Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Friend says he's heterosexual eventhough he's married to a man!!

117 replies

user1485442361 · 28/01/2017 19:55

That's it really. I've known him since he was 34 and I was 17. He's been with his Husband 20 years and they got married two years ago.

He was a bit of a player when he met his partner. He admits he's slept with a lot of women. He met his partner at work, knew he was gay and they developed a very very close friendship which cumulated in him falling in love with his friend and it just went from there. He absolutely adores his Husband and definitely fancies him. No doubt about that.

But while publicly he just says he's gay. He has always told me (his best friend) that he is in fact only attracted to women. He is in love and sexually attracted to his Husband and fell completely in love with him. But apart from his Husband, he has absolutely no attraction to men whatsoever. He is however, sexually attracted to women.

He would never even worry about sleep in a bed with a man because he knows he wouldn't be interested but with a woman he wouldn't put himself in any situation where he might cheat. His husband knows he's heterosexual and always jokes to me that he made him 'see the light'.

I just find it a bit hard to believe really. But I know I'm being a bit ignorant on this subject. Would I be unreasonable to think he can't be heterosexual and in love with a man?

OP posts:
Datun · 30/01/2017 09:48

Why do you need to know or label someone else's sexuality.

So you can identify your personal dating pool. Many people are fine dating someone who is bisexual. But many people, gay and straight, would feel very uncomfortable knowing that their partner had switched their sexual orientation in the past.

There is no right or wrong to it obviously but if the language used to define things is suddenly useless, decisions can't be made.

I would feel vastly irritated if I was trying to ascertain something about someone, but had no tools to do so because they had decided it was unnecessary.

NarkyMcDinkyChops · 30/01/2017 09:59

But it's not really lying. That's how he feels about himself. That's his perspective

It doesn't matter what his perspective is in this instance. He could say "I don't like labels, I won't use one", and that would be his perspective. He cannot however claim to be 100% heterosexual when he is married to and has sex with a man.
You can't claim to be the precise exact opposite of what your actions make you, and expect people to be fine with that.

ArcheryAnnie · 30/01/2017 11:04

davidbrent, since you are on this thread, can you help with the disconnect many of us feel on seeing this kind of statement? Because you in two lines said both that you are "attracted to women exclusively" and talked about a man you'd have wanted to date. Which tell me that you aren't attracted to women exclusively. Might have been only one man for you, ever, but that still nullifies the "exclusively" bit.

Roomster101 · 30/01/2017 11:59

To me, he is clearly bisexual. I think there is a tendency for people to assume that everyone is similar to themselves so he might think that all heterosexual people are very occasionally attracted to their own sex and so as it has only happened once for him he feels he is heterosexual rather than bisexual.

misshelena · 30/01/2017 14:04

"You may be right technically, but that doesn't really mean he's lying. He's just using the labels to describe how he feels about himself."

If he knows the definition of "heterosexual", then he is in fact "lying". If not, then he is using the label incorrectly.

It's like saying "I am a vegetarian except for chicken" -- actual quote from a friend!

trulybadlydeeply · 30/01/2017 14:26

I have a friend in this situation, OP. She describes herself as heterosexual, however is in a relationship with a woman. She has only had male partners before, only finds men attractive, never women, yet she found herself falling in love with her friend. As others have said, she fell in love with a person, nothing more. However she still identifies as heterosexual, but in a relationship with a woman.

NarkyMcDinkyChops · 30/01/2017 14:34

As others have said, she fell in love with a person, nothing more. However she still identifies as heterosexual, but in a relationship with a woman

But the person has a sex. They are not sexless. She can call her self hetero all she wants, but she isn't. We don't make our own labels, they already exist, outside of us.

trulybadlydeeply · 30/01/2017 15:03

The point being though, that she is attracted to men, not women.

How else can she define herself, other than a heterosexual person who is in a relationship with a woman? She is not homosexual, as she is not attracted to women, and she is not bisexual, for the same reason.

You say she isn't heterosexual, but how would you define her? (if, indeed, we need to put labels such as this on people).

misshelena · 30/01/2017 15:22

"The point being though, that she is attracted to men, not women."

So she regularly has sex with a woman she is not attracted to? I just feel like it's a bit dishonest to say that. And I wouldn't be happy if I were the partner. I guess that's a classic example of what pp would call "in denial".

Or are you saying that they have a sexless marriage? I can definitely see a situation where two pp who are asexual (or have very low sex drive) who love each other's company and decide to marry and live together.

Evergreen777 · 30/01/2017 16:04

If I am a married woman in a monogomous, sexual, relationship - but don't find myself fancying anyone else, only my husband, I wouldn't describe myself as asexual would I? I'd say I was hetrosexual, and so would the rest of the world. Not fancying any other men, wouldn't stop me being hetrosexual, because I'm in a sexual relationship with a man. I can't see how it's any different from the OP's friend being bisexual because of his (ongoing) same-sex relationship.

RhiWrites · 30/01/2017 17:07

This kind of definition is something I've seen more often in the last few years. While I respect people's right to define their own sexuality it still feels like bisexual erasure to me.

CactusFred · 30/01/2017 17:26

You love who you love!

In romance novel terms it's called gay for you Smile

VestalVirgin · 30/01/2017 17:28

He's bisexual with a preference for women. But, meh, who cares? As long as he's faithful and his husband knows about his bisexuality, there's no problem, is there?

Of course, if one uses the definition that is used for asexuality, he might even be correct - until recently I thought asexuality was defined as not having sexual desires, but apparently, many define it as just not experiencing sexual attraction to random people.

(I personally think it's nonsense. If you want to have sex with people you're in love with, you are sexual, and if you want to have sex with a man you are in love with, and are a man yourself, you're gay or bi.)

ArcheryAnnie · 30/01/2017 19:31

only finds men attractive

Except presumably her partner, trulybadlydeeply? So not "only" then?

HeyRoly · 30/01/2017 19:51

I'd say his refusal to consider himself bisexual is indicative of his own homophobia, really. It's a bit mad to insist he's straight whilst simultaneously being in a long term committed relationship with a man. But it's not uncommon for men to insist they're not gay/bi despite having sex with men. Hence the term "men who have sex with men" being common in sexual health lingo, in order to include those men who don't identify as gay/bi even though they have sex with men. Apols if that's been mentioned already!

NarkyMcDinkyChops · 31/01/2017 00:26

The point being though, that she is attracted to men, not women. How else can she define herself, other than a heterosexual person who is in a relationship with a woman? She is not homosexual, as she is not attracted to women, and she is not bisexual, for the same reason

What are you talking about?That makes no sense whatsoever! She may not be attracted to OTHER women, but she is attracted to and in a relationship with A WOMAN. Unless she believes her girlfriend is actually a man, she is not heterosexual.
Most of us are only in a relationship with one person, but whether that person has a vagina or a penis defines our sexuality rather well!

Nobody is trying to force anyone to label themselves, the point is you cannot claim to be the actual opposite of what you are/what you are doing.
100% hetero women are not in lesbian relationships. 100% vegetarians don't eat fillet steak.

pseudonymph · 31/01/2017 00:57

Presumably the problem is that there isn't an exact word to describe his sexuality? I think there is legitimate difference between being attracted to both women and men fairly equally (=standard definition of bisexuality), and the rarer situation of being more or less entirely attracted to women (/men), but with one exception. Both are, in a sense, bisexuality, but I see why 'heterosexual but married to a same sex partner' might seem to communicate the situation better, even though it's technically inaccurate. Just as the meaning of 'vegetarian who eats chicken' is perfectly clear and different to omnivore, though not strictly accurate (and also hypocritical, if this is ethical vegetarianism).

Agree that it is also possibly bisexual erasure / denial, though it could also be genuinely that that one person does something for them - sexuality is pretty variable.

misshelena · 31/01/2017 03:33

Pseudo -- there can't be a word to describe every sexual preference variation along the sexual spectrum. It would be mayhem. 35% preference for women, 65% preference for men is called AAA. 22% preference for men, 60% for women, and 18% for other is called BBB, etc. etc.

HeyRoly -- yeah, I think you may be right :(

atheistmantis · 31/01/2017 05:30

It's all labels, who gives a fuck if it doesn't bother anybody else. All this identity shit has gone way too far.

MackerelOfFact · 31/01/2017 05:51

I don't really understand why it needs to be called anything? If your friend was always attracted to tall vegetarians with dark hair and started dating someone short, carnivorous and blonde, it wouldn't suddenly need defining, would it? The intricacies of people's sexual preferences are not important unless you're having sex with them.

I also find it a bit weird and slightly offensive to speculate on who someone would have sex with if they weren't married, when they are married. It's all a bit academic really, isn't it, unless you're accusing them of being likely to cheat? Is it normal to speculate who married people might cheat on their spouses with?!

trulybadlydeeply · 31/01/2017 06:09

Narky that may not make any sense to you, and I cannot pretend to understand it, however that is how she chooses to describe herself. Infact, she acknowledges she doesn't understand it herself, however she is very happy in her relationship Smile

I was simply using the example to show the OP that what she describes is not a unique situation. Human attraction and sexuality, is extremely complex, and sometimes does not fit neatly within labels and boxes. I think that makes us incredibly fascinating creatures.

JonHammAndCheese · 31/01/2017 06:14

If he's attracted to his husband then he is attracted to men.

Unless his husband is the only man he's ever found romantically and/or sexually attractive. It happens.

If you had to label the man, it'd probably be bisexual, but if his husband's name was, say, Bob, I'd call him Bobsexual. :D

GruffaloPants · 31/01/2017 06:20

My parents have a friendship with a (now former) couple who were similar. One was/is a lesbian. The other was female but had never had a relationship with a woman before, described herself as a "convert". After a few years she left and married a man and had kids. Split after a few years saying she should have stuck with her "true love" and that she had chucked in a better relationship and sex life for conventionality and kids (back in the 80s when it was even harder to have kids in a gay relationship).

charity29 · 31/01/2017 11:03

I married a woman last month. I'm not a lesbian or bisexual. I love her, but I'm only sexually attracted to men.

Reality16 · 31/01/2017 11:28

Presumably the problem is that there isn't an exact word to describe his sexuality? I think there is legitimate difference between being attracted to both women and men fairly equally (=standard definition of bisexuality), and the rarer situation of being more or less entirely attracted to women (/men), but with one exception. Well there is a word, pansexual, being attracted to people, regardless of sex or gender.