Return to News



Mike Royko


    500,000 Gay Men Don't Have to Take Abuse From Partner


    Web-posted: Tuesday, December 10, 1996

    t appears that the issue of same-sex marriage is going to be more far-reaching than simply John marrying Joe or Linda marrying Sally.

    Once these marriages are legal and accepted, then society will be confronted with problems such as spousal abuse.

    I quickly discovered this when I recently wrote that spousal abuse in two-male marriages might be less of a burden for the police than it is in the conventional male-female marriage.

    That's because a well-conditioned man should be better equipped physically to defend himself against an abusive male spouse than is the average female victim.

    I was immediately straightened out on that point.


    There's a point in a relationship where a marriage counselor can't do much good if what a guy really needs is a bodyguard.


    John Olson, a Milwaukee man, wrote: ''I expect you'll be hearing from a lot of people on that column, but the point I want to most focus on is the way you trivialized domestic abuse among gay men.

    ''I'm no expert, but a while back, I learned that a close friend had been a victim of abuse by his partner, so I read up on the topic.

    "There's a book called 'Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them,' by David Island and Patrick Letellier, that estimates some 500,000 gay men are victims of abuse each year. The authors' point is that batterers suffer from a mental disorder.

    ''This disorder is more common among men than women, but like many other conditions, occurs equally among gay and straight men--so yeah, it does happen among gay male couples.

    ''And as you say, men are indeed more likely to be embarrassed about reporting it--police are less likely to respond to it, but the victims are just as likely to be seriously hurt by it even if they may theoretically be better able to defend themselves.

    ''I will mail you a section of the book and hope that you will read it.''

    Thank you, but no. I doubt that I will read it.

    It isn't that I don't sympathize with anyone who is being kicked around.

    But I happen to be pro-choice in many areas of life.

    By pro-choice, I mean that if a guy--or 500,000 guys--choose to live with mentally unhinged ''partners'' who beat them up, that is their choice.

    While somebody might write a book about it and present it as a grave social problem, I don't see how a choice these unfortunates make is any of my business or concern.

    It seems to me that if Bill lives with Joe and Joe makes a practice of pummeling Bill, then Bill would have the good sense to just pack a suitcase and get the heck out of there.

    It should be easier for a man to walk away from an abusive relationship than for a woman since men don't get pregnant and have babies.

    Also, men have a better deal in the job market, while many abused female wives might not have worked in many years or possibly ever. Plus, it can be tough for a woman to find a job that also gives her time to spend with her children.

    So if an abused man has no kids to take along and support, and if he can support himself, why would he stick around and wait for the next fat lip?

    But if his love or dependency is so intense that he chooses to stick around, whose problem is his fat lip or bloody nose?

    Not mine, not society's, and surely not the cops or a judge.

    In such matters, it is the choice of the individual. And, as a pro-choice sort, I say that if Bill chooses to tolerate a relationship in which someone clobbers him, well, that is his choice and I respect it--so long as he is not my neighbor and doesn't scream for help or pound on my door at night.

    But if what you say is true--that 500,000 gay men are beaten by their ''partners'' each year--then I hope they give careful thought to so serious a step as getting married.

    There's a point in a relationship where a marriage counselor can't do much good if what a guy really needs is a bodyguard.

    On the other hand, as a believer in individual choice, I have to concede that if a man decides that he is so deeply in love that it is worth the pain of being whopped regularly, it is his frayed hide.

    As another pro-choice advocate once philosophically said: ''Different thumps and bumps for different chumps.''

    And I suppose it might be unusual, but it would be practical for someone with a wedding coming up to have himself listed for wedding gifts at a place that teaches karate or sells Mace.

    © 1996 Chicago Tribune