TIME article about gay relationships

[corvus]

I recently read this interesting and rather short article in TIME magazine about gay relationships.

 

Some points the article made:

- gay people in relationships don't yell as much in arguments

- they use more humor when arguing

- nonetheless, gay relationships last shorter than straight ones

- gay people are worse at making up after quarrels

- too much tension kills straight relationships, but apathy kills gay ones

 

Would people here agree or disagree?

[canundra]

Considering how I've never been in a gay relationship...Or any relationship for that matter, I can't say anything

[Ieshwar]

That was an interesting article.

 

I agree with the part with 'apathy kills the relationship'. I'm definitely one of those who thinks 'make my heart beat faster for me to love you.' Living in a relationship that is devoid of any emotion...

 

Ieshwar

[Graeme]

The problem with the research is that they weren't comparing apples to apples. They were comparing same-sex couples with straight married couples. This later group is a subset of all straight couple AND have legal and financial reasons to make more of an effort in keeping relationships together.

 

They should have compared same-sex couples with a similar group of straight couples, regardless of marital status. Regardless, marriage does provide an additional incentive to work at a relationship because of the financial cost of divorce, but doing research with only unmarried straight couples would also be considered biased....

 

It is this sort of flawed research that gives misleading results. The overall results are good (that there really isn't that much difference between the median length of relationships), but I can see anti-gay groups seizing on the headline figure to say same-sex relationships are not as good as straight ones because they don't last....

[TheZot]

I think the article is pretty much right. I also think it's descriptive, rather than prophetic -- that is, it's pretty accurate describing what's happening now, not what must happen.

 

Something that really needs to be emphasized is that guys, at least in the US, are not taught how to maintain a relationship. I expect this is true pretty much everywhere, but I don't know that for sure. Women, on the other hand, were (at least for the longest time) expected to handle it. Relationships require nurturing and attention, and that's what we tend to teach girls, both directly and by example. If you have two people in a relationship that don't know how to keep one going, well... they tend to not go.

 

Also, a lot of what he talks about in the article has nothing to do with the fact that it's a gay couple, and much more to do with the fact that it's a guy couple. This was brought up a little, but not nearly enought. Men and women, on the whole, deal with conflict differently. You get a different dynamic between two men than you do between a man and a woman, or between two women. Yes, people are people (mostly) but the subtle things aren't the same, and that means you need a different emphasis sometimes, or you need to work harder on one or two things. The mention that guys tend to not do well on the fixing up afterwards was one of those.

 

Finally, as Graeme pointed out, you can't discount the effect that kids and/or legal recognition have on a relationship. Been there and done that, and it makes a huge difference. It won't make bad things good, but it's definitely an extra bit of support and encouragement to try to fix things, rather than to walk away, and sometimes that's enough to really work out the problems in the relationship.

[colinian]

I read a post five months ago that's stuck with me. The reason it seems important to me is because my partner Doug and I are now registered domestic partners in California. Anyway, here's what's relevant from that post to this topic about gay relationships lasting or not lasting:

 

...me and my partner. We've known each other for 49 years, since we met in college. and we've been life partners living together for the past 36 years, since 1971. Are we out? Yes, to anyone who asks. We don't think that it's important to advertise our relationship. But all of our friends, who are almost all straight couples, know.

 

...Imagine how much easier it is today! It might not seem so, but from our perspective it's like the difference between darkness and light. We're registered domestic partners in California. We have had productive working lives, in organizations that were and are accepting of whatever the sexuality that their employees might have. I was able to add my partner to my company medical plan when he was no longer able to work due to an illness. Now we're retired, and enjoying that part of our lives.

 

The others who posted on this topic prior to this post are from 17 to 23 years old. Just think! When they are my age, 68 years old, from 45 to 51 years from now, they can anticipate something that we all aspire to have: acceptance. I think it will come for them! For YOU! Just continue to good fight, and press for your rights, and for acceptance, always. And good luck!

 

sungod

 

Reading about two guys who met around 50 years ago when they were in college and have been living together as life partners for around 37 years makes them great role models for me and Doug. It they can keep their relationship working for that long, there's no reason that Doug and I can't do the same.

 

Colin

[rec]

I haven't seen the article so some of the points below may be answered.

 

I would posit a couple of reasons for straight couples being together longer than gay couples.

 

First, the institutional hurdles to marriage or unions that gay people face become hurdles for straight people to get out of marriages. For example, alimony, community-property divisions and so forth make it more expensive to split. Furthermore, a stay-at-home woman in a straight marriage may have no access to her husband's social security if they split, so there is a cost to splitting. A stay-at-home gay person has no access to his/her partner's social security in the first place.

 

Second, children. First, there's the stay-together-for-the-children's-sake impetus, which may allow time for straight couples to resolve their issues, but in any case tends to reduce the incidence of divorce. Second, and probably more important, is that children can become the focus of a couple, giving them a shared interest in something for probably a couple of decades of their married lives--something to replace sex, early common interests, etc. It would be interesting to see if gay couples with children resemble more the straight couples with children than they do gay couples without children in relationship longevity.

[Hylas]

I think the younger the members of a gay couple, the lesser the chance of it lasting. I think older gay couples have much longer lasting relationships. But without the pressure (and in most cases - the license) to get married, and without kids in the way, it's still way too easy to just walk away instead of making it work.

[Razor]

I haven't seen the article so some of the points below may be answered.

 

I would posit a couple of reasons for straight couples being together longer than gay couples.

 

First, the institutional hurdles to marriage or unions that gay people face become hurdles for straight people to get out of marriages. For example, alimony, community-property divisions and so forth make it more expensive to split. Furthermore, a stay-at-home woman in a straight marriage may have no access to her husband's social security if they split, so there is a cost to splitting. A stay-at-home gay person has no access to his/her partner's social security in the first place.

 

Second, children. First, there's the stay-together-for-the-children's-sake impetus, which may allow time for straight couples to resolve their issues, but in any case tends to reduce the incidence of divorce. Second, and probably more important, is that children can become the focus of a couple, giving them a shared interest in something for probably a couple of decades of their married lives--something to replace sex, early common interests, etc. It would be interesting to see if gay couples with children resemble more the straight couples with children than they do gay couples without children in relationship longevity.

 

That second one is really interesting to me. I think that what I most focus on in a relationship is if I could actually work with this person long enough to adopt and raise kids. Yeah, given the anatomy I can't exactly make my own, but I really, really, really wanna have kids someday. I'm just the type of person that I want to have children, and I want those children to be well taken care of and to end up better off than I am. I think maybe I got that from my mom, but yeah. I think a lot of gay relationships kinda do worse because they don't have this focus... yeah, I'm getting pretty out there with this, but it's an anchor in a relationship, a common focus and goal.

 

I think it's definitely worth thinking about a little, anyway. Just compare the mechanics of relationships back in the day to relationships nowadays. You find slightly different values, and it seems like we're at a turning point. The focus has sort of shifted from seeking to find a relationship for the sake of creating a family to finding a relationship for the sake of focusing on the partner.

 

~shrugs~

[AFriendlyFace]

Fascinating article!

 

I really like it's central message that gay and straight relationships have a lot to learn from each other!

 

Some points the article made:

- gay people in relationships don't yell as much in arguments

I certainly can't imagine yelling very often (if ever) during an argument with a partner, so this seems to hold true.

- they use more humor when arguing

It's not our fault we're innately witty

- nonetheless, gay relationships last shorter than straight ones

- gay people are worse at making up after quarrels

I agree with the speculation and explanations offered by the article and the other poster in this thread for the most part.

- too much tension kills straight relationships, but apathy kills gay ones

Fascinating! I'm not sure what I think about this. Too much unresolved tension over a long period of time would certainly sour me on the relationship. However, apathy does seem pretty destructive too. Obviously, the idea solution would be to feel, express, and resolve the tension as it arises.

 

Failing that, which of the two options (prolonged tension or apathy) would I find more damaging to my relationship...well I would certainly think tension intellectually. Perhaps I would find it to be different in the actual relationship, but I think unresolved tension would burn me out and make me break up more quickly than apathy. Apathy might be more personally painful in the long-run if after several years I found myself in a loveless, unsatisfying relationship but lacked the momentum to leave it. But that's precisely the point, I would endure the apathy longer whereas I'd have probably long ago resolved or walked out on the tension.

 

The problem with the research is that they weren't comparing apples to apples. They were comparing same-sex couples with straight married couples. This later group is a subset of all straight couple AND have legal and financial reasons to make more of an effort in keeping relationships together.

 

They should have compared same-sex couples with a similar group of straight couples, regardless of marital status. Regardless, marriage does provide an additional incentive to work at a relationship because of the financial cost of divorce, but doing research with only unmarried straight couples would also be considered biased....

 

It is this sort of flawed research that gives misleading results. The overall results are good (that there really isn't that much difference between the median length of relationships), but I can see anti-gay groups seizing on the headline figure to say same-sex relationships are not as good as straight ones because they don't last....

I'm going to disagree. I do agree that the researchers aren't making perfectly comparable comparisons, but I think that's almost impossible to do in the first place, and it's certainly impossible if we're discussing US couples who can't have a federally sanctioned marriage at this time. The best they can do is ask long-term gay couples who "consider" themselves to be married to participate.

 

Also, I think that while people may possibly be mislead by and not realize these differences, I think that some research and information is certainly better than none. Also, the article itself seems to handle these differences (and indeed discuss them) in an open, sensitive manner. If someone does conclude the wrong thing, I think that's a problem of the person and not the research. Also, I feel like this article's general positive slant outweighs any potential harm.

 

 

 

Also, while I won't quote them, I think Zot, Rec, and Jamie made some really excellent points!

 

Reading about two guys who met around 50 years ago when they were in college and have been living together as life partners for around 37 years makes them great role models for me and Doug. It they can keep their relationship working for that long, there's no reason that Doug and I can't do the same.

I certainly have every confidence that you guys will be just fine

 

I think the younger the members of a gay couple, the lesser the chance of it lasting. I think older gay couples have much longer lasting relationships. But without the pressure (and in most cases - the license) to get married, and without kids in the way, it's still way too easy to just walk away instead of making it work.

Hmm, yes and no IMO. I think younger people in general might face more difficulties in maintaining a close intimate relationship simply because they may change and evolve as people, and there's also so many external factors in their lives at that age (school, work, family, etc.) that could pull them apart. This is true for gay, straight, and lesbian youth IMO. Once you're older and more settled in on you career, place to live, and familial role I think it gets a little bit easier.

 

I see a very positive trend among today's gay youth in terms of their attitudes toward relationship, self-esteem, and general psychological health and I think these things will certainly be major boons to them when they form their relationships!

 

 

Have an awesome day all

Kevin

[FrenchCanadian]

Something that really needs to be emphasized is that guys, at least in the US, are not taught how to maintain a relationship. I expect this is true pretty much everywhere, but I don't know that for sure. Women, on the other hand, were (at least for the longest time) expected to handle it. Relationships require nurturing and attention, and that's what we tend to teach girls, both directly and by example. If you have two people in a relationship that don't know how to keep one going, well... they tend to not go.

 

Also, a lot of what he talks about in the article has nothing to do with the fact that it's a gay couple, and much more to do with the fact that it's a guy couple. This was brought up a little, but not nearly enought. Men and women, on the whole, deal with conflict differently. You get a different dynamic between two men than you do between a man and a woman, or between two women. Yes, people are people (mostly) but the subtle things aren't the same, and that means you need a different emphasis sometimes, or you need to work harder on one or two things. The mention that guys tend to not do well on the fixing up afterwards was one of those.

 

This is true, there's a different dynamic between two men and between a man and a woman. Maybe it's easier for 2 men to get along from the start.

 

Now about guys are not taught how to maintain a relationship, I wouldn't say that,, the really relates on what are the examples there are around you. A relationship requires attention and nurturing, as you said. I don't want to be sexist or degrading, but if a guy only had example of relationship where it's the woman that finally back down and always do the good thing for the couple, yes I can understand that that guy may have difficult to make things work in his relationships. But if you been living having example where the both make compromises and give into the relationship, well chances are that you'll know what to do to make things work. (hopefully this make some sense)

 

Of course it's more complicated that just that, but it can be a start

 

Reading about two guys who met around 50 years ago when they were in college and have been living together as life partners for around 37 years makes them great role models for me and Doug. It they can keep their relationship working for that long, there's no reason that Doug and I can't do the same.

 

Colin

 

you guys already have a head start on most of everyone ; you guys are willing to make it last, and I'm sure that you guys are doing everything you can to make it last.

 

I think the younger the members of a gay couple, the lesser the chance of it lasting. I think older gay couples have much longer lasting relationships. But without the pressure (and in most cases - the license) to get married, and without kids in the way, it's still way too easy to just walk away instead of making it work.

Hmm, yes and no IMO. I think younger people in general might face more difficulties in maintaining a close intimate relationship simply because they may change and evolve as people, and there's also so many external factors in their lives at that age (school, work, family, etc.) that could pull them apart. This is true for gay, straight, and lesbian youth IMO. Once you're older and more settled in on you career, place to live, and familial role I think it gets a little bit easier.

 

Kevin is totally right on this one,,, the only reason why you can see younger couple not lasting is that when you're young you're still changing,, you might still be student, and see thing differently,, then when you get to the working world, your mentality change and have different belief, different aspiration. It is easier to grow apart...

[tesIII]

Well, I've experienced these things indirectly (through friends of all sexual orientations), so I guess I'll talk.

 

Graeme may be right about the marriage bias factor. Serious gay relationships "for the long run" may well last as long as their straight counterparts, all things being equal.

 

Another challenge to the credibility of gay relationships which TIME didn't mention is that there are so few gay relationships in this bracket, and they're disproportionately lesbian. This is, of course, majorly attributable to people being in the closet, or having a toe out but being way too intimidated to have a relationship. But another factor is that fully out, sexually active gay folks are less likely to want a relationship, or to be able to get a healthy one started. Preliminary political interpretations of this are that gays are anti-traditional, don't subscribe too much to monogamy, can't stay interested in each other long enough to have a relationship, etc. or that gays want and could form relationships, but have radical roots resulting from previous marginalization, may be psychologically damaged in terms of love and bonding due to elevated rates of family trauma, etc.

 

I was impressed with this research and found it to be on the right track, although it did not address this question.

 

Another big issue with this research is its stress on long-lasting relationships. I don't think lasting is the ultimate criterion for a good relationship. I think that choosing between monogamy, small community polyamory, dating consecutively, or sleeping around is morally neutral. I would go for relationships just because I'm emotionally simple and couldn't stomach sex without feeling trust and attachment, both of which form slowly for me. My ideal relationship would be with someone who impressed me, on whom I could depend. It would last as long as we continued to feel attached to each other. If we drifted apart and no sense that our fates were intertwined were to develop, we would part civilly and hopefully our past together would help us maintain an intimate friendship. This would be perfect, regardless of whether it lasted a month or my lifetime. (Sadly, that doesn't make it more realistic... go figure that I'm still single.)

[AFriendlyFace]

But another factor is that fully out, sexually active gay folks are less likely to want a relationship, or to be able to get a healthy one started.

I completely disagree on both counts. I know a lot of fully out, sexually active gay folks, myself included, and I find that most, if not nearly all of them, do want a serious, monogamous relationship, and several of them are in said serious, monogamous relationship.

 

As far as being unable to start one, it's a lot easier to start and maintain a relationship if you're out.

 

Preliminary political interpretations of this are that gays are anti-traditional, don't subscribe too much to monogamy, can't stay interested in each other long enough to have a relationship, etc. or that gays want and could form relationships, but have radical roots resulting from previous marginalization, may be psychologically damaged in terms of love and bonding due to elevated rates of family trauma, etc.

This may or may not be true for the older generations, but I think you'll find that today's younger gay person is - on average - carrying around considerably less baggage than that characterization would imply.

 

Another big issue with this research is its stress on long-lasting relationships. I don't think lasting is the ultimate criterion for a good relationship. I think that choosing between monogamy, small community polyamory, dating consecutively, or sleeping around is morally neutral. I would go for relationships just because I'm emotionally simple and couldn't stomach sex without feeling trust and attachment, both of which form slowly for me. My ideal relationship would be with someone who impressed me, on whom I could depend. It would last as long as we continued to feel attached to each other. If we drifted apart and no sense that our fates were intertwined were to develop, we would part civilly and hopefully our past together would help us maintain an intimate friendship. This would be perfect, regardless of whether it lasted a month or my lifetime. (Sadly, that doesn't make it more realistic... go figure that I'm still single.)

Well, that's your personal opinion and preference and I would be a fool to argue it. Nor do I necessarily see anything I would particularly disagree with.

 

However, I do think that a major reason so many relationships (gay and straight) break up nowadays is that everyone expects their relationship to be really happy all the time, and for that other person to "complete" them in every way. That is, in my opinion, a very unhealthy and unrealistic attitude. You won't always be happy or even satisfied with your relationship, but if you're usually pretty satisfied with it for the most part, and if whatever the current problem is stands a good chance of being resolved I think that ought to be enough. Similarly, let's all remember that our partner is still human and can't read minds. I don't think you can expect total fulfillment from one person. There's still going to be a great deal that your own responsibility and that you may have to look elsewhere for. I'm not talking about sex here, but say for example you love to hike and your partner can't stand it. Instead of thinking that means he/she isn't the "right person", maybe what it means is that you should go hiking with other people, and enjoy your partner's company in other pursuits.

 

-Kevin

[Graeme]

But another factor is that fully out, sexually active gay folks are less likely to want a relationship, or to be able to get a healthy one started.

I hope you don't think you're being picked on but I've got the same reservations as Kevin. I don't know of any research that supports this statement, and anecdotal evidence shows plenty of examples otherwise. For example, Justice Micheal Kirby on the Austrlian High Court (Australia's equivalent of the USA Supreme Court) has been with his partner for many years (over a decade, I believe). Senator Bob Brown, the leader of the Australian Greens party, has been with his partner for years. That's two high profile Australian out gays who don't fit with what you've said.

 

Now, I can see that some of what you've said could have a basis in fact. In the heterosexual world, it is the female who typically puts the brakes on any sexual activity and controls the timing of those events. The male tends to want more sex... That means that for gay guys, sex tends to dominate, rather than building a relationship. However, that's a short-lived thing, and as the gay guy matures, he looks more for a relationship than for a sex partner. I'm well aware of many gay guys (of all ages) who are looking for relationships, not sex partners, so I believe, long term, they approach (possibly equal) heterosexuals in their desire for relationships.

 

Preliminary political interpretations of this are that gays are anti-traditional, don't subscribe too much to monogamy, can't stay interested in each other long enough to have a relationship, etc. or that gays want and could form relationships, but have radical roots resulting from previous marginalization, may be psychologically damaged in terms of love and bonding due to elevated rates of family trauma, etc.

I'd be interested in that research. Are you able to supply a link? What I'll be looking for is 1. sample size, 2. demographics for that sample, 3. how representative that sample was, and 4. how accurate your summary is.

 

On that last point, I'm well aware how the media (and scientists) can blow things out of proportion. For example, if the research indicated that 8% of heterosexuals were like this, and homosexuals were 12%, then that really isn't significant. You can make the statement you've made, but it still means that the majority don't agree.

 

Graeme :mace: (I've decided to start using this, since Kevin's taken the emoticon....)