My husband and I married in 1992. We were both around 30 years old, and each of us had had previous sexual partners of the opposite gender. Although his heterosexuality was questioned in his discernment process for ordination in the church, he was always adamant that he was not gay. He and I engaged in sexual intercourse for seven years, not often and not pleasant for me. And then, around 25 years ago, he said he would spare me any further requests for sex, and we have done nothing more than snuggle and cuddle since then. This has been fine with me, as I never really enjoyed sex. For a number of years, I have wondered if he is bisexual and if what we have is a “lavender” marriage. How might I broach this subject after all these years? — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
For more than two decades, you and your husband have managed to maintain a marriage in which sex — and even conversations about sex — have mostly faded into the background. In this way, you reached an unspoken agreement: Sex simply isn’t central to your relationship, and you’ve accepted that.
Given all this, it’s worth asking what, if anything, either of you would gain by revisiting questions about his sexuality at this point. Learning that he was bisexual wouldn’t explain a lack of sexual interest in you; it would leave you more or less where you started. As for the “lavender” marriage — a relationship entered into, knowingly or not, to provide cover for one partner’s (or both partners’) sexuality? Yours sounds less like a marriage built on a secret and more like one that gradually and mutually settled into companionship, one in which sex simply lost its importance for both of you. A University of Michigan study found that half of older women — those ages 50 to 80 — who are in a couple and not having sex are satisfied with the intimacy in their relationship. For them, and perhaps for you, companionship and comfort are what matter.
We live in a time that puts great emphasis on naming and labeling our sexual identities, as if this always brings clarity and freedom. But that isn’t the case for everyone. Some couples are content to leave these questions unresolved, especially when sex no longer plays a meaningful role in their lives together.
I’m told that the great Oxford philosopher Gilbert Ryle, a lifelong bachelor, was once asked by a colleague whether he’d ever had sex, and he replied that he hadn’t. “If you had,” the questioner pressed, “would it have been with a man or a woman?” After a long, thoughtful pause, Ryle said, “I don’t think I know.” Not everyone has a neat answer to these questions.
If you do feel a need to talk about this, approach the subject gently. And first ask yourself what you’re seeking — clarity, reassurance, simply a deeper understanding of your partner? Maybe you wonder whether you’ve unknowingly played a part in concealing something essential about him; maybe you’re also curious about your own sexuality, or about what experiences you both might have missed. From what you describe, though, it doesn’t sound as if either of you are restless or yearning for a different life. It sounds as if both of you have found a kind of peace — one that may not fit every cultural script about marriage but seems to work for you. Curiosity about a partner’s interior life is natural. But so, for many people, is a desire to keep some things to oneself.
A Bonus Question
A couple of years ago, I learned that my uncle sexually abused his three daughters when they were young. As someone who was also a victim of sexual abuse as a child, I find his actions deeply appalling on many levels. Whenever he calls my mother, she accepts his calls, most likely because he’s her brother, but keeps them short. My father is currently in palliative care, and we’re expecting his passing soon. Although I do not want my uncle to attend the funeral, my mother won’t exclude him, even though he was excluded from his own wife’s funeral. Is it acceptable for me to ignore him, as my sister-in-law plans to do? I’m uncertain about how my uncle will be received by his remaining siblings, and I don’t want the funeral to become a day remembered for the wrong reasons. — Name Withheld
From the Ethicist:
Your sister-in-law has the right idea. This isn’t an occasion for your appalling relative to be affirmed or accepted, but neither is it an occasion for confronting him. Don’t let the day become about this man. The focus should be on the person you’re mourning.
Readers Respond
The previous question was from a reader who wanted to know if it was right to move forward in a hiring process for a job when he knows the company discriminated against another candidate. He wrote:
“I have been out of work for four months. I recently had an interview for a management-level position in my field, during which the interviewer asked a number of questions regarding my marital status, parental status and spouse’s occupation. I’ve spent most of my career in management, and the questions are clearly inappropriate and at odds with civil rights protections. I answered the questions, because I knew the responses would be in my favor: I’m a middle-aged guy whose spouse works remotely and son is in college. I’m aware of an internal candidate for the job, a younger mother of two school-age children, and the interviewer made comments about divided responsibilities and time commitments…. Should I notify the internal candidate of the legal violation, because I suspect (although I have not confirmed) that the same questions were asked of her?
In his response, the Ethicist noted:
Let’s assume, in any case, that your suspicion is justified: that the company’s questions crossed a line and did so not out of clumsy curiosity but in a way that tilted the scales against the internal candidate, a younger mother with two school-age kids. Maybe, as you have reason to wonder, the interviewer pressed her on whether she would be able to handle the job with her “divided responsibilities.” This could well count as evidence of discrimination. Yet if you got the offer, you still couldn’t be sure that it was because you were judged the “safe” candidate. You don’t actually know what happened in her interview or how management was weighing the candidates. Maybe you were always going to be the preferred pick, for reasons that have nothing to do with family logistics…. If you were positive that you were offered the job because of unlawful discrimination, I would tell you to decline and notify both the internal candidate and the E.E.O.C. what happened. The company should be held to account and made to reform its ways. “Conference, conciliation and persuasion” — the usual E.E.O.C. route — happens only if someone calls out the wrongdoing.
(Reread the full question and answer here.)
⬥
As a former H.R. professional who had to deal with the fallout of managers asking illegal questions or making inappropriate comments during job interviews, I found that this question made my stomach tighten. While the letter writer certainly doesn’t have to turn down the position based on those potentially illegal questions, they DO have a moral obligation to report that practice to the federal authorities. (If only because that experience is likely to be the tip of the iceberg in the organization and undoubtedly has a significant impact on who is, and isn’t, hired/promoted.) Unless something has changed, reporting can be done anonymously and is well worth the time and energy required. — Sheila
⬥
How convenient for the Ethicist to agree it’s not necessary for a middle-aged man with no young children at home to feel guilty about being hired over a similarly qualified woman with two young children. We can all continue now with the fiction that the meritocracy always just magically seems to favor men. — Allison
⬥
Wow, I’m surprised at the Ethicist’s laissez-faire attitude. At a very minimum, if this gentleman gets the job, he has a duty to follow up on his suspicions and investigate the policies of the company and the practice in terms of this hiring. He should talk with H.R., report his experience and pursue making this right. If he doesn’t get the job, he should contact H.R. and do the same thing. Doing the right thing takes some doing. — Helen
⬥
The writer should have remarked that the questions were inappropriate during the interview and then answered them anyway if he thought the information would be favorable to his candidacy. At this point, if he gets the job, if his conscience urges him to file a report to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, he should certainly do so. As for the in-house candidate, he should not bring the subject up but should work with her and, if she is qualified and capable, help her develop her career either in or outside this company. —Phil
⬥
The man who was asked inappropriate questions during his job interview cannot in good conscience take a job awarded at the expense of another’s civil rights. If, as the Ethicist suggests, he takes the job, what tangible good does it do the woman to treat her with “respect” — the same respect she would be owed anyway? All this does is help preserve a system that keeps women from advancing as fast as their male peers, while leaving her in the dark about why she was overlooked (and without the invaluable help of concrete evidence from an objective third party). It is precisely because of such calculations that bias in hiring and promotion persists. The answer, to me, is clear: The letter writer should report the matter to the company’s H.R. department and/or chief executive and to the female employee. Let the chips fall where they may. Yes, it’s steep price to pay to lose a job the letter writer “kind of” needs — but is ethical behavior supposed to be pain-free? — Michael
Kwame Anthony Appiah is The New York Times Magazine’s Ethicist columnist and teaches philosophy at N.Y.U. To submit a query, send an email to [email protected].
The post I Have Always Wondered if My Husband Is Bisexual. Is It OK to Ask Him? appeared first on New York Times.
