Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From MOM to MORE: Emerging Research on Mixed Orientation Relationships

  • Variations in Orientation, Identity, Addiction, and Compulsion (E Coleman, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Sexual Health Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Mixed orientation relationships (MOREs) refer to persons in a relationship whose sexual orientations do not match. To date, however, most literature on MOREs has focused somewhat narrowly on mixed orientation marriages (MOMs), in which one spouse is heterosexual and the other experiences same-sex attraction and may or may not identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual. This review focuses on 14 recently published scholarly articles, noting an emerging shift in the literature from MOMs to the more broad and inclusive concept of MOREs. Relationship factors, the influence of religious identity, lesbian and bisexual female partners, intentional MOREs, and clinical practice issues are discussed. Further research on MOREs that looks beyond the traditional viewpoint of MOMs is needed in order to better understand the particular challenges, as well as the unique resiliency factors, seen within these non-traditional relationships.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Bi-erasure refers to the tendency to ignore, minimize, or dismiss bisexuality as a legitimate sexual identity. Bi-erasure is a salient aspect of many bisexual individuals’ lives; in that, sexual orientation is often assumed based upon the gender of one’s relationship partner; specifically, bisexuality is rendered invisible when same-gender couples are assumed to be gay or lesbian, and opposite-gender couples are portrayed as heterosexual.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Buxton AP. Writing your own script: how bisexual men and heterosexual wives maintain their marriage after disclosure. J Bisex. 2001;2:155–89.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kays JL, Yarhouse MA. Resilient factors in mixed orientation couples: current state of the research. Am J Fam Ther. 2010;38:334–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Gochros JS. When husbands come out of the closet. New York: Haworth Press, Inc; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Buxton AP. The other side of the closet: the coming-out crisis for straight spouses and families. USA: Wiley; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tasker F (Ed) Mixed-orientation marriages: challenges of individual spouses and GLB-straight couples in diverse contexts, [Special issue]. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2012;8(1).

  6. Hernandez BC, Schwenke NJ, Wilson CM. Spouses in mixed-orientation marriage: a 20-year review of empirical studies. J Marital Fam Ther. 2011;37(3):307–18. Review of articles published on MOMs between 1998–2008, including five major themes.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kays JL, Yarhouse MA, Ripley JS. Relationship factors and quality among mixed-orientation couples. J Sex Marital Ther. 2014;40(6):512–28. Quantitative study that examined relationship variables in both heterosexual and same-sex attracted partners. Study included a large sample size though was not dyadic in nature.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Yarhouse MA, Atkinson A, Doolin H, Ripley JS. A longitudinal study of forgiveness and post-disclosure experience in mixed orientation couples. Am J Fam Ther. 2015;43(2):138–50. Quantitative study on MOMs that focused on attending to both individuals in the relationship after the disclosure of a same-sex attraction. Results from this study indicate forgiveness and communication between the individuals involved in the marriage as clinically important topics of focus for practitioners working with MOMs.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Buxton AP. Counseling heterosexual spouses of bisexual men and women and bisexual-heterosexual couples. J Bisex. 2006;6:105–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gordon KC, Baucom DH. Forgiveness and marriage: preliminary support for a measure based on a model of recovery from marital betrayal. Am J Fam Ther. 2003;31:179–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Tornello SL, Patterson CJ. Gay fathers in mixed-orientation relationships: experiences of those who stay in their marriages and of those who leave. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2012;8(1):85–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dehlin JP, Galliher RV, Bradshaw WS, Crowell KA. Psychosocial correlates of religious approaches to same-sex attraction: a Mormon perspective. J Gay Lesbian Ment Health. 2014;18(3):284–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kissil K, Itzhaky H. Experiences of the Orthodox community among Orthodox Jewish gay men. J Gay Lesbian Soc Serv. 2015. doi:10.1080/10538720.2015.1051686.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Swan TB, Benack S. Renegotiating identity in unscripted territory: the predicament of queer men in heterosexual marriages. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2012;8(1):46–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Reinhardt RU. Bisexual women in heterosexual relationships: a study of psychological and sociological patterns: a reflective paper. J Bisex. 2011;11(4):439–47. Most recent and one of few publications on the experiences of same-sex attracted—in this case bisexual—women in MOREs.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Buxton AP. Straight husbands whose wives come out as lesbian or bisexual: men’s voices challenge the “masculinity myth”. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2012;8(1):23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Pallotta-Chiarolli M. New rules, no rules, old rules or our rules: women designing mixed-orientation relationships with bisexual men. In: Pallotta-Chiarolli M, Pease B, editors. The politics of recognition and social justice: transforming subjectivities and new forms of resistance. New York: Routledge; 2014. p. 91–106. This publication represents a significant paradigm shift as it appears to be the first to reject the historical MOM framework as too narrow in scope, introducing MORE as a more conceptually useful term that recognizes intentional and consensual MOREs. Data are presented from semi-structured interviews with 78 women who chose to become involved in a romantic/sexual relationship with a bisexual man. It includes a variety of themes that reflect relationship agreements and positive experiences of the participants.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kaye B. Bonnie Kaye’s straight talk: a collection of her best newsletters about gay husbands. British Columbia: CCB Publishing; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Coleman E. The married lesbian. Marriage Fam Rev. 1989;14(3–4):119–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Corley MD, Kort J. The sex addicted mixed-orientation marriage: examining attachment styles, internalized homophobia and viability of marriage after disclosure. Sex Addict Compulsivity. 2006;13(2–3):167–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Yarhouse MA, Pawlowski LM, Tan ES. Intact marriages in which one partner dis-identifies with experiences of same-sex attraction. Am J Fam Ther. 2003;31(5):375–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwartz LB. Mixed-orientation marriages: coming out, staying together. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2012;8(1):121–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Grever C. My husband is gay: a woman’s guide to surviving the crisis. Berkeley: Crossing Press; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Bradford M. Couple therapy with GLB-straight relationships. J GLBT Fam Stud. 2012;8(1):5–22. Though it focuses on MOMs with one heterosexual and one same-sex attracted partner, this paper provides an excellent framework for providing MORE couples/family therapy. Four case studies illustrate the diversity in clinical presentation and potential outcomes for mixed orientation couples seeking therapeutic intervention.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull. 2003;129(5):674–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program in Human Sexuality, Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Minnesota Medical School, 1300 South 2nd Street, Suite No. 180, Minneapolis, MN, 55454, USA

    Jennifer A. Vencill

  2. Minnesota School of Professional Psychology, Argosy University, Twin Cities, 1515 Central Parkway, Eagan, MN, 55121, USA

    Sarah J. Wiljamaa

Authors
  1. Jennifer A. Vencill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sarah J. Wiljamaa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jennifer A. Vencill.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

JAV and SJW declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Variations in Orientation, Identity, Addiction, and Compulsion

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vencill, J.A., Wiljamaa, S.J. From MOM to MORE: Emerging Research on Mixed Orientation Relationships. Curr Sex Health Rep 8, 206–212 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0081-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11930-016-0081-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation