Joe Kort, who wrote the book “Is My Husband Gay, Straight, or Bi?,” says that stories like Greenstone and Hoff’s are increasingly common among his therapy clients. “More and more and more, that’s happening,” he said. "A lot of straight women are so tired of patriarchy and they know that gay — and even bi — guys are going to be less patriarchal,” he said. “That’s what I’ve seen.”...
Some of Kort’s gay clients feel alienated from gay culture. Others say they’ve always wanted a traditional heterosexual family unit regardless of their own orientation...
October 13, 2025
"Yes, she’s pregnant. Yes, it’s his. And yes — if you must know how they conceived — in Greenstone’s words, 'we birds’d and we bees’d.'"
From "He’s gay. She’s straight. They’re happily married./A new crop of couples are making content about their mixed-orientation marriages, divorced from sexual attraction but not love" (WaPo).
Posts
55 comments:
..."A lot of straight women are so tired of patriarchy ....."
Of course they are. They can't tell you what it is, but they absolutely know it when they see it.
This just seems like heterosexuality with more steps.
Women in 2025 America have never had more wealth, freedom, stature and power than at any point in history, so yeah, marry a gay guy to fight the patriarchy or whatever...
It's permitted to stereotype gay man as a bunch of limp-wristed pussies.
Lavender marriages! They've been around forever.
Gay men are just better at sugar coating their dominance. My MIL was a San Francisco bank executive in the 70's. She would only hire gay male secretaries because they were detail oriented, socially sensitive, quietly aggressive and not intimidated by alpha male executives.
So is this sort of thing stunning, or brave, or both? Maybe it's fierce.
Gay men have been doing this for centuries. They want children so they have sex with a woman. Pretty simple.
“Gay men have been doing this for centuries. They want children so they have sex with a woman. Pretty simple.”
Now, if only they would go back into the closet….
I remember my English prof making passes at me (I'm straight, but sound kind of gay when I talk; in my 20s I was ripped and gay men would occasionaly send out gay sonar pings). Anyway, my friend said "oh no, Professor L is married with 2 daughters." So I thought no more of it until prof L walked up to me while I was taking a shower at the colisseum and started discussing Lady Chatterly's lover. Interesting how many gay men in the 1980s had children.
I just read Prof L's obit. He had 4 children + 2 adopted, 10 grandchildren, etc. This is how gay genes survive! He was a good professor and I never resented that he made passes at me. I graduated just before AIDs hit. I wonder if it made him give up any gay side life he may have had.
If you want evidence for a gay gene, this is how it happens. Bisexuality. Gay genes passed to offspring.
Oscar Wilde had children too.
Everything old is new again.
It was a few years ago that leftists were outraged about therapy for gay people who wanted to be straight. And now, strange, here are gay people who are reproducing.
The other thing, is that if you are really appalled by heterosexuality, you would reproduce via doctors and IVF. Glad they went old school! It's way more fun.
an erect penis has no conscience..
come to think of it; neither does a limp one
if you are really appalled by heterosexuality, you would reproduce via doctors and IVF
And this goes for straight women as well, it seems, going all the way back to Murphy Brown.
Let me add that I strongly support IVF. But for the procreation-inclined who have no medical issues in the way, the natural method is cheaper and easier.
Transgender is a spectrum including so-called bisexuals, homosexuals with a heterosexual fetus... fetish or vice versa.
whatevs…
Unpopular opinion, but I think this is a better family structure than two gay men adopting or using surrogacy to have children, or two lesbians adopting or using surrogacy to have children. We tend to focus on marriage primarily as the romantic fulfilment of two people, but as far as families go, specifically raising children, it is critically important that children grow up in a home where there dad and mom, meaning their biological dad and mom, love and care for them. While it is true that many people adopt children and provide good homes for those children, we play make believe that that means the biological connection does not matter. It does. It matters that children feel loved and invested in by their biological parents. This, in my mind, is why dad, or mom, or both, making dinner for their children is important.
And they didn't interview Tim Walz for this article.
This is very tangentially related, but I saw this YouTube short a week or so ago about how lots of straight white men in Japan sound gay when speaking Japanese. Clip. I say this is slightly related because this post is about Gay men occupying a straight role, and the clip is about straight men occupying a gay role.
I recall seeing this on the Brady Bunch, but some of the kids weren’t his and some weren’t hers either.
the natural method is cheaper and easier.
and way more fun
and orgasmic
and yabba dabba do
I think it's telling that Kort says this is more and more common among his therapy patients in an article that wants to make this seem like it's normal. If it's such a nifty system, why are its practitioners in therapy?
A transactional relationship is not novel. Neither is a transgender male with a heterosexual fetish. Love and luet incorporated. A handmade tale of sperm donors and womb farms is a green conception.
A transactional incorporation of lust and love is a hallmark of Diversity theory.
As a kid, there were several gay people in our middle class neighborhood. I had heard the words, fag, fairy, and homo and associated them with outlandish crossdressers types.
Only in my mid teens were the neighbors pointed out as obviously gay . Only one was stereotypical in my mind, no job, skinny, feminine and not attractive.always gardening with an apron and sissy gloves. His partner was literally a banker, always suit and tie and dignified. They lived across the street. Several houses down was the movie star looking guy,a Clint Eastwood type, with a sports car and three Harley Davidsons. Bottom of hill, middle age lesbian who drove a Porsche. Next block over, nice married man in construction with 4 children.
Has suspicions about gardener because he was stereotype. Had no clue about the others because they were so normal.
Early 20's, hung around a couple of pool halls in San Francisco tenderloin. Plenty of gay freaks there, tranny prostitutes, ruffian drug dealers, uglies, and some who could pass for women.
Mid 30's, next door neighbor literal rocket scientist working at Lockheed. Stereotype, handsome, fit, friendly, fashionable.
Challenged him to a game of chess. He underestimated me and I won. Always refused to play him again. Makes me smile to remember his frustration.
He died of aids.
Oh, and his sister, a high school teacher, was lez, living with a woman who had 2 kids. His other sister was a doctor.
If you want evidence for a gay gene, this is how it happens. Bisexuality. Gay genes passed to offspring.
Yep, some are born that way, others get sucked into it.(Dad joke)
Virgil Hilts: "prof L walked up to me while I was taking a shower at the colisseum"
The Colisseum? Were you making a gladiator movie? CC, JSM
The Vault Dweller said...
"Unpopular opinion, but I think this is a better family structure than two gay men adopting or using surrogacy to have children, or two lesbians adopting or using surrogacy to have children. "
This is the unspeakable truth that must never be revealed.
“More and more and more, that’s happening,” he said. "A lot of straight women are so tired of patriarchy and they know that gay — and even bi — guys are going to be less patriarchal,” he said. “That’s what I’ve seen.”
Oh dear.
The fundamental problem with women’s thinking is that the biological foundation is based on limiting the reproductive success of competing females.
The “patriarchy” is based on men’s thinking which is biologically based on expanding the number of progeny they produce.
Men are naturally capitalist and think in expanding wealth and women are naturally zero sum and they think in terms of taking existing wealth for themselves and from other people.
These stupid women are being duped into thinking that a gay man will make them happier than a masculine man who wants lots of children.
Howard said...
Gay men are just better at sugar coating their dominance. My MIL was a San Francisco bank executive in the 70's. She would only hire gay male secretaries because they were detail oriented, socially sensitive, quietly aggressive and not intimidated by alpha male executives.
They tend to be sigmas.
I spent 40 years not knowing why I got along with gay men better than typical alphas. I also didn’t really figure out why alphas had a tendency to drive me out of groups.
We still don’t really know much about how this all works.
Food for thought: visit r/Deadbedrooms on Reddit. Read a couple of dozen posts. You'd be surprised to discover how many married couples have lost interest in each other sexually but stay together for the sake of raising their children. Basically, roommates. In many cases, co-parenting is the crux of the relationship. So, what is worse: starting out hot and heavy/romantic - and losing that. OR, starting out that way with a focus on the kid-raising project to begin with?
I think the science evidence that homosexuality is innate is incredibly weak. We're talking about humanity, going back tens of thousands of years. Only heterosexuals mate and pass genes to offspring. So, to pass your genes to offspring, you need to have sex with the opposite sex.
Historically, heterosexuality was seen as natural, as a part of nature. Because we're the ones reproducing. After every generation, the only people left on the planet are children of heterosexuals.
Thus, if you had gay urges, or you just wanted to be gay, you tried to encourage heterosexuals to be more open-minded. Bisexuality was the ticket for you. The ancient Greeks, many of whom were gay, deemed women inferior. But also necessary, for reproductive purposes, and not to be avoided. The Romans were similar. Pagans were bisexuals.
Jews and Christians were heterosexuals. As a norm, not necessarily in any individual case. And this is the way it was, for almost all of human history. So, for instance, some men in prison -- when there are no women available -- go gay, while they are in prison. But again, what they really have done is opened up their minds, and gone from straight to bisexual.
We are in a very weird, strange era where sexual orientation is said to be fixed and immutable. It is said to be impossible for gay people to change their sexuality. This is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Because we all have free will. This is why homosexuality exists, when they do not breed!
The left insists that urges and ideas and fixations and orientations are all set in stone. If you're a 6-year-old, and you're wearing a dress, the leftist believes he has discovered something innate and immutable. And, he says, the human body is fluid and open to the surgeon's knife. So our testicles and our vaginas and all the rest of our human equipment can be chopped and diced and re-arranged, like plastic surgery. Dr. Frankenstein is not a how-to guide!
Masculine women, feminine men?
Which is the rooster? Which is the hen?
Lots of men like tomboys and Amazons, but they seem to prefer each other. Lesbians want to be the alpha, so no time for ordinary men.
Remember that Bam Bam was adopted. Even in the Stone Age we had our Barneys and Bettys. But Pebbles was blood.
Gilbar, "an erect penis has no conscience."
Denzel Washington in Man on Fire, "A bullet never lies."
El amor dura lo que dura, dura
It's virtually impossible to get an honest scientific explanation of gay/lesbian biology and socialization because the topic is fully politicized. The most recent plausible theory I heard was that it's not genetic per se, rather, same-sex attraction follows from pre-birth hormone exposure. Boys who get a dose of female hormones often become stereotypically gay; girls who get a dose of testosterone often become stereotypical lesbians.
Socially, compare same-sex attraction to survival cannibalism. If you are starving...you may do what you need to do... Lonely Greek women on the isle of Lesbos with sailor husbands out at sea physically socialized with other women. Men in prison with no other outlet go for men because there's no other outlet; they make a big deal about dominance versus submission having different meanings.
They have a Flintstones Marriage: they’re having a gay old time.
I am so grateful to this man Dr Guba, and i am making this known to every one out there who have been trying all day to win the lottery, believe me this is the only way to win the lottery, this is the real secret we all have been searching for. Do not waste time contact him today for you also to be a winner contact info below contact Email via Gubasolutionhome@gmail.com he brought my boyfriend back to me just within 48 hours. I am really happy. Whatsapp contact : +2347077581439)
Hey, it was good enough for the Obamas!
Homosexuals transition through environmental corruption of the womb as unborn fetuses. The transgender spectrum is constituted from these transitioning minds and their post-birth choices.
St Croix: "After every generation, the only people left on the planet are children of heterosexuals."
A lot of them could be the children of raped lesbians. Or deeply closeted men. Or both. CC, JSM
If the gay gene (I'm using 'gay' as shorthand for gay/lesbian) is recessive, or a pair of recessive genes, like red hair, then it can float around the population and keep getting passed from generation to generation. In a small percentage of births, all the genes match up and you have a gay person.
The gene could be a selective advantage at the clan/tribe level: if you have a few people who just want to hunt or gather for the good of the tribe, and not make more kids, they increase the tribe's productivity and keep it from growing past the land's carrying capacity. They also help keep the smaller number of tribal kids better fed and protected.
Even closeted or straight-living gays, like the ones in the article, who make kids, will probably crank out a smaller number and declare victory, versus the hetero couple where dad has to climb on mom every spare second.
Meanwhile, the neighboring tribe without the gay gene is banging like bunnies, fighting over mates, and producing a larger number of less well-cared-for kids. And selection acts at very small margins, so one or two gays in a 100-person tribe can make all the difference.
The way your tribe makes babies could also influence the selective advantage of the gay gene. There were almost as many different mating/child-rearing models as there were tribes: harem systems, female-initiated, patrilineal families, matrilineal families, cousin marriages, raiding for wives, etc. If your family tree is more like a column from cousin marriages, then those recessive gay genes will match up more often. If a harem system leaves young men wifeless, then the tribe where more of those young men don't mind will have fewer deaths from infighting or raiding other tribes for wives.
But yeah, if you really do the research to find the gay gene, lots of gay fetuses are going to get aborted. CC, JSM
Transphobia is really a thing, which explains politically congruent cohorts socially distancing homosexuals through metaphor and culture abuse. Still, why the judgment and labels, the empathetic euphemisms? Homosexuals are trans, so are simulants. However, one is unlike the other. Transgender is a spectrum. It need not be a bloc act in Diversity dogma.
If the gay gene (I'm using 'gay' as shorthand for gay/lesbian) is recessive, or a pair of recessive genes, like red hair, then it can float around the population and keep getting passed from generation to generation. In a small percentage of births, all the genes match up and you have a gay person.
Yes, but your gay person is not passing genes to offspring. Your hypothetical gay person dies without children. So whatever gay gene he has, dies with him.
Heterosexuals reproduce. Bisexuals reproduce. Gay people do not reproduce.
How do you not see this problem? We're talking about 10,000 years of humanity. Why wouldn't your "recessive gene" pool of homosexuals get smaller and smaller and smaller over time? Why are all these damn liberals who are always yelling "Darwin!" in my face forget his name when the subject is the mysterious, unidentified, undiscovered "gay gene"?
People with red hair have children. Your analogy falls apart right there. Gay people do not have children. Bisexuals have children. Mount up with the opposite sex or forget about it. That's the history of human sexuality, up until IVF treatments. Now gay people can reproduce. But it is way too soon to say that our gene pool has changed. Far more likely is that free will keeps homosexuals around. Just like free will keeps celibates around. There may indeed be genes that cause some people to be bisexuals. But to repress your heterosexual self and say it's impossible? That's a choice, not a biological imperative.
I note too the rampant and overt politicalization of biology, medicine, and science. There's a reason that people claim homosexuality is innate, like skin color or eye color. But it's a political reason, not a scientific one.
A lot of them could be the children of raped lesbians. Or deeply closeted men.
Those are weak theories to explain a lesbian in 2025. "All my ancestors were raped lesbians." Come on. "I'm gay because my dad was gay, and my grandfather was gay, and my great-grandfather was gay. Our gay tribe dates back to the Mayflower." Stop it, it's absurd on its face.
You are making up silly theories, when humanity has kept an (imperfect) record of human sexual behavior. Ancient Greece, for instance, was bisexual. Ancient Rome was bisexual. You needed to have sex with the opposite sex if you wanted to reproduce and pass your genes to offspring. Everybody knew this, even before they knew what a "gene" was.
You got to fuck the opposite sex if you want a baby. Really basic sex education. We ought to have this in our schools. Let's throw out the ideological textbooks and take school kids to a farm. Reproduction is reality and academia is filled with liars.
But yeah, if you really do the research to find the gay gene, lots of gay fetuses are going to get aborted.
Not if we recognize that unborn babies have a right to life. Pro-lifers love gay babies, ugly babies, retarded babies, and handicapped babies. It is our vicious feminists who say that mothers can choose babies, and kill the ones they do not like.
I don’t think it will last. The tell is they’re already in therapy.
"...You'd be surprised to discover how many married couples have lost interest in each other sexually..."
In my case I find my spouse incredibly attractive. She says she thinks I'm kind of cute too. But arthritis has made sexual activity painful for her. So we stopped.
Frustrating? Sure. But she is the most amazing person I know. And I can not betray her trust built over years and (now fully adult) children.
She is more than worth it.
I suspect the NYTs will not be writing articles about long term love, faithfulness and respect.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.