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
The article revolves around a Lifetime Channel scenario, in which all women are victims of men.
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.
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°
