LGBTIQ+ break-up assemblages : At the end of the rainbow

This is a sel -a chi ed e sion o an o iginal a icle. This e sion may di e om he o iginal in pagina ion and ypog aphic de ails. Au ho (s): Ti le: Yea : Ve sion: Copy igh : Righ s: Righ s u l: Please ci e he o iginal e sion: CC BY 4.0 h ps://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/ LGBTIQ+ b eak-up assemblages : A he end o he ainbow © The Au ho (s) 2020 Published e sion Lah i, Annukka; Kolehmainen, Ma jo Lah i, A., & Kolehmainen, M. (2020). LGBTIQ+ b eak-up assemblages : A he end o he ainbow. Jou nal o Sociology, 56(4), 608-628. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1440783320964545 2020 h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1440783320964545 Jou nal o Sociology 1 –21 © The Au ho (s) 2020 A icle euse guidelines: sagepub.com/jou nals-pe missions DOI: 10.1177/1440783320964545 jou nals.sagepub.com/home/jos LGBTIQ+ b eak-up assemblages: A he end o he ainbow Annukka Lah i Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Finland Ma jo Kolehmainen Tampe e Uni e si y, Finland Abs ac This a icle explo es Finnish LGBTIQ+ people’s b eak-ups. The long ba le o equal igh s has placed LGBTIQ+ people’s ela ionships unde p essu e o succeed. P e ious s udies a gue ha pa ne s in LGBTIQ+ ela ionships y o appea as o dina y and happy as possible, and emain silen abou he challenges hey ace in hei ela ionships. Consequen ly, hey may miss ou on oppo uni ies o ecei e ins i u ional and amilial suppo . This s udy aims o mo e beyond ecu en amewo ks ha ake he simila i y o di e ence be ween LGBTIQ+ ela ionships/ b eak-ups and mixed-sex ela ionships as a p ede ined poin o depa u e. The analysis d aws on e hnog aphic obse a ions o ela ionship semina s o he ecen ly sepa a ed, an online counselling si e o LGBTIQ+ people, su ey da a, and in e iews wi h LGBTIQ+ people who ha e expe ienced ecen b eak-ups. I employs he Deleuzo-Gua a ian concep o assemblages in o de o show how di e en componen s and mani old powe ela ions come o ma e in di e en ways in he cou se o he open-ended becomings o ela ionship b eak-ups. Keywo ds assemblage, b eak-ups, di o ce, LGBTIQ+, ma iage, powe ela ions, quee [I hough ] i canno happen o oo many people, because hen i s a s o look like his [LGBTIQ+-pa en ed amily] canno wo k ou . [. . .] I p e en ed me om hinking abou sepa a ion o a long ime as an op ion. (In e iew wi h a sepa a ed bisexual woman, 2014) Co esponding au ho : Annukka Lah i, Depa men o Social Sciences and Philosophy, Uni e si y o Jy äskylä, Opinki i, OPK- akennus, Keskussai aalan ie 2, Jy äskylä, P.O. Box 35, FI-40014, Finland. Email: [email p o ec ed] 964545JOS0010.1177/1440783320964545Jou nal o SociologyLah i and Kolehmainen esea ch-a icle2020 Special Issue – Expe iences o and esponses o disempowe men , iolence and injus ice wi hin he ela ional li es o lesbian, gay, bisexual, ansgende , and quee (LGBTQ) people 2 Jou nal o Sociology 00(0) In oduc ion This a icle explo es a phenomenon abou which li le is known: he ela ionship b eak-ups o lesbian, gay, bisexual, ans, in e sex and quee and/o ques ioning peo- ple (LGBTIQ+, whe e + is an acknowledgemen o he non-cisgende and non-he - e osexual iden i ies ha a e no included in he ini ialism). LGBTIQ+ couples’ pa h o legal ecogni ion has been long and complex. Du ing he 2000s and 2010s, same- sex ela ionships gained inc easing social accep ance and legal ecogni ion in many Wes e n coun ies. Bu al hough Eu opean coun ies ha e seen b oadly simila ans- o ma ions in ins i u ional no ms ega ding same-sex sexuali ies, na ional specifici ies con inue o exis (Roseneil e al., 2013). In Finland, which is he ocus o his s udy, he Ma iage Ac (234/1929) became gende -neu al on 1 Ma ch 2017, and he Ma e ni y Ac (253/2018), which allows ma e ni y clinics o o mally ecognise p eg- nan women’s emale pa ne s as social mo he s, came in o e ec in Ap il 2019. The public campaigns ha led o bo h o hese legal changes sough he social accep ance and legal ecogni ion o LGBTIQ+ people’s couple and amilial ela ionships by inco po a ing hem in o exis ing legally ecognised models o in imacy such as ma - iage and he nuclea amily. The ecen legal changes challenge he s ill widesp ead idea ha gende di e ence is a he hea o bo h couple ela ionships and pa en ing. Howe e , p e ious esea ch indica es ha he long ba le o equal igh s has placed LGBTIQ+ people’s ela ionships unde p essu e o i in o he he e ono ma i e model o long- e m monogamous ela ionships, and o appea as happy as possible (Dahl, 2014; Gahan, 2018; Lah i, 2015; Mo ing, 2013). Fo ins ance, he ex ac abo e comes om an in e iew wi h a bisexual woman who explained ha one o he ea- sons she had s ayed so long in he egis e ed pa ne ship, despi e ecu ing igh s and o he di icul ies, was ha she conside ed i o be mo e shame ul o a ainbow amily (LGBTIQ+ people’s amilies) o dissol e han o a adi ional nuclea amily wi h wo s aigh pa en s. Mo eo e , same-sex ma iages and amilies con inue o encoun e an ipa hy in Finland. Opponen s epea edly a gue ha ma iage and pa en ing should emain be ween wo pe sons o ‘opposi e’ sexes (Jalonen and Salin, 2020; Nikande e al., 2016). We assume ha as long as his esis ance con inues, i may be di icul o publicly discuss he p oblems ha occu in LGBTIQ+ people’s ela ionships, including he ac ha hey oo expe ience di icul b eak-ups. Hi he o, only a ew s udies ha e explo ed he expe iences and causes o LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups (e.g. Balsam e al., 2017; Gahan, 2017, 2018; Ju onen, 2018; Lah i, 2020). P e ious esea ch on LGBTIQ+ ela ionships and b eak-ups has o en compa ed ei he same-sex and mixed-sex couples, o emale couples and male couples (e.g. Balsam e al., 2008; Goldbe g and Ga cia, 2015; Go man e al., 2003b). Fu he , hese s ud- ies ha e o en been in es ed in s essing how ‘simila ’ same-sex couples a e o mixed-sex couples. This a icle aims o mo e beyond amewo ks ha mobilise he ca ego y o gende di e ence o sc u inise LGBTIQ+ ela ionships and sepa a ions. Ins ead, i seeks an unde s anding ha does jus ice o messy a ec i e p ocesses ha do no assume p e- de ined indi idual gende and sexual iden i ies. We a e inspi ed by schola s such as Lah i and Kolehmainen 3 Buchanan (2015), De Landa (2006) and Ring ose and Renold (2014), who employ he Deleuzo-Gua a ian no ion o ‘assemblage’ o highligh connec i i ies be ween objec s and bodies. We sugges ha LGBTIQ+ people’s b eak-ups can bes be unde - s ood h ough assemblage heo y, which is a way o mapping how hings come oge he , and wha he assembled ela ionships enable o become o block om becoming (De Landa, 2006; Ring ose and Renold, 2014). An assemblage is a p oduc- i e in e sec ion o bodies, ac ions, hings, a ec s, wo ds and ideas (Buchanan, 2015: 390). Assemblages a e empo al g oupings o ela ions ha a e bo h un inished and open-ended (Coleman and Ring ose, 2013). In Deleuzo-Gua a ian e ms, assem- blages a e hizoma ic: hey connec bodies wi h o he bodies, ma e , a ec s, ideas and socie al p ocesses in many di e en di ec ions, wi hou assuming de e minis ic op-down ope a ions o powe . Ne e heless, i is s ill possible o de ec segmen ing and iola ing o ces wi hin assemblages. In Deleuzo-Gua a ian hough , ‘ e i o iali- sa ion’ e e s o he p ocess o s abilising an assemblage, and ‘de e i o ialisa ion’ o des abilising i (Deleuze and Gua a i, 2004). By paying a en ion o he mul iple ele- men s ha come oge he in a ela ionship b eak-up assemblage, i is possible o g asp he mos cen al en anglemen s ha shape LGBTIQ+ in imacies. Talking abou LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups as assemblages sheds ligh on he ela ionali y and mul iplici y o b eak-up p ocesses. Hence, we sugges ha he e is an analy ical ad an age in speaking o b eak-ups as assemblages (c . Buchanan, 2015). The e a e di e en ways o unde s anding assemblage heo y, which is also used in a my iad o ways ac oss he social sciences and humani ies (Buchanan, 2015). Following Buchanan (2015: 391), we conside ha he e m ‘assemblage’ loses i s analy ical powe i i is only used o name and close down p oblems; ins ead, we use i o p o ide a new unde - s anding o a p oblem. In ou analysis o LGBTIQ+ people’s b eak-ups, he concep opens a new pa h o enqui y whe e LGBTIQ+ ela ionships and sepa a ions can escape wo n-ou compa isons o ‘s aigh couples’. Since assemblages eme ge om he in e - ac ions be ween hei pa s (De Landa, 2006: 21), o mobilise his concep ual ame- wo k is also o e use o educe b eak-ups o easons, o o s aigh o wa d no ions o causali y ha la en ou unde s anding o sepa a ions. I also ejec s sho -cu explana- ions o LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups ha o eg ound op-down ope a ions o socie al powe (see Kolehmainen and Ju onen, 2018). An assemblage links i s pa s oge he by c ea ing ela ions, and i always exceeds he sum o i s componen s. In ela ionship b eak-ups, as we will demons a e, ela ionship no ms, legal s a uses, and sexuali y- and gende - ela ed cul u al unde s andings en angle wi h ma e , e en s, scenes and a ec i e in ensi ies. In assemblages, he componen s a e cons an ly connec ing in new ways and aking new o ms: hey assemble, disassemble and eassemble. Fo ins ance, he concep o assemblage g asps in e sec ing powe ela- ions by shi ing he ocus om s able iden i ies, en i ies o bodies o p ocesses and pa - e ned ela ions. The ela ional becomings o human bodies, subjec i i ies and di e ences hus exceed p ede ined classi ica ions o iden i y; a he , ma e ial and non-human ele- men s a e in ol ed in he ela ional eme gence o in e sec ional di e ences and ela ed powe ela ions (see also Tiainen e al., 2020). We he e o e conside he mobilisa ion o he concep o assemblage o be one way o des abilise he ca ego ies o homosexuali y and he e osexuali y alike. 4 Jou nal o Sociology 00(0) The ques ions o in e es in his a icle a e: 1) Wha does assemblage heo y do o ou unde s anding o ela ionship b eak-ups? In pa icula , how does assemblage heo y enable us o be e concep ualise and con ex ualise LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups? 2) How a e he sepa a ion p ocesses o LGBTIQ+ people li ed and expe ienced? Wha kinds o suppo do sepa a ed pa ne s seek, gain o need om ela i es, iends, au ho i ies and se ice p o ide s in hese p ocesses? 3) How can we g asp he powe ela ions wi hin an assemblage wi hou enewing a educ ionis iew o powe ? How do ela ions and ela ional ne wo ks cons i u e pa icula kinds o b eak-up? This a icle d aws on h ee esea ch p ojec s. The i s au ho , Annukka Lah i, is conduc - ing pos doc o al esea ch on LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups (P ojec ‘When he Rainbow Ends’). The second au ho , Ma jo Kolehmainen, has s udied ela ionship counselling (P ojec ‘Jus he Two o Us? A ec i e inequali ies in in ima e ela ionships’), pa o which included pa icipan obse a ion a semina s o he ecen ly sepa a ed. Kolehmainen hen mo ed on o explo e digi al in imacies as pa o a esea ch conso ium (P ojec ‘In imacy in Da a-D i en Cul u e’), conduc ing esea ch on online ad ice and counsel- ling o LGBTIQ+ people (see Table 1 o u he de ails on all h ee p ojec s). Con ex ualising LGBTIQ+ ela ionships and sepa a ions The ques ion o whe he and how same-sex couples di e om mixed-sex couples has been a heme in p e ious esea ch ( o a e iew, see Lah i, 2015). Ne e heless, no consensus p e ails, and he esul s pe haps p o ide us wi h mo e ques ions han answe s. Fo example, Gabb and Fink (2015) show ha he e e yday p ac ices o same-sex couples a e e y simila o hose o mixed-sex couples. Howe e , se e al s udies a gue ha same-sex couples sha e household du ies, inances and childca e mo e equally han mixed-sex couples (e.g. B ews e , 2016; Go a e al., 2011). Acco ding o a US s udy, same-sex couples show mo e a ec ion and humou when hey ha e a disag eemen , and eac mo e posi i ely o such disag eemen s, han mixed-sex couples (Go man e al., 2003a, 2003b). Female couples end o sco e mo e highly han mixed-sex couples in ela ionship sa is ac ion measu es, acco ding o a ecen s udy in Finland (Aa nio e al., 2018). Howe e , nume ous s udies ac oss Wes e n coun ies also indica e ha emale couples a e mo e likely o end up sepa a - ing han male couples o mixed-sex couples (Aa nio e al., 2018; Ande sson e al., 2006; Fa , 2017; Ga ell e al., 2011; Wiik e al., 2014). Female couples’ high sepa a ion a es a e o en explained as esul ing om hei lack o suppo in he e ono ma i e socie y (Balsam e al., 2017; F os and Leblanc, 2019). Despi e he p og ess in LGBTIQ+ people’s legal igh s in many Wes e n coun ies, LGBTIQ+ in imacies do no ecei e he same s uc u al, legal and social suppo as mixed-sex couples. In Finland, he ea o disc imina ion om se ice p o ide s also p e en s LGBTIQ+ couples om seeking help such as counselling (Kuosmanen and Jämsä, 2007), and indeed i has been poin ed ou ha counselling p ac ices s ill os e Lah i and Kolehmainen 5 Table 1. Da ase s employed in his a icle. Resea ch p ojec Da ase Collec ion E hical conside a ions Addi ional in o ma ion 1. ‘Well-being in Finnish Rainbow Families’, conduc ed in coope a ion wi h he Family Fede a ion o Finland and Rainbow Families in Finland, wi h unding om he Finnish Minis y o Educa ion and Cul u e, 2014–18. Twen y-six esponses o open- ended online su ey ques ions abou di icul ies and suppo needed du ing LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups. Collec ed in 2015– 16 by psychologis D Kia Aa nio, p ojec PI. The su ey was conduc ed online, and pa icipan s (N = 80) esponded anonymously. The majo i y o su ey ques ions we e closed, wi h a p ede ined lis o esponse op ions. The su ey was he i s a emp o in es iga e how pa en s in Finnish ainbow amilies iew he psychological, physical and social well-being o hei child en, hei amily ela ions, and he suppo p o ided o hei amily. The closed ques ions a e analysed in Aa nio e al. (2018) and Aa nio (2020). 2. ‘When he Rainbow Ends’, Lah i’s pos doc o al p ojec on he b eak-up expe iences and p ocesses o sepa a ed LGBTIQ+ people, unded by Alli Paasiki i Founda ion (2017–18) and Kone Founda ion (2020–22). Eigh in e iews wi h LGBTIQ+ people who had expe ienced a ecen b eak-up, i e o whom had a ended a suppo g oup o he ecen ly sepa a ed a e hei b eak-up. Collec ed in 2018 by Lah i. The pa icipan s we e in o med o he s udy opic be o e in e iews began. The pa icipan s hen signed a consen o m. The olun a y na u e o pa icipa ion was s essed. Fi s esul s o he p ojec will be published in Lah i (2020). 3. Lah i’s pos g adua e esea ch in gende s udies on how bisexuali y is expe ienced and nego ia ed in ela ionships. Fi e (o iginally se en) couple in e iews wi h bisexual women and hei pa ne s; 11 indi iduals eached o ollow-up in e iews. Couple in e iews conduc ed in 2005 o an MA s udy; ollow-up in e iews in 2014–15 o a PhD s udy; bo h by Lah i. Pseudonyms we e used in he epo s o esul s, and some in e iew quo a ions we e sligh ly modi ied, wi h he aim o p ese ing he ichness and in eg i y o he in e iews while also ensu ing pa icipan s’ anonymi y. One emale ex-pa ne o a bisexual woman did no wan o pa icipa e in a ollow-up in e iew and also declined o gi e Lah i pe mission o use he 2005 couple in e iew in he s udy. 4. Kolehmainen’s pos doc o al s udy (1) on ela ionship and sex counselling p ac ices in Finland, as pa o he esea ch p ojec ‘Jus he Two o Us? A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships’, unded by he Academy o Finland (p ojec numbe 287983, PI Tuula Ju onen). Obse a ions a 40+ ela ionship enhancemen semina s and o he ela ed e en s, some o which ocused in pa icula on sepa a ion. Mainly collec ed by Kolehmainen in 2015–17. The ieldwo k no es ha e been anonymised, and some de ails ha e been omi ed o al e ed o he sake o anonymi y. A ew e en s we e a ended by a esea ch assis an o ell ou side he main da a-ga he ing pe iod. 5. Kolehmainen’s pos doc o al s udy (2) on di e se p ac ices o e-counselling, including online counselling a ge ed a LBGTIQ+ people, conduc ed as pa o he esea ch conso ium ‘In imacy in Da a-D i en Cul u e’ (PI Susanna Paasonen). One hund ed and i y- wo le e s (2014–15) submi ed o a Finnish online counselling si e ha specialises in gende and sexual di e si y, and an email consul a ion wi h a counsello who wo ks o he si e. Le e s collec ed by a esea ch assis an in 2016; email consul a ion conduc ed by Kolehmainen. The le e s a e anonymous. The esponses by counsello s a e no analysed. The online si e was public, and no in o ma ion beyond ha which was publicly a ailable was ga he ed, o he han he email consul a ion. The da a was o iginally collec ed du ing he p ojec ‘Jus he Two o Us? A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships’, unded by Academy o Finland, bu is analysed he e o he i s ime. No e: PI – p incipal in es iga o . 6 Jou nal o Sociology 00(0) gende s e eo ypes and ad ance he e ono ma i e wo ld iews (Kolehmainen, 2018, 2019a). Howe e , i migh be easie o LGBTIQ+ people o exi unhappy ela ionships when ins i u ional suppo is pa ial, andom, spo adic o absen . Simila ly, i migh be easie o dis ance onesel om he cul u al ideal ha he longe a ela ionship las s, he be e i is. Indeed, we do no wish o p omo e he idea ha ela ionship b eak-ups a e always o be a oided. Many expe ience sepa a ion as a means o imp o e hei li es. E en in such cases, howe e , sepa a ions o en eel bu densome and oubling, a leas empo a ily. Fu he mo e, p e ious s udies ha e o en concen a ed on same-sex couples o same-sex pa en ed amilies wi hou aking in o accoun ans, in e sex and quee peo- ple’s ela ionships and amilies (e.g. Balsam e al., 2017; Gahan, 2018). We sugges ha LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups canno be app oached as uni a y whole, bu a he he e migh be impo an di e ences wi hin LGBTIQ+ popula ions. P e ious esea ch on he opic o LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups sugges s ha he e a e signi i- can di e ences in e ms o gene a ion, cul u e and geog aphical loca ion. In an Aus alian s udy (Gahan, 2018), same-sex pa en s aged 23–57 we e in e iewed abou hei sepa a- ions, du ing which hey had ecei ed suppo om nei he hei LGBTIQ+ communi y no hei iends. The sepa a ion o en led o eelings o shame, isola ion, anxie y and ailu e. Fu he mo e, he in e iewees el ha hey had b oken an unspoken ule o same-sex amilies, which a e conside ed accep able on condi ion ha hey a e middle class, ‘well beha ed’ and no di o ced. This is di e en om Ju onen’s (2020) s udy o he sepa a ions o middle-aged and olde Finnish lesbians and bisexual women, who had o en emained iends wi h hei exes a e he b eak-up. Ju onen’s s udy add esses he bu geoning lesbian communi y in Tampe e, one o he la ges ci ies in Finland, in 1970– 90, and as pa o ha s udy she in e iewed women abou hei ela ionships wi h women du ing ha pe iod. As Ju onen ema ks, be o e he legal ecogni ion o LGBTIQ+ peo- ple’s ela ionships, when he exis ence o emale couples was o en o e looked in public discussions, such couples we e pe haps able o de ine he e ms o hei ela ionships mo e eely. Ju onen s esses ha he ‘a my o ex-lo e s’ was one way o s ay wi hin and build a lesbian communi y. Howe e , i mus be no ed ha she does no ocus on sepa- a ed pa en s in pa icula , which migh explain he di e en expe iences pos -sepa a ion. Also, in secula No dic wel a e coun ies such as Finland, sepa a ion and di o ce a e ai ly commonplace, which may no malise sepa a ion expe iences in gene al. Finland’s di o ce a e has emained a he same le el o o e 20 yea s: app oxima ely hal o ma iages end in di o ce (SVT, 2012). Sepa a ion and di o ce a e among he commones easons o seek couple counselling o he apy in Finland. The e has been a his o ical shi , om di o ce p e en ion o he nou ishmen o emo ionally sa is ying ela ionships and suppo o he sepa a ion p ocess (Maksimainen, 2014). Indeed, he popula unde s anding o ela ionships in Finland en ails he ideas o complex ela ion- ships and in elligible sepa a ions (Maksimainen, 2014). Howe e , i is ques ionable whe he hese ideas apply o LGBTIQ+ people’s ela ionships and sepa a ions. I is one hing o be suppo ed as a happily ma ied same-sex couple, and ano he hing o ecei e ecogni ion o you g ie o e you ailed ela ionship. In o he wo ds, a e legal ecog- ni ion and inc eased igh s ha e been g an ed, he e ono ma i i y may s ill ope a e by ma ginalising emo ions o LGBTIQ+ people (Dahl, 2014; Gahan, 2018; Lah i, 2015; Mo ing, 2013). Lah i and Kolehmainen 7 While p e ious s udies p o ide impo an insigh s in o he ab ics o di e en ela- ionship o ms, when such s udies a e oo ed in dualis no ions o sexual o ien a ion o gende hey p oduce limi ed unde s andings o he complex, nuanced li ed eali ies o gende and sexual iden i ies and p ac ices, and indeed o ela ionship dynamics. This has led o he sidelining o o he componen s o LGBTIQ+ ela ionships and he neglec o di e ences wi hin same-sex ela ionships. Deleuzian hinking has been used as a pa h- way beyond dualisms (e.g. Coleman, 2009), and his a icle uses Deleuzian assemblage heo y o a oid enewing dualisms such as same-sex/mixed-sex, as well as o a oid mak- ing a clea -cu di ision be ween ela ionship and b eak-up. We employ a Deleuzian ake ha sees gende and sexuali y as p oduc s o bodies’ ela ions wi h o he bodies: hey a e abou ‘becoming’ a he han ‘being’ (e.g. Coleman, 2009; Kolehmainen, 2018), which enables us o discuss b eak-ups wi hou educing gende and sexuali y o indi idualised iden i y ca ego ies. In o de o g asp he a ec i e, li ely and o en messy eali ies o ela ionships, we employ he Deleuzo-Gua a ian concep o assemblages (e.g. Kolehmainen, 2018, 2019b; Lah i, 2018), and see mul iple and complex elemen s as coming o ma e in ela ionship b eak-ups. Da a and me hodology Ini ially, we became in e es ed in his opic h ough ou espec i e p e ious esea ch p ojec s. The i s au ho o his a icle, Annukka Lah i, in e iewed bisexual women and hei pa ne s o a ious gende s o he MA s udy in 2005 and ound ou ha he in e iewees sough o i hei ela ionships in o he oman ic ideal: o o m a du able, happy ela ionship wi h one pe son, possibly o he es o hei li es. When Lah i con- duc ed indi idual ollow-up in e iews wi h he pa icipan s o he doc o al s udy in 2014–15, i u ned ou ha mos o he couples had sepa a ed in he mean ime. La e she s a ed a new line o enqui y by add essing LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups. The second au ho , Ma jo Kolehmainen, has s udied ela ionship counselling as a pa o he esea ch p o- jec ‘Jus he Two o Us? A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships’. In his pos - doc o al s udy, Kolehmainen s a ed o pay a en ion o he di e en ways in which ela ionship b eak-ups we e add essed du ing pa icipan obse a ion a ela ionship enhancemen semina s (semina s o he ecen ly sepa a ed included). Some expe s seemed o iew b eak-ups as some hing o p e en , whe eas o o he s dissol ing a ela ionship was a iable op ion. Howe e , a couple b eak-up was o en imagined as a dissol ing nuclea amily, wi h a a he , mo he and child en. La e Kolehmainen mo ed on o explo e digi al in imacies as pa o a esea ch conso ium ‘In imacy in Da a- d i en Cul u e’. As a pa o his s udy, she is in e es ed in explo ing online ad ice and counselling o LGBTIQ+ people. When we la e decided o w i e an a icle oge he , we wan ed o know as much as possible abou he opic. Hence, o he pu poses o his s udy, we ga he ed oge he all he da a on LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups in Finland ha we could access o collec wi h ela i e ease. The da a we could access comp ises he ollowing da ase s: su ey o di o ced pa ne s in LGBTIQ+-pa en ed amilies who ha e answe ed open-ended ques ions con- ce ning hei sepa a ions; in e iews wi h LGBTIQ+ people who ha e expe ienced a ecen ela ionship b eak-up; longi udinal in e iews wi h bisexual women and hei 8 Jou nal o Sociology 00(0) (ex-)pa ne s abou hei ela ionships, mos o whom had expe ienced a ela ionship b eak-up; pa icipan obse a ion a semina s o he ecen ly sepa a ed; an online coun- selling si e o LGBTIQ+ people; and an email consul a ion wi h a counsello who spe- cialises in LGBTIQ+ issues. Ou di e en ypes o da ase s span a pe iod o almos 15 yea s, du ing which a lo has changed in Finnish socie y in e ms o legisla ion. Since he egis e ed pa ne ship law o same-sex couples came in o e ec in 2002 (Ac 950/2001), se e al legisla i e changes ha e been made in o de o imp o e he legal posi ion o LGBTIQ+ people and hei amilies, including gende -neu al ma iage law (Ac 234/1929). Ye hese changes migh pain oo p og essi e a pic u e o he socie al change w i la ge. Acco ding o a ecen s udy on social a i udes (Jalonen and Salin, 2020), a majo i y o people in Finland hink ha homosexuals should be ee o li e hei li es as hey wish, and he p opo ion sha - ing his iew has inc eased o e ime. Howe e , he esponden s we e less accep ing owa ds he igh o adop ion: in 2016 jus o e 50% o people in Finland held a iew ha gays and lesbians should ha e he same adop ion igh s as he e osexuals. Hence, he gene al a i udes owa ds LGBTIQ+ couples and amilies ha e no pe haps imp o ed as much as one migh imagine. Thus, he iews on and expe iences o LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups migh no ha e changed ha much du ing he pe iod spanned by ou da a. No ably, i was only a e he adop ion o gende -neu al ma iage in law in 2017 ha he i s suppo g oups o sepa a ed LGBTIQ+ people we e es ablished in Finland. We acknowledge ha he da ase s a e di e en . Howe e , we do no see his as a p oblem, especially since we a e no seeking o compa e hem. Hence, we decided no o make a ‘cu ’ by excluding any o he a ailable da ase s. Cu s e e o p ocesses o inclusion and exclusion in he esea ch p ocess: hey a e bounda y-d awing p ocesses ha come o ma e h ough wha hey e eal o conceal (Ba ad, 2007). Me hodological cu s make some aspec s o he explo ed phenomenon isible bu o he aspec s less so, and he esea che is esponsible o he cu s ha a e made in he p ac ice o bounda y- d awing (Coleman and Ring ose, 2013; see also Kolehmainen, 2018; Up icha d and Dawney, 2019). F om his pe spec i e, a decision o ocus only on ‘simila ’ da ase s would ha e been an unnecessa y cu – especially as he single da ase s in ques ion a e ela i ely small – as we we e hoping o map di e en ways in which b eak-up assem- blages come o ma e . As Table 1 indica es, he su ey da a was collec ed in 2015–16 o he esea ch p ojec ‘Well-being in Finnish Rainbow Families’. The majo i y o he su ey ques ions we e closed a he han open-ended, wi h a p ede ined lis o esponse op ions. The closed ques ions ha e al eady been ex ensi ely analysed elsewhe e (Aa nio, 2020; Aa nio e al., 2017, 2018). The esul s showed ha o he 89 pa en s su eyed, 68% had sepa a ed a leas once. Aa nio’s (2020) analysis showed ha 6 ou o 10 sepa a ed pa en s we e on good o e y good e ms wi h hei ex-pa ne s. Fou pa en s ou o 10 desc ibed hei ela ionships wi h hei ex-spouses as di icul o e en b oken. Fi een pa en s w o e abou di icul ies in hei b eak-ups, and 11 said ha hey had no ecei ed enough sup- po du ing hei b eak-ups. The 26 open-ended answe s a e analysed in ou s udy. O he wo se s o in e iew da a, he i s consis s o eigh in e iews (conduc ed by Lah i) wi h LGBTIQ+ people who had expe ienced a ecen b eak-up. All he in e - iewees epo ed hei o icial gende as emale; howe e , one iden i ied as non-bina y Lah i and Kolehmainen 15 he e ono ma i i y can only e y pa ially accoun o he nuances in ol ed. Pa icula ly in he le e s o he online counselling si e, he inabili y o de ine and ix s able, clea ly bounded iden i ies causes anxie y and con usion, leading se e al w i e s o e lec upon he possibili y o ending hei cu en ela ionships. Fo ins ance, in he ollowing le e , he young w i e s esses ha she sees he sel as a s aigh woman and does no wan o b eak up wi h he iancé, and ye she is a aid o becoming a lesbian: I’m a 25-yea -old woman and ha e li ed in a happy ela ionship o mo e han wo yea s. F om ime o ime I expe ience in ensi ying anxie y abou my own sexual o ien a ion. My wo kma e e ealed o me ha she’s a lesbian, and she made a commen ha i akes one o know one . . . I ha e always aken o g an ed ha I’m s aigh , and I ha e ne e e e imagined ha I ancied women, and I ha en’ ye had any c ushes on women. Bu I eel ha inding women a ac i e o becoming a lesbian would be he wo s scena io now, when I’m in a good ela ionship. I’m a aid ha i I see someone who is clea ly a lesbian, she will in ec me wi h he same hing. I ha e no hing agains lesbians. I jus would a he no be one now, when I’m in a happy ela ionship wi h a man whom I lo e and whose child en I wish o ha e. . . Wha i I jus wake up as a lesbian some day? I ind bu ch lesbians in pa icula dis u bing, wi h hose you canno ell whe he hey a e men o women. I’m a aid ha i I jus look a hem, some hing will happen, o i I si on a bench whe e hey sa be o e, I migh u n in o a lesbian. (F om S udy 5, ab idged ex ac om a le e submi ed o an online counselling si e) I would be limi ing o unde s and his w i e ’s conce n h ough he ca ego y o iden i y, which migh lead o he o ced in e p e a ion ha she is ‘in denial’ abou he ue sel . Ra he han in e p e ing he s o y as an accoun by a close ed bisexual o lesbian o a ‘la e bloome ’ – o in o he iden i a ian e ms – we see i as a s o y o ‘becoming’ a he han ‘being’. In o he wo ds, we ake i ha (he ) sexuali y can be seen as a p ocess o becom- ing (wi h) pa o an assemblage, which exceeds human o indi idual iden i y, a he han as a ixed iden i y. F om his pe spec i e, becoming a lesbian can be seen as a ans-sub- jec i e and in e co po eal p ocess, a he han in e ms o an indi idual ai o inne u h. When bodies a e no seen as bounded, singula and au onomous en i ies, i becomes pos- sible o ecognise he ele ance o ans-subjec i e and in e co po eal p ocesses (Blackman, 2012). In Deleuzian e ms, he p ocess o becoming a lesbian can be seen as ‘s a ing om he middle’, wi hou assuming a long-supp essed desi e o ‘ ue’ sel . Indeed, a empo al pe spec i e is essen ial o ou in e p e a ion. The w i e seems o be esis ing he possibili y o being a lesbian in he p esen momen , a he han ejec ing he idea o becoming a lesbian in he u u e. She w i es ha she has no ‘ye ’ had any c ushes on women. In e es ingly, a he han an indi idual, inna e iden i y o desi e, les- bianism is conside ed as an assemblage ha has he capaci y o ac upon he w i e h ough ans-subjec i e and in e co po eal con agion. Fo ins ance, lesbianism is imag- ined as an assemblage ha migh ake hold o he and u n he in o pa o i i she si s on a bench whe e lesbians ha e p e iously sa . Hence, lesbianism ex ends i sel beyond human, indi idual bodies, wo king ac oss and on human and non-human bodies, objec s and hings, assembling h ough ma e such as he bench. The ollowing example also demons a es ha he unde s anding o LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups should no be educed o he issue o sexual o ien a ion, and ha he com- pa ison be ween ‘same-sex’ and ‘mixed-sex’ ela ionships migh ail o do jus ice o 16 Jou nal o Sociology 00(0) ei he ‘ ype’ o ela ionship o iden i y. In his exce p , he in e iewee ecalls a ious o e lapping easons o he ecen b eak-up wi h he pa ne , who was unde going a emale- o-male ans p ocess a he ime o hei sepa a ion. Mul iple issues played a ole and s ained he ela ionship: he pa ne ’s ansi ion p ocess; wel a e epo s ega ding he child, ini ia ed by he male ex-pa ne ; he pa en s’ s uggle o accep i s he ‘same-sex ela ionship’ and hen he ans pa ne ; he pa ne ’s c i icisms o he child- ea ing p ac ices; e c. We had e e y possible p ocess going on, I had hese child wel a e epo p ocesses, and he had he ans p ocess going on, and ou jobs on op o i . This p ocess, o suppo one’s pa ne ’s ans p ocess, i was kind o ough, al hough I wasn’ in cha ge o i o didn’ meddle in his business, bu ne e heless o be he e o suppo him and be a li le bi a aid abou e e y hing going well. O cou se he e’s also joy, when you see ha he o he pe son is e ol ing, and he e a e joyous momen s. . .. When he enjoyed his masculini y, i was nice. Bu also a s ain o hink wha i all means in p ac ice, and how i a ec s he ela ionship, and how can one adjus o i , and wha migh happen o one’s own a ec ion. The e is a ce ain kind o unce ain y he e. Bu on he o he hand, i s eng hens he ela ionship and he bond. Bu in he end, in ou case i somehow. . .. Well, I canno say ha i o e us apa . I ’s no like ha . I ’s a e y mul i ace ed issue. Bu hen again, wha kind o man he became, how he was as a man, he wasn’ qui e like a man I could li e wi h. (F om S udy 2, sepa a ion in e iew) Wha happened in he ela ionship can bes be unde s ood h ough he idea o hizome: he e we e mul iple hizome-like powe ela ions ha came oge he in he ela ionship, leading o a ious challenges. The in e iewee ecalls ha he ansi ion p ocess, du ing which he pa ne became mo e masculine, ga e he momen s o bo h joy and conce n. She expe ienced joy on behal o he pa ne , who could now enjoy his masculini y, bu she was also wo ied abou his new ‘hype masculine’ cha ac e is ics, such as being g umpy, lying on he so a, and d inking alcohol on weekdays. Mo eo e , he in e iewee’s male ex-pa ne ini ia ed wel a e epo s ega ding he child, i s because he new pa ne ‘was a woman’, and hen because he pa ne was unde going ansi ion. Social se ices epea edly e used o accep his as a eason o suspec ha he in e iewee was unable o ca e o he child, bu i ne e heless placed a s ain on he , he pa ne and hei ela ionship. Thus he p oblems o an unequal he - e osexual ela ionship assemblage and i s powe imbalances ‘jumped’ om he p e i- ous ela ionship and e i o ialised he in e iewee’s new ela ionship assemblage (see also Lah i, 2018). Howe e , ou analysis o his ela ionship assemblage also s esses ha i migh no be ui ul o assume a clea di ision be ween ‘unequal he e osexual’ ela ionships and ‘equal LGBTIQ+’ ela ionships. The ansi ioning pa ne was also e y c i ical and con olling owa ds he in e iewee’s child- ea ing p ac ices, which caused cons an s uggles in he ela ionship. Acco ding o he in e iewee, his was ela ed o he pa - ne ’s gende : he had no won his a he ’s accep ance as a boy. He e his gende ma e ed, bu no in a s aigh o wa d way. His expe ience o no ge ing ecogni ion o his mas- culini y as a child, as well as his childhood expe iences o ulne abili y and powe less- ness, we e connec ed in a hizoma ic way o his new amily assemblage, whe e hey ga e ene gy o his en y o his pa ne ’s child. His expe ience o ulne abili y was ep oduced Lah i and Kolehmainen 17 in his new amily si ua ion, whe e he el ha his pa ne spoiled he child by lis ening o him and gi ing him oo much a en ion. Al hough he in e iewee was able o iden i y his dynamic, and also o see he pa ne ’s ulne abili y as a anspe son, his abuse o powe by ying o make he choose be ween him and he child diminished he i ali y as pa o he ela ionship assemblage. All hese issues de eloped as p ocesses du ing he ela ionship, in ensi ying a some poin s and e en ually leading o he b eak-up. Conclusions In his a icle, we ha e ex ended cu en pe spec i es by concep ualising and analysing LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups wi hou aking hei ‘simila i y o’ o ‘di e ence om’ mixed-sex ela ionships as a p ede ined poin o depa u e. Ra he , we ha e sough o ecognise he di e en componen s ha come o ma e in b eak-up p ocesses wi hou limi ing he analysis o p ede ined dualisms. We unde s and ela ionship b eak-ups as assemblages whe e mul iple elemen s come oge he in si ua ional, empo ally shi ing ways. O en hese elemen s and dynamic p ocesses a e o ganised in ce ain ways, such as in gen- de ed, sexualised, classed and acialised powe dynamics, as well as in he pain ul ela- ionship dynamics ha come oge he in b eak-up assemblages. Impo an ly, he powe dynamics come o ma e di e en ly in he cou se o he ela ionship, depending on ela- ional p ocesses ha shi h ough ime. By app oaching b eak-up p ocesses as assem- blages, we ha e e ealed he mul iplying e ec s o b eak-ups, and highligh ed hei ongoing and unp edic able p ocesses. Ou analysis has des abilised he cen al dualisms ha a e o en associa ed wi h LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups. We ha e shown how he e ono ma i i y, being i sel an assem- blage, (dis)assembles he ela ional ne wo ks in se e al LGBTIQ+ b eak-up assemblages. Bu i akes di e en , empo ally and si ua ionally shi ing o ms, depending on he o he componen s and ela ions in he assemblage. Speci ic social o de s – o example, how he espec abili y o di e en ela ionship o ms and sexuali ies is pe cei ed, and how ecog- nisable a ious sexuali ies and gende s a e – come o ma e depending on he assembling o di e en elemen s. Fu he mo e, sameness o and di e ence om he he e osexual no m can plug in o unplug new elemen s in a ela ionship assemblage, and a e hus any- hing bu s a ic and clea -cu di isions. A some poin s du ing he becoming o a ela ion- ship, he pa ne s’ gende s migh no ma e much, bu he e ec s migh in ensi y du ing a b eak-up, depending on he o he assembling elemen s. Fo ins ance, inadequa e legal p o ec ion o LGBTIQ+ couples migh assemble wi h and in ensi y o he p oblems in he ela ionship. Finally, ou analysis e eals ha b eak-ups canno be easily di ided in o ‘s aigh ’ o ‘LGBTIQ+’ b eak-ups. The e ec s o an LGBTIQ+ b eak-up assemblage a e no de e mined by he pa icipan s’ iden i ies, bu by he speci ic ela ions i o ms wi h o he bodies, ela ions, ideas and a ec s. Concep ualising b eak-ups as assemblages enables us o see bo h ‘di e ence om’ and ‘sameness as’ mixed-sex couples, bu because all assemblages a e unique (see De Landa, 2006), his concep ualisa ion p e en s s aigh o wa d gene alisa- ions. Assemblage heo y makes i possible o analyse b eak-ups in ways ha do no educe gende and sexuali y o indi idual human subjec s, o s abilise ca ego ies such as ‘homosexuali y’ and ‘he e osexuali y’ in p edic able, p ede ined ways. An 18 Jou nal o Sociology 00(0) assemblage is always a mul iplici y whose componen s a e in eg al o i s exis ence (Buchanan, 2015: 385). Ye al hough hey a e complex and mul iple, i would be a mis ake o see b eak-up assemblages as andom. An assemblage is no a chance col- loca ion o people, ma e ials and ac ions (Buchanan, 2015: 385). Since all assem- blages a e unique, singula in hei indi iduali y, we should also be able o speci y he indi idua ion p ocess ha ga e bi h o hem (De Landa, 2006). As ou analysis has shown, o example, he e ono ma i i y, homophobia and ansphobia (being assemblages hemsel es) (dis)assemble he ela ional ne wo ks in se e al LGBTIQ+ b eak-up assemblages. When we a e alking abou ela ionship b eak-ups, his concep s esses he mul i- plici y o elemen s ha migh play a ole in he p ocess o (dis)assembling ela ion- ship a angemen s, om he ela ionship be ween he pa ne s o he o he people in ol ed (ex-pa ne s, ela i es, child en, social wo ke s, e c.), and om socie al powe ela ionships (no ms, he e ono ma i i y, homo- and ansphobia, gende ed asymme ies, e c.) o non-human elemen s (such as legisla ion, o ma e ial objec s such as a bench). Howe e , an assemblage canno be educed o i s componen s, as i is always mo e han jus he sum o i s elemen s. E en i simila elemen s can be iden i ied in di e en b eak-ups, assemblage heo y s ill ecognises he uniqueness o indi idual LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups – unlike esea ch designs ha o eg ound he sea ch o easons – and ul ima ely i is ela ions, a he han componen s, ha a e essen ial o analysing assemblages. Acknowledgemen s Ou hea el hanks o e e yone who commen ed an ea lie e sion o his pape . In pa icula , we would like o hank he wo anonymous e iewe s o hei insigh ul commen s as well as he edi- o s o he special issue o hei suppo in his p ojec . We would also like o hank he pa ici- pan s o he IAS esiden ial semina o commen ing an ea lie d a o his pape while Kolehmainen was an IAS Visi ing Resea ch Fellow a UCL’s Ins i u e o Ad anced S udies in he Humani ies and Social Sciences in 2020. Funding Annukka Lah i’s esea ch on LGBTIQ+ b eak-ups (P ojec ‘When he Rainbow Ends’) is unded by Alli Paasiki i Founda ion 2017–18 and he Kone Founda ion 2020–22. Ma jo Kolehmainen’s s udy o ela ionship counselling (P ojec ‘Jus he Two o Us? A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships’ (g an numbe 287983), was unded by Academy o Finland 2015–19). She wen on o explo e digi al in imacies as a pa o a esea ch conso ium In imacy in Da a-D i en Cul u e (IDA), unded by he The S a egic Resea ch Council (SRC) a he Academy o Finland. ORCID iD Annukka Lah i h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-2613-933X Re e ences Aa nio, K. (2020) ‘Sa eenkaa ipe heiden anhempien pe he- ja läheissuh ee ’, in A. Lah i, K. Aa nio, A. Mo ing and J. Ke ppola (eds) Pe he- ja läheissuh ee sa eenkaa en alla. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Lah i and Kolehmainen 19 Aa nio, K., K. Kallinen, J. Kylmä, T. Solan aus and A. Ro ki ch (2017) Sa eenkaa ipe heiden las- en ja nuo en hy in oin i ja kokemukse . Väes ön u kimuslai oksen julkaisusa ja D 62/2017. Helsinki: Väes ölii o. Aa nio, K., J. Kylmä, T. Solan aus and A. Ro ki ch (2018) Sa eenkaa ipe heiden anhemma : Kokemuksia las en hy in oinnis a, pe hesuh eis a ja uen saannis a. Väes ön u kimuslai oksen julkaisusa ja D 63/2018. Helsinki: Väes ölii o. Ande sson, G., T. Noack, A. Seie s ad and H. Weedon-Fekjæ (2006) ‘The Demog aphics o Same-sex Ma iages in No way and Sweden’, Demog aphy 43(1): 79–98. Balsam, K.F., E.D. Ro hblum, T.P. Beauchaine and S.E. Solomon (2008) ‘Th ee-yea Follow-up o Same-sex Couples Who Had Ci il Unions in Ve mon , Same-sex Couples No in Ci il Unions, and He e osexual Ma ied Siblings’, De elopmen al Psychology 44(1): 102–16. Balsam, K.F., S.S. Ros osky and E.D.B. Riggle (2017) ‘B eaking Up Is Ha d o Do: Women’s Expe ience o Dissol ing Thei Same-sex Rela ionship’, Jou nal o Lesbian S udies 21(1): 30–46. Ba ad, K. (2007) Mee ing he Uni e se Hal way: Quan um Physics and he En anglemen o Ma e and Meaning. Du ham, NC: Duke Uni e si y P ess. Blackman, L. (2012) Imma e ial Bodies: A ec , Embodimen , Media ion. London: Sage. B ews e , M.E. (2016) ‘Lesbian Women and Household Labo Di ision: A Sys ema ic Re iew o Schola ly Resea ch om 2000 o 2015’, Jou nal o Lesbian S udies 21(1): 47–69. Buchanan, I. (2015) ‘Assemblage Theo y and I s Discon en s’, Deleuze S udies 9(3): 382–92. Bu le , J. (2004) Undoing Gende . New Yo k: Rou ledge. Coleman, R. (2009) The Becoming o Bodies: Gi ls, Images, Expe ience. Manches e : Manches e Uni e si y P ess. Coleman, R. and J. Ring ose (2013) ‘In oduc ion: Deleuze and Resea ch Me hodologies’, pp. 1–22 in R. Coleman and J. Ring ose (eds) Deleuze and Resea ch Me hodologies. Edinbu gh: Edinbu gh Uni e si y P ess. Dahl, U. (2014) ‘No Gay as in Happy, bu Quee as in Fuck You: No es on Lo e and Failu e in Quee (ing) Kinship’, Lambda No dica 19(3–4): 143–68. De Landa, M. (2006) A New Philosophy o Socie y: Assemblage Theo y and Social Complexi y. London: Con inuum. Deleuze, G. and F. Gua a i (2004) A Thousand Pla eaus: Capi alism and Schizoph enia. London: Con inuum. Fa , R.H. (2017) ‘Fac o s Associa ed wi h Rela ionship Dissolu ion and Pos -dissolu ion Adjus men Among Lesbian Adop i e Couples’, Jou nal o Lesbian S udies 21(1): 88–105. Fox, N.J. and P. Alld ed (2015) ‘New Ma e ialis Social Inqui y: Designs, Me hods and he Resea ch-assemblage’, In e na ional Jou nal o Social Resea ch Me hodology 18(4): 399– 414. Fox, N.J. and P. Alld ed (2017) Sociology and he New Ma e ialism: Theo y, Resea ch, Ac ion. London: Sage. F os , D.M. and A.J. Leblanc (2019) ‘S ess in he Li es o Same-sex Couples: Implica ions o Rela ionship Dissolu ion and Di o ce’, pp. 70–86 in A.B. Goldbe g and A.P. Romeo (eds) LGBTQ Di o ce and Rela ionship Dissolu ion: Psychological and Legal Pe spec i es and Implica ions o P ac ice. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess. Gabb, J. and J. Fink (2015) Couple Rela ionships in he 21s Cen u y. Basings oke: Palg a e Macmillan. Gahan, L. (2017) ‘Sepa a ed Same-sex Pa en s’ Expe iences and Views o Se ices and Se ice P o ide s’, Jou nal o Family S eng hs 17(2): 1–34. Gahan, L. (2018) ‘Sepa a ed Same-sex Pa en s: T oubling he Same-sex Pa en ed Family’, Sociological Resea ch Online 23(1): 245–61. 20 Jou nal o Sociology 00(0) Ga ell, N., H. Bos, H. Peyse , A. Deck and C. Rodas (2011) ‘Family Cha ac e is ics, Cus ody A angemen s, and Adolescen Psychological Well-being a e Lesbian Mo he s B eak Up’, Family Rela ions 60: 572–85. Goldbe g, A.E. and R. Ga cia (2015) ‘P edic o s o Rela ionship Dissolu ion in Lesbian, Gay, and He e osexual Adop i e Pa en s’, Jou nal o Family Psychology 29(3): 394–404. Go a, G., R. G een, E. Ro hblum, S. Solomon, K. Balsam and P. Schwa z (2011) ‘He e osexual, Lesbian, and Gay Male Rela ionships: A Compa ison o Couples in 1975 and 2000’, Family P ocess 50(3): 353–76. Go man, J. M., R. W. Le enson, J. G oss, B. F ed ickson, K. McCoy, L. Rosen ahl, e al. (2003a) ‘Co ela es o Gay and Lesbian Couples’ Rela ionship Sa is ac ion and Rela ionship Dissolu ion’, Jou nal o Homosexuali y 45(1): 23–43. Go man, J. M., R. W. Le enson, C. Swanson, K. Swanson, R. Tyson and D. Yoshimo o (2003b) ‘Obse ing Gay, Lesbian and He e osexual Couples’ Rela ionships’, Jou nal o Homosexuali y 45(1): 65–91. Jackson, S. (2006) ‘Gende , Sexuali y and He e osexuali y: The Complexi y (and Limi s) o He e ono ma i i y’, Feminis Theo y 7(1): 105–21. Jalonen, J. and M. Salin (2020) ‘Pi äisikö homoseksuaaleilla olla oikeus elää haluamal- laan a alla? Tu kimus suomalais en suh au umises a homoseksuaaleihin 2000-lu ulla’, Yh eiskun apoli iikka 85(3): 259–70. Ju onen, T. (2018) ‘Ye Ano he Lesbian B eakup? Unde s anding In ima e Rela ionship Dynamics Th ough A ec i e Resonance’, pp. 81–94 in T. Ju onen and M. Kolehmainen (eds) A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships. Abingdon, Oxon; New Yo k, NY: Rou ledge. Ju onen, T. (2020) ‘Eksäs ä ei oi e o a: En ise naiskumppani ys ä inä’, in A. Lah i, K. Aa nio, A. Mo ing and J. Ke ppola (eds) Pe he- ja läheissuh ee sa eenkaa en alla. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Kolehmainen, M. (2018) ‘Mapping A ec i e Capaci ies: Gende and Sexuali y in Rela ionship and Sex Counselling P ac ices’, pp. 63–78 in T. Ju onen and M. Kolehmainen (eds) A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships. Abingdon, Oxon; New Yo k, NY: Rou ledge. Kolehmainen, M. (2019a) ‘Re hinking He e ono ma i i y in Rela ionship Counseling P ac ices: Towa d he Recogni ion o Nonlinea i y, Unce ain y, and Rup u e’, pp. 65–79 in S. Sehlikoglu and F.G. Ka io is (eds) The E e yday Makings o He e ono ma i i y: C oss- cul u al Explo a ions o Sex, Gende , and Sexuali y. Lanham, MD: Lexing on. Kolehmainen, M. (2019b) ‘A ec i e Assemblages: A mosphe es and The apeu ic Knowledge P oduc ion in/Th ough he Resea che -body’, pp. 43–57 in S. Sehlikoglu, J. Nu mi, H. Be g o h and I. Pe heen upa (eds) Assembling The apeu ics. London: Rou ledge. Kolehmainen, M. and T. Ju onen (2018) ‘In oduc ion: Thinking wi h and Th ough A ec i e Inequali ies’, pp. 2–15 in T. Ju onen and M. Kolehmainen (eds) A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships. Abingdon, Oxon; New Yo k, NY: Rou ledge. Ko o-Ljungbe g, M. (2016) Reconcep ualizing Quali a i e Resea ch. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kuosmanen, P. and J. Jämsä (eds) (2007) Suomalaise sa eenkaa ipe hee sosiaali- ja e ey- spal eluissa ja koulussa. Suomi e eenpäin ilman sy jin ää -julkaisu. Helsinki: Työminis e iö. Lah i, A. (2015) ‘Simila and Equal Rela ionships? Nego ia ing Bisexuali y in an Endu ing Rela ionship’, Feminism & Psychology 25(4): 431–48. Lah i, A. (2018) ‘Lis ening o Old Tapes: A ec i e In ensi ies and Gende ed Powe in Bisexual Women’s and Ex-pa ne s’ Rela ionship Assemblages’, pp. 49–62 in T. Ju onen and M. Kolehmainen (eds) A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships. Abingdon, Oxon; New Yo k, NY: Rou ledge. Lah i, A. (2020) ‘Sa eenkaa ie o Suomessa’, in A. Lah i, K. Aa nio, A. Mo ing and J. Ke ppola (eds) Pe he- ja läheissuh ee sa eenkaa en alla. Helsinki: Gaudeamus. Lah i and Kolehmainen 21 Maksimainen, J. (2014) ‘A iolii on pelas amises a pa isuh een hoi amiseen: Muodos a sisäl öön’, Sosiologia 51(2): 123–38. Ma e ni y Ac 253/2018. h ps://www. inlex. i/en/laki/kaannokse /2018/en20180253?sea ch%5B ype%5D=pika&sea ch%5Bkieli%5D%5B0%5D=en&sea ch%5Bpika%5D=Ma e ni y%20 ac Mo ing, A. (2013) Oudo pe hee : No meja ja ihan ei a 2000-lu un Suomessa. Helsinki: Filoso ian, his o ian, kul uu in ja ai eiden u kimuksen lai os, Helsingin yliopis o. Nikande , C., M. Salin and M. Hako i a (2016) ‘Kelpaa a ko samaa sukupuol a ole a pa i an- hemmiksi? Tu kimus suomalais en suh au umises a nais- ja miespa ien anhemmuu een’, Yh eiskun apoli iikka 81(5): 516–27. Regis e ed Pa ne ship Ac 950/2001. h ps://www. inlex. i/ i/laki/alkup/2001/20010950 [no English ansla ion a ailable] Ring ose, E. and J. Renold (2014) ‘“F**k Rape!” Explo ing A ec i e In ensi ies in a Feminis Resea ch Assemblage’, Quali a i e Inqui y 20(6): 772–80. Roseneil, S., I. C owhu s , T. Hellesund, A.C. San os and M. S oilo a (2013) ‘Changing Landscapes o He e ono ma i i y: The Regula ion and No maliza ion o Same-Sex Sexuali ies in Eu ope’, Social Poli ics: In e na ional S udies in Gende , S a e and Socie y 20(2): 165–99. SVT (2012) Si iilisäädyn muu okse . Helsinki: Tilas okeskus. URL (consul ed ): h p://www.s a . i/ il/ssaa y/2012/ssaa y_2012_2013-04-19_ ie_001_ i.h m Tiainen, M., K.-K. Kon u i, T. Leppänen and T. Meh abi (2020) ‘Making Middles Ma e : In e sec ing In e sec ionali y wi h New Ma e ialisms’, NORA – No dic Jou nal o Feminis and Gende Resea ch. h ps://doi.o g/10.1080/08038740.2020.1725118. Up icha d, E. and L. Dawney (2019) ‘Da a Di ac ion: Challenging Da a In eg a ion in Mixed Me hods Resea ch’, Jou nal o Mixed Me hods Resea ch 13(1): 19–32. h ps://doi. o g/10.1177/1558689816674650. Wa ne , M. (2000) The T ouble wi h No mal: Sex, Poli ics, and he E hics o Quee Li e. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess. Wiik, K., A. Seie s ad and T. Noack (2014) ‘Di o ce in No wegian Same-sex Ma iages and Regis e ed Pa ne ships: The Role o Child en’, Jou nal o Ma iage and Family 76: 919–29. Au ho biog aphies Annukka Lah i is wo king on he pos doc o al esea ch p ojec , ‘When he ainbow ends’, in which she explo es LGBTIQ+ people’s b eak-ups, a he Uni e si y o Jy äskylä. She has published a icles o example in Subjec i i y and NORA. He co-edi ed book, Family and Pe sonal Rela ionships unde he Rainbow (in Finnish) will be published in 2020. Ma jo Kolehmainen is a pos doc o al esea che a he Tampe e Uni e si y wo king on he esea ch p ojec ‘In imacy in Da a-d i en Cul u e’. She has published a icles in, o example, The Sociological Re iew, Body & Socie y and Eu opean Jou nal o Cul u al S udies. Sheis a co-edi o o A ec i e Inequali ies in In ima e Rela ionships (Rou ledge, 2018).