If the title of the blog is this good, what’s in it HAS to be AWESOME!
Today, I discovered a blog called “[Expletive] Feelings.” Considering my stoic, unsentimental and unromantic outlook, I knew that I found kindred spirits in the writers of this blog. Sure enough, I found this post. It’s every kind of awesome I can think of. And more.
In it, he says just about exactly what I’ve been saying on these pages. But he says it without as much cheeky sarcasm and obscure cultural references randomly hidden among the hyperlinks. He also says it with the authority of a psychiatrist.
But, dude, check this post out:
I love my wife, and I have since we met in college. She’s also been very devoted to me, supporting my fledgling career as an artist and even taking a part-time job as my manager (on top of her full-time job, which supports us both). The problem is that, as much as I love her and as much as I’ve tried to ignore my feelings for other men, I’m pretty sure I’m actually gay. To admit that I’m gay would mean divorcing her, which would not only break her heart when all she’s ever done is sacrifice everything for me, but throw every aspect of my life, personally and professionally, into chaos. I don’t want to hurt her or lose her, and, well, I don’t want to go on welfare. My goal is to be true to both of us.
When you identify as gay, it’s not clear whether you mean the identity, or the actual sex act. “I’ve got to be myself” means, yes, you’ve got to be who you are, but no, you don’t have to have sex, unless you want to.
In other words, if having sex is not more important to you than holding onto a relationship that is otherwise meaningful and important, you don’t have to do it. It’s really that simple. You can be gay, and proud, and also proud of not having sex except when you want to, and not hurting someone you care about.
Now that you know you can control your sexual urges, you’re ready to be a priest, or a not-so-young husband (or wife) whose partner can’t respond. It’s part of being a grown-up. One of the extremely un-fun parts, but a part nonetheless.
If you stick with your wife because she’s a good provider, supporter, and business manager, your relationship sounds somewhat one-way, and that’s not good for either one of you.
You need to love as well as be loved, and know that you can love. Otherwise, your secret identify will not be that you’re gay, but that you’re a user. There’s a reason users don’t get pride parades.
On the other hand, if your wife and you are good friends and have built a life together with shared family and invested energy that would be destroyed by breaking up, then you’ve got to ask yourself whether gay love, sex, lifestyle, etc., are worth more.
Putting sex aside, ask yourself how much of you you’re hiding by hiding this part of your identity from your wife. Most coupled people need to self-edit—not hide, just edit—even with their closest relationships (particularly with their closest relationships).
You don’t want to push your partner to hear and respond to what they don’t really want to deal with. On the other hand, if being gay is part of your everyday thoughts, feelings, and humor, then hiding it makes your relationship false, and does a disservice to her as well as keeping you from being who you really are.
In which case, you need to share your secret identity (without, hopefully, the complications of sexual infidelity) and see whether she can accept you while you try to figure out whether the new relationship will work.
You’ll be gay in theory, just not in practice, which’ll have to be enough if you also want to stay married.
STATEMENT:
If you happen to choose this option, here’s a statement. “I think I’m gay and need to be more open about that side of my personality. No, I don’t think I need to have gay sex or a gay lover, at least not yet. What I do need is to be more open about my real thoughts and feelings. I don’t fault myself for not having told you earlier, because I didn’t know myself. Meanwhile, if you’re willing, I’d like us to continue as partners and see if this can work.”
Loading ...
The Ph.D. is sometimes paired with a P.H.T. for “putting husband through.” The earliest reference I have heard of is in Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique. I don’t know how common it is for Ph.D.-P.H.T. marriages to break up, but I have known some examples.
This thread on a random lifestyle blog (http://lifestyle.msn.com/messageboards/thread.aspx?board=00000065-012c-0000-0000-000000000000&thread=00000065-0000-0000-f585-150000000000) is a case of someone not just pretty sure, but deeply sure, she is in love (with a presumably heterosexual) co-worker who is not her husband. In this case it is the woman contemplating leaving the marriage, but it could just as easily be the other way around.
Those of us who remember the film The Graduate may recall the traditional English ballad “Scarborough Fair.” The lyrics speak of someone seeking a true love. The word true has a different meaning today. Modern Americans are looking for a true love, a perfect soulmate. “True,” however, originally came from the old Saxon word for faithful or trustworthy (cf. the modern German word Treue) hence the pathos of the balladeer frustrated in his or her search for a true lover. This older usage has much to commend it.
The issue at the heart of this story, conveniently left unaddressed, is that this man, and countless other gay men and lesbians, are put in the excruciating position of being forced to deal with reconciling their sexual and romantic identity and their relationship with their opposite-gender spouse. They are put in this position by anti-gay societies that make it hard, if not impossible, for a man to live happily and openly with another man, or a woman with another woman. There’s a reason the rate of these marriages among gays is so much higher in religious fundamentalist communities than in the general, contemporary population. If you can’t bring yourself to teach a gay kid that his yearnings are OK, and that he can live a healthy, fulfilled life with a person of the same sex, then at least teach him minimally that it’s not fair–to him or to his future spouse–to marry a person of the opposite sex and be forced to confront this Hobson’s choice just so he can hide his sexual orientation.
And it’s very easy, sir, to play the “stoic, unromantic” puritan when you have a spouse to whom you’re attracted and can derive sexual and emotional satisfaction from. I suspect that if you were in the position of a man whose desires for love and companionship could not be met, you might be a bit less smug and callous in your approach to gay people and how they should live their lives.
In the case in the original post is does not appear that the man can’t or or didn’t have romantic feelings for his wife. This does not appear to be a Hobson’s choice. If someone is bisexual are they exempted from the traditional expectation of fidelity?
What if someone’s “identity” is incompatible with fidelity? The heterosexual linked above who wants to be with her coworker rather than her husband writes “I feel like im being cut in half. dont know what to do, i have a need to be with him so badly it hurts!” Sounds excruciating to me. It is smug and callous to ask her not to follow her feelings? Isn’t it the unfaithful person who must ultimately become callous towards his or her spouse?
Alex, I think you’re reading into this guy’s question. He (a) loves his wife, and (b) wants to remain married to her. There’s no evidence that he was reared in a particular community, forced to marry, or clubbed over the head about same-sex attractions. Jumping to conclusions and blaming other (imaginary!) people and situations just uses him for your own ends–it doesn’t address his difficulties.
Leo, there is no evidence to suggest that anyone has an “I-can’t-be-faithful” sexual orientation. You made that up on the spot. Even if there were, it would be entirely fair to demand that the person refrain from acting on it, because infidelity does severe emotional harm to the cheated partner. Homosexuality does not have the intrinsically damaging components of infidelity, so your analogy fails.
Norrie, I don’t know what this specific man’s circumstances are. Perhaps he’s in denial. Perhaps he’s somewhat bisexual. I don’t know. I do know that there are countless gay men and lesbians in many different communities (Catholic, Evangelical, Orthodox Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, traditional Chinese, etc etc) who enter into painful, loveless marriages out of a desire to hide what they have been taught is a horrible evil. That isn’t OK. I’m less concerned with this one case than I am with the many terrible cases that are a direct result of poisonous, unscientific, callous and inhuman teachings about what it means to be gay espoused by the religious right. Young gay people must be made to understand that they aren’t diseased and evil, and that they are as capable as straight people of forming satisfying relationships. Otherwise, the stories of hidden shame, deceit, uncertainty and anguish will never stop.
@Alex
Smug and callous. Thank you so much for the heartfelt compliments. The really mean a lot to me.
But Norrie is right. You have no evidence as to why this man married that woman. None. And even if he did so because of pressure from dreaded religious fundamentalists, the deed is done. Now he has a choice– he can break his wife’s heart and divorce or he can continue as a married man.
Now, which person sounds nobler to you:
One who says that he stuck by his wife despite his knowledge that he could get more sexual pleasure elsewhere or a person who drops his wife like a bad habit because she did not adequately please him in bed?
Furthermore, as far as his position being “excruciating” I think that’s a bunch of drama queenery on your part. I have demonstrated in other posts happiness is not quite what you would think it is from romantic comedies and love songs. I doubt that he is as anguished as you would make him to be if you would eliminate such factors as the “focusing illusion” and other things I have written about before.
Alex,
No, I did not make this up, on the spot or otherwise. Besides the substantial evidence in history and literature and song (how many country and western songs refer to the “cheatin’ kind”?), there is evidence for a genetic link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3783031.stm
“Some people may be genetically programmed to be unfaithful to their partner, a scientist has claimed.”
“…genetic make-up constitutes an “important influence” in women’s infidelity “with a heritability of 41 percent.”
“Some Women Cheat Because It’s In Their Genes.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,140074,00.html
“Variation in the gene for one of the receptors for the hormone vasopressin appears to be associated with how human males bond with their partners, according to an international team of researchers.”
http://www.science20.com/news_releases/is_allele_334_an_infidelity_gene_for_men
See also
“The recently published Gay Couples Study conducted by Colleen Hoff at the Center for Research on Gender and Sexuality, San Francisco, looked at the relationships of 566 committed [!] gay couples (males) over a three-year period. The study showed that 47 per cent of gay couples had “sex agreements” that specifically allowed sexual activity with others. An additional 8 per cent of couples were split: one person favored sex outside the relationship and the other expected monogamy. Only 45 per cent described their relationships as monogamous.”
http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/open_monogamy/
@Leo
Bravo.
We all have urges that we are better off suppressing.
@Alex…
History shows that the categories of gay and straight are categories imposed by repressive cultures. In sexually open cultures, such as that of ancient Rome, virtually everyone operated within a contiuum of bisexual behavior.
In the case of “being a Gay man”, this is an unfortunate cultural imposition on what would historically just be viewed as a fetish or perversion. Like a man with strong sexual urges for feet, children, animals, pornography, or garden vegetables, this man, like virtually all men must overcome his fetish to minimize its negative impacts on this marriage covenant that he’s made with his wife.
Deciding “I am a Gay man” is as narcissistic as saying “I am a pornographilic man” and therefore I’m forced against my will to spend my free time viewing pornography. What if alcoholics just said, “I am an alcoholic-American”… they probably couldn’t sustain a marriage either. Mixing identity politics with pet sins will proove toxic to civilization.
I’m not trying to minimize the man’s difficulty, but rather to point out that the great divide between gays and straights is artificial and culturally imposed. Nearly every man struggles with some kind of sexual sin which introduces difficulty into the marriage. It would be wonderful if he could refrain from narcissistic self-indulgence, and be faithful to this women he has covenantally united himself to, who has given him everything. He sounds like a spoiled selfish child leeching off his wife to fund his delusions of grandeur instead of being a man who will lay down his life for his family.
Nicely said, Horatio.
Well unfortunately, Horatio, you didn’t really follow through on the full implications of your own reasoning. If “the categories of gay and straight are categories imposed by repressive cultures,” then why isn’t a man who says “I’m a straight man” equally guilty of using a cultural imposition to justify his “perversion.” Your implicit assumption, based on nothing but your own prejudice (or perhaps your religious conviction as well) is that while a straight orientation is “default,” a gay orientation isn’t. Like the entire religious right on issues ranging from evolution to gay equality, your odious position that claims that hundreds of millions of decent people worldwide are perverted narcissists isn’t borne out by any sort of research or evidence. But the reality of happy, well-adjusted gay men and lesbians, the unanimity among the scientific community as to the existence of sexual orientation and normalcy of homosexuality, and a horrific history of persecution and repression of gays and lesbians doesn’t seem to deter you from spreading these awful lies about people like me.
Really? Throughout the entire history of Rome?
As a straight woman, I want to marry a straight man. If a future husband were to come out as gay, I’d say “sweetie, I love you, but I don’t want a marriage that’s a lie.” To me, it would be a living a lie to be a married beard for another. Marriage is not about lies.
But to each their own.
I think you would really have to be in the situation to truly know what you would want/how you would feel. I mean, you could very well be right. But then again, you might also love him so much you couldn’t bear to lose him and would therefore do everything you could to make it work still. There could be lots of outside factors that would influence your decision, too. It would be nearly impossible to know how you’d feel in advance of being in the situation.
Fair enough. But by that same criteria, there’s no way I or anyone else could definitely say they’d stand by their gay man either. By that same criteria, people might try open marriages, threesomes, really out there fetishes and kinks they have no interest in, having children they didn’t want, etc all in an attempt to save their marriage. If this man is happy with his marriage, I applaud him coming out and discussing this with his wife instead of staying in the closet. But it’s a big change. For many people this would be an automatic dealbreaker.
For what it’s worth, I also think he sounds like a bi-man with a low sex drive, as opposed to a gay man with a low sex drive, but only he really knows that.
Whoa. That guy needs to fess up. No self-respecting straight woman would want to be married to a gay man. A bisexual man, maybe. But not a gay man. That would be a recipe for disaster. I remember a professor that I had in college who was in his early sixties and had been married to a woman for decades and raised children with her. Too bad he was also gay and had boyfriends that he paraded all over the city and stayed with in his city apartment while his unknowing wife lived in their home in the country. He loved his wife very much, so much that he couldn’t bring himself to divorce her. But he was GAY. It made me so angry because she had the right to know and she had the right to decide whether to stay or go.
Just think how sad that marriage would be. IF the guy is gay and not bisexual, that couple could never fully reach the intimacy that other happy couples have. It is so much deeper than one partner not being pleased in bed. Do you anti-gay folks actually KNOW any gay or lesbian people? If you did, I am amazed that you can take something so intrinsic to a person’s identity and treat it like an addiction, perversion, or even a simple choice. You just don’t really get it, do you? When did you start liking girls Horatio? Was it something you just decided to do one day? What if someone told you that your feelings for girls were just a sign of perversion? Would that have made any sense to you? Wouldn’t you have known that your interest or desire was simply an innate human truth about you? A person’s sexual orientation is NOT like an addiction to alcohol or pornography. It is NOT a sin. It is a fact of nature.
@Alex
So, are you saying that there is no such thing as perversion?
@Jenn
It’s just sin. And sin is very natural in a fallen world, but God truly has a better way.
Is is hard? You bet it’s hard, but it is on that anvil that greatness is forged.
Jenn writes:
“You just don’t really get it, do you?”
You’re RIGHT!! I DON’T get it.
OTOH, your professor seems to be a scumbag because he cheated on his wife. Not because he was gay. Whether he cheated with men or with coeds, it’s all the same to me. Straight men want a variety of women. They want young women. They want pretty women. They want women who are in shape. If his wife was old, ugly, bitchy, or fat I could see how a straight man would want to cheat on her. I would have NO respect for that straight man if he did. Furthermore, I see the situation of the straight man with the ugly, fat, etc. wife as not tremendously different than that of the gay man with the same wife.
Whether the man who asked the question in this post can be happy with his wife is not a simple open and shut case. It’s more complicated than you might think.
Furthermore, I didn’t just say that homosexual desire is an addiction. I sad that ALL feelings of romantic love, gay or straight, are physiologically very similar to addiction. I have considerable evidence to back it up. So, maybe YOU’RE the one who doesn’t get it.
Who said a gay man cannot be pleased in bed with a woman? The plumbing still works pretty much the same. The nervous system neither knows nor cares whether the pudendal nerve is carrying stimulation from the body of a male or female partner. As your professor demonstrated, it is certainly possible for him to have sex to completion with a woman. He was gay right? But he presumably was able to have an orgasm with a woman, right? He did have kids, didn’t he? And that requires ejaculation, doesn’t it? And ejaculation requires orgasm, right? And orgasm is pretty much always pleasurable, right? So, I’m having a bit of trouble seeing how your case holds together.
As for your assertion that homosexual conduct is not a sin, um, have you read the Bible? I would agree that the DESIRE is not necessarily a sin. But the conduct is. That is if you take the Bible’s word for it, which I do. But discussions of the Bible’s truth are for neither this time nor this place. Nor do I have the energy to get into THAT now.
Ari- So if a gay man can be sexually satisfied with a woman, do you think you could be sexually satisfied with a man? Before making these extraordinarily presumptuous assertions about sexuality, why don’t you try asking yourself if you could do what you’re asking of gay men, were the tables turned. Doesn’t Pirkei Avot admonish us not to judge another man until we have been in his place? I know it’s far more comfortable to stand in stern and unbending judgement of another person from a position far, far removed from him (and, I’m guessing, far less difficult in this regard), but you ought to try and empathize a bit.
Ruth- I’m not saying that there’s no such thing as perversion. And while I personally don’t believe that gay love and intercourse is intrinsically evil, neither do I really think that’s the issue at stake here. The issue is how the STATE treats people who identify and behave in a way that is generally disfavored. There are many religious people who believe polytheism, intermarriage, divorce, rejection of Jesus, etc, etc, are grave sins. However, we recognize that for the purposes of this world, in the pluralistic constitutional republic in which we live, people have a right to do things that aren’t necessarily “holy” in everyone’s book. Hindu religious organizations receive tax exemption along with Christian and Jewish ones, even though the latter religions believe that Hindus are committing severe, severe sin by worshipping many gods. People can marry, divorce, remarry, divorce, and remarry again, even though Catholics believe divorce is fundamentally illegitimate. I have many friends whose parents are interfaith couples, even though Judaism unequivocally opposes such unions. Freedom means freedom to do even things of questionable morality, provided people aren’t hurt. Equality means equality for everyone, even if that embraces “lifestyles” that some people consider morally inferior to others. So as to the issue of “perversion,” well, I’ll say this. The question of whether my relationship with another man is “perversion” is between me and God. Not between me and you. Not between me and the state. Me and God. So get your nose, and the government’s, out of my business.
Alex,
I would rephrase your question thusly: do I think I could have a happy and satisfied life if the only possible sex partners were male and if G-d had decreed that homosexual pairings were what he wished for humanity (if we could even imagine such an upside down reading of divine decree).
Let’s see if we can add up some of the relevant factors:
The human being is much more adaptable and resilient than one might think. People can get used to quite a lot more than you would think.
Human beings spend a very small percentage of their time having sex.
The plumbing works the same no matter the partner’s sex.
The central nervous system does not know the difference between a partner of one sex or the other.
The reward centers of the brain work just the same no matter the partner’s sex.
The drug like effects of romantic love function like a drug of addiction. The effects of such wear off after a relatively short time anyway. Pursuing these feelings is just a fool’s errant. Furthermore, pursuing it can sometimes lead to more unhappiness than happiness.
Many of the factors that would make you think that a person would be unhappy are influenced by factors quite apart from sexuality. These factors include the focusing illusion, the paradox of choice, the hedonic treadmill, and the poorness of people’s ability to predict their own happiness in the future given certain circumstances. Predictions of unhappiness are thusly mitigated by the realities of human psychology.
There’s another factor or two that I’ve not mentioned because I’ve not posted about them yet. Suffice it to say that any unhappiness that would result from that set of circumstances might be partly a result of misplaced hope. (Hope being another massively overrated virtue).
So, with these factors in mind, it seems likely that I or anybody else could lead a reasonably content live under these conditions. That’s just how the human animal seems to work. I think your thoughts on this matter have been influenced too much by poor assumptions. The short answer to your question is “Yes. But not for the reasons you think.”
If you’re going to quote Pirkei Avos to me then you might want to check out the Mishnah in Avos in which we are told that one moment in the world to come is worth more than all of the pleasure in this world combined. It is further revealed to us that the world to come is eternal. That seems to be a good motivation to perform the mitzvos as instructed and to refrain from aveiros– so we can be worthy of this divine munificence. Were we told that to earn it we would have to sleep with men, I’m sure that any person who truly believed in that promise would be able to do so.
@Alex
“The question of whether my relationship with another man is “perversion” is between me and God. Not between me and you. Not between me and the state. Me and God. So get your nose, and the government’s, out of my business.”
I would like to not know about your practices, but if I hear about them I may call them perverse.
Well, Ruth, you are certainly entitled to your opinion about what is and what is not a sin. I tend to think of sin as something that implies harm to another, and thus causes harm to one’s self. Plus, I don’t believe in a God that would create a human being a certain way and then condemn him or her for being the person he or she was made to be, when that person is causing harm to no one. That concept just doesn’t gel with my understanding of a loving God. A long time ago, I decided to think for myself and listen to what my heart told me about God and his goodness, instead of swallowing the hatred spewed by my church leaders. Ari, I HAVE read the Bible. I just don’t read it literally. I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin, any more than I believe that a rapist may be absolved of his crime by marrying his victim or that wearing clothing of mixed fabrics is sinful. I read the Bible in its historical and cultural context, and understand that people who lived thousands of years ago probably had some seriously primitive beliefs about God. I tend to believe that the human heart and our collective wisdom about God has greatly evolved since that period in time. I don’t see anyone stoning their children for severe disobedience these days. And I eat lobster without a fear of hell. In fact, I don’t even believe in hell as a literal place. I believe in a loving God. I even believe in reincarnation. But that’s another ball game.
I agree with you that what my professor did was wrong. He should have never married a woman, since he was GAY. And even if he couldn’t come to terms with that fact during a time period when publically acknowledging it would have been career suicide, he should have divorced his wife when he realized that he couldn’t live a life that was contrary to who he was as a person. By the way, just because someone can have an orgasm doesn’t mean that they are sexually, spiritually, or psychologically satisfied. Many children who have been molested and many women who have been raped deal with feelings of guilt and shame because their bodies responded physically to what happened to them while their minds were screaming no. Just because something may feel good doesn’t make it a positive or intimate experience for a person. I am talking about fulfillment, self-actualization, the state of achieving the highest intimacy with the person you love. I am not talking about merely getting your rocks off. One can go and have a one-night stand with another and have an orgasm. That doesn’t equate to true intimacy between two people who love and desire one another.
Jenn,
so, what you’re saying is that you do not believe in the truth of the Bible. Okay. That’s where we disagree.
From what you wrote to follow that up, it doesn’t much seem that you believe in science either. You seem to believe in some romantic pablum that borrows from religion, science and other fields.
That’s the difference between us. I believe in both science and the Bible (but I do make an exception in that I believe that miracles are an occasional departure from natural laws).
@Jenn
“I tend to think of sin as something that implies harm to another, and thus causes harm to one’s self.”
But we are not in a position to determine what is and is not sin. Someone else makes that determination.
Injunctions against eating shellfish were never a means to heaven.
God wanted Israel to “live long and prosper” and the laws He gave have had that effect when followed.
I DO believe in the Bible. Just not in the literal actual truth of it. I don’t believe that the world was created in 6 days, I don’t believe that people used to live for 900 years, I don’t believe that giants walked the earth, I don’t believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and there is much much more. Have you never heard of allegory? Metaphor? Myth as a means for reaching truth?
So, what you are saying Ruth is that even though God gave us a brain, the power of reason and a moral consciousness we should ignore these in favor of someone else’s interpretation of ancient text? Yeah, I was raised to believe that too. I just didn’t buy it. I can’t be a blind follower, even if that is the easier path.
Jenn,
How is it that you separate the truth from the allegory? Why would G-d tell us to refrain from homosexual conduct if he was really just joking? I personally refuse to wear clothes of a mixture of linen and wool, I abstain from shellfish, etc. I don’t think G-d was joking about any of these either.
That said, there is some basis for saying that some parts of the Bible are theological in nature rather than literal truth. But I can’t see how you can possibly apply that to the 613 commandments that separate us from the pagans.
God DIDN’T tell us to refrain from “homosexual conduct.” Primitive men who wrote the Bible did. But I guess you believe that they were merely transcribing what God dictated to them, huh? That’s fine, you can believe that. I just find that concept to be a little silly, but hey, it’s a free country after all…God bless the First Amendment!
I personally believe that the Bible is primitive man’s attempt at interpreting and discussing God. I DO believe that God spoke (and still speaks!) to men, I just don’t buy that the book is a word for word transcription of what God said. And I think that the rules found in the Old Testament have much more to do with the cultural beliefs of the ancient Israelites than they do about laws or rules to follow sent by God. However, because I respect your right to hold and practice whatever religious faith you choose, I won’t argue theology any further. Besides, I’m a Christ-follower and you’re a Jew, so that alone makes our understandings of the Bible very different. In any event, I don’t believe that being gay or being physically intimate with a person of the same sex within the context of a monogamous relationship is sinful. I understand that you do. I doubt we will ever agree. This is why the Constitution is so important in a pluralistic society. It guarantees that each of us can hold our own beliefs about God, faith, religion, etc. and still enjoy the equal rights and protections afforded by our civil laws.
@Jenn
When you refer to “God” and “Jesus”, who are you talking about?
Modern society has made almost indistinguishable the inclination to do a thing and the carrying out of that inclination. This is the whole basis of current “hate speech” laws, the prevalent views on homosexuality and “shacking up,” and most of the notions of gun control. Christianity, on the other hand, along with our country’s founding fathers, knew that people have self control and the ability to decide what inclinations they actually carry out and which they let die. I have a nasty temper. However, my parents brought me up to control my actions, especially towards members of my own family, and the laws of the state make it quite clear what the penalties would be if I acted on certain of my inclinations; therefore, my wife and children have nothing to fear.
Another point, which most people – not having studied human psychology – miss: homosexual inclinations of one sort of another are actually quite prevalent, especially among the male population. It’s a complicated topic, involving group dominance priorities, the biological mechanisms for distinguishing between male and female, and physiology, but sexual inclinations pretty much follow the Bell curve like most everything else involving humans. Some people will never feel a desire for their own sex, some will feel nothing but, the vast majority will feel some desire. Whether they act on it or not is almost entirely due to the social structure in which they live. The best examples of this being the ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans – who not only accepted homosexuality but institutionalized it to the point where their women had to dress like young boys to lay with their own husbands! (I’m not kidding).
@Leo
The position of this husband is emasculating.
“I don’t want to hurt her or lose her, and, well, I don’t want to go on welfare.”
He is being taken care of by his “Mommie”.
If he got a good job and supported his wife, his “feelings” may very well change.