“Making do with things we cannot change”: An interpretive phenomenological analysis of relationship resilience among gay men in Singapore

Abstract

Despite evolving social and political attitudes, many countries, including Singapore, still do not recognize couples in same-sex relationships. Much remains to be understood about the processes and strategies that help these couples maintain their relationships, especially in Asian societies. This study explored the ways in which gay men in intimate relationships safeguarded their relationships and remained resilient in Singapore. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine gay men in long-term relationships. The data were analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. The analysis generated three superordinate themes, a) Making do with things we cannot change, b) Remaining resilient through social and financial capital, and c) Our love is stronger than the challenges we face. The emergent themes pointed to the ways in which participants coped with or shielded themselves against socio-political stressors that negatively impacted their relationships in the Singapore context. While some participants sought solace in families of choice, many learned to accept socio-political situations beyond their control. Most participants made do with implicit recognition as they were unwilling to disrupt social harmony. Others used their financial security to overcome structural barriers such as obtaining legal elements of heterosexual marriage. Findings may further current understanding of the ways in which gay couples remain resilient despite the relational challenges in different cultural contexts.

Full text

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
1
Full Research Report
“Making Do With Things We Cannot Change”: An Interpretive Phenomenological
Analysis of Relationship Resilience Among Gay Men in Singapore
Muhamad Alif Bin Ibrahim,* Joanna Barlas
School of Social and Health Sciences, James Cook University, Singapore
Published online in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships on 17 May 2021:
Bin Ibrahim, M. A., & Barlas, J. (2021). “Making do with things we cannot change”: An
interpretive phenomenological analysis of relationship resilience among gay men in
Singapore. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211017988
Author Note
Muhamad Alif Bin Ibrahim https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9849-5413
Joanna Barlas https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6087-7830
We have no known conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Muhamad Alif Bin
Ibrahim, School of Social and Health Sciences, James Cook University, Singapore, 149 Sims
Drive, Singapore 387380. Email: muhamadalif.binibrahim@my.jcu.edu.au

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
2
Declaration of interest statement: The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to this
article.
Funding: The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.
Ethical approval: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from James Cook University’s
Human Research Ethics Committee in January 2019, HREC Application ID: H7618.
Acknowledgements: The authors would like to thank Oogachaga, The Purple Alliance, and
GLBT Voices Singapore for their invaluable help in disseminating the study’s recruitment
poster on their respective Facebook group pages. The authors would also like to thank the
research participants who openly shared their long-term relationship experiences and
challenges in Singapore.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
3
Abstract
Despite evolving social and political attitudes, many countries, including Singapore, still do
not recognize couples in same-sex relationships. Much remains to be understood about the
processes and strategies that help these couples maintain their relationships, especially in
Asian societies. This study explored the ways in which gay men in intimate relationships
safeguarded their relationships and remained resilient in Singapore. Semi-structured
interviews were conducted with nine gay men in long-term relationships. The data were
analyzed using interpretive phenomenological analysis. The analysis generated three
superordinate themes, a) Making do with things we cannot change, b) Remaining resilient
through social and financial capital, and c) Our love is stronger than the challenges we face.
The emergent themes pointed to the ways in which participants coped with or shielded
themselves against socio-political stressors that negatively impacted their relationships in the
Singapore context. While some participants sought solace in families of choice, many learned
to accept socio-political situations beyond their control. Most participants made do with
implicit recognition as they were unwilling to disrupt social harmony. Others used their
financial security to overcome structural barriers such as obtaining legal elements of
heterosexual marriage. Findings may further current understanding of the ways in which gay
couples remain resilient despite the relational challenges in different cultural contexts.
Keywords: coping, gay couples, IPA, resilience, Singapore, socio-political stressors

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
4
“Making Do With Things We Cannot Change”: An Interpretive Phenomenological
Analysis of Relationship Resilience Among Gay Men in Singapore
Social and political attitudes towards lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer
(LGBTQ) individuals have evolved in recent decades. In their analysis of the World Values
Survey, Ayoub and Garretson (2017) highlighted a global shift towards the acceptance of
homosexuality between the 1980s and 2010s. In 2014, approximately 40% of respondents
from the United States (US) found homosexuality to be “always wrong” as compared to over
50% in 2008 (Glick et al., 2015). Similarly, public approval of gay marriage in the US
increased from 11% in the 1980s to nearly 50% in 2010 (Baunach, 2012). This shift has also
been observed in numerous Asian societies. Between 1995 and 2012, Cheng et al. (2016)
revealed an increase of more than 50% in liberal attitudes towards homosexuality in Taiwan,
China, Japan and South Korea. In 2015, Vietnam decriminalized consensual same-sex
activities and passed a law that enabled the protection of transgender people (Ariffin, 2018).
In 2018, India repealed Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which decriminalized
consensual same-sex activities (Paulo & Mukherjee, 2018).
Despite the increasing acceptance towards non-heteronormative identities and same-sex
relationships, many countries remain relatively conservative and unsupportive of these
minority segments of their population. An examination of the data collected by Human
Dignity Trust (2020) found 72 countries still criminalize consensual, private same-sex
activities. Of these, 44 countries continue to punish consensual sexual activities among
women, while 11 countries impose the death penalty for private and consensual same-sex
activities. These countries are predominantly from The Middle East and jurisdictions from
Commonwealth nations such as those in Asia and Africa (Masci & Desilver, 2019). Among
the 35 countries that recognize same-sex unions, an overwhelming majority are Western
countries (Goh, 2008; Poushter & Kent, 2020). Only a handful of Asian and Latin American

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
5
countries, such as Taiwan and Costa Rica, have recognized same-sex marriage in the past
decade (Masci & Desilver, 2019; Poushter & Kent, 2020).
As compared to Western countries, the recognition of same-sex couples remains
lacking in many Asian, African and Middle Eastern societies (Masci & Desilver, 2019; Paulo
& Mukherjee, 2018). Without legal recognition, same-sex couples cannot access the
structural support and resources that would enable their long-term relationships to flourish
(Applewhite & Littlefield, 2016; Baker & Elizabeth, 2013; Balsam et al., 2008; Rostosky et
al., 2016). These structural support systems include various legal protections and financial
benefits granted to married heterosexual couples (Riggle et al., 2010; Thomeer et al., 2017).
Moreover, legal recognition provides relational benefits for same-sex couples. Studies have
shown the ways in which legally formalized couples typically scored highest on measures of
relationship satisfaction and commitment (Lannutti, 2008; Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006). These
couples also scored lowest on relationship instability. Consequently, they were less likely to
dissolve their relationships than same-sex couples who were either socially formalized or did
not attain any form of recognition (Haas & Whitton, 2015).
Furthermore, individuals in these societies are typically expected to conform to societal
norms, fulfil social roles, and prioritize their in-group’s needs above their own (Basabe &
Ros, 2005; Kitayama et al., 2000). For example, LGBTQ individuals may conceal their
identities and intimate relationships to avoid burdening or upsetting members from their
social networks (Hu et al., 2013). Otherwise, such individuals are often perceived as bringing
dishonour to their families by rejecting expected social roles and violating the traditional
cultural norms of putting the needs of others before their own (Ohnishi et al., 2006). The
inability to garner acceptance and support from their social networks impacts the ways in
which same-sex couples access emotional and instrumental support (Lau, 2012; Lyon &
Frohard-Dourlent, 2015; Reczek, 2015). This lack of support systems, in turn, increases the

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
6
likelihood of relationship dissolution as couples can neither cope with nor overcome the
challenges in their relationships (Connolly, 2005; Graham & Barnow, 2013).
Situation in Singapore
Since gaining independence in 1965, Singapore has rapidly developed into a globalized,
economically competitive city (Oswin, 2014). However, this rapid transformation was not
without significant sacrifice to the Singapore society. To become a first-world cosmopolitan
nation, Singapore embraced the principles and values of communitarianism, materialism,
meritocracy and pragmatism (Ortmann, 2009; Oswin, 2012; Tan, 2012). These, in turn, led to
the promotion of a national identity, the need for racial and religious harmony, the
prerogative of the heterosexual family as the basic unit of the Singapore society as well as the
importance of putting the needs of the nation and society above individual needs (Prankumar
et al., 2020). Therefore, economic and social policies were implemented to privilege these
goals and prevented LGBTQ individuals and same-sex couples from receiving social and
legal recognition and forming their own families through adoption or surrogacy (Chang,
2003; Tan & Lee, 2007). These hegemonic narratives considered homosexuality a threat to
Singapore in postcolonial times, leading to the continued suppression of sexuality and gender
expression until the late 1990s (Yue & Zubillaga-Pow, 2012).
In the early 2000s, the Singapore government sought to remodel its authoritarian image
to keep up with the evolving global economy and cultivate its creative and entrepreneurial
industries (Yue & Leung, 2017). Hence, efforts were made to publicly express support for
homosexuality and welcome LGBTQ talents into the country. These included outrightly
supporting homosexuals within the civil service and marketing Singapore as a top gay
destination in Asia (Oswin, 2014; Tan, 2012).
In spite of this, homosexuality remains illegal in the developed Southeast Asian nation
through the continued existence of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Section 377A was

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
7
introduced in 1938 during the British Colonial Rule and was subsequently inherited when
Singapore gained its independence in 1965 (Goh, 2008; Lazar, 2017). Thus, gay and bisexual
men in Singapore remain under persecution with the continued existence of Section 377A,
which states, “Any male person who, in public or private, commits […] any act of gross
indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years” (Government of Singapore, 2020).
Despite the LGBTQ community’s persistent messages for love and inclusiveness in the
past decade, the Singapore government has remained adamant in its position in not repealing
Section 377A, stating that it “does not support the formation of families by gay and lesbian
parents” (Au-Yong, 2019). Even when faced with the increasing social acceptance of its
LGBTQ population over the past decade, the Singapore government reasoned that the
country needs to remain pragmatic (Geddie, 2020). This pragmatic stance meant attempting
to balance economic pursuits and creative capital with the perceived Asian cultural norms
and traditional Confucian values underpinning Singapore society (Lazar, 2017; Tan, 2015).
Through these strategies of illiberal pragmatism and electoral secularism, LGBTQ
individuals are, therefore, tolerated for their contribution to the Singapore economy but
otherwise discriminated against and prevented from attaining full benefits of citizenship in
Singapore (Abdullah, 2019; Yue & Zubillaga-Pow, 2012). Such examples include the
continued lack of positive LGBTQ representations in education and mainstream media, as
well as the lack of legal recognition for same-sex couples. These contradicting efforts and
strategies have consequently sacrificed some of Singapore’s international legitimacy but
enabled the Singapore government to maintain its existing power (Chua, 2012).
Research Gap
The debilitating effects of socio-political stigma and discrimination on same-sex
couples have been extensively studied (Dudley et al., 2005; Lannutti, 2008). Despite these

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
8
stressors, LGBTQ individuals continue to form and maintain intimate relationships
throughout their lives. Much remains to be understood about the ways in which same-sex
couples cope with, overcome, and positively adapt to these relationship challenges. It is
imperative to understand the strategies that keep same-sex couples flourishing, especially in
societies where such relationships remain socially and legally unrecognized. This study
aimed to explore the processes, resources and strategies that gay couples utilize to safeguard
their relationships in the Asian society of Singapore. The research questions were:
1) How do social and political stressors impact gay men in long-term relationships?
2) How do gay men in long-term relationships cope with these stressors?
3) How do gay men in long-term relationships overcome these stressors?
Method
An exploratory qualitative research study was conducted utilizing interpretive
phenomenological analysis (IPA). IPA is a qualitative research methodology underpinned by
three theoretical principles: phenomenology, hermeneutics and idiography. The methodology
aims to examine how people understand, make sense, and create meaning out of, their major
life experiences (Smith et al., 2009).
Participants
Empirical studies utilizing IPA as a methodology typically have small, homogenous
groups of participants as IPA is primarily concerned with the detailed analysis of individual
lived experiences (Smith et al., 2009). For this study, the participants were purposively
sampled and recruited from Singapore’s LGBTQ community with the assistance of three
LGBTQ non-governmental organizations through their respective Facebook group pages.
Potential participants were provided with the study information sheet when they contacted the
researchers via email. An appointment was made for the interview if they agreed to take part
in the study.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
9
Participants were recruited based on the following inclusion criteria: cisgender men
who identified as gay, above 21 years of age, and Singapore citizens or permanent residents.
Only cisgender individuals were recruited to maintain the homogeneity of the participants
and their lived experiences. Participants were also required to be in a relationship of at least
five years. This inclusion criterion was based on studies that found relationships of less than
three years were likely to be unstable, leading to an increased likelihood of dissolution
(Brown, 2003; Rosenfeld, 2014). Furthermore, couples who remained together for five years
or more were likely to stay together due to various couple-specific investments, which made
relationship dissolution more costly (Kurdek, 1998; Rosenfeld, 2014).
Materials and Procedures
One-to-one interviews were conducted in small, quiet interview rooms that were
approved by the ethics review committee. These rooms allowed interviews to be conducted in
a safe and private setting while maintaining participants confidentiality and minimizing any
undue intrusion. A semi-structured interview guide was purposively developed using existing
literature to explore participants’ long-term relationship experiences in Singapore. Informed
consent and participants’ demographics were obtained before the commencement of each
interview. No personal identifiers were collected due to the sensitive nature of the study.
Participants were assigned pseudonyms for use throughout the study duration. Interviews
lasted approximately 90 minutes, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants
were also invited to participate in the member checking process, where they reviewed their
transcripts and clarified further questions that arose from the analysis.
Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using IPA, an inductive and iterative six-step process (Smith et
al., 2009). Transcripts were read and re-read to ensure the first author was familiar with the
interview data. The first author subsequently made comprehensive notes on one transcript

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
10
that were descriptive, linguistic and conceptual in nature. Initial themes were generated
utilizing the provisional notes from the previous stage. These initial themes were
subsequently categorized and sorted based on their similarities, which represented various
parts of the participant’s lived experience. This idiographic process was repeated with each
transcript. The final step of the analysis entailed looking for similar themes across all
transcripts and generating superordinate themes to reflect the processes and strategies that
participants undertook to maintain their relationships in the presence of socio-political
stressors in Singapore. NVivo 12 software was used for qualitative data management and
analysis.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
The study utilized the credibility and trustworthiness guidelines set out by Mays and
Pope (2000). To foreground the participants' experiences, the researchers practised bracketing
to set aside any preconceptions and biases. The first author undertook continuous journaling
as part of the reflexivity process to ensure awareness of personal and intellectual biases
throughout the study. The first author also undertook investigator triangulation with the
second author at various stages of data analysis to ensure a holistic understanding of the
participants lived experiences. Through the member checking process, the study also ensured
that participants lived experiences remained central to the research process. Additionally, the
analysis was further refined by highlighting negative or deviant cases to contrast the main
narratives highlighted in the generated themes. Finally, the first author documented and kept
detailed records of all relevant aspects of the research, i.e., an audit trail, to ensure the
transparency of the data collection and analysis processes.
Results
A total of nine participants were interviewed. The demographics of the participants are
detailed in Table 1. The analysis revealed various processes that enabled participants to cope

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
11
with and overcome socio-political stressors in Singapore. The emergent superordinate and
subordinate themes generated at the end of the analysis process have been illustrated in
Figure 1. The prevalence of superordinate and subordinate themes among the study
participants are shown in Table 2. Before discussing the emergent themes, there is a need to
explicate the challenges experienced by participants in same-sex relationships within the
Singapore context.
All participants described how they anticipated and experienced stigma and
discrimination from their social networks and the broader society because of their sexuality
and the nature of their relationships. Such instances led many participants to conceal their
relationships as they feared facing potentially adverse reactions. Other participants were
worried about not having the rights to make decisions for their partners in emergencies. Here,
Sheldon feared the inability to make medical decisions for his partner because their
relationship was not legally recognized in the eyes of the law.
If something happened to my partner, I need to be the one to make all the decisions. I
cannot be calling his family in another country and asking them to make decisions. I
need to take care of everything. After being together for 18 years, I think it is only fair
that I can be the one to do that.
Other participants highlighted the stressors from planning for their futures
deliberately. As compared to heterosexual marriages, gay couples could not depend on
children, as is typical in Asian societies, or government policies to take care of them in old
age. This deliberate planning involved formalizing wills and lasting powers of attorney to
protect their relationships legally. Here, Brian related how the lack of recognition forced the
couple to think of ways to secure their future.
I think it [the lack of legal recognition] kinds of forced us to plan. We have to think
about our future. We cannot deal with things as it comes. I look at my siblings. Their

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
12
future is secured because their kids can take care of them. These are things that
heterosexual couples do not usually need to think about.
Superordinate Theme 1: Making Do with Things We Cannot Change
As participants feared the potential ramifications of being in marginalized
relationships, they coped with socio-political stressors by accepting and adapting to situations
beyond their control. This superordinate theme described how participants accepted socio-
political stressors as part of their lives and let go of their need for explicit recognition. This
external justification strategy enabled participants to reduce feelings of dissonance while
externally conforming to socio-political norms. Moreover, most participants preferred living
amicably alongside the broader Singapore community while finding peaceful ways to obtain
equality and rights. Such strategies enabled participants to move forward with their
relationships rather than constantly worry about the things they could not have.
Accepting Implicit Recognition, Minimizing Explicit Recognition
Most participants described how they did not see the need to seek explicit recognition
from their social networks. In the excerpt below, Rayson explained how he has never found
the need to highlight his relationship explicitly to his family, just as the expression of love
and other positive emotions remains highly constrained in Asian cultures.
I have never said, “This is my boyfriend”. Just as I do not say “I love you” to my
mum because she has never said that to me. It is the same kind of concept.
Many participants described how forcing the explicit acknowledgement of their
relationships could disrupt the social harmony with their families of origin. These participants
actively reframed the need for explicit recognition and sought, instead, implicit signals of
acceptance. Here, Max saw the continued invitations to his partner’s family events as implicit
acceptance of their relationship.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
13
My partner’s parents have always considered me like the god-son. I have always been
included in their family outings and events. So, I think they know I am a very close
friend. They may not acknowledge it exactly as a partner. Nevertheless, they are still
accepting.
Such implicit recognition was a sufficient compromise as it enabled Max and his
partner to maintain their relationship without disrupting the prevailing social harmony with
their respective families. Max rationalized that their family members were probably aware
and asking for explicit acknowledgement would simply cause problems.
Some things do not have to be spelt out. People are aware. I do not want to create
uncomfortable situations or disharmony. We [already] have to deal with enough
drama. So, why do I want to make situations more difficult?
Similarly, other participants highlighted how they rationalized or minimized their
need for social and legal recognition. Here, Rayson felt saddened that his relationship still
lacked legal recognition in Singapore. So, he rationalized how marriage was “just a piece of
paper” and believed that his relationship was strong enough without needing a marriage
certificate to tell him so.
Marriage is just a piece of paper. You can go to the United States and get it signed,
but it does not mean a lot to us. We have been together for ten years. Having been
together for so long helps us realize that getting married is truly a piece of paper.
One participant, Aaron, was fortunate to receive explicit recognition from his parents,
thereby enabling his partner and family to celebrate festivities together peacefully. However,
deep down, Aaron remained fearful that his parents might still not accept same-sex marriage
due to generational differences and Asian cultural values.
During Chinese New Year, my partner would be invited over for reunion dinners. It is
kind of expected. My mom will separately prepare dishes for him. It is these little

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
14
things that make me feel very lucky. However, they are Chinese. They are from a
different generation. I think it is also the Asian in me. As open as they are, there was a
part of me that thought they might not be that comfortable to attend my wedding.
Fighting Peacefully for Equality and Rights
Interestingly, many participants believed that the LGBTQ community must “adapt
and respond accordingly” to the surrounding socio-cultural context. One participant,
Dominic, opined that the LGBTQ community was only able to influence society to a certain
extent. Dominic felt that the community should let the current socio-political situation evolve
and not waste efforts altering situations they could not change.
I think Pink Dot and [other] gay pride movements need to recognize that coming out
with these militant messages for equality would simply result in a very strong
pushback. It comes across as being very self-entitled. We probably can influence
SOME people. However, that is on a very limited scale. I think society has to evolve
in its own way.
Dominic saw nothing wrong in ensuring that society remained aware of the LGBTQ
community’s existence. However, he and other participants preferred to fight for equality and
civil rights by contributing meaningfully to society. Dominic expressed that “being gay still
carried much stigma” as the Singapore society still perceived gays as “effeminate, drug users,
and promiscuous”. Dominic was further frustrated at how these negative stereotypes
continued to be portrayed by those who openly championed civil rights and equality in the
public sphere. In giving back to society, he hoped to alter society’s perceptions that gay
people were “just normal human beings in many areas of life”.
If gays are seen helping society at large cope with challenges like poverty eradication,
helping the disadvantaged, doing social work, and all that. People will eventually
realize that “Look, there is really nothing wrong with them”, and “They are just

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
15
different from us”. I think it is more effective if we live our lives as contributing and
caring members of society to gain acceptance.
Similarly, Aaron felt disheartened about the evolution of civil rights in Singapore but
explained how he had to make do with the slow speed of socio-political change.
I guess it is going to take a while for people to accept same-sex couples. Getting
social and legal recognition would always be a struggle for the next decade or two,
especially in Singapore. It is multicultural…being in Asia. There are boundaries that
we will have to live by being a same-sex couple, especially in Singapore.
In contrast, some participants believed in fighting aggressively against the socio-
political inequality in Singapore. In the excerpt below, Brian felt frustrated with the
proponents of the peaceful approaches who chided him for openly fighting for equality and
against Section 377A of the penal code.
If gay people in Singapore were a little stronger and stepped up to do something about
the [current socio-political] situation…I think that would have helped more. We have
friends who said, “Why do you need to do fight against 377A? Now everybody is
going to talk about this issue. You are putting us under the spotlight!”. That does not
help.
Superordinate Theme 2: Remaining Resilient Through Social and Financial Capital
In this superordinate theme, all participants described how various social and financial
resources helped them cope with or be shielded from stigma and discrimination. As many
participants remained unwilling to disrupt the social harmony by seeking explicit recognition
from their families of origin, they highlighted how they sought emotional and instrumental
support from their families of choice. Some participants also pointed to the ways in which
their socioeconomic status and financial resources enabled them to overcome the stressors
they faced in Singapore.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
16
Feeling Safe with Our Families of Choice
Most participants explained that acceptance from their closest friends allowed them
access to emotional and instrumental support. Here, Kamal related how he felt more at ease
in showing affection to his partner in his friends’ presence.
We do spend gatherings together with my friends. It makes me much more at ease to
be more affectionate to my partner. It is a positive feeling that I can be open with my
partner in their presence.
Whilst fearing potential rejection from their parents, many participants highlighted
how siblings played a role in recognizing and supporting their relationships. Such support and
recognition enabled them to remain connected to their families of origin in some ways. Here,
Max described how his siblings accepted his relationship as they entrusted their kids to Max
and his partner.
My parents do not know [about the relationship]. But my sister and my brother-in-
law…they know. They are very accepting. They even allowed their kids to go out
with us. So, I think that’s good. Having supportive siblings helps.
Being Shielded by Our Socioeconomic Status
Interestingly, some participants highlighted how their financial security and social
status shielded them from socio-political stressors in Singapore. Some believed that being of
higher socioeconomic status allowed them to move around in social circles that were less
judgmental of their marginalized relationships. Max related how being of higher
socioeconomic status enabled his relationship to flourish as his relationship was surrounded
by social circles that had, perhaps, more liberal values and, thus, were more accepting of
same-sex relationships.
We are lucky that we are both…I hate to use it…of higher socioeconomic status. If
we are at movies, nobody bothers. If we are at dinners, nobody bothers. Society

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
17
events…nobody bothers. People are just polite. We have not had to worry about the
social or structural issues that may affect other people.
Others used their financial resources to overcome the structural barriers present in
Singapore. Participants such as Dominic were able to purchase their own houses and
formalize wills early on in their relationships.
We would have liked more protection and more recognition for our relationship.
Fortunately, we are not directly affected [by structural barriers]. I live in a private
apartment. We have done up wills and legal power of attorney to protect each other's
rights and entitlements under the law.
Participants who were more financially secure also seemed to reject the need for the
government to recognize their relationships legally. These participants were worried about
losing their freedoms if such legal recognition were enacted in Singapore. In this excerpt,
Kamal rejected marriage as his relationship’s financial resources allowed them to obtain
some legal aspects of heterosexual marriage.
I have no desire to have kids. The concept of getting married has no meaning to me. I
have my own home. The structural barriers [in Singapore] do not really affect me. It is
a bit counterintuitive. But, I want the government to stay out of my life as much as
possible. They can keep those subsidies. It is not something that I want in my life.
Such sentiments seemed to be fiercely opposed by participants who seemed to be less
financially secure. In addition to feeling frustrated in the previous superordinate theme, Brian
further explained how he believed that people who opposed fighting aggressively for equality
and rights in Singapore were usually wealthy and powerful. Brian believed these rich and
powerful gay men were worried about losing the privileges and comforts they had attained
whenever Section 377A comes under the spotlight. Such sentiments seemed to be confirmed
by participants who alluded to their high social status in this subordinate theme. Brian also

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
18
believed that those of higher socioeconomic status had the resources to live out their lives
overseas or use their financial resources to overcome the socio-political barriers in Singapore.
Many gay people are very powerful and wealthy. They are the ones who feel that they
have a lot to lose. They are the ones who, “We do not have the rights here…[but] I
can always go to Madrid for my Mardi Gras. I can go [somewhere else] to have my
parties.” They have the resources to do that. They can live out their gay lives there.
They think that we are rocking the boat [by fighting against Section 377A]. I think
that is not right. That is being selfish. You have the resources. Not everybody has the
kind of resources that you have.
Superordinate Theme 3: Our Love is Stronger than the Challenges We Face
No matter what sources of support they had, most participants believed that their
relationships were stronger than the socio-political challenges they faced. In this
superordinate theme, participants believed in strengthening their relationship from within and
continued to evolve as a couple to overcome the stressors they faced. Participants felt their
relationships flourished because of the efforts and time invested in their relationships. This
included adapting to their relationships’ sexual needs and counting on their partners to be
there no matter the challenges. When asked how he kept his relationship flourishing, Alvyn
highlighted how his relationship remained resilient because he and his partner proactively
chose to remain strong and happy in their relationship.
Our relationship cannot crumble just because there are no gay rights. Our gay identity
crumbles because there are no gay rights. Our love does not. So, our happiness is not
in ANY way dependent on the lack of gay rights in Singapore but on the individuals
[in the relationship], you know? Not [being able to] get married does not make us sad
and decide to break up. No, nothing like that.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
19
Participants also firmly believed their relationships were special and unique in some
way. Some participants viewed their relationship as “a secret recipe they refused to give up
on (Kamal)”, while others, like Sheldon, saw their relationship as unique, possibly due to the
challenges their relationship has faced.
We are non-standard Singapore gay men. I do not think you can compare us with
other couples or take us as a standard. I am the king of loopholes. We know how to
look for loopholes to work around the policies [that are in place in Singapore].
Discussion
This study examined the processes and strategies that gay men in long-term
relationships undertook to safeguard their relationships in Singapore. The findings revealed
various coping mechanisms and resilience processes that enabled couples to cope with,
overcome, and positively adapt to the socio-political stressors in the Singapore context. Like
same-sex couples living in Western countries (Graham & Barnow, 2013; Haas & Lannutti,
2021), participants in this study anticipated and experienced stigma and discrimination due to
the lack of recognition of their relationships in Singapore. Likewise, participants in Singapore
felt their relationships were stronger than the socio-political challenges they faced
(Applewhite & Littlefield, 2016; Connolly, 2005). They believed in strengthening their
relationship from within, growing together and supporting each other while continuing to
evolve as a couple to overcome the stressors they faced.
Over and above these dyadic-level strategies, the study findings corroborated with
other studies that revealed the ways in which access to social and financial capital allowed
same-sex couples to cope with and overcome socio-political stressors (Haas & Lannutti,
2021; Shulman et al., 2009). Social support and recognition provided by “families of choice”
shielded participants in same-sex relationships from negative sentiments and societal
disapproval. First coined by Weston (1997), families of choice represent a close and

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
20
supportive social network that provides an additional avenue for same-sex couples to receive
much-needed emotional and instrumental support (Schecter et al., 2008; Whitton et al.,
2015). This buffering effect from families of choice augmented relationship satisfaction,
commitment, and maintenance.
Participants who alluded to their financial security and higher socioeconomic status
utilized various opportunities provided by their privileged backgrounds. These financial
resources enabled participants to overcome the relationship barriers present in the Singapore
context. Some used their financial security to obtain legal elements of heterosexual marriage,
such as getting married overseas or procuring housing together early on in their relationships.
Others believed that their higher social status surrounded them with people who were less
judgmental about their relationships. Indeed, Barrett and Pollack (2005) explained how gay
men of higher socioeconomic status and income could socialize and express their sexuality in
safer and more liberal spaces. Moreover, various studies have shown how the availability of
financial resources helps to increase resilience in these individuals (Bonanno et al., 2007;
Stepleman et al., 2009). These resources helped buffer against stressors, allowing individuals
to respond adaptively, thereby protecting them from poor outcomes.
Beyond social and financial capital, this study provided insights into the pivotal
influence of culture on gay intimate relationships in Singapore. As compared to their
counterparts in less socially and politically conservative societies, study participants in
Singapore remained resilient in their relationships through the utilization of collectivistic
coping strategies. Most participants adjusted and accommodated to the socio-political context
in Singapore, rather than directly confronting situations they felt powerless to change. The
study findings revealed how participants reframed their thoughts and responses to adapt to
their current circumstances positively. Such strategies enabled participants to remain together
by providing them with some agency to rise above the socio-political context that

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
21
disempowered their marginalized relationships. These strategies were also similar to the
pragmatic resistance strategies employed by LGBTQ organizations in their fight against
inequalities within the illiberal context of Singapore (Chua, 2012; Oswin, 2014). Lazar (2017,
p. 439) described this pragmatic resistance as “a contextualized form of resistance that
demonstrated the resilience, creativity and agency of a queer subaltern constituency in
Singapore”. Researchers found that individuals engaging in collectivistic coping typically
used emotion-focused or avoidance-oriented strategies (Tweed & Conway, 2006; Yeh et al.,
2006). They were also more likely to cope using forbearance and fatalism. Like this study,
Kuo (2011) highlighted how their participants used coping strategies that included
withholding their opinions and emotions to maintain social harmony, positively reappraising
stressors and externalizing their locus of control.
Collectivistic forms of coping have typically been viewed as maladaptive and
associated with lower levels of well-being and poor mental health outcomes (Fletcher &
Sarkar, 2013). However, it must be noted that many of these studies were conducted in
Western, individualistic cultures. Researchers have cautioned against dichotomizing coping
strategies as either good or bad, preferring to view them as adaptive to specific cultural
contexts (Heppner et al., 2006; Kuo, 2011). To this end, research in Asian societies have
found that individuals who utilized collectivistic forms of coping experienced reduced
interpersonal stress and fewer moderated stressors such as family conflict and discrimination
(Tweed & Conway, 2006). Moreover, Ungar (2011) posited that resilience involved the
interactions between individuals and their environments for culturally appropriate strategies
and resources, enabling individuals to cope with and positively adapt to stressors in their
socio-cultural context. Participants in this study were evidently able to balance maintaining
social harmony with those around them while ensuring their intimate relationship needs were
met.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
22
Furthermore, most study participants sought peaceful ways of engendering change in
the Singapore society. These participants wanted to use their abilities and resources to
contribute meaningfully to the broader community, which they believed was more influential
in changing the minds and hearts of the Singapore community. Although some participants
preferred a direct approach to address the existing inequalities, more peaceful strategies may
be more culturally appropriate in the Singapore context than protests and pride parades often
seen in Western societies (Mazumder, 2018; Ratcliff et al., 2012).
Finally, the study findings were counter to some aspects of the Minority Stress
Theory. First developed by Meyer (2003), the theory extends the social stress theory by
highlighting how individuals with minority status experienced stressors differently. The
theory posits that continued exposure to distal forms of stressors, i.e., external stressors to the
individual, led to the development of proximal stressors, i.e. internal, psychological stressors
within individuals or same-sex couples (LeBlanc & Frost, 2019). These stressors
consequently lead to persistent, elevated stress levels. Over time, same-sex couples
experience increased internalized stigma, fears of rejection, as well as the need to conceal
their identities and relationships, which may ultimately lead to relationship dissolution
(Lannutti, 2018; Quam et al., 2010). Thus, the study’s initial consideration was whether
participants had internalized homophobia due to their responses in coping with these socio-
political stressors. However, the study findings indicated this to be unlikely. Unlike
participants in this study, individuals with internalized homophobia typically experienced
more relationship problems and were unlikely to remain stable in long-term relationships
(Frost & Meyer, 2009).
Moreover, the participants and their partners seemed determined to maintain their
relationships despite the negative impact caused by the socio-political stigma and
discrimination in Singapore. This is evident as many participants have remained together in

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
23
their relationships for seven or more years. Participants also displayed various forms of
agency in coping, overcoming and positively adapting to the socio-political stressors in
Singapore. These strategies, in turn, ensured their commitment towards one another endured
despite living in an unwelcoming environment. Interestingly, while participants made do with
implicit acceptance, families of origin also seemed willing to accept these couples implicitly.
This implicit acceptance may protect participants and their partners from the negative impact
of typical minority stressors. The implicit acceptance also allowed their families of origin to
“keep their face” or maintain their dignity with extended social networks and the broader
community who may still be judgmental of such relationships (Bong, 2011; Tan, 2011).
Strengths and Limitations
This study adds to the limited published literature on same-sex couples in Asian
societies. Moreover, the study findings highlighted the positive processes and outcomes that
marginalized couples undertook to ensure their relationships flourished in adverse
environments. The study also utilized an interpretive phenomenological approach which
allowed researchers to understand the lived experiences and contextual meanings that gay
couples in Singapore ascribed to their relationships. The findings provide an in-depth and
insightful interpretation of participants’ relationship experiences, cognition and emotions
while considering each relationship’s socio-cultural context.
Despite the study providing new insights into the ways in which gay men safeguarded
their relationships in Singapore, several limitations could impact the transferability of study
findings to similar contexts. The sample was self-selected. Participants recruited for the study
self-identified as gay. They took part in the study as they were likely to be more comfortable
with their sexuality. Individuals who did not identify as gay or were not comfortable with
their sexuality might be reluctant to participate in the study.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
24
Additionally, participants were already committed to their partners and relationships
for durations of more than five years. There could be various long-term couple-specific
investments that made relationship dissolution to be perceived as costlier. Thus, couples were
more likely to try to find strategies to remain together due to loss aversion (Rosenfeld, 2014).
Individuals whose relationships did not last as long could probably have different experiences
in facing the socio-political stressors existing in Singapore. Furthermore, participants in this
study were cis-gender males, predominantly Chinese, above thirty years of age and highly
educated. Individuals with different gender identities, from other ethnic and sexual minority
groups, who are younger and have lower educational levels may have different experiences
and attitudes due to their identities and social backgrounds.
Implications and Future Research
Findings from this exploratory study have several practical and theoretical
implications. Findings may help practitioners and organizations further understand how
collectivistic coping strategies may be adaptive and beneficial for same-sex couples, allowing
them to cope and flourish in societies that remain socially and legally unaccepting of these
marginalized relationships. This study also revealed the potential intersectionality between
participants’ socioeconomic status and the differences in their experiences of stigma and
discrimination in Singapore. Future research should further examine the effects of
overlapping social identities on experiences of stigma and discrimination among same-sex
couples in Asian societies. These should include exploring how same-sex couples of
different ethnicities, religions, and social backgrounds understand, cope with, and overcome
the socio-political stressors existing within Asian societies. Such studies would enrich the
extant intersectionality literature that is predominantly from the West (Crenshaw, 1989; Liu
et al., 2016).

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
25
Moreover, various education and counselling initiatives could be developed and
adapted to meet the needs of LGBTQ individuals and couples who may face different sets of
challenges as compared to those living in Western societies (Szymanski & Sung, 2013).
Finally, this study has highlighted various interactional effects between individuals and their
socio-political context. Much of the current research on LGBTQ resilience has solely focused
on individual or community resilience (de Lira & de Morais, 2018). This fragmented view of
resilience minimizes the influence and impact of an individual’s socio-cultural context, which
may moderate resilient outcomes in LGBTQ individuals and relationships. Therefore, future
research should situate and integrate individual resilience within its socio-cultural-political
context to allow a more holistic comprehension of the resilience construct.
Conclusion
The study extended the current understanding of how gay men in intimate
relationships safeguard their relationships against socio-political stressors in Singapore. Like
same-sex couples in Western societies, gay men in intimate relationships in Singapore
accessed emotional, social, and instrumental support through social and financial capital
when faced with stressors. Over and above these similarities, the study participants preferred
to use collectivistic forms of coping such as avoidance, forbearance and fatalism. Accepting
implicit recognition and fighting peacefully for equality and rights ensured that gay men in
intimate relationships could cope and flourish in Singapore. Findings from this study point to
how coping and resilience strategies differ in different cultures and societies. The findings
also warrant further research on the ways in which same-sex couples cope with and overcome
challenges in different cultural contexts. Such an understanding may help improve
educational, legal, and counselling initiatives for same-sex couples living in Asian societies.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
26
References
Abdullah, W. J. (2019). Electoral secularism in Singapore: Political responses to
homosexuality. Asian Studies Review, 43(2), 239–255.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2019.1593945
Applewhite, S., & Littlefield, M. B. (2016). The role of resilience and anti-resilience
behaviors in the romantic lives of Black same gender loving (SGI) men. Journal of
Black Sexuality and Relationships, 2(2), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1353/bsr.2016.0005
Ariffin, E. (2018). ASEAN’s shifting attitudes towards LGBT rights. The ASEAN Post.
https://theaseanpost.com/article/aseans-shifting-attitudes-towards-lgbt-rights
Au-Yong, R. (2019). Parliament: Singapore to review adoption law and look into surrogacy
issue. The Straits Times. https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/spore-to-review-
adoption-law-and-look-into-surrogacy-issue
Ayoub, P. M., & Garretson, J. (2017). Getting the message out: Media context and global
changes in attitudes toward homosexuality. Comparative Political Studies, 50(8),
1055–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414016666836
Baker, M., & Elizabeth, V. (2013). Tying the knot: The impact of formalization after long-
term cohabitation. Journal of Family Studies, 19(3), 254–266.
https://doi.org/10.5172/jfs.2013.19.3.254
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(1), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.102
Barrett, D. C., & Pollack, L. M. (2005). Whose gay community? Social class, sexual self-
expression, and gay community involvement. The Sociological Quarterly, 46(3), 437–
456. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4120947

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
27
Basabe, N., & Ros, M. (2005). Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates:
Individualism-collectivism and power distance. International Review of Social
Psychology, 18(1), 189–225. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2005-06455-008
Baunach, D. M. (2012). Changing same-sex marriage attitudes in America from 1988
through 2010. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(2), 364–378.
https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs022
Bonanno, G. A., Galea, S., Bucciarelli, A., & Vlahov, D. (2007). What predicts psychological
resilience after disaster? The role of demographics, resources, and life stress. Journal
of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75(5), 671–682. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
006X.75.5.671
Bong, S. A. (2011). Negotiating resistance/resilience through the nexus of spirituality-
sexuality of same-sex partnerships in Malaysia and Singapore. Marriage & Family
Review, 47(8), 648–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/01494929.2011.619305
Brown, S. L. (2003). Relationship quality dynamics of cohabiting unions. Journal of Family
Issues, 24(5), 583–601. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X03252671
Chang, J. H.-Y. (2003). Culture, state and economic development in Singapore. Journal of
Contemporary Asia, 33(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00472330380000071
Cheng, Y. H. A., Wu, F. C. F., & Adamczyk, A. (2016). Changing attitudes toward
homosexuality in Taiwan, 1995–2012. Chinese Sociological Review, 48(4), 317–345.
https://doi.org/10.1080/21620555.2016.1199257
Chua, L. J. (2012). Pragmatic resistance, law, and social movements in authoritarian states:
The case of gay collective action in Singapore. Law and Society Review, 46(4), 713–
748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2012.00515.x
Connolly, C. M. (2005). A qualitative exploration of resilience in long-term lesbian couples.
The Family Journal, 13(3), 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480704273681

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
28
Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist
critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and antiracist politics.
University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 15–34.
https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
de Lira, A. N., & de Morais, N. A. (2018). Resilience in lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB)
populations: An integrative literature review. Sexuality Research and Social Policy,
15(3), 272–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-017-0285-x
Dudley, M. G., Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D., Duhigg, J. M., Brodnicki, C., & Couch, R.
(2005). Same-sex couples’ experiences with homonegativity. Journal of GLBT Family
Studies, 1(4), 61–78. https://doi.org/10.1300/J461v01n04
Fletcher, D., & Sarkar, M. (2013). Psychological resilience: A review and critique of
definitions, concepts, and theory. European Psychologist, 18(1), 12–23.
https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000124
Frost, D. M., & Meyer, I. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among
lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 97–109.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012844
Geddie, J. (2020). Gay rights: The taboo subject in Singapore’s election. Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-singapore-election-lgbt-idUSKBN2490GS
Glick, S. N., Cleary, S. D., & Golden, M. R. (2015). Brief report: Increasing acceptance of
homosexuality in the United States across racial and ethnic subgroups. Journal of
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 70(3), 319–322.
https://doi.org/10.1097/QAI.0000000000000740
Goh, D. (2008). It’s the gays’ fault: News and HIV as weapons against homosexuality in
Singapore. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 32(4), 383–399.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0196859908320295

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
29
Government of Singapore. (2020). Penal code: 377A on outrages of decency. Singapore
Statutes Online. https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/PC1871?ProvIds=pr377A-
Graham, J. M., & Barnow, Z. B. (2013). Stress and social support in gay, lesbian, and
heterosexual couples: Direct effects and buffering models. Journal of Family
Psychology 27(4), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033420
Haas, S. M., & Lannutti, P. J. (2021). The impact of minority stress and social support on
positive relationship functioning in same sex relationships. Health communication,
36(3), 315-323. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2019.1687130
Haas, S. M., & Whitton, S. W. (2015). The significance of living together and importance of
marriage in same-sex couples. Journal of Homosexuality, 62(9), 1241–1263.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1037137
Heppner, P. P., Heppner, M. J., Lee, D. G., Wang, Y. W., Park, H. J., & Wang, L. F. (2006).
Development and validation of a collectivist coping styles inventory. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 53(1), 107–125. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.107
Hu, X., Wang, Y., & Wu, C. H. (2013). Acceptance concern and life satisfaction for Chinese
LGBs: The mediating role of self-concealment. Social Indicators Research, 114(2),
687–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-012-0168-8
Human Dignity Trust. (2020). Map of countries that criminalize LGBT people.
https://www.humandignitytrust.org/lgbt-the-law/map-of-criminalisation/
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion, and well-being:
Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition & Emotion, 14(1), 93–124.
https://doi.org/10.1080/026999300379003
Kuo, B. C. H. (2011). Culture’s consequences on coping: Theories, evidences, and
dimensionalities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(6), 1084–1100.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110381126

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
30
Kurdek, L. A. (1998). Relationship outcomes and their predictors: Longitudinal evidence
from heterosexual married, gay cohabiting, and lesbian cohabiting couples. Journal of
Marriage and the Family, 60(3), 553-568. https://doi.org/10.2307/353528
Lannutti, P. J. (2008). Attractions and obstacles while considering legally recognized same-
sex marriage. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4(2), 245–264.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15504280802096914
Lannutti, P. J. (2018). GLBTQ people who decided to marry after the 2016 US election:
Reasons for and meanings of marriage. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1–2),
85–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1420846
Lau, C. Q. (2012). The stability of same-sex cohabitation, different-sex cohabitation, and
marriage. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74(5), 973–988.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2012.01000.x
Lazar, M. M. (2017). Homonationalist discourse as a politics of pragmatic resistance in
Singapore’s Pink Dot movement: Towards a southern praxis. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 21(3), 420–441. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12239
LeBlanc, A. J., & Frost, D. M. (2019). Couple-level minority stress and mental health among
people in same-sex relationships: Extending minority stress theory. Society and
Mental Health, 10(3), 276-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/2156869319884724
Lehmiller, J. J., & Agnew, C. R. (2006). Marginalized relationships: The impact of social
disapproval on romantic relationship commitment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 32(1), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205278710
Liu, H., Reczek, C., Mindes, S. C. H., & Shen, S. (2016). The health disparities of same-sex
cohabitors at the intersection of race-ethnicity and gender. Sociological Perspectives,
60(3), 620–639. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731121416663685
Lyon, K. A., & Frohard-Dourlent, H. (2015). “Let’s talk about the institution”: Same-sex

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
31
common-law partners negotiating marriage equality and relationship legitimacy.
Canadian Review of Sociology, 52(4), 402–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12084
Masci, D., & Desilver, D. (2019). A global snapshot of same-sex marriage. Pew Research
Centre. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/10/29/global-snapshot-same-
sex-marriage/
Mays, N., & Pope, C. (2000). Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in
qualitative research. British Medical Journal, 320(7226), 50–52.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7226.50
Mazumder, S. (2018). The persistent effect of U.S. civil rights protests on political attitudes.
American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 922–935.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12384
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5),
674–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Ohnishi, H., Ibrahim, F. A., & Grzegorek, J. L. (2006). Intersections of identities: Counseling
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Asian-Americans. Journal of LGBT Issues in
Counseling, 1(3), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1300/J462v01n03_06
Ortmann, S. (2009). Singapore: The politics of inventing national identity. Journal of Current
Southeast Asian Affairs, 28(4), 23–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/186810340902800402
Oswin, N. (2012). The queer time of creative urbanism: Family, futurity, and global city
Singapore. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(7), 1624–1640.
https://doi.org/10.1068/a44282
Oswin, N. (2014). Queer time in global city Singapore: Neoliberal futures and the ‘freedom
to love.’ Sexualities, 17(4), 412–433. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460714524765
Paulo, D. A., & Mukherjee, T. (2018). How did conservative India come to repeal S377’s ban

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
32
on consensual gay sex? Channel News Asia.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/how-conservative-india-repeal-
section-377-ban-consensual-gay-sex-10823218
Poushter, J., & Kent, N. (2020). The global divide on homosexuality persists. Pew Research
Centre. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-
homosexuality-persists/
Prankumar, S. K., Aggleton, P., & Bryant, J. (2021). Belonging, citizenship and ambivalence
among young gay, bisexual and queer Indian Singaporean men. Asian Studies Review,
45(1), 155–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2020.1773762
Quam, J. K., Whitford, G. S., Dziengel, L. E., & Knochel, K. A. (2010). Exploring the nature
of same-sex relationships. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 53(8), 702–722.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2010.518664
Ratcliff, J. J., Miller, A. K., & Krolikowski, A. M. (2012). Why pride displays elicit support
from majority group members: The mediational role of perceived deservingness.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(4), 462–475.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212453630
Reczek, C. (2015). Parental disapproval and gay and lesbian relationship quality. Journal of
Family Issues, 37(15), 2189–2212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X14566638
Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Horne, S. G. (2010). Psychological distress, well-being,
and legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Family Psychology,
24(1), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017942
Rosenfeld, M. J. (2014). Couple longevity in the era of same-sex marriage in the United
States. Journal of Marriage and Family, 76(5), 905–918.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12141
Rostosky, S. S., Riggle, E. D. B., Rothblum, E. D., & Balsam, K. F. (2016). Same-sex

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
33
couples’ decisions and experiences of marriage in the context of minority stress:
Interviews from a population-based longitudinal study. Journal of Homosexuality,
63(8), 1019–1040. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1191232
Schecter, E., Tracy, A. J., Page, K. V., & Luong, G. (2008). Shall we marry? Legal marriage
as a commitment event in same-sex relationships. Journal of Homosexuality, 54(4),
400–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918360801991422
Shulman, J. L., Weck, V., Schwing, S., Smith, T., & Coale, E. (2009). The push-pull of
policy pressure: A qualitative exploration of the experiences of same-sex marriage
policies among non-metropolitan GLB individuals. Journal of GLBT Family Studies,
5(4), 340–365. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504280903263785
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative phenomenological analysis:
Theory, method and research. SAGE Publications Ltd.
Stepleman, L. M., Wright, D. E., & Bottonari, K. A. (2009). Socioeconomic status: Risks and
resilience. In S. Loue & M. Sajatovic (Eds.), Determinants of minority mental health
and wellness (pp. 1–30). Springer-Verlag.
Szymanski, D. M., & Sung, M. R. (2013). Asian cultural values, internalized heterosexism,
and sexual orientation disclosure among Asian American sexual minority persons.
Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 7(3), 257–273.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2013.812930
Tan, C. K. K. (2011). Go home, gay boy! Or, why do Singaporean gay men prefer to “go
home” and not “come out”?. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(6–7), 865–882.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2011.581930
Tan, C. (2012). “Our shared values” in Singapore: A Confucian perspective. Educational
Theory, 62(4), 449–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2012.00456.x
Tan, C. (2015). Pink Dot: Cultural and sexual citizenship in gay Singapore. Anthropological

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
34
Quarterly, 88(4), 969–996. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43955499
Tan, K., & Lee, G. (2007). Imagining the gay community in Singapore. Critical Asian
Studies, 39(2), 179–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672710701339311
Thomeer, M. B., Donnelly, R., Reczek, C., & Umberson, D. (2017). Planning for future care
and the end of life: A qualitative analysis of gay, lesbian, and heterosexual couples.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 58(4), 473–487.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146517735524
Tweed, R. G., & Conway, L. G. (2006). Coping strategies and culturally influenced beliefs
about the world. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 133–153). Springer Publications.
Ungar, M. (2011). The social ecology of resilience: Addressing contextual and cultural
ambiguity of a nascent construct. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(1), 1–17.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2010.01067.x
Weston, K. (1997). Families we choose: Lesbians, gays, kinship. Columbia University Press.
Whitton, S. W., Weitbrecht, E. M., & Kuryluk, A. D. (2015). Monogamy agreements in male
same-sex couples: Associations with relationship quality and individual well-being.
Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 14(1), 39–63.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2014.953649
Yeh, C. J., Arora, A. K., & Wu, K. A. (2006). A new theoretical model of collectivistic
coping. In P. T. P. Wong & L. C. J. Wong (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural
perspectives on stress and coping (pp. 55-72). Springer Publications.
Yue, A., & Leung, H. H. S. (2017). Notes towards the queer Asian city: Singapore and Hong
Kong. Urban Studies, 54(3), 747–764. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015602996
Yue, A., & Zubillaga-Pow, J. (2012). Queer Singapore: Illiberal citizenship and mediated
cultures. Hong Kong University Press.

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
35
Table 1
Participants’ Demographics
S/N
Pseudonym
Age
(in years)
Highest Qualification
Ethnicity
Partner’s
Ethnicity
Relationship
Length
(in years)
1
Sheldon
40
A Levels/ Diploma
Chinese
Chinese
18
2
Rayson
31
Degree/Postgraduate
Chinese
Chinese
10
3
Kamal
37
A Levels/ Diploma
Malay
Chinese
8
4
Max
47
Degree/Postgraduate
Chinese
Chinese
19
5
Brian
51
Degree/Postgraduate
Chinese
Chinese
22
6
Aaron
36
Degree/Postgraduate
Chinese
Italian
7
7
Alvyn
44
A Levels/ Diploma
Chinese
Chinese
22
8
Dominic
54
Degree/Postgraduate
Chinese
Chinese
27
9
Izwan
31
Degree/Postgraduate
Malay
Malay
8

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
36
Table 2
Prevalence of Superordinate and Subordinate Themes
Superordinate and
Subordinate Themes
Sheldon
Rayson
Kamal
Max
Brian
Aaron
Alvyn
Dominic
Izwan
Addresses which
research question?
Making Do with Things We
Cannot Change
• Accepting implicit
recognition,
minimizing explicit
recognition
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1,2
• Fighting peacefully
for equality and
rights
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
1, 2
Remaining Resilient
Through Social and
Financial Capital
• Feeling safe with our
families of choice
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
2, 3
• Being shielded by
our socioeconomic
status
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
2, 3
Our Love is Stronger than
the Challenges We Face
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
3

RELATIONSHIP RESILIENCE AMONG GAY MEN IN SINGAPORE
37
Figure 1.
Superordinate and Subordinate Themes