Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

FEDERAL STATE AUTONOMOUS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

FOR HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

NATIONAL RESEARCH UNIVERSITY HIGHER SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS

St. Petersburg School of Social Sciences and Area Studies

BACHELOR'S PROJECT

Field of study: 39.03.01 Sociology

Degree programme: Sociology and Social Informatics

Domestic life experiences of same-sex couples in modern Russia

Emeshkina Daria Sergeevna

Supervisor: Candidate of Sciences (Psychology)

K.Y. Eritsyan

Saint Petersburg

2020

Table of contents

• Introduction
• Part 1. Analysis of theoretical concepts relevant for the study of same-sex couples in the domestic space
• 1.1 Same-sex couples in Russian socio-political context
• 1.2 Heteronormativity and gender attitudes
• 1.3. Importance of domestic space for same-sex couples
• 1.4 Roles' distribution among same-sex couples
• Part 2. Methodology, methods and empirical base
• Part 3. Same-sex couple's domestic life experiences
• 3.1 Adaptive coping strategies
• 3.2 Family life organization principles
• Discussion
• Conclusion
• Limitations
• References
• Appendix

Introduction Note: the chapter contains text from Emeshkina, D. (2020). Same-sex Couples in Modern Russia: Domestic Life Experiences. Project Proposal

Gender is an influential factor in organization of household activities and can be a source of conflicts in a couple (Civettini, 2016). There is a view that among mixed-sex couples household duties are shared according to gender meanings, however, it is important to see, how same-sex partners are used to distribute their obligations, as analyzing households, which can reflect institutionalized nature of gender (Goldberg, 2013). Gender norms and role expectations can also relate to same-sex couples, although these couples are not able to arrange about sex-specific housework. Gendered living arrangements exist among same-sex couples, however, they do not have any social norms, which can regulate household arrangements (Bauer, 2016). Moreover, gays and lesbians have to come across with homophobic context in Russia, so it is significant to study couple's attitude towards it and ways to overcome it. So the object of the research is same-sex couples, who cohabit or have ever cohabited and subject is domestic life experiences. The sample will include same-sex couples, who cohabit or have ever cohabited.

The research question of the paper is how is life in domestic space of same-sex couples is organized and managed? To respond the research question, the following tasks should be complete: 1) To study the importance of domestic space for same-sex couples and reactions on homophobic Russian context. 2) To analyze the domestic division of labor and finance distribution among same-sex partners. 3) To explore representations about future family arrangements.

Lehmiller and Agnew define traditional, socially normative romantic relationship as relationships among opposite-sex, same-race partners with similar background (Lehmiller & Agnew, 2006) and it is well-known, how traditional loving relationships are formed and developed, however, same-sex partners do not have such representations about dating relationships development, so their relationships formation in domestic space and experiences should be analyzed. Moreover, it is important to study how same-sex couples perceive Russian homophobic context. The models of labor distribution can differ, based on cultural factors and legislation, Umberson and colleagues believe that same-sex couples research are discovered intensely and found results in this area can expand knowledge in family studies (Umberson и др., 2015). So this paper is referred to contribute to the body of knowledge about same-sex couple's cohabitation practices.

Possible difficulties, which might be encountered is that hard to reach population is going to be analyzed, “hard to reach populations are difficult for researchers to access” (Sydor, 2013), what it means is that such population is difficult to involve in the research due to their social and economic situation and they do not want to disclose their group membership because of stigma and threat (Shaghaghi и др., 2011). The fact that the contact with an informant, who can provide access to other informants, already exists and the experience of pilot study of that population, conducted last year, can be helpful to overcome the difficulty of collecting data from this group.

Part 1. Analysis of theoretical concepts relevant for the study of same-sex couples in the domestic space Note: the chapter contains text from Emeshkina, D. (2020). Same-sex Couples in Modern Russia: Domestic Life Experiences. Project Proposal

1.1 Same-sex couples in Russian socio-political context

Same-sex relationships and same-sex marriage are under debate among many nations even in those countries, where same-sex marriage is legalized (Kondakov, 2010). With regard to the difficulties, which such couples came across, several things were mentioned. Firstly, couples experienced discrimination by religious and legal institutions. The problem with the legal rights of civil marriage was discussed as well as a lack of legal protection in comparison with mixed-sex couples. Secondly, couples covered the problem of stereotypes that same-sex relationships are considered as impermanent and fleeting, and gays and lesbians are immoral and promiscuous, thus incapable of stable loving relationships. Furthermore, couples mentioned that society disapproved and devalued their relationships (Rostosky & colleagues, 2007). There is no common opinion about the importance of same-sex marriage legislation. However, in the modern world same-sex marriage is allowed for citizens of some countries and for guests of the states as well (Kondakov, 2010). For instance, since 2000 laws about the legalization of same-sex marriage were enacted in such countries as Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, and Uruguay. In 2013 Great Britain joints them, where same-sex couples can cohabit legally as well as adopt children (Isaeva & Sokolov, 2013). On the contrary, Isaeva and Sokolov note that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Russia is unlikely because the level of tolerance to same-sex couples here is one of the lowest in Europe, while same-sex couple's cohabitation is not forbidden (Isaeva & Sokolov, 2013).

Same-sex couples and people, who have same-sex relationships and do not hide them were not highly approved in Russian culture last decades, moreover in 2013 such relation was enshrined in law. On June 29th, 2013 President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin signed the Federal Law “On Amending Article 5 Federal law “On the protection of children from information harmful to their health and development”. According to this law, “a list of measures to protect children from harmful to them propaganda and agitation the obligation to take measures to protect children from information that promotes non-traditional sexual relations” Vneseny izmeneniya v zakon o zashchite detey ot informatsii, prichinyayushchey vred ikh zdorov'yu i razvitiyu. (2013, June 30). Retrieved from http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/18423. After the law was adopted, same-sex relationships were considered as “non-traditional sexual relations” and labeled as harmful information (Rapoport, 2020).

In modern society, actual cohabitation does not have any legal status and same-sex marriages are not legal as well, however, this issue is highly discussed in scientific literature as well as in everyday life.

Marriage in Russia is defined as a union between a man and a woman and joint adoption of a child by parents of the same sex is impossible. People in Russia have a controversial view of same-sex relationships. There is a position of a number of public organizations, party, state, and party leaders, who oppose the promotion of homosexual relations. Moreover, there is an opinion of some Russian sexologists, who believe that homosexuality as a violation of psychosexual orientation, and the position of the Russian Orthodox Church, which considers homosexuality a serious sin (Kocharyan, 2009).

Kondakov agrees that the modern position of gays and lesbians in Russia cannot be called enviable as contradictors believe that in legal terms providing same-sex couples with rights that mixed-sex couples have is not considered to be important. However, on the author's way of thinking, there should be the right to legal marriage available for everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation and identity. Other rights can be spread on individuals, like the right to visit a person in a hospital, the right to leave “by family circumstances”, the right to exemptions should be given to each citizen regardless of marital status. Kondakov calls it a principle of “equal benefits” Such a concept of marriage is able to destroy the heteronormative framework of it (Kondakov, 2010). There is not enough knowledge of how same-sex couples cohabit in Russia as not enough scientific research is dedicated to the topic, however, it is important to study the reactions to social Russian attitude of individuals, who have experienced same-sex cohabitation and strategies, which LGBT representatives use to reduce an effect of homophobic context on their everyday life.

1.2 Heteronormativity and gender attitudes

domestic life same sex russia

Gender is one of fundamental term in our society. Gender assigns to an object or an individual a position within a class, thus, a position relative to other composed classes. Therefore, gender is a social relation, representation of each individual in terms of specific social relations (Abubikirova, 1996). There is a term of heteronormativity, which can be understood as the belief that heterosexuality is a social norm of human behavior and consider an only binary division of humanity into two sexes, where biological sex has coincided with social sex and a certain gender role of human (Kuraeva, 2016).

We live in a dichotomy of male and female. In the beginning, heteronormativity was due to the reproduction need of the population. Later heteronormativity has been imposed by traditions, religion, and the state. Foucault called this process as normalization of society (Foucault, 2019). Abubikirova claims that exactly gender attitudes indicate whom humans should be, particularly a man or a woman. Being born people immediately get into the system of relationships, where roles are assigned to men and women. Women have a passive role, while men have an active one, moreover, the significance of active role is higher, rather than the passive due to the relationship hierarchy (Abubikirova, 1996).

Authors have different opinions on how to define gender, thus, Goffman believes that gender is created in the process of human activity and established during human interactions, gender roles are based on power and inequality are created through the interaction of people with each other (Goffman, 1979). So Goffman consider gender as one of the roles, which people play, while

West and Zimmerman believe that other roles are influenced by gender, in the authors' words, masculinity and femininity are done by men and women, who are competent in social gender construction and creation of gender involves socially controlled activities to express male and female nature (West & Zimmerman, 1997).

Caretta and Bцrjeson (2015) understand gender as a structure, which is embedded in society and social institute with controlling and transformative impact on people. Gender system theory includes the analysis of power relationships between men and women and the existence of gender differences and inequality, moreover, it materializes into contracts. Gender contract, in the author's words, is a model of unclear rules about roles and obligations, which defines social relationships between men and women, genders, and generations. It is accepted that the gender system is based on patriarchal norms of dichotomy or gender roles and forming and controlling gender structures at different levels.

The concept of gender contract claims that in spite of the fact that power structures more often are unequal, they are not static. What is more, negotiations are in everyday practice due to the changes, which happen in society. However, the term “negotiations” is not referred to as the changes in the gender power structure, it may mean little changes in socialization and social integration levels. The cultural overlay should be changed as a result of these transformations (Caretta & Bцrjeson, 2015).

Whereas, Andronov notifies that homosexuals do not have any clear role models, which can be used for identification and imitation in their behavior (Andronov, 2008). So it is important to analyze how same-sex couples organize their family life without following gender role expectations. Such a contradictory attitude towards same-sex couples is highly connected to the fact that such behavior is considered as nontraditional gender behavior, as a result, is estimated as deviant behavior in society. However, attitude in the world has been changed during the last decades. As it has already been mentioned above, some countries, such as United States, France, Spain, and others, accepted sexual behavior, which was considered as deviant, however, Russia supports traditional social gender models. Thus, it can be said that it is relevant to study social gender models in modern society (Kuraeva, 2016).

Queer theory, which I am going to use as a theoretical framework for the research, represents the idea to follow current conceptions of sexuality, being “queer” means denying normative heterosexuality as well as homosexuality (Nomerovskaya, 2014), however, the theory claims that it is possible to arrange about limits of conceptions of heteronormativity (Namaste, 1994).

According to queer theory, in the situation of transmodernism, stable, and long-term identity cannot exist, it changes due to objective and subjective circumstances, desires of personality (Chukurov, 2016). Judith Butler appeals to the opinion that gender is not an entire core of identity, but sociocultural representation, which is related to the present time, which means that humans can feel like men or women at present may not be permanent (Butler, 2011). Butler follows Foucault, who claims that liberalism reached a new level, partly due to new technologies when it can take into account needs and desires of society (Foucault, 2015), the more freedom, the more flexible control system becomes, the more power intrudes to the private life of individuals (Butler, 2011).

Thus, when identity is constructed in the gender aspect, cultural experience gained is represented (Chukurov, 2016). Butler reduces natural connections of masculinity to males and femininity to females and associates these categories' expansion with the possibility of homosexual relationships (Butler, 2011).

Moreover, it is accepted that gender and sexuality are associated with race, ethnicity, age, and social class and should be considered in conjunction with queer theory (Nash, 2016), so, these factors are going to be included in the empirical part of the paper.

1.3 .Importance of domestic space for same-sex couples

On account of different approaches to gender roles and gender roles expectations, same-sex couples have to face controversial social attitudes and pressure. For instance, Rostosky notices that due to the difficulties couples reacted with concealment, so they monitor their behavior on the public properly in order not to be estimated as a couple. Partners even avoided communication with their close people, however, some of them managed to disclose their relationships in spite of the lack of support (Rostosky & colleagues, 2007).

Thus, many studies are concentrated on the significance of domestic space for same-sex couples. Home is considered to be a safe place among same-sex couples because they can feel secure, avoid social disapproval, public condemnation, and minority stress. What is more, gays and lesbians do not need to hide their relationships and control their behavior at home. Thus, it is important to study is there any difference in gays and lesbian's behavior at home and in public places and how do they represent their domestic space to other people. That is why the domestic space is a significant place due to many reasons, which are going to be studied below.

In spite of the fact that it was proved that houses can be places of domestic violence in a family, home can be also identified as the place of belonging, intimacy, and freedom. Home is a very private space, where people are able to provide their privacy and realize autonomy and control, where they do not need to follow social norms, rules, discipline, and demands of employment (Gorman-Murray, 2008).

Moreover, Gorman-Murray adds that gays and lesbians can use their homes for different aims, for instance, for getting together and communicating with other people, communities of gays and lesbians can be created, additionally, domestic spaces can be used for homosexual intimate experiments, so, homes can be used to contrast heteronormativity (a set of ideas, norms, and practices, which support heterosexuality, gender differentiation and hierarchy, involving monogamy, romantic love and reproductive sexuality (Hopkins & colleagues, 2013)) and heterosexual socialization.

In the author's opinion, domestic spaces are one of the first places, where identities are created and he attracts attention to the homemaking as it is a continuous process and always updates and materialized through household artifacts and daily routines (Gorman-Murray, 2006). The author proves this point of view in later work and according to the research, Gorman-Murray found that homemaking of same-sex couples is closely connected with household items, which their owners choose, by items they can reflect their self and their life experience (Gorman-Murray, 2008).

An author found that respondents in same-sex couples saw their homes as private spaces, where they can “be themselves”, because of the fact that availability to the domestic space can be controlled, which can provide safety for partners. Domestic space is characterized by the place, where partners can express themselves, which can be a physical embodiment of their romantic relationship, which partners form and share with each other (Gorman-Murray, 2006). So the research is going to fill the knowledge gap of the meaning of the house for same-sex couples in Russia, the reasons for the significance of domestic space and home functions, which same-sex partners can identify.

1.4 Roles' distribution among same-sex couples

Separation of gender roles can be seen in labor division in domestic space as it is accepted that gender is constructed through socialization, labor division, gender roles system, and stereotypes (Voronina, 2000).

The “doing gender” approach means that housework is the way, through which individuals can construct gender in their everyday life. So, this perspective proves that housework can form gender construction, which means that even if a partner's contribution to the work and income is similar, women still tend to do more housework because through it they can reflect their femininity and limitations of men in housework can support their masculinity. Furthermore, it was noticed that women with high incomes can compensate for it by the high levels of doing the housework. Thus, gender theory suggests that women can do the biggest part of housework if they accept traditional ideologies or if their femininity is debatable. Moreover, men can refuse to do the housework if they stick to the traditional gender ideologies and they feel that their masculinity is also debatable. What is more, social class can determine the level of how partners can choose to refuse to do the housework or not (Goldberg, 2013).

Thus, the doing-gender approach can be explored in the context of same-sex couples and how they arrange to distribute their obligations.

There is a common representation about domestic space organization and roles distribution among heterosexual couples, however, relationships between gays and lesbians disrupt this notion about the gendered division of labor as such relationships are not structured by hierarchical relationships between men and women as it accepted in society and same-sex couple's roles distribution is based on something different from dichotomous gender norms. So, it can be noticed that same-sex couples have much more freedom in labor division and child care as there is not any dominant social model of how couples should function in terms of roles distribution (Barrett, 2015).

Indeed, many studies show that relationships in same-sex couples are more egalitarian, rather than in mixed-sex couples due to many factors, such as financial independence of partners from each other, different principles of domestic labor division, and childcare. Moreover, Dunne claims that same-sex relationship is a challenge to heteronormative practices due to the fact that sexual relationships do not lead to reproduction (Dunne, 2000).

There are several studies, which support point of view that gays and lesbians rejected the idea that one of the partners completes tasks, which are considered to be done by women traditionally, while another partner does things, which should be made by men. avoid labor division based on hierarchical gender roles and distribute roles by principles of quality and justice. As for child care, it was found that both partners make a great contribution to the process in spite of the fact that one of the partners works more and earns more money. Therefore, child care and labor distribution gays and lesbians can undermine gender norms and traditional representations about role distribution among men and women[ Barrett, C. (2015). Queering the Home: The domestic labor of lesbian and gay couples in contemporary England. Home Cultures, 12(2), 193-211. https://doi.org/10.1080/17406315.2015.1046298, Perlesz, A., Power, J., Brown, R., McNair, R., Schofield, M., Pitts, M., Barrett, A., & Bickerdike, A. (2010). Organising Work and Home in Same-Sex Parented Families: Findings From the Work Love Play Study. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy (ANZJFT), 31(4), 374-391. https://doi.org/10.1375/anft.31.4.374].

According to the research, partners have a tendency to arrange about paid work and family roles, based on personal circumstances, including financial aspects, career interests, and desires of both partners. What is more, they had a chance to change this model in order to give both partners an opportunity to earn money and take care of children (Perlesz & colleagues, 2010).

Bauer supports this opinion and claims that same-sex couples are characterized by a higher level of task distribution and by the lower level of segregation. Moreover, it is worth saying that the income of partners can be not a reason, but a consequence of the labor distribution (Bauer, 2016).

The author based the research on family economics theory, which was suggested by Becker. According to it, time is the allocation is determined by several advantages. Resources of members should be distributed by different kinds of activities, based on their efficiencies. Such advantages are the result of the previous investments in human capital, like participation in the labor market and the acquisition of housework skills. So family economic models are gender-neutral, although can be a consequence of parent's behavior. The theory provides that in mixed-sex couples partner with higher efficiency on the labor market are supposed to spend time on work, while same-sex couples seldom come across such differences in efficiency as both partners are socialized in the same way (Becker, 1981).

On the contrary, according to Relative Resource Theory, developed by Blood and Wolfe, individual preferences can be different from household rationality. Therefore, both partners reduce their participation in housework and the more powerful partner can delegate housework to another. Such a theory cannot make prognoses by gender so it can be accepted by both same-sex and mixed-sex couples (Blood & Wolfe, 1960).

Furthermore, Bauer, comparing mixed-sex and same-sex couples, found that it can be supposed that among mixed-sex couples gender roles expectations lead to the traditional labor division. What is more, an ability to do housework is an essential measure in gender inequality among heterosexual couples, as a result, it makes a great contribution to the division of the roles, while it is a seldom practice for same-sex couples (Bauer, 2016).

So it can be said that gay and lesbian couples might ignore the accepted separation of gender roles and create their own model of roles in relationships, which is not well-known among Russian society, so it should be found what models do same-sex couples relate to and find evidence of how same-sex couples act in their relationships and answer the research question.

Part 2. Methodology, methods and empirical base Note: the chapter contains text from Emeshkina, D. (2020). Same-sex Couples in Modern Russia: Domestic Life Experiences. Project Proposal

A qualitative methodology was applied for the research due to the fact that the life experiences of certain people are supposed to be analyzed. (Semenova, 1998). Qualitative methods of data analysis are concentrated not on counting and statistical summary but on the data content, comparison, and interpretation which is essential to answer the research question of the paper. (Ulanovsky, 2009)

Data were collected by in-depth semi-structured interviews with gays and lesbians, who cohabit or have ever cohabited with same-sex partners, as such method is used to explore personal and sensitive themes, informants are supported to talk about issues, which are connected to the research question (Tong & colleagues, 2007). During the interview, the interviewer follows a prepared guide of conversation, being able to re-word, re-order, or clarify questions.

Purposive sampling was applied as it is an informant selection tool, which involves the deliberate choice of respondents based on qualities, which informants have so the researcher is interested in informants, who can provide certain information due to their knowledge and experiences (Tongco, 2007).

A combination of strategies has been used. Firstly, informants were recruited by snowball sampling as same-sex couples are hard to reach population and to study such groups the snowball method is considered to be effective. Snowball sampling means that a researcher gets access to informants by contact information from other informants, so this method helps to gain new participants consistently. To make the data collection result more efficient, several entries to the field should be done in order to decrease the influence of the first respondent and the group, which he is connected with (Noy, 2008). Secondly, with support to collecting data by snowball sampling, same-sex couples were approached by communities in social networks, such as “LGBT/dating” in VK social network, however, such method was not successful, direct approaching for the target audience was used, nevertheless, informants refused to take part or did not reply, thus, this strategy does not work.

During the recruitment period 33 potential informants have been found. Inclusion criteria involved participants, who cohabit or have ever cohabited in a same-sex couple to explore their experience in domestic space, particularly labor division practices, representations about childcare, and their reactions on Russian homophobic context. Seventeen interviews were collected - those who were recommended by snowball sample, while sixteen approached potential informants refused to take part, four of whom refused after initially agreed. Most of the informants refused without any reason, while some of them understood that they are not ready to talk about the topic.

Twelve informants, who had the experience of lesbian couple cohabitation and 5 informants, who had the experience of gay couple cohabitation took part in the research. So overall the information not only about informant's partnerships cohabitation experience has been collected but about their familiar same-sex couple's cohabitation practices as well. Interviews were conducted with one partner from a couple. Five interviews were conducted face-to-face and 12 were conducted through Skype and Telegram, 5 with video and 7 without a video, informants could choose the most comfortable way of communication for them, some informants considered video meeting much more interesting, while some informants refused to communicate using video as they were afraid to be recorded on video. Face-to-face interviews were collected in cafes, which informants could choose to provide comfortable conditions, moreover, interviews were conducted privately to exclude a possibility of third-person interference which can affect respondents' answers.

The main information about the participants is represented in Table 1 [Appendix A]. Twelve informants out of 17 have higher education, 1 informant is a student and 4 participants made a decision to quit university. All respondents at the moment of the interview were living in the major Russian megalopolises - Moscow and Saint-Petersburg, 5 of whom were born there and others migrated from different Russian regions. All couples did not have children. The vast majority of informants were at the age between 20 - 30 years, furthermore, it's important to note that most participants, while sharing their future plans about family, marriage, and children, claimed that they consider the prospect of moving abroad, however, older informants (at the age of 40 - 45 and a few informants of 25 - 30 years) believe that there is no any reason to relocate as they already have a well-paid job and established social circle, and they reject the idea to have children and get married. Romantic relationship duration varied from three months to nine years. All informants agreed for their interview to be recorded and were notified about research anonymity.

The average duration of the interview is 42 minutes, the shortest interview is 19 minutes and the longest is 66 minutes.

Interview guide [Appendix B] involved 7 blocks: first and second are biographical blocks, which consist of questions about personal participants' and their partner characteristics with a check on inclusion criteria, social class, employment status, social surroundings, and informant's background. After the guide involved questions about the importance of domestic space for an informant. Next there are questions on domestic practices, labor distribution and leisure time, finance division in a couple, and their representations about future family life. Finally, the guide consists of questions about types of partnership, which participants can distinguish and their reactions to homophobic Russian context.

Interviews were recorded and after interviews were collected, where informants shared experiences and reflected on their cohabitation practices, audios were transcribed and coded.

The methodology of the research is based on Thematic Analysis, this is a method, which allows us to identify, offer, and organize understanding in themes across the data set. It helps to work out in collective experiences. Thematic Analysis allows us to get an answer to a research question, which is explored in qualitative research. TA provides mechanisms of coding and analyzing data, which can be linked to theoretical issues (Braun & Clarke, 2012).

The research is an inductive form of Thematic Analysis due to the fact that themes are derived from the patterns, elicited from data coding, and develops theories.

TA involves six phases, In the first phase all collected data, such as audio files and transcripts should be reread to become familiar with data and notice things, which can be relevant for the research. The second phase includes generating codes, which should be relevant to the research question. After creating codes, they should be turned into themes, which capture important things in relation to the research question and represent some responses to it. Then themes should be reviewed and finally interpret the results (Braun & Clarke, 2012).

Part 3. Same-sex couple's domestic life experiences

Thematic analysis was chosen for the research since such a method is considered to be very flexible and gives the possibility to avoid the algorithm and categories which were created beforehand. Thus, it allows to capture the unknown things and provides an analysis of aspects of the phenomenon in depth, coding can be linked to theoretical concepts but not summarizing the previously learned framework (Braun & Clarke, 2012).

The analysis was made following six stages, which were created by Braun and Clarke (Braun & Clarke, 2012). As a result, 2 themes were created, which are presented in Table 2 and on the Thematic analysis network in picture 1.

Picture 1. Thematic analysis network

Table 1. Themes

During the thematic analysis, two themes were distinguished. The first one is “adaptive coping strategies”, which involves information on how same-sex couples react homophobic Russian context, what strategies do they use to overcome difficulties, and is it reflected in domestic space. The second theme “family life organization principles” covers information about same-sex couple's practices at home, informal rules, which they establish and follow and predictions about family life organization in the future, particularly, marriage and childbirth.

3.1 Adaptive coping strategies

The first theme conducted during the analysis is “adaptive coping strategies”. As was mentioned previously, same-sex couples in Russia face difficulties, such as discrimination by religious and legal institutions, they have no legal rights of civil marriage and legal protection, what is more, it was found that society disapproved and devalued their relationships (Rostosky & colleagues, 2007).

Participants confirm the idea that they have to experience stress and pressure so they need to develop strategies to adapt to such conditions. First of all, almost all informants told that they do not need to tell about details of their private life if they are not asked: “No one asked, that is, let's say, I'm not hiding anything, but if they don't ask me a direct question, then why should people be imposed something that they don't want to know, so they don't seem to know, but, as it were, we don't talk about this” “Никто не спрашивал, то есть, скажем так, я ничего не скрываю, но если мне не задают прямой вопрос, то зачем людям навязывать что-то, что они не захотят знать, поэтому, вроде не знают, но, как бы, мы не разговаривали по этому поводу”. (Interview 15, 20-25 years). This behavior comes out in various spheres of their life, for instance, at work, on the street, in communication with landlords and neighbors at home. Bilimoria and Stewart support the evidence and claim that LGBT employees can face discrimination in hiring, a promotion at work, and salary as well. So employees need to limit communication with their colleagues and do not share their private life, what is more, LGBT employees can describe their behavior by “Don't ask don't tell” concept, which can make a false impression that they do not have any private life, however, LGBT employees consider it the safest behavior pattern (Bilimoria & Stewart, 2009).

If partners come across negative reactions from neighbors, they try not to pay attention to such a negative attitude. In addition, participants consider people, who held homophobic attitude poorly educated and did not feel upset by such behavior: “I think homophobes are either people who basically have a problem with orientation within themselves or people are just very dark and uneducated” “Мне кажется, гомофобы - это либо люди, у которых есть вообще в принципе проблема с ориентацией внутри себя, либо люди просто очень тёмные и необразованные”. (Interview 9, 40-45 years). Ignoring, devaluing, and dismissing homophobic reactions can be regarded as an adaptive coping mechanism, which facilitates resilience (Rostosky & colleagues, 2007).

Furthermore, if informants understand that their coming out can damage any relationships with different people or their social connections, in most cases participants try to hide facts about their orientation and relationships.

Thirdly, like it was mentioned by Rostosky (Rostosky & colleagues, 2007), who wrote that same-sex couples conceal their relationships, monitor their behavior in public places to avoid negative reactions of other people, it was found that respondents try to reduce unwanted situations, which can happen due to their self-presentation as a couple: “It seems to me that from case to case, for example, on the same Dumskaya Street it can be completely normal, because, well, this is Dumskaya Street, there is a corresponding contingent, here, and somewhere, again, on the same Obvodnyy channel lesbians can even face what to say about gays, I don't know, in Murino, where I live now. Yes, I saw the girls going hand in hand, but I didn't see the guys” “Мне кажется это от случая к случаю, что, например, на той же Думской это может быть совершенно нормально, потому что, ну, это же Думская, там контингент соответствующий, вот, а где-нибудь, опять же, на том же обводном канале лесбиянкам могут и в морду дать, что говорить о геях, не знаю, в Мурино, где я живу сейчас. Да, я видел девчонок, идущих за раку, но парней не видел”. (Interview 6, 25-30 years). It is important to mention that some informant had an opportunity to compare social attitude towards their orientation in Russian megalopolises (Moscow and Saint-Petersburg) and in different Russian regions, it was noticed that participants agreed with the idea that Moscow and Saint-Petersburg are much more tolerant cities and they can feel freer and snug in comparison with their native towns.

Even so, interview analysis showed that a private home is a valuable place for same-sex couples due to the fact that firstly, they can spend time with a partner in privacy and show feelings to each other not thinking about how other people will react. Secondly, home is a place, where couples can feel security and comfort, avoiding public condemnation as it was found by Rostosky & colleagues (Rostosky & colleagues, 2007) as well: “A house is first of all one of the basic needs of a person, it is security, that is, a house is first of all security, way of life and comfort for a person and, accordingly, for a family in the same way where you can be alone” “Дом - это в первую очередь одна из базовых потребностей человека, это безопасность, то есть, дом - это в первую очередь безопасность, быт и уют для человека и, соответственно, для семьи точно так же, где вы можете побыть наедине”. (Interview 13, 20-25 years).

Informants shared that social support is significant for them to cope with prevailing conditions. The source of social support is found among the respondent's family, friends, other familiar people, or LGBT acquaintances. Private domestic space is also considered as a place, where couples can get together with their social environment feel freedom and relief: “It's more relaxed at home, you can invite anyone you want, close as you wish, and absolutely everyone and guests, and you will feel safe and comfortable than in a public place” “Дома естественно более спокойно, то есть ты можешь пригласить к себе кого угодно, насколько угодно близкого, и абсолютно все и гости, и вы будут чувствовать себя в безопасности и комфортно, нежели в публичном месте”. (Interview 4, 20-25 years).

Finally, a majority of informants, talking about their future plans, family, marriage and children consider perspective of moving abroad. Childcare is a particular factor, which makes private life of LGBT couples less private and entails lots of complications, which childfree couples could avoid, thus, actualizes a mentioned potential strategy. Foremost, informants strongly believe that having children in Russia is irresponsible primarily in relation to children as they can come across homophobic reactions of other children and adults, which can affect their mental health: “I think that couples who decide on this in Russia, they are very selfish in relation to their child in the first place, because they simply doom the child to an infinite number of injuries, to an infinite number of some painful memories, and I think that it's terrible, in fact, it's just very sad that in Russia, and in general somewhere in the world, you can do something and thereby spoil your child's life like this” “Я думаю, что пары, которые решаются на это в России, они очень эгоистично ведут себя по отношению к своему ребенку в первую очередь, потому что, просто обрекают ребенка на бесконечное количество травм, на бесконечное количество каких-то болезненных воспоминаний, и я думаю, что это ужасно, что это почти, на самом деле, это просто очень грустно, что в России, и вообще, что где-то в мире можно что-то сделать и этим испоганить так жизнь своему ребенку”. (Interview 1, 20-25 years). As well as negative reactions of people, same-sex couples can experience legal difficulties, like impossibility of legal marriage and do not have legal rights that mixed-sex couples have (Kocharyan, 2009): “But most likely it will be something where, of course, marriages are legalized, so that you have the entire legal package for the child and this entire marriage package, because now, for example, I was recently given a nose, and, as recently, six months ago, I was in the hospital and they allowed to visit only relatives, husband, wife and so on, because I had an infection and an infectious ward, well, like, they just didn't let her in, well, who are you, what will she say to the granny in the registry? “I'm her girlfriend”? the granny will have a heart attack and it won't end in anything good ... something serious will happen, there is some kind of resuscitation, that is, no rights at all, something happened to the child, I, for example, physically mother, and (Name) has no rights, they will let me in, but she won't, and I, for example, if I can't, if I'm on a business trip, if I'm somewhere, and she just doesn't have any legal rights to the child, therefore it is necessary to adjust all this under it most likely” “Но скорее всего это будет что-то, где, понятно дело, легализованы браки, чтобы у тебя был полностью весь пакет юридический на ребенка и весь этот брачный пакет, потому что сейчас, например, мне недавно дали в нос, и, как недавно, полгода назад, я была в больнице и туда пускали только, там, родственников, мужа, жену и так далее, потому что была, у меня, короче была инфекция и инфекционное отделение, ну и, типа, ее просто не пустили, ну, вы кто, что она скажет бабуле в регистратуре? «я ее девушка»? бабулю хватит инфаркт и ничем хорошим это не закончится…что-то серьёзное случится, там, какая-то реанимация, то есть вообще никаких прав, с ребёнком что-то случилось, я, там, например, физически мать, а у (Имя) нет никаких абсолютно прав, меня пустят туда, а ее нет, а я, например, если я не могу, если я в командировке по работе, там, если я где-то, а у нее просто нет никаких юридических прав на ребенка, поэтому надо это все под это скорее всего подстраивать”. (Interview 1, 20-25 years). What is more, it was mentioned that couples can feel free and more comfortable abroad. So the combination of mentioned reasons make informants rely on the opportunity of moving abroad. However, several informants do not consider moving abroad since they already have well-paid job, friends and claim that it is not worth rejecting from things, which they appreciate to move to another country for building a family. At the same time, they accept the idea that being married and having children in Russia is impossible.

3.2 Family life organization principles

The second theme, which was identified is “family life organization principles”. To begin with, most informants need to discuss the issue of domestic labor and finance distribution before they start living together as they mention that romantic relationships can face difficulties of daily life and leisure and such arrangements can affect reducing contradictions based on unequal labor distribution. Therefore, couples create informal rules and norms, which regulate their everyday activities and encourage each other to follow them for increasing the quality of romantic relationships: “I immediately say it to a person, even before we start living together, well, I say: “Listen, let's arrange this way”, that is, it's some kind of contractual thing” “Сразу человеку это озвучиваю, ещё до того, как мы начинаем жить вместе, вот, ну, и говорю: «слушай, давай так договоримся», то есть это какая-то договорная штука”. (Interview 11, 20-25 years).

Interview analysis showed that partners tried to divide domestic labor on a fair basis, what it means is that partners try to assess each other's time availability and energetically activities at work to distribute household chores based on these things. Such a principle was considered during finance distribution as well. Managing finance together was considered important for a couple probably due to the fact that both partners need to make a contribution to their life to feel like a mutually supportive couple. However, most partners did not demand to pay strictly equally, payments were effected by a partner's income and mostly partners distribute finance payments due to their opportunities, at the same time, informants claim that it does not matter how they share costs and how much money do they spend, their financial arrangements are unstable and not fixed, they do not count any bills: “So that we count every penny, this is not, if we go to the store, (Name) probably pays for the most part, but this doesn't happen on purpose, that is, for the most part, those who manage to do it pay, who got the phone faster” “Так, чтобы мы каждую копейку считали, такого нет сейчас, если мы идём в магазин, там, наверное, по больше части платит (Имя), но это не происходит как-то специально, то есть по большей части, кто успел, тот и заплатил, кто быстрее телефон достал”. (Interview 5, 25-30 years).

Although informants do not devalue each other's labor in spite of the fact that it provides less income. What is more, if a partner needs some amount of money, informants claim that they give it without any hesitation: “Yes, rather, even so, according to possibilities, I don't know, even if the partner gave me money this does not mean that he gave me a loan, the same thing if I gave money it does not mean that I gave a loan, I just gave him money, that is, please, for God's sake, take advantage, I won't ask them back, no, that would be ugly” “Да, скорее даже так, по возможностям, не знаю, это даже если партнёр дал мне денег - это не значит, что он дал мне их в долг, то же самое, если я дал денег - это не значит, что я дал в долг, я просто дал ему денег, то есть пожалуйста, ради Бога, пользуйся, я не попрошу их обратно, нет, это было бы некрасиво”. (Interview 13, 20-25 years).

“If she needs something, she can absolutely, like, buy, but she can call me, say that she needs money, I can call and say that I need money, and I will not ask what, she can call, say how much and I will give her how much she needs if I have, and she will not ask what, if I need, she will just give me and al” “Если ей что-то нужно, она может абсолютно, типа, купить, но она может позвонить мне, сказать, что мне нужны деньги, я могу позвонить и сказать, что мне нужны деньги, и как бы я не буду спрашивать на что, она может позвонить, сказать сколько и я ей дам сколько ей надо, если у меня есть, и она не будет спрашивать на что, если мне надо, она просто даст мне и все”. l (Interview 1, 20-25 years).

With regard to childcare, informants, who cohabited in gay and lesbian couples strongly believe that childcare is difficult labor so both partners need to take part in that process. One of the partners should work, while another should spend time with a child at home, although every evening after work and on the weekend both partners should deal with a child: “Probably at first, if, she will give birth, then, of course, she will stay at home, she will deal with a newborn child there, accordingly, I come from work, I give, like, well, like, time to relax, to let her sleep, I don't know, take a bath, eat, well, because I understand that newborn children it's crazy at all, and I understand that there should be a constant support for each other, constantly mutual assistance” “Наверное, сначала, если, там, она родит, то, понятное дело, она будет сидеть дома, она будет там заниматься новорождённым ребёнком, там, соответственно я прихожу с работы, там, даю, как, ну, как бы, время отдохнуть, чтобы она, там, поспала, не знаю, приняла ванну, поела, ну, потому что я понимаю, что новорожденные дети с ума сойти вообще, вот, и я понимаю, что тут момент того, что должна быть постоянно поддержка друг друга, постоянно взаимопомощь”. (Interview 11, 20-25 years).

Another sub-theme found during the analysis is “parity”, which means that both partners try to make a similar contribution to their cohabitation. In terms of household activities, partners, who both work, distribute activities mostly equally, although, they can make advances to each other and help each other if there is such need. With regard to financial responsibilities, informants with partners try to follow the principle of parity as well. They do not share an equal part in each payment, however, they pay in different spheres and both have financial responsibilities: “There are common responsibilities, this is to pay for an apartment, a communal apartment and so on” “Есть общие обязанности - это платить, там, за квартиру, коммуналку и так далее”. (Interview 5, 25-30 years).