Here's something I read on the BMMAmerica line:
>I'm a little confused here. I would expect that if I were ever "kicked
>out of the house," it would be curtains for the marriage. I wouldn't even
>try to revive it, as such an act would be such an incredible "act of
>violence" that I'm not sure I would ever get over it. Are you saying
>that you are still trying to rescue the marriage? I'm incredulous, but
>supportive of what works for you.
It occurs to me that the violence to the relationship done in "kicking a husband out of the house" isn't particularly more extreme than many actions of husbands that we've seen wives accept and go on trying to save the marriage. For example, we've seen husbands suddenly moving out and leaving the family, moving in with a male lover, lying for years and then having the secret revealed by an angry ex-lover. Some wives have seen their husbands arrested for sexual activities they didn't even suspect. Husba nds make promises and then continually break them; they lie, even have lovers in the family bed, sometimes with the wife and kids down the hall without their knowledge. All of these seem at least as damaging of a trusting relationship, and yet wives have decided to go on, forgive, let it pass, and continue to work on the marriage. If we as husbands get to have extreme reactions sometimes to our conflicts and needs, and they are forgiven, shouldn't a wife have the leeway, when finding out such a traumatic piece of news, to react extremely and then let the dust settle later?
In general, it seems important to me for all the "special leeway" to go both ways in these relationships. If we want our wives to be willing to accept incredibly hurtful and painful experiences in order to continue the marriage, then so should we. If w e want our wives to live a life which isn't what they optimally would want, which doesn't fully fulfill their heterosexual orientation, then shouldn't we be willing to make similar compromises and sacrifices?
I'm not arguing what anyone "should" do in any particular marriage. I'm saying just that the starting point should be equality, that both parties get to ask for the lives they really want and need. Both parties should be equally willing to compromise t heir needs for the other. Both should try to understand and forgive hurtful or even betraying behaviors. The heterosexual assumptions of traditional marriage -- monogamy, lifelong fidelity, family devotion - may not be "more valid" than the husband's need s, but neither are the husband's needs for living out his gay/bi nature taken as "more valid" than the wife's needs for a monogamous, heterosexual relationship. Sometimes I get uncomfortable with the feeling that wives "should" adapt, that a refusal to ac cept a husband's nonmonogamy is a "failure" on their part. I think that wives need to make a realistic evaluation of what kind of life can make them happy. If being in a nonmonogamous relationship can't make them happy, then they shouldn't do it, any more than a man should live IN a monogamous relationship if it means he will be unhappy. Children, of course, complicate the equation. But shouldn't husbands sacrifice as much for the children as their wives often do?
I guess for me, the question is: Is there a life which will make both of us happy? Can we devise a life which will truly meet both of our needs, in which one of us doesn't feel constantly compromised and constrained? If not, then there doesn't seem to be a basis for making a life together.