This is a personal little soapbox issue of mine. I have found it to be not helpful and often destructive to think about the gay/bi spouse's orientation as on a spectrum between gay and bi, with the implication that this tells you what that spouse should want, should do with their life, etc. I see this on the bisexual married men's list all the time -- the "Am I gay, or am I bi?" question. The reason I think it can be a roadblock is that people's feelings are much more varied than this. For example, many men seem to be attracted to the male body more than the female body, in general, but experience great passion toward one particular women they are in love with -- What is that? Gay, because it is men in general that they lust for? Bi? But the two feelings are not "equal" or "similar" - they are quite different. I see these men sometimes saying -- "The way I feel toward men makes me gay, so I SHOULDN'T enjoy sex with my wife so much -- I just don't understand why that is so." To me, this shows how crazy the labels are. Sean (my husband) used to ask "Am I gay, am I bi?" --- my answer was, it is obvious what your feelings are toward men and toward me--- so what is your question?
I think for Sean, and for several other men on the bmma list, the difference that matters seems to be how they experience their sexuality toward men and toward women. They are attracted to men "in general," in the wider world. They fantasize sex with men, like men in pornography, are attracted to male body parts (penis, muscles, stubble, etc.), look at men on buses and in movies, etc. In contrast, they don't see women sexually except in the context of being in love with them. They wouldn't look at pictures of naked women, relate to their female friends and colleagues asexually, etc. And with their wives, the sexuality seems less directed at "female body parts" - they don't particularly like cunnilingus, for example. Many times these men seem "surprised" by their love and sexual attraction to their wives.
Sean calls himself gay, rather than bisexual, because he sees it as his "orientation" - his way of approaching the world.
But it does make me feel badly - as though his sexuality with me isn't "real," doesn't "count." As though doing it is a "mistake" he fell into, but he should "really" be with a man.
I wish there were a way to express this configuration of feelings/motives. I agree with you that there is something ludicrous in calling these men gay -- as you say, would we accept a man who fell in love with another man, lived with him for 20 years, had an ongoing passionate fulfilling sexual relationship with him, but still yearned for women and needed a woman in his life "straight?"
On the other hand, "bisexual" suggests to many men that the feelings toward men and women are similar, that they are "sexually attracted" to women in general, to female body parts, the way they are to men, and that isn't true, either.
I have given up worrying about these labels, myself. Sean's constant vacillation on whether he is gay or not and what it means has driven me crazy over the years. I have always felt, well, he feels what he feels, and we both know what he feels. What difference does the word make?
And yet it seems important to him. And because of that, it's depressing for me.
I worry about the effects of these words, too, for people who take them too seriously. Men who, for example, decide they are "gay," tell their wives that, and so both assume they must get divorced.
I've found it more productive, then, to ask the question "What do I feel, what do I want from men, from women, from my spouse?" -- and to include not just sex, but romance, attachment, domestic life, and social identity (belonging to the gay or straight "communities") in the answer.
Perhaps there is no such thing as an "ex-gay", but I have found on this list and on the bmma (bisexual married men) list that sexual orientation isn't either/or, it is quite complex and fluid. It varies from relationship to relationship, at different points in life, etc. Perhaps one doesn't choose one's fundamental sexual dynamics toward men and women, but there DOES seem to be, for many people, a lot of choice of how to live out their dynamics authentically, which can include choosing to act only on sexuality toward men, toward women, or including both.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
[In a separate posting, Sean writes:]
Jennifer and I and Alan often have pretty unproductive and unsatisfying arguments over these labels. (How can I call myself something that leaves out my love and sexual relationship with Jennifer? How can I call myself bi when I don't look at other women sexually? How can I not call myself gay given my feelings toward men? etc. etc. etc.).
It seems to me that if it is this difficult to apply the labels, and we need to debate it so endlessly, then there is something clearly wrong with the labels. If you need to debate for an hour whether something is a dog or a cat, then clearly it's not a dog or a cat. It's something else, and you can look at it and see what it is, for itself.
As for me, I am a man who feels generally sexually drawn to men, falls in love with both men and women, feels sexually drawn toward a woman when I am in love with her, reacts differently sexually to men and to women (with men, I am more drawn to "body parts," with women to "the whole person.")
Sometimes Jennifer and I joke that I am a gay man toward men and a lesbian toward women; that is to say, I feel sexual in a masculine way toward men and a in a more typical feminine way toward women. At the same time, that is of course not true, because in other ways I feel feminine toward masculine men, and clearly masculine toward Jennifer's femininity.
So I can say all that, but in the end what am I, bi or gay? It seems to me you choose the label to express something about yourself: to assert your feelings toward men and their importance, to assert your "not straight-ness," to assert the importance of your feelings for your wife, etc.
But you are what you are, and it isn't easily a cat or a dog for many of us.
I wonder why people describe men who fit this pattern as "gay". Would most people, do you think, accept it if a man said, "I am a straight man, I just happen to have fallen in love with and had a sexual relationship with a man for the last 10 years, and I am able to function in a gay relationship with a man for whom I have genuine love and affection." Is this really the description of a straight man? Similarly, then, how is a man who falls in love with a woman and functions in a heterosexual relationship simply a "gay" man? It seems to me there is some greater complexity here to be explained.
One way I have thought of the question is, if a person were put into a world in which sexual and romantic relationships with men and women were both completely and freely available and acceptable, what would they be likely to do, over a lifetime?
For me, the answer probably is that I would have much more sex with men, but would probably fall in love with and have intimate, long-term sexual relationships with both men and women.
Sean