This study is sure to get some attention. From Archives of Sexual Behavior, epublication Nov. 6, 2010:
Adolescents of the U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study: Sexual Orientation, Sexual Behavior, and Sexual Risk Exposure.
Gartrell NK, Bos HM, Goldberg NG.
Department of Psychiatry and Center of Excellence in Women’s Health, University of California, 3570 Clay St., San Francisco, CA, 94118, USA, ngartrell@nllfs.org.
Abstract
This study assessed Kinsey self-ratings and lifetime sexual experiences of 17-year-olds whose lesbian mothers enrolled before these offspring were born in the longest-running, prospective study of same-sex parented families, with a 93% retention rate to date. Data for the current report were gathered through online questionnaires completed by 78 adolescent offspring (39 girls and 39 boys). The adolescents were asked if they had ever been abused and, if so, to specify by whom and the type of abuse (verbal, emotional, physical, or sexual). They were also asked to specify their sexual identity on the Kinsey scale, between exclusively heterosexual and exclusively homosexual. Lifetime sexual behavior was assessed through questions about heterosexual and same-sex contact, age of first sexual experience, contraception use, and pregnancy. The results revealed that there were no reports of physical or sexual victimization by a parent or other caregiver. Regarding sexual orientation, 18.9% of the adolescent girls and 2.7% of the adolescent boys self-rated in the bisexual spectrum, and 0% of girls and 5.4% of boys self-rated as predominantly-to-exclusively homosexual. When compared with age- and gender-matched adolescents of the National Survey of Family Growth, the study offspring were significantly older at the time of their first heterosexual contact, and the daughters of lesbian mothers were significantly more likely to have had same-sex contact. These findings suggest that adolescents reared in lesbian families are less likely than their peers to be victimized by a parent or other caregiver, and that daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in same-sex behavior and to identify as bisexual.
I will get a look at the study soon and report more about it. Looks to me like female sexual fluidity is supported by this study but will examine the study more closely.
Regarding the Sample:
Demographics skewed regionally.
It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.
Change is possible.
A study that confirms the flexibility of women in terms of sexual attractions. And a study that supports that children in gay and lesbian homes are safer.
An important question is the control for SES,
The difference from this National survey strongly suggests that this is not a representative sample…
Now we can ridicule the study for all its flaws and call it a work of political activism…oops, that only happens here if it has to do with being ex-gay.
Or more lesbian couples with children living in those regions? Or more visible lesbian families there? They do correspond to the blue areas on the sociopolitical map.
David Blakeslee# ~ Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 am
“It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.”
It really isn’t that hard to understand the regional skewing at all. I suspect that the “Northeast” was mainly from MA and the “West” was mainly from CA. Further I suspect the “South” consistent of significantly more participants from GA than FL.
This study used a convenience sample from the mid-80s to early 90s.
The paper explains it (p. 8):
And I suspect this is also why they only studied female same-gender parents rather than male same-gender parents.
David Blakeslee# ~ Nov 10, 2010 at 11:25 am
“It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability”
I agree it doesn’t prove (or disprove) in a more general case, however, that is true of most glbt studies, but that doesn’t make it “non-scientific.”
Further, the paper does make a significant contribution to a growing body of work studying same-gender parents.
I’m curious, David, what is your criteria for whether a paper is scientific?
Interesting:
It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability:
Much like the surveys posted by GLSEN and People Can Change.
Hello, Jayhuck!
The reson I was ‘playing with’ ‘Maazi NCO’, is because I think he is someone else … (and was trying to get clues!)
He’s gone now – for the moment.
Unfortunately, it is a problematic thing as it also is associated in ways we do not yet understand with increased depression and suicidal thoughts in girls, something we all ought to be deeply concerned about. Just as with the bullying problem, we have to resist politicizing the data.
Hello, Jayhuck!
The reson I was ‘playing with’ ‘Maazi NCO’, is because I think he is someone else … (and was trying to get clues!)
He’s gone now – for the moment.
Unfortunately, it is a problematic thing as it also is associated in ways we do not yet understand with increased depression and suicidal thoughts in girls, something we all ought to be deeply concerned about. Just as with the bullying problem, we have to resist politicizing the data.
Yes – for those who believe bisexuality is a bad thing.
There is plenty of ammunition for both sides, but enough studies have been done on gay parenting now to at least suggest gay parents can and do provide good and loving homes for children
Yes – for those who believe bisexuality is a bad thing.
There is plenty of ammunition for both sides, but enough studies have been done on gay parenting now to at least suggest gay parents can and do provide good and loving homes for children
I do, however, have a deep philosophical problem with the EU Equality legislation now in force in the UK. It focuses on the ‘rights’ of prospective adoptive parents. This is a fundamental error – the rights of the CHILD must be first, last and everything in between.
Well, I’m going to ‘risk it’ and say that I believe that same-sex adoption is a genuine option for some children.
For a(n Anglo-)Catholic Christian like myself this is a very difficult topic.
On the one hand, Marriage is held up an axiomatic ideal and a Sacrament of the Church. It therefore follows that, from an ideological and philosophical point of view, the ‘best option’ for children that are to be placed with adoptive parents is a married couple.
On the other hand, Catholic Christians have a stated duty to observe the world as it is (or appears to be, after careful and prayerful scrutiny), and take full account of what they observe (it is God’s world, after all, and he may – through other people who are the carriers of God’s image, just as we are – be trying to ‘tell us something’). This study doesn’t PROVE this or that, but it does suggest that same-sex couples can and do provide good and loving homes for children who need them.
I do, however, have a deep philosophical problem with the EU Equality legislation now in force in the UK. It focuses on the ‘rights’ of prospective adoptive parents. This is a fundamental error – the rights of the CHILD must be first, last and everything in between.
Well, I’m going to ‘risk it’ and say that I believe that same-sex adoption is a genuine option for some children.
Except for the one little problematic part about the number of girls identifying as bisexual. That only gives ammunition to the people who would dispute “healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity.”
The study has clear limitations, due to the small sample size, but I don’t see any reason to disparage it as “non-scientific.” The findings are part of a carefully conducted longitudinal study that’s had a 93% retention rate over more than 20 years. No, you can’t draw sweeping conclusions about all lesbian families everywhere based on this small sample. But given the difficulty of pulling together any such sample group 25 years ago, it is extremely valuable to have a careful record of even a “somewhat random” group of gay families.
At the very least, the study demonstrates that lesbian couples are capable of forming healthy families and raising children with essentially the same outcomes as straight couples. Whether or not the sample was truly random, the dynamics of a longitudinal study with a high retention rate guarantee that there was no pre-selection of only those families whose kids had turned out relatively well. If lesbians are inherently defective as parents, as so many conservative Christians claim, then even a small sampling of lesbian families should exhibit far more problems than the norm over a period of 25 years.
Maybe these families had more going for them in the first place. One could reasonably argue that women who, in the mid-80s, were willing to identify as lesbians and enroll in a long-term study were likely more self-confident and secure than average.
Of course that would also indicate that gay people who come out and openly identify as gay have better outcomes overall than those who remain conflicted and in hiding.
At the end of the day, the study provides objective evidence that lesbian couples can and do raise children with healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity and behavior. That alone is enough to expose the lies of NOM, AFA, FOTF, and their like.
For a(n Anglo-)Catholic Christian like myself this is a very difficult topic.
On the one hand, Marriage is held up an axiomatic ideal and a Sacrament of the Church. It therefore follows that, from an ideological and philosophical point of view, the ‘best option’ for children that are to be placed with adoptive parents is a married couple.
On the other hand, Catholic Christians have a stated duty to observe the world as it is (or appears to be, after careful and prayerful scrutiny), and take full account of what they observe (it is God’s world, after all, and he may – through other people who are the carriers of God’s image, just as we are – be trying to ‘tell us something’). This study doesn’t PROVE this or that, but it does suggest that same-sex couples can and do provide good and loving homes for children who need them.
Except for the one little problematic part about the number of girls identifying as bisexual. That only gives ammunition to the people who would dispute “healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity.”
The study has clear limitations, due to the small sample size, but I don’t see any reason to disparage it as “non-scientific.” The findings are part of a carefully conducted longitudinal study that’s had a 93% retention rate over more than 20 years. No, you can’t draw sweeping conclusions about all lesbian families everywhere based on this small sample. But given the difficulty of pulling together any such sample group 25 years ago, it is extremely valuable to have a careful record of even a “somewhat random” group of gay families.
At the very least, the study demonstrates that lesbian couples are capable of forming healthy families and raising children with essentially the same outcomes as straight couples. Whether or not the sample was truly random, the dynamics of a longitudinal study with a high retention rate guarantee that there was no pre-selection of only those families whose kids had turned out relatively well. If lesbians are inherently defective as parents, as so many conservative Christians claim, then even a small sampling of lesbian families should exhibit far more problems than the norm over a period of 25 years.
Maybe these families had more going for them in the first place. One could reasonably argue that women who, in the mid-80s, were willing to identify as lesbians and enroll in a long-term study were likely more self-confident and secure than average.
Of course that would also indicate that gay people who come out and openly identify as gay have better outcomes overall than those who remain conflicted and in hiding.
At the end of the day, the study provides objective evidence that lesbian couples can and do raise children with healthy outcomes, in terms of sexual identity and behavior. That alone is enough to expose the lies of NOM, AFA, FOTF, and their like.
The figures on the boys is not significantly different from that found for sexual identity on the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (for all ages):
4.2% gay
2.6% bisexual
But, as has been said, this is not a representative sample.
These were lesbian couples raising children. Gay individuals do migrate based on levels of acceptance. Gay couples are even more likely to do so, taking considerations of legal protections for them and their children.
17 years ago, when this study was started, there were no protections – and mountainous levels of animosity – pretty much everywhere but the West and the Northeast.
Gee. Thanks for that. Shall we begin that tired old debate again? Shall we quote Jones and Yarhouse? Do we really really want to open that box of worms?
17 years ago, female couples were significantly economically disadvantaged. We all know that at that time (and today to some extent) women were not paid the same pay for the same work. Add in legal (and socially encouraged) discrimination, and lesbians pretty much had to take what they could get. If they could get it.
And finally, as a point of reference, the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior found that bisexual identity may well be a current trend that does not actually reflect on either orientation or behavior: Age 14-17 Girls were more than twice as likely to identify as bisexual than were adult women.
The figures on the boys is not significantly different from that found for sexual identity on the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior (for all ages):
4.2% gay
2.6% bisexual
But, as has been said, this is not a representative sample.
These were lesbian couples raising children. Gay individuals do migrate based on levels of acceptance. Gay couples are even more likely to do so, taking considerations of legal protections for them and their children.
17 years ago, when this study was started, there were no protections – and mountainous levels of animosity – pretty much everywhere but the West and the Northeast.
Gee. Thanks for that. Shall we begin that tired old debate again? Shall we quote Jones and Yarhouse? Do we really really want to open that box of worms?
17 years ago, female couples were significantly economically disadvantaged. We all know that at that time (and today to some extent) women were not paid the same pay for the same work. Add in legal (and socially encouraged) discrimination, and lesbians pretty much had to take what they could get. If they could get it.
And finally, as a point of reference, the National Survey of Sexual Health and Behavior found that bisexual identity may well be a current trend that does not actually reflect on either orientation or behavior: Age 14-17 Girls were more than twice as likely to identify as bisexual than were adult women.
Right. Oh brother, here we go again. The never-ending merry-go-round. Gays/lesbians are financially better off and better educated … or not.
Praytell, how does one go about gathering representative samples for such a survey? And doesn’t this latest reported finding go against the grain of a pro-gay confirmation bias? Or maybe not. Maybe lesbians are vested in their daughters turning out bisexual? We know so much and yet so little.
David Blakeslee# ~ Nov 10, 2010 at 11:10 am
“It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.”
It really isn’t that hard to understand the regional skewing at all. I suspect that the “Northeast” was mainly from MA and the “West” was mainly from CA. Further I suspect the “South” consistent of significantly more participants from GA than FL.
This study used a convenience sample from the mid-80s to early 90s.
The paper explains it (p. 8):
And I suspect this is also why they only studied female same-gender parents rather than male same-gender parents.
David Blakeslee# ~ Nov 10, 2010 at 11:25 am
“It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability”
I agree it doesn’t prove (or disprove) in a more general case, however, that is true of most glbt studies, but that doesn’t make it “non-scientific.”
Further, the paper does make a significant contribution to a growing body of work studying same-gender parents.
I’m curious, David, what is your criteria for whether a paper is scientific?
From the abstract it looks as though this has something for all parties. For the pro-GLBT lobby a clear(ish – 78 isn’t a perfect sample size) indication that lesbians are not more likely to abuse their children then the average for the population. On the other hand, nurture advocates will be excited by the evidence that parental sexual practice might help shape children’s sexual practice.
Would love to have a read of the whole thing.
It is a non-scientific survey in the end, with very limited generalizability:
Much like the surveys posted by GLSEN and People Can Change.
Interesting:
Change is possible.
There may be a selection bias associated with the sample:
These were the children of parents willing to participate.
Is the a control for family size (are these only children for example).
Or more lesbian couples with children living in those regions? Or more visible lesbian families there? They do correspond to the blue areas on the sociopolitical map.
It is hard to understand such skewing…unless there are significant limitations in how participants were garnered for the study.
Regarding the Sample:
Demographics skewed regionally.
A study that confirms the flexibility of women in terms of sexual attractions. And a study that supports that children in gay and lesbian homes are safer.
An important question is the control for SES,
The difference from this National survey strongly suggests that this is not a representative sample…
Now we can ridicule the study for all its flaws and call it a work of political activism…oops, that only happens here if it has to do with being ex-gay.
Right. Oh brother, here we go again. The never-ending merry-go-round. Gays/lesbians are financially better off and better educated … or not.
Praytell, how does one go about gathering representative samples for such a survey? And doesn’t this latest reported finding go against the grain of a pro-gay confirmation bias? Or maybe not. Maybe lesbians are vested in their daughters turning out bisexual? We know so much and yet so little.
From the abstract it looks as though this has something for all parties. For the pro-GLBT lobby a clear(ish – 78 isn’t a perfect sample size) indication that lesbians are not more likely to abuse their children then the average for the population. On the other hand, nurture advocates will be excited by the evidence that parental sexual practice might help shape children’s sexual practice.
Would love to have a read of the whole thing.
Oh joy. Another study to chew on. Thanks, I think.
There may be a selection bias associated with the sample:
These were the children of parents willing to participate.
Is the a control for family size (are these only children for example).
Oh joy. Another study to chew on. Thanks, I think.