting youth of all relational orientations in terms of supporting them across all kinds of relationships. For instance, children experience some feelings of jealousy and competition towards their peers and these feelings actually increase in the adolescent years (Parker et al. Citation2005). Having overt, yet thoughtful, conversations about feelings of jealousy is often a normative topic of discussion for partners in polyamorous relationships and usually involves discussing “compersion,” as well. Compersion is a term that was coined by the Kerista CommuneFootnote8 in the 1970s and is used to describe the feeling of vicarious joy associated with seeing one’s partner/s or amour have a joyful romantic, affectional, and/or sexual relationship or exchange with another/s. Said simply, the feeling of compersion is a positive one and is like the opposite of feeling jealous. Such conversations around jealousy and compersion can be beneficial to model for youth, so they can become more open and comfortable discussing these kinds of complex feelings more openly with friends and potential partners in their lives.
Within my own lived family experiences, I have felt the difference firsthand between love being framed through more of a competition versus compersion lens. In the experience of growing up in my family-of-origin, which was a home with dyadic parents who practiced consecutive monogamy—the dominant relational orientation and related practice in the US—my Mother would lovingly say to me, “I love you more than….” and then insert examples of objects, places, animal companions, etc. that she loved me more than and I would do the same in kind. This communication exchange happened repeatedly from the earliest age I can recall to late adolescence and while it was pleasant and loving, it was also competitive in its framing of love. With my child, who is now an adolescent, I adopted a similar communication exchange, but modified it to better fit our family structure—a structure that is more polyamorous than the one in which I was raised. In relation to this, I have the following communication exchange with my child, “I love you with…” and then we insert examples of things we both love and share together. This brings about a feeling of the multiplying love or compersion.
Gender, sexual, erotic, and relational diversity and clinical implications
Not only do parents need to be considerate of GSERD in their practices, so do mental and relational health care providers working with youth and their families. Put simply, our practices as parents and providers need to be GSERD-affirming of our youth. Focusing on clinical microskills, or those specific skills that can be used to enhance communication with clinical participants, and what some consider to be the building blocks of an effective therapeutic alliance (Miville et al., Citation2011), need to be GSERD-affirming (Ansara, Citation2019; Ansara & Twist, Citation2017; Twist & Ansara, Citation2017a; Citation2017b; Twist et al., in press; Twist, Citation2021). Based on practice and an ongoing extensive review of the literature, recommended GSERD-affirming microskills, and where applicable as tied to specifically working with youth/adolescents and their relational systems, are provided in . GSERD-Affirming Clinical Microskills, Questions, and Tools. Of note, be sure to tailor the suggested tools and tips to the relevant accompanying social and cultural factors of the population and the individual beings within it with whom you are working clinically (Hamdan et al., Citation2009
).Disclsoure Statement
The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Markie L. C. Twist
Markie L. C. Twist, Ph.D., Program Coordinator, Graduate Certificate in Sex Therapy Program, Full Professor, Department of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, Wisconsin; Adjunct Faculty, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Nevada, Las Vegas School of Public Health, Las Vegas, Nevada; and Sessional Instructor, Department of Family Relations and Applied Nutrition, University of Guelph.
Notes
1 GSERD is conceptually rooted in and theoretically expands upon the idea of gender, sexual, and relational diversity (GSRD) originally posited by Davies and Barker (Citation2015).
2 Generation Z is defined as those born between 1997 and roughly 2012–2015 (Dimock, Citation2019).
3 The terms parent/s/care provider/s/relational system/s will be used interchangeably throughout.
4 One book I would recommend is Iantaffi, A., & Barker, M, J. (2019). Life isn’t binary: On being both, beyond, and in-between. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
5 A specific podcast episode I would recommend is Soules, J., & Twist, M. L. C. (2021, March). Episode 48: Asking Good Questions is Half of Learning. Allow Me to Trans-Late with Jason Soules.
6 A television show I would recommend is Schitt’s Creek. (2015–2020). Canadian Broadcasting Company.
7 The term ‘vanilla’ (meaning non-kinky) and relatedly ‘vanillaism’ may read as exclusionary or insensitive in some contexts and circles. For instance, the label ‘vanilla’ when applied to non-kinky persons, who may also identify under the Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) umbrella, could read as racially insensitive. Thus, it is essential to be aware of the various intersections between a person’s GSERD identities and their other identities.
8 Source: https://www.kerista.com/poly.html
References
- Aaron, M., Pitagora, D., Twist, M. (2017). 50 shades happier? The truth about BDSM participants. Psychology Today [blog]. https://www.psychologytoday.come/us/blog/standard-deviations/201702/50-shades-happier-the-truth-about-bdsm-participants
- Alhuzail, N. A., & Lander, A. (2021). The experience of Bedouin-Arab adolescent girls in polygamous families. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An International Forum, 33(2), 131-156. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08952833.2020.1755164
- Ansara, Y. G. (2010). Beyond cisgenderism: Counselling people with non-assigned gender identities. In L. Mood (Ed.), Counselling ideologies: Queer challenges to heteronormativity (pp. 167–200). Routledge.
- Ansara, Y. G. (2012). Exploring genders on planet Epsilon…http://ansaraonline.com
- Ansara, Y. G. (2019). Trauma psychotherapy with people involved in BDSM/kink: Five common misconceptions and five essential clinical skills. Psychotherapy and Counselling Journal of Australia, 7(2), 1–26. https://pacja.org.au/2019/12/trauma-psychotherapy-with-people-involved-in-bdsm-kink-five-common-misconceptions-and-five-essential-clinical-skills-2/?fbclid=IwAR0pEt-7MDV5F5Et-rhwp-iy7qAKpyFszvHJJ8EmiUMgJl9pOVfPAmN5340
- Ansara, Y. G., & Hegarty, P. (2012). Cisgenderism in psychology: Pathologising and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008. Psychology and Sexuality, 3(2), 137–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2011.576696
- Ansara, Y. G., & Twist, M. L. C. (2017, June). Developing non-cisgenderist relational and family therapy skills for practice with people of trans and non-binary experience [Workshop]. Imandari Counselling, Glebe, Sydney, Australia.
- Ansara, Y. G., Twist, M. L. C., VandenBosch, M. L., & Miller-Carlin, J. A. (2018). Cisgenderism measure. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 33(4), 370–376. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1526883
- Bezreh, T., Weinberg, T. S., & Edgar, T. (2012). BDSM disclosure and stigma management: Identifying opportunities for sex education. American Journal of Sexuality Education, 7(1), 37–61. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15546128.2012.650984
- Blumer, M. L. C., Ansara, Y. G., & Watson, C. M. (2013a). Cisgenderism in family therapy: How everyday clinical practices can delegitimize people’s gender self-designations. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 24(4), 267–285. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/08975353.2013.849551
- Blumer, M. L. C., & Green, M. S. (2011a, September). The role of same-sex couple development in clinical practice [Workshop]. American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Annual Conference, Forth Worth, Texas, USA.
- Blumer, M. L. C., Green, M. S. (2011b). Homocentric role-play [video]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3VH_okVJqw
- Blumer, M. L. C., Green, M. S., Thomte, N. L., & Green, P. M. (2013b). Are we queer yet? Addressing heterosexual and gender-conforming privilege. In K. Case, (Eds.) Deconstructing privilege: Teaching and learning as allies in the classroom (pp. 151–168). Routledge.
- Blumer, M. L. C., Haym, C., Zimmerman, K., & Prouty, A. (2014a). What’s one got to do with it?: Considering monogamous privilege. Family Therapy Magazine, 13(2), 28–33. https://bit.ly/3dpCTtl
- Blumer, M. L. C., Bergdall, M., & Ullman, K. (2014b, November). Texting.Sexting.Chatting.: Managing technology in LGB Relationships [Presentation], University of Wisconsin-Stout, Menomonie, WI, USA.
- Cass, V. C. (1979). Homosexual identity formation: A theoretical model. Journal of Homosexuality, 4(3), 219–235. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v04n03_01
- Chang, J., & Twist, M. L. C. (2021). Asexuality and intimacy considerations. The MFT Courier, 36(1), 15–16. https://www.academia.edu/46397384/University_of_Wisconsin_Stout_Marriage_and_Family_Therapy_Program
- Coleman, E. (1982). Developmental stages of the coming-out process. American Behavioral Scientist, 25(4), 469–482. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/000276482025004009
- Davies, D., & Barker, M. J. (2015). How gender and sexually diverse-friendly is your therapy training?The Psychotherapist, 61, 8–10. https://bit.ly/2zQyTU4
- Davies, H. (2021). Having a child with special educational needs or disabilities: Impacts on love and life [Keynote Speaker]. College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists Annual Conference [Online], London, England, United Kingdom. March).
- DeMaria, R., Weeks, G. R., & Twist, M. L. (2017). Focused genograms: Intergenerational assessment of individuals, couples, and families. Taylor & Francis.
- Dimock, M. (2019). Defining generations: Where millennials end and generation z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/
- Green, M. S., & Blumer, M. L. C. (2013). Visibility in lesbian and gay families: Managing the family closet. Family Therapy Magazine, 12(1), 28–29.
- Hamdan, S., Auerbach, J., & Apter, A. (2009). Polygamy and mental health of adolescents. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 18(12), 755–760. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-009-0034-7
- Hertlein, K. M., & Twist, M. L. C. (2019). The Internet family: Technology in couple and family relationships. Routledge.
- Hillman, J., & Martin, R. A. (2002). Lessons about gay and lesbian lives: A spaceship exercise. Teaching of Psychology, 29(4), 308–311. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328023TOP2904_12
- Hoff, G., & Sprott, R. A. (2009). Therapy experiences of clients with BDSM sexualities: Listening to a stigmatized sexuality. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 12(9), 30. http://www.ejhs.org/Volume12/bdsm.htm
- Iwasaki, Y., & Ristock, J. (2007). The nature of stress experienced by lesbians and gay men. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 20(3), 299–319. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701303264
- Jones, J. M. (2021). LGBT identification rises to 5.6% in latest U.S. estimate. Gallup: Politics. https://news.gallup.com/poll/329708/lgbt-identification-rises-latest-estimate.aspx
- Machin, A. (2021, March). Becoming dad: The science and psychology of fatherhood [Keynote Speaker]. College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists Annual Conference [Online], London, England, United Kingdom.
- McArthur, N., & Twist, M. L. C. (2017). The rise of digisexuality: Therapeutic challenges and possibilities. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 32(3–4), 334–344. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2017.1397950
- Miville, M. L., Redway, J. A. K., & Hernandez, E. (2011). Microskills, trainee competence, and therapy outcomes: Learning to work in circles. The Counseling Psychologist, 39(6), 897–907. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000011404438
- Melton, M. L. (2018). Ally, activist, advocate: Addressing role complexities for the multiculturally competent psychologist. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(1), 83–89. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000175
- Meyer, I. H. (2018). Coming out milestones in the US [fact sheet]. Williams Institute School of Law. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/coming-out-milestones-in-us/
- Office of National Statistics. (n.d.). Statistical Bulletin: Gender identity update. https://www.ons.gov.uk/methodology/classificationsandstandards/measuringequality/genderidentity/genderidentityupdate
- Office of National Statistics. (2018). Statistical Bulletin: Sexual orientation, UK: 2018. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/sexuality/bulletins/sexualidentityuk/2018
- Olmstead, S. B. (2020). A decade review of sex and partnering in adolescence and young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(2), 769–795. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12670
- Owuamanam, D. O., & Bankole, M. O. (2013). Family type and attitude to sexual promiscuity of adolescent students in Ekiti State, Nigeria. European Scientific Journal, 9(17), 171–177. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236416354.pdf
- Parker, J. G., Low, C. M., Walker, A. R., & Gamm, B. K. (2005). Friendship jealousy in young adolescents: Individual differences and links to sex, self-esteem, aggression, and social adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 235–250. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.235
- Penelope, J. (1979, November). The articulation of bias: Hoof in mouth disease. [Presentation]. Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, San Francisco, CA, USA.
- Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 2: Do they really think differently?On the Horizon, 9(6), 1–6. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/10748120110424843
- Sainsbury, T. (2021, March). The importance of narrative [Keynote Speaker]. College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists Annual Conference [Online], London, England, United Kingdom.
- Skeen, D. (1991). Different sexual worlds: Contemporary case studies of sexuality [first printing]. Lexington Books.
- Skeen, D. (1999). Different sexual worlds: Contemporary case studies of sexuality [second printing]. Lexington Books.
- Slap, G. B., Lot, L., Huang, B., Daniyam, C. A., Zink, T. M., & Succop, P. A. (2003). Sexual behaviour of adolescents in Nigeria: Cross sectional survey of secondary school students. BMJ, 326(7379), 15–16. https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/326/7379/15.full.pdf?casa_token=h5hvkHocxP4AAAAA:yrJr9CGUeiufD6y-yj5ZSa10BAK7_a9OMcbWNdGUxj_DXKZO5eeDFs0-J5xfTFYS6O9HL2Vf https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7379.15
- Soules, J., & Twist, M. L. C. (2021, March). Episode 48: Asking Good Questions is Half of Learning [podcast]. Allow Me to Trans-Late with Jason Soules.
- Sprott, R. A., & Berkey, B. (2015). At the intersection of sexual orientation and alternative sexualities: Issues raised by “Fifty Shades of Grey. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(4), 506–507. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000150
- Troiden, R. R. (1989). The formation of homosexual identities. Journal of Homosexuality, 17(1–2), 43–74. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v17n01_02
- Twenge, J. M., Sherman, R. A., & Wells, B. E. (2017). Sexual inactivity during young adulthood is more common among U.S. millennials and iGen: Age, period, and cohort effects on having no sexual partners after age 18. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(2), 433–440. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0798-z
- Twist, M. L. C. (2016a). Clinical work with sexually and gender diverse clients. American Association for Family Therapy Family Therapy e-News.
- Twist, M. L. C. (2016b). Consistency of my bisexual self. Journal of Bisexuality, 16(2), 203–208. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2016.1149752
- Twist, M. L. C. (2016c). Polyam-centric role-play [video]. University of Wisconsin-Stout. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqE2VjPNBAU
- Twist, M. L. C. (2018, November). A gender, sexual, erotic, and relational diversity matrix: A tool for exploring intersectional queerness [Continuing Education Workshop]. Society for Scientific Study of Sexuality Annual Conference, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
- Twist, M. L. C. (2019, August). Exploring intersectional queerness using the GSERD Matrix [Workshop]. American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Annual Conference, Austin, TX, USA.
- Twist, M. L. C. (2020a, June). Digisexuality! Kink, fetish, or something more? [Presentation]. Kink on Pink 2 [webinar], London, England, United Kingdom.
- Twist, M. L. C. (2020b). Beyond the numbers: A demand for a post-rape age. Journal of Feminist Family Therapy: An International Forum, 33(2), 206–215. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/08952833.2020.1848054 [online first 2020]
- Twist, M. L. C. (2021, March). Parenting in modern times: Gender, sexual, erotic, and relational diversity considerations and clinical implications [Keynote Speaker]. College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists Annual Conference [Online], London, England, United Kingdom.
- Twist, M. L. C., Aaron, M., Pitagora, D., & Curtis, S. (2017a, May). Purposeful pain: What do we know about BDSM and non-suicidal self-injury participants? Survey findings and clinical implications [Lecture]. Community-Academic Consortium for Research on Alternative Sexualities Alternative Sexualities Annual Conference, Chicago, IL, USA.
- Twist, M. L. C., Bergdall, M. K., Belous, C. K., & Maier, C. A. (2017b). Electronic visibility management of lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities and relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 16(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2016.1238798
- Twist, M. L. C., & Ansara, Y. G. (2017a, June). Developing kink/BDSM-affirmative relational and family therapy skills for practice with people of kink, BDSM, and/or minoritized erotic orientations, identities, and/or relational systems [Workshop]. Imandari Counselling, Glebe, Sydney, Australia.
- Twist, M. L. C., & Ansara, Y. G. (2017b, June). Developing non-monogamist relational and family therapy skills for practice with people of poly, multi-partnered, and consensually non-monogamous identities and/or relational systems [Workshop]. Imandari Counselling, Glebe, Sydney, Australia.
- Twist, M. L. C., Cloud, R., & Hechter, S. A. (in press). Invisible humans: Identity development and visibility management in the context of systemic gender, sexual, erotic, and relational diversity. In R. G. Harvey and M. J. Murphy (Eds.), Handbook of LGBTQ-affirmative couple and family therapy (2nd ed.). Routledge.
- Twist, M. L. C., Prouty, A. M., Haym, C., & VandenBosch, M. L. (2018). Monogamism measure. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 33(4), 376-381. doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2018.1526883
- Twist, M. L. C., Haym, C., Iantaffi, A., & Prouty, A. M. (2015, November). Managing monogamism: Clinical practice with consensually open non-monogamous relationship and family systems (learning Session). Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality Annual Conference, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
- Ulrich, L. (2011). Bisexual invisibility: Impacts and recommendations. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Human Rights Commission LGBT Advisory Committee. http://www.sf-hrc.org/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=989on20/6/11
- World Health Organization (WHO). (2006). Sexual health. https://www.who.int/topics/sexual_health/en/
- Williams, D. J., Thomas, T. N., Prior, E. E., & Christensen, M. C. (2014). From “SSC” and “RACK” to the “4Cs”: Introducing a new framework for negotiating BDSM participation. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 17, 1–10. http://www.ejhs.org/volume17/BDSM.html
- Yost, M. R., & Hunter, L. E. (2012). BDSM practitioners’ understandings of their initial attraction to BDSM sexuality: Essentialist and constructivist narratives. Psychology and Sexuality, 3(3), 244–259. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2012.700028