LGBT Loneliness and Minority Stress
By: Ênio Lucio Souza de Andrade
An open conversation about loneliness can be something difficult to accomplish under normal circumstances. Due to the fact that it involves a whole bunch of social issues with challenging solutions that may cause the conversation to be put aside and the problem to be ignored. The definition of loneliness states that it is the lack of friends or any kind of company that causes loneliness symptoms. Its cure, basically, is to revert the situation, in other words, get out more, make friends and meet new people, creating bounds to improve a person’s social skills.
As stated, the causes of loneliness are not openly discussed due to its complexity: many social and psychological problems can be listed here to prove this argument. But this text intends to explore the issue within a very specific group: the LGBT community.
Last year an internet blog post was published at Huffingtonpost and became viral because of its topic and the arguments it brought into the discussion of LGBT loneliness, although its main focus was on the gay community. The article by Michael Hobbes is called “The Epidemic of gay Loneliness” and begins by telling the story of his friend who was in the hospital after an overdose of crystal meth. The text passes though some topics to introduce its central argument: minority stress. This concept is about the stresses LGBT people go thought in their lives just for being part of that specific group or identity. these stresses are the main topics that this text wants to discuss.
One social problem the author presents as a result of gay loneliness is the use of drugs, lack of self confidence, and suicide. The traumatics experiences of a LGBT person can contribute to destructive psychological responses of the human being. We cannot for certainty tell that it is that main cause, but it definitely contributes to these issues. Growing up as an LGBT person, in general, means to live in constant fear knowing you’re in a vulnerable group, with potential exposure to physical or/and psychological violence which may result in interpersonal relationship problems. It is dangerous to affirm these arguments, but it is a path many specialists use to understand an individual’s destructive behavior.
Another argument the author presents is the gay lifestyle and its impact on the psychology of an individual. His explanation compares gay men in their mid 30’s who are still single with no perspective to find a life partner with straight couples that, at the same age, are getting married, having kids and moving to the suburbs. His point of view comes from the idea that life works in a linear way that ends up in marriage and children. A great number of male gay couples do not accomplish that in their lives and that frustration is notorious in the text, which represents many peoples disappointments in the whole LGBT community. His theory leads us to think that the high levels of depression, abuse of drugs and other physiological issues among LGBT people comes from this difficulty to find a life partner.
One good example of this reality exposed in the article is a movie called ‘Beach Rats’. It’s narrative turns around a teenage boy who is struggling to accept and conciliate his sexallity with his heterossexual friends way of life. The situation leads him to look for older men on the internet and setting dates in isolated places. The film illustrates perfectly the point the author is arguing about.
Although those are valid arguments presented in the text, there is something that bothers me: aren’t we taking the major straight way of living as a role model to how LGBT people should relate? The author obviously believes happy endings are “the right” way to be in a relationship, not being a choice but an obligation. He blames the LGBT community for having a promiscuous life, especially when he mentions the dating apps and the legislation of gay marriage. As a middle class gay white man, he expected the approval of a gay marriage law would end those kinds of issues. When he mix those arguments, he starts to sound homophobic, moralist and machista.
The theme of loneliness only fits in with certain types of people and a great part of the LGBT community can’t fit in those models. Many discussions about class, gender and machismo are not considered when this topic is discussed. Even the debate about the abuse of drugs needs to be analysed in those terms because the “minority stresses” can be felt inside and outside of the LGBT community.
