Mind reading: A man can lie for decades to his wife about being gay.

[originalpckelly]

We've all heard the stories about the men who've been married to some woman for decades, then they either get up the courage to come out or they finally figure it out themselves that they're gay/trans.

If a wife can be so lacking in information for that long, if a person can even misunderstand themselves like that, how can we possibly know what lurks in the hearts of people most Americans never even meet in person: politicians?

"He's a good man/she's a good woman."

How the fuck do you know? Huh? Have you met him/her even just once? Even just seen his/her face in person?

If a wife can lack that information for decades, often after seeing someone's face at least once a day during the marriage, how is it possible that just one meeting can give you such intimate information about a politician?

You would have to claim to be able to read minds, in order to know what's going on in a politician's head. You would have to be able to read someone's mind to truly know a person's intentions.

Even if you could, people may be corrupted as time goes on.

We cannot simply rely on the intentions of politicians, to do so is to make a politician king, not the law. Lex Rex not Rex Lex. Law is king, the king is not the law.

There is nothing more arbitrary than someone's intentions, and arbitrary use of authority is the definition of tyranny.

The current state of affairs in America is slowly becoming more apparent. We the people have no fucking clue what's going on in OUR government. If that's true, aren't we at the mercy of a politicians' intentions?

Secrecy is inherently the enabling of tyranny. If we do not know something is happening, how can we possibly vote in an election based upon that information? If we have no idea what knowledge we're missing, how is it possible to know a politician is being forthright?

If we have no real way of knowing what's going on in our government, don't we have to rely on the intentions of a politician to do the right thing?

And there we have it.

[cliffordu]

1. I know what's going on.

Same shit, different day, pretty much.

I want to see predatory capitalism dismantled, but I'll bet that ain't a surprise hiding behind the curtain...

[mudesi]

2. The Women Who Marry Gay Men Usually Know

Let's not kid ourselves. I think you're confusing not knowing with denial. The women who end up marrying gay men deep down inside know he's gay, but can't bring themselves to admit it.

Though I get your point about politicians.

[Luminous Animal]

4. What a ridiculous thing to say. (n/t)

[dustbunnie]

7. Why is it ridiculous? Just asking as I happen to agree with the poster. n/t

[Lilith Velkor]

11. Women marry men who are nonmonogamous all the time.

If women could actually read minds, as you and the other poster seem to be asserting, why on earth would they put themselves through the humiliation of marrying men who misrepresent themselves?

[mudesi]

14. It's Called Denial

Denial is an extremely powerful psychological force. Why do women in abusive relationships stay in them? Why do gay men marry women? Why do alcoholics insist they don't have a problem? Why does anybody do destructive things that lead to hurt and humiliation?

[pnwmom]

23. Why do you assume that the women would know?

My parents had five children together, and my father had to do a lot of traveling for work. There was no reason for my mother to know, and nothing for her to be in denial about.

[Lilith Velkor]

31. Sounds like victim-blaming 12stepper horseshit to me.

If people could read minds, they wouldn't lie to each other all the time.

[dustbunnie]

17. Very often women do "know" their husbands are cheating...

they just don't want to deal with it for whatever reasons. And it isn't a question of reading minds I don't think. Lots of people are sensitive enough to pick up on it, even if not immediately. Many perceptions are intuitive, as in "he really isn't that into me, but he seems awfully googoo eyed over his golf buddy." It may not be a conscious thought, but somehow viscerally, you do know. Sometimes the evidence speaks for itself, especially when sex isn't forthcoming, or when it is, it's very cold. No attraction. Or you can tell from the kind of sex that's preferred.

Not all women are humiliated by marrying a gay man. Hell, if I didn't love sex I'd prob be married to my gay friend. We love each other and fit like two peas in a pod. But those who aren't particularly interested in sex might be attracted to a marriage where that wouldn't be of any consequence. (Even if she doesn't realize at first that he IS interested, just not with her, or any other woman.) Preferable even, considering how much relationships seem to center around it, or the lack of it. Some people still marry for social status and positioning, where in conservative circles heterosexual unions matter, so the beard comes in handy. Again people have practical reasons for selecting that kind of relationship.

[pnwmom]

25. Women who aren't particularly experienced with sex don't have a lot of context

to put a relationship in. Neither of my parents had been with anyone before each other. How would my mother know? My father WAS in denial -- he had to know at some level. But she didn't.

[dustbunnie]

40. That's true. Which is why you can't say "all" spouses would know.

Experience would be a factor, as well as perhaps, a keen intuitive sense. Taking it back to the OP. if you look at something like spousal abuse, or infidelity, an experienced person would say that statistically if s/he's cheated once, or beaten me once, chances are it'll happen again. Even if it hadn't happened, an experienced person would say "I do," knowing that sadly, there is always a chance that marital vows will be broken eventually, because the statistics bear it out.

We know from experience (documented history) that torture has always been part and parcel of governing. Other Western countries have been exposed, and many of our own actions seem to imply it. A few years ago, the gov came out and admitted it, brought it out into the open, but are people really so naive to not at least intuitively know what's been going on (forget about actual evidence as supported by history) for eons behind closed doors? Now we have a new regime, but only an inexperienced or naive person would believe that it "couldn't happen again" or even that it won't.

[Lilith Velkor]

33. Many women are humiliated by marrying a cheater, doesn't matter if he's gay or straight

If they were as complicit as you say, then why would they bother divorcing the guy when he's caught?

[dustbunnie]

46. Who said anything about being complicit?

You can be a madly-in-love couple for years, then suddenly one starts cheating. Often women do eventually figure it out... there's a sudden buoyancy to the person's personality, they start working out, they daydream, bring home too many gifts and flowers, whatever. But women might stay in the marriage for years, or forever, for many different reasons, including children, family, finances, etc.

You may not really understand that your husband is gay at first, especially if sex isn't the focal point of your life, but after a few years and some experience, many figure it out even if nothing is said. People then stay or split up depending on what they want out of life.

Please don't accuse me of victim-blaming, if that's where you're going.

[Lilith Velkor]

53. Well, you appear to have completely reversed your position, so no.

The only thing I could possibly accuse you of here is completely missing the point of the OP, but perhaps you are simply ignoring it. Nothing wrong with that.

[dustbunnie]

56. Well, I didn't want to give that impression either.

To quote those investigators who time and again warn women about marrying con men "listen to your gut, not your heart." Lots of people instinctively "know" something is wrong or different about their relatioships and either overlook it or think they can change the behavior.

I didn't address the OP really as am not sure the correlation works but was interested enough in the side-tracked sub-thread. As far as the OP goes, just as you can bet that a liar will keep lying, a cheater will keep cheating, it's silly not to expect that a government won't be corrupt. It's the nature of the beast.

[originalpckelly]

6. OK, use any other violation of the trust in a marriage.

I used unknown homosexuality, you could use infidelity. You might have some clue, but unless you actually have EVIDENCE, you can't prove shit.

[pnwmom]

26. You are awfully wise.

Are you sure you're only 22?

[originalpckelly]

39. And just what do you mean by that?

I suspect your statement is sarcasm, although I could be wrong.

[pnwmom]

42. You mentioned that in the thread about Susan Boyle,

and I was struck by your maturity in your comments. No insult to people of your age group intended!

[originalpckelly]

43. Oh wow! Thanks.

I'm so used to people writing off what I think! :P

[pnwmom]

22. And what makes you such an expert on this?

You're wrong. It's very easy for gay people to keep this kind of secret -- even to themselves.

My mother had no idea about my father; they had 5 children together. And there are millions of couples like them.

[stillcool]

3. What is obvious in one..

is inherent in all...hence the Constitution. Obviously those checks and balances didn't work..but do they ever? Constant vigilance. Mans nature demands it.

[sandnsea]

5. Yes, I make a point to meet them

I make a point to see whether their actions match their words. If you don't, and consequently don't know who the fuck anybody really is -- blame yourself, not the politicians.

[originalpckelly]

8. Excuse me, but if these politician's actions are secret...

how do you know whether or not their actions match their words?

That's my point here.

I also dispute whether it's really possible to meet every politician who has authority over you in this country. Perhaps it's possible if you're well connected, but the vast majority cannot meet their politicians, because of the simple numbers.

435 members of Congress versus 300,000,000 Americans. If you think 435 people can go around meeting everyone, and still accomplish anything, you obviously haven't thought about this much.

Even if we all were interested in it, which admittedly many Americans are not, then the impossibility of the numbers would forbid it from happening.

Evenly divided, those 435 people would have to meet 689,655 people in only two years. If you think that's possible, please explain to me how.

In 2 years, there are 730 days, 17,250 hours, and 1,051,200 minutes. Divide that by 2 for 2 minutes. That means for every single minute a Representative in Congress was alive, they'd have to meet a person between every 1:30-2:00 minutes in order to meet everyone they represent. It's roughly true.

Explain to me how in only 2 minutes you could really get to know someone well enough to let them make decisions of life and death importance on your behalf.

[cali]

37. It's sure as hell possible in my state.

I've been to over a dozen town meetings with Bernie. I knew Peter Welch because I worked with his daughter I've met Pat Leahy and visited with him at his office. I know my state rep quite well. Depends where you live. And any Vermonter has access to their pols.

[originalpckelly]

47. I was unaware that we only had one branch of government.

What about the other two?

[cali]

48. not hard to have access to the gov here either- hard to avoid the son of a bitch

as for the Judiciary, that's a different story. Thankfully, here they aren't elected.

[originalpckelly]

50. I guess the Federal government doesn't apply to you folks.

When did you meet Obama's Cabinet? Or Bush's?

[cali]

52. gosh, you mean Senators and reps aren't part of the federal gov?

who knew? And love how you ignored the post you demanded.

[hfojvt]

9. "Why were you so surprised that you never saw the stranger

did you ever let your lover see the stranger in yourself?"

One trouble is that it's not secret. Quite the opposite. There is so much going on that you cannot possibly keep up. Nor can you do anything about most of it if you do keep up. So most people do not even try. We are supposed to be able to rely on our media. Between the media and a strong opposition party have the ability, in theory, to keep any politician honest.

[originalpckelly]

10. How is that possible if they can keep their actions secret?

We didn't have any clue that Bush's folks authorized torture until two years after it happened. Only six or so years later are we finally starting to get more than one document. We don't know it's the only set of memos.

We have no clue in hell. We don't know what else was done, because we simply have no evidence to limit our speculation.

That's why we've got all these weird conspiracy theories. It's not that the theories are necessarily true, it's just that people have no reason to trust their government, and they have no evidence to know if the government's doing the right thing.

[CreekDog]

12. All good acts are done by flawed people

JFK was not faithful, yet he was a courageous war hero and did many honorable things as president.

FDR interned the Japanese, yet programs he pushed for kept many out of poverty for decades.

Lincoln didn't free all the slaves in his Emancipation Proclamation, but most feel that his actions were key to ending slavery.

People are complicated and if you look for something bad in a good person, you will find it eventually.

Yet we depend on people, flawed as they are, to do enough good in the world to make it better.

[originalpckelly]

15. You completely missed the point of my post.

I suggest you re-read it and post again. The others above get what I'm saying, and I was quite clear with this. If they could get it, you can too. It's not about flaws, but doubt in motives. It is naive to think we know the motives of a politician, and yet our modern America is dependent on those motives to restrain the use of power by a politician.

[CreekDog]

18. but you can't *really* know people's intentions, at best you can discern them

but even that is fraught with error.

at best you can look at words and actions which will hopefully reflect a person's intentions.

all you can do is try.

is it possible that there is no concrete answer to the problem you present?

[originalpckelly]

19. You can try to know their intentions, or set up a system where they don't matter.

I choose to do the second. It's completely possible to check someone's powers, after all, the vast majority of people in a country don't serve as dictator in their lifetimes. I don't recall being a dictator ever, were you one?

Why is that? Why is it that our powers are checked, but the powers of those "in power" are not checked?

[CreekDog]

28. oh you can try and you should

but you can't know everything and be everywhere.

i'm president of a homeowners association and someone on the board was with good intentions trying to set up rules so that we would have to be transparent (even though we basically have them already).

i told him the rules and practices were a good thing but they had one flaw: someone has to be vigilant enough to hold the association to them and that takes work and savvy. but even further, it means that we have to choose our representatives wisely as we can and constantly evaluate what we see.

like it or not, you are depending upon the character of people to do the right thing MOST of the time because you can't watch them MOST of the time, you don't have the resources to do that.

so the answer is you have to look at character recognizing that even people who do good work overall are imperfect. and you have to have the ability to see what they do but still recognize that you will never be able to see every single thing they do all the time --legally you might, but in practical terms you simply won't.

[originalpckelly]

35. No, you cannot. You cannot know everything...

but if you cannot know everything, how do the politicians making decisions on your behalf know enough about you and everyone else to make decisions for you on matters of life and death?

Do they have the ability to magically know what hundreds of thousands of people want/need? I know I can't find my keys sometimes, how do they know what I want out of government and what everyone else wants? Do these people really have such abnormal powers of memorization?

If they don't know what you want, or can't possibly, how can they really represent you or I?

[Froward69]

13. this has been an open fact for years

and years...
examples include...
So you married him because he liked the same floral pattern as you?

He was so in touch with his feelings?

He was not as interested in sex with you as other men were?

Sad he couldn't have come "out" sooner because of his own fear of society.

Now I am not bashing. I just have no respect for people over 21 still in the closet. As they are not honest with themselves nor anyone else.

[originalpckelly]

16. 1. This post isn't about gay dudes. And even if it was:

2. Are you gay/lesbian/transgendered?
3. If not, how do you know what it's like?
4. If not, how dare lecture anyone who is?

[bigwillq]

20. Wow.

Those are some bold statements.

Are you gay?

[originalpckelly]

21. I think we both know he probably isn't.

If he was, he never would have posted that. Anyone who's gay, and not openly so since they figured it out, which is something almost all gay people have done, knows why someone might stay in the closet later in life.

Bold statements indeed, either from a gay guy who had it easy or a str8 person who had it even easier. My OP was not about gay people, but about doubt. However, I'm only too happy to correct ignorance in this world on the matter of homoism (I say homoism, because I'd have to be getting some to be a homosexual. :P )

I hope you too are willing to correct ignorance. Like any other LGBT DUers.

[Froward69]

57. Naw i am not gay

quite happy with an occasional prostate orgasm though...
actually In my experience not just once but thrice I had girlfriends that married men that
1) were not as sexually agressive as I was twards her.
2)were better "listeners" than I.
3) enjoyed opera, that floral pattern much more than I.
4) were more tn touch with their "emotions" than I.
5) more effeminate and "softer"
6) I pegged as gay.

speaking to that #6 at the time I was labeled jealous for that stance. now ten or fifteen years later two of those women are divorced because those men that I pegged as gay... ARE. they had the kids and the marriage but could not tolerate the cheating.
now at age 30 something they are apologetic to me for marrying someone who was really not turned on to them as women.

I find it revealing that once those men shaved off their "beards" they are Happy in their lives.
However if they could have come out of the closet and was honest with themselves and subsequently their wives. they would have found happiness sooner. the wives would have been saved the heartbreak. not to mention what ever the kids think about the situation.

I have gay friends and they agree. anyone under 21 and still in the closet deserves no respect as they are not honest with themselves nor society.
take Stevens or Haggard for example. do they deserve respect for misleading their constituents? for continuing to deny their gayness or sexual orientation? working to suppress rights for those out of the closet?
the answer is NO.

[Froward69]

58. No, I am secure in my sexuality.

actually In my experience not just once but thrice I had girlfriends that married men that
1) were not as sexually agressive as I was twards her.
2)were better "listeners" than I.
3) enjoyed opera, that floral pattern much more than I.
4) were more tn touch with their "emotions" than I.
5) more effeminate and "softer"
6) I pegged as gay.

speaking to that #6 at the time I was labeled jealous for that stance. now ten or fifteen years later two of those women are divorced because those men that I pegged as gay... ARE. they had the kids and the marriage but could not tolerate the cheating.
now at age 30 something they are apologetic to me for marrying someone who was really not turned on to them as women.

I find it revealing that once those men shaved off their "beards" they are Happy in their lives.
However if they could have come out of the closet and was honest with themselves and subsequently their wives. they would have found happiness sooner. the wives would have been saved the heartbreak. not to mention what ever the kids think about the situation.

I have gay friends and they agree. anyone under 21 and still in the closet deserves no respect as they are not honest with themselves nor society.
take Stevens or Haggard for example. do they deserve respect for misleading their constituents? for continuing to deny their gayness or sexual orientation? working to suppress rights for those out of the closet?
the answer is NO.

[pnwmom]

27. Plenty of gay men aren't into floral patterns or design

and are out of touch with their feelings.

Those are just stereotypes.

[Bluebear]

32. "he liked the same floral pattern as you?" - "Now I am not bashing" - no, just an idiot.

Any more stereotypes you care to get out of your system?

[walldude]

24. Hey wait a minute...

this isn't really about gay marriage is it... ;) K&R good post..

[originalpckelly]

29. Of course not, I've adopted the technique of trickery lately.

I feel tricking someone is evidence that their perceptions can often be based upon incomplete information. Since this post is really about doubt, it's damn good example. It's like someone saying that a certain chemical reaction happens. It's OK to say it, but demonstrating it is often more powerful.

I am really gay, however, that's why I picked that issue, I understand it well. It's also something that many people have heard of before.

[pnwmom]

30. Yeah, it would be nice if we all had Bush's gift -- to look into a person's eyes,

and see into their soul.

:sarcasm:


But we don't -- so we have to make real judgments based on all the information available to us.

[originalpckelly]

38. True, but we have set up a system in this country...

where we cannot make real judgments. The information available to us is being intentionally limited. The torture memos demonstrate this.

[pnwmom]

41. Obama has released them. Hopefully he will move to more and more

transparency.

I agree with your OP, and our Constitution recognizes the importance of this too -- that's why we are supposed to have freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

[cali]

34. what a frickin' mess of a post.

ridiculous comparison there. sloppy as all get out. So bad it's really quite unique.

[originalpckelly]

36. Instead of insulting me, why don't you actually prove it's messy?

Why don't you actually say something? Are you capable of knowing what lurks in a person's mind? If you are, I'd sure as hell like to know where you obtained this ability. I'd like it myself.

Either shut up or put up.

[cali]

44. the comparison of the most personal relationship you can have

with the relationship a citizen has with his/her reps, is simply not apt. I don't need to know everything that lurks in my rep's mind. I need to know their background, who they raise money from, how they vote, etc. To confuse the relationship one has with one's significant other with how one discerns whether or not a candidate for political office is worthy of your vote, is a huge mistake.

Do your homework about a candidate. That's simply the best thing one can do. Oh, and laws are a human construct and subject to human interpretation and manipulation.

[pnwmom]

45. Are you having a bad day? n/t

[cali]

49. no, I'm pointing out that it's a very poor comparison.

[pnwmom]

51. In an insulting manner. n/t

[CJCRANE]

54. Look at what the politician says

then compare that with what they do and the results they get.

Bush usually said one thing then did the opposite and failed at most of his stated aims. DUers paid attention and figured him out a long time ago. It didn't take any mind reading.

[DFW]

55. I know personally of just such a case

They were in college, she was super attractive, and he went for (and got) the prize. They had children,
but then he got a little weird, became extremely jealous, a real control freak. Came from an extremely
right-wing family in the midwest, had a few real extremists among his siblings, was taught that everything
that didn't resemble them was un-American, evil, kommanist, the whole package. Only one problem: the man
was gay, and completely repressed. About 6 or so years ago, some business trips he was making to a part
of the country known for its tolerance turned out to be trips to meet other gays. He finally got up the guts
to admit it, move out and go live with other gays, maybe he has settled into a monogamous relationship by
now. Neither I nor his wife (last I talked to her) knew for sure.

His wife is pissed that he took so much of her life to finally come clean, but she is happy not to have
to live with the conflict any more, and he is, of course, happy to no have to conceal any more something
he would never have had to conceal from the start if his intolerant background hadn't drummed into his head
that he was somehow evil for being what nature made him.

I hope his backward-thinking family is either tearing their hair out over Satan's claiming of their son,
beseeching God in vain to tell them why, OR that they have seen the error of their thinking, and are happy for
their son that he has finally found happiness on his own. Either way is fine with me, though the latter is
obviously preferable (albeit the less likely of the two).