Honey, there are two basic reasons.  One is you are a nice person - you will give him the time of day.  The other is mathematics - there's just an awful lot of them.

Chances are it isn't going to make you distrust men in general.  But it is scary knowing how vulnerable you are and what you are gaining is experience.  One thing I read was that we immediately trust someone with a nice tone of voice - that's just the way we're built.  So the way I see it is feelings come from the shallows (watching a movie can make you cry) and the deeps (gut response) and the trust I feel at the nice tone of voice is all very well but what is my gut saying.  And even if it seems trivial, anything bothers you then walk away.  My ex came up behind me.  I was cleaning up in the kitchen and he was visiting and he came in and asked if he could help me.  Nice words nice tone of voice, I turned round and thought don't like the drip on the end of his nose.  I discounted that as me being petty, but now I see it as my gut response, no I don't like him, and I should have walked away.

wishing you all the best, we know how much it hurts here, awful isn't it.  Look after yourself, it will get better.  There's nothing wrong with you.

yes, I remember thinking he felt safe and liking that too.  I used to think that was a bad choice of mine but now I am thinking that would be a sensible judgement to be making of a potential partner - could it get violent.  

A heterosexual relationship can be more volatile because there's real passion involved and I really don't think I was trying to duck that - It wasn't safe v exciting I was assessing, it was is this safe v dangerous.

Yet again it was the gay-in-denial who was actually doing the ducking and somehow making me feel it was my fault.

Last edited by lily (June 12, 2018 1:39 pm)

I ask myself the same question. My husband is my 3 rd gay relationship. Im still searching for an answer.

An article in Psychology Today on July 6, 2012 “ Why straight women are attracked to gay men”, may be helpful.

Lana

This isn't the first time this topic has come up on this forum.  It's an interesting one. 

I don't know how to state an opinion without stereotyping, so I hope this doesn't come across offensive in anyway. 
I wonder if gay men are typically a bit more feminine than straight men?  Certainly there are numerous exceptions to this, but I think the stereotype of a gay man tends to me more feminine.  Following this line of stereotyping they are often more passive, submissive, etc..  It stands to reason that a man who's more passive and submissive and emotionally open would desire a partner with the opposite (notice I didn't say better or stronger) traits.  So a gay man could possibly desire a stronger, more assertive, more confident woman.  This would probably be even more likely if the gay man was hiding their true identity, causing them to be more timid, less assertive, etc.. 

Wonder if the same theory might apply for closeted lesbian woman?  Maybe they seek more emotionally open, compassionate, kind-hearted men vs. the stereotypical alpha male (cowboy type).   This would fit with my ex seeking me out. She always complimented me on how I was manly in my interests and activities being protective and a strong leader, but i was still emotionally open and in touch, very empathetic and caring.  (If you've ever seen City Slickers, I'm more Billy Crystal than Jack Palance). 


One other theory I have..   What if a closeted gay or lesbian is most likely to pick a partner who would be most accepting of them?  Perhaps our common attribute is that we are all very caring and compassionate people who display the likelyhood of putting our partner first before ourselves?   In theory a person who is not sure of their sexuality or trying to hide it would want a partner who would be very very committed, very unlikely to leave them even if unhappy, and very compassionate toward their struggle if the secret ever got out?   Chew on that for a while.... 


Anyways..  hope nobody is offended by delving into stereotypes, but I think for this very interesting conversation it is necessary.