Public sex, private intimacy and sexual exclusivity in men’s formalized same-sex relationships

Abstract

This article revisits the personal stories that younger male civil partners told about their sexual practices, in what most termed their ‘marriage’, to generate insights into the extent to which they succumbed to the dangers that critics of same-sex marriage foretold. It provides a baseline analysis against which the findings of future studies of both heterosexual and same-sex marriages and civil partnerships can be compared. The data we discuss are comprised of joint ( n = 25) and individual ( n = 50) interviews with couples. Participants’ stories about ‘public’, ‘private’ and ‘exclusive’ sex can appear to support the predictions of some key critics. Participants tended to make commitments to sexual monogamy and link their sexual practices to deepening couple intimacy. However, viewed as stories of socioculturally shaped and biographically embedded sexual practices, they offer insights into the more complex relationships between civil partnership, marriage, sexual exclusivity and intimacy. On closer examination, they suggest it is not simply the case that civil partnership or same-sex marriage (and marriage more generally) ‘imposes’ heteronormative sexual conventions but that relational biographies are significant in shaping simultaneously conventional and deconstructive approaches to married sexuality. Partners in formalized same-sex relationships do not simply follow heterosexual norms. Rather, they juggle the often contradictory norms of mainstream and queer sexual cultures. Understanding the implications for marriage as an institution requires approaches to analysis that do not pose heterosexual marriage as the ‘straw man’ of queer analysis.

Balancing public health and privacy rights: a mixed-methods study on disclosure obligations of people living with HIV to their partners in China

“…Consequently, PLHIV may not have the incentive or willingness to disclose under these circumstances. Secondly, sexual relationships are inherently private, regardless of the potential for health authorities’ intervention [ 44 ]. Behind this lies the risk of intruding on the privacy of PLHIV sexual partners.…”

An intimacy field framework: Class, habitus and capital in gay relationships

“…Although some scholars have claimed that same-sex intimacy is organised around the principles of individuality and flexibility (Orne, 2017), there is evidence that same-sex partners also value and prioritise long-term commitment. They look for relationship models that sustain couple bonding and ultimately a committed monogamous relationship (Heaphy & Hodgson, 2021). However, as is shown below, the capacity to form and maintain a long-term stable same-sex union varies between classes because of classbased differences in capital and transnational mobility (Choi, 2022;Kam, 2019).…”