{"id":{"repo_id":"vt","oai_identifier":"oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/27664"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/vt/oai:vtechworks.lib.vt.edu:10919/27664","repository":{"repo_id":"vt","name":"Virginia Tech","base_url":"https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"\"Making it Work\": A Grounded Theory of How Mixed Orientation Married Couples Commit, Sexually Identify, and Gender Themselves","abstract":"Married bisexuals who come out to their heterosexual partners do not invariably divorce. This qualitative study included 14 intact, mixed orientation married couples. The mean marriage duration was 14.5 years, and the mean time since the bisexual spouse had come out was 7.9 years. The research focused the negotiation processes around three constructs: (a) sexual identity; (b) gender identity; and (c) marital commitment. Dyadic interviews were used to generate a grounded theory of the identity and commitment negotiation processes occurring among intact mixed orientation married couples. The findings revealed two sexual identity trajectories: Bisexuals who identify before marriage and reemerge within marriage; or bisexuals who do not identity before marriage but who emerge from within marriage. Two gender identity processes were reported: gender non-conformity and deliberate gender conformity. Finally, two negotiation processes around marital commitment were found: (a) closed marital commitment, and (b) open marital commitment. Closed marital commitment was defined as monogamous. Open marital commitment had four subtypes: (a) monogamous with the option to open; (b) open on one side (i.e., the bisexual spouse was or had the option to establish a tertiary relationship outside the marriage); (c) open on both sides or polyamorous; and (d) third-person inclusive (i.e.. couples had or were seeking a third person to bring into their marriage for both spouses). The implications for research and clinical practice were discussed.","abstract_html":"Married bisexuals who come out to their heterosexual partners do not invariably divorce. This qualitative study included 14 intact, mixed orientation married couples. The mean marriage duration was 14.5 years, and the mean time since the bisexual spouse had come out was 7.9 years. The research focused the negotiation processes around three constructs: (a) sexual identity; (b) gender identity; and (c) marital commitment. Dyadic interviews were used to generate a grounded theory of the identity and commitment negotiation processes occurring among intact mixed orientation married couples. The findings revealed two sexual identity trajectories: Bisexuals who identify before marriage and reemerge within marriage; or bisexuals who do not identity before marriage but who emerge from within marriage. Two gender identity processes were reported: gender non-conformity and deliberate gender conformity. Finally, two negotiation processes around marital commitment were found: (a) closed marital commitment, and (b) open marital commitment. Closed marital commitment was defined as monogamous. Open marital commitment had four subtypes: (a) monogamous with the option to open; (b) open on one side (i.e., the bisexual spouse was or had the option to establish a tertiary relationship outside the marriage); (c) open on both sides or polyamorous; and (d) third-person inclusive (i.e.. couples had or were seeking a third person to bring into their marriage for both spouses). The implications for research and clinical practice were discussed.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Jordal, Christian Edward"],"institution":"Virginia Tech","degree_name":"Ph. D.","degree_level":"doctoral","degree_discipline":"Marriage and Family Therapy","degree_department":"Marriage and Family Therapy","school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":["Allen, Katherine R."],"committee_members":["Few-Demo, April L.","Kaestle, Christine E.","Keeling, Margaret L."],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-04-27","date_published":"2011-04-27","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:51Z","subjects":["Bisexuality","Gender","marital commitment","mixed orientation marriage"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright"],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-05112011-160023"],"render_values":[{"text":"etd-05112011-160023","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27664","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.committeechair","label":"Committee Chair","values":["Allen, Katherine R."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.committeemember","label":"Committee Member","values":["Few-Demo, April L.","Kaestle, Christine E.","Keeling, Margaret L."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.department","label":"Department","values":["Marriage and Family Therapy"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Jordal, Christian Edward"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2014-03-14T20:11:54Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2014-03-14T20:11:54Z","2011-05-26"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2011-04-27"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["Virginia Tech"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Marriage and Family Therapy"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["doctoral"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph. D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Bisexuality","Gender","marital commitment","mixed orientation marriage"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright"]},{"key":"dc:rights.uri","label":"Rights URI","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.other","label":"Dc Identifier Other","values":["etd-05112011-160023"]},{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27664"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Married bisexuals who come out to their heterosexual partners do not invariably divorce. This qualitative study included 14 intact, mixed orientation married couples. The mean marriage duration was 14.5 years, and the mean time since the bisexual spouse had come out was 7.9 years. The research focused the negotiation processes around three constructs: (a) sexual identity; (b) gender identity; and (c) marital commitment. Dyadic interviews were used to generate a grounded theory of the identity and commitment negotiation processes occurring among intact mixed orientation married couples. The findings revealed two sexual identity trajectories: Bisexuals who identify before marriage and reemerge within marriage; or bisexuals who do not identity before marriage but who emerge from within marriage. Two gender identity processes were reported: gender non-conformity and deliberate gender conformity. Finally, two negotiation processes around marital commitment were found: (a) closed marital commitment, and (b) open marital commitment. Closed marital commitment was defined as monogamous. Open marital commitment had four subtypes: (a) monogamous with the option to open; (b) open on one side (i.e., the bisexual spouse was or had the option to establish a tertiary relationship outside the marriage); (c) open on both sides or polyamorous; and (d) third-person inclusive (i.e.. couples had or were seeking a third person to bring into their marriage for both spouses). The implications for research and clinical practice were discussed."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["Ph. D."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["\"Making it Work\": A Grounded Theory of How Mixed Orientation Married Couples Commit, Sexually Identify, and Gender Themselves"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.committeechair":["Allen, Katherine R."],"dc:contributor.committeemember":["Few-Demo, April L.","Kaestle, Christine E.","Keeling, Margaret L."],"dc:contributor.department":["Marriage and Family Therapy"],"dc:creator":["Jordal, Christian Edward"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2014-03-14T20:11:54Z"],"dc:date.available":["2014-03-14T20:11:54Z","2011-05-26"],"dc:date.issued":["2011-04-27"],"dc:description.abstract":["Married bisexuals who come out to their heterosexual partners do not invariably divorce. This qualitative study included 14 intact, mixed orientation married couples. The mean marriage duration was 14.5 years, and the mean time since the bisexual spouse had come out was 7.9 years. The research focused the negotiation processes around three constructs: (a) sexual identity; (b) gender identity; and (c) marital commitment. Dyadic interviews were used to generate a grounded theory of the identity and commitment negotiation processes occurring among intact mixed orientation married couples. The findings revealed two sexual identity trajectories: Bisexuals who identify before marriage and reemerge within marriage; or bisexuals who do not identity before marriage but who emerge from within marriage. Two gender identity processes were reported: gender non-conformity and deliberate gender conformity. Finally, two negotiation processes around marital commitment were found: (a) closed marital commitment, and (b) open marital commitment. Closed marital commitment was defined as monogamous. Open marital commitment had four subtypes: (a) monogamous with the option to open; (b) open on one side (i.e., the bisexual spouse was or had the option to establish a tertiary relationship outside the marriage); (c) open on both sides or polyamorous; and (d) third-person inclusive (i.e.. couples had or were seeking a third person to bring into their marriage for both spouses). The implications for research and clinical practice were discussed."],"dc:description.degree":["Ph. D."],"dc:identifier.other":["etd-05112011-160023"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10919/27664"],"dc:publisher":["Virginia Tech"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright"],"dc:rights.uri":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:subject":["Bisexuality","Gender","marital commitment","mixed orientation marriage"],"dc:title":["\"Making it Work\": A Grounded Theory of How Mixed Orientation Married Couples Commit, Sexually Identify, and Gender Themselves"],"dc:type":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Marriage and Family Therapy"],"thesis:degree_level":["doctoral"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph. D."],"thesis:institution_name":["Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:19:51Z"}