Study design

It is a qualitative multiple case study (Yin, 2005). It was set in a larger study that aimed to investigate how the disclosure of the sexual orientation of young homosexual adults has had an impact on family dynamics, from the perspective of the homosexual’s parents and siblings (^{Nascimento, 2018}). The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the institution of origin of the first two authors. According to Brazilian legislation, this study was based on Resolution No. 466, of 12/12/2012 of the National Health Council, which addresses the risks and benefits for research involving human beings. The organization and writing of this qualitative study followed the guidelines of the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) protocol.

Scope

Eight homosexuals of both genders, aged between 18 and 39 years old, were interviewed, who revealed to their family members their homosexual sexual orientation. The average age was 26 years. In the composition of the sample, we opted for the inclusion of young adults who had other members also participating in the research (fathers, mothers and siblings) and reporting the repercussions of the process. Thus, eight families participated in the largest study, and for the present study, only the narratives of young homosexual adults were analyzed, prioritizing the voices of the focal individuals.

Instruments

For data collection, a semi-structured interview was used, applying a script with questions about the objectives of the study. In general, data were questioned regarding the assumption of being homosexual for the individual, the repercussions of coming out on the family and society and the identification of the support networks present in the life history of each participant, in addition to questions related to his/her routines and experiences.

Procedure

Data collection. The research started after approval by the Research Ethics Committee of the institution of origin of the authors. The initial contact with the participants took place through invitations on social networks and through the researchers’ contact networks. On these occasions, the objectives of the study and the terms of the work were explained. Those interested in participating voluntarily read the Free and Informed Consent Form (FICF) of the research and, being in agreement, interviews with possible participants were scheduled. Data collection was carried out through interviews. This method prioritizes the expansion of the theme, establishing, in different contexts, the common aspects and the particularities of each interview. The individual interviews took place in the Psychology school-service to which the authors were linked and were carried out face to face, on dates and times previously agreed with the participants.

A cis researcher, heterosexual, conducted all interviews, who had already carried out previous investigations on this topic, having social repertoires in relation to both the subject in question and experience in conducting this type of interview. Before conducting the interview, the participants confirmed their consent by signing the Free and Informed Consent Form. In this document, it was made clear that the names used in the research would be fictitious, as well as the environment in which the interview would be conducted respected the interviewee’s comfort and security and information. It was also considered the fact that, even though there was no risk in participating in the research, some contents covered could provide some type of psychological discomfort. If this happened, the possibility for these participants to talk to the responsible researcher, who is also a psychotherapist, was made available. No participant requested any kind of assistance or follow-up after the interview. The interviews were audio-recorded, with the participant's consent, and transcribed in full and in its entirety for later analysis, composing the corpus.

Data analysis. The interviews were coded through content analysis (Bardin, 2011), composed of research techniques that systematically grant the description of messages and attitudes related to the statement, as well as inferences about the data collected. This codification occurred first in each interview, producing categories based on the meanings brought by each participant and, in a second moment, using the totality of the interviews, to identify similarities and differences in the reports to support the discussion. Two independent researchers carried out this coding process, which was reviewed by a third judge, the research advisor. Content analysis produced categories a posteriori, that is, revealing movements and meanings from the respondents' statements. The interpretation of these categories was based on the studies available on homosexuality, gender, family and support network (Antunes & Machado, 2005; ^{Cadieux & Chasteen, 2015}; ^{Costa et al., 2015}; ^{Delgado, Vega, Gutierrez, Zaffirri & Ramirez, 2016}; ^{Diamond & Shpigel, 2014}; ^{Frigo et al., 2014}; ^{Lomando, Wagner & Gonçalves, 2011}; ^{Nunan, 2010}; ^{Ortiz-Hernández, 2005}; ^{Ryan et al., 2010}; ^{Sedgwick, 2007}; ^{Soliva & Silva Junior, 2014}).

Experiences of homosexuality itself and its possible consequences

Stigmatized individuals are exposed to threats to their self-esteem. Some social institutions (some families and schools, segments of the church and the state) and some mass media occasionally manifest stereotypes that homosexuals are inferior and have moral defects. In the face of outness, the individual may feel afraid to come out, maintaining secrecy and discretion regarding his/her sexuality, and thus repressing what he/she feels (Martins et al., 2010). In addition, he may even question his own value as an individual, a situation that can be associated with depression, shame, guilt, fear, distrust, insecurity, anxiety, psychosomatic complaints, feelings of loneliness, frustration, social isolation, difficulty in establishing and maintaining romantic relationships, domestic violence, risky sexual behavior, alcohol and drug abuse, eating disorders and suicidal behavior or ideation (Herek, Cogan, Gillis, & Glunt, 1997; ^{Louro, 2004}; ^{Miskolci, 2009}; ^{Nunan, 2010}; ^{Prado & Machado 2008}; ^{Ryan et al., 2010}; ^{Sedgwick, 2007}).

“Discovering” the desire for a person of the same sex is a complex task that involves a web of feelings and fears. This discovery occurs when the individual realizes that he does not fit many of the characteristics that he should have, according to heteronormative and sexist family and social precepts. Men, for example, are expected to be strong, do not cry, be interested in women, have children to continue the surname, among other attributes and actions (^{Costa et al., 2015}; ^{Frigo et al., 2014}; ^{Maffesoli, 2007}). Due to the fear of family and social rejection, supposedly a consequence of the act of "coming out", many young people are afraid to do so, which can cause emotional damage that will drag on for a lifetime - such as depression, anxiety, not being able to maintain stable and healthy relationships, having a risky sex life, among others -, profoundly marking the subjectivity, considering that disclosure is seen as liberating (^{Lomando et al., 2011}; ^{Miskolci, 2009}; Puckett, Woodward, Meireish, & Pantalone, 2015). The fear of young people is based on questions that, associated with the certainty that their desires are not in the arms of a sexual opposite, are made in the form of complaints, being formulated in the face of something considered “wrong”. Where's the boyfriend (girlfriend)?”, “When are you going to date?”, “When are you going to give me grandchildren they become more coercive as young people avoid the trajectory imposed on them (^{Oliveira, 2013}; ^{Soliva et al., 2014}). In addition, such questions can be experienced as violence both in the face of the process of outness and the possible option to be silent in the face of social expectations built in relation to the sexual orientation of these young people.

When this “discovery” occurs, many young people are faced with the fear of rejection that often occurs in the coming out, being able to experience the moment of the disclosure with silence and a feeling of shame. Arthur, for example, experienced this, he had his outness still in his childhood, in a period whose taboo about homosexuality was even greater compared to the present day; by Bruno, who expected a negative reaction from his family to the disclosure; and by Marina, who feared being stigmatized in the professional field. The concealment of homosexuality becomes, over time, an increasingly difficult and painful task (^{Soliva et al., 2014}). This factor contributes to making the so-called coming out of the closet so liberating, in some cases.

Furthermore, according to ^{Sedgwick (2007)}, "even among the most openly gay people, there are very few who are not in the closet with someone who is personally, economically or institutionally important to them” (p. 22). This is the case of Bruno, for example, who did not tell his father about his homosexuality for fear of not receiving his financial support. This statement reinforces the idea that the fear of causing negative reactions to the disclosure and consequently suffering losses leads some to hide their sexual orientation. In this specific case, the financial support of the family of origin is a marker that crosses Bruno’s decision to remain “in the closet” only for his father, fearing for the rupture in relation to the social support received from this figure.

The feeling of guilt after outness was another aspect pointed out in the data collection. Given the current situation, learning and internalization of the negative meanings associated with homosexuality and the transgression of gender roles persist, which is called internalized prejudice. This can lead to the rejection of their own sexual orientation (^{Ortiz-Hernández, 2005}). Because there is a strong and harmful stereotype of homosexuals in society, there is a tendency for members of the LGBTQ community to take them for themselves, producing negative feelings about their own identity, such as guilt for experiencing same-sex desires (^{Antunes et al., 2005}; ^{Nunan, 2010}). This circumstance was experienced by Antônio, whose idea of ​​homosexuality was associated with aspects such as sexually transmitted infections (STIs), prostitution, promiscuity and drug abuse, and it was necessary to deconstruct them to accept his own sexual orientation. Thus, it is highlighted that the difficulties of these young people accepting themselves are not only due to elements of their own subjectivity and the relationships established in the family microcosm, but to the way in which the social imaginary about homosexuality is constructed, perpetuated and transmitted in the most diverse aspects of socialization.

According to a survey by ^{Delgado et al. (2016)}, the participants experienced a double life: the “socially accepted” and the “abnormal”. Through the data collected, it was possible to verify that, in most cases, the disclosure caused sensations such as "relief" and "freedom", because the participants no longer had to hide their sexual orientation, nor had to disclose sexual identities that do not represent them, as in the case of Pedro, Sofia, Gisele, Antônio, Caio and Bruno, for example. The disclosure of homosexuality causes changes in the patterns of family interaction because the individual no longer needs to hide. The existence of family secrets tensions relationships, plaster spontaneity and creates barriers for the secret to be kept, causing distance between its members and the perpetuation of interdictions in relation to sexuality (^{Lomando et al., 2011}). Thus, in some of the cases, the way of treating the individual was changed, changing the family dynamics, whether seeking to open up more, offering support, among other changes, as reported by Bruno and Marina, for example. It is noted, from these cases, that the family seeks to restructure itself in the face of the coming out of one of its members, with adjustments that can be more or less conscious and promote greater or lesser well-being on the part of these young adults.

The coming out process and the support networks

Social support networks consist of the set of individuals and significant groups that make up the relationship links received and perceived by the individual, in which connection, resources (information, advice and instrumental assistance) and affirmation (notion that the individual is heard and cared for and that their perceptions, feelings, thoughts and behaviors are valued) are directly provided (^{Brito & Koller, 1999}; ^{Morais, Koller, & Raffaelli, 2012}). Such networks are associated with individual well-being, being a fundamental factor to face stress and physical and emotional difficulties (Masten & Garmezy, 1985; ^{Morais et al., 2012}; ^{Rutter, 1987}; ^{Samuelsson, Thernlund, & Ringström, 1996}).

With regard to the impact caused by homophobia, social support is related to less depression and anxiety, greater satisfaction with life and greater self-esteem in the LGBTQ+ population (^{Beals, Peplau, & Gable, 2009}; ^{Lehavot & Simoni, 2011}). In addition, the connection with the LGBTQ+ community is also seen as a predictive factor for psychological health, through greater self-esteem and a sense of belonging (^{Lira, Morais, & Boris, 2016}; ^{Riggle, Whitman, Olson, Rostosky, & Strong, 2008}).

As the family is commonly seen as a place of safety and affection, having it as a social support network may be the most expected and desired by homosexuals in view of the disclosure of their sexual orientation (^{Perucchi et al., 2014}; ^{Silva, Frutuoso, Feijó, Valerio, & Chaves, 2015}; ^{Toledo, 2007}). However, sometimes, the family can exercise a hegemonic model in its structure and organization, being able to react in a negative way to the behavior considered “deviant” of the member and having violent physical or psychological mechanisms, to try to fit this individual again to the rules of the family nucleus (^{Ceballos-Fernández, 2014}; ^{Diamond et al., 2014}; ^{Perucchi et al., 2014}).

It is noted that it is common for the family to react negatively to the homosexual child's coming out process, responding to the disclosure with emotions such as shame, anger, sadness and fear, in addition to exerting psychological or even physical violence on the individual. Such reactions are usually caused by different factors, such as the influence of the heteronormative social model, the fear of the individual being marginalized and stigmatized, or the fact of not knowing how to deal with the strangeness of having a family member with same-sex partners, before reaching, in certain situations, the acceptance of the homosexual relative (^{Cadieux et al., 2015}; ^{Ceballos-Fernández, 2014}; ^{Diamond et al., 2014}; ^{Etengoff & Daiute, 2013}; ^{Perucchi et al., 2014}, ^{Poeschl et al., 2012}; ^{Toledo et al., 2013}). The cases of Arthur, Pedro, Sofia, Gisele and Marina, for example, show resistance on the part of some of their family members regarding the acceptance of sexual orientation. Such resistances may have different outcomes in each case, which must also be monitored over time, allowing these families to better assimilate the process and build their own intelligibilities about the homosexuality of one of their members.

Considering family and friends as the main social support networks for the individual who discloses his/her sexual orientation towards himself/herself and others (^{Frigo et al., 2014}; ^{Lomando et al., 2011}), it is observed that, in episodes in which the homosexual can find comfort and safety when “coming out of the closet” in front of them, a positive family and social dynamic is favored. In such cases, the links between him/her and others are maintained or even strengthened.

Arthur, Pedro and Bruno show that their lives became better after the coming out process compared to when they were still “in the closet”, which they attribute to the support they received from family and friends. The same can be said about Antônio, who had no problem after the disclosure, because his family always very well accepted his sexual orientation. Thus, it is reinforced that the social support promoted by the family can contribute to outcomes considered more adaptive, favoring that the acceptance of the coming out process promotes greater proximity between members, an important indicator for the mental health of these individuals and consequent experience of sexuality in a less fragmented way.