Poster #69 - Examining Fathers’ Approaches to Parenting Sexual Minority Youth

• In Event: Poster Session 20

Abstract

Background
Research on the role of parents in scaffolding sexual minority youth’s (SMY’s) sexual identity development is limited. Parents serve as primary sources of information about sexuality for adolescents, which can shape the attitudes and values of their own sexual identity. The impact of fathers in sexual socialization scholarship is underrepresented relative to mothers, who are often framed as the primary source of communication around sexuality. The limited research examining fathers’ efforts to discuss sexuality with youth suggests that they struggle to discuss topics that are considered ‘taboo’; focus on sexual risk; or feel unequipped to address topics of intimacy and relationships. Additionally, there remains limited research and understanding of paternal engagement among SMY. The current study sought to understand how fathers engage in this process and SMY’s perceptions of these interactions. A greater understanding of paternal involvement in youths’ sexuality and identity development could provide important avenues for educating fathers on how to support SMY during a formative period of development.

Sample and Methods
The current study utilizes a subset of data from the LGBTQ+ Youth and Families Study (LYFS). Collected in 2020-2021, the LYFS was designed to capture 30 parent-child dyads, where youth (aged 15-19) and their parents were separately interviewed about how they discuss their relationship and communication around LGBTQ experiences and identity. The current analytic sample includes 15 interviews with SMY. Specifically, we used thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2012) to explore and describe SMY’s perceptions of their relationships with their fathers and the messages they receive from fathers about their sexual identity.

Results
Four main themes were identified (see Table 1 for excerpts). Indirect support was when fathers did not initiate explicit discussions about their youth’s sexual identity, but showed more generalized love that did not specifically address sexual identity. In contrast, other fathers actively showed opposition to their youth’s sexuality through behaviors or comments that discouraged youths’ expression of their sexual identity or communicated disapproval of sexual minority identity more broadly. Many SMY also noted father’s concern for child’s safety. With daughters, fathers’ concern focused on aspects of being a woman in society, and less on their sexual identity. With sons, fathers’ concern focused on gender expression -- instructing their sons to not dress “femininely” or hide their identity. Lastly, SMY discussed how fathers struggle to navigate conversations about youth’s development and would therefore solicit youth for guidance.

Conclusions
Findings suggest unique ways in which fathers are engaging with SMY around their sexual identity, some of which draw contrast to the ways in which youth are discussing their relationships and conversations with mothers. Results also note that these themes are present for both cisgender boys and girls; however, the underlying motive of these messages appears to be uniquely framed through the lens of hegemonic masculinity. Future steps will include examining the prevalence of each theme and how they cluster among SMY youth. Findings highlight the unique ways that fathers attempt to engage SMY around their identity and potential avenues for family-based education and intervention.

Authors

• Pond Ezra, University of Maryland - College Park
  Presenting Author

• Leah Young, University of Maryland

• Megan (Meg) S Paceley, University of Kansas

• Kevin Roy, University of Maryland College Park School of Public Health

• Jessica Fish, University of Maryland - College Park