This study broadens the construct of intimate relationships to include the experience of lesbian couples. Various psychological variables were assessed in both partners of 275 lesbian couples who considered themselves to be dual career. Because of the paucity of information on lesbian relationships in the literature, considerable attention is first given to describing this sizable sample. Individual and couple scores on each variable were correlated with relationship satisfaction scores. Among individuals, role conflict and personal autonomy were found to correlate negatively with relationship satisfaction, whereas dyadic attachment, power, intimacy, self‐esteem, and life satisfaction were all positively correlated with relationship Satisfaction. Although career commitment was not correlated with relationship satisfaction among individuals, differences between partners’levels of career commitment correlated negatively with each partner's relationship satisfaction. The findings counter extant stereotypes regarding lesbian relationships and provide a more accurate basis for developing an heuristic model of intimate relationships among women.

The gender biases and sex role attitudes of the therapist can have a profound effect on the therapist's understanding of and responses to gay male and lesbian relationships. This influences the therapist's work with individual gay male or lesbian clients, as well as with same-sex couples. Yet these biases and attitudes often go unrecognized. In this article 1 identify four potential pitfalls for the therapist: stereotyping, heterosexual bias, the overemphasis on sex roles in understanding intimate relationships, and the difficulty of working with "hidden populations." Previously published data from research on same-sex relationships are presented to suggest how gender may influence these relationships. Guidelines for recognizing and expanding the therapist's frame of reference in working with gay male or lesbian couples and individuals are suggested.

Helminiak ( 1 994) is recommended for those who have religious beliefs that conflict with an acceptance of lesbians and gays "Savin-Williams ( 1995) discusses lesbian, gay, and bisexual male and female adolescentsCopyright American Psychological Association. Not for further distribution. Note:The following are recommended for a further understanding of lesbians and gays from specific ethnic groups: Greene (1994), Peterson (1992), Lockman (1984), Whitman and Mathy (1985), Balka andRose (1989), andTafoya andRowell (1988). See also Morales (1989)."See Jackson (1993) for addresses and meetings of groups for gays and lesbians of specific ethnic backgrounds.

The biracial lesbian-led adoptive family is a growing subset of American families. What contextual and systemic dimensions of these families do therapists need to understand to work with them effectively? In most aspects of family functioning, biracial lesbian-led adoptive families are more similar to other subsets of families than different. Concerns for their children's health, safety, education, and future are embedded in the everyday activities and choices of the parents. Yet the multiple group identities that these families reflect simultaneously position them in both dominant and nondominant groups within society. It is the dynamic interaction of these group identities that we wish to highlight here, providing guidance to therapists in approaching these families from a feminist perspective that affirms both the challenges and the strengths these families demonstrate.Feminist therapy, in highlighting the gendered and racial power hierarchies in the larger society, has explored the impact of group identity on individual experience, whether the individual is aware or unaware of this identity. Barrett (1998) asserted the importance of integrating "group identity, from both a minority and majority position, into a personal understanding of oneself and one's connections" (p. 52). For example, we (the authors) benefit from understanding the sexism or misogyny we often encounter as women. At the same time, as White women we benefit from understanding the significant, and sometimes unnoticed (by us), privilege we consistently are awarded because of our White group identity. Other group identities emerge in our relational contexts with our clients, such as professional status, age, physical ability, sexual orientation, or parental status. The relevance of each group identity shifts from one relational context to another. As we practice holding the complex and shifting dimensions of our own many

No abstract