|
A recent New York Times article by Katy Butler decribes so-called "Brokeback marriages," citing a 1990 study called The Social Organization of Sexuality that suggests two to four percent of married American women had knowingly or unknowingly been in what are now called "mixed-orientation" marriages.
Butler says, "On the whole these are not marriages of convenience or cynical efforts to create cover," but continues, "Gay and bisexual men continue to marry for complex reasons, many impelled not only by discrimination, but also by wishful thinking, the layered ambiguities of sexual love and authentic affection."
While Butler can be given credit for seizing the cultural moment and writing a trendy article about the "Brokeback of today," the pervasive cultural bias one encounters when discussing non-traditional relationships — becomes glaringly evident.
The article revolves around a Lifetime Channel scenario, in which all women are victims of men — either consciously conniving men or men too weak or cowardly to know themselves.
It is also fundamentally sexist. You would never see such a story written about men who marry lesbians and the havoc that wreaks on their sense of masculinity, safety, commitment and trust.
Such articles enforce rigid codes of conventional American masculinity, envisioning non-traditional masculinity as a threat or trick. Of course, women's sexual freedom is curtailed by the same impulse: it's simply not taken seriously — no real straight man would have a problem with a lesbian wife, he'd just invite the girlfriend over for a three-way!
The year the referenced study was done, 1990, was a long time ago. The world has changed a lot since then, but in many ways it hasn't changed at all. I recently began work on an article for Nerve about queer people in heteronormative relationships. I approached six "mixed orientation" couples, including a well-known director and his wife. At first, several of the couples were interested in speaking. They wanted to clear up misconceptions, talk back to the people who say such marriages couldn't possibly be valid.
|
The article revolves around a Lifetime Channel scenario, in which all women are victims of men.
|
But as the interviews drew closer, each couple got nervous and, one by one, decided not to participate. They claimed it was because the risk of public exposure would subject their relationships to unwelcome scrutiny. They also feared the prejudice of people who had previously taken these relationships at face value, and didn't want to expose family members and children to uncomfortable questions.
These people are not in "Brokeback marriages." They are simply people who are open with each other about their sexually diverse pasts and desires who choose to be together. They stand as living contradictions to the general perception of mixed-orientation marriage as fraud or cynical compromise.
For now, it's easier and safer for these couples to be honest and open with close friends while remaining publicly discreet. But one day, hopefully, "mixed orientation" marriages will be no more controversial than mixed-race or mixed-religion marriages — and the people in them will feel free to discuss their experiences openly, without fear. n°
©2006 Andy Horwitz and Nerve.com
|
Commentarium (20 Comments)
This is such an interesting topic to approach, yet this article feels so underdeveloped, cut short even. Surely, there is more to say here?
I think your article totally misses the mark. I agree it is sad some couples with mixed orientations feel they need to hide/guard themselves from general societies perceptions of them and hope that in the future this will not be. There can be many different ways of being within a marriage and how a couple wants to live within their own relationship is their own choice, and I for one fully support any couples choices UNLESS there is secrecy or deception involved. The difference of Brokeback Mountain is that obviously the couple involved is not honest with each other, nor does there seem room to be honest with each other based on their immediate communities. This seems to be the crux of what the movie is about (what I took away anyway). Though we can dream the world will be free of prejudice and hate, in reality all we can do is fight the good fight. Simply making the movie Brokeback Mountain is confronting and exposing this issue.
While i consider myself one of the more forward thinking people when it comes to the interaction between societal conventions and marriage/relationships.. and i believe that two people should conduct themselves and there relationship in any way that deems them both happy. To compare mix orientation couples to mixed race couples seems a bit ridiculous to the extent that you are talking about sexual and emotional relationships outside of the primary one. Or are you simply stating that its ok for homosexuals to deny there inclinations and live as straight people? I can only assume that in the mixed marraiges you speak of.. one or both of the people have other "partners" besides one another... and that has a much different effect on the structure of marraige than disagreeing about which church to worship does...
This is maybe the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life.
What people are talking about, for the most part, is not some sort of lifestyle choice, is not based on openness and honesty, and is not something that's fine and dandy but that people are prejudiced about. We're not talking about bisexual men or sexually flexible men. We're talking about gay men who marry straight women under the pretense that they are straight. It is not narrow-minded to think that that's an unfortunate situation for all involved! It is not sexist to feel sorry for the wives who find out that they're stuck with a man who has zero sexual interest in them! It is not homophobic to feel sorry for the men who find themselves stuck with spouses they have zero interest in! Are you out of your mind?? The "brokeback marriage" (which DOES exist, by the way) is a product of a homophobic society in which gay men have to play make-believe with their entire lives or in some cases don't feel comfortable coming out even to themselves as gay. Is Nerve's next article going to be about how it's really offensive to talk about Christian reeducation camps for gay teenagers because we're just not understanding the lifestyle choices of kids whose parents force them to "become" straight?
Of course you could have some sort of a set-up where sex and sexual attraction have nothing to do with a marriage, such that there's basically a kind of friendship marriage, but (a) that's got to be rare, (b) it's really an issue of a different definition of marriage rather than anything having to do necessarily with sexual orientation, and (c) it's not what's being discussed!
It seems lazy to critique the Times article. If you don't like their tone, you could write your own. Oh, you did, but it was hard, so you gave up. Fortunately, you were able to cobble together a piece from your criticism of the Times' piece, your own failure to write a piece, and your own opinions. Now that is fine journalism!
Thank you.
-- a queer girl in a heteronormative relationship who sometimes feels a little alone in the world.
As Armistead Maupin's Anna Madrigal said in "Tales of the City"...
"There are all kinds of marriages, dear...lots of things are more binding than sex. They last longer too."
We queers have staked our political fortunes on the right to marry; an ambitious political goal but hardly the type of revolution on relationships our society needs. The difference between an affair and polyamory is as large or small as the mind of the observer.
i'm just discovering my marriage of 12 years (relationship of more than 20), is a brokeback marriage. i've been the woman he had zero sexual interest in. his orientation is buried underneath a lifetime of denial.
it's not just another partnership configuration to me. it's been really painful and i'll never get these years back.
on the bright side, i'll never have kids to worry about. wish me happiness in my well-deserved divorce!
There are so many different ways in which mixed orientation marriages come to be, it's hard to categorize them. I can also see why a lot of people wouldn't want to talk about it. I'm a queer woman married to a queer man. People ask amazing questions, very prying questions. In America, right now, admit that one of you may have "strayed" outside the marriage and you're dogmeat. It's worse if you have kids.
And then we worry, genuinely, that radical right wingers will take our case as an example of "see, gay people can get married to people of the opposite sex" - when it's anything but that. Neither of us has "gone straight", and our marriage sometime makes me feel like "Kids! Don't try this at home without professional supervision!" We're great friends, but that lovers bit is another thing altogether, and - ah, you want the whole megillah?
It's different for everyone. Many women feel genuinely cheated out of years of their lives. No, they did not go looking for a gay man. Many men (and women) thought they could over come it. I thought mine would go away... I thought it just wasn't supposed to exist. And men who marry lesbians do often indeed suffer blows to their own sense of masculinity and desirability.
But yes, I think we should leave room for this choice - as long as it's not used to beat the gay community into marrying heterosexually. As long as couples are allowed privacy.
i am a lesbian married to a man. i wish those couples had kept their nerve, or that the author had reached any of the out married lesbians i know thru e-lists, who would be willing to speak out.
actually, i soon will be single, because my husband has found a straight lover he wishes to marry. but for 13 years, we had a comfortable, committed mixed orientation marriage after 10 years of a straight marriage. he's no less a man, and i'm no less a lesbian. but we are invisible, and probably shouldn't be.
e~
Very interesting article and nice counerweight to the NYTimes article. Things are not always black and white, as people like HG would appear to have it. There are many different stories as to how people end up in MORs, and it is not always because gay men are looking for respectability in a straight world and duping their wives. The NYTimes ran an earlier article on the same subject that I thought was a lot more balanced. From the statistics I have seen, most MORs ultimately fail, but a third reportedly survive. When one considers that approximately half of marriages end in divorce, that figure is surprisingly high. The literature suggests that the ultimately determinative factor as to whether such a marriage will survive is whether the marriage is otherwise strong. The NYTimes describes one unhappy scenario. I am not suggesting that that situation never occurs, but there are other scenarios with different outcomes, and it is nice to see that acknowledged. Interesting comments as well.
Wow! I've nver seen anything about this subject in print. I would think it didn't exist (except that it exists in my 27 year marrige). One thing I have figured out is everyone thinks THEY have a handle on these complicated issues, but no one really does. The shades of gray are infinate.
I agree with the comment that the key difference between kinds of MORs is honesty, with oneself and ones partners.
And if we're really in the age of flexibility then I'd like to point out that MORs aren't just heteronormative. I'm in a lesbian (ie female-female) relationship, and my partner is gay, but I'm not. When I was in a LTR with a man, it felt weird that my queerness was invisible ... and now it feels weird that most people looking at us see nothing but gay!
Why did you stop writing ? It's like you got started then said "fuck it". dirtwood
Thanks for this article and the one you seem to be trying to write about queer folk in heteronormative relationships. My husband and I, both bisexuals, have struggled with the way our relationship is percieved. It's complicated. I hope you can find people willing to talk so you can do this important writing. If you haven't posted a call to Nerve readers who are involved in these types of relationships, perhaps you should. I'm willing--others might be.
"You would never see such a story written about men who marry lesbians and the havoc that wreaks on their sense of masculinity, safety, commitment and trust."
Yes, we have. It was called "Friends", and through the span of the series there was a lot of exploration of how Ross's later life choices were related to the decision of his first wife to accept her sexuality. I'm sure it wasn't an adequately "serious" forum for you, but it did put the concept in the public eye in a quite symathetic manner.
I agree and disagree with various aspects of this article. While I think that the section of the article that addressed the portrayal of masculinity was on the mark and very apt, I don't completely agree with the hope that "mixed-orientation" marriages should be as common/accepted as mixed-race,etc marriages.
I believe that for instance, a straight and bisexual person (or bisexual and gay, for that matter) might get married and simply be open about the fact that they had various different experiences. I even accept the idea that a straight/gay marriage might occur with the intent to live forever with a best friend.
However, I feel that this glosses over the fact that straight/gay marriages do happen for some of the (albeit politically less-than-correct) reasons the first writer mentioned: discrimination, fear, and expectation. Especially in rural or more religious communities, marriage is a fact of life, not an option.
There's a distinct difference between telling your husband you slept with a few girls in college, dated around and love him now -- and having to hide the fact that you're solely attracted to women. Please don't lump them.
I don't think you fully understood the meaning of a brokeback marriage. these marriages are based on lies. it is sad that people feel that they cannot be honest about who they are and they feel that pressure to conceal their true feelings but it is no excuse for deception. if these men where sleeping with women instead of men they would be deemed cheaters, being of a different orientation does not save them for this. they betrayed someone they have built a live with even it it was built on a lie. they choose to marry and should have stuck by their commitments or at least had the courage to be honest with their wives and ask for a divorce. and it's wrong to think that brokeback marriages dont happen to men. one of my male family members was married for ten years with three children and his wife had an affair with a women. she left her kids and husband for this woman and it ripped his and their childrens lives appart. though it was said that she wasn't honest with herself before marry it was much more of a devistating blow to him and the kids. imagine your entire relationship a lie and for the kids their entire lives and family a lie. it is terribly but the families left behind in brokeback marriages suffer much more. and the idea of incouraging relationships where couples are unfaithful no matter what orientation is sad. it takes away from the whole meaning of marriage, to be faithful and claim love to one person. it makes marriage a joke and cheating okay. its sad that societies morals have fallin so low that that people are rallying for unfaithful marriages. without the commitment to one person marriage has lost its meaning.
Thank you for writing the article and giving voice to what I feel, yet never hear. I'm currently in a mixed orientation marriage and have no plans of dissolving it. I met my husband 13 years ago and we immediately moved in together. I sensed early on that something was amiss because he had very little sexual desire and every now and then I'd see lingering stares with men. When I asked on several occasions if he was gay he adamently said no. He grew up in a conservative Catholic family, worked 30 years as a logger, and has a long term friendship with straight macho men. To come out as gay would be suicide to these relationships. Last year I returned from a trip home which was very negative and found that there were signs that he was having a gay relationship. Nothing that I could pin-point, just after 13 years you develop a keen 6th sense. I was depressed, ungrounded, and confused. In a moment of weakness I confided in two girlfriends about my dilemna. Big mistake as it was all over the gossip mill and we live in a close knit community. I find the biggest challenge in this relationship is dealing with society. They feel "victimized" for having been lead astray. My husband loves the experiences he garners as a "straight guy", experiences which he'd be denied if he came out. I love my husband, so I'm more than willing to watch his back. And don't think that I'm a martyr here. We have a business together that is so successful that we can travel several months out of the year. We love each other's company. He's the cook, driver, house-cleaner, and trouble-shooter in the household which gives me a freedom that most of my single or straight-marriage women friends don't have. I have three sisters in miserable straight marriages in the suburbs. If I had their lives to live, I'd happily put a gun in my mouth and pull the trigger. Mine isn't a perfect relationship, but what is? I do long for physical touch at times and it would be nice if I could come out of the closet, but people are petty and vindictive and dare I say jealous? My husband refuses to talk to me about his sexual orientation and dismisses any inquiries I have. I've adopted the stance that his sexual orientation is his own business, not mine. I've thought about taking a lover, but in all honestly I don't have much libido anymore, so why open that can of worms. The bottom line is that if mixed-orientation marriage is so wrong, then why do I feel so blessed? If the eskimos have 200 words for snow, then why don't we have 200 definitions for marriage?
Now you say something