In a new study mentioned in a previous post titled “Listening to Sexual Minorities on Christian College Campuses,” Mark Yarhouse, Stephen Stratton, Janet Dean, and Heather Brooke reported on milestone events in the development of sexual identity among Christian college students. Here are some of the key findings with the mean age of participants indicating that they had the sexual experiences:

• Awareness of same-sex feelings (about age 13 by 70% of the sample)
• Confusion about same-sex feelings (age 14-15 by 71% of the sample)
• Intimately/romantically kissed by someone of the same sex (age 17 by 34% of the sample)
• Been fondled by someone of the same sex (age 14-15 by 42% of the sample)
• Fondled someone of the same sex (age 14-15 by 42% of the sample)
• Same-sex behavior to orgasm (age 16-17 by 29% of the sample)
• Initial attribution that I am gay (age 17 by 35% of the sample)
• Took on the label of gay (age 18 by 14% of the sample)
• First same-sex relationship (age 18-19 by 19% of the sample)
• First opposite-sex relationship (age 15 by 58% of the sample)

These milestone events are similar to what others have published of college-based and community samples. A few new milestone events were added to the list of possible milestones, such as “initial attribution” and “took on the label of gay” to distinguish between attributions associated with initial ways in which young people make meaning out of their same-sex attractions and the act of integrating attractions into a gay identity (”took on the label of gay”), although there may be a better way to ask that question.

In most studies of milestone events, the outcome is a gay (or lesbian/bi) identity. This is likely due to sampling. If researchers study gay youth at community centers or in colleges or universities in which a gay identity is more predominant, then that will be the normative identity outcome. In this case, with a sample obtained from conservative Christian colleges and universities, it appears to be more common to refrain from same-sex behavior and relationships, as well as to refrain from a gay identity synthesis.

How do we make sense of these young people’s experiences? Are they closeted and looking for a way to express their “true” identity? Or are they following a value system that they believe offers an alternative identity outcome to a gay identity? Answers provided later in the study suggest that while both interpretations may have some merit, the latter interpretation likely accounts for more of the sexual minorities in this sample. Under Advice/Suggestions for the Church/Other Students, participants tended to identify same-sex attractions as a reflection of the “fallen” state of human existence. They also tended to share advice such as finding safe people to talk to about their experiences, persevere, and know that healing is possible. It would be interesting to conduct a longitudinal study of this age group to see how their experiences change over time, particularly if change or healing is more modest than what may be expected. Other themes were “not to let same-sex attraction define you” and this will raise the question of how to do that and sustain that over time.

There is certainly a need for more research in this area. In some ways this study is rather unique (of sexual minorities at conservative Christian colleges and universities), so there is ample room for furthering our understanding of this important population.