Adeagbo, Oluwafemi - Dynamics and Complexities of Interracial Gay Families in South Africa - A New Frontier - Gay Relationships in South Africa

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN SOCIOLOGY
Oluwafemi Adeagbo
The Dynamics
and Complexities
of Interracial Gay
Families in South
Africa: A New Frontier
Gay Relationships in
South Africa
123
SpringerBriefs in Sociology
SpringerBriefs in Sociology are concise summaries of cutting-edge research and
practical applications across the field of sociology. These compact monographs are
refereed by and under the editorial supervision of scholars in Sociology or cognate
fields. Volumes are 50 to 125 pages (approximately 20,000–70,000 words), with a
clear focus. The series covers a range of content from professional to academic such
as snapshots of hot and/or emerging topics, in-depth case studies, and timely reports
of state-of-the art analytical techniques. The scope of the series spans the entire field
of Sociology, with a view to significantly advance research. The character of the
series is international and multi-disciplinary and will include research areas such as:
health, medical, intervention studies, cross-cultural studies, race/class/gender,
children, youth, education, work and organizational issues, relationships, religion,
ageing, violence, inequality, critical theory, culture, political sociology, social
psychology, and so on. Volumes in the series may analyze past, present and/or
future trends, as well as their determinants and consequences. Both solicited and
unsolicited manuscripts are considered for publication in this series. SpringerBriefs
in Sociology will be of interest to a wide range of individuals, including sociologists,
psychologists, economists, philosophers, health researchers, as well as practitioners
across the social sciences. Briefs will be published as part of Springer’s eBook
collection, with millions of users worldwide. In addition, Briefs will be available for
individual print and electronic purchase. Briefs are characterized by fast, global
electronic dissemination, standard publishing contracts, easy-to-use manuscript
preparation and formatting guidelines, and expedited production schedules. We aim
for publication 8–12 weeks after acceptance.
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10410

Oluwafemi Adeagbo
The Dynamics
and Complexities
of Interracial Gay Families
in South Africa: A New
Frontier
Gay Relationships in South Africa
123
Oluwafemi Adeagbo
Department of Sociology, Faculty
of Humanities
University of Johannesburg
Johannesburg, South Africa
ISSN 2212-6368 ISSN 2212-6376 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Sociology
ISBN 978-3-030-03921-9 ISBN 978-3-030-03922-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03922-6
Library of Congress Control Number: 2018960744
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To my family and friends whom I deprived
some quality time during the development of
this book. And to all same-sex partners in
South Africa who are courageous to establish
enduring romantic relationships amidst
societal discriminations and stereotypes.
Preface
South Africa has a unique history with respect to how previously marginalised
groups, such as gay men, have received recognition with their social rights included
in the post-apartheid South African Constitution. While heterosexual intimate
relationships, particularly mixed-race couples, have attracted societal and scholarly
attention in South Africa due to the country’s past history of racial segregation, it is,
however, striking how little emphasis is placed on understanding same-sex unions
in a transforming South Africa. This book is timely and important because it
explores the vignettes, complexities and dynamics of interracial gay intimate
relationships, an area of family sociology that hardly gets the scholarly attention it
deserves. The book addresses the intersectionality, and the question of how sexu-
ality, gender, racial identity and personal resources influence the relationship as
well as the way resilience strategies are drawn upon to sustain the partnership.
In South Africa, various studies have documented intimate relationships in the past
few decades, but the vast majority of them were about heterosexual intimate unions,
whether same race/ethnicity or interracial. This book is a product of my doctoral
research that attempts to counteract a prevailing heteronormative bias by researching
interracial male gay couples in the context of Johannesburg, South Africa, and
interrogating the relevance of arguments and assumptions of family sociology in this
regard. This book holds relevance for the illumination of discourses on race, class and
sexuality in South Africa. It is unique because it offers sociological insights into gay
men’s private and domestic lives using ‘social exchange’, interpretive accounts of
negotiations, meaning construction and contestations, particularly when these lives
have been complicated by cross-racial intimacy. As such, this book will assist in the
generation of debate and refinement of thinking on what constitutes familial, intimate
and cohabiting relationships and how developments and transitions in this context can
be theorised.
Finally, this book builds recommendations and potential policy advice for state
structures, academics and human rights organisations concerned with supporting
the rights, freedoms, lifestyles and visibility of gay people in South Africa.
Johannesburg, South Africa Oluwafemi Adeagbo
vii
Acknowledgements
My profound gratitude goes to my mentor and academic partner, Prof. Kammila

Naidoo, for her invaluable support. I also thank the editors of South African Review
of Sociology, National Identities and Journal of Gender Studies for permission to
use some parts of my published articles in this book. I am grateful to the University
of Johannesburg and the National Research Foundation (NRF) for scholarships
awarded to me that enabled the successful completion of the research that led to the
birth of this book. A special thanks to Ms. Melanie Naidoo, Mr. Anthony Manion
(Gay and Lesbian Memory in Action [GALA], University of the Witwatersrand),
Prof. John-Mark Iyi, Prof. Jendele Hungbo and to all interracial gay partners who
participated in the study.
Ese gan! Siyabonga! Dankie! Merci! Thank you all!
ix
Contents
1 Same-Sex Intimacy in South Africa: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . ... 1

1.1 The Concept of Race in South Africa: A Brief Discussion . . . ... 1
1.2 From Antiquity to the Contemporary: Exploring Attitudes
Toward Same-Sex Intimate Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 3
1.3 Discourses on Homosexuality and Same-Sex Intimate
Relationships in Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Racial and Same-Sex Relationships in South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.5 Interracial Gay Partnerships: South African ‘Rainbow Family’ . . . 10
1.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Diversity in Families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 17
2.1 Diversity in Families: Traditional Concept of Family
in a State of ‘Flux’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 17
2.1.1 Masculinity and Men’s Roles in Heterosexual
Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.1.2 Gay Men and Hegemonic Masculinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Interracial Gay Partnership Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2.1 Partnership 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.2.2 Partnership 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.2.3 Partnership 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2.4 Partnership 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.2.5 Partnership 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.2.6 Partnership 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.2.7 Partnership 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.2.8 Partnership 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.2.9 Partnership 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.2.10 Partnership 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
xi
xii Contents
3 Relationship Formation, Division of Housework and Power

Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
3.1 Interracial Gay Men Relationship Formation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 37
3.1.1 Face-to-Face Relationships: From Casual Partnerships
to Committed Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 38
3.1.2 From Computer Mediated Relationships to Long-Term
Unions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 The Division of Housework in Interracial Gay Household . . . . . . 42
3.3 Power Dynamics in Interracial Gay Partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4 Social Support, Coping Strategies and Conflict Management . . . . .. 53
4.1 The Impact of Social Support on Interracial Gay Men
in Intimate Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
4.1.1 Social Support from Families of Origin and Friends . . . .. 55
4.2 Suppression of Identities and Non-public Displays of Affection
(PDA): Resilience Strategies in Interracial Gay Partnerships . . . .. 59
4.3 Conflict and Conflict Resolution in Interracial Gay Men’s
Intimate Relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67
5 Conclusion: Contributions, Recommendations and Future
Research Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
5.1 Summary of the Empirical and Theoretical Contributions . . . . . . . 71
5.2 Limitations of the Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
5.3 Recommendations and Future Research Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3.1 White Sugar Daddies and Black Cheese Boys . . . . . . . . . 75
5.3.2 White Afrikaner Gay Men and Black Gay Men . . . . . . . . 76
5.3.3 Black African Gay Men and Indian Gay Men . . . . . . . . . 77
5.3.4 Good on Paper, Weak in Action: Progressive South
African Legal Framework on Gay Rights . . . . . . . . .... 77
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 79
About the Author
Dr. Oluwafemi (Femi) Adeagbo is a Senior Social Scientist at the Africa Health
Research Institute in South Africa. He is also a Senior Research Associate in both
the Department of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa, and
the Division of Infection and Immunity at the University College London. He is a
sociologist with an interest in the issues of gender and sexuality, migration and
health. He has been working for some years on how ‘masculinities and personal
resources’ shape intimate relationships particularly how these two factors impact on
men’s attitudes, health, decision-making, power/gender relations, division of
household labour/gender roles and violence in both heterosexual and same-sex
relationships. Femi was recently awarded a National Research Foundation (NRF,
South Africa) rating for his research contributions. He is also a recipient of many
local and international awards.
He holds a Ph.D. (doctorate degree) in Sociology from the University of
Johannesburg, an MA degree in Forced Migration Studies from the University
of the Witwatersrand and an Honours degree in Philosophy from Adekunle Ajasin
University, Nigeria.
xiii
Chapter 1
Same-Sex Intimacy in South Africa:
An Introduction
Abstract This chapter sets out the background and context for the book. It highlights
the complexities of racial meaning and categorisation in South African context.
It also includes an overview of relevant historical and socio-political discourses
on same-sex relationships and gay intimate unions in Africa in general, and South
Africa in particular. Reflections on gender and sexuality studies, family sociology
and homosexuality frame the argument I offer in the book, as this study primarily
focuses on interracial gay men’s intimate relationships.
Keywords Same-sex history · South Africa · Race · Sociology · Sexuality
1.1 The Concept of Race in South Africa: A Brief

Discussion
The term race has been described and used in different ways across societies and
in academia (De Vries 2011; Jaynes 2007, 2010; Groenewald 2003, 2008; Jacobson
et al. 2004; Morrall 1994; Bonnet 1993). Race has no univocal definition because of
its dynamic nature across history and culture (Goldberg 1992). In fact, sociologists
have described race in different ways (Groenewald 2008; Morrall 1994). For example,
Bonnet (1993: 15) maintains that:
before the turn of the eighteenth century, the word ‘race’…was primarily used in the sense
of ‘lineage’; differences between races resulted from the circumstances of their history and
though they were maintained over generations, they were not fixed…From his studies of the
differences between the size and shape of human skulls, Cuvier, however, claimed in 1805,
to have identified three distinct and intellectually unequal ‘racial’ groups.
However, Helms (1990: 3) defines race as “a sub-group of people possessing a

definite combination of physical characteristics, of genetic origin, the combination
of which to a varying degree distinguishes the sub-group from other sub-groups
of mankind” (Helms 1990). Similarly, another scholar argues that it would be very
hard to separate biological traits from the societal construction of race (Mörner
1967). Rodriquez and Cordero-Guzman maintain that biological interpretations of
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

O. Adeagbo, The Dynamics and Complexities of Interracial Gay Families
in South Africa: A New Frontier, SpringerBriefs in Sociology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03922-6_1
2 1 Same-Sex Intimacy in South Africa: An Introduction
race were traditionally supported by researchers in the colonial era, but that they
have since been rejected (Rodriguez and Cordero-Guzman 1992). Findlay on the
other hand argues that race is a biological term that has no sociological or historical
basis (Findlay undated, circa 1930s). It is then important to note that most definitions
of race emphasised and physical and biological traits.
Past and recent studies have demonstrated that ‘race’ is socially constructed
(Groenewald 2003, 2008; Mojapelo-Batka 2008; Johnson and Warren 1994;
Goldberg 1992; Sullivan et al. 1980; Besanceney 1970). Besanceney describes
race as the social categorisation of people based on certain physical traits while Lee
describes race as a social concept that cannot be separated from the socio-political
context of any society (Besanceney 1970; Lee 1993). Johnson and Warren (1994)
maintain that race has no biological trait and therefore, it is socially constructed.
Guillaumin (1999: 361–362) states that race “may not be valid empirically, it
certainly exerts an empirical effect…race does not exist. And yet it does. Not in
the way people think, but it remains the most tangible, real, and brutal of realities”
(Guillaumin 1999). This citation implies that race does not exist empirically but
its impact on society cannot be disregarded. It has also been observed that most
studies that set out to invalidate racial categorisations may inadvertently validate
such categories (Jaynes 2010; Stevens et al. 2006). Some scholars maintain that
many studies present race as a biological (essentialist) term instead of examining
it as a socio-historical construct (Jaynes 2010; Childs 2005). In examining race in
South Africa, some scholars argue that racial categories that were established by the
apartheid government were based crudely on skin colours and are still prevalent in
post-apartheid South Africa (Dixon and Tredoux 2006).
Following the above discussions on the construction of race across history and
culture, the following example shows ways in which race groups were defined in the
apartheid era and its effects in post-apartheid South Africa. The Population Regis-
tration Act, Act 30 of 1950 was enacted for classification of the entire population
into different racial groups. The purpose of this Act was to provide a clear definition
of ‘race’ that the previous Acts failed to address but this Act also failed to attain
its objective (Mojapelo-Batka 2008; Jacobson et al. 2004; Thompson 1990; Barnard
et al. 1986). According to Barnard et al. (1986), the Population Registration Act
of 1950 identified and defined three population groups namely, whites, blacks and
coloureds. According to Barnard et al. (1986: 142) a ‘white person’ was defined as
an individual who:
(a) In appearance obviously is a white person and who is not generally accepted as
a coloured person; or
(b) Is generally accepted as a white person and is not in appearance obviously not
a white person but does not include any person who for the purpose of his
classification under this Act freely and voluntarily admits that he is by descent
a black or a coloured unless it is proved that the admission is not based on fact.
Also, a black person is defined in the Act as an individual who “is a member of
any aboriginal race tribe of Africa, or who is generally accepted as such” while a
coloured person is described “as a person who is neither a white nor a black” (Barnard
1.1 The Concept of Race in South Africa: A Brief Discussion 3
et al. 1986: 147–148). The coloured group was further subdivided into seven groups
namely: the Malay group, the Griqua, the Cape Coloured group, the Chinese group,
the Indian group, the other Asiatic group and other coloured group (Barnard et al.
1986). Although the Population Registration Act of 1950 was repealed in 1991, it has
been observed that the Act’s classification of groups in South Africa created racial
confusions that are yet to be addressed in post-apartheid South Africa (De Vries
2011; Jaynes 2010; Mojapelo-Batka 2008). Thus, the sociological meaning of ‘race’
is used in this book as a social category that is socially constructed within the South
African context.
1.2 From Antiquity to the Contemporary: Exploring

Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Intimate Relationships
A description of the dominant discourses and theorising on gay male intimate

relationships will not be complete without some reference to aspects of historical
discourses on homosexuality and, particularly with regard to same-sex intimate rela-
tionships. Although the term ‘homosexuality’ was coined by Karoly Maria Benkert
(a German psychologist) in the late 19th century and is therefore not a new subject
of intellectual inquiry, the debates about (homo)sexuality and same-sex intimate
relationships have attracted steady interest over the past 200 years (Cocks 2010;
Aldrich 2010). This said, there is of course evidence that curiosity about same-sex
relationships existed from the earliest of times (McAllister 2013; Meem et al. 2010).
An example of such inquiries can be found in the work of Greek philosophers
such as Plato. Plato’s Symposium and the idea of natural law in the West still play
significant roles in the current discourse on homosexuality (Meem et al. 2010).
Such importance can be observed in the debates of scholars from different academic
disciplines examining the ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ nature of homosexuality.
Historical evidence shows that same-sex relationships existed in different societies
since the earliest recorded eras but attracted different responses depending on the laws
of these societies (Hupperts 2010). Same-sex relationships were observed among
the great men of the ancient eras. For example, Alcibiades, the Athenian general and
politician of the fifth century BC, Zeno of Citium (founder of Stoicism) and Alexander
the Great were known for their erotic interests in both young and older men (Hupperts
2010; Greenberg 1988). In some of the ancient Greek regions, people often held
erotic feelings towards both genders (frequently same-sex) and these relationships
were based on individual tastes or choices and not on notions of morality. Plutarch in
Dialogue on Love states that “…the noble lover of beauty engages in love wherever
he sees excellence and splendid natural endowment without regard for any difference
in physiological detail” (Greenberg 1988: 146). This implies that individual taste or
choice holds great value when selecting potential partners whether opposite-sex or
same-sex.
In the ancient period, biological constructions of ‘male’ and ‘female’ were less
relevant than people’s erotic feelings towards others (which often transgressed such
binaries); what mattered most were an individual’s feelings and conceptions of the
other person (Aldrich 2010; Hupperts 2010). One could be attracted to another person
(whether male or female) because of the person’s beauty or way of life. It is impor-
tant to mention that same-sex relationships in ancient Greek society were generally
between older men, and where boys were involved, such relationships involving boys
were seen as temporary and should be terminated when those boys became adults
(Meem et al. 2010; Dover 1989). This was because boys were often viewed as the
submissive party in the relationship. Similarly, in China, same-sex intimate relation-
ships among all classes and different age groups (e.g. same-sex attraction between
rulers and commoners, young and old etc.) were recorded during the reign of the
Zhou dynasty in the seventh and eight centuries BCE (Carton 2010).
Furthermore, it should be mentioned that the ancient Greeks’ attitudes towards
same-sex intimate relationships differed according to regions. However, in general,
there were no seriously negative attitudes toward same-sex intimate relationships
in ancient Greece until around the fifth century, when Greek authorities following
Christianity gave credence to procreative sex within marriage between a man and
a woman, while other forms of sexual activities were considered sins and immoral
(Aldrich 2010; Boswell 1980). Greenberg (1988: 260) states that “European secular
law contained few measures against homosexuality until the middle of the thirteenth
century.” Despite the legitimacy given to procreative sex and the harsh laws of the
Athenian government towards homosexual people, same-sex relationships were com-
mon (Aldrich 2010). It is imperative to elucidate the importance of the brief historical
overview about the changes in attitudes towards same-sex relations within the ancient
Greek context. The popular culture and general ideology about same-sex attractions
around the world, particularly in Africa, is that it is a child of modern civilization.
However, as already referred to, same-sex relationships flourished in ancient Athens
which was a cosmopolitan city in the fifth century BC (Beemyn 2010; Alvarez 2009).
Discourses regarding homosexuality changed around about the 19th century due
to theological and scientific thinking which was rooted in medicine and psychology
(Canning 2011). One of the main preoccupations of this scientific age was to see if
sexuality was inherent in the person or biological in nature. The 20th century brought
with it the breakdown in the repressive treatment of same-sex relationships as growing
acceptance of sexual diversity and preference were articulated and given expression
(Kelly 2011; Aldrich 2010). This generated some positive attitudes towards homosex-
uals, particularly same-sex partners, and greater understanding of their legitimacy.
Different gay and lesbian liberation movements fought for the removal of homo-
sexuality from the list of mental disorders recognised by the American Psychiatric
Association (McAllister 2013; Lancaster 2003; Berman 1993; Shilts 1993). The vis-
ibility of gays and lesbians has brought about changes and amendments in some
countries’ (mostly western countries) laws about people’s sexual orientations and
their right to express them. Some countries, such as Spain, that used to be strict and
discriminated against same-sex intimate relationships have approved such relation-
ships in their constitutions (Andersson et al. 2006).
1.2 From Antiquity to the Contemporary … 5
Despite the subtle changes in attitudes towards homosexuals and their consti-
tutional rights, attitudes towards same-sex intimate relationships are contingent
upon and relative to the different societies and their socio-cultural dispositions.
Take, for example, the case of the United States of America. Some states, such as
Massachusetts, sanction same-sex partnerships while others do not (Baiocco et al.
2014; Badgett 2011). African countries differ significantly in their treatment of
same-sex unions. The majority of African countries still take the view that homo-
sexuality, as manifested in same-sex unions, is foreign to the continent, with only a
few countries such as South Africa, legitimising same-sex unions (Makofane 2013;
Ajibade 2013; Sonnekus 2013; Van Zyl 2011). The brief historical overview about
same-sex relationships reveals varying attitudes towards gay intimate relationships
from the ancient era until the contemporary period. This teasing out of the historical
past is deemed important to show how same-sex intimate unions were received in
the ancient world and its transition and current acceptance in some modern societies.
1.3 Discourses on Homosexuality and Same-Sex Intimate

Relationships in Africa
Over time, different scholarly discourses have emerged about same-sex relationships
in Africa. While some writers believe that same-sex intimacy is un-African, others
argue that same-sex desire is inherent in African culture since the time immemorial
(Adeagbo 2016; McAllister 2013; Msibi 2011; Murray 2005). As evident in the pre-
colonial Africa, some married opposite-sex men and women engaged in same-sex
relationships outside of their heteronormative world without any concerns (Ajibade
2013; Wallace 2010; Kantor 2009; Kendall 1998). This indicates that sexual desires
were not limited to specific genders. However, colonial and post-colonial Africa
criminalised same-sex intimacy (Adeagbo 2016; Ajibade 2013; Msibi 2011). The
introduction of Western religion, such as Christianity, which forms part of the
colonisation agenda, propagated ‘heterosexual relationship’ as the acceptable union
because it is natural while any relationship outside of it is unacceptable and unnatu-
ral (Ajibade 2013; Sonnekus 2013; Van Zyl 2011). This led to the criminalisation of
same-sex intimacy in most African countries, while most discourses are embedded
in “procreation” which is the foundation of heterosexual union (the supposed
ideal family unit) in Christian ideology. In his writing, Foucault argues that sexual
relations are power relations across all human societies (Foucault 1980). Hence, the
continuous policing of same-sex relationships in most African countries.
Countries like Kenya, Zimbabwe, Uganda and Nigeria have harsh laws against
same-sex unions (Ajibade 2013; Msibi 2011). In 1995, Robert Mugabe (the then
Zimbabwean President) stopped the organisation of Gays and Lesbians of Zimbabwe
(GALZ) from participating in an international book fair arguing that sodomites and
perverts had no rights (Welch 2000). Similarly, in 1996, Namibian Minister, Jerry
Ekandjo, ordered Namibian police officers to exterminate gays and lesbians from
the country because they were not part of the social order (Amupadhi 2000; Murray
1998). In 2002, the Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni, ordered the arrest and
imprisonment of homosexuals in the country (Stobie 2003). Daniel Arap Moi (the
Kenyan President) also declared war on homosexuals because same-sex intimacy
is believed to be un-Africa (Luchsinger 2000). The past President of Nigeria,
Goodluck Jonathan, approved the country anti-gay Bill and anyone in same-sex
relationships will be jailed for 14 years (Economist 2014). It is important to mention
that the majority of African leaders hold strong negative views towards same-sex
relationships because they are believed to be un-Africa. However, scholars have
established that homosexuality is African and what is un-African is homophobia
(Ajibade 2013; Makofane 2013; Van Zyl 2011; Epprecht 2008).
Epprecht’s (2008) novel research on same-sex relationships in Africa shows that
same-sex desire is part of African culture. Similarly, Ajibade’s (2013) study of Yoruba
people in the South-Western part of Nigeria shows the presence of same-sex rela-
tionships in the country since the earliest time despite the recent criminalisation of
same-sex attractions in that country. Similar to heterosexual relationships, some of
the studies on homosexuality in Africa reveal that same-sex intimate relationships
in traditional African societies were established in terms of hierarchical, patriar-
chal, gender relations, where partners assumed almost conventional masculine and
feminine roles (Van Zyl 2011; Salo et al. 2010; Wieringa 2005). However, modern
discourses on same-sex relationships in Africa give credence to equality in gender
relations but this is seen as a threat to the dominant African definition of marriage,
family and patriarchal gender and power relations (Ajibade 2013; Van Zyl 2011). It is
therefore important to note that heterosexual hegemony acquired dominance in Africa
through colonial law on sexuality and the implementation of Christian marriage that
is based on the idea of compulsory procreation (Makofane 2013; Van Zyl 2011).
1.4 Racial and Same-Sex Relationships in South Africa
There is no way in which we can discuss the sexual politics prevalent in contemporary
South African societies without any reference to the effects of the apartheid regime.
Historical evidences reveal that relationships between people of different races in
South Africa were ‘loosened up’ in the 19th and early 20th centuries (De Vries
2011; Mojapelo-Batka 2008; Jaynes 2007). In this period, a growth in interracial
intimate relationships between white Afrikaner men and Black African women was
witnessed (Jacobson et al. 2004; Attwell 1986). Like in some countries in Europe and
America, South Africa endured a malicious institutionalised racial discrimination
and segregation system of government. The apartheid system of governance that
marginalised black South Africans and other minorities such as coloureds and Indians
stemmed from the racist policies of the past colonisers (Adeagbo 2016; da Costa
Santos 2013; Jacobson et al. 2004). The apartheid regime’s racial agenda was clearly
stated in the Afrikaans word ‘apartheid’ that means ‘separateness’. The apartheid
system of government was rooted in the meaning of the word and the idea was
1.4 Racial and Same-Sex Relationships in South Africa 7
to separate the native blacks from the then South African social order. The initial
purpose of apartheid was for each racial group to develop itself but was implemented
as an extreme form of racial segregation policy after the triumph of the National Party
(NP) in 1948 (da Costa Santos 2013; Jacobson et al. 2004). For example, the Group
Areas Acts of 1950 divided South Africa into white and black areas (De Vries 2011;
Mojapelo-Batka 2008). This system of governance was successful because white
hegemony assured that indigenous black South Africans, which include Indians and
Coloureds, would be displaced and moved to homelands that were far from white
suburbs and racially specific designated area (da Costa Santos 2013; Giliomee and
Mbenga 2007). Historians have estimated that more than three million blacks were
forcibly displaced (Giliomee and Mbenga 2007). Part of the motivation for this
social engineering was to discourage possible mixing of whites and Blacks (e.g.
interracial intimate relationships) and to inhibit for political and economic reasons
the urbanisation of black people (Van der Walt 2011; Welsh 2010; Mojapelo-Batka
2008; Jaynes 2007).
The Afrikaner apartheid ideology emerged from the Dutch Reformed Church
(Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk) that was based on Calvinism and Chauvinism—the
idea that gives primacy to industriousness, patriotism, separateness and religion
(Van der Walt 2011; Mojapelo-Batka 2008; Giliomee 2003; Morrall 1994). The
apartheid government’s ideology of ‘separateness’ stemmed from the theological
interpretation of the myth of the Babel Tower where God separated a united group
of people by distorting their common language and gave them different languages
(see Genesis 11: 1–9). In his words, J. D. Du Toit, minister of the Dutch Reformed
Church stated that “…those whom God has joined together had to remain united;
those whom God had separated had to remain apart…” (Giliomee 2003: 462). This
statement and apartheid ideology privileged white groups to stick together as the
superior group, while the indigenous black groups should be separated from the
superior group. Several policies, such as the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages of
1949 and the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950, were implemented to criminalise
interracial opposite-sex intimate relationships during apartheid in order to entrench
what was envisaged as the purity of white descent (da Costa Santos 2013).
The apartheid government’s racist laws were subsequently repealed in
1985 and the mixing of different races, particularly interracial intimate rela-
tionships between blacks and whites has been on the increase since then
(Van der Walt 2011; Mojapelo-Batka, 2008; Jaynes 2007; Jacobson et al. 2004).
Although the transition of South Africa into a democratic state has brought about
the mixing of different races on different platforms, social divisions among different
racial/ethnic groups still persist (Amoateng and Heaton 2012; Van der Walt 2011;
Van der Merwe and Du Plessis 2004; Ratele and Duncan 2003). In their study of race
in South Africa, Smith et al. (2003) found that racism still pervades the everyday
activities of people of South Africa despite the change in attitudes towards different
racial or ethnic groups. For example, Van der Walt’s (2011) study of white women
in committed intimate relationships with black men reveal that these women face
discrimination in their daily lives due to their choice of partners in post-apartheid
South Africa. Other studies have also shown similarly that interracial couples
continue to negotiate their racial identities in their everyday lives in post-apartheid

South Africa (Mojapelo-Batka 2008; Carrim 2000; Dolby 1999; Schlemmer and
Møller 1997). It has also been observed that black male-white female intimate
relationships often receive more negative responses from members of society and
immediate family members than interracial couples of other races in South Africa
(Van der Walt 2011; Ratele and Duncan 2003).
Just like interracial mixing, the apartheid government played a key role in policing
same-sex intimate relationships via its racist policies and machinery. Some scholars
argue that uncompromising sexual policing had been visible since the inception of
the apartheid regime that separated different racial groups in South Africa (Ajibade
2013; da Costa Santos 2013; Sonnekus 2013; Retief 1995). The apartheid govern-
ment criminalised same-sex relationships through the Immorality Act of 1957 and
attempted to crush and subject to surveillance the emergence of a gay sub-culture
in some South African cities such as Johannesburg and Cape Town. For example,
section 20A (1) of the 1957 Act stated that:
A male person who commits with another male person at a party an act which is calculated
to stimulate sexual passion or to give sexual gratification shall be guilty of an offence (cf.
da Costa Santos 2013).
The Immorality Act of 1957 was later amended and implemented as the Immoral-
ity Amendment Act of 1969 that criminalised same-sex relationships and other
sexual offences. These laws were put in place to punish those involved in homosexual
intimate acts, particularly gay sex, in order to protect the agenda of the apartheid
regime. Despite the criminalisation of same-sex relationships during the apartheid
era in South Africa, some heterosexual Afrikaner men (as members of the dominant
racial group) engaged in sexual relationships with other men but they did not see this
as outside their heteronormative world (Sonnekus 2013). They differentiated their
sexual desires from their gender. This was because the idea of gayness (for them)
would have negated masculinity among this group. Different international and local
organisations fought earnestly for homosexual rights during apartheid, and the 1969
Act was eventually amended and gave provision for homosexuals’ consensual sex
(da Costa Santos 2013). For example, this implied that two men or women could
agree to get involved in intimate relationships without discrimination.
Several gay networks and movements sprung up in South Africa in the 1980s and
1990s (Gevisser and Cameron 1995). One such movement was the Gay Associa-
tion of South Africa (GASA) whose members were largely white with no political
agenda and attachment to any black or mass-based liberation movement (Hoad et al.
2005; Thompson 2001). This group included a few black members arguably to show
the international community that it was not racist but rather inclusive. However,
GASA was subsequently expelled from the International Lesbian and Gay Associ-
ation (ILGA) after it failed to represent Simon Nkoli (a gay rights activist) when
he was arrested (Gevisser and Cameron 1995). The arrest of Simon Nkoli was a
conscientising moment and led some international and local liberation movements
to propose and fight for the inclusion of homosexual rights into the post-apartheid
1.4 Racial and Same-Sex Relationships in South Africa 9
government agenda after the fall of apartheid (Cock 2005; Gevisser and Cameron
1995). The inclusion of sexual minorities’ rights in the post-apartheid South African
constitution did not occur without several challenges and attacks by some homo-
phobic leaders as well as the hesitancy of many sectors of the South African public.
For example, it was recorded that Ruth Mompati, a member of the African National
Congress (ANC) in the United Kingdom made homophobic statements to the British
gay press in 1987 that the ANC would detract from its major political agenda to end
apartheid if it included homosexual rights (Tatchell 2005). It is important to men-
tion that the ANC is the South African ruling party as at the time of this research.
Many international and local organisations condemned the homophobic statements
made by some South African political leaders and mandated the post-apartheid gov-
ernment to assure the world that homosexual rights would be included as part of
the constitution. This was in fact achieved and subsequently included in the post-
apartheid South African Constitution that criminalised any discrimination based on
sexual orientation (da Costa Santos 2013; Van Zyl 2011; Heyes 2009; Tatchell 2005;
Croucher 2002).
The newly acquired constitutional rights of South Africans irrespective of sexual
orientation offered hope to gays and lesbians, enabling them to continue to fight for
the legalisation of same-sex marriage until it was approved under the Civil Union
Act of 2006. The Civil Union Act of 2006 provides the same benefits for both
opposite-sex and same-sex couples. Some gay men forged ahead in commitments
to their relationships by legalising their unions under the Civil Union Act of 2006
(Fine 2007). Despite the inclusion of homosexual rights and same-sex marriage in
the post-apartheid South African Constitution, some of the current political leaders
and immediate societies still discriminate against same-sex intimate relationships.
For example, the former South African President, Jacob Zuma, described same-sex
intimate relationships as ‘a disgrace’ to the country in 2006 (Croucher 2011). This
kind of statement from the president shows that the future of same-sex partnerships
in the country is uncertain despite the inclusion of their rights in the Constitution (da
Costa Santos 2013; Croucher 2011). Also, the ongoing hate crimes in the country
are a reflection of societal sentiments towards homosexuals, particularly gays and
lesbians. These crimes occur more frequently in the townships that were developed
as residential spaces for black South Africans under apartheid and in the informal
settlements where poverty is concentrated. Evidence shows that gays and lesbians
are more accepted now than a decade ago but that they still face immense discrim-
ination and stereotyping (Sonnekus 2013; Van Zyl 2011). The annual Gay Pride
parades in various cities across the country are one example of this acceptance,
while another is the solemnisation of same-sex marriages by the Department of
Home Affairs (DHA), the South African national government department that is
responsible for issuing passports, identity documents and various permits, including
marriage permits. Therefore, it is safe to argue that the visibility of gays and les-
bians and the commitments of same-sex partners to one another in their unions are
gradually changing the stiff discrimination and prejudice towards them.
The liberation struggles of sexual minorities in South Africa from the apartheid era
to post-apartheid South Africa have sharpened the sense of belonging of this group
over the years. Despite the freedom gained by this group in terms of their human
rights in the contemporary South African state, it is believed that the dominant het-
erosexist patriarchal ideologies still persist. That is to say, some South Africans still
denigrate same-sex intimate relationships because of the belief that homosexuality
is un-African, and it is outside the dominant social norms of the country (Makofane
2013; Dlamini 2006; Cock 2003).
1.5 Interracial Gay Partnerships: South African ‘Rainbow

Family’
As already suggested, same-sex unions have had mixed receptions in different coun-
tries over the past few decades. While some countries have accepted and legalised
same-sex unions, others have rejected calls for legalisation (Baiocco et al. 2014;
Eskridge 2011). Despite the antipathy towards homosexuality in Africa (Stobie
2003; Amupadhi 2000), gay couples have constructed spaces to live fulfilling lives
and withstand the everyday problems associated with prejudice and homophobia
(McAllister 2013; Ramos and Gates 2008; Hoad 2007; Jepsen and Jepsen 2006).
In this regard, South Africa impressed the international community by recognising
same-sex unions in its post-apartheid Constitution (South African Bill of Rights
1996). Given this recognition, same sex unions have become increasingly visible in
democratic South Africa. What has been significant also, in the case of South Africa
and many other countries, is that the legal recognition of same-sex unions has also
revealed the breaching of racial barriers. Homogamy, that is, the tendency to select
a mate with similar attributes to one’s own, whether race, class, or religion seems
not to apply (in the case of same-sex unions) given the commonplace occurrence of
interracial relationships (Rosenfeld 2010). This represents an interesting tendency
that requires further research.
Previous studies have shown an increase in interracial same-sex unions. Polsky
opined (almost 50 years ago) that there are more socially integrative and interra-
cial intimate relationships among homosexuals than exist in the heterosexual world
(Polsky 1969). Andersson et al. (2006) show evidence of this in their study of gay
partnerships in Norway and Sweden where they reveal that Norwegian and Swedish
citizens (who are gay) commonly build intimate unions with non-citizens (most
often of a different race). Similarly, Rothblum et al.’s study reveals an increase in
interracial/inter-ethnic same-sex unions in some states in the United States, more so,
though, amongst women than men (Rothblum et al. 2008). Increments in interracial
same-sex intimate relationships have also been observed from the apartheid era to
1.5 Interracial Gay Partnerships: South African ‘Rainbow Family’ 11
post-apartheid South Africa (Melanie et al. 2008; Fine 2007; Gevisser and Cameron
1995). Fine (2007) describes how interracial same-sex unions that were previously
prohibited are gradually increasing and becoming more noticeable in post-apartheid
South Africa. Ramos and Gates’ (2008) study of California’s Latino/Latina Lesbian,
Gay and Bisexual (LGB) population reveals that a high proportion was in a part-
nership with a white or African American. Similarly, a scholar argues that same-sex
couples are more likely to be interracial/inter-ethnic (Savage 2012). Savage found that
one in five same-sex couples are interracial or inter-ethnic: specifically, he showed
with reference to the USA, that 20.6% of same-sex couples (married or cohabiting)
are interracial/inter-ethnic compared to 9.5% of different-sex married couples and
18.3% unmarried different-sex couples.
Scholars however, have lamented the fact that insufficient attention has been paid
to interracial same-sex intimate unions, their households and the structuring of their
domestic arrangements and responsibilities. The literature remains limited in this
field of study, because marital unions are often studied from heterosexual couples’
perspectives in terms of two main issues: First, analysis of the household division of
labour based on gender roles, gendered conflict (including domestic violence), and
the dominant nature and authoritarian positions of men in making decisions in such
relationships (Peplau and Fingerhut 2007). Second, studies on heterosexual couples
with both partners earning an income often reveal that wives do the lion’s share of
household tasks, despite their economic independence (Naidoo et al. 2012; Wong
2012; Walker 1996). Jepsen and Jepsen (2002, 2006) reiterate this persisting reality
of women’s double burdens in most Western countries. They argue in this regard that
men tend to see themselves as financial providers, while women engage both in paid
work and the continuing performance of domestic tasks (Jepsen and Jepsen 2002,
2006). The point here is that these issues are preoccupations of mainstream family
sociology and gender studies; these preoccupations require extension or reworking
to incorporate analysis of gay familial and intimate relations. Thus, how do these rep-
resentations of households and intimate relationships relate to sociological analysis
of same-sex couples and the structuring of their private and domestic lives?
‘Race’ in post-apartheid South Africa remains significant in state and popular
discourses, legislation and everyday language. Whilst this book is sensitive to con-
tested identities, reference to four ‘race groups’ are made: Black, White, Coloured
and Indian. ‘Interracial’ implies partnerships between individuals representing any
of these groups—so long as the partnership is between men of different races, for
example, Black-White, White-Indian, Indian-Black, Coloured-Indian etc. The Table
below shows the number of same-sex marriages documented within and outside
South Africa from 2007 to 2011 (2012–2017 statistics are yet to be published).
The data is informative but unfortunately does not separate lesbian unions from gay
unions. Also, it does not specify the number of interracial gay partnerships. This
suggests a dire need to understand fully male and female same-sex unions and not
conflate them into a single, undifferentiated category.
Table 1.1 South African same-sex union statistics (2007–2011)

Province 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Total
Eastern Cape 0 41 30 24 29 124
Free State 1 23 20 26 28 98
Gauteng 49 362 324 391 381 1,507
KwaZulu Natal 8 74 87 79 63 311
Limpopo 0 15 10 10 7 42
Mpumalanga 3 7 11 11 16 48
North West 2 6 5 9 3 25
Northern Cape 1 11 43 75 93 223
Western Cape 16 191 227 261 238 933
Outside South 0 2 3 2 9 16
Africa
Total 80 732 760 888 867 3,327
Source Statistics SA Marriages and Divorces 2011 Report
As Table 1.1 shows, 3,327 marriages were formalised over a five-year period—this
is not an insignificant number and excludes common-law and cohabiting unions.
1.6 Summary
This chapter engages with the issue of race and sexual relations from pre-apartheid
to post-apartheid South Africa. This is deemed necessary to provide the readers of
the book with a concise but in-depth historical background into the current race and
same-sex relations in South Africa. Also, the chapter made an important description
of the word ‘race’ in South African context given the political influence on race
definitions and relations in South Africa. In general, this chapter sets the ground for
discourses around ‘race and sexual relations’ in the rest of the chapters in the book.
References
Adeagbo, O. (2016). ‘Love beyond colour’: The formation of interracial gay men’s intimate rela-
tionships in post-apartheid South Africa. National Identities, 18, 241–64.
Ajibade, G. O. (2013). Same-sex relationships in Yoruba culture and orature. Journal of Homosex-
uality, 60, 965–83.
Aldrich, R. (2010). Gay life and culture: A world history. London: Thames & Hudson.
Alvarez, E. (2009). Muscle boys: Gay gym culture. New York: Routledge.
Amoateng, A. Y., & Heaton, T. B. (2012). Racial differences in attitudes towards selected aspects
of family life in South Africa. Southern African Journal of Demography, 13, 37–58.
Amupadhi, T. (2000). Eliminate homosexuals, says Minister. Mail & Guardian, p. 6.
References 13
Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demographics of same-
sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79–98.
Attwell, M. (1986). South Africa: Background to the crisis. London: Sidgwick & Jackson.
Badgett, M. V. (2011). Social inclusion and the value of marriage equality in Massachusetts and
the Netherlands. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 316–334.
Baiocco, R., Michele, A., & Fiorenzo, L. (2014). The desire to marry and attitudes toward same-sex
family legalization in a sample of Italian lesbians and gay men. Journal of Family Issues, 35,
181–200.
Barnard, A. H, Sarel Pentz Cronjé, D., & Jeremia Olivier, P. J. (1986). The South African law of
persons and family law. Durban, South Africa: Butterworths.
Beemyn, B. G. (2010). The Americas: From colonial times to the 20th century. In R. Aldrich (Ed.),
Gay life and culture: A world history. London: Thames & Hudson.
Berman, P. (1993). Democracy and homosexuality. The New Republic, 209, 17–35.
Besanceney, P. H. (1970). Interfaith marriages: Who and why. New Haven, CT: New College &
University Press.
Bonnet, A. (1993). Radicalism, anti-racism and representation. London: Routledge.
Boswell, J. (1980). Christianity, social tolerance, and homosexuality: Gay people in Western Europe
from the beginning of the Christian era to the fourteenth century. Chicago: The University of
Chicago Press.
Canning, P. (2011). In Kenya, a grassroots religious movement against homophobia and ignorance.
LGBT Asylum News, BBC.
Carrim, N. (2000). Critical anti-racism and problems in self-articulated forms of identities. Race
Ethnicity and Education, 3, 25–44.
Carton, A. (2010). Desire and same-sex intimacies in Asia. In R. Aldrich (Ed.), Gay life culture: A
world history. London: Thames & Hudson.
Childs, E. C. (2005). Navigating interracial borders: Black-white couples and their social worlds.
New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Cock, J. (2003). Engendering gay and lesbian rights: The equality clause in the South African
constitution. In Women’s studies international forum (pp. 35–45). Elsevier.
Cock, J. (2005). Engendering gay and lesbian rights: the equality clause in the South African
constitution. In K. Martin & G. R. N. Hoad (Eds.), Sex & politics in South Africa. Cape Town:
Double Storey Books.
Cocks, H. G. (2010). Nameless offences: Homosexual desire in the 19th century. London: IB Tauris.
Croucher, S. (2002). South Africa’s democratisation and the politics of gay liberation. Journal of
Southern African Studies, 28, 315–330.
Croucher, S. (2011). South Africa: Opportunities seized in the post-apartheid era. In D. Paternotte
& C. J. M. Tremblay (Eds.), The lesbian and gay movement and the state: Comparative insights
into a transformed relationship. Farnham: Ashgate.
da Costa Santos, G. G. (2013). Decriminalising homosexuality in Africa: Lessons from the South
African experience. In Human rights, sexual orientation and gender Identity in the common-
wealth: Struggles for decriminalisation and change (vol. 313, p. 338). London: School of
Advanced Study, University of London.
De Vries, T. A. E. (2011). Cross cultural differences: The experiences, challenges and strengths
for partners in committed interracial relationships. South Africa: Nelson Mandela Metropolitan
University.
Dixon, J., & Tredoux, C. (2006). Off-space and on the sidelines: A reply to Marx and Feltham-King.
South African Journal of Psychology, 36, 458–462.
Dlamini, B. (2006). Homosexuality in the African context. Agenda, 20, 128–136.
Dolby, N. (1999). Youth and the global popular: The politics and practices of race in South Africa.
European Journal of Cultural Studies, 2, 291–309.
Dover, K. J. (1989). Greek homosexuality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Epprecht, M. (2008). Heterosexual Africa? The history of an idea from the age of exploration to
the age of AIDS. Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.
Eskridge, W. N. (2011). Six myths that confuse the marriage equality debate. Valparaiso University
Law Review, 46, 103.
Findlay, W. G. (undated, circa 1930s). Races in chaos. Johannesburg, South Africa.
Fine, D. (2007). Clouds move: My journey of living openly with HIV . Kommetjie: Openly Positive
Trust.
Foucault, M. (1980). The history of sexuality: An introduction. New York: Pantheon.
Gevisser, M., & Cameron, E. (Eds.). (1995). Defiant desire: Gay and lesbian lives in South Africa.
New York: Routledge.
Giliomee, H. B. (2003). The Afrikaners: Biography of a people. Charlottesville, VA: University of
Virginia Press.
Giliomee, H., & Mbenga, B. (2007). New history of South Africa. Cape Town: Tafelberg.
Goldberg, D. T. (1992). The semantics of race. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 15, 543–569.
Greenberg, D. F. (1988). The construction of homosexuality. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Groenewald, L. (2003). Constructing common cause: A brief history of race. In A seminar paper
presented at the department of anthropology and development. University of Johannesburg.
Groenewald, L. (2008). Race and gender: From double burden to acute advantage. Sociological
Bulletin, 57, 115–131.
Guillaumin, C. (1999). The changing face of ‘race’. In M. Bulmer & J. Solomos (Eds.), Racism
(pp. 355–362). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Helms, J. E. (1990). Black and white racial identity: Theory, research, and practice. New York:
Greenwood Press.
Heyes, C. (2009). Identity Politics, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Standford University.
Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-politics/ Accessed 20 March 2018.
Hoad, N. W. (2007). African intimacies: Race, homosexuality, and globalization. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Hoad, N. W., Martin, K., & Reid, G. (2005). Sex and politics in South Africa. Cape Town: Juta and
Company Ltd.
Hupperts, C. (2010). Homosexuality in Greece and Rome. In R. Aldrich (Ed.), Gay life and culture:
A world history. London: Thames & Hudson.
Jacobson, C. K., Yaw Amoateng, A., & Heaton, T. B. (2004). Inter-racial marriages in South Africa.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 443–458.
Jaynes, C. (2010). The influence of the family on interracial intimate relationships in post-apartheid
South Africa. South African Journal of Psychology, 40, 396–413.
Jaynes, C. L. (2007). Interracial intimate relationships in post-apartheid South Africa. South Africa:
University of the Witwatersrand.
Jepsen, C. A., & Jepsen, L. K. (2006). The sexual division of labor within households: comparisons
of couples to roommates. Eastern Economic Journal, 32, 299–312.
Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex
and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39, 435–453.
Johnson, W. R., & Michael Ed Warren, D. (1994). Inside the mixed marriage: Accounts of changing
attitudes, patterns, and perceptions of cross-cultural and interracial marriages. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Kantor, M. (2009). Homophobia: The state of sexual bigotry today. Westport, CT: Greenwood
Publishing Group.
Kelly, D. (2011). Yuck! The nature and moral significance of disgust. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kendall, K. (1998). “When a woman loves a woman” in Lesotho: Love, sex and the (Western) con-
struction of homophobia. In S. O. Murray & W. Roscoe (Eds.), Boy-wives and female husbands:
Studies in African homosexualities. London: MacMillan Press.
Lancaster, R. N. (2003). The trouble with nature: Sex in science and popular culture. New York:
University of California Press.
Lee, S. M. (1993). Racial classifications in the US Census: 1890–1990. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
16, 75–94.
References 15
Luchsinger, G. (2000) Out in Africa. Ms. Magazine, p. 24.

Makofane, K. (2013). Unspoken facts: A history of homosexualities in Africa. Culture, Health &
Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 15, 114–116.
McAllister, J. (2013). Tswanarising global gayness: The ‘unAfrican’ argument, Western gay media
imagery, local responses and gay culture in Botswana. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 15, 88–101.
Meem, D. T., Gibson, M. A., & Alexander, J. F. (2010). Finding out: An Introduction to LGBT
studies. Los Angeles: Sage.
Melanie, J., Manion, A., & De Waal, S. (2008). To have and to hold: The making of same-sex
marriage in South Africa. Johannesburg: Jacana Media.
Mojapelo-Batka, E. M. (2008). Interracial couples within the South African context: Experiences,
perceptions and challenges. University of South Africa.
Mörner, M. (1967). Race mixture in the history of Latin America. Boston: Little, Brown.
Morrall, L. (1994) Interracial families in South Africa: An exploratory study. University of Johan-
nesburg.
Msibi, T. (2011). The lies we have been told: On (homo) sexuality in Africa. Africa Today, 58,
54–77.
Murray, S. O. (1998). Sexual politics in contemporary Southern Africa. In S. O. Murray & W.
Roscoe (Eds.), Boy-wives and female husbands: Studies of African homosexualities. Houndmills:
MacMillan Press.
Murray, S. O. (2005). Homosexuality in ‘traditional’ sub-Saharan Africa and contemporary South
Africa. Le seminaire Gai Internet sources.
Naidoo, K., Smit, R., & Seedat-Khan, M. (2012). Gender politics and work-family integration:
Persisting exclusions at two South African universities. In T. Uys & S. Patel (Eds.), Exclusion,
social capital and citizenship: Contested transitions in South Africa and India. New Delhi: Orient
Black Swan.
Peplau, L. A., & Fingerhut, A. W. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 405–424.
Polsky, N. (1969). Hustlers, beats, and others. Anchor Books.
Ramos, C., & Gates, G. J. (2008). Census snapshot: California’s Latino/Latina LGB population.
The William Institute, University of California School of Law, Los Angeles, CA.
Ratele, K., & N. Duncan. (2003). Social psychology: Identities and relationships. Juta and Company
Ltd.
Retief, G. (1995). Keeping Sodom Out of the laager: State repression of homosexuality in apartheid
South Africa. In M. Gevisser & E. Cameron (Eds.), Defiant desire: Gay and lesbian lives in South
Africa. New York: Routledge.
Rodriguez, C. E., & Cordero-Guzman, H. (1992). Placing race in context. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
15, 523–542.
Rosenfeld, M. (2010). Meeting on-line: The rise of the internet as a social intermediatory. Retrieved
April 2017.
Rothblum, E. D, Balsam, K. F., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Comparison of same-sex couples who
were married in Massachusetts, had domestic partnerships in California, or had civil unions in
Vermont. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 48–78.
Salo, E., Ribas, M., Lopes, P., & Zamboni, M. (2010). Living our lives on the edge: Power, space
and sexual orientation in Cape Town townships, South Africa. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 7, 298–309.
Savage, D. (2012). Same-sex couples likelier to be interracial/interethnic. http://www.thestranger.
com/slog/archives/2012/04/27/same-sex-couples-likelier-to-be-interracialinterethnic&view=
comments. Accessed January 15, 2017.
Schlemmer, L., & Valerie, M. (1997). The shape of South African society and its challenges. Social
Indicators Research, 41, 15–50.
Shilts, R. (1993). Conduct unbecoming: Lesbians and gays in the US military: Vietnam to the
Persian Gulf . New York: Martin’s Press.
Smith, T.B., Stones, C.R. & Naidoo, A. (2003). Racial attitudes among South African young adults:
A four-year follow-up study. South African Journal of Psychology, 33 (1), 39–43
Sonnekus, T. (2013). ‘We’re not Faggots!’: Masculinity, homosexuality and the representation of
Afrikaner men who have sex with men in the film Skoonheid and online. South African Review
of Sociology, 44, 22–39.
Stevens, G., Swart, T., & Franchi, V. (2006). Changing contexts of race and racism: Problematics,
polemics and perspectives. In A race against time: Psychology and challenges to deracialisation
in South Africa (pp. 3–27).
Stobie, C. (2003). Reading bisexualities from a South African perspective. Journal of bisexuality,
3, 33–52.
Sullivan, T. J., Thompson, S. K., Wright, R. D., Gross, R. G., & Spay, D. (1980). Social problems:
Divergent perspectives. New York: Wiley.
Tatchell, P. (2005). The moment the ANC embraced gay rights. In N. Hoad, K. Martin, & G. Reid
(Eds.), Sex and politics in South Africa. Cape Town: Double Storey.
The Economist. (2014). Africa’s most populous country joins the anti-gay brigade. Abuja: The
Economist.
Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical theory in the era of mass commu-
nication. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Thompson, L. M. (2001). A history of South Africa. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Van der Merwe, C. G., & Du Plessis, J. E. (2004). Introduction to the law of South Africa. The
Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Van der Walt, A. (2011). The lived experience of discrimination by white women in committed
interracial relationships with black men. University of Johannesburg.
Van Zyl, M. (2011). Are same-sex marriages unAfrican? Same-sex relationships and belonging in
post-apartheid South Africa. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 335–357.
Walker, A. J. (1996). Couples watching television: Gender, power, and the remote control. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 58, 813–823.
Wallace, L. (2010). Discovering homosexuality: Cross-cultural comparison and the history of sex-
uality. In R. Aldrich (Ed.), Gay life and culture: A world history. London: Thames & Hudson.
Welch, L. (2000). Tsitsi Tiripano. Ms, 10(4), 12.
Welsh, D. (2010). The rise and fall of apartheid: From racial domination to majority rule. Johan-
nesburg: Jonathan Ball Publishers.
Wieringa, S. (2005). Women marriages and other same-sex practices: Historical reflections on
African women’s same-sex relations. In R. Morgan & S. Weringa (Eds.), Tommy boys, lesbian
men and ancestral wives: Female same-sex practices in Africa. Johannesburg: Jacana Media.
Wong, D. (2012). Doing gender, doing culture: Division of domestic labour among lesbians in Hong
Kong. In Women’s studies international forum (pp. 266–75).
Chapter 2
Diversity in Families
Abstract This chapter engages with the traditional and modern concept of ‘family’
and ‘masculinity’. It explores gender roles and gender relations in both same-sex
and heterosexual intimate relationships. It also gives a brief description about the
interracial gay partners that participated in the research and add nuance to the under-
standing of readers about the background, demographics information, relationship
formation and general experience of the participants.
Keywords Families · Masculinity · Interracial relationships · Gay family · Gender
2.1 Diversity in Families: Traditional Concept of Family

in a State of ‘Flux’
The traditional family structures are currently changing even amongst the strict patri-
archal societies across the globe. The changes in family patterns have been argued
to be the consequence of a variety of social, cultural and technological transitions,
and an increase in personal freedoms and choices (Adeagbo 2016; Beck-Gernsheim
and Beck 1995). Giddens (1992: 33) states that “… sexual diversity, although still
regarded by many hostile groups as perversion, has moved out of Freud’s case-
history notebooks to the everyday social world” (Giddens 1992). Similarly, Bristow
(1996: 247) maintains that “same-sex desire can be threatening to those institutions
of power, such as the family and the state that assumes that heterosexuality is a nat-
ural, as opposed to a cultural phenomenon” (Bristow 1996). What these quotes hint
at is that whilst ‘threatening’, the resilience of same-sex relationships and people’s
choices to adopt non-conventional lifestyles is reshaping the ‘everyday social world’
and the thinking about what constitutes family and marriage. Feminist critique of
family and gender relations has also rendered the concept of family problematic,
hence, the call for a conceptual turn away from the conventional definition of fam-
ily (Smart 2007). According to Giddens, family is a ‘shell institution’ whose forms
have changed over the years but its essence remains static (Giddens 1999). On the
other hand, Beck and Beck-Gernsheim (2002: 203) argue that family is a “zombie

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03922-6_2
18 2 Diversity in Families
category that is dead and still alive” (Beck and Beck-Gernsheim 2002). The modern
world has witnessed the usage of the term ‘families’ to recognise the various forms of
lifestyles and intimate relationships that exist (Morgan 2011). For example, same-sex
intimate relationships that were once excluded from the scope of traditional family
life have now been embraced and accepted as a recognised family unit (Adeagbo
2016; Edwards et al. 2012; Weeks 2007).
There has been a paradigm shift from a general view of family as a monolithic
entity to recognising family pluralism in the last few decades (Edwards et al. 2012;
Biblarz and Savci 2010; Acock and Demo 1994; Cheal 1991). Appreciation of diver-
sities driven by race, ethnic and class differences are at the forefront of this change
(Adeagbo 2018; Adeagbo 2016; Allen and Demo 1995). This shift includes the con-
struction of day-to-day lives of same-sex households. Feminist scholars have made
important contributions to the role and position of women in families, but a lesser
contribution has been made to same-sex families’ research. Similarly, it has been
argued that same-sex family research is one of the important aspects of family schol-
arship that has not been adequately explored and it is yet to make a serious impact
on family studies (Adeagbo 2016; Berkowitz 2008).
Individuals in the 21st century are forming enduring romantic relationships out-
side the traditional family unit, and this trend has been observed by some scholars
interested in gender, sexualities and family (Adeagbo 2016; Budgeon and Roseneil
2004). This familial tendency outside the conventional family unit has been described
by Stacey as “brave new families” and by Weston as “family of choice” (Stacey 1998;
Weston 1991). For gay men, their family of choice comprises people other than their
immediate family members including extended family members that give both tan-
gible and non-tangible support to their partnerships (Adeagbo 2018). The traditional
family unit enjoyed favour over other forms of familial relations until the late 80s
when scholars’ particularly family sociologists began to explore and pluralise the
concept such that they now speak of ‘families’ rather than the ‘family’ (Biblarz and
Savci 2010; Berkowitz 2008). The shift in the definition of family has influenced gay
men’s sense of belonging as gay and as partners that can form enduring romantic
relationships (Adeagbo 2016; Lau 2012; Rosenfeld and Thomas 2012; Shieh 2010;
Berkowitz 2008).
In spite of the fact that some social scientists, particularly family sociologists,
have been advocating for the plurality of family, some scholars continue to question
the compatibility of ‘family’ and ‘homosexuality’ (Biblarz and Savci 2010). For
example, Butler (2004) argues that kinship is by nature a heterosexual phenomenon.
In her analysis of the gay marriage debate in France, she maintains that gay and
lesbian couples have the same rights as heterosexual couples, except the right to adopt
children (Butler 2004). This limitation of the right to adopt children was based on the
fact that only a conventional family unit made up of heterosexual couples can bring
up children appropriately, and that heterosexual couples are best at instilling cultural
values in children because of the presence of male and female role models (Biblarz
and Savci 2010). Family in South Africa has also been viewed as the bedrock of
society and this has conventionally been ascribed to opposite-sex couples (Adeagbo
2018; Amoateng and Heaton 2012; Lubbe 2007; Johnson 2004). However, same-sex
2.1 Diversity in Families: Traditional Concept of Family in a State of ‘Flux’ 19
intimate relationships can be seen as a threat to the development of children because

homosexuality is seen as a subculture at odds with the heterosexual mainstream
culture (Adeagbo2016; Halberstam 2005). Some writers have questioned whether
the full acceptance of gay and lesbian families is possible because the very concept of
‘family’ is entrenched in heteronormativity (Biblarz and Savci 2010; Butler 2004).
Despite the different arguments regarding the compatibility of homosexuality and
family, it is important that the definition of family accommodates all other kinds of
familial arrangements that exist apart from the conventional heterosexual and nuclear
family unit.
2.1.1 Masculinity and Men’s Roles in Heterosexual Family
Recently, women’s labour force participation has increased dramatically and the two-
income family has gained popularity at the expense of the traditional gendered family
unit of male breadwinner and female homemaker (Chesters 2012). There is much
interest in dual-earner impacts on conventional gender roles in households, but that
this appears to be society specific. Research has shown that countries with policies
on women’s rights and gender equality are likely to promote egalitarian divisions
of household labour among heterosexual couples (Adeagbo 2015; Öun 2013; Hook
2006; Fuwa 2004). For example, some studies have shown that men are more likely
to engage in more housework than women in countries where women’s economic and
political power is widely promoted (Hook 2006; Fuwa 2004). However, Öun (2013)
argues that men and women’s perception of fairness in the division of household
labour depends on the amount of housework performed and the traditional gendered
roles across societies.
The division of household labour is a space where gender is produced in traditional
family unit (Pitt and Borland 2009). Several studies have shown that factors, such
as relative resources, power and time, account for the unequal division of household
labour in intimate relationships (Adeagbo 2015; Öun 2013; Coltrane 2000; Shelton
and John 1996). Despite the impact of the above-mentioned factors, research has
shown that men with less traditional gender role attitudes tend to engage in more
housework and some house functions that are considered female-typical (Pitt and
Borland 2009; Risman 2004; Baxter 1992). Previous studies have demonstrated
that men’s attitudes are an important factor in studying the division of housework
(Adeagbo 2015; Tichenor 2005). According to Ross (1987: 83) “since the home is
defined as the wife’s responsibility, her belief that an equal sharing of the household
chores is the fair division will have little impact unless her husband agrees” (Ross
1987). Similarly, Baxter (1992: 179) argues that “a change of men’s attitudes to
gender roles appears to be a necessary precondition for the emergence of egalitarian
domestic labour arrangements.” Also, some studies have shown that experiences in
the adult years including a greater feminist consciousness shapes men’s attitudes
towards the traditional gender roles in the division of labour. Gerson (1993: 161)
maintains that men “developed more egalitarian outlooks in late adolescence and
early adulthood when their early expectations clashed with real experiences”
(Gerson 1993). This suggests that adult experiences could lead men to change their
perception and attitudes about gender roles. For example, the longer a man lives alone
outside the home of his family of origin, the less traditional his attitudes are about
gender roles. This suggests that a man who has lived alone for a few years without
cohabiting before marriage will not see some household functions as women’s work.
As men become more accustomed to female-typical housework in the period when
they are unmarried and living as bachelors, they will become less favourable.
In recent years, there has been a rapid growth of ‘new’ studies on men’s roles in
the family with complex findings (Goldberg 2013; Chesters 2012; Da 2004). The
socialisation model has been frequently used to examine how masculine norms are
constructed since childhood. However, Connell argues that the socialisation model is
inadequate to explain how gender is constructed over time because it does not factor
in ethnic diversity that generates various forms of femininities and masculinities
(Connell 2002). The exchange theory has also been used widely to interrogate the
relationship in the heterosexual family that often classifies men as breadwinners
and women as homemakers. This division suggests that men provide the financial
needs of the family in exchange for women’s domestic services (Forste and Fox
2012; Braun et al. 2008). However, some writers have argued that women that are
economically independent are likely to negotiate their engagement in household tasks
(Fox 2009). Notwithstanding such evidence, a large body of literature continues
to show that women still engage in more housework irrespective of the level of
their labour force participation, educational credentials or financial independence
(Goldberg 2013; Wong 2012; Naidoo et al. 2012).
On men’s roles in the heterosexual family, West and Zimmerman argue that
human society is organised in such a way that men do ‘masculine’ while women do
‘feminine’; but gender is an ongoing and vacillating set of behaviours that are created
by social interactions and shaped within social contexts (West and Zimmerman
1987, 2009). For example, if a man interacts with his wife in a way that reinforces
traditional gender roles, this could mean that there is an assertion of the thinking
that it is ‘natural’ for men and women to sustain a regulating binary. However, an
interaction between a man and his wife that disrupts gender norms could pose a
challenge to the natural nature and expectations about masculinity and femininity.
Therefore, social interactions can weaken or strengthen the attitudes of people, par-
ticularly men, towards the traditional gender roles in heterosexual households (West
and Zimmerman 1987, 2009). It is noteworthy that gender ideology is not in a state
of fixation or permanency except when society continues to support it. A change in
one’s environment could change one’s attitude towards the traditional gender roles.
For instance, bachelorhood forces men to do gender and this does not give them the
opportunity to adopt the traditional gender approach while doing housework such
as cooking, cleaning and dish-washing. Thus, the phase of living alone forces men
to engage in gender-atypical housework that they would not have done ordinarily if
they moved directly from their family of origin as sons to become husbands.
Studies have shown that men’s participation in household chores has increased
over the years, but some scholars have questioned whether men’s engagement in
2.1 Diversity in Families: Traditional Concept of Family in a State of ‘Flux’ 21
household tasks has increased in reality. Press and Townsley argue that men’s partic-
ipation in housework is over-reported (Press and Townsley 1998). However, another
writer disagrees with the idea that men now share household chores equally with
women and maintains that family socioeconomic status impacts greatly on men’s
roles in the family (Mintz 1998). There has been little evidence to show that egalitar-
ian gender attitudes expressed by men have translated into their engagement in more
housework (Chesters 2012). It has also been argued that the division of household
labour into female tasks and male tasks is associated with unequal distribution of
housework among heterosexual couples (Chesters 2012; Baxter 2002; Casper and
Bianchi 2002).
According to West and Zimmerman (1987: 146), “if we do gender appropriately,
we simultaneously sustain, reproduce, and render legitimate the institutional arrange-
ments that are based on sex category.” This suggests that when men do some tasks
that are ascribed to their sex category, such as home repairs and car-washing, they
are doing masculinity, and women’s engagement in cooking depicts femininity. Atti-
tudes towards gender roles have become less conventional in recent years, but these
changes have not coincided with a less gendered distribution of household chores
(Chesters 2012; Cunningham 2005; Baxter et al. 2005; Crompton et al. 2005). It
is therefore safe to argue that the traditional gendered relations in the division of
household labour still persist despite the notable changes in attitudes of some men
towards this.
2.1.2 Gay Men and Hegemonic Masculinity
Research on gay partnerships and the division of household labour can add
nuance to our understanding of gender and household chores on a global level.
Some scholars have argued that same-sex partners are likely to share household tasks
equally than heterosexual couples (Goldberg 2013; Wong 2012; Goldberg et al. 2012;
Kurdek 1993, 2007; Perlesz et al. 2010; Solomon et al. 2005) Though some gay men
engage in some housework that is traditionally ‘reserved’ for women, this does not
necessarily depict gendered divisions of household labour that often characterises
heterosexual intimate relationships (Goldberg 2013). In contrast, Carrington argues
that any man who does household chores (e.g. cooking and dish-washing) that are
women’s functions violates his masculine nature (Carrington 1999). In other words,
men’s involvement in household tasks that are traditionally meant for women in a
heterosexual traditional family unit negates their masculinity. Housework is a site
for gender construction in heterosexual relationships and one would think that such
normative gendered practices would be absent in same-sex intimate relationships.
Research has shown that most gender theories have been devised to address gen-
der relations in heterosexual relationships, while “the intriguing question of gender

deviance neutralization in the performance of housework among same-sex couples
remains to be addressed” (Sullivan 2011: 11). The presence of gender differences in
domestic settings among heterosexual couples raises questions about how gay part-
ners perceive, negotiate and distribute household chores. Research has shown that gay
partners are also conscious of the traditional gendered household tasks, where what
men do differ from what women do in heterosexual households (Goldberg 2013). It
is noteworthy that gay partners do not conform to the traditional gendered division
of housework, because they established their partnerships outside the conventional
heterosexual family unit.
In respect to familial arrangements and domestic settings, gay men have breached
some parts of hegemonic masculinity, but they continue to negotiate their identity in
their societies. In other words, they continue to negotiate their gay identity against
the dominant ideology of manhood in their different societies (Henderson and Shefer
2008). From the general populace views, masculinity is associated with power and
dominance. Some writers have argued that the dominant nature of men is prominent
and has been observed in men’s relationships with women and their fellow men
(Hearn 2004; Connell 2000). For example, Henderson and Shefer’s (2008) study of
gay men in South Africa reveals different levels at which some gay men exercise
power and masculinities in their relationships. In the study, one gay man reported how
the masculine nature of his ex-partner and power led to abuse in their relationship. If
this is the case, one needs to examine the impact of this traditional nature of men in gay
intimate relationships. In her analysis of hegemonic masculinity in the West, Connell
maintains that homosexuality is traditionally seen as a negation of masculinity in most
societies because of the feminine nature of some gay men (Connell 1995). This notion
has been challenged by some scholars due to the visibility of some hyper-masculine
gay men. Masculinity has been argued to be fluid and changing while hegemony can
be repugned (Connell 2000). For instance, the discourse on metrosexual men can be
seen as a challenge to the dominant heteronormative discourse on men (Henderson
and Shefer 2008).
2.2 Interracial Gay Partnership Profiles
This section briefly describes the profiles of the interracial gay partners (10 couples)
who participated in my research that led to the birth of this book. The profiles here
highlight the complexities and dynamics of being gay from different racial back-
grounds in the South African context. It should be mentioned that only interracial
gay partners whose intimate relationships are longer than a year or more were inter-
viewed. Pseudonyms are used to protect the real identity of the respondents. The
information of participants described below was accurate at the time of the research.
2.2 Interracial Gay Partnership Profiles 23
2.2.1 Partnership 1
Cici
Cici is a white middle-class South African gay man who hails from one of the urban
provinces in South Africa. He was born and grew up on a family farm in the province.
He is a white Afrikaner man and he was 42 years old at the time of the research.
He came from a wealthy and conservative Christian family. Despite his parents’
strictness and strong religious background, individual freedom was promoted in the
family. That is, every member of his family was given the freedom to live their
lives. He completed his primary and secondary education in the province in all-
white schools and moved to Johannesburg for his tertiary education. He holds a
bachelor’s degree from a South African university. He is self-employed and works
as a consultant.
He became aware of his affection for other men early in life, but he could not
express his feelings in his conservative environment where heteronormativity pre-
vailed. He was in a non-sexual heterosexual relationship before he came to Johan-
nesburg for his tertiary education. Although he knew his heterosexual relationship
was going nowhere, he felt that he had to engage in such a relationship to fit into his
heterosexist society. He started same-sex relationships after his tertiary education.
He met his partner when he was trying to recover from the trauma caused by his
previous relationship that lasted for nine months. Some of his siblings know (but not
without disapproval at first) about his current partner but this was kept secret from his
parents. According to Cici, “I do not want to send my parents to their early grave with
my sexual orientation.” He also believes it does not make sense to tell people about
his sexual orientation since he would not need such an introduction if he were a het-
erosexual man. He is currently in a legalised partnership (in community of property)
with his partner and they have been together as partners for more than nine years.
Bizzy
Bizzy was born into a middle-class Indian family in South Africa. He was 47 years
old at the time of the research and he grew up with his single mother and two siblings.
He was educated in both South Africa and abroad. He did his undergraduate study
in South Africa before he was awarded a scholarship for his postgraduate studies
overseas. He holds a doctorate degree from a reputable university in South Africa,
and he currently works for an organisation in the country. He had been involved in
heterosexual intimate relationships before, but he quit the relationships because it
was a pretence to make people think he was a heterosexual man. Although he has
always known he was gay, he could not express himself due to the environment in
which he grew up. He grew up in a society where homosexuality was a taboo. He
did not tell his family members, particularly his mother, about his sexual orientation
but he believed his family members know that he is gay because they have not seen
him with a girl in a long while. They have always seen him with different men, but
they never asked him any questions.
Gay spaces such as clubs, pubs and meetings also helped him to come to terms with
his sexuality as a gay man in the early 1990s. He was pleased with the progressive
Constitution that gives gay men the opportunity to express their sexual orientation.
He was previously in an interracial relationship with a white European man and the
relationship lasted for seven years. Bizzy was just leaving his previous relationship
when he met his current partner through one of his friends. They started as friends
and became lovers afterwards.
2.2.2 Partnership 2
Acali
Acali (a white Afrikaner man) was born 45 years ago to a wealthy (upper-class)
white South African family from an Afrikaans speaking background with a strong
religious affiliation. His parents and grandparents are strongly Catholic. He went to
Catholic schools and has nuns and priests in his family. He holds college diplomas.
He is at managerial level in a company. Homosexuality was a taboo in his family and
he wrestled with himself during his teenage years before he accepted his sexuality.
He prayed several times to God to change his attraction and sexual desire for men but
the more he prayed, the more he realised his unchanging fate. His mother suggested
prayers that would transform him from being a gay man when he told his parents
about his sexual orientation. He was taken to a priest for prayers and the priest told
his parents to accept him the way he is and that no amount of prayers will change his
sexual orientation. His parents accepted and supported him when all efforts to change
him proved abortive. Their initial objection to his sexual orientation was based on
the church doctrine that homosexuality is evil, and that God hates homosexuals.
He was in a heterosexual relationship for two years and he started dating men
before his twentieth birthday. He was in a same-sex relationship that lasted for
17 years before he met his current partner. Although the Civil Union Act that allows
same-sex marriage was only passed in 2006, Acali claimed that he had been in a
legalised intimate relationship with his ex-partner before then. He met his current
partner online through social media (gay men’s chat room), and they have been
together for more than three years. They were friends before they became romantic
partners. Acali has met his partner’s family members and vice versa. He currently
lives with his partner in his house, and he hopes to get married again. Acali reported
that he has had sexual encounters with men of different races, but this is his first
long-term (more than three years) interracial same-sex intimate relationship.
Dimetris
Dimetris was born to an Indian family in South Africa’s and he was 26 years at the time
of the study. He came from a Hindu background and had his primary and secondary
education in a South African province before he moved to Johannesburg for further
studies. He holds a college diploma and works in an entertainment industry. He
discovered his affection for men at the age of 16 when he was attracted to a gay man
in a television show. It was not difficult for him to express his sexual orientation to his
immediate family members due to the love in the family. Though it was hard for his
family to accept his sexuality, the love in the family influenced the total acceptance of
his sexual orientation. He was previously in an interracial same-sex relationship that
lasted for six months. He and his partner have been together for more than three years.
2.2.3 Partnership 3
Ellis
Ellis was born in Europe into a white Christian family and he was 38 years old
at the time of the research. He holds a master’s degree and has worked with local
and international organisations. He became aware of his gay identity during his
adolescence years when he fell in love with another boy in his high school, but
he continued to engage in heterosexual relationships. He revealed his sexuality as
a gay man when he was serving in one of the churches in Johannesburg. He was
compelled to leave his religious position because the church council believed that
his sexual identity negated the church doctrines. In contrast, his sexual identity was
well received by his family members and they supported him. Ellis has been in
interracial same-sex relationships since he declared his sexual identity as a gay man.
He met his current partner online through social media (Facebook). The relationship
is longer than two years.
Faraday
Faraday was born to a black family in another African country where homosexuality
is criminalised. He was 36 years and came from a strong Muslim family where
homosexuality is a taboo. He obtained an honours degree in one of the universities in
his home country and a master’s degree from a South African university. He currently
works with an organisation in Johannesburg. He was conscious of his attraction for
men as a teenager, but he could not express this part of his sexuality growing up in a
country that strongly opposes this act. He grew up fighting his sexual identity, but he
continued to engage in heterosexual relationships in order to fit into his immediate
environment.
While in South Africa, he met a lot of gay men, and vibrant gay spaces helped
him in expressing his sexual orientation. Although he is in a same-sex relationship,
Faraday is not fully open about his sexual identity and he continues to negotiate
his heterosexual and homosexual identities depending on where he finds himself.
In other words, he utilises two different identities because homosexuality is seen as
shameful by many in his country. He has been in an interracial relationship for more
than two years but he still keeps his sexual identity a secret.
2.2.4 Partnership 4
George
He was born and grew up in a black township in South Africa. He was 24 years
old and had just completed an honours degree at a South African university. He is
the second of three boys. He was unemployed at the time of the research. He is not
associated with any religious institution. According to him, religion is a Western
invention and the discourses in the bible are problematic because they encourage
sexual and racial divisions. He was rejected by people in his immediate environment
because they thought he became gay because he was young and naive. According to
him, “there was a power relation that regulated what one can become and what one
cannot. This was put in place by the society and parents are custodian of this.” He
became aware of his sexual identity early in life, but he could not express himself due
to the fear of discrimination in his immediate heterosexist environment, so he started
acting like a heterosexual young man in order to fit into his immediate society. He
prayed hard to God to make him a normal ‘straight man’ but his affection for men
would not go away. He lived in fear among his family members because his mother
and brothers often made homophobic remarks. He negotiated his sexual identity in
order to fit into the family and society when he was growing up.
He pretended to be in a relationship with a girl during his high school years in
order to fit into his immediate heterosexist society. He accepted himself as gay at age
11 but kept it a secret until he told his mother in 2013. His mother was disappointed
when he disclosed his sexual identity to her. She was not concerned about him
being gay; she was more concerned about his decision not to produce offspring.
He was left in his own world and he has introduced his partner to his mother and
cousins. He met his current partner online (social media) before they became lovers.
The relationship is longer than four years. He refused to legalise his relationship
at the Department of Home Affairs (DHA) because he believes that marriage is
fundamentally a heterosexual institution.
Hill
He was born in South Africa to a middle-class white Christian family. He was 28 years
old and from an Afrikaner background. He is the only son and has two sisters.
He received his primary and secondary education in the Cape before he moved to
Johannesburg for further studies. He holds a college diploma from a popular college
and works with an organisation in Johannesburg.
He discovered his affection for men early in life, but he could not express himself
until he told his parents some years ago. He tried to ‘pray himself out of his affection
for men’ because it was believed to be a devilish act in his heterosexist environment.
He also stopped going to church because of some pastors’ homophobic comments.
His parents sought spiritual help, but this did not change his sexual desires. His parents
accepted him and showed him love afterwards. The level of support he received from
his immediate family members impacted positively on his relationship.
2.2.5 Partnership 5
Juke
He was born 37 years ago and grew up in one of the African countries where homo-
sexuality is criminalised. He came from a strong black Catholic family, and his
parents hold key positions in the Catholic Church. He is a businessman who holds
an honours degree from a reputable university in his home country. He was raised in
a family of five boys and one girl. He is the third child of the family. His religious
background has had both a negative and positive impact on his sexual orientation. For
example, he had listened to people condemning gay people using the story of Sodom
and Gomorrah in the bible as evidence that God hates homosexuals. On the contrary,
he believes he was created in God’s image and he is thankful to God for his sexual
orientation. He became aware of his sexual identity very early in life. He grew up
in a heterosexist environment that mandated young boys to be in a relationship with
girls at a certain age. He decided to have a girlfriend in order to fit in. He engaged in a
non-sexual heterosexual relationship. He liked feminine things when he was growing
up and he used to dance a lot. His parents stopped him from dancing because it was
believed to be something girls do. He admired men more than women when he was
growing up and he had his first gay relationship in the university in his home country.
This was a secret relationship and he had to stop it before people found out. He was
previously in a relationship for four years. He met his current partner who is a white
European man in an informal gathering where gay men socialise and have fun when
he was going through a hard time in his previous relationship. He thought it was a
one-night stand until they became friends and started seeing each other. He fell in
love with his current partner after a year and they have been together as friends since
then. They have been together for four years.
Radisson
He is a white European who was born 58 years ago in Europe into a Christian family.
He is the oldest son of the family and has two siblings. He completed his education
in Europe and obtained an honours degree before he moved to South Africa. He
is a businessman and has made South Africa his second home. Though there was
no strict law against homosexuals when he was growing up, pro-homosexuality
discourses often received negative remarks. He was aware of his affection for men
during his undergraduate studies and he thought it was evil due to his religious
background. He fasted and prayed about his strange attractions to men but fasting
and prayers could not change his sexual desires. He tried to date girls to see if the
feeling would disappear, but he could not sustain those relationships because there
was no attraction and affection. He was happy when gay relationships were legalised
in his country of birth, although it took him years to accept his sexuality. He told
his family about his sexual orientation when the pressure was on him to get married
to a woman. His family members were shocked because they had always seen him
with women. He disclosed that he had to project a heterosexual identity in order to
fit into his heterosexist environment. His family members accepted and supported
his relationship afterwards.
He started a same-sex relationship with another white European man who used to
live in South Africa. They lived together for more than a decade as partners before
their relationship ended. It was a hard time for him when his partner decided to walk
out of the relationship. The emotion and financial implications of their separation
affected him for some time before he got over it. He then involved himself in sexual
relationships with men of all colours. It was while he was in one of his casual liaisons
that he met his current partner. They both had relationship problems when they met.
Although it was supposed to be a one-night stand, they became friends and lovers
afterwards.
2.2.6 Partnership 6
Kadi
He was born and grew up in a central African country where homosexuality is
criminalised. He was 33 years old at the time of the research and he is the first son
of the family. He comes from a strong black Christian family. He holds an honours
degree from a university in his home country. It was a problem for him to express
his gay identity when he was growing up because of the responsibility and pressures
societal groupings placed on him to be in a romantic relationship with a woman. He
was upset with himself and prayed to God to deliver him from the evil spirit. He had to
accept his identity at a certain point in life because he realised that there was nothing
he could do to change himself. He could not tell any of his family members and he
kept this secret for a long time until he met a gay friend during his tertiary education.
It was one of his dreams to get married to a man when he was mature enough to marry
but his surrounding heterosexist environment nearly “killed his dream.” One of his
friends in South Africa introduced him to a South African coloured friend online and
they became close. They were online friends for a year before they became lovers
and eventually married (in community of property). Their marriage was solemnised
at the Department of Home Affairs and they have been together for four years.
Kadi decided to keep his relationship a secret from his parents because he thought
they would never accept it if he told them about his sexual orientation and relationship,
due to their religious background. The only thing they know about him is that he is
staying with a friend in South Africa. He also does not want his parents to feel that
he has disappointed them and that was the main reason he left his home country for
South Africa.
Linden
Linden was born and grew up as a coloured gay man in South Africa. He is 35 years old
and he is the only son of the family. He came from a coloured group area and religion
in his view played no role in defining his sexual identity. He completed his primary
and secondary education in the coloured area before he moved to Johannesburg

for further studies. He holds a college diploma and is currently working with an
organisation in Johannesburg. He became conscious of his gay identity when he was
14 years old. Growing up as a gay man in a coloured group area was not a good
experience for him because of the everyday attacks and discriminations directed
towards homosexuals, both gays and lesbians. He was unable to tell anyone about
his affection for men because of the fear of discrimination. He kept this secret until
he left for Johannesburg. He met some gay friends during his college days and
got involved in same-sex sexual encounters. He told his family about his sexual
orientation in his late 20s when he felt it was time to tell them. Although his family
were disappointed, they later supported him. He lives with his partner and they have
been married for four years.
2.2.7 Partnership 7
Mikasa
He was born and raised in a black group area in South Africa. He lived in the township
until he was 18 years old when his parents separated. He was born 23 years ago, and
he is an eldest child with three siblings (two boys and one girl). He attained his
primary and secondary education in the township before moving to Johannesburg
for his tertiary education at one of the popular institutions where he completed his
undergraduate degree. He comes from a liberal Christian family, but he maintains
that he hardly attends church services. He lived with his mother after his parents
separated.
He became aware of his identity as a gay man during his first year in high school.
He did not know anything about gay people then, all he knew was his attraction to
boys and he loved playing with girls. He had a crush on his friend and he told his
friend about his feelings for him. It was so easy for him to express himself and he
thought it was normal to have fallen in love with a boy. Although he expressed his
intention, he reported that they did not get involved in any relationship afterwards. He
had his first relationship in the township six months after he completed high school.
The relationship collapsed due to distance because he had to move to Johannesburg
for his university education. According to him, “I was born gay and I did not see
anything bad being in a same-sex relationship because I never found myself sexually
attracted to a girl.” He met his current partner in a pub and they have been living
together for more than two years. His parents were disappointed when he told them
about his sexual orientation and he is yet to reconcile with them. His father was
particularly disappointed because he is the first son of the family.
Noddy
He was born and grew up in one of the Southern African countries to a white European
family. He came from a liberal Christian background and he is the only child of
the family. He was 37 years old at the time of the research. He had his primary
and secondary education in Africa and had his tertiary education at a prestigious
university in Europe. His family was wealthy, with his parents controlling several
businesses in Africa. He relocated to South Africa after he completed his master’s
degree in order to manage his family business. He became aware of his affection
for men in high school, but he could not express himself because he was fearful of
repercussions. He did what was expected of a man, but he never dated any girl or
woman. He thought it was a spiritual attack to have feelings for other men. He visited
his church priest in secret to ask for deliverance from the feelings he was harbouring.
He tried all he could to make sure his feelings for men left him, but all his efforts
proved unsuccessful.
He accepted himself during his studies abroad when he met some gay groups.
He told his parents telephonically about his sexual orientation because he could not
face them. His parents, particularly his father, did not say anything when he first told
them. He thought they were disappointed because he is the only child and he was
expected to have offspring. His parents embraced and supported him after some time.
It was a happy moment for him when he came back to Africa after his studies and
his father made him the director of one his companies in South Africa. His parents
showed him love, until they died. He was previously in a relationship that lasted for
five years.
2.2.8 Partnership 8
Yaba
He was born 55 years ago in South Africa into a white Afrikaner family with a strong
Christian background. He completed his primary, secondary and tertiary education
in Johannesburg. He holds an honours degree. Although he was born when same-sex
relationships were resented by mainstream society, his sexual identity was clear to
him. He is an only son and he has one sister. His parents are business tycoons and
are influential in their field. He currently manages his family businesses across the
Southern African region.
He became aware of his sexual identity early in life. He grew up to know that
such desire was not allowed in his society and he had to keep his feelings to himself.
He did not declare his sexual identity to his parents until he graduated from the
university. He had his first relationship at university with another white gay man. He
has been in relationships with same-race gay men and he now finds himself in his
first interracial same-sex relationship. Talking about his parent’s response when he
told them about his sexual identity, he reported that they were shocked that he could
keep such secrets from them for years. Although he had no intention to reveal his
sexual identity to his parents, the pressure on him to get married to a woman and
produce offspring forced him to.
Yaba met his current partner through one of his friends at a social gathering. He
was impressed with the personality of his partner the first time they met, and they
became friends. They became lovers after a few months of friendship and they got
married (in community of property) after five years of courtship. They have been
married for six years and they live together in a self-owned house.
Peter
Growing up in a black group township with his grandmother was not easy for him as
a gay man. He was born 46 years ago into a middle-class black family. His parents
were separated when he was five years old and he had to live with his grandmother for
most of his life. He had his primary and secondary education in the township before
he moved to Johannesburg to live with his mother. He obtained a college diploma then
completed a university degree. He currently works with a multinational company in
South Africa. He comes from a liberal Christian family that believes simultaneously
in ancestor worship.
He developed a specific sexual identity early in life. According to him, “I have
been having sexual desires towards men, but I could not express my feelings because
it was against my society’s norms and values.” He behaved like every other boy when
he was growing up, and he had girlfriends in order to show his masculine prowess to
his contemporaries. He faked his lifestyle because of the hatred people had towards
gays and lesbians in his immediate environment. He kept his secret for years and only
told his mother about his sexual orientation a few years ago. He lost his grandmother
and father before he declared his sexual identity. He regretted not revealing his
sexual identity to them before they died. He started same-sex relationships during
his degree programme, while he was working part-time. He was previously in an
interracial relationship that lasted for two years. He met his current partner at a
social gathering, and they became friends. He did not tell any of his family members
about his sexual orientation until after his marriage to his current partner. His mother
was extremely angry but later embraced him and his partner. He has been happily
married (in community of property) for six years.
2.2.9 Partnership 9
Quinton
He was born and grew up in a nearby Southern African country. He is 32 years old
and comes from a reputable black Christian family. He came to South Africa as a
refugee when there was war in his country. He obtained a degree in management in his
country of birth before he moved to South Africa. He currently holds a postgraduate
diploma from a South African university. He lost some of his family members to war,
including his parents. He became aware of his affection for men early in life but felt
inhibited about ‘living it’ due to the strong presence of the sodomy law in his country
of birth. He lived his life with fear and discrimination before he moved to South
Africa. He had no resources and had to do menial jobs to survive despite his level of
education. He met another gay man from his country and they became lovers, but the
relationship collapsed after some time due to differences in aspirations and future
goals. He survived on menial jobs and furthered his education in South Africa. He met
different gay people when he was studying at a South African university and he joined
a gay group on campus. This group helped him find his real self although he was
afraid to tell people outside this group about his sexual identity, particularly people
from his country. He negotiates his sexual identity depending on different spaces.
For example, he often reveals his sexual identity as a gay man when he is among gay
people, while he pretends to be a heterosexual male when he finds himself with others.
He met his current partner when he was working as a bartender in a gay club.
According to him, “the man (my current partner) engaged me in discussion when I
served him a beer and he marvelled when I told him my level of education. The man
kept coming to the club and we became friends.” They were friends for two years
before they became lovers. They have been in a relationship for more than two years
and they live together.
Northcliff
He was born and grew up in an Indian group area in South Africa. He is 38 years old
and has a staunch Hindu background. He comes from a middle-class family of two
boys and two girls. He obtained an honours degree from a South African university
before he joined a company in Johannesburg. He became aware of his erotic feelings
for men in high school. He had a crush on his colleague, but he could not tell anyone
about his feelings. His family was conservative, and they looked up to him as the
first son of the family. Growing up was hard for him as a gay man because of his
heterosexist environment. He was in a relationship before he met his new partner,
who he met in one of the gay clubs in Johannesburg. He never thought he was going
to be with his partner when they met, he just liked him, and they became friends.
They became lovers after two years of friendship and after he had broken up with
his previous partner. They have been living together for more than two years.
2.2.10 Partnership 10
Solly
He was born 28 years ago and grew up in a coloured group area in South Africa. He
was raised by a single mother as an only child. He had his primary and secondary
school education in a township before he moved to Johannesburg for his tertiary edu-
cation. He holds an honours degree from a South African university and is currently
working with an organisation in Johannesburg. He became fully aware of his sexual
orientation during his undergraduate years. He reported that he had been having
erotic feelings towards men but thought it was not normal to have such feelings.
He fought with his sexual identity and visited traditional healers (sangomas) for
deliverance but none of this changed his feelings. He only revealed his gay identity in
his third year at university and informed his mother about his sexual orientation. He
was an active member of gay and lesbian associations and these groups helped shape
his thoughts about being gay. He had his first relationship during his honours degree
programme but this only lasted for a few months. He met his current partner in one of
their gay activism meetings. They became friends and started dating after some time.
They both have similar political ideologies, and this influenced the formation of
their intimate relationship. They have been living together for more than four years.
Timaya
He was born 35 years ago and raised in a white middle-class Afrikaans speaking
family in South Africa. He has two younger brothers. He comes from a Christian
family with both parents still living together. He completed his primary, secondary
school and university education in Johannesburg. He holds a master’s degree and
is currently working in an IT company in Johannesburg. He discovered his erotic
feelings for men early in life, but he could not reveal his sexuality due to his family
and religious background. He was afraid to tell anyone about his strange feelings. He
kept his affection for men a secret for several years before he told his parents about
his sexual orientation. He was accepted for the way he is at a point in life when his
family members learnt that being gay is not a disease. He particularly changed his
family’s perspectives about gay people. He has introduced his partner to his family
and his family members strongly support his relationship.
2.3 Summary
Most research on families often focuses on heterosexual households because

lesbian and gay men are thought of as individuals without a stable household. This
assumption is rooted in the societal belief that views gayness and family as two
somewhat contradictory concepts. This is because the construction of same-sex fam-
ily challenges the traditional patriarchal family concept and ways in which gender
relations are being configured. Given the insubstantial attention same-sex familial
relations have received in family studies, scholars have welcomed this new theoret-
ical understanding of families. This chapter engages with the dynamics of gender
relations and the roles of men in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships. The
chapter also offers background information about the research participants which is
intended to help the readers to understand the life transition of these gay men and
the construction of their households. From the foregoing, it seems that South Africa
offers a safe haven for the non-South African gay men who participated in this study,
enabling them to express their sexuality without any constraints or discrimination.
Another interesting point is that some of the interracial partners have legalised their
intimate unions in ‘community of property (COP)’. This implies that if something
should happen to one of them, the other partner will get part of the property (if not
all). When asked why they did this, most claimed that they did not want their family
members to give their partners unnecessary problems in the event of their death. This
represents a form of ‘exchange’ that brings about a sense of belonging in intimate
relationships. This to me solidifies their relationship and enhances their long-term
commitments to the relationship. The following Chap. 3 gives a detailed analysis
of some of the main findings that emerged from the interviews conducted with the
participants regarding their household functions.
References
Acock, A. C., & Demo, D. H. (1994). Family diversity and well-being. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Adeagbo, O. A. (2015). Gay men, intimacy and family life: Exploring interracial same-sex unions
in Johannesburg. University of Johannesburg.
Adeagbo, O. A. (2018). Are same-sex relationships anti-family? Investigating relationship stability
among interracial gay partners in South Africa. Journal of Gender Studies, 27, 165–176.
Allen, K. R., & Demo, D. H. (1995). The families of lesbians and gay men: A new frontier in family
research. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 111–127.
Amoateng, A. Y., & Heaton, T. B. (2012). Racial differences in attitudes towards selected aspects
of family life in South Africa. Southern African Journal of Demography, 13, 37–58.
Baxter, J. (1992). Power attitudes and time: The domestic division of labour. Journal of Comparative
Family Studies, 165–182.
Baxter, J. (2002). Patterns of change and stability in the gender division of household labour in
Australia, 1986–1997. Journal of Sociology, 38, 399–424.
Baxter, J., Hewitt, B., & Western, M. (2005). Post-familial families and the domestic division of
labour. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 583–600.
Beck-Gernsheim, E., & Beck, U. (1995). The normal chaos of love. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U., & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization. London: Sage.
Berkowitz, D. (2008). A sociohistorical analysis of gay men’s procreative consciousness. Journal
of GLBT Family Studies, 3, 157–190.
Biblarz, T. J., & Savci, E. (2010). Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender families. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 72, 480–497.
Braun, M., Lewin-Epstein, N., Stier, H., & Baumgärtner, M. K. (2008). Perceived equity in the
gendered division of household labor. Journal of Marriage and Family, 70, 1145–1156.
Bristow, J. (1996). Homophobia. In M. Payne (Ed.), A dictionary of cultural and critical theory
(p. 335). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Budgeon, S., & Roseneil, S. (2004). Editors’ introduction: Beyond the conventional family. Current
Sociology, 52, 127–134.
Butler, J. (2004). Undoing gender. Psychology Press.
Carrington, C. (1999). No place like home: Relationships and family life among lesbians and gay
men. University of Chicago Press.
Casper, L. M., & Bianchi, S. M. (2002). Change and continuity in the American family. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cheal, D. J. (1991). Family and the state of theory. University of Toronto Press.
Chesters, J. (2012). Gender attitudes and housework: Trends over time in Australia. Journal of
Comparative Family Studies, 43, 511–526.
Coltrane, S. (2000). Research on household labor: Modeling and measuring the social embeddedness
of routine family work. Journal of Marriage and Family, 62, 1208–1233.
References 35
Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Connell, R. W. (2000). Understanding men: Gender sociology and the new international research
on masculinities. Clark Lecture, University of Kansas Department of Sociology.
Connell, R. W. (2002). Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Crompton, R., Brockmann, M., & Lyonette, C. (2005). Attitudes, women’s employment and the
domestic division of labour: A cross-national analysis in two waves. Work, Employment and
Society, 19, 213–233.
Cunningham, M. (2005). Gender in cohabitation and marriage: The influence of gender ideology
on housework allocation over the life course. Journal of Family Issues, 26, 1037–1061.
Da, W.-W. (2004). A regional tradition of gender equity: Shanghai men in Sydney, Australia. Journal
of Men’s Studies, 12, 133–149.
Edwards, R., McCarthy, J. R., & Gillies, V. (2012). The politics of concepts: Family and its (putative)
replacements. British Journal of Sociology, 63, 730–746.
Forste, R., & Kiira, F. (2012). Household labor, gender roles, and family satisfaction: A cross-
national comparison. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 43, 613–631.
Fox, B. (2009). When couples become parents: The creation of gender in the transition to parent-
hood. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries.
American Sociological Review, 69, 751–767.
Gerson, K. (1993). No man’s land: Men’s changing commitments to family and work. New York:
Basic Books.
Giddens, A. (1992). The transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and intimacy in modern soci-
eties. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Giddens, A. (1999). Runaway world-how globalization is reshaping our lives. London: Profile
Books.
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). “Doing” and “Undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework
in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 5, 85–104.
Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and
heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 812–828.
Halberstam, J. (2005). In a queer time and place: Transgender bodies, subcultural lives. New York:
New York University Press.
Hearn, J. (2004). From hegemonic masculinity to the hegemony of men. Feminist Theory, 5, 49–72.
Henderson, N., & Shefer, T. (2008). Practices of power and abuse in gay male relationships: An
exploratory case study of a young, Isixhosa-speaking man in the Western Cape. South African
Journal of Psychology, 38, 1–20.
Hook, J. L. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American
Sociological Review, 71, 639–660.
Johnson, P. (2004). Haunting heterosexuality: The homo/het binary and intimate love. Sexualities,
7, 183–200.
Kurdek, L. A. (1993). The allocation of household labor in gay, lesbian, and heterosexual married
couples. Journal of Social Issues, 49, 127–139.
Kurdek, L. A. (2007). The allocation of household labor by partners in gay and lesbian couples.
Journal of Family Issues, 28, 132–148.
Lau, C. Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and marriage.
Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 973–988.
Lubbe, C. (2007). Mothers, fathers or parents: Same-gendered families in South Africa. South
African Journal of Psychology, 37, 260–283.
Mintz, S. (1998). From patriarchy to androgyny and other myths: Placing men’s family roles in
historical perspective. In A. Booth & A. C. Crouter (Eds.), Men in families: When do they get
involved? What difference does it make? Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.
Morgan, D. (2011). Rethinking family practices. New York: Springer.
Persisting exclusions at two South African universities. In T. Uys, S. Patel (Eds.), Exclusion,
Black Swan.
Öun, I. (2013). Is it fair to share? Perceptions of fairness in the division of housework among couples
in 22 countries. Social Justice Research, 26, 400–421.
Perlesz, A., Power, J., Brown, R., McNair, R., Schofield, M., Pitts, M., et al. (2010). Organising
work and home in same-sex parented families: Findings from the work love play study. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 374–391.
Pitt, R. N., & Borland, E. (2009). Bachelorhood and men’s attitudes about gender roles. Journal of
Men’s Studies, 16, 140–158.
Press, J. E., & Townsley, E. (1998). Wives’ and husbands’ housework reporting: Gender, class, and
social desirability. Gender and Society, 12, 188–218.
Risman, B. J. (2004). Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender and
Society, 18, 429–450.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Searching for a mate: The rise of the internet as a social
intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77, 523–547.
Ross, C. E. (1987). The division of labor at home. Social Forces, 65, 816–833.
Shelton, B. A., & John, D. (1996). The division of household labor. Annual Review of Sociology,
22, 299–322.
Shieh, W.-Y. (2010). Gay and lesbian couple relationship commitment in Taiwan: A preliminary
study. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 1334–1354.
Smart, C. (2007). Personal life. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Solomon, S. E., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2005). Money, housework, sex, and conflict:
Same-sex couples in civil unions, those not in civil unions, and heterosexual married siblings.
Sex Roles, 52, 561–575.
Stacey, J. (1998). Brave new families: Stories of domestic upheaval in late-twentieth-century
America. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Sullivan, O. (2011). An end to gender display through the performance of housework? A review
and reassessment of the quantitative literature using insights from the qualitative literature.
Journal of Family Theory and Review, 3, 1–13.
Tichenor, V. (2005). Maintaining men’s dominance: Negotiating identity and power when she
earns more. Sex Roles, 53, 191–205.
Weeks, J. (2007). The world we have won: The remaking of erotic and intimate life. New York:
Routledge.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1987). Doing gender. Gender and Society, 1, 125–151.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender and Society, 23,
112–122.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gay men and kinship. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Wong, D. (2012). Doing gender, doing culture: Division of domestic labour among lesbians in
Hong Kong. In Women’s studies international forum (pp. 266–75). Elsevier.
Chapter 3
Relationship Formation, Division
of Housework and Power Negotiation
Abstract Having engaged with the historical contextualisation of same-sex rela-

tionships and relevant literature in Chapters One and Two, key findings of research
conducted are discussed in Chapters Three and Four respectively. In order to under-
stand the complexities and dynamics of interracial gay households in the South
African context, this chapter engages with the relationship formation, division of
labour and power relations, amongst gay couples. The main channels through which
gay partners initiated their relationships were physical face-to-face encounters or
social engagements and online dating. The impact of personal resources, such as
income, education and race, were examined in the initial coming together of the
couples but none of this had any significant influence on their familial arrangements.
This chapter also examines how gay couples share housework and participate in the
management of domestic duties. In this latter regard, no distinctive hierarchical divi-
sions of labour amongst the participants were evident, notwithstanding their racial
backgrounds and differential earnings. Lastly, this chapter suggests that scholars,
gender and family experts, should pay attention to how gay partners are resisting
and ‘redoing gender’ in their relationships, and theorise gay partners’ experiences
distinctively rather than looking at them through a heterosexual lens. Overall, this
chapter discusses the formation of relationships, division of household labour, how
power is negotiated and what sustains intimacy in interracial gay partnerships.
Keywords Gender roles · Power · Housework · Relationship formation

Masculinity
3.1 Interracial Gay Men Relationship Formation
This section discusses two main channels of romantic relationship formation that are
common among gay men, and have a specific relevance to this study:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03922-6_3
38 3 Relationship Formation, Division of Housework and Power Negotiation
3.1.1 Face-to-Face Relationships: From Casual Partnerships

to Committed Relationships
Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of the formation of romantic

relationships through face-to-face interactions. Gay men’s familial arrangements are
complex due to the discrimination they regularly face (Stacey 2006). It is imperative
to mention that gay partners often meet at different places such as gay bars and
pubs (Stacey 2006). For example, the majority of gay couples in a study started their
relationships at gay bars (Blumstein and Schwartz 1983). Other studies have shown
that gay men also meet their partners through friends and associates (McWilliams
and Barrett 2014; Rosenfeld and Thomas 2012; Huston and Schwartz 1995). The
following excerpts from the interviews transcripts show how interracial gay partners
who participated in this research met:
Mikasa (23 years old, black South African, Graduate):

I was still with my former boyfriend when I met him. I was standing, and this
white guy was looking at me. I called one of the bartenders to tell him to stop
looking at me and buy me a drink. He bought me a drink and we chatted. My
boyfriend was angry and we fought at the club. We broke up when we couldn’t
resolve the issue. I went to Pretoria after I broke up with my former boyfriend
and my current partner came there to visit me. We became friends from there
and advanced to an intimate relationship…My relationship is amazing, but I
don’t know what makes it amazing. I can’t think about the fact that he is white.
Although he is white, we don’t see colour, all I see is his personality.
Cici (42 years old, White South African, Consultant):

Regarding our relationship, it is a very complicated issue. I had one proper
relationship before and it was my first proper relationship that lasted for nine
months. It was a doom from the start. I decided not to go into any relationship
anytime soon when it ended. I met one Indian guy and we became friends. I
met my current partner through him because they are both Indians and friends.
When I first met him, I can’t say there was something that attracted me to
him, but our second meeting brought us together. I felt something natural and
some fascination and attraction just occurred. It was not magic but I realised
I had found someone stimulating. He stimulates me every time. We are just
compatible in everything such as political and business ideologies…I did not
find him attractive at first. It was a gradual development. Economically, we
are on the same level and our aspirations are the same…
3.1 Interracial Gay Men Relationship Formation 39
It is evident from the research that the initial face-to-face interaction is particularly
important in the establishment of gay intimate relationships. This may be true of all
relationships, but the site of social contact for the gay men in my sample was specif-
ically gay clubs, bars, pubs, social events in which largely gay people participated,
and through gay friends and associates. This suggests that networks represent an
important connecting opportunity. Some scholars have argued that face-to-face rela-
tionships give people the opportunity to interact with potential future partners, and
people often look for compatibilities in such contexts (Adeagbo 2016; Rosenfeld
and Thomas 2010; Stacey 2005, 2006). Through these different forms of face-to-
face interactions, gay men form romantic relationships that transcend class, racial
and national boundaries (Adeagbo 2016; Rosenfeld and Thomas 2012; Sautter et al.
2010). Excerpts from the fieldwork show that predictors of face-to-face interper-
sonal relationships, such as physical attributes and individual personality sometimes
determine the continuous interactions of people after their first meeting. People often
look for similarities other than physical appearance that will eventually spark their
connections in those interactions (Rosenfeld and Thomas 2010; Brehm 1992). Thus,
physical appearance plays no major role; rather, it is the connection between people
that is much more valued than physical appearances. This connection is not irrelevant
to the way gay partners negotiate their living spaces and household arrangements
later on.
3.1.2 From Computer Mediated Relationships

to Long-Term Unions
Some writers have been captivated by how different people who met online are
forming enduring romantic relationships. In the past two decades, online dating
has become popular in both heterosexual and same-sex intimate relationships
(Adeagbo 2016; McWilliams and Barrett 2014; Barraket and Henry-Waring 2008).
Notwithstanding the importance of face-to-face interactions in forming romantic
relationships, the use of the Internet to meet potential partners has increased over the
years (Milani 2013; Stephure et al. 2009). Apart from the influence of the Internet in
fostering intimate relationships among sexual minorities such as gays and lesbians,
it has been observed that online dating is also common in heterosexual relationships
especially among aging adults (McWilliams and Barrett 2014; Gonzaga 2011; Elder
et al. 2003). Computer mediated relationships are daily becoming more popular
because it gives people from different backgrounds the opportunity to mingle before
face-to-face interactions.
Scholars have acknowledged the influence of the Internet in the formation of
contemporary relationships (Adeagbo 2016; Rosenfeld and Thomas 2012; Merkle
and Richardson 2000). This channel of familial formation is likely to aid inti-
macy between gay men before their initial face-to-face interaction (Sautter et al.
2010; Madden and Lenhart 2006). Social scientists are beginning to investigate
how interpersonal and intimate relationships are formed in this inanimate social
context (Rosenfeld and Thomas 2010; Merkle and Richardson 2000). According
to Rheingold (1993: 3), “there’s no monolithic culture. It’s more like an ecosystem
of subcultures, some frivolous, others serious”. This implies that Internet contacts
could be a playground as well as an important channel for meeting a good friend
or a life partner. The following excerpts from the fieldwork attest to the influence of
the Internet on the construction of some participants’ intimate relationships:
Kadi (33 years old, non-South African black, Graduate):

I met my partner online through a friend. We had been chatting for three years
before we finally met. It was an on-and-off relationship then. We were just online
friends. Although he asked me out, but I didn’t give him a positive answer then
because I wasn’t sure of him. It has always been my dream to get married one
day as a gay man, but I was afraid of my homophobic environment. I have seen
his pictures and I knew what to expect. At a point, I agreed to his proposal and
we started dating until I came to South Africa and we are now married…It
wasn’t love at first sight. We were just internet friends and we graduated from
friends to a couple.
Acali (45 years old, white South African, Manager):

I was online, and I have heard a lot of bad things online. What attracted
me to him was his openness and honesty online and we moved from there to
blackberry chat. I was actually expecting sex talks and pictures from him, but
none came through. It was unusual for me and I decided to meet him in person.
I wouldn’t say it was love at first sight, but I was impressed with what I saw
and the connection between us that day. So, we took it from there…I never
thought about colour since I have been engaging in same-sex encounters and
relationships, what matter most is the personality of the person. We are just
two individuals in love.
Excerpts from the fieldwork reveal that some gay partners met their partners
through the Internet. Some of them met their partners at chat rooms and this marked
the beginning of their romantic relationships. Most studies on Internet interpersonal
contacts were conducted by linguistic and communication scholars (Milani 2013;
Merkle and Richardson 2000; December 1996) and this has not previously been sub-
jected to critical inquiry by family or gender scholars (Rosenfeld and Thomas 2010).
A computer mediated relationship (CMR) concept is adopted because it encapsulates
how some of the research participants formed their intimate relationships. Although
personal contact has been argued to be the most effective way of forming a romantic
relationship, the importance of Internet-relating prior to physical meeting of partners
cannot be disregarded (Adeagbo 2016; Rosenfeld and Thomas 2010). For example,
3.1 Interracial Gay Men Relationship Formation 41
one of the participants (Acali) in this study states that “…What attracted me to him
was his openness and honesty online and we moved from there to blackberry chat.”
This suggests that computer mediated communication provides room for the par-
ties relating to disclose personal and private information that they would not have
disclosed in face-to-face encounters (McWilliams and Barrett 2014; Rosenfeld and
Thomas 2012).
Mutual self-disclosure of people who met online has been observed to bring
greater satisfaction in forming intimate relationships (Rosenfeld and Thomas 2010;
Merkle and Richardson 2000). It is noteworthy that the understanding and acceptance
between people who met online could lead to a deep bond between them. According
to Levine (1992: 42), “on the way to the solace of being understood, and on the way
to the pleasure and privilege of hearing another person’s inner self, powerful emo-
tions can be generated in the listener and the speaker, especially the speaker…Within
both the speaker and the listener there is a feeling of attachment, a loss of the usual
social indifference, a vision of the person as special”. This implies that electronic
communication fosters closeness between people irrespective of their backgrounds,
race, ethnic group, class and geographical location (Levine 1992; Walther 1994). A
relationship of mutual understanding or trust and agreement can develop between
people through the Internet irrespective of their ethnicity, racial and cultural back-
grounds. Some writers contend that Internet dating is important to a sexual minority
group such as gays (Robnett and Feliciano 2011; Andersson et al. 2006; Carey 1996).
According to Carey (1996: 9), “for many GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgen-
dered] young people, communicating via e-mail and online is a lifesaver…” Thus,
the Internet increases people’s chances of meeting like-minded people. In Rhein-
gold’s (1993: 24) words “life will be happier for the online individual because the
people with whom one interacts most strongly will be selected more by commonality
of interests and goals than by accidents of proximity.” This implies that the Internet
aids positive interaction for people with common interests who have trouble connect-
ing with others during face-to-face contact irrespective of their sexual orientations
(Adeagbo 2016; Williams 1996; Rheingold 1993).
Furthermore, online dating has been observed to transcend the notable limitations
of face-to-face interactions (Rosenfeld and Thomas 2012; Wellman 2001). For exam-
ple, interracial intimate relationships (both heterosexual and same-sex) are increasing
due to the influence of the Internet contrary to what it used to be, because such a
relationship was suppressed by the socio-political contexts of the past that crimi-
nalised the mixing of different racial groups, particularly black and white (Adeagbo
2016; Milani 2013; Rosenfeld and Thomas 2010). This does not mean that Internet
dating does not have its own forms of racial segregation (Milani 2013). Studies have
shown that some people online often declare their racial preference of potential part-
ners (Robnett and Feliciano 2011; Hitsch et al. 2010; Hargittai 2007). However, the
Internet has made life easy for gays and lesbians facing dating markets, and this is
arguably due to the fact that the Internet provides safer and anonymous environments
for gay (Milani 2013; Rosenfeld and Thomas 2012; Brown et al. 2005). Openness
and anonymity that the Internet provides played an important role in bringing gay
men from different racial and cultural backgrounds together as couples.
3.2 The Division of Housework in Interracial Gay

Household
The division of housework is an important aspect of intimate relationships. This

suggests that two people living together as a couple need to share household chores,
such as dish-washing, laundry and cooking, yet one task facing intimate partners is
how to share housework evenly. Scholars, particularly family and feminist writers,
have been interested in how couples share housework and most of these studies
were conducted among heterosexual couples. Over the past decades, several studies
have shown equality in the division of household chores among same-sex couples,
while women do more housework in heterosexual unions (Öun 2013; Wong 2012;
Chesters 2012; Kurdek 2007; Shechory and Ziv 2007; Dunne 1997, 1998; Peplau and
Spalding 2000). Feminist scholars have regularly criticised heterosexual marriage
as being embedded in patriarchal relations. Men are represented as breadwinners
or key decision-makers in the home. Patriarchal relations in heterosexual marriage
often oblige women to do the domestic tasks in households irrespective of their
participation in the labour force and their economic independence (Adeagbo 2015;
Goldberg 2013; Naidoo et al. 2012; Pitt and Borland 2009; Kurdek 2007; Jepsen
and Jepsen 2002).
Furthermore, it has been argued that same-sex couples often combine their
resources to sustain their household, but they do not perform designated house-
hold tasks as opposite-sex couples do (Shechory and Ziv 2007; Jepsen and Jepsen
2006). This is because same-sex intimate relationships are arguably established on
the principle of equality, and partners tend to share domestic tasks equally irre-
spective of their personal resources, class and racial backgrounds (Adeagbo 2015;
Goldberg et al. 2012; Perlesz et al. 2010; Peplau and Fingerhut 2007; Kurdek 2006).
In Kurdek’s (2005: 252) words, “although members of gay and lesbian couples do
not divide household labour in a perfectly equal manner, they are more likely than
members of heterosexual couples to negotiate a balance between achieving a fair
distribution of household labour and accommodating the different interests, skills,
and work schedules of particular partners” (Kurdek 2005). Research has shown that
the division of household labour among same-sex partners depends on their individ-
ual schedules and skills and is not based on the traditional heteronormative gender
relations and roles of opposite-sex partners (Wong 2012; Lubbe 2007; Tasker 2002).
However, some positive changes have been observed in heterosexual partnerships
in terms of the traditional gendered division of household labour, and some women
now do less housework as their partners are sharing the responsibilities (Chesters
2012; Miller and Perlman 2009). For example, Amato et al. (2007) found that men
now do more housework than in the past. This is because romantic relationships that
promote power equity among partners often last longer than those that conform to
the traditional patriarchal model (Amato and Paul 2007). Similarly, the recent trend
of the increased participation of women in the labour force is signalling changes in
the roles of men and women in society, and women are more equal to men in terms
3.2 The Division of Housework in Interracial Gay Household 43
of income and the division of household labour (Chesters 2012; Shechory and Ziv
2007; Hook 2006; Fuwa 2004). The observed positive attitudinal change of some
men towards the division of household chores can be described as the ‘fluidity of
masculinity’ (Recio 2000) or ‘multiple masculinities’ (Connell 2000). Despite this
development, a majority of women still do more housework than men irrespective
of their financial independence (Goldberg 2013; Öun 2013; Naidoo et al. 2012).
Scholars from different academic backgrounds are arguing for egalitarianism in
the division of household tasks among couples because of its perceived impact on
intimate relationships (Chesters 2012; Kurdek 2007; Amato et al. 2007). Unequal
distribution of household tasks has been argued to impact negatively on relationships
in households, particularly when one partner (at least) desires equal sharing (Grote
and Clark 2001; Schwartz 1994). The traditional gender relations or socialisation
created inequalities between men and women in society and this was extended to their
intimate relationships thereby affecting the way they share household chores (West
and Zimmerman 2009). Since it is commonly contended that gender plays a vital role
in the division of household chores among heterosexual couples, this section explores
how gay partners share household chores since they are not subjected to gendered
societal norms that ascribe housework largely to women, with selected chores for
men. The following excerpts from the interviews revealed how gay partners share
household chores and their views:
Juke (37 years old, non-South African black, Businessman):

Everybody does what he can do at any time. He cooks like three times a week. I
also cook. We have a domestic worker, but I don’t want her to do our laundry. So,
I decided to be doing the laundry and ironing of our clothes. We cook together,
and it is more fun. I take the lion’s share of the household chores because I
have more free time than him…There is no division of labour. I do the house
chores if I am not working and he does the same if he is not working. There is
no particular job for anyone. Do according to your time and ability…Yes, our
job commitments impacted on the way we share household chores…
Cici (42 years old, white South African (Afrikaner), Consultant):

Division of labour is a big part of our relationship. I grew up with a lot of
servants working for my parents. It was very hard for me at first, but I learned
over time. He is the opposite because he grew up as a typical Indian who has
to do things himself. He does those things and I have learnt a lot from him over
time. There is a balance because there is an understanding. He wakes up early
in the morning to clean the house, but we often take turns in washing dishes.
He does more household chores than I do. It is also psychological because he
always finds something to clean when he comes back from work even if there
was nothing to clean. We do not have any problem with house chores because
we know our different backgrounds…our racial backgrounds have no impact
on the way we share household chores.
Dimetris (26 years old, Indian-South African, Entertainment Industry):

…I do the cooking and my partner (Acali) does other house chores. We actually
do the household chores together. We have a full-time maid and both of us
supervise her. We only do minor house chores and I do not think either of us
do more than the other person…We are equal in the way we run our household
and age does not matter. Although I tidy up and cook more, we do not have
division of labour. We do house chores together most time and I do not think
anybody specialises in any particular tasks.
The above excerpts from the interviews show that the participants do not base the
division of household chores on personal qualities and resources, such as income,
education, age and race. My personal observations of how some gay couples share
household tasks attest to what some of them said in the above excerpts. In fact, most
partners with higher income and status do more housework than their partners. For
example, Cici’s partner (Bizzy) is more financially well-off than him, but he chose
to do most of the household chores because he recognised that Cici was not used to
doing housework when growing up because of his wealthy background. The division
of household tasks among the researched gay couples has nothing to do with gender
roles, socio-economic status and power, instead, household tasks are shared based
on availability (time), preferences and strength (abilities). This can be regarded as
labour of love and does not equate to structured inequalities among the participants
in this study. These findings corroborate some of the past and recent findings that
support the view that gender plays no role in the division of household labour amongst
gay partners. Gay partners share household tasks based on availability, preferences,
abilities and practicalities (Shechory and Ziv 2007; Peplau and Fingerhut 2007;
Oerton 1997).There is no hierarchical division of gay couples into homemakers or
breadwinners since they are striving for equality in their relationships, and they try
not to imitate heterosexual relationships in how they run their households.
Furthermore, it is important to discuss the perceptions of the participants in this
study regarding equality in the division of household labour in spite of the fact that
some partners perform more household tasks than others. Past studies have exam-
ined the perception of fairness in the division of household labour among gay men
in intimate relationships. Some scholars argue that gay partners divide household
chores based on skills and interests, and they are likely to have permanent household
responsibilities (McWhirter and Mattison 1984). Similarly, Grote et al. (2002) argue
that perceptions of fairness in the division of household chores among couples are
associated with partners’ skills in performing those tasks. In my research, three fac-
tors, namely, time, preferences and abilities, are common and impacted on the way
3.2 The Division of Housework in Interracial Gay Household 45
the participants divide household chores. Due to their different racial backgrounds,
upbringing and commitments, gay partners take individual peculiarities into consid-
eration in the way they share household tasks. In spite of the fact that some partners
engage in more housework than others, they do not see this as inequality because their
partners often complement these jobs through their efforts in the larger household
functions.
However, the perception of fairness in the division of household labour does not
depict egalitarianism. Egalitarianism depicts symmetry in the division of housework
(Shechory and Ziv 2007). Reiterated, several studies have demonstrated that gay
partners often share household tasks based on skills and interests and they are more
likely to specialise in carrying out housework (Kurdek 2004; McWhirter and Mattison
1984). Also, it has been argued that gay partners are consistent in the sharing of
household tasks equally when compared to heterosexual partners (Kurdek 2007). It
is imperative to mention that perception of equity and fairness can only be studied
from the participants’ worldviews (Kurdek 2007; Rabin and Shapira-Berman 1997).
I would argue that the interracial gay men who participated in my research are more
liberal in the way they share housework. Although some of them like cooking or
doing household laundry, their areas of specialisation are not based on the traditional
gender roles prominent in heterosexual relationships; but on the skills and preferences
of individuals. In other words, one of the key findings of is that gendered hierarchical
dimensions in the division of household labour do not emerge and there is a perception
of fairness and equality in the way participants share household tasks. It is also
striking that the sexual orientation of two men in an intimate relationship often
influences their sense of equality in the relationship. Sexual orientation is a strong
predictor of equality in the division of housework among my participants and they
see themselves as one and equal irrespective of their races and socio-economic status.
3.3 Power Dynamics in Interracial Gay Partnerships
Several studies have been conducted on how power manifests in romantic relation-
ships but, it is still a contested area. Scholars have argued that modern society’s
conception of an ideal domestic relationship is one with power equality, but this is
far from being achieved because of traditional patriarchal ideologies that exist in
our world (Miller and Perlman 2009; Thornton and Young-DeMarco 2001; Veniegas
and Peplau 1997). Where one partner is dependent on the other, social power equips
one to influence the other while restraining any counteracting influence (Miller and
Perlman 2009; Huston 2002). It is also important to mention that the level of depen-
dency matters in exercising power in romantic relationships. It has been observed
that the partner that is less emotionally bound in a romantic relationship has more
power than the other partner (Sprecher and Felmlee 1997). The implication of this
is that a partner that is more dependent on the other relegates power and control
in the relationship (Gephart and Agnew 1997). Men have been argued to exercise
more power than women in romantic relationships irrespective of women’s socio-
economic status and independence (Goldberg 2013; Öun 2013; Miller and Perlman
2009; Fitch and Ruggles 2000). According to Pratto and Walker (2004: 242), “in no
known societies do women dominate men. In all societies that accumulate wealth,
men, on average, enjoy more power than women, and this appears to have been true
throughout human history” (Pratto and Walker 2004). This suggests that gendered
patterns dominate power relations in heterosexual relationships.
However, power equality appears to be one of the basic foundations of same-sex
intimate relationships. Past studies have demonstrated that gay and lesbian partners
tend to exercise equal power within the context of their relationships (Blumstein and
Schwartz 1983; Peplau and Cochran 1980). Similarly, previous studies also found
power equality to be one of the important features of same-sex intimate relationships
with lesbian partners in particular tending to exercise power more equally than male
gay partners (Peplau and Fingerhut 2007; Kurdek 2005, 2007). Peplau and Cochran’s
(1980) study reveals that 38% of gay men and 59% of lesbian couples reported power
equality in their relationships. Another study revealed that 68% of gay partners who
participated in their study claimed to share power equally in their relationships (Harry
and DeVall 1978). A similar study reveals that 59% of lesbian couples reported equity
in their relationships, particularly with regard to decision-making on household issues
(Reilly and Lynch 1990). In an interesting study on power in relationships, Walker
found more egalitarian power relationships among same-sex couples, particularly
gay men, in their use of remote control devices than opposite-sex couples where men
tend to control remote controls more by flicking through television channels without
the consent of their wives (Walker 1996).
Despite such findings, authors who draw on social exchange theory suggest that
partners with higher education, social status and income tend to have more power
in same-sex relationships. In other words, the individual with personal resources
accrues more power in the intimate relationship. Similarly, it has been argued that
older and richer partners have more power among gay couples (Stacey 2004; Harry
1984; Blumstein and Schwartz 1983). The exchange analysis of how power is exer-
cised in intimate relationships has sociological importance and this points to the
perceived intimate partners’ violence and power imbalances, particularly in het-
erosexual relationships. These issues hold considerable interest for social scientists
particularly feminist scholars (Osmond and Thorne 1993). If gender relations are
power relations and men are always dominant in such relationships, how is this incli-
nation mediated in a male-only partnership? Who, between interracial gay partners,
emerges as more ‘powerful’? Do racial and class-based hierarchies of the past enter
into and configure present-day interracial gay unions? The following excerpts were
drawn from the interview transcripts:
3.3 Power Dynamics in Interracial Gay Partnerships 47
George (24 years old, black South African, Graduate):

We both make decisions, but he makes most decisions about money because
he is more stressed about money. He makes decisions on where we want to
go, what and where we want to eat, what movies to watch and the rest. I do
not care about those things though…Maybe he has more power. I don’t know.
I will say yes because he earns more and makes most financial decisions. I
don’t really argue with him much on finances because he provides more…In
terms of negotiating power in that context, we recognise each other’s space
and we tend to complement each other when power negotiation arises in those
spaces. I think he exercises more power because he makes most decisions. He
will say some things and I will just say yes. He dictates what I wear at times if
we are going out together. He goes through my mobile phone every time…He
has more resources and he has more power in the relationship…I do not think
our racial backgrounds (He is a white man and I am a black man) impact on
the way we share power. It is more of resources. We compromise a lot in order
to balance power in our relationship…
Kadi (33 years old, non-South African black, Graduate)

…Although he provides almost everything for the household, he has never
given me a picture that he has more power than me. He does everything, and
power struggle has never been an issue. In fact, I know what he earns and the
bond he pays. He is not good at managing money, so he gave me his account
to manage. I do most of the management when it comes to finances in the
house. He makes the money, but I tell him how we use the remaining after bond
payments…Regarding how we negotiate power, I will answer the question in
the following ways. I respect my partner because he is older and provides more.
I allow him to bring ideas and we talk about those ideas. Sometimes I allow
him to be the boss, that is, I allow him to make final decisions on some issues.
I was not compelled to do it; I just wanted him to be in-charge…
Bizzy (47 years old, Indian South African, Employed):

We do not get into conflict because of power. If decisions were to be made and I
discovered my partner did not want to do it, I would say something with humour
that will appeal to his conscience. We always find mid-way to reconcile power
and decision-making process. For example, if I am looking at a situation with
emotions, he will look at it logically and vice versa. We make sure we reach an
agreement over personal and business issues.
Ellis (38 years old, white, Employed):

To me, income does not really play a role in power negotiation. Power in the
relationship!! This is complex. My personality is that of a person that likes to be
in-charge which easily becomes very tricky in power relations when the other
person does not have financial resources. For example, when you speak about
making holiday plans or to just go out for leisure activities, money becomes
an issue. How this gets negotiated depends on the person with the financial
resources…
From the above excerpts, power imbalances are evident amongst the gay couples
in spite of the fact that some gay partners tried to valorise their relationships. Scholars
are arguing for power equity in romantic relationships, particularly in heterosexual
relationships, due to the noticeable negative effect of power imbalances on intimate
relationships. According to Impett and Peplau (2006: 283) “…there is imbalance
of power, with one person making more decisions, controlling more of the joint
activities and resources, winning more arguments and, in general, being in a position
of dominance” (Impett and Peplau 2006). Power equity in heterosexual intimate
relationships has been observed not to be easy because of the traditional patriarchal
socialisation of men that conforms to social norm (Miller and Perlman 2009; Carli
1999). Men tend to earn more income and hold more top positions than women in
society (Naidoo et al. 2012; Pratto and Walker 2004; Harvey et al. 2002). Some
studies have shown how similar kinds of income differences can be linked to power
imbalances in gay partnerships (Peplau and Fingerhut 2007; Kurdek 2007). This is
because a partner with lower resources is likely to comply with the preferences of a
partner with substantially more resources. Evidence from the interviews conducted
suggests that gay partners negotiate power differently in their relationships. They
strive for equality and rationalise the imbalances in their relationships. It is imperative
to mention that while the gay couples strive for equality in terms of exercising power,
they are conscious of the impact of personal resources, such as income and race, on
their relationships.
Power has been a topic of interest among classical (e.g. Weber, Simmel, Marx)
and post-modern (e.g. Foucault, Bourdieu) social theorists. Social exchange theory
offers the possibility for complex understanding of power and connected experi-
ences. Such additional experiences, for example, include the equation of power with
personal resources and the alliance between power and dependence. Despite the
reported power equality among gay couples in my research, it was found that finan-
cial resources play an important role in how couples exercise and negotiate power in
their relationships. Partners with most resources often make final decisions in some
of the gay households studied but not without the consent of their partners. It would
seem therefore that ‘differential race’ and ‘being gay’ sustains a balance of power in
the relationship.
Although some research participants claimed that there is equality in the way they
negotiate power in their relationships, evidence from some of the interviews con-
3.3 Power Dynamics in Interracial Gay Partnerships 49
ducted reveals power imbalances in their relationships, and efforts to valorise their
relationships in order not to be seen as replicating the observed negative impact of
power imbalances in heterosexual relationships. A sizeable minority revealed contra-
dictions and tensions—a striving for equality but admission that in some instances one
partner has more resources and thus potentially more power. Thus, despite reported
instances of power equity, it is imperative to mention that personal resources such
as income play important roles in the decision-making process of the households.
Whether directly or indirectly, this study finds that age and income are important
factors that determine who makes the most decisions in gay relationships. Though
partners with lower resources have a sense of equality when making decisions on
household issues, they still allow their older partners with more resources to make
the final decisions. Having said this, some gay partners reported perfect power equity
in the way they run their households irrespective of their partners’ high income and
resources. Also, one gay partner (Ellis) with the most resources reported that it is
‘in his nature’ to always dominate his partners and this has nothing to do with his
personal resources, such as income. What is common among gay partners sampled
is the difference in income, and this does not equate to significant power imbal-
ances. Due to income and racial differences, couples perhaps try harder to show that
the relationship is equal. Thus, participants are conscious of race, class, and gender
issues and they seek to negotiate, subdue, and take these into consideration in their
daily activities.
3.4 Summary
This chapter has engaged with some of the important findings from the research
conducted to buttress some of the important concepts such as ‘relationship forma-
tion’, ‘division of labour’ and ‘power distribution’ in interracial gay relationships.
Generally, unlike heterosexual relationships where housework produces gender
dichotomy, there is no noticeable hierarchy gender relations in the way housework
is shared. It is based on individual skills, time and preference. Gay couples also
find love in both face-to-face and online spaces while power is negotiated equally,
however, partners with the most resources seem to make more decisions.
References
Adeagbo, O. (2015). ‘Do according to your time, preferences and abilities’: Exploring the division
of household labour among interracial gay partners in post-apartheid South Africa. South African
Review of Sociology, 46, 39–58.
Amato, P. R., Booth, A., Johnson, D. R., & Rogers, S. A. (2007). Alone together: How marriage in
America is changing. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Andersson, G., Noack, T., Seierstad, A., & Weedon-Fekjaer, H. (2006). The demographics of same-
sex marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography, 43, 79–98.
Barraket, J., & Henry-Waring, M. S. (2008). Getting it on (line): Sociological perspectives on
e-dating. Journal of Sociology, 44, 149–165.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brown, G., Maycock, B., & Burns, S. (2005). Your picture is your bait: Use and meaning of
cyberspace among gay men. Journal of sex research, 42, 63–73.
Carey, R. (1996). Betwixt and between: An organization’s relationship with online communications.
SIECUS Report, 25, 8–9.
Carli, L. L. (1999). Gender, interpersonal power, and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 55,
81–99.
Connell, R. W. (2000). Understanding men: Gender sociology and the New International Research
on Masculinities. Clark Lecture, University of Kansas Department of Sociology.
December, J. (1996). Units of analysis for Internet communication. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication (JCMC), 1, 143.
Dunne, G. A. (1997). Lesbian lifestyles: Women’s work and the politics of sexuality. Toronto:
University of Toronto Press.
Dunne, G. A. (1998). Introduction: Add sexuality and stir: Towards a broader understanding of the
gender dynamics of work and family life. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 2, 1–8.
Elder, G. H., Johnson, M. K., & Crosnoe, R. (2003). The emergence and development of life course
theory. In J. T. Mortimer & M. J. Shanahan (Eds.), Handbook of the life course. USA: Springer.
Fitch, C. A., & Ruggles, S. (2000). Historical trends in marriage formation: The United States
1850–1990. In L. J. Waite (Ed.), The ties that bind: Perspectives on marriage and cohabitation
(pp. 59–88). New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Fuwa, M. (2004). Macro-level gender inequality and the division of household labor in 22 countries.
American Sociological Review, 69, 751–767.
Gephart, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1997). Power strategies in romantic relationships. In American
Psychological Association Conference, Chicago, IL.
Goldberg, A. E. (2013). “Doing” and “Undoing” gender: The meaning and division of housework
in same-sex couples. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 5, 85–104.
Goldberg, A. E., Smith, J. Z., & Perry-Jenkins, M. (2012). The division of labor in lesbian, gay, and
heterosexual new adoptive parents. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 812–828.
Gonzaga, G. (2011). How you meet your spouse matters. Retrieved May 12, 2014.
Grote, N. K., & Clark, M. S. (2001). Perceiving unfairness in the family: Cause or consequence of
marital distress? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 281.
Grote, N. K., Naylor, K. E., & Clark, M. S. (2002). Perceiving the division of family work to be
unfair: Do social comparisons, enjoyment, and competence matter? Journal of Family Psychology,
16, 510–522.
Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 276–297.
Harry, J. (1984). Gay couples. New York: Praeger Publishers.
Harry, J., & DeVall, W. B. (1978). The social organization of gay males. New York: Praeger
Publishers.
Harvey, S. M., Beckman, L. J., Browner, C. H., & Sherman, C. A. (2002). Relationship power,
decision making, and sexual relations: An exploratory study with couples of Mexican origin.
Journal of Sex Research, 39, 284–291.
Hitsch, G. J., Hortaçsu, A., & Ariely, D. (2010). Matching and sorting in online dating. American
Economic Review, 100, 130–163.
Hook, J. L. (2006). Care in context: Men’s unpaid work in 20 countries, 1965–2003. American
Sociological Review, 71, 639–660.
References 51
Huston, T. L. (2002). Power. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berschied, A. Christensen, et al. (Eds.), Close

relationships. New York: Percheron Press.
Huston, M., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The relationships of lesbians and of gay men. In S. Duck & J.
Wood (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Impett, E. A., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). “His” and “her” relationships? A review of the empiri-
cal evidence. In A. L. Vangelisti & D. Perlman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of personal
relationships. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of the matching patterns of same-sex
and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39, 435–453.
Jepsen, C. A., & Jepsen, L. K. (2006). The sexual division of labor within households: Comparisons
of couples to roommates. Eastern Economic Journal, 32, 299–312.
Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual
married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900.
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 251–254.
Kurdek, L. A. (2006). Differences between partners from heterosexual, gay, and lesbian cohabiting
couples. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68, 509–528.
Kurdek, L. A. (2007). The allocation of household labor by partners in gay and lesbian couples.
Journal of Family Issues, 28, 132–148.
Levine, S. (1992). Clinical life: A clinicians guide. New York: Plenum Press.
Lubbe, C. (2007). Mothers, fathers or parents: Same-gendered families in South Africa. South
African Journal of Psychology, 37, 260–283.
Madden, M., & Lenhart, A. (2006). Online dating: Americans who are seeking romance use the
Internet to help them in their search, but there is still widespread public concern about the safety
of online dating. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
McWhirter, D. P., & Mattison, A. M. (1984). The male couple: How relationships develop. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McWilliams, S., & Barrett, A. E. (2014). Online dating in middle and later life: Gendered expecta-
tions and experiences. Journal of Family Issues, 35, 411–436.
Merkle, E. R., & Richardson, R. A. (2000). Digital dating and virtual relating: Conceptualizing
computer mediated romantic relationships. Family Relations, 49, 187–192.
Milani, T. M. (2013). Are ‘queers’ really ‘queer’? Language, identity and same-sex desire in a South
African online community. Discourse & Society, 24, 615–633.
Miller, S., & Perlman, D. (2009). Intimate relationship. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Black Swan.
Oerton, S. (1997). “Queer housewives?”: Some problems in theorising the division of domestic
labour in lesbian and gay households. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20, 421–430.
Osmond, M. W., & Thorne, B. (1993). Feminist theories: The social construction of gender in
families and society. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm & S. K. Steinmetz
(Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum.
Peplau, L. A., & Cochran, S. D. (1980). Sex differences in values concerning love relationships. In
Annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Montreal, Canada.
Peplau, L. A., & Spalding, L. R. (2000). The close relationships of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.
In C. Hendrick & S. S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Perlesz, A., Power, J., Brown, R., McNair, R., Schofield, M., Pitts, M., et al. (2010). Organising
work and home in same-sex parented families: Findings from the work love play study. Australian
and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 31, 374–391.
Pitt, R. N., & Borland, E. (2009). Bachelorhood and men’s attitudes about gender roles. The Journal
of Men’s Studies, 16, 140–158.
Pratto, F., & Walker, A. (2004). The bases of gendered power. In A. H. Eagly, A. E. Beall, & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of gender. New York: Guilford Press.
Rabin, C., & Shapira-Berman, O. (1997). Egalitarianism and marital happiness: Israeli wives and
husbands on a collision course? American Journal of Family Therapy, 25, 319–330.
Recio, E. M. (2000). A unified theory on homosexual identity. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.
Reilly, M. E., & Lynch, J. M. (1990). Power-sharing in lesbian partnerships. Journal of Homosex-
uality, 19, 1–30.
Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual communication: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Read-
ing: Addison-Wesley.
Robnett, B., & Feliciano, C. (2011). Patterns of racial-ethnic exclusion by internet daters. Social
Forces, 89, 807–828.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2010). How couples meet and stay together, Wave 2 version
2.04. In Machine Readable Data File. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. http://data.
stanford.edu/hcmst.
intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.
Sautter, J. M., Tippett, R. M., & Philip Morgan, S. (2010). The social demography of Internet dating
in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 91, 554–575.
Schwartz, P. (1994). Peer marriage: How love between equals really works. New York: Free Press.
Shechory, M., & Ziv, R. (2007). Relationships between gender role attitudes, role division, and
perception of equity among heterosexual, gay and lesbian couples. Sex Roles, 56, 629–638.
Sprecher, S., & Felmlee, D. (1997). The balance of power in romantic heterosexual couples over
time from “his” and “her” perspectives. Sex Roles, 37, 361–379.
Stacey, J. (2004). Cruising to familyland: Gay hypergamy and rainbow kinship. Current Sociology,
52, 181–197.
Stacey, J. (2005). The families of man: Gay male intimacy and kinship in a global metropolis. Signs:
Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 1911–1935.
Stacey, J. (2006). Gay parenthood and the decline of paternity as we knew it. Sexualities, 9, 27–55.
Stephure, R. J., Boon, S. D., MacKinnon, S. L., & Deveau, V. L. (2009). Internet initiated relation-
ships: Associations between age and involvement in online dating. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 14, 658–681.
Tasker, F. (2002). Lesbian and gay parenting. In A. Coyle & C. Kitzinger (Eds.), Lesbian and gay
psychology: New perspectives. London: Blackwell.
Thornton, A., & Young-DeMarco, L. (2001). Four decades of trends in attitudes toward family
issues in the United States: The 1960s through the 1990s. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63,
1009–1037.
Veniegas, R. C., & Peplau, L. A. (1997). Power and the quality of same-sex friendships. Psychology
of Women Quarterly, 21, 279–296.
Walker, A. J. (1996). Couples watching television: Gender, power, and the remote control. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 58, 813–823.
Walther, J. B. (1994). Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational commu-
nication in computer-mediated interaction. Human Communication Research, 20, 473–501.
Wellman, B. (2001). Physical place and cyberplace: The rise of personalized networking. Interna-
tional Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25, 227–252.
West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (2009). Accounting for doing gender. Gender & Society, 23,
112–122.
Williams, M. (1996). Intimacy and the Internet. Contemporary Sexuality, 30, 1–11.
Wong, D. (2012). Doing gender, doing culture: Division of domestic labour among lesbians in Hong
Kong. Women’s Studies International Forum, 35, 266–275. Elsevier.
Chapter 4
Social Support, Coping Strategies
and Conflict Management
Abstract This chapter addresses important themes that are often overlooked in
same-sex intimate relationships. The majority of the research participants enjoy sup-
port from family members and friends. Also, due to the prevalence of hate crimes in
the country, many of the participants have multiple identities and exhibit the one that
best fits into a social context at an appropriate point in time. This is one of their coping
strategies because society is still coming to terms with same-sex relationships. Some
of them also do not display their affections in public spaces or sometimes in the gay
community. However, couples adopt effective communication and humour as con-
flict resolution mechanisms. Overall, this chapter discusses social support, coping
strategies and conflict/conflict resolution mechanisms in interracial gay partnerships.
Keywords Social support · Homophobia · Coping strategies · Conflict

Resources
4.1 The Impact of Social Support on Interracial Gay Men

in Intimate Relationships
Social support is important to people in romantic relationships, particularly same-sex

couples (Van Zyl 2011; Macintosh et al. 2010). Social network or support structures
have been argued to be resources that enhance relationship quality and stability espe-
cially during hard times (Distelberg et al. 2014; Bhana and Bachoo 2011; Kurdek
2008; Bos et al. 2004; Elizur and Mintzer 2003). According to ‘network theory’, an
individual is influenced and studied within a social setting (Sjolander and Ahlstrom
2012; Campbell 2000). This implies that an individual is shaped and prompted within
a social context. Social support is important for both the physical and mental well-
being of individuals. It has been observed that a functional social support network
is understanding, empathetic, and centripetal (Distelberg et al. 2014; Sjolander and

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03922-6_4
54 4 Social Support, Coping Strategies and Conflict Management
Ahlstrom 2012). Social support is a multifarious phenomenon that can be analysed

from different scholarly angles. The definition of social support by Campbell (2000)
is instructive here. Campbell (2000: 6) defines social support as “the existence or
availability of people outside the couple who are perceived…as willing to offer emo-
tional, material, social, informational, and other resources in a manner that provides
needed assistance and that affirms the validity of the couple’s status as a couple.”
This definition suggests that social support networks include family, friends and
other associates. It is important to mention that family of origin here means imme-
diate family members.
Several studies have shown a positive association between relationship quality and
social support among heterosexual and same-sex couples (Batinić et al. 2009; Greeff
and Du Toit 2009; Rostosky et al. 2004; Elizur and Mintzer 2003). It is important to
note that gay partners do not often enjoy the kind of social support that heterosexual
couples have from immediate family members. Studies have shown that gay men
in intimate relationships that enjoy social support from family members or friends
report higher relationship quality and commitment than gay men that have no social
support from family members or friends (Distelberg et al. 2014; MacIntosh et al.
2010; Kurdek 2008). Research has also shown that gay men often rely on social
support from friends and associates, while heterosexual couples enjoy most support
from their families of origin (Rosenfeld and Thomas 2010; Peplau and Fingerhut
2007; Bos et al. 2004). This implies that heterosexual couples enjoy higher levels of
acceptance from family members for their socially sanctioned unions while gay male
partnerships seek support outside immediate family circles to establish a ‘family of
choice’ (Kurdek 2005; Rostosky et al. 2004). Reiterated, ‘family of choice’ is defined
as a support system that accepts gay partnerships and provides both material and
emotional support (Weston 1991).
Furthermore, Kurdek (2005) argues that partners and friends are the main sources
of support for gay male partners. Despite the social support enjoyed by gay male
partners from their friends, Smith and Brown (1997) suggest that social support from
family and friends have different impacts on gay partnerships. Their study revealed
higher relationship quality among gay couples that enjoyed both family members’
and friends’ support, while lower levels of relationship quality were reported by
gay couples that enjoyed friends’ support only. It should be mentioned that gay
men frequently face discrimination, and thus social support from family and friends
helps them cope with discrimination directed towards them based on their sexual
orientations and familial relations (Macintosh et al. 2010; Kurdek 2008; Patterson
2000; Smith and Brown 1997). According to MacIntosh et al. (2010), social support
from significant others, such as friends and family members, enhances the quality of
gay partners’ romantic relationships. The following section discusses the impact of
families of origin and friends’ support on gay partnerships in post-apartheid South
Africa.
4.1 The Impact of Social Support on Interracial Gay Men … 55
4.1.1 Social Support from Families of Origin and Friends

Gay partners generally have to contend with a heterosexist society and often isolation
from immediate family members upon disclosure of their sexual identity and intimate
relationships (Rostosky et al. 2004; Laird and Green 1996; Rich 1980). It is important
to reiterate that only a few studies, especially in Africa, have focused on the impact
of social support in same-sex intimate relationships (Van Zyl 2011; Badgett 2011;
Rostosky et al. 2004; Bos et al. 2004; Oswald 2002). Research has shown that gay
partners’ disclosure of their sexual identity and relationships to family members
(whether they accept it or not) has a positive impact on their relationships (Peplau and
Fingerhut 2007; Kurdek 2005; LaSala 2000). For instance, it has been demonstrated
that gay partner disclosure of identity and relationships to family members promotes
kinship ties and solidifies their relationships (Kurdek 2008; Haas and Stafford 1998).
In contrast, some scholars argue that there is no link between relationship success
and disclosure of identity and relationships (with gay partners) to families of origin
(Green et al. 1996).
Studies on family support reveal that social support from immediate family mem-
bers solidifies same-sex partnerships (Shieh 2010; Haas 2002; Oswald 2002). It is
therefore imperative to note that findings from different studies on same-sex relation-
ships’ quality and stability have demonstrated the importance of immediate family
members’ support for such relationships. It should be mentioned that not all fam-
ilies of origin accept gay identities and partnerships after disclosure, but evidence
in the literature suggests that ‘disclosure’ to families of origin has a powerful influ-
ence on gay men’s unions (Rostosky et al. 2004). Reiterated, studies have shown
that friends and partners are major providers of support for gay and lesbian romantic
partner (Green and Mitchell 2002; Herdt and Beeler 1998). This is because gay men’s
romantic relationships tend to receive less social support from family members when
compared to heterosexual couples (Macintosh et al. 2010; Jordan and Deluty 2000;
Smith and Brown 1997).
A study by Savin-Williams reveals that 10–15% of parents reject their lesbian/gay
child after disclosure of their sexual orientation and relationships (Savin-Williams
2001). Different scholars have argued that gay partners seek alternative social sup-
port from friends within the gay community, and this has a positive influence on their
partnerships (Kurdek 2005; Nardi 1982). Smith and Brown (1997) argue that gay
partners enjoy more (72.25%) support from friends than immediate family support
(28.61%). Similarly, Rosenfeld and Thomas (2010) found that most same-sex part-
ners enjoy social support from their friends, particularly those in the gay community.
This kind of surrogate family is described by Weston (1991) as a ‘family of choice’
and comprises friends and associates that recognise and respect gay partnerships.
There have been mixed feelings regarding the impact of immediate family mem-
bers’ support on relationship quality in same-sex intimate relationships. While some
gay partners value family support, others do not see it as a determinant of relationship
quality and satisfaction (Kurdek 2008; Peplau and Fingerhut 2007; Smith and Brown
1997). On the other hand, several studies have demonstrated that social support from
friends, associates and partners is an important element in gay and lesbian partner-
ships (Macintosh et al. 2010; Elizur and Mintzer 2003; Green 2000). Excerpts from
the fieldwork conducted on interracial gay partnerships in Johannesburg shed more
light on the debate on the impact of the support of friends and families of origin:

Family is very important in Africa and this goes beyond our immediate parents.
My immediate and extended family members know that I am gay, but they do not
want me to talk about my partner or bring him home. They can talk about my
brothers’ girlfriends, but I can’t talk about my boyfriend…It is certain that you
will lose some family members when you acknowledge your sexual orientation
and relationship publicly. I think my brother is one of such family members I
lost because of my sexual orientation…He was extremely masculine and the
favourite of the family. I was the black sheep of the family because I am gay.
I don’t have any of my family members’ support…Our relationship was like a
hidden game when we first started because we had nobody’s support. It was
a bit of a relief when his family members supported our relationship…I think
white families are more involved in their children’s relationships than black
families…
Kadi (33 years old, non-South African black, Graduate):

I did not tell my family members at all. They know my partner as my friend,
but they don’t know him as my partner. They only know that we live together as
friends and my partner communicates with them from time to time. My family
will never accept if I told them about my sexual orientation and relationship.
They strongly object to such act due to our religious background and culture. I
am not ready to tell them anytime soon…my partner’s family members support
our relationship and I am happy with that.
Cici (42 years old, white South African (Afrikaner), Consultant):

My siblings know about my relationship, but my parents do not. My mother is
ill, and I do not want to tell her now. I also do not want to scare my dad with my
sexual orientation. I am hiding it from them. I don’t just want to talk about it
because a straight guy will never say that “I am straight”. Why should I as a gay
man? It makes no difference to me. Whether my parents know or not, I am what
I am… My siblings (brother and sister) were shocked when I told them about
my relationship and that was surprising to me. I never told them I was gay. I
just told them I have a partner. My brother came to our place for dinner with
4.1 The Impact of Social Support on Interracial Gay Men … 57
his family and found out. He saw the way me and my partner were playing, and
he deduced his conclusion from there that I am gay. My brother was babbling
uncontrollably when he found out about my relationship although he did not
say any bad word. I am sure he was shocked…Telling my family members about
my sexual orientation and relationship gives me satisfaction although I enjoy
the most support from my partner and friends within the gay community.
Dimetris (26 years old, Indian South African, Entertainment Industry):

I have introduced my partner to my family members. I introduced him to my
mom within the first three months and I introduced him to the whole family
after six months and they loved him immediately…Both families recognised and
accepted our union and this gives me a sense of belonging and security in the
relationship…I am more committed to our relationship now. It is a good feeling
that we do not have to hide our relationship from our family members…We both
enjoy family support, and this makes me happy.
The above excerpts reveal gay partners’ experiences about the impact of families’
and friends’ support of their relationships in their social context. They reported that
some family members accept and support their relationships while others do not.
Some do not bother to tell their family members about their sexual orientation and
relationships because of fear of rejection. This is one of the main reasons why some
gay partners seek alternative support from friends, associates and partners’ families
where support from their immediate family members cannot be accessed. These
findings corroborate past studies findings on families of origin’s support of gay men
and lesbian women’s partnerships (Badgett 2011; Macintosh et al. 2010; Kurdek
2008; Rostosky et al. 2004; Bos et al. 2004). Some of the gay men enjoy social
support from friends and family members and this in turn impacts positively on
their intimate relationship. Some of them reported that social support from friends
or family members gives them a sense of security which influences their sense of
belonging and commitment to their relationships.
Furthermore, kinship ties are very important to some Black partners, particu-
larly black African partners, and where such support cannot be accessed, they seek
alternative support from friends, partners (as well as partners’ families) and the gay
community. As shown above, it is imperative to mention that white parents seem to
be more receptive to their sons’ sexual orientation and intimate relationships than
black parents. The majority of white family members involve and support their gay
sons’ relationships but not without initial discomfort. Despite the alternative support
they enjoy from friends and associates, gay partners that lack the support of families
of origin still wish their family members could understand their feelings and support
their relationships. Many of them reported that support from their family members,
particularly parents, would impact positively on their gay identity and relationships.
For example, as already mentioned, gay people continue to face hostility in

post-apartheid South Africa despite gay and lesbian’s constitutional rights being
entrenched in terms of the law. The support of family of origin is one of the important
coping strategies gay people adopt to secure their relationships, and this subse-
quently impacts positively on the quality of the relationships. Although this study
does not directly investigate the impact of social support on relationship quality,
most of the participants in this study who enjoy social support from their immediate
family members or their partners’ families reported that such support gives them
a sense of belonging and security in the relationship. These findings corroborate
Rosenfeld and Thomas’s (2012), Badgett’s (2011) and Jordan and Deluty’s (2000)
claims that social support from family members, the gay community, friends and
partners enhances a same-sex partner’s sense of belonging which directly impacts
positively on relationship commitment and quality. However, gay partners sought
support from friends and partners when the support of families of origin could
not be accessed, and this is because there is no traditional norm that includes gay
partnerships in the “fabric of family” (Beeler and DiProva 1999: 446). Exclusion
from family networks leads gay partners to kindle alternative networks and places
of acceptance (Beeler and DiProva 1999).
Reiterated, family acceptance and support remain important for gay partners in
post-apartheid South Africa. Although some participants reported that they do not
need family support, others spoke about the positive impact of family support in
their relationships. As previously mentioned, it seems white partners’ parents are
more receptive than their black counterparts. Despite the social support some of
these gay partners enjoy from their friends and partners’ family members, some
of them do not feel completely fulfilled in the relationship due to the rejection they
encountered from their immediate family members. Higher relationship commitment
and satisfaction were reported where both partners enjoy the support of their families
of origin. Therefore, the support of immediate family members and friends has a
constructive and positive influence on the gay, interracial union. Social support is an
important aspect of gay partnerships and it also reinforces the affective elements of
the intimate relationship. Despite the prevalence of homophobia in post-apartheid
South Africa, gay partners have forged ahead to construct enduring and resilient
relationships irrespective of their racial backgrounds. They seek love beyond colour
and are creating enduring family units. Where social support cannot be accessed from
families of origin, gay partners seek support from their ‘family of choice’ and this
is described as a “reciprocal flow of social support” (Oswald 2002: 381). Therefore,
it can be argued that social support from families of origin or ‘constituted’ families
has a positive impact on gay men’s identities and partnerships, irrespective of their
racial backgrounds.
4.2 Suppression of Identities and Non-public Displays of Affection (PDA) … 59
4.2 Suppression of Identities and Non-public Displays

of Affection (PDA): Resilience Strategies in Interracial
Gay Partnerships
Greater interracial mixing and acceptance of non-racial discourses in the contem-

porary world have enhanced the acceptance of interracial intimate relationships in
public spaces. This acceptance, however, is not without challenges. Previous studies
indicate an increase in interracial same-sex unions across the world (Savage 2012;
Rosenfeld and Thomas 2012; Rothblum et al. 2008; Melanie et al. 2008; Fine 2007;
Lockman 1984). South Africa takes the lead in Africa as the first country with a
progressive Constitution that promotes mixed-race romantic relationships as well as
same-sex unions (Jacobson et al. 2004; Ratele and Duncan 2003). The recognition
of gay rights in the post-apartheid South African Constitution ought to have given
people the freedom to express their sexualities without fear of persecution or discrim-
ination. Interracial gay partnerships are more visible in post-apartheid South Africa,
but many of these partnerships remain hidden (Van Zyl 2011; Fine 2007; Gevisser
and Cameron 1995).
Having probed the problems and difficulties of interracial gay partnerships, several
studies have also explored the suppression and invisibility of racial and sexual iden-
tities of interracial same-sex and heterosexual partners in public spaces. A scholar
argues that same-sex couples are often seen as friends and not as couples in public
spaces (Steinbugler 2005). Their sexuality is often invisible in public spaces com-
pared to the visibility of interracial opposite-sex partners that often attract physical
or verbal abuse. For instance, a black lesbian could be assaulted by men in public
spaces when she is with her white lesbian partner, if their sexualities are openly
displayed. Their sexual orientation would not seem to matter in public spaces if
they presented themselves as friends only. Thus, interracial same-sex couples often
maintain multiple identities in public spaces.
In her study of lesbian women in South Africa, Smuts (2011) argues that lesbian
partners have multiple identities and they tend to switch to any identity that best fits
into where they are at any point in time. Similarly, my study reveals that gay men
often exhibit multiple identities or suppress their ‘true identities’ in order to fit into
their immediate environment. The tendency to a shift of identities can be described
as adopting different kinds of ‘masculinities’ or ‘the fluidity of masculinity’ (Connell
2000; Recio 2000). Interracial gay partners constantly negotiate their identities in
their immediate environments, including in the gay community, where their identities
are strongly visible. This section discusses the two main coping strategies interracial
gay partners adopt to negotiate the open display of their sexual orientation, their
intimate relationships and racial backgrounds, in their everyday lives. These coping
strategies represent an identity-switch, suppression, and non-public display of affec-
tions (PDA). The following excerpts from the fieldwork describe the coping strategies
interracial gay partners adopt in public spaces including the gay community:
Bizzy (47 years old, Indian South African, Employed):

Resilience strategy is to be myself and try not to step on toes. I also select
areas that I go to particularly in townships. We do not hold hands outside
even in the gay community because we observe some people are not happy
with our relationship. It could be as a result of our different ethnicity or racial
backgrounds…
Timaya (35 years old, white South African, IT Specialist):

Our main resilience strategy is the understanding between us. We do under-
stand each other…We do not kiss or hold hands everywhere in public spaces. We
behave more as friends especially in heterosexual spaces than gay spaces…I
personally exhibit multiple identities in order to fit into any public space I
find myself. You can’t expect me to express my erotic feelings for men in a
heterosexual space. I can easily do this in the gay community but with cau-
tion because there is jealousy in gay community because some gay men often
think you snatched their future partner especially if you are in a mixed-race
relationship…
Peter (46 years old, black South African, Employed):

I feel like some gay people put their sexual orientation on peoples’ faces. They
forgot that society is still coming to terms with this. I also judge some gay
people for their behaviours in public spaces. We also judge each other in the
gay community…
Hill (28 years old, white South African, Employed):

I think one of the resilience strategies we adopt is by keeping our relationship
private. We keep our privacy intact. We do not throw our relationship in people’s
faces. So, no public display of affection (PDA).
From the above excerpts, it is evident that gay partners were regularly negotiating
their identities and social practices—as an unnoticed survival strategy to ensure that
they do not attract unnecessary negative responses or invite physical attacks. Thus,
most gay partners are often seen as friends in public spaces. Ross maintains that
interracial same-sex couples, such as gay couples, might be mistaken for non-intimate
4.2 Suppression of Identities and Non-public Displays of Affection (PDA) … 61
friends in public spaces because of the invisibility of their sexual identity (Ross
2002). Hiding their sexual identities might prevent harassment, but the participants
suggested that racial discrimination in the gay community is still a challenge they
have to contend with. This implies that the interracial gay partners face discrimination
just as interracial heterosexual couples do, and this leads to ongoing negotiation of
their different racial backgrounds in public spaces, and in the gay community, where
their identities are frequently visible. Lockman (1984) argues that discriminations
exist in both the gay and heterosexual communities. For example, Lockman found
that some people (particularly heterosexual black men) still believe that any black
man in a relationship with a white man is automatically marginalised because of the
past miscegenation laws that favoured whites over blacks in the United States.
Lockman’s (1984) findings seem to resonate with the current discrimination in
South Africa’s gay community. Similar to the United States’ case, as reported by
the participants and my personal observation, many South African black gay men
believe that some degree of marginalisation exists in interracial gay romantic rela-
tionships. This belief is premised on the idea that white superiority prevails in such
relationships due to the legacy of the country’s apartheid history. On the contrary,
race does not play any significant role in asserting power in gay intimate relationships
as earlier demonstrated. In fact, race keeps partners alert in their everyday activities.
An individual’s personality or personal attributes appear to be more important in the
quest for dominance in relationships, irrespective of racial backgrounds.
Furthermore, interracial gay partners’ Identity-switching also depends on the envi-
ronment in which they find themselves. The view that ‘place’ is important is supported
by Frankenberg’s (1993) concept of ‘racial social geography’, Connell’s (2000) idea
of different kinds of ‘masculinities’ and Recio’s (2000) notion of ‘fluidity’ in express-
ing one’s sexuality. Furthermore, it was argued that social environments are racially
and ethnically divided (Frankenberg 1993). Interracial same-sex partners express
their sexuality where they feel comfortable, and where there are more homosexual
people, and where they do not have to pretend to be heterosexual (Smuts 2011; Lasser
and Tharinger 2003; Johnson 2002). Another interesting point that came out is the
racial dislocation of interracial gay partners’ spaces. For example, the mixed-race
gay partners tend to feel free to express their emotions and enjoy their partnerships
in a place like Johannesburg CBD, but they are not totally free in a place like Soweto.
This is because as a historically black area, Soweto is not sufficiently heterogeneous,
and a white gay man could feel isolated in such a space. In fact, such a person could
be a topic of discussion and abuse. The central urban parameters of cities, like Johan-
nesburg and Cape Town, are comparatively more open, racially mixed and tolerant
of ‘non-conventional’ sexualities.
In sum, interracial gay partners often suppress or switch their identity as gay men
in order to avoid abuse and discriminations in their heterosexist environments. Also,
they have learned not to show their affections in public places including within the
gay community where their sexual orientation is visible. In her words, Steinbugler
(2005: 438) states that “racial difference, however, does not disappear within queer
spaces and must be negotiated by interracial partners.” This suggests that apart from
the discriminations interracial gay partners face in their heterosexist environments,
they still have to contend with ‘race’ that is linked to marginalisation (within the gay
community itself). Gay couples adopt strategies to cope with everyday stereotypes
and discriminations that permeate their immediate work and living environments.
4.3 Conflict and Conflict Resolution in Interracial Gay

Men’s Intimate Relationships
Traditionally, boys learn and grow up to be different types of men, irrespective of

their sexual orientations. According to Schwartzberg and Rosenberg (1995: 264),
men “whether [they are] sexually attracted to males, females, or both, [grow] up
influenced by powerful beliefs about how to be a man.” This implies that virtually
all men are channelled towards the socially prescribed masculine roles (Wester et al.
2005; Schwartzberg and Rosenberg 1995). However, not all men (e.g., some gay
men) follow the traditionally prescribed masculine roles in contemporary societies
(Wester et al. 2005; Connell 2000; Green et al. 1996). One could argue that some gay
men in intimate relationships have transcended the challenges of traditional gender
roles placed on them by society. However, research has shown that power balanc-
ing between two gay men could pose a challenge. According to Schwartzberg and
Rosenberg (1995: 265), “two gay men, each with a legacy of male independence and
an expectation of doing what he wants, may face particular obstacles in balancing
autonomy and intimacy and sustaining romantic relationships.” Many domestic con-
flicts and acts of intimate partner violence often occur in heterosexual relationships,
caused by power imbalances, because of normative gendered relationships.
It has been argued that men are likely to be more abusive in intimate relationships
and resort to violence as a way of resolving problems too easily (Brown 2008). It
is therefore imperative to examine how two men in intimate relationships manage
their egos and the patriarchal natures ascribed to them by society. Several studies
have shown that the use of power is associated with the occurrence of conflicts in
intimate relationships, and this depends on the partners irrespective of the gender and
sexual orientation of the persons involved (Balsam and Szymanski 2005; McLaugh-
lin and Rozee 2001). Power contestations are always present in heterosexual inti-
mate relationships and one would think that the absence of power differentials in
same-sex intimate relationships would mean peaceful relationships without conflicts
(Brown 2008).
It can be contended, however, that conflict is inevitable in interpersonal and inti-
mate relationships, whether these relationships are same-sex or heterosexual. Conflict
occurs when one’s goals or objectives interfere with another person’s goals and objec-
tives (Miller and Perlman 2009; Dal Cin et al. 2005). Conflict is inescapable in roman-
tic relationships (Baxter 2004). This is because conflict of interest always occurs in
our daily encounters due to social natures and increasing social pressures (Erbert
2000). Human wants are insatiable, and it is easy for conflict to occur where there
are opposing motives between partners. Conflicts occur between couples, friends
4.3 Conflict and Conflict Resolution in Interracial Gay Men’s … 63
and family members, just to mention a few. It has been argued that one of the factors
responsible for conflicts in heterosexual relationships is the patriarchal and hierarchi-
cal relationships that exist between men and women (Kurdek 2005). Since this is the
case in heterosexual relationships, one might assume that same-sex couples would
be better in managing conflicts because of the perceived similarities in their world.
Like heterosexual partners, gay partners experience conflicts in their romantic
relationships. Such conflicts could be as a result of differences in opinions, culture,
race and socio-economic backgrounds (Miller and Perlman 2009; Brown 2008; Otis
et al. 2006; Patterson 2000). According to Kurdek (2005), five factors that often cause
conflicts among gay partners are finances, affection/sex, hypercriticism, driving style
and division of household chores. Some authors argue that some conflicts are peculiar
to same-sex partners because of the societal attitudes towards homosexuality (James
and Murphy 1998). For example, conflict might occur when a gay couple differs on
the degree of self-disclosure appropriate and necessary to keep their relationship safe.
Frequent occurrences of conflicts impact negatively on intimate relationships if not
managed well (Miller and Perlman 2009). Money has also been identified as the main
source of conflict in romantic relationships (Miller and Perlman 2009; Stanley et al.
2002; Levenson et al. 1993). Several studies have shown that conflicts could turn to
abuse in intimate relationships (Brown 2008; Peterman and Dixon 2003). Conflict in
partnerships is a general problem that is experienced around the globe. For example,
intimate-partner violence is one of the main problems facing the marriage institu-
tion in the United States and this is common in heterosexual unions (Brown 2008).
According to Peterman and Dixon (2003), 25–30% of women in the United States are
likely to experience abuse in their intimate relationships. Similarly, intimate-partner
violence has also been observed among gay men in South Africa. Eight percent of
South African gay men have been found to experience physical violence, while 4.5%
experience sexual violence in their intimate relationships (Finneran et al. 2012).
Recent studies have shown the prevalence of conflict in same-sex relationships
(Finneran et al. 2012; Miller and Perlman 2009; Seelau et al. 2003; Balsam 2001;
McLaughlin and Rozee 2001). Finneran et al. (2012) and Peterman and Dixon’s
(2003) studies reveal that intimate partner conflict is common among gay men in
intimate relationships. There is limited literature on such conflict in gay men’s inti-
mate relationships and insufficient data, given the secrecy that surrounds this issue
(Stephenson et al. 2011; Brown 2008; Braitstein et al. 2006). Intimate-partner con-
flicts might be caused by but are not limited to the following factors: financial depen-
dency, power imbalances, and emotional or verbal abuse (Miller and Perlman 2009;
Kurdek 2005; Peterman and Dixon 2003; Elliott 1996; Walsh 1996). Stanley et al.
(2006) report that there are different levels of conflict. They suggest that unsettled
conflicts often escalate to serious violence or abuse in both heterosexual and same-sex
relationships (Stanley et al. 2006).
Most participants in my research generally experienced abuses in their past rela-
tionships. The following excerpts from the fieldwork reveal how the gay partners
described experiences of conflicts in their relationships:
Ellis (38 years old, non-South African white, Employed):

…Some of the conflicts were related to financial dependency and the fact that I
felt it was unhealthy. The power relations as well led to conflicts. For example,
I often feel remorse that I have to pay for everything and I feel I needed to
see more in return in terms of household chores…All these complexities led
to conflicts in the relationship… Things are getting better but I still have my
doubts about our future…
Juke (37 years old, non-South African black, Businessman):

…Yes, conflicts do occur. Our main cause of conflicts could be traced to our
different racial and cultural backgrounds. Sometimes the way I see things is
not the way he sees them, and this could cause conflict between us. We tend to
recognise this in our relationship and we settle our conflicts amicably without
any external mediation. We don’t get angry at the same time. I will leave the
environment if he is angry and come back when he is settled and happy. We
can then talk about the issue and end it…There is no relationship without a
conflict. We agreed not to sleep over issues. So, we try to resolve our conflicts
before we go to bed. We often talk about it and bring out each party’s fault and
agree on how to handle such situation in future. What is intriguing about my
partner is that he apologises whether he was wrong or not. I learnt how to say
sorry from him.

Conflicts do occur in our relationship. I think mistrust is the main cause of
conflicts in our relationship. I think he does not trust me, but I do trust him.
He thinks I am going to cheat. Although I have flirted with other gay guys
on phone and he caught me, I have not really cheated on him. So, he thinks I
am untrustworthy. There was a time I was stuck somewhere, and I was going
around downtown at night and it was dangerous for me. He kept calling me
and I told him that I will be late because it was late. He was angry when I got
home, and he asked if I was seeing someone else…I am not sure if we really sit
and settle conflicts. We will just fight and not talk to each other. After a while,
we will talk to each other and that is the end. We just carry on with life.
4.3 Conflict and Conflict Resolution in Interracial Gay Men’s … 65
Acali (45 years old, white South African, Manager):

We do have conflict in our relationship…I have received counselling before
and after my previous 17 years marriage ended due to conflicts. I needed to
receive counselling to cope with the situation. I received counselling to find a
better me and I am better now…I think the main cause of conflict in my current
relationship is miscommunication. I also think where those communications are
coming from also matters and a better understanding of the issue at hand. We
also take our experiences from previous relationships into consideration…We
adopt communication as a conflict resolution strategy. We talk about issues
and lighten it up so that we can move ahead in our relationship.
From the above excerpts, it is clear that different factors cause conflicts in gay
men’s intimate relationships. Finances (and dependencies), misunderstanding, mis-
trust and infidelity are some of the factors causing conflicts among research partici-
pants. Many studies have demonstrated that finances are likely to be the main cause
of conflicts in same-sex partnerships (Stephenson et al. 2011; Peterman and Dixon
2003; Elliot 1996; Walsh 1996). For example, Stephenson et al. (2011) argue that
finances represent a major instigator of conflict within gay men’s romantic relation-
ships. A study suggests that financial and educational equality is imperative in gay
intimate relationships because if one partner has the most resources, he would feel
more important and successful than his partner leading to tension in the long-term
(Blumstein and Schwartz 1983). There are other important factors as well: one could
argue that each couple has their own peculiar cause of conflicts in their relationship
and it is important for scholars to note these and consider their place among same-sex
partners. While the gay couples interviewed contend with conflict on an intermittent
basis, they maintain that they make every effort to transcend these difficulties.
Moreover, a study of conflict management among same-sex and heterosexual cou-
ples found that gay and lesbian couples are more likely to settle conflicts amicably
than heterosexual couples (Gottman et al. 2003). Similarly, another study found that
gay men are more likely to argue positively during conflicts and proffer possible
solutions than heterosexual partners (Kurdek 2004). The basis for this is linked to
the perceived equality in same-sex relationships (Gottman et al. 2003). Although
same-sex partners are likely to resolve conflict more positively than heterosexual
couples, heterosexual and same-sex couples tend to disagree over similar issues
(Kurdek 2005). Most interracial gay partners who participated in my research adopt
communication and humour as coping strategies to deal with conflicts in their rela-
tionships. This may be evident when dealing with conflict triggered by socio-cultural
differences, misunderstandings, and mistrust, just to mention a few.
Humour is defined as “the quality in something that makes it funny or amusing: the
ability to laugh at things that are amusing” (Hornsby 2001). A study of intermarriages
in South Africa reveals the importance of humour in managing conflicts in heterosex-
ual relationships (Adeagbo 2013). The study found that a stigmatised group, such as
Nigerian immigrant men, often adopt humour as a coping strategy in their marriages
to South African women in the midst of generalised anti-Nigerian immigrants’ sen-

timents in South Africa. Similarly, some of the interracial gay partners interviewed
often discuss and joke about their conflicts. Humour is less researched in sociology
and other disciplines as a coping strategy for stigmatised groups, and as a conflict
resolution mechanism in intimate relationships. This finding however adds to our
understanding of the importance of humour in intimate relationships.
While humour has been under-researched, communication has been widely cited
as one of the important ingredients of a peaceful relationship. It is widely believed
that communication plays an important role in the mediation of conflict in gay part-
nerships (Miller and Perlman 2009; Campbell 2000; Blumstein and Schwartz 1983).
Research has shown that communication can be a competitive enterprise amongst
gay men, where the powerful partner wins (Huston and Schwartz 1995). In the same
vein, it has also been observed that gay partners are often interested in winning an
argument instead of listening to each other in order to reach a collective agreement
(Steen and Schwartz 1995; Patterson and Schwartz 1994). Communication plays an
important role in conflict management in intimate relationships. Most of the gay cou-
ples interviewed seem to adopt a communicative style in their relationships. They talk
and joke about their disagreements instead of avoiding them. None of the participants
reported any case of abuse or violence in their current relationships.
It should be mentioned that competition during arguments between gay partners
could be harmful and should be avoided. Gay partners can resolve their conflicts by
listening to one another and communicating effectively (Miller and Perlman 2009;
Patterson and Schwartz 1994). Thus, communication remains a vital aspect amongst
the participants in my study. In their everyday dialogues, they are sensitive to their
different racial and cultural backgrounds, and focus on working around such dif-
ferences, making it a source of strength and energy, rather than an obstacle to a
meaningful relationship. Additionally, the role of communication and humour can-
not be discounted in gay relationships in the South African context where societal
stereotypes and discrimination against homosexuals is widespread.
While conflict in heterosexual intimate relationships has received extensive schol-
arly attention, conflict in gay partnerships is yet to receive the scholarly attention it
deserves. Many studies have demonstrated the negative impact of stigmatisation on
same-sex relationships, but only few investigated conflicts among same-sex partners
(Cramer 2003; Salovey et al. 1998; Eskridge 1996). Notwithstanding the fact that
the existing studies of gay intimate unions are limited in scope, they have begun to
boost our understanding of this important section of our population (Sonnekus 2013;
Ajibade 2013; Gottman et al. 2003; Andriote 1999). As shown above, gay men
in interracial intimate relationships adopt communication strategies and humour to
negotiate conflicts in their everyday lives within the context of their relationships.
They do so because they value the continuance of their partnerships.
4.4 Summary 67
4.4 Summary
Gay partnerships have some peculiarities in terms of the support they enjoy, coping
strategies adopted to keep their relationships intact, and important elements in main-
taining conflicts in their relationships. This chapter engages with important findings
that emerged from the fieldwork conducted on social support, conflict and conflict
resolution mechanisms, and coping strategies among interracial gay partners. It is
evident that gay partners that enjoy both (or one out of the two) families of origin’s
and friends’ support reported its positive impact on their relationships. Also, partici-
pants ‘identity-switches’, identity suppression, and ‘non-public displays of affection’
are coping strategies they adopt to contend with the noticeable discrimination in their
heterosexist environments and in the gay community. Finally, interracial gay partners
adopt effective communication and humour to deal with conflicts in their relation-
ships. The following Chap. 5 is a summary of the book and its theoretical contribution
to the debate about gay men’s intimate relationships.
References
Adeagbo, O. A. (2013). ‘We are not criminals, we are just victims of circumstances’: An exploration
of experiences of Nigerian immigrants’ men that married South African women in Johannesburg.
National Identities, 15, 277–296.
Ajibade, G. O. (2013). Same-sex relationships in yoruba culture and orature. Journal of Homosex-
uality, 60, 965–983.
Andriote, J.-M. (1999). Victory deferred: How AIDS changed gay life in America. Chicago: Uni-
versity of Chicago Press.
Balsam, K. F. (2001). Nowhere to hide: Lesbian battering, homophobia and minority stress. In E.
Kaschak (Ed.), Intimate betrayal: Intimate partner abuse in lesbian relationships. New York:
Haworth Press.
Balsam, K. F., & Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Relationship quality and domestic violence in women’s
same-sex relationships: The role of minority stress. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 258–269.
Batinić, B., Trajković, G., Duisin, D., & Nikolić-Balkoski, G. (2009). Life events and social support
in a 1-year preceding panic disorder. Psychiatria Danubina, 21, 33–40.
Beeler, J., & DiProva, V. (1999). Family adjustment following disclosure of homosexuality by a
member: Themes discerned in narrative accounts. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 25,
443–459.
Bhana, A., & Bachoo, S. (2011). The determinants of family resilience among families in low-and
middle-income contexts: A systematic literature review. South African Journal of Psychology,
41, 131–139.
Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1983). American couples. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Bos, H. M., Van Balen, F., & Van den Boom, D. C. (2004). Experience of parenthood, couple
relationship, social support, and child-rearing goals in planned lesbian mother families. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 755–764.
Braitstein, P., Asselin, J. J., Schilder, A., Miller, M.-L., Laliberté, N., Schechter, M. T., et al. (2006).
Sexual violence among two populations of men at high risk of HIV infection. AIDS Care, 18,
681–689.
Brown, C. (2008). Gender-role implications on same-sex intimate partner abuse. Journal of Family
Violence, 23, 457–462.
Campbell, K. M. (2000). Relationship characteristics, social support, masculine ideologies and
psychological functioning of gay men in couples. Alameda: California School of Professional
Psychology.
Connell, R. W. (2000). Understanding men: Gender sociology and the new international research
on masculinities. Clark Lecture, University of Kansas Department of Sociology.
Cramer, D. (2003). Facilitativeness, conflict, demand for approval, self-esteem, and satisfaction
with romantic relationships. The Journal of Psychology, 137, 85–98.
Dal Cin, S., Holmes, J. G., & Young, S. B. (2005). Goal compatibility and relationship outcomes:
It’s the little things that matter. New Orleans: The Society for Personality and Social Psychology.
Distelberg, B. J., Martin, A. S., & Borieux, M. (2014). A deeper look at the social support index:
A multi-dimensional assessment. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 42, 243–256.
Elizur, Y., & Mintzer, A. (2003). Gay males’ intimate relationship quality: The roles of attachment
security, gay identity, social support, and income. Personal Relationships, 10, 411–435.
Elliott, P. (1996). Shattering illusions: Same-sex domestic violence. In C. M. Renzetti & C. H. Miley
(Eds.), Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships. New York: Harrington Park Press.
Erbert, L. A. (2000). Conflict and dialectics: Perceptions of dialectical contradictions in marital
conflict. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17, 638–659.
Eskridge, W. N. (1996). The case for same-sex marriage: From sexual liberty to civilized commit-
ment. New York: Free Press.
Fine, D. (2007). Clouds move: My journey of living openly with HIV . Openly Positive Trust.
Finneran, C., Chard, A., Sineath, C., Sullivan, P., & Stephenson, R. (2012). Intimate partner violence
and social pressure among gay men in six countries. Western Journal of Emergency Medicine,
13, 260.
Frankenberg, R. (1993). The social construction of white women, whiteness race matters. Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Gevisser, M., & Cameron, E. (Eds.) (1995). Defiant desire: Gay and lesbian lives in South Africa.
New York: Routledge.
Gottman, J. M., Levenson, R. W., Swanson, C., Swanson, K., Tyson, R., & Yoshimoto, D. (2003).
Observing gay, lesbian and heterosexual couples’ relationships: Mathematical modeling of con-
flict interaction. Journal of Homosexuality, 45, 65–91.
Greeff, A. P., & Toit, C. D. (2009). Resilience in remarried families. The American Journal of
Family Therapy, 37, 114–126.
Green, R.-J. (2000). “Lesbians, gay men, and their parents”: A critique of LaSala and the prevailing
clinical wisdom. Family Process, 39, 257–266.
Green, R. J., & Mitchell, V. (2002). Gay and lesbian couples in therapy: Homophobia, relational
ambiguity, and social support. In A. Gurman & N. Jacobson (Eds.), Clinical handbook of couple
therapy. Guilford: New York.
Green, R., Bettinger, M., & Zacks, E. (1996). Are lesbian couples “fused” and gay male couples
“disengaged?” Questioning gender straightjackets. In J. Laird & R.-J. Green (Eds.), Lesbians and
gays in couples and families: A handbook for therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Haas, S. M. (2002). Social support as relationship maintenance in gay male couples coping with
HIV or AIDS. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 19, 87–111.
Haas, S. M., & Stafford, L. (1998). An initial examination of maintenance behaviors in gay and
lesbian relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15, 846–855.
Herdt, G., & J. Beeler. (1998). Older gay men and lesbians in families. In C. J. Patterson & A. R.
D’Augelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities in families: Psychological perspectives.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hornsby, A. (2001). Oxford advanced learners dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.
Huston, M., & Schwartz, P. (1995). The relationships of lesbians and of gay men. In S. Duck & J.
Wood (Eds.), Under-studied relationships: Off the beaten track. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
References 69
Jacobson, C. K., Amoateng, A. Y., & Heaton, T. B. (2004). Inter-racial marriages in South Africa.
Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 35, 443–458.
James, S. E., & Murphy, B. C. (1998). Gay and lesbian relationships in a changing social context.
In C. J. Patterson & A. R. D’Augelli (Eds.), Lesbian, gay and bisexual identities in families:
Psychological perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, C. (2002). Heteronormative citizenship and the politics of passing. Sexualities, 5, 317–336.
Jordan, K. M., & Deluty, R. H. (2000). Social support, coming out, and relationship satisfaction in
lesbian couples. Journal of Lesbian Studies, 4, 145–164.
Kurdek, L. A. (2004). Are gay and lesbian cohabiting couples really different from heterosexual
married couples? Journal of Marriage and Family, 66, 880–900.
Kurdek, L. A. (2005). What do we know about gay and lesbian couples? Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 14, 251–254.
Kurdek, L. A. (2008). A general model of relationship commitment: Evidence from same-sex
partners. Personal Relationships, 15, 391–405.
LaSala, M. C. (2000). Gay male couples: The importance of coming out and being out to parents.
Journal of Homosexuality, 39, 47–71.
Lasser, J., & Tharinger, D. (2003). Visibility management in school and beyond: A qualitative study
of gay, lesbian, bisexual youth. Journal of Adolescence, 26, 233–244.
Levenson, R. W., Carstensen, L. L., & Gottman, J. M. (1993). Long-term marriage: Age, gender,
and satisfaction. Psychology and Aging, 8, 301.
Lockman, P. T. (1984). Ebony and ivory: The interracial gay male couple. Lifestyles, 7, 44–55.
Macintosh, H., Reissing, E. D., & Andruff, H. (2010). Same-sex marriage in Canada: The impact
of legal marriage on the first cohort of gay and lesbian Canadians to wed. The Canadian Journal
of Human Sexuality, 19, 79.
McLaughlin, E. M., & Rozee, P. D. (2001). Knowledge about heterosexual versus lesbian batter-
ing among lesbians. In E. Kaschak (Ed.), Intimate betrayal: Intimate partner abuse in lesbian
relationships. New York: Haworth Press.
Melanie, J., Manion, A., & De Waal, S. (2008). To have and to hold: The making of same-sex
marriage in South Africa. Johannesburg: Jacana Media.
Miller, S., & Perlman, D. (2009). Intimate relationship. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Nardi, P. M. (1982). Alcohol treatment and the non-traditional. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Edu-
cation, 27, 83–89.
Oswald, R. F. (2002). Inclusion and belonging in the family rituals of gay and lesbian people.
Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 428.
Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and relationship quality in
same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23(1), 81–99.
Patterson, C. J. (2000). Family relationships of lesbians and gay men. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 62, 1052–1069.
Patterson, D. G., & Schwartz, P. (1994). The social construction of conflict in intimate same-sex
couples. In D. D. Cahn (Ed.), Conflict in personal relationships. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Peterman, L. M., & Dixon, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence between same-sex partners: Implica-
tions for Counseling. Journal of Counseling & Development, 81, 40–47.
Ratele, K., & Duncan, N. (2003). Social psychology: Identities and relationships. Cape Town:
University of Cape Town Press.
Recio, E. M. (2000). A unified theory on homosexual identity. Philadelphia, PA: Drexel University.
Rosenfeld, M. J., & Thomas, R. J. (2010). How couples meet and stay together, Wave 2 version 2.04.
In Machine readable data file. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Libraries. http://data.stanford.
edu/hcmst.
intermediary. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 523–547.
Ross, J. (2002). The sexualization of difference: A comparison of mixed-race and same-gender
marriage. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 37, 255.
Rostosky, S. S., Korfhage, B. A., Duhigg, J. M., Stern, A. J., Bennett, L., & Riggle, E. D. (2004).
Same-sex couple perceptions of family support: A consensual qualitative study. Family Process,
43, 43–57.
Rothblum, E. D., Balsam, K. F., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Comparison of same-sex couples who
were married in Massachusetts, had domestic partnerships in California, or had civil unions in
Vermont. Journal of Family Issues, 29, 48–78.
Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory heterosexuality and lesbian existence. Signs, 5, 631–660.
Salovey, P., Rothman, A. J., & Rodin, J. (1998). Social psychology and health behavior. In D. T.
Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Savage, D. (2012). Same-sex couples likelier to be interracial/interethnic. http://www.thestranger.
com/slog/archives/2012/04/27/same-sex-couples-%09likelier-to-%09be-interracialinterethnic&
view=comments Accessed 15th Jan 2018.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (2001). Mom, dad. I’m gay. How families negotiate coming out. Washington,
DC, USA: American Psychological Association.
Schwartzberg, S., & Rosenberg, L. G. (1995). Being gay and being male: Psychotherapy with gay
and bisexual men. In W. S. Pollack & R. F. Levant (Eds.), New psychotherapy for men. New York:
Wiley.
Seelau, E. P., Seelau, S. M., & Poorman, P. B. (2003). Gender and role-based perceptions of domestic
abuse: Does sexual orientation matter? Behavioral Sciences & The Law, 21, 199–214.
Shieh, W.-Y. (2010). Gay and lesbian couple relationship commitment in Taiwan: A preliminary
study. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 1334–1354.
Sjolander, C., & Ahlstrom, G. (2012). The meaning and validation of social support networks for
close family of persons with advanced cancer. BMC Nursing, 11, 17.
Smith, R. B., & Brown, R. A. (1997). The impact of social support on gay male couples. Journal
of Homosexuality, 33, 39–61.
Smuts, L. (2011). Coming out as a lesbian in Johannesburg, South Africa: Considering intersecting
identities and social spaces. South African Review of Sociology, 42, 23–40.
Stanley, S. M., Markman, H. J., & Whitton, S. W. (2002). Communication, conflict, and commit-
ment: Insights on the foundations of relationship success from a national survey. Family Process,
41, 659–675.
Stanley, J. L., Bartholomew, K., Taylor, T., Oram, D., & Landolt, M. (2006). Intimate violence in
male same-sex relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 31–41.
Steen, S., & Schwartz, P. (1995). Communication, gender, and power: Homosexual couples as a case
study. In M. A. Fitzpatrick & A. L. Vangelisti (Eds.), Explaining family interactions. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Steinbugler, A. C. (2005). Visibility as privilege and danger: Heterosexual and same-sex interracial
intimacy in the 21st century. Sexualities, 8, 425–443.
Stephenson, R., de Voux, A., & Sullivan, P. S. (2011). Intimate partner violence and sexual risk-
taking among men who have sex with men in South Africa. Western Journal of Emergency
Medicine, 12, 343.
Van Zyl, M. (2011). Are same-Sex marriages UnAfrican? Same-sex relationships and belonging in
Walsh, F. (1996). Partner abuse. In D. Davies & C. Neal (Eds.), Pink therapy: A guide for counsellors
and therapists working with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. Philadelphia, PA: Open University
Press.
Wester, S. R., Pionke, D. R., & Vogel, D. L. (2005). Male gender role conflict, gay men, and same-sex
romantic relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 195.
Weston, K. (1991). Families we choose: Lesbians, gay men and kinship. New York: Columbia
University Press.
Chapter 5
Conclusion: Contributions,
Recommendations and Future Research
Areas
Abstract The research that led to the birth of this book was motivated by the need
to explore and build insights into an under-researched area in family studies (par-
ticularly in Africa), viz. gay intimate unions and the construction and dynamics
of gay households and familial relations. Given South Africa’s racist past and the
challenges of its democratic, non-racial, non-sexist democratic present, this book
established how interracial gay partners engage in decision-making, negotiations,
and work through the division of labour in their current partnerships. A study of
this nature has not been conducted before in South Africa, and as such the research
fills a gap and invites new research in this field. Through the review of the liter-
ature, current discourses on gay partnerships in post-apartheid South Africa and
elsewhere have been identified. The inconsistencies in these discussions reveal the
complexities shaping discourses on race, sexuality and class in same-sex intimate
relationships. The question of racial identity and ‘personal resources’ and how they
influence the relationship is addressed in this book, as well as the way resilience
strategies are drawn upon to sustain and keep intact the partnership. This chapter
gives an overview of the book, a summary of the findings on gay partnerships, the
theoretical contributions as well as recommendations and future research areas.
Keywords Theorising gender · Gay research · Race · Sexuality · Class
5.1 Summary of the Empirical and Theoretical

Contributions
The past few decades have witnessed the implementation of different laws and
policies affecting same-sex unions and families in South Africa. Despite the notable
progress in terms of constitutional changes and legalisation of same-sex partnerships
around the world (including South Africa), little is known about the dynamics of
same-sex familial arrangements and domestic settings (Baiocco et al. 2014; Eskridge
2011; Badgett 2011; Ramais 2010; Balsam et al. 2008). South Africa has made
considerable progress towards building a truly non-racial and non-sexist state since

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03922-6_5
72 5 Conclusion: Contributions, Recommendations …
it became a democratic state in 1994, but the hesitancy of many citizens to fully
accept the equal rights of homosexuals, despite these rights being entrenched in
the legislations, remains a challenge for the government (Makofane 2013; Van Zyl
2011). For example, the ongoing hate crimes, such as physical abuse and correc-
tional rape directed at gays and lesbians in some South African townships reveals
the societal attitudes towards homosexual people. This is based on the belief that
same-sex intimate relationship is un-African and that homosexuals, particularly gays
and lesbians, should be eradicated from the African social order (McAllister 2013).
Despite the discrimination and attacks against gays and lesbians in post-apartheid
South Africa, they have continued to exercise their constitutional rights by forming
enduring romantic relationships that transcend race, sexuality and class.
Situated in the above context, this book explored the familial arrangements and
domestic settings of interracial gay partners in post-apartheid South Africa. It was
found that gay men are constructing and creating families and seeking strategies to
sustain these relationships through managing household relations equitably, negoti-
ating differences, mediating conflict, and drawing on social support. In the course of
the fieldwork, it was learnt that some gay men met their partners online, and that they
successfully built meaningful intimate partnerships thereafter. This type of platform
(online dating) for romantic relationship formation is yet to be fully researched by
family scholars including sociologists. Many of the participants met their partners
through face-to-face interactions and through social media. At the same time, evi-
dence emanating from the research suggests that computer mediated relationships
enhance relationship formation among people, especially sexual minorities such as
gays. By this is meant that the men in the study were able to share important details
about themselves, their preferences, tastes, and identities, and find compatible part-
ners who suited their romantic interests, irrespective of race, class or nationality.
From the interviews conducted, it emerged that unlike the prevalence of inequal-
ity in the division of labour in heterosexual unions, gay partners are likely to share
household tasks equally or equitably where a sense of fairness prevails, and tasks
are allocated in terms of who is available, what skills are entailed, and what the
preferences of the individual partners are. Ironically, the latter factors also account
for the observed inequities in the division of housework amongst the participants.
However, whilst the sharing is not symmetrical, this does not equate to the prevalence
of inequalities as is the case in the gendered division of housework among hetero-
sexual couples. Participants do not see their engagements in more housework as a
problem because their partners often complement them in other aspects of household
management. In other words, it is deemed to be a shared responsibility intrinsic to
the intimate union and the men’s views on equality in the partnership generally.
In reviewing the empirical work, social exchange theory seems to hold consider-
able relevance to understanding the way gay partners interact, run their households
and invest in their relationships. However, it is argued that only selected resources
play a vital role. In contrast to the contentions of various social exchange theorists,
personal resources such as income and race, do not impact the way participants in
this study divide household chores. In other words, a high salary of one partner, does
not necessarily lead to exemption from chores or expectations that the lower-earning
5.1 Summary of the Empirical and Theoretical Contributions 73
partner will do ‘the lion’s share’. On the issue of race, there are no expectations that
one’s racial identity invites more (or fewer) chores. The partners made concerted
efforts to assure the researcher that racial difference was part of the attraction in the
initiation of the intimate union, but beyond that has no ‘household currency’.
In line with the views of social exchange theorists, participants’ personal
resources, such as income and age, do indeed influence the decision-making pro-
cess and power negotiations in the relationships studied. It is apparent that older gay
partners with the most resources often make the final decisions on household issues
but with the consent of their partners who may have fewer resources. Although at
a superficial level it appears to be similar to modern-day, patriarchal, heterosexual
relationships, it could be argued that they are far less authoritative—and efforts are
made to ‘balance’ power relations more regularly. Thus, despite the perceived differ-
ences in the exercising of power among participants, they are likely to share power
and make important decisions together and equally. Therefore, this book contributes
to knowledge and enhances nuanced understandings of gay men’s sharing of power
within their homes and with their intimate partners.
Furthermore, interracial gay partners adopt communication and humour as coping
strategies for conflict management within the context of their relationships. Their
relationships are not free of conflict, and some of the men have experienced violence
and abuse in their previous relationships. These past experiences have influenced
their attitudes towards conflict resolution, keeping them aware of sources of tension
in their households and the necessity for immediate mediation.
In this regard, this book contributes to the existing literature in this area of fam-
ily studies particularly family sociology. Family scholars are concerned with the
gendered division of labour and how it is changing in heterosexual unions, given
women’s inclusion into the workforce (Öun 2013; Chesters 2012). They are addi-
tionally concerned with work-family balance—and new areas of interest have opened
up ideas about love and affect and how it shapes couple’s attachments to their unions
and desire for particular familial arrangements and strategies (Naidoo et al. 2012).
New areas of work on monogamy, serial monogamy and multiple unions in Africa
have emerged and most of these have focused on heterosexual unions. This study
shifts the lens towards homosexual, specifically gay men’s unions, and thus opens
up a hidden and marginalised sector of the South African population. Gay men have
similar desires for close intimate bonds and stable households—and adopt numerous
resilience strategies to ensure that these relationships remain intact. This contradicts
the general stereotype that gay men are anti-family and averse to monogamy.
It is evident that discriminated or persecuted groups, globally, tend to develop
insulated lifestyles and thus intense bonding and close-knit networking. As the per-
ception of external hostility persists and insecurity deepens, affected groups create
boundaries inhibiting outsiders from entering into their space. Thus, it was observed
that the participants continued to remain guarded in public, refraining from display-
ing their affections because of the fear of homophobia and negative responses from
people they might encounter. Therefore, some of them draw on multiple identities
or suppress their own preferred identities in order to fit into their heterosexist envi-
ronment.
Central to this study’s argument and linked in some way to social exchange is
the idea of the value of ‘social support’ in intimate relationships. Most participants
seek support from friends and partners’ families when such support is inaccessible
from their immediate family members. There is higher relationship satisfaction and
quality where gay partners have the support of both of the men’s families of origin.
It is also apparent that white parents were more accepting and supportive of their
son’s gay relationships than black parents, particularly black African parents.
Finally, interracial relationships represent a huge area of interest, not only in
South Africa, but internationally, given a rapidly diversifying global context. Family
life is changing as people marry outside of cultural, racial or ethnic groups and
incorporate new lifestyles. Statistics South Africa (2010) reveals marriage statistics
which show that interracial marriages in South Africa have a poor track record and
frequently end in dissolution. It is imperative to mention that participants in my
research are conscious of the impact of their different racial backgrounds on their
relationships. Rather than this posing difficulty, it keeps them alert to the possibility
that misunderstandings could arise due to their different socio-cultural backgrounds.
They thus work harder at sustaining equitable relations and a ‘sense of fairness’.
Thus, ‘racial difference’ is a resource that furthers equality in their daily activities,
particularly where partners with the most resources are white, because they do not
want to be seen as discriminatory and thus reproduce hierarchical relations resonant
of the apartheid past.
5.2 Limitations of the Book
Researchers are like the proverbial blind men investigating different parts of the ele-
phant. The blind man examining the trunk cannot understand the tail like the blind
man examining the tail and vice versa. This proverb can be said to be true about
intimate relationship studies because debates and worldviews about gender relations
are often dependent on the researchers’ methodological and conceptual viewpoints
(McHugh 2005). It is important to note that interracial heterosexual partners were
left out of the study because the focus was exclusively on same-sex relationships,
specifically gay men. It would be beneficial for future studies on same-sex inti-
mate relationships in South Africa to explore lesbian partners/families. Comparative
studies exploring opposite-sex and gay families might also prove informative. Two
methodological limitations can also be highlighted.
The study was conducted in Johannesburg, a city arguably more receptive to
diversity and change than many other cities in Gauteng and generally in South Africa.
Similar studies in future might benefit from drawing on social networks of gay people
in other cities as well. A larger sample of geographically dispersed participants
should illuminate a mosaic of social pressures emanating from the different city
environments that gays may have to contend with, and which inevitably affect their
relationships. Another methodological issue is that related to the inherent constraints
of qualitative work. Whilst qualitative studies add insight and understanding, their
5.2 Limitations of the Book 75
findings cannot lend themselves to general claims. It is imperative to mention that

the themes identified in the research cannot be generalised on how gay intimate
relationships should be perceived. However, such intimate relationships exist, and
their worldviews are of great importance and are detailed in this book.
5.3 Recommendations and Future Research Areas
Gay men are forming enduring romantic relationships amidst South Africa’s het-
erosexist society. These relationships are being formed irrespective of the racial and
religious backgrounds of such gay men. This trend is explained by the fact that such
unions are recognised in the post-apartheid South African Constitution. Despite this
development, some interesting things emerge when one studies current issues in the
South African gay community. What follows are personal reflections on some recur-
ring and curious issues during my field research and that therefore warrant further
research.
5.3.1 White Sugar Daddies and Black Cheese Boys
The concept of ‘sugar daddies’ popped up in discussions that I had with my partici-
pants and the gay associations that I joined during the period of the research that was
presented in this book. This theme emerged in almost every discussion and I could
see that it is a serious issue in the South African gay community. It would be interest-
ing to interrogate this apparent reality amongst gay men. Anecdotal evidence reveals
that there is a prevalence of “white sugar daddies” and what are referred to as “black
cheese boys” in the gay community. Some of my participants complained about this
‘trend’ when asked open-ended questions about the future of gays in South Africa. I
also observed that many older white gay men often date much younger Black men,
particularly young black African men. The majority of gay people of all races who
I met during this study raised concerns about what young men could possibly gain
from such relationships, because according to them, the chances of those young men
negotiating power with those white sugar daddies is slim. One of my white partic-
ipants gave an example of a young black man (24 years old) living in a penthouse
with a 68-year-old rich white man. He reported that this is a common phenomenon
among gays and he wondered how power negotiation and equity will be feasible in
such relationships. Many gay men I spoke to frowned upon these types of liaisons and
mentioned that personal wealth and resources of those older white men represented
the major determinants of such relationships. My participants suggested that abuse
is high in such relationships because those involved do not have equal power in the
relationships. In this era of high HIV/AIDS prevalence, such relationship could pose
a serious challenge as the young person with lower resources might not be able to
negotiate safe sex.
The concept of sugar daddies in the gay community re-emphasises and replicates
the patriarchal gender relations that are found in heterosexual unions. This is against
the mantra of gayness which is ‘equality’ among partners. I think it is important
for family scholars particularly, family sociologists to explore this area of research
because not much has been documented about it in the South African context. Thus, it
remains imperative to investigate how personal resources and age differences might
subject young men to abusive interracial relationships. The implicit stereotype is that
young black men in relationships with old white men are doing it for money while
the white sugar daddies continue to exploit them for sexual pleasures.
5.3.2 White Afrikaner Gay Men and Black Gay Men
The roots of apartheid appear to resonate in the post-apartheid South African gay
community. Though separation between white Afrikaner gay men and black gay men
during apartheid was recorded by scholars (Sonnekus 2013), the current separation
between different racial groups in post-apartheid South Africa is worth investigating.
Sonnekus (2013) observed that Black gay men, particularly black African gay men,
were discriminated against during apartheid by their white counterparts. He argued
that different names such as ‘faggots’ were used to identify black gay males. Gay
Afrikaner men tended to engage in relationships mainly with other gay Afrikaner
men during the apartheid period, and this separation seems to be extended to post-
apartheid South Africa. What accounts for this continuing restricted association is
not fully clear. One of the visible distinctions between white Afrikaner gay men
and black African gay men is the way these two groups interact physically and on
the Internet. Several discussions with my research participants and personal online
observations of different gay dating sites reflect separation between these two groups.
For example, people used discriminatory terminologies such as “no black fats”, “only
whites” and “only black ass” on different individual profiles to show their preference
for specific racial partners. It is also important to mention that some pubs and bars are
restricted to white gay men while others are meant for black gay men. For example,
my personal observation of the 2012 Johannesburg ‘Gay Pride’ is instructive here.
During the 2012 Johannesburg ‘Gay Pride’, a lot of white people camped inside the
Zoo Lake area while most black people were outside.
These informally delineated areas further underscore the apartheid-era notion of
group areas and separateness between these two groups. While it could be suggested
that some white Afrikaner gay men still hold on to racist ideologies, some Black
gay men also do not want to associate themselves with who they might consider to
be their previous oppressors. Most of the participants reported that some black gay
men still believe that any black man in an intimate relationship with a white man
continues to represent and suffer the exploitation and marginalisation of apartheid
because there cannot be equality in such a relationship. I also learnt from the fieldwork
that the majority of existing interracial relationships are either between white South
African gay men and coloured men, Indian men or other (foreign) black Africans, or
between foreign white gay men and black South Africans, Indian men or other black
5.3 Recommendations and Future Research Areas 77
Africans. This is not to deny the existence of romantic relationships between white
and black South Africans despite the country’s history of racial segregation. Some
white Afrikaner gay men (that I met during fieldwork) confided in me that as much
as they do not want to be in intimate relationships with black gay men, they would
not mind having casual sexual intercourse with them. From the fieldwork, I observed
that the integration between Indians, whites, coloureds and ‘other’ Africans is deeper
and stronger compared to white-black African South African relationships.
5.3.3 Black African Gay Men and Indian Gay Men
Another interesting theme that emerged from the fieldwork is what I perceive to be
the social distance between Indian gay men and black African gay men. It seems to
me that black African and Indian gay men do not engage in romantic relationships
in any visible way. In fact, I did not see these two groups together throughout my
study nor could I find partnerships to interview. Upon probing, I learnt that Indian
gay men tend to stick with fellow Indian gay men or other racial or ethnic groups.
The main cause of the separation between these two groups is unclear even amongst
the gay participants themselves. I asked my Indian and black African participants
to talk about this but none of the participants could give me any useful explanation.
However, it does seem that this is an inadvertent practice and could be as a result
of the cultural differences between the two groups. It is also important to stress that
although I did not come across any Indian-Black African South African gay partners,
this does not mean that such relationships do not exist.
5.3.4 Good on Paper, Weak in Action: Progressive South

African Legal Framework on Gay Rights
The South African government impressed the world by including gay rights in its
post-apartheid Constitution. The then South African Deputy President Phumzile
Mlambo-Ngcuka signed the Civil Union Act 2006 on 29 November 2006 making
gay marriages legal in the country. This is one of the developments that makes
South Africa one of the countries in the world with an extraordinarily progressive
Constitution. South Africa became the first in Africa and fifth in the world after
Canada, Belgium, Spain, and the Netherlands to legalise gay marriages. Following
this development, South Africans witnessed the first gay marriage on December 1,
2006 at the Home Affairs building in George, Western Cape Province. Despite such
legislature and policy, gay men still face all forms of discriminations ranging from
verbal to physical abuse in their everyday lives. Furthermore, gay men in interracial
partnerships might be viewed as even more ‘deviant’ and at odds with the norm both
by heterosexuals and by sectors of the gay community as well.
It could be contended in reviewing legal frameworks, that gay rights are good
on paper but weak in action in post-apartheid South Africa. The major difference
between South Africa and other countries is that the Constitution is perhaps posi-
tioned far ahead of society’s value systems and ethos. In other words, the South
African Constitution is impressive regarding same-sex intimate relationships, but the
level of societal acceptance is poor. The continuous attacks on gay men and lesbians
in some townships and locations in South Africa underscores this fact. Therefore, it
makes sense to presume that any form of discrimination (whether physical or verbal)
affects same-sex couples drastically (Otis et al. 2006; Mays et al. 1993). For exam-
ple, lesbians’ correctional rape has now become common, and government is yet to
assertively tackle this problem. The perpetrators continue to engage in this act with
impunity. Some of the participants in my study reported to have experienced at least
verbal abuse due to their sexual orientation. I have also been verbally abused on a
number of occasions when I tried to defend same-sex intimate relationships in a pub-
lic forum. It is evident to me that people still think of homosexuals as ‘sick people’
that need to be cured of their sicknesses. Thus, to emphasise the point, despite the
inclusion of gay rights in the Constitution, South African society still holds views
that gayness and the concomitant intimate partnerships and households are abnor-
mal and un-African. What is disappointing is that the South African government is
not doing enough to curb attacks on homosexuals, both gay men and lesbians. In the
absence of state intervention, there is a dire need for NGOs and public intellectuals to
educate South Africans about what homosexuality means, about sexual orientations,
and about people’s rights to express their sexualities without the fear of violence or
prejudice.
Paradoxically, while South Africa is often represented as unsafe for gay men and
women, it is simultaneously viewed as a safe haven for homosexuals, particularly
gays and lesbians, from other African countries. This is because gay people have
substantially more rights in South Africa than in other African countries. This is
a great achievement despite the pervasiveness of homophobia in the country. For
example, some gay men who participated in the study are from other African countries
where same-sex relationships are outlawed. Some participants from other African
countries informed me that there are “hundreds of gay men” from other African
countries that live in South Africa. South Africa is a safe haven for some of them
because they can live relatively freely compared to when they were in their home
countries. Some of them are forming enduring relationships with their partners who
are known or unknown to their immediate family members back home.
In bringing the discussions in this book to its conclusion, a few final comments
are in order. Despite South Africa’s divisive and segregationist history, gay men in
South Africa are forming lasting romantic relationships that transcend race, ethnicity
and class. As shown in this book, there have been improvements in interpersonal
relationships in the gay community over the years and the future of gay groups appears
to be bright provided the constitutional rights of same-sex groups are protected in
theory and in practice. In studying these developments, family scholars, particularly
family sociologists ought to renew their theoretical tools and ensure in particular that
they never lose sight of the fact that family life and the structuring of households is
diverse, complex, and caters for more than the normative or heterosexual.
References 79
References
Baiocco, R., Argalia, M., & Laghi, F. (2014). The desire to marry and attitudes toward same-sex
family legalization in a sample of Italian lesbians and gay men. Journal of Family Issues, 35,
181–200.
Balsam, K. F., Beauchaine, T. P., Rothblum, E. D., & Solomon, S. E. (2008). Three-year follow-up
of same-sex couples who had civil unions in Vermont, same-sex couples not in civil unions, and
heterosexual married couples. Developmental Psychology, 44, 102.
Eskridge, W. N. (2011). Six myths that confuse the marriage equality debate. Valparaiso University
Law Review, 46, 103.
Makofane, K. (2013). Unspoken facts: A history of homosexualities in Africa. Culture, Health &
Sexuality: An International Journal for Research, Intervention and Care, 15, 114–116.
Mays, V. M., Cochran, S. D., & Rhue, S. (1993). The impact of perceived discriminitation on the
intimate relationships of black lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 25, 1–14.
McAllister, J. (2013). Tswanarising global gayness: The ‘unAfrican’argument, Western gay media
imagery, local responses and gay culture in Botswana. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 15, 88–101.
McHugh, M. C. (2005). Understanding gender and intimate partner abuse. Sex Roles, 52, 717–724.
Black Swan.
Otis, M. D., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D., & Hamrin, R. (2006). Stress and relationship quality in
same-sex couples. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 23, 81–99.
Ramais, C. M. (2010). Til death do you part… and this time we mean it: Denial of access to divorce
for same-sex couples. University of Illinois Law Review, p. 1013.
StatsSA, Statistics South Africa. (2010). Marriages and divorces report. Pretoria, South Africa:
Statistics South Africa.
Van Zyl, M. (2011). Are same-sex marriages UnAfrican? Same-sex relationships and belonging in

Adeagbo, Oluwafemi - Dynamics and Complexities of Interracial Gay Families in South Africa - A New Frontier - Gay Relationships in South Africa

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Adeagbo, Oluwafemi - Dynamics and Complexities of Interracial Gay Families in South Africa - A New Frontier - Gay Relationships in South Africa

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN SOCIOLOGY

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/10410

ISSN 2212-6368 ISSN 2212-6376 (electronic)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018960744

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Johannesburg, South Africa Oluwafemi Adeagbo

My profound gratitude goes to my mentor and academic partner, Prof. Kammila

1 Same-Sex Intimacy in South Africa: An Introduction . . . . . . . . . ... 1

3 Relationship Formation, Division of Housework and Power

Keywords Same-sex history · South Africa · Race · Sociology · Sexuality

1.1 The Concept of Race in South Africa: A Brief

However, Helms (1990: 3) defines race as “a sub-group of people possessing a

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 1

1.2 From Antiquity to the Contemporary: Exploring

A description of the dominant discourses and theorising on gay male intimate

1.3 Discourses on Homosexuality and Same-Sex Intimate

1.4 Racial and Same-Sex Relationships in South Africa

continue to negotiate their racial identities in their everyday lives in post-apartheid

1.5 Interracial Gay Partnerships: South African ‘Rainbow

Table 1.1 South African same-sex union statistics (2007–2011)

Luchsinger, G. (2000) Out in Africa. Ms. Magazine, p. 24.

Keywords Families · Masculinity · Interracial relationships · Gay family · Gender

2.1 Diversity in Families: Traditional Concept of Family

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 17

intimate relationships can be seen as a threat to the development of children because

2.1.1 Masculinity and Men’s Roles in Heterosexual Family

2.1.2 Gay Men and Hegemonic Masculinity

der relations in heterosexual relationships, while “the intriguing question of gender

2.2 Interracial Gay Partnership Profiles

and secondary education in the coloured area before he moved to Johannesburg

Most research on families often focuses on heterosexual households because

Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. St. Leonards, Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Abstract Having engaged with the historical contextualisation of same-sex rela-

Keywords Gender roles · Power · Housework · Relationship formation

3.1 Interracial Gay Men Relationship Formation

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 37

3.1.1 Face-to-Face Relationships: From Casual Partnerships

Previous studies have demonstrated the importance of the formation of romantic

Mikasa (23 years old, black South African, Graduate):

Cici (42 years old, White South African, Consultant):

3.1.2 From Computer Mediated Relationships

Kadi (33 years old, non-South African black, Graduate):

Acali (45 years old, white South African, Manager):

3.2 The Division of Housework in Interracial Gay

The division of housework is an important aspect of intimate relationships. This

Juke (37 years old, non-South African black, Businessman):

Cici (42 years old, white South African (Afrikaner), Consultant):

Dimetris (26 years old, Indian-South African, Entertainment Industry):

3.3 Power Dynamics in Interracial Gay Partnerships

George (24 years old, black South African, Graduate):

Kadi (33 years old, non-South African black, Graduate)

Bizzy (47 years old, Indian South African, Employed):

Ellis (38 years old, white, Employed):

Huston, T. L. (2002). Power. In H. H. Kelley, E. Berschied, A. Christensen, et al. (Eds.), Close

Keywords Social support · Homophobia · Coping strategies · Conflict

4.1 The Impact of Social Support on Interracial Gay Men

Social support is important to people in romantic relationships, particularly same-sex

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019 53

Ahlstrom 2012). Social support is a multifarious phenomenon that can be analysed

4.1.1 Social Support from Families of Origin and Friends

George (24 years old, black South African, Graduate):

Kadi (33 years old, non-South African black, Graduate):

Cici (42 years old, white South African (Afrikaner), Consultant):