To wonder what wives' opinions were in societies where male bisexuality was seen as a fairly common phase? *MNHQ tweaked title at requ of OP*

[Carla786]

I'm bisexual myself (female) and studying history. Historical books on gay relationships often have a lot more info on men than women (given that women had a lot less say in who they had relationships with, and often less education). Anyway, Ancient Greece & Rome, China, Japan, India to some extent & some Arab countries are all places where there was a tacit understanding that some men would have relationships and/or sex with other men, and this wasn't hugely policed, as long as the men still ended up marrying and there were dynamics like older/younger, active/passive.
What doesn't get written in the books I what women thought about this. It made me think recently, when I was reading a MN thread where most posters said they wouldn't date a bisexual man. Maybe some women accepted it as less worrying since it was meant to cease upon marriage, or not disrupt marriage. Maybe some didn't know. Maybe some were OK with it (slash fiction fans show some women don't find it instantly unattractive, but arguably that's fantasy and their rl opinions might be different). Maybe large numbers were very upset by it but didn't have much choice. I suppose the emphasis in cultures like the Romans on it being unmanly to take the passive role may have partly been because they thought women would find this less attractive (or perhaps women's opinions were totally disregarded- the Romans weren't quite as sexist as the Greeks but that's a low bar...)

Just another of those things about women in the past that we're unlikely to find out much more about..

AIBU to wonder?

This is blunt but The Roman’s didn’t have HIV. This is probably an issue with dating a bi man in this generation. I know not quite the health issue these days as it was in the 80’s but still an issue. As for the past who knows what their drivers were? Possibly avoiding pregnancy?

Yes. One issue is sadly that bi men are (on average, not all)more likely to have STDs, and there is a cohort who go on the down low, as said in the US, and use Grindr while married to women etc to find men for hookups. There was actually a Reddit sub for these lying cowards, though thankfully it was eventually shut down.
Re avoiding pregnancy, do you mean this is why some Roman men had relationships with men? Maybe. I think some relationships with men definitely were emotional (famous cases like Hadrian, one wonders about the life of his poor wife). But others more physical.

I guess a key point is some of these societies (definitely Greece and Rome) is that men exploiting slave girls was allowed, visiting brothels, in some cases polygamy. So I suppose wives may have compartmentalised it as 'just another thing I'd rather he didn't do but have to put up with, so I don't think about it'.

Eh? Is there actual evidence bi men have more STDs than straight men?

I have a few ( straight ) friends who were serial shaggers 10 years ago and they've had a large # of STDs.

Here are 2 among many articles showing that.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22002226#:~:text=Bisexual%20men%20are%20regularly%20found,and%20Latino%20men%20%5B14%5D.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3575167/#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20this%20study%20examined%20the,STI%20disparities%20by%20sexual%20orientation.

The fact is that bi men, if they have casual sex with men, are likely to have anal, and this carries an elevated risk of STD transmission intrinsically..yes, they should use condoms, but too many gay & bi men have become unecessarily reckless since the advent of prep.

There's also the fact that on average men of all sexualities are more likely to take unwise risks about sex, but if men are having sex with women, women on average being less keen on unwise risks and more vulnerable to STDs holds them back to an extent. If 2 men are in the picture, it's different .plenty are sensible but they're more likely not to be, than women are

In societies where you don't have much choice about who you marry and where STIs are not understood, it may be that a spouse who looks outside the marriage for sex is a bit of a relief, whatever the sex of who they hook up with.

I wonder if in earlier times whether there were more male same sex relationships basically because that was the type of sex that was more available to men. Particularly young men — at same sex schools, in the military and some professions too.
Before the advent of reliable contraception and abortion rights, plus the societal condemnation of unmarried pregnancy women were more likely to be extremely careful about engaging in pre-marital sex.
Two men having sex did not face the same worries!

Much of the sex was exploitation too. Pederasty and its modern day equivalent of bacha bazi as an example.

Men can be extremely sexually exploitative as most women unfortunately know.

The historic sexual relations between men in the cultures you mention aren't easily interpreted within the 'gay romantic relationship' of the modern West. The dynamics you also mention were paramount: older men taught, mentored, had 'favourites' relationships with, and sexual relationships with younger men - there would have been elements of obligation and coercion, as there were with women on marriage.

Did history bother to record what wives thought? As their marriages were contracts over which they had limited control in homosocial societies, women's opinions may have depended on whether these male relationships affected their own marriage contracts. In theory, the marriage was the mature, lasting, procreative and proper outlet for men's sexuality. They may have felt male relations were proper strictly in their place, and proper for their sons too.

I'd assume most of the women simply didn't have much of a say. I doubt many of them liked it, but if you have limited options or decisions about marriage are handled by someone else, what could you do?

I remember watching a tv programme on this. It was said, "Woman for babies, men for pleasure."

the hetero/homo dynamic of sexual relationships is a product of Judeo/Christian culture. Prior to this, in the ancient world sexual dynamics were thought of in terms of active/passive dynamics, and as men were the “active” sexual partner, sex between 2 active partners was considered “superior”. The understanding of marriage in this context meant that homosexual marriage was literally incomprehensible. Marriage was first and foremost about children/family. 2 men couldn’t have children and so the idea that they would get married was just odd.

The idea that sexual relationships were exclusive, and fonts of intimacy and relationship binding is also a Judeo/Christian artefact. First Judaism saying that “a man lying with a man the way he lies with a woman is an abomination” was, in torahadic terms, the strongest possible prohibition. This first of all encouraged men to channel their sexual energies into attracting and winning women over.

later Christian prohibitions on marrying more than one woman and forbidding divorce lead ultimately to Humane Vitae where it is described in what is probably closest to the current western ideal of marriage:

“This love is above all fully human, a compound of sense and spirit. It is not, then, merely a question of natural instinct or emotional drive. It is also, and above all, an act of the free will, whose trust is such that it is meant not only to survive the joys and sorrows of daily life, but also to grow, so that husband and wife become in a way one heart and one soul, and together attain their human fulfillment.
It is a love which is total—that very special form of personal friendship in which husband and wife generously share everything, allowing no unreasonable exceptions and not thinking solely of their own convenience. Whoever really loves his partner loves not only for what he receives, but loves that partner for the partner's own sake, content to be able to enrich the other with the gift of himself.
Married love is also faithful and exclusive of all other, and this until death. This is how husband and wife understood it on the day on which, fully aware of what they were doing, they freely vowed themselves to one another in marriage. Though this fidelity of husband and wife sometimes presents difficulties, no one has the right to assert that it is impossible; it is, on the contrary, always honorable and meritorious. The example of countless married couples proves not only that fidelity is in accord with the nature of marriage, but also that it is the source of profound and enduring happiness.
Finally, this love is fecund. It is not confined wholly to the loving interchange of husband and wife; it also contrives to go beyond this to bring new life into being. "Marriage and conjugal love are by their nature ordained toward the procreation and education of children. Children are really the supreme gift of marriage and contribute in the highest degree to their parents' welfare."

This is different again from relationships today- here today, mutual convenience, mutual equality and mutual reciprocity are fundamentally underlined.

All of these lenses are anachronistic for the ancient world. Interpreting sexual relationships and understanding what people might have thought about it in the ancient world won’t be able to be read through our modern models. They’re so fundamentally incompatible with how the people of the time would have thought that, in the absence of direct historical records, I imagine speculation will prove almost impossible.