Women do not, for the most part, become more or less sexually attractive immediately following their wedding day. A good looking woman is still a good looking woman, married or not. Some women are in happier marriages than others, and some married women are probably more “available” than other married women.
But for honorable men, married women are “off limits.”
It is acceptable to appreciate a married woman from a distance. It is generally acceptable to offer a married woman an innocent compliment, though even this can be precarious depending on the tone and nature of the compliment, as well as the personalities of the woman and her husband. You can say “that’s a very nice necklace,” but you don’t say, “you’ve got a great ass.” Unless you really know that woman and her husband well, and feel confident that you know their boundaries, married women are almost completely “hands off.” A friendly handshake is usually appropriate, but hugs and virtually any other physical contact must be initiated by the woman herself. Any social contact which could be misconstrued as a sexual advance runs the risk of straining or ending a friendship with both the woman and her husband—even if you think you know them both well enough to play around a little. In the old days, getting a little too handsy or flirty might land you in a duel. Today, you still may find yourself out on the street with an angry husband in your face. Bad, bad Leroy Brown might have been “the baddest man in town,” but even he “learned a lesson ’bout messin with the wife of a jealous man.”
Hitting on another man’s wife brings his honor—as well as your judgment, integrity and morality—into question. And it is a question of primal urgency. By disrespecting the boundaries of his marriage, you presume that he will not defend those boundaries—that he will not defend his mate and his family—either because he is too weak or too cowardly or too impotent in some other way. This is monkey brain stuff, adapted for The Naked Ape.
Human societies have created a variety of different solutions to this basic part of the mating game, almost all successful civilizations have established social controls that stigmatize the man who “covets” another man’s wife. It’s a rational solution. You might very well be able to drag a weaker man’s wife off into your cave by the hair, but most of the other men in the village will publicly frown on your behavior and distrust you, even if some are privately impressed by your demonstration of dominance. In civilized society, we have to establish some ground rules, and it is just too much of a pain in the ass to have every guy trying to hump every other guy’s wife the second his back is turned, whether the wife in question is willing or not. If you don’t want other men hitting on your wife—if you want them to respect your boundaries—it’s fucked up to run around hitting on their wives.
Homosexual men and heterosexual men have historically had, to put it lightly, a strained relationship.
One of the biggest strains—if not the single biggest strain—on relationships between homosexual and heterosexual men is caused by confusion about or outright disregard for the sexual boundaries of heterosexual men. Homosexual expression between adult men has always been a minority phenomenon, so while homosexual males have to deal with straight males throughout their lives, heterosexual males have limited experience dealing with male homosexuality. Further, for the better part of human history, homosexual expression between adult men has been forbidden or scorned, so heterosexual males weren’t supposed to know how to deal with male homosexuality. When homosexuality itself is against the rules, there is no need to establish rules for interacting socially with homosexuals. Many men still believe that homosexuality is in some way immoral or sinful, though most men today aren’t overly concerned about it, so long as their own personal boundaries are respected.
If homosexual men and heterosexual men are going to interact as peers and friends in a society that does not forbid homosexuality, then these men are going to have to do what civilized men have done to resolve these sorts of recurring problems that strain social relationships. They’re going to have to establish some universal ground rules.
Some homosexual males like to imagine they could “seduce” any straight man, or that all straight men secretly engage in homosexual acts or have homosexual fantasies.
Sure, some straight men are more “available” than others. Some would fumble around with another guy given the right situation and a few adult beverages. Some would go there for the right amount of money and the condition of relative anonymity, or under extremely extraordinary circumstances. Some guys would really not cross that line if they were totally plastered, offered a million dollars, and someone had a gun to their head. Given those choices, most heterosexual men will insist they are in the last category.
None of that matters.
If a woman says she is married, you don’t casually feel her up or try to get her drunk or make sexual comments about her, just to test the waters and make sure.
If a woman says she is married, she is married.
Likewise, if a man says he is straight, he is off limits. You don’t casually feel him up or try to get him drunk or make sexual comments about him, just to test the waters and make sure.
It’s about respect.
If a man wants other men to respect his marriage, he should respect the boundary of marriage. If a woman says she is married, he should assume she means it.
And if a homosexual man wants other men to respect his sexuality, instead of just making the assumption that he is sexually confused or “unenlightened,” he should give the same respect to the sexual identities of other men. If a man says he is straight, you should assume that he means it.
If a homosexual man attempts to cross that boundary, unless the heterosexual man makes the first move, the straight guy has every right to be angry. Hitting on a straight man brings his honor—as well as your judgment, integrity and morality—into question. It’s an insult suggesting that he doesn’t know himself, that his boundaries don’t mean anything. By disrespecting the boundaries of his sexuality, you presume that he will not defend those boundaries. You deserve to be corrected, with prejudice. And if, as a homosexual man, you make a habit of crossing the sexual boundaries of straight men, it makes perfect sense for those men to distrust you, to keep their distance, to publicly frown on your behavior and to socially ostracize you.
Trust and a sense of mutual understanding are integral to any meaningful friendship. Every social organization relies on a set of basic and universally respected ground rules in order to function efficiently and effectively. The basis for a friendship between a homosexual man and a heterosexual man—indeed, the basis for any meaningful acceptance of homosexual males into the broader fraternity of men—has to be trust. Straight men who live in hip, liberal urban environments may get used to an overabundance of homosexual males,and they may learn to laugh off, ignore or even be flattered by the creepiest advances of their homosexual peers. But that’s not quite the same as establishing trust, and it doesn’t fly outside the city limits.
Real male friendship, what Aussies would call “mateship,” is an alliance built on trust. You want to be able to trust a buddy to get your back, without worrying that he’s secretly waiting for the opportunity to poke you in the butt. You can trust a real pal around your wife, and likewise, you should be able to trust that he won’t violate your own sexual boundaries. Only when that trust has been established can anything resembling a real friendship between men occur. It’s a pop psychology myth that men have “problems” expressing themselves. It’s been my experience that even the most standoff-ish regular Joes are often willing (and sometimes surprisingly eager) to talk about the most embarrassing or personal aspects of their lives—with another guy who has earned their trust, who doesn’t have a secret agenda and who won’t use the information against them later.
That trust is the foundation of friendship should be obvious, and the idea that homos should respect the sexual boundaries of straight guys should also be obvious. But it doesn’t seem to be obvious enough. Too often, homosexual males throw good sense out the window and start thinking with their dicks. I’ve watched them recklessly overstep obvious and reasonable boundaries again and again, and then get butt-hurt when straight men want to keep them at arm’s length. I’ve heard horror stories from straight men about homosexual men who leer at them, catcall, make snide sexual innuendos about them, or hit on them outright in public—forcing them to awkwardly assert their heterosexuality or have everyone assume they are homosexual. And when those men do assert their heterosexuality, no matter what the circumstances, homosexuals seem more than happy to reflexively tar them with the “homophobia” brush and label them “insecure.”
I’ve been saying for a few years now that the real work for homosexual males lies not in political coercion, but in building alliances with straight men. Many heterosexual women think male homosexuality is just dandy. The real strained relationship remains where it has always historically been—between homosexual and heterosexual males. Any reconciliation between these two groups has to happen on the interpersonal level. Straight men shouldn’t simply be told that they have to become great pals with homosexual men and treat them like regular guys, and then pretend that any sexual advances are meant to be “harmless.” If homosexual and heterosexual men are going to maintain meaningful male friendships, homosexual males are going to have to demonstrate some respect for the sexual boundaries of straight men. They’re going to have to start thinking of straight men as being “off limits.” When they do, my experience has been that the end result is well worth showing a little restraint. It’s not a bad trade-off. It’s rational, it’s fair, and it’s civilized.
This is why I treat straight men like married women.
Originally posted online Sunday, June 08, 2008.