LTRs in the Gay Community

December 11, 2003

Recently I reheard the old joke

"What does a lesbian bring on a second date?" .....

"A U-Haul" .....

"What does a gay guy bring on a second date?" .....

"What second date?????"

In my observation, LTRs among gay guys last months to a couple of years then they part. A few old couples notwithstanding, why, does anybody suppose, that gay guys find it so difficult to form lasting relationships?

Just curious to hear various opinions from a community that would be more prone to this behavior than even the mainstream.

December 11, 2003

It's all about compromise. And I think it helps to have an open relationship. I was with my partner Ned for 14 years until he died of cancer 2 1/2 years ago. We knew a lot of LTR gay couples. You don't find a lot of them in the bars, although that's how I met Ned, the old-fashioned way.lol

It's the same whether you are gay or straight. Couples seem to find other couples, and singles become fifth wheels.

taylorky · December 11, 2003

jeff and me are over 7 years.we have known each other our entire lifes but were 13 (jeff) and 14 (me) when we first started as a couple.

guptasa1 · December 11, 2003

I think there are many possible reasons that contribue to this. I, for one, would like a long-term relationship - that's actually my main wish for this life. I suppose I was lucky to have a wonderful relationship with someone for 2 years...I hope to have something like that again someday (but being I'm so damned neurotic, not sure if I'll by lucky enough to meet someone I care about as much as him or not - lol).

I'm going to propose a few reasons why *I* think these relationships might be so hard to come by, and I'll say up front I don't have any scientific proof or anything - these are simply my feelings.

For one, I think it's a matter of "less to choose from" to be blunt. I've heard estimates 1 out of 10 people are gay (frankly, that sounds a bit high to me), but consider that for a moment...and people's choices are pretty limited. If you're in a small town like me, there might only be a few other gay people around...and it's quite possible to not be attracted to any of them (or at least not on a permanent level). Whereas for straight people, the majority of the opposite sex population could be considered dating candidates. It does make a difference - easier to find a real connection when there are more choices.

Also, because in some circles homosexuals are looked down on, whether it's for religious reasons or just fear/bigotry, even if people around ARE gay, they may not broadcast it. (Hence, why a lot of people hook up in gay bars.) In some small towns, though, there aren't even really any gay bars around. Straight people seem to generally assume other people are straight until they have reason to suspect otherwise, and because of that, they're more likely to ask someone out for a date anywhere - gay people don't have quite as much of that luxury unless they're really great at telling.

My other argument is, as it stands now, there's no institution like marriage for gay people on a widespread basis (but it's coming more and more). Whether you agree or disagree with legalizing gay marriage (I support it personally), I tend to think the institution of marriage makes some subtle differences that aren't immediately obvious, which sometimes affects how the relationship goes and might make it last longer. For example, a lot of conservative couples (and I'm not saying I necessarily agree with this or would do it - just pointing out) wait until they're married to even have sex. It's not that gay couples necessarily need to do that, but for the most part, gays don't have the OPTION to do that...and since there's no "marriage line" so to speak to wait until, there isn't as much reason to wait, and any time to wait would be arbitrary. Also, marriage is a formal committment...one that means not giving up and staying together until death (not that people don't divorce all the time, but that's what it's meant to be). I'd theorize things like that can make some difference too, and without these things as options (in most of the country), relationships simply become more arbitrary.

There are plenty of exceptions to this of course, and I know committed relationships do happen. It's just, for a variety of reasons, I think it's harder to establish.

FrancoDiSantisxxx · December 11, 2003

All American Men = Pigs?

My best friend in college was as All American as you can get: blond, swimmer build, a corn fed farm boy. I introduced him at a party once to a casual aquaintence, also not born and bred in this country and afterwards, he turned to me and said: Your friend, is cute, no? But like all American boys, he wants what he wants when he wants it. No patience, no waiting.

Obviously, it stuck in my mind. I think in sexual terms, gay men have become inured to immediate gratification: fast food, fast cars, fast men.

Getting laid is easy. Relationships are hard - because they require work and most individuals, gay or straight, men or women, do not always find themselves with the mind set to invest either the time or energy to get to know someone else.

I also think some of this has to do with confusing one thing for another and giving it a different name: sex as a substitute for intimacy, sex as a substitute for emotion, affection and yes, of course, sex as a substitute for love.

Finally, I think the role models are lacking. Marriage historically has been for procreation, economic benefit, and religious control. Prior to the rise of a broad middle class, the concept of romantic love as the basis of marriage did not exist and, in early world history, while males and females would mate, as wild animals do, there was no expectation of monogamy. Religious concepts of fidelity, eternal bonds, etc., were created by men, and as with some aspects of such doctrine, have as much basis in control, commerce and maintenance of religious authority as they may have in actual belief.

guptasa1 · December 12, 2003

RE: All American Men = Pigs?

Hmmm...interesting - lot of stuff in there I didn't think about or even know. Cool post. Hope you don't mind a few comments - just me thinking out loud; I'm not debating or anything, just considering what you said and offering my thoughts.

>Obviously, it stuck in my mind. I think in sexual terms, gay

>men have become inured to immediate gratification: fast food,

>fast cars, fast men.

Hmmm... I think you're right in many cases, but could some of this possibly be caused by simple frustration with getting/keeping relationships? This could just be my own perspective bias working here...I'm a bit frustrated/cynical about finding another meaningful relationship at the moment. Because of that, I suppose I am looking for immediate gratification, which is why in my case I see escorts occasionally...though quite honestly, it wouldn't be my first choice if I could have that relationship. I guess I'm just saying maybe a lot of people don't try for long-term relationships anymore because they're so hard to find and keep (especially in the gay community) and in a sense they've given up? Just a thought.

>Getting laid is easy. Relationships are hard - because they

>require work and most individuals, gay or straight, men or

>women, do not always find themselves with the mind set to

>invest either the time or energy to get to know someone else.

I think a lot of that depends too. Assuming you mean getting laid in a non-escort context, it's not so easy if your personality isn't outgoing...or if you're somewhat picky (I tend to be shy and socially awkward, so I don't go out all that much, and even when I am, I'm not really comfortable. I'm also not particularly attracted in a sexual sense to a lot of guys - wish I understood that myself, but it just complicates things more.) Location and the number of other gay people around, as I mentioned in my other post, also plays into this I think. So sometimes getting laid isn't so easy depending on personality, location, gay community, and of course factors like body type, etc.

Relationships are indeed hard - no argument there; I suppose that depends on how worthwhile they are to the individuals involved. To me, it'd be very-much worth it, so I don't mind working for it. I'm actually not bad at working at a relationship once it's there - my problem is with dating and getting things started.

>I also think some of this has to do with confusing one thing

>for another and giving it a different name: sex as a

>substitute for intimacy, sex as a substitute for emotion,

>affection and yes, of course, sex as a substitute for love.

At least as far as escorting, I think you're right on and people, including myself, do indeed substitute sex for intimacy, emotion, affection, and love. I know I do in some respects, but I don't think I confuse them at the same time. While sex can be terrific and make one feel good and cared for and even loved in a sense, I know in the end it's a temporary substitute, and a poor one at that. (Not to say anything's wrong with escorting - I think it's a GREAT service, and I even think it can be quite healing when you do want to feel something like the above, but I don't feel it's a permanent solution, nor do I feel it can ever replace the real things...and if confusion DOES set in, which I'm sure is easy for it to do, that mistake can end up harming people instead of helping).

>Finally, I think the role models are lacking. Marriage

>historically has been for procreation, economic benefit, and

>religious control. Prior to the rise of a broad middle class,

>the concept of romantic love as the basis of marriage did not

>exist and, in early world history, while males and females

>would mate, as wild animals do, there was no expectation of

>monogamy. Religious concepts of fidelity, eternal bonds, etc.,

>were created by men, and as with some aspects of such

>doctrine, have as much basis in control, commerce and

>maintenance of religious authority as they may have in actual

>belief.

I never really thought about this. I never realized on a conscious level (I've known about arranged marriages, etc.) that in the past romantic love wasn't a part of marriage. And it makes sense that a lot of the concepts boil down to religion. I personally still like some of those concepts, but I suppose I'm a romantic at heart...and my culture and upbringing probably influences that more than I even realize.

Just some comments - I find this subject interesting. (Gonna be gone for the weekend...so if anyone replies, don't expect another reply for a few days.) =o)

guptasa1 · December 12, 2003

RE: All American Men = Pigs?

Hmmm...interesting - lot of stuff in there I didn't think about or even know. Cool post. Hope you don't mind a few comments - just me thinking out loud; I'm not debating or anything, just considering what you said and offering my thoughts.

>Obviously, it stuck in my mind. I think in sexual terms, gay

>men have become inured to immediate gratification: fast food,

>fast cars, fast men.

Hmmm... I think you're right in many cases, but could some of this possibly be caused by simple frustration with getting/keeping relationships? This could just be my own perspective bias working here...I'm a bit frustrated/cynical about finding another meaningful relationship at the moment. Because of that, I suppose I am looking for immediate gratification, which is why in my case I see escorts occasionally...though quite honestly, it wouldn't be my first choice if I could have that relationship. I guess I'm just saying maybe a lot of people don't try for long-term relationships anymore because they're so hard to find and keep (especially in the gay community) and in a sense they've given up? Just a thought.

>Getting laid is easy. Relationships are hard - because they

>require work and most individuals, gay or straight, men or

>women, do not always find themselves with the mind set to

>invest either the time or energy to get to know someone else.

I think a lot of that depends too. Assuming you mean getting laid in a non-escort context, it's not so easy if your personality isn't outgoing...or if you're somewhat picky (I tend to be shy and socially awkward, so I don't go out all that much, and even when I am, I'm not really comfortable. I'm also not particularly attracted in a sexual sense to a lot of guys - wish I understood that myself, but it just complicates things more.) Location and the number of other gay people around, as I mentioned in my other post, also plays into this I think. So sometimes getting laid isn't so easy depending on personality, location, gay community, and of course factors like body type, etc.

Relationships are indeed hard - no argument there; I suppose that depends on how worthwhile they are to the individuals involved. To me, it'd be very-much worth it, so I don't mind working for it. I'm actually not bad at working at a relationship once it's there - my problem is with dating and getting things started.

>I also think some of this has to do with confusing one thing

>for another and giving it a different name: sex as a

>substitute for intimacy, sex as a substitute for emotion,

>affection and yes, of course, sex as a substitute for love.

At least as far as escorting, I think you're right on and people, including myself, do indeed substitute sex for intimacy, emotion, affection, and love. I know I do in some respects, but I don't think I confuse them at the same time. While sex can be terrific and make one feel good and cared for and even loved in a sense, I know in the end it's a temporary substitute, and a poor one at that. (Not to say anything's wrong with escorting - I think it's a GREAT service, and I even think it can be quite healing when you do want to feel something like the above, but I don't feel it's a permanent solution, nor do I feel it can ever replace the real things...and if confusion DOES set in, which I'm sure is easy for it to do, that mistake can end up harming people instead of helping).

>Finally, I think the role models are lacking. Marriage

>historically has been for procreation, economic benefit, and

>religious control. Prior to the rise of a broad middle class,

>the concept of romantic love as the basis of marriage did not

>exist and, in early world history, while males and females

>would mate, as wild animals do, there was no expectation of

>monogamy. Religious concepts of fidelity, eternal bonds, etc.,

>were created by men, and as with some aspects of such

>doctrine, have as much basis in control, commerce and

>maintenance of religious authority as they may have in actual

>belief.

I never really thought about this. I never realized on a conscious level (I've known about arranged marriages, etc.) that in the past romantic love wasn't a part of marriage. And it makes sense that a lot of the concepts boil down to religion. I personally still like some of those concepts, but I suppose I'm a romantic at heart...and my culture and upbringing probably influences that more than I even realize.

Just some comments - I find this subject interesting. (Gonna be gone for the weekend...so if anyone replies, don't expect another reply for a few days.) =o)

taylorky · December 12, 2003

RE: All American Men = Pigs?

y'all are looking to deep into the whys .

in my humble lil ol hillbilly opinion it's really quite simple!

guy A meets guy B and something clicks........who knows why,and who really cares.

guy A really likes guy B and guy B really likes guy A and they feel a need to be with each other.they don't analyze it and why should they?

all the pseudo psycho babble in the world can't explain why two people fall in love and want to be with each other, all it can really do is damage what should be accepted and enjoyed as natural!

:-)

taylorky · December 12, 2003

RE: All American Men = Pigs?

y'all are looking to deep into the whys .

in my humble lil ol hillbilly opinion it's really quite simple!

guy A meets guy B and something clicks........who knows why,and who really cares.

guy A really likes guy B and guy B really likes guy A and they feel a need to be with each other.they don't analyze it and why should they?

all the pseudo psycho babble in the world can't explain why two people fall in love and want to be with each other, all it can really do is damage what should be accepted and enjoyed as natural!

:-)

December 12, 2003

I actually have a couple of theories on this because I don't think there is really one single explanation. But here goes:

a) Straight men are somewhat "programmed" by our society that says they should at some point get married and raise a family. And I think the vast majority of men want a family with kids and getting married (although not required) is generally Step 1 toward reaching that goal.

b) Straight men basically get "tamed" by their partners ... women. You never hear people say a woman finally settled down. That statement usually refers to men. And when the phrase "ball and chain" is used, it's almost always referred to the women. And it's never the woman that's "whipped." It's the man. If a man wants to be married and have a family, he has to be willing to accept much of what the woman wants. And that's generally an exclusive and committed relationship.

c) The financial equation between the partners of a hetero marriage tend to be different than between the partners of a gay couple ... where more often than not, the woman is financially dependent on the husband. I've known women in the past who wanted to leave their husbands but felt they couldn't afford to financially. With gay couples, you're more likely to have financial independence between the partners (but not always).

d) And I think this is the most common. I happen to have a lot of straight friends ... virtually all are married couples with children. But the vast majority don't seem to be into each other that much anymore but are together for the children. Once a couple has children, the dynamics of the relationship changes forever. When thinking of these friends, I often theorize that if it weren't for their children, they wouldn't be married.

In my view, a good many marriages have become shams. So many couples get to the point where they can't stand each other and can't even speak to each other with a civilized tone. But they stay in their marriages because of their kids, the wife feels dependent financially, and/or the husband doesn't want to have to pay alimony.

I just recently discovered that a couple I know is sleeping in separate bedrooms, the husband is fucking around like a college kid in heat, and the wife is in total denial. They might be married, but it ain't much of a RELATIONSHIP!

Personally, I would love to be in a 100% monogamous relationship and have someone to basically grow old with. But I'd rather be alone than be with someone just for the sake of having someone. I figure if it's meant to be, it will be.

December 12, 2003