In homosexual relationships equality of status and power are the most important factors of the relationship. Blumstein & Schwartz (1983) found that lack of power equality played a dominant role in the ending of gay and lesbian relationships, but not of heterosexual marriages. This would imply that there are clear differences between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. Yip (1999) suggested that homosexuals seem to embrace “the ethic of equality and reciprocity”. Although it is fair to say that individual differences play a major role especially in homosexual relationships. For example, when referring to the equity theory of maintenance of relationships, homosexual relationships that are equitable should last longer than heterosexual relationships. This is when individual differences play a major role, such as the effect of past relationships. But the suggestion still remains that homosexual relationships that are equitable should last longer than heterosexual relationships. This is challenged by Kitzinger and Coyle (1995), who pointed out that “lesbian and gay couples are struggling to build and to maintain relationships in the context of a society that often denies their existence…and denies their love for each other”. This supports the fact that cohabitation is much less common in homosexual relationships than in heterosexual ones.
It is clear that far more investigations must be conducted into the research of understudied relationships such as gay and lesbian relationships, in order to understand such relationships on a deeper level. One reason for this is so that the knowledge that is gained by researchers can be applied in the real world to help prevent the HIV crisis.
Another intriguing new area of research into relationships is electronic friendships, which comes in many different forms: internet chat rooms, e-mail, MUDs, MOOs and MSN to name but a few. Despite having different names the one thing these all have in common is that they are all a form of computer mediated communication (CMC).
Kerr (1982) interviewed a person who stated that “I’ve talked to some people for years without knowing where they live or their real names. Yet they’re as much a presence in my life as if they were right in the room”. To support this, one MUD user described other mud users as his “friends, they’re the people who like me most in the entire world…they are my family not just some dumb game”. This suggests that even though many of the people who chat online have never met, it does not mean to say that the relationships formed are any less real or significant.
Hultin (1993) found that the formation of “electronic” relationships is similar to face-to-face relationships. In the same way that, initially people in use groups sought out similar individuals. Then if different interests or attitudes between one another were discovered, contact would become less frequent until a cessation occurred.
Chat rooms are a type of usenet for the purpose of more personal relationships, such as cyberaffairs. Griffiths (1996) found that some may just be for eroticism, though may lead on to become real romantic encounters. Others use it to continue real time affairs when face-to-face contact is not possible.
To conclude, “electronic” relationships provide anonymity, convenience and escape. But this can have both positive and negative effects. It is considered as dangerous by some, as such affairs may be founded on untruths and vulnerable individuals may be seduced emotionally and sexually, as JennyMUSH: a case of internet abuse proved. Many believe that real life relationships are far more satisfying whereas others believe that there is no harm in “electronic” relationships as they are no different to having penpals. Therefore it is clear that this topic needs to be further studied by researchers.
