Although these feelings are normal I am not sure how or whether I should act on them.

petewrestlerdude

Robert Loring

Re: Attraction to women

6-25-2006

I think your feelings are normal but you are involved in a committed relationship "with another bloke." Should you act on your feelings of being attracted to women? If you do then where does that leave you commitment to your current partner? It destroys that commitment! It destroys the trust and kills the love!

One of the great values expressed all over this site is commitment and fidelity to one's partner. Obviously you have missed that.

Eric

Re: Attraction to women

6-28-2006

Except that this site also accepts "gender monogamy".

I think the message on this site regarding fidelity needs to be clarified a little better, to tell you the truth, because it seems to be to be somewhat of a mixed message as it currently stands.

"FIDELITY -- being in a sexually-exclusive LTR; or, if you're bi / married, gender monogamy -- one partner of each gender, and one partner only -- protects you physically, emotionally, and spiritually."

This message relies on the validity of the labels gay and bisexual, and sets a different standard for each category: Be monogamous with one guy if you're gay, but if you are bisexual then it's okay to have one partner of each gender.

In the context of the definition of fidelity on this site, the message that Sir Robert is giving to petewrestlerdude seems to be: "If you already have a female partner then it's okay to find a male partner as well. But if you already have a male partner, then it is NOT okay to find a female partner as well".

Or in other words, being monogamous with a man is more important than being monogamous with a woman.

In my own experience I've found that having a partner of each gender can detract from both relationships.

However, I get that the concept of gender monogamy on this site is modeled after classic Greek warrior culture, where a man's true love is found in another man, but he is also married to a woman for the purpose of producing offspring, or in any case the relationship with the woman is not as highly valued. It seems to me that this is a fairly sexist concept, and dated.

In modern times perhaps we can be a little more equitable towards women, but it may still be the case that a love relationship between a man and a woman fills different roles in a man's life than a love relationship with another man.

Why don't we just simplify the message and remove the dependency on orientation labels and just say "the Alliance supports gender monogamy, no more than one partner of each gender". This definition does not require you to have a partner of each gender so it is inclusive of just having one partner.

Or is the message as it's currently written intended to say something along the lines of: it's better to just have one male partner, but if you really must have a female partner then having one of each gender is acceptable.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the spirit of the fidelity message on this site, in which case I would appreciate some clarification.

Bill Weintraub

Re: Attraction to women

6-28-2006

Thank you Robert and Eric

This is a very complex issue, and I don't think we can have all the answers because a lot depends on the individuals involved.

In Pete's case, what concerns me is that he had said in an earlier post that he wanted to have kids, and not via a turkey baster or a lesbian couple, but with a woman with whom he was connected.

That's a very serious issue, and it applies to most men.

Robert, it seems to me, is commenting on the emotional fall-out, and I want to come back to that.

Let's look at Eric first.

"FIDELITY -- being in a sexually-exclusive LTR; or, if you're bi / married, gender monogamy -- one partner of each gender, and one partner only -- protects you physically, emotionally, and spiritually."

This message relies on the validity of the labels gay and bisexual, and sets a different standard for each category: Be monogamous with one guy if you're gay, but if you are bisexual then it's okay to have one partner of each gender.

Yes.

It was written that way because rates of promiscuity are so much higher among gay men.

And because the cultures are so different.

In general, gay male culture supports high levels of promiscuity.

Straight culture does not.

So my first concern is getting gay men away from the culture of promiscuity -- and into a culture of Fidelity.

Married guys have a different problem.

Many of the married men on this site have been totally faithful to their wives -- often for decades.

While at the same time they've struggled with same-sex needs and desires.

Our message to them has been: we neither encourage nor discourage you from having a male partner; but if you choose to do so, gender monogamy is the way to go: just ONE male partner.

Because again, the danger, as married-man Den Shannahan wrote about, is that as soon as a man -- whatever his orientation -- starts hitting the net looking for guy-guy stuff, he encounters analist sites which encourage not just anal but promiscuity.

So we need to be very clear with the married men -- don't do anal -- and don't be promiscuous -- just ONE buddy -- not many.

In my own experience I've found that having a partner of each gender can detract from both relationships.

I understand -- and I think that's an important observation.

At the same time, I know that many married guys don't agree.

They say the opposite -- that being married and having a Frot buddy actually improves the marriage.

Which speaks to your next point:

However, I get that the concept of gender monogamy on this site is modeled after classic Greek warrior culture, where a man's true love is found in another man, but he is also married to a woman for the purpose of producing offspring, or in any case the relationship with the woman is not as highly valued. It seems to me that this is a fairly sexist concept, and dated.

That idea comes out of homophobic classicists, like Michael Grant whom I wrote about in the post titled the weight of the lies, which assumes that the Greeks were misogynist and sexist etc.

I don't agree with that reading of the Greeks.

For one thing because it looks at them through the prism of our own contemporary culture and gender politics, instead of taking them on their own terms.

Instead of calling them sexist, which would have been meaningless to them, maybe we need to remember that their social arrangements produced some of the most brilliant people the world has ever known, and that they were sufficiently dynamic to leave their little peninsula and conquer most of the known world.

That was a fabulously successful society, and one which we would do well to emulate.

Further, many Greek men clearly loved and valued their wives.

But they also had loving and passionate relationships with men.

The message that I want to get across to our guys about the Greeks is that in their Man2Man relationships they were Faithful.

And that these were relationships between men of the warrior class -- Warriors.

The Greeks did not see a conflict between Man2Man love -- manly love -- and masculinity.

To the contrary, they saw love between men as exalting masculinity.

And their whole culture was set up to do that.

As we all know, there's a huge amount of celebratory male nudity in their art.

But there are also tender images of women.

I think this was an authentically bisexual culture.

It was vibrant, it was successful, and I think we can reasonably borrow elements from it to enrich and greatly improve our own lives.

In modern times perhaps we can be a little more equitable towards women, but it may still be the case that a love relationship between a man and a woman fills different roles in a man's life than a love relationship with another man.

That's what a lot of guys say.

But clearly much will depend on the people involved.

And I'm sure that was true in Greece too.

The difference was that in Greece there was huge societal support for same-sex love.

So the guys didn't have to go skulking around and hiding behind internet pseudonyms.

They did what they did with the full support of their culture.

Why don't we just simplify the message and remove the dependency on orientation labels and just say "the Alliance supports gender monogamy, no more than one partner of each gender". This definition does not require you to have a partner of each gender so it is inclusive of just having one partner.

Or is the message as it's currently written intended to say something along the lines of: it's better to just have one male partner, but if you really must have a female partner then having one of each gender is acceptable.

NO.

That's not the message.

Man-Man is not better than Man-Woman.

They may be different.

What a lot of guys say, including my husband, who's bi, is that women are more emotionally demanding than men.

But that may not be everyone's experience either.

So I want to repeat:

Man-Man is not better than Man-Woman.

And I don't think anyone would read that into this:

"FIDELITY -- being in a sexually-exclusive LTR; or, if you're bi / married, gender monogamy -- one partner of each gender, and one partner only -- protects you physically, emotionally, and spiritually."

Now, let me get back to Pete.

Pete wants to have children.

Most men want to have children.

Pete wants to be connected to the woman he has the children with.

Most men want that.

Can Pete also have a committed relationship with a man at the same time?

Clearly, that's going to depend on Pete, the man, and the woman.

One reality is that having kids -- never mind being married -- is going to take a tremendous amount of his time.

Will the other guy be able to tolerate that?

Only the other guy knows the answer.

In my case, I'm married to a bisexual man.

Before we met, he was simultaneously involved with a woman and another guy.

He was involved with the woman primarily for sex.

The truth is, they didn't get along very well, but they had great sex.

The man was another straight-identified guy whom he'd known for years -- the relationship didn't become sexual until very late.

So he got along a lot better with his buddy than he did with his woman.

He felt no conflict in being involved with both.

But, arguably, he wasn't in a committed relationship with either of them.

Now, he's in a committed relationship with a man.

He asked me to marry him and I did.

At this point in his life, he's a strict Fidelity guy.

He's not looking to be with a woman.

Which is fine from my point of view.

But he's also older than Pete, and he's not looking to have kids.

So I don't think one size can fit all.

BUT -- Fidelity must remain the ideal; and, for guys seeking involvement with both a man and a woman, gender monogamy the practice.

Promiscuity must NEVER be an option.

And as Robert says, people have to be aware that if you're in a committed relationship, you risk losing it.

Again, my great concern is that people not be promiscuous, and that we understand that gay male promiscuity is an aberration -- not the norm.

This is from Why Be Faithful:

Only among gay men in the post-industrialized world, has a culture of absolute promiscuity, with no effective restraints upon individual behavior, developed.

That development is, as we shall see, though supported by an ideology and subcultural norms, very recent.

Indeed, this sort of unbridled promiscuity is so new that we may reasonably regard it as a social experiment -- and one which has, by any reasonable measures, including the physical and psychological health of its participants, and their happiness, failed.

Thank you again guys.

And to everyone: Guys, it's very busy right now.

Please don't make me waste time on Donations posts.

Please keep donations flowing in so that we can keep getting our message out.

© All material Copyright 2006 by Bill Weintraub. All rights reserved.

Oscar Vallejo

Re: Attraction to women

6-28-2006

Thank you for this posts Bill. I appreciate it.

Robert Loring

Re: Attraction to women

6-29-2006

Eric wrote:

"In the context of the definition of fidelity on this site, the message that Sir Robert is giving to petewrestlerdude seems to be: "If you already have a female partner then it's okay to find a male partner as well. But if you already have a male partner, then it is NOT okay to find a female partner as well".

Or in other words, being monogamous with a man is more important than being monogamous with a woman."

I am speaking of the emotional fallout as Bill stated. Further, in my opinion, it doesn't matter if your partner is male or female. Betrayal is betrayal!! When you're in a relationship with a male or female you should honor that relationship by not betraying it I think. That means, don't go whoring around!!