“Seismic cultural change?”: British media representations of same-sex ‘marriage’

The legal recognition of same-sex relationships is a contested terrain that has been hotly debated by feminists. This article provides a social constructionist analysis of the UK newspaper media coverage around the time of the introduction of the Civil Partnership Act (2004). In examining the 348 national newspaper coverage over a three month period (November 2005–January 2006) we highlight three prevalent, and conflicting, themes: ‘same-sex marriage becomes legal under the Civil Partnership Act’; ‘couples will not get full legal status’ and ‘marriage is a heterosexual business’. We discuss these media representations and argue that the heteronormativity of the coverage provided little space for more radical constructions of same-sex relationship recognition.

Client discourses on the process of seeking same-sex couple counselling

How same-sex couples manage the process of seeking help for their relationships is an under-researched area. Twelve semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 people who had engaged in same-sex couple counselling, and were analysed using discourse analysis. The ways in which the couples positioned themselves as part of a 'minority group', or part of a generic group of couples struggling with relationship issues, impacted on how they discussed seeking help. We conclude that counsellors and psychotherapists need to be aware of the ways in which couples construct their relationships, and mindful of the tricky navigations around similarity to, and difference from, different-sex relationships. The impact of this on couples seeking therapeutic help is considered. © 2013 Taylor & Francis.

'It's a double-edged thing':the paradox of civil partnership and why some couples are choosing not to have one

Since their introduction in 2005, thousands of same-sex couples in the UK have had a civil partnership. However, many other couples have chosen not to have one. This qualitative study explores why some same-sex couples are choosing not to have a civil partnership. Seven semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 people (five couples and two individuals) who identified as lesbian, gay or bisexual, and analysed using discourse analysis. Participants' accounts were characterised by ambivalence about civil partnership, and three main paradoxes were identified: the 'good but not good enough' paradox, the 'unwanted prize' paradox and the 'legal rights v. social oppression paradox. A major source of ambivalence was support for rights but resistance to assimilation into dominant heteronormative cultural frameworks. Participants negotiated this ambivalence in a variety of ways, including considering how to have a civil partnership that is different from 'marriage', and adopting a pragmatic position. The analysis highlights the importance of social recognition and support for a range of relationship forms and identities, as well as for an ongoing critical debate about civil partnerships and same-sex marriage. © The Author(s) 2011.

Divorcing romance, rights and radicalism:Beyond pro and anti in the lesbian and gay marriage debate

In this article about ‘For Better or Worse? Lesbian and Gay Marriage’ (Feminism & Psychology, 14[1]) we focus on the contributions to the special feature, the commentaries provided by Ellen Lewin (2004), Sheila Jeffreys (2004) and Sue Wise and Liz Stanley (2004), and on wider debates about lesbian and gay marriage and partnership recognition. We agree that ‘there is a lot of confusion/assumptions made about what “it” (i.e. “marriage”) is’ (Wise and Stanley, 2004: 333). Thus, when talking about same-sex partnership recognition we are concerned with civil marriage (or civil union, or civil partnership), and not religious marriage. Our emphasis is on the public not on the private sphere; we are less interested with the personal aspects of relationships (such as intimacy or commitment) than with their public function in, for instance, obtaining ‘rights and responsibilities’.

Out in psychology:lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer perspectives

There has been a recent explosion of interest in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Trans Perspective Psychology amongst students and academics, and this interest is predicted to continue to rise. Recent media debates on subjects such as same–sex marriage have fuelled interest in LGBTQ perspectives. This edited collection showcases the latest thinking in LGBTQ psychology. The book has 21 chapters covering subjects such as same sex parenting, outing, young LGBTQ people, sport, learning disabilities, lesbian and gay identities etc. The book has an international focus, with contributors from UK, US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand List of Contributors. Foreword by Jerry J. Bigner. 1. Introducing Out in Psychology (Victoria Clarke and Elizabeth Peel). 2. From lesbian and gay psychology to LGBTQ psychologies: A journey into the unknown (Victoria Clarke and Elizabeth Peel) 3. What comes after discourse analysis for LGBTQ psychology(Peter Hegarty). 4. Recognising race in LGBTQ psychology: Power, privilege and complicity (Damien W. Riggs). 5. Personality, individual differences and LGB psychology (Gareth Hagger Johnson). 6. Heteronormativity and the exclusion of bisexuality in psychology (Meg Barker). 7. A minority within a minority: Experiences of gay men with intellectual disabilities.(Christopher Bennett and Adrian Coyle). 8. Closet talk: The contemporary relevance of the closet in lesbian and gay interaction (Victoria Land and Celia Kitzinger) 9. Romance, rights, recognition, responsibilities and radicalism: Same-sex couples’ accounts of civil partnership and marriage (Victoria Clarke, Carole Burgoyne and Maree Burns). 10. The experience of social power in the lives of trans people (Clair Clifford and Jim Orford). 11. What do they look like and are they among us? Bisexuality, (dis.closure and (Maria Gurevich, Jo Bower, Cynthia M. Mathieson and Bramilee Dhayanandhan). 12. Heterosexism at work: Diversity training, discrimination law and the limits of liberal individualism (Rosie Harding and Elizabeth Peel). 13. Out on the ball fields: Lesbians in sport (Vikki Krane and Kerrie J. Kauer). 14. Homophobia, rights and community: Contemporary issues in the lives of LGB people in the UK (Sonja J. Ellis). 15. Striving for holistic success: How lesbians come out on top (Faith Rostad and Bonita C. Long). 16. On Passing: The Interactional Organization of Appearance Attributions in the Psychiatric Assessment of Transsexual Patients (Susan A. Speer and Richard Green). 17. Alcohol and gay men: Consumption, promotion and policy responses (Jeffrey Adams, Timothy McCreanor and Virginia Braun). 18. Towards a clinical-psychological approach to address the hetero sexual concerns of intersexed women (Lih-Mei Liao). 19. Educational psychology practice with LGB youth in schools: Individual and institutional interventions (Jeremy J. Monsen and Sydney Bailey). 20. Que(e)rying the meaning of lesbian health: Individual(izing and community discourses (Sara MacBride-Stewart). 21. Transsexualism: Diagnostic dilemmas, transgender politics and the future of transgender care (Katherine Johnson). Index.

Surveying sexualities: Internet research with non-heterosexuals

In this article we describe and evaluate the process of conducting online survey research about the legal recognition of same-sex relationships (key findings from which we have reported elsewhere, see Harding and Peel, 2006). Our aim in so doing is to contribute to the growing generic literature on internet-based research methods (Nosek et al., 2002; Rhodes et al., 2003; Stern, 2003; Strickland et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 2000) to the research methods literature within lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and queer (LGBTQ) psychologies (Fish, 2000; Morris and Rothblum, 1999; Meezan and Martin, 2003; Mustanski, 2001) and also to extend the germinal literature focusing on internet research with non-heterosexual groups (Elford et al., 2004; Ellis et al., 2003; Ross et al., 2000). We begin by discussing the process of developing the online survey tool, before outlining the experience of the survey ‘going live’ and providing details of who completed the survey. We conclude by exploring some of the positives and pitfalls of this type of research methodology.

Spatial perspective taking is an embodied process, but not for everyone in the same way:differences predicted by sex and social skills score

We re-analysed visuo-spatial perspective taking data from Kessler and Thomson (2010) plus a previously unpublished pilot with respect to individual- and sex differences in embodied processing (defined as body-posture congruence effects). We found that so-called 'systemisers' (males/low-social-skills) showed weaker embodiment than so-called 'embodiers' (females/high-social-skills). We conclude that 'systemisers' either have difficulties with embodied processing or, alternatively, they have a strategic advantage in selecting different mechanisms or the appropriate level of embodiment. In contrast, 'embodiers' have an advantageous strategy of "deep" embodied processing reflecting their urge to empathise or, alternatively, less flexibility in fine-tuning the involvement of bodily representations. © 2012 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

Plasticity, plasticity, plasticity . . . and the rigid problem of sex

Why is popular understanding of female-male differences still based on rigid models of development, even though contemporary developmental sciences emphasize plasticity? Is it because the science of sex differences still works from the same rigid models?