Advertisement

Long-Lasting Relationships

  • Peter Robinson
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter looks at the life stories of a group of 24 men whose long-lasting relationships resemble the companionate marriage in all but name. It is remarkable that, despite persistent, public stereotypes of youthful promiscuity or loneliness in old age and despite a long history of minimal social recognition of or support for gay, couple relationships, a substantial minority of a quarter of the men from the international sample (n = 97) provided evidence of gay men’s capacity to conduct stable, long-lasting relationships. It is remarkable also that these men’s relationships should so closely resemble the companionate marriage when in the five decades since the 1960s the couple relationship has undergone radical changes, becoming at the same time more flexible and subject to change and more fragile, less permanent.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    See P. Robinson (2008) The Changing World of Gay Men (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 125–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Z. Bauman (2003) Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  3. U. Beck and E. Beck-Gernsheim (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 5–9.Google Scholar
  4. E. Beck-Gernsheim (2002) Reinventing the Family: In Search of New Lifestyles (Cambridge: Polity Press).Google Scholar
  5. C. Smart (2007) Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 18–20.Google Scholar
  6. E. Shorter (1976) The Making of the Modern Family (Glasgow: William Collins).Google Scholar
  7. For discussion of changing shape of heterosexual couple relationships, see, for example, Z. Bauman (2003) Liquid Love: On the Frailty of Human Bonds (Cambridge: Polity Press); U. Beck and E. Beck-Gernsheim (1995) The Normal Chaos of Love, trans. M. Ritter&J. Wiebel (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 5–9; and E. Beck-Gernsheim (2002) Reinventing the Family: In Search of New Lifestyles, trans. P. Camiller (Cambridge: Polity Press), passim. A useful critique of Beck and Beck-Gernsheim’s arguments about the shape and nature of contemporary relationships can be found in C. Smart (2007) Personal Life: New Directions in Sociological Thinking (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 18–20. For the effects of individualisation on the couple relationship in the 1960s and 1970s, see E. Shorter (1976) The Making of the Modern Family (Glasgow: William Collins). For preliminary discussion of companionate marriage as a basis for couple relationships in Australian gay men, see Robinson Changing World, pp. 126–8.Google Scholar
  8. 3.
    A.J. Cherlin (2004) ‘The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage’, Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 851.Google Scholar
  9. 4.
    L. Stone (1979) The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500–1800, abridged&rev. edn (London: Penguin Books), pp. 217–24.Google Scholar
  10. 6.
    J. D’Emilio and E.B. Freedman (1997) Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America, 2nd edn (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 265–66.Google Scholar
  11. 7.
    Cherlin ‘The Deinstitutionalization of American Marriage’, pp. 851–2; J. Murphy (2000) Imagining the Fifties: Private Sentiment and Political Culture in Menzies’ Australia (Sydney: University of New South Wales Press), p. 56.Google Scholar
  12. 9.
    B. Hewitt and J. Baxter (2012) ‘Who Gets Married in Australia? The Characteristics Associated with Transition to Marriage 2001–6’, Journal of Sociology, 48(1), 44–6;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. L. Jamieson (1998) Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Societies (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 32–3.Google Scholar
  14. 10.
    N. Elias (2000 [1939]) The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, trans. E. Jephcott with some notes and corrections by the author. E. Dunning, J. Goudsblom, and S. Mennell (eds), rev. edn (Oxford: Blackwell); Beck and Beck-Gernsheim The Normal Chaos of Love; Beck- Gernsheim Reinventing the Family; Bauman Liquid Love.Google Scholar
  15. 11.
    E. Illouz (1999) ‘The Lost Innocence of Love: Romance As a Postmodern Condition’ in M. Featherstone (ed.) Love and Eroticism (London: Sage), p. 176;Google Scholar
  16. Z. Bauman (2001) The Individualized Society (Cambridge: Polity Press), p. 156.Google Scholar
  17. 12.
    A. Giddens (1992) The Transformation of Intimacy: Sexuality, Love and Eroticism in Modern Societies (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 2, 58, passim.Google Scholar
  18. 15.
    D. Altman (1972) Homosexual: Oppression and Liberation (Sydney: Angus&Robertson), pp. 17–18.Google Scholar
  19. M. Foucault (2000) ‘Sexual Choice, Sexual Act’ (1982–3) in Ethics: Essential Works of Foucault 1954–1984, vol. 1, trans. R. Hurley and others, ed. P. Rabinow (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books), p. 150;Google Scholar
  20. W.H. Masters and V.E. Johnson (1979) Homosexuality in Perspective (Boston: Little, Brown), pp. 229–30.Google Scholar
  21. K. Plummer (1981) ‘Going Gay: Identities, Lifecycles and Lifestyles in the Male Gay World’ in J. Hart and D. Richardson (eds) The Theory and Practice of Homosexuality (London: Routledge&Kegan Paul), p. 105;Google Scholar
  22. M. Pollak (1986) ‘Male Homosexuality—or Happiness in the Ghetto’ in P. Aries and A. Béjin (eds) Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, trans. A. Forster (Oxford: Basil Blackwell), pp. 43, 51;Google Scholar
  23. R. Robertson (1981) ‘Young Gays’ in J. Hart and D. Richardson (eds) The Theory and Practice of Homosexuality (London: Routledge&Kegan Paul), p. 173;Google Scholar
  24. D. J. West (1968) Homosexuality (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books), p. 56.Google Scholar
  25. 17.
    J. Boswell (1980) Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 26–7.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Other scholars use a related concept, ‘cosiness’, as a criterion for companionate marriage. See, for example, J. Finch and P. Summerfield (1999) ‘Social Reconstruction and the Emergence of Companionate Marriage, 1945–59’ in G. Allan (ed.) The Sociology of the Family: A Reader, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.), pp. 23–5.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    For more discussion of men’s expectation of independence in relationships, see B.D. Adam (2007) ‘Relationship Innovation in Male Couples’ in M. Kimmel (ed.) The Sexual Self: The Construction of Sexual Scripts (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press), pp. 122–40.Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    R.W. Connell (1987) Gender and Power: Society, the Person and Sexual Politics (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press).Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    P. Bourdieu (2001) Masculine Domination, trans. R. Nice (Cambridge: Polity Press), pp. 50–2.Google Scholar
  30. 31.
    J. Hawley ‘Dark Night of the Soul’, Saturday Age 3 November 2012, Good Weekend supplement, p. 24.Google Scholar
  31. S. Roseneil (2006) ‘On Not Living with a Partner: Unpicking Coupledom and Cohabitation’, Sociological Research On-Line: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/11/3/roseneil.html, accessed 9 December 2012.Google Scholar
  32. 41.
    J. Rechy (1977) The Sexual Outlaw: A Documentary (New York: Grove Press Inc.),Google Scholar
  33. D. Hanson (ed.) (2011) Tom of Finland: The Comics, vol. 1 (Koln: Taschen GmbH).Google Scholar
  34. 43.
    see G. Herdt (1997) Same Sex, Different Cultures: Exploring Gay and Lesbian Lives (Boulder, CO: Westview Press), p. 154;Google Scholar
  35. A. McLaren (1999) Twentieth Century Sexuality: A History (Oxford: Blackwell), p. 191.Google Scholar
  36. J. Weeks (2007) The World We Have Won: The Remaking of Erotic and Intimate Life (Oxford: Routledge), p. 218.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Peter Robinson 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Robinson
    • 1
  1. 1.Swinburne University of TechnologyAustralia

Personalised recommendations