Familial Obligations

Asry

This is a very 19th century post, and it's really what my family's like, so, yeah. I was thinking about the Boilerhouse (the gay sauna in Dublin) and how apparently it is known to be frequented by married men who want to get their rocks off, so to speak, without damaging their reputation or marriage obligations. I *know* that the modern attitude would be for people to give out and say, God, why are they even married anyway, just be gay and it's grand and screw everyone else - but we all know that real life doesn't work that way sometimes.

My question is this: Is carrying on like this while married acceptable (probably not) but would it even be understood by the LGBT community nowadays, or would those people be derided? Not everyone has the luxury of an understanding family or social world, after all. Like, say, if I (for example) would want to go out with a girl instead of a boy, I would be treated as somehow inhuman to the extent that I would be cut out of any inheritance etc (not that I'd be due to come into much! but it's the principle ).

It's a sticky issue I suppose. I'd appreciate different points of view though.

Sir Ophiuchus

I can understand why some people do it, but I don't approve of it.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony in phrasing it that way.

I understand that some people are in difficult family circumstances, etc, but past a certain point one is choosing to remain closeted because it suits one in some way. If you're in college, and you think your parents will cut you off? Fine. If you're living at home because you can't find a job, and you're worried about being thrown out? Understandable. But past a certain point, and that point is usually a degree of personal independence, I feel that people who stay closeted are actively choosing to do so, for whatever reasons.

Definitely some people end up married because they were unsure of their sexuality, or it was almost forced on them by family, or similar reasons, but I think there are better ways of negotiating that situation than cheating on your vows with random strangers. You see a lot of classified ads from married men (or just guys with girlfriends), and they reek of entitlement sometimes. No, being gay doesn't give you an automatic right to cheat on your obligations. If you can't live in the situation as it is, then take the more difficult path and change it. Tell your wife. Make an arrangement about it with her, if she's fine with it. Talk to your family. Come out.

I know I may come across as somewhat harsh, and I definitely had the luxury of an understanding family, but I wasn't certain of that when I came out to them, and I was dependent on them at that time. It was a real risk to do so, albeit a small one. I'm not saying everyone in difficult circumstances has to come out, but if you choose not to do so, and when that's a real choice independent of your circumstances, then I think you need to accept the consequences of that.

Asry

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

I can understand why some people do it, but I don't approve of it.

And yes, I'm aware of the irony in phrasing it that way.

I understand that some people are in difficult family circumstances, etc, but past a certain point one is choosing to remain closeted because it suits one in some way. If you're in college, and you think your parents will cut you off? Fine. If you're living at home because you can't find a job, and you're worried about being thrown out? Understandable. But past a certain point, and that point is usually a degree of personal independence, I feel that people who stay closeted are actively choosing to do so, for whatever reasons.

Definitely some people end up married because they were unsure of their sexuality, or it was almost forced on them by family, or similar reasons, but I think there are better ways of negotiating that situation than cheating on your vows with random strangers. You see a lot of classified ads from married men (or just guys with girlfriends), and they reek of entitlement sometimes. No, being gay doesn't give you an automatic right to cheat on your obligations. If you can't live in the situation as it is, then take the more difficult path and change it. Tell your wife. Make an arrangement about it with her, if she's fine with it. Talk to your family. Come out.

I know I may come across as somewhat harsh, and I definitely had the luxury of an understanding family, but I wasn't certain of that when I came out to them, and I was dependent on them at that time. It was a real risk to do so, albeit a small one. I'm not saying everyone in difficult circumstances has to come out, but if you choose not to do so, and when that's a real choice independent of your circumstances, then I think you need to accept the consequences of that.

But saying if someone has already come out to only one family member (their mother) and the consequences of any future same-sex alliances was outlined to them at that point, what then? And no, I would definitely agree that none of this gives you a right to cheat on your spouse.

ninty9er

This may be a simplistic view, but your family is supposed to love you and accept you unconditionally (unless you're a scumbag drug trafficker or rapist..and even then they might hate what you did but still have to tolerate you)

Being gay isn't a crime and if your family think it is then maybe it's time to go find another one. I'm sure there's plenty of mammy's and daddy's out there with gay kids that would welcome an addition to the family by way of a civil partner with open arms!

Asry

But like would you be so unconcerned about your family that you could do that? I was brought up to believe that you stick with your family no matter what, because they're your family. Just get over any differences and stick together. Clannish, probably.

ninty9er

Asry wrote: »

But like would you be so unconcerned about your family that you could do that? I was brought up to believe that you stick with your family no matter what, because they're your family. Just get over any differences and stick together. Clannish, probably.

That's supposed to apply both ways, if one side doesn't stick to it, then the other is under no obligation to either.

If they're not supportive, or at the very least civil and courteous then I don't see why they should expect the same in return.

Annasopra

ninty9er wrote: »

This may be a simplistic view, but your family is supposed to love you and accept you unconditionally (unless you're a scumbag drug trafficker or rapist..and even then they might hate what you did but still have to tolerate you)

Being gay isn't a crime and if your family think it is then maybe it's time to go find another one. I'm sure there's plenty of mammy's and daddy's out there with gay kids that would welcome an addition to the family by way of a civil partner with open arms!

Who says that they are gay?

baby and crumble

I never really understood the whole "family stick together no matter what" thing. It was never drilled into us at all. We were always taught that you should be a civil as you can to everyone, but just because you're related to me doesn't mean you can't be a total prick who I can't stand to be around. If that's the case and I find you morally repugnant because of your views, why should I stick by you?

I'm very lucky in that I actually like all my family as well as love them, and they have all been awesome about me being gay.

As for the married men thing, I think it's horrible. It does seem like these guys want to have it all. The happy clappy socially acceptable life AND the gay life that they actually want. Fine, if you chose to do what your mammy tells you when you're 30, go on ahead, but don't drag other people into it. Don't ruin your wife's chance of finding someone who really loves her, who desires her and who actually wants her for who she is.

ninty9er

mango salsa wrote: »

Who says that they are gay?

My Apologies. Being LGBT.

Asry

baby and crumble wrote: »

It was never drilled into us at all.
I'm very lucky in that I actually like all my family as well as love them, and they have all been awesome about me being gay.

You have indeed been very lucky And yeah, I do still do what my mom tells me, and being on the wrong side of 25 and still doing it, I know I shouldn't be. But that's probably more scary Norman Bates issues than anything else!

Thank you for your responses so far. They are indeed confirming that the LGBT community might really just be the whole why are they even married anyway, just be gay and it's grand and screw everyone else as I mentioned in my first post. I'll wait for more replies though to see if there's a difference in opinion.

As I said, however, things are often far more complicated than they would seem on the surface, and that this is very 19th century, and might involve a mafia-style family setup with a family head and everything like that.
Say the inheritance did actually involve a rather obscene amount of money and assets, what then?

I suppose this is kind of related to the, if you want to be a proper Catholic and have homosexual sex, celibacy is the only option, thing.

baby and crumble

Asry wrote: »

As I said, however, things are often far more complicated than they would seem on the surface, and that this is very 19th century, and might involve a mafia-style family setup with a family head and everything like that.
Say the inheritance did actually involve a rather obscene amount of money and assets, what then?

Well, I'd have to be honest and say if the reason you're lying to everyone around you, including a person whom you vowed to love and cherish and honour, and shagging around behind her back, just because of money, then tbh you're not a terribly nice person (the 'you' in this is of course the general 'you'...)

I mean, I can understand simply not telling people in your family that you are gay. I mightn't agree with it after a certain age because really, you can't live your life for other people, but if it's a case that you are genuinely protecting someone from upset and disappointment, then I understand. But if you're doing it for money, and involving other people who don't have a choice in the matter (ie sham marriage where the wife doesn't know etc) then that's just... really undignified and classless. Incredibly distasteful.

I know it's easy for me to say that, because I'm not in that situation. But I'm pretty sure if my Dad turned around tomorrow and said "I have won the lotto and I'll give it all to you if you marry a guy" I'd have to walk away from him. I would forever be miserable and know what I had done just for money. I couldn't look myself in the eye anymore. And let's face it, I'm stuck with me forever. I should be proud of the person I am and the morals I have. I wouldn't be if I took the money.

Chuchoter

I think that though understandable, doing something like that is incredibly dishonest and damaging to the people around you and thats got nothing to do with the LGBT community accepting it or not. If you want to ignore one side of yourself, fine, be miserable but be miserable alone. Don't ruin someone elses life by lying to them and making them waste their lives loving someone who doesn't love them back. What mammy and daddy think is irrelevant when you start implicating other people.

Asry

Oh definitely, it's dishonest. But yet I would understand behaviour like that and feel compassion toward someone in such a situation. I may or may not be the only person I know who would though Thanks again for replying!

Sir Ophiuchus

Asry wrote: »

Thank you for your responses so far. They are indeed confirming that the LGBT community might really just be the whole why are they even married anyway, just be gay and it's grand and screw everyone else as I mentioned in my first post.

You're caricaturing my position. Actually, I take obligations very seriously. But, as someone else pointed out, obligations cut both ways. If one's family cannot accept one for being LGBT, then one's reciprocal obligations aren't the same as they would have been.

As a matter of fact, if a family were going to screw someone out of their inheritance for being LGBT, then I wouldn't judge anyone who misrepresented themselves in order to get what prejudice would have taken from them otherwise. But there's a difference between "pretend you're straight/cis till you get your inheritance" and "marry a man/woman just so you can get your inheritance".

I'm sorry that, from what you've posted, it seems like you're in an intolerable and very fraught situation. But that doesn't mean "the LGBT community", or even those members of it who are posting in this thread, are being flippant about your issues. I actually find it quite irritating that you're being so dismissive of the effort that I and others have put in in order to help you discuss this question.

Asry

Ohhh, no it's not me. It's a situation I read about in a book which I was then applying to myself, life, family etc.

Sir Ophiuchus wrote: »

I actually find it quite irritating that you're being so dismissive of the effort that I and others have put in in order to help you discuss this question.

As for this, what effort? I'd hardly have called this thread a strenuous intellectual debate, as everyone has been saying much the same thing.

If you mean the effort of just replying then yes, thank you all very much indeed for reading my post and posting in reply, but I'd hardly be 'quite irritated' by my observations of the trend of the conversation. I fail to see how my observations can be construed as a caricature of your reply.

I think you misread the tone of my last post, and for that I apologise, but really, think about the different ways something that is written can be meant before a post is put up that jumps down the throat of the first one.

Annasopra

but what if the wife knows and is fine with it?

Kanoe

I'm not sure I understand the question. Is it whether a married man should be permitted to have sexual encounters outside his wife's knowledge? Do I think that's ok? no, not really, not because I could give a damn about him or his sexual persuasions I just think its unfair on his wife. If like mango suggested she's happy with it, then who cares.

Kanoe

saw this post elsewhere and thought maybe it was relevant. (It's beena long day and I may not be getting the gist of this thread so then again it may not be relevant. Still, it's an interesting read and deals with a similar topic.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=73281086&postcount=39

Marriage has changed more in the past 100 years than it has in the past 10,000, and it could change more in the next 20 years than in the last 100. We are rapidly shedding traditions that emerged with the Agricultural Revolution and returning to patterns of sex, romance, and attachment that evolved on the grasslands of Africa millions of years ago.

Let’s look at virginity at marriage, arranged marriages, the concept that men should be the sole family breadwinners, the credo that a woman’s place is in the home, the double standard for adultery, and the concepts of “honor thy husband” and “til death do us part.” These beliefs are vanishing. Instead, children are expressing their sexuality. “Hooking up” (the new term for a one-night stand) is becoming commonplace, along with living together, bearing children out of wedlock, women-headed households, interracial marriages, homosexual weddings, commuter marriages between individuals who live apart, childless marriages, betrothals between older women and younger men, and small families.

Our concept of infidelity is changing. Some married couples agree to have brief sexual encounters when they travel separately; others sustain long-term adulterous relationships with the approval of a spouse. Even our concept of divorce is shifting. Divorce used to be considered a sign of failure; today it is often deemed the first step toward true happiness.

These trends aren’t new. Anthropologists have many clues to life among our forebears; the dead do speak. A million years ago, children were most likely experimenting with sex and love by age six. Teens lived together, in relationships known as “trial marriages.” Men and women chose their partners for themselves. Many were unfaithful—a propensity common in all 42 extant cultures I have examined. When our forebears found themselves in an unhappy partnership, these ancients walked out. A million years ago, anthropologists suspect, most men and women had two or three long-term partners across their lifetimes. All these primordial habits are returning.

But the most profound trend forward to the past is the rise of what sociologists call the companionate, symmetrical, or peer marriage: marriage between equals. Women in much of the world are regaining the economic power they enjoyed for millennia. Ancestral women left camp almost daily to gather fruits, nuts, and vegetables, returning with 60% to 80% of the evening meal. In the hunting and gathering societies of our past, women worked outside the home; the double-income family was the rule, and women were just as economically, sexually, and socially powerful as men. Today, we are returning to this lifeway, leaving in the “dustbin of history” the traditional, male-headed, patriarchal family—the bastion of agrarian society.


This massive change will challenge many of our social traditions, institutions, and policies in the next 20 years. Perhaps we will see wedding licenses with an expiration date. Companies may have to reconsider how they distribute pension benefits. Words like marriage, family, adultery, and divorce are likely to take on a variety of meanings. We may invent some new kinship terms. Who pays for dinner will shift. Matriliny may become common as more children trace their descent through their mother.

All sorts of industries are already booming as spin-offs of our tendencies to marry later, then divorce and remarry. Among these are Internet dating services, marital mediators, artists who airbrush faces out of family albums, divorce support groups, couples therapists, and self-improvement books. As behavioral geneticists begin to pinpoint the biology of such seemingly amorphous traits as curiosity, cautiousness, political orientation, and religiosity, the rich may soon create designer babies.

For every trend there is a countertrend, of course. Religious traditions are impeding the rise of women in some societies. In countries where there are far more men than women, due to female infanticide, women are likely to become coveted—and cloistered. The aging world population may cling to outmoded social values, and population surges and declines will affect our attitudes toward family life.

Adding to this mix will be everything we are learning about the biology of relationships. We now know that kissing a long-term partner reduces cortisol, the stress hormone. Certain genes in the vasopressin system predispose men to make less-stable partnerships. My colleagues and I have discovered that the feeling of romantic love is associated with the brain’s dopamine system—the system for wanting. Moreover, we have found that romantic rejection activates brain regions associated with profound addiction. Scientists even know some of the payoffs of “hooking up.” Casual sex can trigger the brain systems for romantic love and/or feelings of deep attachment. In a study led by anthropologist Justin Garcia, some 50% of men and women reported that they initiated a hook up in order to trigger a longer partnership; indeed, almost a third of them succeeded.

What will we do with all these data? One forward-thinking company has begun to bottle what our forebears would have called “love magic.” They sell Liquid Trust, a perfume that contains oxytocin, the natural brain chemical that, when sniffed, triggers feelings of trust and attachment.

We are living in a sea of social and technological currents that are likely to reshape our family lives. But much will remain the same. To bond is human. The drives to fall in love and form an attachment to a mate are deeply embedded in the human brain. Indeed, in a study I just completed on 2,171 individuals (1,198 men, 973 women) at the Internet dating site Chemistry.com, 84% of participants said they wanted to marry at some point. They will. Today, 84% of Americans wed by age 40—albeit making different kinds of marriages. Moreover, with the expansion of the roles of both women and men, with the new medical aids to sex and romance (such as Viagra and estrogen replacement), with our longer life spans, and with the growing social acceptance of alternative ways to bond, I believe we now have the time and tools to make more-fulfilling partnerships than at any time in human evolution. The time to love is now.

Asry

That was a really cool article, thanks

Chuchoter

Asry wrote: »

Ohhh, no it's not me. It's a situation I read about in a book which I was then applying to myself, life, family etc.




As for this, what effort? I'd hardly have called this thread a strenuous intellectual debate, as everyone has been saying much the same thing.

If you mean the effort of just replying then yes, thank you all very much indeed for reading my post and posting in reply, but I'd hardly be 'quite irritated' by my observations of the trend of the conversation. I fail to see how my observations can be construed as a caricature of your reply.

I think you misread the tone of my last post, and for that I apologise, but really, think about the different ways something that is written can be meant before a post is put up that jumps down the throat of the first one.

What do you want us to say? That its ok to lie to someone and effectively ruin their life because of your family? No. Of course its understandable, I would certainly feel quite a bit of empathy for someone stuck in that position because I do recognize how crushing it is to have to disappoint your family and realize yourself that you are not who they wanted. Theres no way around how painful that is to go through, but that doesn't mean you get to implicate innocent bystanders. If however there was some sort of lesbian marries gay man everyone gets what they want situation, I don't think thats so bad, if you really have to.

Printemps93

As far as I'm concerned if you're meant to be in a monotonous relationship then getting your rocks off with someone else will always be wrong in my opinion

Annasopra

Printemps93 wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned if you're meant to be in a monotonous relationship then getting your rocks off with someone else will always be wrong in my opinion

Im sure you meant monogamous not monotonous

Printemps93

mango salsa wrote: »

Im sure you meant monogamous not monotonous

Woops , you're right sorry:D

Asry

Chuchoter wrote: »

What do you want us to say? That its ok to lie to someone and effectively ruin their life because of your family? No. Of course its understandable, I would certainly feel quite a bit of empathy for someone stuck in that position because I do recognize how crushing it is to have to disappoint your family and realize yourself that you are not who they wanted. Theres no way around how painful that is to go through, but that doesn't mean you get to implicate innocent bystanders. If however there was some sort of lesbian marries gay man everyone gets what they want situation, I don't think thats so bad, if you really have to.

That's definitely true, about lying and ruining somebody's life. I suppose in this situation, the person having the extra-marital affair wouldn't really be able to come to terms with what they're actually doing, and might even see it as being wrong or debased or shameful in some way, apart from the fact that it's shameful already just for cheating on someone.

wonderfulname

Asry wrote: »

I suppose this is kind of related to the, if you want to be a proper Catholic and have homosexual sex, celibacy is the only option, thing.

This is what your question all boils down to really, "moral" obligation. If you're marrying to fulfil this obligation but still carrying on with some form of homogay life outside of it (regardless of your spouses position) then you evidently don't understand the obligation. Horses for courses though, if it's not a religion thing and your spouse is cool with it, then there's no problem, although I don't understand why the spouse has no desire to hide him but that's just me...

I am gaining a real hatred for Catholicism right now (the big religion thing, not the people in it!), it's battering me with its ability to make people hate and distrust themselves, the issues in this thread would not be issues were it not for it.

baby and crumble

I guess there's 2 kinds of morality at war in the original question- religious morality and human morality. Which is better- to abide by religious morality and appear happy clappy on the outside, because usually these objections are raised by people so that 'nobody else finds out' or people don't 'bring shame on the family' as opposed to any major religious belief in punishment for an afterlife. (On a side note, I have no problem with religious folks who think I'm going to hell, so long as they're nice to me on earth. Luckily, most religious people in my life have that opinion too, so it's all good :cool:), or live by human morality and not be a git to other people and hurt them?

I honestly don't think anyone who lies to themselves, their family and their lovers either to make people like them or for monetary gain have any right to claim they are acting in any way morally.

(I like debates!)