BYU Understanding Same-Gender Attraction

[Portia]

42—shoot me an email or something because I don't know who you are. I may or may not know Brandon and his wife really well. It's entirely possible.

And I've talked to Black Sheep about this many times before, but I'm of the opinion that homosexuality/bisexuality/sexuality is a combination of nature and nurture, and I think that sexual development during teenage years of most Mormon kids, especially in the United States, is sort of wiggidy-whack (a technical term). I don't really know how to articulate what I'm trying to say here. Basically, the nurture aspect for Mormon kids, in my opinion, is potentially conducive to non-heterosexual feelings. In any case, I think that the proportion of Mormon young adults who harbor homosexual or bisexual feelings is probably greater than the proportion in a simple random sample of American young adults. 6% seems very reasonable to me.

Brandon is a unique case as an active Mormon in a mixed-orientation marriage (a happy one, I might add, and not "a perversity" as Queerty suggested), but he's sort of opened the doors for BYU to allow USGA to form and other steps that have been taken since 2007 because he's a "happy ending" story. The administration really likes that. He has said on record a billion times that he thinks his story is atypical, but they really like that he's found a Church-friendly solution to his struggles.

I would find the idea of a so-called "mixed-orientation marriage" to be distateful, and really, ridiculous. Why should I marry someone who has little to no interest in sex with me? If he's gay, he'd rather have sex with a man, not me, and as a woman with a high libido, I'm positive my self-image and happiness would nosedive if my husband didn't find me hot. This is a big part of why I am in favor of legalizing gay marriage: I refuse to be the collateral in your sexual identity crisis!

Are straight women supposed to turn gay Mormon men straight now? Look how that worked for Elaine . . .

[Gimgimno]

I would find the idea of a so-called "mixed-orientation marriage" to be distateful, and really, ridiculous. Why should I marry someone who has little to no interest in sex with me? If he's gay, he'd rather have sex with a man, not me, and as a woman with a high libido, I'm positive my self-image and happiness would nosedive if my husband didn't find me hot.

Just because it wouldn't work for you doesn't mean that the idea itself is distasteful or ridiculous. If you think that sex is entirely about physical attraction and genital stimulation, I think you're kind of missing the point.

[Digit]

I would find the idea of a so-called "mixed-orientation marriage" to be distateful, and really, ridiculous. Why should I marry someone who has little to no interest in sex with me? If he's gay, he'd rather have sex with a man, not me, and as a woman with a high libido, I'm positive my self-image and happiness would nosedive if my husband didn't find me hot.

Just because it wouldn't work for you doesn't mean that the idea itself is distasteful or ridiculous. If you think that sex is entirely about physical attraction and genital stimulation, I think you're kind of missing the point.

I think you, me, and Dave Chappelle are on the same page, Gimgimno

[Marduk]

Hrmm, I was about to come here and make that point, and I find I've been beaten to the punch. Twice.

Great work gentlemen.

[Portia]

I truly don't understand how a Kinsey-6 gay male even could reproduce with a woman, and I don't think I'm unusual or alone in thinking I'd like to have a child or two with the man I marry. If you look at gay/straight marriages, they're often platonic: look at Cole Porter. Cole Porter was amazing, Cole Porter's talent was unparalleled, but I wouldn't want to be married to Cole Porter. His straight wife did, and from what I've read, an abusive first husband played into that.

I feel like Mormonism shames women about their sexuality enough as it is, and have heard enough horror stories (and of course a boatload of stories of perfectly normal, happy sex lives) of women's pain/mismatched drives/feeling squeamish about their bodies to think that it's a net negative to expect women to "help" a gay man (or the reverse: does any lesbian here want to marry a straight guy? even if you loved him and he was, say, as awesome as George Gershwin?) when there's no good biological evidence? I'm not trying to be obtuse, but as far as I understand it, arousal is controlled by the autonomic nervous system, and I would assume (maybe naively? who knows?) that a gay man would not be able or willing to perform. And even if he could be phsyically aroused, aren't most gays homoromantic as well?

[Marduk]

The fact is, things like arousal, libido, sexuality, et al are all far more ambiguous than perhaps media and introductory science may perhaps lead us to believe. They change throughout life, and they change for reasons which we don't (fully) understand. Would it be disasterous for a man with a huge libido to marry a woman with almost no libido to speak of? Perhaps, perhaps not. Is this really all that different than a mixed orientation marriage? In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. Although heterosexuality and homosexuality aren't choices in terms of say, what I'm going to have for breakfast, we ARE very much in control of how we allow them to manifest in our lives and the choices we make with regards to them (as well as all points in between on the sexuality scale, which scale is, in and of itself, problematic, but that's a topic for another discussion.)

I guess what I'm saying is, like any other differences within a relationship, cultural, financial, ideological, etc., sexual differences and how they affect that relationship is, and ought to remain, firmly the decision of the couple (or more) involved. I agree that it would be silly to marry someone who had strong homosexual attractions thinking that the marriage could change that. But I think at the same time, marrying someone with a certain attraction/libido and assuming THAT will never change is just as silly.

[Portia]

Of course libidinous and otherwise people choose their sexual behavior, but asking married straight women to repress their perfectly normal desiress in the name of the institution strikes me as misogynistic. Sexual attraction ain't sufficient, but it sure is necessary for any man when seeking a wife: why (besides institutional & societal oppression) should women be otherwise?

From Angels in America to every Colorado Republican pastor ever, history has shown us this setup can end badly. If a straight lady wants to marry her beard, go right ahead: if and only if you are aware of what you're signing up for. Don't be shocked if thete is a rentboy scandal: *because he is gay and you knew that!*

I think in 90% of cases it WOULD be disastrous to enter a lifelong relationship with someone whose libido is vastly mismatched from yours. It's a huge contributor to marital unhappiness & a major cause of divorce.

I think it would behoove all seriously dating couples to have a frank discussion of expectations in this regard. Choose to be virgins,
I got engaged as one, but if someone like me who is happy to get physical daily find they're with someone who wants semiannual at best, don't complain if you're unhappy.

[Marduk]

"in the name of the institution"

And here we get to the crux of the problem. No one here is suggesting that it ought to be an institutionalized practice, or heaven help us, some sort of treatment. Rather, what we are suggesting is that in some cases, it may work for specific couples who understand what they are choosing. That's all.

[Portia]

To clarify, I meant marriage in general. That if a Mormon Bishop, eg, advises a gay guy to stay closeted and marry a girl, I'd take umbrage.

[Gimgimno]

For the record, there are several lesbian women married to straight men in mixed-orientation marriages in the Church, and I'd say the success rate of those marriages is proportionally equal to "traditional" marriages. There's also a case of a lesbian woman and a gay man being married and having a family. Kinsey-6 or not, sex is more than just looking at your partner's body, getting aroused, and then participating in some sexual act. I still don't think that you've acknowledged that sex is more than just a physical thing.

I don't think that mixed-orientations are always the answer—I think they're infrequently the answer, actually. But sometimes, especially in cases where communication between husband and wife are open, I think that they're a really positive thing for both parties. The heterosexual spouse doesn't operate in the marriage as though they're being shorted—they wouldn't get married if they felt that way. There may be concessions, but there are concessions made when any couple decides to get married. The fact that it's public that sexual concessions may be made in MOM's, I think, is the only reason why people have a hard time stomaching it. There are private sexual concessions that are made in a lot of marriages, but they're not destined to fail just because they have to do with sex in a monogamous relationship. Sex isn't everything.

[Marduk]

I'd say the biggest problem is when you think you're signing up to play an MMO and you end up in a MOM. That's when it REALLY gets weird.

[TheBlackSheep]

As a queer person, what really bothers me about this conversation is the thought that a straight ladies can "marry their beards." False. If a straight lady marries a gay man to help him stay closeted, she IS the beard. Come on, people. Carry on.

[Portia]

As a queer person, what really bothers me about this conversation is the thought that . . . straight ladies can "marry their beards." False. If a straight lady marries a gay man to help him stay closeted, she IS the beard. Come on, people. Carry on.

You're right, of course.

I still don't think that you've acknowledged that sex is more than just a physical thing. . . . There are private sexual concessions that are made in a lot of marriages, but they're not destined to fail just because they have to do with sex in a monogamous relationship. Sex isn't everything.

I'm hardly so shallow that I have not experienced brotherly love, or a deep abiding respect for female roommates or male colleagues that was asexual. Nor am I so stupid that I'm unaware that married people don't negotiate sex (a spouse undergoing chemo has other priorities). However, I don't know if sex has to be a mystical experience for everyone, and maybe for
some, it's just sex. Sex can be just physical and still be positive, uplifting, consensual.

Maybe I'm way outside the norm here, but at this point in my life, sex certainly isn't everything, but the drive for it is up there with food, water, air. It certainly can FEEL like everything to a certain personality type. I just can't think of any good arguments why a
young, healthy, partnered person can't have sex at the top of their priority list if they want.

[Tao]

Maybe I'm way outside the norm here, but at this point in my life, sex certainly isn't everything, but the drive for it is up there with food, water, air.

Yet while the sex drive can (and to some, often) feels like a vital one, it is not. And there are times that we are asked to fast and postpone even the vital drives. Self mastery is an element that seems to be skimmed over here, and self mastery is the driving force behind selflessness. To modify an earlier quote: "I think in 90% of cases it WOULD be disastrous to enter a lifelong relationship with someone whose ability to give is vastly mismatched from yours. It's a huge contributor to marital unhappiness & a major cause of divorce."

To intimate that a marriage is set up to fail without sex is putting the cart before the horse, in my eyes. If on your wedding night you mutually discover that your spouse is medically unable to have intercourse, is that a deal-breaker, call the divorce court? Now, granted, a married life of celibacy is not an easy thing to face, especially while still young and very libidinous. Maybe I'm way outside the norm here, but the happiness of my wife is literally everything, surpassing the need for food and water. In my eyes at least, sexual orientation doesn't affect ones ability to love or be loved, I'd expect no less from any marriage regardless of the alphabet soup combination therein.

[Fredjikrang]

Thank you Tao for saying what I've wanted to, but haven't been able to phrase well!

[Imogen]

I couldn't be married to someone I wasn't compatible with sexually. Sex is an important form of intimacy, and if my husband doesn't want to have sex with me, or would rather have sex with other people, I'd rather he be out the door.

[Fredjikrang]

To intimate that a marriage is set up to fail without sex is putting the cart before the horse, in my eyes. If on your wedding night you mutually discover that your spouse is medically unable to have intercourse, is that a deal-breaker, call the divorce court? Now, granted, a married life of celibacy is not an easy thing to face, especially while still young and very libidinous. Maybe I'm way outside the norm here, but the happiness of my wife is literally everything, surpassing the need for food and water. In my eyes at least, sexual orientation doesn't affect ones ability to love or be loved, I'd expect no less from any marriage regardless of the alphabet soup combination therein.

I was just thinking about this again, and I had an idea. Maybe this means that celibacy before marriage actually leads to a more successful marriage. After all, if you had a healthy relationship without having sex, which was hopefully based on something more than successful fulfillment of physical desires, than certainly one would think that you could have a relationship at least as successful without that restriction. Or in other words, restricting the physicality before marriage helps people to create a relationship based on something more uniform/concrete, in which case a heavy difference in sex drive would have a much lower impact on the perceived quality of the relationship.

And now I would like to share a story. On my mission I talked with an older man (probably at least 70) that was getting ready to be baptized. He and his wife were actually married, which was rare enough, but as I talked to him, I realized something. He was unhappy with his relationship because his wife simply wasn't interested in sex anymore. Now, they had more than thirty years together, and at least from what I was able to gather in the short time that I talked to him and his wife this was a fairly recent turn of events. But to be honest, the situation disgusted me a little bit. And I think that what Tao said is why, and that is basically what I advised them to do as well, to remember that there is more in play that just sex.

When I imagine my future, in which I would very much like to be married, I just don't see sex as being that important. I would really just like to have someone who I can trust completely, who I know will be there for me, and who I can comfort as well. Someone with whom I can share a life, not just physical pleasure. I would like to think that her happiness and wellbeing would be more important to me than such a petty, selfish desire.

Not to say that I won't enjoy the other parts of being married as well. I just hope that it is never the basis of our relationship.

[TheBlackSheep]

I'm hardly so shallow that I have not experienced brotherly love, or a deep abiding respect for female roommates or male colleagues that was asexual. Nor am I so stupid that I'm unaware that married people don't negotiate sex (a spouse undergoing chemo has other priorities). However, I don't know if sex has to be a mystical experience for everyone, and maybe for some, it's just sex. Sex can be just physical and still be positive, uplifting, consensual.

Maybe I'm way outside the norm here, but at this point in my life, sex certainly isn't everything, but the drive for it is up there with food, water, air. It certainly can FEEL like everything to a certain personality type. I just can't think of any good arguments why a
young, healthy, partnered person can't have sex at the top of their priority list if they want.

Portia, I agree with you. I don't want to be in a long-term relationship with anybody I am not sexually compatible with, and I feel like sex has strengthened rather than harmed my more recent significant romantic relationships. I basically agree with every word you say in the above quote, and I agree that Mormon culture has a way of messing with female sexuality. But I don't feel like anybody is saying that you HAVE to be capable of living in a mixed-orientation marriage (correct me if I'm wrong, naturally) or that people aren't allowed to place sex at different places in their priorities. They certainly aren't preaching MOMs as the solution to all those durn gay Mormon men running around. I know so many people who disclosed the fact that they were attracted to people of their same sex before the wedding and who ended up divorced. However, for some people in the right circumstances, very infrequently, mixed-orientation marriages can work. I think that's where this all started.

And I don't think that anyone's sex drive is a selfish desire.

[Marduk]

And I don't think that anyone's sex drive is a selfish desire.

QFT.

[NerdGirl]

And I don't think that anyone's sex drive is a selfish desire.

QFT.

QFTx2. If sex is really important to some people, that's their business. If it's less important to others, that's also their business. What we think we personally may or may not be comfortable with in a relationship is very individual. I'm not interested in being in a sexless marriage. And with regards to the fact that some people have disabilities and can't have certain kinds of sex, that's fine with me - sex as more than vaginal intercourse (I hope I'm not being too graphic here - I've really gotten used to having quite specific discussions about sex with people and a lot of my former filters are gone). But I do not want to be married to someone who has no desire for physical intimacy of any kind with me. It's something that's important to me.