Introduction to special issue on the parenting relationship

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, 2021) to fatherhood (Machin, 2021) to parenting children with special educational needs or disabilities (Davies, 2021), and to gender, sexual, erotic, and relational diversity (GSERD) parenting considerations and clinical implications (Twist, 2021)—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 GSERD¹ (Twist, 2018). 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, 2016a; 2018; 2019; 2021; Twist et al., in 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 Z² (Gen Z) identifies as such (Office of National Statistics, 2018). 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, 2021). 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, 2021).

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, 1979; Coleman, 1982; Troiden, 1989), but now is happening between the ages of 14-18 years—a whole year earlier in the lifespan (Meyer, 2018). In addition, there has been an increase in asexual identification in younger generations (Twenge et al., 2017). 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, 2001). 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, 2019), but also their GSERD identity development (Twist, 2021). In relation to this, some adolescents may be identifying as digisexuals or robosexuals, (Hertlein & Twist, 2019; McArthur & Twist, 2017; Twist, 2021). Of note, some scholars and clinicians view digisexuality as an erotic orientation or identity while others see it as a separate, standalone identity (Twist, 2020a).

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., 2012; Twist, 2021; Twist et al., in press) and/or relational identities (Alhuzail & Lander, 2021; Olmastead, 2020; Slap et al., 2003; Twist, 2021; Twist et al., in 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., 2017; Hoff & Sprott, 2009; Twist et al., 2017a; Yost & Hunter, 2012). This is similar to retrospective reports by LGB adults of their childhood in relation to their sexual orientation and related identity development (Sprott & Berkey, 2015).

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, 2020) 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., 2014a; Hamdan et al., 2009; Twist et al., 2015). 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, 2021; Owuamanam & Bankole, 2013; Slap et al., 2003), 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, 2013; Slap et al., 2003). In addition, no gender differences were found amongst the adolescents coming from polygamous homes in terms of their attitudes towards sexual ‘promiscuity’ (Owuamanam & Bankole, 2013).

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 systems³ 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, 2021).

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, 2010; Ansara & Hegarty, 2012; Blumer et al., 2013a), 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, 2020b). 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, 2021).

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, 1979), can begin with not assuming their infant and relatedly child is or will be “sexuals” (as opposed to asexual; Chang & Twist, 2021) 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., in press). Indeed, of the sexual orientation minority groups, bisexuals tend to be one of the more marginalized (Twist, 2016b; Ulrich, 2011). To help increase one’s knowledge, while working towards diminishing heterosexism and biphobia, family members can read books⁴, listen to podcasts⁵, and watch shows⁶ focused on the middle sexualities and better understanding of them (Twist, 2021).

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, 1991; 1999) and ‘vanillaism⁷’, 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, 2021). One such tool is the 4Cs framework (Williams et al., 2014), 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., 2014).

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, 2021).

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., 2014a; Twist et al., 2015), 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, 2021; Hamdan et al., 2009; Owuamanam & Bankole, 2013; Slap et al., 2003; Twist et al., 2015). 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. 2005). 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 Commune⁸ 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., 2011), need to be GSERD-affirming (Ansara, 2019; Ansara & Twist, 2017; Twist & Ansara, 2017a; 2017b; Twist et al., in press; Twist, 2021). 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 Table 1. 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., 2009

Table 1. GSERD-Affirming Clinical Microskills, Questions, and Tools.

GSERD-Affirming Clinical Microskills	Questions to Consider for Clinicians	Tools and Tips for Clinicians
Microskill 1: Create GSERD-Positive and Affirming Spaces and Practices	What kind of images and resources do you have in your space? What do these images communicate about GSERD and youth/relational systems? How do you market and promote yourself and your work? Do you communicate GSERD sensitivity?	Gain more GSERD-affirming training and credentialing and make this known in one’s physical clinical space and/or on one’s professional websites and various social-media platforms Display GSERD-related images, pictures, and/or symbols in one’s physical clinical space and/or on one’s professional websites and various social media-platforms
Microskill 2: Establish Reflective Practice	How reflective are you regarding your values, limitations, and beliefs in relation to GSERD? What are your reflections on yourself and relatedly your clinical practice in relation to GSERD and youth/relational systems?	To gauge one’s reflective practices, clinicians can track themselves using self-of-the-therapist measures like the: Cisgenderism Measure (Ansara et al., 2018) Monogamism Measure (Twist 2018) GSERD Matrix (Twist et al., in press)
Microskill 3: Proactive Cueing	How do you introduce yourself in ways that are GSERD aware? How do you create a space for GSERD youth/relational systems to introduce and express themselves authentically and safely?	Begin clinical conversations and sessions by introducing your relevant GSERD-related cues (e.g., gender pronouns, identity descriptors) Make visible GSERD-related cues (e.g., gender pronouns, identity descriptors) in one’s physical clinical space, on oneself (e.g., pins, buttons), and/or in one’s professional online communications (e/g., email signature line), websites, and various social media-platforms
Microskill 4: Know and Share GSERD-Positive Literature and Resources	What are the GSERD-affirming resources in your library? What are the GSERD-affirming resources that you recommend to youth/relational systems?	As knowledge around GSERD is ever-growing and changing, clinicians will need to stay up to date on the literature. Here is a brief list of sources with GSERD-affirming resources for clinicians and in some cases youth/relational systems: Brighton Therapy Partnership: https://www.brightontherapypartnership.org.uk/lgbtq-gsrd-resources-for-therapists/ College of Sexual and Relationship Therapists: https://www.cosrt.org.uk/useful-links/ Pink Therapy: https://www.pinktherapy.com/en-gb/knowledge.aspx Allow Me to Trans-Late with Jason Soules: https://allowmetotranslate.com/episode48
Microskill 5: Determine Salience	In what ways is GSERD related to the presenting problem, if at all? If so, to what degree? In what ways is GSERD related to solutions in clinically working with youth/relational systems?	To assist clinicians in determining the salience of GSERD in the presenting problem and potential solution, clinicians can utilize assessment tools like: Gender-Focused Genogram (DeMaria et al., 2017) Sexuality-Focused Genogram (DeMaria et al., 2017) GSERD Matrix (Twist et al., in press)
Microskill 6: Validate the Impact of ‘-isms’	How do you practice cultural sensitivity/humility in clinically working with clinical participants around managing GSERD-related ‘-isms’ (i.e., cisgenderism, heterosexism, erotocentrism, vanillaism, and monogamism) in their lives? What about in clinically working with youth/relational systems around such ‘-isms’? How do you position yourself as a GSERD advocate and/or activist in your clinical work? What about in working with GSERD youth/relational systems? How do you position yourself as a GSERD advocate and/or activist outside of your clinical work? What about in the context of advocating for GSERD youth/relational systems? [for more on the role of advocacy as clinicians see, for example, Melton (2018)]	One way for clinicians to validate the experiencing of GSERD-related ‘-isms’ is through exploring invisibility and visibility management. These intertwined experiences are noted as follows: Invisibility management is the degree to which society and the individuals within it fail to validate, recognize, and acknowledge minorized GSERD identifying individuals, partners, and relational systems (Blumer et al., 2013b; Blumer & Green, 2011a; Green & Blumer, 2013; Twist et al., in press). Less invisibility is practiced by the dominant society, and its members, in contexts where GSERD-related ‘-isms’ are recognized, validated, and dismantled. Visibility management^a is the degree to which minorized GSERD identifying individuals, partners, and relational systems are “out” in varied contexts (Iwasaki & Ristock, 2007; Twist et al., in press). Visibility management of GSERD identifying individuals and relational systems is greatly affected by the degree to which the larger society surrounding GSERD individuals and relational systems practice invisibility management (Twist et al., in press). Here is a brief list of tools and exercises clinicians can use to explore invisibility/visibility management with clinical participants: Why aren’t you queer like everybody else? Heterosexual and gender-conforming privileges role-play activity (Blumer et al., 2013b) Exploring genders on planet Epsilon… (Ansara, 2012)^b. Homocentric role-play (Blumer & Green, 2011b) Polyam-centric role-play (Twist, 2016c)
Microskill 7: Assist in the Navigating of Sexual Health for GSERD-Identifying Individuals and Their GSERD Relationships	How do you explore definitions and descriptions of sexual health in the context of GSERD? What about in the context of clinically working with GSERD youth/relational systems? How do you assist clinical participants in navigating GSERD-related areas (e.g., pronouns, bodies, positions, boundaries, limits, relationship contracts, safewords, etc.) in relationships? What about the context of clinically working with GSERD youth/relational systems? [refer back to the brief list of GSERD-affirming resources noted within this table above for materials to assist clinical participants in navigating these kinds of GSERD-related areas in relationships]	-One way for clinicians to open up and/or explore with depth a conversation around sexual health is to discuss the World Health Organization (WHO) (2006) definition.^c

a The management of visibility in online environments is referred to as “electronic-visibility management” or, shortened, “e-visibility management” (Blumer et al., 2014b; Twist et al., 2017b).

b This activity was inspired by Hillman and Martin’s (2002) “Aurora alien simulation activity.”

c A state of physical, emotional, mental, and social well-being in relation to sexuality; it is not merely the absence of disease, dysfunction, or infirmity. Sexual health requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination, and violence. For sexual health to be attained and maintained, the sexual rights of all persons must be respected, protected, and fulfilled.

).

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 (2015).

2 Generation Z is defined as those born between 1997 and roughly 2012–2015 (Dimock, 2019).

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