Why Me?
Perception of Early Relationships
Most theorists agree that, whatever the cause of homosexuality, its development begins early. long before a child is able to actively choose or reject it. Since a child’s parents are the most significant people in his life, his perception of them and of his relationship with them will profoundly influence his emotional development.
Your home was the first place you learned about relationships, and the lessons you learned there have influenced and still influence the way you relate to everyone. I’m sure that’s why God places such importance on the family, setting it apart as sacred and vital. Within our homes we learn about marriage, friendship, brotherhood, and intimacy. We learn from what we see and experience, and we assume that what we are learning at home will hold true throughout life.
The family unit is also the first place you learned about yourself. You learned how valuable you were or were not from your family. You developed ideas about your “loveableness” from the responses you got at home. There you were taught, directly or indirectly, how important you, your feelings, and your opinions were and are.
That’s because, as a child, you naturally assumed that your parents were godlike — all-powerful, all-wise, and always right. After all, they were the big people, the ones in charge, and you were the dependent, limited child. So what they thought of you, you came to think of yourself. Your identity has been learned with the help of people who taught you, through your interaction with them, about yourself. Identity is not something we just come into on our own. Outside influences shape our sense of who we are.
You can see this in the Genesis account of Creation. Adam didn’t just wake up one day and decide, “Oh, I guess I’m the first created human. Nice garden I’ve got there; I think I’ll keep the place up. And that lovely lady must be my wife, so I’ll mate with her and we’ll populate the planet.” No, he learned who he was, what was expected of him, and how much he was worth from God. It was God who taught him his purpose in life, and it was God who, through constant care and provision, gave him a sense of identity.
Christians are also subject to this. When we’re converted we begin to relearn our identity. Much of the Bible, especially the New Testament, teaches us who we are, why we are, and how important we are in God’s sight. We, like Adam and the newborn child, learn our identity through another, higher source.
But we don’t learn this exclusively through verbal teaching. It’s not just our parents’ words that we consider and take to heart; it’s also their responses to us that teach us about ourselves. These are “messages” — nonverbal but clear communications between parent and child. They come in the form of a look, a touch, a tone of voice, even the amount of time they spend with us. Each of these sends us a message — not just about our parents but about ourselves. If a parent sends a child affirming messages through affection and attention, the child learns that he is safe and important because the parents say so. Likewise, when negative, hurtful messages are sent from parent to child, the child learns that he is not wanted, not valuable, unacceptable. Remember, the child has little confidence in his own insights, so he trusts his parents’ judgment in these matters. “If Mom or Dad doesn’t like me,” he reasons, “then the problem is with me, not them. They know best; what they say goes.” Remember, too, that the messages they send can be misinterpreted by the child.
An early perception of rejection or indifference from the parent of the same sex can be seen in the backgrounds of many homosexually oriented adults. In his book Male Homosexuality, Dr. Richard Friedman cites 13 independent studies from 1959 to 1981 on the early family lives of homosexuals. Out of these 13, all but one concluded that, in the early parent-child interactions of adult homosexuals, the subject’s relationship with the parent of the same sex was unsatisfactory, ranging from a distant, nonintimate relationship to an outright hostile one. Most of the studies also indicated problems between the subjects and their parents of the opposite sex, but those problems were secondary in most cases.
These studies, by the way, were not conducted only with patients seeking professional help for their homosexuality. Studies by Evans (1969), Apperson and McAdoo (1968), Snortum (1969), Thompson (1973), Stephan (1973), Saghir and Robins (1973), and Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith (1981) were all performed with nonclinical subjects — people who were not undergoing psychotherapy and were not necessarily in distress over their homosexuality. Even these groups acknowledged that early in life something had gone wrong.
Friedman, who does not approach the subject of homosexuality from a Christian perspective and is, in fact, highly sympathetic to the gay rights movement, concludes, “The weight of evidence discussed here seems therefore to implicate a pattern of family interactions in the development of homosexual men.” Later he reiterates the point by saying, “An emotionally secure, non-traumatic, warm and supportive pattern has not been documented to occur with any frequency in the backgrounds of homosexual men.”
As early as 1941, W.D. Fairbain presented similar ideas:
Frustration of his desire to be loved and to have his love accepted is the greatest trauma that a child can experience. Where relationships with outer objects (i.e. parents) are unsatisfactory, we also encounter such phenomena as… homosexuality and [these] phenomena should be regarded as attempts to salvage natural emotional relationships which have broken down.
Does this mean that a faulty relationship with parents creates homosexuality? Not necessarily. Many heterosexuals have come from families that were highly dysfunctional. Many boys have been raised by unloving and even cruel fathers whose mistreatment didn’t cause their sons to turn to other men for sex. Problems between parent and child do not necessarily cause homosexuality. And yet the fact remains that these problems existed in the family backgrounds of most homosexually inclined adults. Why?
First, let’s remember that sin manifests itself in any number of ways, yet sin is still the root problem. So a boy who is unloved by his father will develop some type of problem later in his life. Drugs, violent behavior, or antisocial tendencies might all be traced back to this root. Homosexuality is only one way of many possible manifestations of poor family relationships.
But let me take this point even further. Perhaps it’s not what actually happened between you and your parents that contributed to your homosexuality. Instead, it was the way you perceived your relationship with them and the way you emotionally responded to that perception. (This may explain why your sexual development took a different turn from your brother’s or sister’s. You responded in one way; they responded in another.)
Perception and response are the two key words here. In all relationships, we perceive the other party as having a certain attitude toward us, and we respond to the other party according to our own perception of their attitude. If we think sombody likes us, whether they really do or not, we will feel comfortable with him and probably want his friendship. Likewise, if we perceive someone else as being unfriendly and rejecting, we will tend to avoid him.
Haven’t you seen this principle at work in your social life? Remember the times you have wanted to get to know someone, only to feel, because of the way he looked at you or because of his tone of voice, that he wanted nothing to do with you? No doubt you responded to your perception by saying, “Who needs him anyway?” or by feeling hurt and rejected. Later you may have found that you completely misunderstood him. You may have learned he was just in a bad mood when you met him, or that he’s rather shy at first and doesn’t warm up until he gets to know a person better. In those cases, you found that your initial perception was wrong and that you had responded to a misconception.
Likewise in your early years you may have had parents who loved and highly valued you, but for some reason the communication of that love got blurred. You may have perceived your father to be disinterested in you, when in fact he cared very much about every part of your life. Still, you didn’t respond emotionally to what really was — only to what you thought was reality.
In both cases, whether your same-sex parent actually rejected you or whether you simply perceived that rejection, you responded emotionally to what you saw or perceived. And that emotional response was probably the beginning of strong, unfulfilled needs, contributing to erotic same-sex attractions.
Emotional Responses to Early Perceptions
The response to an early perception of rejection may take three forms, all of which can contribute to homosexuality: problems of gender identity, an idealized image, or same-sex deficits.
1. Problems of gender identity. Your gender identity is your basic sense or perception of your masculinity or femininity. Money and Ehrhardt describe it as “the private experience of gender role, and gender role is the public expression of gender identity.” Your gender role is the role your culture expects you to play as a man or woman, so of course it varies from culture to culture. Your gender identity is determined by your confidence in that role. Since our society places a high premium on gender roles, your ability or inability to fulfill them seriously affects your general well-being.
Gender Identity Disorder is a clinical term describing a serious conflict between a person’s assigned gender (male or female) and his desired gender. This disorder may show itself in transsexualism, or the desire of a man to actually be a woman, and vice versa. But Gender Identity Disorder is a far cry from homosexuality and is not commonly found among homosexually oriented adults.
But Dr. Friedman points out that feelings of being unmasculine or unfeminine are common among such adults. He proposes that unmasculinity, for example, is not necessarily femininity, but a lack of confidence in a boy’s/man’s own ability to fulfill the masculine role. This unmasculine or unfeminine experience, which I consider to be a problem of gender identity rather than a Gender Identity Disorder, has been noted by a number of investigators. Ten studies cited by Friedman, conducted between 1962 and 1984, have turned up the same results: a link between problems of gender identity and adult homosexuality (Friedman, 1988).
For example in 1981 Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith interviewed 979 homosexual men and 477 heterosexual men to determine which developmental ingredients may affect sexual orientation. Among their findings was evidence that “gender nonconformity” (their term) was closely linked to homosexuality:
Even among non-effeminate homosexual men this Dislike of Boys Activities is the strongest predictor of Adult Homosexuality. While their nonconformity may not have been so obvious either when they were growing up or in adulthood, it would appear that where they thought they stood on a masculine-feminine continuum when they were young was predictive of their eventual sexual orientation (Bell, Weinberg, and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference: Its Development in Men and Women, 1981).
How does this problem of gender identity come about? Like homosexuality, it is not inborn, but acquired through interactions, perceptions and responses. A secure masculine or feminine identity usually develops through bonding with an older figure of the same sex, usually the father or mother and emulating that older figure.
As mentioned earlier, the child views the parent as “right”; that is, if the parent seems to reject the child, the child assume it’s his fault, not the parent’s. This can undermine a child’s confidence not only as a person but also as a boy or girl. Problems of gender identity, then, begin with the child’s belief that he is unacceptable to the parent of his sex, and therefore unacceptable to all members of his sex. This robs him of confidence to fulfil his gender role, having felt no invitation to emulate and identify with his father or she with her mother, leading to acute feelings of unmasculinity or unfemininity.
These feelings are confirmed during later development. After all, confidence with peers is largely determined by confidence at home. So if a boy feels ill-equipped to deal with other boys through traditional masculine activities, he will be inclined to avoid those activities, which disrupts his abilities to bond with other boys, which reinforces his belief that he is unmasculine.
2. Idealized image. It’s not uncommon for children to idealize their parents; in fact, it’s uncommon for them not to. After all, Daddy looks pretty big and powerful to a little boy, and Mommy looks beautiful and competent to a little girl. Children naturally want to be like thier same-sex parents, at least for a time, They see them as powerful, wise, and ideal.
Normal development allows for a gradual disappointment in our parents. If you’re a parent you know that, sooner or later, you’re going to blow it. You cannot possibly be the perfect mom or dad your kids want you to be. So eventually, to some degree, they will be disappointed in you just as, to some degree, you have been disappointed in your own parents.
That is actually good for us, because through disappointment we become more realistic and mature. We learn through this disappointment to accept people’s limitations. And so a child’s ideal image of his father or mother gradually changes to a more realistic viewpoint. As he grows, he is able to see his parents’ imperfections, but since he is growing emotionally as well as physically, he can handle the knowledge that they are not perfect. That is basic process: As we grow, biologically and emotionally, we learn to accept hard realities like death, injustice, and our parents’ imperfections. The more we mature, the better able we are to let go of our early idealism.
At times, through, this process is aborted by early trauma. If a child is shocked by a sudden rejection from a parent or a parent’s early disappearnace, he might not have the capacity to handle the loss. Instead of gradually relinquishing the ideal image he had of his father, he may cling to it, hoping to someday find it again in somebody else.
3. Same-sex deficits. There is a period of life, usually between early childhood and preadolescence, during which we almost exclusively seek out members of our own sex. Boys cluster with boys, and girls cling to each other. Sometimes kids express an almost-lighthearted contempt for each other. Little boys think girls are “weird”; the girls think the little boys have “cooties.” That’s normal, even necessary. Our identity as male or female is solidified when we bond with our own gender. Only when our need for bonding with the same sex has been fulfilled can we move on to relationships with the opposite sex.
During this period I believe there are three kinds of relationships with our own sex that we especially need: a nurturer, a mentor, and a comrade.
Our same-sex nurturer will usually be our parent of the same sex. This parent welcomes us to bond with him, making us feel comfortable and accepted in his presence. Our relationship with him is marked by physical affection, play, and intimate caring. He delights in us, giving us a sense of specialness. As we become secure in his love, we develop an early conviction that we’re okay as males or females, perfectly acceptable and lovable to our same-sex nurturer and therefore to other members of our own sex.
Our same-sex mentor may also be a parent, or perhaps an instructor, coach, music teacher, older child, or any adult figure who takes a special interest in us. Through our mentor we are gradually initiated into our gender role. No matter what technical role our mentor plays (teacher, coach, big brother, etc.) our relationship with him increases our confidence with members of our sex outside of our family. His relationship is less nurturing and more instructional. He expects more out of us than our nurturer and challenges us to further develop our masculinity. He provides us with a sort of “rite of passage.”
Same-sex comrades are vital to a healthy personality. Our comrades mirror us, compete with us, bond with us, and make us feel like “one of the guys.” We grow with them, sharing our experiences of school, puberty, dating, social struggles, and so forth. They stabilize us. And our relationship with comrades spurs us on, because we inevitably compare ourselves to them, creating a healthy competition. Through our comrades we learn to feel good about ourselves and comfortable with our own sex.
If we lack any or all of these relationships, we develop what psychologist Elizabeth Moberly calls “same-sex deficits.” In her book Homosexuality: A New Christian Ethic she stresses the importance of same-sex love between parent and child, and theorizes that the homosexual urge is an attempt to make up for deficiencies in the early father-son, mother-daughter relationship.
Because of those deficiencies, a child may feel that the normal avenues for same-sex love (nurturing, mentoring, comradeship) are not available to him. He thinks, because of parental rejections, that he is not qualified to engage in normal friendships with his peers. This prohibits the very thing he needs the most: love from and closeness to members of the same sex. He wants it so badly, yet he feels that if he tries to get it he will experience further rejection. This leaves him in a quandary: legitimate same-sex intimacy has become the thing he wants the most, yet he avoids the normal activities that provide it because he feels as though any attempts to participate in those activities will fail, leaving him lonely and in pain.
He responds with what Moberly calls “defensive detachment.” He detaches himself from his peers and the parent of the same sex because attempting to relate to them causes him pain. Although such relating could be the source of healing for him, he sees it as threatening, avoiding it because he refuses to reexperience the hurt he is sure will come.
He may comfort himself with isolation or by devaluing his father and peers (“They’re jerks anyway. Who needs them?”), often rejecting the very masculinity they symbolize. In a way, this protective device works well. By taking no chances, he avoids further rejection. At least he remains emotionally safe.
But his “safety zone” of isolation doesn’t kill his ever-deepening need for intimacy. In fact, the more he isolates himself, the stronger that need grows. This is not homosexuality, mind you; rather, it is the legitimate, normal need for bonding that all of us have experienced. In this case, though, the need has grown and remained unsatisfied.
In each of the above cases, certain emotional responses were influenced by the perceptions a child had of himself, his parents, and others of his sex. And these responses inevitably gave way to deep and unsatisfied needs. Emotional response to early perceptions, whether they take the form of gender identity problems, idealized images, or same-sex deficits, leave a child with specific needs for intimacy with his own sex.
Dallas, J. (2003). Desires in Conflict: Hope for Men Who Struggle with Sexual Identity. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers
