The Psychology of Gossiping – in a snapshot

Psychological factors influencing drug use in Sydney’s gay community often stem from unique social and emotional challenges. Research highlights that stigma, discrimination, self-stigma, and internalised homophobia can lead to feelings of isolation, shame, and mental distress, which may increase vulnerability to substance use.

Additionally, the normalisation of partying in certain social settings, such as bars and clubs, has historically been a way for subcultural populations of LGBTQ+ individuals to connect and find community. However, this environment can also contribute to higher rates of drug use. Emotional coping mechanisms, such as using substances to manage stress or trauma, are also significant factors.

The biopsychosocial model provides a comprehensive framework for understanding alcohol and other drug dependency in the LGBTIA+ community. Here’s a breakdown of the factors:

1. Biological Factors:
   • Genetic predisposition plays a role, with some individuals being more vulnerable to chemical dependency due to inherited traits.
   • Neurobiological changes caused by substance use can alter brain function, making it very challenging to reduce or stop using substances despite the negative consequences occurring in the individual’s life.
2. Psychological Factors:
   • Trauma, such as adverse childhood experiences, peer bullying, neglect, authoritarian child rearing, seemingly innocuous societal messages, and/or discrimination, can lead to emotional distress and substance use as a coping mechanism.
   • Internalised stigma, homophobia, or transphobia can exacerbate mental health issues like anxiety and depression, increasing the risk of substance use and potential physical and psychological dependency.
3. Social Factors:
   • Experiences of ostracism, violence, or lack of acceptance and belonging can lead to isolation and substance use.
   • Social norms in certain LGBTQ+ spaces, such as bars or clubs, may normalise or encourage substance use.

This model underscores the importance of addressing all these interconnected factors in prevention and treatment efforts.

The Flux Study, also known as “Following Lives Undergoing Change,” is a longitudinal research project focusing on the lives of gay and bisexual men in Australia. Conducted by the Kirby Institute at UNSW Sydney, it examines various aspects of health, behaviour, and social factors, including drug use, sexual health, and the adoption of HIV prevention strategies like PrEP.

Key findings from the study include:

• Recreational drug use is common among gay and bisexual men, with substances like marijuana, amyl nitrite (“poppers”), and party drugs being frequently used. However, dependency rates are relatively low.
• Drug use is often linked to enhancing pleasurable experiences, including sexual enjoyment.
• The study has provided insights into how men mitigate risks, such as using biomedical HIV prevention methods alongside drug use.

The Flux Study is a collaborative effort involving organisations like the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, ACON, and the Victorian AIDS Council. It aims to inform health interventions and support services tailored to the needs of this community.

The Flux Study has provided valuable insights into the health and behaviours of gay and bisexual men in Australia. Here are some key findings:

• Drug Use: While recreational drug use is common, most participants reported infrequent use. Harm reduction strategies, such as not sharing injecting equipment, were widely practiced.
• HIV Prevention: There was a significant increase in the uptake of HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), with usage rising from less than 1% in 2014 to about one-third of participants by 2017.
• COVID-19 Impact: During the pandemic, participants reduced sexual contacts and adapted strategies to minimize risks in sexual contexts. Many also paused PrEP usage due to reduced sexual activity.
• Mental Health: A notable proportion of participants reported mental health challenges, highlighting the need for targeted support services.

There are several support services available for addressing mental health challenges, particularly for the LGBTIA+ community in Australia. Here are some key options:

1. QLife: A free, anonymous peer support and referral service for LGBTQ+ individuals. It operates via phone and webchat from 3 PM to midnight, 7 days a week. Phone: 1800 184 527. Their website provides a webchat service: QLife – Support and Referrals
2. Beyond Blue: Offers 24/7 mental health support, including phone and online counselling. They also provide resources tailored to the LGBTQ+ community. Phone: 1300 22 4636. Click the following link to Beyond Blue’s Wellbeing Action Tool: beyond-blue-wellbeing-action-tool_dec_2024_updated.pdf
3. Lifeline: A leading crisis support service available 24/7 for anyone in distress. They offer phone, text, and online counselling. Phone: 13 11 14
4. Head to Health: Connects individuals to mental health resources, including helplines, apps, and digital programs. Medicare Mental Health is a free service that connects you with the mental health support that is right for you. Phone: 1800 595 212 or visit their website: Home | Medicare Mental Health
5. WayAhead Directory: An online database to find local mental health services and resources. Phone: 1300 794 991
6. NSW Mental Health Line: A 24/7 telephone service providing advice and recommendations for appropriate care. Phone: 1800 011 511

These services are designed to provide immediate support and guide individuals toward long-term mental health care.

Retrieved and edited 06/12/2021 from “Voice of Experience: Three rules for identifying abnormal child sexual behaviors” by Gregory K. Moffatt, a veteran counsellor with more than 30 years experience. If you are a survivor of sexual trauma at any age, I encourage you not to read this article.

From the perspective of Moffatt’s professional experience, childhood sexual behaviours can be grouped into three categories: 1. normal behaviours, 2. behaviours that are not normal but not unusual, and 3. behaviours that are abnormal or statistically rare. For the purpose of this post, I will be replacing the word “normal” with “natural” and/or “common” moving forward.

Rule No. 1: Natural or common sexual behaviours in children are never forced. The exploration is mutual. While one child likely had the idea first, both children must participate freely. This doesn’t mean that two children might willingly agree to engage in abnormal sexual behaviours, however, therefore read the next to rules for clarification.

Rule No. 2: Natural or common sexual behaviours in children are never painful. Children who behave within cultural and developmental norms will stop what they are doing when they realise they have caused pain.

Rule No. 3: Natural or common sexual behaviour in children is never invasive. Natural childhood curiosity does not include inserting objects or one’s own body parts into the cavities of others — anus, vagina, mouth, etc.

I’m unsure why Moffatt didn’t make this a 4th rule – he did add that most of the time, this type of childhood behaviour occurs between children of similar age. It is highly unusual for a young child to sexually engage with a teen without violating one of the three rules above. That behaviour definitely calls for further investigation. And, certainly, any sexual interaction between an adult and a child is cause for mandated reporting.

“I’m just lazy.” It’s one of the most common things we say about ourselves, and it’s almost always inaccurate — or at least, it’s not the full story. “Lazy” is a character judgement. It implies a fixed trait, a moral failing, something the person simply is. In reality, what looks like so-called “laziness” from the outside is usually a specific, nameable process happening underneath: low energy, fear, overwhelm, disconnection from meaning, or a nervous system that’s stuck.

Swapping “lazy” for “unmotivated” is a good first step, but it can still flatten quite different experiences into one vague label. Below are some more precise alternatives, what they actually describe, and examples of how they show up in real life.

When the problem is getting started

Low activation
This describes difficulty initiating action even when the desire is genuinely there. The want exists; the ignition doesn’t turn over.

Example: Someone wants to reply to a mate’s text, has wanted to all day, keeps thinking about it — and still hasn’t opened the message by evening. It’s not that they don’t care.

Avolition
A more clinical term for a reduced capacity to initiate and follow through on goal-directed behaviour. It’s heavier and more diagnostic, yet accurate. It is commonly linked to major depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia.

Example: A person who used to cook every night now can’t manage to put a frozen meal in the microwave, despite being hungry and having no external barrier.

Task paralysis / overwhelm-driven inaction
The task itself feels too big, too undefined, or too loaded, so the person freezes rather than starts.

Example: A person needs to “sort out their finances.” There’s no single first step, so nothing happens — not because they don’t want order, but because the whole thing feels like an unclimbable wall.

When the problem is energy or capacity

Low energy / depleted
Sometimes it’s simpler than motivation — the person is running on empty. This is especially relevant with burnout, chronic illness, or the tail end of a stressful period.

Example: A person who was previously proactive at work is now struggling to answer emails, not because the job has changed, but because they’ve been running on adrenaline for six months and have nothing left.

When the problem is avoidance

Avoidant coping
Here, the “laziness” is really a strategy — often an unconscious one — to dodge a task that triggers anxiety, shame, or fear of failure. The inaction is protective, not apathetic.

Example: A person keeps “forgetting” to start an assignment they actually care about, because starting means risking it not being good enough.

Procrastination
Useful when the issue is delay rather than total refusal — the person will eventually do the thing, but keeps pushing it to the edge. Procrastination gets treated like a single thing, but it’s usually a surface behaviour with several different engines underneath it. Here’s what tends to actually be driving it:

1. Fear of failure (or fear of judgement): if the work is never finished, it can never be judged as not good enough. Delay protects self-esteem.
2. Fear of success: less talked about, but real — finishing well can raise expectations, invite more responsibility, or change a relationship dynamic the person isn’t ready for.
3. Perfectionism: not “I might fail” so much as “it has to be right, and I don’t yet know how to make it right.” The standard is so high that starting feels premature. Perfectionism is frequently a strategy for managing fear of judgement (and fear of failure), not a standalone driver in its own right. The logic is If I can make this flawless, no one can criticise it → if no one can criticise it, I’m safe from judgement → therefore I must make it flawless before I let it be seen. “It has to be right” isn’t really about the work — it’s a control mechanism aimed at the anticipated judgement. The satisfaction or reward is real too, but it’s often secondary. It’s a learned reward layered on top: the relief of having pre-empted criticism gets experienced as “getting it right” rather than “avoiding exposure.”
4. Emotion regulation, not time management: this is the reframe from the procrastination research (Tim Pychyl, Fuschia Sirois) that’s shifted a lot of clinical thinking: procrastination isn’t primarily a planning failure, it’s an attempt to avoid a negative feeling attached to the task right now, at the cost of a bigger problem later. The person is regulating today’s mood at the expense of tomorrow’s outcome.
5. Task aversiveness: sometimes it’s simpler — the task itself is boring, tedious, ambiguous, or otherwise unpleasant, and there’s no emotional complexity beyond “I don’t want to.”
6. Temporal discounting: a cognitive-behavioural angle. Humans are wired to weight immediate rewards over future ones, even when the future cost is much larger. The person isn’t choosing badly on purpose; the brain is built to prefer now.
7. Autonomy/control conflict: sometimes procrastination is a quiet act of resistance — doing the task on someone else’s timeline feels like a loss of control, so delay becomes the only lever the person has left.
8. Low self-efficacy: the person doubts their ability to do the task well or at all, so starting feels pointless or exposing.

Example: A person always finishes reports the night before they’re due, every time, despite genuine intentions to start earlier.

When the problem is follow-through, not starting

Low follow-through / inconsistent follow-through
The person starts fine but struggles to sustain the behaviour over time. This is more behavioural and less about character, which tends to land better if you are already hard on yourself.

Example: Someone joins a gym, goes three times enthusiastically, then stops — not from laziness, but because the initial motivation (novelty, resolution energy) wasn’t backed by a system to sustain it.

Difficulty sustaining effort
Similar to the above, but useful when the task requires ongoing, low-grade output rather than one big push.

Example: A person can write a brilliant first page of a project but can’t sustain the plodding, unglamorous middle section.

When the problem is meaning or direction

Disengaged
This applies when the task doesn’t feel connected to anything the person actually values or wants. It’s not an energy or fear problem — it’s a “why would I” problem.

Example: A person who says they’re “too lazy” to network for a job they don’t actually want, in an industry someone else has pushed them into.

Ambivalent
Borrowed from motivational interviewing, this names a genuine internal split — part of the person wants to do the thing, and part doesn’t, and both parts are real and legitimate. It’s a particularly useful reframe because it doesn’t pathologise the resistance; it treats it as information.

Example: A person wants to leave a relationship and doesn’t want to leave it, in roughly equal measure — and the “laziness” they report about making a decision is really that unresolved tension.

Why the re-labelling matters

The value of a more precise term isn’t just semantic tidiness — it changes the intervention. “Unmotivated” invites a pep talk. “Avoidant coping” invites a conversation about what the task threatens. “Low activation” invites behavioural scaffolding (breaking things into smaller steps) rather than willpower-based advice. “Ambivalent” invites exploring both sides rather than pushing harder on one.

Rather than substituting one label for another, it can help to ask what’s underneath the “laziness” for them specifically. Low energy, fear of failure, unclear goals, overwhelm, and disconnection from meaning can look identical from the outside — someone just not doing the thing — but they call for very different responses. Naming the actual mechanism tends to land better than any single re-labelling word ever could.